Prev: Somewhat OT: What can break on a cell phone?
Next: Strange idea..
From: dagmargoodboat on 13 Jul 2010 22:26
On Jul 13, 9:39 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> 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.

Sorry, I edited that snippet above and forgot to rearrange and revise
the numbers. Here's a clarification:

(table view in fixed font)

Social Security + Medicare + Medicaid . . . . $1.35 trillion
Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.557
---------
$1.91 trillion

That's where the $1.9T figure came from.

Interest on the debt adds $0.43
----------
$2.34 trillion


So, our spending on just those entitlements--without paying for
defense, roads, or anything else--was $2.34T in FY2010, on revenue of
just $2.2T. Total spending was half again more, about $3.4T IIRC.
That's beyond insane.

Starting to see the scale of the problem are we?

Good. It's really nasty.

James Arthur
From: Bill Bowden on 14 Jul 2010 21:44
On Jul 13, 7:39 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> 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%20....

Well, I did some research trying to find out what assets the Federal
Government has to back up worthless loans. About all I could find was
maybe 30% of US land is owned by the government and can be used to
collateralize loans, using mineral rights, etc. and total assets in
the US is around 200 Trillion with a T.

Considering a debt of 3 trillion in 1983, and inflation of 3%, the
debt today could be a little more than twice that, or maybe 8 trillion
without much worry. So, we have an extra 5 trillion to deal with, but
considering 200 trillion in assets, the problem doesn't seem too bad
to me, but appears to be getting worse.

-Bill
From: dagmargoodboat on 15 Jul 2010 15:14
On Jul 14, 9:44 pm, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 7:39 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote:

<snip>

> > 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%20...
>
> Well, I did some research trying to find out what assets the Federal
> Government has to back up worthless loans. About all I could find was
> maybe 30% of US land is owned by the government and can be used to
> collateralize loans, using mineral rights, etc. and total assets in
> the US is around 200 Trillion with a T.
>
> Considering a debt of 3 trillion in 1983, and inflation of 3%, the
> debt today could be a little more than twice that, or maybe 8 trillion
> without much worry. So, we have an extra 5 trillion to deal with, but
> considering 200 trillion in assets, the problem doesn't seem too bad
> to me, but appears to be getting worse.
>
> -Bill

That's a different argument, that it's okay to sell off the country to
support whatever. That's a separate question.

The original question was whether you can spend $1.66 for every $1.00
you take in, and the answer is "No, not for very long."

It doesn't really matter how much of your Grandma's jewelery you think
you can sell off. Eventually, it runs out.

However we finance it, it a) represents impoverishing the country,
making us all poorer as we pay interest and sell assets and b) quickly
leads to not being able to make the payments on our national credit
card.

It's all bad.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur (in LA today)
From: Joe on 17 Jul 2010 11:14
In article <fdvj36pfp7ir2c56m16afnf1bht2gl70pr(a)4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com>
wrote:

> http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1111192/pg1

That's just about your depth, Jim.

--- Joe
From: Jim Thompson on 17 Jul 2010 11:31
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:14:23 -0700, Joe <none(a)given.now> wrote:

>In article <fdvj36pfp7ir2c56m16afnf1bht2gl70pr(a)4ax.com>,
> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com>
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1111192/pg1
>
>That's just about your depth, Jim.
>
>--- Joe

So you're an admitted Obama-lackey ?:-)

And with no sense of humor... how leftist of you.

...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 |

Friday is Wine and Cheeseburger Day
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Somewhat OT: What can break on a cell phone?
Next: Strange idea..