From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #165 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, April 19 2007 Volume 16 : Number 165 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: virginia tech reap [kevin ] Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... [The Great Quail ] Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... [kevin ] Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: reap at virginia tech [FSThomas ] Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... [Capuchin Subject: Re: virginia tech reap >But more prominent, minimal-government right-wingers (including >those in power): what exactly is their point, where's their loyalty? > >I'm pretty sure I named their true nation earlier this evening - the >imaginary entity (imaginary in physical existence, all too real in effect) I >called Plutopia. Maybe the most characteristic American attitude is the >presence in the mind of even some guy digging ditches that he too can become >a citizen of Plutopia...but is that for the "freedom" it offers (from what? >to what? On anyone else's behalf?), or merely the power - the ability to say >"fuck you" without consequence to all the people whose ideas and way of >living you disagree with? Amen. Thanks for articulating that so neatly. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:38:55 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... > I think you misunderstand me, sir. Perhaps I did misunderstand you a bit, sir, but allow me to take umbrage anew. > My comment was meant to point out that killing is bad no matter who gets > it. This distinction between the "innocent" and the "guilty" is a false > dichotomy that only serves to support more killing. I am afraid that my disagreement with your so-called "false" dichotomy can only be described as "deep" and perhaps, dare I say, "bitter," my good fellow. To wit: a psychotic individual discharging his firearm into a crowd of unarmed and unsuspecting people is to my imagination inarguably more "guilty" than his victims, and would very much "deserve" to be stopped with lethal force if needed. Of course, while such moral mathematics are not in your personal calculus, a simple census of the average citizenry would no doubt result in a statistical majority on my side. I therefore think of you as a "crank," sir, for your opinions are generally ludicrous when actually introduced into the discourse of reasonable men and women. Thank you, - --Q. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:46:07 -0700 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... Sebastian Hagedorn said regarding "innocence": "But it's just catholicism (and probably pietism etc.)! Only children are innocent, everyone else is a sinner." Not really, as even children need to be baptized immediately after birth, being born sinful. This concept always amazed me. Maybe it's because sex is involved in the creation of a child and that taints it? Barbara Soutar Victoria, BC ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:51:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: virginia tech reap On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, 2fs wrote: > On 4/19/07, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, 2fs wrote: > > > > > Which raises the interesting question: often, such folks consider > > themselves > > > "patriots." What, exactly, are they loyal to? Nations are founded on > > many > > > different bases - but in much of the world, those bases are most > > prominently > > > language, culture, and land-provenance (that is, we've lived here > > forever). > > > The first and last of these cannot apply to America as a nation; the > > second > > > one is rather dubious, since (except for Native Americans a/k/a them > > savage > > > red injuns) we're all from somewhere else ultimately. > > > > It's pretty well settled that American Indians came over the Bering land > > bridge from Asia. > > Ha ha ha. And we all descended from ape-like creatures, and ultimately > we're all from simple single-celled organisms, and elements, and atoms. Yep! > Your point? My point is we're ALL from somewhere else ultimately, unless we live in certain parts of Africa. > That Bering crossing was so prehistoric relative to America as America as to > be utterly irrelevant to the issue of American patriotism, predating the > whole *concept* of any "state" beyond extended-familiar tribal groupings, > pretty much. Of course. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:52:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, kevin wrote: > >(Ayn Rand) > > Aside from all this generally getting too grim and/or irritating, I > gotta say that if you really want to lose me quoting Ayn Rand is an > ideal way to do it. I mean, puh-lease. Sure, I read a bunch of that > stuff when I was 14 and it seemed pretty impressive at the time, but > then again, I was 14. If I wanna read reactionary prose poetry these > days I'll stick to Celine - I mean, he may have been a anti-semitic Nazi > sympathizer but at least he could write. Ever read her essays, instead of her novels? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:59:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: virginia tech reap On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, 2fs wrote: > You meant "imply" rather than "infer." Anyway: my other job is doing > administrative work at a tax accounting firm. Several clients have > investments such that their little seven-year-old kids have income of > $100,000 per year. You tell me that that kid "earned" that money. The Declaration of Independence makes a very bold statement that I happen to support: that people should be able to live free from remote tyranny. Inherited wealth is nothing short of transgenerational remote tyranny. (The exact same thing goes for environmental degradation and non-renewable resource consumption, to name a couple of things.) Ultimately, folks just appropriated land and called it theirs. So should some people have fewer opportunities for wealth simply because they were born later or in places where all the useful land has been claimed? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:53:14 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... >There are as many homeless people in the USA as there are people whose >income exceeds US$200,000 annually. Who is suffering more from government >interference? > I double-dog dare you to prove that. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:57:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Rex wrote: > On 4/19/07, FSThomas wrote: > > > > The problem the Left runs into in this situation is that, at heart, the > > concept of the individual rubs against the grain of their doctrine. If > > you recognize the individual, you then have to recognize the concept of > > individual rights. > > > Not my kind of leftism, pal. > > Property rights (eminent domain, the growing tax > > disparity, etc.), > > > Of concern to the rich only. Yeah, I mean that. You get rich enough to > have property, you deal with it. Hire lawyers or some shit. Nice attitude. That'll really help make more people able to own property. What if Kelo wasn't the owner of a small house in New London but the landlord of your apartment block? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:02:33 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... - -----Original Message----- >From: Benjamin Lukoff >Sent: Apr 19, 2007 9:52 AM >To: kevin >Cc: FSThomas , fegmaniax@smoe.org >Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... > >On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, kevin wrote: > >> >(Ayn Rand) >> >> Aside from all this generally getting too grim and/or irritating, I >> gotta say that if you really want to lose me quoting Ayn Rand is an >> ideal way to do it. I mean, puh-lease. Sure, I read a bunch of that >> stuff when I was 14 and it seemed pretty impressive at the time, but >> then again, I was 14. If I wanna read reactionary prose poetry these >> days I'll stick to Celine - I mean, he may have been a anti-semitic Nazi >> sympathizer but at least he could write. > >Ever read her essays, instead of her novels? > I know I read "The Virtue Of Selfishness" but I've mercifully managed to forget the details. My attention shifted to Nietzsche and RD Laing which was a buttload more rewarding. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:16:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, kevin wrote: >> There are as many homeless people in the USA as there are people whose >> income exceeds US$200,000 annually. Who is suffering more from >> government interference? > > I double-dog dare you to prove that. Your point is well-taken. Numbers on homelessness are pretty slippery. This site claims that 3.5 million people are homeless in a given year: And according to the US Census Bureau 2006 demographic survey, about 1.5% of the households in the USA have an income of US$250,000 or higher (the vast majority of which are multi-income households, so individual income of that amount will be less than that percentage of the population). According to the USA population clock, there are just about 300,000,000 people in the USA. 1% of that is 3 million. Without harder numbers, it's hard to tell how much the real difference between the number of homeless and the number of ultra-high income people really is. But they both seem to hover around 1% of the total population. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:11:30 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... - -----Original Message----- >From: Barbara Soutar >Sent: Apr 19, 2007 9:46 AM >To: FEGMANIAX >Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... > >Sebastian Hagedorn said regarding "innocence": > >"But it's just catholicism (and probably pietism etc.)! Only children are >innocent, everyone else is a sinner." > >Not really, as even children need to be baptized immediately after birth, being born sinful. This concept always amazed me. Maybe it's because sex is involved in the creation of a child and that taints it? > >Barbara Soutar >Victoria, BC That's it precisely. The doctrine of original sin, only one aspect of the wonderful legacy of St. Augustine - not one of my favorite guys. Thanks for the lettergun FAQ, by the way. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:27:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Don Imus Jokes > But I do think things are getting a little too grim around here. > Anybody heard any good Don Imus jokes? Dana Carvey described his voice as sounding like Jimmy Stewart with his mouth full of Fruity Pebbles.... "Children have always enjoyed my movies. They are just not allowed to watch many of them." -- John Waters . Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:29:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, kevin wrote: > >> >(Ayn Rand) > >> > >> Aside from all this generally getting too grim and/or irritating, I > >> gotta say that if you really want to lose me quoting Ayn Rand is an > >> ideal way to do it. I mean, puh-lease. Sure, I read a bunch of that > >> stuff when I was 14 and it seemed pretty impressive at the time, but > >> then again, I was 14. If I wanna read reactionary prose poetry these > >> days I'll stick to Celine - I mean, he may have been a anti-semitic Nazi > >> sympathizer but at least he could write. > > > >Ever read her essays, instead of her novels? > > > I know I read "The Virtue Of Selfishness" but I've mercifully managed to > forget the details. My attention shifted to Nietzsche and RD Laing > which was a buttload more rewarding. I don't know--I think she has a real point about the nature of "altruism"--at any rate, shouldn't you remember the details of the arguments made by those whose politics you oppose? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:37:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Barbara Soutar wrote: > Sebastian Hagedorn said regarding "innocence": > "But it's just catholicism (and probably pietism etc.)! Only children are > innocent, everyone else is a sinner." > > Not really, as even children need to be baptized immediately after > birth, being born sinful. This concept always amazed me. Maybe it's > because sex is involved in the creation of a child and that taints it? There's no reason to guess (or make things up). I'm not Catholic or anything, but the conept of "original sin" (which isn't what I meant -- see the thread for a clarification of my comment) comes from the disobedience of Eve (talk about trans-generational remote tyranny!) which is only sexual in certain allegorical readings. While some churches that require baptism do so at birth, others consider the baptism a consensual agreement with God and therefore require a person to be of a certain age before they can accept baptism for themselves. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:31:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: virginia tech reap On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Capuchin wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, 2fs wrote: > > You meant "imply" rather than "infer." Anyway: my other job is doing > > administrative work at a tax accounting firm. Several clients have > > investments such that their little seven-year-old kids have income of > > $100,000 per year. You tell me that that kid "earned" that money. > > The Declaration of Independence makes a very bold statement that I happen > to support: that people should be able to live free from remote tyranny. > Inherited wealth is nothing short of transgenerational remote tyranny. I'm not saying the estate tax should be eliminated (though it does need some tweaking), but the idea that other members of the family do NOTHING to contribute to the parents' earning is rather silly. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:33:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Capuchin wrote: > And according to the US Census Bureau 2006 demographic survey, about > 1.5% of the households in the USA have an income of US$250,000 or higher > (the vast majority of which are multi-income households, so individual > income of that amount will be less than that percentage of the > population). According to the USA population clock, there are just about > 300,000,000 people in the USA. 1% of that is 3 million. Without harder > numbers, it's hard to tell how much the real difference between the > number of homeless and the number of ultra-high income people really is. > But they both seem to hover around 1% of the total population. Is the US to the rest of the world as the US rich are to the rest of the US? If so, is everyone prepared to make the same demands regarding GLOBAL wealth-sharing? How far are you willing to reduce your own standards of living? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:37:36 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... >at any rate, shouldn't you remember the details of the >arguments made by those whose politics you oppose? > I don't so much oppose the Randies as ignore, and occasionally deride, them. I've never thought of her politically, just as the figurehead for a particularly fervent bunch of cultists. As cult figures go I find Gurdjieff more interesting - and much funnier. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:38:12 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... - -----Original Message----- From: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org [mailto:owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org] On Behalf Of kevin Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:12 PM To: Barbara Soutar; FEGMANIAX Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... - -----Original Message----- >>From: Barbara Soutar >>Sent: Apr 19, 2007 9:46 AM >>To: FEGMANIAX >>Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... >> >>Sebastian Hagedorn said regarding "innocence": >> >>"But it's just catholicism (and probably pietism etc.)! Only children >>are innocent, everyone else is a sinner." >> >>Not really, as even children need to be baptized immediately after birth, being born sinful. This concept always amazed me. Maybe it's because sex is involved in the creation of a child and that taints it? >> >>Barbara Soutar >>Victoria, BC Kevin came back with: >That's it precisely. The doctrine of original sin, only one aspect of the wonderful legacy of St. Augustine - not >one of my favorite guys. To quote Sam Phillips: "I need love, not some sentimental prison. I need God, not the political church." MJ Bachman ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:54:31 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: rights 2fs wrote: > On 4/19/07, FSThomas wrote: >> >> 3.) Collective bargaining >> >> Differ on this one. Unions' times have passed. Wages shouldn't be >> dictated by a collective, but rather what the market can bear. > > Uh...so what does the "market" do when clearly heads of corporations have > the power to compensate themselves mightily while paying workers diddly? > More specifically, what do workers do? Why, they form unions, of course - > under the assumption that their influence *in the labor market* will thereby > be increased. Why should an employer pay $20/hr for a welder, say, when they could find an equally qualified person who would work for $17.50? If workers unite and walk off the job in an attempt to get a raise or some added benefit, why can't the employer make a decision to just fire the lot of them and start over? (A fine example of doing just that could be found here and was quite possibly the best of outcomes to a rotten situation). > Let's say a store in your area is the only one to sell a certain essential > item. It's difficult to impossible to set up a new store to compete (let us > stipulate: the community's desperately poor, say). The citizens feel the > prices are higher than they should be. Individually, each one can do little > but grouse. Collectively, though, they could organize a boycott - and, say, > a carpool to a nearby city to buy the item cheaper in bulk. The store starts > losing money, because the community has found a way to get around its > overpricing. Then the shop bears the burden and either lowers their price to meet demand or they cease offering the product and/or close shop. It's common sense. > 4.) Cheap medical attention >> Costs are out of control on some treatments, true. This is due >> mostly >> to rising malpractice insurance rates, due largely in part to frivolous >> lawsuits. > > "Largely in part"? To "frivolous" lawsuits? Find some objective statistics > indicating that high insurance costs are due primarily to lawsuits > (frivolous or not), and then define "frivolous" for me. I'm pretty sure some > male cattle just defecated nearby. No "objective statistics," but some pieces from various medical/public forums: From /Driving Doctors Out of Business/, The Virginia Orthopaedic Society : =============== DANVILLE, Va. - When Dr. Joel Singer was able to save the life of 6-year-old Tera Lynn Valleweg in 1985, he felt his life's commitment had been realized. Singer recently walked Valleweg down the aisle at her wedding. But as he contemplated the culmination of a lifetime of neurosurgery, he wrangled with issues he had never before confronted. "I am afraid now that I find myself a medical consumer," Singer said. "I am worried about who is going to be around to take care of me." Singer's fear stems from the cost of malpractice insurance and the reimbursement rates insurance companies pay physicians. He said he fears there will not be enough skilled physicians around to take on the load of the aging baby boom generation. "I am telling you, insurance companies are taking over the world," Singer said. "This profession, which I have chained my life to, the source of my income, my life's work, I can't afford to keep this office open. But I can't retire either because I can't find anyone willing to take over my practice." As a neurosurgeon, Singer pays the second-highest amount in malpractice insurance of all doctors in various fields of medicine. Obstetricians pay the highest amount. "OBGYN's pay more than neurosurgeons because they deliver babies and the claim does not have to be called until the baby delivered reaches 18 years of age," said Tom Gay of Bankers Insurance/Moses Hays and Williford. =============== Time Magazine's /Out of Medicine/ =============== It took Elizabeth Gromny six years and countless infertility treatments to conceive her first child. But her timing could not have been worse. The day she called to make her first appointment with her obstetrician, the doctor had just capped the number of deliveries she would perform. Why? The doctor's insurance bill would shoot up if she exceeded a certain number of births. Gromny was turned away not only from her doctor but also from others all over Las Vegas who face similar limits. More pregnant women and other Americans in need of medical care are getting the same cold shoulder at hospitals and doctors' offices from Pennsylvania to Oregon, which are limiting their case loads b or going out of business b because of the high cost of insurance. Malpractice insurers have been hit by several years of soaring jury awards, even as the slumping stock market has ended the fat returns they used to get from investing premiums. As insurers try to make up for their losses by sharply raising rates, medical facilities are shuttering wards and doctors are dropping high-risk practice areas such as obstetrics and trauma surgery. Employers are shying away from the hardest-hit cities while doctors and legislators cobble together solutions that could change the face of medical care. =============== From The Insurance Information Institute : =============== * A 2006 survey by Medical Economics shows that the median medical malpractice premium in 2005 was $15,000, up from $13,000 in 2003. Primary care physicians paid about $1,000 less. [+13%] * Fewer medical malpractice claims are being filed, but the dollar amount of each claim is increasing. In its Hospital Professional Liability and Physician Liability 2006 Benchmark Analysis, which examined more than 47,700 claims representing more than $4.4 billion of incurred losses, the insurance broker Aon found that the overall frequency of medical malpractice claims has not increased for the second consecutive year. But while claim frequency is stabilizing, according to the study, the average size (severity) of malpractice claims continues to increase at a rate of 6 percent. The average amount paid to plaintiffs increased only 3 percent, while amounts paid to defend against liability claims rose 17 percent as hospitals mount a more aggressive defense of claims. * Tort Reform Initiatives: On May 8, 2006 Congress voted against two measures to limit jury awards in medical malpractice lawsuits sponsored by Senate Republicans. The major bill was based on a Texas law passed a few years ago that supporters say has improved the medical malpractice environment greatly in that state. Proponents of the Texas reform claim it has caused insurance premiums to decline significantly and brought new doctors to the state. S.22 would have set a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages for individual health care providers involved in malpractice claims, a $500,000 cap when more than one provider is involved and a $750,000 total cap. The vote represents the fourth time in the past three years that the Senate has rejected Republican-sponsored legislation involving medical malpractice. * Costs to the Public: In March 2006 Towers Perrin released its U.S. Tort Costs: 2005 Update. The study found that over the 29 years since 1975, when medical malpractice insurance data were first separated out from other types of liability, medical malpractice cost increases have outpaced other tort areas, rising at an average of 11.7 percent a year, compared with 9.0 percent for all other tort costs. In 2004 medical malpractice costs totaled over $28.7 billion, up from about $26.5 billion the previous year. * A February 2006 study, prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers for Americabs Health Insurance Plans, examined the factors contributing to rising health care costs and analyzed where the health care dollar goes. It found that medical liability costs and defensive medicine account for 10 percent of medical care costs. Defensive medicine is when doctors order more tests, prescribe more medication and make more referrals than they believe are necessary to protect themselves from being accused of negligence. The study, bThe Factors Fueling Rising Healthcare Costs 2006,b also estimates that health insurance premiums rose 8.8 percent between 2004 and 2005. =============== >> I don't know about where you are, but it's unseasonably cold here at the >> moment. > > This may be the stupidest thing ever said on the feglist. "Global warming" > (as anyone who looks into it for more than three seconds will find out) > refers to the overall trend. It does not mean that always and everywhere it > will be warmer; in fact, it specifically indicates that weather will become > more variable, less predictable, and more extreme: i.e., cold spring weather > in Georgia will be *more* common. I'm sure there's worse that's been stated. Variable weather patterns may, in an extremely minor -- bordering on the undetectable -- way, be a direct result of human activity, but you cannot discount solar activity's role in changes in climate here. It was only a little over thirty years ago that the scientific community was pitching a fit over the coming Ice Age and now we've got some of the same people crying the reverse. Would curbing pollution and/or emissions help the quality of life? More than likely, yes. Will it have an effect on the global climate? Doubtful. If you wanted to have a meaningful impact on the most people efforts would be best spent on curbing pollution in the developing and third worlds before chasing down The Great Satan. I'll wager within a generation you're going to see a spike in childhood maladies in China. And a correlating spike in cancer cells. You want to chastise someone for trashing their environment, take a gander at them. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:56:52 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: reap at virginia tech 2fs wrote: > ...instead of painting lane dividers (which are obscured > on wet or snowy pavement, and wear out over time), or installing reflective > bits into the pavement (which don't work well in snowy climates, as plows > tend to destroy them), have lasers on already existing light poles and so on > that beam the lane dividers visibly onto the roadway. That's very clever, actually. The only problem would be in foggy conditions. Ever seen a dreadful laser light show at a gig running a fog machine? Could prove a bit confusing to the driver. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:23:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Capuchin wrote: > >> And according to the US Census Bureau 2006 demographic survey, about >> 1.5% of the households in the USA have an income of US$250,000 or >> higher (the vast majority of which are multi-income households, so >> individual income of that amount will be less than that percentage of >> the population). According to the USA population clock, there are just >> about 300,000,000 people in the USA. 1% of that is 3 million. Without >> harder numbers, it's hard to tell how much the real difference between >> the number of homeless and the number of ultra-high income people >> really is. But they both seem to hover around 1% of the total >> population. > > Is the US to the rest of the world as the US rich are to the rest of the > US? If so, is everyone prepared to make the same demands regarding > GLOBAL wealth-sharing? How far are you willing to reduce your own > standards of living? That's a good point. Some kind of global taxation to help the entire world's poor might not be a bad plan. My pesronal income is somewhere around US$7,000 annually. What do you suppose my tax rate should be? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #165 ********************************