|
JJ wrote:
Kim W5TIT wrote: You know what? I am not so sure that it would take all that much, Jim. I am not even going to pretend to be a financier, but I wonder how much of the Federal Budget, i.e. your and my tax dollars, get spent away from our country. Then, how much foreign debt is "forgiven" each year? I would wager we could cut the foreigh aid we send to support those little ****ant dictators in some of those ****ant countries and have more than enough to provide good health care for every citizen. Foreign aid goes a long way toward having those countries vote in the U.N. in line with our policies. Some of it puts military officers from third world countries through *our* military academies. It gives those officers a chance to live in the U.S. and see how our system works. Some of the aid brings scholars to the U.S. to study. If we build a needed flood control dam in Sierra Leone, good will toward the United States is generated. A decade or so back, Botswana actually weaned itself from U.S. aid and thanked us. Why would paying for your doctor visits and your medications be the government's responsibility? Dave K8MN |
"JJ" wrote in message
... Larry Roll K3LT wrote: Jim: Most EU countries are much better suited for mass transit (meaning light rail systems) than is the U.S. as a whole. Sure, they're good in big cities, but the USA has too many wide open spaces and too much suburban sprawl -- making long commutes necessary for the majority of the workforce. This means we're going to be dependent on personal, self-driven vehicles for a long time to come. Moreover, I don't think that adapting our public transit systems to be as accessible and accommodating to the majority of commuters as those in the EU would cost far more than they are spending. Remember, they had a headstart on their transit systems, dating back to the pre-war era. They also have a higher level of cultural acceptence of mass transit -- many EU families have never owned an automobile, simply because there was no need (not to mention the prohibitive cost). The long distances which must be travelled by most Americans to get to work and go about their daily duties would make EU-style gasoline prices impossible for the average person to afford. Our economy depends on cheap, abundant energy, available at present-day market rates (or lower) basically in perpetuity. The liberal, socialist Democrats think we need to change that and have EU-type energy prices, but they hate this country anyway, and want us to be subjugated to the EU. These treasonous wackos won't be happy until we revert to a totally agrarian society. They are the enemies of the freedom that America stands for, and must be treated as such. Europe will always be different from the U.S., and considering their geopolitical realities, it is just the way it should be. However, since most of the EU nations would fit inside a couple of our states, America must be different. We must consume a larger share of the world's energy simply because we have a lot further to go in order to make our own individual social and economic contributions. I agree that mass transit should be exploited to the greatest extent possible, but it will never replace the need for individual, personal mobility -- meaning the private automobile, in all of it's forms. 73 de Larry, K3LT The U.S. does need to develope better mass transit in large metropolitian areas. When I lived in the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas area, the two cities were always complaining about the heavy commute traffic and how they were not using the available mass transit system. The would encourage people to car pool or use what mass transit was available, all the while they were expanding the freeway system to accomodate more vehicles. If you want people to use mass transit you have to 1) build a good mass transit system, and 2) don't build massive freeway systems that make it easier for people to drive their vehicles to work than ride mass transit. I tired mass transit when I first started working downtown. Nothing convenient, friendly, safe, or good about it at all. It was scarey because of the drivers, inconvenient because I had to work my schedule around theirs, unfriendly people getting on and off knocking others with their asses or briefcases, and I'll never do it again. Kim W5TIT |
"JJ" wrote in message
... Kim W5TIT wrote: You know what? I am not so sure that it would take all that much, Jim. I am not even going to pretend to be a financier, but I wonder how much of the Federal Budget, i.e. your and my tax dollars, get spent away from our country. Then, how much foreign debt is "forgiven" each year? I would wager we could cut the foreigh aid we send to support those little ****ant dictators in some of those ****ant countries and have more than enough to provide good health care for every citizen. At least the kids and our elderly. Kim W5TIT |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
... JJ wrote: Kim W5TIT wrote: You know what? I am not so sure that it would take all that much, Jim. I am not even going to pretend to be a financier, but I wonder how much of the Federal Budget, i.e. your and my tax dollars, get spent away from our country. Then, how much foreign debt is "forgiven" each year? I would wager we could cut the foreigh aid we send to support those little ****ant dictators in some of those ****ant countries and have more than enough to provide good health care for every citizen. Foreign aid goes a long way toward having those countries vote in the U.N. in line with our policies. Yeah, money always has been very easy to throw around, 'specially when it's someone else's. There's other ways to win friends and influence people--and ways that would mean a lot more and build better alliances in the longrun. Some of it puts military officers from third world countries through *our* military academies. It gives those officers a chance to live in the U.S. and see how our system works. Yeah, so they can go and influence a bunch of rebels in their or other homelands and train enemies to the US. We don't need someone learning "our" way of doing things...let them figure it out for themselves. Some of the aid brings scholars to the U.S. to study. So they can go back to their land, grow a company, and somehow through many different ways, we end up losing jobs and capital over here. If we build a needed flood control dam in Sierra Leone, good will toward the United States is generated. Give them a very, very low interest loan with a good down payment and let them build their own damned dam. A decade or so back, Botswana actually weaned itself from U.S. aid and thanked us. 'Sbout damned time...although I doubt they're as "weaned" as they should be or are. Why would paying for your doctor visits and your medications be the government's responsibility? Dave K8MN Uh, because *we live* in this country? So, you disagree with programs that improve our infrastructure that is pitiful, helps our kids and elderly with healthcare and even education, begins an effort to ending welfare for the capable, improves health conditions nationwide--and more, while our government is off in other lands playing Godfather?! Figures, Dave. The people of this country who are being taxed to the hilt are paying for the backbone of crap in this country and the rest of the world. It's time the rest of the world and the nitwits in this country get pushed out of the nest. But, of course that ain't happenin' any time soon. Kim W5TIT |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in
: "Dave Heil" wrote in message ... JJ wrote: Kim W5TIT wrote: You know what? I am not so sure that it would take all that much, Jim. I am not even going to pretend to be a financier, but I wonder how much of the Federal Budget, i.e. your and my tax dollars, get spent away from our country. Then, how much foreign debt is "forgiven" each year? I would wager we could cut the foreigh aid we send to support those little ****ant dictators in some of those ****ant countries and have more than enough to provide good health care for every citizen. Foreign aid goes a long way toward having those countries vote in the U.N. in line with our policies. Yeah, money always has been very easy to throw around, 'specially when it's someone else's. There's other ways to win friends and influence people--and ways that would mean a lot more and build better alliances in the longrun. Some of it puts military officers from third world countries through *our* military academies. It gives those officers a chance to live in the U.S. and see how our system works. Yeah, so they can go and influence a bunch of rebels in their or other homelands and train enemies to the US. We don't need someone learning "our" way of doing things...let them figure it out for themselves. Some of the aid brings scholars to the U.S. to study. So they can go back to their land, grow a company, and somehow through many different ways, we end up losing jobs and capital over here. If we build a needed flood control dam in Sierra Leone, good will toward the United States is generated. Give them a very, very low interest loan with a good down payment and let them build their own damned dam. A decade or so back, Botswana actually weaned itself from U.S. aid and thanked us. 'Sbout damned time...although I doubt they're as "weaned" as they should be or are. Why would paying for your doctor visits and your medications be the government's responsibility? Dave K8MN Uh, because *we live* in this country? So, you disagree with programs that improve our infrastructure that is pitiful, helps our kids and elderly with healthcare and even education, begins an effort to ending welfare for the capable, improves health conditions nationwide--and more, while our government is off in other lands playing Godfather?! Figures, Dave. The people of this country who are being taxed to the hilt are paying for the backbone of crap in this country and the rest of the world. It's time the rest of the world and the nitwits in this country get pushed out of the nest. But, of course that ain't happenin' any time soon. Kim W5TIT FWIW I agree 100% with you, Kim. Paying for health care and mass transit would be far more worthwhile than most of the things the government does with tax revenue. Their priorities are completely backwards. |
"N2EY" wrote The 800 pound budget gorillas are defense spending, Medicare and Social Security. Social Security is pretty much self-funded, and in fact has been tapped from time to time for deficits in the general fund. |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... But, if it meant a) one tax for all--no tax breaks for any, at about 10-14% per person and entity, b) taxing even religious institutions--anything outside of actual *church* and parish properties, c) cutting the fat from the equation, both in terms of programs and personnel; and there was still a need for higher taxes, I'd be willing to pay my *fair* share. Kim W5TIT The average person is already paying nearly half their income in taxes if you include all taxes plus the ones you pay indirectly. This is hardly reasonable nor would it be reasonable for anyone to pay even more. Where did your 50% number for the average person come from? Since revenues from all levels of government, as well as the nation's gross income, are well known, the average of all taxes isn't a difficult number to compute with some precision. In fact the Tax Foundation (which should be called the Anti-Tax Foundation, their interests would never lead them to underestimate this number) does exactly this to calculate their "Tax Freedom Day", seen at http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html Tax freedom day this year was April 19, meaning the average total tax burden was 30%. Note that the tax burden for the median wage earner was probably somewhat less than this since higher tax rates on corporate income and the wealthy tend to skew the average higher (see the "Q&A about critiques..." link on the same page). I hence can't see how you concluded that the average American's total tax burden is anywhere near 50% of their income. I also recently saw (but have since lost) a table which showed comparative tax burdens for 36 industrialized nations. Only the northern-most European countries have total tax burdens in the 50% ballpark, while US taxes in 2003 were 35th on the list, with only Mexico lower (in 2000, Japan and Korea were also lower). Not that this suggests the US is in any way under-taxed; if you add in the additional 12% of income spent on private medical care you end up within a few percent, plus or minus, of the tax burdens in Canada and (south-)Western European countries which fund medical care via taxes. I don't know how you define what is "reasonable" for someone to pay, and I certainly wish I paid less tax rather than more, but it is the case that you get about what you pay for. For an example of an industrialized country with significantly lower taxes one can look to, say, China, and observe that to get this tax rate one would also need to live with China-like infrastructure and services. This isn't a tradeoff I'd recommend, personally. Dennis Ferguson |
JJ wrote:
Kim W5TIT wrote: You know what? I am not so sure that it would take all that much, Jim. I am not even going to pretend to be a financier, but I wonder how much of the Federal Budget, i.e. your and my tax dollars, get spent away from our country. Then, how much foreign debt is "forgiven" each year? I would wager we could cut the foreigh aid we send to support those little ****ant dictators in some of those ****ant countries and have more than enough to provide good health care for every citizen. You would lose that wager big time. The total US foreign aid budget for 2001 (the last year I can find) was $15 billion, half of which went to Isreal and some of its Arab neighbors. The total spending on health care in the US in 2001 was $1.4 trillion, about 100 times the amount. I don't know where the myth that the US spends a huge amount on foreign aid came from. As a fraction of GDP the US foreign aid budget is the stingiest among developed countries, and the money is usually spent on things which advance some US foreign policy interest. It is way, way cheaper than sending the military somewhere to advance some US foreign policy interest. Dennis Ferguson |
Dave Heil wrote:
Why would paying for your doctor visits and your medications be the government's responsibility? Dave K8MN Do you pay for all your doctor visits and medications, or does some insurance pay for a good portion of it? I suppose when you are eligible for Medicare you are going to refuse it, after all,it should not be the governments responsibility to pay for your medical, Right? |
KØHB wrote:
"N2EY" wrote The 800 pound budget gorillas are defense spending, Medicare and Social Security. Social Security is pretty much self-funded, and in fact has been tapped from time to time for deficits in the general fund. Social Security has only been separately accounted for since 1986. Before that payroll tax revenue and SS expenditures went to and from the general fund and so were indistiguishable from other taxes and expenditures, which is where the habit of lumping it all together came from. SS has been generating a surplus since Reagan raised the payroll tax (in 1983 or so) and separated out the accounting, and I think now SS owns over $3 trillion in US government debt. This is with baby boomers still working, however. Since the separately accounted SS is essentially an insurance policy its financial health needs to be determined from actuarial tables, rather than from a simple current balance, since most SS liabilities are still in the future. The fact that SS was actuarily insolvent in the early 80's was why Reagan (back in the days when there was some adult attention paid to the country's fiscal state) cranked up the payroll tax to ensure that current surpluses sufficient to cover future liabilities were generated. The only reason I point this out is that the current Congress generated a report a couple of years ago showing that SS would be unable to meet its obligations by, I think, 2014. The study reached this result by assuming the federal debt owed to SS would never be repaid, which suggests that the current government is again treating the payroll tax and SS payments as contributions to and expenditures from the general fund. Dennis Ferguson |
"Dennis Ferguson" wrote in message ... Dee D. Flint wrote: "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... But, if it meant a) one tax for all--no tax breaks for any, at about 10-14% per person and entity, b) taxing even religious institutions--anything outside of actual *church* and parish properties, c) cutting the fat from the equation, both in terms of programs and personnel; and there was still a need for higher taxes, I'd be willing to pay my *fair* share. Kim W5TIT The average person is already paying nearly half their income in taxes if you include all taxes plus the ones you pay indirectly. This is hardly reasonable nor would it be reasonable for anyone to pay even more. Where did your 50% number for the average person come from? Since revenues from all levels of government, as well as the nation's gross income, are well known, the average of all taxes isn't a difficult number to compute with some precision. In fact the Tax Foundation (which should be called the Anti-Tax Foundation, their interests would never lead them to underestimate this number) does exactly this to calculate their "Tax Freedom Day", seen at http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html Tax freedom day this year was April 19, meaning the average total tax burden was 30%. Note that the tax burden for the median wage earner was probably somewhat less than this since higher tax rates on corporate income and the wealthy tend to skew the average higher (see the "Q&A about critiques..." link on the same page). I hence can't see how you concluded that the average American's total tax burden is anywhere near 50% of their income. I also recently saw (but have since lost) a table which showed comparative tax burdens for 36 industrialized nations. Only the northern-most European countries have total tax burdens in the 50% ballpark, while US taxes in 2003 were 35th on the list, with only Mexico lower (in 2000, Japan and Korea were also lower). Not that this suggests the US is in any way under-taxed; if you add in the additional 12% of income spent on private medical care you end up within a few percent, plus or minus, of the tax burdens in Canada and (south-)Western European countries which fund medical care via taxes. I don't know how you define what is "reasonable" for someone to pay, and I certainly wish I paid less tax rather than more, but it is the case that you get about what you pay for. For an example of an industrialized country with significantly lower taxes one can look to, say, China, and observe that to get this tax rate one would also need to live with China-like infrastructure and services. This isn't a tradeoff I'd recommend, personally. Dennis Ferguson An out of date number from when I paid attention to it a few years ago. At the time "Tax Freedom Day" was sometime in May. So at that time it was almost 50%. European countries at the time were a higher percentage. However it does not mean that the US is undertaxed but instead that Europeans are overtaxed. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"JJ" wrote in message ... Dave Heil wrote: Why would paying for your doctor visits and your medications be the government's responsibility? Dave K8MN Do you pay for all your doctor visits and medications, or does some insurance pay for a good portion of it? I suppose when you are eligible for Medicare you are going to refuse it, after all,it should not be the governments responsibility to pay for your medical, Right? Remember we all pay for our insurance. And don't say the company that employs you pays for it. That's a smokescreen. What they pay could just as well go into your paycheck so you could afford to pay for it yourself. The government has taken every step possible to insure that we will NOT have the money to pay for our own insurance and our own health care. Instead they prefer that we depend on them to do it. That is potentially a bad situation as it depending on the government is risky. One can easily pay in all their lives and yet be severely limited on benefits eligibility. Investing in private benefits would allow one to have benefits commensurate with what they paid in. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"JJ" wrote in message ... Larry Roll K3LT wrote: Jim: Most EU countries are much better suited for mass transit (meaning light rail systems) than is the U.S. as a whole. Sure, they're good in big cities, but the USA has too many wide open spaces and too much suburban sprawl -- making long commutes necessary for the majority of the workforce. This means we're going to be dependent on personal, self-driven vehicles for a long time to come. Moreover, I don't think that adapting our public transit systems to be as accessible and accommodating to the majority of commuters as those in the EU would cost far more than they are spending. Remember, they had a headstart on their transit systems, dating back to the pre-war era. They also have a higher level of cultural acceptence of mass transit -- many EU families have never owned an automobile, simply because there was no need (not to mention the prohibitive cost). The long distances which must be travelled by most Americans to get to work and go about their daily duties would make EU-style gasoline prices impossible for the average person to afford. Our economy depends on cheap, abundant energy, available at present-day market rates (or lower) basically in perpetuity. The liberal, socialist Democrats think we need to change that and have EU-type energy prices, but they hate this country anyway, and want us to be subjugated to the EU. These treasonous wackos won't be happy until we revert to a totally agrarian society. They are the enemies of the freedom that America stands for, and must be treated as such. Europe will always be different from the U.S., and considering their geopolitical realities, it is just the way it should be. However, since most of the EU nations would fit inside a couple of our states, America must be different. We must consume a larger share of the world's energy simply because we have a lot further to go in order to make our own individual social and economic contributions. I agree that mass transit should be exploited to the greatest extent possible, but it will never replace the need for individual, personal mobility -- meaning the private automobile, in all of it's forms. 73 de Larry, K3LT The U.S. does need to develope better mass transit in large metropolitian areas. When I lived in the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas area, the two cities were always complaining about the heavy commute traffic and how they were not using the available mass transit system. The would encourage people to car pool or use what mass transit was available, all the while they were expanding the freeway system to accomodate more vehicles. If you want people to use mass transit you have to 1) build a good mass transit system, and 2) don't build massive freeway systems that make it easier for people to drive their vehicles to work than ride mass transit. I tired mass transit when I first started working downtown. Nothing convenient, friendly, safe, or good about it at all. It was scarey because of the drivers, inconvenient because I had to work my schedule around theirs, unfriendly people getting on and off knocking others with their asses or briefcases, and I'll never do it again. Along similar lines, I tried the local version of mass transit. I had to wait 30 minutes for the bus, then undergo a very circuitous route, and still had to walk a quarter mile. Leaving work at 5:00, I got home a couple minutes after 7:00 p.m. 2 hours to go the 2.5 miles from work to home!!!!! - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Alun" wrote in message
... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in : "Dave Heil" wrote in message ... JJ wrote: Kim W5TIT wrote: You know what? I am not so sure that it would take all that much, Jim. I am not even going to pretend to be a financier, but I wonder how much of the Federal Budget, i.e. your and my tax dollars, get spent away from our country. Then, how much foreign debt is "forgiven" each year? I would wager we could cut the foreigh aid we send to support those little ****ant dictators in some of those ****ant countries and have more than enough to provide good health care for every citizen. Foreign aid goes a long way toward having those countries vote in the U.N. in line with our policies. Yeah, money always has been very easy to throw around, 'specially when it's someone else's. There's other ways to win friends and influence people--and ways that would mean a lot more and build better alliances in the longrun. Some of it puts military officers from third world countries through *our* military academies. It gives those officers a chance to live in the U.S. and see how our system works. Yeah, so they can go and influence a bunch of rebels in their or other homelands and train enemies to the US. We don't need someone learning "our" way of doing things...let them figure it out for themselves. Some of the aid brings scholars to the U.S. to study. So they can go back to their land, grow a company, and somehow through many different ways, we end up losing jobs and capital over here. If we build a needed flood control dam in Sierra Leone, good will toward the United States is generated. Give them a very, very low interest loan with a good down payment and let them build their own damned dam. A decade or so back, Botswana actually weaned itself from U.S. aid and thanked us. 'Sbout damned time...although I doubt they're as "weaned" as they should be or are. Why would paying for your doctor visits and your medications be the government's responsibility? Dave K8MN Uh, because *we live* in this country? So, you disagree with programs that improve our infrastructure that is pitiful, helps our kids and elderly with healthcare and even education, begins an effort to ending welfare for the capable, improves health conditions nationwide--and more, while our government is off in other lands playing Godfather?! Figures, Dave. The people of this country who are being taxed to the hilt are paying for the backbone of crap in this country and the rest of the world. It's time the rest of the world and the nitwits in this country get pushed out of the nest. But, of course that ain't happenin' any time soon. Kim W5TIT FWIW I agree 100% with you, Kim. Paying for health care and mass transit would be far more worthwhile than most of the things the government does with tax revenue. Their priorities are completely backwards. And, it's not unique to the US Gov't. The priorities of a gov't. are not the priorities of its people; it is the people's priorities they defy. Kim W5TIT |
JJ wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: Why would paying for your doctor visits and your medications be the government's responsibility? Do you pay for all your doctor visits and medications, or does some insurance pay for a good portion of it? I suppose when you are eligible for Medicare you are going to refuse it, after all,it should not be the governments responsibility to pay for your medical, Right? I'm not old enough for medicare and it matters not whether insurance covers my visits or medications. Fact is: Government is not paying for my medical care nor do I feel that I have a right to government subsidized medical care. That said, care to answer my question? Dave K8MN |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... JJ wrote: Kim W5TIT wrote: You know what? I am not so sure that it would take all that much, Jim. I am not even going to pretend to be a financier, but I wonder how much of the Federal Budget, i.e. your and my tax dollars, get spent away from our country. Then, how much foreign debt is "forgiven" each year? I would wager we could cut the foreigh aid we send to support those little ****ant dictators in some of those ****ant countries and have more than enough to provide good health care for every citizen. Foreign aid goes a long way toward having those countries vote in the U.N. in line with our policies. Yeah, money always has been very easy to throw around, 'specially when it's someone else's. It isn't "someone else's" money, Kim. It is government money obtained from those Americans who pay taxes. The money is being spent in the interest of the people of the U.S. There's other ways to win friends and influence people--and ways that would mean a lot more and build better alliances in the longrun. What would you suggest, takeovers of countries or free beer at the U.S. embassy on Friday evenings? Some of it puts military officers from third world countries through *our* military academies. It gives those officers a chance to live in the U.S. and see how our system works. Yeah, so they can go and influence a bunch of rebels in their or other homelands and train enemies to the US. Is that what you believe is happening? We don't need someone learning "our" way of doing things...let them figure it out for themselves. Not much chance of that. You live here and you haven't figured it out. Some of the aid brings scholars to the U.S. to study. So they can go back to their land, grow a company, and somehow through many different ways, we end up losing jobs and capital over here. Do you believe that is the purpose for bringing foreign students to the U.S. for schooling? If we build a needed flood control dam in Sierra Leone, good will toward the United States is generated. Give them a very, very low interest loan with a good down payment and let them build their own damned dam. That is quite often done. On other occasions, the money comes in the form of a grant. The actual construction, by the way, is often done by U.S. companies. A decade or so back, Botswana actually weaned itself from U.S. aid and thanked us. 'Sbout damned time...although I doubt they're as "weaned" as they should be or are. ....but that's probably just another thing you know little about, huh? Why would paying for your doctor visits and your medications be the government's responsibility? Uh, because *we live* in this country? Yeah? So? How does that entitle you to free medical care? So, you disagree with programs that improve our infrastructure that is pitiful, helps our kids and elderly with healthcare and even education, begins an effort to ending welfare for the capable, improves health conditions nationwide--and more, while our government is off in other lands playing Godfather?! Figures, Dave. I don't believe that most Americans believe that anyone other than those children and elderly people should be given free or subsidized health care. The people of this country who are being taxed to the hilt are paying for the backbone of crap in this country and the rest of the world. They're paying for what? It's time the rest of the world and the nitwits in this country get pushed out of the nest. But, of course that ain't happenin' any time soon. There's the Lucy Van Pelt view of Foreign Policy for you. Why don't you stick to things you know something about...as soon as you figure out what those might be? Dave K8MN |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
... Kim W5TIT wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote in message ... JJ wrote: Kim W5TIT wrote: You know what? I am not so sure that it would take all that much, Jim. I am not even going to pretend to be a financier, but I wonder how much of the Federal Budget, i.e. your and my tax dollars, get spent away from our country. Then, how much foreign debt is "forgiven" each year? I would wager we could cut the foreigh aid we send to support those little ****ant dictators in some of those ****ant countries and have more than enough to provide good health care for every citizen. Foreign aid goes a long way toward having those countries vote in the U.N. in line with our policies. Yeah, money always has been very easy to throw around, 'specially when it's someone else's. It isn't "someone else's" money, Kim. It is government money obtained from those Americans who pay taxes. The money is being spent in the interest of the people of the U.S. There's other ways to win friends and influence people--and ways that would mean a lot more and build better alliances in the longrun. What would you suggest, takeovers of countries or free beer at the U.S. embassy on Friday evenings? Some of it puts military officers from third world countries through *our* military academies. It gives those officers a chance to live in the U.S. and see how our system works. Yeah, so they can go and influence a bunch of rebels in their or other homelands and train enemies to the US. Is that what you believe is happening? We don't need someone learning "our" way of doing things...let them figure it out for themselves. Not much chance of that. You live here and you haven't figured it out. Some of the aid brings scholars to the U.S. to study. So they can go back to their land, grow a company, and somehow through many different ways, we end up losing jobs and capital over here. Do you believe that is the purpose for bringing foreign students to the U.S. for schooling? If we build a needed flood control dam in Sierra Leone, good will toward the United States is generated. Give them a very, very low interest loan with a good down payment and let them build their own damned dam. That is quite often done. On other occasions, the money comes in the form of a grant. The actual construction, by the way, is often done by U.S. companies. A decade or so back, Botswana actually weaned itself from U.S. aid and thanked us. 'Sbout damned time...although I doubt they're as "weaned" as they should be or are. ...but that's probably just another thing you know little about, huh? Why would paying for your doctor visits and your medications be the government's responsibility? Uh, because *we live* in this country? Yeah? So? How does that entitle you to free medical care? So, you disagree with programs that improve our infrastructure that is pitiful, helps our kids and elderly with healthcare and even education, begins an effort to ending welfare for the capable, improves health conditions nationwide--and more, while our government is off in other lands playing Godfather?! Figures, Dave. I don't believe that most Americans believe that anyone other than those children and elderly people should be given free or subsidized health care. The people of this country who are being taxed to the hilt are paying for the backbone of crap in this country and the rest of the world. They're paying for what? It's time the rest of the world and the nitwits in this country get pushed out of the nest. But, of course that ain't happenin' any time soon. There's the Lucy Van Pelt view of Foreign Policy for you. Why don't you stick to things you know something about...as soon as you figure out what those might be? Dave K8MN I think you're about the hugest piece of crap I've been witness to in a long, long time, Dave Heil. You go back into your silver spoon 'gain, now... Buh bye...get another book. Kim W5TIT |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote in message ... JJ wrote: Kim W5TIT wrote: You know what? I am not so sure that it would take all that much, Jim. I am not even going to pretend to be a financier, but I wonder how much of the Federal Budget, i.e. your and my tax dollars, get spent away from our country. Then, how much foreign debt is "forgiven" each year? I would wager we could cut the foreigh aid we send to support those little ****ant dictators in some of those ****ant countries and have more than enough to provide good health care for every citizen. Foreign aid goes a long way toward having those countries vote in the U.N. in line with our policies. Yeah, money always has been very easy to throw around, 'specially when it's someone else's. It isn't "someone else's" money, Kim. It is government money obtained from those Americans who pay taxes. The money is being spent in the interest of the people of the U.S. There's other ways to win friends and influence people--and ways that would mean a lot more and build better alliances in the longrun. What would you suggest, takeovers of countries or free beer at the U.S. embassy on Friday evenings? Some of it puts military officers from third world countries through *our* military academies. It gives those officers a chance to live in the U.S. and see how our system works. Yeah, so they can go and influence a bunch of rebels in their or other homelands and train enemies to the US. Is that what you believe is happening? We don't need someone learning "our" way of doing things...let them figure it out for themselves. Not much chance of that. You live here and you haven't figured it out. Some of the aid brings scholars to the U.S. to study. So they can go back to their land, grow a company, and somehow through many different ways, we end up losing jobs and capital over here. Do you believe that is the purpose for bringing foreign students to the U.S. for schooling? If we build a needed flood control dam in Sierra Leone, good will toward the United States is generated. Give them a very, very low interest loan with a good down payment and let them build their own damned dam. That is quite often done. On other occasions, the money comes in the form of a grant. The actual construction, by the way, is often done by U.S. companies. A decade or so back, Botswana actually weaned itself from U.S. aid and thanked us. 'Sbout damned time...although I doubt they're as "weaned" as they should be or are. ...but that's probably just another thing you know little about, huh? Why would paying for your doctor visits and your medications be the government's responsibility? Uh, because *we live* in this country? Yeah? So? How does that entitle you to free medical care? So, you disagree with programs that improve our infrastructure that is pitiful, helps our kids and elderly with healthcare and even education, begins an effort to ending welfare for the capable, improves health conditions nationwide--and more, while our government is off in other lands playing Godfather?! Figures, Dave. I don't believe that most Americans believe that anyone other than those children and elderly people should be given free or subsidized health care. The people of this country who are being taxed to the hilt are paying for the backbone of crap in this country and the rest of the world. They're paying for what? It's time the rest of the world and the nitwits in this country get pushed out of the nest. But, of course that ain't happenin' any time soon. There's the Lucy Van Pelt view of Foreign Policy for you. Why don't you stick to things you know something about...as soon as you figure out what those might be? Dave K8MN Dave, You are wasting your time. Twit is a self proclaimed 'flower child' (of the mid 70s !!!). Which translated means she is a braindead socialist thinking Demoncrat. Dan/W4NTI |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote in message ... JJ wrote: Kim W5TIT wrote: You know what? I am not so sure that it would take all that much, Jim. I am not even going to pretend to be a financier, but I wonder how much of the Federal Budget, i.e. your and my tax dollars, get spent away from our country. Then, how much foreign debt is "forgiven" each year? I would wager we could cut the foreigh aid we send to support those little ****ant dictators in some of those ****ant countries and have more than enough to provide good health care for every citizen. Foreign aid goes a long way toward having those countries vote in the U.N. in line with our policies. Yeah, money always has been very easy to throw around, 'specially when it's someone else's. It isn't "someone else's" money, Kim. It is government money obtained from those Americans who pay taxes. The money is being spent in the interest of the people of the U.S. There's other ways to win friends and influence people--and ways that would mean a lot more and build better alliances in the longrun. What would you suggest, takeovers of countries or free beer at the U.S. embassy on Friday evenings? Some of it puts military officers from third world countries through *our* military academies. It gives those officers a chance to live in the U.S. and see how our system works. Yeah, so they can go and influence a bunch of rebels in their or other homelands and train enemies to the US. Is that what you believe is happening? We don't need someone learning "our" way of doing things...let them figure it out for themselves. Not much chance of that. You live here and you haven't figured it out. Some of the aid brings scholars to the U.S. to study. So they can go back to their land, grow a company, and somehow through many different ways, we end up losing jobs and capital over here. Do you believe that is the purpose for bringing foreign students to the U.S. for schooling? If we build a needed flood control dam in Sierra Leone, good will toward the United States is generated. Give them a very, very low interest loan with a good down payment and let them build their own damned dam. That is quite often done. On other occasions, the money comes in the form of a grant. The actual construction, by the way, is often done by U.S. companies. A decade or so back, Botswana actually weaned itself from U.S. aid and thanked us. 'Sbout damned time...although I doubt they're as "weaned" as they should be or are. ...but that's probably just another thing you know little about, huh? Why would paying for your doctor visits and your medications be the government's responsibility? Uh, because *we live* in this country? Yeah? So? How does that entitle you to free medical care? So, you disagree with programs that improve our infrastructure that is pitiful, helps our kids and elderly with healthcare and even education, begins an effort to ending welfare for the capable, improves health conditions nationwide--and more, while our government is off in other lands playing Godfather?! Figures, Dave. I don't believe that most Americans believe that anyone other than those children and elderly people should be given free or subsidized health care. The people of this country who are being taxed to the hilt are paying for the backbone of crap in this country and the rest of the world. They're paying for what? It's time the rest of the world and the nitwits in this country get pushed out of the nest. But, of course that ain't happenin' any time soon. There's the Lucy Van Pelt view of Foreign Policy for you. Why don't you stick to things you know something about...as soon as you figure out what those might be? Dave K8MN I think you're about the hugest piece of crap I've been witness to in a long, long time, Dave Heil. You go back into your silver spoon 'gain, now... Buh bye...get another book. Kim W5TIT See what I mean Dave? Totally unable to counter what you said. Because she knows you are right. Yep,..... a knee jerk, bleeding heart, commie liberal. Dan/W4NTI |
Dave Heil wrote:
JJ wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Why would paying for your doctor visits and your medications be the government's responsibility? Do you pay for all your doctor visits and medications, or does some insurance pay for a good portion of it? I suppose when you are eligible for Medicare you are going to refuse it, after all,it should not be the governments responsibility to pay for your medical, Right? I'm not old enough for medicare and it matters not whether insurance covers my visits or medications. Fact is: Government is not paying for my medical care nor do I feel that I have a right to government subsidized medical care. That said, care to answer my question? How about answering my questions. Do you pay for all your doctor visits and medications out of your pocket? When you do qualify for Medicare, you are going to refuse? |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote in message ... JJ wrote: Kim W5TIT wrote: You know what? I am not so sure that it would take all that much, Jim. I am not even going to pretend to be a financier, but I wonder how much of the Federal Budget, i.e. your and my tax dollars, get spent away from our country. Then, how much foreign debt is "forgiven" each year? I would wager we could cut the foreigh aid we send to support those little ****ant dictators in some of those ****ant countries and have more than enough to provide good health care for every citizen. Foreign aid goes a long way toward having those countries vote in the U.N. in line with our policies. Yeah, money always has been very easy to throw around, 'specially when it's someone else's. It isn't "someone else's" money, Kim. It is government money obtained from those Americans who pay taxes. The money is being spent in the interest of the people of the U.S. There's other ways to win friends and influence people--and ways that would mean a lot more and build better alliances in the longrun. What would you suggest, takeovers of countries or free beer at the U.S. embassy on Friday evenings? Some of it puts military officers from third world countries through *our* military academies. It gives those officers a chance to live in the U.S. and see how our system works. Yeah, so they can go and influence a bunch of rebels in their or other homelands and train enemies to the US. Is that what you believe is happening? We don't need someone learning "our" way of doing things...let them figure it out for themselves. Not much chance of that. You live here and you haven't figured it out. Some of the aid brings scholars to the U.S. to study. So they can go back to their land, grow a company, and somehow through many different ways, we end up losing jobs and capital over here. Do you believe that is the purpose for bringing foreign students to the U.S. for schooling? If we build a needed flood control dam in Sierra Leone, good will toward the United States is generated. Give them a very, very low interest loan with a good down payment and let them build their own damned dam. That is quite often done. On other occasions, the money comes in the form of a grant. The actual construction, by the way, is often done by U.S. companies. A decade or so back, Botswana actually weaned itself from U.S. aid and thanked us. 'Sbout damned time...although I doubt they're as "weaned" as they should be or are. ...but that's probably just another thing you know little about, huh? Why would paying for your doctor visits and your medications be the government's responsibility? Uh, because *we live* in this country? Yeah? So? How does that entitle you to free medical care? So, you disagree with programs that improve our infrastructure that is pitiful, helps our kids and elderly with healthcare and even education, begins an effort to ending welfare for the capable, improves health conditions nationwide--and more, while our government is off in other lands playing Godfather?! Figures, Dave. I don't believe that most Americans believe that anyone other than those children and elderly people should be given free or subsidized health care. The people of this country who are being taxed to the hilt are paying for the backbone of crap in this country and the rest of the world. They're paying for what? It's time the rest of the world and the nitwits in this country get pushed out of the nest. But, of course that ain't happenin' any time soon. There's the Lucy Van Pelt view of Foreign Policy for you. Why don't you stick to things you know something about...as soon as you figure out what those might be? Dave K8MN I think you're about the hugest piece of crap I've been witness to in a long, long time, Dave Heil. That'd only be because I've refuted your silliness on yet another occasion, Kim. You'll have to make up your mind on whether I'm the biggest since you've awarded similar honors to Dwight, Dan, Larry and me at various times. You go back into your silver spoon 'gain, now... I actually own some silver spoons, Kim, but if you're referring to the same soon you say I was born with, you're as wrong this time as the first time. Buh bye...get another book. Why, thank you. I have a scads of books but I always enjoy getting a new one! Aren't you going to tell me whether you believe yourself entitled to free health care at government expense? How about whether you think our foreign policy dollars are being misused? Dave K8MN |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message I think you're about the hugest piece of crap I've been witness to in a long, long time, Dave Heil. You go back into your silver spoon 'gain, now... Buh bye...get another book. See what I mean Dave? Totally unable to counter what you said. Because she knows you are right. I'm not sure that she knows I'm right but I suspect that she had an idea that she is incorrect. Kim would rather babble about silver spoons and books than defend her erroneous claims. Yep,..... a knee jerk, bleeding heart, commie liberal. I don't know if I'd use a term like "commie". Kim writes like a socialist and most of her positions are based on her emotions and "feelings" rather than what she knows to be fact. Dave K8MN |
JJ wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: JJ wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Why would paying for your doctor visits and your medications be the government's responsibility? Do you pay for all your doctor visits and medications, or does some insurance pay for a good portion of it? I suppose when you are eligible for Medicare you are going to refuse it, after all,it should not be the governments responsibility to pay for your medical, Right? I'm not old enough for medicare and it matters not whether insurance covers my visits or medications. Fact is: Government is not paying for my medical care nor do I feel that I have a right to government subsidized medical care. That said, care to answer my question? How about answering my questions. Do you pay for all your doctor visits and medications out of your pocket? Your question is irrelevant since I already stated that government is not paying for my medical care. Neither my parents nor my sister are paying for my medical care. My Uncle Frank isn't paying and you aren't paying. When you do qualify for Medicare, you are going to refuse? I'll let you know when the time comes. Is that fair? Foreign aid wouldn't begin to cover socialized medicine and it is money well spent. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote:
Your question is irrelevant since I already stated that government is not paying for my medical care. Neither my parents nor my sister are paying for my medical care. My Uncle Frank isn't paying and you aren't paying. Earlier you stated, "it matters not whether insurance covers my visits or medications." Well, if you have no insurance and you can't pay out of you own pocket when you receive medical care, then yep, your parents, sister, Uncle Frank and the rest of us are paying for your medical care with our taxes that subsidize medical care for those who don't pay. When you do qualify for Medicare, you are going to refuse? I'll let you know when the time comes. Is that fair? Fair, but I bet you don't refuse. Foreign aid wouldn't begin to cover socialized medicine and it is money well spent. Most of it probably, but a lot just goes to line the pockets of little dictators. |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message I think you're about the hugest piece of crap I've been witness to in a long, long time, Dave Heil. You go back into your silver spoon 'gain, now... Buh bye...get another book. See what I mean Dave? Totally unable to counter what you said. Because she knows you are right. I'm not sure that she knows I'm right but I suspect that she had an idea that she is incorrect. Kim would rather babble about silver spoons and books than defend her erroneous claims. Yep,..... a knee jerk, bleeding heart, commie liberal. I don't know if I'd use a term like "commie". Kim writes like a socialist and most of her positions are based on her emotions and "feelings" rather than what she knows to be fact. Dave K8MN It's a small jump from Socialist to Communist Dave. My life experience tells me they are one and the same. Dan/W4NTI |
In article , JJ
writes: The U.S. does need to develope better mass transit in large metropolitian areas. When I lived in the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas area, the two cities were always complaining about the heavy commute traffic and how they were not using the available mass transit system. The would encourage people to car pool or use what mass transit was available, all the while they were expanding the freeway system to accomodate more vehicles. If you want people to use mass transit you have to 1) build a good mass transit system, and 2) don't build massive freeway systems that make it easier for people to drive their vehicles to work than ride mass transit. One of the main problems is that even in the most densely-populated areas during peak traffic hours, all those cars on the roadway only occupy about five percent of the available road surface. Intelligent highway systems could solve that problem by taking the drivers out of the loop during, taking control of the cars and allowing them to safely convoy almost bumper-to-bumper. In this way, traffic volume could be multiplied many times without building more roads. Would you trust a computer to drive your Buick? 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , Alun
writes: I think you should build the freeways, but mass transit should be developped much more as well. I used to commute 23 miles each way into London by train. I am now 27 miles by road from downtown Washington DC, but I am 15 miles from the nearest station!! As long as I have to drive half way there to get to the station I'm going to drive all the way there. A system where the trains only run about 15 miles out from the middle of downtown is basically hopelessly crippled by European standards, and doesn't really count as 'available' to most people. When most of the commuters live way, way beyond the end of the line it can never live up to it's potential. Sure, we are more spread out in America, but all that should mean is that I may have to drive across town to the station. It should never mean that I have to drive to another town 15 miles away to catch a commuter train, but that's how it is now, and needless to say, I don't do it. Alun: The situation you describe pretty much sums up the limitations that geography imposes on public transit systems. A partial solution would be to utilize demand- response systems whereby busses travelling flexible routes on flexible schedules can pick up commuters at their door, and transfer them to the nearest fixed-route terminal. Once demand patterns are established, the system can be re-scheduled at will to ensure maximum transit vehicle utilization without inconveniencing passenger scheduling. This is done all the time in my own line of work, which is Paratransit operations. The concept can be easily overlayed on any other route structure, and there would be the advantage that most, if not all, of the passengers would be able-bodied, and there would be no time lost loading and securing wheelchairs or providing assistance to slow-moving people who have difficulty in boarding the bus. The problem, of course, is that adding such a service would come at a high cost. Would most commuters be willing to pay the price of being to leave their cars home? A fare structure which required the rider to pay the full, non-subsidized cost of the demand-response portion of his transit service would mean forking over a fare of up to $10-15 for that portion of the ride. Of course, some commuters pay that much just to park their automobiles for the day. OTOH, they would not have the option of making a trip to Home Depot on the way home. The best solution would probably to simply arrange it so that more people were able to work closer to where they live. Another is to adopt the European paradigm of establishing communities with higher population density in residential areas. That would mean more townhouses and condominium apartment complexes, and fewer single-family homes surrounded by acres of grass and concrete. When more people live closer together, it becomes much more cost-effective to provide mass transit. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: I tired mass transit when I first started working downtown. Nothing convenient, friendly, safe, or good about it at all. It was scarey because of the drivers, inconvenient because I had to work my schedule around theirs, unfriendly people getting on and off knocking others with their asses or briefcases, and I'll never do it again. Kim W5TIT Here's a little known fact that much of the travelling public would never be able to guess: There are no regulations at the state or federal level which govern how many hours a transit operator (bus driver, motorman, paratransit operator, etc.) can work within a 24-hour period. It is common practice for transit operators to work inordinate amounts of voluntary overtime, sometimes putting in double shifts on a daily basis. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) governs the amount of hours truck drivers can be on duty during a 24-hour period, I believe the present limit is 10 hours of continuous duty with a mandatory 8-hour rest period thereafter. Log books documenting time at the wheel and at rest are required, and in the case of single-operator trucks, the rest periods must be verified by time and mileage records that are a part of their log. Since transit vehicles operate within a closed region, as opposed to interstate, they are not covered by such rules. Therefore, the bus you board could be being driven by a person who has been on duty for 10, 12, or 14 hours -- or more! I recently attended a meeting of my local union in which our own local union President claimed that he routinely worked in excess of 100 hours per week as a fixed-route bus driver. Keep in mind, there are only 168 hours in a whole week! This is obviously a shocking hazard to public safety, and legislation is obviously needed which establish and enforce reasonable operator duty limits within the transit industry. "Scarey drivers" indeed, Kim. Who wants to ride a bus being driven by a zombie? 73 de Larry, K3LT |
JJ wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: Your question is irrelevant since I already stated that government is not paying for my medical care. Neither my parents nor my sister are paying for my medical care. My Uncle Frank isn't paying and you aren't paying. Earlier you stated, "it matters not whether insurance covers my visits or medications." Well, if you have no insurance and you can't pay out of you own pocket when you receive medical care, then yep, your parents, sister, Uncle Frank and the rest of us are paying for your medical care with our taxes that subsidize medical care for those who don't pay. That's quite a leap, JJ. If I'm against socialized medicine and have clearly made known my opposition for government provided medical care, I'm not likely looking for a handout. When you do qualify for Medicare, you are going to refuse? I'll let you know when the time comes. Is that fair? Fair, but I bet you don't refuse. Bet all you like but check with me in twelve years or so. Foreign aid wouldn't begin to cover socialized medicine and it is money well spent. Most of it probably, but a lot just goes to line the pockets of little dictators. How much is a lot? What percentage of U.S. aid money lines the pockets of dictators? Is it enough, as you claimed, to take care of providing free health care to Americans? Dave K8MN |
|
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message hlink.net...
It's a small jump from Socialist to Communist Dave. My life experience tells me they are one and the same. Dan, You may find it useful to use the word "collectivist" as a general term for what you're discussing. Meaning any system that values the "collective" over the individual, and thereby denies individual rights - and responsibilities. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message om... "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message hlink.net... It's a small jump from Socialist to Communist Dave. My life experience tells me they are one and the same. Dan, You may find it useful to use the word "collectivist" as a general term for what you're discussing. Meaning any system that values the "collective" over the individual, and thereby denies individual rights - and responsibilities. 73 de Jim, N2EY No, sounds too pc to me Jim. I'll stick with my statement. Dan/W4NTI |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com