Quality guns fine investment against inflation.

[Warren Penn]

Buy everything you can afford. You will make money.

America grows uneasy as obviously social/racial conflicts will
escalate in the
next few years.

[Bill Graham]

And whose fault is that? This government has been racist oll of my life. (I
am 77) half the people in this country get some special perk or money simply
because of their race, or color, or because of their national heritage, or
some other thing that they had absolutely nothing to do with. It is just
some birthright given to them because of something done to their great-great
grandfathers long before they were born by people who are long dead and
couldn't possibly have passed their crimes down to their great-great
grandchildren who are now paying the price for it because of our stupid
government policies. This is a racist country, and the grief it causes will
follow us for hundreds of years into the future.

[deadrat]

On 1/12/13 12:54 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> Warren Penn wrote:
>> Buy everything you can afford. You will make money.
>>
>> America grows uneasy as obviously social/racial conflicts will
>> escalate in the
>> next few years.
>
> And whose fault is that? This government has been racist oll of my life.
> (I am 77) half the people in this country get some special perk or money
> simply because of their race, or color, or because of their national
> heritage, or some other thing that they had absolutely nothing to do

> with. <snip/>

No, they don't you ignorant hypocrite. Half the people get some
"special perk" if you count social security, medicare, veterans
benefits, and the mortgage interest deduction.

People like you, sucking on the public teat because you happened to
survive long enough to snuffle down public tax money at the public trough.

[Greegor]

> No, they don't you ignorant hypocrite.  Half the people get some
> "special perk" if you count social security, medicare, veterans
> benefits, and the mortgage interest deduction.
>
> People like you, sucking on the public teat  because you happened to
> survive long enough to snuffle down public tax money at the public trough.

Entitlement handouts are so massive and widespread that
I don't see how you could think it is racist.

If you look at meticulous and detailed records
for any older person retiring now from a
successful career to collect social security,
you will see that they they will retrieve every
DIME they ever paid into social security in
their entire life within a mere two years.

Social Security recipients bristle if anybody
calls their benefits welfare, but it really has
been for quite some time if you do the math.

Social Security was originally promoted as
a sort of insurance policy paid for by the
money chipped in by workers themselves.

As I discovered, though, huge numbers of
mental cases qualify as disabled and begin
to collect from the time they are 18 for the
rest of their lives. Their SSI check is only
the beginning of their benefits package.
They can get a welfare check, sizeable
housing subsidy under "leased housing",
food stamps, medicaid coverage, etc.

If you add it all up they are better off than
many low end laborers.

But multiply this out by huge numbers and
it becomes easier to see that Social Security
has been "Welfare" for many decades.

There used to be a myth that Social Security
was a solvent state run insurance policy.
Maybe it was at one point when very few
workers lived to 80 years old, and back
before disabled "psychiatric" 18 year olds
began to collect for the rest of their life.

Maybe Social Security wasn't a pyramid
or Ponzi scheme in the beginning but it
certainly has become one.

We just avoid calling it "Welfare" for
political reasons, but essentially it is.

Printing really good fake money to destabilize
a country's economy has been depicted as
an act of war, but the US government did it to ..US!

That, combined with the debt load is
a recipe for economic collapse.

What economic forces are keeping us from
an outright economic collapse at this point?

What do you think would actually happen
if US Dollars became worthless?

In the two previous great depressions
in the US, what happened to all existing
contracts and rental agreements?

Were renters all instantly evicted?

Did workers keep working for worthless money?

What did people do with their worthless money?

Did programs arise to replace old money
with new money?

Are there any detailed accounts of the 1800's
Great Depression in the USA, and how those
situations were handled?

Do accounts of the 1930's Great Depression
explain how contracts and rental agreements
were handled?

[jim]

Greegor wrote:

>
> What economic forces are keeping us from
> an outright economic collapse at this point?

Mostly the stuff you are bitching about.

>
> What do you think would actually happen
> if US Dollars became worthless?

The dollar does not become worth less in a depression.
The dollar becomes worth a lot more.

It is everything else that becomes worth less.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Yet we are in STAGFLATION where your pay and your job opportunities is
STAGNANT and the cost of LIVING "not the cost of Yachts and luxury cars"
is climbing higher and higher.



We've been there since the crash, the economy hasn't recovered it has
turned into a Jimmy Carter economy.




Eventually more people will get wise and even the stupid people will
notice that they are living in poverty under Obama when they lived a
fairly descent life under other Presidents. And when they start to ask
why it's so bad under Obama's Presidency, they'll discover that it's
Obama's Socialism and redistribution that has the Nation's economy in
the toilet.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
> On 1/13/2013 6:51 AM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > Greegor wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> What economic forces are keeping us from
> >> an outright economic collapse at this point?
> >
> > Mostly the stuff you are bitching about.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> What do you think would actually happen
> >> if US Dollars became worthless?
> >
> > The dollar does not become worth less in a depression.
> > The dollar becomes worth a lot more.
> >
> > It is everything else that becomes worth less.
>
> Yet we are in STAGFLATION where your pay and your job opportunities is
> STAGNANT and the cost of LIVING "not the cost of Yachts and luxury cars"
> is climbing higher and higher.

The cost of living has been climbing higher and higher
for a long time. Its nothing new. It was climbing
faster before 2008 than it has since. For instance, the
price of gasoline was higher 5 years ago than it is today.

[Nickname unavailable]

yep.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

A spike in the market, NOT the trend. It lasted and was attributed to
factors like the WAR in Iraq..... That war is Over and prices are now
rising thanks to "policy".

[deadrat]

On 1/13/13 3:17 AM, Greegor wrote:
>> No, they don't you ignorant hypocrite. Half the people get some
>> "special perk" if you count social security, medicare, veterans
>> benefits, and the mortgage interest deduction.
>>
>> People like you, sucking on the public teat because you happened to
>> survive long enough to snuffle down public tax money at the public trough.
>
> Entitlement handouts are so massive and widespread that
> I don't see how you could think it is racist.
>
> If you look at meticulous and detailed records
> for any older person retiring now from a
> successful career to collect social security,
> you will see that they they will retrieve every
> DIME they ever paid into social security in
> their entire life within a mere two years.

I'd like to see some meticulous and detailed records to back this up.
The max you can pay into the system is about $7K per year; the most you
can get out is about $30K. But of course that doesn't apply to "any
older person."

>
> Social Security recipients bristle if anybody
> calls their benefits welfare, but it really has
> been for quite some time if you do the math.
>
> Social Security was originally promoted as
> a sort of insurance policy paid for by the
> money chipped in by workers themselves.
>
> As I discovered, though, huge numbers of
> mental cases qualify as disabled and begin
> to collect from the time they are 18 for the
> rest of their lives.

I'd like to see figures for these claims, too. A brief time spent on
the google finds that 5.7M people got SS disability in 2010, down from
7M in 2007. Only 1 in 7 stays on disability for more tnan five years;
only 1 in 3 has a mental disability. The average age for beneficiaries
is over 52.

Go here:

http://www.brentadams.com/library/national-social-security-disability-statistics.cfm

The SSA says about 14M disabled under 65 receive benefits. It that
"huge numbers"?

Remember that the cost of supporting these people don't go away because
you throw them off the Social Security rolls.

<snip/>

> Maybe Social Security wasn't a pyramid
> or Ponzi scheme in the beginning but it
> certainly has become one.

This is not true. A Ponzi scheme promises to pay all share holders. It
cannot be made actuarially solvent for that reason. Social Security is
like an insurance program or an annuity plan. It may or may not be
fiscally sound but it's not a Ponzi scheme.

<snip/>

[jim]

Inflation was caused by excessive private
sector credit expansion before 2008.
People consume less gas now. That is a direct result
of the private sector borrowing less and less demand
brings the price down.

> That war is Over and prices are now
> rising thanks to "policy".

Consumers are the driving force behind inflation.
It tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If people believe inflation is coming, that drives up
prices because people spend now instead of waiting for later.
If people believe deflation is coming they wait to buy things and
that drives down prices as spending decreases.

The FED wants you to believe inflation is coming, but
all the signs indicate that deflation is coming.

[-DirtBag]

Huh? I think your notion might be backwards. IMHO When you have too
many dollars chasing the same 'stuff. The Stuff goes up in value. That
is inflation. When you have too few dollars in circulation you have
deflation

Printing dollars is another way of picking your pocket. The Government
is picking our pockets at will.

Barter would meet in the middle and one would need to have items to
trade which have conceived value in a monetary way.

These could be: Food Stores, and hard to get items such as Ammunition,
Viagra, Antibiotics, Pain Meds, Fresh Seed, Glass,

Just my opinion...

-Dirt

[jim]

-DirtBag wrote:
>
> On 1/13/13 3:51 AM, Jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > Greegor wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> What economic forces are keeping us from
> >> an outright economic collapse at this point?
> >
> > Mostly the stuff you are bitching about.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> What do you think would actually happen
> >> if US Dollars became worthless?
> >
> > The dollar does not become worth less in a depression.
> > The dollar becomes worth a lot more.
> >
> > It is everything else that becomes worth less.
> >
>
> Huh? I think your notion might be backwards. IMHO When you have too
> many dollars chasing the same 'stuff. The Stuff goes up in value. That
> is inflation. When you have too few dollars in circulation you have
> deflation

How is that different from what I wrote?

>
> Printing dollars is another way of picking your pocket. The Government
> is picking our pockets at will.

The private sector is the one that created too many dollars.
That credit expansion (before 2008) that created all the
excess dollars is now deflating.

Read The explanation by Irving Fisher:

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/fisdeb33.pdf

[-DirtBag]

On 1/13/13 3:19 PM, jim wrote:
> The dollar does not become worth less in a depression.
>> >The dollar becomes worth a lot more.
>> >
>> >It is everything else that becomes worth less.

This is what is bugging me.
There is so much more to it.

[jim]

The private sector expanded the money supply by
excessive borrowing before 2008. Since 2008 the
private sector has been doing
the opposite.

Read The explanation of depressions by Irving Fisher:

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/fisdeb33.pdf

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jan 13, 3:13 pm, -DirtBag <D...@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 1/13/13 3:51 AM, Jim wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Greegor wrote:
>
> >> What economic forces are keeping us from
> >> an outright economic collapse at this point?
>
> > Mostly the stuff you are bitching about.
>
> >> What do you think would actually happen
> >> if US Dollars became worthless?
>
> > The dollar does not become worth less in a depression.
> > The dollar becomes worth a lot more.
>
> > It is everything else that becomes worth less.
>
> Huh?  I think your notion might be backwards.  IMHO When you have too
> many dollars chasing the same 'stuff.  The Stuff goes up in value. That
> is inflation.   When you have too few dollars in circulation you have
> deflation
>

the dollars were being issued by the private sector. bubbles are
hyper-inflationary.

> Printing dollars is another way of picking your pocket.  The Government
> is picking our pockets at will.
>

the government did not issue those dollars, it was done by the
private sector.

> Barter would meet in the middle and one would need to have items to
> trade which have conceived value in a monetary way.
>

feudalism never worked well.

> These could be: Food Stores, and hard to get items such as Ammunition,
> Viagra, Antibiotics, Pain Meds, Fresh Seed, Glass,
>

i suppose after some post nuclear war. but who would want that.



> Just my opinion...
>
> -Dirt

[Nickname unavailable]

and what is worth less will keep being worth less, until we pay off
the excesses from the 30 plus years of urinated on ecomomics. raise
wages, and get the financial sector under control.

[DanB]

jim wrote:
>
>
>
> Read The explanation of depressions by Irving Fisher:
>
> http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/fisdeb33.pdf
>

"..if debt and deflation are absent, other disturbances are powerless to
bring on crisis comparable in severity to those of 1837, 1873, or 1929-1933"
~~Irving Fisher

So just why do we put up with bank owned money?

"In 1933, Congress changed the law so that all U.S. coins and currency
(including Federal Reserve notes), regardless of when issued,
constitutes "legal tender" for all purposes."

<http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm>

From there we had the gold confiscation act essentially making
constitutional money illegal to hold.

Today's banking is just legalized thief of real wealth.

Best, Dan.

[jim]

DanB wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Read The explanation of depressions by Irving Fisher:
> >
> > http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/fisdeb33.pdf
> >
>
> "..if debt and deflation are absent, other disturbances are powerless to
> bring on crisis comparable in severity to those of 1837, 1873, or 1929-1933"
> ~~Irving Fisher
>
> So just why do we put up with bank owned money?

It's not bank owned money. - its bank issued money.

>
> "In 1933, Congress changed the law so that all U.S. coins and currency
> (including Federal Reserve notes), regardless of when issued,
> constitutes "legal tender" for all purposes."
>
> <http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm>
>
> From there we had the gold confiscation act essentially making
> constitutional money illegal to hold.
>
> Today's banking is just legalized thief of real wealth.

The system of banks creating money has been going on
for centuries.

“Anyone can create money; the problem lies in getting it
accepted”. -Hyman Minsky


>
> Best, Dan.

[DanB]

jim wrote:
>
>
> DanB wrote:
>>
>> jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read The explanation of depressions by Irving Fisher:
>>>
>>> http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/fisdeb33.pdf
>>>
>>
>> "..if debt and deflation are absent, other disturbances are powerless to
>> bring on crisis comparable in severity to those of 1837, 1873, or 1929-1933"
>> ~~Irving Fisher
>>
>> So just why do we put up with bank owned money?
>
> It's not bank owned money. - its bank issued money.

Issued with a contract for repayment. Means they own it, with interest.

>> "In 1933, Congress changed the law so that all U.S. coins and currency
>> (including Federal Reserve notes), regardless of when issued,
>> constitutes "legal tender" for all purposes."
>>
>> <http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm>
>>
>> From there we had the gold confiscation act essentially making
>> constitutional money illegal to hold.
>>
>> Today's banking is just legalized thief of real wealth.
>
> The system of banks creating money has been going on
> for centuries.

Read above. Let me know what other century banking got constitutional
money outlawed and had the privilege of a banner, 'legal tender'.

> “Anyone can create money; the problem lies in getting it
> accepted”. -Hyman Minsky

I can not create legal tender from thin air. Banking has that privilege.

Best, Dan.

[jim]

DanB wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > DanB wrote:
> >>
> >> jim wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Read The explanation of depressions by Irving Fisher:
> >>>
> >>> http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/fisdeb33.pdf
> >>>
> >>
> >> "..if debt and deflation are absent, other disturbances are powerless to
> >> bring on crisis comparable in severity to those of 1837, 1873, or 1929-1933"
> >> ~~Irving Fisher
> >>
> >> So just why do we put up with bank owned money?
> >
> > It's not bank owned money. - its bank issued money.
>
> Issued with a contract for repayment. Means they own it, with interest.

They do not own it as long as the contract is kept.

>
> >> "In 1933, Congress changed the law so that all U.S. coins and currency
> >> (including Federal Reserve notes), regardless of when issued,
> >> constitutes "legal tender" for all purposes."
> >>
> >> <http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm>
> >>
> >> From there we had the gold confiscation act essentially making
> >> constitutional money illegal to hold.
> >>
> >> Today's banking is just legalized thief of real wealth.
> >
> > The system of banks creating money has been going on
> > for centuries.
>
> Read above. Let me know what other century banking got constitutional
> money outlawed and had the privilege of a banner, 'legal tender'.

17th, 18th, 19th, 20th

>
> > “Anyone can create money; the problem lies in getting it
> > accepted”. -Hyman Minsky
>
> I can not create legal tender from thin air. Banking has that privilege.

Banks don't create legal tender. However, the
issue is what people will accept.
You are not obligated to accept a bank's check.
The govt does accept checks for payment of taxes.
That gives bank money some legal status.

-jim


>
> Best, Dan.

[DanB]

jim wrote:
>
>
> DanB wrote:
>>
>> jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> DanB wrote:
>>>>
>>>> jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Read The explanation of depressions by Irving Fisher:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/fisdeb33.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "..if debt and deflation are absent, other disturbances are powerless to
>>>> bring on crisis comparable in severity to those of 1837, 1873, or 1929-1933"
>>>> ~~Irving Fisher
>>>>
>>>> So just why do we put up with bank owned money?
>>>
>>> It's not bank owned money. - its bank issued money.
>>
>> Issued with a contract for repayment. Means they own it, with interest.
>
> They do not own it as long as the contract is kept.

If I borrow your car, I own it? If you say so, doesn't make it so in
other people's books.

>>>> "In 1933, Congress changed the law so that all U.S. coins and currency
>>>> (including Federal Reserve notes), regardless of when issued,
>>>> constitutes "legal tender" for all purposes."
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm>
>>>>
>>>> From there we had the gold confiscation act essentially making
>>>> constitutional money illegal to hold.
>>>>
>>>> Today's banking is just legalized thief of real wealth.
>>>
>>> The system of banks creating money has been going on
>>> for centuries.
>>
>> Read above. Let me know what other century banking got constitutional
>> money outlawed and had the privilege of a banner, 'legal tender'.
>
> 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th

Cite?

>>> “Anyone can create money; the problem lies in getting it
>>> accepted”. -Hyman Minsky
>>
>> I can not create legal tender from thin air. Banking has that privilege.
>
>
> Banks don't create legal tender.

Again, if you say so. Doesn't make it true.

> You are not obligated to accept a bank's check.

And the bearer can cash his own check for cash and I must accept that
payment. So, what is your point?

> The govt does accept checks for payment of taxes.

> That gives bank money some legal status.

Bank money and currency are completely fungible. That makes them the
same thing. A bank dollar is legal tender no matter how much you insist
it is not.


Best, Dan.

[jim]

DanB wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > DanB wrote:
> >>
> >> jim wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> DanB wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> jim wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Read The explanation of depressions by Irving Fisher:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/fisdeb33.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "..if debt and deflation are absent, other disturbances are powerless to
> >>>> bring on crisis comparable in severity to those of 1837, 1873, or 1929-1933"
> >>>> ~~Irving Fisher
> >>>>
> >>>> So just why do we put up with bank owned money?
> >>>
> >>> It's not bank owned money. - its bank issued money.
> >>
> >> Issued with a contract for repayment. Means they own it, with interest.
> >
> > They do not own it as long as the contract is kept.
>
> If I borrow your car, I own it? If you say so, doesn't make it so in
> other people's books.

If we draw up a contract that says you get the car and
I get future payments. Then yes you own the
car as long as you meet the payment obligations.

And BTW, I may be able to take the contract and use it like money.

>
> >>>> "In 1933, Congress changed the law so that all U.S. coins and currency
> >>>> (including Federal Reserve notes), regardless of when issued,
> >>>> constitutes "legal tender" for all purposes."
> >>>>
> >>>> <http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm>
> >>>>
> >>>> From there we had the gold confiscation act essentially making
> >>>> constitutional money illegal to hold.
> >>>>
> >>>> Today's banking is just legalized thief of real wealth.
> >>>
> >>> The system of banks creating money has been going on
> >>> for centuries.
> >>
> >> Read above. Let me know what other century banking got constitutional
> >> money outlawed and had the privilege of a banner, 'legal tender'.
> >
> > 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th
>
> Cite?
>
> >>> “Anyone can create money; the problem lies in getting it
> >>> accepted”. -Hyman Minsky
> >>
> >> I can not create legal tender from thin air. Banking has that privilege.
> >
> >
> > Banks don't create legal tender.
>
> Again, if you say so. Doesn't make it true.
>
> > You are not obligated to accept a bank's check.
>
> And the bearer can cash his own check for cash and I must accept that
> payment. So, what is your point?

The cash is the legal tender. And parties can
pay by whatever means they agree upon.

>
> > The govt does accept checks for payment of taxes.
>
> > That gives bank money some legal status.
>
> Bank money and currency are completely fungible.

So are other forms of money. It is accepted as money because
it can be readily turned into cash.

> That makes them the
> same thing. A bank dollar is legal tender no matter how much you insist
> it is not.

The theory behind legal tender is that it
extinguishes a debt. A check payment doesn't do
that. There is still an obligation to pay it just
changed hands.

>
> Best, Dan.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jan 14, 9:32 pm, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
> DanB wrote:
>
> > jim wrote:
>
> > > DanB wrote:
>
> > >> jim wrote:
>
> > >>> DanB wrote:
>
> > >>>> jim wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Read The explanation of depressions by Irving Fisher:
>
> > >>>>>http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/fisdeb33.pdf
>
> > >>>> "..if debt and deflation are absent, other disturbances are powerless to
> > >>>> bring on crisis comparable in severity to those of 1837, 1873, or 1929-1933"
> > >>>> ~~Irving Fisher
>
> > >>>> So just why do we put up with bank owned money?
>
> > >>> It's not bank owned money. - its bank issued money.
>
> > >> Issued with a contract for repayment. Means they own it, with interest.
>
> > > They do not own it as long as the contract is kept.
>
> > If I borrow your car, I own it? If you say so, doesn't make it so in
> > other people's books.
>
> If we draw up a contract that says you get the car and
> I get  future  payments. Then yes you own the
> car as long as you meet the payment obligations.
>
> And BTW, I may be able to take the contract and use it like money.
>
>

that is correct. the banks, wall street, and the mortgage firms used
debt as money. wall street uses stocks like money. anyone with a
printer, and a bit of legal understanding, can create money thru
loans. its almost endless how the private sector can create money. the
central bank lost the ability to control how much money was in
circulation a long time ago. none of these guys who bark and bray
about what the dollar is worth, how much debt we have, that we are
hyper inflating(which we are not), were very quite when the bubbles
were hyper-inflating the economy, and money creation and debt was out
of control.

[DanB]

jim wrote:
>
>
> DanB wrote:
>>
>> jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> DanB wrote:
>>>>
>>>> jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DanB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> jim wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Read The explanation of depressions by Irving Fisher:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/fisdeb33.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "..if debt and deflation are absent, other disturbances are powerless to
>>>>>> bring on crisis comparable in severity to those of 1837, 1873, or 1929-1933"
>>>>>> ~~Irving Fisher
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So just why do we put up with bank owned money?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not bank owned money. - its bank issued money.
>>>>
>>>> Issued with a contract for repayment. Means they own it, with interest.
>>>
>>> They do not own it as long as the contract is kept.
>>
>> If I borrow your car, I own it? If you say so, doesn't make it so in
>> other people's books.
>
> If we draw up a contract that says you get the car and
> I get future payments. Then yes you own the
> car as long as you meet the payment obligations.

The lean holder is first on the list. Not your so called owner.

> And BTW, I may be able to take the contract and use it like money.

Of course, and just how banking takes the wealth of others.

>>>>>> "In 1933, Congress changed the law so that all U.S. coins and currency
>>>>>> (including Federal Reserve notes), regardless of when issued,
>>>>>> constitutes "legal tender" for all purposes."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From there we had the gold confiscation act essentially making
>>>>>> constitutional money illegal to hold.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Today's banking is just legalized thief of real wealth.
>>>>>
>>>>> The system of banks creating money has been going on
>>>>> for centuries.
>>>>
>>>> Read above. Let me know what other century banking got constitutional
>>>> money outlawed and had the privilege of a banner, 'legal tender'.
>>>
>>> 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th
>>
>> Cite?

???

>>>>> “Anyone can create money; the problem lies in getting it
>>>>> accepted”. -Hyman Minsky
>>>>
>>>> I can not create legal tender from thin air. Banking has that privilege.
>>>
>>>
>>> Banks don't create legal tender.
>>
>> Again, if you say so. Doesn't make it true.
>>
>>> You are not obligated to accept a bank's check.
>>
>> And the bearer can cash his own check for cash and I must accept that
>> payment. So, what is your point?
>
> The cash is the legal tender. And parties can
> pay by whatever means they agree upon.

Yea, I can see getting the IRS to take my product instead of 'legal
tender'. It ain't gonna happen...

>>
>>> The govt does accept checks for payment of taxes.
>>
>>> That gives bank money some legal status.
>>
>> Bank money and currency are completely fungible.
>
> So are other forms of money. It is accepted as money because
> it can be readily turned into cash.

It bears the banner of 'legal tender'. That is the point.'

>
>> That makes them the
>> same thing. A bank dollar is legal tender no matter how much you insist
>> it is not.

I never said otherwise. What's your point?

>
> The theory behind legal tender is that it
> extinguishes a debt.

Foo foo. It is debt meaning those that create debt will take the real
wealth of those that don't create legal tender.

> A check payment doesn't do
> that. There is still an obligation to pay it just
> changed hands.

Pretend what you would like. A check represents legal tender.

Best, Dan.

[DanB]

jim wrote:
>
> If we draw up a contract that says you get the car and
> I get future payments. Then yes you own the
> car as long as you meet the payment obligations.

Worth pointing out...
When I'm done paying for the car, I get to keep it.

When I've paid a loan off, I've given it all back plus interest.

Why do you and Les dance around what banking is really all about?

Best, Dan.

[Rod Speed]

DanB <a...@some.net> wrote

> jim wrote

>> Read The explanation of depressions by Irving Fisher:

>> http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/fisdeb33.pdf

> "..if debt and deflation are absent, other disturbances are powerless to
> bring on crisis comparable in severity to those of 1837, 1873, or
> 1929-1933"
> ~~Irving Fisher

> So just why do we put up with bank owned money?

Because modern first and second world economys wont work without it.

> "In 1933, Congress changed the law so that all U.S. coins and currency
> (including Federal Reserve notes), regardless of when issued, constitutes
> "legal tender" for all purposes."

> <http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm>

> From there we had the gold confiscation act essentially making
> constitutional money illegal to hold.

That's a lie. Gold isnt the only constitutional money.

> Today's banking is just legalized thief of real wealth.

Another mindlessly silly lie.

[Bill Graham]

Its very simple. Money is just like apples. When they are plentiful, they
are cheap, becsause it is a buyers market. When they are scarce, they are
expensive, because it is a sellers market. So it is with money, When it is
scarce, it becomes more valuable, and it buys a lot more. When it is
plentiful, it is worth less and it takes a lot more of it to buy something.
When the government prints lots of money, it becomes, just like the apples,
worth a lot less and it takes lots of it to buy anything with. So, the only
thing the government has to do to destroy my IRA savings is to print lots of
money. They don;t have to break into my bank and steal what I have. They
just print a lot more of it and whatever I have loses its buying power and
reduces me to whatever poverty level they think and say I deserve.

[deadrat]

On 1/14/13 10:20 PM, DanB wrote:
> jim wrote:
<snip/>

>> If we draw up a contract that says you get the car and
>> I get future payments. Then yes you own the
>> car as long as you meet the payment obligations.
>
> The lean holder is first on the list.

Just more anti-fat, weight discrimination, I suppose.

<snip/>

[DanB]

Bill Graham wrote:

`````

Hay Bill,
You are the same Bill I knew way back on sci.hydrogen, right?

Best, Dan.

[Greegor]

Have you ever read about President Andrew Jackson
going to war with the Federal Reserve Bank?

When he prevailed, what happened to the currency
that was in circulation at the time?

When the US Civil War ended, was Confederate
currency worth anything?

Haven't there been various situations where people
were left holding currency worth zero?

I recall seeing an old photo of somebody
with a wheelbarrow full of cash just to buy
a loaf of bread.

Who exactly decided to print US Currency
with nothing backing it up?

That severely devalued every savings account
in the US didn't it?

Is that an ethical action?

The HUGE debts to the Chinese, are they pegged
to their currency or to the US Dollar?

If pegged to the US Dollar, didn't those debts
instantly become easier for us to pay?

[jim]

Bill Graham wrote:
>
> -DirtBag wrote:
> > On 1/13/13 3:19 PM, jim wrote:
> >> The dollar does not become worth less in a depression.
> >>>> The dollar becomes worth a lot more.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is everything else that becomes worth less.
> >
> > This is what is bugging me.
> > There is so much more to it.
>
> Its very simple. Money is just like apples. When they are plentiful, they
> are cheap, becsause it is a buyers market. When they are scarce, they are
> expensive, because it is a sellers market. So it is with money, When it is
> scarce, it becomes more valuable, and it buys a lot more. When it is
> plentiful, it is worth less and it takes a lot more of it to buy something.

Up to this point you are rational.

> When the government prints lots of money,

Here is where you fall off the wagon.
The government has not printed lots of money.
The govt has printed bank reserves.

Lots of money was being created before 2008.
Since 2008 not so much.

> it becomes, just like the apples,
> worth a lot less and it takes lots of it to buy anything with.

Bank reserves are like apples that stay on the tree (not picked)
If no one picks the apples, it has no affect on the market.

[jim]

Greegor wrote:
>
> Have you ever read about President Andrew Jackson
> going to war with the Federal Reserve Bank?

No.

Jackson died more than 50 years before the
Federal Reserve Bank was created.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MB,_M1_and_M2_aggregates_from_1981_to_2012.png



["....A variety of factors continue to complicate the relationship
between money supply growth and U.S. macroeconomic performance. For
example, the amount of currency in circulation rose rapidly in late
1999, as fears of Y2K-related problems led people to build up their
holdings of the most liquid form of money, and then it showed no
increase (even on a seasonally adjusted basis) in the first half of
2000. Also, the size of the M1 aggregate has been held down in recent
years by "sweeps"�the practice that banks have adopted of shifting funds
out of checking accounts that are subject to reserve requirements into
savings accounts that are not subject to reserve requirements....."]
http://www.ny.frb.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed49.html

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The government is fudging numbers to hide inflation and pretending
there's GDP growth right NOW.



More inflation cuts the GDP growth and raises interest rate.... by
fudging the numbers they make you believe we are growing the economy but
we see NO real growth anywhere do we?


This is STAGFLATION and they hide the inflation to keep you from
grabbing your pitchforks and torches and attacking the Castle.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MB,_M1_and_M2_aggregates_from_1981_to_2012.png
>
> ["....A variety of factors continue to complicate the relationship
> between money supply growth and U.S. macroeconomic performance. For
> example, the amount of currency in circulation rose rapidly in late
> 1999, as fears of Y2K-related problems led people to build up their
> holdings of the most liquid form of money, and then it showed no
> increase (even on a seasonally adjusted basis) in the first half of
> 2000.

Yes that was another example of chicken Little
running in circles crying the "sky is falling"

And then it didn't happen.

> Also, the size of the M1 aggregate has been held down in recent

> years by "sweeps"—the practice that banks have adopted of shifting funds

> out of checking accounts that are subject to reserve requirements into
> savings accounts that are not subject to reserve requirements....."]
> http://www.ny.frb.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed49.html

That is 20 years ago old news.

None of this has anything to do with
you running in circles crying the "sky is falling"
because bank reserves are increasing.

[jim]

> >
> > The FED wants you to believe inflation is coming, but
> > all the signs indicate that deflation is coming.
> >
>
> The government is fudging numbers to hide inflation and pretending
> there's GDP growth right NOW.

That is
not very meaningful coming from a loon.

>
> More inflation cuts the GDP growth and raises interest rate....

That is fantasy.

[deadrat]

He means the Second Bank of the United States.

[deadrat]

Or you're an ignoramus. Which is more likely?

> More inflation cuts the GDP growth

Inflation raises the GDP.

> and raises interest rate....

which are practically negative. Go figure.

> by
> fudging the numbers they make you believe we are growing the economy but
> we see NO real growth anywhere do we?

You'll need to pull your head out of your ass to see anything.

> This is STAGFLATION and they hide the inflation to keep you from
> grabbing your pitchforks and torches and attacking the Castle.

Get help.

[Bill Graham]

Not that I remember. I am 77 and my memory isn't too good. But zI donl;t
think I ever posted to Sci. Hydrogen. I used to post on a photography group,
and posted for a while on a trumpet players group, but it was moderated by
an idiot who threw me off for trying to tell the group that there was no
such thing as, "projection". I tried to tell them about Gauss's inverse
square law, but they weren't buying it. They still insisted that you could
get the volume to grow as the sound traversed the length of the
auditorium.....:^)

[Bill Graham]

After WW-I in Germany, inflation was so bad that they had to bring
wheelbarrows of money to the store just to buy a loaf of bread. this is what
happens when corrupt governments just print money without anything to back
it up. Very similar to what our government is doing right now.....

[Les Cargill]

It's nothing at all like what our government is doing right now.

--
Les Cargill

[Bill Graham]

> years by "sweeps"—the practice that banks have adopted of shifting

> funds out of checking accounts that are subject to reserve
> requirements into savings accounts that are not subject to reserve
> requirements....."]
> http://www.ny.frb.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed49.html

In any reasionable economic system, inflation destroys the peoples savings,
and should, therefore, be kept to a minimum. I am in my 70's. I can no
longer work. I depend on my savings to srvive te reat of my (and my wife's)
life. When the government goes 16 trillion dollars in debt, and prints money
to srvive, it steals the buying power of that money our of my savings and
investments and drives me closer to the poorhouse. It trashes (IOW) my
lifetimes work.....

[Bill Graham]

I was watching the notional debt counter spinn ing the other day. It is in
the 16 trillion range now, and incrementing at about 25 thousand dollars per
second.

[jim]

Bill Graham wrote:

>
> In any reasionable economic system, inflation destroys the peoples savings,
> and should, therefore, be kept to a minimum. I am in my 70's. I can no
> longer work. I depend on my savings to srvive te reat of my (and my wife's)
> life. When the government goes 16 trillion dollars in debt, and prints money
> to srvive, it steals the buying power of that money our of my savings and
> investments and drives me closer to the poorhouse. It trashes (IOW) my
> lifetimes work.....

Wait till Congress tries to balance the budget
Then you'll be really squawking loud and long.

[deadrat]

And yet you don't need a wheelbarrow to carry the money to buy a loaf of
bread. Go figure that one out, tuna.

[deadrat]

Not to worry. The slops going into the public trough? The ones you
snuffle down as fast as you can while screeching about freeloaders?
Yeah, those.

They're indexed to inflation.

[Greegor]

Please post your Social Security records, deadrat.

Every dollar you paid in to Social Security.

Every dollar you have collected on SSI.

If you want to be very complete you can present
every dollar you got in welfare checks, food stamps,
housing subsidy and Medicaid.

Nothing else would explain your Socialist agenda.

[deadrat]

Where did all this come from? You made some claims; I asked for
evidence. For all I know, your claims are correct. I don't know.
That's why I asked.

If I told you how much I paid in FICA, what difference would that make?
And how could you know whether I'd told you the truth?

I've been lucky. I've never qualified for SSI, AFDC, TANF, food stamps,
Section 8 housing, or Medicaid. I can't prove that on a newsgroup, but
what difference does it make?

Here are your claims that you snipped:

<quote>
[A]ny older person retiring now from a successful career to collect
social security, ... will retrieve every DIME they within a mere two years.

[H]uge numbers of mental cases qualify as disabled and begin to collect
from the time they are 18 for the rest of their lives.

Maybe Social Security wasn't a pyramid or Ponzi scheme in the beginning
but it certainly has become one.
</quote>

Do you have any evidence for these claims? It's impossible for you to
have evidence for the Ponzi scheme claim. By definition. It's possible
that Social Security isn't now and cannot be made actuarially sound. Is
that what you meant? Maybe you're right about that, but that's a
different claim.

Whether you have evidence for your claims is independent of my fiscal
history.

So why ask?

[Greegor]

It's easy for you to be a socialist when you're
already living off the government tit, deadrat.

[deadrat]

You mean like BG? And you don't even know what socialism is.

But it is no doubt easier for beneficiaries to support a government
program from which they benefit. Just human nature. In the same way
that hedge fund managers argue that their earned income should qualify
as capital gains and thus qualify for a lower tax rate. Are you calling
Rmoney a socialist?

In any case, I didn't post support for Social Security in its various
guises. I merely asked you to provide evidence for your claims.

Which, I notice, you have still failed to do.

If you have a good imagination, you might be able to imagine something
as small as my surprise.

[Naughtius]

You STUPID FUCK...

You Are FIRST, So UNIMAGINABLY STUPID, As To FAIL To Perceive That
There Are NOT **Millions* of Even **Marginally* BETTER EUCATED
Citizens Than YOU; MANY Of Which Are HERE On misc.legal, Who HAVE Read
- At Length - COMPLETE HISTORIES Of The World, Post 1900, INCLUDING
Post-War Germany, AND That THOSE Better Educated Than YOU Know Full
Well that Germans "Wheeled" The Cost Of a Loaf of Bread To the Baker
IN a Wheelbarrow, Which WAS THE RESULT Of ***IMPOSSIBLE WAR
REPARATIONS***... That the Weimar Republic, UNABLE To "Back" Its
Currency With *GOLD*, Resulting In RAMPANT INFLATION, "INVENTED" The
[TEMPORARY] "RENTENMARK"... In Theory, "MORTGAGING *ALL* Of Germany,
Which SUCCESSFULLY "Cured" The RAMPANT INFLATION Problem...

Which Bears NO RESEMBLANCE WHAT-SO-EVER TO "what happens when
corrupt governments just print money..."

Which Bears NO RESEMBLANCE WHAT-SO-EVER TO "what our government is
doing right now....."

GAWD ALLMIGHTY, [[HOW]] Did YOU Come to BE So FUCKING [[STUPID]]???

Do YOU Really Believe That YOU Are The Ultimate Authority On
Historical FACT & UNquestionable Brahmin Of Reasoning???

Naughtius "Have You NO SHAME??" Maximus

[Greegor]

On Jan 17, 4:42 pm, Naughtius <naught...@netscape.net> wrote:
> You STUPID FUCK...
>
> You Are FIRST, So UNIMAGINABLY STUPID, As To FAIL To Perceive That
> There Are NOT **Millions* of Even **Marginally* BETTER EUCATED
> Citizens Than YOU; MANY Of Which Are HERE On misc.legal, Who HAVE

Aspergers with a comorbidity of coprolalia?

Why do so many liberals always pretend that
any difference of opinion results from their
""superior"" education?

[Naughtius]

Not YOU... The **OTHER** STUPID FUCK...

Naughtius "misc.legal Has Known For DECADES That YOU Have NO SHAME"
Maximus

[-DirtBag]

President Andrew Jackson sold government land to pay off the debt before
he left office. He was a stanch believer that the Country should not
have a Government larger than it can support.

-Dirt

[deadrat]

Put my money in wheelbarrow today and took it to the store to buy a loaf
of bread.

People looked at me kinda funny.

You're probably used to getting those looks. Perhaps you should pay
attention.

[Greegor]

> Put my money in wheelbarrow today and took it to the store to buy a loaf
> of bread.
>
> People looked at me kinda funny.
>
> You're probably used to getting those looks.  Perhaps you should pay
> attention.

Stunning dialectic there.
Do you consider yourself to be a cunning linguist?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

They feel inferior and need to hide it.


Freud would use his superior education to say they have tiny little
penises and a huge need to compensate.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Toss a quarter out for the cashier... to pay for your bread, and tell
them that bread only costs a quarter a loaf when you were younger.

I remember paying $0.29 for a loaf of bread and I recall $0.24 bread.

[Greegor]

I asked about the historical experience when currency
has been devalued to be worthless or almost worthless.

What happens to all existing contracts spelling out
payment amounts?

Would you go to a job that pays worthless dollars?

Would your landlord take your worthless dollars as rent payment?

There have been situations where currency became worthless.

How did contracts play out back then?

Would courts evict renters who did not pay worthless dollars?

If currency crashes wouldn't the country become unmanageable?

[jim]

Greegor wrote:
>
> I asked about the historical experience when currency
> has been devalued to be worthless or almost worthless.
>

The private sector has created most of the dollars
that exist in the economy. Prior to 2008 the expansion
of the money supply was proceeding at a record pace and
then it suddenly collapsed and went negative for the first
time since the Great Depression.

http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/charts/m3-2006.gif

You're howling at a moon that set four years ago

[Greegor]

Are you afraid of actually answering my questions
about historical experience with currency collapse?

What you say may hold water or it may not.

I trust the "money supply" figures about like
I trust the enemployment numbers where
changes in definition and formula are made to
make it look better than it really is.

You didn't exactly deny the phenomenon
of government printing money without backing
to pay for rediculous spending.

I asked about how contracts and obligations
were resolved in previous situations where
currency collapsed.

I notice you never tried to claim that situation never arose.

Now could you please answer my questions rather
than trying so hard to deflect them?

[jim]

Greegor wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 6:17 am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
> > Greegor wrote:
> >
> > > I asked about the historical experience when currency
> > > has been devalued to be worthless or almost worthless.
> >
> > The private sector has created most of the dollars
> > that exist in the economy. Prior to 2008 the expansion
> > of the money supply was proceeding at a record pace and
> > then it suddenly collapsed and went negative for the first
> > time since the Great Depression.
> >
> > http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/charts/m3-2006.gif
> >
> > You're howling at a moon that set four years ago
>
> Are you afraid of actually answering my questions
> about historical experience with currency collapse?

I did the historical experience that is most similar
is the Great Depression of the 1930's

"An essential part of this depression has been the shrinkage
from the 23 to the 15 billions in checkbook money, that is,
the wiping out of 8 billions of dollars of the nation's chief
circulating medium which we all need as a common highway for
business."

http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/100percent/c1.htm

>
> What you say may hold water or it may not.
>
> I trust the "money supply" figures about like
> I trust the enemployment numbers where
> changes in definition and formula are made to
> make it look better than it really is.

There have been no recent changes in definition
of unemployment. The changes that make things look
rosier were made 30 years ago.

>
> You didn't exactly deny the phenomenon
> of government printing money without backing
> to pay for rediculous spending.

I did. but if it helps I will phrase it more explicitly.
The government is not printing money without backing
to pay for ridiculous spending.

I will also state that if the debt ceiling is not raised
there will be a depression that makes the Great Depression
look like a walk in the park.

The reason for that is there will be a collapse of the
money supply just as there was in the Great depression.
That collapse of the money supply will be the result of
the rapid increase and then decrease of private sector
debt just as it was in the Great Depression.

http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/5/10/saupload_428250-13363801587809994-Michael-Clark.png

>
> I asked about how contracts and obligations
> were resolved in previous situations where
> currency collapsed.

The question itself indicates you have little
understanding of what is going on today. Having
too much money doesn't hinder the resolution
of contracts and obligations. OTOH, having too
little money does make the resolution of obligations
difficult...

>
> I notice you never tried to claim that situation never arose.

Of course it has existed elsewhere and that is exactly why
the govt and the FRB are prohibited by law from simply
creating money and handing it out.

[Stan Pierce]

Germany printed money in 1923 to pay War Reparations. The contract with
the 'winners' said to pay for the war, and so they did. They paid it in
wheelbarrow loads.

The trouble with this wheeze is it wipes out the middle class who have
spent a lifetime saving money for retirement and to educate their children.

Only a poor working class ex corporal with a love for his country and
with imagination and determination got the Germans out of their mess.

Learned academics, English aristocrats and powerful money-men had got
them into it.

Wipe out the middle class with confetti money and you dont have a
civilisation, you become a Zimbabwe. See where Zimbabwe stands in the
list of poorest nations.

[Bill Graham]

Yes. But the worst part is, the people who worked and saved and invested
their whole lives would be broke right along with the indolents and welfare
puppies. When the money becomes worthless, then everyone is broke....

[Bill Graham]

The private sector has created ALL of the money. Or, at least all of the
real wealth. I can't remember the government creating anything in my entire
life. Governments do nothing but spend money. They can't even take out
retirement money and invest a dime of it. They just spend it like every
other dime they get their hands on. And, unlike Ponzi and Madoff, they are
way, way past the point of where they ran out of new investers to scam and
got caught. They just borrow more money and put the taxpayers names on the
loan forms to cover their sorry asses...

[Bill Graham]

That's right. Whenever the government prints another dollaqr and puts it
into circulation without earning it in some way, they are reaching into my
retirement fund and trimming a tiny amount off of the dollars I have in
there. And there is no way I can make up for, or prevent that. I can't go
bsck in time and buy gole with that money and bury it somewhere where the
government can't find it and steal it from me. I worked and invested 10% of
my earnings in American business for over 40 years, and now the thieving
Democrats are taking it away from me and my children. Turns out that I
should have spent it as I earned it on Porsches, boose and wild, wild women
after all........ The stupid liberals have made the Christian work ethic a
meaningless scam....

[jim]

Bill Graham wrote:

> >
> > Wipe out the middle class with confetti money and you dont have a
> > civilisation, you become a Zimbabwe. See where Zimbabwe stands in the
> > list of poorest nations.
>
> That's right. Whenever the government prints another dollaqr and puts it
> into circulation without earning it in some way, they are reaching into my
> retirement fund and trimming a tiny amount off of the dollars I have in
> there.

Just wait to you see what happens to
your retirement fund when Congress doesn't
raise the debt ceiling.

[deadrat]

On 1/24/13 5:57 PM, Bill Graham wrote:

Just your comfy life on the dole, hypocrite.

> Governments do nothing but spend money. They can't even
> take out retirement money and invest a dime of it.

Lucky for you they didn't. It would have all been gone in 2008. But
you're still sucking down every dime of public money you can get your
hands on.

> They just spend it
> like every other dime they get their hands on. And, unlike Ponzi and
> Madoff, they are way, way past the point of where they ran out of new
> investers to scam and got caught. They just borrow more money and put
> the taxpayers names on the loan forms to cover their sorry asses...

So they can pay for your retirement and medical.

Why not have the common decency to quit complaining?

[Daryl]

I can tell you never served. I rarely say that. But those of us
that did retire from the Military from around the world earned
every dime we receive and more. Unfortunately, we receive less
and less every year.

If you hear a student speak your countries native language, thank
a teacher. If you see you are free, thank a Soldier. If you
find that your native language is outlawed and your freedoms are
gone, thank yourself.

Daryl



--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Bill Graham]

Well you, "tell" wrong. I was in the Navy from '56 to '60. (what that has to
do with my stupid government borrowing over 16 trillion dollars for my great
grandkids to pay back beats the hell out of me) Can't you liberals envision
anyone in our government doing something wrong at all? Would you follow them
off a cliff like a bunch of lemmings? Any norman person, (for example) when
given a bunch of retirement money would look for a good place to invest it.
Our government just spends it. Do you really think that's an indication of
common sense? What is it with you people anyway? You really would be better
off living under a totalitarian king. Freedom is a complete waste of time
with you.

[deadrat]

You can't tell squat, Sparky. For one, all you've got are posts on a
newsgroup. For two, you can't seem to read for comprehension. See below.

> I rarely say that.

Now that's a bald-faced lie, isn't it Sparky? I'll bet you say that all
the time.

> But those of us that
> did retire from the Military from around the world earned every dime we
> receive and more.

We're now down to the below you were directed to above. None of this
ongoing diatribe I aim at BG has anything to do with veterans. If you'd
read a little more carefully, you'd have figured out that I'm in favor
of spending money on those who've paid for making the social fabric of
this country. That includes paying for Social Security and Medicare for
those who worked for a living and paid FICA taxes, and that includes
veterans benefits for those who served in the military.

My beef with BG is that assuming he's telling the truth about his age
and health, he has received far more in retirement program benefits than
he ever paid in taxes for those programs. He thus lives off the taxes
of others while whining about those terrible people who live off the
taxes of others. In other words, he's a raging hypocrite.

> Unfortunately, we receive less and less every year.
>
> If you hear a student speak your countries native language, thank a
> teacher. If you see you are free, thank a Soldier.

Yeah? What was your MOS? I didn't realize there were ones that didn't
require reading for comprehension.

Please make the following choice: take your banal homilies and stick
them up your ass or inflict them on someone who actually is the
political opponent you imagine me to be. Just a suggestion.

> If you find that your native language is outlawed

My native language is English and is unlikely to be "outlawed" in the US.

> and your freedoms are gone, thank yourself.

Whatever the fuck that means. My freedoms are more at risk from
ignoramuses like BG than from anything I do.

> Daryl

[Daryl]

I'm a liberal? And you want me to believe you actually served?
You can't lie about one thing and expect us to believe another.

[Daryl]

Guess I hit it on the head, didn't I. I respect BG a lot more
than you even though he's one of those that "Talk to us" instead
of "Talk with us".

>
>> I rarely say that.
>
> Now that's a bald-faced lie, isn't it Sparky? I'll bet you say
> that all the time.

Now is your time to prove that statement. Go ahead, google it
yourself. I'll wait.

>
>> But those of us that
>> did retire from the Military from around the world earned every
>> dime we
>> receive and more.
>
> We're now down to the below you were directed to above. None of
> this ongoing diatribe I aim at BG has anything to do with
> veterans. If you'd read a little more carefully, you'd have
> figured out that I'm in favor of spending money on those who've
> paid for making the social fabric of this country. That includes
> paying for Social Security and Medicare for those who worked for
> a living and paid FICA taxes, and that includes veterans benefits
> for those who served in the military.

Yet you clearly stated otherwise. Since you have been called on
it, now you want to back pedal.

>
> My beef with BG is that assuming he's telling the truth about his
> age and health, he has received far more in retirement program
> benefits than he ever paid in taxes for those programs. He thus
> lives off the taxes of others while whining about those terrible
> people who live off the taxes of others. In other words, he's a
> raging hypocrite.

I actually agree with much of what he says. There are many ways
to pay into the country. If he made a certain age and paid into
it then he's entitled to the money. Afterall, he was charged it.
You aren't going to like me very much. I just filed for Social
Security and it starts in Feb, 2013. I also receive my Military
Retirement as well. In your mind, I guess that makes me even a
bigger tit sucker than he is.

>
>> Unfortunately, we receive less and less every year.
>>
>> If you hear a student speak your countries native language,
>> thank a
>> teacher. If you see you are free, thank a Soldier.
>
> Yeah? What was your MOS? I didn't realize there were ones that
> didn't require reading for comprehension.

If you ask about a MOS, then you are already behind the power
curve. I entered into a service that was hard to get into during
the Vietnam War Period. We didn't have MOSs, we had AFSCs.

>
> Please make the following choice: take your banal homilies and
> stick them up your ass or inflict them on someone who actually is
> the political opponent you imagine me to be. Just a suggestion.

Suggestion denied.

>
>> If you find that your native language is outlawed
>
> My native language is English and is unlikely to be "outlawed" in
> the US.

So is mine. And if you think it's being "Outlawed" you are wrong.

>
>> and your freedoms are gone, thank yourself.
>
> Whatever the fuck that means. My freedoms are more at risk from
> ignoramuses like BG than from anything I do.

If you don't understand what that means then you really do have a
severe brain fart in the process.

[deadrat]

Imagine my surprise. You respect a blowhard hypocrite who posts the
most egregiously ignorant crap.

<snip/>

>> We're now down to the below you were directed to above. None of
>> this ongoing diatribe I aim at BG has anything to do with
>> veterans. If you'd read a little more carefully, you'd have
>> figured out that I'm in favor of spending money on those who've
>> paid for making the social fabric of this country. That includes
>> paying for Social Security and Medicare for those who worked for
>> a living and paid FICA taxes, and that includes veterans benefits
>> for those who served in the military.
>
> Yet you clearly stated otherwise. Since you have been called on it, now
> you want to back pedal.

Yet once again you clearly cannot read for comprehension. I have stated
repeatedly that I think BG is entitled to his Social Security and
Medicare. I just wish he'd stop whining with his mouth full of slops
from the public trough.

>> My beef with BG is that assuming he's telling the truth about his
>> age and health, he has received far more in retirement program
>> benefits than he ever paid in taxes for those programs. He thus
>> lives off the taxes of others while whining about those terrible
>> people who live off the taxes of others. In other words, he's a
>> raging hypocrite.
>
> I actually agree with much of what he says.

Well, you would. But you're as big an ignoramus as he is, so no
surprise there.

> There are many ways to pay
> into the country. If he made a certain age and paid into it then he's
> entitled to the money.

I agree. And I've said so. You would know this if you read for
comprehension.

> Afterall, he was charged it.

If we take BG at his word, he's taken more from the system he says he
hates than he paid in. When your words don't match your actions, you're
a hypocrite.

> You aren't going to like me very much.

I neither like you nor dislike you since I don't know you. I don't
think much of your reading skills, but that's different.

> I just filed for Social Security and it starts in
> Feb, 2013. I also receive my Military Retirement as well. In your
> mind, I guess that makes me even a bigger tit sucker than he is.

If you've just filed, then you haven't yet obtained more benefits than
you paid in taxes for those benefits, so you don't qualify for my rants.
When the balance tips, will you be bellowing about all those "takers"?
If so, then you'll be as big a hypocrite as BG. And that will earn
you my contempt, not the fact that you receive benefits you're entitled to.

Is this clear yet? Do I need to type more slowly so you can follow?

>>> Unfortunately, we receive less and less every year.
>>>
>>> If you hear a student speak your countries native language,
>>> thank a
>>> teacher. If you see you are free, thank a Soldier.
>>
>> Yeah? What was your MOS? I didn't realize there were ones that
>> didn't require reading for comprehension.
>
> If you ask about a MOS, then you are already behind the power curve. I
> entered into a service that was hard to get into during the Vietnam War
> Period. We didn't have MOSs, we had AFSCs.

You and George Bush, eh?

If you were in the Air Force, then I'm wrong about the term used to
designate your job specification. The phrase "behind the power curve"
doesn't mean "you've made a mistake in terminology." In this case, it's
a very particular analogy about wasted effort in pursuit of an
impossible goal. Seems you should know that.

And my point still stands as you quibble about acronyms.

>> Please make the following choice: take your banal homilies and
>> stick them up your ass or inflict them on someone who actually is
>> the political opponent you imagine me to be. Just a suggestion.

> Suggestion denied.

Hint: it wasn't to be taken literally.

>>> If you find that your native language is outlawed
>>
>> My native language is English and is unlikely to be "outlawed" in
>> the US.
>
> So is mine. And if you think it's being "Outlawed" you are wrong.

You seem awfully attached to a language you can't seem to understand.
But please, point to a law that's ever been passed in this country that
outlaws English. On the other hand, a majority of the states have
"official English" laws on their books.

>>> and your freedoms are gone, thank yourself.
>>
>> Whatever the fuck that means. My freedoms are more at risk from
>> ignoramuses like BG than from anything I do.
>
> If you don't understand what that means then you really do have a severe
> brain fart in the process.

In idiomatic English, the sentence would read "If your freedoms are
gone, *blame* yourself." Which still wouldn't follow from my ridiculing
BG for his hypocrisy and ignorance.

You can't seem to understand my clealry-stated position, you quibble
about irrelevancies, you misuse metaphor, you reply to rhetorical
constructs, and you post nonsensical banalities. Is this all part of a
larger cognitive problem? You might want to get that checked out.

> Daryl

[Greegor]

deadrat, It's easy for you to be a SOCIALIST
and a STATEIST since you live on SSI.

[Daryl]

On 1/25/2013 9:17 AM, Greegor wrote:
> deadrat, It's easy for you to be a SOCIALIST
> and a STATEIST since you live on SSI.
>

It's not easy for ANYONE on SSI. I live in an area where almost
all of the people are on SSI or Social Security. It's not easy
on any of them. I used to think like you do but after living
around these folks and seeing them try and live on what meager
income they receive under only SSI or Social Security I have
reassessed my opinion drastically.

Do you own a boat? They had to sell theirs while they were
getting accustomed to living on what meager income SSI or Social
Security returns.

Do you own a nice car? They don't. In fact, many of them can't
afford a car or drive a 300 buck beater.

Do you own a house? Most of them had to sell their houses to
make ends meet even for a short term.

Do you have Health Insurance? They do as well but it costs them
dearly to have it out of their own pocket. Money they really
don't have but have no choice but to spend.

Have you ever had a neighbor that died because he had a choice
between feeding his family or his Medication? Happens all the
time but you don't see it.

They are able to get food stamps, yes. But their income will
mean that they will get either 80 bucks a month of food stamps if
they are making less than 700 bucks a month (many are in that
income bracket) of if under 1300, they can get 80 bucks of food
stamps. Above that and they get nothing.

I got in financial trouble. No help from the Government since it
was the Government that put me in that position. The
Neighborhood fell out for me to get me past that bump in the form
of 5 bucks here, twenty bucks there. I repaid them in funds and
will go out of my way to help them maintain their homes whenever
possible now. If they have trouble with their pipes freezing,
the Neighborhood helps them. If they are short on food, the
Neighborhood helps them. With their meager incomes, help is
needed far above what the Government renders.

These folks worked for most of their lives but many got hurt on
the job or off the job. If you get hurt on the job these days or
off the job, the Business, more or less, throws you away.
Leaving a 55 year old person unable to work or find work with SSI
only to live on. That SSI will be right around 650 to 1100 a
month. Tell me again how they are living on the Government Tit?
And I will point out they aren't living. They are just existing.

Now, what is the answer when they CAN'T work.

[Naughtius]

jesuschrist...

"BATTLE Of The UseNet DUMMIES", 2013... Between CURRENT CHAMPION
Bill "Wouldn't Know Freedom If It BIT Him On The Nose" Graham and
CHALLENGER Daryl "I Wish I Could Figger Out WHO I'm Talkin' To"
Undisclosed...

[Dumb-Ass] Daryl Makes An IMPRESSIVE Opening Foray with "NANNY-
NANNY BOO-BOO; Soldiers Don't Have *MOSs*..."

PROBLEM HERE Is TWO-Fold: "Soldiers MOST CERTAINLY _DID_ [And
Likely STILL DO Have "MOSs"]... I *KNOW*, Because *I* Useta BE a
"Soldier" WITH an "MOS"... 66... 66... 66somethingsomething... CODE
For "[Airplane] Radio/Radar Fixin' Soldier"... MOSTLY F-4s, BUT
INCLUDING A-6s... A-7s... Various Carrier[CVA-63]-Based STOL Aircraft
AND "Slicks"... AND... Jarheads And Army Guys WERE & Are ROUTINELY AND
ORDINARILY Referred to As "Soldiers"... Air FARCE WEINIES(sp?)... NOT
So Much...

So... While You've Got a GOOD START In The COMPETITION, Presenting
YOUR Ignoramus Credentials, YOU Ain't NO WHERE NEAR The **STELLAR
CLASS** Ignoramus That BG Has; Over a PROLONGED PERIOD, TIRELESSLY
PROVEN Himself To Be...

`Cuz... Bill Graham? *He's OLD... He's UGLY... CAN Quite POSSIBLY
Be BEAT*... And Y'just Gonna Havta TRY HARDER...

Naughtius "And; `E's Got A HEADSTART On Ya" Maximus

[Greegor]

Did you know that SSI people can earn up to 2000
a month without losing their benefits?

Did you know they can get Leased Housing to pay most or all of their
rent?
Welfare check, food stamps and full medical and dental?

If you add up all of the benefits they get, they make
more than lots of people who work their tails off at a job.
And they don't have to pay for transportation to work
or more expensive food at work.

I pointed out before that the SSI itself is just the start
of the benefits package available to them.

They actually end up having more "disposable income"
than many low income wage earners.

Some of them are so bad at managing their money
that they have to have a PAYEE to keep them from
blowing their money on street drugs, booze, etc.

In fact, I've known several SSI people who had to
do what is called a "spend down". This is what happens
when they apply for SSI and get turned down but then
get an attorney and fight to get it. When it finally
gets worked out they are entitled to the benefits
going all the way back to their first application.

I know of a case where SS didn't deny the SSI but
somehow used low numbers for the basis, so the
SSI recipient was paid low amounts for a year or two.
They ended up with a "lump" of 15K.

Another I know of was denied for almost 2 years
but then got 30K in two lumps 6 months apart.
They have to spend it down to only a few thousand
within a year. The ones who can drive often DO
buy themselves a car or pay ahead for lots of insurance.

Otherwise they usually buy lots of TV/Video equipment,
Movies, stereo, boats, collectables, do home improvement
or even pay off their mortgage or property taxes.. A good
goal for them is generally to buy big ticket items that
would be more difficult later on, and prevent any large
surprise expenses that would be more troublesome later on.

I knew one woman who was an SSI case, and inherited
her Mom's big old house and maybe 50K but she
was NOT under a PAYEE. This became a disaster.
She was a mental case and manic about giving lavish
gifts to her estranged adult children. They wanted nothing
to do with her. I'm assuming she lost her SSI benefits
for 6 months or a year. She went wild like the cliche'
welfare recipient who wins the lottery, went manic and
wasted all of the money on worthless junk. She spent
nothing to maintain the house or ensure she could keep
the house later under SSI. The roof leaked and she took
out a MORTGAGE against the house to pay for roof repairs.
Within a year she had lost everything, was homeless
and eventually got moved into a subsidised disability tower here.

Last time I saw her she had a car and was
burning lots of gas going nowhere.

[Daryl]

On 1/26/2013 6:43 AM, Greegor wrote:
> Did you know that SSI people can earn up to 2000
> a month without losing their benefits?

Did you know that SSID can't bring in a single dime without
losing their meager benefits. If a person is under 62 and
drawing SSI, they are drawing SSID. As for SSI, I can earn
14,000 (less than) a year and keep it all. Above that and it
becomes 1 for 3. For every 3 bucks I earn, they take one until
the age of 65.

>
> Did you know they can get Leased Housing to pay most or all of their
> rent?

Just where did you hear that? We have something called leap
which helps with the Gas and Electrics but doesn't even cover
half. It's there for all people under a certain income level
regardless whether it's a crappy paying job, SSI or SSID.

> Welfare check, food stamps and full medical and dental?

A person on SSID can get food stamps. Yes, if they make less
than 700 bucks a month they get a whopping 80 bucks. If they
make less than 1100 they get a whopping 16 bucks.

Welfare check? What do you think Welfare is? It is SSID and
other forms of government income. You might get some for your
children but not yourself. Sorry, the day of the Welfare Mom is
long gone. Update your diatribe.

When a person goes on SSID, they have to foot their own medical
bills for the first 2 years. After that, they can get Medicare.
Medicaid helps but it has such a stringent set of requirements
it will be of little help.

>
> If you add up all of the benefits they get, they make
> more than lots of people who work their tails off at a job.
> And they don't have to pay for transportation to work
> or more expensive food at work.

Really, explain why the people I know are having an extreme
trouble making it. And MOST can't work due to injuries or
sickness. You have taken a very few and condemn the majority.
Exactly where to you get your information. I know a few thousand
people that could benefit from your information resources.

>
> I pointed out before that the SSI itself is just the start
> of the benefits package available to them.

My neighbor makes about 1000 a month on SSID or SSI as you wish
to call it. He had to go 2 years footing his own medical bills,
jump through hoops and almost die a few times until he finally
got that "Free" Medical you are chiding. Even after it started,
he still has to pay the medical bills before he got the Medicare
benefits. He went into debt over 60,000 dollars. He pays what
he can pay every month. But he will never repay it all.

Food stamps? Now there is a joke.

>
> They actually end up having more "disposable income"
> than many low income wage earners.

Low Wage Earners do have a very low income and that, in itself,
is criminal. I took Social Security at age 62 because it paid
better than that part time BS wage minimum job that I might be
able to get. But even those are hard to find these days.

>
> Some of them are so bad at managing their money
> that they have to have a PAYEE to keep them from
> blowing their money on street drugs, booze, etc.

Some are mentally incompetent and need a person to manage their
funds. And it has nothing to do with illegal activities. It has
to do with mental problems.

>
> In fact, I've known several SSI people who had to
> do what is called a "spend down". This is what happens
> when they apply for SSI and get turned down but then
> get an attorney and fight to get it. When it finally
> gets worked out they are entitled to the benefits
> going all the way back to their first application.

In the meantime, they were footing their entire medical bills
themselves on Zero or not much more income. And you are wrong.
The basic SSI will be paid up from the time it was Accepted, not
filed but the Medical will not.

>
> I know of a case where SS didn't deny the SSI but
> somehow used low numbers for the basis, so the
> SSI recipient was paid low amounts for a year or two.
> They ended up with a "lump" of 15K.

Wow, what a peach you are. Paid low means they got the less than
700 bucks a month rate instead of the 1100 buck rate. A 400 buck
a month rate deficiency in two years equals only 4800 bucks.
Where do you get your information?

And you are burning a lot of BS. This isn't 1975 anymore. The
rules changed and those things you are harping about disappeared
decades ago. Update your BS.

[Greegor]

On Jan 26, 8:11 am, Daryl <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote:
> On 1/26/2013 6:43 AM, Greegor wrote:
>
> > Did you know that SSI people can earn up to 2000
> > a month without losing their benefits?
>
> Did you know that SSID can't bring in a single dime without
> losing their meager benefits.  If a person is under 62 and
> drawing SSI, they are drawing SSID.  As for SSI, I can earn
> 14,000 (less than) a year and keep it all.  Above that and it
> becomes 1 for 3.  For every 3 bucks I earn, they take one until
> the age of 65.

Your information is wrong.

In 1995 young adult disability people could earn
up to $500 per month before they would lose a dime
in SSI benefit. I actually know of one who earned
just slightly over that because none of the persons
socialist workers would advise her that if she just
kept her hours/income below 500 she would have
no problem with that. A GOOD advisor would have
but it was too politically risky for that person's
social workers to say it.

In 1995/1996 Clinton signed into law something that
raised that limit to like 2000.00 per month before
losing a dime in benefits.

> Did you know they can get Leased Housing to pay most or all of their
> > rent?
>
> Just where did you hear that?

It's a FEDERAL program administered by the local
city housing authority.

It's similar to what you might know as
"the projects" in big city metro areas.

Disability people go to the top of the waiting list,
but eventually the authority works their way down
the list if you just wait.

>  We have something called leap
> which helps with the Gas and Electrics but doesn't even cover
> half.

Different program, and one I didn't bring up.
Yes, it's yet another program they DO tap into.

Here it kicks in about $250 a year for heat/electric.

> It's there for all people under a certain income level
> regardless whether it's a crappy paying job, SSI or SSID.

Yes, not just disability folks.

> > Welfare check, food stamps and full medical and dental?
>
> A person on SSID can get food stamps.  Yes, if they make less
> than 700 bucks a month they get a whopping 80 bucks.  If they
> make less than 1100 they get a whopping 16 bucks.

By "make" you mean their SSI check.

Most people would never guess that SSI people
get ANY food stamps, but they do.

> Welfare check?  What do you think Welfare is?  It is SSID and
> other forms of government income.

Different programs. You should know this. Don't you?

> You might get some for your children but not yourself.

There's much more money available to SSI people if kids are involved.
But I didn't bring kids up.

> Sorry, the day of the Welfare Mom is
> long gone.  Update your diatribe.

I wish!

> When a person goes on SSID, they have to foot their own medical
> bills for the first 2 years.

Cite? Doesn't match my close observation.

> After that, they can get Medicare.
> Medicaid helps but it has such a stringent set of requirements
> it will be of little help.

Please explain better.

> > If you add up all of the benefits they get, they make
> > more than lots of people who work their tails off at a job.
> > And they don't have to pay for transportation to work
> > or more expensive food at work.

> Really, explain why the people I know are having an extreme
> trouble making it.  And MOST can't work due to injuries or
> sickness.

Post their complete budget!

> You have taken a very few and condemn the majority.

You're imagining things. Apparently you think that
pointing out where the SOCIAL SECURITY and other
taxpayer money goes is a condemnation.

How are we going to discuss the FACTS about why
Social Security has problems if these details
are SECRETS that must not be told?

> Exactly where to you get your information.  I know a few thousand
> people that could benefit from your information resources.

That exactly what some of those extreme left wingers
actually do want to break our system by overloading
it with welfare recipients?

> > I pointed out before that the SSI itself is just the start
> > of the benefits package available to them.
>
> My neighbor makes about 1000 a month on SSID or SSI as you wish
> to call it.  He had to go 2 years footing his own medical bills,

Because he had 40K in the bank?

> jump through hoops and almost die a few times until he finally
> got that "Free" Medical you are chiding.

Please cite the 2 year specification in SS law.
That doesn't sound like something within SS Admin's pervue.

I don't have free medical. Do you?

> Even after it started,
> he still has to pay the medical bills before he got the Medicare
> benefits.  He went into debt over 60,000 dollars.  He pays what
> he can pay every month.  But he will never repay it all.
>
> Food stamps?  Now there is a joke.

Because it's only $80/Month for some SSI recipient?

> > They actually end up having more "disposable income"
> > than many low income wage earners.

> Low Wage Earners do have a very low income and that, in itself,
> is criminal.  I took Social Security at age 62 because it paid
> better than that part time BS wage minimum job that I might be
> able to get.  But even those are hard to find these days.

Do you get the seniors rate on your property tax?
Vets benefits?

I know an elderly woman who can't collect any
Social Security because she never paid
even one thin dime into Social Security, ever.

She got into a seniors apartment where she
is subsidized so much that they hand her
a check each month to live there!

> > Some of them are so bad at managing their money
> > that they have to have a PAYEE to keep them from
> > blowing their money on street drugs, booze, etc.

> Some are mentally incompetent and need a person to manage their
> funds.

But the PAYEE thing is often a reaction and TOO LATE.

> And it has nothing to do with illegal activities.

Not usually, though some such people DO get into criminal acts.

> It has to do with mental problems.

Yep.

I actually called up the family of the woman
who lost the house and 50K and they looked
into their legal options to step in. None.

> > In fact, I've known several SSI people who had to
> > do what is called a "spend down".   This is what happens
> > when they apply for SSI and get turned down but then
> > get an attorney and fight to get it.   When it finally
> > gets worked out they are entitled to the benefits
> > going all the way back to their first application.

> In the meantime, they were footing their entire medical bills
> themselves on Zero or not much more income.  And you are wrong.
> The basic SSI will be paid up from the time it was Accepted, not
> filed

Lawyers win these battles all the time and YES, SS
pays all the way back to the rejected application that
the lawyer got reversed.

There are several different contexts regarding
spenddown, but this one mentions settlements.

That would apply to settlements from SS itself.

http://www.specialneedsalliance.org/the-voice/5/14

> but the Medical will not.

SS doesn't do medical.

> > I know of a case where SS didn't deny the SSI but
> > somehow used low numbers for the basis, so the
> > SSI recipient was paid low amounts for a year or two.
> > They ended up with a "lump" of 15K.
>
> Wow, what a peach you are.  Paid low means they got the less than
> 700 bucks a month rate instead of the 1100 buck rate.  A 400 buck
> a month rate deficiency in two years equals only 4800 bucks.
> Where do you get your information?

Why do you pretend there are only two rates?

Wow! You don't LIKE this do you?

Subsidized housing / Leased Housing / Section 8

It's only been around since 1937.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing)

The Housing Choice Voucher Program provides "tenant-based" rental
assistance, so a tenant can move from one unit of at least minimum
housing quality to another. It also allows individuals to apply their
monthly voucher towards the purchase of a home, with over $17 billion
going towards such purchases each year (from ncsha.org analysis). The
maximum allowed voucher is $2200 a month.

[ look under the STUDIES heading! Ouch! ]

[Greegor]

On Jan 25, 1:14 am, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
...

> Whatever the fuck that means.  My freedoms are more at risk from
> ignoramuses like BG than from anything I do.

Me too, deadrat?

I see you're taking the intellectual high road again.

[Bill Graham]

Call yourself whatever you please, but you think like a liberal. (which is
to say, not at all)

And yes. USS Braine, DD630 1956 to 1960.

[Bill Graham]

Interesting that your solution to all their problems is what the government
can provide for them in hand outs. Hand outs that come from others who work
for a living. Why don;t you go basck a few steps and try to figure out why
they are in those dire circumstances? Could it be because they lost their
jobs? Snd ifg so, why do you suppose that is? Coud it be because their
government spent billions on projects like going to the moon basck in the
60's? Under a capitolistic system, things like this shouldn't happen. There
should be more thasn enough jobs for everyone. Perhaps the governments
give-away systems during the past 70 or 80 years have had something to do
with it? Its called interference with a normal and reasonable economic
system. Regulating, not to promote competition, but rather to scratch your
buddies back and pocket some money.... All I ask is that you try to put some
of the blame on a crooked government system rather than on the, "rich
people".

[deadrat]

On 1/26/13 10:07 AM, Greegor wrote:
> On Jan 25, 1:14 am, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Whatever the fuck that means. My freedoms are more at risk from
>> ignoramuses like BG than from anything I do.
>
> Me too, deadrat?

Picked up on that "like BG" part of the sentence, didja?

> I see you're taking the intellectual high road again.

I'll type very slowly so you can follow: This isn't about intellect,
i.e., which of us is smarter. I don't know you, so I can't know how
smart you are. This is about ignorance, i.e., what you know.

Believe me, the road doesn't have to be much above sea level.

[Daryl]

If you will notice, it was the other person I said never served
and I was correct. What you are doing is just slinging mud in
every direction and operating like the world is out to get you.
Maybe most of it is, not my problem. Maybe it pays to paranoid
when they really ARE out to get you.

[Daryl]

On 1/26/2013 9:02 AM, Greegor wrote:
> On Jan 26, 8:11 am, Daryl <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote:
>> On 1/26/2013 6:43 AM, Greegor wrote:
>>
>>> Did you know that SSI people can earn up to 2000
>>> a month without losing their benefits?
>>
>> Did you know that SSID can't bring in a single dime without
>> losing their meager benefits. If a person is under 62 and
>> drawing SSI, they are drawing SSID. As for SSI, I can earn
>> 14,000 (less than) a year and keep it all. Above that and it
>> becomes 1 for 3. For every 3 bucks I earn, they take one until
>> the age of 65.
>
> Your information is wrong.

No, it's up to date. Yours is out of date.

(mercy trimmed due to the bs being taken out). Personal opinions
are just BS at the end of the day.

>
> Subsidized housing / Leased Housing / Section 8
>
> It's only been around since 1937.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing)
>
> The Housing Choice Voucher Program provides "tenant-based" rental
> assistance, so a tenant can move from one unit of at least minimum
> housing quality to another. It also allows individuals to apply their
> monthly voucher towards the purchase of a home, with over $17 billion
> going towards such purchases each year (from ncsha.org analysis). The
> maximum allowed voucher is $2200 a month.
>
> [ look under the STUDIES heading! Ouch! ]

And the a voucher is figured on a National Average. Using one
bedroom apartments, a one bedroom apartment in NY is over 2000
bucks while a one bedroom in the south would be under 300 bucks.
Since there are more 300 buck apartments than 2000 appartments
guess what, that average will be about 500 bucks. And if a
Landlord wishes to participate in the program that's all they can
charge for the apartment. Then they will receive a voucher for
PART of that amount from the Feds. Most Landlords choose not to
participate. They aren't forced to rent to section 8
participants. They can elect to rent to all or none. Most
choose none since they can get more than the national average.
There's a reason that southern apartment will be so cheap. It
will probably be empty without this program due to extremely low
paying jobs or no jobs at all.

This program is to assist people to do better not to be relied
upon for any length of time. If I had to come up with a name for
these programs it would be "Operation Bootstrap". We need more
of these programs to assist the person to get OFF of welfare. We
also need a Government that promotes real job growth instead of
screaming, "Fair Market" to everything that they are asked.

You want to lower taxes and lower Welfare? Create REAL Jobs. I
am an old IT. Can I find a job for more than 8 bucks an our
around here? Nope, they don't exist. But a HR1 candidate from
India will jump at that job. Or a student directly out of a
college will jump at it. Can either really live on it? No, they
can just exist. So they take that job and at least one other job
to make it "Temporarily". Unfortunately, that temporary become a
permanent condition. Meanwhile the older IT ends up taking early
retirement because it pays better than the BS IT job that is out
there.

The way the system is setup, if there is no jobs, Welfare
continues. It's usually gear toward children than adults. If
there is a job offered and you turn it down and are qualified to
do that job, you are off the program and it's a real bear to get
back on it. See the problem here? No Jobs means more Welfare,
higher taxes need to be charged to pay for the more welfare.
More decent paying jobs means more taxes being taken in and less
welfare needed.

You are a Tea Bagger. I understand you a lot more than you
understand me or anything else for that matter.

Now, what are YOU going to do to create jobs (not minimum wage
ones)? That's the only question I have for you and the only one
I will respond to. Until you cough up on that, there is nothing
else to say.

Have a nice day.

[Daryl]

My solution is Job Creation. Yes, part of the problem is on the
Rich these days. Exporting good paying jobs that they could
afford to pay to an overseas location where the person working
there will do it for 1/10th to amount. Bring that job back using
Taxes on the Corporations to accomplish this. Remove all
automatic Tax Breaks and reward those that actually create jobs
in the US. And not Minimum Wage Jobs either. Real Jobs that
people can live on. Guess what happens then. You can lower
taxes because you have more people paying into the tax base. You
can lower Welfare because you have fewer people eligible for
those programs.

Fair Trade only works when all parties are being fair. Fair
Market only works when all parties are being fair. There is no
Fair Trade or Market anymore. Right now, it's been stated by
that the same articles can be made in the US at only 20% more
than it can be made in China due to shipping costs, Chinese
Workers refusing to go to work when they can't see more than 20
feet ahead of them due to smog, dangerous working conditions,
meager existence pay, etc.. Meanwhile, the Chinese government
places up to 105% tariff on products from the US. Place a tariff
on Chinese Goods at 25% and watch just how fast those jobs move
back to the US. And remove the tax breaks that end up in Caiman
Island Accounts and give them to the companies that move their
factories back to the us.

It's pretty simple but the first thing that has to happen is
congress needs to get their noses out of that corporate feeding
trough.

If that sounds Liberal to you, fine. But it sounds Conservative
to the Liberals. I can live with that.

Now, address the Jobs and only the Jobs for a change and see
where this leads us. Until then, I have nothing else I want to
hear from you.

Have a Nice Day.

[Bill Graham]

So chalk up anpother one to Bill Gates & his f***** up software. It sure
looks like you were talking to me.
And yes.... The older I get, the more paranoid I get. That's because the
more evidence I have that the world is really out to get me....:^)

[Bill Graham]

I don't disagree with much of what you saqy. You just have to understand
that you can't have it both ways. You have to either protect the American
labor force with import duties that force competetive prices, or accept the
fact that we have to lower our standard of living to match the rest of the
world.

[Daryl]

Just don't create ones that are by ......... (fill in the blanks).

I am a Moderate. I am both a fiscal conservative AND a
Progressive Entitlements. One can be both. I want the best
money can buy for the least when it comes to Government. What I
normally see is the extremists from the Right and Left keep being
sent to Washington over and over. It's time to do something
about this. I am even thinking about running for office in 2
years. Send the Tea Bagger packing that can't do the job and
don't send an Ultra Liberal to replace them with. Can you
imagine someone working to create jobs, lower taxes and fix the
mess that they have made on Social Programs?

I see the other dude try and say that the system has failed. I
agree, it's failed but not because of MOST Americans. It's
failed because the fringe extremists siezed control about 30
years ago and just jocky back and forth on who is in charge. And
just fight with each other.

If you are going to send a Tea Bagger or a left Wing extremists
to Washington, save your money and don't send anyone. Save the
130+K a year. Just send the R or the D vote and let the parties
put it where they think it should go. I don't see any difference
in that than right now where it costs us 130+K a year to get the
same thing.

Or we can send someone that can sit through the dry speeches and
sift through it all and make an informed decision.

A few years back, the Cable that covers the Congress showed a
scan of to whom the speakers were speaking to. The place was
empty. They were just playing to the camera, nothing more. Why
send those do nothings back to Washington. Save your money and
either send someone that will sit through all the crap or don't
send anyone at all and save that 130+K a year for better uses.

Daryl

[Daryl]

Yes you can. In fact, if done properly (no politician that will
do this will get one thin dime of Corporate Brib....er
contributions).

By removing the current tax breaks from the Corporations and
giving them to those that really do create decent jobs that
creates jobs. By upping the Tariff to at least 25% means that
for a bit, a lower standard of living will happen but in the long
(actually short) run, it will bring up the standard of living
with the lower income and middle class workers that make up the
majority of the population. In the end, More Taxes because more
people are working decent jobs to pay those taxes. At that
point, lower the taxes a bit on EVERYONE. And get that damned
National Debt paid off and go to a positive cash flow Government
who gives the positive flow BACK to the public (including
Corporations) at the first of each year. And the National Debt
limit goes down.

Or we can keep going like we are. Keep exporting jobs overseas,
Bring in more HR1 workers for good paying jobs, have fewer jobs
therefore fewer people are able to pay taxes at a reasonable
rate, keep raising taxes on what is left of the Middle Class,
lower the Social Programs that hurt those that really need it and
keep raising the National Debt Limit.

Guess what MY choice is?

[Daryl]

On 1/24/2013 8:15 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Wipe out the middle class with confetti money and you dont have a
>>> civilisation, you become a Zimbabwe. See where Zimbabwe stands in the
>>> list of poorest nations.
>>
>> That's right. Whenever the government prints another dollaqr and puts it
>> into circulation without earning it in some way, they are reaching into my
>> retirement fund and trimming a tiny amount off of the dollars I have in
>> there.
>
> Just wait to you see what happens to
> your retirement fund when Congress doesn't
> raise the debt ceiling.
>

And you need to ask yourself and us, why does it need raised in
the first place. It's not the sickness, it's the symptom.

[Greegor]

On Jan 24, 5:49 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > I asked about the historical experience when currency
> > has been devalued to be worthless or almost worthless.
>

> > What happens to all existing contracts spelling out
> > payment amounts?
>
> > Would you go to a job that pays worthless dollars?
>
> > Would your landlord take your worthless dollars as rent payment?
>
> > There have been situations where currency became worthless.
>
> > How did contracts play out back then?
>
> > Would courts evict renters who did not pay worthless dollars?
>
> > If currency crashes wouldn't the country become unmanageable?

BG > Yes. But the worst part is, the people who worked
BG > and saved and invested their whole lives would be
BG > broke right along with the indolents and welfare
BG > puppies. When the money becomes worthless,
BG > then everyone is broke....

That's why I think printing dollars with no backing
should be considered outright treason.

But, I never accepted the "Too Big To Fail" garbage.
I thought from the beginning the bailouts were wrong.

Did you notice how the promises not to raise
taxes on the middle class have fallen apart?

[jim]

Daryl wrote:

> >
> > Just wait to you see what happens to
> > your retirement fund when Congress doesn't
> > raise the debt ceiling.
> >
>
> And you need to ask yourself and us, why does it need raised in
> the first place. It's not the sickness, it's the symptom.
>

It doesn't need to be raised.
We don't need to keep the likes of Bill from going broke.
We don't need to avoid a depression.

However, given the alternative voters might
want to raise the debt limit.

But maybe you are asking a different question.
If you are asking what is the root cause of the
looming depression, this chart makes it pretty obvious:

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2012/11/blogs/free-exchange/usa_private_and_public_debt_to_gdp_long_history.png

[deadrat]

Or look up the term "false dichotomy."

[deadrat]

On 1/27/13 6:35 AM, Greegor wrote:
> On Jan 24, 5:49 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Greegor wrote:
>>> I asked about the historical experience when currency
>>> has been devalued to be worthless or almost worthless.
>>
>>> What happens to all existing contracts spelling out
>>> payment amounts?
>>
>>> Would you go to a job that pays worthless dollars?
>>
>>> Would your landlord take your worthless dollars as rent payment?
>>
>>> There have been situations where currency became worthless.
>>
>>> How did contracts play out back then?
>>
>>> Would courts evict renters who did not pay worthless dollars?
>>
>>> If currency crashes wouldn't the country become unmanageable?
>
> BG > Yes. But the worst part is, the people who worked
> BG > and saved and invested their whole lives would be
> BG > broke right along with the indolents and welfare
> BG > puppies. When the money becomes worthless,
> BG > then everyone is broke....
>
> That's why I think printing dollars with no backing
> should be considered outright treason.

Good thing the founders were smarter than you, eh?

>
> But, I never accepted the "Too Big To Fail" garbage.
> I thought from the beginning the bailouts were wrong.

You must be used to being wrong by now.

> Did you notice how the promises not to raise
> taxes on the middle class have fallen apart?

Taxes will rise on people making $400K or more per year.

You won't be affected.