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 |
#81
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
|
#82
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On 8/15/2011 4:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
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? Well first, you started the game with the statement that greed = good. Excessive: going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or degree; characterized by excess: excessive charges; excessive criticism. When you go beyond the "proper limit" that's considered 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." If you can control it, then the desire is not excessive, and greed does not exist. When I "desire" your money so "excessively" I'm willing to take it regardless of the consequences to you, my normal desire for money became greed. Greed = bad. -- Jack When fish are in schools they sometimes take debate. http://jbstein.com |
#83
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On 8/16/2011 12:00 AM, HeyBub wrote:
wrote: 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. Please forward an accepted definition where greed is a synonym for bad. Greed is not a synonym for bad. Bad is an adjective that describes greed. Synonyms for greed might be selfishness, avarice and so on. Also bad things. -- Jack Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life. http://jbstein.com |
#84
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
|
#85
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
Jack Stein wrote:
On 8/15/2011 4:19 PM, HeyBub wrote: 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? Well first, you started the game with the statement that greed = good. Excessive: going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or degree; characterized by excess: excessive charges; excessive criticism. When you go beyond the "proper limit" that's considered 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." If you can control it, then the desire is not excessive, and greed does not exist. When I "desire" your money so "excessively" I'm willing to take it regardless of the consequences to you, my normal desire for money became greed. Greed = bad. You make a good point. Still, isn't "excessive" simply "more than normal"? I suggest my hankering for strawberry shortcake may be greater than your average bear's (though that's doubtful) but I can control it. If one cannot control "excessive" desires, that person is, by definition, insane. For example, if someone is plagued throughout life with a sexual desire for small dogs, everyone would conclude his desire was "excessive." Yet, until he ACTS on those desires, he may be considered the most righteous member of the community. You also make my point when you say "... I'm willing to take it regardless..." Note the word "will." You made the decision [free will] to act on that "excessive" desire. In my view, it is the TAKING that is bad, not the inclination, even "excessive" inclination, to do so. Of course there are those who hold that removing or suppressing the "excessive desire" (by sufficient medication if necessary) will, inter alia, remove the deleterious consequences. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to examine the collateral damage of mental reprogramming. |
#86
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
In article ,
Jack Stein wrote: When you go beyond the "proper limit" that's considered bad. "Proper limit".. now THERE is a concept that is absolutely definable in objective terms that all agree on (grin). My major concern is that greed and most of the terms in this debate really boil down to "I want to take away everything above the level that makes me uncomfortable". -- People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, until patients started presenting with sexually acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz |
#88
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
"HeyBub" writes:
wrote: "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. Please forward an accepted definition where greed is a synonym for bad. A common definition is: "an excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves; avaricious: immoderately desirous of acquiring e.g. wealth." As other posters have explained, all those words, excessive, avaricious, immoderate, have a negative (bad) connotation. Sort of like we don't say subservient when we mean respectful. Uh, no one says "subservient" when they mean "respectful." They are two different things. I can be subservient even when I don't respect the judge for hitting me with a fine and I can be respectful of the president even while vigorously rejecting his demands. Sounds like you haven't kept up with the news: http://tinyurl.com/3t97wgd Appearing on "Face the Nation" Sunday, Rep. Michele Bachmann stood by her comment in Thursday's Republican debate, insisting that when she said wives should be submissive to their husbands, she meant that married couples should have mutual respect. -- Dan Espen |
#89
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On 8/16/2011 8:07 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Jack Stein wrote: On 8/15/2011 4:19 PM, HeyBub wrote: 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? Well first, you started the game with the statement that greed = good. Excessive: going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or degree; characterized by excess: excessive charges; excessive criticism. When you go beyond the "proper limit" that's considered 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." If you can control it, then the desire is not excessive, and greed does not exist. When I "desire" your money so "excessively" I'm willing to take it regardless of the consequences to you, my normal desire for money became greed. Greed = bad. You make a good point. Still, isn't "excessive" simply "more than normal"? I suggest my hankering for strawberry shortcake may be greater than your average bear's (though that's doubtful) but I can control it. If one cannot control "excessive" desires, that person is, by definition, insane. I guess one could make a case that all criminals are by definition, insane. I, and our legal system disagree:-) For example, if someone is plagued throughout life with a sexual desire for small dogs, everyone would conclude his desire was "excessive." I wouldn't, I'd say it was insane, or really abnormal. Yet, until he ACTS on those desires, he may be considered the most righteous member of the community. Only because no one is aware of his abnormal desires for screwing animals. I doubt anyone would describe bestiality as greed. You also make my point when you say "... I'm willing to take it regardless..." Note the word "will." You made the decision [free will] to act on that "excessive" desire. In my view, it is the TAKING that is bad, not the inclination, even "excessive" inclination, to do so. Yes, the action is bad. Greed is just a word the describes the excessive desire that caused the action. Again, no action, then the desire was probably not excessive. Intense perhaps, but not excessive. Once you take action, there is little doubt the desire was excessive and uncontrollable. You can stop saying it now:-) -- Jack Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life. http://jbstein.com |
#90
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On Aug 15, 11:13*am, Han wrote:
" wrote : 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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The example I gave you is exactly the same thing. I just used a guy with a $50K job. You think people aren't smart enough to figure out how to get fired and make it look like it's not their fault if they want to take advantage of some federal program? This would just cost the rest of us more money. And studies have shown that when people lose their jobs, there are two periods when most of them find new ones. The first period is immediately after they are laid off. The second is when their unemployment benefits expire. |
#91
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On 8/16/2011 8:48 AM, Han wrote:
Greed is good if it gets more of the best bang for the buck. That's not greed, that's free market competition. Greed would not get you more bang for your buck, just the opposite. For example, greed might lead you to eliminate competition so you could sell an inferior product at huge profit margins far above normal, say 30%. Greed might lead a political group to accept a boat load of money to sit on unfair competition charges. Something like, exactly like, Microsoft. Greed is good when it enhances compromise. How on earth would greed *excessive desire for something) enhance compromise? If anything, it does the opposite. Greed is bad when it tramples other (people's/companies') rights. Greed is always bad. It is a description of bad behavior. If I want your money and shot you between the eyes and take your money because I'm a greedy little *******, that is bad, EVEN if it turns out your are a perverted mass murder on the FBI's most wanted list. -- Jack A.C.O.R.N: For Democrats that just can't vote often enough... http://jbstein.com |
#92
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On Aug 15, 5:13*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
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 Before you start calling people dolts, you should consider that last time I checked one does not have the option of contributing to a plan that earns 5% interest instead of social security and medicare. I'm not arguing that would not yield better results. But it's not an option. All the money currently being paid in is mostly going right back out to people receiving benefits. That plus drawing down the reserves which will run out for social security in 20 years and for medicare in about 7 years. And a typical person is receiving more in benefits than they paid in. That gap was even worse in prior decades, but there is still a large gap today. Here's a WP article explaining it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010203213.html Analysis illustrates big gap between Medicare taxes and benefits Network NewsX Profile By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar Monday, January 3, 2011 You paid your Medicare taxes all those years and want your money's worth: full benefits after you retire. Nearly three out of five people said in a recent Associated Press-GfK poll that people who paid into the system deserve their full benefits - no cuts. But an updated financial analysis shows that the amount workers have paid does not come close to covering the full value of the medical care they can expect to receive as retirees. Consider an average-wage two-earner couple together earning $89,000 a year. Upon retiring in 2011, they would have paid $114,000 in Medicare payroll taxes during their careers. But they can expect to receive medical services - including prescriptions and hospital care - worth $355,000, or about three times what they put in. |
#93
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On Aug 16, 10:13*am, Jack Stein wrote:
On 8/16/2011 8:07 AM, HeyBub wrote: Jack Stein wrote: On 8/15/2011 4:19 PM, HeyBub wrote: 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? Well first, you started the game with the statement that greed = good. Excessive: going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or degree; characterized by excess: excessive charges; excessive criticism. When you go beyond the "proper limit" that's considered 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." If you can control it, then the desire is not excessive, and greed does not exist. *When I "desire" your money so "excessively" I'm willing to take it regardless of the consequences to you, my normal desire for money became greed. *Greed = bad. You make a good point. Still, isn't "excessive" simply "more than normal"? I suggest my hankering for strawberry shortcake may be greater than your average bear's (though that's doubtful) but I can control it. If one cannot control "excessive" desires, that person is, by definition, insane. I guess one could make a case that all criminals are by definition, insane. *I, and our legal system disagree:-) For example, if someone is plagued throughout life with a sexual desire for small dogs, everyone would conclude his desire was "excessive." I wouldn't, I'd say it was insane, or really abnormal. Yet, until he ACTS on those desires, he may be considered the most righteous member of the community. Only because no one is aware of his abnormal desires for screwing animals. *I doubt anyone would describe bestiality as greed. You also make my point when you say "... I'm willing to take it regardless..." Note the word "will." You made the decision [free will] to act on that "excessive" desire. In my view, it is the TAKING that is bad, not the inclination, even "excessive" inclination, to do so. Yes, the action is bad. *Greed is just a word the describes the excessive desire that caused the action. *Again, no action, then the desire was probably not excessive. Intense perhaps, but not excessive. Once you take action, there is little doubt the desire was excessive and uncontrollable. You can stop saying it now:-) -- Jack Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.http://jbstein.com- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The idea that greed is good flows directly from microeconomics. It is assumed that each participant in a free economy will seek to maximize their profits. That is seen everday. When you go to sell your house, how will you set the price? Will you say, well, I paid $100K for it 10 years ago, so $130K seems like a fair price? No, you set it at the maximum price you can get in the market, maximizing your profit. A business introducing a new product does the same thing. They determine as best they can what price yields the maximum profit to the business. If you price it too low, while you'll sell a lot, you won't make as much profit. If you price it too high, you won't sell many, again yielding less than maximum profit. IF you price it just right, you will see the amount that yields the maximum profit to the business. That's the basis for the "greed is good" concept. Now, if you take greed to the extreme that you break laws, that's another story. |
#94
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
|
#95
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On Aug 16, 6:10*am, Jack Stein wrote:
On 8/16/2011 12:00 AM, HeyBub wrote: wrote: *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. Please forward an accepted definition where greed is a synonym for bad. Greed is not a synonym for bad. *Bad is an adjective that describes greed. *Synonyms for greed might be selfishness, avarice and so on. Also bad things. -- Jack Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.http://jbstein.com Greed is one of the excesses. All excesses are bad. Youdon't have to look far for a definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed |
#96
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On Aug 16, 1:48*pm, Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote innews:FqWdndnDMZjZdtTTnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@earthlink. com: wrote: "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. Please forward an accepted definition where greed is a synonym for bad. A common definition is: "an excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves; avaricious: immoderately desirous of acquiring e.g. wealth." Now I understand that wicked thoughts, in the Christian tradition, are sinful and therefore bad, but in my world, thoughts are neither good nor bad, only actions and results. To me, there was nothing wrong with Carter's famous confession: "I have lusted in my heart". Sort of like we don't say subservient when we mean respectful. Uh, no one says "subservient" when they mean "respectful." They are two different things. I can be subservient even when I don't respect the judge for hitting me with a fine and I can be respectful of the president even while vigorously rejecting his demands. Greed is good if it gets more of the best bang for the buck. *Greed is good when it enhances compromise. *Greed is bad when it tramples other (people's/companies') rights. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcqb9hHQ3E&feature=youtu.be -- I like that guy. But as with all Americans,his English is a little weak. The word he was seeking was Looting. We don't have banks, We have looters, As bad as the kids on our streets. That about sums it up too. |
#97
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On Aug 16, 3:13*pm, Jack Stein wrote:
On 8/16/2011 8:07 AM, HeyBub wrote: Jack Stein wrote: On 8/15/2011 4:19 PM, HeyBub wrote: 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? Well first, you started the game with the statement that greed = good. Excessive: going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or degree; characterized by excess: excessive charges; excessive criticism. When you go beyond the "proper limit" that's considered 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." If you can control it, then the desire is not excessive, and greed does not exist. *When I "desire" your money so "excessively" I'm willing to take it regardless of the consequences to you, my normal desire for money became greed. *Greed = bad. You make a good point. Still, isn't "excessive" simply "more than normal"? I suggest my hankering for strawberry shortcake may be greater than your average bear's (though that's doubtful) but I can control it. If one cannot control "excessive" desires, that person is, by definition, insane. I guess one could make a case that all criminals are by definition, insane. *I, and our legal system disagree:-) For example, if someone is plagued throughout life with a sexual desire for small dogs, everyone would conclude his desire was "excessive." I wouldn't, I'd say it was insane, or really abnormal. Yet, until he ACTS on those desires, he may be considered the most righteous member of the community. Only because no one is aware of his abnormal desires for screwing animals. *I doubt anyone would describe bestiality as greed. You also make my point when you say "... I'm willing to take it regardless..." Note the word "will." You made the decision [free will] to act on that "excessive" desire. In my view, it is the TAKING that is bad, not the inclination, even "excessive" inclination, to do so. Yes, the action is bad. *Greed is just a word the describes the excessive desire that caused the action. *Again, no action, then the desire was probably not excessive. Intense perhaps, but not excessive. Once you take action, there is little doubt the desire was excessive and uncontrollable. You can stop saying it now:-) -- Jack Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.http://jbstein.com- Hide quoted I thought as a bible punching American you would know your bible. It says there that thinking about it is as bad as the deed. |
#98
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On Aug 16, 4:07*pm, "
wrote: On Aug 16, 10:13*am, Jack Stein wrote: On 8/16/2011 8:07 AM, HeyBub wrote: Jack Stein wrote: On 8/15/2011 4:19 PM, HeyBub wrote: 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? Well first, you started the game with the statement that greed = good. Excessive: going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or degree; characterized by excess: excessive charges; excessive criticism. When you go beyond the "proper limit" that's considered 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." If you can control it, then the desire is not excessive, and greed does not exist. *When I "desire" your money so "excessively" I'm willing to take it regardless of the consequences to you, my normal desire for money became greed. *Greed = bad. You make a good point. Still, isn't "excessive" simply "more than normal"? I suggest my hankering for strawberry shortcake may be greater than your average bear's (though that's doubtful) but I can control it. If one cannot control "excessive" desires, that person is, by definition, insane. I guess one could make a case that all criminals are by definition, insane. *I, and our legal system disagree:-) For example, if someone is plagued throughout life with a sexual desire for small dogs, everyone would conclude his desire was "excessive." I wouldn't, I'd say it was insane, or really abnormal. Yet, until he ACTS on those desires, he may be considered the most righteous member of the community. Only because no one is aware of his abnormal desires for screwing animals. *I doubt anyone would describe bestiality as greed. You also make my point when you say "... I'm willing to take it regardless..." Note the word "will." You made the decision [free will] to act on that "excessive" desire. In my view, it is the TAKING that is bad, not the inclination, even "excessive" inclination, to do so. Yes, the action is bad. *Greed is just a word the describes the excessive desire that caused the action. *Again, no action, then the desire was probably not excessive. Intense perhaps, but not excessive. Once you take action, there is little doubt the desire was excessive and uncontrollable. You can stop saying it now:-) -- Jack Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.http://jbstein.com-Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The idea that greed is good flows directly from microeconomics. It is assumed that each participant in a free economy will seek to maximize their profits. * That is seen everday. *When you go to sell your house, how will you set the price? *Will you say, well, I paid $100K for it 10 years ago, so $130K seems like a fair price? *No, you set it at the maximum price you can get in the market, maximizing your profit. A business introducing a new product does the same thing. They determine as best they can what price yields the maximum profit to the business. *If you price it too low, while you'll sell a lot, you won't make as much profit. If you price it too high, you won't sell many, again yielding less than maximum profit. *IF you price it just right, you will see the amount that yields the maximum profit to the business. That's the basis for the "greed is good" concept. Now, if you take greed to the extreme that you break laws, that's another story.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The concept of greed being good arises out of the motivation concept. ie a greedy ******* will outperform one that is not in say, sales. |
#99
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On Aug 16, 3:56*pm, "
wrote: On Aug 15, 5:13*pm, "Steve B" wrote: 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 Before you start calling people dolts, you should consider that last time I checked one does not have the option of contributing to a plan that earns 5% interest instead of social security and medicare. *I'm not arguing that would not yield better results. But it's not an option. *All the money currently being paid in is *mostly going right back out to people receiving benefits. That plus drawing down the reserves which will run out for social security in 20 years and for medicare in about 7 years. * And a typical person is receiving more in benefits than they paid in. *That gap was even worse in prior decades, but there is still a large gap today. Here's a WP article explaining it: *http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...11/01/02/AR201.... Analysis illustrates big gap between Medicare taxes and benefits *Network NewsX Profile By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar Monday, January 3, 2011 You paid your Medicare taxes all those years and want your money's worth: full benefits after you retire. Nearly three out of five people said in a recent Associated Press-GfK poll that people who paid into the system deserve their full benefits - no cuts. But an updated financial analysis shows that the amount workers have paid does not come close to covering the full value of the medical care they can expect to receive as retirees. Consider an average-wage two-earner couple together earning $89,000 a year. Upon retiring in 2011, they would have paid $114,000 in Medicare payroll taxes during their careers. But they can expect to receive medical services - including prescriptions and hospital care - worth $355,000, or about three times what they put in.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - True in all parts of the world. Mostly because of inflation. But also because people are living longer. Here in the UK, the plan is to make them work longer .ie retire later. |
#100
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:57:14 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote: Here in the UK, the plan is to make them work longer .ie retire later. Speaking of turds, harry... Read this: _THE SUN NEVER SETS ON THE BRITISH WELFARE SYSTEM_ http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-10.html |
#101
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On Aug 16, 1:06*pm, "Twayne" wrote:
Why not post where you ARE on topic! You're the only turd involved here. , typed: On Aug 15, 11:13 am, Han wrote: " wrote : 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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The example I gave you is exactly the same thing. *I just used a guy with a $50K job. *You think people aren't smart enough to figure out how to get fired and make it look like it's not their fault if they want to take advantage of some federal program? *This would just cost the rest of us more money. *And studies have shown that when people lose their jobs, there are two periods when most of them find new ones. *The first period is immediately after they are laid off. *The second is when their unemployment benefits expire.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Why don't you just go **** yourself. Not only are you an idiot who usually posts wrong advice, but now you jump on me? I challenge you to find a single off topic post that I started here. I never have, but once someone else does I am as free to comment as you just did above, dickhead. |
#102
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
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. My last raise was last century. The last 10 years of my previous job had *zero* pay increases and the job I currently have pays about $20K less and I've had no increases (a 10% cut for 9 months) in the three years I've been here. Man up. 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. *MAYBE* a higher price but likely less cost. 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. GMAB. 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. Absolutely wrong. |
#103
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
|
#104
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On 8/18/2011 6:49 AM, HeyBub wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote: 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. Absolutely wrong. Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G. Northcott Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes speaking, you need only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!' What could be easier?" But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into play, and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets a seat at the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be in charge, PEOPLE should. The people currently in charge clearly are not up to the task. The decay curve is getting steep. What is your idea to help? -- aem sends... |
#105
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:30:47 -0400, aemeijers wrote:
On 8/18/2011 6:49 AM, HeyBub wrote: zzzzzzzzzz wrote: 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. Absolutely wrong. Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G. Northcott Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes speaking, you need only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!' What could be easier?" But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into play, and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets a seat at the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be in charge, PEOPLE should. So you'd ban people of a like mind from working together? Parties *ARE* people. The people currently in charge clearly are not up to the task. The decay curve is getting steep. What is your idea to help? Then vote for someone else! good grief |
#106
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On 8/18/2011 7:16 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:30:47 -0400, wrote: On 8/18/2011 6:49 AM, HeyBub wrote: zzzzzzzzzz wrote: 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. Absolutely wrong. Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G. Northcott Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes speaking, you need only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!' What could be easier?" But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into play, and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets a seat at the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be in charge, PEOPLE should. So you'd ban people of a like mind from working together? Parties *ARE* people. The people currently in charge clearly are not up to the task. The decay curve is getting steep. What is your idea to help? Then vote for someone else!good grief (Sorry for the direct reply- still fighting with, and losing to, Tbird) And when all the ballot offers up, in most cases, are Tweedledum and Tweedledee, because the system makes it near-impossible for anyone else to get on the ballot? Parties haven't been 'people' for many decades. They are 'the system'. -- aem, who always votes anyway, sends.... |
#107
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:17:52 -0400, aemeijers wrote:
On 8/18/2011 7:16 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:30:47 -0400, wrote: On 8/18/2011 6:49 AM, HeyBub wrote: zzzzzzzzzz wrote: 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. Absolutely wrong. Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G. Northcott Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes speaking, you need only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!' What could be easier?" But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into play, and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets a seat at the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be in charge, PEOPLE should. So you'd ban people of a like mind from working together? Parties *ARE* people. The people currently in charge clearly are not up to the task. The decay curve is getting steep. What is your idea to help? Then vote for someone else!good grief (Sorry for the direct reply- still fighting with, and losing to, Tbird) Didn't get it. And when all the ballot offers up, in most cases, are Tweedledum and Tweedledee, because the system makes it near-impossible for anyone else to get on the ballot? Then get involved! Parties haven't been 'people' for many decades. They are 'the system'. Nonsense. Parties are no more than a conglomeration of people. |
#108
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:30:47 -0400, aemeijers wrote: On 8/18/2011 6:49 AM, HeyBub wrote: zzzzzzzzzz wrote: 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. Absolutely wrong. Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G. Northcott Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes speaking, you need only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!' What could be easier?" But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into play, and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets a seat at the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be in charge, PEOPLE should. So you'd ban people of a like mind from working together? Parties *ARE* people. So are corporations. Pets, too. |
#109
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
aemeijers wrote:
Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G. Northcott Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes speaking, you need only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!' What could be easier?" But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into play, and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets a seat at the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be in charge, PEOPLE should. The people currently in charge clearly are not up to the task. The decay curve is getting steep. What is your idea to help? I guess I can reveal the conservative's plan since it's been delayed somewhat. In the last election, many were rooting for Jeb Bush. After his eight years, some figured we could elect that good-looking Hispanic Bush nephew. After his eight years, the dynasty would be firmly established and it would be only a small step to a monarchy, which conservatives consider the ultimate goal. The plan suffered a setback this time around, but some progress was made. Obama proved that the U.S. is not a racist country when he was elected as president. He also proved it will be generations before the electorate elects another minority. Except maybe a Jew. Or a woman. Or an Aggie. |
#110
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
aemeijers wrote:
And when all the ballot offers up, in most cases, are Tweedledum and Tweedledee, because the system makes it near-impossible for anyone else to get on the ballot? Ah, the dilemma of the "independent" voter. He has to pick, as you said, between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. In reality, the "independent" voter is the most dependent of all ! He has no say in who will be on the ballot. He has no input on the policies, promises, or platforms of the candidates. And after the election, he has no influence with the office holder. Get involved with the party of your choice. Contribute money, knock on doors, volunteer at the 'phone bank, put up signs on highway right-of-ways. Attend your precinct convention and get elected to your county convention. From there, get elected as a delegate to the state convention. Agitate for the items you want included in the party platform. And so on. Politics is not a spectator sport. It also ain't bean-bag. |
#111
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On Aug 18, 11:53*pm, "
wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:17:52 -0400, aemeijers wrote: On 8/18/2011 7:16 PM, wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:30:47 -0400, *wrote: On 8/18/2011 6:49 AM, HeyBub wrote: wrote: 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. Absolutely wrong. Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G. Northcott Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes speaking, you need only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!' What could be easier?" But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into play, and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets a seat at the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be in charge, PEOPLE should. So you'd ban people of a like mind from working together? *Parties *ARE* people. The people currently in charge clearly are not up to the task. The decay curve is getting steep. What is your idea to help? Then vote for someone else!good grief (Sorry for the direct reply- still fighting with, and losing to, Tbird) Didn't get it. And when all the ballot offers up, in most cases, are Tweedledum and Tweedledee, because the system makes it near-impossible for anyone else to get on the ballot? Then get involved! Parties haven't been 'people' for many decades. They are 'the system'. Nonsense. *Parties are no more than a conglomeration of people. * * *- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I have to agree with aemeijers on this one. The two parties are indeed systems. The way candidates are elected for the most part is to come up through the party system. That means serving time in one party or the other, usually starting out at some local office level. And that's where they learn to play the usual games, exchange favors for votes, get funding from various sources who they then become committed to and going along with the party bosses. If they don't play the game, they don't get beyond being a local township committeeman. The Tea Party candidates recently elected were somewhat of a departure from that with most of them having little or no prior experience and perhaps it's a trend that will continue. But it remains to be seen if they will even stay in office. If polls are correct, they seem to have lost a lot of support when they recently did exactly what people elected them to do. At the same time, they clearly ****ed off the party leadership, which could have serious consequences in terms of their getting support for re-election from their own party machine. There are a few other exceptions, those being people with enough personal wealth to finance a campaign for high office themselves. But they are few and far between and the results not impressive. |
#112
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On Aug 19, 11:53*am, "
wrote: On Aug 18, 11:53*pm, " wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:17:52 -0400, aemeijers wrote: On 8/18/2011 7:16 PM, wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:30:47 -0400, *wrote: On 8/18/2011 6:49 AM, HeyBub wrote: wrote: 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. Absolutely wrong. Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G. Northcott Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes speaking, you need only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!' What could be easier?" But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into play, and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets a seat at the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be in charge, PEOPLE should. So you'd ban people of a like mind from working together? *Parties *ARE* people. The people currently in charge clearly are not up to the task. The decay curve is getting steep. What is your idea to help? Then vote for someone else!good grief (Sorry for the direct reply- still fighting with, and losing to, Tbird) Didn't get it. And when all the ballot offers up, in most cases, are Tweedledum and Tweedledee, because the system makes it near-impossible for anyone else to get on the ballot? Then get involved! Parties haven't been 'people' for many decades. They are 'the system'. Nonsense. *Parties are no more than a conglomeration of people. * * *- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I have to agree with aemeijers on this one. *The two parties are indeed systems. *The way candidates are elected for the most part is to come up through the party system. *That means serving time in one party or the other, usually starting out at some local office level. *And that's where they learn to play the usual games, exchange favors for votes, get funding from various sources who they then become committed to and going along with the party bosses. *If they don't play the game, they don't get beyond being a local township committeeman. The Tea Party candidates recently elected were somewhat of a departure from that with most of them having little or no prior experience and perhaps it's a trend that will continue. *But it remains to be seen if they will even stay in office. *If polls are correct, they seem to have lost a lot of support when they recently did exactly what people elected them to do. *At the same time, they clearly ****ed off the party leadership, which could have serious consequences in terms of their getting support for re-election from their own party machine. There are a few other exceptions, those being people with enough personal wealth to finance a campaign for high office themselves. *But they are few and far between and the results not impressive.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - But money buy the government in all cases. No-one represents the poor. Or even the working/middle classes. |
#113
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 03:53:10 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Aug 18, 11:53*pm, " wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:17:52 -0400, aemeijers wrote: On 8/18/2011 7:16 PM, wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:30:47 -0400, *wrote: On 8/18/2011 6:49 AM, HeyBub wrote: wrote: 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. Absolutely wrong. Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G. Northcott Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes speaking, you need only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!' What could be easier?" But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into play, and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets a seat at the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be in charge, PEOPLE should. So you'd ban people of a like mind from working together? *Parties *ARE* people. The people currently in charge clearly are not up to the task. The decay curve is getting steep. What is your idea to help? Then vote for someone else!good grief (Sorry for the direct reply- still fighting with, and losing to, Tbird) Didn't get it. And when all the ballot offers up, in most cases, are Tweedledum and Tweedledee, because the system makes it near-impossible for anyone else to get on the ballot? Then get involved! Parties haven't been 'people' for many decades. They are 'the system'. Nonsense. *Parties are no more than a conglomeration of people. * * *- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I have to agree with aemeijers on this one. The two parties are indeed systems. The way candidates are elected for the most part is to come up through the party system. That means serving time in one party or the other, usually starting out at some local office level. And that's where they learn to play the usual games, exchange favors for votes, get funding from various sources who they then become committed to and going along with the party bosses. If they don't play the game, they don't get beyond being a local township committeeman. Because that's how people *CHOOSE* to operate. There is nothing constitutional about parties. How do you propose to outlaw them? The Tea Party candidates recently elected were somewhat of a departure from that with most of them having little or no prior experience and perhaps it's a trend that will continue. But it remains to be seen if they will even stay in office. If polls are correct, they seem to have lost a lot of support when they recently did exactly what people elected them to do. At the same time, they clearly ****ed off the party leadership, which could have serious consequences in terms of their getting support for re-election from their own party machine. Perhaps the party machine is in the process of being replaced? There are a few other exceptions, those being people with enough personal wealth to finance a campaign for high office themselves. But they are few and far between and the results not impressive. Patience. |
#114
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 05:27:16 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:30:47 -0400, aemeijers wrote: On 8/18/2011 6:49 AM, HeyBub wrote: zzzzzzzzzz wrote: 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. Absolutely wrong. Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G. Northcott Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes speaking, you need only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!' What could be easier?" But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into play, and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets a seat at the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be in charge, PEOPLE should. So you'd ban people of a like mind from working together? Parties *ARE* people. So are corporations. Pets, too. I'll give ya' a .500 on that one. ;-) |
#115
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 05:37:14 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:
aemeijers wrote: Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G. Northcott Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes speaking, you need only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!' What could be easier?" But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into play, and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets a seat at the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be in charge, PEOPLE should. The people currently in charge clearly are not up to the task. The decay curve is getting steep. What is your idea to help? I guess I can reveal the conservative's plan since it's been delayed somewhat. In the last election, many were rooting for Jeb Bush. After his eight years, some figured we could elect that good-looking Hispanic Bush nephew. After his eight years, the dynasty would be firmly established and it would be only a small step to a monarchy, which conservatives consider the ultimate goal. The plan suffered a setback this time around, but some progress was made. Obama proved that the U.S. is not a racist country when he was elected as president. He also proved it will be generations before the electorate elects another minority. Except maybe a Jew. Or a woman. Or an Aggie. Or perhaps a Stormin'. |
#116
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On Aug 20, 12:04*am, "
wrote: On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 05:37:14 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote: aemeijers wrote: Obama proved that the U.S. is not a racist country when he was elected as president. He also proved it will be generations before the electorate elects another minority. Except maybe a Jew. Or a woman. Or an Aggie. Or perhaps a Stormin'.- * Or a retard. (Palin) No-one can fix what Republicans have done to America. You can't blame Obama. He was clearly way out the best. The others were a sad bunch of losers and dimwits. I think if he had a clear run, he might have fixed things. But too late now. The Repubs have f****d things up even more. I'll put my name forward. You could do with an intellectual for once. I will solve your problems. All bankers will be exceuted and their assets siezed and redistributed.. There's a slogan should get me in power. Heh Heh! |
#117
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On Aug 19, 7:02*pm, "
wrote: On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 03:53:10 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Aug 18, 11:53*pm, " wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:17:52 -0400, aemeijers wrote: On 8/18/2011 7:16 PM, wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:30:47 -0400, *wrote: On 8/18/2011 6:49 AM, HeyBub wrote: wrote: 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. Absolutely wrong. Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G. Northcott Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes speaking, you need only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!' What could be easier?" But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into play, and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets a seat at the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be in charge, PEOPLE should. So you'd ban people of a like mind from working together? *Parties *ARE* people. The people currently in charge clearly are not up to the task. The decay curve is getting steep. What is your idea to help? Then vote for someone else!good grief (Sorry for the direct reply- still fighting with, and losing to, Tbird) Didn't get it. And when all the ballot offers up, in most cases, are Tweedledum and Tweedledee, because the system makes it near-impossible for anyone else to get on the ballot? Then get involved! Parties haven't been 'people' for many decades. They are 'the system'.. Nonsense. *Parties are no more than a conglomeration of people. * * *- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I have to agree with aemeijers on this one. *The two parties are indeed systems. *The way candidates are elected for the most part is to come up through the party system. *That means serving time in one party or the other, usually starting out at some local office level. *And that's where they learn to play the usual games, exchange favors for votes, get funding from various sources who they then become committed to and going along with the party bosses. *If they don't play the game, they don't get beyond being a local township committeeman. Because that's how people *CHOOSE* to operate. *There is nothing constitutional about parties. *How do you propose to outlaw them? I think you mean there is nothing unconstitutional and I agree. I'm not proposing to outlaw them. I'm only making the observation that the two party system is just that, a system that is almost impossible to go around. The two parties have the power and the mnoney to determine the candidates and it's naive to think that you can just vote for someone who is different. I see people writing letter to the local paper all the time, saying this time, just vote all the incumbents out. What they fail to realize is that the choices on the ballot are coming from the same exact pool that produced the guy they want to throw out. In almost all cases the candidates on the ballot for higher office have been part of that political system for a long time, have learned how to get along, how pay to play works, are controlled to a large extent by the party bosses, etc. The Tea Party candidates recently elected were somewhat of a departure from that with most of them having little or no prior experience and perhaps it's a trend that will continue. *But it remains to be seen if they will even stay in office. *If polls are correct, they seem to have lost a lot of support when they recently did exactly what people elected them to do. *At the same time, they clearly ****ed off the party leadership, which could have serious consequences in terms of their getting support for re-election from their own party machine. Perhaps the party machine is in the process of being replaced? Yes, it's possible. But I would not bet on it. As I said above, the Tea Party took a big hit in the polls when they did precisely what the people elected them to do. I see that as part of an immature electorate that wants painless, impossible and unrealistic solutions. I would not be surprised for the next election to in turn throw the Tea Party folks out and put back in more of the old guard. |
#118
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
On Aug 20, 3:51*am, harry wrote:
On Aug 20, 12:04*am, zzz wrote: On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 05:37:14 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote: aemeijers wrote: Obama proved that the U.S. is not a racist country when he was elected as president. He also proved it will be generations before the electorate elects another minority. Except maybe a Jew. Or a woman. Or an Aggie. Or perhaps a Stormin'.- * Or a retard. (Palin) No-one can fix what Republicans have done to America. You can't blame Obama. *He was clearly way out the best. The others were a sad bunch of losers and dimwits. *I think if he had a clear run, he might have fixed things. *But too late now. *The Repubs have f****d things up even more. Say what? He did have a "clear run". The Democrats controlled the White House, Senate, and House for Obama's first two years. They had a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate. The problem is not that he did not get his way. The problem is just about everything he has done has been wrong. Yet, Obama and the libs continue to blame everyone but themselves. The biggest problem now is Obama himself. As a great example, look at how he has screwed Boeing and the people in South Carolina that need jobs. Boeing built a $1 bil plant in that state to build parts for the just launced 787. The NLRB, acting on allegations from a union in Washington state, won't allow Boeing to open that plant. The union alleges that Boeing built the plant in retaliation for a strike several years ago. That despite the fact that Boeing has created MORE jobs in WA as well. The repercussions and effect on jobs and the ecomomy extend way beyond that one plant. How about it delays the 787 and costs Boeing billions in lost orders that go to Airbus instead, resulting in lost jobs for Boeing workers in WA, Boeing suppliers through out the USA? Why would anyone expect the economy to improve when we have a president allowing stupid things like this to go on? Spend $830 on govt stimulus, but have the same govt blocking a major plant. And then people wonder why corporations move jobs overseas? Until he goes and we get a president that is pro business with a positive message, don't expect things to be any different. |
#119
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
|
#120
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Turds in Iowa.
harry wrote:
I will solve your problems. All bankers will be exceuted and their assets siezed and redistributed.. There's a slogan should get me in power. Heh Heh! Wouldn't matter. If all the wealth of the richest 10% of Americans were confiscated and redistributed, two things would happen: 1. Each person would get a surprisingly small amount, and 2. Within in relatively short period, the original distribution would return. Re that last: Surprisingly many people would use a windfall to obtain crack cocaine or buy a motorcycle. Or both. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Mapleton, Iowa, tornado | Home Repair | |||
Tools and wood FS in Iowa | Woodworking | |||
Tools and wood FS in Iowa | Woodworking | |||
Tools and wood FS in Iowa | Woodworking |