XPost: alt.activism, alt.politics.obama, alt.politics.republican
XPost: alt.politics.conservative
From: xxxrayted@aol.com
In article <4d895551$0$4369$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net>,
Tim Howard wrote:
> >> Clean air has been a good investment. Air emissions have been cut by
> >> half since 1970, while the U.S. GDP has increased about 176%. EPA
> >> estimates that lower pollution was responsible for averting 200,000
> >> deaths, 210,000 hospital admissions, 22,000 cases of coronary heart
> >> disease, 850,000 asthma attacks, and 22 million lost work days in 1990
> >> alone. For 1970 to 1990, EPA values the health benefits at $22 trillion,
> >> versus only $0.5 trillion for cleanup. Cleaner air has paid great
> >> dividends.
> >
> >
> > And you actually believe this nonsense? Who have you ever known that
> > died or became ill because of pollution? Hell, I live in Cleveland, and
> > nobody I know became ill because of pollution. This is nothing but
> > left-wing bias speculation at best.
> >
> It is a medical fact. And I bet I could find studies that show people
> in Cleveland have died or at least have lower life expectancy due to all
> the pollution that your ugly little city is famous for. BTW hasn't
> Cleveland made an effort over the last 20 years to try to clean up
> itself? Aren't you happy about that at all?
I would be if it actually worked. But the e-check farce that's been
going on for well over a decade is a complete failure when it comes to
pollution. All it really did was extract millions from citizens of a
struggling state. Remember too that Cleveland has been under power of
an all Democrat government for decades, and even under Congress kook
Kucinich for well over a decade.
> > What HUD has done is destroy once beautiful suburbs and neighborhoods,
> > mine being one of them. The difference between public housing policies
> > and discriminatory laws is that public housing people should be happy
> > with whatever they get. Can you explain to me how it is fair that a
> > people go to work every single day, work their way to a nice suburb, and
> > then government comes in and sticks their lowlifes right next to them?
> >
> Are all those poor people lowlifes?
Not all, but most.
> > If you don't want to work.....fine. But don't expect royal treatment
> > from taxpayers because of your laziness. If I have to work to support a
> > lowlife, then that lowlife should be living far from me and my fellow
> > working citizens. He or she should not be living the same lifestyle.
> >
> How can you expect people to be inspired to improve themselves if they
> are never exposed to good examples like yourself?
Your comment reminds me of a discussion I had with my father as a
teenager. He told me that if a boy works paper routes, eventually ends
up busting his ass at Burger King, and then perhaps a job at the
hardware store, he may (after years of savings) be able to purchase a
new car.
On the other hand, some boy born into a privileged family may get a new
car from his parents on his birthday. The question is, after five years
of ownership, which car will be in better shape? The car given to the
boy, or the car earned by the boy?
What is the inspiration for one to better himself when he is handed
everything that a working man already has? Why work to live in a
suburb? You already live there. Why work to eat better? You eat
better than most working people. Why take preventative measures to not
have children you can't afford? The government will afford them for
you.
In a different light, would you work if you could live the exact same
lifestyle as you do today? No. Why should you?
> > Corporate board members produce something. They provide jobs and secure
> > the markets where many of us have our retirement in. They build all
> > those wonderful large buildings downtown, and even donate money to
> > charities. That's why they should be treated differently.
> >
> People like you amaze me. You are far from rich, but you identify with
> them and are on their side. They don't care about you for the most part.
And the poor do?
A few years back, I used to be awakened in the middle of the work nights
from the HUD lowlife next door. He would pull into the driveway with
that idiotic rap music blaring from his car at 3:00 am. One summer
night, I asked him (through my screened window) to kindly lower the
music when he pulls in. He started to throw rocks at my house. He kept
screaming for me to come out and fight him. He went on for a half-hour
causing me to lose sleep until I called the police.
Do you think he appreciated the fact that I have to work in the morning
to create taxes so he can live for free in a Cleveland suburb? No. Do
you think he had any consideration for a nice quiet neighborhood? No.
The problem is that these scums are conditioned to believe they are owed
a lifestyle by the working people. Some years back, our governor
instituted they will no longer mail welfare checks to people. The
lowlifes were outraged that they had to go to the welfare office to get
their check. They claimed it was their "right" to have welfare checks
mailed to them.
> > Now you show me where government stops handing out money to welfare
> > people who have children after they are on the program.
>
> It is federal law. It has not always been the law. But it is a fact no
> matter how much you want to ignore it.
Great! Please provide proof.
> Do you really
> > believe that a 25 year old woman with seven kids supported them fine and
> > then went on welfare? No. They were on welfare since they started
> > having kids and dropped out of school. The more kids, the larger HUD
> > home they provide and the more food stamps they get. I'm a landlord, so
> > I stay on top of all this stuff.
> >> So you want us to lower ourselves to the level of some third-world
> >> hellhole? Again, just how low should wages go and how many benefits
> >> should we give up? People like you talk big, but what if someone wanted
> >> to take away all of your wages and benefits?
> >
> > I would be fine with that provided everybody's wages and benefits went
> > down.
>
> Wow, try running for office on that platform why don't ya.
>
> If we stop or lower our cost of living, that keeps jobs here.
> >
> Except economic history has shown that lower "cost of living" does not
> offset lower wages.
Then they are wrong. If I lived in many areas of California or in New
York city, I would be living in squalor making the money I do here in
Cleveland. Why? Because the cost of living is so much higher in places
like New York. Why do you think it is that the NY Yankees can afford
such a high payroll for their players?
Last year, I had a tenant from New York. My average rent for apartments
here is around $550.00 per month. He told me that if I had the same
setup on the outskirts of NYC, these same apartments could be easily
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
