Prev: Somewhat OT: What can break on a cell phone?
Next: Strange idea..
From: tm on 13 Jul 2010 09:39

<keithw86(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:39798d8f-a1fe-44b1-8b0a-7ea544167721(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 13, 8:15 am, "tm" <no...(a)msc.com> wrote:
> <keith...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2af408a0-7c70-4ca5-bd74-495340408c0d(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 12, 11:54 pm, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 12, 12:18 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 11, 9:04 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > <dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:67345a88-08bd-44d5-978b-e22e3031c1ee(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > >From the comments:
> > > > > "Show me on the doll where Uncle Sam touched you."
>
> > > > :-)
>
> > > > Don't you think the captioned photo a few posts above that one is a
> > > > little
> > > > disingenuous? If the guy is homeless, presumably if he has *any*
> > > > phone, it's
> > > > going to be a cell phone, I don't think it's a Blackberry anyway
> > > > (looks more
> > > > like a Palm Treo) -- and even if it were, Blackberries these days
> > > > are
> > > > usually
> > > > <$100 anyway with a contract, and how in the world do they know what
> > > > service
> > > > plan he has? -- It could easily be a $10/mo plan.
>
> > > Aren't Crackberries fitted with full keyboards, bristling with
> > > buttons?
>
> > > > Heck, I'm happy he's spending whatever income he does have a on a
> > > > cell
> > > > phone
> > > > rather than, e.g., cable TV -- at least the phone goes a lot further
> > > > towards
> > > > helping him get a job than the later.
>
> > > > I guess the basic "disconnect" I have is that I don't think it
> > > > should
> > > > require
> > > > having absolutely *zero* disposable income to still qualify for
> > > > *some*
> > > > government assistance.
>
> > > I don't mind a homeless guy having a cell phone--all the homeless guys
> > > I know have them. It is sort of telling, though, if they've got
> > > better phones than I do. This guy did.
>
> > > I think that's what bugged people about that photo.
>
> > > Oh, and a minor point--government has no money but that which they
> > > have taken from someone. So let's clarify that to say
>
> > Yes, you are right, government has no money, except what it gets in
> > taxes, but don't you agree spending taxpayers money for say the FDA
> > pays off to insure food products are eatable? Some of the peoples tax
> > money is spent for worthwhile causes, wouldn't you agree? I don't want
> > to eat toadstools that are advertised as mushrooms.
>
> > -Bill
>
> > > "[income level] to qualify for *some* government assistance"
>
> > > is to speak about setting an income threshold below which someone has
> > > to drop, and thereupon compelling citizens to support him.
>
> > > Could be true--the spirit of it--but let's not lose sight of what
> > > we're talking about: force, on the one hand, and an incentive to
> > > poverty on the other. Is that always a good thing?
>
> .Strawman.
>
> More like the heart of the issue.

..Wrong. Different issue == strawman.


I guess you read something different as to what the issue is. From above,

> > > Could be true--the spirit of it--but let's not lose sight of what
> > > we're talking about: force, on the one hand, and an incentive to
> > > poverty on the other. Is that always a good thing?

That is saying that by the Govt. taking money from those that work and
giving it to those that don't is a bad thing as it encourages people to
become
dependent on the Govt. That is a bad thing in my opinion.





--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: dagmargoodboat on 13 Jul 2010 10:39
On Jul 12, 11:54 pm, Bill Bowden wrote:
> On Jul 12, 12:18 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Jul 11, 9:04 pm, "Joel Koltner" wrote:
>
> > > <dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > >From the comments:
> > > > "Show me on the doll where Uncle Sam touched you."
>
> > > :-)
>
> > > Don't you think the captioned photo a few posts above that one is a little
> > > disingenuous? If the guy is homeless, presumably if he has *any* phone, it's
> > > going to be a cell phone, I don't think it's a Blackberry anyway (looks more
> > > like a Palm Treo) -- and even if it were, Blackberries these days are usually
> > > <$100 anyway with a contract, and how in the world do they know what service
> > > plan he has? -- It could easily be a $10/mo plan.
>
> > Aren't Crackberries fitted with full keyboards, bristling with
> > buttons?
>
> > > Heck, I'm happy he's spending whatever income he does have a on a cell phone
> > > rather than, e.g., cable TV -- at least the phone goes a lot further towards
> > > helping him get a job than the later.
>
> > > I guess the basic "disconnect" I have is that I don't think it should require
> > > having absolutely *zero* disposable income to still qualify for *some*
> > > government assistance.
>
> > I don't mind a homeless guy having a cell phone--all the homeless guys
> > I know have them. It is sort of telling, though, if they've got
> > better phones than I do. This guy did.
>
> > I think that's what bugged people about that photo.
>
> > Oh, and a minor point--government has no money but that which they
> > have taken from someone. So let's clarify that to say
>
> Yes, you are right, government has no money, except what it gets in
> taxes, but don't you agree spending taxpayers money for say the FDA
> pays off to insure food products are eatable? Some of the peoples tax
> money is spent for worthwhile causes, wouldn't you agree? I don't want
> to eat toadstools that are advertised as mushrooms.

Sure, some government is necessary for the society to function and
exist. That's why we have govern-ment at all, as in "governors," as
in "institutions that restrain and govern us."

But your question's a little bogus 'cause that's a trivial expense--
that's not where today's money goes. Roughly 2/3rds of today's taxes
go to social Ponzi programs that don't come close to paying for
themselves: Welfare, Social Security, and Medicare.

NUMBERS
Income: In 2010 the federal government had total revenue of $2.2T.
$936B came from personal income tax, and $875B from "Social insurance"
taxes (total = $1.8T).

Spending: Mr Obama spent $1.35T on Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid, and $0.43T on interest on the national debt.[1] Welfare
adds another $557 B. Total on these = $1.9 T. Notice we've not
included roads, defense, or the FDA.

Some of these, though well-intentioned--actually harm the people who
receive them, trapping them in poverty while robbing them of their
dignity and ambition. Don't believe me? Check out the stats since we
started ramping it all up in 1965. [5]

And, the cost of all of this has been increasing at 6.3% average per
year since 1969, while the population has been increasing at 1.06%--I
just ran the figures. How can that be? We've been creating more and
more dependent people, who are more dependent than ever. We're not
helping them, we're making their lot worse.

We've recently had a debate over the cost of health care, with a lot
of it blamed on bogus causes. The truth is medical care increases
haven't been much different than all the other government fiascos.
Government pays more than half of all medical bills, carelessly, and
drives up costs in the bargain.

As to the FDA, it does some good stuff. Do I feel they protect me
from people trying to sell toadstools as mushrooms? No. If people
wanted to do that they still could, easily, today. But, they don't.

Rather than protect us from myriad tiny possible dangers, today's
government gone rogue is by far the greatest, most definite threat of
all to our society. Our own government has become the boogeyman, not
terrorism, not foreign countries, not illegal immigration.

And, sadly, by crippling ourselves economically we lose the ability to
protect ourselves from those other things. Government has so busied
itself doing things it shouldn't do that it can't do the things it's
supposed to do.



James Arthur

------

[1] Reported as "$188B net", which buries the fiction of counting
interest owed to the raided social insurance funds as income.

[2] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_brief.php

[3] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/classic.html

[4] Official stats: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/summary.pdf

[5]
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/confronting%20the%20unsustainable%20growth%20of%20welfare%20entitlements%20principles%20of%20reform%20and%20the%20next%20steps#_ftn5
From: amdx on 13 Jul 2010 13:05


--
MikeK
<dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:58af0f6e-fe21-43ac-a6ea-10820e1a92b1(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 12, 11:54 pm, Bill Bowden wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 12:18 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 11, 9:04 pm, "Joel Koltner" wrote:
>>
>> > > <>> Yes, you are right, government has no money, except what it gets
>> > > in
>> taxes, but don't you agree spending taxpayers money for say the FDA
>> pays off to insure food products are eatable? Some of the peoples tax
>> money is spent for worthwhile causes, wouldn't you agree? I don't want
>> to eat toadstools that are advertised as mushrooms.
>
> As to the FDA, it does some good stuff. Do I feel they protect me
> from people trying to sell toadstools as mushrooms? No. If people
> wanted to do that they still could, easily, today. But, they don't.
> James Arthur
>

Snipped all the stuff that is correct :-)
Re: toadstools, it would save a lot of the clueless's money if the FDA
would look into homeopathy and the supplememt industry.
But I guess our buddy Orrin Hatch has that pretty well protected.

"Homeopathy uses highly diluted preparations.

Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains.

Homeopathic remedies are prepared by serial dilution with shaking by
forceful striking,

which homeopaths term succussion, after each dilution under the assumption
that this

increases the effect.

MikeK



>
> [1] Reported as "$188B net", which buries the fiction of counting
> interest owed to the raided social insurance funds as income.
>
> [2] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_brief.php
>
> [3] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/classic.html
>
> [4] Official stats: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/summary.pdf
>
> [5]
> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/confronting%20the%20unsustainable%20growth%20of%20welfare%20entitlements%20principles%20of%20reform%20and%20the%20next%20steps#_ftn5


From: krw on 13 Jul 2010 18:49
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:39:23 -0400, "tm" <noone(a)msc.com> wrote:

>
><keithw86(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:39798d8f-a1fe-44b1-8b0a-7ea544167721(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>On Jul 13, 8:15 am, "tm" <no...(a)msc.com> wrote:
>> <keith...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2af408a0-7c70-4ca5-bd74-495340408c0d(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 12, 11:54 pm, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 12, 12:18 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jul 11, 9:04 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com>
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > <dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > > >news:67345a88-08bd-44d5-978b-e22e3031c1ee(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > > >From the comments:
>> > > > > "Show me on the doll where Uncle Sam touched you."
>>
>> > > > :-)
>>
>> > > > Don't you think the captioned photo a few posts above that one is a
>> > > > little
>> > > > disingenuous? If the guy is homeless, presumably if he has *any*
>> > > > phone, it's
>> > > > going to be a cell phone, I don't think it's a Blackberry anyway
>> > > > (looks more
>> > > > like a Palm Treo) -- and even if it were, Blackberries these days
>> > > > are
>> > > > usually
>> > > > <$100 anyway with a contract, and how in the world do they know what
>> > > > service
>> > > > plan he has? -- It could easily be a $10/mo plan.
>>
>> > > Aren't Crackberries fitted with full keyboards, bristling with
>> > > buttons?
>>
>> > > > Heck, I'm happy he's spending whatever income he does have a on a
>> > > > cell
>> > > > phone
>> > > > rather than, e.g., cable TV -- at least the phone goes a lot further
>> > > > towards
>> > > > helping him get a job than the later.
>>
>> > > > I guess the basic "disconnect" I have is that I don't think it
>> > > > should
>> > > > require
>> > > > having absolutely *zero* disposable income to still qualify for
>> > > > *some*
>> > > > government assistance.
>>
>> > > I don't mind a homeless guy having a cell phone--all the homeless guys
>> > > I know have them. It is sort of telling, though, if they've got
>> > > better phones than I do. This guy did.
>>
>> > > I think that's what bugged people about that photo.
>>
>> > > Oh, and a minor point--government has no money but that which they
>> > > have taken from someone. So let's clarify that to say
>>
>> > Yes, you are right, government has no money, except what it gets in
>> > taxes, but don't you agree spending taxpayers money for say the FDA
>> > pays off to insure food products are eatable? Some of the peoples tax
>> > money is spent for worthwhile causes, wouldn't you agree? I don't want
>> > to eat toadstools that are advertised as mushrooms.
>>
>> > -Bill
>>
>> > > "[income level] to qualify for *some* government assistance"
>>
>> > > is to speak about setting an income threshold below which someone has
>> > > to drop, and thereupon compelling citizens to support him.
>>
>> > > Could be true--the spirit of it--but let's not lose sight of what
>> > > we're talking about: force, on the one hand, and an incentive to
>> > > poverty on the other. Is that always a good thing?
>>
>> .Strawman.
>>
>> More like the heart of the issue.
>
>.Wrong. Different issue == strawman.
>
>
>I guess you read something different as to what the issue is. From above,

The issue is run-away spending. A few nickels for necessities isn't run-away
spending.

>> > > Could be true--the spirit of it--but let's not lose sight of what
>> > > we're talking about: force, on the one hand, and an incentive to
>> > > poverty on the other. Is that always a good thing?
>
>That is saying that by the Govt. taking money from those that work and
>giving it to those that don't is a bad thing as it encourages people to
>become
>dependent on the Govt. That is a bad thing in my opinion.

Exactly, but that's a far different issue than the cost of the FDA, highways,
or even the DOD.
From: krw on 13 Jul 2010 18:53
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:05:20 -0500, "amdx" <amdx(a)knology.net> wrote:

>--

^
|
|
Please don't start your post with a sig-separator.

>MikeK
><dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:58af0f6e-fe21-43ac-a6ea-10820e1a92b1(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 12, 11:54 pm, Bill Bowden wrote:
>>> On Jul 12, 12:18 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Jul 11, 9:04 pm, "Joel Koltner" wrote:
>>>
>>> > > <>> Yes, you are right, government has no money, except what it gets
>>> > > in
>>> taxes, but don't you agree spending taxpayers money for say the FDA
>>> pays off to insure food products are eatable? Some of the peoples tax
>>> money is spent for worthwhile causes, wouldn't you agree? I don't want
>>> to eat toadstools that are advertised as mushrooms.
>>
>> As to the FDA, it does some good stuff. Do I feel they protect me
>> from people trying to sell toadstools as mushrooms? No. If people
>> wanted to do that they still could, easily, today. But, they don't.
>> James Arthur
>>
>
> Snipped all the stuff that is correct :-)
>Re: toadstools, it would save a lot of the clueless's money if the FDA
>would look into homeopathy and the supplememt industry.
>But I guess our buddy Orrin Hatch has that pretty well protected.

It would save a lot more money to just outright ban them as fraud.

>"Homeopathy uses highly diluted preparations.
>
>Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains.
>
> Homeopathic remedies are prepared by serial dilution with shaking by
>forceful striking,
>
>which homeopaths term succussion, after each dilution under the assumption
>that this
>
>increases the effect.

Fraud. ...as much of a fraud as perpetual motion, Nigerian get-rich-quick
schemes, and even "government bailout program".
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Somewhat OT: What can break on a cell phone?
Next: Strange idea..