Michael Coslo wrote:
bb wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:

bb wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:


bb wrote:



Mike Coslo wrote:


safer places to park your money.

Look at the Federal retirement system.

Look at your state retirement system.

Look at your teacher's retirement system.

Is is all in the market?

Is it all out of the market?

Or is it a balance of the two?

Greed, that potential bad character that we have tapped and used

for

good in out semi capitalist system, is an almost irresistible
pull

on

some people.

I'm sure that greed doens't exist in semi-socialist sytems, so why
don't we just get it over with and switch?

Huh? I don't understand.


"Social" security. Get it? And some of the greediest people were
socialists.

Greed is not limited to any one group.


I know quite a few people who during the mid to late '90's were
so
impressed by the stock market goings on, that they put all or
most

of

their retirement investments in risky, high yielding investments.
A
couple invested exclusively in Tech stocks. Guess how much money

they

have today? (answer - not a whole lot) They won't be retiring
early
*or* soon.

Were those retirement investments outside of a conventional
pension
plan?

No. Where I am at, there are two retirement plan options. One is
with


the state, and the other allows you to "customize" your plan with

your

investment options.


Do they limit your options to somewhat wise, conservative
investments?

No.

Or are you options wide open? Probably not.

I'm not on the system with lots of options, so I'm mentally
paraphrasing
here a bit:

There are a number of options in which you can spread percentages of
your money. Those options run the spectrum from blue chip to high
yield,
high risk.

No bonds? Any balanced funds?

Your retirement income is based on your contributions and how
well the investments did.

Is there a "guaranteed return" selection? Of course, even that won't
work if the government devalues its currency.

The Federal Government would likely put limits on the types of
investments you could make with your SS diversion.

Ho-boy, another Federally controlled system. 8^)

Oh, I forgot. Social Security is a Township Trustee run system.

No gold and platinum futures, for example.

Probably a good idea.

As you graduate to an older age group,
they would probably change the investment vehicles available.
Gosh!

One of the people I know that lost a lot of money was thinking that.
He
said that two years before retirement, he was going to pull his money

out of the high risk stuff and put it into the "safe" stuff.

Did he? Or did he think the market was still going good and left it in
riskier investments?

But that's just me thinking out loud. I heard from Al Franken that
Bush doesn't want any ideas on this matter.


On the other hand, I was very careful with my retirement
investments,and didn't lose anything. All I did was take a hit in

my

earning rate.

Until the bubble burst though, Len wasn't the only person that

thinks

I'm a dimbulb!

Aren't you a University of PA employee?

Penn State. U of Pa is the one in Philadelphia.


The point is that you do have a government pension plan.

Yup.

In Ohio, our Governor has put some political appointees on the
retirement fund board, and he wants to make the fund invest in Ohio,
which is a losing prop.

Just how much control do you have over your state employee and

school

employee retirement funds?

Those two plans. We also have an additional TDA possibility from
various companies. On the state plan, there is not a lot you can
do.

On

the other plan, there are more investment options.


TDA? Is that like a supplemental, tax-deferred investment option?
Ohio has a 457, "deferred compensation," plan, which is in addition
to
the public employees retirement system.

Yup, that's it.



http://nrsretire.nrsservicecenter.co...ome/?Site=Ohio

Ohio also has five (5) public employees retirement systems for some
reason.

http://ohio.gov/Retirement.stm

If you want to see something scary, look at the Federal Employees
Retirement System. They tell you right up front that SS is "the
rest
of your retirement." Not the so called safety net that Jim and FDR
described it as.


I see they have three different plans, Social Security, a basic
benefit
plan and a thrift savings plan. Looks pretty much like a typical plan
group.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Looks nothing like the former SCRS. Does Penn State contribute 1% of
your income to your plan, then tell you that SS is the rest of it?

Anyway, the only benefit to being in SS is if you have a life changing
injury or illness and can no longer work. If you take it to 65 (or 67
depending on the whims of the democratic party) the ROI is slim to
none. Savings bonds beat it.

Len Anderson wrote:
In article .com,
writes:

Ask Len - he's our resident liberal.

But it isn't a Morse code testing issue.....

That's why he'll go on at length about it. He talks about all kinds
of
things that have nothing to do with Morse Code testing.

And when somebody *does* try to discuss Morse Code testing in a
civil,
rational way with him, he calls the person names and does the old
ad-hominem game.

Interesting TROLL technique. Yields the first impression that
someone else is ten kinds of badness; i.e., a disguised
ad hominem, done up in righteous flag-waving wrapping.

Tsk. My "liberality" in here is basically about the removal of
morse code testing from the U.S. amateur radio license exam.

I view that position as conservative. Ronald Reagan wanted to unburden
the citizens of unnecessary government regulations.

k4yz wrote:

They blame their "problems" on the United States or
Isreal...(SNIP)

Excuse me.... Israel.

73

Steve, K4YZ

bb wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

snippage

There are a number of options in which you can spread percentages of
your money. Those options run the spectrum from blue chip to high
yield, high risk.


No bonds? Any balanced funds?

Yup. A lot of people don't take that approach though. They listen to the
investment mantra that "Over the long term, the market always goes
up". Unfortunately their advisor neglects to tell them that what matters
is where the stock market is when they retire.

And for whatever reason, they don't figure that out for themselves.



Your retirement income is based on your contributions and how
well the investments did.


Is there a "guaranteed return" selection? Of course, even that won't
work if the government devalues its currency.

The most conservative investments have an interest rate that gets
adjusted every so often.


The Federal Government would likely put limits on the types of
investments you could make with your SS diversion.

Ho-boy, another Federally controlled system. 8^)


Oh, I forgot. Social Security is a Township Trustee run system.

No gold and platinum futures, for example.

Probably a good idea.


As you graduate to an older age group,
they would probably change the investment vehicles available.

Gosh!

One of the people I know that lost a lot of money was thinking that.
He said that two years before retirement, he was going to pull his money
out of the high risk stuff and put it into the "safe" stuff.


Did he? Or did he think the market was still going good and left it in
riskier investments?

He chose to believe that things were going to get better and to stay
the course. By the time he got wise, it was too late.


But that's just me thinking out loud. I heard from Al Franken that
Bush doesn't want any ideas on this matter.



On the other hand, I was very careful with my retirement
investments,and didn't lose anything. All I did was take a hit in

my earning rate.

Until the bubble burst though, Len wasn't the only person that
thinks I'm a dimbulb!

Aren't you a University of PA employee?

Penn State. U of Pa is the one in Philadelphia.


The point is that you do have a government pension plan.

Yup.


In Ohio, our Governor has put some political appointees on the
retirement fund board, and he wants to make the fund invest in Ohio,
which is a losing prop.

Sounds like a bad idea. Not specifically about Ohio, but limiting
investments to a particular area is almost like investing in only the
high risk areas.


Just how much control do you have over your state employee and

school


employee retirement funds?

Those two plans. We also have an additional TDA possibility from
various companies. On the state plan, there is not a lot you can
do. On the other plan, there are more investment options.


TDA? Is that like a supplemental, tax-deferred investment option?
Ohio has a 457, "deferred compensation," plan, which is in addition
to the public employees retirement system.

Yup, that's it.



http://nrsretire.nrsservicecenter.co...ome/?Site=Ohio

Ohio also has five (5) public employees retirement systems for some
reason.

http://ohio.gov/Retirement.stm

If you want to see something scary, look at the Federal Employees
Retirement System. They tell you right up front that SS is "the
rest
of your retirement." Not the so called safety net that Jim and FDR
described it as.


I see they have three different plans, Social Security, a basic
benefit plan and a thrift savings plan. Looks pretty much like
a typical plan group.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Looks nothing like the former SCRS. Does Penn State contribute 1% of
your income to your plan, then tell you that SS is the rest of it?

Nope.

Anyway, the only benefit to being in SS is if you have a life changing
injury or illness and can no longer work.

I pretty much agree.

If you take it to 65 (or 67
depending on the whims of the democratic party) the ROI is slim to
none. Savings bonds beat it.

Republicans are in power now. They have assumed the mantle of
responsibility. It is now their whims that count.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Len Anderson wrote:
In article .com,
writes:

Ask Len - he's our resident liberal.

But it isn't a Morse code testing issue.....

That's why he'll go on at length about it. He talks about all kinds
of
things that have nothing to do with Morse Code testing.

And when somebody *does* try to discuss Morse Code testing in a
civil,
rational way with him, he calls the person names and does the old
ad-hominem game.

Interesting TROLL technique. Yields the first impression that
someone else is ten kinds of badness; i.e., a disguised
ad hominem, done up in righteous flag-waving wrapping.

Not at all, Len. You've behaved exactly as described so many times
you've become very predictable.

Tsk. My "liberality" in here is basically about the removal of
morse code testing from the U.S. amateur radio license exam.

You described the recent second inauguration of the president as
a "coronation". Which leads any reasonable person to believe you
did not vote for him. Lots of other comments on non-amateur-radio
subjects back up that impression.

Is that some kind of heinous "political liberality?"
Is it the mouthing of some Antichrist?
Is it a personal pejorative on
someone? I don't think so.

Who said it was?

Do you think being called a liberal is a pejorative, Len?

Retention of the morse code test seems to be ingrained in
the psyche of conservative old-time hams who absolutely
insist on keeping that code test forever and ever.

Is that wrong? Is it electropolitically incorrect to think that
at least some Morse Code testing should be retained for an
amateur radio license? I don't think so.

But you act like it is a terribly wrong thing to advocate.

Morse code
mode IS ham radio to some of those morse mavens.

So? Ham radio is many different things to many different people. It
cannot be much to you, Len, because you've never bothered to even
become a ham radio operator.

They
must remain as a living museum to archaic communications
modes and desire all kinds of "respect" (they are "superior" to
all those that don't want or care for on-off keying modes) and
"recognition of greatness" (because they bought into the
morse myths long ago and can't admit to being deceived).
They see themselves as "leaders" in everything and look down
on all others if those others are against morse code testing.

There you go, Len, starting with the pejoratives and put-downs and
ad-hominem demonization of people who have opinions different than
yours.

Just as predicted. You do it every time.

These die-hard morse mavens (unable to look good in a
Bruce Willis toupee and tee-shirt) call anti-morse-test
advocates as "liberal" in all things because morse testing
and the morse mode is righteous "conservatism"...because
morsemanship is their thing and they are "superior" from that.

I called you a liberal based on things other than Morse Code testing,
Len.
Such as your "coronation" comment, and other things. You also use the
term "conservative" as a negative thing, which reinforces the
impression.

Michael Coslo wrote:
bb wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

snippage

There are a number of options in which you can spread percentages
of
your money. Those options run the spectrum from blue chip to high
yield, high risk.


No bonds? Any balanced funds?

Yup.

Holy Cow! And I thought they only had highly risky investment choices.
At least that's the way you and Jim have made it sound.

A lot of people don't take that approach though. They listen to the
investment mantra that "Over the long term, the market always goes
up".

That's a fact.

Unfortunately their advisor neglects to tell them that what matters
is where the stock market is when they retire.

Sounds like you you could open your own Jones office.

And for whatever reason, they don't figure that out for themselves.

There you go. If you ever get tired of working at the school, you
really could open that Jones office.

Your retirement income is based on your contributions and how
well the investments did.


Is there a "guaranteed return" selection? Of course, even that
won't
work if the government devalues its currency.

The most conservative investments have an interest rate that gets
adjusted every so often.

Is that vehicle capable of losing its principle?

The Federal Government would likely put limits on the types of
investments you could make with your SS diversion.

Ho-boy, another Federally controlled system. 8^)


Oh, I forgot. Social Security is a Township Trustee run system.

No gold and platinum futures, for example.

Probably a good idea.


As you graduate to an older age group,
they would probably change the investment vehicles available.

Gosh!

One of the people I know that lost a lot of money was thinking
that.
He said that two years before retirement, he was going to pull his
money
out of the high risk stuff and put it into the "safe" stuff.


Did he? Or did he think the market was still going good and left
it in
riskier investments?

He chose to believe that things were going to get better and to stay

the course. By the time he got wise, it was too late.

Was it really? Why?

But that's just me thinking out loud. I heard from Al Franken
that
Bush doesn't want any ideas on this matter.



On the other hand, I was very careful with my retirement
investments,and didn't lose anything. All I did was take a hit
in

my earning rate.

Until the bubble burst though, Len wasn't the only person that
thinks I'm a dimbulb!

Aren't you a University of PA employee?

Penn State. U of Pa is the one in Philadelphia.


The point is that you do have a government pension plan.

Yup.


In Ohio, our Governor has put some political appointees on the
retirement fund board, and he wants to make the fund invest in
Ohio,
which is a losing prop.

Sounds like a bad idea. Not specifically about Ohio, but limiting
investments to a particular area is almost like investing in only the

high risk areas.

Yep.

Just how much control do you have over your state employee and

school


employee retirement funds?

Those two plans. We also have an additional TDA possibility from
various companies. On the state plan, there is not a lot you can
do. On the other plan, there are more investment options.


TDA? Is that like a supplemental, tax-deferred investment option?
Ohio has a 457, "deferred compensation," plan, which is in
addition
to the public employees retirement system.

Yup, that's it.




http://nrsretire.nrsservicecenter.co...ome/?Site=Ohio

Ohio also has five (5) public employees retirement systems for
some
reason.

http://ohio.gov/Retirement.stm

If you want to see something scary, look at the Federal Employees
Retirement System. They tell you right up front that SS is "the
rest
of your retirement." Not the so called safety net that Jim and
FDR
described it as.


I see they have three different plans, Social Security, a basic
benefit plan and a thrift savings plan. Looks pretty much like
a typical plan group.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Looks nothing like the former SCRS. Does Penn State contribute 1%
of
your income to your plan, then tell you that SS is the rest of it?

Nope.

Anyway, the only benefit to being in SS is if you have a life
changing
injury or illness and can no longer work.

I pretty much agree.

If you take it to 65 (or 67
depending on the whims of the democratic party) the ROI is slim to
none. Savings bonds beat it.

Republicans are in power now. They have assumed the mantle of
responsibility. It is now their whims that count.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike, how quickly you wish to forget the democrat legacy. I can't
blame you. But apparently I've been brainwashed by the dems for the
past 30 years that SS will be bankrupt by the time its my turn to feed
at the trough. Ask anyone in their 40's if SS will be there for them
when they retire, and you'll not get a lot of positive answers. Or do
you disagree?

wrote:
Len Anderson wrote:
In article .com,
writes:

Ask Len - he's our resident liberal.

But it isn't a Morse code testing issue.....

That's why he'll go on at length about it. He talks about all
kinds
of
things that have nothing to do with Morse Code testing.

And when somebody *does* try to discuss Morse Code testing in a
civil,
rational way with him, he calls the person names and does the old
ad-hominem game.

Interesting TROLL technique. Yields the first impression that
someone else is ten kinds of badness; i.e., a disguised
ad hominem, done up in righteous flag-waving wrapping.

Not at all, Len. You've behaved exactly as described so many times
you've become very predictable.

You've become reclusive. It started about the same time that you said
words to the effect that a morse code exam would be an obstacle to
morse code use.

Tsk. My "liberality" in here is basically about the removal of
morse code testing from the U.S. amateur radio license exam.

You described the recent second inauguration of the president as
a "coronation".

And we were lead to believe that you didn't read all of Len's postings.

Which leads any reasonable person to believe you
did not vote for him.

In a two-party system where almost half of the people voted for the
other guy, I find it quite easy to think some people didn't vote for
Bush.

Lots of other comments on non-amateur-radio
subjects back up that impression.

Are you sure that Len votes?

Is that some kind of heinous "political liberality?"
Is it the mouthing of some Antichrist?
Is it a personal pejorative on
someone? I don't think so.

Who said it was?

Do you think being called a liberal is a pejorative, Len?

I do. If someone were to call me a liberal, I'd be downright indignant
about it.

Retention of the morse code test seems to be ingrained in
the psyche of conservative old-time hams who absolutely
insist on keeping that code test forever and ever.

Is that wrong? Is it electropolitically incorrect to think that
at least some Morse Code testing should be retained for an
amateur radio license? I don't think so.

But you act like it is a terribly wrong thing to advocate.

If only Len could vote a pelican-like bird for you to wear on a
necklace.

Morse code
mode IS ham radio to some of those morse mavens.

So? Ham radio is many different things to many different people.

Not really. It seems to be mostly one thing to many people.

It
cannot be much to you, Len, because you've never bothered to even
become a ham radio operator.

There is that.

They
must remain as a living museum to archaic communications
modes and desire all kinds of "respect" (they are "superior" to
all those that don't want or care for on-off keying modes) and
"recognition of greatness" (because they bought into the
morse myths long ago and can't admit to being deceived).
They see themselves as "leaders" in everything and look down
on all others if those others are against morse code testing.

There you go, Len, starting with the pejoratives and put-downs and
ad-hominem demonization of people who have opinions different than
yours.

But Jim, several Extras absolutely have claimed that it is the ancient
mode which gives them their greatness, demanded respect for such, and
claimed superiority in all of the radio sciences and arts for this
single skill.

So how can you claim it to be perjoritives and ad-hominem demonization
of people who have put forth exactly those ideas?

wrote:

Shrub just

Then they are either genuinely stupid

Of course. Trouble is, guys like Shrub

73 de Jim, N2EY


Perjoritives? Ad-hominem attacks?

Jim would never, ever engage in such low-down activities.

bb wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

bb wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:

snippage

There are a number of options in which you can spread percentages

of

your money. Those options run the spectrum from blue chip to high
yield, high risk.


No bonds? Any balanced funds?

Yup.


Holy Cow! And I thought they only had highly risky investment choices.
At least that's the way you and Jim have made it sound.

Through all this thread, I have noted that there were multiple choices
of investments. And my comments have ben that many people are not
capable of resisting the "big bucks" risky investments. I account for
human nature in my assessments of how people should be treated.

Fact is, an awful lot of people NEED some fiscal restraint. Otherwise
they make stupid choices and become a drain on society. It is how it is.
It is why people on welfare buy lottery tickets when they should be
buying food or paying their rent. It is why people think they can make
risky investments, and somehow retire to make more money than when they
were working.



A lot of people don't take that approach though. They listen to the
investment mantra that "Over the long term, the market always goes
up".

That's a fact.

It sure is. But it is like saying that the average voltage of our
household outlet is 0 volts. I'll pass on grabbing bare wires of that 0
volt average system if ya don't mind.


Unfortunately their advisor neglects to tell them that what matters
is where the stock market is when they retire.

Sounds like you you could open your own Jones office.

I'm dense. What's a Jones office?


And for whatever reason, they don't figure that out for themselves.


There you go. If you ever get tired of working at the school, you
really could open that Jones office.

I'll make an assumption that this "Jones office is some kind of
investment outfit. I probably wouldn't make so much money because I
wouldn't try to talk people into investing their money in things that I
think they would lose it with. But then again, I don't think Mr.
investment advisor is my friend.


Your retirement income is based on your contributions and how
well the investments did.


Is there a "guaranteed return" selection? Of course, even that

won't

work if the government devalues its currency.

The most conservative investments have an interest rate that gets
adjusted every so often.

Is that vehicle capable of losing its principle?

No.


The Federal Government would likely put limits on the types of
investments you could make with your SS diversion.

Ho-boy, another Federally controlled system. 8^)


Oh, I forgot. Social Security is a Township Trustee run system.


No gold and platinum futures, for example.

Probably a good idea.



As you graduate to an older age group,
they would probably change the investment vehicles available.

Gosh!


One of the people I know that lost a lot of money was thinking

that.

He said that two years before retirement, he was going to pull his

money

out of the high risk stuff and put it into the "safe" stuff.


Did he? Or did he think the market was still going good and left

it in

riskier investments?

He chose to believe that things were going to get better and to stay


the course. By the time he got wise, it was too late.


Was it really? Why?

He lost his principle. It can happen on that plan.

snippage for trying to keep track


Republicans are in power now. They have assumed the mantle of
responsibility. It is now their whims that count.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Mike, how quickly you wish to forget the democrat legacy. I can't
blame you. But apparently I've been brainwashed by the dems for the
past 30 years that SS will be bankrupt by the time its my turn to feed
at the trough. Ask anyone in their 40's if SS will be there for them
when they retire, and you'll not get a lot of positive answers. Or do
you disagree?

There are many different time frames on exactly *when* the system will
run out of steam or money. A lot of this depends on how much money is
taken out by non-standard usage. (read robbing the till)

I don't care WHO took the money out. Be it Democrat or Republican. One
of the side effects of being in power is that when it is your group, you
reap the benefits as well as the brickbats.

If all the Pubs can do is continue to blame the Dems for every problem
on the face of the planet, then it means that they are *weak*, because
they can't do anything about the Democrats even when they are in power.
Funny how things work! 8^)

Proud to be an independent. ... - Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
bb wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

bb wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:

snippage

Through all this thread, I have noted that there were multiple
choices
of investments. And my comments have ben that many people are
not
capable of resisting the "big bucks" risky investments. I
account for
human nature in my assessments of how people should be treated.

Fact is, an awful lot of people NEED some fiscal restraint.
Otherwise
they make stupid choices and become a drain on society. It is
how it is.
It is why people on welfare buy lottery tickets when they
should be
buying food or paying their rent. It is why people think they
can make
risky investments, and somehow retire to make more money than
when they were working.

There's also the fact that investment information isn't always on the
up and up. Despite all the regulations, we still have messes like
Enron. Even if those responsible for the Enron debacle go to jail for a
while, it won't bring back the money investors lost.

A lot of people don't take that approach though. They listen to
the
investment mantra that "Over the long term, the market always goes
up".

That's a fact.

It sure is. But it is like saying that the average voltage of
our
household outlet is 0 volts. I'll pass on grabbing bare wires
of that 0
volt average system if ya don't mind.

Sort of. The problem is that unless you buy nothing but index funds,
you're not investing in "the market". And even if you do buy index
funds, you're investing in a particular index.

Y'know what's funny? The same folks who say we don't need restraint
when investing life savings are the same ones who want to restrain stem
cell research, recreational chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol),
contraception, and a bunch of other things.

work if the government devalues its currency.

The most conservative investments have an interest rate that gets
adjusted every so often.

Is that vehicle capable of losing its principle?

No.

Principle or principal? There's a big difference.

He chose to believe that things were going to get better and to
stay


the course. By the time he got wise, it was too late.


Was it really? Why?

He lost his principle. It can happen on that plan.

He lost both his principle (move to lower risk as you get older) and
his principal (original investment)

There are many different time frames on exactly *when* the
system will
run out of steam or money. A lot of this depends on how much
money is
taken out by non-standard usage. (read robbing the till)

Yep. Of course if one administration takes it out and promises
to put it back, and a following administration run by the
other party breaks the promise, who is to blame?

I don't care WHO took the money out. Be it Democrat or
Republican. One
of the side effects of being in power is that when it is your
group, you
reap the benefits as well as the brickbats.

There's also the concept of responsibility. Which means that
the folks in power, red, blue or purple, cannot simply blame
everything on their predecessors and do nothing to fix the
problems.

If all the Pubs can do is continue to blame the Dems for
every problem
on the face of the planet, then it means that they are
*weak*, because
they can't do anything about the Democrats even when
they are in power.
Funny how things work! 8^)

Exactly! Well said, Mike.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
bb wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

bb wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:

snippage

Through all this thread, I have noted that there were multiple
choices
of investments. And my comments have ben that many people are
not
capable of resisting the "big bucks" risky investments. I
account for
human nature in my assessments of how people should be treated.

Fact is, an awful lot of people NEED some fiscal restraint.
Otherwise
they make stupid choices and become a drain on society. It is
how it is.
It is why people on welfare buy lottery tickets when they
should be
buying food or paying their rent. It is why people think they
can make
risky investments, and somehow retire to make more money than
when they were working.

There's also the fact that investment information isn't always on the
up and up. Despite all the regulations, we still have messes like
Enron. Even if those responsible for the Enron debacle go to jail for
a
while, it won't bring back the money investors lost.

Enron sucked. So now everyone else sucks, too. Maybe your company
sucks.

A lot of people don't take that approach though. They listen
to
the
investment mantra that "Over the long term, the market always
goes
up".

That's a fact.

It sure is. But it is like saying that the average voltage of
our
household outlet is 0 volts. I'll pass on grabbing bare wires
of that 0
volt average system if ya don't mind.

Sort of. The problem is that unless you buy nothing but index funds,
you're not investing in "the market".

Few index funds are "the market." The SP 500 sure isn't.

And even if you do buy index
funds, you're investing in a particular index.

So your retirement fund that IS invested in the market won't be there
when you retire. Yeh, right.

Y'know what's funny? The same folks who say we don't need restraint
when investing life savings are the same ones who want to restrain
stem
cell research, recreational chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol),
contraception, and a bunch of other things.

I've never, ever, ever met anyone who said that you don't need
restraint when investing your life savings. Ever.

So, Jim Miccolis, name those people.

work if the government devalues its currency.

The most conservative investments have an interest rate that
gets
adjusted every so often.

Is that vehicle capable of losing its principle?

No.

Principle or principal? There's a big difference.

The guy in the front office.

He chose to believe that things were going to get better and to
stay


the course. By the time he got wise, it was too late.


Was it really? Why?

He lost his principle. It can happen on that plan.

He lost both his principle (move to lower risk as you get older) and
his principal (original investment)

I knew a guy who quit a good job. He even had benefits and a
retirement plan. You can't make people stay in jobs they don't like
unless you first rename your country to "East Germany."

There are many different time frames on exactly *when* the
system will
run out of steam or money. A lot of this depends on how much
money is
taken out by non-standard usage. (read robbing the till)

Yep. Of course if one administration takes it out and promises
to put it back, and a following administration run by the
other party breaks the promise, who is to blame?

If you put the senate and house of reps in FERS and SS, they just might
behave more responsibly.

You can blame them or not, but if you make them participate in the
programs that they are screwing, you might like the results better.

I don't care WHO took the money out. Be it Democrat or
Republican. One
of the side effects of being in power is that when it is your
group, you
reap the benefits as well as the brickbats.

There's also the concept of responsibility. Which means that
the folks in power, red, blue or purple, cannot simply blame
everything on their predecessors and do nothing to fix the
problems.

Aha!

GW Bush is doing somethig to fix your problems.

bb wrote:


If you put the senate and house of reps in FERS and SS, they just might
behave more responsibly.

You can blame them or not, but if you make them participate in the
programs that they are screwing, you might like the results better.


Good point and excellent idea Brian!



- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
bb wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
bb wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
snippage
Fact is, an awful lot of people NEED some fiscal restraint.
Otherwise
they make stupid choices and become a drain on society. It is
how it is.
It is why people on welfare buy lottery tickets when they
should be
buying food or paying their rent. It is why people think they
can make
risky investments, and somehow retire to make more money than
when they were working.

There's also the fact that investment information isn't always on
the
up and up. Despite all the regulations, we still have messes like
Enron. Even if those responsible for the Enron debacle go to jail
for a
while, it won't bring back the money investors lost.

It sure is. But it is like saying that the average voltage of
our
household outlet is 0 volts. I'll pass on grabbing bare wires
of that 0
volt average system if ya don't mind.


Sort of. The problem is that unless you buy nothing but index
funds,
you're not investing in "the market". And even if you do buy index
funds, you're investing in a particular index.

Y'know what's funny? The same folks who say we don't need restraint
when investing life savings are the same ones who want to restrain
stem
cell research, recreational chemicals (except tobacco and
alchohol),
contraception, and a bunch of other things.

Correct. Social engineering and attempts to force their philosophy on

others. Liberals.

??

The folks who want restraints on stem cell research, recreational
chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol), contraception, etc., call
themselves "conservatives".

The plain and simple fact is that any government action is "social
engineering and attempt[ing] to force their philosophy on others". By
definition.

For example, there are tax deductions for home mortgage interest. Such
deductions make home ownership more affordable for millions of people,
and are in effect a subsidy supporting home ownership vs. renting.

work if the government devalues its currency.

The most conservative investments have an interest rate that
gets
adjusted every so often.

Is that vehicle capable of losing its principle?

No.

Principle or principal? There's a big difference.

He chose to believe that things were going to get better and to
stay the course. By the time he got wise, it was too late.

Was it really? Why?

He lost his principle. It can happen on that plan.

He lost both his principle (move to lower risk as you get older)
and
his principal (original investment)

There are many different time frames on exactly *when* the
system will
run out of steam or money. A lot of this depends on how much
money is
taken out by non-standard usage. (read robbing the till)


Yep. Of course if one administration takes it out and promises
to put it back, and a following administration run by the
other party breaks the promise, who is to blame?

I don't care WHO took the money out. Be it Democrat or
Republican. One
of the side effects of being in power is that when it is your
group, you
reap the benefits as well as the brickbats.


There's also the concept of responsibility. Which means that
the folks in power, red, blue or purple, cannot simply blame
everything on their predecessors and do nothing to fix the
problems.

Correct. That's a great way to lose power quickly. Unfortunately the
Pubs have a track record of doing just that. Too bad.

But they didn't lose power in 2004. Nor in 1984 or 1988.

The same folks who criticized others for "tax and spend" are now
deep into "borrow and spend".

Seems to me that it's more responsible to pay-as-you-go than to
borrow and let future generations pay for it.

If all the Pubs can do is continue to blame the Dems for
every problem
on the face of the planet, then it means that they are
*weak*, because
they can't do anything about the Democrats even when
they are in power.
Funny how things work! 8^)

Exactly! Well said, Mike.

Thanks, Jim.

It's also interesting to note that some people are insulted if you
call them "liberals", even though their behavior and viewpoints
are exactly that. And some people claim the title "conservative"
yet behave in a very different way.

73 de Jim, N2EY

bb wrote:
wrote:

Y'know what's funny? The same folks who say we don't need restraint
when investing life savings are the same ones who want to restrain
stem
cell research, recreational chemicals (except tobacco and
alchohol),
contraception, and a bunch of other things.

I've never, ever, ever met anyone who said that you don't need
restraint when investing your life savings. Ever.

So, Jim Miccolis, name those people.

Jim didn't tell the truth.

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
bb wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
bb wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
snippage
Fact is, an awful lot of people NEED some fiscal restraint.
Otherwise
they make stupid choices and become a drain on society. It is
how it is.
It is why people on welfare buy lottery tickets when they
should be
buying food or paying their rent. It is why people think they
can make
risky investments, and somehow retire to make more money than
when they were working.
There's also the fact that investment information isn't always on
the
up and up. Despite all the regulations, we still have messes like
Enron. Even if those responsible for the Enron debacle go to jail
for a
while, it won't bring back the money investors lost.

Y'know what's funny? The same folks who say we don't need
restraint
when investing life savings are the same ones who want to restrain
stem
cell research, recreational chemicals (except tobacco and
alchohol),
contraception, and a bunch of other things.

Correct. Social engineering and attempts to force their philosophy
on
others. Liberals.


??

The folks who want restraints on stem cell research, recreational
chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol), contraception, etc., call
themselves "conservatives".

Yup, they call themselves conservatives. But in the brave new "you
are
with us, or you are agin' us". party, conservatives support spending

money at unprecedented burn rates that are not supported by intake,
they
support major increases in government power, and other things that we

used to be told that liberals want to inflict on us.

Except that the "liberals" were pushing tax-and-spend, not
borrow-and-spend.

Lots of true conservatives feel the same.

But what is a "true conservative"? Or a "true liberal", for that
matter?

Most definitions I see are way too simplified.

For example, I've seen it written that a conservative wants to
control/regulate the individual and decontrol/deregulate the
organizations (govt., business, etc.), and a liberal wants to
control/regulate the organizations and decontrol/deregulate the
individual.

Under that definition, the current administration is conservative!

But another definition says the conservative wants small, hands-off,
pay-as-you-go government (usually defined by spending), and the liberal
wants big, hands-on, borrow-tax-spend activist/social engineering
government.

Under *that* definition, the current administration is liberal!

Yet another definition says conservatives want to keep things as they
are, and liberals want to run around changing things.

You decide what that one is.

A web search can turn them up.

The plain and simple fact is that any government action is "social
engineering and attempt[ing] to force their philosophy on others".
By
definition.

For example, there are tax deductions for home mortgage interest.
Such
deductions make home ownership more affordable for millions of
people,
and are in effect a subsidy supporting home ownership vs. renting.

Now - is that liberal or conservative policy? How many self-described
"conservatives" would support dumping the home mortgage interest
deduction?

Correct. That's a great way to lose power quickly. Unfortunately
the
Pubs have a track record of doing just that. Too bad.

But they didn't lose power in 2004. Nor in 1984 or 1988.

The same folks who criticized others for "tax and spend" are now
deep into "borrow and spend".

Seems to me that it's more responsible to pay-as-you-go than to
borrow and let future generations pay for it.

Absolutely. All deficit spending is eventually paid for.

Or defaulted on.

Under
extraordinary conditions, deficit spending *may* be the only way to
survive. But under those conditions, people are usually required to
ante
up their share of the money to help. Today, people don't want to help

with their share of funding.

I think they would *if* they felt they were getting something for their
money.

Look at what happened during WW2. Government deficit spending went to
unimagined levels. It was largely paid for by people buying bonds and
paying higher taxes. (Bonds are, of course, deficit spending). Of
course if that war was lost, financial policy didn't matter much.

But there was another side: Unemployment vanished! Production soared to
incredible levels, and nobody had to worry about losing money if they
could do the job. There wasn't much for civilians to spend their money
on, because a lot of things were either rationed or unavailable. Buying
bonds wasn't just a duty, it was also a form of tax-deferred saving.

And there were paybacks after the war ended. Unlike the way WW1 vets
were treated during the Great Depression, WW2 produced the GI Bill,
which revolutionized the middle class in the USA. Agencies like the FHA
and projects like the interstate highway system not only created jobs,
they completely changed the way people lived. Not just veterans,
either.

Now - were the GI Bill and all those postwar agencies "liberal" or
"conservative"?


If all the Pubs can do is continue to blame the Dems for
every problem
on the face of the planet, then it means that they are
*weak*, because
they can't do anything about the Democrats even when
they are in power.
Funny how things work! 8^)


Exactly! Well said, Mike.

Thanks, Jim.


It's also interesting to note that some people are insulted if you
call them "liberals", even though their behavior and viewpoints
are exactly that. And some people claim the title "conservative"
yet behave in a very different way.

Indeed. Didya ever ever notice how angry some folk get when
confronted
with the truth?

You mean like Len? He's a textbook example!

I still hold to the left to right spectrum as a continuum, not a bar.

It is a circle, with extreme left and right being virtually
indistinguishable from each other.

In some ways, I agree.

Deviation too far from the center is bad, bad, bad. The key is the
center.

But how is the center defined?

But learning is soooo hard. Witness the new Democratic party
chairman.
What were they thinking??? Dr. Dean is an honorable person. But he
is
just too far to the left for my taste.

No, he's just what the Dems need. Here's why:

1) By making him chairman, they pretty much guarantee he won't run for
P or VP in 2008, yet his followers will stay around.

2) He's *not* an inside-the-beltway politician. That's important -
notice how many presidents since LBJ have come from state governor
positions. He's enough of an outsider to shake/wake the Dems up.

3) He's outspoken enough to talk straight and short, rather than "using
too many big words" like Algore and Kerry and Dukakis.

4) He *is* an honorable person, and a smart one. You may not agree with
him, but you can respect him.

Is the state that elected Dean composed mostly of "liberals" or
"conservatives"?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Gee is all the below about ARS License numbers ? (;-)

--
Caveat Lector (Reader Beware)


wrote in message
ups.com...
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
bb wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
bb wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
snippage
Fact is, an awful lot of people NEED some fiscal restraint.
Otherwise
they make stupid choices and become a drain on society. It is
how it is.
It is why people on welfare buy lottery tickets when they
should be
buying food or paying their rent. It is why people think they
can make
risky investments, and somehow retire to make more money than
when they were working.
There's also the fact that investment information isn't always on
the
up and up. Despite all the regulations, we still have messes like
Enron. Even if those responsible for the Enron debacle go to jail
for a
while, it won't bring back the money investors lost.

Y'know what's funny? The same folks who say we don't need
restraint
when investing life savings are the same ones who want to restrain
stem
cell research, recreational chemicals (except tobacco and
alchohol),
contraception, and a bunch of other things.

Correct. Social engineering and attempts to force their philosophy
on
others. Liberals.


??

The folks who want restraints on stem cell research, recreational
chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol), contraception, etc., call
themselves "conservatives".

Yup, they call themselves conservatives. But in the brave new "you
are
with us, or you are agin' us". party, conservatives support spending

money at unprecedented burn rates that are not supported by intake,
they
support major increases in government power, and other things that we

used to be told that liberals want to inflict on us.

Except that the "liberals" were pushing tax-and-spend, not
borrow-and-spend.

Lots of true conservatives feel the same.

But what is a "true conservative"? Or a "true liberal", for that
matter?

Most definitions I see are way too simplified.

For example, I've seen it written that a conservative wants to
control/regulate the individual and decontrol/deregulate the
organizations (govt., business, etc.), and a liberal wants to
control/regulate the organizations and decontrol/deregulate the
individual.

Under that definition, the current administration is conservative!

But another definition says the conservative wants small, hands-off,
pay-as-you-go government (usually defined by spending), and the liberal
wants big, hands-on, borrow-tax-spend activist/social engineering
government.

Under *that* definition, the current administration is liberal!

Yet another definition says conservatives want to keep things as they
are, and liberals want to run around changing things.

You decide what that one is.

A web search can turn them up.

The plain and simple fact is that any government action is "social
engineering and attempt[ing] to force their philosophy on others".
By
definition.

For example, there are tax deductions for home mortgage interest.
Such
deductions make home ownership more affordable for millions of
people,
and are in effect a subsidy supporting home ownership vs. renting.

Now - is that liberal or conservative policy? How many self-described
"conservatives" would support dumping the home mortgage interest
deduction?

Correct. That's a great way to lose power quickly. Unfortunately
the
Pubs have a track record of doing just that. Too bad.

But they didn't lose power in 2004. Nor in 1984 or 1988.

The same folks who criticized others for "tax and spend" are now
deep into "borrow and spend".

Seems to me that it's more responsible to pay-as-you-go than to
borrow and let future generations pay for it.

Absolutely. All deficit spending is eventually paid for.

Or defaulted on.

Under
extraordinary conditions, deficit spending *may* be the only way to
survive. But under those conditions, people are usually required to
ante
up their share of the money to help. Today, people don't want to help

with their share of funding.

I think they would *if* they felt they were getting something for their
money.

Look at what happened during WW2. Government deficit spending went to
unimagined levels. It was largely paid for by people buying bonds and
paying higher taxes. (Bonds are, of course, deficit spending). Of
course if that war was lost, financial policy didn't matter much.

But there was another side: Unemployment vanished! Production soared to
incredible levels, and nobody had to worry about losing money if they
could do the job. There wasn't much for civilians to spend their money
on, because a lot of things were either rationed or unavailable. Buying
bonds wasn't just a duty, it was also a form of tax-deferred saving.

And there were paybacks after the war ended. Unlike the way WW1 vets
were treated during the Great Depression, WW2 produced the GI Bill,
which revolutionized the middle class in the USA. Agencies like the FHA
and projects like the interstate highway system not only created jobs,
they completely changed the way people lived. Not just veterans,
either.

Now - were the GI Bill and all those postwar agencies "liberal" or
"conservative"?


If all the Pubs can do is continue to blame the Dems for
every problem
on the face of the planet, then it means that they are
*weak*, because
they can't do anything about the Democrats even when
they are in power.
Funny how things work! 8^)


Exactly! Well said, Mike.

Thanks, Jim.


It's also interesting to note that some people are insulted if you
call them "liberals", even though their behavior and viewpoints
are exactly that. And some people claim the title "conservative"
yet behave in a very different way.

Indeed. Didya ever ever notice how angry some folk get when
confronted
with the truth?

You mean like Len? He's a textbook example!

I still hold to the left to right spectrum as a continuum, not a bar.

It is a circle, with extreme left and right being virtually
indistinguishable from each other.

In some ways, I agree.

Deviation too far from the center is bad, bad, bad. The key is the
center.

But how is the center defined?

But learning is soooo hard. Witness the new Democratic party
chairman.
What were they thinking??? Dr. Dean is an honorable person. But he
is
just too far to the left for my taste.

No, he's just what the Dems need. Here's why:

1) By making him chairman, they pretty much guarantee he won't run for
P or VP in 2008, yet his followers will stay around.

2) He's *not* an inside-the-beltway politician. That's important -
notice how many presidents since LBJ have come from state governor
positions. He's enough of an outsider to shake/wake the Dems up.

3) He's outspoken enough to talk straight and short, rather than "using
too many big words" like Algore and Kerry and Dukakis.

4) He *is* an honorable person, and a smart one. You may not agree with
him, but you can respect him.

Is the state that elected Dean composed mostly of "liberals" or
"conservatives"?

73 de Jim, N2EY

These are the numbers of current, unexpired amateur licenses held by
individuals on the stated dates:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Technician - 205,394
Technician Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750

Total Tech/TechPlus - 334,254

Total all classes - 674,792

As of February 14, 2005:

Novice - 29,318 (decrease of 20,011)
Technician - 266,128 (increase of 60,734)
Technician Plus - 52,556 (decrease of 76,304)
General - 137,606 (increase of 24,929)
Advanced - 77,351 (decrease of 22,431)
Extra - 106,192 (increase of 27,442)

Total Tech/TechPlus - 318,684 (decrease of 15,570)

Total all classes - 669,151 (decrease of 5,641)

Note that these totals do not include licenses that
have expired but are in the grace period. They also
do not include club, military, RACES or other
station-only licenses.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Caveat Lector wrote:

Gee is all the below about ARS License numbers ? (;-)


Not hardly a little bit! Jim and I go off topic once in a while. And
you quote long messages for one line comments. It all balances out.
TTFN. 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:

Indeed. Didya ever ever notice how angry some folk get when
confronted
with the truth?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Or how quiet they become?
--------------------------------
Feb 10, 3:22 am

Y'know what's funny? The same folks who say we don't need restraint
when investing life savings are the same ones who want to restrain stem

cell research, recreational chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol),
contraception, and a bunch of other things.
--------------------------------

I asked Jim who these "same folks" were.

Who said we don't need restraint when investing life savings?

Of those who said that, which ones want restraints on stem cell
research, recreational chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol),
contraception, and a bunch of other things?

I think that there are no such people. He's picked up some
broad-spectrum fungicide on Jeanine Giraffalo's show and repeated it.

wrote:

No, he's just what the Dems need. Here's why:

4) He *is* an honorable person, and a smart one. You may not agree
with
him, but you can respect him.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Interesting that we "have to" respect Screamin' Dean, but must
disrespect "Shrub."

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

more snippage

Correct. Social engineering and attempts to force their
philosophy
on others. Liberals.

??

The folks who want restraints on stem cell research, recreational
chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol), contraception, etc., call
themselves "conservatives".

Yup, they call themselves conservatives. But in the brave new "you
are
with us, or you are agin' us". party, conservatives support
spending
money at unprecedented burn rates that are not supported by intake,
they support major increases in government power, and other things
that we
used to be told that liberals want to inflict on us.

Except that the "liberals" were pushing tax-and-spend, not
borrow-and-spend.

Of course there are differences. At least the olde tyme liberals were

willing to pay for their overspending.

Or at least take the heat for raising taxes. That's called
"responsibility". ;-)

Lots of true conservatives feel the same.

But what is a "true conservative"? Or a "true liberal", for that
matter?

Most definitions I see are way too simplified.

For example, I've seen it written that a conservative wants to
control/regulate the individual and decontrol/deregulate the
organizations (govt., business, etc.), and a liberal wants to
control/regulate the organizations and decontrol/deregulate the
individual.

Under that definition, the current administration is conservative!

But another definition says the conservative wants small,
hands-off,
pay-as-you-go government (usually defined by spending), and the
liberal
wants big, hands-on, borrow-tax-spend activist/social engineering
government.

Under *that* definition, the current administration is liberal!

Yup, as I noted, there are going to be differences.

I'm more concerned about accurate definition.

Think Dixiecrat! Just where did the Dixiecrats go?

Times changed...

Yet another definition says conservatives want to keep things as
they
are, and liberals want to run around changing things.

You decide what that one is.

The plain and simple fact is that any government action is "social
engineering and attempt[ing] to force their philosophy on others".
By definition.

For example, there are tax deductions for home mortgage interest.
Such deductions make home ownership more affordable for millions
of
people, and are in effect a subsidy supporting home ownership vs.
renting.

Now - is that liberal or conservative policy?

It is an extremely liberal policy.

Some would agree, saying it pushes a populist agenda at the expense of
landlords and bankers. Others would disagree, saying it *helped* the
construction industry and bankers, as well as the auto manufacturers
and many other industries.

Now the tough question: Is it a good policy or a bad policy?

How many self-described
"conservatives" would support dumping the home mortgage interest
deduction?

Not many (any)......... yet.

I remember a time when *all* 'consumer' interest was fed-income-tax
deductible. Sales tax too. Guess who killed that?

Under
extraordinary conditions, deficit spending *may* be the only way to
survive. But under those conditions, people are usually required to
ante up their share of the money to help. Today, people don't want
to help
with their share of funding.

I think they would *if* they felt they were getting something for
their
money.

Odd that at a time of major threat to our way of life, that those who

are benefiting the most appear to need tax cuts!

No, they simply *claim* to need them!

Consider this: Deficit spending is essentially a wealth-redistribution
program that takes from the taxpayers (present and future) and gives to
the bondholders
(domestic and foreign).

Look at what happened during WW2. Government deficit spending went
to
unimagined levels. It was largely paid for by people buying bonds
and
paying higher taxes. (Bonds are, of course, deficit spending). Of
course if that war was lost, financial policy didn't matter much.

Surely

But there was another side: Unemployment vanished! Production
soared to
incredible levels, and nobody had to worry about losing money if
they
could do the job. There wasn't much for civilians to spend their
money
on, because a lot of things were either rationed or unavailable.
Buying
bonds wasn't just a duty, it was also a form of tax-deferred
saving.

And a way of reducing demand.

Demand didn't matter, because supply was controlled. IIRC, new cars and
houses were simply not built, consumables like fuel were rationed and
many items were
in limited supply, so people made do with what they had.

And there were paybacks after the war ended. Unlike the way WW1
vets
were treated during the Great Depression, WW2 produced the GI Bill,
which revolutionized the middle class in the USA. Agencies like the
FHA
and projects like the interstate highway system not only created
jobs,
they completely changed the way people lived. Not just veterans,
either.

Now - were the GI Bill and all those postwar agencies "liberal" or
"conservative"?

Extremely liberal.

But were they a good thing or a bad thing?

I think you may be leading toward the point that many of the
benefits
of modern America may be directly tied to a form of government that
is
being dismantled. The liberal approach came after experiments in
almost
pure capitalism, with it's boom and bust economies, and with the
natural
accumulation of power to just a few of the most aggressive.

In part, yes. Perhaps it's better to use the labels "activist" and
"passivist" to describe the differences.

If you are, you are correct. Both sides have great ideas. Of course,

I'd think that, cuz I'm just about dead-center. Of course, I think
both
sides have ideas that are suicidally stupid too! 8^)

Agreed! But in general, I see way too much ignorance of history and
inability
to forsee consequences today. People are offended by the label
"liberal" - but
try taking away the benefits of "liberal" ideas like some of the tax
laws...

It's also interesting to note that some people are insulted if you
call them "liberals", even though their behavior and viewpoints
are exactly that. And some people claim the title "conservative"
yet behave in a very different way.

Indeed. Didya ever ever notice how angry some folk get when
confronted with the truth?

You mean like Len? He's a textbook example!

I still hold to the left to right spectrum as a continuum, not a
bar.

It is a circle, with extreme left and right being virtually
indistinguishable from each other.

In some ways, I agree.

Deviation too far from the center is bad, bad, bad. The key is the
center.

But how is the center defined?

Personally I define it as viewing of Government as a good and
necessary
thing, with government control of those things that national
government
does best, and delegation of the things that state and local
governments
do best to their respective sections.

That's easy to say - and almost impossible to define. The devil is in
the details.

The government that governs best is the one that governs least.

With all due respect, that's a motherhood-and-apple-pie bromide.
*Every*
political view says their approach is the least necessary.

It is
important to note that this does not mean that functions once handled
by
the Federal government are simply handed off to state governments.
That
means nothing to the citizen. Federal taxes going down and state and
local going up is a null at best, and passing the buck.

Bingo!

Finally, I think a Centrist is a person who THINKS about issues, not
simply chants party dogma.

Try disagreeing with Shrub...

But learning is soooo hard. Witness the new Democratic party
chairman. What were they thinking??? Dr. Dean is an honorable
person.
But he isjust too far to the left for my taste.

No, he's just what the Dems need. Here's why:

1) By making him chairman, they pretty much guarantee he won't run
for
P or VP in 2008, yet his followers will stay around.

Yeah, I was going to mention that.....

Part of smarting up the Dems.

2) He's *not* an inside-the-beltway politician. That's important -
notice how many presidents since LBJ have come from state governor
positions. He's enough of an outsider to shake/wake the Dems up.

Friend of mine once said that the DNC was often its own worst enemy.
Exact
quote: "If you let the DNC organize a firing squad, they'd form a
circle
around the condemned criminal..."

3) He's outspoken enough to talk straight and short, rather than
"using
too many big words" like Algore and Kerry and Dukakis.

4) He *is* an honorable person, and a smart one. You may not agree
with
him, but you can respect him.

Yup. I wasn't quite sure what to think of him until one day I was
returning from a business trip, and heard him on NPR in a debate with

Ralph Nader. It was so refreshing to listen to a debate where issues
were discussed, not the weird dance that the presidential debates
have
become.

Agreed!

It would be interesting to have the candidates prepare position papers
that
simply outlined their plans for the future and their beliefs, *without*
any attacks on their opponents nor claims about their past allowed.
Then let
people read the position papers without knowing who wrote them...

Is the state that elected Dean composed mostly of "liberals" or
"conservatives"?

Well, they have a republican governor, representatives are 1
democrat
and 2 independents (YAY). I like the way they think!

Me too!

73 de Jim, N2EY

bb wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

Indeed. Didya ever ever notice how angry some folk get when
confronted
with the truth?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Or how quiet they become?
--------------------------------
Feb 10, 3:22 am

Y'know what's funny? The same folks who say we don't need restraint
when investing life savings are the same ones who want to restrain
stem

cell research, recreational chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol),
contraception, and a bunch of other things.
--------------------------------

I asked Jim who these "same folks" were.

Who said we don't need restraint when investing life savings?

Of those who said that, which ones want restraints on stem cell
research, recreational chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol),
contraception, and a bunch of other things?

I think that there are no such people. He's picked up some
broad-spectrum fungicide on Jeanine Giraffalo's show and repeated it.

In other words, Jim isn't truthful.

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

The folks who want restraints on stem cell research,
recreational
chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol), contraception, etc.,
call
themselves "conservatives".


Yup, they call themselves conservatives. But in the brave new
"you
are
with us, or you are agin' us". party, conservatives support

spending

money at unprecedented burn rates that are not supported by
intake,
they support major increases in government power, and other
things

that we

used to be told that liberals want to inflict on us.


Except that the "liberals" were pushing tax-and-spend, not
borrow-and-spend.

Of course there are differences. At least the olde tyme liberals
were


willing to pay for their overspending.


Or at least take the heat for raising taxes. That's called
"responsibility". ;-)

An one thing is for certain. The present group is not to blame or
responsible for anything...... Not responsible at all.

Unless it's a good thing, and then it's all their doing...

Lots of true conservatives feel the same.

But what is a "true conservative"? Or a "true liberal", for that
matter?

Most definitions I see are way too simplified.

For example, I've seen it written that a conservative wants to
control/regulate the individual and decontrol/deregulate the
organizations (govt., business, etc.), and a liberal wants to
control/regulate the organizations and decontrol/deregulate the
individual.

Under that definition, the current administration is conservative!

But another definition says the conservative wants small,
hands-off, pay-as-you-go government (usually defined by
spending), and the
liberal wants big, hands-on, borrow-tax-spend activist/social
engineering
government.

Under *that* definition, the current administration is liberal!

Yup, as I noted, there are going to be differences.

I'm more concerned about accurate definition.

HAH! If I could give one, I'd be rich.

How about my "activist" vs. "passivist" definition?

Think Dixiecrat! Just where did the Dixiecrats go?


Times changed...

TRue enough, but that isn't the answer I was looking for. The
Dixiecrats became Republicans.

Yup.

Yet another definition says conservatives want to keep things as
they are, and liberals want to run around changing things.

You decide what that one is.


The plain and simple fact is that any government action is
"social
engineering and attempt[ing] to force their philosophy on
others".
By definition.

For example, there are tax deductions for home mortgage
interest.

Such deductions make home ownership more affordable for millions

of

people, and are in effect a subsidy supporting home ownership
vs.

renting.


Now - is that liberal or conservative policy?

It is an extremely liberal policy.


Some would agree, saying it pushes a populist agenda at the expense
of
landlords and bankers. Others would disagree, saying it *helped*
the
construction industry and bankers, as well as the auto
manufacturers
and many other industries.

Now the tough question: Is it a good policy or a bad policy?

I don't find that tough at all. Any policy that is aimed at
benefiting
the most people is generally a good policy. Not always, but pretty
often

And that's where the trouble is: what *really* helps the most people?
Some
will undoubtedly argue that if the subsidy didn't exist, property
values and taxes
would be lower (because every deduction has to be made up somewhere
else).

Or consider this: the original FHA rules favored new construction over
existing housing. This helped the Levitt brothers and their imitators
enormously, and caused the suburban boom.

But it also helped empty the cities of those who could leave,
tremendously increased dependence on the automobile, and increased
per-capita consumption of all sorts of things. So now we have a nation
that is heavily dependent on imported energy, much of which is used
solely because of suburbanization.

OTOH, isn't a big part of the reason for government to protect the
rights of
the individual against the mob? And the weak against the strong?

Or to ask a related question, let us assume that the political
atmosphere of the late 1800's continued until this day. How many of
us
would be enjoying "middle classdom" and enjoying the activities that
come with it?

Impossible to tell! But consider this:

From reading old books and biographies, it seems to me that 100 or so
years ago there existed a class of people in the USA that have all but
disappeared.

I don't have a name for this class. The main characteristic of them was
that they didn't have to work. They were folks who had amassed enough
wealth to live comfortably on their investments.

From what I've read, in those days if a person owned a paid-up house,
and had some decent income-generating stocks and bonds, they could live
pretty well on
relatively little income because taxes were very low and only in
specific areas.
In most towns and cities you didn't need a car or a horse.

Income tax did not exist until WW1, property taxes were low in many
places, etc. Of course if you got sick, the available treatments
weren't expensive because there weren't many treatments!

How many self-described
"conservatives" would support dumping the home mortgage interest
deduction?


Not many (any)......... yet.

I remember a time when *all* 'consumer' interest was fed-income-tax
deductible. Sales tax too. Guess who killed that?

I'm assuming the Republicans. 8^)

Under the guise of "tax simplification" and "getting the govt. off your
back".

A lot of things were eased out of the tax laws so that while the rates
didn't rise, people's actual payments did.

Under
extraordinary conditions, deficit spending *may* be the only way
to
survive. But under those conditions, people are usually required
to
ante up their share of the money to help. Today, people don't
want
to help with their share of funding.


I think they would *if* they felt they were getting something for

their

money.


Odd that at a time of major threat to our way of life, that those
who
are benefiting the most appear to need tax cuts!


No, they simply *claim* to need them!

That's why I said "appear!

Consider this: Deficit spending is essentially a
wealth-redistribution
program that takes from the taxpayers (present and future) and
gives to
the bondholders
(domestic and foreign).


Look at what happened during WW2. Government deficit spending went
to unimagined levels. It was largely paid for by people buying
bonds
and

paying higher taxes. (Bonds are, of course, deficit spending). Of
course if that war was lost, financial policy didn't matter much.

Surely


But there was another side: Unemployment vanished! Production
soared to incredible levels, and nobody had to worry about losing
money if
they could do the job. There wasn't much for civilians to spend
their
money on, because a lot of things were either rationed or
unavailable.
Buying bonds wasn't just a duty, it was also a form of
tax-deferred
saving.

And a way of reducing demand.


Demand didn't matter, because supply was controlled. IIRC, new cars
and
houses were simply not built, consumables like fuel were rationed
and
many items were
in limited supply, so people made do with what they had.


And there were paybacks after the war ended. Unlike the way WW1
vets were treated during the Great Depression, WW2 produced the GI
Bill,
which revolutionized the middle class in the USA. Agencies like
the
FHA and projects like the interstate highway system not only
created
jobs, they completely changed the way people lived. Not just
veterans,
either.

Now - were the GI Bill and all those postwar agencies "liberal" or
"conservative"?

Extremely liberal.


But were they a good thing or a bad thing?

I think you may be leading toward the point that many of the
benefits of modern America may be directly tied to a form of
government that
is being dismantled. The liberal approach came after experiments
in
almost pure capitalism, with it's boom and bust economies, and
with the
natural accumulation of power to just a few of the most
aggressive.


In part, yes. Perhaps it's better to use the labels "activist" and
"passivist" to describe the differences.


If you are, you are correct. Both sides have great ideas. Of
course,
I'd think that, cuz I'm just about dead-center. Of course, I think
both sides have ideas that are suicidally stupid too! 8^)


Agreed! But in general, I see way too much ignorance of history and
inability to forsee consequences today. People are offended by the
label
"liberal" - but try taking away the benefits of "liberal" ideas
like some
of the tax laws...


It's also interesting to note that some people are insulted if
you
call them "liberals", even though their behavior and viewpoints
are exactly that. And some people claim the title "conservative"
yet behave in a very different way.

Indeed. Didya ever ever notice how angry some folk get when
confronted with the truth?


You mean like Len? He's a textbook example!


I still hold to the left to right spectrum as a continuum, not a

bar.


It is a circle, with extreme left and right being virtually
indistinguishable from each other.


In some ways, I agree.


Deviation too far from the center is bad, bad, bad. The key is
the
center.

But how is the center defined?

Personally I define it as viewing of Government as a good and
necessary thing, with government control of those things that
national
government does best, and delegation of the things that state and
local
governments do best to their respective sections.

That's easy to say - and almost impossible to define. The devil is
in
the details.


The government that governs best is the one that governs least.


With all due respect, that's a motherhood-and-apple-pie bromide.

And isn't that a mixed metaphor? ;^)

Nope. !

*Every* political view says their approach is the least necessary.

Well, I don't want them regulating my behavior in the bedroom, and I
don't want them regulating my behavior in the market.

One side would regulate the first and deregulate the second, and
vice-versa.

Now that being said, there are certain things that I think are common

sense, such as bedroom behavior doesn't include Michael Jackonesque
(alleged) behavior, or robber Baron behavior.

Agreed - but who defines where the line is?

But a person has to start
from somewhere, and too strict of definitions forces one either into
pure Libertarian or pure dictatorial view.

Extremes are rarely what is needed.

It is
important to note that this does not mean that functions once
handled
by the Federal government are simply handed off to state
governments.
That means nothing to the citizen. Federal taxes going down and
state and
local going up is a null at best, and passing the buck.


Bingo!

Finally, I think a Centrist is a person who THINKS about issues,
not
simply chants party dogma.


Try disagreeing with Shrub...

Like I said.......... 8^)


But learning is soooo hard. Witness the new Democratic party
chairman. What were they thinking??? Dr. Dean is an honorable

person.

But he isjust too far to the left for my taste.

No, he's just what the Dems need. Here's why:

1) By making him chairman, they pretty much guarantee he won't run

for

P or VP in 2008, yet his followers will stay around.

Yeah, I was going to mention that.....


Part of smarting up the Dems.


2) He's *not* an inside-the-beltway politician. That's important -
notice how many presidents since LBJ have come from state governor
positions. He's enough of an outsider to shake/wake the Dems up.


Friend of mine once said that the DNC was often its own worst
enemy.
Exact quote: "If you let the DNC organize a firing squad, they'd
form a
circle around the condemned criminal..."

HAH! I like that..... Pretty much spot-on.

It may be cynical, but the fact is that a lot of modern politics
consists of playing the game better than the other guy. For example, in
a number of key swing states, the Pubs managed to get gay 'marriage'
referenda on the ballot. More important, they managed to form a
connection in voter's minds between gay 'marriage' and the presidential
election, even though marriage laws are determined at the state level,
not national level. Rather than debate and decide as a society whether
gay 'marriage' should be legal or not, the issue was used as a tool of
the presidential election.

3) He's outspoken enough to talk straight and short, rather than
"using too many big words" like Algore and Kerry and Dukakis.

4) He *is* an honorable person, and a smart one. You may not agree
with him, but you can respect him.

Yup. I wasn't quite sure what to think of him until one day I was
returning from a business trip, and heard him on NPR in a debate
with


Ralph Nader. It was so refreshing to listen to a debate where
issues
were discussed, not the weird dance that the presidential debates

have

become.


Agreed!

It would be interesting to have the candidates prepare position
papers
that
simply outlined their plans for the future and their beliefs,
*without*
any attacks on their opponents nor claims about their past allowed.
Then let people read the position papers without knowing who wrote
them...

Campaigns should be no longer than 4 months.

And the nonsense about the early primaries has to go.

Is the state that elected Dean composed mostly of "liberals" or
"conservatives"?

Well, they have a republican governor, representatives are 1

democrat

and 2 independents (YAY). I like the way they think!


Me too!

73 de Jim, N2EY

These are the numbers of current, unexpired amateur licenses held by
individuals on the stated dates:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Technician - 205,394
Technician Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750

Total Tech/TechPlus - 334,254

Total all classes - 674,792

As of February 28, 2005:

Novice - 29,216 (decrease of 20,113)
Technician - 266,509 (increase of 61,115)
Technician Plus - 52,137 (decrease of 76,723)
General - 137,456 (increase of 24,779)
Advanced - 77,351 (decrease of 22,590)
Extra - 106,243 (increase of 27,493)

Total Tech/TechPlus - 318,646 (decrease of 15,608)

Total all classes - 668,753 (decrease of 6,039)

Note that these totals do not include licenses that
have expired but are in the grace period. They also
do not include club, military, RACES or other
station-only licenses.

73 de Jim, N2EY

These are the numbers of current, unexpired amateur licenses held
byindividuals on the stated dates:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Technician - 205,394
Technician Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750

Total Tech/TechPlus - 334,254

Total all classes - 674,792

As of March 14, 2005:

Novice - 29,071 (decrease of 20,258)
Technician - 266,823 (increase of 61,429)
Technician Plus - 51,476 (decrease of 77,384)
General - 137,283 (increase of 24,606)
Advanced - 76,997 (decrease of 22,785)
Extra - 106,297 (increase of 27,547)

Total Tech/TechPlus - 318,299 (decrease of 15,955)

Total all classes - 667,947 (decrease of 6,845)

Note that these totals do not include licenses that
have expired but are in the grace period. They also
do not include club, military, RACES or other
station-only licenses.

73 de Jim, N2EY

These are the numbers of current, unexpired amateur licenses held
by individuals on the stated dates:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Technician - 205,394
Technician Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750

Total Tech/TechPlus - 334,254

Total all classes - 674,792

As of March 31, 2005:

Novice - 28,908 (decrease of 20,421)
Technician - 267,391 (increase of 61,997)
Technician Plus - 50,966 (decrease of 77,894)
General - 137,134 (increase of 24,457)
Advanced - 76,746 (decrease of 23,036)
Extra - 106,434 (increase of 27,684)

Total Tech/TechPlus - 318,357 (decrease of 15,897)

Total all classes - 667,579 (decrease of 7,213)

Note that these totals do not include licenses that
have expired but are in the grace period. They also
do not include club, military, RACES or other
station-only licenses.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:

These are the numbers of current, unexpired amateur licenses held
by individuals on the stated dates:
Note that these totals do not include licenses that
have expired but are in the grace period. They also
do not include club, military, RACES or other
station-only licenses.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I didn't think you were here any more, Jim!

Of course I'm still here, Mike.

Not much to type about these days......

There's always QRZ.com

But I spend most of my online time these days on the various reflectors
I subscribe to.

73 de Jim, N2EY

These are the numbers of current, unexpired amateur licenses held
by individuals on the stated dates:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Technician - 205,394
Technician Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750

Total Tech/TechPlus - 334,254

Total all classes - 674,792

As of April 15, 2005:

Novice - 28,817 (decrease of 20,512)
Technician - 267,926 (increase of 62,532)
Technician Plus - 50,524 (decrease of 78,336)
General - 137,093 (increase of 24,416)
Advanced - 76,647 (decrease of 23,135)
Extra - 106,557 (increase of 27,807)

Total Tech/TechPlus - 318,450 (decrease of 15,804)

Total all classes - 667,564 (decrease of 7,228)

Note that these totals do not include licenses that
have expired but are in the grace period. They also
do not include club, military, RACES or other
station-only licenses.

Note also that effective April 15, 2000, new Novice, Technician Plus or
Advanced licenses are no longer issued, and that all existing
Technician Plus licenses are being renewed as Technician.

73 de Jim, N2EY

These are the numbers of current, unexpired amateur licenses held
by individuals on the stated dates:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Technician - 205,394
Technician Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750

Total Tech/TechPlus - 334,254

Total all classes - 674,792

As of April 30, 2005:

Novice - 28,604 (decrease of 20,725)
Technician - 268,116 (increase of 62,722)
Technician Plus - 49,987 (decrease of 78,873)
General - 136,783 (increase of 24,106)
Advanced - 76,410 (decrease of 23,372)
Extra - 106,577 (increase of 27,827)

Total Tech/TechPlus - 318,103 (decrease of 16,151)

Total all classes - 666,477 (decrease of 8,315)

Note that these totals do not include licenses that
have expired but are in the grace period. They also
do not include club, military, RACES or other
station-only licenses.

Note also that effective April 15, 2000, new Novice, Technician Plus or
Advanced licenses are no longer issued, and that all existing
Technician Plus licenses are being renewed as Technician.

73 de Jim, N2EY

These are the numbers of current, unexpired amateur licenses held
by individuals on the stated dates:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Technician - 205,394
Technician Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750

Total Tech/TechPlus - 334,254

Total all classes - 674,792

As of May 14, 2005:

Novice - 28,604 (decrease of 20,832)
Technician - 268,529 (increase of 63,135)
Technician Plus - 49,553 (decrease of 79,307)
General - 136,683 (increase of 24,006)
Advanced - 76,274 (decrease of 23,508)
Extra - 106,577 (increase of 27,913)

Total Tech/TechPlus - 318,082 (decrease of 16,172)

Total all classes - 666,199 (decrease of 8,593)

Note that these totals do not include licenses that
have expired but are in the grace period. They also
do not include club, military, RACES or other
station-only licenses.

Note also that effective April 15, 2000, new Novice, Technician Plus or
Advanced licenses are no longer issued, and that all existing
Technician Plus licenses are being renewed as Technician.

73 de Jim, N2EY

These are the numbers of current, unexpired amateur licenses held
by individuals on the stated dates:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Technician - 205,394
Technician Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750

Total Tech/TechPlus - 334,254

Total all classes - 674,792

As of May 31, 2005:

Novice - 28,370 (decrease of 20,959)
Technician - 268,575 (increase of 63,181)
Technician Plus - 49,098 (decrease of 79,762)
General - 136,581 (increase of 23,904)
Advanced - 76,119 (decrease of 23,663)
Extra - 106,707 (increase of 27,957)

Total Tech/TechPlus - 317,673 (decrease of 16,581)

Total all classes - 665,450 (decrease of 9,342)

Note that these totals do not include licenses that
have expired but are in the grace period. They also
do not include club, military, RACES or other
station-only licenses.

Note also that effective April 15, 2000, new Novice, Technician Plus or
Advanced licenses are no longer issued, and that all existing
Technician Plus licenses are being renewed as Technician.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Yes.
Bottom line being--there are more illegal aliens in the state of
California alone--then there are hams in the world...

John
wrote in message
ups.com...
These are the numbers of current, unexpired amateur licenses held
by individuals on the stated dates:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Technician - 205,394
Technician Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750

Total Tech/TechPlus - 334,254

Total all classes - 674,792

As of May 31, 2005:

Novice - 28,370 (decrease of 20,959)
Technician - 268,575 (increase of 63,181)
Technician Plus - 49,098 (decrease of 79,762)
General - 136,581 (increase of 23,904)
Advanced - 76,119 (decrease of 23,663)
Extra - 106,707 (increase of 27,957)

Total Tech/TechPlus - 317,673 (decrease of 16,581)

Total all classes - 665,450 (decrease of 9,342)

Note that these totals do not include licenses that
have expired but are in the grace period. They also
do not include club, military, RACES or other
station-only licenses.

Note also that effective April 15, 2000, new Novice, Technician Plus
or
Advanced licenses are no longer issued, and that all existing
Technician Plus licenses are being renewed as Technician.

73 de Jim, N2EY

.... whoops...
I shouldn't have mentioned that--now hams will be filing for "minority
status" and starting to want to marry each other, and given the full
rights given a man and a woman... frown

John
"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Yes.
Bottom line being--there are more illegal aliens in the state of
California alone--then there are hams in the world...

John
wrote in message
ups.com...
These are the numbers of current, unexpired amateur licenses held
by individuals on the stated dates:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Technician - 205,394
Technician Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750

Total Tech/TechPlus - 334,254

Total all classes - 674,792

As of May 31, 2005:

Novice - 28,370 (decrease of 20,959)
Technician - 268,575 (increase of 63,181)
Technician Plus - 49,098 (decrease of 79,762)
General - 136,581 (increase of 23,904)
Advanced - 76,119 (decrease of 23,663)
Extra - 106,707 (increase of 27,957)

Total Tech/TechPlus - 317,673 (decrease of 16,581)

Total all classes - 665,450 (decrease of 9,342)

Note that these totals do not include licenses that
have expired but are in the grace period. They also
do not include club, military, RACES or other
station-only licenses.

Note also that effective April 15, 2000, new Novice, Technician Plus
or
Advanced licenses are no longer issued, and that all existing
Technician Plus licenses are being renewed as Technician.

73 de Jim, N2EY

From: on Jun 1, 9:15 pm

These are the numbers of current, unexpired amateur licenses held
by individuals on the stated dates:
As of May 14, 2000:

deleted, four-year-old data, grace periods are only 2 years

As of May 31, 2005:

Novice - 28,370 (decrease of 20,959)
Technician - 268,575 (increase of 63,181)
Technician Plus - 49,098 (decrease of 79,762)
General - 136,581 (increase of 23,904)
Advanced - 76,119 (decrease of 23,663)
Extra - 106,707 (increase of 27,957)

Total Tech/TechPlus - 317,673 (decrease of 16,581)

Total all classes - 665,450 (decrease of 9,342)


Note that these totals do not include licenses that
have expired but are in the grace period. They also
do not include club, military, RACES or other
station-only licenses

That's simply untrue, . Military "calls" are
assigned by the MILITARY. FCC has NO legal jurisdiction
over USA military OR government radio.

Note also that effective April 15, 2000, new Novice, Technician Plus or
Advanced licenses are no longer issued, and that all existing
Technician Plus licenses are being renewed as Technician.

An absolutely IMPORTANT clarification to obscure the
fact that no-code-test Technicians are condescendingly
sponged into the MORSE-TESTED totals.

Here's the totals of ALL AMATEUR licenses as given by
www.hamdata.com as of 5 June 2005, with "delta" relative
to those same classes two years ago...and the percentage
of total 2005-date licenses less 9,550 "Club" calls:

Class Licenses Delta Percentage
Technician (no-code-test) 293,613 +19,932 40.64
Technician Plus 56,161 -19,480 7.77
Novice 34,116 -8,331 4.72
General 144,802 +1,855 20.30
Advanced 82,902 -3,322 11.43
Extra 109,325 +3,678 15.13

Total Less "Club" calls 722,452 -5,668* 99.99**

* 2003 all-license totals were 736,616 or which 8,496 were
"Club" calls so the Delta for comparison is 728,120.

** Percentage totals do not add up to precisely 100% due
to arithmetic round-off to hundredths.

Note: "Club" calls include all the non-individual license
grants.

As of the hamdata.com figures for this Sunday, 5 Jun 05,
NO-CODE-TEST Technician Class licensees outnumber General
Class licensees by an almost exact 2:1 ratio. [General
class licensees WERE the largest in old days, no more]

Nota Bene: The total licenses for the no-code-test
Technician Class, 293,613, do NOT include the "Tech Plus"
total licenses of 56,161. [let's stop this foolish
"lumping-together" by rather obvious PCTAs in trying to
embelish the sanctity and nobility of morsemanship]

ALL license classes in the Technician (no-code-test),
General, and Amateur Extra classes have the SAME grace
period. If current Novice or Advanced license holders
don't RETEST, they go bye-bye, get defunct, disappear
from that great database.

The current percentage of NO-CODE-TEST Technician class
licensees now make up slightly over FORTY PERCENT of all
classes. It is obviously the most populous of ALL classes
and CONTINUES TO GROW. Neglecting that singular LARGE
class of radio amateurs is foolish pipe-dreaming or weird
personal fantasizing.

We now return you to the regularly scheduled PCTA
rationalization party in progress...

When the data attempts to force the fact that doom is
comming--re-arrange the data and argue like hell!!! Of course, that is
how the doom occurred in the first place!

John

wrote in message
oups.com...
From: on Jun 1, 9:15 pm

These are the numbers of current, unexpired amateur licenses held
by individuals on the stated dates:
As of May 14, 2000:

deleted, four-year-old data, grace periods are only 2 years

As of May 31, 2005:

Novice - 28,370 (decrease of 20,959)
Technician - 268,575 (increase of 63,181)
Technician Plus - 49,098 (decrease of 79,762)
General - 136,581 (increase of 23,904)
Advanced - 76,119 (decrease of 23,663)
Extra - 106,707 (increase of 27,957)

Total Tech/TechPlus - 317,673 (decrease of 16,581)

Total all classes - 665,450 (decrease of 9,342)


Note that these totals do not include licenses that
have expired but are in the grace period. They also
do not include club, military, RACES or other
station-only licenses

That's simply untrue, . Military "calls" are
assigned by the MILITARY. FCC has NO legal jurisdiction
over USA military OR government radio.

Note also that effective April 15, 2000, new Novice, Technician Plus
or
Advanced licenses are no longer issued, and that all existing
Technician Plus licenses are being renewed as Technician.

An absolutely IMPORTANT clarification to obscure the
fact that no-code-test Technicians are condescendingly
sponged into the MORSE-TESTED totals.

Here's the totals of ALL AMATEUR licenses as given by
www.hamdata.com as of 5 June 2005, with "delta" relative
to those same classes two years ago...and the percentage
of total 2005-date licenses less 9,550 "Club" calls:

Class Licenses Delta Percentage
Technician (no-code-test) 293,613 +19,932 40.64
Technician Plus 56,161 -19,480 7.77
Novice 34,116 -8,331 4.72
General 144,802 +1,855 20.30
Advanced 82,902 -3,322 11.43
Extra 109,325 +3,678 15.13

Total Less "Club" calls 722,452 -5,668* 99.99**

* 2003 all-license totals were 736,616 or which 8,496 were
"Club" calls so the Delta for comparison is 728,120.

** Percentage totals do not add up to precisely 100% due
to arithmetic round-off to hundredths.

Note: "Club" calls include all the non-individual license
grants.

As of the hamdata.com figures for this Sunday, 5 Jun 05,
NO-CODE-TEST Technician Class licensees outnumber General
Class licensees by an almost exact 2:1 ratio. [General
class licensees WERE the largest in old days, no more]

Nota Bene: The total licenses for the no-code-test
Technician Class, 293,613, do NOT include the "Tech Plus"
total licenses of 56,161. [let's stop this foolish
"lumping-together" by rather obvious PCTAs in trying to
embelish the sanctity and nobility of morsemanship]

ALL license classes in the Technician (no-code-test),
General, and Amateur Extra classes have the SAME grace
period. If current Novice or Advanced license holders
don't RETEST, they go bye-bye, get defunct, disappear
from that great database.

The current percentage of NO-CODE-TEST Technician class
licensees now make up slightly over FORTY PERCENT of all
classes. It is obviously the most populous of ALL classes
and CONTINUES TO GROW. Neglecting that singular LARGE
class of radio amateurs is foolish pipe-dreaming or weird
personal fantasizing.

We now return you to the regularly scheduled PCTA
rationalization party in progress...