C
Clovis Lark
Guest
David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Paterson wrote:
>>
>> >From: David Ryan
>>
>> >When those other people decide they aren't worth it and keep their money, they decide to demand
>> >they're owed a living. The parasites should all starve and die (or get a job) and everyone else
>> >will be better off. Good grief, the depths they've sunk to and the lousy attitude that's been
>> >engendered by years of socialism and the sense of entitlement simply because they exist.
>>
>> You seem to have missed the part about communities that rely on tourism suffering economically at
>> the loss of these seasonal workers. IOW, "everyone" was not better off.
> Everyone, including all the taxpayers across the country paying the subsidies, will be better off
> with a market equilibrium.
Then why is the right so concerned when cultural institutions sudden scream in fiscal desperation?
>> So, construction workers who draw unemployment in the winter, are they parasites too? Or is it
>> just that "art" is bad?
> Most construction projects do the indoor work in the winter.
Oh, like my friends who do roofing. Good to know. I'll inform them what lazy leeches they are.
>> Or maybe that welfare (tax rebates and free stadiums for mega-wealthy sports franchise owners) is
>> only good for the rich?
>>
>> Speaking of lousy attitudes and feelings of entitlement, where does "build me a facility or I'll
>> go elsewhere" fit in? "Socialism" works real well for those at the top, right, David? How about
>> these guys start operating in your "real world" and have to buy their own playpens and pay taxes
>> on them like the little guys do in their business enterprises? --Tom Paterson
> I agree totally, completely, emphatically with your last point. My vote and voice FWIW is always
> against that.
> Unless maybe they want to build a velodrome ;-) (Which never happens, so I've never had to face
> that conflict.)
> Tom Paterson wrote:
>>
>> >From: David Ryan
>>
>> >When those other people decide they aren't worth it and keep their money, they decide to demand
>> >they're owed a living. The parasites should all starve and die (or get a job) and everyone else
>> >will be better off. Good grief, the depths they've sunk to and the lousy attitude that's been
>> >engendered by years of socialism and the sense of entitlement simply because they exist.
>>
>> You seem to have missed the part about communities that rely on tourism suffering economically at
>> the loss of these seasonal workers. IOW, "everyone" was not better off.
> Everyone, including all the taxpayers across the country paying the subsidies, will be better off
> with a market equilibrium.
Then why is the right so concerned when cultural institutions sudden scream in fiscal desperation?
>> So, construction workers who draw unemployment in the winter, are they parasites too? Or is it
>> just that "art" is bad?
> Most construction projects do the indoor work in the winter.
Oh, like my friends who do roofing. Good to know. I'll inform them what lazy leeches they are.
>> Or maybe that welfare (tax rebates and free stadiums for mega-wealthy sports franchise owners) is
>> only good for the rich?
>>
>> Speaking of lousy attitudes and feelings of entitlement, where does "build me a facility or I'll
>> go elsewhere" fit in? "Socialism" works real well for those at the top, right, David? How about
>> these guys start operating in your "real world" and have to buy their own playpens and pay taxes
>> on them like the little guys do in their business enterprises? --Tom Paterson
> I agree totally, completely, emphatically with your last point. My vote and voice FWIW is always
> against that.
> Unless maybe they want to build a velodrome ;-) (Which never happens, so I've never had to face
> that conflict.)