RadioBanter - Why You Don't Like The ARRL

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - Why You Don't Like The ARRL (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/27149-why-you-dont-like-arrl.html)

Brian wrote:

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dave Heil" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

(snip)

I'm sorry, I can't agree with your new age
"everyone's opinion has value" when the
topic is something in which someone has
no background. (snip)

Really? So, if you have no background in senior levels of government or

no

background in the issues at hand, you don't offer opinions when the
government decides to makes policy decisions (taxes, immigration, welfare,
social security, foreign affairs, and so on)? I find that highly unlikely,
Dave. Code testing is a government decision/policy. And the right of the
people to have a say in government decisions and policies is not "new age"
thing.

But, Dwight....Dave's principles (if they could be called that) only apply
to others!! Not himself.

Hang in there, though...this one could get good! I am getting popcorn
before I download messages next time!

Kim W5TIT

Chardonnay goes nicely with popcorn.

BEER goes with popcorn! Especially a nice IPA.

Which reminds me, if there is a rrap get together at Dayton, maybe we
can trade off some homebrews.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Brian" wrote

We've even got Hans discussing one full license class
w/o a Morse Code exam requirement, and a learners
permit. Gee, where have we heard that before?

Don't flatter yourself, Brian. I've been discussing that notion since the
mid 1960's when the FCC and ARRL were busy dreaming up their dis-incentive
licensing fiasco.

Sunuvagun, isn't it a shame I've spoiled another of your organ-grinder dance
tunes.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Just a quick reply:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim"
writes:

Welp, whatever it takes, I suppose...I'm just not a supporter of as much
taxation as there is.

Nobody is - that's the easy part.

What services are you willing to give up in order to have less taxation?
Less
road maintenance and construction? Less police and fire protection? How
about
cutting the military budget? Education? Social Security?
Medicare/Medicaid?

Less road maintenance and construction? For sure. I haven't driven
anywhere in Texas since 1979 without some kind of road maintenance or
construction going on, literally. Don't need it. It's still going to be
congested, there's still going to be accidents, etc. The *only* thing I'd
like to see on the roads here is higher stripes or city titties (as they're
called). When it rains here, can't see the lane markings.

I couldn't be objective with the police and fire protection. I don't live
in an area where I either need a lot of that or see any benefit of it. BUT,
I bet the fat could be trimmed from the departments of both entities and we
could save some money.

Military budget. Again, how much fat and ridiculous spending is there? I
suspect a lot.

Education. Well, let's see. Up north when my kids went to school in the
public school system, I cannot remember ever having to buy their school
supplies when they were in elementary school. Down here, I pay school taxes
PLUS had to spend about $200.00 per kid each year of school up to about 7th
grade, for their school supplies. Go figure. And, again, enough fat
trimming and I bet the taxes wouldn't have had to be as high as they are.

Social Security, in my opinon, is a farce. Do away with it.

Medicare and Medicaid I am happy to provide for my elderly community.
However, again fat trimming probably would save lots of money.

Your post reminds me of the scene in "Simple Life" where Paris Hilton and
Nicole Ritchie are at the checkout counter in the supermarket. The total
is
almost $65 and they only have $50. They bat their eyelashes and ask "Can't
we
just have it?" (I am not making this up).

Don't know why my post reminds you of that. I'd more be saying, "why do we
need the pretty building, the pretty concrete stars on all the bridge
columns, the pretty landscaping along the new highway, the pretty building
with all the way overboard amenities for the high-salaried and
not-so-worth-their-salary mucky mucks in offices that are plush and grand,
etc., blah, blah, blah.

Yep, "why do we need it?"

And, I think Sr. Ctitizens shouldn't have to pay
taxes

Why not?

Many senior citizens have significant incomes, from both employment and
investment. Why should they be exempt? They already get an extra persoanl
exemption just for being over 65.

Tell ya what, Kim - find a senior citizen of "average income" in your area
and
pay his/her taxes out of your own pocket.

Not only no, but hell no. I'd rather see people get ****ed off enough at
the ridiculous spending that goes on with our tax dollars. Trim all the
ridiculous spending, and some of the cuts I am talking about would hardly be
noticed.

and that if that needs to be accommodated, then the school taxes
should be increased during the years of some
hereto-undertemined-age-limit
based timeframe. YMMV

So the people who are struggling to raise and educate their kids, pay for
their
mortgages and their careers need even more of a tax burden?

Did I ask them to "struggle to raise and educate" children? Do I get to
have a say in how many kids they have and how lavishly they raise them?

Keep in mind that even if a person never has children, they still
benefit
from the public education of the community as a whole.

Unless they grew up outside the USA, they also benefited from the school
system
that was in existence when *they* were growing up. Even if they went to
private
school, a public school system existed for them.

If they did not
pay
school taxes, they would end up paying increased taxes to support an
increased number of people on welfare. It's far cheaper to pay school
taxes
so people can be productive than to support them on welfare.

Exactly!

Uh huh. And it's a pipe dream to think that having less school tax would
convert to a higher percentage of dropouts.

Hmmm, hadn't thought about the people not having kids. If they aren't
going
to add to the burden of society (terrible way to put that...but) by
having
kids, then they get the break, too.

If you think kids are a burden to society, why did you have so many?

So many? How many is so many?

And remember that educating children is an investment in their productive
power
in the future.

And, I am supposed to care about someone else's kid's productive power? Is
that going to lessen *my* tax burden down the road? Am I going to be able
to "get back" from whatever it is they shall be producing? Hardly.

Senior citizens can be "a burden to society" (your term, not mine) in the
form
of Medicare, Social Security, etc. Yet you would give them tax breaks.

Uh, well, yeah. I am closer to being a Sr Citizen than I am of having kids
and raising them again.

After all...it'd probably come up a
wash anyway; a trade for the tax-break they'd get on their annual income
for
not having to pay school tax if they don't have kids.

More like not having to pay back for what they got as kids.

I like the idea of giving people who choose *NOT* to have kids breaks (on
local school taxes), as well as those who choose to have kids (on federal
income tax deductions).

You forget that the people who don't have kids had public education
avaialble
to them when they were growing up.

Sounds like a viscious circle.

Whatever the IRS considers as income...the total taxable income that
is
reported on a W-2--and that's determined by IRS rules, which
ultimately,
I
suppose are determined by we the People (yeah, right, but you get the
gist).

They keep changing the rules on that you know.

Yeah, but this is a democracy

No, it's a constitutional republic.

--we have a voice in that (pfffffft, right,
eh?).

Sure we do. Unless you don't vote.

73 de Jim, N2EY

And, many don't. Which is why my tax dollars--hard earned by me--will
continue to be frivolously spent on useless crap; more for the benefit of
"showing off" than for anything truly worthwhile to the public.

Kim W5TIT

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

(snip) Hang in there, though...this one could
get good! I am getting popcorn before I
download messages next time!

Pop me up some popcorn while you're at it. :-)

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Hey, no way. Well, OK, way. BUT, I'll pop it and eat it for you. You need
to keep busy! LOL

Kim W5TIT

Mike Coslo wrote in message . ..
Brian wrote:

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dave Heil" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

(snip)

I'm sorry, I can't agree with your new age
"everyone's opinion has value" when the
topic is something in which someone has
no background. (snip)

Really? So, if you have no background in senior levels of government or

no

background in the issues at hand, you don't offer opinions when the
government decides to makes policy decisions (taxes, immigration, welfare,
social security, foreign affairs, and so on)? I find that highly unlikely,
Dave. Code testing is a government decision/policy. And the right of the
people to have a say in government decisions and policies is not "new age"
thing.

But, Dwight....Dave's principles (if they could be called that) only apply
to others!! Not himself.

Hang in there, though...this one could get good! I am getting popcorn
before I download messages next time!

Kim W5TIT

Chardonnay goes nicely with popcorn.

BEER goes with popcorn! Especially a nice IPA.

Which reminds me, if there is a rrap get together at Dayton, maybe we
can trade off some homebrews.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Sounds great. I've been focusing on winemaking lately, so I'll have
to bring some of each.

bb

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Lets be honest here, Dave. I seriously doubt his lack of a license,
or
comments (condescending, outragious, or otherwise), would really
bother
you
that much if those comments agreed more with your own views.

I'll take that bet. I happen to agree 100% with LHA that Morse testing
is
no longer necessary in the amateur radio service.

Lots of people agree with that view, a point completely lost on Dee.

No that point is not lost on me. I'm well aware of it. Lots of people
support continued testing, which is a point that is completely lost on you.

Not at all. I'm sure FISTS would be happy to set up mock Morse Code
exams all of=ver the country to satisfy your needs.

Even so, I still think he
is an over-pompous posturing twit who could benefit from wider bonding
straps attached to several additional grounding rods.

Hans, remove those jack-boots immediately. Death by electric chair
for mere freedom of speech is unAmerican, even if you do agree with
him.

Well freedom of speech, while allowing verbal abuse, does not make such
verbal abuse as LHA likes to heap on those in this newsgroup acceptable.
Just because one can do something doesn't mean that it is reasonable to do
it.

So you also think LHA should have wider bonding straps attached to
additional grounding rods?

"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"Brian" wrote

We've even got Hans discussing one full license class
w/o a Morse Code exam requirement, and a learners
permit. Gee, where have we heard that before?

Don't flatter yourself, Brian. I've been discussing that notion since the
mid 1960's when the FCC and ARRL were busy dreaming up their dis-incentive
licensing fiasco.

Is that documentable? Letters and pictures with circles and arrows?

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

You haven't seen the worst of his diatribes.
There is no one else in this news group that
I have kill filed. (snip)

Oh, yes I have. You forget that I've been fairly active in this newsgroup
for a number of years (five, six, maybe more). Len and I have even been on
opposite sides of a few "discussions" before. His antics are legendary, but
there is humor to it all if you look for it.

there is method to the madness if you look for it.

For example, you and I do not agree on a
number of issues but I would not consider
putting you in the kill file. (snip)

Well, thats' nice to know. ;-)

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) One thing that the NCI has quite
convincingly demonstrated is that HARD
WORK is what is required to achieve a
goal. (snip) They organized on a world
wide basis. They lobbied the various
governing bodies around the world to
support a change in the code requirement
at the last ITU conference. (snip) It
shows that the minority can prevail if they
have the commitment.

I think you're giving NCI way too much credit, Dee. Indeed, created in the
late 90's, they came to the debate rather late and have done little beyond
urging members to file comments on related issues before the FCC (no visible
government lobbying and no significant world-wide organization - a few
members in a few countries). If anything, NCI's most significant
contribution, once they did arrive on the scene, has been to serve as a
lightning rod for criticism from code supporters, leaving a vastly greater
number of non-members relatively free to make the case against code testing
wherever possible. Moreover, there would have been no gains at all if there
had been no substance to the core arguments against code testing. Those
arguments existed, and were being made, long before NCI joined the debate.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/