Thread
:
Beware of hams planting dis-information...
View Single Post
#
370
June 16th 05, 02:41 PM
Dave Hall
Posts: n/a
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:37:32 -0400,
(I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
Dave Hall Jr.(N3CVJ) wrote:
And at 30-40% less of a salary, for
the same job, that limits one's buying power.
Yep,,salaries for workers who work for another have always been low
compared to the northern states.
Exactly my point. Which limits my buying
power.
The only people that have
trouble adjusting are those who live beyond their means.
Living beyond one's means is somewhat
subjective. It depends on where you are living
and what your earning power is.
Your salary has nothing to do with one living beyond their means.
Sure it does. You salary determines what
"your means" is.
One
can make 200 bucks a week and live beyond their means, just as one who
makes 2000 bucks a week can live beyond their means. It is also not
linked to geography or earning power.
When one budgets carefully and lives a
certain standard of living in one area and
"lives within his means", suddenly up roots
and moves somewhere else, and his salary
decreases, he is now living beyond his means
assuming the bills stay relatively the same.
Demonstrating anyone can live beyond their means.
No argument. But the threshold point of where "you means" is, is
dependent on your salary and what your expenses are. If they both
decrease proportionately, then you can still be within your means. If
the salary decreases more than your expenses, you could be living
beyond your means.
Cuts in spending involve changing your
standard of living. Someone used to driving a
BMW might now have to deal with a Chevy. It
might not be their idea of "living".
What about this job retraining you speak of?
Who pays for it?
We do. That's one area of assistance that I'm
very much in favor of. Training enables people
to become self-sufficient.
Yet, government medical care enables people to live and be healthy, yet,
you are against that.
Because it is a widening black hole
Sure,,when the US in covering Iraqi medical care for the asking.
I don't believe that is true.
As long as there are no attempts to cap
medical costs they will keep spiraling, no
matter how much the government kicks in on
our behalf.
Yet, you speak out against our own people getting such care, but you
have said nothing concerning the current admin's waste of medical care
and supplying the Iraqi's with it, or any other of the "enemies' on our
list
Because there is no credible evidence that all Iraqi's, beyond those
injured as a direct result of war activities, are being medically
covered at our expense.
That's what self sufficiency and personal
responsibility are all about.
One can not be self sufficient if one is sick and ailing.
People got sick in the 1930's too.
Try to stay relevant, Dave, and not slip into your preference of
discussing ancient history that will not change anything.
Comparing different periods of time is helpful in providing
perspective. In the 1930's people didn' t look to the government for
help, they knew that they had to depend on family and their own drive
to survive. Today's generation, as soon as they get a hang nail, they
want the government to "help" them. The point is that people got just
as sick in the 1930's as they do now, and they dealt with it. People
need to learn how to deal with it now.
And you know what? They went to work
anyway, or there might not be any food on the
table that night.
Advocating people to go to work sick in today's climate is a very
irresonsible thing to do, Dave.
Not if you have family waiting for dinner at home.
Even the CDC and the WHO tell people to
stay home. In fact, many employers, such as hospitals have policies
against coming to work ill.
Then those same companies cut back on the number of sick days an
employee can take. It sends a confusing message.
But if you don't have sick days and you have mouths to feed, you do
what is necessary. THAT is responsibility. I guess today's solution
would be to beg the government for federally mandated paid sick
time....
Looking to the government for assistance is perfectly acceptable in many
instances, Dave. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of
people STILL homeless in Fl because of the hurricanes.
Yes, Yes, and YES. I'm totally cool with
hardship TEMPORARY assistance.
Many folks would benefit and live healthier and longer if they were
permitted even temporary medical assistance from the government,,,so are
you for it or against it?
No. Not as long as nothing is done to address
the supply side of the equation. There are
many problems in the medical field.
And those who lost everything and are in need of medical assistance were
not responsibe for any of them.
Doesn't change the problem. Democrats and liberals alike love to solve
a problem by throwing money at it. In the case of heathcare, the more
money to throw at it, the hungrier it will get. Until you gain control
on the spiraling costs and malpractice suits run amuck, the costs to
consumers will continue to rise. That is, unless you stop all forms of
insurance, and let the free market reassert control on what medical
professionals charge.
Fraud is
rampant, lawsuits are commonplace,
everyone looks to wring big bucks out of the
medical industry. Until there is meaningful tort
reform, lessening of malpractice insurance,
and someone steps in to run roughshod over
billing practices, I don't want one more penny
pumped into this industry only to encourage it
to grow even further in costs.
It's not a money shortage problem, like you assume, it's a budget issue
of where and how the monies are spent. Instead of spending health care
on the enemy overseas, there are many children in this country who could
benefit from the care El Mohammed Mujasteen receives and which you
condone.
I condone nothing of the sort, and unless you can provide evidence
that common Iraqi citizens are given free care at our expense, I'll
continue to believe that this is just another liberal rumor.
*Now please 'splain how being self-sufficient and personally
responsible can help these folks who paid their premiums on time
faithfully all those years, had their homes destroyed or damaged to the
point they are rendered unsafe for living conditions, lost all their
possessions, yet still manage to survive by living in tents, can bring
them up out of their hell created by the insurance companies who are
regulated by the federal government.
The insurance companies are obligated to
make good on their claims.
But they AREN'T making good on their claims, Dave, and this is the
problem.
Well, if they aren't because they can't, that's
one thing.
If they can't, the fault lies with your government because they are the
ones that regulate the premiums and the industry.
No, the government has a very little part to play in the operation of
a free market industry. They can set guidelines and set some
regulations and protections. But what you are suggesting is that the
government insure the insurance companies. But psychologically, if
everyone assumes that the government is there to "bail them out"
whenever a hardship comes, there is no incentive for these people and
entities to effectively plan for disaster and to take greater
responsibility for their own life.
You can't get blood from a rock. If
they're just dragging their feet, the government
should step in and push on behalf of the
residents.
And they should be made to repay the
.government for any "handouts" it had to pay
to house people until the insurance companies
settled.
The government disagrees, this is why FEMA was created.
FEMA provides assistance to people
displaced due to natural disasters.
Hurricanes -are- natural disasters, Dave. You perhaps thought otherwise?
No, so where's the problem? Isn't FEMA responding either?
.Which they should.
But they AREN'T doing it, and the government is STILL permitting these
companies do write more policies.
So you advocate that the government control
aspects of business?
That's socialism.
Better read up on who the insurance industry answers to, Dave. The feds
regulate everything to do with them.
Sure, in order to protect citizens against fraud. But they don't
control day to day operations.
Besides, if the insurance companies don't
write more policies, where are they going to
get the money they need to pay the claims
(Other than by raising MY rates for no good
reason)?
From their catastrophic relief fund, a fund specifically created in
order to prevent such problems.
Then where's the bottleneck? Sounds like all the right things are in
place, but something had thrown a wrench in the works.
The thing is, if I had a member of my family
who was displaced from their home in Florida,
I would take a week or two off of work, hook
up the trailer to my truck, load up the
generator and drive down. I would let them
live in the trailer until their home was rebuilt.
Again, not everyone has families that can help, Dave.
Everyone has a family, unless you were grown in a lab. Even then your
"donors" could be considered family. The fact that many people burn
their family bridges is not our problem. Maybe without that government
safety net, people would be a little more considerate of their
families. You never know when they have to lean on them.
If it were that
simple, there would be no displaced families there now,,,and there are
thousands and thousands.
A testament to just how bad our society has gotten with respect to
traditional families. 50 or 60 years ago, and this wouldn't be a
problem.
THAT is what I meant before by leaning on
and getting support from family. I can't believe
all those people who lost homes don't have
relatives they can live with, or who can help
them in some way.
Yea..they all choose to live without roofs and appliances and choose to
cook outdoors because of their pioneering spirit.
Well, what other excuse can someone have for not offering to take in
their fellow family members in their time of need?
My in-laws had a fire in 1987. Their home
was unlivable for almost a year, while waiting
for insurance claims to settle. I invited them to
live with my wife and I for the time period. It
was tight, but that's what you do for family.
Ummm,,,actually, i would have rented them their own place.
Umm.... Yea well, they didn't have the money for that, and neither did
I. So I bit my tongue and did what I had to do.
Among a boatload of reasons you ignore...abuse, peer pressure,
self-esteem, curiosity, lies told to them by those who buy into the
government's bull**** war on drugs...etc. It's hypocritical of us to
tell the kids to just say no when we ply them with ritalin from a young
age and mom smokes cigarettes, drinks cup after cup of coffee, and dad
drinks alcohol, even if it's the cocktail with dinner.
Not an issue. Peer pressure is something you
have to deal with.
And something whcih parents have no control to what their children are
exposed in public schools.
They have control in showing their kids that the bullies are the ones
who have problems. You teach your kids to be better than that. That's
how I survived.
I took a lot of peer pressure abuse when I
was a kid.
Dave, multiply that times your highest faction you can handle and then
you amy come close to understanding the level of peer pressure today.
It's not that much worse. We're just more sensitive to it now,
especially in light of Columbine. In my day, bullying was actually
chalked off as a part of "character building", a "boys will be boys"
attitude. Some of the teachers (Mostly the phys-ed types) would
actually encourage some of it (or turn a blind eye to it). It was just
as destructive then. But we learned to deal with it, rather than
expecting someone to put us on anti-depresents.
You learn to ignore and deal with it. You learn
that those people are not worth your time, and
when it's all said and done, they'll be serving
you fries 20 years from now.
You know better than to try and tell a child what it will be like in 20
years. 20 weeks is an eternity to kid. 20 years is inconceivable.
It's a tough point to make when most teens live in the here and now.
But persistence worked for me. I learned to comprehend the long term.
If I can do it, anyone can.
Provide them with many sorts of creative
avenues to release, and there will be no need
to turn to destructive behavior.
Again,,,bull****.
Not at all.
Perhaps just you are just naive, then.
No, it' makes perfect logical sense. Many experts in the field agree
with it. The point is to always be involved in your child's life. But
do it in a non-controlling subtle way, where you are always there, but
they don't realize that you have as much influence as you do.
A kid who plays sports, acts in drama clubs,
plays in the band, participates in the arts, or
has a worthwhile hobby, will be way too busy
to hang out with the slackers.
Your mistake is believing drug use by children is inherent to these you
call "slackers".
Drug use is done mainly as an escape by
those who can't handle life.
Then the same can be said for alcohol and obacco users.
Yes, and it's just as true. Although smoking was done, mainly to look
older, more worldly, and "cool". But since smoking has fallen out of
favor due to the health risks, the incidence of teen smoking should
begin to fall off.
Mostly this is a result of isolating parents who
protected their kids for too long, and who now
have to deal with the ugliness of the real
world. They have self-esteem and social
issues. But in their minds they are perfectly
ok, and they try to get other kids to partake as
well, to further bolster the illusion of normalcy
that dopers tend to believe.
Same can be said for those who drink, then.
Yes. If the sole purpose of drinking is to get drunk. Those who like
alcohol just for the taste of it, have a somewhat different reason. I
used to drink when I was younger. But I didn't get drunk all that
much, as I didn't like the aftermath. But when I was at that young
age, it was believed that drinking was less destructive than drugs.
Being an alert and supportive parent who can
intercede when your kid starts to have
"problems" before they turn to drugs.
Drugs are not the problem Dave, they are a symptom.
A symptom of a much larger psychological problem. One that should be
easy to spot if you are an alert parent.
That's why it's also important to know their
friends.
**Giving a kid an activity that they can be
proud to excel at and bolster their self esteem
(While learning what it means to truly EARN it)
builds character.
Yup,,character that is torn down when these suburban kids from loving
families begin using harmful drugs.
If the character is strong, and you believe
enough in yourself, you can just say no. I
never did drugs in school. For one thing I
never smoked at all, and the smell of smoke
bothered me. Other drugs seemed silly to me.
To me, they were pointless. Plus I never had
enough money to buy them anyway. I spent all
my cash on CB radio stuff. I guess you could
say CB was my "drug".
Keep your kids poor! And for God's sake, don't
give them a credit card.
*
Keep your kids poor? That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
Is it? If they don't have money, they can't very well buy drugs now
can they? Remove temptation. It works for me when I'm dieting. No crap
food in the house, and if I get the urge to snack, and there's nothing
there, I don't do it.
On
one hand, you claim that if you act one way with your kids, they will
avoid drugs and other pitfalls you mistakenly only attribute to
"slackers", yet you believe giving them a credic card or a pocket full
of cash will destroy the values you instill in your kids.
Kids are too immature to handle the responsibility of spending money.
They often make poor and impulsive buying decisions. They have to
learn how to spend money wisely. It's not about destroying values,
it's about making mistakes.
Oh man, just you wait. You are in for the shock and heartbreak of your
life like you can never imagine.
No I'm not.
*Lastly, never lose communication with them.
Set your ground rules while they are young,
and they become adjusted to them. Let a child
run amuck when they are young, and then try
to reign them in when they hit the teenaged
years, and you've already lost.
I don't equate not keeping my children "poor" (as you do) with
permitting them to "run amuck".
No, they're not necessarily the same thing. But allowing your kid to
"run amuck" generally means allowing them to engage in destructive and
disruptive behavior without strict corrective action being taken.
All kids have a rudimentary value system. You, as an alert parent,
knows what means the most to them. Take it away when they are bad, and
they'll eventually learn to be good.
Talk to them always. Know all their friends
(and their parents).
*Make sure they know that you're
always there for them. Support them in
whatever they do. Show up at their plays,
cheer them on at their games. Listen to their
teachers when you have conferences. Trust
them enough and allow them to make small
mistakes, but keep on the lookout for major
ones. In short, STAY INVOLVED!
All that is great advice, but is irrelevant in the real world.
It is great advice, and it is very relevant in the
real world. Not every kid is a weak, spineless
bowl of self esteem goo, that can be shattered
.by the taunting of some lowlife idiot.
Who said otherwise? Those are your mistaken core beliefs.
Then why do you think that being an involved supportive parent is not
relevant in the real world?
I've told you how I do things, so now it's your turn. What do YOU
think is the proper recipe to raise a child the proper way?
If you build their confidence and show them
their potential, they will know enough to laugh
.at the pathetic attempts by the slackers who
use peer pressure to elevate their own pitiful
self-esteem at the expense of others.
There are two types of people in the world.
No Dave, despite your best attempts at pigeonholing people into neat
little groups of twos, it's not true.
Those who excel, and the ones that those who
excel laugh at.
Again, despite your mistaken core beliefs, most successful people do not
laigh at those less fortunate than themselves. It's also not a very
christian thing to do, let alone something a parent should be teaching
their child.
You don't laugh at those truly less fortunate. You laugh at those who
try to bring themselves up by bringing others down. You laugh at those
who have gobs of potential, but waste it away becoming a slacker. If
someone is less fortunate due to their own actions (or inactions) then
they have no one to blame but themselves and we should have no pity
for them.
I used to laugh a lot when I
was in school. I still do.
I know how my parents raised me. I know from
a child's perspective which disciplines worked,
and which ones didn't.
You know what works with -you-. You have no clue what works in other
families, religions, faiths, cultures, cities, etc. Your myopic view
that everyone shares your beliefs has never been more wrong, as the
majority of good caring, parents would never laugh at the misfortune or
expense of other's, regardless the situation.
If you stick your hand in a flame, does it not burn the same for you
as it does for me? There are some things which are pretty much
universal. Those are the lessons I learned as a kid, and bring to the
table now as a parent.
As far as the slackers and bullies are concerned, laughing at them and
their own pathetic existence is hardly a good enough payback for the
pain that they invoke in others.
*I use what I learned to my advantage as a
parent.
As far as learning as a parent, you are in the infancy stage.
You ignore the fact that peer pressure is greater today than you can
comprehend
No it's not. It's the same old story done for the
same reasons.
Yea, ok. How many people were killed for their sneakers or clothes when
you were a kid, Dave?
None. We didn't wear expensive clothes, that anyone would want. I had
$5.00 sneakers. But many were stripped of their lunch money. Kids
today have lost something relating to the value of human life. Mostly
I blame the parents of the "let them express themselves" generation.
People elevate themselves by trying to make
other people feel lousy.
Like laughing at those less fortunate than you, yes, I see your point,
but you are extremely hypocritical.
Nothing hypocritical about it. You laugh at those who would do you
dirt. That's how you fight back at the bullies. You let them know that
they can't affect you, and they'll leave you alone to find someone
else they can terrorize. So don't go pulling a liberal on me by
suggesting we have sympathy for the real aggressors. "Oh, he's just
misunderstood, or he's a victim of his circumstances (Yea, aren't we
all?)". Quite frankly I don't care, he's not my kid, and not my
problem. But if he tries to make my kid's life as miserable as his
own, he's in for a shock.
Once you understand
the psychological forces that drives this, you
can defuse them.
Uh-huh.
Uh Huh!
Dave
"Sandbagger"
Reply With Quote
