Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Sayonara
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Jim Thompson
Apr 26, 2012, 12:00:17 PM4/26/12
to
Joel Koltner
Apr 26, 2012, 3:28:00 PM4/26/12
to
Jim Thompson wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
some "competition," I suppose.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
some "competition," I suppose.
Joel Koltner
Apr 26, 2012, 3:33:54 PM4/26/12
to
Seems kinda inspired by this old Paul Harvey track:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaGVCO6CByQ&feature=related
I'm not sure about the one Jim posted, but I think Paul Harvey was
generally sincere in his beliefs; he was a respectable fellow even to
people who disagreed with him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaGVCO6CByQ&feature=related
I'm not sure about the one Jim posted, but I think Paul Harvey was
generally sincere in his beliefs; he was a respectable fellow even to
people who disagreed with him.
Jim Thompson
Apr 26, 2012, 3:41:17 PM4/26/12
to
north".
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Jamie
Apr 26, 2012, 5:55:44 PM4/26/12
to
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Les Cargill
Apr 26, 2012, 11:59:05 PM4/26/12
to
flipper wrote:
> It also has something Michael Moore doesn't, honesty.
>
> Now, you may argue there are 'other reasons' but it doesn't alter the
> fact that strangling energy supplies and increasing cost is the most
> effective way to destroy an economy,
I am pretty sure mileage *doubled* after the '73 oil shock. There's
been considerable tech. improvement since - 42 MPG isn't
out of reach.
Oil in the US used for commuting has a lot more elasticity in
demand than we give it credit. The people who will be hurt
will be people who have to use a truck for service small businesses,
but hopefully, mileage deductions will continue for them.
> as exemplified by our Dear Leader
> explaining his cap and trade program would necessarily "skyrocket"
> cost, that when Congress wouldn't pass it his administration would do
> it anyway, even 'worse', and the EPA announcing they are on a mission
> to "crucify" the oil and gas industry, in addition to bankrupting the
> coal industry.
>
> In short, this administration has been on a 4 year quest to destroy
> every viable source of domestic energy supply.
They're doing it wrong, then. Imagine that :)
Natural gas is at record lows in price.
I dunno *what* happened with oil, but it'll most likely de-bubble
pretty soon. Not back to 2006 prices, but low enough.
The government really should allow some additional pipeline capacity,
since that probably caused the price spike ( best I can tell - it
all seems to have been related to storage capacities in Cushing ).
--
Les Cargill
>
> Now, you may argue there are 'other reasons' but it doesn't alter the
> fact that strangling energy supplies and increasing cost is the most
> effective way to destroy an economy,
I am pretty sure mileage *doubled* after the '73 oil shock. There's
been considerable tech. improvement since - 42 MPG isn't
out of reach.
Oil in the US used for commuting has a lot more elasticity in
demand than we give it credit. The people who will be hurt
will be people who have to use a truck for service small businesses,
but hopefully, mileage deductions will continue for them.
> as exemplified by our Dear Leader
> explaining his cap and trade program would necessarily "skyrocket"
> cost, that when Congress wouldn't pass it his administration would do
> it anyway, even 'worse', and the EPA announcing they are on a mission
> to "crucify" the oil and gas industry, in addition to bankrupting the
> coal industry.
>
> In short, this administration has been on a 4 year quest to destroy
> every viable source of domestic energy supply.
They're doing it wrong, then. Imagine that :)
Natural gas is at record lows in price.
I dunno *what* happened with oil, but it'll most likely de-bubble
pretty soon. Not back to 2006 prices, but low enough.
The government really should allow some additional pipeline capacity,
since that probably caused the price spike ( best I can tell - it
all seems to have been related to storage capacities in Cushing ).
--
Les Cargill
Message has been deleted
Tom Del Rosso
Apr 27, 2012, 11:01:46 AM4/27/12
to
If I wanted America to fail I'd put 45 mammals on the endangered species
list, and 46 clams.
I'd make the cost of regulatory compliance 10% of GDP, not including the
cost of time waiting for approvals.
But that's just what I'd have done in the 20th century. I'd do all sorts of
new things now.
--
Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.
list, and 46 clams.
I'd make the cost of regulatory compliance 10% of GDP, not including the
cost of time waiting for approvals.
But that's just what I'd have done in the 20th century. I'd do all sorts of
new things now.
--
Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.
Jasen Betts
Apr 28, 2012, 1:27:19 AM4/28/12
to
On 2012-04-26, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:28:00 -0700, Joel Koltner
><zapwire...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:28:00 -0700, Joel Koltner
><zapwire...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> It also has something Michael Moore doesn't, honesty.
>
The Main Thing Is Honesty. If You Can Fake That, You’ve Got It Made
>
(various attributions)
I'll take truth in preference to honesty any day.
--
⚂⚃ 100% natural
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
Message has been deleted
Chiron
Apr 28, 2012, 3:07:41 AM4/28/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:01:46 -0400, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Jim Thompson wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
>
> If I wanted America to fail I'd put 45 mammals on the endangered species
> list, and 46 clams.
>
> I'd make the cost of regulatory compliance 10% of GDP, not including the
> cost of time waiting for approvals.
>
> But that's just what I'd have done in the 20th century. I'd do all
> sorts of new things now.
I'm thinking that's not the problem. We want to fix the blame on some
> Jim Thompson wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
>
> If I wanted America to fail I'd put 45 mammals on the endangered species
> list, and 46 clams.
>
> I'd make the cost of regulatory compliance 10% of GDP, not including the
> cost of time waiting for approvals.
>
> But that's just what I'd have done in the 20th century. I'd do all
> sorts of new things now.
group, or an individual, or a mentality or a political party or
whatever. I think it's way more complex than that, and probably not
amenable to being fixed.
As I look now at the US, I am struck by the similarities between us and
England ~100 years ago. England was the main superpower at the time,
with an almost-invincible navy, colonies and other territories throughout
the world - "the sun never sets on the British Empire." But the sun sets
for everyone.
England wound up doing what we're doing - letting herself go, screwing
around with the stock market, usury, excessive credit, too much military,
not enough social services, pig-headed arrogance, and on and on. I guess
when you're the masters of the world, you don't have to pay attention to
what the little people say...
Eventually it all fell apart. I see that happening here in the US now.
Seems to me that as a country we've grown "old" so to speak, and are now
declining into senescence. If we follow England's course, we'll become a
second-rate power, not helpless but not able to impose our will as easily
as before.
Looks to me like China's turn is next to be the big kid on the block.
Russia is also declining; India, while massive, hasn't yet had a
renaissance. The countries of Islam are so far behind in science that
they pose little threat at the moment. But China... it has the
population, the money, the scientific training, everything it needs to
start to kick ass and take names. And I don't think there's a damned
thing anyone can do about it.
--
It's certainly easy to calculate the average attendance for Perl
conferences.
-- Larry Wall in <1997100717...@wall.org>
amdx
Apr 28, 2012, 5:22:54 PM4/28/12
to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E
At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."
Mikek
P E Schoen
Apr 28, 2012, 6:05:32 PM4/28/12
to
"amdx" wrote in message news:a751c$4f9c63ae$18ec6dd7$77...@KNOLOGY.NET...
> One video leads to another and I end up here.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E
> At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take
> care of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."
I suggest that anyone (but preferably welfare recipients and mentally
deficient), be given a "bounty" of, say, $5000, in return for voluntary
sterilization. And tax exemptions, as well as welfare benefits, should not
be extended beyond two children. Some of these people claim that children
are a "gift from God", and those in the "righteous right" don't agree with
birth control. So, let "God" take care of these "gifts". The churches and
bible thumpers should bear the cost of "taking care" of these children. It's
really a crime that children grow up in such dysfunctional "families", and
their values are so screwed up that they will perpetuate the paradigm of
cradle-to-grave welfare and irresponsible procreation, as well as criminal
behavior, immorality, violence, and substance abuse.
This is one of many areas where neither the stereotypical left wing OR right
wing extremists offer anything useful. It requires common sense and logic,
not emotion and religion. But politicians, and the masses of humanity they
represent, are woefully deficient in the former, and blinded and deluded by
the latter. This is one area where the "godless communists" such as the
Chinese have a huge advantage over us. Maybe "better red than bred"!
Paul
> One video leads to another and I end up here.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E
> At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take
> care of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."
deficient), be given a "bounty" of, say, $5000, in return for voluntary
sterilization. And tax exemptions, as well as welfare benefits, should not
be extended beyond two children. Some of these people claim that children
are a "gift from God", and those in the "righteous right" don't agree with
birth control. So, let "God" take care of these "gifts". The churches and
bible thumpers should bear the cost of "taking care" of these children. It's
really a crime that children grow up in such dysfunctional "families", and
their values are so screwed up that they will perpetuate the paradigm of
cradle-to-grave welfare and irresponsible procreation, as well as criminal
behavior, immorality, violence, and substance abuse.
This is one of many areas where neither the stereotypical left wing OR right
wing extremists offer anything useful. It requires common sense and logic,
not emotion and religion. But politicians, and the masses of humanity they
represent, are woefully deficient in the former, and blinded and deluded by
the latter. This is one area where the "godless communists" such as the
Chinese have a huge advantage over us. Maybe "better red than bred"!
Paul
Jamie
Apr 28, 2012, 6:41:42 PM4/28/12
to
Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2012-04-26, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:28:00 -0700, Joel Koltner
>><zapwire...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
>>>
>>>Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
>>>some "competition," I suppose.
>>
>>It also has something Michael Moore doesn't, honesty.
>>
>
>
> The Main Thing Is Honesty. If You Can Fake That, You’ve Got It Made
> (various attributions)
>
>
> I'll take truth in preference to honesty any day.
>
Lets be "Honest" now, you may not want to know the "Truth".
> On 2012-04-26, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:28:00 -0700, Joel Koltner
>><zapwire...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
>>>
>>>Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
>>>some "competition," I suppose.
>>
>>It also has something Michael Moore doesn't, honesty.
>>
>
>
> The Main Thing Is Honesty. If You Can Fake That, You’ve Got It Made
> (various attributions)
>
>
> I'll take truth in preference to honesty any day.
>
Jamie
Jasen Betts
Apr 28, 2012, 7:32:43 PM4/28/12
to
Phil Hobbs
Apr 28, 2012, 9:56:18 PM4/28/12
to
cracked. Real honesty is rare and precious, but without it we can't
even maintain the _desire_ to know the truth.
The human capacity for self-deception is so very powerful that we have
to resist it with everything we've got, plus whatever outside help we
can get.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
Bill Sloman
Apr 29, 2012, 7:19:55 AM4/29/12
to
On Apr 27, 12:59 am, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:28:00 -0700, Joel Koltner
>
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:28:00 -0700, Joel Koltner
>
> It also has something Michael Moore doesn't, honesty.
>
>
> Now, you may argue there are 'other reasons' but it doesn't alter the
> fact that strangling energy supplies and increasing cost is the most
> effective way to destroy an economy, as exemplified by our Dear Leader
> fact that strangling energy supplies and increasing cost is the most
> explaining his cap and trade program would necessarily "skyrocket"
> cost, that when Congress wouldn't pass it his administration would do
> it anyway, even 'worse', and the EPA announcing they are on a mission
> to "crucify" the oil and gas industry, in addition to bankrupting the
> coal industry.
Letting the energy industry keep on pushing up atmospheric CO2 levels
> cost, that when Congress wouldn't pass it his administration would do
> it anyway, even 'worse', and the EPA announcing they are on a mission
> to "crucify" the oil and gas industry, in addition to bankrupting the
> coal industry.
is another way of destroying the economy. It's a bit slower, but the
"destruction" is going to be a whole lot more real.
Moving over to renewable energy sources would double the price of
energy - in the short term.
Energy apparently represents 8.4% of the current US GDP
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2008/07/us-energy-consumption-as-percent-of-gdp.html
so doubling the price overnight would put a nasty crimp in your
economy. Something like this happened in 1973 when the price of oil
went up by a factor of four, and it didn't destroy anybody's economy.
In fact it isn't going to happen in the short term - you've got to a
build a whole lot of renewable energy generating plant before you can
switch, and the very act of building that much plant would at least
halve the price of renewable energy (the rule of thumb for economies
of scale is that increasing manufacturing volume by a factor ten
halves the cost of manufacture).
Paying for the necessary capital investment might be seen as putting a
crimp in your economy, but it can also be seen as Kenysian stimulus
spending, which your economy still seems to need to keep out of
recession.
And as you build more renewable energy generators, you'll need to
import less oil - and what you pay for the oil you import is roughly
your long term balance of payments deficit, which does happen to be
unsustainable either.
> In short, this administration has been on a 4 year quest to destroy
> every viable source of domestic energy supply.
wing nitwits.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Apr 29, 2012, 1:22:52 PM4/29/12
to
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the force if Yoda's so strong, construct a sentence with words in
the proper order then why can't he?
Jim Thompson
Apr 29, 2012, 5:34:28 PM4/29/12
to
What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
_reduces_ the take.
Message has been deleted
Robert Baer
Apr 30, 2012, 1:03:04 AM4/30/12
to
flipper wrote:
> punishes not only the 'excess' child but the others as well.
THAT is _exactly_ the point...
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:34:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
> <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:22:54 -0500, amdx<am...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
>>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
>>>>
>>>> Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
>>>> some "competition," I suppose.
>>>>
>>>
>>> One video leads to another and I end up here.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E
>>>
>>> At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
>>> of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."
>>>
>>> Mikek
>>
>> The poor thang ;-)
>>
>> What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
>> _reduces_ the take.
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
> The problem with notions of what is, in essence, a 'child tax' is it
> <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:22:54 -0500, amdx<am...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
>>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
>>>>
>>>> Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
>>>> some "competition," I suppose.
>>>>
>>>
>>> One video leads to another and I end up here.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E
>>>
>>> At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
>>> of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."
>>>
>>> Mikek
>>
>> The poor thang ;-)
>>
>> What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
>> _reduces_ the take.
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
> punishes not only the 'excess' child but the others as well.
THAT is _exactly_ the point...
Bill Sloman
Apr 30, 2012, 12:36:48 PM4/30/12
to
On Apr 30, 7:03 am, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
> flipper wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:34:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
> > <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
> flipper wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:34:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
>
> >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:22:54 -0500, amdx<a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
> >>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
>
> >>>> Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
> >>>> some "competition," I suppose.
>
> >>> One video leads to another and I end up here.
>
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E
>
> >>> At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
> >>> of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."
>
> >>> Mikek
>
> >> The poor thang ;-)
>
> >> What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
> >> _reduces_ the take.
>
> >> ...Jim Thompson
>
> > The problem with notions of what is, in essence, a 'child tax' is it
> > punishes not only the 'excess' child but the others as well.
>
> THAT is _exactly_ the point...
Which is what makes it immoral and moronic. It isn't the child's fault
> >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:22:54 -0500, amdx<a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
> >>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
>
> >>>> Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
> >>>> some "competition," I suppose.
>
> >>> One video leads to another and I end up here.
>
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E
>
> >>> At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
> >>> of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."
>
> >>> Mikek
>
> >> The poor thang ;-)
>
> >> What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
> >> _reduces_ the take.
>
> >> ...Jim Thompson
>
> > The problem with notions of what is, in essence, a 'child tax' is it
> > punishes not only the 'excess' child but the others as well.
>
> THAT is _exactly_ the point...
that it was born to a mother without a sound grasp of social
realities, and it doesn't make much sense to punish the child for its
mother's errors.
It's in society's interest to see that the child is well enough fed
and educated while it grows up to be able to become potentially useful
adult.
Punishing the mother provides instant gratification, but risks
damaging the child. Taking the children away and putting them into
care is a theoretical possibility. but in practice it's too expensive
to be used as a matter of routine, and even good care-givers aren't
all that much better for the child than a tolerably bad biological
mother.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Robert Baer
Apr 30, 2012, 11:55:39 PM4/30/12
to
Failure is an art..
Robert Baer
May 1, 2012, 12:21:22 AM5/1/12
to
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
May 1, 2012, 8:46:33 AM5/1/12
to
On Apr 29, 7:08 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:34:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:34:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:22:54 -0500, amdx <a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:
>
> >>On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
> >>> Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
>
> >>> Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
> >>> some "competition," I suppose.
>
> >> One video leads to another and I end up here.
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E
>
> >>At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
> >>of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."
>
> >> Mikek
>
> >The poor thang ;-)
>
> >What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
> >_reduces_ the take.
>
> > ...Jim Thompson
>
>
> >>On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
> >>> Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
>
> >>> Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
> >>> some "competition," I suppose.
>
> >> One video leads to another and I end up here.
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E
>
> >>At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
> >>of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."
>
> >> Mikek
>
> >The poor thang ;-)
>
> >What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
> >_reduces_ the take.
>
> > ...Jim Thompson
>
> The problem with notions of what is, in essence, a 'child tax' is it
> punishes not only the 'excess' child but the others as well.
Giving someone money, just less, is punishment?
> punishes not only the 'excess' child but the others as well.
But, if they just published a schedule showing a decreasing
incremental benefit, the extra kid-for-ransom production would drop.
Of course that'll never happen, since the formulas are always too
complicated for anyone to understand. Measuring everyone's "need" is
complicated.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Chiron
May 1, 2012, 11:00:11 AM5/1/12
to
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:21:22 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:
>> Punishing the mother provides instant gratification, but risks damaging
>> the child. Taking the children away and putting them into care is a
>> theoretical possibility. but in practice it's too expensive to be used
>> as a matter of routine, and even good care-givers aren't all that much
>> better for the child than a tolerably bad biological mother.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
> Well...reward both with death.
hey, great idea! Got a problem? Kill someone who pisses you off. Let's
>> Punishing the mother provides instant gratification, but risks damaging
>> the child. Taking the children away and putting them into care is a
>> theoretical possibility. but in practice it's too expensive to be used
>> as a matter of routine, and even good care-givers aren't all that much
>> better for the child than a tolerably bad biological mother.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
> Well...reward both with death.
get back to the good old days when that's how we solved all our
problems. It would make everything so much simpler, wouldn't it?
--
An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says
'Beam me up, Scotty'.
Chiron
May 1, 2012, 11:08:39 AM5/1/12
to
On Tue, 01 May 2012 05:46:33 -0700, dagmargoodboat wrote:
> Of course that'll never happen, since the formulas are always too
> complicated for anyone to understand. Measuring everyone's "need" is
> complicated.
Not so difficult. We all need roughly the same things - food, water,
> Of course that'll never happen, since the formulas are always too
> complicated for anyone to understand. Measuring everyone's "need" is
> complicated.
shelter, clothing, medical care, safe place to live. We just don't want
to ensure everyone has those things, because we feel some people don't
"deserve" it - they are unworthy.
As long as we keep trying to decide who "deserves" resources, we're going
to have some mighty bizarre rules about who gets what. So we invent a
sort of merit-based structure; yes, we'll feed you if you're "worthy."
But if you're an addict, we won't - no benefits, including no treatment
for your addiction. Get clean, and *then* we'll help you.
Not saying I want to subsidize a person's alcohol or drug use; just
saying that we need to be treating such people as sick, not bad, and to
ensure that they can get the treatment they need. Otherwise they stay
sick, but don't necessarily die before producing offspring they can't
nurture.
I don't think there's a quick fix for all this, and I'm not advocating
just throwing money at the problem, since that isn't going to work. But
I do think we could simplify things if we quit worrying about who
"deserves" things, and focus more on who needs them - and make sure they
get it in time to make a difference.
But as someone hinted, it would be cheaper to just execute anyone who
doesn't work out in society. Don't think of it as the death penalty;
think of it as putting them out of our misery.
--
For reservations, call your travel agent.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
May 1, 2012, 1:22:56 PM5/1/12
to
in a welfare home and become the next generation of dependents.
Joel Koltner
May 1, 2012, 4:04:00 PM5/1/12
to
Jim Thompson wrote:
> What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
> _reduces_ the take.
It's not fair to punish the kids for the misdeeds of their parents.
> What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
> _reduces_ the take.
If you want to be draconian about this, take away any kids after #2 (or
whatever) -- there are plenty of people out there who'd like to adopt
newborns.
Jim Thompson
May 1, 2012, 4:14:55 PM5/1/12
to
On Tue, 01 May 2012 13:04:00 -0700, Joel Koltner <zapwire...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>> What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
>> _reduces_ the take.
>
>It's not fair to punish the kids for the misdeeds of their parents.
Of course not. My thoughts were toward _prevention_.
Maybe we make it a requirement to take the injection-style birth control to
ensure no more kids while on welfare?
Or simply neuter them ?:-)
>
>If you want to be draconian about this, take away any kids after #2 (or
>whatever) -- there are plenty of people out there who'd like to adopt
>newborns.
Perhaps.
wrote:
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>> What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
>> _reduces_ the take.
>
>It's not fair to punish the kids for the misdeeds of their parents.
Maybe we make it a requirement to take the injection-style birth control to
ensure no more kids while on welfare?
Or simply neuter them ?:-)
>
>If you want to be draconian about this, take away any kids after #2 (or
>whatever) -- there are plenty of people out there who'd like to adopt
>newborns.
amdx
May 1, 2012, 4:43:36 PM5/1/12
to
Can we damage one to prevent 20, 50, or 200 from be put into that
cesspool, which creates it's own damage.
Mikek
Jim Thompson
May 1, 2012, 5:48:35 PM5/1/12
to
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:00:17 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
No matter how I try to escape, a little birdie sends me E-mail saying that
namwolS still spits nonsense.
So I have a cure... shoot all people named namwolS ;-)
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
No matter how I try to escape, a little birdie sends me E-mail saying that
namwolS still spits nonsense.
So I have a cure... shoot all people named namwolS ;-)
Spehro Pefhany
May 1, 2012, 6:15:37 PM5/1/12
to
removed. Maybe sterilization and/or turning their vote over to the
political party in power at the time could be a defense.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Bill Sloman
May 1, 2012, 7:38:57 PM5/1/12
to
On May 1, 10:43 pm, amdx <a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:
> On 4/30/2012 11:36 AM,BillSlomanwrote:
it up.
And with adequate social security, a low income environment isn't a
cesspool. It's not a great environment, but lots of people survive it
and go to be useful and productive citizens. Good environments still
produce their own quota of bad apples.
Look at Germany. You can have adequate social security and a blooming
economy, and Will Hutton - amongst others - has argued that adequate
social security actually gives you are more productive work force and
a more productive society.
http://www.amazon.com/World-Were-Will-Hutton/dp/0316860816
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
> On 4/30/2012 11:36 AM,BillSlomanwrote:
> What ratio would you accept?
> Can we damage one to prevent 20, 50, or 200 from be put into that
> cesspool, which creates it's own damage.
None. Human sacrifice is no longer acceptable, no matter how you dress
> Can we damage one to prevent 20, 50, or 200 from be put into that
> cesspool, which creates it's own damage.
it up.
And with adequate social security, a low income environment isn't a
cesspool. It's not a great environment, but lots of people survive it
and go to be useful and productive citizens. Good environments still
produce their own quota of bad apples.
Look at Germany. You can have adequate social security and a blooming
economy, and Will Hutton - amongst others - has argued that adequate
social security actually gives you are more productive work force and
a more productive society.
http://www.amazon.com/World-Were-Will-Hutton/dp/0316860816
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
May 1, 2012, 7:44:19 PM5/1/12
to
On May 1, 2:46 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Apr 29, 7:08 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:34:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
>
> > <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
> > >On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:22:54 -0500, amdx <a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:
>
> > >>On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
> > >>> Jim Thompson wrote:
> > >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
>
> > >>> Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
> > >>> some "competition," I suppose.
>
> > >> One video leads to another and I end up here.
>
> > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E
>
> > >>At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
> > >>of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."
>
> > >> Mikek
>
> > >The poor thang ;-)
>
> > >What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
> > >_reduces_ the take.
>
> > > ...Jim Thompson
>
> > The problem with notions of what is, in essence, a 'child tax' is it
> > punishes not only the 'excess' child but the others as well.
>
> Giving someone money, just less, is punishment?
Punishing the mother may make sense, but punishing her children
> On Apr 29, 7:08 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:34:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
>
> > <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
> > >On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:22:54 -0500, amdx <a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:
>
> > >>On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
> > >>> Jim Thompson wrote:
> > >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
>
> > >>> Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
> > >>> some "competition," I suppose.
>
> > >> One video leads to another and I end up here.
>
> > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E
>
> > >>At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
> > >>of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."
>
> > >> Mikek
>
> > >The poor thang ;-)
>
> > >What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
> > >_reduces_ the take.
>
> > > ...Jim Thompson
>
> > The problem with notions of what is, in essence, a 'child tax' is it
> > punishes not only the 'excess' child but the others as well.
>
> Giving someone money, just less, is punishment?
doesn't.
> But, if they just published a schedule showing a decreasing
> incremental benefit, the extra kid-for-ransom production would drop.
has instilled a pretty effective and largely irrational drive to have
kids in all of us. Financial incentives are all that effective in
changing that kind of programmed-in behaviour
> Of course that'll never happen, since the formulas are always too
> complicated for anyone to understand. Measuring everyone's "need" is
> complicated.
to see.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
May 1, 2012, 7:52:03 PM5/1/12
to
On May 1, 7:22 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
wrote:
But most of them don't. And with slightly more generous social
security, even fewer of them end up dependent - not so many more as
end up dependent after having grown up with a silver spoon in their
mouths.
Right-wing nitwits find reality much too complicated to cope with so
they idealise the world into 100% good bits, replete with mom and
apple pie, and 100% bad bits where all fathers are absentees and every
mother is a crackhead.
It's nonsense, but it is the kind of nonsense that even krw can
understand.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
wrote:
security, even fewer of them end up dependent - not so many more as
end up dependent after having grown up with a silver spoon in their
mouths.
Right-wing nitwits find reality much too complicated to cope with so
they idealise the world into 100% good bits, replete with mom and
apple pie, and 100% bad bits where all fathers are absentees and every
mother is a crackhead.
It's nonsense, but it is the kind of nonsense that even krw can
understand.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
May 1, 2012, 8:00:57 PM5/1/12
to
On May 1, 11:48 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
people? He may find that some of them can shoot back, and he
represents a bigger-than-average target, and can't take cover quite as
quickly as people who haven't needed hip-replacement surgery.
If he was serious, we wouldn't have to put up with him posting
nonsense here at all-too-regular intervals for very much longer. As
usual, he's got it backwards. He is not going to shoot people, but
rather get himself shot.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:00:17 -0700, Jim Thompson
>
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:00:17 -0700, Jim Thompson
>
> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
>
> No matter how I try to escape, a little birdie sends me E-mail saying that
> namwolS still spits nonsense.
>
> So I have a cure... shoot all people named namwolS ;-)
So Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson is going to start shooting
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
>
> No matter how I try to escape, a little birdie sends me E-mail saying that
> namwolS still spits nonsense.
>
> So I have a cure... shoot all people named namwolS ;-)
people? He may find that some of them can shoot back, and he
represents a bigger-than-average target, and can't take cover quite as
quickly as people who haven't needed hip-replacement surgery.
If he was serious, we wouldn't have to put up with him posting
nonsense here at all-too-regular intervals for very much longer. As
usual, he's got it backwards. He is not going to shoot people, but
rather get himself shot.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
amdx
May 1, 2012, 8:56:21 PM5/1/12
to
that think it's ethical to live on welfare. We have entitlement
programs that we do pay into but, we receive more out than we pay in.
We now have 150 million of our citizens receiving money from the
government.
Entitlements
If all Americans are "entitled" to help, who will pay for it?
by James Fallows
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/budget/fallowf.htm
This is funny, he thought we had a problem 30 yrs ago, it
is so much worse now.
I may not be far from joining the takers.
My business is trying to compete with someone that has told me he pays
taxes on 30% of his income. His wife and 5 kids are on food stamps and
medicaid.
I pay my own healthcare premium, now $6,000 and I pay the first
$10,000 of expenses as my deductible. The government pays his.
I buy all the food for my family. The government pays his.
I pay for my house, I suspect his wife gets some housing subsidy.
My problem is I'm to $%&# honest, I found an error in my bookkeeping
and filed an amended return, I had to pay an additional $3,300 in taxes.
My accountant said, I don't have many clients that would have brought
this to my attention.
Mikek
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
May 2, 2012, 10:57:02 AM5/2/12
to
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
May 2, 2012, 11:22:55 AM5/2/12
to
charge less.
That creates kind of a black-hole, sucking more and more people
inexorably into welfare, one after the other.
Farm subsidies do that too, e.g. the movie "King Corn."
James Arthur
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
May 2, 2012, 11:28:03 AM5/2/12
to
On May 1, 7:44 pm, Bill Sloman <eac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 2:46 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > But, if they just published a schedule showing a decreasing
> > incremental benefit, the extra kid-for-ransom production would drop.
> >
> On May 1, 2:46 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > But, if they just published a schedule showing a decreasing
> > incremental benefit, the extra kid-for-ransom production would drop.
> >
> > Of course that'll never happen, since the formulas are always too
> > complicated for anyone to understand. Measuring everyone's "need" is
> > complicated.
>
> Much too complicated for you. None so blind as those who do not wish
> to see.
Sorry, I missed that webpage with the simple, printed formula that
> > complicated for anyone to understand. Measuring everyone's "need" is
> > complicated.
>
> Much too complicated for you. None so blind as those who do not wish
> to see.
computes a fair numerical benefit for any person, regardless of
circumstances, anywhere in America.
Where is it? What's the formula?
James Arthur
Michael A. Terrell
May 2, 2012, 11:42:04 AM5/2/12
to
amdx wrote:
>
> I may not be far from joining the takers.
>
> My business is trying to compete with someone that has told me he pays
> taxes on 30% of his income. His wife and 5 kids are on food stamps and
> medicaid.
thing to do.
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
May 2, 2012, 11:48:35 AM5/2/12
to
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
May 2, 2012, 11:34:46 AM5/2/12
to
On May 1, 1:22 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
wrote:
In a sense, the welfare itself is what makes the children possible.
Without that guarantee, people used to be a lot more careful. And
their families--who didn't like supporting them--screamed at them to
be more responsible too, keeping them in line.
President Johnson fixed all that.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
wrote:
Without that guarantee, people used to be a lot more careful. And
their families--who didn't like supporting them--screamed at them to
be more responsible too, keeping them in line.
President Johnson fixed all that.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Charlie E.
May 2, 2012, 12:20:54 PM5/2/12
to
do it, and if you did, you got off as quickly as you could.
But then, in the 60's and 70's, a new meme took hold, those that
purposely went on 'relief.' Welfare moms, entire households of
multiple generations living comfortably on the dole. And, the sad
truth was, it was ENCOURAGED by those in authority. People dependent
on the government voted for more government. Government that promised
to 'take care' of people got reelected. So, now we have a society in
which half of the population doesn't pay income taxes. More and more
people are encouraged to use government relief services in their
everyday lives, and those services are breaking down under the load.
And nutcases like Bill still don't understand that there is anything
wrong! 8-)
Charlie
Jim Thompson
May 2, 2012, 1:16:04 PM5/2/12
to
with some interspersed farm land) built for soldiers returning from WWII... my
parents bought a house there in 1947.
The neighborhood was a middle-class mix of whites _and_ blacks... the
wealthiest was a black family (with a turkey farm :-)
Now it's a slum with many homes replaced by multi-story government housing
(tenements)... so run down and scary-looking that, when I was last in
Huntington (for my Father's funeral), I didn't feel safe leaving the car to
take photographs.
There are no Caucasians left there.
So much for government "assistance".
Les Cargill
May 2, 2012, 1:33:32 PM5/2/12
to
relief/welfare. I know a lot of people who have had some measure
of trouble finding a job - not because they aren't qualified, but
because jobs are disappearing.
We did the math here - "welfare" welfare is not that significant a load
on the economy - under 5% of GDP (more like 2-3% ) .
Disability, SS and Medicare are a problem.
When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
> People dependent on the government voted for more government.
> Government that promised to 'take care' of people got reelected. So,
> now we have a society in which half of the population doesn't pay
> income taxes.
wages are flat as a still pond.
> More and more people are encouraged to use government relief services
> in their everyday lives, and those services are breaking down under
> the load.
>
> And nutcases like Bill still don't understand that there is anything
> wrong! 8-)
>
> Charlie
Les Cargill
Charlie E.
May 2, 2012, 1:50:45 PM5/2/12
to
On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:33:32 -0500, Les Cargill
<lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>Charlie E. wrote:
,snip>>
larger number of programs today. You should go to the grocery store
more often. It seems like about half the folks in the check out are
doing the 'food stamp shuffle' where they pick one from column A, put
all their 'not-allowed' products in group B, and spend an extra five
minutes paying for everything.
>
>We did the math here - "welfare" welfare is not that significant a load
>on the economy - under 5% of GDP (more like 2-3% ) .
>
>Disability, SS and Medicare are a problem.
>
>When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
>they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
>
>> People dependent on the government voted for more government.
>> Government that promised to 'take care' of people got reelected. So,
>> now we have a society in which half of the population doesn't pay
>> income taxes.
>
>
>That isn't a problem in itself, except that it reflects the fact that
>wages are flat as a still pond.
No, it is a problem. We have convinced over 50% of Americans that
they should get a 'free ride' from everyone else, or actually get
something more from everyone else. It is a pernicous attitude that
should be stopped!
<lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>Charlie E. wrote:
,snip>>
>> There used to be a stigma about being on relief. You didn't want to
>> do it, and if you did, you got off as quickly as you could.
>>
>> But then, in the 60's and 70's, a new meme took hold, those that
>> purposely went on 'relief.' Welfare moms, entire households of
>> multiple generations living comfortably on the dole. And, the sad
>> truth was, it was ENCOURAGED by those in authority.
>
>Whut? I have known very, very few people who *preferred* to be on
>relief/welfare. I know a lot of people who have had some measure
>of trouble finding a job - not because they aren't qualified, but
>because jobs are disappearing.
You see, you define relief = welfare, when it encompasses a much
>> do it, and if you did, you got off as quickly as you could.
>>
>> But then, in the 60's and 70's, a new meme took hold, those that
>> purposely went on 'relief.' Welfare moms, entire households of
>> multiple generations living comfortably on the dole. And, the sad
>> truth was, it was ENCOURAGED by those in authority.
>
>Whut? I have known very, very few people who *preferred* to be on
>relief/welfare. I know a lot of people who have had some measure
>of trouble finding a job - not because they aren't qualified, but
>because jobs are disappearing.
larger number of programs today. You should go to the grocery store
more often. It seems like about half the folks in the check out are
doing the 'food stamp shuffle' where they pick one from column A, put
all their 'not-allowed' products in group B, and spend an extra five
minutes paying for everything.
>
>We did the math here - "welfare" welfare is not that significant a load
>on the economy - under 5% of GDP (more like 2-3% ) .
>
>Disability, SS and Medicare are a problem.
>
>When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
>they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
>
>> People dependent on the government voted for more government.
>> Government that promised to 'take care' of people got reelected. So,
>> now we have a society in which half of the population doesn't pay
>> income taxes.
>
>
>That isn't a problem in itself, except that it reflects the fact that
>wages are flat as a still pond.
they should get a 'free ride' from everyone else, or actually get
something more from everyone else. It is a pernicous attitude that
should be stopped!
Michael A. Terrell
May 2, 2012, 3:41:24 PM5/2/12
to
Les Cargill wrote:
>
> When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
> they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
because my health failed. I spent my life savings over three years and
went hungry for a while, before I filed. No one was going to hire
anyone in my condition, and the VA approved my disability so fast that
no one could believe it. The letter granting disability stated that it
was obvious that I would never be able to work again. Do you really
think that I want to scrape by on $1021 a month, instead of being able
to work? You should try it sometime, before you spout off. Then you
can see what it's like to go without anything more than the basics.
Hoping that a 15 year old truck will run for a few more years. Spending
a lot of time changing dressings on two year old wounds and needing
medical care that you can't afford. How would you like blood, puss and
plasma running down your legs daily, for years? Doctors telling you
that 'You aren't old enough to have that problem' when you've coped with
it for a decade, or more.
Jim Thompson
May 2, 2012, 3:52:59 PM5/2/12
to
completely collapses the country, can be shot without penalty ;-)
Hang in there, Michael, so you can participate !-)
amdx
May 2, 2012, 5:39:13 PM5/2/12
to
Here in Florida they have changed food stamps to EBT.
Electronic Funds Transfer
My business is selling shrimp, I have people ask "do you take EBT?"
I don't, but when I'm ask, I have this bubble over my head that says,
"if the taxpayers are buying the protein you need for survival, you
should buy $2.00 lb chicken rather than $10 lb shrimp."
But that's the mentality, it's not their money so they don't care.
Mikek
Les Cargill
May 2, 2012, 6:40:39 PM5/2/12
to
Charlie E. wrote:
> On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:33:32 -0500, Les Cargill
> <lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>> Charlie E. wrote:
> ,snip>>
>>> There used to be a stigma about being on relief. You didn't want
>>> to do it, and if you did, you got off as quickly as you could.
>>>
>>> But then, in the 60's and 70's, a new meme took hold, those that
>>> purposely went on 'relief.' Welfare moms, entire households of
>>> multiple generations living comfortably on the dole. And, the
>>> sad truth was, it was ENCOURAGED by those in authority.
>>
>> Whut? I have known very, very few people who *preferred* to be on
>> relief/welfare. I know a lot of people who have had some measure of
>> trouble finding a job - not because they aren't qualified, but
>> because jobs are disappearing.
>
> You see, you define relief = welfare, when it encompasses a much
> larger number of programs today. You should go to the grocery store
> more often. It seems like about half the folks in the check out are
> doing the 'food stamp shuffle' where they pick one from column A,
> put all their 'not-allowed' products in group B, and spend an extra
> five minutes paying for everything.
>
This is true. Scope is always iffy in these threads.
> On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:33:32 -0500, Les Cargill
> <lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>> Charlie E. wrote:
> ,snip>>
>>> There used to be a stigma about being on relief. You didn't want
>>> to do it, and if you did, you got off as quickly as you could.
>>>
>>> But then, in the 60's and 70's, a new meme took hold, those that
>>> purposely went on 'relief.' Welfare moms, entire households of
>>> multiple generations living comfortably on the dole. And, the
>>> sad truth was, it was ENCOURAGED by those in authority.
>>
>> Whut? I have known very, very few people who *preferred* to be on
>> relief/welfare. I know a lot of people who have had some measure of
>> trouble finding a job - not because they aren't qualified, but
>> because jobs are disappearing.
>
> You see, you define relief = welfare, when it encompasses a much
> larger number of programs today. You should go to the grocery store
> more often. It seems like about half the folks in the check out are
> doing the 'food stamp shuffle' where they pick one from column A,
> put all their 'not-allowed' products in group B, and spend an extra
> five minutes paying for everything.
>
I thought the subject was "welfare moms, entire households... on
the dole" above. That sounds suspiciously like *welfare* welfare,
not a modest food subsidy to the working poor.
Once upon a time, there were "commdities". You went to the ... USDA?
office, signed up they gave you stuff like powdered milk, beans, cheese.
These were in essence oversupply bought by the USDA as part of farm
subsidies.
Some genius decided that rather than keep that whole infrastructure in
place, why we'd just have "generic" foodstuffs and allow people to
buy the stuff in stores. To replace the subsidy, food stamps were
invented. Maybe it saved money; I dunno. Ex ante, it looks like
it would be very price-distorting, and it is.
Other than the delay in line, I doubt the whole program really
costs *anything* in real terms. It's kind a' like WIC; it runs
the price of cheese and milk up.
If I read this right:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
It's (rounding up) $78B. That's in the noise. I don't
see any positive feedback runaway here...
We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of production.
Because you have to absorb facts.
>>
>> We did the math here - "welfare" welfare is not that significant a
>> load on the economy - under 5% of GDP (more like 2-3% ) .
>>
>> Disability, SS and Medicare are a problem.
>>
>> When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job
>> market, they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
>>
>>> People dependent on the government voted for more government.
>>> Government that promised to 'take care' of people got reelected.
>>> So, now we have a society in which half of the population doesn't
>>> pay income taxes.
>>
>>
>> That isn't a problem in itself, except that it reflects the fact
>> that wages are flat as a still pond.
>
> No, it is a problem. We have convinced over 50% of Americans that
> they should get a 'free ride' from everyone else, or actually get
> something more from everyone else. It is a pernicous attitude that
> should be stopped!
>
progressive taxation in the US. This is a good thing, for cultural as
well as economic efficiency reasons.
The reason people are out of work is that more and more work
is done by machines. It's not like we're short on goods and
services. If you're gonna enjoy the resulting low prices,
you gotta pony up to keep people alive who got "made redundant"
by that process.
We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of production.
Because you have to absorb facts.
>>
>>> More and more people are encouraged to use government relief
>>> services in their everyday lives, and those services are breaking
>>> down under the load.
>>>
>>> And nutcases like Bill still don't understand that there is
>>> anything wrong! 8-)
>>>
>>> Charlie
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
May 2, 2012, 6:43:55 PM5/2/12
to
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>> When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
>> they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
>
>
> Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
> because my health failed. I spent my life savings over three years and
> went hungry for a while, before I filed. No one was going to hire
> anyone in my condition, and the VA approved my disability so fast that
> no one could believe it.
They should have, sounds like. That's not what I am talking about.
>
> Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>> When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
>> they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
>
>
> Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
> because my health failed. I spent my life savings over three years and
> went hungry for a while, before I filed. No one was going to hire
> anyone in my condition, and the VA approved my disability so fast that
> no one could believe it.
> The letter granting disability stated that it
> was obvious that I would never be able to work again. Do you really
> think that I want to scrape by on $1021 a month, instead of being able
> to work? You should try it sometime, before you spout off. Then you
> can see what it's like to go without anything more than the basics.
> Hoping that a 15 year old truck will run for a few more years. Spending
> a lot of time changing dressings on two year old wounds and needing
> medical care that you can't afford. How would you like blood, puss and
> plasma running down your legs daily, for years? Doctors telling you
> that 'You aren't old enough to have that problem' when you've coped with
> it for a decade, or more.
>
I'd say the system worked, with a handful of horror stories to
go along with it.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
May 2, 2012, 6:46:10 PM5/2/12
to
arrow saying "LEFTIST HERE!." s.e.d is a bastion of utter, complete and
total economic ignorance. It's amusing.
--
Les Cargill
Jim Thompson
May 2, 2012, 6:47:47 PM5/2/12
to
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
May 2, 2012, 9:14:58 PM5/2/12
to
crack ticket, the incentive to keep the oven hot ends.
>Without that guarantee, people used to be a lot more careful. And
>their families--who didn't like supporting them--screamed at them to
>be more responsible too, keeping them in line.
>
>President Johnson fixed all that.
too.
Chiron
May 3, 2012, 1:44:46 AM5/3/12
to
On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:33:32 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
> When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
> they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
I dunno... the way some people sound, you'd think we should just use
> When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
> they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
these disabled folks for organ donors. Solves two or three problems all
at once.
--
The most important design issue... is the fact that Linux is supposed to
be fun...
-- Linus Torvalds at the First Dutch International
Symposium on Linux
Chiron
May 3, 2012, 2:51:41 AM5/3/12
to
On Wed, 02 May 2012 15:41:24 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
> because my health failed. I spent my life savings over three years and
> went hungry for a while, before I filed. No one was going to hire
> anyone in my condition, and the VA approved my disability so fast that
> no one could believe it. The letter granting disability stated that it
> was obvious that I would never be able to work again. Do you really
> think that I want to scrape by on $1021 a month, instead of being able
> to work? You should try it sometime, before you spout off. Then you can
> see what it's like to go without anything more than the basics. Hoping
> that a 15 year old truck will run for a few more years. Spending a lot
> of time changing dressings on two year old wounds and needing medical
> care that you can't afford. How would you like blood, puss and plasma
> running down your legs daily, for years? Doctors telling you that 'You
> aren't old enough to have that problem' when you've coped with it for a
> decade, or more.
I'll second that. The way some people say it, you'd think we're living
> Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
> because my health failed. I spent my life savings over three years and
> went hungry for a while, before I filed. No one was going to hire
> anyone in my condition, and the VA approved my disability so fast that
> no one could believe it. The letter granting disability stated that it
> was obvious that I would never be able to work again. Do you really
> think that I want to scrape by on $1021 a month, instead of being able
> to work? You should try it sometime, before you spout off. Then you can
> see what it's like to go without anything more than the basics. Hoping
> that a 15 year old truck will run for a few more years. Spending a lot
> of time changing dressings on two year old wounds and needing medical
> care that you can't afford. How would you like blood, puss and plasma
> running down your legs daily, for years? Doctors telling you that 'You
> aren't old enough to have that problem' when you've coped with it for a
> decade, or more.
in the lap of luxury, doing drugs and booze just waiting for our next
check so we can go to Europe or buy a yacht or something. Trust me on
this, no one's getting rich on disability.
I spend half my pension on rent, leaving me with precious little for
luxuries such as food. The only way I could afford to take drugs would
be for me to sell them, which would probably generate enough income where
I wouldn't have to be on disability in the first place. I can't even
afford the drugs I'm *supposed* to be taking, far less any I'm not
supposed to take.
When I want to have a good time, I save up my money and blow it on a wild
spree at Starbucks. Just living la vida loca, that's me...
In the meantime I get to listen to all those experts telling me how I'm a
useless drain on society, too lazy to work, blah, blah, blah. I worked
for nearly fifty years and paid into the system I'm "draining." For a
good thirty of those years, doctors were encouraging me to go on
disability. I didn't feel it was the "right" thing to do, so I kept
trying to work.
The problem is that people get a very biased view of what's going on.
Guys like me and Michael don't make the news. It's the occasional
welfare fraud, the "octomoms" who get all the attention, giving people
the impression that everyone receiving benefits is a leech. That's
simply not true. But you never learn this from the news. The only way
to really understand is to go through the experience yourself - and by
the time that happens, it's too late. No one listens to you because
you're one of "them" - another leech.
I wouldn't wish this life on anyone, but I do wish the people who so
easily dismiss us as being parasites would somehow have their eyes opened
to the reality of what it's like. Michael and I are not the exceptions.
Most of us are like this. The frauds are rare.
This is not a life anyone would choose. I am grateful that my basic
needs are taken care of. I can eat, I have a roof over my head, and I
can sometimes get the medicine I need. It's better than nothing. But
it's not a great lifestyle.
--
What's a cult? It just means not enough people to make a minority.
-- Robert Altman
Bill Sloman
May 3, 2012, 7:26:53 AM5/3/12
to
you to understand, even if you wanted to.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
May 3, 2012, 7:36:29 AM5/3/12
to
of kids born out of wedlock didn't start rising until people stopped
bothering to get married, which wasn't until quite a while after
President Johnson.
> And
> their families--who didn't like supporting them--screamed at them to
It might have kept some of them in line, but parental influence has
never been absolute, no matter how much financial clout they wield.
> President Johnson fixed all that.
idea credible.
> --
> Cheers,
> James Ar
Bill Sloman
May 3, 2012, 7:51:55 AM5/3/12
to
>Welfare moms, entire households of
> multiple generations living comfortably on the dole.
> And, the sad
> truth was, it was ENCOURAGED by those in authority.
right wing nitwits would have liked".
> People dependent
> on the government voted for more government. Government that promised
> to 'take care' of people got reelected. So, now we have a society in
> which half of the population doesn't pay income taxes.
taxes? By the time you have subtracted out the children, the
pensioners and the stay at home mothers, it's hard to find enough
people left over to form a tax-paying majority.
> More and more
> people are encouraged to use government relief services in their
> everyday lives, and those services are breaking down under the load.
The US spends less on social security than the richer countries of
Europe, and the system works fine there.
> And nutcases like Bill still don't understand that there is anything
> wrong! 8-)
happen to be true. It makes it difficult for them to comprehend the
attitudes of those who are in better contact with reality.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
May 3, 2012, 9:07:04 AM5/3/12
to
> > economy,
>
> The people of Germany have a work ethic, we have generations
> that think it's ethical to live on welfare. We have entitlement
> programs that we do pay into but, we receive more out than we pay in.
> We now have 150 million of our citizens receiving money from the
> government.
Do you know the equivalent figures for Germany? Do you have enough
>
> The people of Germany have a work ethic, we have generations
> that think it's ethical to live on welfare. We have entitlement
> programs that we do pay into but, we receive more out than we pay in.
> We now have 150 million of our citizens receiving money from the
> government.
sense to realise that you need to find out before you present that
argument?
"US exceptionalism" is the the idea that what works everywhere else
can't work n the US because the US is "different" rather than merely
saddled with a crummy constitution and a bunch of politicians who
won't look at the way other countries manage their problems.
US health-care - which is over-priced and inadequate by international
standards - is the worst example of this endemic short-sightedness,
but it's not the only one.
> Entitlements
>
> If all Americans are "entitled" to help, who will pay for it?
>
> by James Fallows
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/budget/fallowf.htm
>
> This is funny, he thought we had a problem 30 yrs ago, it
> is so much worse now.
>
> I may not be far from joining the takers.
>
> My business is trying to compete with someone that has told me he pays
> taxes on 30% of his income. His wife and 5 kids are on food stamps and
> medicaid.
> I pay my own healthcare premium, now $6,000 and I pay the first
> $10,000 of expenses as my deductible. The government pays his.
> I buy all the food for my family. The government pays his.
> I pay for my house, I suspect his wife gets some housing subsidy.
> My problem is I'm to $%&# honest, I found an error in my bookkeeping
> and filed an amended return, I had to pay an additional $3,300 in taxes.
> My accountant said, I don't have many clients that would have brought
> this to my attention.
constructing your arguments.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
May 3, 2012, 8:40:44 PM5/3/12
to
On Thu, 03 May 2012 05:44:46 GMT, Chiron
<chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:33:32 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
>> they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
Why not?
<chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:33:32 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
>> they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
>I dunno... the way some people sound, you'd think we should just use
>these disabled folks for organ donors. Solves two or three problems all
>at once.
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
May 4, 2012, 9:27:01 AM5/4/12
to
On May 2, 3:41 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
You're the kind of guy we want to help.
I'm surrounded by people who compete with you for that same pool of
money who are able-bodied, yet who simply don't want to work.
James Arthur
wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>
> > When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
> > they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
>
> Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
> because my health failed.
Michael, I'm proud to work a little longer and pay a little more.
>
> > When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
> > they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
>
> Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
> because my health failed.
You're the kind of guy we want to help.
I'm surrounded by people who compete with you for that same pool of
money who are able-bodied, yet who simply don't want to work.
James Arthur
Les Cargill
May 4, 2012, 12:36:12 PM5/4/12
to
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 2, 3:41 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"<mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>>> When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
>>> they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
>>
>> Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
>> because my health failed.
>
> Michael, I'm proud to work a little longer and pay a little more.
> You're the kind of guy we want to help.
>
Ditto. I'm also sorry if my post upset you, Micheal. That's
> On May 2, 3:41 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"<mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>>> When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
>>> they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
>>
>> Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
>> because my health failed.
>
> Michael, I'm proud to work a little longer and pay a little more.
> You're the kind of guy we want to help.
>
what that system is *for*.
> I'm surrounded by people who compete with you for that same pool of
> money who are able-bodied, yet who simply don't want to work.
>
what to do about that.
> James Arthur
--
Les Cargill
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
May 4, 2012, 1:39:39 PM5/4/12
to
On May 2, 6:40 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
> Charlie E. wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:33:32 -0500, Les Cargill
> > <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
> Charlie E. wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:33:32 -0500, Les Cargill
> Other than the delay in line, I doubt the whole program really
> costs *anything* in real terms. It's kind a' like WIC; it runs
> the price of cheese and milk up.
>
> If I read this right:http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
>
> It's (rounding up) $78B. That's in the noise. I don't
> see any positive feedback runaway here...
b) That's a lot of money.
c) You're not counting all the zillions of other handout programs.
Together, that's BIG money.
> We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of production.
> Because you have to absorb facts.
began--machines put people out of work--yet somehow there's still lots
to do.
We've gone from what, 80% of population in agriculture to <3%, because
of machines, yet we produce more food than ever. Was that bad?
> >> We did the math here - "welfare" welfare is not that significant a
> >> load on the economy - under 5% of GDP (more like 2-3% ) .
That's ignoring the big transfer programs, too.
Federal+state government consumes / dissipates ~41% of the gross
proceeds of all activity. That's huge too. Federal regulations alone
imposed $1.75T in compliance costs on small business in 2008.
All that stuff adds up!
> >> Disability, SS and Medicare are a problem.
>
> >> When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job
> >> market, they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
>
> >>> People dependent on the government voted for more government.
> >>> Government that promised to 'take care' of people got reelected.
> >>> So, now we have a society in which half of the population doesn't
> >>> pay income taxes.
>
> >> That isn't a problem in itself, except that it reflects the fact
> >> that wages are flat as a still pond.
>
> > No, it is a problem. We have convinced over 50% of Americans that
> > they should get a 'free ride' from everyone else, or actually get
> > something more from everyone else. It is a pernicous attitude that
> > should be stopped!
>
> I do not give a rat's patoot about *anybody's* "attitude". We do
> progressive taxation in the US. This is a good thing, for cultural as
> well as economic efficiency reasons.
>
> The reason people are out of work is that more and more work
> is done by machines. It's not like we're short on goods and
> services. If you're gonna enjoy the resulting low prices,
> you gotta pony up to keep people alive who got "made redundant"
> by that process.
>
> We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of production.
> Because you have to absorb facts.
began--machines put people out of work--yet somehow there's still lots
to do. Except, suddenly, now.
(You can say that again!)
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Les Cargill
May 4, 2012, 6:43:02 PM5/4/12
to
<snip>
>> Other than the delay in line, I doubt the whole program really
>> costs *anything* in real terms. It's kind a' like WIC; it runs the
>> price of cheese and milk up.
>>
>> If I read this right:http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
>>
>> It's (rounding up) $78B. That's in the noise. I don't see any
>> positive feedback runaway here...
>
> a) It's doubled in 3 years.
a.1) It'll probably halve in three more...
> b) That's a lot of money.
Not in Bizarro Government World. No matter how strange you think it is,
it's much stranger yet. Especially with food, the net effect *could* be
quite small ( was it you pointing me to "King Corn"? Yeah, like
that .... ) The marginal cost and materials used to make
that stuff is pretty low, because the supply is doubly-regulated - by
subsidies and by the futures markets.
> c) You're not counting all the zillions of other handout programs.
> Together, that's BIG money.
>
All that is true enough.
>> We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of
>> production. Because you have to absorb facts.
>
> That exact argument has been made since the Industrial Revolution
> began--machines put people out of work--yet somehow there's still
> lots to do.
>
This seems different. We've had in essence no improvement in employment
since about 1980, other than bubbles. This while GDP has been pretty
healthy.
The proto-Marxists and Marxists were wrong for technical reasons. People
who point to this like me will be wrong for other reasons we don't
know about. But that leaves the here and now...
> We've gone from what, 80% of population in agriculture to<3%,
> because of machines, yet we produce more food than ever. Was that
> bad?
>
Oh, absolutely. No doubt. But if I consider
that a data point that indicates that we may continue
to have unemployment problems. As happened with agriculture
happened with industry.
At this writing, because of the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment
Act of 1979, unemployment is in scope for government. It's
probably an ironic coincidence, but just as poverty stopped
dropping after the passage of Johnson's Great Society,
unemployment has been a fact of life since.
A proper Hayekian would shrug and say "of course." Government
creates bubbles... I guess my point is that we appear
not to be able to keep our hands off it, so we need to
do it better. As it is, we're stuck.
>>>> We did the math here - "welfare" welfare is not that
>>>> significant a load on the economy - under 5% of GDP (more like
>>>> 2-3% ) .
>
> Means-tested welfare is ~20% of federal spending. That's huge.
> That's ignoring the big transfer programs, too.
>
> Federal+state government consumes / dissipates ~41% of the gross
> proceeds of all activity. That's huge too. Federal regulations
> alone imposed $1.75T in compliance costs on small business in 2008.
>
> All that stuff adds up!
>
No question about that. The compliance cost alone are horrifying.
That some rent-seeking sh*t right there... I guess if I
had a point, it would be that the government cheese and welfare seems
more acceptable than some of the worst regulatory wankery...
<snip>
If you are interested, check out Arnold Kling's "Patterns of Sustainable
Specialization and Trade" concept. But only if you don't tend
towards depression...
> -- Cheers, James Arthur
--
Les Cargill
>> Other than the delay in line, I doubt the whole program really
>> costs *anything* in real terms. It's kind a' like WIC; it runs the
>> price of cheese and milk up.
>>
>> If I read this right:http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
>>
>> It's (rounding up) $78B. That's in the noise. I don't see any
>> positive feedback runaway here...
>
> a) It's doubled in 3 years.
> b) That's a lot of money.
it's much stranger yet. Especially with food, the net effect *could* be
quite small ( was it you pointing me to "King Corn"? Yeah, like
that .... ) The marginal cost and materials used to make
that stuff is pretty low, because the supply is doubly-regulated - by
subsidies and by the futures markets.
> c) You're not counting all the zillions of other handout programs.
> Together, that's BIG money.
>
>> We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of
>> production. Because you have to absorb facts.
>
> That exact argument has been made since the Industrial Revolution
> began--machines put people out of work--yet somehow there's still
> lots to do.
>
since about 1980, other than bubbles. This while GDP has been pretty
healthy.
The proto-Marxists and Marxists were wrong for technical reasons. People
who point to this like me will be wrong for other reasons we don't
know about. But that leaves the here and now...
> We've gone from what, 80% of population in agriculture to<3%,
> because of machines, yet we produce more food than ever. Was that
> bad?
>
that a data point that indicates that we may continue
to have unemployment problems. As happened with agriculture
happened with industry.
At this writing, because of the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment
Act of 1979, unemployment is in scope for government. It's
probably an ironic coincidence, but just as poverty stopped
dropping after the passage of Johnson's Great Society,
unemployment has been a fact of life since.
A proper Hayekian would shrug and say "of course." Government
creates bubbles... I guess my point is that we appear
not to be able to keep our hands off it, so we need to
do it better. As it is, we're stuck.
>>>> We did the math here - "welfare" welfare is not that
>>>> significant a load on the economy - under 5% of GDP (more like
>>>> 2-3% ) .
>
> Means-tested welfare is ~20% of federal spending. That's huge.
> That's ignoring the big transfer programs, too.
>
> Federal+state government consumes / dissipates ~41% of the gross
> proceeds of all activity. That's huge too. Federal regulations
> alone imposed $1.75T in compliance costs on small business in 2008.
>
> All that stuff adds up!
>
That some rent-seeking sh*t right there... I guess if I
had a point, it would be that the government cheese and welfare seems
more acceptable than some of the worst regulatory wankery...
<snip>
>>
>> We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of
>> production. Because you have to absorb facts.
>
> That same argument has been made since the Industrial Revolution
> began--machines put people out of work--yet somehow there's still
> lots to do. Except, suddenly, now.
>
> (You can say that again!)
>
I sincerely hope you are right! I hope this is just a bad patch.
>> We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of
>> production. Because you have to absorb facts.
>
> That same argument has been made since the Industrial Revolution
> began--machines put people out of work--yet somehow there's still
> lots to do. Except, suddenly, now.
>
> (You can say that again!)
>
If you are interested, check out Arnold Kling's "Patterns of Sustainable
Specialization and Trade" concept. But only if you don't tend
towards depression...
> -- Cheers, James Arthur
--
Les Cargill
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
May 4, 2012, 9:11:23 PM5/4/12
to
On May 4, 5:43 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
poverty, but we've lowered the standards to qualify. And, they've
been advertising.
> > b) That's a lot of money.
>
> Not in Bizarro Government World. No matter how strange you think it is,
> it's much stranger yet. Especially with food, the net effect *could* be
> quite small
You mean because the recipients pay taxes, and spend the money with
people who pay taxes, producing offsetting revenue?
I'd re-think that. And, it still robs taxpayers. $70B is $700 each
for 100M taxpayers.
> ( was it you pointing me to "King Corn"?
<blush>
> Yeah, like
> that .... ) The marginal cost and materials used to make
> that stuff is pretty low, because the supply is doubly-regulated - by
> subsidies and by the futures markets.
>
> > c) You're not counting all the zillions of other handout programs.
> > Together, that's BIG money.
>
> All that is true enough.
>
> >> We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of
> >> production. Because you have to absorb facts.
>
> > That exact argument has been made since the Industrial Revolution
> > began--machines put people out of work--yet somehow there's still
> > lots to do.
>
> This seems different. We've had in essence no improvement in employment
> since about 1980, other than bubbles. This while GDP has been pretty
> healthy.
We've had more and more people working (until the past three or four
years). People have new ideas, then start small businesses, which
drives hiring.
People are not doing that under the current regime's oppression, hence
the hiring deficit. That *is* extremely bad, but easily solved.
> The proto-Marxists and Marxists were wrong for technical reasons. People
> who point to this like me will be wrong for other reasons we don't
> know about. But that leaves the here and now...
>
> > We've gone from what, 80% of population in agriculture to<3%,
> > because of machines, yet we produce more food than ever. Was that
> > bad?
>
> Oh, absolutely. No doubt. But if I consider
> that a data point that indicates that we may continue
> to have unemployment problems. As happened with agriculture
> happened with industry.
Of course. There's always turnover, always creative destruction in
progress somewhere. That's healthy, how we adapt.
> At this writing, because of the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment
> Act of 1979, unemployment is in scope for government. It's
> probably an ironic coincidence, but just as poverty stopped
> dropping after the passage of Johnson's Great Society,
> unemployment has been a fact of life since.
It's a two-fer: paying people not to work encourages many to do that,
and the wet blanket that puts on everyone else slows job growth &
hiring.
Regulation is choking American growth. I despise legions of turkeys
demanding me to fill out this and file that, all for their pleasure.
It didn't used to be like this. My grandpa blasted stumps out of his
CA yard with dynamite. Today he'd be arrested.
> A proper Hayekian would shrug and say "of course." Government
> creates bubbles... I guess my point is that we appear
> not to be able to keep our hands off it, so we need to
> do it better. As it is, we're stuck.
It can never be done better centrally, and not by politicians. They
bend it to their purposes, not ours.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
> dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On May 2, 6:40 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Other than the delay in line, I doubt the whole program really
> >> costs *anything* in real terms. It's kind a' like WIC; it runs the
> >> price of cheese and milk up.
>
> >> If I read this right:http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
>
> >> It's (rounding up) $78B. That's in the noise. I don't see any
> >> positive feedback runaway here...
>
> > a) It's doubled in 3 years.
>
> a.1) It'll probably halve in three more...
Only if we change course. We've not only had more applicants due to
> > On May 2, 6:40 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Other than the delay in line, I doubt the whole program really
> >> costs *anything* in real terms. It's kind a' like WIC; it runs the
> >> price of cheese and milk up.
>
> >> If I read this right:http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
>
> >> It's (rounding up) $78B. That's in the noise. I don't see any
> >> positive feedback runaway here...
>
> > a) It's doubled in 3 years.
>
> a.1) It'll probably halve in three more...
poverty, but we've lowered the standards to qualify. And, they've
been advertising.
> > b) That's a lot of money.
>
> Not in Bizarro Government World. No matter how strange you think it is,
> it's much stranger yet. Especially with food, the net effect *could* be
> quite small
people who pay taxes, producing offsetting revenue?
I'd re-think that. And, it still robs taxpayers. $70B is $700 each
for 100M taxpayers.
> ( was it you pointing me to "King Corn"?
> Yeah, like
> that .... ) The marginal cost and materials used to make
> that stuff is pretty low, because the supply is doubly-regulated - by
> subsidies and by the futures markets.
>
> > c) You're not counting all the zillions of other handout programs.
> > Together, that's BIG money.
>
> All that is true enough.
>
> >> We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of
> >> production. Because you have to absorb facts.
>
> > That exact argument has been made since the Industrial Revolution
> > began--machines put people out of work--yet somehow there's still
> > lots to do.
>
> This seems different. We've had in essence no improvement in employment
> since about 1980, other than bubbles. This while GDP has been pretty
> healthy.
years). People have new ideas, then start small businesses, which
drives hiring.
People are not doing that under the current regime's oppression, hence
the hiring deficit. That *is* extremely bad, but easily solved.
> The proto-Marxists and Marxists were wrong for technical reasons. People
> who point to this like me will be wrong for other reasons we don't
> know about. But that leaves the here and now...
>
> > We've gone from what, 80% of population in agriculture to<3%,
> > because of machines, yet we produce more food than ever. Was that
> > bad?
>
> Oh, absolutely. No doubt. But if I consider
> that a data point that indicates that we may continue
> to have unemployment problems. As happened with agriculture
> happened with industry.
progress somewhere. That's healthy, how we adapt.
> At this writing, because of the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment
> Act of 1979, unemployment is in scope for government. It's
> probably an ironic coincidence, but just as poverty stopped
> dropping after the passage of Johnson's Great Society,
> unemployment has been a fact of life since.
and the wet blanket that puts on everyone else slows job growth &
hiring.
Regulation is choking American growth. I despise legions of turkeys
demanding me to fill out this and file that, all for their pleasure.
It didn't used to be like this. My grandpa blasted stumps out of his
CA yard with dynamite. Today he'd be arrested.
> A proper Hayekian would shrug and say "of course." Government
> creates bubbles... I guess my point is that we appear
> not to be able to keep our hands off it, so we need to
> do it better. As it is, we're stuck.
bend it to their purposes, not ours.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Les Cargill
May 4, 2012, 10:04:30 PM5/4/12
to
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 4, 5:43 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>> dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On May 2, 6:40 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Other than the delay in line, I doubt the whole program really
>>>> costs *anything* in real terms. It's kind a' like WIC; it
>>>> runs the price of cheese and milk up.
>>
>>>> If I read this
>>>> right:http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
>>
>>>> It's (rounding up) $78B. That's in the noise. I don't see any
>>>> positive feedback runaway here...
>>
>>> a) It's doubled in 3 years.
>>
>> a.1) It'll probably halve in three more...
>
> Only if we change course. We've not only had more applicants due to
> poverty, but we've lowered the standards to qualify. And, they've
> been advertising.
>
Possibly. The rebound from every downturn since the '81 one has been
> On May 4, 5:43 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>> dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On May 2, 6:40 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Other than the delay in line, I doubt the whole program really
>>>> costs *anything* in real terms. It's kind a' like WIC; it
>>>> runs the price of cheese and milk up.
>>
>>>> If I read this
>>>> right:http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
>>
>>>> It's (rounding up) $78B. That's in the noise. I don't see any
>>>> positive feedback runaway here...
>>
>>> a) It's doubled in 3 years.
>>
>> a.1) It'll probably halve in three more...
>
> Only if we change course. We've not only had more applicants due to
> poverty, but we've lowered the standards to qualify. And, they've
> been advertising.
>
worse ( unless you were in the hot industry for a bubble ).
I *really* think that people have strong preference for jobs,
very close to universally. We have TV shows about people working
now - Holmes is one. Were there movieds about carpentry in the '30s?
I don't think there were...
>>> b) That's a lot of money.
>>
>> Not in Bizarro Government World. No matter how strange you think
>> it is, it's much stranger yet. Especially with food, the net
>> effect *could* be quite small
>
> You mean because the recipients pay taxes, and spend the money with
> people who pay taxes, producing offsetting revenue?
>
quite low. I've never actually seen it measured.
> I'd re-think that. And, it still robs taxpayers. $70B is $700 each
> for 100M taxpayers.
>
completely boned otherwise, I don't mind paying that at all.
I have to wonder if there's not room in the world for a
not-for-profit that tries to eliminate dependence on government.
As much bluster as there is on the subject, you'd think there would be.
But I suspect that this is like people who also don't send money
to "help" with the deficit. there's something creepy about doing
that, maybe.
it's a lot easier to talk about it than do something < looks
guiltfully at mirror >.
>> ( was it you pointing me to "King Corn"?
>
> <blush>
>
of admire the ingenuity of the system, but I never looked
at farms the same way again.
I'd love for somebody to do followup films like King
Corn on the wholesale and retail ends of food. it's a huge
process.
>> Yeah, like that .... ) The marginal cost and materials used to make
>> that stuff is pretty low, because the supply is doubly-regulated -
>> by subsidies and by the futures markets.
>>
>>> c) You're not counting all the zillions of other handout
>>> programs. Together, that's BIG money.
>>
>> All that is true enough.
>>
>>>> We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of
>>>> production. Because you have to absorb facts.
>>
>>> That exact argument has been made since the Industrial Revolution
>>> began--machines put people out of work--yet somehow there's still
>>> lots to do.
>>
>> This seems different. We've had in essence no improvement in
>> employment since about 1980, other than bubbles. This while GDP
>> has been pretty healthy.
>
> We've had more and more people working (until the past three or four
> years). People have new ideas, then start small businesses, which
> drives hiring.
>
> People are not doing that under the current regime's oppression,
> hence the hiring deficit. That *is* extremely bad, but easily
> solved.
>
>
current regime has evolved from Clinton to Bush and now to Obama in a
very straight line manner. There's a mass of common principles
between the three. it's even true in Britain for the same
time frames.
In a way, this was true of Reagan, but not nearly as much. I don't
mean them except as era markers.
I don't think who's POTUS matters for this. It's bigger than
they are.
>> The proto-Marxists and Marxists were wrong for technical reasons.
>> People who point to this like me will be wrong for other reasons
>> we don't know about. But that leaves the here and now...
>>
>>> We've gone from what, 80% of population in agriculture to<3%,
>>> because of machines, yet we produce more food than ever. Was
>>> that bad?
>>
>> Oh, absolutely. No doubt. But if I consider that a data point that
>> indicates that we may continue to have unemployment problems. As
>> happened with agriculture happened with industry.
>
> Of course. There's always turnover, always creative destruction in
> progress somewhere. That's healthy, how we adapt.
>
to have our cake and eat it too..
>> At this writing, because of the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment
>> Act of 1979, unemployment is in scope for government. It's
>> probably an ironic coincidence, but just as poverty stopped
>> dropping after the passage of Johnson's Great Society, unemployment
>> has been a fact of life since.
>
> It's a two-fer: paying people not to work encourages many to do that,
> and the wet blanket that puts on everyone else slows job growth&
> hiring.
>
other places for quite a while. The problem with *that* is
that the large firm began to die around then*...
*and nobody is explaining this well other than Schumpeter.
I'm not sure that the people who draw on public assistance
are forsaking very good jobs - if there's any job at all for
them. Dunno about you, but I've had jobs where the company
crippled itself to where I wasn't getting much done... it
was a relief to get out and find another job, even if that
meant a layoff.
> Regulation is choking American growth. I despise legions of turkeys
> demanding me to fill out this and file that, all for their pleasure.
> It didn't used to be like this. My grandpa blasted stumps out of
> his CA yard with dynamite. Today he'd be arrested.
>
but the figures say that there's simply not enough money
in the right places.
Dunno - then I think of RoHS and...
>> A proper Hayekian would shrug and say "of course." Government
>> creates bubbles... I guess my point is that we appear not to be
>> able to keep our hands off it, so we need to do it better. As it
>> is, we're stuck.
>
> It can never be done better centrally, and not by politicians.
> They bend it to their purposes, not ours.
>
like the worst of both worlds.
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
May 5, 2012, 2:09:13 AM5/5/12
to
On May 4, 9:04 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
> dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On May 4, 5:43 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
> >> dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On May 2, 6:40 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>>> Other than the delay in line, I doubt the whole program really
> >>>> costs *anything* in real terms. It's kind a' like WIC; it
> >>>> runs the price of cheese and milk up.
>
> >>>> If I read this
> >>>> right:http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
>
> >>>> It's (rounding up) $78B. That's in the noise. I don't see any
> >>>> positive feedback runaway here...
>
> >>> a) It's doubled in 3 years.
>
> >> a.1) It'll probably halve in three more...
>
> > Only if we change course. We've not only had more applicants due to
> > poverty, but we've lowered the standards to qualify. And, they've
> > been advertising.
>
> Possibly. The rebound from every downturn since the '81 one has been
> worse ( unless you were in the hot industry for a bubble ).
Reagan rebounded from Carter's policies, an easy comparison.
> dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On May 4, 5:43 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
> >> dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On May 2, 6:40 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>>> Other than the delay in line, I doubt the whole program really
> >>>> costs *anything* in real terms. It's kind a' like WIC; it
> >>>> runs the price of cheese and milk up.
>
> >>>> If I read this
> >>>> right:http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
>
> >>>> It's (rounding up) $78B. That's in the noise. I don't see any
> >>>> positive feedback runaway here...
>
> >>> a) It's doubled in 3 years.
>
> >> a.1) It'll probably halve in three more...
>
> > Only if we change course. We've not only had more applicants due to
> > poverty, but we've lowered the standards to qualify. And, they've
> > been advertising.
>
> Possibly. The rebound from every downturn since the '81 one has been
> worse ( unless you were in the hot industry for a bubble ).
Since then, we've damped everything with regulation and requirements.
It's simply physically harder, riskier--and more and more expensive--
to start anything as a result.
> I *really* think that people have strong preference for jobs,
> very close to universally. We have TV shows about people working
> now - Holmes is one. Were there movieds about carpentry in the '30s?
> I don't think there were...
was offering a good wage--couldn't get any takers (pun intended).
They made nearly as much not working, and that was a lot easier.
> >>> b) That's a lot of money.
>
> >> Not in Bizarro Government World. No matter how strange you think
> >> it is, it's much stranger yet. Especially with food, the net
> >> effect *could* be quite small
>
> > You mean because the recipients pay taxes, and spend the money with
> > people who pay taxes, producing offsetting revenue?
>
> Partly that, but mostly that the real ( as in nonmonetary ) costs are
> quite low. I've never actually seen it measured.
>
> > I'd re-think that. And, it still robs taxpayers. $70B is $700 each
> > for 100M taxpayers.
>
> I understand. Thing is, if it's really for people who are just
> completely boned otherwise, I don't mind paying that at all.
>
> I have to wonder if there's not room in the world for a
> not-for-profit that tries to eliminate dependence on government.
> As much bluster as there is on the subject, you'd think there would be.
>
> But I suspect that this is like people who also don't send money
> to "help" with the deficit. there's something creepy about doing
> that, maybe.
just get spent.
<snip>
> > We've had more and more people working (until the past three or four
> > years). People have new ideas, then start small businesses, which
> > drives hiring.
>
> > People are not doing that under the current regime's oppression,
> > hence the hiring deficit. That *is* extremely bad, but easily
> > solved.
>
> Problem is - the trend predates the present administration. And the
> current regime has evolved from Clinton to Bush and now to Obama in a
> very straight line manner. There's a mass of common principles
> between the three. it's even true in Britain for the same
> time frames.
"The United States has fewer entrepreneurs starting businesses and
more closing their doors, [...]
However, in 2010, the number of U.S. entrepreneurs closing down their
businesses was second highest [...]"
> In a way, this was true of Reagan, but not nearly as much. I don't
> mean them except as era markers.
>
> I don't think who's POTUS matters for this. It's bigger than
> they are.
employers. That works. He's killed small airplane sales with just
one of his many blunders, for example.
[...]
> > Regulation is choking American growth. I despise legions of turkeys
> > demanding me to fill out this and file that, all for their pleasure.
> > It didn't used to be like this. My grandpa blasted stumps out of
> > his CA yard with dynamite. Today he'd be arrested.
>
> I am not so sure it's choking growth per se. It's doubtless expensive,
> but the figures say that there's simply not enough money
> in the right places.
>
> Dunno - then I think of RoHS and...
> >> A proper Hayekian would shrug and say "of course." Government
> >> creates bubbles... I guess my point is that we appear not to be
> >> able to keep our hands off it, so we need to do it better. As it
> >> is, we're stuck.
>
> > It can never be done better centrally, and not by politicians.
>
> A central authority simply doesn't have the *bandwidth*.
and they never can. There's too much, too widespread, and too fuzzy.
That's why Barack's "investments" for all of us in things he doesn't
understand will never match experts (or even lay people) investing
their own money.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
josephkk
May 6, 2012, 6:57:34 PM5/6/12
to
On Tue, 01 May 2012 15:08:39 GMT, Chiron
<chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 May 2012 05:46:33 -0700, dagmargoodboat wrote:
>
>> Of course that'll never happen, since the formulas are always too
>> complicated for anyone to understand. Measuring everyone's "need" is
>> complicated.
>
>Not so difficult. We all need roughly the same things - food, water,
>shelter, clothing, medical care, safe place to live. We just don't want
>to ensure everyone has those things, because we feel some people don't
>"deserve" it - they are unworthy.
>
>As long as we keep trying to decide who "deserves" resources, we're going
>to have some mighty bizarre rules about who gets what. So we invent a
>sort of merit-based structure; yes, we'll feed you if you're "worthy."
>But if you're an addict, we won't - no benefits, including no treatment
>for your addiction. Get clean, and *then* we'll help you.
>
>Not saying I want to subsidize a person's alcohol or drug use; just
>saying that we need to be treating such people as sick, not bad, and to
>ensure that they can get the treatment they need. Otherwise they stay
>sick, but don't necessarily die before producing offspring they can't
>nurture.
>
>I don't think there's a quick fix for all this, and I'm not advocating
>just throwing money at the problem, since that isn't going to work. But
>I do think we could simplify things if we quit worrying about who
>"deserves" things, and focus more on who needs them - and make sure they
>get it in time to make a difference.
>
>But as someone hinted, it would be cheaper to just execute anyone who
>doesn't work out in society. Don't think of it as the death penalty;
>think of it as putting them out of our misery.
If you want to receive welfare fine, sterilization is a prerequisite.
Want your fertility back, you have to pay for it 100%.
This may reduce the problem somewhat.
?-)
<chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 May 2012 05:46:33 -0700, dagmargoodboat wrote:
>
>> Of course that'll never happen, since the formulas are always too
>> complicated for anyone to understand. Measuring everyone's "need" is
>> complicated.
>
>shelter, clothing, medical care, safe place to live. We just don't want
>to ensure everyone has those things, because we feel some people don't
>"deserve" it - they are unworthy.
>
>As long as we keep trying to decide who "deserves" resources, we're going
>to have some mighty bizarre rules about who gets what. So we invent a
>sort of merit-based structure; yes, we'll feed you if you're "worthy."
>But if you're an addict, we won't - no benefits, including no treatment
>for your addiction. Get clean, and *then* we'll help you.
>
>Not saying I want to subsidize a person's alcohol or drug use; just
>saying that we need to be treating such people as sick, not bad, and to
>ensure that they can get the treatment they need. Otherwise they stay
>sick, but don't necessarily die before producing offspring they can't
>nurture.
>
>I don't think there's a quick fix for all this, and I'm not advocating
>just throwing money at the problem, since that isn't going to work. But
>I do think we could simplify things if we quit worrying about who
>"deserves" things, and focus more on who needs them - and make sure they
>get it in time to make a difference.
>
>But as someone hinted, it would be cheaper to just execute anyone who
>doesn't work out in society. Don't think of it as the death penalty;
>think of it as putting them out of our misery.
If you want to receive welfare fine, sterilization is a prerequisite.
Want your fertility back, you have to pay for it 100%.
This may reduce the problem somewhat.
?-)
josephkk
May 6, 2012, 7:14:20 PM5/6/12
to
On Wed, 02 May 2012 17:40:39 -0500, Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.com>
You should, especially when it becomes the majority of people. Who them
vote themselves largesse out of your and every other productive person's
pocket.
available job / upgrading their employability. Then we have more employed
and productive people and things get better. Capiche?
wrote:
>Charlie E. wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:33:32 -0500, Les Cargill
>> <lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>Charlie E. wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:33:32 -0500, Les Cargill
>> <lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>>
vote themselves largesse out of your and every other productive person's
pocket.
>
>The reason people are out of work is that more and more work
>is done by machines. It's not like we're short on goods and
>services. If you're gonna enjoy the resulting low prices,
>you gotta pony up to keep people alive who got "made redundant"
>by that process.
I am willing to help them to this extent, cheap job training for an
>The reason people are out of work is that more and more work
>is done by machines. It's not like we're short on goods and
>services. If you're gonna enjoy the resulting low prices,
>you gotta pony up to keep people alive who got "made redundant"
>by that process.
available job / upgrading their employability. Then we have more employed
and productive people and things get better. Capiche?
josephkk
May 6, 2012, 7:34:11 PM5/6/12
to
On Wed, 02 May 2012 17:46:10 -0500, Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.com>
wrote:
Only Sloman and miso spew more economic nonsense than you.
?-/
wrote:
?-/
josephkk
May 6, 2012, 7:38:19 PM5/6/12
to
On Wed, 02 May 2012 17:43:55 -0500, Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.com>
wrote:
>
ongoing horror story about how poorly it is working.
p.s. Michael PM me.
?-)
wrote:
>
>> Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
>> because my health failed. I spent my life savings over three years and
>> went hungry for a while, before I filed. No one was going to hire
>> anyone in my condition, and the VA approved my disability so fast that
>> no one could believe it.
>
>
>They should have, sounds like. That's not what I am talking about.
>
>> The letter granting disability stated that it
>> was obvious that I would never be able to work again. Do you really
>> think that I want to scrape by on $1021 a month, instead of being able
>> to work? You should try it sometime, before you spout off. Then you
>> can see what it's like to go without anything more than the basics.
>> Hoping that a 15 year old truck will run for a few more years. Spending
>> a lot of time changing dressings on two year old wounds and needing
>> medical care that you can't afford. How would you like blood, puss and
>> plasma running down your legs daily, for years? Doctors telling you
>> that 'You aren't old enough to have that problem' when you've coped with
>> it for a decade, or more.
>>
>
>
>Where did anything I wrote apply to you? You have an obvious diability.
>I'd say the system worked, with a handful of horror stories to
>go along with it.
You have not been following Michael's situation very well, it is an
>> because my health failed. I spent my life savings over three years and
>> went hungry for a while, before I filed. No one was going to hire
>> anyone in my condition, and the VA approved my disability so fast that
>> no one could believe it.
>
>
>They should have, sounds like. That's not what I am talking about.
>
>> The letter granting disability stated that it
>> was obvious that I would never be able to work again. Do you really
>> think that I want to scrape by on $1021 a month, instead of being able
>> to work? You should try it sometime, before you spout off. Then you
>> can see what it's like to go without anything more than the basics.
>> Hoping that a 15 year old truck will run for a few more years. Spending
>> a lot of time changing dressings on two year old wounds and needing
>> medical care that you can't afford. How would you like blood, puss and
>> plasma running down your legs daily, for years? Doctors telling you
>> that 'You aren't old enough to have that problem' when you've coped with
>> it for a decade, or more.
>>
>
>
>Where did anything I wrote apply to you? You have an obvious diability.
>I'd say the system worked, with a handful of horror stories to
>go along with it.
ongoing horror story about how poorly it is working.
p.s. Michael PM me.
?-)
josephkk
May 6, 2012, 7:45:30 PM5/6/12
to
On Wed, 02 May 2012 15:47:47 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 May 2012 16:39:13 -0500, amdx <am...@knology.net> wrote:
>
>>On 5/2/2012 11:20 AM, Charlie E. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 May 2012 16:52:03 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
>>> <eac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
<snip>
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 May 2012 16:39:13 -0500, amdx <am...@knology.net> wrote:
>
>>On 5/2/2012 11:20 AM, Charlie E. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 May 2012 16:52:03 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
>>> <eac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> everyday lives, and those services are breaking down under the load.
>>>
>>> And nutcases like Bill still don't understand that there is anything
>>> wrong! 8-)
>>>
>>> Charlie
>>
>> Yes, there is no longer shame!
>>Here in Florida they have changed food stamps to EBT.
>>Electronic Funds Transfer
>> My business is selling shrimp, I have people ask "do you take EBT?"
>>I don't, but when I'm ask, I have this bubble over my head that says,
>>"if the taxpayers are buying the protein you need for survival, you
>>should buy $2.00 lb chicken rather than $10 lb shrimp."
>> But that's the mentality, it's not their money so they don't care.
>> Mikek
>
>Sell them some old shrimp... make the world a better place ;-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Maybe your value map works that way. I prefer to look in the mirror when
>>>
>>> And nutcases like Bill still don't understand that there is anything
>>> wrong! 8-)
>>>
>>> Charlie
>>
>> Yes, there is no longer shame!
>>Here in Florida they have changed food stamps to EBT.
>>Electronic Funds Transfer
>> My business is selling shrimp, I have people ask "do you take EBT?"
>>I don't, but when I'm ask, I have this bubble over my head that says,
>>"if the taxpayers are buying the protein you need for survival, you
>>should buy $2.00 lb chicken rather than $10 lb shrimp."
>> But that's the mentality, it's not their money so they don't care.
>> Mikek
>
>Sell them some old shrimp... make the world a better place ;-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson
i wash my face.
?-/
Les Cargill
May 5, 2012, 8:16:12 PM5/5/12
to
have followed it well.
> p.s. Michael PM me.
>
> ?-)
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
May 5, 2012, 8:18:13 PM5/5/12
to
<snip>
> ?-/
--
Les Cargill
>>
>> You couldn't identify a leftist with a compass, map and a big orange
>> arrow saying "LEFTIST HERE!." s.e.d is a bastion of utter, complete and
>> total economic ignorance. It's amusing.
>
> Only Sloman and miso spew more economic nonsense than you.
>
I rest my case.
>> You couldn't identify a leftist with a compass, map and a big orange
>> arrow saying "LEFTIST HERE!." s.e.d is a bastion of utter, complete and
>> total economic ignorance. It's amusing.
>
> Only Sloman and miso spew more economic nonsense than you.
>
> ?-/
--
Les Cargill
Message has been deleted
Michael A. Terrell
May 6, 2012, 4:26:39 PM5/6/12
to
Les Cargill wrote:
>
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >
> > Les Cargill wrote:
> >>
> >> When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
> >> they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
> >
> >
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >
> > Les Cargill wrote:
> >>
> >> When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
> >> they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
> >
> >
> > Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
> > because my health failed. I spent my life savings over three years and
> > went hungry for a while, before I filed. No one was going to hire
> > anyone in my condition, and the VA approved my disability so fast that
> > no one could believe it.
>
> They should have, sounds like. That's not what I am talking about.
I have had a LOT of crap from people lately, about my health & being
> > because my health failed. I spent my life savings over three years and
> > went hungry for a while, before I filed. No one was going to hire
> > anyone in my condition, and the VA approved my disability so fast that
> > no one could believe it.
>
> They should have, sounds like. That's not what I am talking about.
on disability. :(
> > The letter granting disability stated that it
> > was obvious that I would never be able to work again. Do you really
> > think that I want to scrape by on $1021 a month, instead of being able
> > to work? You should try it sometime, before you spout off. Then you
> > can see what it's like to go without anything more than the basics.
> > Hoping that a 15 year old truck will run for a few more years. Spending
> > a lot of time changing dressings on two year old wounds and needing
> > medical care that you can't afford. How would you like blood, puss and
> > plasma running down your legs daily, for years? Doctors telling you
> > that 'You aren't old enough to have that problem' when you've coped with
> > it for a decade, or more.
> >
>
> Where did anything I wrote apply to you? You have an obvious diability.
> I'd say the system worked, with a handful of horror stories to
> go along with it.
doctors making things worse isn't working for me. The constant lack of
sleep makes me irritable, and easy to tick off.
I apologize for my reply, but you have no idea what it's like, if you
haven't lived through it.
I know a lot of people on disability and every one of them would love
to be able to go back to work. I know there are deadbeats & losers, but
not among the people I know. Add to that, idiots who slam a door in you
face, even though they see you walking with a cane or walker. People
who jump in line in front of you, or blow their horn then scream and
curse at you to "Get the hell out of my way' because 'You're walking to
damn slow!!!' To have idiots fly through a stop sign in a parking lot
and miss you by inches, or steer towards you, so you have to have to
dive between parked cars to keep from being hit. It gets old, really
fast.
How would you like some teenage punk assault you, just because you
need a cane to walk? It happened to me a few years ago.
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
Michael A. Terrell
May 6, 2012, 4:32:25 PM5/6/12
to
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> On May 2, 3:41 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > Les Cargill wrote:
> >
> > > When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
> > > they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
> >
> > Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
> > because my health failed.
>
> Michael, I'm proud to work a little longer and pay a little more.
> You're the kind of guy we want to help.
could. I still do what I can, but it's not much compared to what I used
to be able to do.
> I'm surrounded by people who compete with you for that same pool of
> money who are able-bodied, yet who simply don't want to work.
able to work, they have to or forfeit any help. Ohio tried to institute
WOrkfare at one time, and was forced to stop. There is always something
that needs done, and they can do something, even if it's pushing a big
broom to clean the streets.
Les Cargill
May 6, 2012, 4:51:55 PM5/6/12
to
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
>>>> they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
>>>
>>>
>>> Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
>>> because my health failed. I spent my life savings over three years and
>>> went hungry for a while, before I filed. No one was going to hire
>>> anyone in my condition, and the VA approved my disability so fast that
>>> no one could believe it.
>>
>> They should have, sounds like. That's not what I am talking about.
>
>
> I have had a LOT of crap from people lately, about my health& being
> on disability. :(
>
>
yeah, I don't understand that. I see it too.
>
> Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
>>>> they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
>>>
>>>
>>> Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
>>> because my health failed. I spent my life savings over three years and
>>> went hungry for a while, before I filed. No one was going to hire
>>> anyone in my condition, and the VA approved my disability so fast that
>>> no one could believe it.
>>
>> They should have, sounds like. That's not what I am talking about.
>
>
> I have had a LOT of crap from people lately, about my health& being
> on disability. :(
>
>
>>> The letter granting disability stated that it
>>> was obvious that I would never be able to work again. Do you really
>>> think that I want to scrape by on $1021 a month, instead of being able
>>> to work? You should try it sometime, before you spout off. Then you
>>> can see what it's like to go without anything more than the basics.
>>> Hoping that a 15 year old truck will run for a few more years. Spending
>>> a lot of time changing dressings on two year old wounds and needing
>>> medical care that you can't afford. How would you like blood, puss and
>>> plasma running down your legs daily, for years? Doctors telling you
>>> that 'You aren't old enough to have that problem' when you've coped with
>>> it for a decade, or more.
>>>
>>
>> Where did anything I wrote apply to you? You have an obvious diability.
>> I'd say the system worked, with a handful of horror stories to
>> go along with it.
>
>
> 10 years of crap from people who don't know what's going on, and
> doctors making things worse isn't working for me. The constant lack of
> sleep makes me irritable, and easy to tick off.
>
> I apologize for my reply, but you have no idea what it's like, if you
> haven't lived through it.
>
> I know a lot of people on disability and every one of them would love
> not among the people I know.
Exactly.
> Add to that, idiots who slam a door in you
> face, even though they see you walking with a cane or walker. People
> who jump in line in front of you, or blow their horn then scream and
> curse at you to "Get the hell out of my way' because 'You're walking to
> damn slow!!!' To have idiots fly through a stop sign in a parking lot
> and miss you by inches, or steer towards you, so you have to have to
> dive between parked cars to keep from being hit. It gets old, really
> fast.
>
> How would you like some teenage punk assault you, just because you
> need a cane to walk? It happened to me a few years ago.
>
>
order, but that's probably illegal in places.
--
Les Cargill
Michael A. Terrell
May 7, 2012, 9:42:19 AM5/7/12
to
josephkk wrote:
>
> p.s. Michael PM me.
I sent you an email.
Bill Sloman
May 7, 2012, 6:54:39 PM5/7/12
to
you've had inadequate social security - if social security was going
to rot anybody's moral fibre, it would have rotted Germany's first.
> We have entitlement
> programs that we do pay into but, we receive more out than we pay in.
> We now have 150 million of our citizens receiving money from the
> government.
<snip>
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
josephkk
May 9, 2012, 12:19:08 AM5/9/12
to
On Sat, 05 May 2012 19:18:13 -0500, Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.com>
?-)
wrote:
>josephkk wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 May 2012 17:46:10 -0500, Les Cargill<lcarg...@comcast.com>
>> wrote:
><snip>
>>>
>>> You couldn't identify a leftist with a compass, map and a big orange
>>> arrow saying "LEFTIST HERE!." s.e.d is a bastion of utter, complete and
>>> total economic ignorance. It's amusing.
>>
>> Only Sloman and miso spew more economic nonsense than you.
>>
>
>I rest my case.
>
>> ?-/
It sorely needs a rest, as it has no validity legs of its own.
>josephkk wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 May 2012 17:46:10 -0500, Les Cargill<lcarg...@comcast.com>
>> wrote:
><snip>
>>>
>>> You couldn't identify a leftist with a compass, map and a big orange
>>> arrow saying "LEFTIST HERE!." s.e.d is a bastion of utter, complete and
>>> total economic ignorance. It's amusing.
>>
>> Only Sloman and miso spew more economic nonsense than you.
>>
>
>I rest my case.
>
>> ?-/
?-)
Nunya
May 8, 2012, 12:45:58 AM5/8/12
to
On May 8, 9:19 pm, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
NO! IT IS NOT THE 8TH, YOU RETARDED BASTARD!
S T O P Posting to this group until you SET your CLOCK and DATE
correctly,
you stupid, group abusing motherfucker!
NO! IT IS NOT THE 8TH, YOU RETARDED BASTARD!
S T O P Posting to this group until you SET your CLOCK and DATE
correctly,
you stupid, group abusing motherfucker!
josephkk
May 8, 2012, 1:47:17 AM5/8/12
to
On Mon, 07 May 2012 09:42:19 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>josephkk wrote:
>>
>> p.s. Michael PM me.
>
>
>I sent you an email.
I will respond within a few days.
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>josephkk wrote:
>>
>> p.s. Michael PM me.
>
>
>I sent you an email.
spamtrap1888
May 8, 2012, 5:54:48 AM5/8/12
to
On May 2, 9:20 am, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2012 16:52:03 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
>
>
>
>
>
> <eac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 1, 7:22 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
> On Tue, 1 May 2012 16:52:03 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
>
>
>
>
>
> <eac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >wrote:
> >> On Tue, 1 May 2012 05:46:33 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >On Apr 29, 7:08 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:34:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
>
> >> >> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:22:54 -0500, amdx <a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >>On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
> >> >> >>> Jim Thompson wrote:
> >> >> >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
>
> >> >> >>> Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
> >> >> >>> some "competition," I suppose.
>
> >> >> >> One video leads to another and I end up here.
>
> >> >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E
>
> >> >> >>At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
> >> >> >>of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."
>
> >> >> >> Mikek
>
> >> >> >The poor thang ;-)
>
> >> >> >What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
> >> >> >_reduces_ the take.
>
> >> >> > ...Jim Thompson
>
> >> >> The problem with notions of what is, in essence, a 'child tax' is it
> >> >> punishes not only the 'excess' child but the others as well.
>
> >> >Giving someone money, just less, is punishment?
> >> >On Apr 29, 7:08 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:34:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
>
> >> >> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:22:54 -0500, amdx <a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >>On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
> >> >> >>> Jim Thompson wrote:
> >> >> >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
>
> >> >> >>> Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
> >> >> >>> some "competition," I suppose.
>
> >> >> >> One video leads to another and I end up here.
>
> >> >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E
>
> >> >> >>At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
> >> >> >>of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."
>
> >> >> >> Mikek
>
> >> >> >The poor thang ;-)
>
> >> >> >What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
> >> >> >_reduces_ the take.
>
> >> >> > ...Jim Thompson
>
> >> >> The problem with notions of what is, in essence, a 'child tax' is it
> >> >> punishes not only the 'excess' child but the others as well.
>
>
> >> >But, if they just published a schedule showing a decreasing
> >> >incremental benefit, the extra kid-for-ransom production would drop.
>
> >> >Of course that'll never happen, since the formulas are always too
> >> >complicated for anyone to understand. Measuring everyone's "need" is
> >> >complicated.
>
> >> On welfare? Lose any children. It's child abuse to allow children to grow up
> >> >Of course that'll never happen, since the formulas are always too
> >> >complicated for anyone to understand. Measuring everyone's "need" is
> >> >complicated.
>
> >> in a welfare home and become the next generation of dependents.
>
> >But most of them don't. And with slightly more generous social
> >security, even fewer of them end up dependent - not so many more as
> >end up dependent after having grown up with a silver spoon in their
> >mouths.
>
> >Right-wing nitwits find reality much too complicated to cope with so
> >they idealise the world into 100% good bits, replete with mom and
> >apple pie, and 100% bad bits where all fathers are absentees and every
> >mother is a crackhead.
>
> >It's nonsense, but it is the kind of nonsense that even krw can
> >understand.
>
> There used to be a stigma about being on relief. You didn't want to
> do it, and if you did, you got off as quickly as you could.
>
> But then, in the 60's and 70's, a new meme took hold, those that
> purposely went on 'relief.' Welfare moms, entire households of
> multiple generations living comfortably on the dole. And, the sad
> truth was, it was ENCOURAGED by those in authority. People dependent
> There used to be a stigma about being on relief. You didn't want to
> do it, and if you did, you got off as quickly as you could.
>
> But then, in the 60's and 70's, a new meme took hold, those that
> purposely went on 'relief.' Welfare moms, entire households of
> multiple generations living comfortably on the dole. And, the sad
> on the government voted for more government. Government that promised
> to 'take care' of people got reelected. So, now we have a society in
> which half of the population doesn't pay income taxes. More and more
> to 'take care' of people got reelected. So, now we have a society in
> people are encouraged to use government relief services in their
> everyday lives, and those services are breaking down under the load.
>
> And nutcases like Bill still don't understand that there is anything
> wrong! 8-)
>
These posts are quite discouraging. In March, when these same
>
> And nutcases like Bill still don't understand that there is anything
> wrong! 8-)
>
arguments were rehashed, I tried to point out the true situation: that
welfare was unchanged from the 30s to the 60s; that all that LBJ did
was try to break the cycle of welfare recipients raising other welfare
recipients by creating such programs as early childhood enrichment and
practical job training for youth. Yet the posters here keep slipping
back to their contrafactual beliefs. What's worse, unlike fantasies of
Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, this nonsense is disturbing, not
satisfying. What motivates this clinging to unreality?
spamtrap1888
May 8, 2012, 6:02:56 AM5/8/12
to
On May 2, 10:16 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> >Charlie
>
> The neighborhood where I grew up was a nice area of single-family homes (even
> with some interspersed farm land) built for soldiers returning from WWII... my
> parents bought a house there in 1947.
What's the useful life of a woodframe building? If you put it into
service as a rental unit, after how many years would the IRS consider
even a brick house to be fully depreciated? I believe it's 35 years.
Thus those houses should have been completely rebuilt in the mid-90s.
>
> The neighborhood was a middle-class mix of whites _and_ blacks... the
> wealthiest was a black family (with a turkey farm :-)
>
> Now it's a slum with many homes replaced by multi-story government housing
> (tenements)... so run down
The government housing is run down? Perhaps they don't collect enough
in taxes to maintain it. If you mean the single family homes, tiny
crackerboxes hurriedly slapped together as part of a government
program for returning GIs -- thus a cost of maintaining our armed
forces -- are unlikely to survive 65 years of raising families.
> and scary-looking that, when I was last in
> Huntington (for my Father's funeral), I didn't feel safe leaving the car to
> take photographs.
>
> There are no Caucasians left there.
Ah, you're afraid of black people.
>
> So much for government "assistance".
True that government cannot depigment those who frighten you.
Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
> The neighborhood where I grew up was a nice area of single-family homes (even
> with some interspersed farm land) built for soldiers returning from WWII... my
> parents bought a house there in 1947.
What's the useful life of a woodframe building? If you put it into
service as a rental unit, after how many years would the IRS consider
even a brick house to be fully depreciated? I believe it's 35 years.
Thus those houses should have been completely rebuilt in the mid-90s.
>
> The neighborhood was a middle-class mix of whites _and_ blacks... the
> wealthiest was a black family (with a turkey farm :-)
>
> Now it's a slum with many homes replaced by multi-story government housing
> (tenements)... so run down
The government housing is run down? Perhaps they don't collect enough
in taxes to maintain it. If you mean the single family homes, tiny
crackerboxes hurriedly slapped together as part of a government
program for returning GIs -- thus a cost of maintaining our armed
forces -- are unlikely to survive 65 years of raising families.
> and scary-looking that, when I was last in
> Huntington (for my Father's funeral), I didn't feel safe leaving the car to
> take photographs.
>
> There are no Caucasians left there.
Ah, you're afraid of black people.
>
> So much for government "assistance".
True that government cannot depigment those who frighten you.
spamtrap1888
May 8, 2012, 6:15:27 AM5/8/12
to
On May 2, 10:50 am, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:33:32 -0500, Les Cargill
>
>
>
> On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:33:32 -0500, Les Cargill
>
>
>
> >> There used to be a stigma about being on relief. You didn't want to
> >> do it, and if you did, you got off as quickly as you could.
>
> >> But then, in the 60's and 70's, a new meme took hold, those that
> >> purposely went on 'relief.' Welfare moms, entire households of
> >> multiple generations living comfortably on the dole. And, the sad
> >> truth was, it was ENCOURAGED by those in authority.
>
> >> do it, and if you did, you got off as quickly as you could.
>
> >> But then, in the 60's and 70's, a new meme took hold, those that
> >> purposely went on 'relief.' Welfare moms, entire households of
> >> multiple generations living comfortably on the dole. And, the sad
> >> truth was, it was ENCOURAGED by those in authority.
>
> >Whut? I have known very, very few people who *preferred* to be on
> >relief/welfare. I know a lot of people who have had some measure
> >of trouble finding a job - not because they aren't qualified, but
> >because jobs are disappearing.
>
> >relief/welfare. I know a lot of people who have had some measure
> >of trouble finding a job - not because they aren't qualified, but
> >because jobs are disappearing.
>
> You see, you define relief = welfare, when it encompasses a much
> larger number of programs today. You should go to the grocery store
> more often. It seems like about half the folks in the check out are
> doing the 'food stamp shuffle' where they pick one from column A, put
> all their 'not-allowed' products in group B, and spend an extra five
> minutes paying for everything.
>
Charlie dimly perceives that many people can't make ends meet. The sad
> larger number of programs today. You should go to the grocery store
> more often. It seems like about half the folks in the check out are
> doing the 'food stamp shuffle' where they pick one from column A, put
> all their 'not-allowed' products in group B, and spend an extra five
> minutes paying for everything.
>
fact is that once Bush's bubble economy burst, no real economic growth
replaced it. People who could get family-sustaining wages from
manufacturing jobs have no replacements other than retail. Further,
even high-paying jobs are being offshored or outsourced. It's a great
day to be a Chinaman, but I digress.
Food stamps benefit America's farmers. In the Great Depression,
commodity prices sank below the cost of production. Farmers piled
oranges to rot, and dumped milk into rivers. Now, the government
supplements what farmers get paid for their produce, while families
get to eat the farmers' production. This was thought to be win-win.
>
> >We did the math here - "welfare" welfare is not that significant a load
> >on the economy - under 5% of GDP (more like 2-3% ) .
>
> >Disability, SS and Medicare are a problem.
>
> >When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
> >they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
>
> >they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
>
> >> People dependent on the government voted for more government.
> >> Government that promised to 'take care' of people got reelected. So,
> >> now we have a society in which half of the population doesn't pay
> >> income taxes.
>
> >> Government that promised to 'take care' of people got reelected. So,
> >> now we have a society in which half of the population doesn't pay
> >> income taxes.
>
> >That isn't a problem in itself, except that it reflects the fact that
> >wages are flat as a still pond.
>
> No, it is a problem. We have convinced over 50% of Americans that
> they should get a 'free ride' from everyone else, or actually get
> something more from everyone else. It is a pernicous attitude that
> should be stopped!
As I pointed out before, few people made more than the zero bracket
> >wages are flat as a still pond.
>
> No, it is a problem. We have convinced over 50% of Americans that
> they should get a 'free ride' from everyone else, or actually get
> something more from everyone else. It is a pernicous attitude that
> should be stopped!
amount during the Depression. Families are no better off than they
were during the Depression. Pay people more, and they will pay more in
taxes.
If only there were organizations for workers to join, to raise their
pay to the point that they could pay more in federal income tax....
>
>
>
>
>
> >> More and more people are encouraged to use government relief services
> >> in their everyday lives, and those services are breaking down under
> >> the load.
>
> >> And nutcases like Bill still don't understand that there is anything
> >> wrong! 8-)
>
that will sustain families, for everyone who wants one.
spamtrap1888
May 8, 2012, 6:17:00 AM5/8/12
to
On May 2, 2:39 pm, amdx <a...@knology.net> wrote:
Shrimp is a cheap food these days, cheaper than vertebrate fish.
> > There used to be a stigma about being on relief. You didn't want to
> > do it, and if you did, you got off as quickly as you could.
>
> > But then, in the 60's and 70's, a new meme took hold, those that
> > purposely went on 'relief.' Welfare moms, entire households of
> > multiple generations living comfortably on the dole. And, the sad
> > truth was, it was ENCOURAGED by those in authority. People dependent
> > do it, and if you did, you got off as quickly as you could.
>
> > But then, in the 60's and 70's, a new meme took hold, those that
> > purposely went on 'relief.' Welfare moms, entire households of
> > multiple generations living comfortably on the dole. And, the sad
> > on the government voted for more government. Government that promised
> > to 'take care' of people got reelected. So, now we have a society in
> > which half of the population doesn't pay income taxes. More and more
> > to 'take care' of people got reelected. So, now we have a society in
> > people are encouraged to use government relief services in their
> > everyday lives, and those services are breaking down under the load.
>
> > And nutcases like Bill still don't understand that there is anything
> > wrong! 8-)
>
> > everyday lives, and those services are breaking down under the load.
>
> > And nutcases like Bill still don't understand that there is anything
> > wrong! 8-)
>
> > Charlie
>
> Yes, there is no longer shame!
> Here in Florida they have changed food stamps to EBT.
> Electronic Funds Transfer
> My business is selling shrimp, I have people ask "do you take EBT?"
> I don't, but when I'm ask, I have this bubble over my head that says,
> "if the taxpayers are buying the protein you need for survival, you
> should buy $2.00 lb chicken rather than $10 lb shrimp."
> But that's the mentality, it's not their money so they don't care.
> Mikek-
>
> Yes, there is no longer shame!
> Here in Florida they have changed food stamps to EBT.
> Electronic Funds Transfer
> My business is selling shrimp, I have people ask "do you take EBT?"
> I don't, but when I'm ask, I have this bubble over my head that says,
> "if the taxpayers are buying the protein you need for survival, you
> should buy $2.00 lb chicken rather than $10 lb shrimp."
> But that's the mentality, it's not their money so they don't care.
Shrimp is a cheap food these days, cheaper than vertebrate fish.
spamtrap1888
May 8, 2012, 6:23:52 AM5/8/12
to
On May 2, 3:40 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
> Charlie E. wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:33:32 -0500, Les Cargill
> > <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
> >> Charlie E. wrote:
> > ,snip>>
> Charlie E. wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:33:32 -0500, Les Cargill
> > <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
> >> Charlie E. wrote:
> > ,snip>>
> >>> There used to be a stigma about being on relief. You didn't want
> >>> to do it, and if you did, you got off as quickly as you could.
>
> >>> But then, in the 60's and 70's, a new meme took hold, those that
> >>> purposely went on 'relief.' Welfare moms, entire households of
> >>> multiple generations living comfortably on the dole. And, the
> >>> sad truth was, it was ENCOURAGED by those in authority.
>
> >>> to do it, and if you did, you got off as quickly as you could.
>
> >>> But then, in the 60's and 70's, a new meme took hold, those that
> >>> purposely went on 'relief.' Welfare moms, entire households of
> >>> multiple generations living comfortably on the dole. And, the
> >>> sad truth was, it was ENCOURAGED by those in authority.
>
> >> Whut? I have known very, very few people who *preferred* to be on
> >> relief/welfare. I know a lot of people who have had some measure of
> >> trouble finding a job - not because they aren't qualified, but
> >> because jobs are disappearing.
>
> > You see, you define relief = welfare, when it encompasses a much
> > larger number of programs today. You should go to the grocery store
> > more often. It seems like about half the folks in the check out are
> > doing the 'food stamp shuffle' where they pick one from column A,
> > put all their 'not-allowed' products in group B, and spend an extra
> > five minutes paying for everything.
>
> >> relief/welfare. I know a lot of people who have had some measure of
> >> trouble finding a job - not because they aren't qualified, but
> >> because jobs are disappearing.
>
> > You see, you define relief = welfare, when it encompasses a much
> > larger number of programs today. You should go to the grocery store
> > more often. It seems like about half the folks in the check out are
> > doing the 'food stamp shuffle' where they pick one from column A,
> > put all their 'not-allowed' products in group B, and spend an extra
> > five minutes paying for everything.
>
> This is true. Scope is always iffy in these threads.
>
> I thought the subject was "welfare moms, entire households... on
> the dole" above. That sounds suspiciously like *welfare* welfare,
> not a modest food subsidy to the working poor.
>
> Once upon a time, there were "commdities". You went to the ... USDA?
> office, signed up they gave you stuff like powdered milk, beans, cheese.
>
> These were in essence oversupply bought by the USDA as part of farm
> subsidies.
>
> Some genius decided that rather than keep that whole infrastructure in
> place, why we'd just have "generic" foodstuffs and allow people to
> buy the stuff in stores. To replace the subsidy, food stamps were
> invented. Maybe it saved money; I dunno. Ex ante, it looks like
> it would be very price-distorting, and it is.
Food stamps have been around since the 1950s that I know of. Using the
>
> I thought the subject was "welfare moms, entire households... on
> the dole" above. That sounds suspiciously like *welfare* welfare,
> not a modest food subsidy to the working poor.
>
> Once upon a time, there were "commdities". You went to the ... USDA?
> office, signed up they gave you stuff like powdered milk, beans, cheese.
>
> These were in essence oversupply bought by the USDA as part of farm
> subsidies.
>
> Some genius decided that rather than keep that whole infrastructure in
> place, why we'd just have "generic" foodstuffs and allow people to
> buy the stuff in stores. To replace the subsidy, food stamps were
> invented. Maybe it saved money; I dunno. Ex ante, it looks like
> it would be very price-distorting, and it is.
normal food distribution system makes more sense than having the
government duplicate part of it. American farmers grow a lot of food
-- in the 60s and 70s practically everything in the supermarket was
American-grown and processed.
Although my inlaws did receive free generic Velveeta and nonfat dry
milk in the 1980s. They just went down to the senior center to pick it
up.
> Other than the delay in line, I doubt the whole program really
> costs *anything* in real terms. It's kind a' like WIC; it runs
> the price of cheese and milk up.
>
> If I read this right:http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
>
> It's (rounding up) $78B. That's in the noise. I don't
> see any positive feedback runaway here...
>
> We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of production.
> Because you have to absorb facts.
>
relatively cheap.
>
> >> We did the math here - "welfare" welfare is not that significant a
> >> load on the economy - under 5% of GDP (more like 2-3% ) .
>
> >> Disability, SS and Medicare are a problem.
>
> >> When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job
> >> market, they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
>
> >>> People dependent on the government voted for more government.
> >>> Government that promised to 'take care' of people got reelected.
> >>> So, now we have a society in which half of the population doesn't
> >>> pay income taxes.
>
> >>> Government that promised to 'take care' of people got reelected.
> >>> So, now we have a society in which half of the population doesn't
> >>> pay income taxes.
>
> >> That isn't a problem in itself, except that it reflects the fact
> >> that wages are flat as a still pond.
>
> > No, it is a problem. We have convinced over 50% of Americans that
> > they should get a 'free ride' from everyone else, or actually get
> > something more from everyone else. It is a pernicous attitude that
> > should be stopped!
>
> >> that wages are flat as a still pond.
>
> > No, it is a problem. We have convinced over 50% of Americans that
> > they should get a 'free ride' from everyone else, or actually get
> > something more from everyone else. It is a pernicous attitude that
> > should be stopped!
>
> I do not give a rat's patoot about *anybody's* "attitude". We do
> progressive taxation in the US. This is a good thing, for cultural as
> well as economic efficiency reasons.
>
> progressive taxation in the US. This is a good thing, for cultural as
> well as economic efficiency reasons.
>
> The reason people are out of work is that more and more work
> is done by machines.
s/machines/Asians/
> is done by machines.
> It's not like we're short on goods and
> services. If you're gonna enjoy the resulting low prices,
> you gotta pony up to keep people alive who got "made redundant"
> by that process.
family?
>
> We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of production.
> Because you have to absorb facts.
>
that made us the most productive manufacturers in the world.
spamtrap1888
May 8, 2012, 6:27:40 AM5/8/12
to
On May 4, 6:27 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 2, 3:41 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Les Cargill wrote:
>
> On May 2, 3:41 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Les Cargill wrote:
>
> > > When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
> > > they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
>
> > > they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
>
> > Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
> > because my health failed.
>
> > because my health failed.
>
> Michael, I'm proud to work a little longer and pay a little more.
> You're the kind of guy we want to help.
>
> You're the kind of guy we want to help.
>
> I'm surrounded by people who compete with you for that same pool of
> money who are able-bodied, yet who simply don't want to work.
>
What jobs are going begging for want of workers where you live? My
> money who are able-bodied, yet who simply don't want to work.
>
godson is graduating without a job lined up.
spamtrap1888
May 8, 2012, 6:25:42 AM5/8/12
to
On May 2, 6:14 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2012 08:34:46 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >On May 1, 1:22 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
> >In a sense, the welfare itself is what makes the children possible.
>
> Exactly. The threat of removing them from the parents, and with the child the
> crack ticket, the incentive to keep the oven hot ends.
>
> >Without that guarantee, people used to be a lot more careful. And
> >their families--who didn't like supporting them--screamed at them to
> >be more responsible too, keeping them in line.
>
> >President Johnson fixed all that.
>
> He "fixed" a lot. Chasing the father out of the home was such a good idea,
> too.
Goes back to the Depression. Republicans would not pay anything if the
husband and father lived with the family, whether he earned anything
or not.
wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2012 08:34:46 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >On May 1, 1:22 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
>
> Exactly. The threat of removing them from the parents, and with the child the
> crack ticket, the incentive to keep the oven hot ends.
>
> >Without that guarantee, people used to be a lot more careful. And
> >their families--who didn't like supporting them--screamed at them to
> >be more responsible too, keeping them in line.
>
> >President Johnson fixed all that.
>
> He "fixed" a lot. Chasing the father out of the home was such a good idea,
> too.
Goes back to the Depression. Republicans would not pay anything if the
husband and father lived with the family, whether he earned anything
or not.
Bill Sloman
May 8, 2012, 7:46:18 AM5/8/12
to
On May 7, 1:34 am, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 May 2012 17:46:10 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com>
Since josephkk is a right-wing nitwit, what he means by "economic
nonsense" is "economics that doesn't make sense to right-wing
nitwits", which is practically everything since Adam Smith - they
aren't very bright.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
> On Wed, 02 May 2012 17:46:10 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Jim Thompson wrote:
> >> On Wed, 02 May 2012 15:41:24 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> >> <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Jim Thompson wrote:
> >> On Wed, 02 May 2012 15:41:24 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
nonsense" is "economics that doesn't make sense to right-wing
nitwits", which is practically everything since Adam Smith - they
aren't very bright.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Les Cargill
May 8, 2012, 7:50:15 AM5/8/12
to
> Using the
> normal food distribution system makes more sense than having the
> government duplicate part of it. American farmers grow a lot of food
> -- in the 60s and 70s practically everything in the supermarket was
> American-grown and processed.
>
> Although my inlaws did receive free generic Velveeta and nonfat dry
> milk in the 1980s. They just went down to the senior center to pick it
> up.
>
>> Other than the delay in line, I doubt the whole program really
>> costs *anything* in real terms. It's kind a' like WIC; it runs
>> the price of cheese and milk up.
>>
>> If I read this right:http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
>>
>> It's (rounding up) $78B. That's in the noise. I don't
>> see any positive feedback runaway here...
>>
>> We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of production.
>> Because you have to absorb facts.
>>
>
> A combination of low wage workers and tax subsidies make products
> relatively cheap.
>
subsidy at all. Wages go low when a product or service doesn't
provide marginal product that keeps up with economic growth.
For *food* the subsidy regime seems to have kept
prices stable and low.
>>
>>>> We did the math here - "welfare" welfare is not that significant a
>>>> load on the economy - under 5% of GDP (more like 2-3% ) .
>>
>>>> Disability, SS and Medicare are a problem.
>>
>>>> When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job
>>>> market, they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
>>
>>>>> People dependent on the government voted for more government.
>>>>> Government that promised to 'take care' of people got reelected.
>>>>> So, now we have a society in which half of the population doesn't
>>>>> pay income taxes.
>>
>>>> That isn't a problem in itself, except that it reflects the fact
>>>> that wages are flat as a still pond.
>>
>>> No, it is a problem. We have convinced over 50% of Americans that
>>> they should get a 'free ride' from everyone else, or actually get
>>> something more from everyone else. It is a pernicous attitude that
>>> should be stopped!
>>
>> I do not give a rat's patoot about *anybody's* "attitude". We do
>> progressive taxation in the US. This is a good thing, for cultural as
>> well as economic efficiency reasons.
>>
>> The reason people are out of work is that more and more work
>> is done by machines.
>
> s/machines/Asians/
>
>> It's not like we're short on goods and
>> services. If you're gonna enjoy the resulting low prices,
>> you gotta pony up to keep people alive who got "made redundant"
>> by that process.
>
> Do you want a houseful of cheap crap, or a job that will support a
> family?
>
be "both".
>>
>> We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of production.
>> Because you have to absorb facts.
>>
>
> In the process we've lost our national treasure, the Yankee ingenuity
> that made us the most productive manufacturers in the world.
are just declining.
--
Les Cargill
Bill Sloman
May 8, 2012, 7:54:10 AM5/8/12
to
On May 4, 3:27 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 2, 3:41 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
don't want to work". They told him the same story about me, and he was
silly enough to believe them, and proceeded to invent a few job offers
that he supposed that I refused, when in fact I never got further than
about one job interview per year, none of which ever yielded a job
offer.
Right-wing nitwits love inventing evidence - it's much easier and
quicker than finding out what is actually going on, and always seems
to give them the answer they want, when reality is less accommodating.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
> On May 2, 3:41 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Les Cargill wrote:
>
> > > When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
> > > they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
>
> > Les Cargill wrote:
>
> > > When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
> > > they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
>
> > Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
> > because my health failed.
>
> > because my health failed.
>
> Michael, I'm proud to work a little longer and pay a little more.
> You're the kind of guy we want to help.
>
> I'm surrounded by people who compete with you for that same pool of
> money who are able-bodied, yet who simply don't want to work.
James Arthur's ever-reliable perceptions tell him that they "simply
> You're the kind of guy we want to help.
>
> I'm surrounded by people who compete with you for that same pool of
> money who are able-bodied, yet who simply don't want to work.
don't want to work". They told him the same story about me, and he was
silly enough to believe them, and proceeded to invent a few job offers
that he supposed that I refused, when in fact I never got further than
about one job interview per year, none of which ever yielded a job
offer.
Right-wing nitwits love inventing evidence - it's much easier and
quicker than finding out what is actually going on, and always seems
to give them the answer they want, when reality is less accommodating.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
amdx
May 8, 2012, 8:32:15 AM5/8/12
to
prices have been driven down by farm raised imported shrimp. The boats
get less per pound now then they did twenty years ago. The last few
years we have been selling 15 count head on shrimp for $7.50 per lb.
After removing head and shell you have about 60% left, that's about
$12.50 per consumable pound for protein. My medium size are about $10
after cleaning.
I get a newsletter about shrimp and one of the large wholesalers in
the Fl. panhandle now has 55 acres of shrimp farming ponds. I'm not sure
how long we will have wild caught shrimp. Early on in shrimp farming
it was said you could get three crops a per years within 15 degrees of
the equator, and only one in the panhandle. I don't know if they have
worked around that problem.
Someone even has a shrimp farm in Michigan.
http://www.shrimpfarmmarket.com/
Mikek
spamtrap1888
May 8, 2012, 1:43:52 PM5/8/12
to
fields in Malaysia years ago. Reminded me of a co-worker's dad raising
catfish on the chicken shit his laying hens produced.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages