|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
On 8/28/2017 5:35 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote: Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war mongers. Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc typically predated the president in office at the time (whether Republican or Democrat) the shooting started. Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan), invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush), inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan (GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger umbrella conflicts mentioned above. Technically, the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was started by Eisenhower, not Kennedy. Eisenhower sent "advisors" as a prelude to sending troops. He also supported the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, even though Diem was a major reason for the Vietnam war. While the U.S. exited Vietnam under Gerald Ford, it was the Democrats that forced the exit, President Ford wanted to continue military aid. It's a popular lie, by low-information individuals, that Democrats start wars, when if you actually examine the evidence, since the end of WWII, it's Democrats that tend to end wars, and Republicans that tend to start them. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:37:47 -0700, sms
wrote: On 8/28/2017 5:35 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote: Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war mongers. Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc typically predated the president in office at the time (whether Republican or Democrat) the shooting started. Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan), invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush), inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan (GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger umbrella conflicts mentioned above. Technically, the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was started by Eisenhower, not Kennedy. Eisenhower sent "advisors" as a prelude to sending troops. He also supported the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, even though Diem was a major reason for the Vietnam war. The Geneva Accords in 1954 partitioned the country temporarily in two at the 17th parallel until 1956, when democratic elections would be held under international supervision. All parties involved agreed to this (Ho Chi Minh had strong support in the north, which was more populous than the south, and was thus comfortable that he would win an election), except for the US, who did not want to see Communism spreading in a domino effect throughout Asia. The U.S., supporting the South, installed Ngo Dinh Diem, initially as Prime Minister to Bao Dai, the Emperor, and later after a rigged election as President of the Republic of South Vietnam. He and his brother were assassinated in 1963 during a coup led by General Duong Van Minh. While Diem was a fanatical Catholic and did contribute to the Buddhist/Christian problems in S. Vietnam he was not responsible for the Vietnam war which was almost entirely a U.S. effort. Had the original Geneva Accords been followed and the elections been held Vietnam would have been united, in 1956, under a Communist government. It might be noted that while engaged in a war in Vietnam to make the world safe from communism the U.S. was buying supplies used in the war from Yugoslavia. The so called Domino effect espoused by the Eisenhower Administration is, in retrospect a bunch of whooee. The two greatest heroes of Vietnam are the Trung Sisters who lead a revolution against Chinese dominance of Vietnam and Vietnam fought a (small) war against China in 1979. While the U.S. exited Vietnam under Gerald Ford, it was the Democrats that forced the exit, President Ford wanted to continue military aid. My guess is that the U.S.'s abandonment of the Vietnam war was primarily an effort to get out of the war in any manner possible rather then a political scheme of either political party as to be frank the North had won the war. -- Cheers, John B. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 7:33:22 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:37:47 -0700, sms wrote: On 8/28/2017 5:35 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote: Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war mongers. Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc typically predated the president in office at the time (whether Republican or Democrat) the shooting started. Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan), invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush), inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan (GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger umbrella conflicts mentioned above. Technically, the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was started by Eisenhower, not Kennedy. Eisenhower sent "advisors" as a prelude to sending troops. He also supported the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, even though Diem was a major reason for the Vietnam war. The Geneva Accords in 1954 partitioned the country temporarily in two at the 17th parallel until 1956, when democratic elections would be held under international supervision. All parties involved agreed to this (Ho Chi Minh had strong support in the north, which was more populous than the south, and was thus comfortable that he would win an election), except for the US, who did not want to see Communism spreading in a domino effect throughout Asia. The U.S., supporting the South, installed Ngo Dinh Diem, initially as Prime Minister to Bao Dai, the Emperor, and later after a rigged election as President of the Republic of South Vietnam. He and his brother were assassinated in 1963 during a coup led by General Duong Van Minh. While Diem was a fanatical Catholic and did contribute to the Buddhist/Christian problems in S. Vietnam he was not responsible for the Vietnam war which was almost entirely a U.S. effort. Had the original Geneva Accords been followed and the elections been held Vietnam would have been united, in 1956, under a Communist government. It might be noted that while engaged in a war in Vietnam to make the world safe from communism the U.S. was buying supplies used in the war from Yugoslavia. The so called Domino effect espoused by the Eisenhower Administration is, in retrospect a bunch of whooee. The two greatest heroes of Vietnam are the Trung Sisters who lead a revolution against Chinese dominance of Vietnam and Vietnam fought a (small) war against China in 1979. While the U.S. exited Vietnam under Gerald Ford, it was the Democrats that forced the exit, President Ford wanted to continue military aid. My guess is that the U.S.'s abandonment of the Vietnam war was primarily an effort to get out of the war in any manner possible rather then a political scheme of either political party as to be frank the North had won the war. Well we can always say you certainly look out for the common man. We can see the great advances for the communist state of North Korea. Instead of the North this could have been the entire country. But I guess that living in Thailand has taught you to totally ignore the common man as most of Asia does. https://www.google.com/search?q=Sate...Px3RCbfyWplDM: |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
On 8/30/2017 9:52 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 08:28:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 7:33:22 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:37:47 -0700, sms wrote: On 8/28/2017 5:35 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote: Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war mongers. Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc typically predated the president in office at the time (whether Republican or Democrat) the shooting started. Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan), invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush), inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan (GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger umbrella conflicts mentioned above. Technically, the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was started by Eisenhower, not Kennedy. Eisenhower sent "advisors" as a prelude to sending troops. He also supported the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, even though Diem was a major reason for the Vietnam war. The Geneva Accords in 1954 partitioned the country temporarily in two at the 17th parallel until 1956, when democratic elections would be held under international supervision. All parties involved agreed to this (Ho Chi Minh had strong support in the north, which was more populous than the south, and was thus comfortable that he would win an election), except for the US, who did not want to see Communism spreading in a domino effect throughout Asia. The U.S., supporting the South, installed Ngo Dinh Diem, initially as Prime Minister to Bao Dai, the Emperor, and later after a rigged election as President of the Republic of South Vietnam. He and his brother were assassinated in 1963 during a coup led by General Duong Van Minh. While Diem was a fanatical Catholic and did contribute to the Buddhist/Christian problems in S. Vietnam he was not responsible for the Vietnam war which was almost entirely a U.S. effort. Had the original Geneva Accords been followed and the elections been held Vietnam would have been united, in 1956, under a Communist government. It might be noted that while engaged in a war in Vietnam to make the world safe from communism the U.S. was buying supplies used in the war from Yugoslavia. The so called Domino effect espoused by the Eisenhower Administration is, in retrospect a bunch of whooee. The two greatest heroes of Vietnam are the Trung Sisters who lead a revolution against Chinese dominance of Vietnam and Vietnam fought a (small) war against China in 1979. While the U.S. exited Vietnam under Gerald Ford, it was the Democrats that forced the exit, President Ford wanted to continue military aid. My guess is that the U.S.'s abandonment of the Vietnam war was primarily an effort to get out of the war in any manner possible rather then a political scheme of either political party as to be frank the North had won the war. Well we can always say you certainly look out for the common man. We can see the great advances for the communist state of North Korea. Instead of the North this could have been the entire country. But I guess that living in Thailand has taught you to totally ignore the common man as most of Asia does. https://www.google.com/search?q=Sate...Px3RCbfyWplDM: Hardly. In fact the South East Asian nations are very interested in heir citizens welfare, likely because satisfied citizens rarely revolt. Thailand, for example, has universal health care. You go to a clinic, pay 1/10th of the minimum daily salary and any and all treatment proscribed by the doctor is free. And, of course if you are over 65 it is completely free. Singapore built low cost housing for their people. They brag that over 80% of Singapore's resident population reside in this housing and about 90% of these resident households own their home. Vietnam? Well, in the past three years the average income has increased by nearly 30%. Has the U.S. a universal health program where you pay $8.00 and everything else is free? Has the U.S. developed a low cost housing plan that houses 80% of their population? Have average U.S. wages increased by 30% in the past three years. Tell me more about " looking out for the common man". -- Cheers, John B. OK, but we don't have your Rice Subsidy either. We achieved our humongous debts without even giving away rice! -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
On 8/31/2017 6:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/30/2017 9:52 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 08:28:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 7:33:22 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:37:47 -0700, sms wrote: On 8/28/2017 5:35 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote: Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war mongers. Hmm.Â* Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc typically predated the president in office at the time (whether Republican or Democrat) the shooting started. Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan), invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush), inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan (GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW Bush).Â* That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger umbrella conflicts mentioned above. Technically, the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was started by Eisenhower, not Kennedy. Eisenhower sent "advisors" as a prelude to sending troops. He also supported the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, even though Diem was a major reason for the Vietnam war. The Geneva Accords in 1954 partitioned the country temporarily in two at the 17th parallel until 1956, when democratic elections would be held under international supervision. All parties involved agreed to this (Ho Chi Minh had strong support in the north, which was more populous than the south, and was thus comfortable that he would win an election), except for the US, who did not want to see Communism spreading in a domino effect throughout Asia. The U.S., supporting the South, installed Ngo Dinh Diem, initially as Prime Minister to Bao Dai, the Emperor, and later after a rigged election as President of the Republic of South Vietnam. He and his brother were assassinated in 1963 during a coup led by General Duong Van Minh. While Diem was a fanatical Catholic and did contribute to the Buddhist/Christian problems in S. Vietnam he was not responsible for the Vietnam war which was almost entirely a U.S. effort. Had the original Geneva Accords been followed and the elections been held Vietnam would have been united, in 1956, under a Communist government. It might be noted that while engaged in a war in Vietnam to make the world safe from communism the U.S. was buying supplies used in the war from Yugoslavia. The so called Domino effect espoused by the Eisenhower Administration is, in retrospect a bunch of whooee. The two greatest heroes of Vietnam are the Trung Sisters who lead a revolution against Chinese dominance of Vietnam and Vietnam fought a (small) war against China in 1979. While the U.S. exited Vietnam under Gerald Ford, it was the Democrats that forced the exit, President Ford wanted to continue military aid. My guess is that the U.S.'s abandonment of the Vietnam war was primarily an effort to get out of the war in any manner possible rather then a political scheme of either political party as to be frank the North had won the war. Well we can always say you certainly look out for the common man. We can see the great advances for the communist state of North Korea. Instead of the North this could have been the entire country. But I guess that living in Thailand has taught you to totally ignore the common man as most of Asia does. https://www.google.com/search?q=Sate...Px3RCbfyWplDM: Hardly. In fact the South East Asian nations are very interested in heir citizens welfare, likely because satisfied citizens rarely revolt. Thailand, for example, has universal health care. You go to a clinic, pay 1/10th of the minimum daily salary and any and all treatment proscribed by the doctor is free. And, of course if you are over 65 it is completely free. Singapore built low cost housing for their people. They brag that over 80% of Singapore's resident population reside in this housing and about 90% of these resident households own their home. Vietnam? Well, in the past three years the average income has increased by nearly 30%. Has the U.S. a universal health program where you pay $8.00 and everything else is free? Has the U.S. developed a low cost housing plan that houses 80% of their population? Have average U.S. wages increased by 30% in the past three years. Tell me more about " looking out for the common man". -- Cheers, John B. OK, but we don't have your Rice Subsidy either. We achieved our humongous debts without even giving away rice! U.S. rice producers are heavily subsidized. https://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=rice. But it goes beyond the actual cash subsidies. In California they also receive non-cash subsidies of water. In a drought-prone state, the rice farmers have water rights to grow a very thirsty crop. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 08:18:02 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/30/2017 9:52 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 08:28:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 7:33:22 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:37:47 -0700, sms wrote: On 8/28/2017 5:35 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote: Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war mongers. Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc typically predated the president in office at the time (whether Republican or Democrat) the shooting started. Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan), invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush), inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan (GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger umbrella conflicts mentioned above. Technically, the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was started by Eisenhower, not Kennedy. Eisenhower sent "advisors" as a prelude to sending troops. He also supported the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, even though Diem was a major reason for the Vietnam war. The Geneva Accords in 1954 partitioned the country temporarily in two at the 17th parallel until 1956, when democratic elections would be held under international supervision. All parties involved agreed to this (Ho Chi Minh had strong support in the north, which was more populous than the south, and was thus comfortable that he would win an election), except for the US, who did not want to see Communism spreading in a domino effect throughout Asia. The U.S., supporting the South, installed Ngo Dinh Diem, initially as Prime Minister to Bao Dai, the Emperor, and later after a rigged election as President of the Republic of South Vietnam. He and his brother were assassinated in 1963 during a coup led by General Duong Van Minh. While Diem was a fanatical Catholic and did contribute to the Buddhist/Christian problems in S. Vietnam he was not responsible for the Vietnam war which was almost entirely a U.S. effort. Had the original Geneva Accords been followed and the elections been held Vietnam would have been united, in 1956, under a Communist government. It might be noted that while engaged in a war in Vietnam to make the world safe from communism the U.S. was buying supplies used in the war from Yugoslavia. The so called Domino effect espoused by the Eisenhower Administration is, in retrospect a bunch of whooee. The two greatest heroes of Vietnam are the Trung Sisters who lead a revolution against Chinese dominance of Vietnam and Vietnam fought a (small) war against China in 1979. While the U.S. exited Vietnam under Gerald Ford, it was the Democrats that forced the exit, President Ford wanted to continue military aid. My guess is that the U.S.'s abandonment of the Vietnam war was primarily an effort to get out of the war in any manner possible rather then a political scheme of either political party as to be frank the North had won the war. Well we can always say you certainly look out for the common man. We can see the great advances for the communist state of North Korea. Instead of the North this could have been the entire country. But I guess that living in Thailand has taught you to totally ignore the common man as most of Asia does. https://www.google.com/search?q=Sate...Px3RCbfyWplDM: Hardly. In fact the South East Asian nations are very interested in heir citizens welfare, likely because satisfied citizens rarely revolt. Thailand, for example, has universal health care. You go to a clinic, pay 1/10th of the minimum daily salary and any and all treatment proscribed by the doctor is free. And, of course if you are over 65 it is completely free. Singapore built low cost housing for their people. They brag that over 80% of Singapore's resident population reside in this housing and about 90% of these resident households own their home. Vietnam? Well, in the past three years the average income has increased by nearly 30%. Has the U.S. a universal health program where you pay $8.00 and everything else is free? Has the U.S. developed a low cost housing plan that houses 80% of their population? Have average U.S. wages increased by 30% in the past three years. Tell me more about " looking out for the common man". -- Cheers, John B. OK, but we don't have your Rice Subsidy either. We achieved our humongous debts without even giving away rice! I think you are probably talking about the "rice pledging" scheme that the various Shinawatras governments implemented as a sure fire vote getter. Long gone and the people that dreamed up the scheme are either in jail, in the process of going to jail, or have fled the country to avoid going to jail. -- Cheers, John B. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 7:52:43 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
Hardly. In fact the South East Asian nations are very interested in heir citizens welfare, likely because satisfied citizens rarely revolt. That's right but when push comes to shove let's see just what goes. Thailand, for example, has universal health care. You go to a clinic, pay 1/10th of the minimum daily salary and any and all treatment proscribed by the doctor is free. And, of course if you are over 65 it is completely free. You're joking right? I have had over $18,000 in medical bills this year. Most of it paid for by insurance and every bit of it possible only because of modern medical instruments some of which I helped develop. Are you telling me that a Thai can go to a clinic and have a $500,000 panoramic x-ray taken of his jaw? How many of these clinics are there? How many doctors trained in doing a sinus lift that requires donated bone material to achieve? That requires three different medications before and afterwards top stave off infections? We have antobiotics in the USA that you can't even get in Europe and you're telling me that things are better than that in Thailand? Singapore built low cost housing for their people. They brag that over 80% of Singapore's resident population reside in this housing and about 90% of these resident households own their home. Vietnam? Well, in the past three years the average income has increased by nearly 30%. Do you mean 30% more than nothing? Why don't you tell us all that the common Vietnamese isn't nothing more than a rice farmer now just as they were before the communists took over. Tell me more about " looking out for the common man". At what point did it became MY responsibility to make sure you took care of yourself? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:38:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 7:52:43 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: Hardly. In fact the South East Asian nations are very interested in heir citizens welfare, likely because satisfied citizens rarely revolt. That's right but when push comes to shove let's see just what goes. Thailand, for example, has universal health care. You go to a clinic, pay 1/10th of the minimum daily salary and any and all treatment proscribed by the doctor is free. And, of course if you are over 65 it is completely free. You're joking right? I have had over $18,000 in medical bills this year. Most of it paid for by insurance and every bit of it possible only because of modern medical instruments some of which I helped develop. No, I am not joking. Any Thai citizen can visit a government clinic, pay 30 baht, and receive any necessary medical treatment (that is available in Thailand) free. A friend who suffered kidney failure was treated and had dialysis for several weeks for the initial 30 baht payment. Luckily his problem was resolved. His wife joked that the only thing that they didn't pay was the gas for the car to drive back and forth to the hospital. My wife has a heart condition and thyroid problems (both controlled) and has a blood test and checkup quarterly. Entirely free because she is over 65 years of age. (the clinic is close enough that she walks :-) Are you telling me that a Thai can go to a clinic and have a $500,000 panoramic x-ray taken of his jaw? How many of these clinics are there? How many doctors trained in doing a sinus lift that requires donated bone material to achieve? That requires three different medications before and afterwards top stave off infections? Yup. Anything that the doctor orders. Specifically a panoramic x-ray I do not know but if the government hospitals have the device then yes. free. We have antobiotics in the USA that you can't even get in Europe and you're telling me that things are better than that in Thailand? Nope. I am saying that a Thai Citizen can get any medical treatment that is available in Thailand for 30 baht (1/10th of the minimum daily salary) Singapore built low cost housing for their people. They brag that over 80% of Singapore's resident population reside in this housing and about 90% of these resident households own their home. Vietnam? Well, in the past three years the average income has increased by nearly 30%. Do you mean 30% more than nothing? Why don't you tell us all that the common Vietnamese isn't nothing more than a rice farmer now just as they were before the communists took over. It really doesn't make any difference what the starting point was, that is history. What is important is that today, living is nearly 30% better then it was three years ago. Tell me more about " looking out for the common man". At what point did it became MY responsibility to make sure you took care of yourself? I have no idea. That seems to be a sort of socialistic notion that seems to be taking root in the U.S. I recently read that almost half of the families in the U.S. was receiving government aid, in some form. http://tinyurl.com/yamwp3mt I read that 81% of the U.S. government revenues are from individual income tax and payroll taxes so it appears that yes, you are taking care of the common man :-) https://www.nationalpriorities.org/b...-101/revenues/ -- Cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is jobst gone? | Crescentius Vespasianus | Techniques | 7 | June 23rd 11 12:08 AM |
When Jobst ... | Steve Freides[_2_] | Techniques | 1 | January 20th 11 09:28 PM |
Jobst | Brad Anders | Racing | 20 | January 19th 11 05:31 PM |
Jobst | TriGuru55x11 | Rides | 1 | January 19th 11 01:13 PM |