On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:15:07 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:58:21 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:55:28 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Repeat marriages are not accounted for. So what? It is irrelevant.


No, it is -very- irrelevant. To prove (or disprove) that half of all
marriages end up in divorce then you must know how many marriages and
divorces occur in a given amount of time. You can't determine that
information from the static data you sourced from the Census bureau.
The data I provided was accurate, relevant, and, according to the
source of -your- data, came from -the- authoritative source on the
subject. My statement was correct.

So then how many divorcees end up remarried?


Read my statement again, but this time stretch the limits of your
reading comprehension skills:

"Half of all marriages end in divorce."

That statement is disingenuous. Many people marry for the wrong
reasons once, divorce after 2 or 3 years, and then marry again, and
this time stay married. Those facts aren't reflected in your numbers.


And I implied nothing of the sort. In fact, you just helped make my
case for me -- admitting that marriage isn't taken nearly as seriously
by the general public as you would like everyone to believe. People
-do- get married for the wrong reasons. People -do- get divorced.
People -do- remarry (many times resulting in excommunication). Some
people -do- get married more than once, twice,.... sometimes even four
or five times or more. And in almost all of those marriages each
person took an oath that included "until death do us part". And some
people don't even get married at all -- they live together, have kids,
raise a family and retire without ever exchanging vows.

The fact is that marriage simply isn't taken seriously enough by
people to justify calling it a "sacred tradition" either by law or by
any religious standard.


The federal budget reports claimed that "republicans tapped social
security"?


Not in those exact words -- you need to have enough brains to figure
out that when the SS trust fund gets tapped for spending on Republican
bills during Republican administrations, it's usually done by the
Republicans.

So I suppose that the democrats had not done the same thing when they
controlled the congress (Which they did up until 1994)?

If you want to say that congress plays creative accounting games with
Social Security, I'll agree and let it pass. But don't try to pin this
on republicans alone. Unless, of course, you truly are a blind
partisan.


The blame does indeed rest with the Republicans. The Democrats have
consistently pushed to bolster Social Security since the 1960's, while
the Republicans have repeatedly dipped into the fund.

Proof please.


Sure, just as soon as you come up with proof that has been asked of
you for numerous claims you have made over the past several months. Or
you could look for the proof yourself. But that would be pointless
because if you can't find it, you characteristically conclude that it
doesn't exist, which is especially lame when your only resource is the
internet. And even -then- your research consists of a few common words
in a google search, followed by abandonment of your search because you
get discouraged at the high number of results.

So unless you are going to start providing some facts to support your
many claims, don't beg me for any more proof.


Democrats have traditionally been of the expand
government programs, and tax people to pay for it type. While
republicans have been in favor of trimming government programs and
giving money back to the people.


Are you so out
of touch that you don't understand why the Democrats are so popular
with people that don't have a six-digit retirement portfolio? Holy
crap you are ignorant, Dave!

The reason that democrats are popular with the poor and politically
ignorant (Which appears to include you), is because they promise to
"give" them something that they don't have to earn themselves.


You mean things like the right to vote? A fiscally responsible
government? A few years without war?


Whether
it's welfare, Social Security, Food Stamps, free health care, extended
unemployment, or any number of "gimme" programs. Those programs are
championed by democrats, and favored by people in need, and paid for
by people who earn. It's nothing more than redistribution of wealth
and leveraging class warfare to advance their political goals. One of
those goals is to create a class of dependant people who the democrats
can continue to feed (Just enough to keep them above water, but not
enough to become truly independent), in exchange for their continued
support.


You have just jumped into the deep end, Dave. Get help.


Democrats are popular with those who take.

Republicans are popular with those who MAKE.


And you are popular with those who make repetitive moaning sounds
while banging their heads against a padded wall. Seriously, Dave, get
some perspective.


Any liberal who supports subsidizing any and all social programs,
starting with Welfare, and ending with Medicare. This programs are
part and parcel of a "Welfare State".


A certain amount of socialism is going to be part of the system
-regardless- of who runs the country.

No, it doesn't have to be. I suppose you've heard the saying: "Give a
person a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a person to fish and
they'll eat for a lifetime"? That's one of the major differences in
ideological philosophies between conservatives and liberals. Liberals
just want to throw money at every problem and hope that it goes away.
Conservatives want to teach people to be self sufficient and to learn
to stop thinking of themselves as victims.


So -that's- why we invaded Iraq!


The reason is simple: poor
people vote. So would you support a Constitutional Amendment that
would guarantee every citizen the right to vote?

Sure, why not? Most poor people would rather earn their own keep, if
given that chance.


Really? Then why have you been saying for months that poor people just
want to kick back and leech from others through welfare checks, food
stamps and other social handouts?

You are clearly in a state of meltdown.


First of all, what you refer to as a "living wage" is mighty important
to millions of voters who don't make a "living wage", mostly due to
irresponsible Republican economic plans

Irresponsible Republican plans? You really area blind partisan aren't
you? What "republican (Or democrat for that matter) plan" can stop the
natural course to the free international market without seriously
altering it?


Let's put it this way: For the past few decades the Republicans have
been campaigning on the pretext that they are for smaller government,
yet in -every- Republican-dominated administration the government has
increased in both size and spending.

Proof please. Start in 1995 with Newt Gingrich's brilliantly executed
"Contract with America" and how, for the first time in many years, a
republican led majority in congress, slashed pork, wasteful spending,
and government programs which resulted in the balanced budget that
"Slick willie" Clinton tried to take credit for, and laid the
foundation for the tax cuts that Bush gave back to every taxpayer.


In case you didn't notice, Newt was the lone Republican proponent of a
balanced budget amendment, which is why he was publically trounced and
bounced from Congress. If you go back and look at the votes, most of
the Republicans voted -against- the balanced budget during the Clinton
years. The Democrats forced a few Reps to fold on the balanced budget
in exchange for a little district money because Clinton, unlike Bush,
wasn't afraid to veto a budget bill with higher deficit ceilings and
packed with Republican pork-barrel spending. And if the Reps -really-
wanted a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution it would have
passed with almost a unanimous vote because the Dems have been pushing
for it for years. But it didn't even get to the floor. So quit with
the spin and stick to the facts, Dave. Start your education on the
subject by learning about the Graham-Rudman-Hollings Act.


Republicans spend like they are
on a Bloomingdale's shopping spree! They claim that all the spending
is good for the economy, yet when it comes time to pay the bill for
all that spending they lose control of the budget with phrases like,
"Read my lips...." and the people get stuck with the bill. Then they
leave the books for the Democrats to balance and maybe build up a
surplus, which the Republicans end up throwing away on more spending
and tax refunds when they regain control of the budget.

You've got the cycle right, but for the wrong reasons. Democrats,
enact social programs which cost money. They therefore have to raise
taxes to pay for them.


So that's why Medicaid spending grew 13.2 percent in 2002, the
steepest rate of growth since 1992? Because Democrats were at the
helm? I really think you got your facts backwards, Dave.

Democrats (-and- Bush Sr) had to raise taxes in order to pay for
Republican spending sprees -- that's a FACT! Reagan spent jillions on
the military and ran the deficit higher than it had ever been before,
even during wartime. Daddy Bush lost re-election because he got stuck
with the bill. Although Clinton was a crappy leader, he had some
decent economic advisors that bailed out the country. And now Baby
Bush has pushed the budget back into the infra-red. Yet you think
Democrats raise taxes just to pay for social programs? You are TOTALLY
CLUELESS, Dave! For God's sake, get an education!


High taxes **** off a lot of people, so they
vote the democrats out and the republicans in. The republicans slash
and burn the democrats programs, give people tax relief,


"Read my lips...."


and cut the
budget.


HA! What a load of horse-hooey! So what year did the Republicans cut
the budget, Dave?.... aw, the heck with it. You want proof? Here you
go:


Reagan/Bush:
The Federal deficit jumped from $73.1B in 1980 to $237.9B in 1986. The
Federal debt jumped from $711.9B to $1,740.6B in that same time frame.
By the time he left office the Federal debt was $2,051.6B. By the time
Daddy Bush left office it was $2,999.7B and the deficit had risen to
$340.4B. Just a quick summary:

1980.....Deficit = $73.1B.....Debt = $711.9B
1992.....Deficit = $340.4B.....Debt = $2999.7B
----------------------------------------------
Change...Deficit ^ $267.3B.....Debt ^ $2287.8B

Both increased more that 400%!!!


Clinton:
By 2000, and for the first time in over 50 years, there had been a
budget SURPLUS for not just one but TWO YEARS. Clinton left office
with a SURPLUS of $86.3B, and was in the process of reducing the
Federal debt. He had also halted the increases in discretionary
spending, one of the hallmarks of the Republican party.


Bush Jr:
Since Baby Bush took office (as of the end of 2004), discretionary
spending has almost doubled, program spending has increased by almost
half, the surplus went bye-bye and was replaced with a deficit of
$567.4B (an increase of more than -twice- the deficit at the end of
the Reagan/Bush years) and the debt had increased to an all-time high
of..... are you ready for this?..... $4,295.5B!!! Just the INTEREST on
the debt is $160.2B.


Is that enough proof for you? Do you still think the Republicans are
cutting the budget like they claim? Or are you going to wallow in your
ignorance and try to spin the cold, hard facts?


Then people start to bitch that they want this program and
that program, and accuse the republican administration of being
"insensitive" to the needs of these whiny special interest groups, and
they vote in a slick talking democrat who will promise them the moon,
but neglect to inform them of what it will all cost. Then the cycle
repeats.

This administration has been the lone exception. Spending has been
ridiculous for a republican administration. But remember, we were
recovering from a recession which started with the stock market crash
at the end of Clinton's term. We also had 9/11, and we're fighting two
wars. Those are not normal circumstances.


The circumstances are -never- normal, Dave -- except that people like
you will always come up with excuses and spins and lies to defend your
profound ignorance.


It's like none of them ever learned basic fiscal responsibility: when
you get a little extra cash it's much wiser to use it to pay down the
credit cards, put back what you pilfered from the SS trust fund, and
save a little for a rainy day. Nope, the Reps just end up throwing the
money around like they were eccentric tycoons and it was -their- money
to spend. And when that money is all gone they just max out the credit
cards -- again. What they say and what they do are two very different
things. That is what I call 'irresponsible'.

You've just described historically typical democratic spending
policies. How come it only bothers you now when it's a republican at
the helm?

Can you say "Partisan"? Sure you can.....


Can you read the Federal Register? Congressional voting records?
Budget resolutions? Domestic economic policy statements? Federal
Reserve economic analyses? The Wall Street Journal? The National
Enquirer? Anything in a library? I doubt it.....


And who stops those who are making less than a living wage from
obtaining the skills necessary to rise above that? You did it. I did
it. There's no excuse for anyone so motivated to not rise above the
poverty level. Of course you'd have to stop ****ing away your pay on
drugs, booze and cheap "dates" with the professional women.

It's called "Personal Responsibility". Take charge of your own life.
Don't wait for the government to bale you out (And blame then when
they don't).

Repeat after me: "I am not a victim!"


You need to pull your head out of the sand. I used to think that way
too, that everyone has the ability to take charge of their own future,
to better themselves with education, to work hard and make something
of themselves.

You were right then. What happened?

Then I got a look at the -real- world.

No, you were indoctrinated by a whiney left coast liberal.

It just doesn't work that way, Dave.

Yes, yes it does. There is absolutely no reason why a person with
marketable skills cannot obtain a gainfully paying job. No one said
the path will be easy or the same for every person. But there is a
path. You just have to be willing to take it, and stay the course.


When are your parents ever going to kick you out of their trailer,
garage, basement, or whatever emotionally secure little fortress of
social isolation you have built around yourself? Isn't it about time
you light a fire, haul your fat ass out that chair and into the -real-
world so you can actually learn something about it instead of making
wild speculations, adopting internet fantasies, and making up excuses
why you can't experience it firsthand?


You claim to live in the real world yet you know
nothing about it. And I'm not going to explain this aspect of it to
you. You have to go find out the facts for yourself -- assuming you
want to continue to claim that you are in touch with reality.

Frank, I live in the real world,


No you don't. You don't have any idea what happens in the real world,
just like you don't have any idea what is taught in college, or how
economics works, or how the government works, or any of the other
dozen or so claims you have proven are nothing but lies. You may get
to the store if you take an extra dose of Paxil, and you might have a
driver's license, but your mind is existing in it's own little fantasy
land devoid of facts or social interaction. That's why you can't break
away from your codependent relationship with your mommy -- life is
just too hard for you to make it on your own, isn't it? Poor baby.
It's sure a good thing that your neocon brothers are there to change
your diaper and powder your bottom, ready to hand you a pacifier every
time some liberal gets you all upset. Just like a Baby Bush clone.

Well, take a nap, Baby Bush clone, because it's time for me -- the
big, ugly ex-Marine who risked his life and gave up four years of it
just so you could be coddled in adulthood by your mommy, the engineer
who is educated at a level that you think you can fake with info from
the internet, the liberally-slanted conservative that worked for
several years at a radio station which broadcasts nothing but the
news, the bartender whose job demands a diversified understanding of
social, ethnic and cultural issues, the guy who has never drawn a
single dollar of unemployment benefits or a welfare check (assuming
such benefits were available to an able-bodied male such as myself,
which they aren't, or hadn't you ever thought of that?), the newsgroup
junkie who has pretty much destroyed your academic credibility for you
and your posterity -- to go earn a living. Maybe some day you can earn
a living, too. But probably not. Just stay home with your mommy and
live your life through the TV and computer so the real world doesn't
have to deal with you.

But just to be fair, at least you are useful in one way -- you provide
great entertainment while I waste time before I go to work. Too bad
you don't get paid for it.






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 11:34:06 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
If your circumstances dictate that you will not

be able to earn a college degree for 10 years

of night school, while working at Wal-Mart,

then many people with little patience quit and

then vote for a democrat who will give them

food stamps. Those who stick it out, will

eventually receive the rewards for their efforts.

Nice theory, but you can't swing that excuse in the real world.

Sure you can. You only have to want it bad enough.

For
example, take the layoffs GM just announced. Many are single parents
with school age children who can not go back to school AND support a
family.

Why are they single parents in the first place?


What should they do, Dave? They lost their well paying jobs and
medical insurance for themselves and their children.

Job retraining is usually available for people displaced by layoffs.

If you were well
educated in the world beyond eastern Pa., you would know what the
employment scene is like in Detroit. You claim one can simply move away,
but that is based on your own lack of education and not able to realize
many can't move away for a myriad of reasons, such as caring for an
infirm parent nearby in a care facility for but a single example.

Most people have large extended families. I know the concept of family
has become somewhat foreign with today's younger generation. No one
branch of a family should be made to bear the burden of such hardships
themselves. People lean on the internal support of the family for
temporary hardships. A strong family negates the need for the
government to stick its nose into it (At other people's expense).


More
children are now caring for parents than in any other time in our
history. Many have taken out home equity loans to pay for health care
and prescription coverage that they lost through no fault of their own.

Yes, and those who are ambitious will pay it all back when they adjust
to their situation and find a new vocation.


There is an entire contingency in many demographical areas of the US in
which many are trapped in a sort of financial snare.

Well, if you live in a town where 80% of the people work at "the
factory" and that factory closes up, well yea the town's in a real
pickle. That's why an intelligent person looks to live in an area
where alternate employment id plentiful, and diverse commerce is well
established. That way, no one layoff can cripple a significant portion
of the population. That's one of the reasons why I still live where I
do. I was once contemplating a move to both Florida and North
Carolina. But the lack of diverse skilled jobs and much lower pay
scales pretty much nixed that move.


People like you
usually get what is coming in the end

Yes, we tend to survive, because we don't look to other people to
blame, or to the government for help. That's what self sufficiency and
personal responsibility are all about.

and karma, luck, divine
intervention, whatever, will dictate you end up just like those you
blame for being poor, black, queer, liberal, etc. In fact, your daughter
may quit school, commonly become pregnant to an African-American or
three, have many children and volunteer at the ACLU before realizing she
is a lesbian and needs a job to pay the attorney for the crack and
prostitution charges.

Not likely because she will have grown up in a solid supportive family
that helps each other and promotes open communications and a strong
work ethic with solid morals. And I have taken enough steps to ensure
that she will not have to bear the financial burden of taking care of
me when I'm old and infirm.

I'm only 45, and if I lost my job tomorrow, I'd be able to live
comfortably for 4 years without another job, and before I have to
worry. If I take a job at half the pay, that number doubles. If the
wife also goes back to work, that number increases. If I liquidate
some assets, that number increases even more. Before you know it, I'll
be at retirement age, and my pensions will kick in, not to mention my
401K.

Have you planned for financial hardship? What's your excuse not to?


Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 20:57:33 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


Read my statement again, but this time stretch the limits of your
reading comprehension skills:

"Half of all marriages end in divorce."

That statement is disingenuous. Many people marry for the wrong
reasons once, divorce after 2 or 3 years, and then marry again, and
this time stay married. Those facts aren't reflected in your numbers.


And I implied nothing of the sort. In fact, you just helped make my
case for me -- admitting that marriage isn't taken nearly as seriously
by the general public as you would like everyone to believe.

Based on what? A few failures caused by people who are still too
immature and materialistic to fully understand the responsibility that
a successful marriage entails?

That fact does not negate that a great majority of final marriages
last.



The fact is that marriage simply isn't taken seriously enough by
people to justify calling it a "sacred tradition" either by law or by
any religious standard.


An erroneous conclusion arrived by a flawed premise and incomplete
data. Typical for you Frank.


The blame does indeed rest with the Republicans. The Democrats have
consistently pushed to bolster Social Security since the 1960's, while
the Republicans have repeatedly dipped into the fund.

Proof please.


Sure, just as soon as you come up with proof that has been asked of
you for numerous claims you have made over the past several months.

So you are adopting the patented Twistedhed cop-out. I would have
though better of you Frank.


So unless you are going to start providing some facts to support your
many claims, don't beg me for any more proof.

In other words, you can't.


Democrats have traditionally been of the expand
government programs, and tax people to pay for it type. While
republicans have been in favor of trimming government programs and
giving money back to the people.


Are you so out
of touch that you don't understand why the Democrats are so popular
with people that don't have a six-digit retirement portfolio? Holy
crap you are ignorant, Dave!

The reason that democrats are popular with the poor and politically
ignorant (Which appears to include you), is because they promise to
"give" them something that they don't have to earn themselves.


You mean things like the right to vote?

Name me a state, anywhere in this country, where the right to vote is
lawfully denied to anyone.


A fiscally responsible
government?

We have one. Once the economy fully turns around. Deficit spending
kicked the economy into high gear when Reagan did it in the 1980's.
The resultant economic boom erased the deficit and provided a surplus.
There is no reason to believe that the same won't happen now.


A few years without war?

With the exception of the current war, and the Gulf War, who was
president when the last several wars broke out, and which party where
they a part of?




Whether
it's welfare, Social Security, Food Stamps, free health care, extended
unemployment, or any number of "gimme" programs. Those programs are
championed by democrats, and favored by people in need, and paid for
by people who earn. It's nothing more than redistribution of wealth
and leveraging class warfare to advance their political goals. One of
those goals is to create a class of dependant people who the democrats
can continue to feed (Just enough to keep them above water, but not
enough to become truly independent), in exchange for their continued
support.


You have just jumped into the deep end, Dave. Get help.

Your refusal to see the truth for what it is, beyond the blinders that
your left coast education have taught you does not negate it for those
of us who aren't so blind.

Democrats have historically tried to play the race card, the class
card, and the gender card when it suits them as a level to achieve
their political goals. If it suits them to accuse republicans of being
racist (Even though it was southern democrats who most opposed the
civil rights bill) they do it. If it suits them (and it seemed to have
worked on you) to demonize the wealthy and successful in this country
as somehow not worthy of the fruits of their labors, and somehow
responsible for the predicament that the poor are in (The flawed
concept that someone cannot be rich, without another person having to
become poor), they will do it. Conservatives who oppose abortion on
the very moral reason that it is killing, are branded as opposing a
woman's right to choose. Yet those same democrats who champion a
woman's right to choose an abortion hypocritically oppose the death
penalty for convicted killers and rapists. These same democrats who
hypocritically champion choice, sit in opposition to the 2nd
amendment's right to bear arms, or a family's right to choose which
public funded school to send their kids to.


Democrats are popular with those who take.
Republicans are popular with those who MAKE.


And you are popular with those who make repetitive moaning sounds
while banging their heads against a padded wall. Seriously, Dave, get
some perspective.

Frank, as is typical with you, when you can't argue the points, you
resort to insult. The one who needs perspective is you. You think that
government should replace God as the savior of your soul and the great
protector of the people (But at the same time oppose their efforts to
better clamp down on domestic terror). You favor safety net dependency
rather than pushing for financial independence and personal
responsibility. You want to keep the government training wheels on
every citizen's bikes, thereby never fully allowing them to truly
achieve anything. For if and when they start to, you also want the
government to increasingly tax them. That's why socialism is a failed
ideology. Socialism promotes mediocrity, by removing incentives to
better one self. If everyone is treated equally, there is little
incentive to advance, as the rewards are greatly diminished.

Frank, you need to get away from the left coast and see how real
people live, and stay away from the "Starbucks liberals"


Any liberal who supports subsidizing any and all social programs,
starting with Welfare, and ending with Medicare. This programs are
part and parcel of a "Welfare State".


A certain amount of socialism is going to be part of the system
-regardless- of who runs the country.

No, it doesn't have to be. I suppose you've heard the saying: "Give a
person a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a person to fish and
they'll eat for a lifetime"? That's one of the major differences in
ideological philosophies between conservatives and liberals. Liberals
just want to throw money at every problem and hope that it goes away.
Conservatives want to teach people to be self sufficient and to learn
to stop thinking of themselves as victims.


So -that's- why we invaded Iraq!

Partly. We eventually want the Iraqi people to become totally self
sufficient, and self governing, and no longer under the thumb of a
despotic dictator.


The reason is simple: poor
people vote. So would you support a Constitutional Amendment that
would guarantee every citizen the right to vote?

Sure, why not? Most poor people would rather earn their own keep, if
given that chance.


Really? Then why have you been saying for months that poor people just
want to kick back and leech from others through welfare checks, food
stamps and other social handouts?

Some poor people do. They've known little else. They were born into
welfare families, so that's what they've been indoctrinated into
thinking is their "career" path.

But the "working poor" truly want to be productive, and will put in a
hard days work. But for whatever reason they chose not to pick a
career path that would return a greater financial reward for those
hours worked.

The ONE social program that I favor is universal education or
vocational training. Provide the tools to everyone so that they can
pull themselves up from their boot straps, and get a "real" job. That
way, anyone who's still flipping burgers or sweeping streets is doing
so by their own actions (or more accurately inactions). Ambitious
people can do it already, but universal education will remove all
remaining excuses for failure.


You are clearly in a state of meltdown.

I could see how your rose colored glasses would show me in that light.
But trust me, it's an illusion that 's strictly in your mind only.

Let's put it this way: For the past few decades the Republicans have
been campaigning on the pretext that they are for smaller government,
yet in -every- Republican-dominated administration the government has
increased in both size and spending.

Proof please. Start in 1995 with Newt Gingrich's brilliantly executed
"Contract with America" and how, for the first time in many years, a
republican led majority in congress, slashed pork, wasteful spending,
and government programs which resulted in the balanced budget that
"Slick willie" Clinton tried to take credit for, and laid the
foundation for the tax cuts that Bush gave back to every taxpayer.


In case you didn't notice, Newt was the lone Republican proponent of a
balanced budget amendment, which is why he was publically trounced and
bounced from Congress.

You need to get your history in order. Newt was "bounced" from
congress after a democratic led smear campaign over an alleged ethics
issue. In fact, it's pretty much common speculation that this event is
what prompted a retaliation against Clinton, with the Monica Lewinsky
scandal.


If you go back and look at the votes, most of
the Republicans voted -against- the balanced budget during the Clinton
years.

Yea, Clinton's budget. But they backed their own version, which
included better cuts.


The Democrats forced a few Reps to fold on the balanced budget
in exchange for a little district money because Clinton, unlike Bush,
wasn't afraid to veto a budget bill with higher deficit ceilings and
packed with Republican pork-barrel spending. And if the Reps -really-
wanted a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution it would have
passed with almost a unanimous vote because the Dems have been pushing
for it for years.

That's a load of crap Frank! Democrats love to spend. In fact, when
the budget surplus was finally realized, the first thing congressional
democrats wanted to do, was create more social programs. Clinton,
always the smooth and savvy strategist, suggested using the surplus to
pay down the debt and bail out social security. His message resonated
with the American people, and the democrats in congress were forced to
back away from their initial spending ideas.

Republicans favor increased spending on military and defense. In most
other areas, republicans favor cuts.


But it didn't even get to the floor. So quit with
the spin and stick to the facts, Dave.

As opposed to your relentless left wing spin? You "facts" are just
plain wrong Frank.


You've got the cycle right, but for the wrong reasons. Democrats,
enact social programs which cost money. They therefore have to raise
taxes to pay for them.


So that's why Medicaid spending grew 13.2 percent in 2002, the
steepest rate of growth since 1992? Because Democrats were at the
helm? I really think you got your facts backwards, Dave.

That's one of the things that I am very much disgusted with Bush on,
and that's the expansion of the medicare prescription program. That's
going to cost an arm and a leg, and illustrates why sensible people do
not want the government involved in paying for healthcare.

I believe that Bush did it simply to remove it as a platform item for
democrats. A strictly political move. A bad one IMHO.


Democrats (-and- Bush Sr) had to raise taxes in order to pay for
Republican spending sprees -- that's a FACT!

It's a fact that the democratically controlled congress raised taxes.
Bush Sr. was coerced into signing it, under threat on not having any
of his bills passed through.


Reagan spent jillions on
the military and ran the deficit higher than it had ever been before,
even during wartime.

And the economy recovered from "Stagflation" and when it rebounded
the deficit recovered.

There is no evil in deficit spending, when you understand how it
works. But it seems like you don't.


Daddy Bush lost re-election because he got stuck
with the bill.

Yes, plus the involvement of Ross Perot, syphoned away many would-be
republican votes.


Although Clinton was a crappy leader, he had some
decent economic advisors that bailed out the country.

Clinton was a very skilled and savvy leader. He knew how to manipulate
people to get what he wanted. He was also a skilled orator, and could
make his case to the American people like no other since Reagan. But
Clinton know that (After 1994) that he would have a fight in congress,
so he coopted many republican ideals. Things like welfare reform, and
trimming government spending were all republican initiatives. Clinton
successfully co-opted them and managed to take the credit for them



And now Baby
Bush has pushed the budget back into the infra-red.

And like the Reagan years, when the economy fully recovers, the
deficit will shrink (again!).


Yet you think
Democrats raise taxes just to pay for social programs?

That's pretty much their standard modus operandi. Look into a little
history. Preferably history that was written before the liberals
started trying to rewrite it. Books published before the 1970's should
be safe.


You are TOTALLY
CLUELESS, Dave! For God's sake, get an education!

All you accomplish Frank is to illustrate just how obviously biased
you truly are.

High taxes **** off a lot of people, so they
vote the democrats out and the republicans in. The republicans slash
and burn the democrats programs, give people tax relief,


"Read my lips...."

No new taxes. Unless of course the democratically controlled congress,
forces me into a no-win situation......


and cut the budget.


HA! What a load of horse-hooey! So what year did the Republicans cut
the budget, Dave?.... aw, the heck with it. You want proof? Here you
go:


Reagan/Bush:
The Federal deficit jumped from $73.1B in 1980 to $237.9B in 1986. The
Federal debt jumped from $711.9B to $1,740.6B in that same time frame.
By the time he left office the Federal debt was $2,051.6B. By the time
Daddy Bush left office it was $2,999.7B and the deficit had risen to
$340.4B. Just a quick summary:

1980.....Deficit = $73.1B.....Debt = $711.9B
1992.....Deficit = $340.4B.....Debt = $2999.7B
----------------------------------------------
Change...Deficit ^ $267.3B.....Debt ^ $2287.8B

Both increased more that 400%!!!

The national debt is separate from the government budget. Don't tell
me you are one of those people who think that the budget surplus that
we had in 2000 also meant that the national debt was also erased?


Clinton:
By 2000, and for the first time in over 50 years, there had been a
budget SURPLUS for not just one but TWO YEARS. Clinton left office
with a SURPLUS of $86.3B, and was in the process of reducing the
Federal debt. He had also halted the increases in discretionary
spending, one of the hallmarks of the Republican party.

Bush had to deal with a democratically controlled congress. Clinton
had to deal with a republican controlled congress. Which ultimately
has more power in passing spending budgets?

Bush Jr:
Since Baby Bush took office (as of the end of 2004), discretionary
spending has almost doubled, program spending has increased by almost
half, the surplus went bye-bye and was replaced with a deficit of
$567.4B (an increase of more than -twice- the deficit at the end of
the Reagan/Bush years) and the debt had increased to an all-time high
of..... are you ready for this?..... $4,295.5B!!! Just the INTEREST on
the debt is $160.2B.

And when the value of the dollar increases, and the economy turns
around, that number will shrink almost like magic.


Is that enough proof for you?

What proof? I saw no reference source given.


Do you still think the Republicans are
cutting the budget like they claim? Or are you going to wallow in your
ignorance and try to spin the cold, hard facts?

Right now no. There's a war to fight and that typically costs a lot of
money. But they are cutting funding to other programs.


Then people start to bitch that they want this program and
that program, and accuse the republican administration of being
"insensitive" to the needs of these whiny special interest groups, and
they vote in a slick talking democrat who will promise them the moon,
but neglect to inform them of what it will all cost. Then the cycle
repeats.

This administration has been the lone exception. Spending has been
ridiculous for a republican administration. But remember, we were
recovering from a recession which started with the stock market crash
at the end of Clinton's term. We also had 9/11, and we're fighting two
wars. Those are not normal circumstances.


The circumstances are -never- normal, Dave -- except that people like
you will always come up with excuses and spins and lies to defend your
profound ignorance.

You mean in the way you have been all this time?


It's like none of them ever learned basic fiscal responsibility: when
you get a little extra cash it's much wiser to use it to pay down the
credit cards, put back what you pilfered from the SS trust fund, and
save a little for a rainy day. Nope, the Reps just end up throwing the
money around like they were eccentric tycoons and it was -their- money
to spend. And when that money is all gone they just max out the credit
cards -- again. What they say and what they do are two very different
things. That is what I call 'irresponsible'.

You've just described historically typical democratic spending
policies. How come it only bothers you now when it's a republican at
the helm?

Can you say "Partisan"? Sure you can.....


Can you read the Federal Register? Congressional voting records?
Budget resolutions? Domestic economic policy statements? Federal
Reserve economic analyses? The Wall Street Journal? The National
Enquirer? Anything in a library? I doubt it.....

Sure I can (and have), and the facts support my claims.


You need to pull your head out of the sand. I used to think that way
too, that everyone has the ability to take charge of their own future,
to better themselves with education, to work hard and make something
of themselves.

You were right then. What happened?

Then I got a look at the -real- world.

No, you were indoctrinated by a whiney left coast liberal.

It just doesn't work that way, Dave.

Yes, yes it does. There is absolutely no reason why a person with
marketable skills cannot obtain a gainfully paying job. No one said
the path will be easy or the same for every person. But there is a
path. You just have to be willing to take it, and stay the course.


When are your parents ever going to kick you out of their trailer,
garage, basement, or whatever emotionally secure little fortress of
social isolation you have built around yourself?

Ah, more ad-hominem (Another logical fallacy by the way), attacks in
lieu of countering the points (Which you can't).


Isn't it about time
you light a fire, haul your fat ass out that chair and into the -real-
world so you can actually learn something about it instead of making
wild speculations, adopting internet fantasies, and making up excuses
why you can't experience it firsthand?

I think you spent way too much time in that back room minding that
radio transmitter and getting exposed to high levels of RF radiation.
I am not the one who lives in a fantasy Frank, you are. Travel
somewhere east of the rockies and live with real people (Preferably
not in a major city) for a while and see what is really going on.


You claim to live in the real world yet you know
nothing about it.

According to you, a self professed "child prodigy" in college, master
of electrical engineering, logic, psychology and economics, who
curiously works as a bartender in one of the most liberal areas in the
country.


And I'm not going to explain this aspect of it to
you.

Because you can't. You have no life experiences save for your
reluctant service in the military. You have had no serious
relationships, prefer to be a loner, and consider people with a
healthy family life to be some sort of psychologically defective
"co-dependant" relationship. You have renounced God, accept the
existentialism concept of "This is all there is", and are pretty much
ready to just cash in the chips. I'd say you need some therapy Frank.



You have to go find out the facts for yourself -- assuming you
want to continue to claim that you are in touch with reality.

I live, interact, and more importantly, work in a field that is very
much in touch with the needs and wants of the consumer. THAT is
reality Frank. You probably don't know it, but you likely have
something in your house (or shack) that I had a part in the
development of.

Frank, I live in the real world,

No you don't. You don't have any idea what happens in the real world,
just like you don't have any idea what is taught in college, or how
economics works, or how the government works, or any of the other
dozen or so claims you have proven are nothing but lies.

Because YOU disagree with me? YOU who thinks that the 1st amendment
of the Constitution calls for the separation of church and state in
all government dealings. Even though in no place do those words ever
appear.


You may get
to the store if you take an extra dose of Paxil, and you might have a
driver's license, but your mind is existing in it's own little fantasy
land devoid of facts or social interaction. That's why you can't break
away from your codependent relationship with your mommy -- life is
just too hard for you to make it on your own, isn't it? Poor baby.
It's sure a good thing that your neocon brothers are there to change
your diaper and powder your bottom, ready to hand you a pacifier every
time some liberal gets you all upset. Just like a Baby Bush clone.

As you continue to sling insults to cover the fact that you have
nothing but you own bias to counter any of my points. You've lost and
you are lost Frank. Get over it and move on.



Well, take a nap, Baby Bush clone, because it's time for me -- the
big, ugly ex-Marine who risked his life and gave up four years of it

So you could earn the money to go to a second rate engineering
school.


just so you could be coddled in adulthood by your mommy, the engineer
who is educated at a level that you think you can fake with info from
the internet,

And earn a handsome paycheck from an employer who is much more
demanding and harder to fool than you are....


the liberally-slanted conservative that worked for
several years at a radio station which broadcasts nothing but the
news,

In a part of the country known to be one of the most liberal.


the bartender whose job demands a diversified understanding of
social, ethnic and cultural issues,

Yea, I guess you have to know how to say "That'll be $3.50" in
Spanish..... Or "Would you like Chips with that"?

the guy who has never drawn a
single dollar of unemployment benefits or a welfare check (assuming
such benefits were available to an able-bodied male such as myself,
which they aren't, or hadn't you ever thought of that?)

Are you suggesting that Welfare is only available to "certain" people?



, the newsgroup
junkie who has pretty much destroyed your academic credibility

In your own mind. But a true intellectual, of any prominence, or
status, would have just ignored the rantings of someone who they felt
inferior. But you just keep coming back. Like a moth to the flame. You
have something to prove, a battle to win. And you know what? You still
do.



for you
and your posterity -- to go earn a living.

Say Hi to Cliff and Norm for me.....

Maybe some day you can earn
a living, too.

Yea, I just love that money tree I planted in the back yard. But don't
tell my neighbors.....

My closing word for you to mull over:

pa·thet·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-thtk) also pa·thet·i·cal
(--kl)
adj.
1. Arousing or capable of arousing sympathetic sadness and compassion:
“The old, rather shabby room struck her as extraordinarily pathetic”
(John Galsworthy).

2. Arousing or capable of arousing scornful pity.


You seem to fit number 2 quite well......

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home/ptd.net/~n3cvj

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 11:34:06 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
If your circumstances dictate that you will not

be able to earn a college degree for 10 years

of night school, while working at Wal-Mart,

then many people with little patience quit and

then vote for a democrat who will give them

food stamps. Those who stick it out, will

eventually receive the rewards for their efforts.
Nice theory, but you can't swing that excuse in the real world.

Sure you can. You only have to want it bad

enough.

For
example, take the layoffs GM just announced. Many are single parents
with school age children who can not go back to school AND support a
family.

Why are they single parents in the first place?


Such has nothing to do with the layoffs, but death is one reason why
many are single parents.
What should they do, Dave? They lost their well paying jobs and medical
insurance for themselves and their children.

Job retraining is usually available for people

displaced by layoffs.


In Detroit for GM workers? Who pays for that?
You need to realize many can't move away for myriad of reasons, such as
caring for an infirm parent nearby in a care facility for but a single
example.

Most people have large extended families.



Most? How you figure that?

I know the concept of family has become

somewhat foreign with today's younger

generation. No one branch of a family should

be made to bear the burden of such hardships
themselves.



You are assuiming all families share your core beliefs. They do not.
This country is a melting pot of so many value systems and beliefs that
you will never have families all sharing the same.


People lean on the internal support of the

family for temporary hardships.


We're not talking emotional or physical, we are talking financial.


A strong family negates the need for the

government to stick its nose into it (At other

people's expense).


I know many strong family units who would die for each other. That
doesn't mean one has the financial means to provide a solution for
another's misfortunes, especially when catastrophic health issues arise.
More
children are now caring for parents than in any other time in our
history. Many have taken out home equity loans to pay for health care
and prescription coverage that they lost through no fault of their own.

Yes, and those who are ambitious will pay it

all back when they adjust to their situation and
find a new vocation.


Many are disabled or seniors and can't work. MANY. Surely you aren't
presenting the idea that all those without health care can simply
"adjust". You are assuming these people can all work when a great number
of them, esecially in Florida are seniors with a host of health
problems. What is your solution to this very large group?
There is an entire contingency in many demographical areas of the US in
which many are trapped in a sort of financial snare.

Well, if you live in a town where 80% of the

people work at "the factory" and that factory

closes up, well yea the town's in a real pickle.


All towns have a major employer.

That's why an intelligent person looks to live in
an area where alternate employment id

plentiful, and diverse commerce is well

established.



You are focusing on a select group of healthy individuals. The number of
those without health care (seniors included) far outnumber those healthy
workers who get laid off.

That way, no one layoff can cripple a

significant portion of the population.


Depends what you consider a significant portion of the population. I can
think of several examples..Reagan importing cheaper metals from the
Asians decimated the steel industry in Pa and Ohio. In many of those
industry towns, this led to the closing of the mills and a significant
layoff of those town's populations and many of those towns became
ghettos or ghost towns because of that. Same can be said with coal
mining and to a certain extent, the auto industry. History repeats
itself.


That's one of the reasons why I still live where

I do. I was once contemplating a move to both
Florida and North Carolina. But the lack of

.diverse skilled jobs and much lower pay

scales pretty much nixed that move.
=A0


Lack of diverse skilled jobs? When was the last time you checked the
stats? Florida has led the country in adding new jobs and has not felt
the inflation the country has felt the last so many years. The pay here
was always offset by the lower cost of living. The only people that have
trouble adjusting are those who live beyond their means.

_
=A0People like you
usually get what is coming in the end

Yes, we tend to survive, because we don't

look to other people to blame, or to the

government for help.


What about this job retraining you speak of? Who pays for it?

That's what self sufficiency and personal

responsibility are all about.


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. Many of the major
insurance companies are STILL unable to pay for their customer's claims.
If it wasn't for the government assistance (what you always refer to as
"handouts") with food, water, shelter, etc., these folks would be on the
welfare tit. 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.You really have no clue the
magnitude of damage these storms had on many people in Florida. There
are so many hardworking people that are struggling just to feed their
kids, living in tents, and waiting for the federal government to crack
down on the insurance companies and make them ante up. To suggest these
fine families are anything less than responsible or self-sufficient
shows you haven't a clue, Dave. On the contrary, I will lay odds these
folks are illustrating survival skills and grit that you couldn't
handle. Many of these folks have been living out of doors, literally,
for almost a year and cooking on fires or grills. Try this for a year,
Dave, then you -may- be qualified to speak of what these people should
and shouldn't do.

_
and karma, luck, divine
intervention, whatever, will dictate you end up just like those you
blame for being poor, black, queer, liberal, etc. In fact, your daughter
may quit school, commonly become pregnant to an African-American or
three, have many children and volunteer at the ACLU before realizing she
is a lesbian and needs a job to pay the attorney for the crack and
prostitution charges.

Not likely because she will have grown up in a
solid supportive family that helps each other

and promotes open communications and a

.strong work ethic with solid morals.


What the hell does that have to do with having children to another race?
You can tell you are about to tread in unfamiliar parenting territory.
Just you wait. Mistakenly believing that strong morals and all that good
stuff aimed at raising your child will prevent her from making her
mistakes is the mistake many people make. In fact, many of us who have
raised children to adults know better than to believe such tripe, as we
were there long before you, Dave. If what you say were true, drug
addicts and prostitutes and the like would come from only families that
were broken and had no communications, strong work ethic or solid
morals. Addiction has no cultural, socioeconomic boundaries.



And I have taken enough steps to ensure that

she will not have to bear the financial burden

of taking care of me when I'm old and infirm.

I'm only 45,

and if I lost my job tomorrow, I'd be able to live
comfortably for 4 years without another job,

and before I have to worry. If I take a job at

half the pay, that number doubles. If the wife

also goes back to work, that number

increases. If I liquidate some assets, that

.number increases even more. Before you

know it, I'll be at retirement age, and my

.pensions will kick in, not to mention my 401K.
Have you planned for financial hardship?


I can provide food, water, and the basic necessities. Believe it or not,
there are many in Florida, more in the rural areas, who rely on no cash
at all, and it's always been that way. Self-sustainment has always been
a large part of the original Floridians and their families. They have
survived Indians, draughts, plagues (such as citrus canker that
decimates entire industries and family enterprises) hurricanes on a
regular basis..on it goes. Florida has never been the cushy place your
ads in between Homer Simpson and reality shows depict. Miami and Disney
have always presented an unrealistic portrait of Florida. It is still a
very much undeveloped state,,,except on the coastal regions. There are
state roads that traverse through the state east and west that have
nothing in between the coasts except for a few small unremarkable towns
with populations in the double digits.


What's your excuse not to?


I can always sell my home and move north (or inland) and buy incredible
acreage and 4 or 5 times the home I have here and still have enough left
over to live fairly well. Our home values increased over 70% in the last
ten years in some areas. Taxes when I bought my original home here were
less than 300 bucks a year. Now they are over 3G. Houseboats are another
option for those of us who tame the sea. Of course, I can always throw a
trailer or mobile home near JerryO's place after selling my home and
never have to worry about money again.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:08:32 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:


For
example, take the layoffs GM just announced. Many are single parents
with school age children who can not go back to school AND support a
family.

Why are they single parents in the first place?


Such has nothing to do with the layoffs, but death is one reason why
many are single parents.

Yes, but it's a small minority.

What should they do, Dave? They lost their well paying jobs and medical
insurance for themselves and their children.

Job retraining is usually available for people
displaced by layoffs.


In Detroit for GM workers? Who pays for that?

We do. But in this case, it's money well spent. I tend to think of it
as an investment. An investment in humanity. Teaching a person a new
skill is far better than just paying welfare.

You need to realize many can't move away for myriad of reasons, such as
caring for an infirm parent nearby in a care facility for but a single
example.

Most people have large extended families.

Most? How you figure that?

Uh, probably because of genetics and reproduction.


I know the concept of family has become
somewhat foreign with today's younger
generation. No one branch of a family should
be made to bear the burden of such hardships
themselves.



You are assuiming all families share your core beliefs. They do not.

No, you are right. Many don't. But that's part of the problem.
Families used to take care of each other. There was no need for the
government.


This country is a melting pot of so many value systems and beliefs that
you will never have families all sharing the same.

Especially when you start emphasizing diversity instead of encouraging
assimilation into the melting pot of American culture.


People lean on the internal support of the
family for temporary hardships.


We're not talking emotional or physical, we are talking financial.

So am I. Most families can assume some hardship (such as elderly
member care). The care of an elderly family member should not have to
fall squarely on the shoulders of one (or two) people.



A strong family negates the need for the
government to stick its nose into it (At other
people's expense).


I know many strong family units who would die for each other.

Yes! And that's how it should be.

That
doesn't mean one has the financial means to provide a solution for
another's misfortunes, especially when catastrophic health issues arise.

But a strong large family has more resources than a single person.


More
children are now caring for parents than in any other time in our
history. Many have taken out home equity loans to pay for health care
and prescription coverage that they lost through no fault of their own.

Yes, and those who are ambitious will pay it
all back when they adjust to their situation and
find a new vocation.


Many are disabled or seniors and can't work. MANY.

There is a big difference between those who can't work, and those who
chose not to, or who are underemployed due to lack of motivation.


Surely you aren't
presenting the idea that all those without health care can simply
"adjust". You are assuming these people can all work when a great number
of them, esecially in Florida are seniors with a host of health
problems.

What did these people do 50 years ago, when health insurance was still
in its infancy and few people had it?


What is your solution to this very large group?
There is an entire contingency in many demographical areas of the US in
which many are trapped in a sort of financial snare.

Subsidizing health care costs is what put us in this mess to begin
with. Private insurance subsidies have enabled the healthcare field to
sharply increase costs. If the government got involved, it would only
get worse. Unless, there were mandatory caps put on the costs


Well, if you live in a town where 80% of the
people work at "the factory" and that factory
closes up, well yea the town's in a real pickle.


All towns have a major employer.

That's wrong. Had you said "many" or a "good deal", I would have to
reluctantly agree with you. But the area where I live has no "one"
major employer. There is a collection of many smaller professional and
technology businesses. The same is true in many areas of California,
and Texas.

Years ago, when the textile mills ran, the steel mills flourished, and
other large factories dotted the landscape, there might have been a
bigger impact. But most of those factories have been closed now for
over 20 years, and have been replaced by smaller, denser high tech
industries.


That's why an intelligent person looks to live in
an area where alternate employment id
plentiful, and diverse commerce is well
established.



You are focusing on a select group of healthy individuals.

Which makes up the greatest majority of the workforce. That is what I
was talking about initially.

The number of
those without health care (seniors included) far outnumber those healthy
workers who get laid off.

Most companies who employ skilled workers, have some form of
healthcare coverage as part of their benefits package. I've never had
a job without it. Resumption of healthcare coverage is tied to the
laid-off worker's need to find another job.



That way, no one layoff can cripple a
significant portion of the population.


Depends what you consider a significant portion of the population. I can
think of several examples..Reagan importing cheaper metals from the
Asians decimated the steel industry in Pa and Ohio.

I live within an easy drive of 4 different steel plants. The towns
that surrounded them were dependant on those mills for the majority of
their income. But 20 years later and things have pretty much
recovered. People can get pretty creative when they need to be.



In many of those
industry towns, this led to the closing of the mills and a significant
layoff of those town's populations and many of those towns became
ghettos or ghost towns because of that.

Not in my area. The towns (Allentown, Phoenixville, Fairless Hills,
and Conshohocken) are still going strong, although the people who live
there are forced to commute to work now. The towns are going through a
revitalization, where the old factories have been leveled and in their
place have sprung up huge business campuses.



Same can be said with coal
mining and to a certain extent, the auto industry. History repeats
itself.

Yes, as we continue to become more efficient at manufacture, the
nature of jobs have evolved along with it. The automobile pretty much
ended the demand for blacksmiths. But we shouldn't blame the
automobile for causing the demise of the blacksmith industry. The
smart blacksmith went back to school and learned to repair cars.


That's one of the reasons why I still live where
I do. I was once contemplating a move to both
Florida and North Carolina. But the lack of
.diverse skilled jobs and much lower pay
scales pretty much nixed that move.

Lack of diverse skilled jobs?

Excuse me, I should have said diverse high paying skilled jobs.


When was the last time you checked the
stats? Florida has led the country in adding new jobs and has not felt
the inflation the country has felt the last so many years. The pay here
was always offset by the lower cost of living.

That's a myth. Yes, there are certain costs which are lower in
Florida. The homestead exemption saves a bundle on property tax. Homes
are (were) cheaper. There is no state tax, and utilities are somewhat
lower. Yes, many costs ARE lower to an extent. But if you try to buy
something like a car, gasoline, or a major appliance or consumer good,
the cost is pretty mush the same as it is in any other state. And at
30-40% less of a salary, for the same job, that limits one's 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.

_
*People like you
usually get what is coming in the end
Yes, we tend to survive, because we don't
look to other people to blame, or to the
government for help.

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.


That's what self sufficiency and personal
responsibility are all about.


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 of the major
insurance companies are STILL unable to pay for their customer's claims.

And my insurance premiums have increased as a result. Yet the company
swears that it has nothing to do with the large payouts they had to
make to cover those claims. Somehow I don't believe them.....


If it wasn't for the government assistance (what you always refer to as
"handouts") with food, water, shelter, etc., these folks would be on the
welfare tit.

What's the difference? A handout is a handout, unless you are expected
to pay it back. Government assistance or welfare? Comes from the same
place. But again, I have no problem if it's temporary only.



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.
And they should be made to repay the government for any "handouts" it
had to pay to house people until the insurance companies settled. Call
it an "incentive" clause.



You really have no clue the
magnitude of damage these storms had on many people in Florida.

I saw some of it when I was there last fall.


There
are so many hardworking people that are struggling just to feed their
kids, living in tents, and waiting for the federal government to crack
down on the insurance companies and make them ante up.

Which they should.

To suggest these
fine families are anything less than responsible or self-sufficient
shows you haven't a clue, Dave.

I never said anything of the sort. I'm not talking about temporarily
displaced people. I'm talking about perpetual slackers.


On the contrary, I will lay odds these
folks are illustrating survival skills and grit that you couldn't
handle.

Based on what?



Many of these folks have been living out of doors, literally,
for almost a year and cooking on fires or grills.

I do that for fun.


Try this for a year,
Dave, then you -may- be qualified to speak of what these people should
and shouldn't do.

_
and karma, luck, divine
intervention, whatever, will dictate you end up just like those you
blame for being poor, black, queer, liberal, etc. In fact, your daughter
may quit school, commonly become pregnant to an African-American or
three, have many children and volunteer at the ACLU before realizing she
is a lesbian and needs a job to pay the attorney for the crack and
prostitution charges.

Not likely because she will have grown up in a
solid supportive family that helps each other
and promotes open communications and a
.strong work ethic with solid morals.


What the hell does that have to do with having children to another race?

Nothing. If she wants to marry a black guy, I'm cool with it. As long
as they love each other.


You can tell you are about to tread in unfamiliar parenting territory.
Just you wait. Mistakenly believing that strong morals and all that good
stuff aimed at raising your child will prevent her from making her
mistakes is the mistake many people make. In fact, many of us who have
raised children to adults know better than to believe such tripe, as we
were there long before you, Dave. If what you say were true, drug
addicts and prostitutes and the like would come from only families that
were broken and had no communications, strong work ethic or solid
morals. Addiction has no cultural, socioeconomic boundaries.

Yes it does to a certain degree. Kids rebel and turn to things like
drugs because they need an outlet for their energy, or they are
craving attention. Provide them with many sorts of creative avenues to
release, and there will be no need to turn to destructive behavior. 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. 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. 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. 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!

I know how my parents raised me. I know from a child's perspective
which disciplines worked, and which ones didn't. I use what I learned
to my advantage as a parent.


And I have taken enough steps to ensure that
she will not have to bear the financial burden
of taking care of me when I'm old and infirm.
I'm only 45,
and if I lost my job tomorrow, I'd be able to live
comfortably for 4 years without another job,
and before I have to worry. If I take a job at
half the pay, that number doubles. If the wife
also goes back to work, that number
increases. If I liquidate some assets, that
.number increases even more. Before you
know it, I'll be at retirement age, and my
.pensions will kick in, not to mention my 401K.
Have you planned for financial hardship?


I can provide food, water, and the basic necessities.

Hell, I could retire right now, if that's all I needed to do.



Believe it or not,
there are many in Florida, more in the rural areas, who rely on no cash
at all, and it's always been that way.

Talk about self sufficiency! In this area, that just isn't very
practical. Unless, of course, you're Amish.


Self-sustainment has always been
a large part of the original Floridians and their families.

Like that guy in the swamps of Tampa that was just forced, by eminent
domain, off his land to the tune of 5 mil?


They have
survived Indians, draughts, plagues (such as citrus canker that
decimates entire industries and family enterprises) hurricanes on a
regular basis..on it goes. Florida has never been the cushy place your
ads in between Homer Simpson and reality shows depict. Miami and Disney
have always presented an unrealistic portrait of Florida. It is still a
very much undeveloped state,

That's because much of it is swamp. There's an on-going battle between
rabid developers who want to drain the swamps, and the ecologists who
want to preserve the natural ecosystem


,,except on the coastal regions. There are
state roads that traverse through the state east and west that have
nothing in between the coasts except for a few small unremarkable towns
with populations in the double digits.

Sounds like the Pine Barrens in New Jersey......

What's your excuse not to?

I can always sell my home and move north (or inland) and buy incredible
acreage and 4 or 5 times the home I have here and still have enough left
over to live fairly well.

I could do the same. For the price that my home can get in today's
market, I could move to an unremarkable (READ: not in demand) area and
by a similar place for a fraction of the cost. But there's no place
to work at a livable wage. But when I retire, that's probably what I
will do.


Our home values increased over 70% in the last
ten years in some areas.

My home appreciated about 70% in the 5 years that I've lived here.
It's unreal, and it won't last. I pity the people who are buying into
the market now with a 10% down payment and will likely find themselves
upside down when the bottom finally falls out of the market.


Taxes when I bought my original home here were
less than 300 bucks a year.

I'd die for that rate. Right now, I'm approaching $5500

Now they are over 3G.

Even 3G would be better than what I'm paying now.

Houseboats are another option for those of us who tame the sea.

I once toyed with the idea of living on a boat. But I have far too
much junk to make it practical. Especially with family considerations.
If I was a loner, I could live in boat or a trailer and I'd be just
fine.


Of course, I can always throw a
trailer or mobile home near JerryO's place after selling my home and
never have to worry about money again.

At least you'd have a drinking buddy ;-)

Dave
"Sandbagger"

No one has figured out the "inflation game." You can never quit
working... soon as you do, you start losing...

The game is to promise security, then when those you have promised
security to can no longer work (retire), you take the money from them
and give it to the new ones...

.... used to be called, "The carrot in front of the horse." Amazing how
few catch on till it is too late...

Warmest regards,
John

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 11:34:06 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
If your circumstances dictate that you will not

be able to earn a college degree for 10 years

of night school, while working at Wal-Mart,

then many people with little patience quit and

then vote for a democrat who will give them

food stamps. Those who stick it out, will

eventually receive the rewards for their efforts.

Nice theory, but you can't swing that excuse in the real world.

Sure you can. You only have to want it bad enough.

For
example, take the layoffs GM just announced. Many are single parents
with school age children who can not go back to school AND support a
family.

Why are they single parents in the first place?


What should they do, Dave? They lost their well paying jobs and
medical insurance for themselves and their children.

Job retraining is usually available for people displaced by layoffs.

If you were well
educated in the world beyond eastern Pa., you would know what the
employment scene is like in Detroit. You claim one can simply move
away,
but that is based on your own lack of education and not able to
realize
many can't move away for a myriad of reasons, such as caring for an
infirm parent nearby in a care facility for but a single example.

Most people have large extended families. I know the concept of family
has become somewhat foreign with today's younger generation. No one
branch of a family should be made to bear the burden of such hardships
themselves. People lean on the internal support of the family for
temporary hardships. A strong family negates the need for the
government to stick its nose into it (At other people's expense).


More
children are now caring for parents than in any other time in our
history. Many have taken out home equity loans to pay for health care
and prescription coverage that they lost through no fault of their
own.

Yes, and those who are ambitious will pay it all back when they adjust
to their situation and find a new vocation.


There is an entire contingency in many demographical areas of the US
in
which many are trapped in a sort of financial snare.

Well, if you live in a town where 80% of the people work at "the
factory" and that factory closes up, well yea the town's in a real
pickle. That's why an intelligent person looks to live in an area
where alternate employment id plentiful, and diverse commerce is well
established. That way, no one layoff can cripple a significant portion
of the population. That's one of the reasons why I still live where I
do. I was once contemplating a move to both Florida and North
Carolina. But the lack of diverse skilled jobs and much lower pay
scales pretty much nixed that move.


People like you
usually get what is coming in the end

Yes, we tend to survive, because we don't look to other people to
blame, or to the government for help. That's what self sufficiency and
personal responsibility are all about.

and karma, luck, divine
intervention, whatever, will dictate you end up just like those you
blame for being poor, black, queer, liberal, etc. In fact, your
daughter
may quit school, commonly become pregnant to an African-American or
three, have many children and volunteer at the ACLU before realizing
she
is a lesbian and needs a job to pay the attorney for the crack and
prostitution charges.

Not likely because she will have grown up in a solid supportive family
that helps each other and promotes open communications and a strong
work ethic with solid morals. And I have taken enough steps to ensure
that she will not have to bear the financial burden of taking care of
me when I'm old and infirm.

I'm only 45, and if I lost my job tomorrow, I'd be able to live
comfortably for 4 years without another job, and before I have to
worry. If I take a job at half the pay, that number doubles. If the
wife also goes back to work, that number increases. If I liquidate
some assets, that number increases even more. Before you know it, I'll
be at retirement age, and my pensions will kick in, not to mention my
401K.

Have you planned for financial hardship? What's your excuse not to?


Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:10:05 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
That fact does not negate that a great majority of final marriages
last.


Who said anything about "final" marriages? I didn't. Bad spin, Dave.


snip
You mean things like the right to vote?

Name me a state, anywhere in this country, where the right to vote is
lawfully denied to anyone.


There -is- no right to vote that can be denied, Dave. That's the
point.


snip
A few years without war?

With the exception of the current war, and the Gulf War, who was
president when the last several wars broke out, and which party where
they a part of?


No exceptions allowed, Dave. And maybe you forgot about Panama and
Grenada. If you count military expeditions then you have a whole
different ball of ear wax.


snip
In case you didn't notice, Newt was the lone Republican proponent of a
balanced budget amendment, which is why he was publically trounced and
bounced from Congress.

You need to get your history in order. Newt was "bounced" from
congress after a democratic led smear campaign over an alleged ethics
issue. In fact, it's pretty much common speculation that this event is
what prompted a retaliation against Clinton, with the Monica Lewinsky
scandal.


The Lewinsky scandal and resulting impeachment was the culmination of
several years (and millions of dollars) of 'investigation' into the
Whitewater mess by the Republican attack-dog Ken Starr.


If you go back and look at the votes, most of
the Republicans voted -against- the balanced budget during the Clinton
years.

Yea, Clinton's budget. But they backed their own version, which
included better cuts.


Gee, I never saw a copy of that bill. Is it online somewhere?


snip
It's a fact that the democratically controlled congress raised taxes.
Bush Sr. was coerced into signing it, under threat on not having any
of his bills passed through.


Coerced? LOL! Contrary to your warped spin, the president pretty much
controls the budget -regardless- of who has a majority in Congress
unless that majority can override a presidential veto, which hasn't
happened in decades. The historical trends of the budget follow the
leadership in the White House, not the Congress. Your insinuation that
Congress has more control over the budget than the president is
nothing but a slick way for Republicans to take credit for Democrat
achievements and blame the Democrats for Republican failures.


snip
Daddy Bush lost re-election because he got stuck
with the bill.

Yes, plus the involvement of Ross Perot, syphoned away many would-be
republican votes.


It's always someone else's fault, isn't it Dave?


snip
Is that enough proof for you?

What proof? I saw no reference source given.


What? You mean that after all the time you spend on the internet
looking for the "facts" you don't know where or how to find Federal
budget information? Do I have to do -everything- for you? Well, I
won't. You look it up for yourself since you are so adept at finding
out the "truth". And when you do, post the link -- the info there is
more damaging to your position than what little I pulled from it. But
I -will- give you a hint: the URL for the homepage ends with ".gov".


Do you still think the Republicans are
cutting the budget like they claim? Or are you going to wallow in your
ignorance and try to spin the cold, hard facts?

Right now no. There's a war to fight and that typically costs a lot of
money. But they are cutting funding to other programs.


During the Vietnam years the Federal debt increased by only $42.2B and
the deficit never exceeded $27.7B. In fact, at the height of the war
in 1969 it hit a low of $0.5B that wasn't bettered until Clinton
pulled a surplus out of his cigar box. That's data from the same
source as before. Find it. In fact, I -dare- you to find it!






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:01:02 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:10:05 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
That fact does not negate that a great majority of final marriages
last.


Who said anything about "final" marriages? I didn't. Bad spin, Dave.

The end result is all that matters.


snip
You mean things like the right to vote?

Name me a state, anywhere in this country, where the right to vote is
lawfully denied to anyone.


There -is- no right to vote that can be denied, Dave. That's the
point.

No, the point is that there is no institution anywhere in this country
that denies anyone the "ability" to vote. Despite your insinuation
that this happens and championing this as your main excuse for why
your side lost the last election.


snip
A few years without war?

With the exception of the current war, and the Gulf War, who was
president when the last several wars broke out, and which party where
they a part of?


No exceptions allowed, Dave.

There were still more wars headed by democratic presidents than
republican ones.

And maybe you forgot about Panama and
Grenada.

Or the flubbed rescues attempt in Iran?

The Balkans? Kosovo?

None of which were "wars" in the truest sense.


If you count military expeditions then you have a whole
different ball of ear wax.

But we're not.


snip
In case you didn't notice, Newt was the lone Republican proponent of a
balanced budget amendment, which is why he was publically trounced and
bounced from Congress.

You need to get your history in order. Newt was "bounced" from
congress after a democratic led smear campaign over an alleged ethics
issue. In fact, it's pretty much common speculation that this event is
what prompted a retaliation against Clinton, with the Monica Lewinsky
scandal.


The Lewinsky scandal and resulting impeachment was the culmination of
several years (and millions of dollars) of 'investigation' into the
Whitewater mess by the Republican attack-dog Ken Starr.

But many of your loonie left conspiracy buddies believe that the
Lewinsky scandal was a republican "payback" for what happened to
Newt.

If you go back and look at the votes, most of
the Republicans voted -against- the balanced budget during the Clinton
years.

Yea, Clinton's budget. But they backed their own version, which
included better cuts.


Gee, I never saw a copy of that bill. Is it online somewhere?

Sure, if you look for it.


snip
It's a fact that the democratically controlled congress raised taxes.
Bush Sr. was coerced into signing it, under threat on not having any
of his bills passed through.


Coerced? LOL! Contrary to your warped spin, the president pretty much
controls the budget -regardless- of who has a majority in Congress
unless that majority can override a presidential veto, which hasn't
happened in decades.

No, it's not that easy or clear cut. The president can propose all
sorts of bills, but if the congress shoots them down, they never see
the light of day. Similarly, the congress can approve a bill and the
president can veto it, and it normally dies there. The point is that
in order to move past this partisan deadlock, it requires some
compromise. And that is exactly what George H.W. Bush was forced to
do, when he allowed democratically sponsored tax increases to pass
through along with measures that he wanted. It was all part of the
deal.


The historical trends of the budget follow the
leadership in the White House, not the Congress. Your insinuation that
Congress has more control over the budget than the president is
nothing but a slick way for Republicans to take credit for Democrat
achievements and blame the Democrats for Republican failures.

Which is exactly what happened. Democrats are known (By everyone
except you apparently) as the ones who tax and spend. Republicans
normally slash and cut. The president can "propose" anything he wants,
but if he doesn't have congressional buy-in, it goes nowhere. That's
the wonderful thing about our government's checks and balances.

Clinton was a master spokesman, and a skilled negotiator. Once
republicans gained control of congress, he knew he was in for a fight.
Consequently, his policies moved from the left (Gays in the military,
universal healthcare) in the beginning of his term, to much more
centrist (Balanced budget, tax cuts, welfare reform) and closer
aligned with those points which republicans also champion. Clinton
took something like a balanced budget and welfare reform away from the
republicans when he claimed them as his own. Republicans were not
about to shoot down bills which were ideologically appealing to them,
so they passed. Clinton won a psychological and tactical victory by
being able to claim victory, even though the groundwork had lamented
for years with republicans in congress. He took an idea that
republicans could never get passed (Since they didn't have control of
congress until Clinton was in office), called it his own, and managed
to take credit for it. That bought him some political capital, and
allowed him to leverage that capital to successfully oppose congress
when it shut down over a budget impasse, and successfully managed to
blame republicans in the eyes of the people for his refusal to budge.

When you have such a stalemate, perception is everything. If the
people perceive that the president is at fault (Especially when he's
looking at re-election), then his support dies. The same is true if
the congress is perceived to be at fault.

Clinton, with his smooth talking demeanor managed to do just that. But
it was the hard work of republicans that brought these issues to
light.

snip
Daddy Bush lost re-election because he got stuck
with the bill.

Yes, plus the involvement of Ross Perot, syphoned away many would-be
republican votes.


It's always someone else's fault, isn't it Dave?

No, it's not. But in this case it's true.


snip
Is that enough proof for you?

What proof? I saw no reference source given.


What? You mean that after all the time you spend on the internet
looking for the "facts" you don't know where or how to find Federal
budget information?

Sure. But many sites spin the numbers to suit their agenda.

Do you still think the Republicans are
cutting the budget like they claim? Or are you going to wallow in your
ignorance and try to spin the cold, hard facts?

Right now no. There's a war to fight and that typically costs a lot of
money. But they are cutting funding to other programs.


During the Vietnam years the Federal debt increased by only $42.2B and
the deficit never exceeded $27.7B.

And I paid $.27 a gallon for gasoline in 1970 too. The house I sold
for $110,000 in 1999 was only worth about $28,000 in 1970. The numbers
don't tell the whole story, unless all the conditions are also known.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:08:32 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
For
example, take the layoffs GM just announced. Many are single parents
with school age children who can not go back to school AND support a
family.

Why are they single parents in the first place?

Such has nothing to do with the layoffs, but death is one reason why
many are single parents.

Yes, but it's a small minority.


Divorce is another reason and thsoe folks are "no small minority". There
are tons of reasons that single parents exist. In fact, if you check the
stats, I believe half the children in the country are from homes where
both nuclear parents are not present.
What should they do, Dave? They lost their well paying jobs and medical
insurance for themselves and their children.

Job retraining is usually available for people

displaced by layoffs.


You're way off. Job training is NOT usually avaliable for those laid
off. In fact, job retraining availability is available to only an
extremely small percentage of laid off workers.


You need to realize many can't move away for myriad of reasons, such as
caring for an infirm parent nearby in a care facility for but a single
example.

Most people have large extended families.

Most? How you figure that?

Uh, probably because of genetics and

reproduction.
=A0


So genetics and reproduction is your reasoning for claiming most people
have large families. Odd, the US census says otherwise.


=A0I know the concept of family has become

somewhat foreign with today's younger

generation.


Why eliminate your chosen term "large" now, when applying to families?
It changes not only the subject, but the entire point you were
attempting.


No one branch of a family should be made to

bear the burden of such hardships

themselves.



Where should these folks turn, then Dave? AS I said, the US census does
not support your claim. Perhaps you can point to a single example to
support your claim that most have "large extended families".
You are assuiming all families share your core beliefs. They do not.

No, you are right. Many don't. But that's part of
the problem.


Only for you.
That others do not share your core beliefs is
not part of the problem, Dave.

Families used to take care of each other.

There was no need for the government.


There was always a need for government.
This country is a melting pot of so many value
systems and beliefs that you will never have families all sharing the
same.

Especially when you start emphasizing

diversity instead of encouraging assimilation

into the melting pot of American culture.
=A0



Diversity is what America is and has always strived for.

=A0People lean on the internal support of the

family for temporary hardships.

We're not talking emotional or physical, we are talking financial.

So am I. Most families can assume some

hardship (such as elderly member care).


Again, you miss the boat. Most families are
middle class and can NOT bear the burden of additional extended family
health care costs. In fact, the opposie is true, the MAJORITY of
Americans struggle with affordable health care costs for themselves and
immediate family members, and you are claiming they have the means to
take on additional cost. That simply isn't so.


The care of an elderly family member should

not have to fall squarely on the shoulders of

one (or two) people.


The cost of a family member's care should not have to fall on ANY family
members, especially when the US is giving away free medical care to the
Iraqis.

A strong family negates the need for the

government to stick its nose into it (At other

people's expense).


I know many strong family units who would die for each other.

Yes! And that's how it should be.

That
doesn't mean one has the financial means to provide a solution for
another's misfortunes, especially when catastrophic health issues arise.

.But a strong large family has more resources

than a single person.



Yes, but you are again basing sucha claim on your false and unsupported
notion that most families are large. This is not the case.
More children are now caring for parents than in any other time in our
history. Many have taken out home equity loans to pay for health care
and prescription coverage that they lost through no fault of their own.

Yes, and those who are ambitious will pay it

all back when they adjust to their situation and
find a new vocation.

Many are disabled or seniors and can't work. MANY.

There is a big difference between those who

can't work, and those who chose not to, or

who are underemployed due to lack of

motivation.


The senior market, especially with boomers retiring, makes up the
majority, not the minority.
Surely you aren't
presenting the idea that all those without health care can simply
"adjust". You are assuming these people can all work when a great number
of them, esecially in Florida are seniors with a host of health
problems.

What did these people do 50 years ago, when

health insurance was still in its infancy and

few people had it?
=A0

Argung past history is irrelevant to the current health care situation
and crisis.
=A0What is your solution to this very large group? There is an entire
contingency in many demographical areas of the US in which many are
trapped in a sort of financial snare.

Subsidizing health care costs is what put us in
this mess to begin with. Private insurance

subsidies have enabled the healthcare field to

sharply increase costs. If the government got

involved, it would only get worse.

The government DID get involved, Dave, and is VERY involved. They
regulate and permit the actions of the crooked insurance companies and
industry. The government is very much part of the problem.


Unless, there were mandatory caps put on the
costs

Well, if you live in a town where 80% of the

people work at "the factory" and that factory

closes up, well yea the town's in a real pickle.

All towns have a major employer.

.That's wrong. Had you said "many" or a "good
deal", I would have to reluctantly agree with

you. But the area where I live has no "one"

major employer.



Again, you changed your claim. All towns have a major employer. If a
town has 10,000 people and all work at a different locale, but twenty
five work at the same place in town, that IS the major employed for that
town.


There is a collection of many smaller

professional and technology businesses. The

.same is true in many areas of California, and

Texas.


Exactly..and all towns have a major employer, even if it's the federal
government or local PD.

Years ago, when the textile mills ran, the steel
mills flourished, and other large factories

dotted the landscape, there might have been a
bigger impact. But most of those factories

have been closed now for over 20 years, and

have been replaced by smaller, denser high

tech industries.


Which, in turn, would be a town's major employer.

David T. Hall (N3CVJ) wrote:
The number of
those without health care (seniors included) far outnumber those healthy
workers who get laid off.

Most companies who employ skilled workers,

have some form of healthcare coverage as

part of their benefits package. I've never had a
job without it.


Your personal situation is irrelevant to the majority. A growing trend
has been major employers hiring at 32 hours or less to avoid offering
health care benefits.

Resumption of healthcare coverage is tied to

.the laid-off worker's need to find another job.

So what happens in between when on eneeds prescription medication? When
one is laid off from their job and offered the mandated COBRA, the cost
is always greater than the original. Now, you have people who can not
only pay their bills, but can't afford their medical covereage. What is
your solution?

That way, no one layoff can cripple a

significant portion of the population.


Depends what you consider a significant portion of the population. I can
think of several examples..Reagan importing cheaper metals from the
Asians decimated the steel industry in Pa and Ohio.

I live within an easy drive of 4 different steel

plants. The towns that surrounded them were

dependant on those mills for the majority of

their income. But 20 years later and things

have pretty much recovered. People can get

pretty creative when they need to be.


Recovered from what? You said it couldn't happen, but by invoking the
fact they recovered, you unwittingly admit the towns were indeed
crippled from such layoffs..



In many of those
industry towns, this led to the closing of the
mills and a significant layoff of those town's
populations and many of those towns became ghettos or ghost towns
because of that.

Not in my area. The towns (Allentown,

Phoenixville, Fairless Hills, and

Conshohocken) are still going strong, although
the people who live there are forced to

commute to work now.

The towns are going through a revitalization,

where the old factories have been leveled and

in their place have sprung up huge business

campuses.

Those towns were never considered large steel towns or large steel
industy towns. Think Pittsburgh and similar cities in Ohio.
Same can be said with coal
mining and to a certain extent, the auto industry. History repeats
itself.

Yes, as we continue to become more efficient

at manufacture,


Whaaaa? Manufacturing is DOWN, not becoming more efficient.



the nature of jobs have evolved along with it.

The automobile pretty much ended the

demand for blacksmiths.

But we shouldn't

blame the automobile for causing the demise

of the blacksmith industry. The smart

blacksmith went back to school and learned to
repair cars.


Blacksmiths were never a large industry and the position was never one
of those that most in a city were employed, rendering the example
fruitless and non-related.


That's one of the reasons why I still live where

I do. I was once contemplating a move to both
Florida and North Carolina. But the lack of

.diverse skilled jobs and much lower pay

scales pretty much nixed that move.

Lack of diverse skilled jobs?

Excuse me, I should have said diverse high

.paying skilled jobs.

When was the last time you checked the
stats? Florida has led the country in adding new jobs and has not felt
the inflation the country has felt the last so many years. The pay here
was always offset by the lower cost of living.

That's a myth.


Ok,,in the same manner you claimed one who lived in another state could
not tell you about Pa, what makes you feel you can tell a lifelong
resident of another state about their state?
It;s not a myth, Dave. There is no state income tax and prices have
always been lower in Fl,,until recently (last 10 years).

Yes, there are certain costs which are lower

in Florida. The homestead exemption saves a

bundle on property tax. Homes are (were)

cheaper. There is no state tax, and utilities are
somewhat lower.



Utilites are higher, especially electric, as the majority of homes do
not have gas. Gas was only recently introduced as a choice for heating
and cooking, and even in most cities, it has to be trucked in (propane).


Yes, many costs ARE lower to an extent. But

if you try to buy something like a car, gasoline,
or a major appliance or consumer good, the

cost is pretty mush the same as it is in any

other state.



Again,,nope. Auto costs are not only in better condition (speaking of
used, of course) but new cars are somehwta cheaper here, so are most
manufactured goods. The exceptions are the tourist areas and coastal
regions that are developed. I can get a gallon of milk for 3 bucks here.
I can get a gallon of milk in Chiefland for 2.29. this is the norm, not
the exception.

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.
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. 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.
_
=A0People like you
usually get what is coming in the end

Yes, we tend to survive, because we don't

look to other people to blame, or to the

government for help.

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, govvernment medical care enables people to live and be healthy,
yet, you are against that.

That's what self sufficiency and personal

responsibility are all about.


One can not be self sufficient is one is sick and ailing.
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 of the major
insurance companies are STILL unable to pay for their customer's claims.

And my insurance premiums have increased

as a result. Yet the company swears that it

has nothing to do with the large payouts they

.had to make to cover those claims. Somehow
I don't believe them.....

If it wasn't for the government assistance (what you always refer to as
"handouts") with food, water, shelter, etc., these folks would be on the
welfare tit.

What's the difference? A handout is a

handout, unless you are expected to pay it

back. Government assistance or welfare?

Comes from the same place. But again, I have
no problem if it's temporary only.

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?
=A0=A0Now 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.


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 why FEMA was created.

Call it an "incentive" clause.


You really have no clue the
magnitude of damage these storms had on many people in Florida.

I saw some of it when I was there last fall.

There
are so many hardworking people that are struggling just to feed their
kids, living in tents, and waiting for the federal government to crack
down on the insurance companies and make them ante up.

.Which they should.


But they AREN'T doing it, and the government is STILL permitting these
companies do write more policies.
To suggest these
fine families are anything less than responsible or self-sufficient
shows you haven't a clue, Dave.

I never said anything of the sort. I'm not talking
about temporarily displaced people. I'm talking
about perpetual slackers.

Does being displaced for a year eqaute your idea of temporary?
On the contrary, I will lay odds these
folks are illustrating survival skills and grit that you couldn't
handle.

Based on what?

Based on your invoked claims of your material possessions.
Many of these folks have been living out of doors, literally, for almost
a year and cooking on fires or grills.

I do that for fun.

Try this for a year, when all of your equipment enabling you to partake
in this "fun" has been destroyed, then you -may- be qualified to speak
of what these people should and shouldn't do.
_
and karma, luck, divine
intervention, whatever, will dictate you end up just like those you
blame for being poor, black, queer, liberal, etc. In fact, your daughter
may quit school, commonly become pregnant to an African-American or
three, have many children and volunteer at the ACLU before realizing she
is a lesbian and needs a job to pay the attorney for the crack and
prostitution charges.

Not likely because she will have grown up in a

solid supportive family that helps each other

and promotes open communications and a

strong work ethic with solid morals.

What the hell does that have to do with having children to another race?

.Nothing. If she wants to marry a black guy,

I'm

cool with it. As long as they love each other.

You can tell you are about to tread in unfamiliar parenting territory.
Just you wait. Mistakenly believing that strong morals and all that good
stuff aimed at raising your child will prevent her from making her
mistakes is the mistake many people make. In fact, many of us who have
raised children to adults know better than to believe such tripe, as we
were there long before you, Dave. If what you say were true, drug
addicts and prostitutes and the like would come from only families that
were broken and had no communications, strong work ethic or solid
morals. Addiction has no cultural, socioeconomic boundaries.

Yes it does to a certain degree.

No, it doesn't, at all. Crack is found in the whitest suburbs as well as
the darkest ghettos. In fact, the children in this country in addiction
programs are overwhelmingly white and from middle class to well -to-do
families.

Kids rebel and turn to things like drugs

because they need an outlet for their energy,

or they are craving attention.


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.

Provide them with many sorts of creative

avenues to release, and there will be no need

to turn to destructive behavior.


Again,,,bull****.

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".

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.

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. 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!



Al that is great advice, but is irrelevant in the real world.

I know how my parents raised me. I know from
a child's perspective which disciplines worked,

and which ones didn't.

I use what I learned to my advantage as a

parent.



You ignore the fact that peer pressure is greater today than you can
comprehend....your advice has been followed time and time again, yet
there are great kids who succumb to drugs every day.