Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm not making this up. Some wanted to call it the War Dept., but the Navy >> really took that idea as a slight.
>They probably did. My point is the reason they finally decided on >defense was most likely nothing to do with the navys feelings being >hurt, but more to do with propaganda. If so, why did they go for so long with the names "War" and "Navy" previously? Did not the words "war" and "defense" have the same connotations for all that time, and if so, why did those connotations not bother them? > The Navy is not a bunch of >pansies and am sure would have recovered just fine. Sure. And you could've had the American Cripples Act instead of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Why the hell do you think they erect monuments? People like recognition. Seriously, if you look at the records of the times, the real reason for the name was so as not to slight the Navy (including the Marines) by applying to them a word that'd previously "belonged" to the Army. The Navy are not pansies, but nobody wants them accidentally shelling Army bases. >> Then why do you complain when I give you a MORE SPECIFIC answer than you're >> expecting? You use the term "rent control", I took it you were using it >> the standard way New Yorkers do, but just to be on the safe side I also >> mentioned rent stabilization. And it bothers you that I reference those 2 >> statutes separately? >No. It bothers me that you think it is progress because they call it >rent stabilization rather than rent control. When did I ever say that was progress?? The progress is in the phasing out of BOTH rent control & rent stabiliz'n. >> I'm using the words the standard ways they're discussed, putting in greater >> specificity, and you're complaining again?! You mentioned federal income >> tax, I gave an answer about what's usually referred to as the income tax, >> and then to be safe mentioned Social Security also, and you're once again >> complaining that I reference separate gov't enactments separately?! >Becuase you are seperating SS form income tax and saying, oh look >things are getting better if we just look at this. But it is a >meaningless distinction created by the government. If you said things >are not getting better because SS is just another form of income tax, >then I would have no problem with you being specific about SS. You >did not. But the politics of SocSec & other income taxes is rather different. Part of the reason is that the taxes don't fall on exactly the same type of income (one is on wages & salaries only), and part of the reason is that SocSec was sold as a separate accounting. By & large the politics of SocSec has been kept separate from that of general taxing & spending; they respond to different pressures & pitches, so it's meaningful to talk about progress or regress of them separately. BTW, separation of categories like this is one reason federally socialized medicine hasn't been expanded by the apparently "simple" extension of Medicare to persons of all ages (although there have been some limited extensions, as to hemodialysis patients and the disabled). The over-65 crowd is afraid that if health benefits are extended to all, that they'll lose their special status, and that Medicare will be cheapened as the expenses pile up. OTOH, remember how in the 1980s catrastrophic health insurance (paid for out of Soc Sec benefits) was extended to Soc Sec recipients, and then the bill rescinded before it took effect, because the over-65s didn't want it if they were the only ones paying for it. >A market that is controlled by the government is not free Then free markets do not exist and are unlikely ever to exist (because even in the absence of regulation, a new regulatory law COULD be made), so why even discuss the issue by that term? >I have not typically heard of ANY rent in NYC as being refered to as >free market rent. Then you just haven't heard enough. >> And I propose that people stop striving for the unattainable. >There you have it! You have given up and want others to do the same. >Do you know the odds of the US revolution succeeding were low. What makes you say that? Look back and it seems it was inevitable as long as enough colonists wanted it. It might have come faster or slower. The crown lost India (including Pakistan) too. How many examples do you need before you consider it likely rather than unlikely? >Should a basketball team strive for only 50 points because 150 is >unattainable? Uh, yeah. It's called strategy, not pressing, not rushing, that sort of thing. A golfer who tries to drive the ball too far will get off a bad shot. A batter who swings for the fence is more likely to strike out than one with a more modest goal. You try to pick up too many jacks, you drop them all. In Your Sly Tribe, Robert _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
