In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"bb" wrote

now we've got Hans saying "It's my right, It's my
right to have free access to a DoD weapons system!"

Pains me to say it Brian, but on one issue Steve is precisely right --- the
part where he says you're a lying sack of crap.

The Avenging Angle says he never said that... :-)

"Sorry, Hans, MARS IS amateur radio!" is what he said.

Hans never said anything even remotely resembling that.

Tsk. You are too good to be true...

Enjoy the coal.


What he did say is that shutting it down is an exceptionally stupid idea,
akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face. Nothing in there about any
individual "right to have free access".

Now, now, tis the season to be jolly... :-)

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote:
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: "JAMES HAMPTON"
Date: 12/16/2004 7:24 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote in message
...


Folks have become so dependent upon modern conveniences. Many times
I've
handed money to some kid at a cash register and he/she punches in the
exact
purchase price and *not* the amount of money I forked over. Now the
machine
says zero change. I've seen them resort to calculators and one had to
get a
manager (no calculator and she couldn't subtract $12.35 from $20.00).


You're preaching to the choir here, Jim.


Come to think of it, if they shut the communications satellites off,
that
will severely limit communications overseas and make any terrorist cells
less able to act.


Dunno about you, Jim, but I am pretty much able to communicate
world wide
on a semi-reliable basis without Internet capability.

If I were a combatant in a remote area without satellite, I betchya
I
could get a message to where I wanted it to go, and get instructions in
return.
(And for Lennie and Brian's benefit, that's even withOUT a code key at
hand...)


No Internet from overseas and telephone calls will
probably be in the neighborhood of $15.00 per minute. Sounds good to
you,
right? Or are you pro terrorist?


Hardly. But the terrorists are pretty well funded...certainly a
lot
better than my own personal budget! But I can still communicate without
the
Internet...Wanna bet they can


Better get a letter off to the White House now! We can *really* be safe
if
we shut down the communications satellites! No overseas Internet for
terrorists to communicate over.


How much MORE ya wanna bet that we can do exactly that if we
thought it
was in our best interests to do so?


Ooops ... I forgot. Russia has made many more launches than we have.
Some
10 times in a couple of years. Europe, Japan .... say, believe it or
not,
we don't have the exclusive anymore. In fact, we might be in danger of
becoming a bit player. Maybe that is why Bush wants to push for Mars.
Make
his place in history.

I see some real good research on diabetes. Why am I not surprised that
it
is coming out of Great Britain, rather than the U.S.


Mostly because their version of the FDA is more liberal in drug
trial
testing, among other things. Also, the government controls healthcare.


I note that one medication I had was $120.00 for a 30 day supply. They
raised my co-pay to $48.00 (40%). They told me to get a generic. I
did.
Now I only pay $8.00. It works just great! I was really surprised to
find
that the cost of the generic was $98.00!!! The insurance company pays
far
more now for me to use "generic" ($90.00) than the "brand" ($72.00)
name.
LOL. Bush has sure covered the drug companies so well that they are
raising
the generic prices up close to the brand name prices.

How's your health insurance? Nice and cheap? Low deductibles? Why am
I
not surprised?


Less than $3000 a year for a family of four, no deductibles (unless
I go
"out of plan").


Our biggest danger is likely not external; I suspect that we may simply
self-destruct like the U.S.S.R. did.


You're almost absolutely right...Until we demand tort law reform,
cap
damages limits and demand that health care conglomerates like HCA,
Tenet, and
others put the public ahead of profits, we very well may..at least as
far as
healthcare goes.

Our economic deficits are due MOSTLY to OUR gluttonous consumerism,
and
unless WE decide that we want to put the good of the Nation ahead of the
good
of our selves, then you are again correct...we may very well implode.

Implode is the right word, Steve. Our almost inconcievable national
debt is being propped up by foreign money propping up the dollar.
Problem is that as the dollar gets weaker, at some point two things are
going to happen:

1. Other countries, including the one that is pumping the most money
into the US, are going to look elsewhere for the place to put their money

2. The dollar will cease to be the worlds preferred currency.

At that point, we will be hurting. No amount of blaming the "other"
party is going to make a bit of difference. This is some pretty basic
economic truth, no conspiracy theories or whackiness needed. Just check
out who the biggest investor in the US is at this time.

Anyone that isn't scared ****less is not paying proper attention.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Hello, Mike

Your observation that no amount of blame placing is going to help anything
is well taken.

Both the budget deficit and the totally out of whack foreign trade balance
(or lack thereof) is more than worrisome.

Anyone got a spray can of "whack"?


Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:

Par for the course, like his stupid notion of turning SS over to
Wall Street.

And the Federal Government has done shuch a good job with it...HOW...???

By investing it very conservatively, because high risk cannot be accepted in a
safety net.

I am only 15 1/2 years away from being able to draw it if I so choose,
yet
depending on who prognostications you believe, it won't be there for me to
draw upon.

Think about *why*:

When SS was invented, the life expectancy of those who qualified was very
limited. A lot of people did not live long enough to collect anything. There
were also far more people paying into the system than taking out of it.

Most of all, it was meant as a safety net for those who had nothing. Like
retirees who had put their money into Wall Street.

Over the years SS has expanded, benefits have been raised, etc. Most of all,
the combined effects of increased longevity and inflation have resulted in
greatly increased outflows.

One solution has been to raise the age of eligibility. This makes sense because
of increased longevity. Another, which has not been enacted even though it
makes sense, is means testing.

But the real solution is education and responsibility.

Would it be any worse to let select Wall Streeters invest it with
Government oversight?

Much worse. Here's why:

It's a fundamental fact of investing that you don't get high return without
risk. Particularly in the long term. For every investor who made big bucks
quick by a good choice, there are plenty of others who lost big bucks by a poor
one. But nobody has lost money by investing in safe things like US savings
bonds - at the price of a lower return.

Do you *really* think Shrub is concerned about your retirement, or mine? I
don't.

Here's a hint: Do you think *his* retirement depends on SS?


73 de Jim, N2EY

15 years, 4 months, 11 days and the rest of today...but who's counting?

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

JAMES HAMPTON wrote:

Just so some might appreciate the problem with "privatization", New York
State started a deal where you could invest money to be used for your kids'
education. Not a savings account; this had to be "invested". They had a
nice thing going.

Every state has those plans. They're called "529" plans, I think. And you don't
have to invest in your own state's plan.

That was a short sighted idea. With Education at constant double digit
inflation, there were no investment plans that could ever keep up, once
the investment people skimmed off their money. This means someone loses
at some point. Guess who?

The big question is: why is the cost of higher education climbing so fast? Does
it really cost so much more to run a college today than, say, 25 years ago?

A lot of ordinary folks jumped right on the bandwagon. After the company I
worked for stopped their "fund d" and everything became chance.

Never heard of a "fund d". 529s and educational IRAs I know about, Roths and
conventional IRAs, 401(k).

Wow! The stock market was really rising! (yep, like a pyramid, you get a
lot of folks to invest, stocks go up). Over time, of course, stock tends
to
go up, but a lot of new accounts ... a few of the guys at work were
bragging
how many grand they made "last month".

I knew a few millionaires. for a few months.

One guy (from Vietnam) took a hard
look and bailed out and moved it all into low producing accounts. Needless
to say, the tech stocks tanked, just about everyone investing in that New
York State thing lost a good portion of what they invested .... and if you
check, you find some folks (especially the folks that knew what was
happening) bailed.

Oh yeah, there is that. I confess I kept all my money in more
conservative investments for the whole duration. In retrospect, it was
quite wise.

Same here. All about risk/return.

Some did very well (perhaps illegally), some did well
just not to loose anything (like the guy at work I mentioned earlier). And
a lot more ordinary folk lost.

Coslo's rule of investment: Find out what investment is hot, and avoid
it like the plague. Mr. investment counselor is NOT your friend.

Depends upon how the invest ment counselor gets paid. If his payment is
dependent on your rate of return over a considerable term, then s/he's on your
side. If it's dependent on the sale of particular securities, or short-term
gains....

Why has gambling become the method of choice for making money?
Everyone around here wants more gambling. Creates jobs.

That one is easy. Gambling simply serves as a voluntary tax. The reason
that politicians love it is that it is accepted by the users. And the
gild on the lily is that the wealthy don't use lotteries anywhere near
the level that the poor do.

So you have a voluntary tax on the poor.

Exactly! And it's self-perpetuating because every so often somebody hits it
big.

This is where the proliferation of ignorance helps those in power. A clear
understanding of how probability works shows that in most games of chance (like
the lottos), you are more likely to be personally struck by lightning than to
win big. But most folks don't understand just how awful the chances against
them really are.

As to the stock market, it is like walking into a poker game. If you can't
spot the fish, guess what?

The stock market is a revenue generating mechanism. The thing is who is
it generating revenue for. You need an insider to make money.

That's why I'm into funds rather than individual stocks.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


JAMES HAMPTON wrote:


Just so some might appreciate the problem with "privatization", New York
State started a deal where you could invest money to be used for your kids'
education. Not a savings account; this had to be "invested". They had a
nice thing going.


Every state has those plans. They're called "529" plans, I think. And you don't
have to invest in your own state's plan.

Right, but Jim H's point as I see it is that people were talked into
something that anyone that pays attention to history could see was
simply not going to work.


That was a short sighted idea. With Education at constant double digit
inflation, there were no investment plans that could ever keep up, once
the investment people skimmed off their money. This means someone loses
at some point. Guess who?


The big question is: why is the cost of higher education climbing so fast? Does
it really cost so much more to run a college today than, say, 25 years ago?

I think a big part is that Universities have shifted away from
education to research. More buildings, more administrators. That sort of
thing.

A lot of ordinary folks jumped right on the bandwagon. After the company I
worked for stopped their "fund d" and everything became chance.


Never heard of a "fund d". 529s and educational IRAs I know about, Roths and
conventional IRAs, 401(k).


Wow! The stock market was really rising! (yep, like a pyramid, you get a
lot of folks to invest, stocks go up). Over time, of course, stock tends
to
go up, but a lot of new accounts ... a few of the guys at work were
bragging
how many grand they made "last month".

I knew a few millionaires. for a few months.


One guy (from Vietnam) took a hard
look and bailed out and moved it all into low producing accounts. Needless
to say, the tech stocks tanked, just about everyone investing in that New
York State thing lost a good portion of what they invested .... and if you
check, you find some folks (especially the folks that knew what was
happening) bailed.

Oh yeah, there is that. I confess I kept all my money in more
conservative investments for the whole duration. In retrospect, it was
quite wise.


Same here. All about risk/return.

Some did very well (perhaps illegally), some did well
just not to loose anything (like the guy at work I mentioned earlier). And
a lot more ordinary folk lost.

Coslo's rule of investment: Find out what investment is hot, and avoid
it like the plague. Mr. investment counselor is NOT your friend.


Depends upon how the invest ment counselor gets paid. If his payment is
dependent on your rate of return over a considerable term, then s/he's on your
side. If it's dependent on the sale of particular securities, or short-term
gains....

I'll stick with assuming she/he's not my friend. That's worked well so
far... 8^)


Why has gambling become the method of choice for making money?
Everyone around here wants more gambling. Creates jobs.

That one is easy. Gambling simply serves as a voluntary tax. The reason
that politicians love it is that it is accepted by the users. And the
gild on the lily is that the wealthy don't use lotteries anywhere near
the level that the poor do.

So you have a voluntary tax on the poor.


Exactly! And it's self-perpetuating because every so often somebody hits it
big.

Yup! There will be one story about how the poor widow lady won the big
lottery, and everyone thinks it will be them next. Same thing goes in
the stock market. Lots of stories about that one independent investor
who hit it big.


This is where the proliferation of ignorance helps those in power. A clear
understanding of how probability works shows that in most games of chance (like
the lottos), you are more likely to be personally struck by lightning than to
win big. But most folks don't understand just how awful the chances against
them really are.

Remember that half of the nation is below average! ;^)


As to the stock market, it is like walking into a poker game. If you can't
spot the fish, guess what?

The stock market is a revenue generating mechanism. The thing is who is
it generating revenue for. You need an insider to make money.


That's why I'm into funds rather than individual stocks.


Yup.

- Mike KB3EIA -

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:05:42 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

snip

I'll stick with assuming she/he's not my friend. That's worked well so
far... 8^)

If you're not sure whether he/she is a he/she, you might want to get a
bit closer relationship going with your investment counselor... :-)

snip

- Mike KB3EIA -

Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 12/20/2004 6:21 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:

Par for the course, like his stupid notion of turning SS over to
Wall Street.

And the Federal Government has done shuch a good job with it...HOW...???

By investing it very conservatively, because high risk cannot be accepted in
a
safety net.

I guess you missed that part where I said "...with federal government
oversight..."....?!?!

I am only 15 1/2 years away from being able to draw it if I so choose,
yet
depending on who prognostications you believe, it won't be there for me to
draw upon.

Think about *why*:

Snipped...We know why Social Security was created...I don't thinnk FDR
ever imagined it being *******ized such as it has.

But the real solution is education and responsibility.

The real solution is to restore the program to what it was intended for,
delete the drug abusers and lazy, and restore some basic civic
responsibilities.

Would it be any worse to let select Wall Streeters invest it with
Government oversight?

Much worse. Here's why:

It's a fundamental fact of investing that you don't get high return without
risk. Particularly in the long term. For every investor who made big bucks
quick by a good choice, there are plenty of others who lost big bucks by a
poor
one. But nobody has lost money by investing in safe things like US savings
bonds - at the price of a lower return.

Do you *really* think Shrub is concerned about your retirement, or mine? I
don't.

I do...More so than I ever thought Bill Clinton was...

Here's a hint: Do you think *his* retirement depends on SS?

I am not the least big concerned...There are hundreds of thousands of
Americans who have "retirement" packages that don't depend on SS...

15 years, 4 months, 11 days and the rest of today...but who's counting?

I'm counting backwards as of today!

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote


I am only 15 1/2 years away from being able to draw it
if I so choose, yet depending on who prognostications you
believe, it won't be there for me to draw
upon.


The public has heard two decades worth of spin about the coming "demise" of SS.
They've heard the system is going "bankrupt" ("broke;" "belly-up"). They've
heard SS "won't be there" for them. They've heard a bunch of free-money nonsense
from the endlessly dissembling Shrub. As the Shrub tries to persuade America to
convert Social Security into a giant 401(k), it might be instructive to examine
some FACTS.

In FACT, first, SS isn't going broke because of lack of revenue. It is actually
generating funds in SURPLUS of todays benefit payout (as it is designed to
do). But rather than let those funds grow in the SS trust fund, the federal
government is "taking a loan" of those surplus dollars (intended for future
benfits) out of the trust fund at the rate of about $100,000,000 (that's
$400-billion over the past 4 years of the Shrubs "tax cuts for the rich"
administration).

In FACT, second, even if the government continues to "take a loan" of all the
surplus from SS it is projected to continue to meet it's obligations without a
problem until 2028 (24 years from now). At that point it is (was?) planned that
the several decades of surplus in the trust fund would be used to supplement the
shortfall for approximately 52 more years (until 2080).

Of course here's the catch --- the government would then have to start paying
back the loan to the trust fund. That's the dirty little secret that the
Shrub doesn't want you to know, so his talk of "reform" is really a smoke screen
to avoid facing that "payback" by weaning future retirees off SS and into the
stock market. Wahhlah! No tax increase to pay back the money we stole from the
SS trust fund! What a plan!

So far he's floated about 6 different versions of this "smoke and mirrors" in
front of congress, but they haven't yet been fooled. Yet in this mornings news
conference he continued to his song and dance about "SS Reform". In the same
news conference he cried big crocodile tears about how warm and caring a guy
Secretary "Machine Signature" Rumsfeld is.

Yup, Rummy is an old softie, and SS reform is good for America. Telling
tall-tales like that, no wonder he has to smirk a lot!

dit dit,

de Hans, K0HB

Jim says, """Maybe we're talking about two different investment
products.

The main advantage of many of these plans like 529s is that they're
either
tax-exempt or tax-deferred. Which can make a big difference in the long
term."""

Brian says, """Sounds like one of those evils tax cuts for the rich
schemes wich are so unpopular with the Air America crowd these days."""

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:

Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 12/20/2004 6:21 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:

Par for the course, like his stupid notion of turning SS over to
Wall Street.

And the Federal Government has done shuch a good job with it...HOW...???

By investing it very conservatively, because high risk cannot be accepted in
a safety net.

I guess you missed that part where I said "...with federal government
oversight..."....?!?!

Not at all.

If the oversight makes sure the investment is very conservative, the end result
will be no more return than today.

If the oversight doesn't make sure the investment is very conservative, the end
result *may* be no more return than today, or it may be less, or even a loss.
Unacceptable risk in a safety net.

"Privatizing" SS is about as dumb as the idea that we don't need an energy
policy because hydrogen will solve all our energy problems.

I am only 15 1/2 years away from being able to draw it if I so choose,
yet
depending on who prognostications you believe, it won't be there for me to
draw upon.

Think about *why*:

Snipped...

I think you want to avoid the hard facts, Steve.

We know why Social Security was created...

What I wrote wasn't about why SS was created, but about why it could be in
trouble in the future. And as Hans, K0HB has pointed out, the 800 pound gorilla
problem is the borrowing of money from the SS trust fund. Such borrowing is
fine unless and until it's not paid back.

I don't thinnk FDR
ever imagined it being *******ized such as it has.

How is SS *******ized?

FDR's New Deal, like the Constitution, wasn't meant to be a static unchanging
entity. He said so himself - if a program didn't work, it was to be changed or
eliminated.

But the real solution is education and responsibility.

The real solution is to restore the program to what it was intended for,

Which is?

delete the drug abusers and lazy, and restore some basic civic
responsibilities.

How would you do that?

Here's a bit of history:

Once upon a time (up until about 40 years ago), there were lots of large state
mental hospitals. Such as portrayed in "One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest". If
someone had serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia, they could be and
were involuntarily committed to one of them *indefinitely*. Drug addicts were
often committed to these institutions.

The care they got wasn't usually very good - they were essentially warehoused.
But they were off the street.

Then came a whole bunch of new pharmaceuticals that promised to control many
mental disorders. There also came investigations into the conditions at the
mental hospitals, showing how poor the treatment was in some of them. Most of
all, there came a bunch of politicians looking for ways to save money.

So we got new laws, new treatments and the end of open ended involuntary
commitments. And most of the state mental institutions closed or were radically
reduced in size, while the population grew. So a lot of the patients who used
to be inside those institutions are now outside, trying to survive.

Are they really better off? Are we saving any money?

Would it be any worse to let select Wall Streeters invest it with
Government oversight?

Much worse. Here's why:

It's a fundamental fact of investing that you don't get high return without
risk. Particularly in the long term. For every investor who made big bucks
quick by a good choice, there are plenty of others who lost big bucks by a
poor
one. But nobody has lost money by investing in safe things like US savings
bonds - at the price of a lower return.

Do you *really* think Shrub is concerned about your retirement, or mine? I
don't.

I do...More so than I ever thought Bill Clinton was...

Why? At least under Bill Clinton, the markets were rising, inflation was low
and the budget got balanced. Now Shrub is digging an enormous hole of debt and
yet giving the rich tax cuts.

Here's a hint: Do you think *his* retirement depends on SS?

I am not the least big concerned...There are hundreds of thousands of
Americans who have "retirement" packages that don't depend on SS...

Shrub is one of them. Are you?

15 years, 4 months, 11 days and the rest of today...but who's counting?

I'm counting backwards as of today!

73 de Jim, N2EY