Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 4 Dec 2006 18:13 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <91fba$457234e0$4fe757d$18623(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >> >>>In article <64ec7$456a5c9b$4fe73b3$25547(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <ce8ce$45688adc$4fe7197$9197(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>[....] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>Actually it's even simpler -- your Medicare taxes are withheld every > > payday > >>>>>>>>and I assume for most businesses now, electronically sent to the IRS >>>> >>>>with the >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>push of a key. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>That key is likely to cost a penny. >>>>>> >>>>>>Nope. You have to distribute IRS costs proportionally to >>>>>>their destination. The Infrastructure, etc, isn't >>>>>>free to some, and costly to others. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Huh? >>>> >>>>Illustration, with inaccurate numbers and categories: >>>> >>>>IRS BUdget: 1 Billion US$ >>>> >>>>Sent to states 10% of collections Allocated overhead 1 Billion * 10% >>>>Sent to medicare 17% of collections Allocated overhead 1 Billion * 17% >>>>Executive Branch 12% of collections Allocated overhead 1 Billion * 12% >>>> >>>>In the illustration, we'd have to add 17% of the total cost of >>>>operating expenses of the IRS to the overhead incurred by Medicare. >>> >>> >>>Oh, I thought it was a new point. I had previously made that exact point >>>when I said that the "button" likely cost something to push. >>> >>> >>> >>>>That would start making the actual overhead for Medicare align with >>>>the cost items reported by insurance companies. >>> >>> >>>I wonder if it would. How much money does the IRS spill in collecting it? >>>I don't think it is a very large fraction. >> >>I'll do out homework for us. LOL >> >>IRS budget for FY 2005 10.674 billion. >> >><www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/budget-brief-05.pdf> >> >> >>"Medicare will spend over $250 billion in 2004 on health care for >>approximately 41 million senior and disabled citizens. " >> >><http://www.policyalmanac.org/health/archive/medicare_budget_FY04.shtml> >> >> >>2005 outlays total 2,472 billion >> >>http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/tables.html >> >> >>Looks like you add ~1.067 billion to medicare expenditures as the >>collections expense. That adds about 0.4% to the overhead which >>is usually reported elsewhere. That increases their reported >>expenses by more than 10%. > > > What? You're claiming 10% of the entire IRS budget goes to Medicare tax > collection? Absurd! It comes in electronically. Learn a little about business and accounting before blathering stupidly. >>>>Then there's all the paper provided by the GPO. And probably other >>>>stuff as well
From: T Wake on 4 Dec 2006 18:21 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:ec768$4574a811$49ecf3a$6998(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:73101$45730543$4fe70d7$29287(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>>In article <4572483D.8CB44CB6(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>snip >>> >>> >>>>>It's more to do with 'professors' not having a clue about the real >>>>>world >>> >>>>IMHO. >>> >>>>Those professors never had exposure to the real world when they >>>>were kids. It's a problem; one of the ones I'm working on. >>> >>> >>>One of the beauties of universal military service. >> >> >> In principle, National Service is a good idea - although I think people >> should be "conscripted" to "social" type work (and I suspect this will be >> heckled as being "socialist" by many knee-jerkers). >> >> Conscript soldiers nearly always undermine the militaries effectiveness. >> A modern army needs willing volunteers who are prepared to do the bad, >> harsh, things. Armies with conscripts have (in my personal experience) >> always been inferior. > > I think you need to look at history a whole lot more closely. Ok, I will do. > Every military service in the world from medieval times > through the Vietnam era was comprised of mostly conscripts, > even (perhaps especially) in feudal times when it was a > lifelong duty. Ok, nothing here disagrees with my post. In the last 30 years do you know of a Conscript army winning a war against a volunteer army? > Your personal experience is limited providing us with what > you pesent as an almost universal case which is actually > patently incorrect. As you can see, I highlighted the fact it was from personal experience. If you know of an example in the last thirty years of a volunteer army losing to a conscript army I would love to see it. Over the course of human history there are examples of volunteer armies being beaten by conscript troops but it would be interesting to see roughtly how many (compared to the reverse) and what the line up of forces on each side was. > The tone of your post on this issue provides some proof > my recommendation has merit. I am sure it does. Now, you seem to have misread my post somewhat. You are correct in that, over the course of history, most armies have been made up of conscripts (or other forced soldiery), however this does not even slightly disagree with that I said. If, in 1675 two conscript armies faced off against each other - and what I say is correct - both would be equally "hampered" by being conscripts and it wouldn't matter. If what you say is correct and nether are hampered it also wouldn't matter. I stand by my conviction that conscripted soldiers perform worse than volunteers and hamper military effectiveness. There are times when not having bodies at all would hamper effectiveness *even more* than having conscripts but that still does not falsify my claims. Using the depths of history as examples is not ideal but it can still be looked at. In the middle ages armies were made up of a variety of men. Some were little more than peasant militia forced into service for the king and others were volunteer soldiers who trained year round for war and didn't have farms to tend back home. Now, as this is a "blast into the past" it is littered with generalisations but _generally_ the professional soldiers fought harder and better than the peasants. Yes, the professionals were also generally better trained and equipped but this is the problem with using historical evidence when compared to modern people. Some one who has _volunteered_ for a job will perform better than some one who is forced into doing it. When times get tough, a conscript is more likely to give up (surrender / run away / stop working etc) than a volunteer. Again, using personal experience, when I was a baby soldier and we went to the Falklands, the Argentine Army had much better supply and equipment routes and the equipment was broadly at the same standard as the British troops on the ground. Some Argentine units, made of volunteers, fought tooth and nail making British victory a touch and go thing. However, the majority of the Argentine soldiers were conscripts who surrendered when they got cold. They were not professional soldiers and they had no interest in the war - why should they fight hard. Similar things happened in GW1 and GW2. When faced with a professional volunteer army, generally speaking, conscripts crumble.
From: T Wake on 4 Dec 2006 18:24 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:27efd$4574a990$49ecf3a$7031(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:ekrt27$8ss_004(a)s1015.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>>In article <45703E5A.EF353FB2(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Are you seriously suggesting someone born to a poverty family has >>>>>>>>the >>> >>>same >>> >>>>>>>>chance of becoming successful as someone born to a rich family in a >>>>>>>>capitalistic society? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yes. I will even go further and state that the poor kid has more >>>>>>>motivation than the rich kid. Thus, the poor kid will succeed >>>>>>>more often than the rich kid. >>>>>> >>>>>>I rather doubt that it happens like that in practice. >>>>> >>>>>But it happens all the time in the US, which is capitalistic >>>>>and not socialistic. >>>> >>>>I rather doubt that it does happen all the time in the USA. I suspect >>>>it's >>> >>>just >>> >>>>another of your fanciful folksy notions. >>> >>>Nope. It's fact. >> >> >> Really? It is strange how many of the "self made millionaires" in the US >> actually come from wealthy backgrounds. >> >> You don't find many second generate Puerto Ricans heading up Fortune 500 >> companies. >> >> I am sure you, or some of your pointless sycophants, > > Rough time in London? Too much of a good time? Or did you > just get up on he wrong side of the rock? (refers to USA TV > commercial.) Combination of both :-) The drive was more taxing on my patience than anything else though.
From: Eeyore on 4 Dec 2006 18:29 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > > > > Rough time in London? Too much of a good time? Or did you > > just get up on he wrong side of the rock? (refers to USA TV > > commercial.) > > Combination of both :-) The drive was more taxing on my patience than > anything else though. And now 'they' want us to pay even more for the pleasure. Graham
From: T Wake on 4 Dec 2006 18:38
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4574AF54.2133B4FB(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> > >> > Rough time in London? Too much of a good time? Or did you >> > just get up on he wrong side of the rock? (refers to USA TV >> > commercial.) >> >> Combination of both :-) The drive was more taxing on my patience than >> anything else though. > > And now 'they' want us to pay even more for the pleasure. > I know. It annoys me no end. I wouldn't mind if there was an even half decent alternative. |