• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

AS DEFICIT EXPLODES, GOP DEMANDS EMERGENCY TAX CUT FOR THE RICH

Imagine Bill Gates coming out with Microsoft and the home computer ...
That's historical illiteracy. The real story is VERY different.

It is also the theory of business that one finds in Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged" -- that it is only those on top who are any bit creative. There's a scene toward the end where one of the heroes plays traffic cop in a railroad yard when the electricity goes out -- as if ordinary people never play traffic cop.
 
Imagine Bill Gates coming out with Microsoft and the home computer ...
That's historical illiteracy. The real story is VERY different.

It is also the theory of business that one finds in Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged" -- that it is only those on top who are any bit creative. There's a scene toward the end where one of the heroes plays traffic cop in a railroad yard when the electricity goes out -- as if ordinary people never play traffic cop.
That was the "real story". Bill Gates was not "one of those on top" when he started. He was a collage drop-out working with a couple friends out of his garage. He became "one of those on top" through a lot of effort developing systems that changed the world.
 
Imagine Bill Gates coming out with Microsoft and the home computer ...
That's historical illiteracy. The real story is VERY different.

It is also the theory of business that one finds in Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged" -- that it is only those on top who are any bit creative. There's a scene toward the end where one of the heroes plays traffic cop in a railroad yard when the electricity goes out -- as if ordinary people never play traffic cop.
That was the "real story". Bill Gates was not "one of those on top" when he started. He was a collage drop-out working with a couple friends out of his garage. He became "one of those on top" through a lot of effort developing systems that changed the world.

One can argue Gates is UNDERPAID when compared with his contribution to the world. He literally transformed the world. And people say he didn't really do much more than a burger flipper at McDonald's.
 
An unbelievable economic system any way you look at it. Any event that spooks the Market - fear and greed - may unravel the national economy...followed by the rest of the world.
 
That was the "real story". Bill Gates was not "one of those on top" when he started. He was a collage drop-out working with a couple friends out of his garage. He became "one of those on top" through a lot of effort developing systems that changed the world.

One can argue Gates is UNDERPAID when compared with his contribution to the world. He literally transformed the world. And people say he didn't really do much more than a burger flipper at McDonald's.

Who said that? It's okay, I can wait.
 
3% of GDP for defense seems close enough I wouldn't question it. However, he gave two numbers, I'm having a hard time finding 10% even in the federal budget, let alone GDP.

He is probably combining all the programs under social security and all the programs under healthcare as a percentage of GDP.

governmentspending.jpg

And in the words of saint ronnie...

reagansocialsecurity.jpg
 
3% of GDP for defense seems close enough I wouldn't question it. However, he gave two numbers, I'm having a hard time finding 10% even in the federal budget, let alone GDP.

He is probably combining all the programs under social security and all the programs under healthcare as a percentage of GDP.

View attachment 26488

Your chart shows less than half the total budget. It only shows what is labeled "discretionary spending". The part not shown is called "mandatory spending". If you bother to do a search for "total spending", you will find that social security is about 25% of the total budget and medicare and health is about 28% if the total budget. These don't show at all on your chart. Military spending is about 16% of the total budget.

fed budget.png

ETA:
And old Ronnie was engaging in political speak. The Social security trust fund was originally supposed to be in a 'lock box' of invested funds that Congress could not use for general funds. However Congress broke the lock and looted the fund leaving IOUs as they extracted the funds for other use (IOUs are debt). The Social Security System is now a ponzi scheme. Payment to retirees now depends on new people paying into the system rather than as it was intended to be of retirees withdrawing funds that were in their account.
 
Last edited:

Your chart shows less than half the total budget. It only shows what is labeled "discretionary spending". The part not shown is called "mandatory spending". If you bother to do a search for "total spending", you will find that social security is about 25% of the total budget and medicare and health is about 28% if the total budget. These don't show at all on your chart. Military spending is about 16% of the total budget.

View attachment 26490

ETA:
And old Ronnie was engaging in political speak. The Social security trust fund was originally supposed to be in a 'lock box' of invested funds that Congress could not use for general funds. However Congress broke the lock and looted the fund leaving IOUs as they extracted the funds for other use (IOUs are debt). The Social Security System is now a ponzi scheme. Payment to retirees now depends on new people paying into the system rather than as it was intended to be of retirees withdrawing funds that were in their account.
Ever since its inception SS surpluses have always been used to purchase gov't bonds because Congress at the time thought using gov't funds to purchase private assets was socialism.

SS was always a pay as you go system because the first recipients of SS did not pay anything into it. It was never intended to a pension fund.
 
Your chart shows less than half the total budget. It only shows what is labeled "discretionary spending". The part not shown is called "mandatory spending". If you bother to do a search for "total spending", you will find that social security is about 25% of the total budget and medicare and health is about 28% if the total budget. These don't show at all on your chart. Military spending is about 16% of the total budget.
Everybody likes their own version of charts... Anywho, the VA expenses have exploded ever since the US started occupying/bombing much of the greater ME. The VA is another 4%. We now spend more on spying in real dollars than we did in the cold war. The State Department's budget tripled after 911. I do think that something like 20% would be a more balanced percentage reflecting the cost of America's military posture.

And if one tosses in SS/Medicare into the budget numbers, then their taxes needs to be in any chart/argument about who pays for the government.
 
Technically he co-founded Microsoft with Bill Allen, and they created 2 jobs, filled by Allen and Gates. Neither was rich at the time, and at the end of the second year in business, Microsoft revenues totaled a whopping $16,005. Two years later, when they moved from New Mexico to Washington, the company was 13 employees strong.



Technically, Apple was founded as a partnership between Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne. None of them were rich at the time, and in fact Steve Jobs' father was a Muslim Syrian immigrant, you know, one of those poor brown people from the wrong religion who will destroy our country if we let them in. Anyway, they created two jobs, one for each of the Steve's, with Ronald Wayne acting as an advisor.



I don't know as much about the history of Facebook, but I would assume it was a similar story and he created all of a job or two. Although he was from an upper middle class family, and was Harvard educated, they certainly were not in the 1% of uber wealthy Americans.

Competition in the free market is the best thing about capitalism, Keith.

Sure, but what does that have to do with rich people creating jobs, since none of the people in your example were rich when they started their business ventures, and they initially created very few jobs?

You are just being very dense.

Oh, I'm the one being dense? This is where I remind you that my response was regarding your statement that: "Poor people don't create jobs for themselves, Keith. They get them from rich people who open businesses.."

None of these people were rich, and they created jobs for themselves. This directly refutes both of the points you made in that statement.

Of course it took them a while to build up the company! How many employees do they have NOW? Thousands for each company!

Yup, but in all of the above cases they were not rich when they started out, and they only created jobs for themselves. That is exactly how most businesses start out. Now, how many businesses can you think of off the top of your head that were started by rich people, who immediately created thousands of jobs by starting that business.

This wouldn't have happened if they didn't open those companies.

And the fact that they opened those companies had absolutely nothing to do with rich people receiving tax breaks at the expense of everyone else.
 
Last edited:
It's supposed to be a motivator. I'm sure there's some people in the world who are perfectly happy working at McDonald's and whistle while they work there. They understand they have no skills and they have come to terms with it. They are making the best of their life. The ones who complain about those jobs are the ones who realize they wasted their potential and could've done something better. When I was growing up my parents always used to ask me, "You don't want to end up like that guy, right?" when we would go out to eat at a fast food place. I would say, "No way!"

The people in those jobs have very little skills. They should not be rewarded with more money for that. People are exactly where they belong in the world.

ah.. that explains it. it was your parents that were complete pieces of shit that taught you to be this way. makes sense.

I am quoting myself to comment that I have never received so many "likes" on one single post ever before. HL - the community has spoken.. there are some corrections to your way of thinking in order... if possible... good luck.

And since so many people were interested in this, I will comment further... These jobs are meant to be stepping stones... EVERYONE has NO SKILL at some point in their lives... up until they start getting a formal education (learning how to learn - that's what school is for) or informal education (apprenticeship / family business / on the job training). I know the Director of Security Operations in a 5 billion dollar software company. He started in McDonalds on the frier.. went to their manager training program.. and now (15 years later) makes well into the 6 figures for a huge software company. And that is exactly how it is supposed to happen.
You are not supposed to make a living wage for an entire family by dumping frozen potatoes into a vat of oil... maybe pay for your way through school, living with roommates sharing the costs... getting loans.. investing in yourself... but no staying skilless... that is a whole other type of poverty... poverty of mind.
 
Fun fact: It is impossible for tax cuts for the rich to generate any new funds for business investment. This is because the decrease in revenue from the tax cut has to be financed by selling a T-Bill, dollar for dollar. And where does the money come from to buy the T-Bill? It comes from the funds available for business investment! Dollar for dollar. Why do the rich like it so much? It is because someone ends up with a spanking new T-Bill add to their net worth. Money created by the Treasury. The exact same as if they ran the printing press to create currency, which would be cried about in any other context. The only difference is that it will always exist as part of the national debt. Just as the original Liberty bonds sold during the world wars to control inflation from the high wages with nothing to spend it on of the wartime workers.

Wow, yes - never thought of that.

Worth repeating. Explains a lot.
 
It's supposed to be a motivator. I'm sure there's some people in the world who are perfectly happy working at McDonald's and whistle while they work there. They understand they have no skills and they have come to terms with it. They are making the best of their life. The ones who complain about those jobs are the ones who realize they wasted their potential and could've done something better. When I was growing up my parents always used to ask me, "You don't want to end up like that guy, right?" when we would go out to eat at a fast food place. I would say, "No way!"

The people in those jobs have very little skills. They should not be rewarded with more money for that. People are exactly where they belong in the world.

ah.. that explains it. it was your parents that were complete pieces of shit that taught you to be this way. makes sense.

I am quoting myself to comment that I have never received so many "likes" on one single post ever before. HL - the community has spoken.. there are some corrections to your way of thinking in order... if possible... good luck.

And since so many people were interested in this, I will comment further... These jobs are meant to be stepping stones... EVERYONE has NO SKILL at some point in their lives... up until they start getting a formal education (learning how to learn - that's what school is for) or informal education (apprenticeship / family business / on the job training). I know the Director of Security Operations in a 5 billion dollar software company. He started in McDonalds on the frier.. went to their manager training program.. and now (15 years later) makes well into the 6 figures for a huge software company. And that is exactly how it is supposed to happen.
You are not supposed to make a living wage for an entire family by dumping frozen potatoes into a vat of oil... maybe pay for your way through school, living with roommates sharing the costs... getting loans.. investing in yourself... but no staying skilless... that is a whole other type of poverty... poverty of mind.

Also... Nobody likes those jobs. Even if it paid enough to finance a college education and a shitty dorm/apartment/whatever, which would be nearly enough to finance a normal adult life seeing as the costs of an education are stupid high, it still wouldn't be a job anyone would want to stay at.

Nobody would choose to remain in a life of constantly shifting jobs because you are 17 cents off on your drawer total 3 times in a year and on 'your last chance' and getting only an annual 2 dollar a day raise in a best-case-scenario. Never mind that the work itself is mopping floors and doing dishes and getting burned by the grill.

It's an awful job that everyone who does it HATES while being constantly pressured by abusive corporate policies.

People don't aspire to stay in those jobs and wouldn't even if they paid what a professional job paid. It is hell to live doing menial unskilled labor and I don't know anyone who has ever set their sights on it. The few people I know who are still working at the store I got my first job at don't look like they love their lives, and even so, many of them still got 2 year degrees and sought out management positions.
 
One can argue Gates is UNDERPAID when compared with his contribution to the world. He literally transformed the world. And people say he didn't really do much more than a burger flipper at McDonald's.
Randroid horseshit.

It's amazing what hatred Half-Life has expressed of ordinary workers, workers like him and not like his heroes. It's as though everybody but those at the top ought to be rounded up and sent to slave labor camps.

It's also amazing what historical illiteracy Half-Life has expressed - that's because honest histories are contrary to Randroid delusions, I'm sure.

Let's look at computers more generally. Contrary to what Half-Life seems to believe, Bill Gates did not invent the computer. It was Charles Babbage who did, way back in the mid 19th cy. as his "Analytical Engine". But it was never built. The first full-scale computers ever built were vacuum-tube ones a little after World War II. Transistors came in around the early 1950's, and integrated circuits around the early 1960's. Since then, IC designers have put more and more and more transistors on them, to the point that we are approaching physical limits for their functioning.

In 1971, the first integrated-circuit computer CPU was made, the Intel 4004. It has numerous successor CPU chips, all the way to the present day. CPU = central processing unit. It fetches instructions from memory and then runs those instructions. A CPU chip also has some memory in it, for the instruction location in memory, and for quick access - registers and cache.

Interactive computing goes back to the early 1960's, and it was often several users connected to one computer -- time-sharing. These could all be used by single users, though it was usually very expensive to do so. One of the first computers designed for single-user duty was the MITS Altair 8080 in 1974. It was very primitive -- and very affordable. By the late 1970's, an active "personal computer" industry had emerged.
 
Over the years, as computers were developed, software tools for using them were also being developed.

One kind of software tool serves as a host for the other software that is running. This host software eventually got the name "operating system" or OS. Host software is often packaged with a variety of apps for the convenience of its users, apps like file-management ones.

Another kind of software tool is software for building software. That may seem weird, but that's what's universally done. One can write an app in what's called "machine language", the sequence of 0's and 1's that a CPU directly interprets. But that is hardly ever done, and I suspect that it has been very rare since the 1950's. Because that is when "assembly language" was developed. It is a symbolic representation of machine language:

(label) (opcode) (operands)

The label is optional - it can be a branch address, for changing control to, or else it can be a data address.

The opcode is the operation code - it can be a CPU instruction, or else it can be a data declaration (what kind of data)

The operands, though there can be zero or one of them - data for the CPU instruction, like what memory locations, or else the data for a data declaration

The nice thing about assembly language is that the computer does all the bookkeeping of keeping track of branch addresses and data addresses.


After one does a lot of assembly language, one may find oneself repeating some sets of code over and over again. Assembly-language designers invented something called a "macro". One invokes a macro as an opcode, and data for the macro as the operands, and the assembler, as it's called, expands the macro when it translates the instructions.


If one writes lots of macros, then one's code starts looking more high-level than typical assembly code. We eventually get into "high-level programming languages". These are much more abstracted from CPU operation than assembly language, and they are typically much easier to program in.

The first of them was "Fortran", "Formula Translator". It has a very algebraic sort of appearance, and most high-level languages that have gotten any use have a Fortran-like appearance. There have been efforts to make high-level languages look more like natural language, but such efforts have not been very successful. An early one is COBOL, where one can have statements like

MULTIPLY A BY B GIVING C

A later version of COBOL has a COMPUTE command to allow for more algebraic-looking calculations:

COMPUTE C = A*B

In Fortran or C or Java or Python or most other high-level languages, it would like like

C = A*B

with small variations, like indenting it or using := for = or putting a ; at the end. The * for multiplication appeared in Fortran and it's been a standard notation ever since.
 
The sort of language that we ordinarily use is called natural language in this context. Natural languages have very complicated structures, as is evident when one tries to learn another one, and getting computers to understand natural language has had only limited success.

Aside from programming languages, there are other languages for giving instructions to computers, like markup or text-formatting languages. BBCode is a very simple one and HTML is a more complicated one. Another sort is database-access languages like SQL.

Since the mid-1960's, high-level languages have been almost universal, with assembly language used only in very specialized applications, like using special CPU instructions. When building software, one can mix high-level (C or C++) and low-level (assembly) parts, so one can do most of the coding in C/C++ and only a few bits of it in assembly language.

For what programming languages look like, check out the examples in 99 Bottles of Beer | Start Emitting the words of that song is a less trivial task than emitting "Hello, World!" and it exercises such programming-language features as looping.


As to operating-system features, the ideal is preemptive multitasking and protected memory. Preemptive multitasking is where the OS can make an active app pause and transfer control to a currently-inactive one. An alternative is cooperative multitasking, where an app has to yield control to the OS. Protected memory is usually handed by creating several memory spaces, one for each app, and mapping them into real memory. Thus using "virtual memory". It's possible for a computer's real memory to become oversubscribed, as it were. In that case, the extra app memory contents are written into a file on the disk, a swap file.

Smaller-scale systems can skip some of these features, like having only a single memory space that all the apps must coexist in, or being single-tasking.

I went into all this detail to give some perspective for Bill Gates's alleged heroism.
 
I see where I was wrong, this is great news. I just left voicemail for Bernie Sanders telling him to pay for Medicare for all he just needs to keep raising the debt ceiling and deficit spending. Problem solved.
 
I am quoting myself to comment that I have never received so many "likes" on one single post ever before. HL - the community has spoken.. there are some corrections to your way of thinking in order... if possible... good luck.

And since so many people were interested in this, I will comment further... These jobs are meant to be stepping stones... EVERYONE has NO SKILL at some point in their lives... up until they start getting a formal education (learning how to learn - that's what school is for) or informal education (apprenticeship / family business / on the job training). I know the Director of Security Operations in a 5 billion dollar software company. He started in McDonalds on the frier.. went to their manager training program.. and now (15 years later) makes well into the 6 figures for a huge software company. And that is exactly how it is supposed to happen.
You are not supposed to make a living wage for an entire family by dumping frozen potatoes into a vat of oil... maybe pay for your way through school, living with roommates sharing the costs... getting loans.. investing in yourself... but no staying skilless... that is a whole other type of poverty... poverty of mind.

Also... Nobody likes those jobs. Even if it paid enough to finance a college education and a shitty dorm/apartment/whatever, which would be nearly enough to finance a normal adult life seeing as the costs of an education are stupid high, it still wouldn't be a job anyone would want to stay at.

Nobody would choose to remain in a life of constantly shifting jobs because you are 17 cents off on your drawer total 3 times in a year and on 'your last chance' and getting only an annual 2 dollar a day raise in a best-case-scenario. Never mind that the work itself is mopping floors and doing dishes and getting burned by the grill.

It's an awful job that everyone who does it HATES while being constantly pressured by abusive corporate policies.

People don't aspire to stay in those jobs and wouldn't even if they paid what a professional job paid. It is hell to live doing menial unskilled labor and I don't know anyone who has ever set their sights on it. The few people I know who are still working at the store I got my first job at don't look like they love their lives, and even so, many of them still got 2 year degrees and sought out management positions.

They are fair points, very few, if any, would want to stay in these jobs for the long term, but to avoid blatant exploitation of workers there still should be a fair and reasonable minimum pay rate and conditions (penalty rates, etc) for any form of productive work. Which is the case in Australia.

Just because there are temporary and undesirable jobs doesn't mean the pay should be absolutely shitty.
 
One of the things I disagreed with Obama was his pushing the only way to live well was with a college degree.

What should a living wage be?
 
One of the things I disagreed with Obama was his pushing the only way to live well was with a college degree.

What should a living wage be?

Calculated on the basis of cost of living in any given nation or state.

For example;

''The Living Wage is based on the concept that work should provide an adequate income to cover the necessary living costs of a family. WageIndicator uses prices from the Cost of Living Survey to calculate Living Wage in more than 70 countries. The Living Wage is an approximate income needed to meet a family’s basic needs including food, housing, transport, health, education, tax deductions and other necessities.

The following table summarises the varying expenditure and income needs for the three commonly occurring family household compositions.

Expenditure and Living Wage calculation (monthly rates in AUD)

Typical family Standard family Single-adult
from-to from-to from-to
Food expenses 1020-1340 1080-1410 270-350
Housing expenses 775-1460 775-1460 510-915
Transport expenses 260-320 260-320 130-160
Healthcare expenses 155-435 155-435 39-110
Education expenses 155-525 155-525 0
Other expenses 120-205 120-205 47-77
Total Expenditure 2485-4285 2545-4355 996-1611
Net Living Wage 1462-2521 1414-2419 996-1611
Gross Living Wage 1730-2980 1670-2860 1180-1900
 
Back
Top Bottom