Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #691   Report Post  
Old February 11th 05, 02:44 AM
bb
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.

  #692   Report Post  
Old February 11th 05, 04:08 AM
Mike Coslo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


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.


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


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.


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.

- Mike KB3EIA -

  #693   Report Post  
Old February 11th 05, 04:11 AM
Mike Coslo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 -

  #694   Report Post  
Old February 14th 05, 06:18 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #695   Report Post  
Old February 15th 05, 02:34 AM
Mike Coslo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

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".


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.

Lots of true conservatives feel the same. 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.


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.


Absolutely. All deficit spending is eventually paid for. 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.


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?

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.

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

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.

- Mike KB3EIA -



  #697   Report Post  
Old February 15th 05, 06:51 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #698   Report Post  
Old February 15th 05, 06:59 PM
Caveat Lector
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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



  #699   Report Post  
Old February 15th 05, 10:56 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #700   Report Post  
Old February 16th 05, 01:57 AM
Mike Coslo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


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.


Think Dixiecrat! Just where did the Dixiecrats go?


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?


It is an extremely liberal policy.

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


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


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.


Pretty much the same thing. Just a matter of how it is "paid for" 8^)


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!

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.

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.

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.

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^)


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?


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.

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

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


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.....

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.


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.

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!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access Lloyd Mitchell Antenna 43 October 26th 04 01:37 AM
FCC Amateur Radio Enforcement Letters for the Period Ending May 1, 2004 private General 0 May 10th 04 09:39 PM
First BPL License Awarded - Biz WDØHCO Boatanchors 2 October 1st 03 08:51 PM
First BPL License Awarded - Biz WDØHCO Boatanchors 0 October 1st 03 08:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017