Gordon Shumway wrote in :

Oops, should have been:

Do you have a PRIVATE sector job and pay taxes?
If yes, vote republican.

What if you're a Verizon employee?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:


I agree that need has to be established for a handout. Wish that was
simple. Getting unemployment because you don't want to work should not
be possible. On the other hand, if the only job available was one that
cut wages to less than half, some kind of subsidy should be available.

Why? There are no sure things in this life (other, of course, than
the Democrats and GOP will both blame ALL the troubles of the world on
the last adminstration that wasn't there's). In that case, my last job,
had I got it, would have paid $30 million a year and I'd like the
balance, if you please. Preferably in gold...

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On 14 Aug 2011 18:50:51 GMT, Han wrote:

Are you too lazy to work and don't pay taxes and do you want the
government to give you money to support yourself or do you work at a
government job and want to insure you never get laid off or have to
work very hard?
If yes, vote democrat.

I agree that need has to be established for a handout. Wish that was
simple. Getting unemployment because you don't want to work should not
be possible. On the other hand, if the only job available was one that
cut wages to less than half, some kind of subsidy should be available.

Why would the pay scale have anything to do with it? Let us suppose a
person was hired to do a high-paying job, because they interviewed
extremely well and had an impeccable resume but they were totally
unqualified. Then let us suppose in 2012 that person is fired from
that job because of his incompetence, arrogance and corruption and
someone qualified was given the job. It shouldn't be the government's
(read tax payers) responsibility to hold that persons hand when things
get rough, that's what relatives, friends and charities are for -- not
my hard earned savings.

On 8/14/2011 3:00 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:27:45 -0500, Gordon Shumway wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 11:16:05 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

It would be interesting to see how totally ****ed up this country
would be if the Republicans were in charge.
Might still get a chance to find out. Then the fur will really fly.
Nearly all these pols - D and R alike - are millionaire yuppies,
don't know the importance of manufacturing the products we buy right
here, and think everybody should be educated for "jobs of the
future.".
Right. Like China and India don't produce educated people by the
millions.
****ing morons.

--Vic

Here is a simple tutorial for voting democrat or republican.

Do you have a public sector job and pay taxes?
If yes, vote republican.

Are you too lazy to work and don't pay taxes and do you want the
government to give you money to support yourself or do you work at a
government job and want to insure you never get laid off or have to
work very hard?
If yes, vote democrat.

Class dismissed.

Oops, should have been:

Do you have a PRIVATE sector job and pay taxes?
If yes, vote republican.

Yer brush is a little broad. There are those of us who work for the
gummint, trying to fix things from the inside, and trying (often
futilely) to keep our little corner of reality from being as effed up as
y'all think it is. Saint Obama announced a few months back that I won't
be getting any cost of living increases for at least two more years, and
also signed off on jacking my health insurance premiums. So, in effect,
my pay HAS been cut.

Layoffs are on the table, too, BTW. Several bills in congress to
downsize, which probably means more contractors (at a higher price) will
get hired. Enough people in my shop said the hell with the pay freeze,
et al, and retired, that I didn't get to take a vacation so far this
year. At this point, since my high-three used to calculate retirement
will likely never get any higher, I'm just trying to see how long I can
hold on to keep adding to my kinda-like-a-401k retirement plan add-on.
If I could find a job that actually interested me out in real world,
that paid even most of what the difference would be between current
take-home and what federal retirement pays, I'd be out the door as fast
as I could file the paperwork. But as you may have noticed, real-world
jobs are kinda scarce right now.

BTW, I don't have any use for either of the current duopoly of political
parties- they are both fulla ****. IMHO, we need to ban political
parties from Congress, and just elect people, and pass out the
committees and power positions (in theory, at least) to the person, not
the party. Of course, that would require the voters and the politicians
to think, rather than just parrot slogans, so it will never happen.
--
aem sends...

Gordon Shumway wrote in :

On 14 Aug 2011 18:50:51 GMT, Han wrote:

Are you too lazy to work and don't pay taxes and do you want the
government to give you money to support yourself or do you work at a
government job and want to insure you never get laid off or have to
work very hard?
If yes, vote democrat.

I agree that need has to be established for a handout. Wish that was
simple. Getting unemployment because you don't want to work should not
be possible. On the other hand, if the only job available was one that
cut wages to less than half, some kind of subsidy should be available.

Why would the pay scale have anything to do with it? Let us suppose a
person was hired to do a high-paying job, because they interviewed
extremely well and had an impeccable resume but they were totally
unqualified. Then let us suppose in 2012 that person is fired from
that job because of his incompetence, arrogance and corruption and
someone qualified was given the job. It shouldn't be the government's
(read tax payers) responsibility to hold that persons hand when things
get rough, that's what relatives, friends and charities are for -- not
my hard earned savings.

Sorry, left a sentence out. There has to be a limit above which
salary/wages wouldn't be supplemented. Also supplementation of reduced
wages needs to be to 75% (WAG number) of previous salary, with a 2 year
(another WAG) time limit.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

bob haller wrote:

Greed is good.



michelle bachman a tea party republican is a shining example of
someone wanting to ruin our country. heres what she stands for.

no higher taxes even on the super wealthy making over 250 grand a
year.

Excellent idea. Better would be to reduce the income tax on the super
wealthy. That way they'd have more money to create jobs.


elminate the minimum wage

Another excellent idea. People should be paid what they're worth. Some are
obviously not worth much.


elminate social security and medicare as we know it today.

Regrettably, that has to be done. The retirement age (65), originally, was
greater than the average life expectancy (63). To match the original
conditions, retirement should be raised to about 74.


tea party is just for the super wealthy

Hmm. I've never seen any "super wealthy" or even "just plain wealthy" at a
tea party rally. You've been misinformed.

cjt wrote:
On 08/14/2011 06:02 AM, HeyBub wrote:
harryagain wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 2011-08-13, wrote:

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of
the rich.

Yer kidding yerself if you think it's a mistake.

nb

Yes, that may be true. The greed culture.

Greed is good.


not necessarily

Absolutely. What one DOES with greed can be dodgy, but suppressing "greed"
itself is a poor idea.

Jack Stein wrote:
On 8/14/2011 7:02 AM, HeyBub wrote:
harryagain wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 2011-08-13, wrote:

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of
the rich.

Yer kidding yerself if you think it's a mistake.

nb

Yes, that may be true. The greed culture.

Greed is good.

Greed is one of the 7 deadly sins. Greed, by definition is bad. You
continue to confuse greed with the [reasonable] desire for self
improvement. This will never change regardless of how often you
repeat it...

Greed is a normal human emotion, given directly by God. God does not make
junk. Long before the Seven Deadly Sins, a sage of the generation
proclaimed: "If not for greed, no man would build a home, marry a woman, or
father a child."

It would be interesting to see how totally ****ed up this country
would be if the Republicans were in charge.

Reminds me of the moose turd pie story.

http://twovoyagers.com/blinkynet.net...ory/mtpie.html

Steve

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

..

Regrettably, that has to be done. The retirement age (65), originally, was
greater than the average life expectancy (63). To match the original
conditions, retirement should be raised to about 74.

I never have been able to figure out where that came from because I
haven't been able to find a stat even close to that. The life expectancy
AT 65 (LE65) is what is important anyway. In the 30s the LE65 was ~10
years. By 2007 it was up to 18.6 years. As it turns out you are right
about 74 being the equivalent.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 17:16:26 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

On 8/14/2011 3:00 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:27:45 -0500, Gordon Shumway wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 11:16:05 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

It would be interesting to see how totally ****ed up this country
would be if the Republicans were in charge.
Might still get a chance to find out. Then the fur will really fly.
Nearly all these pols - D and R alike - are millionaire yuppies,
don't know the importance of manufacturing the products we buy right
here, and think everybody should be educated for "jobs of the
future.".
Right. Like China and India don't produce educated people by the
millions.
****ing morons.

--Vic

Here is a simple tutorial for voting democrat or republican.

Do you have a public sector job and pay taxes?
If yes, vote republican.

Are you too lazy to work and don't pay taxes and do you want the
government to give you money to support yourself or do you work at a
government job and want to insure you never get laid off or have to
work very hard?
If yes, vote democrat.

Class dismissed.

Oops, should have been:

Do you have a PRIVATE sector job and pay taxes?
If yes, vote republican.

Yer brush is a little broad. There are those of us who work for the
gummint, trying to fix things from the inside, and trying (often
futilely) to keep our little corner of reality from being as effed up as
y'all think it is. Saint Obama announced a few months back that I won't
be getting any cost of living increases for at least two more years, and
also signed off on jacking my health insurance premiums. So, in effect,
my pay HAS been cut.

Layoffs are on the table, too, BTW. Several bills in congress to
downsize, which probably means more contractors (at a higher price) will
get hired. Enough people in my shop said the hell with the pay freeze,
et al, and retired, that I didn't get to take a vacation so far this
year. At this point, since my high-three used to calculate retirement
will likely never get any higher, I'm just trying to see how long I can
hold on to keep adding to my kinda-like-a-401k retirement plan add-on.
If I could find a job that actually interested me out in real world,
that paid even most of what the difference would be between current
take-home and what federal retirement pays, I'd be out the door as fast
as I could file the paperwork. But as you may have noticed, real-world
jobs are kinda scarce right now.

BTW, I don't have any use for either of the current duopoly of political
parties- they are both fulla ****. IMHO, we need to ban political
parties from Congress, and just elect people, and pass out the
committees and power positions (in theory, at least) to the person, not
the party. Of course, that would require the voters and the politicians
to think, rather than just parrot slogans, so it will never happen.

One point I should have made, but didn't, was that those government
jobs, in virtually every case, could be done with less cost, faster
completion time and more accurately by the private sector.

First, by eliminating the cumbersome bureaucratic red tape and the
redundant layers of supervision would streamline the task. Fewer
employees and restrictions equal less cost.

Second, by eliminating the cumbersome bureaucratic red tape and the
redundant layers of supervision would streamline the task. Fewer
employees and committees to get approval from equals faster completion
time.

Third, by eliminating the cumbersome bureaucratic red tape and the
redundant layers of supervision would streamline the task. We all are
aware that the congress critters (all of them) would have trouble
finding their ass with both hands. Therefore, without their meddling,
the finished product could only be more accurate.

In closing, if I am elected president...

Gordon Shumway wrote:

One point I should have made, but didn't, was that those government
jobs, in virtually every case, could be done with less cost, faster
completion time and more accurately by the private sector.


Well... well... What about firefighters, eh? What about them! As it turns
out 85% of firefighters are volunteers. Next.

Okay, then. How about police? Interesting. In my town there are probably
five times the number of private security guards as there are police.

The military? Probably most wars in history were fought by some concoction
of mercenaries. If we have a war, we could probably hire an army.

On 08/14/11 09:48 pm, HeyBub wrote:

One point I should have made, but didn't, was that those government
jobs, in virtually every case, could be done with less cost, faster
completion time and more accurately by the private sector.


Well... well... What about firefighters, eh? What about them! As it turns
out 85% of firefighters are volunteers. Next.

Okay, then. How about police? Interesting. In my town there are probably
five times the number of private security guards as there are police.

The military? Probably most wars in history were fought by some concoction
of mercenaries. If we have a war, we could probably hire an army.

Speaking of mercenaries, I have read that the Byzantine Empire hired
mercenaries on principle, since they knew that they could not expect
Christians to go to war. Times have changed, haven't they?

Perce

On 8/14/2011 8:27 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
(snip)
One point I should have made, but didn't, was that those government
jobs, in virtually every case, could be done with less cost, faster
completion time and more accurately by the private sector.

First, by eliminating the cumbersome bureaucratic red tape and the
redundant layers of supervision would streamline the task. Fewer
employees and restrictions equal less cost.

Second, by eliminating the cumbersome bureaucratic red tape and the
redundant layers of supervision would streamline the task. Fewer
employees and committees to get approval from equals faster completion
time.

Third, by eliminating the cumbersome bureaucratic red tape and the
redundant layers of supervision would streamline the task. We all are
aware that the congress critters (all of them) would have trouble
finding their ass with both hands. Therefore, without their meddling,
the finished product could only be more accurate.

In closing, if I am elected president...

A popular misconception, and in most cases flat-out wrong. About the
only time subbing out work to private sector saves money, is if it is
something you can open the yellow pages and find a company that already
does it. (ie, laundry services, rent-a-cop services, outside grounds
maint, that sort of thing.) Anything where you have to come with a
requirements document from scratch costs a fortune up front, has to go
out for bids (and usually protests from the losers), and has to be
monitored through life of the contract. In most cases, work has been
contracted out so politicians could get a sound bite that they 'reduced'
the number of government workers. They lied. All they did is sub the
work out. If I was benign dictator, number of employees would be defined
as the number of warm bodies in the building.

--
aem sends...

On 8/14/2011 11:07 AM, wrote:
On Aug 14, 9:58 am, bob wrote:
On Aug 14, 7:02 am, wrote:

harryagain wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 2011-08-13, wrote:

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the
rich.

Yer kidding yerself if you think it's a mistake.

nb

Yes, that may be true. The greed culture.

Greed is good.

michelle bachman a tea party republican is a shining example of
someone wanting to ruin our country. heres what she stands for.

no higher taxes even on the super wealthy making over 250 grand a
year.

Sure sign of a lib. They think a family earning $250K a year
is the super wealthy. Here in the nyc area, that's two
maried professionals, both hard working, raising a
family. Trying to pay the state and local income taxes,
sky high property taxes, sales taxes, etc.



elminate the minimum wage

elminate social security and medicare as we know it today.

She has taken no such position. She has said they
need to be reformed. Even Obama said he put them
on the table during the recent debt ceiling talks. At
least some Republicans have an actual plan or are
on record saying some of the things they would do
to keep SS solvent. The dems have no plan, other
than just do nothing until they go broke in another
10 years.




tea party is just for the super wealthy

Apparently you've never seen or attended a tea party
rally. Those folks sure don't look like the super
wealthy to me.


You are right. Some of those tea party crack pots look and act like
elementary school rejects.

When I see elderly and disabled people talking up the Tea Party line I
think of Kentucky during the civil war. They actually thought that if
the did not secede from the Union that they would be able to keep their
slaves. Elderly and disabled teapublicans think that the only people
losing benefits because of teapublican policies will be Democrats.

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
On Aug 14, 7:02 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
harryagain wrote:
"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2011-08-13, harryagain wrote:

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the
rich.

Yer kidding yerself if you think it's a mistake.

nb

Yes, that may be true. The greed culture.

Greed is good.



michelle bachman a tea party republican is a shining example of
someone wanting to ruin our country. heres what she stands for.

no higher taxes even on the super wealthy making over 250 grand a
year.

elminate the minimum wage

elminate social security and medicare as we know it today.

tea party is just for the super wealthy

I see the arch dope turned up (Palin cow) on some sort of expensive mototr
bike (Harley)?
Do people in the USA vote for the person with the most bling?
Hoping that somehow they too will get some of the same by their vote?
Deranged.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Gordon Shumway wrote:

One point I should have made, but didn't, was that those government
jobs, in virtually every case, could be done with less cost, faster
completion time and more accurately by the private sector.


Well... well... What about firefighters, eh? What about them! As it turns
out 85% of firefighters are volunteers. Next.

Okay, then. How about police? Interesting. In my town there are probably
five times the number of private security guards as there are police.

The military? Probably most wars in history were fought by some concoction
of mercenaries. If we have a war, we could probably hire an army.


And where do these "volunteers" get their money from?
Come to that,where did you get your information from/
I have noticed your propensity in the past for producing a load of **** and
claiming it to be true.

harryagain wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Gordon Shumway wrote:

One point I should have made, but didn't, was that those government
jobs, in virtually every case, could be done with less cost, faster
completion time and more accurately by the private sector.


Well... well... What about firefighters, eh? What about them! As it
turns out 85% of firefighters are volunteers. Next.

Okay, then. How about police? Interesting. In my town there are
probably five times the number of private security guards as there
are police. The military? Probably most wars in history were fought by
some
concoction of mercenaries. If we have a war, we could probably hire
an army.
And where do these "volunteers" get their money from?
Come to that,where did you get your information from/
I have noticed your propensity in the past for producing a load of
**** and claiming it to be true.

Where do they get their money? I don't know. Perhaps the annual Volunteer
Firefighter's Spagetti Dinner?

I know when I lived in a bedroom community, the VFD collected $10/month from
each resident's water bill (voluntary). When the VFD put out a house fire,
they sent a bill to the insurance company involved. Further, the city of
Houston sold surplus equipment to the surrounding VFDs at bargain rates. My
VFD, serving about 1,000 homes, had five pumper trucks and two ambulances
based in two fires stations. If a job came along that was too big for the
standard equipment, the VFD could call on the assistance of the HUGE fire
department in Houston (mutual assistance agreements).

I suppose each VFD has its own method of obtaining physical equipment. As
for the individuals, I'm pretty sure they pay for personal equipment out of
their own pockets (it's tax deductible).

As for percentages, not just the United States:
"Volunteer fire departments are maintaining the majority of Germany's civil
protection alongside other volunteer organizations..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_fire_department

And, indeed, I misspoke regarding the U.S.:

"1,148,100 firefighters protected the United States in 2009. 335,950 (29%)
were career firefighters and 812,150 (71%) were volunteer firefighters..."
http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp...ookie%5Ftest=1

As for me "producing a load of **** and claiming it to be true," I wish
you'd point out statements you feel are problematic. Then we can have a
"teaching moment" wherein you come to realize the things you hold to be holy
just aren't so at all. You see, ignorance can be fixed; it's knowing
something that isn't true at all that's the problem.

aemeijers wrote:
On 8/14/2011 8:27 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
(snip)
One point I should have made, but didn't, was that those government
jobs, in virtually every case, could be done with less cost, faster
completion time and more accurately by the private sector.

First, by eliminating the cumbersome bureaucratic red tape and the
redundant layers of supervision would streamline the task. Fewer
employees and restrictions equal less cost.

Second, by eliminating the cumbersome bureaucratic red tape and the
redundant layers of supervision would streamline the task. Fewer
employees and committees to get approval from equals faster
completion time.

Third, by eliminating the cumbersome bureaucratic red tape and the
redundant layers of supervision would streamline the task. We all
are aware that the congress critters (all of them) would have trouble
finding their ass with both hands. Therefore, without their
meddling, the finished product could only be more accurate.

In closing, if I am elected president...

A popular misconception, and in most cases flat-out wrong. About the
only time subbing out work to private sector saves money, is if it is
something you can open the yellow pages and find a company that
already does it. (ie, laundry services, rent-a-cop services, outside
grounds maint, that sort of thing.) Anything where you have to come
with a requirements document from scratch costs a fortune up front,
has to go out for bids (and usually protests from the losers), and
has to be monitored through life of the contract. In most cases,
work has been contracted out so politicians could get a sound bite
that they 'reduced' the number of government workers. They lied. All
they did is sub the work out. If I was benign dictator, number of
employees would be defined as the number of warm bodies in the
building.

Heh! A few years ago, the mayor of Brooklyn realized they were coming up on
the 100th anniversary of the Brooklyn Bridge in just two years. Many in the
town wanted a special celebration, but there was a small problem. The bridge
looked like ****, and it was still several years away from it's scheduled
repainting.

Knowing how government worked (your analysis above is correct), to put the
contract out for bids and litigate the ensuing lawsuits of the unsuccessful
bidders would take years! So the mayor went to the head of public works and
asked for a recommendation for a company that could do the work, with which
the city had a good relationship, and that had a track record of good work
at fair prices.

The mayor then called the company and asked if they could paint the bridge
for cost plus a percentage. The company agreed and got to work within two
weeks.

The uproar from other wannabe bridge painters was deafening. Lawsuits were
filed, depositions taken, notaries public without number were lined up to
the horizon. By the time the first lawsuit got to trial, the bridge was
painted (at what everyone agreed was a fair price), the suit rendered moot,
the bridge looked super-spiffy, and the birthday celebration was held to
everyone's satisfaction.

On Aug 14, 5:18*pm, Han wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote :





On 14 Aug 2011 18:50:51 GMT, Han wrote:

Are you too lazy to work and don't pay taxes and do you want the
government to give you money to support yourself or do you work at a
government job and want to insure you never get laid off or have to
work very hard?
If yes, vote democrat.

I agree that need has to be established for a handout. *Wish that was
simple. *Getting unemployment because you don't want to work should not
be possible. *On the other hand, if the only job available was one that
cut wages to less than half, some kind of subsidy should be available.

Why would the pay scale have anything to do with it? *Let us suppose a
person was hired to do a high-paying job, because they interviewed
extremely well and had an impeccable resume but they were totally
unqualified. *Then let us suppose in 2012 that person is fired from
that job because of his incompetence, arrogance and corruption and
someone qualified was given the job. *It shouldn't be the government's
(read tax payers) responsibility to hold that persons hand when things
get rough, that's what relatives, friends and charities are for -- not
my hard earned savings.

Sorry, left a sentence out. *There has to be a limit above which
salary/wages wouldn't be supplemented. *Also supplementation of reduced
wages needs to be to 75% (WAG number) of previous salary, with a 2 year
(another WAG) time limit.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And there you have an good example of the thinking
that's got us where we are today. The libs think every
possible issue they can identify as needing to be fixed
requires another law, another regulation, another
federal program, another handout. And who do they
turn to for these programs and how to run them?
Why Congress of course, with an approval rating
of 15%. I want Congress to do less, not more.

In article ,
"harryagain" wrote:


elminate social security and medicare as we know it today.

That is gonna happen eventually no matter who is in charge. The only
difference is timing and extent. SS has a very big unfunded part because
they vastly increased the benefits but only marginally increased the
taxes paying for them (and that is on top of the actuarial concerns
because of people living longer and paying back the 16T "surplus" that
went to Treasury securities.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Aug 14, 7:07*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

*"HeyBub" wrote:

.

Regrettably, that has to be done. The retirement age (65), originally, was
greater than the average life expectancy (63). To match the original
conditions, retirement should be raised to about 74.

I never have been able to figure out where that came from because I
haven't been able to find a stat even close to that. The life expectancy
AT 65 (LE65) is what is important anyway.

It's not just the life expectancy at 65 that's important. He claims
the average life expectancy in 1935 when SS started was 63.
That actually sounds a bit high. From what I've seen it could
be more like 61. But in any case, then clearly it's not just
life expectancy at 65 that is important. You have people
paying into SS all their working life. If someone dies at 45,
55, etc, they have contributed for a lot of years and will
not be there to collect. So, the overall lifespan certainly
is of major importance. The rate money would have to
be going into the fund to make it solvent directly depends
on it.

The problem today is that people retiring are getting
significantly more out of SS and Medicare than they
ever paid into it. And with the baby boomers now
collecting, the Ponzi scheme is coming undone.


In the 30s the LE65 was ~10
years. By 2007 it was up to 18.6 years. As it turns out you are right
about 74 being the equivalent.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

" wrote in
:

On Aug 14, 5:18*pm, Han wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote
:





On 14 Aug 2011 18:50:51 GMT, Han wrote:

Are you too lazy to work and don't pay taxes and do you want the
government to give you money to support yourself or do you work
at a government job and want to insure you never get laid off or
have to work very hard?
If yes, vote democrat.

I agree that need has to be established for a handout. *Wish that
was simple. *Getting unemployment because you don't want to work
should n
ot
be possible. *On the other hand, if the only job available was one
th
at
cut wages to less than half, some kind of subsidy should be
available.

Why would the pay scale have anything to do with it? *Let us
suppose
a
person was hired to do a high-paying job, because they interviewed
extremely well and had an impeccable resume but they were totally
unqualified. *Then let us suppose in 2012 that person is fired from
that job because of his incompetence, arrogance and corruption and
someone qualified was given the job. *It shouldn't be the
government'
s
(read tax payers) responsibility to hold that persons hand when
things get rough, that's what relatives, friends and charities are
for -- not my hard earned savings.

Sorry, left a sentence out. *There has to be a limit above which
salary/wages wouldn't be supplemented. *Also supplementation of
reduced wages needs to be to 75% (WAG number) of previous salary,
with a 2 year (another WAG) time limit.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And there you have an good example of the thinking
that's got us where we are today. The libs think every
possible issue they can identify as needing to be fixed
requires another law, another regulation, another
federal program, another handout. And who do they
turn to for these programs and how to run them?
Why Congress of course, with an approval rating
of 15%. I want Congress to do less, not more.

We got were we are because of a spendthrift congress, that showered
benefits left and right so the critters could get re-elected left and
right alike. If you think that by abrogating unemployment benefits we
will get back on track, I suggest you hire a firing squad (figuratively
speaking, mostly).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in news:90cad85b-
:

The problem today is that people retiring are getting
significantly more out of SS and Medicare than they
ever paid into it. And with the baby boomers now
collecting, the Ponzi scheme is coming undone.

I think you leave out inflation adjustment and interest earned.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:z-
:

That is gonna happen eventually no matter who is in charge. The only
difference is timing and extent. SS has a very big unfunded part because
they vastly increased the benefits but only marginally increased the
taxes paying for them (and that is on top of the actuarial concerns
because of people living longer and paying back the 16T "surplus" that
went to Treasury securities.

You better be glad that the US birthrate is at or slightly above the level
to keep the working population stable. In Western Europe, only imports are
keeping it up sufficiently, but only for the moment ... And that is
despite the bonuses in their tax laws for producing offspring.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 8/14/2011 6:21 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

Greed is good.

Greed is one of the 7 deadly sins. Greed, by definition is bad. You
continue to confuse greed with the [reasonable] desire for self
improvement. This will never change regardless of how often you
repeat it...

Greed is a normal human emotion, given directly by God.

Greed is a word made up by man that defines excessive desire. Desire is
fine, excessive desire is not. Desire = good, excessive desire = bad.

God does not make junk.

That makes no sense.

Long before the Seven Deadly Sins, a sage of the generation
proclaimed: "If not for greed, no man would build a home, marry a woman, or
father a child."

I'd guess the sage was either an ass, or the definition of greed has
changed.

--
Jack
It's "We the People" not Me the President!
http://jbstein.com

On Aug 15, 9:37*am, Han wrote:
" wrote :





On Aug 14, 5:18 pm, Han wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote
:

On 14 Aug 2011 18:50:51 GMT, Han wrote:

Are you too lazy to work and don't pay taxes and do you want the
government to give you money to support yourself or do you work
at a government job and want to insure you never get laid off or
have to work very hard?
If yes, vote democrat.

I agree that need has to be established for a handout. Wish that
was simple. Getting unemployment because you don't want to work
should n
ot
be possible. On the other hand, if the only job available was one
th
at
cut wages to less than half, some kind of subsidy should be
available.

Why would the pay scale have anything to do with it? Let us
suppose
a
person was hired to do a high-paying job, because they interviewed
extremely well and had an impeccable resume but they were totally
unqualified. Then let us suppose in 2012 that person is fired from
that job because of his incompetence, arrogance and corruption and
someone qualified was given the job. It shouldn't be the
government'
s
(read tax payers) responsibility to hold that persons hand when
things get rough, that's what relatives, friends and charities are
for -- not my hard earned savings.

Sorry, left a sentence out. There has to be a limit above which
salary/wages wouldn't be supplemented. Also supplementation of
reduced wages needs to be to 75% (WAG number) of previous salary,
with a 2 year (another WAG) time limit.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And there you have an good example of the thinking
that's got us where we are today. *The libs think every
possible issue they can identify as needing to be fixed
requires another law, another regulation, another
federal program, another handout. *And who do they
turn to for these programs and how to run them?
Why Congress of course, with an approval rating
of 15%. * I want Congress to do less, not more.

We got were we are because of a spendthrift congress, that showered
benefits left and right so the critters could get re-elected left and
right alike. *If you think that by abrogating unemployment benefits we
will get back on track, I suggest you hire a firing squad (figuratively
speaking, mostly).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you just advocated that spendthrift congress start spending
more money on a new unemployment program where we now
start compensating people who go from one job to a lower
paying job. It's EXACTLY that kind of thinking that has got
us to where we are today.

To any thinking person, it's ripe for abuse. There are
people who are going to do the math, decide, gee,
I can leave my job making $50K, take an easier one
at $40K. Per your own suggestion, the govt would
then pay me $7500. Now I'm making $47.5K, at an
easier, more desirable job. Sounds like a deal
there would be a line for. And if I want to pick up
that extra $2500, just do a little bit of cash work
off the books.

On 8/15/2011 6:40 AM, HeyBub wrote:
harryagain wrote:
wrote in message
m...
Gordon Shumway wrote:

One point I should have made, but didn't, was that those government
jobs, in virtually every case, could be done with less cost, faster
completion time and more accurately by the private sector.


Well... well... What about firefighters, eh? What about them! As it
turns out 85% of firefighters are volunteers. Next.

Okay, then. How about police? Interesting. In my town there are
probably five times the number of private security guards as there
are police. The military? Probably most wars in history were fought by
some
concoction of mercenaries. If we have a war, we could probably hire
an army.
And where do these "volunteers" get their money from?
Come to that,where did you get your information from/
I have noticed your propensity in the past for producing a load of
**** and claiming it to be true.

Where do they get their money? I don't know. Perhaps the annual Volunteer
Firefighter's Spagetti Dinner?


When I was a volunteer firefighter, we were paid $15 a call out no
matter how long we were on the scene which sometimes were as little as a
1/2 hour or so for small grass fires to most of the day for fully
involved structure fires. That money came from a millage on our property
taxes.

We paid from our on pockets to a fund for donuts and coffee to have
during our monthly meetings and training sessions.

If we had a big fire where we had to be on the scene for several hours,
sometimes a few of our wives would get together and bring us water, pop
and some sandwiches.

We also did things like take a pumper (fire truck) and go sit on a hill
to watch for tornadoes during tornado warnings so we could warn the
community if we saw one.

I've also gotten up more than a few times in the middle of the night to
go out with a chain saw and clear trees off the road after bad storms.

For volunteer firefighters, there is barely enough pay to pay our
expenses and plenty of risk to our health. But we do it for our
communities and I've heard very few complain about it.

In article ,
Han wrote:

" wrote in news:90cad85b-
:

The problem today is that people retiring are getting
significantly more out of SS and Medicare than they
ever paid into it. And with the baby boomers now
collecting, the Ponzi scheme is coming undone.

I think you leave out inflation adjustment and interest earned.

What interest earned?

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:z-
:

That is gonna happen eventually no matter who is in charge. The only
difference is timing and extent. SS has a very big unfunded part because
they vastly increased the benefits but only marginally increased the
taxes paying for them (and that is on top of the actuarial concerns
because of people living longer and paying back the 16T "surplus" that
went to Treasury securities.

You better be glad that the US birthrate is at or slightly above the level
to keep the working population stable. In Western Europe, only imports are
keeping it up sufficiently, but only for the moment ... And that is
despite the bonuses in their tax laws for producing offspring.

Saw a rather interesting study on seekingalpha.com late last week.
They noted the same thing and suggested that between the Europeans and
the US we were the better bet because we might actually have taxpayers
left in 30 years to pay back the bond.
Back in 1950, as the baby boom was just getting started, each
retiree's benefit was divided among 16 workers. Today, that number has
dropped to 3.3 workers per retiree, and by 2025, it will reach--and
remain at--about two workers per retiree. So it will only slightly
ameliorate the needed money.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

" wrote in
:

On Aug 15, 9:37*am, Han wrote:
" wrote
innews:c42f550e-7e0
:





On Aug 14, 5:18 pm, Han wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote
:

On 14 Aug 2011 18:50:51 GMT, Han wrote:

Are you too lazy to work and don't pay taxes and do you want
the government to give you money to support yourself or do you
work at a government job and want to insure you never get laid
off or have to work very hard?
If yes, vote democrat.

I agree that need has to be established for a handout. Wish that
was simple. Getting unemployment because you don't want to work
should n
ot
be possible. On the other hand, if the only job available was
one th
at
cut wages to less than half, some kind of subsidy should be
available.

Why would the pay scale have anything to do with it? Let us
suppose
a
person was hired to do a high-paying job, because they
interviewed extremely well and had an impeccable resume but they
were totally unqualified. Then let us suppose in 2012 that
person is fired from that job because of his incompetence,
arrogance and corruption and someone qualified was given the
job. It shouldn't be the government'
s
(read tax payers) responsibility to hold that persons hand when
things get rough, that's what relatives, friends and charities
are for -- not my hard earned savings.

Sorry, left a sentence out. There has to be a limit above which
salary/wages wouldn't be supplemented. Also supplementation of
reduced wages needs to be to 75% (WAG number) of previous salary,
with a 2 year (another WAG) time limit.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And there you have an good example of the thinking
that's got us where we are today. *The libs think every
possible issue they can identify as needing to be fixed
requires another law, another regulation, another
federal program, another handout. *And who do they
turn to for these programs and how to run them?
Why Congress of course, with an approval rating
of 15%. * I want Congress to do less, not more.

We got were we are because of a spendthrift congress, that showered
benefits left and right so the critters could get re-elected left and
right alike. *If you think that by abrogating unemployment benefits
we will get back on track, I suggest you hire a firing squad
(figuratively speaking, mostly).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you just advocated that spendthrift congress start spending
more money on a new unemployment program where we now
start compensating people who go from one job to a lower
paying job. It's EXACTLY that kind of thinking that has got
us to where we are today.

To any thinking person, it's ripe for abuse. There are
people who are going to do the math, decide, gee,
I can leave my job making $50K, take an easier one
at $40K. Per your own suggestion, the govt would
then pay me $7500. Now I'm making $47.5K, at an
easier, more desirable job. Sounds like a deal
there would be a line for. And if I want to pick up
that extra $2500, just do a little bit of cash work
off the books.

That is an incorrect application of what I was proposing. What I was
saying is that a person losing a 35K job for no fault of his own, should
not get full unemployment compensation if he could find a job that paid
25K. Normally one wouldn't take that if the unemployment paid anything
reasonable. But if a 7.5K subsidy were added to the 25K, that would get
him employed, and reduce the unemployment paid to him. There are many
real life examples of people in that type of situation.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Han wrote:

" wrote in news:90cad85b-
:

The problem today is that people retiring are getting
significantly more out of SS and Medicare than they
ever paid into it. And with the baby boomers now
collecting, the Ponzi scheme is coming undone.

I think you leave out inflation adjustment and interest earned.

What interest earned?
on the treasury notes of course.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

Saw a rather interesting study on seekingalpha.com late last week.
They noted the same thing and suggested that between the Europeans and
the US we were the better bet because we might actually have taxpayers
left in 30 years to pay back the bond.
Back in 1950, as the baby boom was just getting started, each
retiree's benefit was divided among 16 workers. Today, that number has
dropped to 3.3 workers per retiree, and by 2025, it will reach--and
remain at--about two workers per retiree. So it will only slightly
ameliorate the needed money.

I saw something similar a while ago. Your 3.3 and 2 workers/retiree are
for Europe or the US?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Han wrote:

" wrote in news:90cad85b-
:

The problem today is that people retiring are getting
significantly more out of SS and Medicare than they
ever paid into it. And with the baby boomers now
collecting, the Ponzi scheme is coming undone.

I think you leave out inflation adjustment and interest earned.

What interest earned?
on the treasury notes of course.

And where is that money supposed to come from? It doesn't just appear,
ya know. Heck, I haven't a really good explanation of where the money to
pay back the notes, let alone the interest, is going to come from. Yet
another instance of Washington's Magical Thinking about money.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

Saw a rather interesting study on seekingalpha.com late last week.
They noted the same thing and suggested that between the Europeans and
the US we were the better bet because we might actually have taxpayers
left in 30 years to pay back the bond.
Back in 1950, as the baby boom was just getting started, each
retiree's benefit was divided among 16 workers. Today, that number has
dropped to 3.3 workers per retiree, and by 2025, it will reach--and
remain at--about two workers per retiree. So it will only slightly
ameliorate the needed money.

I saw something similar a while ago. Your 3.3 and 2 workers/retiree are
for Europe or the US?
US. The European numbers are suspect because they are all over the place
depending on the country. By 2050, it is thought that the elderly will
be around 40% of the population in Japan. They appear to be in the worst
demographic shape.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Jack Stein wrote:

Greed is a word made up by man that defines excessive desire. Desire
is fine, excessive desire is not. Desire = good, excessive desire =
bad.

Okay, I'll play. In what way(s) is "excessive desire" bad?

Be careful in your choice to avoid the rejoinder "... then it's the
inability to control one's actions that's the culprit, not excessive
desire."

"HeyBub" writes:

Jack Stein wrote:

Greed is a word made up by man that defines excessive desire. Desire
is fine, excessive desire is not. Desire = good, excessive desire =
bad.

Okay, I'll play. In what way(s) is "excessive desire" bad?

It's a definition. Greed = bad.

The line in the movie is quoted so often because of the contradiction.
We don't say "greedy" when we mean ambitious.

Sort of like we don't say subservient when we mean respectful.

--
Dan Espen

The problem today is that people retiring are getting
significantly more out of SS and Medicare than they
ever paid into it.

Methinks whoms spoketh doth not have the mathematic skills of a common
garden slug when it comes to compounded interest over a 50 year tyme cycle.

If said peasant were allowed to contribute confiscated earnings to even a
lowly (less than 5%) growth fund, they would have to liveth to be over 200
years old to collect all the accrued interest, and in some cases, they would
have to liveth centuries longer if they had invested in Intel or Starbucks
or Mattel or ..............

Where doth these dolts cometh from.

Oh, dopey me. I forgetteth current outcome based education.............

Steve

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 13:25:52 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Han wrote:

" wrote in news:90cad85b-
:

The problem today is that people retiring are getting
significantly more out of SS and Medicare than they
ever paid into it. And with the baby boomers now
collecting, the Ponzi scheme is coming undone.

I think you leave out inflation adjustment and interest earned.

What interest earned?
on the treasury notes of course.

And where is that money supposed to come from? It doesn't just appear,
ya know. Heck, I haven't a really good explanation of where the money to
pay back the notes, let alone the interest, is going to come from. Yet
another instance of Washington's Magical Thinking about money.

It's not that you don't have an "explanation," it's that you don't
like the explanation. I've explained it before.
U.S. government debt can only be paid by levying taxes.
And how Social Security works is all over the internet.
The accounting is simple and thorough.
That's why those ideologically opposed to Social Security have had no
success in killing it.

To answer your real or feigned confusion once again, Social Security
benefits gets paid with the same entity with which it was funded to
its surplus, Treasury bonds in the Social Security Trust Fund.
Those bonds won't be fully redeemed - current projection - until 2037.
At that point benefit payouts will be reduced to SS tax receipts
received. I saw recently that it's projected to be 70-80% of current
benefits.
Laws can be revised to change that, or not
U.S. government debt is paid by levying taxes.

Though payouts are figured differently, it's no different in
accounting for SS than any other simple bond type financial
instrument.
Let's take a Red Chinese U.S. Treasury bond holder.
He pays for U.S. Treasury interest bearing bonds.
What he paid and expected interest is an asset on his books, and a
debt on the U.S. government books.
All participants are identified, and payment schedules are identified
by law.
U.S. government debt is paid by levying taxes.

Now let's take an American dishwasher, accountant, nurse, fireman,
cop, engineer, etc. They pay half 6.2% of their wages, and their
employer kicks in the same amount.
That money goes into Treasury interest bearing bonds.
That's a loan to the U.S. government.
The total of what employee and employer paid is an asset on the
employee's books, and a debt on the U.S. government books.
All participants are identified, and payments identified by law.
U.S. government debt is paid by levying taxes.

Whether it's a Red Chinese or an American Viet Nam veteran dishwasher,
they lent money to the U.S. government.
Both sides of the ledger are identified - by law.
U.S. government debt is paid by levying taxes.

What's your problem in understanding that?
Maybe you don't want the U.S. to pay its debt?
Is that it?
So who will you stiff, the wealthy Chinese commie or the American
dishwasher?
You can take your pick. Just get the laws changed.
Winning determines whether you're a traitor or a patriot.
Same can go with the law determining whether you're a deadbeat or not.
To some people, anyway.
Happens all the time.
Until then, U.S. government debt is paid by levying taxes.

--Vic

Kurt Ullman wrote in
news
In article ,
Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

Saw a rather interesting study on seekingalpha.com late last
week.
They noted the same thing and suggested that between the Europeans
and the US we were the better bet because we might actually have
taxpayers left in 30 years to pay back the bond.
Back in 1950, as the baby boom was just getting started, each
retiree's benefit was divided among 16 workers. Today, that number
has dropped to 3.3 workers per retiree, and by 2025, it will
reach--and remain at--about two workers per retiree. So it will
only slightly ameliorate the needed money.

I saw something similar a while ago. Your 3.3 and 2 workers/retiree
are for Europe or the US?
US. The European numbers are suspect because they are all over the
place depending on the country. By 2050, it is thought that the
elderly will be around 40% of the population in Japan. They appear to
be in the worst demographic shape.

The European numbers are allover the place because demographic trends
aren't the same. For instance, in at least Italy and France, despite
being nominally Catholic, the people in those countries have managed to
reduce fertility to below 2.3 per family, the generally accepted lvel for
a constant population. Ergo, their populations are shrinking, and
graying. The US, because of higher fertility and immigration of younger
people, isn't as much as Italy and France.
(going by memory, which isn't as good as it used to be).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid