Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 5 Dec 2006 20:49 On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 23:57:28 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:4576059D.2EF6C63D(a)hotmail.com... >> >> T Wake wrote: >> >>> Another problem of conscription is you force the undesirables into the >>> military (right wing extremists, left wing extremists, religiously >>> intolerant bigots etc) and even provide them with military training. >> >> I've heard this is deliberately happeening in the US forces. What better >> way to >> learn how to kill ppl ? > >It is the same over here. The Armed Forces generally recruit from people who >cant get jobs anywhere else. Sadly, the large proportion of the ill educated >who enlist also come from the hotbeds of right wing extremism and racial >intolerance. > >I am fairly sure the US military has a robust policy at weeding them out >when they are identified. My recollections of working with Americans is that >they were a _lot_ less tolerant of the "banter" that was flung around than >Brits were. They were good at weeding them out. I don't believe that is happening as it once was. But I'd need to research this some. Another of those 'ideas' I've developed from reading the tea leaves of essentially apocryphal sources. Jon
From: unsettled on 5 Dec 2006 20:50 Lloyd Parker wrote: > 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? Nope. A clone of the one I bought for 15.5K but this one is livable as it stands. 3/4 acre within city limits, across the street two blocks are city owned and planted in pine trees by generations of science classes in the local school system. The house itself sits on a concrete wall basement with a natural gas furnace and water heater and a toilet in the basement. The first floor has a living room, dining room, kitchen and full bathroom. As with all the "company houses" built in the neighborhood ~95 years ago it has 3 bedrooms upstairs. When I updated my version 4 doors up the block from this one I added a toilet upstairs. Utilities available are municipal water & sewer, electric, cable, telephone, and natural gas, with well maintained paved streets. It is ~900 square feet on each of the three levels. If I remember to when I get back from my trip I'll take front and rear photos of this non-outhouse and post them. If I were currently looking for a place to live, this one would be a really good deal except that as I age I would probably get to hate the stairs to the bedrooms.
From: unsettled on 5 Dec 2006 20:51 Lloyd Parker wrote: > 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. What is the standard for government agencies?
From: unsettled on 5 Dec 2006 20:53 Lloyd Parker wrote: > 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. This is stupidity at its best. Do the math. Everything you need is in this posting.
From: Eeyore on 5 Dec 2006 21:15
unsettled wrote: > Lloyd Parker wrote: > > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >>Lloyd Parker <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote: > >>> 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. > > > > > > Why not accept the figure that's been published? Take all the money Medicare > > pays and figure administrative expenses as a % of this. That's how it's done > > for private insurance companies. That way things like advertising isn't > > included, as you're not looking at money coming in but money paid out. > > Because in the case of the insurance company all the functions are > under one roof and come out of one pocket, ir one cost center. In > the case of Medicare collections is performed by a completely > different cost center, publications by another, and so on. > > You really need to get a handle on standard accounting procedures > *before* you get involved in this discussion. In our NHS, there is of course none of this inefficiency pushing sums of money around. Graham |