Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
Posted to alt.home.repair,nyc.politics,rec.photo.digital,misc.consumers.frugal-living,talk.politics.guns
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Paul...
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , George Grapman wrote: Fine, your state and district are free to refuse that money. In much the same way (any more) that a junkie is free to refuse heroin or a smoker is free to refuse a cigarette. In all three cases, there is a very nasty withdrawal period.... Yes, but it can be done. By the way, this comment should not be needed but it is refreshing to have a discussion like this where all the participants are civil as the disagree with each other. |
#42
Posted to alt.home.repair,nyc.politics,rec.photo.digital,misc.consumers.frugal-living,talk.politics.guns
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Paul...
In article ,
George Grapman wrote: Kurt Ullman wrote: In article , George Grapman wrote: Fine, your state and district are free to refuse that money. In much the same way (any more) that a junkie is free to refuse heroin or a smoker is free to refuse a cigarette. In all three cases, there is a very nasty withdrawal period.... Yes, but it can be done. By the way, this comment should not be needed but it is refreshing to have a discussion like this where all the participants are civil as the disagree with each other. Me, too. Enjoy it while we can (g). |
#43
Posted to alt.home.repair,nyc.politics,rec.photo.digital,misc.consumers.frugal-living,talk.politics.guns
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Paul...
"George Grapman" wrote in message . .. Leon Baker wrote: "George Grapman" wrote in message et... Leon Baker wrote: "George Grapman" wrote in message t... Leon Baker wrote: "George Grapman" wrote in message t... Herb Kauhry wrote: Yeah, I looked up his voting record. He's missed 20% of the votes http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c.../vote-missers/ in all. Eighth worst in the entire house. Truth is, Ron Paul never voted AT ALL on 20% of the things he should have. Proclaims his devotion to the market place yet voted against allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Could that be because the government has no business being in the healthcare business??? That is not the point. As long as they are in it why not allow negotiated prices, it works for the VA By the way do you also oppose government funding of education? I oppose the federal government sticking their noses into education. That is a function of the states. We do have a constitution in this country, you know? Try reading it and the writings of those who wrote it sometime... So how was your education financed? It should have been financed by my state and local school district, with no federal money. But it was and you reaped the benefits that you now want to deny to others. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth. As if I had a choice...I'm not denying anyone anything. It's not the feds duty to school people or provide for their health care or retirement. Until the socialists elite like yourself realise this, things will never get better in this country. Sooner or later you'll see that it's just another way for those in power to stay in power. |
#44
Posted to alt.home.repair,nyc.politics,rec.photo.digital,misc.consumers.frugal-living,talk.politics.guns
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Paul...
"George Grapman" wrote in message . .. Kurt Ullman wrote: In article , wrote: On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:05:57 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote: In article , George Grapman wrote: It should have been financed by my state and local school district, with no federal money. But it was and you reaped the benefits that you now want to deny to others. First of all you would have to FIND some benefits. Good point, that federal money comes with mandates the money will not cover. Always do. Why do think the drinking age everywhere is 21 and there are mandatory seatbelt laws, etc. etc. etc. etc. With both examples a state could negate those laws by losing federal funding but even the strongest advocates of states rights are rarely ready to do that. Oh, but that's not the least of it. The loss of the money is the least of it, they also generally make demands whatever sum of money previously given in grant also be returned. Even when that money was given in a grant with no strings attached. |
#45
Posted to alt.home.repair,nyc.politics,rec.photo.digital,misc.consumers.frugal-living,talk.politics.guns
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Paul...
Leon Baker wrote:
"George Grapman" wrote in message . .. Leon Baker wrote: "George Grapman" wrote in message et... Leon Baker wrote: "George Grapman" wrote in message t... Leon Baker wrote: "George Grapman" wrote in message t... Herb Kauhry wrote: Yeah, I looked up his voting record. He's missed 20% of the votes http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c.../vote-missers/ in all. Eighth worst in the entire house. Truth is, Ron Paul never voted AT ALL on 20% of the things he should have. Proclaims his devotion to the market place yet voted against allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Could that be because the government has no business being in the healthcare business??? That is not the point. As long as they are in it why not allow negotiated prices, it works for the VA By the way do you also oppose government funding of education? I oppose the federal government sticking their noses into education. That is a function of the states. We do have a constitution in this country, you know? Try reading it and the writings of those who wrote it sometime... So how was your education financed? It should have been financed by my state and local school district, with no federal money. But it was and you reaped the benefits that you now want to deny to others. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth. As if I had a choice...I'm not denying anyone anything. It's not the feds duty to school people or provide for their health care or retirement. Until the socialists elite like yourself realise this, things will never get better in this country. Sooner or later you'll see that it's just another way for those in power to stay in power. You should address your complaint to all the conservatives in congress who enjoy taxpayer financed health care while they rail against employer mandated insurance. |
#46
Posted to alt.home.repair,nyc.politics,rec.photo.digital,misc.consumers.frugal-living,talk.politics.guns
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Paul...
Scout wrote:
"George Grapman" wrote in message . .. Kurt Ullman wrote: In article , wrote: On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:05:57 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote: In article , George Grapman wrote: It should have been financed by my state and local school district, with no federal money. But it was and you reaped the benefits that you now want to deny to others. First of all you would have to FIND some benefits. Good point, that federal money comes with mandates the money will not cover. Always do. Why do think the drinking age everywhere is 21 and there are mandatory seatbelt laws, etc. etc. etc. etc. With both examples a state could negate those laws by losing federal funding but even the strongest advocates of states rights are rarely ready to do that. Oh, but that's not the least of it. The loss of the money is the least of it, they also generally make demands whatever sum of money previously given in grant also be returned. Even when that money was given in a grant with no strings attached. Then don't take the money. |
#47
Posted to alt.home.repair,nyc.politics,rec.photo.digital,misc.consumers.frugal-living,talk.politics.guns
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Paul...
In article ,
George Grapman wrote: You should address your complaint to all the conservatives in congress who enjoy taxpayer financed health care while they rail against employer mandated insurance. Of course you should.. if you don't want a job. Heck look at the problems the automakers and other big companies are having with pretty much the equivalent in their contracts. You think most of the country's employers who are substantially smaller are going to be able to magically come up with the money? As that hotbed of conservative thought, the Washington Post pointed out recently: " "The $12,106 average cost of family coverage this year is roughly equivalent to a year's salary for a full-time worker earning the minimum wage, which is $12,168." Of course the real question went zooming past: So how on earth do people think that an employer mandate ever could work since it would force employers to virtually double the wages of these workers? Job loss would be guaranteed. Two things need to be done. 1) Eliminate the huge subsidies built in to the system at all levels. 2). Take responsibility for insurance away from the workplace so that you again have the entity paying for insurance being the one that actually uses it. |
#48
Posted to alt.home.repair,nyc.politics,rec.photo.digital,misc.consumers.frugal-living,talk.politics.guns
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Paul...
|
#49
Posted to alt.home.repair,nyc.politics,rec.photo.digital,misc.consumers.frugal-living,talk.politics.guns
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Paul...
|
#50
Posted to alt.home.repair,nyc.politics,rec.photo.digital,misc.consumers.frugal-living,talk.politics.guns
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Paul...
wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:58:41 -0700, George Grapman wrote: Free breakfast and lunch, Curriculums that are packed with politically correct subjects instead of basic education, busing and generally trying to make all schools everything for everybody. School boards have no flexibility to tune a particular school to the needs of the community it serves. None of which are forced on states if they refuse federal funding. That is just wrong. The state of Utah is currently in court over "no child left behind" lets see how that goes. They are suing over a provision that requires students under performing schools to be bused to better schools. The law allows a state to opt out if it refuses federal funding. http://www.nhpr.org/node/5820 Two of the Legislature's top Democrats are launching a new effort to get New Hampshire to withdraw from the national No Child Left Behind program. They say Washington is making demands that it doesn't pay for. They complain about losing local control. But this year New Hampshire is not alone. New Hampshire Public Radio's political correspondent, John Milne, reports: Some academics suggest it will be a significant issue in this fall’s election. But that debate begins sooner in New Hampshire. Towns throughout the state are debating school budgets now and for the next few weeks. And Democrats are telling voters to blame President Bush and the Republicans if No Child regulations demand more school spending and higher taxes. Senate Democratic Leader Lou D’Allesandro of Manchester connects the political and fiscal dots: (nochild1) It’s time to revisit this issue. We need to tell Washington that our property taxpayers are not going to pay the bills. The bill without money is not acceptable. Show me the money! School administrators say tests mandated by the law are far more costly than the funds Washington provides. That’s 66 million dollars for all schools in the state. Steve Spratt is on the Mascenic Regional school board in New Ipswich. He complains that the federal money comes with too many restrictions: (nochild 2) NCLB is punitive. It’s all stick. There are very few carrots in the bill. If you don’t make the grade, you’re forced to lower the standards. There are 40 measurements in the bill, and if you miss any one of them, you’re classified as need improving. The New Hampshire House passed a bill last year to refuse No Child money. The state Senate tabled the bill. There’s been no action this year. Mike Sentance is the regional representative of the U-S Department of Education. He says the No Child program is fully funded. It would have no effect on local spending, and therefore no increase in property taxes. (nochild4) In fact, I would be arguing that you’re getting more bang for your buck out of your property tax. I mean, if you know that now the people have the appropriate level of qualifications to be in the classroom, your school should be more effective. I mean, one of the things that always confuses me about the conversation in New Hampshire is why people defend having thoroughly unqualified people in classrooms as being a good investment of local tax dollars. Sentance blames politics for why 14 states other than New Hampshire are protesting the No Child law. In Utah, for example, the Republican-led House voted 64 to 8 to scrap the No Child mandates. Utah’s Senate hasn’t acted. In Virginia, the House of Delegates passed a resolution criticizing the law. Patricia Wright is superintendent for instruction of the Virginia Board of Education: There are some technicalities in the No Child Left Behind law that would be counterproductive to our own reform. And it expressed some concern with the federal intrusion into state’s rights. So far no state has rejected the program. One reason is that a state that rejects the federal law would also have to turn down millions of dollars in federal aid. From a political perspective, the debate reverses traditional partisan positions in the state. The Democrats say No Child Left Behind will increase taxes and destroy local control. The Republicans say the federal program calls for improvements in reading, math and science that all parents would want. But the “little democracies” of New Hampshire towns are famous for their independence. Their votes may offer a nonpartisan analysis of No Child Left Behind |
#52
Posted to alt.home.repair,nyc.politics,rec.photo.digital,misc.consumers.frugal-living,talk.politics.guns
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Paul...
|
#53
Posted to alt.home.repair,nyc.politics,rec.photo.digital,misc.consumers.frugal-living,talk.politics.guns
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Paul...but, let's keep the politics out
Actually I remember it very well. Like the Voting Rights Act
it simply implemented the 14th Amendment. Unfortunately the feds use "the 14th amendment" to justify most of their mandates, like the "right" to be arrested for medical marijauna even when the state says it is legal. They would use the same logic to enforce any other unfunded or underfunded mandate, even if the starte did refuse federal funding. The fact still remains that there is really no such thing as federal funding. It is OUR money. This is particularly true in the case of gasoline taxes I need to be wary of feeding OT threads here, but you are basically correct. The 14th is primarily concerned with rights afforded to ex-slaves extended to all citizens. A so-called "due process" clause got slipped in somehow either to bolster the original purpose or perhaps to avoid the need for a separate amendment. Unfortunately, what is supposed to be a PROTECTION is turning out these days to be more of a TAKEAWAY of our freedoms and rights. Let's keep the Rebublican vs. Democrat debate clear of this, but what you're really referring to seems to be known as "activist judges legislating from the bench". It has been going on for decades but has decidely accelerated during the current Administration. Since you mention a medicine issue, I'll give a scary way the 14th is being used: more and more hospitals are using it as a way to FORCE their patients to accept ANY and ALL treatment no matter what they patient wishes. No, I'm not talking about patients with Alzheimer's, I'm talking about fully competent patients. The 14th is being used to suggest that refusing medical treatment constitutes defacto proof that the patient is trying to commit medical suicide, which is a crime. As to budgets, you are spot-on, as the Brits say! ALL governmental levels from towns/cities to counties to states to the Federal government have zero.zero dollars except that which is willingly given to them by their citizens or extorted somehow. Worse, since ANY budget, whether it be you and your wife, a business, or any level of government, is by definition what I call a "zero sum game". Meaning that at any given time, there is only so much money available, no matter how it got there. So, absent an increase of revenue from either growing the economy or increasing taxes, the BEST that can be hoped for is to cut spending in one area in order to increase it in another and/or increase the deficit by putting the burden on our children and grandchildren. Perhaps the most powerful amendment, even more than the 1st, 4th, or 5th, is the 10th, which essentially says that ANY power not speecifically granted to the Federal government is reserved to the states or the people. Seems simple enought to understand, right? And, while thinking people can easily comprehend that the REAL intent of the ENTIRE Constitution is really to LIMIT the power of the Federal government while PROTECTING the freedoms and rights of the people, it has sadly turned into shysters - most lawmakers are attorneys - and judges into looking for loopholes that allow them to alter something as simple as medicinal use of a joint. If the 10th really applied, Roe v Wade would not be an issue nor would medical joints. Lastly, yes, unfunded mandates are exeedingly dangerous, but what is FAR worse is off-budget items and what are commonly called "entitlements", such as Social Security and Medicare. If one examines the Federal budget in summary fashion, a positively frightenly large perentage are entitlements, which by their very definition are sacrosinct and not open to discussion. No matter how you may feel about the war in Iraq, the ENTIRE military budget for this country is only about 4% of the discretionary spending, actually a reasonable number. Military spending is also at relatively low levels even compared to Viet Nam and certainly lower than at the height of the Cold War. Problem is, though, that the size of the discretionary spending part of the budget is so small that 4% of it actually looms as an alarmingly HUGE number, and the root cause of a trillion dollars of spending, all financed by borrowing. As bad as borrowing money is concerned, another truly frightening factoid is that we're getting it from what is almost certain to become our enemy quite soon - China. All of that said, I don't want to engage in anything at all to do with Ron Paul. I will say only this: the Democrats have/had Dennis Kuchinich as their nutbag, Paul is the Republican nutbag. It isn't that being a strict constructionist is so wrong, I actually like the idea, but Ron Paul comes across as a crazy man when he advocates such absurd notions as abolishing the entire IRS without any compensating revenue source and abolishing the FBI, to name just a few. Fix them, yes, get rid of them in the first 100 days of your administration is so wildly foolhardy that nobody can possibly take him seriously. But, to get an feeling for why he has out-raised campaign funds in the entire race, rent the old Richard Pryor movie "Brewster's Millions" where he needs to spend $1,000,000.00 in 30 days and decides to mount a political campaign he dubbed "vote for none of the above" to simply waste some of the million. So, by analogy/metaphor, people contributing to Ron Paul don't really believe he can win, they want to send a message to ALL the Republicans that "business as usual" in WashLincoln DC isn't nearly good enough. This "message" also extends to the Democrats. Gross disatisfaction with Congress fulfilling its role to initiate and approve appropriations in the House and exercise separation of power responsibilities through Congressional oversight is working no better since the Democrats regained a majority in both houses than prior to 2006 mid-terms. So, while President Bush is actually enjoying a bump in his rather dismal approval ratings as the surge appears to be succeeding at least a little, Congress as a whole - both parties - are at the historic LOW of only 11%. Can you believe it? Only 11% of voters think they are doing a good job And that, sir or madame, is all I have to say about "vote for none of the above". I have stayed clear of this thread because I don't want to encourage this NG becoming bogged down in political infighting, but your comments resonated with some strong feelings I have in general. So, let me apologize for breaking my own rule, but perhaps it would be wise for us to let this thread die and try to stick to the burning issues of the day in digital photography, and there are plenty of them. Good luck in what you think you need to do in Decision 2008 and try to have a good week! -- HP, aka Jerry |
#54
Posted to alt.home.repair,nyc.politics,rec.photo.digital,misc.consumers.frugal-living,talk.politics.guns
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Paul...
(Kurt Ullman) wrote in
: It has always been well settled that medication decisions rest with the FDA and the federal government. Especially since the current state of the literature in medical marijuana makes the research behind Vioxx, etc., look pristine in comparison. Which of course explains why the sale of thoroughly bogus "homeopathic medicines" is legal in the US. -- Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | |
#55
Posted to alt.home.repair,nyc.politics,rec.photo.digital,misc.consumers.frugal-living,talk.politics.guns
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Paul...
LOL... I seriously did a mental flip on this just nowe. I thought you were
referring to Peter Paul... The guy the Clintons are so unhappy with. See: http://tinyurl.com/2v4avg Joe in Northern, NJ - V#8013-R Currently Riding The "Mother Ship" http://yunx.com/valk.htm Ride a motorcycle in or near NJ? http://tinyurl.com/5apkg Political Video: http://tinyurl.com/2v4avg wrote in message oups.com... Has never voted to raise taxes. Has never voted for an unbalanced budget. Has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. Has never voted to raise congressional pay. Has never taken a government-paid junket. Has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. Does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. Returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year. Voted against the Patriot Act. Voted against the Iraq war. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Opener for paul | Home Repair | |||
Stealing from Peter to pay Paul | Home Repair | |||
Paul Milligans BLACKMAIL threats to Turtle | Home Repair |