Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Dec 2006 09:11 In article <dd9f8$45759abe$4fe71d5$13578(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >krw wrote: > >> In article <4575811C.AEDAD6A9(a)hotmail.com>, >> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>> >>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>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. >>>>>> >>>>>>/BAH >>>>> >>>>>Teenagers buy their own homes, and "none were right -- none were even middle >>>>>class." >>>>> >>>>>There's your problem -- you have no idea of what "middle class" means. Hint: >>>> >>>>>middle-class teenagers are not able to buy their own homes. >>>> >>>>Right. Poor ones manage to do so. One of the lessons you learn >>>>when you grow up poor is how not to spend money. >>> >>>Dear BAH, >>> >>>the 'entry price round here for even a modest single bedroom apartment, never mind >>>a house is the equivalent of �300,000. >>> >>>Please explain how a 'poor person' can acquire one. >> >> >> Live elsewhere. > >A bank is having trouble locally selling a perfectly livable >house with an asking price of $19,000. I'll bet anyone with >a job and $100 cash and a reasonable credit history could >move in tomorrow. > What kind of house sells for $19,000? An outhouse?
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Dec 2006 09:05 In article <el442h$8ss_006(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <4575842D.9500EB(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >>> >>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. >>> >>> > and prosperity, of balanced budgets, >>> >>> Budgets were not balanced. >> >>They were a heck of a lot better ! > >No, they weren't. Money was getting "saved" by stripping the >military funding. Ever hear of the "peace dividend"? We weren't fighting the cold war anymore. >The social security chits were still getting >used. I don't remember the trade deficit ever going away. > No it wasn't. There was a budget surplus, period. Not figuring in social security. You know, there's this search tool called "google." >> >>I'm truly astonised. >> >>In the time GWB has been in office, the value of the dollar has dropped by > >40% > >Based on what? > >/BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Dec 2006 09:06 In article <el451e$8ss_009(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <el43co$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 The standard in the insurance industry is what % of money spent goes to clients.
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Dec 2006 09:23 In article <bf6a7$4575a5bf$4fe71d5$13749(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >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. > Nope. Under Bush, income for the top 1% doubled, for the top 0.1%, it tripled, and for the top 0.01%, it quadrupled. For example, "New figures from the Internal Revenue Service show that income disparities grew substantially from 2002 to 2003. After adjusting for inflation, the after-tax income of the one percent of households with the highest incomes shot up in 2003 by an average of nearly $49,000 per household while the after-tax incomes of the bottom 75 percent of households fell on average."
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Dec 2006 09:12
In article <37679$4575a55e$4fe71d5$13749(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >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. You cited none as to how much is spent collecting Medicare taxes. |