| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
June 8th 05, 11:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:55:28 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip Repeat marriages are not accounted for. So what? It is irrelevant. No, it is -very- irrelevant. To prove (or disprove) that half of all marriages end up in divorce then you must know how many marriages and divorces occur in a given amount of time. You can't determine that information from the static data you sourced from the Census bureau. The data I provided was accurate, relevant, and, according to the source of -your- data, came from -the- authoritative source on the subject. My statement was correct. So then how many divorcees end up remarried? Read my statement again, but this time stretch the limits of your reading comprehension skills: "Half of all marriages end in divorce." Now think for a minute (assuming you can supress your medication that long)..... What did I say in that statement? I said, very simply, that one out of every two marriages ends in divorce. I didn't say anything about divorcees getting remarried; I didn't say anything about how many people are currently single and divorced; I didn't say anything about -anything- other than what I said. And what I said is backed up by marriage and divorce rates as provided by the CDC, which is the agency that is repsonsible for collecting those statistics. What I said is -not- undermined by census data because it doesn't have enough information to determine marriage and divorce rates. What I said was not an opinion or statistical abberation, nor was it a report written by some "skilled left wing propagandist". What I said was a fact. So are you -now- able to tell the difference between fact and opinion? Or do you need yet -another- lesson? Care to help Social Security? The best way to help it is to remove it, and divert all former SS withholdings into individual 401K accounts. Of course that penalizes those who have already given into the SS program for their entire working lives. So the transition has to be gradual so to be fair to everyone. So your solution is to simply eliminate Social Security? Hey, neat idea, but you can't "divert" what you don't have, and the Reps have tapped the SS trust fund so deep that there isn't anything to "divert". Care to substantiate that statement with some hard facts? Like the way -you- back up -your- statements with hard facts? Sure.... It's true because I say it's true. In other words, you don't have any. Just another regurgitated "factoid" written by another skilled left wing propagandist. If you assume that the annual Federal Budget Reports from both Congress and the White House are written by skilled left wing propagandists then I suppose you are correct. The federal budget reports claimed that "republicans tapped social security"? Not in those exact words -- you need to have enough brains to figure out that when the SS trust fund gets tapped for spending on Republican bills during Republican administrations, it's usually done by the Republicans. So I suppose that the democrats had not done the same thing when they controlled the congress (Which they did up until 1994)? If you want to say that congress plays creative accounting games with Social Security, I'll agree and let it pass. But don't try to pin this on republicans alone. Unless, of course, you truly are a blind partisan. The blame does indeed rest with the Republicans. The Democrats have consistently pushed to bolster Social Security since the 1960's, while the Republicans have repeatedly dipped into the fund. Are you so out of touch that you don't understand why the Democrats are so popular with people that don't have a six-digit retirement portfolio? Holy crap you are ignorant, Dave! If you could quote any liberal who said that America should be a "welfare state" I might agree. They refer to it by different names. Which is something the conservatives -never- do, I'm sure. Irrelevant. It doesn't change the truth of my statement. Nope, it sure doesn't. You can call it "global warming" or "climate change", the "estate tax" or the "death tax", an "enemy combatant" or a "prisoner of war"..... it's all the same difference. So what liberal has stated that America should become a "welfare state" by that or any other name? Any liberal who supports subsidizing any and all social programs, starting with Welfare, and ending with Medicare. This programs are part and parcel of a "Welfare State". A certain amount of socialism is going to be part of the system -regardless- of who runs the country. The reason is simple: poor people vote. So would you support a Constitutional Amendment that would guarantee every citizen the right to vote? Names like "living wage", "fair share", "universal care". But it basically means the same thing. Taking money from people who earn it, to give to people who don't. LOL..... I think I'll let that statement stand on it's own 'merits'! Yea, the truth. But you wisely chose not to comment on it as the only thing you could do is defend the practices. That's sort of like defending the IRS. Not a very popular position to be in. First of all, what you refer to as a "living wage" is mighty important to millions of voters who don't make a "living wage", mostly due to irresponsible Republican economic plans Irresponsible Republican plans? You really area blind partisan aren't you? What "republican (Or democrat for that matter) plan" can stop the natural course to the free international market without seriously altering it? Let's put it this way: For the past few decades the Republicans have been campaigning on the pretext that they are for smaller government, yet in -every- Republican-dominated administration the government has increased in both size and spending. Republicans spend like they are on a Bloomingdale's shopping spree! They claim that all the spending is good for the economy, yet when it comes time to pay the bill for all that spending they lose control of the budget with phrases like, "Read my lips...." and the people get stuck with the bill. Then they leave the books for the Democrats to balance and maybe build up a surplus, which the Republicans end up throwing away on more spending and tax refunds when they regain control of the budget. It's like none of them ever learned basic fiscal responsibility: when you get a little extra cash it's much wiser to use it to pay down the credit cards, put back what you pilfered from the SS trust fund, and save a little for a rainy day. Nope, the Reps just end up throwing the money around like they were eccentric tycoons and it was -their- money to spend. And when that money is all gone they just max out the credit cards -- again. What they say and what they do are two very different things. That is what I call 'irresponsible'. And who stops those who are making less than a living wage from obtaining the skills necessary to rise above that? You did it. I did it. There's no excuse for anyone so motivated to not rise above the poverty level. Of course you'd have to stop ****ing away your pay on drugs, booze and cheap "dates" with the professional women. It's called "Personal Responsibility". Take charge of your own life. Don't wait for the government to bale you out (And blame then when they don't). Repeat after me: "I am not a victim!" You need to pull your head out of the sand. I used to think that way too, that everyone has the ability to take charge of their own future, to better themselves with education, to work hard and make something of themselves. Then I got a look at the -real- world. It just doesn't work that way, Dave. You claim to live in the real world yet you know nothing about it. And I'm not going to explain this aspect of it to you. You have to go find out the facts for yourself -- assuming you want to continue to claim that you are in touch with reality. (not to forget that 40% of wage-earners don't make enough money to pay income taxes and therefore didn't get Bush's 'tax rebate' that turned out to be nothing more than a loan). I suppose you're one of those people who feel that those who didn't put anything into the tax system should v'e got something back. This wasn't "giveaway money" it was a REBATE on tax money already paid in to the system, If you didn't pay anything in, you can't very well get a rebate on it back. Last time I went to school 100% of zero is still zero. As usual, you missed the whole point: 40% of people who work don't make enough to pay taxes. What does that tell you, Dave? And there is no such thing as a "tax rebate" -- if government spending doesn't decrease by the same amount then it's nothing but a loan. As it turns out, government spending increased -dramatically- after the rebate and -before- 9/11; Bush's plan was that the "rebate" would stimulate the economy enough that the cost of the rebates would come back in the form of increased tax revenue. The plan never worked before, but apparently Bush slept through that class in college (you and Bush sure have a lot in common). Second, "fair share" is in reference to fat-cats and corporations who skip out of paying taxes through shelters, subsidies and a variety of other carefully legislated loopholes. As opposed to the progressive tax scale which punishes those who achieve by burdening them with a higher tax rate? A flat tax rate is the fairest thing. Everyone pays the same percentage. Those who make more, pay more as a matter of percentage of gross. But a progressive tax rate is little more than a thinly veiled socialistic attempt to shift the burdens of society from those who take the most, to those who make the most. I don't recall saying anything about a "progressive tax rate". And "universal care" is a simple concept that provides basic health care service for anyone whether they can afford it or not But SOMEONE has to pay for it. OF COURSE someone has to pay for it. Someone has to pay for every aspect of the government. Do you want it to be fair? Then boil down the cost of government per person and let -that- be the tax. If they can't pay it then send them to debter's gulag where they can work off their debt to the government. And don't forget to ship them off when they're young -- heck you don't want to defer taxes to kids while they go to college since they might end up improving their life and taking your job in the future. And if they get sick just let them die, even if the illness is curable. After all, if they can't produce anything they might as well be dead anyway, right? And if they can't even meet their tax burden then what business do they have spending money on antibiotics to get rid of an infection, or a doctor to set a broken leg? Survival of the fittest, to be sure. Darwinism + taxes. Good plan, Dave. -- more specifically, the programs are targeted towards children whose parents work two or three of Bush's new jobs and still can't pay the rent, let alone health insurance for their children. People who do not possess the skills or motivation to obtain gainful jobs should not be having children. It's that "personal responsibility" thing again. Actually, it's almost verbatim from "Mein Kampf". Sterilize the weak so they are not a burden on society. Even better, just "sterilize" society, and that way you can eliminate the 'ghetto' stage. Raising children is an enormous responsibility both financial and emotional. Potential parents should be ready on both counts before bringing another mouth to feed into the world and then abdicating their responsibilities on to the rest of us. Zieg Heil! It's also targeted towards the increasing senior population who will be SOL when the SS trust fund dries up in a few years Yet you guys on the left are the ones now claiming that there is no problem with social security. Yet when Clinton was in office, it was a "big problem". Would you please make up your minds...... Despite the countless times I have reminded you, you keep forgetting that I'm not one of those "guys on the left". I never claimed that there was no problem with Social Security. "In a free society, you don't need a reason to make something legal. You need a reason to make something illegal." -- Donna Moss, "West Wing" And you accuse ME of watching too much TV? You do, and that's why I used the quote. Yea, I'll bet. I've never even seen "West Wing", but it doesn't surprise me that you have. You bet I do! It's a lot better than most of the other crap that's pushed onto the public as 'entertainment'. That figures. West wing is very liberally slanted so I've been told. Of course you believe everything you're told as long as you're told it's liberally slanted. I prefer "24". The most intense show on TV. yawn. If I want to watch a shoot-em-up-bang-bang show with bad dialog, shallow characters and weak plots I'll watch reruns of Rawhide. Yet "West Wing" is any less shallow and crafted? It's Hollywood's version of what THEY would like the government to be. How would you know? You've never seen it. But which show stands a better chance of happening in the real world? COPS. ----== 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 =---- |
|
#2
June 9th 05, 02:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:58:21 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:55:28 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Repeat marriages are not accounted for. So what? It is irrelevant. No, it is -very- irrelevant. To prove (or disprove) that half of all marriages end up in divorce then you must know how many marriages and divorces occur in a given amount of time. You can't determine that information from the static data you sourced from the Census bureau. The data I provided was accurate, relevant, and, according to the source of -your- data, came from -the- authoritative source on the subject. My statement was correct. So then how many divorcees end up remarried? Read my statement again, but this time stretch the limits of your reading comprehension skills: "Half of all marriages end in divorce." That statement is disingenuous. Many people marry for the wrong reasons once, divorce after 2 or 3 years, and then marry again, and this time stay married. Those facts aren't reflected in your numbers. The federal budget reports claimed that "republicans tapped social security"? Not in those exact words -- you need to have enough brains to figure out that when the SS trust fund gets tapped for spending on Republican bills during Republican administrations, it's usually done by the Republicans. So I suppose that the democrats had not done the same thing when they controlled the congress (Which they did up until 1994)? If you want to say that congress plays creative accounting games with Social Security, I'll agree and let it pass. But don't try to pin this on republicans alone. Unless, of course, you truly are a blind partisan. The blame does indeed rest with the Republicans. The Democrats have consistently pushed to bolster Social Security since the 1960's, while the Republicans have repeatedly dipped into the fund. Proof please. Democrats have traditionally been of the expand government programs, and tax people to pay for it type. While republicans have been in favor of trimming government programs and giving money back to the people. Are you so out of touch that you don't understand why the Democrats are so popular with people that don't have a six-digit retirement portfolio? Holy crap you are ignorant, Dave! The reason that democrats are popular with the poor and politically ignorant (Which appears to include you), is because they promise to "give" them something that they don't have to earn themselves. Whether it's welfare, Social Security, Food Stamps, free health care, extended unemployment, or any number of "gimme" programs. Those programs are championed by democrats, and favored by people in need, and paid for by people who earn. It's nothing more than redistribution of wealth and leveraging class warfare to advance their political goals. One of those goals is to create a class of dependant people who the democrats can continue to feed (Just enough to keep them above water, but not enough to become truly independent), in exchange for their continued support. Democrats are popular with those who take. Republicans are popular with those who MAKE. Any liberal who supports subsidizing any and all social programs, starting with Welfare, and ending with Medicare. This programs are part and parcel of a "Welfare State". A certain amount of socialism is going to be part of the system -regardless- of who runs the country. No, it doesn't have to be. I suppose you've heard the saying: "Give a person a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a person to fish and they'll eat for a lifetime"? That's one of the major differences in ideological philosophies between conservatives and liberals. Liberals just want to throw money at every problem and hope that it goes away. Conservatives want to teach people to be self sufficient and to learn to stop thinking of themselves as victims. The reason is simple: poor people vote. So would you support a Constitutional Amendment that would guarantee every citizen the right to vote? Sure, why not? Most poor people would rather earn their own keep, if given that chance. First of all, what you refer to as a "living wage" is mighty important to millions of voters who don't make a "living wage", mostly due to irresponsible Republican economic plans Irresponsible Republican plans? You really area blind partisan aren't you? What "republican (Or democrat for that matter) plan" can stop the natural course to the free international market without seriously altering it? Let's put it this way: For the past few decades the Republicans have been campaigning on the pretext that they are for smaller government, yet in -every- Republican-dominated administration the government has increased in both size and spending. Proof please. Start in 1995 with Newt Gingrich's brilliantly executed "Contract with America" and how, for the first time in many years, a republican led majority in congress, slashed pork, wasteful spending, and government programs which resulted in the balanced budget that "Slick willie" Clinton tried to take credit for, and laid the foundation for the tax cuts that Bush gave back to every taxpayer. Republicans spend like they are on a Bloomingdale's shopping spree! They claim that all the spending is good for the economy, yet when it comes time to pay the bill for all that spending they lose control of the budget with phrases like, "Read my lips...." and the people get stuck with the bill. Then they leave the books for the Democrats to balance and maybe build up a surplus, which the Republicans end up throwing away on more spending and tax refunds when they regain control of the budget. You've got the cycle right, but for the wrong reasons. Democrats, enact social programs which cost money. They therefore have to raise taxes to pay for them. High taxes **** off a lot of people, so they vote the democrats out and the republicans in. The republicans slash and burn the democrats programs, give people tax relief, and cut the budget. Then people start to bitch that they want this program and that program, and accuse the republican administration of being "insensitive" to the needs of these whiny special interest groups, and they vote in a slick talking democrat who will promise them the moon, but neglect to inform them of what it will all cost. Then the cycle repeats. This administration has been the lone exception. Spending has been ridiculous for a republican administration. But remember, we were recovering from a recession which started with the stock market crash at the end of Clinton's term. We also had 9/11, and we're fighting two wars. Those are not normal circumstances. It's like none of them ever learned basic fiscal responsibility: when you get a little extra cash it's much wiser to use it to pay down the credit cards, put back what you pilfered from the SS trust fund, and save a little for a rainy day. Nope, the Reps just end up throwing the money around like they were eccentric tycoons and it was -their- money to spend. And when that money is all gone they just max out the credit cards -- again. What they say and what they do are two very different things. That is what I call 'irresponsible'. You've just described historically typical democratic spending policies. How come it only bothers you now when it's a republican at the helm? Can you say "Partisan"? Sure you can..... And who stops those who are making less than a living wage from obtaining the skills necessary to rise above that? You did it. I did it. There's no excuse for anyone so motivated to not rise above the poverty level. Of course you'd have to stop ****ing away your pay on drugs, booze and cheap "dates" with the professional women. It's called "Personal Responsibility". Take charge of your own life. Don't wait for the government to bale you out (And blame then when they don't). Repeat after me: "I am not a victim!" You need to pull your head out of the sand. I used to think that way too, that everyone has the ability to take charge of their own future, to better themselves with education, to work hard and make something of themselves. You were right then. What happened? Then I got a look at the -real- world. No, you were indoctrinated by a whiney left coast liberal. It just doesn't work that way, Dave. Yes, yes it does. There is absolutely no reason why a person with marketable skills cannot obtain a gainfully paying job. No one said the path will be easy or the same for every person. But there is a path. You just have to be willing to take it, and stay the course. You claim to live in the real world yet you know nothing about it. And I'm not going to explain this aspect of it to you. You have to go find out the facts for yourself -- assuming you want to continue to claim that you are in touch with reality. Frank, I live in the real world, I observe real people, and am particularly sensitive to the psychological aspects of how people interact. There is no good reason you can give me, that will convince me that any person, who is duly motivated, cannot achieve some level of financial independence. There is nothing magical, genetic, or special about people like Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Sean Fanning, or any number of other people who took dirt and made it into something. Some people whine that they couldn't afford to go to college. Yet there are others who find a way to make it happen. Others whine that they're being discriminated against. Yet there are others in a similar group who achieve quite well. Then there are people who say that there are just no jobs out there for them. Then there are those who are willing to relocate to where the jobs are. There are two kinds of people in this world Frank. Those who achieve, and those who make excuses why they won't. If you have a defeatist attitude, you're doomed before you start. Part of the problem is that our culture has adopted an "Instant gratification" aspect. Whether it be in the things we buy or the path we choose to aspire to, we expect things to happen right away. There is little patience involved. If your circumstances dictate that you will not be able to earn a college degree for 10 years of night school, while working at Wal-Mart, then many people with little patience quit and then vote for a democrat who will give them food stamps. Those who stick it out, will eventually receive the rewards for their efforts. With today's technology, there are businesses that anyone with a computer can set up on line with virtually no overhead. There are people who make 6 figure incomes just by buying and selling items on E-Bay. America truly IS the land of opportunity. But it's not the land of guarantees. You have to be willing to WORK for your success. Unless you have a physical or mental handicap, which prevents you from working, you have only yourself to blame if you don't succeed. (not to forget that 40% of wage-earners don't make enough money to pay income taxes and therefore didn't get Bush's 'tax rebate' that turned out to be nothing more than a loan). I suppose you're one of those people who feel that those who didn't put anything into the tax system should v'e got something back. This wasn't "giveaway money" it was a REBATE on tax money already paid in to the system, If you didn't pay anything in, you can't very well get a rebate on it back. Last time I went to school 100% of zero is still zero. As usual, you missed the whole point: 40% of people who work don't make enough to pay taxes. What does that tell you, Dave? And there is no such thing as a "tax rebate" -- if government spending doesn't decrease by the same amount then it's nothing but a loan. As it turns out, government spending increased -dramatically- after the rebate and -before- 9/11; Bush's plan was that the "rebate" would stimulate the economy enough that the cost of the rebates would come back in the form of increased tax revenue. The plan never worked before Actually there are credible economic sources that claim that Bush's tax rebate did lessen somewhat both the severity and the duration of the recession. So it did work, to some degree. , but apparently Bush slept through that class in college (you and Bush sure have a lot in common). Interesting side note. Apparently Kerry has finally released his GPA for the years when he was at Yale. It seems that his GPA was WORSE than Bush's. Imagine that....... Second, "fair share" is in reference to fat-cats and corporations who skip out of paying taxes through shelters, subsidies and a variety of other carefully legislated loopholes. As opposed to the progressive tax scale which punishes those who achieve by burdening them with a higher tax rate? A flat tax rate is the fairest thing. Everyone pays the same percentage. Those who make more, pay more as a matter of percentage of gross. But a progressive tax rate is little more than a thinly veiled socialistic attempt to shift the burdens of society from those who take the most, to those who make the most. I don't recall saying anything about a "progressive tax rate". You don't have to. That's what we currently have. And "universal care" is a simple concept that provides basic health care service for anyone whether they can afford it or not But SOMEONE has to pay for it. OF COURSE someone has to pay for it. Someone has to pay for every aspect of the government. Do you want it to be fair? Then boil down the cost of government per person and let -that- be the tax. I tend to liken that approach to what happens when my work group decides to celebrate some award or other activity at a local eating establishment. We have 10 or 15 people, who all order different things, some order appetizers and alcoholic drinks as well. The when the bill comes, and because it's easy, they normally just take the amount and divide it by the number of people, and everyone forks up. The problem is that I usually end up paying $15 for a meal which in reality should have cost me $8.50. I end up paying for those extra appetizers and drinks that some of the other people ordered. So much for "fair" I'd much rather pay for what I use. If they can't pay it then send them to debter's gulag where they can work off their debt to the government. And don't forget to ship them off when they're young -- heck you don't want to defer taxes to kids while they go to college since they might end up improving their life and taking your job in the future. And if they get sick just let them die, even if the illness is curable. After all, if they can't produce anything they might as well be dead anyway, right? And if they can't even meet their tax burden then what business do they have spending money on antibiotics to get rid of an infection, or a doctor to set a broken leg? Survival of the fittest, to be sure. Darwinism + taxes. Good plan, Dave. Typical of liberals. Rely on a strawman argument in an effort to make your point. But then when your point is based on an exaggeration of reality, so to, is your credibility. -- more specifically, the programs are targeted towards children whose parents work two or three of Bush's new jobs and still can't pay the rent, let alone health insurance for their children. People who do not possess the skills or motivation to obtain gainful jobs should not be having children. It's that "personal responsibility" thing again. Actually, it's almost verbatim from "Mein Kampf". Sterilize the weak so they are not a burden on society. Even better, just "sterilize" society, and that way you can eliminate the 'ghetto' stage. Well, that's a far better solution then just letting people have children, willy-nilly without having any practical means to support them, and then expecting society to save them from their own mess. Ultimately the children are the ones who suffer, and statistically, children brought up in those situations rarely exceed the economic status of their irresponsible parents (Another cliche for you: "The apple never falls far from the tree"). Whether it's genetic of environmental, the result is the same. The philosophical question is: Should a person's right to procreate deserve greater consideration than their responsibility to properly care for their offspring? Raising children is an enormous responsibility both financial and emotional. Potential parents should be ready on both counts before bringing another mouth to feed into the world and then abdicating their responsibilities on to the rest of us. Zieg Heil! Attempts to demonize a rational point about personal responsibility by invoking an emotional reaction through a vain attempt to make a poorly crafted and unrelated comparison to an evil regime in another place and time are just as bogus now, as when those who employ the same technique compare Bush to Hitler. It's also targeted towards the increasing senior population who will be SOL when the SS trust fund dries up in a few years Yet you guys on the left are the ones now claiming that there is no problem with social security. Yet when Clinton was in office, it was a "big problem". Would you please make up your minds...... Despite the countless times I have reminded you, you keep forgetting that I'm not one of those "guys on the left". I never claimed that there was no problem with Social Security. Yet you oppose Bush's plan to change the way it works in order to save it.? Or would you rather just dump more and more taxpayer money into what is essentially a pyramid scheme? Yet "West Wing" is any less shallow and crafted? It's Hollywood's version of what THEY would like the government to be. How would you know? You've never seen it. I've read reviews and talked to other people who DO watch it. But which show stands a better chance of happening in the real world? COPS. True, but COPS was not one of the choices. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
#3
June 9th 05, 04:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
If your circumstances dictate that you will not be able to earn a college degree for 10 years of night school, while working at Wal-Mart, then many people with little patience quit and then vote for a democrat who will give them food stamps. Those who stick it out, will eventually receive the rewards for their efforts. Nice theory, but you can't swing that excuse in the real world. For example, take the layoffs GM just announced. Many are single parents with school age children who can not go back to school AND support a family. What should they do, Dave? They lost their well paying jobs and medical insurance for themselves and their children. If you were well educated in the world beyond eastern Pa., you would know what the employment scene is like in Detroit. You claim one can simply move away, but that is based on your own lack of education and not able to realize many can't move away for a myriad of reasons, such as caring for an infirm parent nearby in a care facility for but a single example. More children are now caring for parents than in any other time in our history. Many have taken out home equity loans to pay for health care and prescription coverage that they lost through no fault of their own. There is an entire contingency in many demographical areas of the US in which many are trapped in a sort of financial snare. People like you usually get what is coming in the end and karma, luck, divine intervention, whatever, will dictate you end up just like those you blame for being poor, black, queer, liberal, etc. In fact, your daughter may quit school, commonly become pregnant to an African-American or three, have many children and volunteer at the ACLU before realizing she is a lesbian and needs a job to pay the attorney for the crack and prostitution charges. |
|
#4
June 10th 05, 12:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#6
June 10th 05, 08:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
June 13th 05, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:08:32 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: For example, take the layoffs GM just announced. Many are single parents with school age children who can not go back to school AND support a family. Why are they single parents in the first place? Such has nothing to do with the layoffs, but death is one reason why many are single parents. Yes, but it's a small minority. Divorce is another reason and thsoe folks are "no small minority". There are tons of reasons that single parents exist. In fact, if you check the stats, I believe half the children in the country are from homes where both nuclear parents are not present. What should they do, Dave? They lost their well paying jobs and medical insurance for themselves and their children. Job retraining is usually available for people displaced by layoffs. You're way off. Job training is NOT usually avaliable for those laid off. In fact, job retraining availability is available to only an extremely small percentage of laid off workers. You need to realize many can't move away for myriad of reasons, such as caring for an infirm parent nearby in a care facility for but a single example. Most people have large extended families. Most? How you figure that? Uh, probably because of genetics and reproduction. =A0 So genetics and reproduction is your reasoning for claiming most people have large families. Odd, the US census says otherwise. =A0I know the concept of family has become somewhat foreign with today's younger generation. Why eliminate your chosen term "large" now, when applying to families? It changes not only the subject, but the entire point you were attempting. No one branch of a family should be made to bear the burden of such hardships themselves. Where should these folks turn, then Dave? AS I said, the US census does not support your claim. Perhaps you can point to a single example to support your claim that most have "large extended families". You are assuiming all families share your core beliefs. They do not. No, you are right. Many don't. But that's part of the problem. Only for you. That others do not share your core beliefs is not part of the problem, Dave. Families used to take care of each other. There was no need for the government. There was always a need for government. This country is a melting pot of so many value systems and beliefs that you will never have families all sharing the same. Especially when you start emphasizing diversity instead of encouraging assimilation into the melting pot of American culture. =A0 Diversity is what America is and has always strived for. =A0People lean on the internal support of the family for temporary hardships. We're not talking emotional or physical, we are talking financial. So am I. Most families can assume some hardship (such as elderly member care). Again, you miss the boat. Most families are middle class and can NOT bear the burden of additional extended family health care costs. In fact, the opposie is true, the MAJORITY of Americans struggle with affordable health care costs for themselves and immediate family members, and you are claiming they have the means to take on additional cost. That simply isn't so. The care of an elderly family member should not have to fall squarely on the shoulders of one (or two) people. The cost of a family member's care should not have to fall on ANY family members, especially when the US is giving away free medical care to the Iraqis. A strong family negates the need for the government to stick its nose into it (At other people's expense). I know many strong family units who would die for each other. Yes! And that's how it should be. That doesn't mean one has the financial means to provide a solution for another's misfortunes, especially when catastrophic health issues arise. .But a strong large family has more resources than a single person. Yes, but you are again basing sucha claim on your false and unsupported notion that most families are large. This is not the case. More children are now caring for parents than in any other time in our history. Many have taken out home equity loans to pay for health care and prescription coverage that they lost through no fault of their own. Yes, and those who are ambitious will pay it all back when they adjust to their situation and find a new vocation. Many are disabled or seniors and can't work. MANY. There is a big difference between those who can't work, and those who chose not to, or who are underemployed due to lack of motivation. The senior market, especially with boomers retiring, makes up the majority, not the minority. Surely you aren't presenting the idea that all those without health care can simply "adjust". You are assuming these people can all work when a great number of them, esecially in Florida are seniors with a host of health problems. What did these people do 50 years ago, when health insurance was still in its infancy and few people had it? =A0 Argung past history is irrelevant to the current health care situation and crisis. =A0What is your solution to this very large group? There is an entire contingency in many demographical areas of the US in which many are trapped in a sort of financial snare. Subsidizing health care costs is what put us in this mess to begin with. Private insurance subsidies have enabled the healthcare field to sharply increase costs. If the government got involved, it would only get worse. The government DID get involved, Dave, and is VERY involved. They regulate and permit the actions of the crooked insurance companies and industry. The government is very much part of the problem. Unless, there were mandatory caps put on the costs Well, if you live in a town where 80% of the people work at "the factory" and that factory closes up, well yea the town's in a real pickle. All towns have a major employer. .That's wrong. Had you said "many" or a "good deal", I would have to reluctantly agree with you. But the area where I live has no "one" major employer. Again, you changed your claim. All towns have a major employer. If a town has 10,000 people and all work at a different locale, but twenty five work at the same place in town, that IS the major employed for that town. There is a collection of many smaller professional and technology businesses. The .same is true in many areas of California, and Texas. Exactly..and all towns have a major employer, even if it's the federal government or local PD. Years ago, when the textile mills ran, the steel mills flourished, and other large factories dotted the landscape, there might have been a bigger impact. But most of those factories have been closed now for over 20 years, and have been replaced by smaller, denser high tech industries. Which, in turn, would be a town's major employer. |
|
#8
June 13th 05, 04:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
David T. Hall (N3CVJ) wrote:
The number of those without health care (seniors included) far outnumber those healthy workers who get laid off. Most companies who employ skilled workers, have some form of healthcare coverage as part of their benefits package. I've never had a job without it. Your personal situation is irrelevant to the majority. A growing trend has been major employers hiring at 32 hours or less to avoid offering health care benefits. Resumption of healthcare coverage is tied to .the laid-off worker's need to find another job. So what happens in between when on eneeds prescription medication? When one is laid off from their job and offered the mandated COBRA, the cost is always greater than the original. Now, you have people who can not only pay their bills, but can't afford their medical covereage. What is your solution? That way, no one layoff can cripple a significant portion of the population. Depends what you consider a significant portion of the population. I can think of several examples..Reagan importing cheaper metals from the Asians decimated the steel industry in Pa and Ohio. I live within an easy drive of 4 different steel plants. The towns that surrounded them were dependant on those mills for the majority of their income. But 20 years later and things have pretty much recovered. People can get pretty creative when they need to be. Recovered from what? You said it couldn't happen, but by invoking the fact they recovered, you unwittingly admit the towns were indeed crippled from such layoffs.. In many of those industry towns, this led to the closing of the mills and a significant layoff of those town's populations and many of those towns became ghettos or ghost towns because of that. Not in my area. The towns (Allentown, Phoenixville, Fairless Hills, and Conshohocken) are still going strong, although the people who live there are forced to commute to work now. The towns are going through a revitalization, where the old factories have been leveled and in their place have sprung up huge business campuses. Those towns were never considered large steel towns or large steel industy towns. Think Pittsburgh and similar cities in Ohio. Same can be said with coal mining and to a certain extent, the auto industry. History repeats itself. Yes, as we continue to become more efficient at manufacture, Whaaaa? Manufacturing is DOWN, not becoming more efficient. the nature of jobs have evolved along with it. The automobile pretty much ended the demand for blacksmiths. But we shouldn't blame the automobile for causing the demise of the blacksmith industry. The smart blacksmith went back to school and learned to repair cars. Blacksmiths were never a large industry and the position was never one of those that most in a city were employed, rendering the example fruitless and non-related. That's one of the reasons why I still live where I do. I was once contemplating a move to both Florida and North Carolina. But the lack of .diverse skilled jobs and much lower pay scales pretty much nixed that move. Lack of diverse skilled jobs? Excuse me, I should have said diverse high .paying skilled jobs. When was the last time you checked the stats? Florida has led the country in adding new jobs and has not felt the inflation the country has felt the last so many years. The pay here was always offset by the lower cost of living. That's a myth. Ok,,in the same manner you claimed one who lived in another state could not tell you about Pa, what makes you feel you can tell a lifelong resident of another state about their state? It;s not a myth, Dave. There is no state income tax and prices have always been lower in Fl,,until recently (last 10 years). Yes, there are certain costs which are lower in Florida. The homestead exemption saves a bundle on property tax. Homes are (were) cheaper. There is no state tax, and utilities are somewhat lower. Utilites are higher, especially electric, as the majority of homes do not have gas. Gas was only recently introduced as a choice for heating and cooking, and even in most cities, it has to be trucked in (propane). Yes, many costs ARE lower to an extent. But if you try to buy something like a car, gasoline, or a major appliance or consumer good, the cost is pretty mush the same as it is in any other state. Again,,nope. Auto costs are not only in better condition (speaking of used, of course) but new cars are somehwta cheaper here, so are most manufactured goods. The exceptions are the tourist areas and coastal regions that are developed. I can get a gallon of milk for 3 bucks here. I can get a gallon of milk in Chiefland for 2.29. this is the norm, not the exception. And at 30-40% less of a salary, for the same job, that limits one's buying power. Yep,,salaries for workers who work for another have always been low compared to the northern states. The only people that have trouble adjusting are those who live beyond their means. Living beyond one's means is somewhat subjective. It depends on where you are living and what your earning power is. Your salary has nothing to do with one living beyond their means. One can make 200 bucks a week and live beyond their means, just as one who makes 2000 bucks a week can live beyond their means. It is also not linked to geography or earning power. _ =A0People like you usually get what is coming in the end Yes, we tend to survive, because we don't look to other people to blame, or to the government for help. What about this job retraining you speak of? Who pays for it? We do. That's one area of assistance that I'm very much in favor of. Training enables people to become self-sufficient. Yet, govvernment medical care enables people to live and be healthy, yet, you are against that. That's what self sufficiency and personal responsibility are all about. One can not be self sufficient is one is sick and ailing. Looking to the government for assistance is perfectly acceptable in many instances, Dave. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of people STILL homeless in Fl because of the hurricanes. Yes, Yes, and YES. I'm totally cool with hardship TEMPORARY assistance. Many of the major insurance companies are STILL unable to pay for their customer's claims. And my insurance premiums have increased as a result. Yet the company swears that it has nothing to do with the large payouts they .had to make to cover those claims. Somehow I don't believe them..... If it wasn't for the government assistance (what you always refer to as "handouts") with food, water, shelter, etc., these folks would be on the welfare tit. What's the difference? A handout is a handout, unless you are expected to pay it back. Government assistance or welfare? Comes from the same place. But again, I have no problem if it's temporary only. Many folks would benefit and live healthier and longer if they were permitted even temporary medical assistance from the government,,,so are you for it or against it? =A0=A0Now please 'splain how being self-sufficient and personally responsible can help these folks who paid their premiums on time faithfully all those years, had their homes destroyed or damaged to the point they are rendered unsafe for living conditions, lost all their possessions, yet still manage to survive by living in tents, can bring them up out of their hell created by the insurance companies who are regulated by the federal government. The insurance companies are obligated to make good on their claims. But they AREN'T making good on their claims, Dave, and this is the problem. And they should be made to repay the .government for any "handouts" it had to pay to house people until the insurance companies settled. The government disagrees, this why FEMA was created. Call it an "incentive" clause. You really have no clue the magnitude of damage these storms had on many people in Florida. I saw some of it when I was there last fall. There are so many hardworking people that are struggling just to feed their kids, living in tents, and waiting for the federal government to crack down on the insurance companies and make them ante up. .Which they should. But they AREN'T doing it, and the government is STILL permitting these companies do write more policies. To suggest these fine families are anything less than responsible or self-sufficient shows you haven't a clue, Dave. I never said anything of the sort. I'm not talking about temporarily displaced people. I'm talking about perpetual slackers. Does being displaced for a year eqaute your idea of temporary? On the contrary, I will lay odds these folks are illustrating survival skills and grit that you couldn't handle. Based on what? Based on your invoked claims of your material possessions. Many of these folks have been living out of doors, literally, for almost a year and cooking on fires or grills. I do that for fun. Try this for a year, when all of your equipment enabling you to partake in this "fun" has been destroyed, then you -may- be qualified to speak of what these people should and shouldn't do. _ and karma, luck, divine intervention, whatever, will dictate you end up just like those you blame for being poor, black, queer, liberal, etc. In fact, your daughter may quit school, commonly become pregnant to an African-American or three, have many children and volunteer at the ACLU before realizing she is a lesbian and needs a job to pay the attorney for the crack and prostitution charges. Not likely because she will have grown up in a solid supportive family that helps each other and promotes open communications and a strong work ethic with solid morals. What the hell does that have to do with having children to another race? .Nothing. If she wants to marry a black guy, I'm cool with it. As long as they love each other. You can tell you are about to tread in unfamiliar parenting territory. Just you wait. Mistakenly believing that strong morals and all that good stuff aimed at raising your child will prevent her from making her mistakes is the mistake many people make. In fact, many of us who have raised children to adults know better than to believe such tripe, as we were there long before you, Dave. If what you say were true, drug addicts and prostitutes and the like would come from only families that were broken and had no communications, strong work ethic or solid morals. Addiction has no cultural, socioeconomic boundaries. Yes it does to a certain degree. No, it doesn't, at all. Crack is found in the whitest suburbs as well as the darkest ghettos. In fact, the children in this country in addiction programs are overwhelmingly white and from middle class to well -to-do families. Kids rebel and turn to things like drugs because they need an outlet for their energy, or they are craving attention. Among a boatload of reasons you ignore...abuse, peer pressure, self-esteem, curiosity, lies told to them by those who buy into the government's bull**** war on drugs...etc. It's hypocritical of us to tell the kids to just say no when we ply them with ritalin from a young age and mom smokes cigarettes, drinks cup after cup of coffee, and dad drinks alcohol, even if it's the cocktail with dinner. Provide them with many sorts of creative avenues to release, and there will be no need to turn to destructive behavior. Again,,,bull****. A kid who plays sports, acts in drama clubs, plays in the band, participates in the arts, or has a worthwhile hobby, will be way too busy to hang out with the slackers. Your mistake is believing drug use by children is inherent to these you call "slackers". Giving a kid an activity that they can be proud to excel at and bolster their self esteem (While learning what it means to truly EARN it) builds character. Yup,,character that is torn down when these suburban kids from loving families begin using harmful drugs. Lastly, never lose communication with them. Set your ground rules while they are young, and they become adjusted to them. Let a child run amuck when they are young, and then try to reign them in when they hit the teenaged years, and you've already lost. Talk to them always. Know all their friends (and their parents). Make sure they know that you're always there for them. Support them in whatever they do. Show up at their plays, cheer them on at their games. Listen to their teachers when you have conferences. Trust them enough and allow them to make small mistakes, but keep on the lookout for major ones. In short, STAY INVOLVED! Al that is great advice, but is irrelevant in the real world. I know how my parents raised me. I know from a child's perspective which disciplines worked, and which ones didn't. I use what I learned to my advantage as a parent. You ignore the fact that peer pressure is greater today than you can comprehend....your advice has been followed time and time again, yet there are great kids who succumb to drugs every day. |
|
#9
June 13th 05, 04:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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" |
|
#10
June 10th 05, 09:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
No one has figured out the "inflation game." You can never quit
working... soon as you do, you start losing... The game is to promise security, then when those you have promised security to can no longer work (retire), you take the money from them and give it to the new ones... .... used to be called, "The carrot in front of the horse." Amazing how few catch on till it is too late... Warmest regards, John "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 11:34:06 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote: If your circumstances dictate that you will not be able to earn a college degree for 10 years of night school, while working at Wal-Mart, then many people with little patience quit and then vote for a democrat who will give them food stamps. Those who stick it out, will eventually receive the rewards for their efforts. Nice theory, but you can't swing that excuse in the real world. Sure you can. You only have to want it bad enough. For example, take the layoffs GM just announced. Many are single parents with school age children who can not go back to school AND support a family. Why are they single parents in the first place? What should they do, Dave? They lost their well paying jobs and medical insurance for themselves and their children. Job retraining is usually available for people displaced by layoffs. If you were well educated in the world beyond eastern Pa., you would know what the employment scene is like in Detroit. You claim one can simply move away, but that is based on your own lack of education and not able to realize many can't move away for a myriad of reasons, such as caring for an infirm parent nearby in a care facility for but a single example. Most people have large extended families. I know the concept of family has become somewhat foreign with today's younger generation. No one branch of a family should be made to bear the burden of such hardships themselves. People lean on the internal support of the family for temporary hardships. A strong family negates the need for the government to stick its nose into it (At other people's expense). More children are now caring for parents than in any other time in our history. Many have taken out home equity loans to pay for health care and prescription coverage that they lost through no fault of their own. Yes, and those who are ambitious will pay it all back when they adjust to their situation and find a new vocation. There is an entire contingency in many demographical areas of the US in which many are trapped in a sort of financial snare. Well, if you live in a town where 80% of the people work at "the factory" and that factory closes up, well yea the town's in a real pickle. That's why an intelligent person looks to live in an area where alternate employment id plentiful, and diverse commerce is well established. That way, no one layoff can cripple a significant portion of the population. That's one of the reasons why I still live where I do. I was once contemplating a move to both Florida and North Carolina. But the lack of diverse skilled jobs and much lower pay scales pretty much nixed that move. People like you usually get what is coming in the end Yes, we tend to survive, because we don't look to other people to blame, or to the government for help. That's what self sufficiency and personal responsibility are all about. and karma, luck, divine intervention, whatever, will dictate you end up just like those you blame for being poor, black, queer, liberal, etc. In fact, your daughter may quit school, commonly become pregnant to an African-American or three, have many children and volunteer at the ACLU before realizing she is a lesbian and needs a job to pay the attorney for the crack and prostitution charges. Not likely because she will have grown up in a solid supportive family that helps each other and promotes open communications and a strong work ethic with solid morals. And I have taken enough steps to ensure that she will not have to bear the financial burden of taking care of me when I'm old and infirm. I'm only 45, and if I lost my job tomorrow, I'd be able to live comfortably for 4 years without another job, and before I have to worry. If I take a job at half the pay, that number doubles. If the wife also goes back to work, that number increases. If I liquidate some assets, that number increases even more. Before you know it, I'll be at retirement age, and my pensions will kick in, not to mention my 401K. Have you planned for financial hardship? What's your excuse not to? Dave "Sandbagger" |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1419 Â October 22, 2004 | CB | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1419  October 22, 2004 | Dx | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1419  October 22, 2004 | Dx | |||
| OLD motorola trunking information | Scanner | |||
Hybrid Mode
