Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Dec 2006 10:59 In article <el43co$g14$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <el278i$6qf$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >Lloyd Parker <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote: >>In article <91fba$457234e0$4fe757d$18623(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >[....] >>>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. > >He is suggesting that we spread the overhead over the monies collected. >This is not an unreasonable thing to do. I doubt it makes enough >difference to matter though. Take the programmer, who does your payroll, to the bar and listen to him while he weeps into his/her beer. Then reexamine your assumption about no difference. /BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Dec 2006 05:34 In article <2e362$4574ab87$49ecf3a$7077(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >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. Learn a little about making up numbers and how dishonest that is! > >>>>>Then there's all the paper provided by the GPO. And probably other >>>>>stuff as well
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Dec 2006 05:39 In article <el3o53$8qk_001(a)s881.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45742DA0.41C26436(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: >>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >Ken Smith wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> The so called "war on terror" has cost the US a great deal without >>> >> >> really yelding anything much as a result. >>> >> > >>> >> >You're kidding. >>> >> > >>> >> >It's yielded greater instability in the word and more hatred of the USA >( >>> >> >entirely justified this time ). >>> >> > >>> >> >What sheer brilliance. >>> >> >>> >> You both have been blind. >>> > >>> >Come on then. Don't be shy. What's your opinion on the matter ? >>> >>> The sound bite "war on xxxx" was misused so often that, when >>> the real thing is happening, nobody pays attention. The fable >>> about the boy crying wolf has become reality. >> >>That wasn't quite what I meant but I can't really disgree with that >statement. >> >>To return to the original question. Do you feel this so-called 'war on >terror' >>has been useful or counter-productive ? > >It has been useful. Libya decided it would give up making >atom bombs in return for trade. Saudis are slowly emancipating >their women. Let's see, they can't drive, they can't go outdoors unless escorted by their husband or a male relative, they get punished for adultery and the man doesn't, their testimony in court is legally worth less than that of a man... If that's emancipation, I'd hate to see what you consider inequality! >Somalia is trying to sort itself out and seems >to be tottering towards trade rather than isolation. Just a nasty little civil war going on. >A lot of Americans, who now have to remain mute, have had lessons >on what happens when politics and policies are left to >people who undermine the Constitution. These people have also >reexamined their priorities and threw the old ones out and >have a new list. > >Slowly, albeit too slowly, the public health departments are >back to doing their jobs and have started thinking about >how to manage a pandemic. Maybe if the same type of people who were appointed to head FEMA hadn't been appointed here... >The internet has tweaked the US >media's nose and serves as a check in that realm. > >The socioeconmic problems that have been festering since the Ottoman >Empire finally ended are now being addressed. I'm still >working on trying to understand this one. > >/BAH > > >/BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Dec 2006 05:36 In article <el3lpc$8ss_003(a)s881.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <457461F3.C9510941(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: >>> >> 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. >>> > >>> >I still don't believe you. Your 'facts' have been rather fanciful to date. >>> All of my brothers and sisters bought their own home before they >>> got legal (21). They were on their second or third car. They >>> worked and supported themselves. All of my relatives on my mother's >>> side had some kind farm business before they were legal. >>> >>> None were rich. None were even middle class. Most were poor. >> >>My idea of poor doesn't include owning a car or home of your own ! >> >>You seemt to have a very odd definition for the term. > >You have a socialist point of view. You seem to have to believe >that, once poor, always poor. In the US this is unheard of...or >was. Since the Democrats have created all their "Keep everybody >poor and in their place" programs, the attitude has been changing >over the last 50 years. When a majority believes that it is >the government and the few rulers who have to provide for all >basic means of living, the economy, politics and society have >become socialist with liberal dashes of communism. > >/BAH Interesting -- under Clinton, the middle class income actually improved; under Bush, it has gone down (adjusted for inflation). Under Bush, the top 1% has gotten richer, not the rest. So "keep everybody poor" is more appropriate for Bush and the Republicans.
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Dec 2006 05:42
In article <el3pl3$8qk_006(a)s881.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <el27qb$6qf$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <el13vm$8qk_001(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <ekv27j$l5r$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > ><snip> > >>>You really should do all that; she's now doing the preliminary >>>running for 2008 Presidency. The Liberals in this state want >>>her for President so that Bill can take over again. >> >>Yeah, we long for those days of peace > >YOu have a very odd definition of peace. > Let's see, no 3000 killed in an attack in the US, no 3000 killed occupying a foreign land... >> and prosperity, of balanced budgets, > >Budgets were not balanced. > You are lying. In Clinton's last year, we had a surplus. >> of >>actually being respected and admired the world over... > >We weren't respected and we weren't admired. Sure we were. In the Middle East, for example, both sides viewed us as the only objective, honest broker. They don't now. >We were envied >and hated and dismissed as rubes; despite all of this, we >were still expected to fix everybody else's problems especially >if the fixing involved shooting other people. > >/BAH |