David T. Hall wrote:
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.


One doesn't need be Amish to farm, hunt, and fish.
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?


Ain't that something?
_
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.


Most of it is scrubland, not 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


Yep,,,,a damn good time to support the "whacko" environmentalists.
-
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.



Hell, I was talking Florida as a whole. My home value increased 100% in
the last 8 years, as has many in the flood zones (near or on water).

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.
=A0



Some say the bubble will hold here, some say there is no bubble. The
problems will be those who took on bigger and better homes when the
rates were at all time lows instead of paying off their debts.=A0Taxes
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.


Well, we'll hit that in a few more years. Houses on the actual tourist
beaches are paying above and beyond that.
_
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.




Dude, check out some of the yachts,,,,I know a guy who lives in the
Vinoy Basin and has two dirtbikes on board for he and his son.
_
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 ;-)


Coca Cola only. Besides, I'd rather talk skip than drink. I'd save a lot
of truckers, as Jerry would be chasing my impossible-to-find signal all
the time.


Dave

."Sandbagger"

IAmnotGeorgeBush:

I have a racing bike. In summer evenings I love to ride the paved
levies and bike trails around my city in California.

I am always amazed at the rise in homeless people I see along bike
trails running along side the few rivers there are here... homeless
living under bridges and, in generally out of the way places... I see
the police and sheriff constantly "moving these people on", there really
is just no place for them to go...

Over the past years I have watched ambulances and coroners pick up
bodies of these people who obviously did not receive help or proper
medical care...

I have watched welfare reduced, and a large theatre restored and a
sports arena built with the public monies... and the homeless go
unassisted... I have watched illegal aliens taking over the jobs which
these Americans could once have used to pull themselves up and out of
the poverty they exist in...

It really is just too much to describe... I feel ill when I just
describe these conditions I have witnessed...
I have given in to hopelessness for these poor souls--as no one is even
working on a plan to help them, at lease one which I have seen mention
of...

Also, many blame drugs on causing all of this... my gut feeling tells me
that belief places the "cart before the horse", as I believe these
people finally are forced to turn to drugs to escape the conditions they
are finding themselves in, indeed, I almost think I see many preferring
death to these conditions--and they give up...

I think a certain group of people must enjoy watching all of this...
they frighten me worse even worse...

Warmest regards,
John

"I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message
...
David T. Hall wrote:
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.


One doesn't need be Amish to farm, hunt, and fish.
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?


Ain't that something?
_
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.


Most of it is scrubland, not 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


Yep,,,,a damn good time to support the "whacko" environmentalists.
-
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.



Hell, I was talking Florida as a whole. My home value increased 100% in
the last 8 years, as has many in the flood zones (near or on water).

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.




Some say the bubble will hold here, some say there is no bubble. The
problems will be those who took on bigger and better homes when the
rates were at all time lows instead of paying off their debts. 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.


Well, we'll hit that in a few more years. Houses on the actual tourist
beaches are paying above and beyond that.
_
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.




Dude, check out some of the yachts,,,,I know a guy who lives in the
Vinoy Basin and has two dirtbikes on board for he and his son.
_
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 ;-)


Coca Cola only. Besides, I'd rather talk skip than drink. I'd save a lot
of truckers, as Jerry would be chasing my impossible-to-find signal all
the time.


Dave

."Sandbagger"

From: (John=A0Smith)
I have a racing bike. In summer evenings I

love to ride the paved levies and bike trails

around my city in California.

I am always amazed at the rise in homeless

people I see along bike trails running along

side the few rivers there are here... homeless

living under bridges and, in generally out of

the way places... I see the police and sheriff

constantly "moving these people on", there

really is just no place for them to go...




Agreed. I've been to the Salton Sea area and it is pretty much a nomad's
land with little order and much chaos, but it does have its charm at
times. I've seen some sick bikes in that area..home brewed street bikes
with knobbys, etc. Plenty of riders around there, though.

Over the past years I have watched

ambulances and coroners pick up bodies of

these people who obviously did not receive

help or proper medical care...



Yea..interesting how California police officers are also deputy coroners
in many areas.


I have watched welfare reduced, and a large

theatre restored and a sports arena built with

the public monies... and the homeless go

unassisted... I have watched illegal aliens

taking over the jobs which these Americans

could once have used to pull themselves up

and out of the poverty they exist in...


That move to give the illegal aliens driver licenses was a really bad
one, I'm glad it as defeated.

It really is just too much to describe... I feel ill

when I just describe these conditions I have

witnessed... I have given in to hopelessness

for these poor souls--as no one is even

working on a plan to help them, at lease one

which I have seen mention of...

Also, many blame drugs on causing all of

this... my gut feeling tells me that belief places
the "cart before the horse", as I believe these

people finally are forced to turn to drugs to

escape the conditions they are finding

themselves in, indeed, I almost think I see

many preferring death to these

conditions--and they give up...


I was surprised how many vets are living in those conditions, but as you
know, many of them function better out there in the sticks alone, but
suffer when it comes to things such as medical care.


I think a certain group of people must enjoy

watching all of this... they frighten me worse

even worse...


Yea, I hear ya' and agree wholeheartedly.
BTW, you ever participate in any of the Moose sponsored races, like the
long distance enduro runs? I may have a chance to get out to Cal this
fall or next fall just for that.



Warmest regards,

John

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:29:46 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

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.

Not really. Most people who are in full time gainfully employed jobs
have some form of health care coverage. Unless you're a part time
worker, chances are you have some coverage.

A growing trend
has been major employers hiring at 32 hours or less to avoid offering
health care benefits.

There are laws to discourage this practice. Just as there are laws to
prevent an employer from paying you a "Salary" instead of an hourly
rate to avoid paying overtime. Look into the federal wage and hour
laws.



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?

No one said that life would always be easy. Try growing up during the
great depression in the 30's as my parents did, and then tell me what
hardship is. When I was a kid, all I would hear were stories of how
people did "this and that" to get by. You've probably heard the
stereotypical stories of people walking to school with ratty shoes
full of holes in the snow. Except that these were true. I guess my
perspective is a bit different than yours. To me, the examples you've
given are a speed bump compared to life during the depression.


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..

Only temporarily. That's the whole point. Life goes on. People adapt
and adjust. Allow them to do that, give them a few tools to help them,
and they will solve their own problem. We don't need the government
mollycoddling us and indoctrinating us into becoming dependant on
them.

My original point was also that having diverse industries in your
locale helps to prevent crippling a town if one of those industries
goes belly-up. The others still go on, and the impact is much less
than a town which grew up around one very large plant.


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.

Tell that to the thousands of people (And Billy Joel) who lived and
worked there and were laid off when the mills closed.


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.


Down in this country. It's growing strong in other places where it is
cheaper (Hence more efficient) to manufacture things.



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.

It's very much related. A particular vocation doesn't have to be large
to be relevant. The blacksmith example highlight quite accurately what
happens when our society evolves and old skills and crafts are no
longer needed. At the same time newer skills open up as a result of
advancing technology. People need to keep up with the trends so that
the skills they posses are not obsolete.


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.

All that sounds fine and all, but the long and short of it is that for
the field that I am in, the salaries offered were between 20 and 40%
lower than they are here. The employers there (And I interviewed with
quite a few) once they find out where you're from, tell you right up
front not to expect a comparable salary.



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?

Because I did some extensive research into it when I was considering
the move there 15 years ago. I walked into a K-Mart and compared
prices of the things that I normally buy with what I pay up here. My
wife was especially knowledgable about clothing prices.



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).

Slightly lower in specific cases, like locally produced goods like
fruit and other food.


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.

Actually, when I was checking, I was currently paying 15 cents per
kilowatt hour. In Florida (In Brevard County), the rate was about 8
cents per kilowatt hour. Water rates varied depending on whether you
had "city" water or a privately owned "utility", but they were cheaper
by and large than what I paid up here.

Heat was not an issue as most homes used efficient heat pumps, which
spent most of their times as air conditioners. With insulation ratings
of R34 in most new homes, the cooling costs offset the normal eastern
PA winter heating cost by a considerable margin.


Gas was only recently introduced as a choice for heating
and cooking, and even in most cities, it has to be trucked in (propane).

I prefer electric for cooking (When I'm not grilling). And heating in
Florida is not normally an issue, as you know. A couple of logs on the
fireplace will take the chill off on those few chilly mornings.


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.

Not according to what I found. I didn't bother with used car pricing
because there is a certain amount of subjective perception. But the
MSRP of new cars there was the same (or very close) as what I see up
here. Sure, no one pays MSRP, but the degree of discount is not going
to be any more significant there than here.

Gasoline was actually more expensive back then than up here. What do
you pay for gas now? Last week, I paid $1.94/gallon


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.

I can do the same up here. Orange Juice is $2.00 a half gallon (for
the "Not from concentrate" stuff). That's something I would expect to
be much cheaper in Florida.


And at 30-40% less of a salary, for
the same job, that limits one's buying power.

Yep,,salaries for workers who work for another have always been low
compared to the northern states.

Exactly my point. Which limits my buying power.


The only people that have
trouble adjusting are those who live beyond their means.

Living beyond one's means is somewhat
subjective. It depends on where you are living
and what your earning power is.

Your salary has nothing to do with one living beyond their means.

Sure it does. You salary determines what "your means" is.

One
can make 200 bucks a week and live beyond their means, just as one who
makes 2000 bucks a week can live beyond their means. It is also not
linked to geography or earning power.

When one budgets carefully and lives a certain standard of living in
one area and "lives within his means", suddenly up roots and moves
somewhere else, and his salary decreases, he is now living beyond his
means assuming the bills stay relatively the same. Cuts in spending
involve changing your standard of living. Someone used to driving a
BMW might now have to deal with a Chevy. It might not be their idea of
"living".


*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.


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

Because it is a widening black hole. As long as there are no attempts
to cap medical costs they will keep spiraling, no matter how much the
government kicks in on our behalf.


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

One can not be self sufficient is one is sick and ailing.

People got sick in the 1930's too. And you know what? They went to
work anyway, or there might not be any food on the table that night.


Looking to the government for assistance is perfectly acceptable in many
instances, Dave. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of
people STILL homeless in Fl because of the hurricanes.

Yes, Yes, and YES. I'm totally cool with
hardship TEMPORARY assistance.

Many folks would benefit and live healthier and longer if they were
permitted even temporary medical assistance from the government,,,so are
you for it or against it?

No. Not as long as nothing is done to address the supply side of the
equation. There are many problems in the medical field. Fraud is
rampant, lawsuits are commonplace, everyone looks to wring big bucks
out of the medical industry. Until there is meaningful tort reform,
lessening of malpractice insurance, and someone steps in to run
roughshod over billing practices, I don't want one more penny pumped
into this industry only to encourage it to grow even further in costs.


**Now please 'splain how being self-sufficient and personally
responsible can help these folks who paid their premiums on time
faithfully all those years, had their homes destroyed or damaged to the
point they are rendered unsafe for living conditions, lost all their
possessions, yet still manage to survive by living in tents, can bring
them up out of their hell created by the insurance companies who are
regulated by the federal government.

The insurance companies are obligated to
make good on their claims.


But they AREN'T making good on their claims, Dave, and this is the
problem.

Well, if they aren't because they can't, that's one thing. You can't
get blood from a rock. If they're just dragging their feet, the
government should step in and push on behalf of the residents.


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

The government disagrees, this why FEMA was created.

FEMA provides assistance to people displaced due to natural disasters.


.Which they should.


But they AREN'T doing it, and the government is STILL permitting these
companies do write more policies.

So you advocate that the government control aspects of business?
That's socialism. Besides, if the insurance companies don't write more
policies, where are they going to get the money they need to pay the
claims (Other than by raising MY rates for no good reason)?

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?

Yes.

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.

Which means what exactly? I grew up in a struggling middle class
family. My parents were both penny pinchers, and I learned it from
them. I'm not rich by any standard, but I pick and choose what things
I spend my money on. I prefer to spend money on a few big things
rather than on a bunch of smaller ones.


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.

The thing is, if I had a member of my family who was displaced from
their home in Florida, I would take a week or two off of work, hook up
the trailer to my truck, load up the generator and drive down. I would
let them live in the trailer until their home was rebuilt. THAT is
what I meant before by leaning on and getting support from family. I
can't believe all those people who lost homes don't have relatives
they can live with, or who can help them in some way. My in-laws had a
fire in 1987. Their home was unlivable for almost a year, while
waiting for insurance claims to settle. I invited them to live with my
wife and I for the time period. It was tight, but that's what you do
for family.


Among a boatload of reasons you ignore...abuse, peer pressure,
self-esteem, curiosity, lies told to them by those who buy into the
government's bull**** war on drugs...etc. It's hypocritical of us to
tell the kids to just say no when we ply them with ritalin from a young
age and mom smokes cigarettes, drinks cup after cup of coffee, and dad
drinks alcohol, even if it's the cocktail with dinner.

Not an issue. Peer pressure is something you have to deal with. I took
a lot of peer pressure abuse when I was a kid. You learn to ignore and
deal with it. You learn that those people are not worth your time, and
when it's all said and done, they'll be serving you fries 20 years
from now.


Provide them with many sorts of creative
avenues to release, and there will be no need
to turn to destructive behavior.

Again,,,bull****.

Not at all.


A kid who plays sports, acts in drama clubs,
plays in the band, participates in the arts, or
has a worthwhile hobby, will be way too busy
to hang out with the slackers.


Your mistake is believing drug use by children is inherent to these you
call "slackers".

Drug use is done mainly as an escape by those who can't handle life.
Mostly this is a result of isolating parents who protected their kids
for too long, and who now have to deal with the ugliness of the real
world. They have self-esteem and social issues. But in their minds
they are perfectly ok, and they try to get other kids to partake as
well, to further bolster the illusion of normalcy that dopers tend to
believe.

Being an alert and supportive parent who can intercede when your kid
starts to have "problems" before they turn to drugs. That's why it's
also important to know their friends.


Giving a kid an activity that they can be proud
to excel at and bolster their self esteem (While
learning what it means to truly EARN it) builds
character.


Yup,,character that is torn down when these suburban kids from loving
families begin using harmful drugs.

If the character is strong, and you believe enough in yourself, you
can just say no. I never did drugs in school. For one thing I never
smoked at all, and the smell of smoke bothered me. Other drugs seemed
silly to me. To me, they were pointless. Plus I never had enough
money to buy them anyway. I spent all my cash on CB radio stuff. I
guess you could say CB was my "drug".

Keep your kids poor! And for God's sake, don't give them a credit
card.


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!

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

It is great advice, and it is very relevant in the real world. Not
every kid is a weak, spineless bowl of self esteem goo, that can be
shattered by the taunting of some lowlife idiot. If you build their
confidence and show them their potential, they will know enough to
laugh at the pathetic attempts by the slackers who use peer pressure
to elevate their own pitiful self-esteem at the expense of others.

There are two types of people in the world. Those who excel, and the
ones that those who excel laugh at. I used to laugh a lot when I was
in school. I still do.

I know how my parents raised me. I know from
a child's perspective which disciplines worked,
and which ones didn't.
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

No it's not. It's the same old story done for the same reasons. People
elevate themselves by trying to make other people feel lousy. Once you
understand the psychological forces that drives this, you can defuse
them.


....your advice has been followed time and time again, yet
there are great kids who succumb to drugs every day.


Then that advice was not followed completely.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:39:40 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

.Like that guy in the swamps of Tampa that

was just forced, by eminent domain, off his

land to the tune of 5 mil?


Ain't that something?

Yea. I guess everyone's different. But I could find another secluded
place and have money in the bank with that 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.


Most of it is scrubland, not swamp.

Swamp mostly in the south, scrub mostly in the north. Except for the
coasts of course.



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


Yep,,,,a damn good time to support the "whacko" environmentalists.

I'm not fan of developers. I much prefer to live in a sparsely
developed area. I am also not a fan of destroying critical habitat.
When we kill animals, we indirectly kill ourselves.



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.

Hell, I was talking Florida as a whole. My home value increased 100% in
the last 8 years, as has many in the flood zones (near or on water).

Go figure. People see what happens when mother nature throw them a
curve ball, yet they flock to those areas in droves. Then when they
get hit, they have the nerve to act surprised........


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.

Some say the bubble will hold here, some say there is no bubble.

The bubble will "ease" when interest rates inevitably go up again.


The
problems will be those who took on bigger and better homes when the
rates were at all time lows instead of paying off their debts.

From an investment perspective, it's not such a bad idea. Many
financial planners will tell you than it's better to carry some debt,
and borrow money to invest, rather than tying up your own. It seems
like reverse logic, but as long as you are earning a greater return
than the interest rate you are borrowing, it makes sense.


*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.


Well, we'll hit that in a few more years. Houses on the actual tourist
beaches are paying above and beyond that.

Makes you want to run the tourists out on a rail. Except that they
dump a lot of money into the local economy. But it also drives up the
costs to the residents.

_
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.

Dude, check out some of the yachts,,,,I know a guy who lives in the
Vinoy Basin and has two dirtbikes on board for he and his son.

I know, but those yachts are a bit rich for my blood. Although, I
could get a fairly nice one for the price I could sell my house for.

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 ;-)


Coca Cola only. Besides, I'd rather talk skip than drink. I'd save a lot
of truckers, as Jerry would be chasing my impossible-to-find signal all
the time.

Keeping moving does make it tougher to track. Although the FCC
supposedly has gear that can track moving signals. But I'm sure Jerry
doesn't.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:29:46 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
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.

Not really. Most people who are in full time

gainfully employed jobs have some form of

health care coverage. Unless you're a part

time worker, chances are you have some

coverage.

Each year (for the last 4 years) the number of part-time workers has
increased as the number of those laid off has increased.
A growing trend
has been major employers hiring at 32 hours or less to avoid offering
health care benefits.

There are laws to discourage this practice.


Bull****. Any company can fill their positions with ft or pt employees.
There is no law that claims copanies must offer ft work.

Just as there are laws to prevent an employer
from paying you a "Salary" instead of an

hourly rate to avoid paying overtime. Look into

the federal wage and hour laws.
=A0

I have to abide by the laws you speak of but it seems you are not
familiar with them. Another easy way to avoid offering benefits is to
hire people as independent cotractors, from laborers to clerical..this
is very common in Fl. It also negates the need for federal withholding,
placing the burden on the worker with a 10-99.


=A0Resumption of healthcare coverage is tied to

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

So what happens in between when on needs 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?

No one said that life would always be easy.

If you don't have a solution, say so, but saying resumption of
healthcare is tied to finding another job goes without say. Problem is,
the jobs do not exist..check your stats from the feds. Last month, the
feds fell short of 100,000 jobs they expected to add to the stats of
added jobs for the month.

Try growing up during the great depression in

the 30's as my parents did, and then tell me

what hardship is.



How are your parents any different from any other of our parents who did
the same thing?


When I was a kid, all I would hear were

stories of how people did "this and that" to get

by. You've probably heard the stereotypical

stories of people walking to school with ratty

shoes full of holes in the snow.


Uphill,,,both ways.

Except that these were true. I guess my

perspective is a bit different than yours. To

me, the examples you've given are a speed

bump compared to life during the depression.


Except you weren't there and did not experience anything remotely
associated with such a hardship as that.


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.



Not one of those small towns you mentioned were major steel producing
towns. In fact, those towns are obscure to all but those who live near
them, except for Allentown, and that was made famous by Billy Joel.


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..

Only temporarily.


It happened. An entire generation came of age and went during that
"temporary" era you refer.

That's the whole point. Life goes on. People

adapt and adjust. Allow them to do that, give

them a few tools to help them, and they will

solve their own problem.


Except many cities did not recover.


We don't need the government mollycoddling

us and indoctrinating us into becoming

dependant on them.


Asking for health care from those who are charged with regulating it
when they have the best care available and toss our cash away like
****ing in the wind and give away health care to the very same people
you say are trying to kill us and wage war and terror on us, is not
mollycoddling. Kind of difficult to explain your position when you
suport these leaders who "mollycoddle" with healthcare those you
repeatedly insist are our enemy and hate us and want us dead.


My original point was also that having diverse

industries in your locale helps to prevent

crippling a town if one of those industries goes
belly-up. The others still go on, and the impact
is much less than a town which grew up

around one very large plant.

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.

Tell that to the thousands of people (And Billy

Joel) who lived and worked there and were

laid off when the mills closed.

They were small, tiny mills compared to the larger cities and employed a
fractio of the workers.=A0
=A0Think 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.

Down in this country. It's growing strong in

other places where it is cheaper (Hence more

efficient) to manufacture things.


Yea, but that isn't "we". "We" is,,,,er,,,are the USA!

=A0=A0the nature of jobs have evolved along with it.

The automobile pretty much ended the

demand for blacksmiths.

=A0But 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.

It's very much related. A particular vocation

doesn't have to be large to be relevant.


It does to be compared to an entire industry such as the steel industry
of which we were speaking.

The

blacksmith example highlight quite accurately

what happens when our society evolves and

old skills and crafts are no longer needed.


The loss of blacksmith jobs never crippled any towns or cities and that
was what we were speaking.

At the same time newer skills open up as a

result of advancing technology. People need

to keep up with the trends so that the skills

they posses are not obsolete.

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.

All that sounds fine and all, but the long and

short of it is that for the field that I am in, the

salaries offered were between 20 and 40%

lower than they are here. The employers there
(And I interviewed with quite a few) once they

find out where you're from, tell you right up

front not to expect a comparable salary.

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?

Because I did some extensive research



So did Shark on your laws, but you stil claimed because one lived
somewhere else, they cold not know the particulars as well as one who
resided there.

when I was considering the move there 15

years ago.

15 years ago was another era in Fl.

I walked into a K-Mart and compared prices of
the things that I normally buy with what I pay

up here. My wife was especially knowledgable
about clothing prices.

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).

Slightly lower in specific cases, like locally

produced goods like fruit and other food.
=A0
=A0Yes, 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.

Actually, when I was checking, I was currently

paying 15 cents per kilowatt hour. In Florida

(In Brevard County), the rate was about 8

cents per kilowatt hour. Water rates varied

depending on whether you had "city" water or

a privately owned "utility", but they were

cheaper by and large than what I paid up

here.



What do you refer to as a privately owned utility? You either have city,
county, or well water. I have city -and- a well.

Heat was not an issue as most homes used

efficient heat pumps, which spent most of their
times as air conditioners. With insulation

ratings of R34 in most new homes, the cooling
costs offset the normal eastern PA winter

heating cost by a considerable margin.

Gas was only recently introduced as a choice for heating and cooking,
and even in most cities, it has to be trucked in (propane).

I prefer electric for cooking (When I'm not

grilling).


Not me. I hate it, but until we get gas lines, I'm not paying for
propane.

And heating in Florida is not normally an

issue, as you know. A couple of logs on the

fireplace will take the chill off on those few

chilly mornings.
=A0

Depends where you live. The top of the state, even from Ocala northward
use their heat all winter every winter. 30's is a bit chilly and a
fireplace can't heat the entire house.

=A0Yes, 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. Autos are not only in better condition (speaking of used,
of course) but new cars are somewhat cheaper here, so are most
manufactured goods.

Not according to what I found. I didn't bother

with used car pricing because there is a

certain amount of subjective perception.


(shrug) I go by NADA or edmunds.com perceptions, as does the auto
industry. Check resale and trade-in values.

But the MSRP of new cars there was the

same (or very close) as what I see up here.

Sure, no one pays MSRP, but the degree of

discount is not going to be any more

significant there than here.

Gasoline was actually more expensive back

then than up here. What do you pay for gas

now? Last week, I paid $1.94/gallon
=A0
Last week I paid 1.94 also. This week it's 2.03 but I haven't checked
gasbuddy.com in a few weeks.
-
=A0The 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.

I can do the same up here. Orange Juice is

$2.00 a half gallon (for the "Not from

concentrate" stuff). That's something I would

expect to be much cheaper in Florida.


It is, bit not in the stores. Go to the stands or groves.

Dave Hall Jr.(N3CVJ) wrote:
And at 30-40% less of a salary, for

the same job, that limits one's buying power.

Yep,,salaries for workers who work for another have always been low
compared to the northern states.

Exactly my point. Which limits my buying

power.

The only people that have
trouble adjusting are those who live beyond their means.

Living beyond one's means is somewhat

subjective. It depends on where you are living

and what your earning power is.

Your salary has nothing to do with one living beyond their means.

Sure it does. You salary determines what

"your means" is.

One
can make 200 bucks a week and live beyond their means, just as one who
makes 2000 bucks a week can live beyond their means. It is also not
linked to geography or earning power.

When one budgets carefully and lives a

certain standard of living in one area and

"lives within his means", suddenly up roots

and moves somewhere else, and his salary

decreases, he is now living beyond his means

assuming the bills stay relatively the same.


Demonstrating anyone can live beyond their means.

Cuts in spending involve changing your

standard of living. Someone used to driving a

BMW might now have to deal with a Chevy. It

might not be their idea of "living".



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

We do. That's one area of assistance that I'm

very much in favor of. Training enables people
to become self-sufficient.

Yet, government medical care enables people to live and be healthy, yet,
you are against that.
Because it is a widening blacke hole


Sure,,when the US in covering Iraqi medical care for the asking.


As long as there are no attempts to cap

medical costs they will keep spiraling, no

matter how much the government kicks in on

our behalf.


Yet, you speak out against our own people getting such care, but you
have said nothing concerning the current admin's waste of medical care
and supplying the Iraqi's with it, or any other of the "enemies' on our
list

That's what self sufficiency and personal

responsibility are all about.

One can not be self sufficient if one is sick and ailing.

People got sick in the 1930's too.


Try to stay relevant, Dave, and not slip into your preference of
discussing ancient history that will not change anything.

And you know what? They went to work

anyway, or there might not be any food on the

table that night.


Advocating people to go to work sick in today's climate is a very
irresonsible thing to do, Dave. Even the CDC and the WHO tell people to
stay home. In fact, many employers, such as hospitals have policies
against coming to work ill.
_
Looking to the government for assistance is perfectly acceptable in many
instances, Dave. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of
people STILL homeless in Fl because of the hurricanes.

Yes, Yes, and YES. I'm totally cool with

hardship TEMPORARY assistance.

Many folks would benefit and live healthier and longer if they were
permitted even temporary medical assistance from the government,,,so are
you for it or against it?

No. Not as long as nothing is done to address

the supply side of the equation. There are

many problems in the medical field.



And those who lost everything and are in need of medical assistance were
not responsibe for any of them.

Fraud is

rampant, lawsuits are commonplace,

everyone looks to wring big bucks out of the

medical industry. Until there is meaningful tort

reform, lessening of malpractice insurance,

and someone steps in to run roughshod over

billing practices, I don't want one more penny

pumped into this industry only to encourage it

to grow even further in costs.
=A0



It's not a oney shortage problem, like you assume, it's a budget issue
of where and how the monies are spent. Instead of spending health care
on the enemy overseas, there are many children in this country who could
benefit from the care El Mohammed Mujasteen receives and which you
condone.




-
=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.

Well, if they aren't because they can't, that's

one thing.

If they can't, the fault lies with your government because they are the
ones that regulate the premiums and the industry.

You can't get blood from a rock. If

they're just dragging their feet, the government
should step in and push on behalf of the

residents.

And they should be made to repay the

.government for any "handouts" it had to pay

to house people until the insurance companies
settled.

The government disagrees, this is why FEMA was created.

FEMA provides assistance to people

displaced due to natural disasters.


Hurricanes -are- natural disasters, Dave. You perhaps thought otherwise?

.Which they should.

But they AREN'T doing it, and the government is STILL permitting these
companies do write more policies.

So you advocate that the government control

aspects of business?

That's socialism.


Better read up on who the insurance industry answers to, Dave. The feds
regulate everything to do with them.

Besides, if the insurance companies don't

write more policies, where are they going to

get the money they need to pay the claims

(Other than by raising MY rates for no good

reason)?


From their catastrophic relief fund, a fund specifically created in
order to prevent such problems.
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.

Those displaced by the hurricanes need aid and they are not slackers.
Does being displaced for a year equate your idea of temporary?

Yes.

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.

Which means what exactly? I grew up in a

struggling middle class family. My parents

were both penny pinchers, and I learned it

from them. I'm not rich by any standard, but I

pick and choose what things I spend my

money on. I prefer to spend money on a few

big things rather than on a bunch of smaller

ones.

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.

The thing is, if I had a member of my family

who was displaced from their home in Florida,

I would take a week or two off of work, hook

up the trailer to my truck, load up the

generator and drive down. I would let them

live in the trailer until their home was rebuilt.

Again, not everyone has families that can help, Dave. If it were that
simple, there would be no displaced families there now,,,and there are
thousands and thousands.

THAT is what I meant before by leaning on

and getting support from family. I can't believe

all those people who lost homes don't have

relatives they can live with, or who can help

them in some way.


Yea..they all choose to live without roofs and appliances and choose to
cook outdoors because of their pioneering spirit.

My in-laws had a fire in 1987. Their home

was unlivable for almost a year, while waiting

for insurance claims to settle. I invited them to

live with my wife and I for the time period. It

was tight, but that's what you do for family.

Ummm,,,actually, i would have rented them their own place.

-
Among a boatload of reasons you ignore...abuse, peer pressure,
self-esteem, curiosity, lies told to them by those who buy into the
government's bull**** war on drugs...etc. It's hypocritical of us to
tell the kids to just say no when we ply them with ritalin from a young
age and mom smokes cigarettes, drinks cup after cup of coffee, and dad
drinks alcohol, even if it's the cocktail with dinner.

Not an issue. Peer pressure is something you

have to deal with.



And something whcih parents have no control to what their children are
exposed in public schools.

I took a lot of peer pressure abuse when I

was a kid.



Dave, multiply that times your highest faction you can handle and then
you amy come close to understanding the level of peer pressure today.

You learn to ignore and deal with it. You learn
that those people are not worth your time, and
when it's all said and done, they'll be serving

you fries 20 years from now.


You know better than to try and tell a child what it will be like in 20
years. 20 weeks is an eternity to kid. 20 years is inconceivable.

Provide them with many sorts of creative

avenues to release, and there will be no need

to turn to destructive behavior.

Again,,,bull****.

Not at all.

Perhaps just youare just naive, then.

A kid who plays sports, acts in drama clubs,

plays in the band, participates in the arts, or

has a worthwhile hobby, will be way too busy

to hang out with the slackers.

Your mistake is believing drug use by children is inherent to these you
call "slackers".

Drug use is done mainly as an escape by

those who can't handle life.

Then the same can be said for alcohol and obacco users.


Mostly this is a result of isolating parents who

protected their kids for too long, and who now

have to deal with the ugliness of the real

world. They have self-esteem and social

issues. But in their minds they are perfectly

ok, and they try to get other kids to partake as

well, to further bolster the illusion of normalcy

that dopers tend to believe.


Same can be said for those who drink, then.

Being an alert and supportive parent who can

intercede when your kid starts to have

"problems" before they turn to drugs.



Drugs are not the problem Dave, they are a symptom.

That's why it's also important to know their

friends.

=A0=A0Giving a kid an activity that they can be

proud to excel at and bolster their self esteem

(While learning what it means to truly EARN it)
builds character.

Yup,,character that is torn down when these suburban kids from loving
families begin using harmful drugs.

If the character is strong, and you believe

enough in yourself, you can just say no. I

never did drugs in school. For one thing I

never smoked at all, and the smell of smoke

bothered me. Other drugs seemed silly to me.

To me, they were pointless. Plus I never had

enough money to buy them anyway. I spent all
my cash on CB radio stuff. I guess you could

say CB was my "drug".

Keep your kids poor! And for God's sake, don't
give them a credit card.
=A0

Keep your kids poor? That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. On
one hand, you claim that if you act one way with your kids, they will
avoid drugs and other pitfalls you mistakenly only attribute to
"slackers", yet you believe giving them a credic card or a pocket full
of cash will destroy the values you instill in your kids.
Oh man, just you wait. You are in for the shock and heartbreak of your
life like you can never imagine.

=A0Lastly, never lose communication with them.

Set your ground rules while they are young,

and they become adjusted to them. Let a child
run amuck when they are young, and then try

to reign them in when they hit the teenaged

years, and you've already lost.


I don't equate not keeping my children "poor" (as you do) with
permitting them to "run amuck".


Talk to them always. Know all their friends

(and their parents).
=A0
=A0Make sure they know that you're

always there for them. Support them in

whatever they do. Show up at their plays,

cheer them on at their games. Listen to their

teachers when you have conferences. Trust

them enough and allow them to make small

mistakes, but keep on the lookout for major

ones. In short, STAY INVOLVED!

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

It is great advice, and it is very relevant in the

real world. Not every kid is a weak, spineless

bowl of self esteem goo, that can be shattered
.by the taunting of some lowlife idiot.


Who said otherwise? Those are your mistaken core beliefs.

If you build their confidence and show them

their potential, they will know enough to laugh

.at the pathetic attempts by the slackers who

use peer pressure to elevate their own pitiful

self-esteem at the expense of others.

There are two types of people in the world.


No Dave, despite your best attempts at pigeonholing people into neat
little groups of twos, it's not true.

Those who excel, and the ones that those who
excel laugh at.


Again, despite your mistaken core beliefs, most successful people do not
laigh at those less fortunate than themselves. It's also not a very
christian thing to do, let alone something a parent should be teaching
their child.

I used to laugh a lot when I

was in school. I still do.

I know how my parents raised me. I know from
a child's perspective which disciplines worked,
and which ones didn't.
=A0

You know what works with -you-. You have no clue what works in other
families, religions, faiths, cultures, cities, etc. Your myopic view
that everyone shares your beliefs has never been more wrong, as the
majority of good caring, parents would never laugh at the misfortune or
expense of other's, regardless the situation.

=A0I use what I learned to my advantage as a

parent.


As far as learning as a parent, you are in the infancy stage.

You ignore the fact that peer pressure is greater today than you can
comprehend

No it's not. It's the same old story done for the

same reasons.

Yea, ok. How many people were killed for their sneakers or clothes when
you were a kid, Dave?

People elevate themselves by trying to make

other people feel lousy.



Like laughing at those less fortunate than you, yes, I see your point,
but you are extremely hypocritical.

Once you understand

the psychological forces that drives this, you

can defuse them.


Uh-huh.


...your advice has been followed time and time again, yet there are
great kids who succumb to drugs every day.

Then that advice was not followed completely.
Once you understand there is no guarantee in parenting, you will
understand.


Dave

"Sandbagger"

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:26:11 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

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.


Oh, NOW I get it..... you refuse to accept this simple statistical
fact because -you- have been divorced! You, like so many others,
couldn't keep the vows you made before God, and now you have to
justify your failure! LOL!


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.


Quit using the last election as the scapegoat for your dysfunctional
understanding of the Constitution, Dave -- the fact is that the right
to vote is NOT protected. Any state can -indeed- prevent people from
voting for any reason -EXCEPT- for reasons based on race or sex.


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.


None of those military actions were intended to overthrow a standing
government. But I didn't forget them, nor did I forget the many
countries that were overthrown (or that we attempted to overthrow)
through indirect support and/or covert (CIA) operations. But then you
have to factor out those wars where the US was attacked first since
they were started by someone else. Add it all together and -then- tell
me which way the scales tip, Dave.


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

But we're not.


But you just did.


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.


I guess that makes -you- one of my "loonie left conspiracy buddies".


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.


Ok, then quote 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.


First, the president doesn't propose bills.

Second, a bill doesn't die just because it gets a presidential veto;
usually it gets sent back to Congress for more negotiations. If those
negotiations fail then either the bill gets shelved or they move for a
continuing resolution (depending on the issue).

Third, Daddy Bush was "forced" to increase taxes because he refused to
scale back spending in a no-growth economy (for example, pork-barrel
spending DOUBLED from 1989 to 1991). And while he was being "forced"
to increase -individual- income taxes, he threatened to veto any
increase of -corporate- income taxes. In fact, revenue from corporate
income taxes -dropped- during the Bush I administration. But if your
crystal ball says that those tax increases were "forced" by the
Democratic Congress then it must be true.

Also, revenue from corporate income taxes dropped to a near all-time
low of 1.2% of GDP in 2003, the average being 2.5% and the lowest
being 1.1% (Reagan, 1983). This reduction was 68% -greater- than the
reduction of individual income taxes during the same time period.
These tax cuts were made during wartime by a Republican administration
-and- a Republican Congress. It's clearly the Republican's fault, but
I'm sure you'll find someone else to blame.....


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.


You have things a little mixed up here, as usual: BOTH Democrats AND
Republicans spend like crazy. The differences are where that money
comes from and where it's spent. The Democrats prefer to get their
revenue from taxes while the Republicans like to max out the Federal
credit card. The Democrats use the money to pay the bills and meet the
government's obligation to all those retired citizens who payed into
the Social Security system for most of their lives. The Republicans
like to spend our -future- income on warmongering.


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.


You've got bats in the bellfry, Dave -- Congress doesn't control
Executive policy decisions. It's called "seperation of powers",
another little tidbit that's defined in the Constitution. Oh, but
that's right, you know the Constitution front to back......LOL!


Clinton
took something like a balanced budget and welfare reform away from the
republicans when he claimed them as his own.


.......oh brother


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.


On what planet? Zeta Reticuli?


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.


Holy conspiracy theories, Batman!


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.


Earth to Dave..... Earth to Dave..... check your oxygen supply!


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.


Thus sayeth the Crystal Ball.


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.


It stands to reason that you might think the Congressional Budget
Office would spin the numbers -- after all, you still think Kerry's
honorable discharge is a Pentagon hoax.


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.


Alright, we'll do this as a percentage of GDP, year by year:

Year Deficit(-) Debt
----------------------
Johnson:
1965 -0.2 37.9
1966 -0.5 34.9
1967 -1.1 32.9
1968 -2.9 33.3

Nixon:
1969 0.3 29.3
1970 -0.3 28.0
1971 -2.1 28.1
1972 -2.0 27.4
1973 -1.1 26.0
1974 -0.4 23.9

Ford:
1975 -3.4 25.3
1976 -4.2 27.5

Carter:
1977 -2.7 27.8
1978 -2.7 27.4
1979 -1.6 25.6
1980 -2.7 26.1

Reagan:
1981 -2.6 25.8
1982 -4.0 28.7
1983 -6.0 33.0
1984 -4.8 34.0
1985 -5.1 36.3
1986 -5.0 39.5
1987 -3.2 40.6
1988 -3.1 40.9

Daddy Bush:
1989 -2.8 40.6
1990 -3.9 42.0
1991 -4.5 45.3
1992 -4.7 48.1

Clinton:
1993 -3.9 49.4
1994 -2.9 49.3
1995 -2.2 49.2
1996 -1.4 48.5
1997 -0.3 46.1
1998 0.8 43.1
1999 1.4 39.8
2000 2.4 35.1

Baby Bush:
2001 1.3 33.0
2002 -1.5 34.1
2003 -3.5 36.1
2004 -3.6 37.2

It should now be painfully obvious that the budget trends follow the
executive administration, -not- the congressional majority, and -not-
because of any war. It's also obvious that Clinton did a =monumental=
job of trying to un**** Reagan's mess, and that Baby Bush is ****ing
it up all over again -- with a -Republican- majority in Congress.


I await your next batch of excuses......







----== 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 Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:37:58 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:29:46 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
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.

Not really. Most people who are in full time
gainfully employed jobs have some form of
health care coverage. Unless you're a part
time worker, chances are you have some
coverage.

Each year (for the last 4 years) the number of part-time workers has
increased as the number of those laid off has increased.
A growing trend
has been major employers hiring at 32 hours or less to avoid offering
health care benefits.

There are laws to discourage this practice.


Bull****. Any company can fill their positions with ft or pt employees.
There is no law that claims copanies must offer ft work.

You are right. But wasn't there some provision that stated that if a
"part time" worker works consistently more than 32 hours that they
become considered full time?

Just as there are laws to prevent an employer
from paying you a "Salary" instead of an
hourly rate to avoid paying overtime. Look into
the federal wage and hour laws.
*

I have to abide by the laws you speak of but it seems you are not
familiar with them. Another easy way to avoid offering benefits is to
hire people as independent cotractors, from laborers to clerical..this
is very common in Fl. It also negates the need for federal withholding,
placing the burden on the worker with a 10-99.

Independent contractors are common here too. I know many professionals
who actually prefer working this way. My company hires contractors for
special projects. For the company it's a win-win situation since, if
they like the person and they do a good job, they have the option of
hiring them on full time. If not, they can just let him go when his
contract expires. But the thing is, the company usually pays much
more for a contractor than they pay for a full time employee. The
people who like contract work claim that they can make enough to
easily pay their own medical coverage and still end up ahead of the
game. The biggest downside is the uncertainty of finding consistent
contracts. Many of these people work through an agency to help them
find contract jobs. The downside to that though is that the agency
takes a "cut" of what a company would otherwise pay you. On the other
hand, some of these agencies will pick up medical coverage, and you
end up becoming an employee of the contract agency. There are many
variations.


*Resumption of healthcare coverage is tied to
.the laid-off worker's need to find another job.

So what happens in between when on needs 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?

No one said that life would always be easy.

If you don't have a solution, say so, but saying resumption of
healthcare is tied to finding another job goes without say. Problem is,
the jobs do not exist..check your stats from the feds. Last month, the
feds fell short of 100,000 jobs they expected to add to the stats of
added jobs for the month.

On the other hand, the federal unemployment rate is around 5.1%. Even
if that number under represents the total number of unemployed people,
and it's really 10%, that also means that 90% of eligible people are
working.


Try growing up during the great depression in
the 30's as my parents did, and then tell me
what hardship is.

How are your parents any different from any other of our parents who did
the same thing?

They're different in that they understood the hardship and got through
it without screaming for the government to bale them out. What we are
going through today is a walk in the park compared to back then.


When I was a kid, all I would hear were
stories of how people did "this and that" to get
by. You've probably heard the stereotypical
stories of people walking to school with ratty
shoes full of holes in the snow.


Uphill,,,both ways.

And they were glad!


Except that these were true. I guess my
perspective is a bit different than yours. To
me, the examples you've given are a speed
bump compared to life during the depression.

Except you weren't there and did not experience anything remotely
associated with such a hardship as that.

Not directly no. But when the family would talk about it seemingly
endlessly when I was a kid, you'd swear they were reliving it.

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.

Not one of those small towns you mentioned were major steel producing
towns. In fact, those towns are obscure to all but those who live near
them, except for Allentown, and that was made famous by Billy Joel.

But the problem was very real to those who lived there. Phoenixville
was especially hard hit when not only the steel mill closed, but the
Firestone tire plant closed, and the Budd Company (Made truck and
train bodies) closed as well. But today, the town is doing alright. A
whole new host of tech and office type jobs opened up.



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..

Only temporarily.

It happened. An entire generation came of age and went during that
"temporary" era you refer.

20 years is a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things. Recovery
started sooner than that. It took 20 years to finally raze the old
buildings.

That's the whole point. Life goes on. People
adapt and adjust. Allow them to do that, give
them a few tools to help them, and they will
solve their own problem.


Except many cities did not recover.

Most did, and still do. If not, people always have the option to move.


We don't need the government mollycoddling
us and indoctrinating us into becoming
dependant on them.


Asking for health care from those who are charged with regulating it
when they have the best care available and toss our cash away like
****ing in the wind and give away health care to the very same people
you say are trying to kill us and wage war and terror on us, is not
mollycoddling. Kind of difficult to explain your position when you
suport these leaders who "mollycoddle" with healthcare those you
repeatedly insist are our enemy and hate us and want us dead.

I'm not so sure how true it is that we are giving free healthcare to
all Iraqi's. That was a rumor started by a liberal rag, based on war
related casualties. That doesn't mean that every sick person in Iraq
gets free healthcare at our expense.

If the government provided all of us healthcare, it would cost a huge
sum. Just the medicare prescription benefit that Bush signed in (And I
strongly opposed) is a huge adder to the deficit. To cover every
American, it would require a sizable increase in taxes. I already have
good coverage, and it costs me less than the tax increase to cover the
government's plan. So why should I favor it?


It's nothing more than socialism. Taking from those according to their
means, to give to those according to their needs. And when the
government is paying the bill, those "needs" will increase
exponentially. There is a certain segment of the population that like
to take advantage of as much free money as they can get.

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.

Tell that to the thousands of people (And Billy
Joel) who lived and worked there and were
laid off when the mills closed.

They were small, tiny mills compared to the larger cities and employed a
fraction of the workers.*

*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.

Down in this country. It's growing strong in
other places where it is cheaper (Hence more
efficient) to manufacture things.

Yea, but that isn't "we". "We" is,,,,er,,,are the USA!

"We" still own many of the companies and still manage the operations
overseas. That employs people. True, it requires a more advanced
management skillset, but the jobs usually pay better too.



**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.

It's very much related. A particular vocation
doesn't have to be large to be relevant.

It does to be compared to an entire industry such as the steel industry
of which we were speaking.

The principle is the same, regardless of the size of the industry.
When technology allows the reduction of manual labor, or the
obsolescence of a particular vocation, and a savings in costs, should
we not take advantage of it? Isn't part of an individual's
responsibility to remain marketable?


The
blacksmith example highlights quite accurately
what happens when our society evolves and
old skills and crafts are no longer needed.


The loss of blacksmith jobs never crippled any towns or cities and that
was what we were speaking.

Again the scale of the effect is irrelevant. The principle is the
same. When jobs become obsolete, people must learn new current skills.

At the same time newer skills open up as a
result of advancing technology. People need
to keep up with the trends so that the skills
they posses are not obsolete.

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.

All that sounds fine and all, but the long and
short of it is that for the field that I am in, the
salaries offered were between 20 and 40%
lower than they are here. The employers there
(And I interviewed with quite a few) once they
find out where you're from, tell you right up
front not to expect a comparable salary.


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?

Because I did some extensive research

So did Shark on your laws,

Says you. I saw no evidence of that. But please stay focussed.


but you stil claimed because one lived
somewhere else, they cold not know the particulars as well as one who
resided there.

Which is true in most cases.


when I was considering the move there 15
years ago.

15 years ago was another era in Fl.

Things have changed that much? Ok, I'll take your word for it, since
you live there.


I walked into a K-Mart and compared prices of
the things that I normally buy with what I pay
up here. My wife was especially knowledgable
about clothing prices.

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).

Slightly lower in specific cases, like locally
produced goods like fruit and other food.
*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.

Actually, when I was checking, I was currently
paying 15 cents per kilowatt hour. In Florida
(In Brevard County), the rate was about 8
cents per kilowatt hour. Water rates varied
depending on whether you had "city" water or
a privately owned "utility", but they were
cheaper by and large than what I paid up
here.



What do you refer to as a privately owned utility? You either have city,
county, or well water. I have city -and- a well.

Wells were usually used to water the grass. The new homes I was
looking at all had one. What I meant by a privately owned utility was
a utility that was built by the housing developer to provide water to
their developments. It's not owned or operated by the city, it is a
private entity. I understand that after a certain number of years
passed many of these private utilities were sold to the city.


Heat was not an issue as most homes used
efficient heat pumps, which spent most of their
times as air conditioners. With insulation
ratings of R34 in most new homes, the cooling
costs offset the normal eastern PA winter
heating cost by a considerable margin.

Gas was only recently introduced as a choice for heating and cooking,
and even in most cities, it has to be trucked in (propane).

I prefer electric for cooking (When I'm not
grilling).

Not me. I hate it, but until we get gas lines, I'm not paying for
propane.

Personal choice I guess. I grew up with electric appliances, so that's
what I'm used to.


And heating in Florida is not normally an
issue, as you know. A couple of logs on the
fireplace will take the chill off on those few
chilly mornings.

Depends where you live. The top of the state, even from Ocala northward
use their heat all winter every winter. 30's is a bit chilly and a
fireplace can't heat the entire house.

I was in Central Florida (Brevard), and was told that heat was a
rarity for about a three week span in January.

*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. Autos are not only in better condition (speaking of used,
of course) but new cars are somewhat cheaper here, so are most
manufactured goods.

Not according to what I found. I didn't bother
with used car pricing because there is a
certain amount of subjective perception.


(shrug) I go by NADA or edmunds.com perceptions, as does the auto
industry. Check resale and trade-in values.

But the MSRP of new cars there was the
same (or very close) as what I see up here.
Sure, no one pays MSRP, but the degree of
discount is not going to be any more
significant there than here.

Gasoline was actually more expensive back
then than up here. What do you pay for gas
now? Last week, I paid $1.94/gallon
*
Last week I paid 1.94 also. This week it's 2.03 but I haven't checked
gasbuddy.com in a few weeks.

I'm up to $2.04 as of today. But that just goes to show that there
isn't enough of a difference in most consumer costs in Florida to
justify a 30% reduction in salary.


*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.

I can do the same up here. Orange Juice is
$2.00 a half gallon (for the "Not from
concentrate" stuff). That's something I would
expect to be much cheaper in Florida.

It is, bit not in the stores. Go to the stands or groves.

And it's better there too. There's nothing tastier than a fresh from
the grove Florida Orange juice.

We have vegetable stands too. Obviously we can't grow citrus fruits,
but we do tomatoes, cucumbers, corn, lettuce and most common produce.
And it's cheaper than the stores usually too.


Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:37:32 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

Dave Hall Jr.(N3CVJ) wrote:

And at 30-40% less of a salary, for
the same job, that limits one's buying power.

Yep,,salaries for workers who work for another have always been low
compared to the northern states.

Exactly my point. Which limits my buying
power.

The only people that have
trouble adjusting are those who live beyond their means.

Living beyond one's means is somewhat
subjective. It depends on where you are living
and what your earning power is.

Your salary has nothing to do with one living beyond their means.

Sure it does. You salary determines what
"your means" is.

One
can make 200 bucks a week and live beyond their means, just as one who
makes 2000 bucks a week can live beyond their means. It is also not
linked to geography or earning power.

When one budgets carefully and lives a
certain standard of living in one area and
"lives within his means", suddenly up roots
and moves somewhere else, and his salary
decreases, he is now living beyond his means
assuming the bills stay relatively the same.


Demonstrating anyone can live beyond their means.

No argument. But the threshold point of where "you means" is, is
dependent on your salary and what your expenses are. If they both
decrease proportionately, then you can still be within your means. If
the salary decreases more than your expenses, you could be living
beyond your means.

Cuts in spending involve changing your
standard of living. Someone used to driving a
BMW might now have to deal with a Chevy. It
might not be their idea of "living".


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

We do. That's one area of assistance that I'm
very much in favor of. Training enables people
to become self-sufficient.

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

Because it is a widening black hole


Sure,,when the US in covering Iraqi medical care for the asking.

I don't believe that is true.


As long as there are no attempts to cap
medical costs they will keep spiraling, no
matter how much the government kicks in on
our behalf.


Yet, you speak out against our own people getting such care, but you
have said nothing concerning the current admin's waste of medical care
and supplying the Iraqi's with it, or any other of the "enemies' on our
list

Because there is no credible evidence that all Iraqi's, beyond those
injured as a direct result of war activities, are being medically
covered at our expense.


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

One can not be self sufficient if one is sick and ailing.

People got sick in the 1930's too.

Try to stay relevant, Dave, and not slip into your preference of
discussing ancient history that will not change anything.

Comparing different periods of time is helpful in providing
perspective. In the 1930's people didn' t look to the government for
help, they knew that they had to depend on family and their own drive
to survive. Today's generation, as soon as they get a hang nail, they
want the government to "help" them. The point is that people got just
as sick in the 1930's as they do now, and they dealt with it. People
need to learn how to deal with it now.


And you know what? They went to work
anyway, or there might not be any food on the
table that night.


Advocating people to go to work sick in today's climate is a very
irresonsible thing to do, Dave.

Not if you have family waiting for dinner at home.

Even the CDC and the WHO tell people to
stay home. In fact, many employers, such as hospitals have policies
against coming to work ill.

Then those same companies cut back on the number of sick days an
employee can take. It sends a confusing message.

But if you don't have sick days and you have mouths to feed, you do
what is necessary. THAT is responsibility. I guess today's solution
would be to beg the government for federally mandated paid sick
time....


Looking to the government for assistance is perfectly acceptable in many
instances, Dave. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of
people STILL homeless in Fl because of the hurricanes.

Yes, Yes, and YES. I'm totally cool with
hardship TEMPORARY assistance.

Many folks would benefit and live healthier and longer if they were
permitted even temporary medical assistance from the government,,,so are
you for it or against it?

No. Not as long as nothing is done to address
the supply side of the equation. There are
many problems in the medical field.



And those who lost everything and are in need of medical assistance were
not responsibe for any of them.

Doesn't change the problem. Democrats and liberals alike love to solve
a problem by throwing money at it. In the case of heathcare, the more
money to throw at it, the hungrier it will get. Until you gain control
on the spiraling costs and malpractice suits run amuck, the costs to
consumers will continue to rise. That is, unless you stop all forms of
insurance, and let the free market reassert control on what medical
professionals charge.


Fraud is
rampant, lawsuits are commonplace,
everyone looks to wring big bucks out of the
medical industry. Until there is meaningful tort
reform, lessening of malpractice insurance,
and someone steps in to run roughshod over
billing practices, I don't want one more penny
pumped into this industry only to encourage it
to grow even further in costs.


It's not a money shortage problem, like you assume, it's a budget issue
of where and how the monies are spent. Instead of spending health care
on the enemy overseas, there are many children in this country who could
benefit from the care El Mohammed Mujasteen receives and which you
condone.

I condone nothing of the sort, and unless you can provide evidence
that common Iraqi citizens are given free care at our expense, I'll
continue to believe that this is just another liberal rumor.


*Now please 'splain how being self-sufficient and personally
responsible can help these folks who paid their premiums on time
faithfully all those years, had their homes destroyed or damaged to the
point they are rendered unsafe for living conditions, lost all their
possessions, yet still manage to survive by living in tents, can bring
them up out of their hell created by the insurance companies who are
regulated by the federal government.

The insurance companies are obligated to
make good on their claims.

But they AREN'T making good on their claims, Dave, and this is the
problem.

Well, if they aren't because they can't, that's
one thing.

If they can't, the fault lies with your government because they are the
ones that regulate the premiums and the industry.

No, the government has a very little part to play in the operation of
a free market industry. They can set guidelines and set some
regulations and protections. But what you are suggesting is that the
government insure the insurance companies. But psychologically, if
everyone assumes that the government is there to "bail them out"
whenever a hardship comes, there is no incentive for these people and
entities to effectively plan for disaster and to take greater
responsibility for their own life.


You can't get blood from a rock. If
they're just dragging their feet, the government
should step in and push on behalf of the
residents.
And they should be made to repay the
.government for any "handouts" it had to pay
to house people until the insurance companies
settled.

The government disagrees, this is why FEMA was created.

FEMA provides assistance to people
displaced due to natural disasters.


Hurricanes -are- natural disasters, Dave. You perhaps thought otherwise?

No, so where's the problem? Isn't FEMA responding either?


.Which they should.

But they AREN'T doing it, and the government is STILL permitting these
companies do write more policies.

So you advocate that the government control
aspects of business?
That's socialism.


Better read up on who the insurance industry answers to, Dave. The feds
regulate everything to do with them.

Sure, in order to protect citizens against fraud. But they don't
control day to day operations.

Besides, if the insurance companies don't
write more policies, where are they going to
get the money they need to pay the claims
(Other than by raising MY rates for no good
reason)?

From their catastrophic relief fund, a fund specifically created in
order to prevent such problems.

Then where's the bottleneck? Sounds like all the right things are in
place, but something had thrown a wrench in the works.

The thing is, if I had a member of my family
who was displaced from their home in Florida,
I would take a week or two off of work, hook
up the trailer to my truck, load up the
generator and drive down. I would let them
live in the trailer until their home was rebuilt.

Again, not everyone has families that can help, Dave.

Everyone has a family, unless you were grown in a lab. Even then your
"donors" could be considered family. The fact that many people burn
their family bridges is not our problem. Maybe without that government
safety net, people would be a little more considerate of their
families. You never know when they have to lean on them.

If it were that
simple, there would be no displaced families there now,,,and there are
thousands and thousands.

A testament to just how bad our society has gotten with respect to
traditional families. 50 or 60 years ago, and this wouldn't be a
problem.


THAT is what I meant before by leaning on
and getting support from family. I can't believe
all those people who lost homes don't have
relatives they can live with, or who can help
them in some way.

Yea..they all choose to live without roofs and appliances and choose to
cook outdoors because of their pioneering spirit.

Well, what other excuse can someone have for not offering to take in
their fellow family members in their time of need?


My in-laws had a fire in 1987. Their home
was unlivable for almost a year, while waiting
for insurance claims to settle. I invited them to
live with my wife and I for the time period. It
was tight, but that's what you do for family.

Ummm,,,actually, i would have rented them their own place.

Umm.... Yea well, they didn't have the money for that, and neither did
I. So I bit my tongue and did what I had to do.


Among a boatload of reasons you ignore...abuse, peer pressure,
self-esteem, curiosity, lies told to them by those who buy into the
government's bull**** war on drugs...etc. It's hypocritical of us to
tell the kids to just say no when we ply them with ritalin from a young
age and mom smokes cigarettes, drinks cup after cup of coffee, and dad
drinks alcohol, even if it's the cocktail with dinner.

Not an issue. Peer pressure is something you
have to deal with.

And something whcih parents have no control to what their children are
exposed in public schools.

They have control in showing their kids that the bullies are the ones
who have problems. You teach your kids to be better than that. That's
how I survived.

I took a lot of peer pressure abuse when I
was a kid.

Dave, multiply that times your highest faction you can handle and then
you amy come close to understanding the level of peer pressure today.

It's not that much worse. We're just more sensitive to it now,
especially in light of Columbine. In my day, bullying was actually
chalked off as a part of "character building", a "boys will be boys"
attitude. Some of the teachers (Mostly the phys-ed types) would
actually encourage some of it (or turn a blind eye to it). It was just
as destructive then. But we learned to deal with it, rather than
expecting someone to put us on anti-depresents.


You learn to ignore and deal with it. You learn
that those people are not worth your time, and
when it's all said and done, they'll be serving
you fries 20 years from now.


You know better than to try and tell a child what it will be like in 20
years. 20 weeks is an eternity to kid. 20 years is inconceivable.

It's a tough point to make when most teens live in the here and now.
But persistence worked for me. I learned to comprehend the long term.
If I can do it, anyone can.


Provide them with many sorts of creative
avenues to release, and there will be no need
to turn to destructive behavior.

Again,,,bull****.

Not at all.

Perhaps just you are just naive, then.

No, it' makes perfect logical sense. Many experts in the field agree
with it. The point is to always be involved in your child's life. But
do it in a non-controlling subtle way, where you are always there, but
they don't realize that you have as much influence as you do.


A kid who plays sports, acts in drama clubs,
plays in the band, participates in the arts, or
has a worthwhile hobby, will be way too busy
to hang out with the slackers.

Your mistake is believing drug use by children is inherent to these you
call "slackers".

Drug use is done mainly as an escape by
those who can't handle life.

Then the same can be said for alcohol and obacco users.

Yes, and it's just as true. Although smoking was done, mainly to look
older, more worldly, and "cool". But since smoking has fallen out of
favor due to the health risks, the incidence of teen smoking should
begin to fall off.


Mostly this is a result of isolating parents who
protected their kids for too long, and who now
have to deal with the ugliness of the real
world. They have self-esteem and social
issues. But in their minds they are perfectly
ok, and they try to get other kids to partake as
well, to further bolster the illusion of normalcy
that dopers tend to believe.

Same can be said for those who drink, then.

Yes. If the sole purpose of drinking is to get drunk. Those who like
alcohol just for the taste of it, have a somewhat different reason. I
used to drink when I was younger. But I didn't get drunk all that
much, as I didn't like the aftermath. But when I was at that young
age, it was believed that drinking was less destructive than drugs.


Being an alert and supportive parent who can
intercede when your kid starts to have
"problems" before they turn to drugs.

Drugs are not the problem Dave, they are a symptom.

A symptom of a much larger psychological problem. One that should be
easy to spot if you are an alert parent.

That's why it's also important to know their
friends.
**Giving a kid an activity that they can be
proud to excel at and bolster their self esteem
(While learning what it means to truly EARN it)
builds character.

Yup,,character that is torn down when these suburban kids from loving
families begin using harmful drugs.

If the character is strong, and you believe
enough in yourself, you can just say no. I
never did drugs in school. For one thing I
never smoked at all, and the smell of smoke
bothered me. Other drugs seemed silly to me.
To me, they were pointless. Plus I never had
enough money to buy them anyway. I spent all
my cash on CB radio stuff. I guess you could
say CB was my "drug".
Keep your kids poor! And for God's sake, don't
give them a credit card.
*

Keep your kids poor? That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.

Is it? If they don't have money, they can't very well buy drugs now
can they? Remove temptation. It works for me when I'm dieting. No crap
food in the house, and if I get the urge to snack, and there's nothing
there, I don't do it.

On
one hand, you claim that if you act one way with your kids, they will
avoid drugs and other pitfalls you mistakenly only attribute to
"slackers", yet you believe giving them a credic card or a pocket full
of cash will destroy the values you instill in your kids.

Kids are too immature to handle the responsibility of spending money.
They often make poor and impulsive buying decisions. They have to
learn how to spend money wisely. It's not about destroying values,
it's about making mistakes.

Oh man, just you wait. You are in for the shock and heartbreak of your
life like you can never imagine.

No I'm not.


*Lastly, never lose communication with them.
Set your ground rules while they are young,
and they become adjusted to them. Let a child
run amuck when they are young, and then try
to reign them in when they hit the teenaged
years, and you've already lost.


I don't equate not keeping my children "poor" (as you do) with
permitting them to "run amuck".

No, they're not necessarily the same thing. But allowing your kid to
"run amuck" generally means allowing them to engage in destructive and
disruptive behavior without strict corrective action being taken.
All kids have a rudimentary value system. You, as an alert parent,
knows what means the most to them. Take it away when they are bad, and
they'll eventually learn to be good.

Talk to them always. Know all their friends
(and their parents).
*Make sure they know that you're
always there for them. Support them in
whatever they do. Show up at their plays,
cheer them on at their games. Listen to their
teachers when you have conferences. Trust
them enough and allow them to make small
mistakes, but keep on the lookout for major
ones. In short, STAY INVOLVED!

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

It is great advice, and it is very relevant in the
real world. Not every kid is a weak, spineless
bowl of self esteem goo, that can be shattered
.by the taunting of some lowlife idiot.

Who said otherwise? Those are your mistaken core beliefs.

Then why do you think that being an involved supportive parent is not
relevant in the real world?

I've told you how I do things, so now it's your turn. What do YOU
think is the proper recipe to raise a child the proper way?


If you build their confidence and show them
their potential, they will know enough to laugh
.at the pathetic attempts by the slackers who
use peer pressure to elevate their own pitiful
self-esteem at the expense of others.
There are two types of people in the world.


No Dave, despite your best attempts at pigeonholing people into neat
little groups of twos, it's not true.

Those who excel, and the ones that those who
excel laugh at.


Again, despite your mistaken core beliefs, most successful people do not
laigh at those less fortunate than themselves. It's also not a very
christian thing to do, let alone something a parent should be teaching
their child.

You don't laugh at those truly less fortunate. You laugh at those who
try to bring themselves up by bringing others down. You laugh at those
who have gobs of potential, but waste it away becoming a slacker. If
someone is less fortunate due to their own actions (or inactions) then
they have no one to blame but themselves and we should have no pity
for them.


I used to laugh a lot when I
was in school. I still do.
I know how my parents raised me. I know from
a child's perspective which disciplines worked,
and which ones didn't.


You know what works with -you-. You have no clue what works in other
families, religions, faiths, cultures, cities, etc. Your myopic view
that everyone shares your beliefs has never been more wrong, as the
majority of good caring, parents would never laugh at the misfortune or
expense of other's, regardless the situation.

If you stick your hand in a flame, does it not burn the same for you
as it does for me? There are some things which are pretty much
universal. Those are the lessons I learned as a kid, and bring to the
table now as a parent.

As far as the slackers and bullies are concerned, laughing at them and
their own pathetic existence is hardly a good enough payback for the
pain that they invoke in others.


*I use what I learned to my advantage as a
parent.

As far as learning as a parent, you are in the infancy stage.
You ignore the fact that peer pressure is greater today than you can
comprehend

No it's not. It's the same old story done for the
same reasons.

Yea, ok. How many people were killed for their sneakers or clothes when
you were a kid, Dave?

None. We didn't wear expensive clothes, that anyone would want. I had
$5.00 sneakers. But many were stripped of their lunch money. Kids
today have lost something relating to the value of human life. Mostly
I blame the parents of the "let them express themselves" generation.

People elevate themselves by trying to make
other people feel lousy.

Like laughing at those less fortunate than you, yes, I see your point,
but you are extremely hypocritical.

Nothing hypocritical about it. You laugh at those who would do you
dirt. That's how you fight back at the bullies. You let them know that
they can't affect you, and they'll leave you alone to find someone
else they can terrorize. So don't go pulling a liberal on me by
suggesting we have sympathy for the real aggressors. "Oh, he's just
misunderstood, or he's a victim of his circumstances (Yea, aren't we
all?)". Quite frankly I don't care, he's not my kid, and not my
problem. But if he tries to make my kid's life as miserable as his
own, he's in for a shock.


Once you understand
the psychological forces that drives this, you
can defuse them.


Uh-huh.

Uh Huh!

Dave
"Sandbagger"