Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 5 Dec 2006 11:59 Lloyd Parker wrote: > 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! Did you even look at the sources of the data? Obviously not. Now that's dishonesty.
From: unsettled on 5 Dec 2006 12:00 Lloyd Parker wrote: > 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. Looks like you're making up numbers.
From: unsettled on 5 Dec 2006 12:06 Lloyd Parker wrote: > 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... Yes, you blame the US for the 9/11 attack. The entire thing was underway during the Clinton administration, so that bit of "war" had already been declared. You're crazy. snip
From: T Wake on 5 Dec 2006 13:36 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:el3o53$8qk_001(a)s881.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. If it was ever "making atom bombs" but even then, this is a process which was begun prior to 2001. > Saudis are slowly emancipating their women. Nothing to do with the War on Terror. > Somalia is trying to sort itself out and seems > to be tottering towards trade rather than isolation. Wow. It is being overrun by an Islamic extremist organisation and is probably going to end up well entrenched as a Jihadist training ground. If you had contact with the web you could check out http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__africa/&articleid=292425 but failing that you could just read any of the news about how it is heading back down the pan. I presume that is trying to sort itself out though... > 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. Yes, but I suspect not in the manner you want to imply.
From: T Wake on 5 Dec 2006 14:55
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:el43k5$8ss_003(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <457582AE.C4A41B32(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>> > >>> >Bush has made the messes; arguably the worst since ... >>> >>> And then you say this. Why aren't you blaming the extremists >>> instead of the politicians who are trying to deal with the >>> messes the extremists have made? >> >>Why would one praise politicians for throwing fuel on the fire ? > > I don't; I've been damning them throughout this thread. However, castigating the wrong politicians is pretty pointless - especially when the "damning" carries with it implicit praise of other politicians who in reality need to be tarred with the same brush. |