"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Those sound like democrat controlled states. Take my governor, I hear
she
is hot. Just
take her away, please.

She has to be an idiot to take that job in the first place, so you can
keep
her.

Maybe the same could be said about our current President.

Regarding the Democratically controlled states: hey, somebody has to pay
the
bills for those red states that get more federal money than they pay out
in
taxes.

Well, the state of New York sure picked the nations pockets. Think
derivatives.

Hey, that's good ol' conservative, free-market bidness, Wes! Hands off 'dem
businessmen! What kinda conservative are you, anyhow? d8-)


g Alaska is the real welfare queen. Besides getting almost $2 back
for every dollar they're taxed, that great free-market governor of theirs
rigged things so they skim enough off of the oil companies to send a nice,
fat, $4,000 welfare check to every crackpot and rug rat in the state. Of
course, we pay for all of it.

At least Alaska sends us oil and natural gas, something we need.

That's not Alaska. That's the oil companies that drill it and pipe it.
Alaska sends us blubber, frozen halibut, and crackpot politicians.

Delaware, just sends
higher credit card bills.

More good ol'....bidness. It's a free market! You aren't a closet commie
now, are you? You can just switch to another, competitive credit-card
company. Competition guarentees that they always have the lowest possible
rates. g

Well, some of us, I pay my charges off inside of 20 days so I
don't get hit with interest.

Oh, I left out the govermental industry centered around Washingon DC, that
one sure sucks
the cash out of the rest of the country.

Then they pass most of it out to the red states. Did you ever look at which
states send tax money in, and how much each one gets back? Sheesh.

What do you think they do with that money in Washington? Stuff it into their
mattresses? It gets converted into pork and sent back out to the states --
mostly the ones with old Senators.


I hope you didn't get hit too hard with the snow.

sigh It's all over, for a while. We wound up with about another 12 inches.
I just finished shoveling the driveway an hour ago and my back is
recovering. If I was in shape for it, I'd get out my cross-country skiis and
just say screw the driveway. I can ski to the train station in about three
minutes and the supermarket in ten -- or I could, 20 years ago.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, the state of New York sure picked the nations pockets. Think
derivatives.

Hey, that's good ol' conservative, free-market bidness, Wes! Hands off 'dem
businessmen! What kinda conservative are you, anyhow? d8-)

A thinking conservative.


g Alaska is the real welfare queen. Besides getting almost $2 back
for every dollar they're taxed, that great free-market governor of theirs
rigged things so they skim enough off of the oil companies to send a nice,
fat, $4,000 welfare check to every crackpot and rug rat in the state. Of
course, we pay for all of it.

At least Alaska sends us oil and natural gas, something we need.

That's not Alaska. That's the oil companies that drill it and pipe it.
Alaska sends us blubber, frozen halibut, and crackpot politicians.

Barney Frank and Pelosi are not from Alaska.


Delaware, just sends
higher credit card bills.

More good ol'....bidness. It's a free market! You aren't a closet commie
now, are you? You can just switch to another, competitive credit-card
company. Competition guarentees that they always have the lowest possible
rates. g

Remember when Congress wanted to put limits on credit card interest an administration ago?
Soon we were hearing it would cause the colapse of the financial industry and the idea was
abandoned. Sounds like both parties are owned.


Well, some of us, I pay my charges off inside of 20 days so I
don't get hit with interest.

Oh, I left out the govermental industry centered around Washingon DC, that
one sure sucks
the cash out of the rest of the country.

Then they pass most of it out to the red states. Did you ever look at which
states send tax money in, and how much each one gets back? Sheesh.

What is it, 45K private sector workers, 74K governmental sector workers. Where are those
governmental sector workers bunched up at? Not a red state. Some one pays them. Must be
trickle up.


What do you think they do with that money in Washington? Stuff it into their
mattresses? It gets converted into pork and sent back out to the states --
mostly the ones with old Senators.

I'm not going to look up what amendment made direct election the rule but I still like the
idea of the state legislature picking senators. Even if the legislature isn't my party.
It would be a sure thing Levin would have been retired long ago. Some states are going to
be pick your party strongholds but a lot of them change parties periodically.

Okay, I looked it up 17th.


I hope you didn't get hit too hard with the snow.

sigh It's all over, for a while. We wound up with about another 12 inches.
I just finished shoveling the driveway an hour ago and my back is
recovering. If I was in shape for it, I'd get out my cross-country skiis and
just say screw the driveway. I can ski to the train station in about three
minutes and the supermarket in ten -- or I could, 20 years ago.

I haven't broke out my skis once this year. Pretty pathetic on my end.

I gotta snow blow in the morning, nothing stopping me other than it is hard to back up the
driveway without running off an edge when there isn't any sharp edges to see.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

You may know that I wrote a series of long articles about China trade early
in the last decade, and I had a chance then to talk to a lot of the
government people involved with trade. FWIW, this is my short take:

Everyone involved at that level knows that Chang is right. They also know
that having China and other developing countries get rich as soon as
possible is in the best interest of the US. That's the best way for them to
become a market for us, and to level off trade, through a combination of
increased domestic consumption on their part, increased consumption of
imports, and rising costs -- which are inevitable as they become wealthier.



I've always maintained that the sooner China's standard of living rises, the better it
will be for us. I'd rather be in a race to the top than a race to the bottom.


Wes

On Feb 28, 1:33*am, Wes wrote:


I've always maintained that the sooner China's standard of living rises, the better it
will be for us. *I'd rather be in a race to the top than a race to the bottom.

Wes

Then you will be glad to hear that the NYT had an article today on the
wages in China increasing because of the labor shortage there.
Signing bonuses for accepting employment, 20% increase in factory
wages is recent months, Wenzhou alone posted a shortage of up to one
million workers.

Dan

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, the state of New York sure picked the nations pockets. Think
derivatives.

Hey, that's good ol' conservative, free-market bidness, Wes! Hands off
'dem
businessmen! What kinda conservative are you, anyhow? d8-)

A thinking conservative.

Uh-oh. A RINO, eh? g



g Alaska is the real welfare queen. Besides getting almost $2 back
for every dollar they're taxed, that great free-market governor of
theirs
rigged things so they skim enough off of the oil companies to send a
nice,
fat, $4,000 welfare check to every crackpot and rug rat in the state. Of
course, we pay for all of it.

At least Alaska sends us oil and natural gas, something we need.

That's not Alaska. That's the oil companies that drill it and pipe it.
Alaska sends us blubber, frozen halibut, and crackpot politicians.

Barney Frank and Pelosi are not from Alaska.


Delaware, just sends
higher credit card bills.

More good ol'....bidness. It's a free market! You aren't a closet commie
now, are you? You can just switch to another, competitive credit-card
company. Competition guarentees that they always have the lowest possible
rates. g

Remember when Congress wanted to put limits on credit card interest an
administration ago?
Soon we were hearing it would cause the colapse of the financial industry
and the idea was
abandoned. Sounds like both parties are owned.

It started in 1980; the culprit in breaking down the old interest rate
limits was South Dakota, not Delaware; and Dan Quayle is the one who gave
the signal, in 1991, that the President (Bush I) would veto the bill if it
got through the House.

You may find this brief history of the credit card industry entertaining. It
doesn't go all the way back to the Sears Revolving Credit card, but it's a
good history of the past few decades:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...more/rise.html



Well, some of us, I pay my charges off inside of 20 days so I
don't get hit with interest.

Oh, I left out the govermental industry centered around Washingon DC,
that
one sure sucks
the cash out of the rest of the country.

Then they pass most of it out to the red states. Did you ever look at
which
states send tax money in, and how much each one gets back? Sheesh.

What is it, 45K private sector workers, 74K governmental sector workers.
Where are those
governmental sector workers bunched up at? Not a red state. Some one
pays them. Must be
trickle up.

There are just over 2 million federal employees (not counting 3 million
active and reserve military personnel). Approximately 85% of the 2 million
work *outside* of the D.C. metro area. So you're looking at around 300,000
federal employees in and around Washington, including the nearby areas of
Maryland and Virginia.

If they earn an average of $74k (it's just slightly less), that's $22
Billion. Federal tax revenue is $2.1 Trillion.

Wes, that's 1% of the tax revenue. I think you'll have to look elsewhere for
your scapegoat. g

(This agrees closely with the total federal nondefense civilian salaries and
wages of $163 Billion, nationwide).

If you want to see where all our tax money goes, in moderate detail and from
a variety of angles, see the government's Consolidated Federal Funds Report:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/cffr-08.pdf



What do you think they do with that money in Washington? Stuff it into
their
mattresses? It gets converted into pork and sent back out to the states --
mostly the ones with old Senators.

I'm not going to look up what amendment made direct election the rule but
I still like the
idea of the state legislature picking senators. Even if the legislature
isn't my party.
It would be a sure thing Levin would have been retired long ago. Some
states are going to
be pick your party strongholds but a lot of them change parties
periodically.

Okay, I looked it up 17th.

You have a lot of faith in state legislatures. As far as I can see, most of
them are second- or third-raters, and even more ideological and politically
polarized than Congress.

Retired congressmen have commented in several places lately that the
gerrymandering of districts has forced individual congressmen to reach for
the political poles, whereas they used to have to try to cover the center.
It makes sense to me. And that's a function of state governments. They set
the districts.



I hope you didn't get hit too hard with the snow.

sigh It's all over, for a while. We wound up with about another 12
inches.
I just finished shoveling the driveway an hour ago and my back is
recovering. If I was in shape for it, I'd get out my cross-country skiis
and
just say screw the driveway. I can ski to the train station in about three
minutes and the supermarket in ten -- or I could, 20 years ago.

I haven't broke out my skis once this year. Pretty pathetic on my end.

I gotta snow blow in the morning, nothing stopping me other than it is
hard to back up the
driveway without running off an edge when there isn't any sharp edges to
see.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, the state of New York sure picked the nations pockets. Think
derivatives.

Hey, that's good ol' conservative, free-market bidness, Wes! Hands off
'dem
businessmen! What kinda conservative are you, anyhow? d8-)

A thinking conservative.

Uh-oh. A RINO, eh? g

ROTFLMAO! The snow hasn't hurt your sense of humor.



g Alaska is the real welfare queen. Besides getting almost $2 back
for every dollar they're taxed, that great free-market governor of
theirs
rigged things so they skim enough off of the oil companies to send a
nice,
fat, $4,000 welfare check to every crackpot and rug rat in the state. Of
course, we pay for all of it.

At least Alaska sends us oil and natural gas, something we need.

That's not Alaska. That's the oil companies that drill it and pipe it.
Alaska sends us blubber, frozen halibut, and crackpot politicians.

Barney Frank and Pelosi are not from Alaska.


Delaware, just sends
higher credit card bills.

More good ol'....bidness. It's a free market! You aren't a closet commie
now, are you? You can just switch to another, competitive credit-card
company. Competition guarentees that they always have the lowest possible
rates. g

I don't actually need a credit card and as long as it doesn't cost me I'll have one. The
only reason I keep one for the most part is to maintain the credit history behind it. For
some perverse reason, canceling a card cancels the history from what I've been told.




Remember when Congress wanted to put limits on credit card interest an
administration ago?
Soon we were hearing it would cause the colapse of the financial industry
and the idea was
abandoned. Sounds like both parties are owned.

It started in 1980; the culprit in breaking down the old interest rate
limits was South Dakota, not Delaware; and Dan Quayle is the one who gave
the signal, in 1991, that the President (Bush I) would veto the bill if it
got through the House.

You may find this brief history of the credit card industry entertaining. It
doesn't go all the way back to the Sears Revolving Credit card, but it's a
good history of the past few decades:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...more/rise.html

That was a good read. Initially there was an issue with usury laws and inflation. From
there it went down hill. My view of banks as businesses and partners has rapidly moved
toward predators. This isn't limited to just banks





Well, some of us, I pay my charges off inside of 20 days so I
don't get hit with interest.

Oh, I left out the govermental industry centered around Washingon DC,
that
one sure sucks
the cash out of the rest of the country.

Then they pass most of it out to the red states. Did you ever look at
which
states send tax money in, and how much each one gets back? Sheesh.

What is it, 45K private sector workers, 74K governmental sector workers.
Where are those
governmental sector workers bunched up at? Not a red state. Some one
pays them. Must be
trickle up.

There are just over 2 million federal employees (not counting 3 million
active and reserve military personnel). Approximately 85% of the 2 million
work *outside* of the D.C. metro area. So you're looking at around 300,000
federal employees in and around Washington, including the nearby areas of
Maryland and Virginia.

Do you have a count of the contractors that owe their living to serving DC?

If they earn an average of $74k (it's just slightly less), that's $22
Billion. Federal tax revenue is $2.1 Trillion.

Wes, that's 1% of the tax revenue. I think you'll have to look elsewhere for
your scapegoat. g

But what percent of drag on the economy as they try to make themselves useful by
constantly pushing for and enacting job killing regulations?

(This agrees closely with the total federal nondefense civilian salaries and
wages of $163 Billion, nationwide).

If you want to see where all our tax money goes, in moderate detail and from
a variety of angles, see the government's Consolidated Federal Funds Report:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/cffr-08.pdf

I'm looking at page 21 in that pdf. To look at it you see large areas of the country at
the top rate, not sure what is going on with Utah, but that is per capita. The east coast
has a lot of people in their tiny states. In a state like WY, basic things like the
interstate highway, national parks and such can skew the numbers.

Then things like people moving from a high wage high tax state on retirement to a cheaper
state are going to show up in that same chart. What is that spike with WV?

I see Virginia and Maryland both clean up on defense and other agencies.




What do you think they do with that money in Washington? Stuff it into
their
mattresses? It gets converted into pork and sent back out to the states --
mostly the ones with old Senators.

I'm not going to look up what amendment made direct election the rule but
I still like the
idea of the state legislature picking senators. Even if the legislature
isn't my party.
It would be a sure thing Levin would have been retired long ago. Some
states are going to
be pick your party strongholds but a lot of them change parties
periodically.

Okay, I looked it up 17th.

You have a lot of faith in state legislatures. As far as I can see, most of
them are second- or third-raters, and even more ideological and politically
polarized than Congress.

State legislatures are the farm teams. Where do you think our US congress people come
from?


Retired congressmen have commented in several places lately that the
gerrymandering of districts has forced individual congressmen to reach for
the political poles, whereas they used to have to try to cover the center.
It makes sense to me. And that's a function of state governments. They set
the districts.

Under guidance and consent decrees administered by the DOJ. Some of that gerrymandering
has a heavy federal hand in it.

Darn, weekend went too fast once again.

Wes

" wrote:

On Feb 28, 1:33=A0am, Wes wrote:


I've always maintained that the sooner China's standard of living rises, =
the better it
will be for us. =A0I'd rather be in a race to the top than a race to the =
bottom.

Wes

Then you will be glad to hear that the NYT had an article today on the
wages in China increasing because of the labor shortage there.
Signing bonuses for accepting employment, 20% increase in factory
wages is recent months, Wenzhou alone posted a shortage of up to one
million workers.

Dan

Who are they selling to? Is their internal economy having a lot of growth?

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Feb 28, 11:26*pm, Wes wrote:


Who are they selling to? *Is their internal economy having a lot of growth?

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." *Dick Anthony Heller

The article really did not say except that the Chinese stimulus
program created a lot of new jobs in the interior.

Dan

" wrote:

On Feb 28, 11:26*pm, Wes wrote:


Who are they selling to? *Is their internal economy having a lot of growth?

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." *Dick Anthony Heller

The article really did not say except that the Chinese stimulus
program created a lot of new jobs in the interior.

So it isn't just the Western world trying to put their economy on lifesupport. Business
is evil until the tax revenue drops off.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, the state of New York sure picked the nations pockets. Think
derivatives.

Hey, that's good ol' conservative, free-market bidness, Wes! Hands off
'dem
businessmen! What kinda conservative are you, anyhow? d8-)

A thinking conservative.

Uh-oh. A RINO, eh? g

ROTFLMAO! The snow hasn't hurt your sense of humor.




g Alaska is the real welfare queen. Besides getting almost $2 back
for every dollar they're taxed, that great free-market governor of
theirs
rigged things so they skim enough off of the oil companies to send a
nice,
fat, $4,000 welfare check to every crackpot and rug rat in the state.
Of
course, we pay for all of it.

At least Alaska sends us oil and natural gas, something we need.

That's not Alaska. That's the oil companies that drill it and pipe it.
Alaska sends us blubber, frozen halibut, and crackpot politicians.

Barney Frank and Pelosi are not from Alaska.


Delaware, just sends
higher credit card bills.

More good ol'....bidness. It's a free market! You aren't a closet commie
now, are you? You can just switch to another, competitive credit-card
company. Competition guarentees that they always have the lowest
possible
rates. g

I don't actually need a credit card and as long as it doesn't cost me I'll
have one. The
only reason I keep one for the most part is to maintain the credit history
behind it. For
some perverse reason, canceling a card cancels the history from what I've
been told.




Remember when Congress wanted to put limits on credit card interest an
administration ago?
Soon we were hearing it would cause the colapse of the financial
industry
and the idea was
abandoned. Sounds like both parties are owned.

It started in 1980; the culprit in breaking down the old interest rate
limits was South Dakota, not Delaware; and Dan Quayle is the one who gave
the signal, in 1991, that the President (Bush I) would veto the bill if it
got through the House.

You may find this brief history of the credit card industry entertaining.
It
doesn't go all the way back to the Sears Revolving Credit card, but it's a
good history of the past few decades:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...more/rise.html

That was a good read. Initially there was an issue with usury laws and
inflation. From
there it went down hill. My view of banks as businesses and partners has
rapidly moved
toward predators. This isn't limited to just banks

There are a lot of opinions about this. We've provided the tools for
predation and greed, through relaxed regulation. Technology and greed took
over. Then it became the price of staying in business, especially for hedge
funds. They either had to produce incredible returns or they'd lose their
investors. Then another wave of greed took over as they began making major
investments on their house accounts.






Well, some of us, I pay my charges off inside of 20 days so I
don't get hit with interest.

Oh, I left out the govermental industry centered around Washingon DC,
that
one sure sucks
the cash out of the rest of the country.

Then they pass most of it out to the red states. Did you ever look at
which
states send tax money in, and how much each one gets back? Sheesh.

What is it, 45K private sector workers, 74K governmental sector workers.
Where are those
governmental sector workers bunched up at? Not a red state. Some one
pays them. Must be
trickle up.

There are just over 2 million federal employees (not counting 3 million
active and reserve military personnel). Approximately 85% of the 2 million
work *outside* of the D.C. metro area. So you're looking at around 300,000
federal employees in and around Washington, including the nearby areas of
Maryland and Virginia.

Do you have a count of the contractors that owe their living to serving
DC?

No. What would that show you? You can look for a breakdown of procurements
by state, but, economically, it doesn't matter much whether they're
government purchases from private suppliers or private purchases.


If they earn an average of $74k (it's just slightly less), that's $22
Billion. Federal tax revenue is $2.1 Trillion.

Wes, that's 1% of the tax revenue. I think you'll have to look elsewhere
for
your scapegoat. g

But what percent of drag on the economy as they try to make themselves
useful by
constantly pushing for and enacting job killing regulations?

(This agrees closely with the total federal nondefense civilian salaries
and
wages of $163 Billion, nationwide).

If you want to see where all our tax money goes, in moderate detail and
from
a variety of angles, see the government's Consolidated Federal Funds
Report:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/cffr-08.pdf

I'm looking at page 21 in that pdf. To look at it you see large areas of
the country at
the top rate, not sure what is going on with Utah, but that is per capita.
The east coast
has a lot of people in their tiny states. In a state like WY, basic
things like the
interstate highway, national parks and such can skew the numbers.

As the Tax Foundation can tell you (and it may also be in the CFFR), most of
the states that get the most federal money per capita are poor states. There
are some exceptions, of course.


Then things like people moving from a high wage high tax state on
retirement to a cheaper
state are going to show up in that same chart. What is that spike with
WV?

Ah, that's because of Senator Porkbarrel -- Robert C. Byrd. He's losing his
edge, but, for decades, he was the champion pork wrestler in the Senate.


I see Virginia and Maryland both clean up on defense and other agencies.

Yes, that's where a lot of them are located.





What do you think they do with that money in Washington? Stuff it into
their
mattresses? It gets converted into pork and sent back out to the
states --
mostly the ones with old Senators.

I'm not going to look up what amendment made direct election the rule
but
I still like the
idea of the state legislature picking senators. Even if the legislature
isn't my party.
It would be a sure thing Levin would have been retired long ago. Some
states are going to
be pick your party strongholds but a lot of them change parties
periodically.

Okay, I looked it up 17th.

You have a lot of faith in state legislatures. As far as I can see, most
of
them are second- or third-raters, and even more ideological and
politically
polarized than Congress.

State legislatures are the farm teams. Where do you think our US congress
people come
from?

If you take the best one or two out of 100 for federal office, that leaves
98 turkeys. That was James Madison's argument. As he said in Federalist 10:

"In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic
may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to
guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they
must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion
of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not
being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being
proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the
proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small
republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a
greater probability of a fit choice."

In other words, your chance of electing turkeys is greater in a state than
in the national government.



Retired congressmen have commented in several places lately that the
gerrymandering of districts has forced individual congressmen to reach for
the political poles, whereas they used to have to try to cover the center.
It makes sense to me. And that's a function of state governments. They set
the districts.

Under guidance and consent decrees administered by the DOJ. Some of that
gerrymandering
has a heavy federal hand in it.

I'm not aware of that, Wes. The Supreme Court has allowed the states a free
hand in setting districts, and Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004) pretty much iced
any chances of making them more fair.


Darn, weekend went too fast once again.

Wes

Always.

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

snip

Whoops, I missed one of your questions the first time:


There are just over 2 million federal employees (not counting 3 million
active and reserve military personnel). Approximately 85% of the 2 million
work *outside* of the D.C. metro area. So you're looking at around 300,000
federal employees in and around Washington, including the nearby areas of
Maryland and Virginia.

Do you have a count of the contractors that owe their living to serving
DC?

If they earn an average of $74k (it's just slightly less), that's $22
Billion. Federal tax revenue is $2.1 Trillion.

Wes, that's 1% of the tax revenue. I think you'll have to look elsewhere
for
your scapegoat. g

But what percent of drag on the economy as they try to make themselves
useful by
constantly pushing for and enacting job killing regulations?

You'd have to be more specific here. Most regulations that directly effect
jobs come from statutes, which are passed by Congress. If you're speaking of
administrative rules enacted by the agencies, then I'll stick my neck out a
bit and say that, much like the percentage of taxes that pay for federal
employees in Washington, you may be wildly overestimating how much of that
goes on. If you have some examples, I'll try to check them out.

Keep in mind, though, that most administrative rules are nothing more than
the implementation of orders from Congress, required to fulfill the
agencies' mandates under statutory law.

Any way you look at it, it almost always comes up looking like a school of
red herrings. As is the case with taxes, the US has very few regulations
compared to most other developed countries, but it doesn't seem to help our
competitiveness or per capita GDP. The IMF ranks us 9th; the World Bank
ranks us 12th; the CIA World Factbook ranks us 10th.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:43:18 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"William Wixon" wrote in message
...
bold progressives www.boldprogressives.org is calling for supporters of
the public option to make donations to the campaign funds of senator
michael bennett and senator kirsten gillibrand for their recent actions.
you can make a donation through act blue's website.

http://www.actblue.com/


Then why don't Progressives just pay for the public option with THEIR
money? No, they want Conservatives to pay for the left's free ride
healthcare. The lefts' motto of "Tax And Spend" is now "Steal And Spend"!

If there's a public option, the people who opt for it WILL pay for it with
their own money.

You're criticizing a program and yet you have no idea how it works, do you,
Tawwwwwwm?
========
It is becoming more obvious that the only viable option is the
mandatory single payer public option. This is based on two
observations:

(1) Enormous amounts of health care dollars are being skimmed off
the top for executive compensation and perks, stock holder
dividends, advertising, sales commissions and construction of
ornate [and expensive] physical plant. Additionally, there is
significant amounts of duplication in support services such as
computer programming, IT, and large amounts of health care
dollars are expended to deny rather than provide service. much of
this wasted money will be [re]captured with a single payer public
plan.

(2) Without mandatory participation, with subsidies as required,
there will be excessive numbers of "free loaders," who will not
pay into the system, but who will receive medical care anyhow.

Much of the present trouble with the existing US health delivery
system can be traced back to the failure to tax employer provided
health insurance like any other compensation.

All of the economic development texts I have read indicate that
one of the worst techniques for development of an economic sector
is to provide a tax exemption. In short there are two main
reasons: (a) it distorts the economy, and (b) it is hidden, i.e.
"out of sight -- out of mind." We now have the result that
people with no or minimal employer health insurance are
subsidizing those with health insurance, including the ultra high
earners with gold plated health plans, because of the shifted tax
burden.

==Does anyone have an estimate of how much tax revenue is
currently lost (a) because of the health benefit tax exemption,
and (b) the deductibility as a business expense by the
employer?==


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:38:24 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Keep in mind, though, that most administrative rules are nothing more than
the implementation of orders from Congress, required to fulfill the
agencies' mandates under statutory law.
snip
=========
This is most likely a conscious ruse. This allows Congress to
pass the necessary enabling legislation and the President to sign
into law, but then the regulatory agencies take the heat.

Congress, particularly in the financial area, e.g. _CFTC
Modernization Act of 2000_, quickly rescinds any administrative
regulations that limit corporate profit.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:43:18 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"William Wixon" wrote in message
...
bold progressives www.boldprogressives.org is calling for supporters
of
the public option to make donations to the campaign funds of senator
michael bennett and senator kirsten gillibrand for their recent
actions.
you can make a donation through act blue's website.

http://www.actblue.com/


Then why don't Progressives just pay for the public option with THEIR
money? No, they want Conservatives to pay for the left's free ride
healthcare. The lefts' motto of "Tax And Spend" is now "Steal And
Spend"!

If there's a public option, the people who opt for it WILL pay for it with
their own money.

You're criticizing a program and yet you have no idea how it works, do
you,
Tawwwwwwm?
========
It is becoming more obvious that the only viable option is the
mandatory single payer public option.

Either that, or a private insurance system with not-for-profit insurance
companies. That switches the incentives all around. The way they run in
Switzerland, insurance executives are compensated on the basis of how many
people they cover and how much they cut operating expenses. Maybe we'll have
one or the other a generation from now.

This is based on two
observations:

(1) Enormous amounts of health care dollars are being skimmed off
the top for executive compensation and perks, stock holder
dividends, advertising, sales commissions and construction of
ornate [and expensive] physical plant. Additionally, there is
significant amounts of duplication in support services such as
computer programming, IT, and large amounts of health care
dollars are expended to deny rather than provide service. much of
this wasted money will be [re]captured with a single payer public
plan.

If it's run very, very well.


(2) Without mandatory participation, with subsidies as required,
there will be excessive numbers of "free loaders," who will not
pay into the system, but who will receive medical care anyhow.

Much of the present trouble with the existing US health delivery
system can be traced back to the failure to tax employer provided
health insurance like any other compensation.

All of the economic development texts I have read indicate that
one of the worst techniques for development of an economic sector
is to provide a tax exemption. In short there are two main
reasons: (a) it distorts the economy, and (b) it is hidden, i.e.
"out of sight -- out of mind." We now have the result that
people with no or minimal employer health insurance are
subsidizing those with health insurance, including the ultra high
earners with gold plated health plans, because of the shifted tax
burden.

==Does anyone have an estimate of how much tax revenue is
currently lost (a) because of the health benefit tax exemption,
and (b) the deductibility as a business expense by the
employer?==

I don't have it, but I've seen it. You might try the NYT. I think that's
where I saw it.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


-snip-

It is becoming more obvious that the only viable option is the
mandatory single payer public option.



single payer babeee! (if only just to **** off the guys on this list.)



Either that, or a private insurance system with not-for-profit insurance
companies. That switches the incentives all around. The way they run in
Switzerland, insurance executives are compensated on the basis of how many
people they cover and how much they cut operating expenses. Maybe we'll
have one or the other a generation from now.


rachel maddow did a segment on public option a few days ago, while i was
watching it i told myself i had to post something to this group, to this
tread, she used the word "incentives" and i kept thinking "that's what ed
keeps talking about". it almost sounded as if she's following this group.
:-)


if you want you can skip ahead to 5:14 past congressman anthony weiner's
comments on the house floor (funny comments though) to hear specifically
rachel's comments.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908...73472#35573472

"William Wixon" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


-snip-

It is becoming more obvious that the only viable option is the
mandatory single payer public option.



single payer babeee! (if only just to **** off the guys on this list.)



Either that, or a private insurance system with not-for-profit insurance
companies. That switches the incentives all around. The way they run in
Switzerland, insurance executives are compensated on the basis of how
many people they cover and how much they cut operating expenses. Maybe
we'll have one or the other a generation from now.


rachel maddow did a segment on public option a few days ago, while i was
watching it i told myself i had to post something to this group, to this
tread, she used the word "incentives" and i kept thinking "that's what ed
keeps talking about". it almost sounded as if she's following this group.
:-)


if you want you can skip ahead to 5:14 past congressman anthony weiner's
comments on the house floor (funny comments though) to hear specifically
rachel's comments.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908...73472#35573472


HAHA! Oh, that was great! Thanks, William. I haven't been watching MSNBC for
a while and I haven't heard Rachel go off on a stem-winder like that since
last year. And Weiner is a real piece of work. That's a New Yorker at his
best. g

Regarding "perverse incentives," it's actually an old concept in economics
and political science, one of the lenses through which to look at market
failure ("market failure" is an actual economics term, BTW) to see where
things went wrong in business and many other institutions. Unfortunately,
when you get good at it an apply it to various organizations and
institutions that don't seem to be accomplishing what they're supposed to,
you see that an awful lot of them are seriously fu***d up. That's the legacy
of applying business models where they're the wrong models, for one thing,
but it's also a result of simple-minded, knee-jerk market ideology. Often it
works, but when it doesn't, it's FUBAR.

So I can't take credit for Rachel's comment. g The idea got some currency
a couple of months ago, I think, when columnist David Brooks applied it to
the health care system:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/op... rooks&st=nyt

But Brooks may have had the same policy science professors I had; he uses
the term often to describe such systems. So do I.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:50:49 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
And Weiner is a real piece of work. That's a New Yorker at his
best. g
snip

At least Congressman Weiner is able to tell the difference
between somebody ****ing on his leg [and the general public], and
the gentle rain falling from the heavens, which many of the
politicians seem to have trouble with...

Rachel Maddow clip is a keeper.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:50:49 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
And Weiner is a real piece of work. That's a New Yorker at his
best. g
snip

At least Congressman Weiner is able to tell the difference
between somebody ****ing on his leg [and the general public], and
the gentle rain falling from the heavens, which many of the
politicians seem to have trouble with...

Rachel Maddow clip is a keeper.

It's a classic. We should re-post William's link in case anyone missed it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908...73472#35573472

--
Ed Huntress

William Wixon wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

-snip-

It is becoming more obvious that the only viable option is the
mandatory single payer public option.



single payer babeee! (if only just to **** off the guys on this list.)


Either that, or a private insurance system with not-for-profit insurance
companies. That switches the incentives all around. The way they run in
Switzerland, insurance executives are compensated on the basis of how many
people they cover and how much they cut operating expenses. Maybe we'll
have one or the other a generation from now.


rachel maddow did a segment on public option a few days ago, while i was
watching it i told myself i had to post something to this group, to this
tread, she used the word "incentives" and i kept thinking "that's what ed
keeps talking about". it almost sounded as if she's following this group.
:-)


if you want you can skip ahead to 5:14 past congressman anthony weiner's
comments on the house floor (funny comments though) to hear specifically
rachel's comments.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908...73472#35573472



Health Care For Profit.
She's compelling, I'll say that.


--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/

On 3/1/2010 9:20 PM, cavelamb wrote:
William Wixon wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

-snip-

It is becoming more obvious that the only viable option is the
mandatory single payer public option.



single payer babeee! (if only just to **** off the guys on this list.)


Either that, or a private insurance system with not-for-profit
insurance companies. That switches the incentives all around. The way
they run in Switzerland, insurance executives are compensated on the
basis of how many people they cover and how much they cut operating
expenses. Maybe we'll have one or the other a generation from now.


rachel maddow did a segment on public option a few days ago, while i
was watching it i told myself i had to post something to this group,
to this tread, she used the word "incentives" and i kept thinking
"that's what ed keeps talking about". it almost sounded as if she's
following this group. :-)


if you want you can skip ahead to 5:14 past congressman anthony
weiner's comments on the house floor (funny comments though) to hear
specifically rachel's comments.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908...73472#35573472



Health Care For Profit.
She's compelling, I'll say that.


The weird thing is that this health care "problem" is really so simple
to solve. All that really needs to be done is to remove health insurance
from for profit insurance companies and turn it over to the government.
But by that what I mean is the payment system should be turned over to
the government. Medicine should be as it always has been, a private
arrangement between a patient and a doctor. When the entire country
pools the risk of health problems it is the cheapest way to accomplish
the goal of providing at least a basic level of good care to everyone.
That is what having a single payer system will do.

No country is going to be able to provide the kind of health care
millionaires get to all its people, but at least it can afford to give
everyone a good level of care. We can do this and at a much cheaper cost
than we are paying now. The barrier to this is the political interests
that don't want to do what will undoubtedly work the best. They oppose
change for either financial or philosophical reasons but whatever their
reasons they are on the wrong side. So it's really a pretty simple fix.
But as we have seen before, even though it's simple thing it's still
hard to do. But as of right now it looks like the Democrats will pass a
bill through reconciliation. It's been a long hard fight but it'll be
over soon and the Democrats, oops, I mean the public has won, and the
businesses and republicans lost. Chalk one up for the good guys.

Hawke

On 2/25/2010 7:41 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:

Some time back the standard excuse was "you can't make an omelet
without breaking eggs."

This problematique appears to arise because of the failure to
clearly disorientate between short term gain, as in "take the
money and run," for a very few sociopaths, and the long term
interests of the American people/society/economy as a whole.

From the viewpoint of the financiers and "buy-ruin-sell"
scam-artist management, everything is going fine, thank you very
much. They have their second homes in Switzerland or other safe
havens, and their assets widely diversified in many banks and
currencies.

By contrast, the vast majority of people in the developed
countries [not just the United States] have taken it on the shin
but good, with the high paying, high value, high multiplier jobs
and small businesses, on which a viable middle class depends,
being exported or destroyed in droves, and the tax burden for
governmental operations increasingly shifted onto their
shoulders.

The majority of the accountability for this situation lies with
our elected representatives. They spend entirely too much time
in the company of the elite few in their gated communities and
country clubs, breathing the Potomac swamp gas, and forget about
the 99% of the American citizens that live in the real world
where the good jobs with benefits (and the value of their assets
such as their homes and IRAs/401ks/pensions) are disappearing.


Time passes but nothing changes. This is no different from the days when
cheats used to take gold coins and put them in a bag and shake them up
until small amounts of gold were chipped off the coins. Then they could
take the gold they got off the coins for a profit and go ahead and spend
the coins as if they were the same. In other words they were scamming
the system.

In a wild west world everything goes. We have had that kind of system
going for quite a while now. I say since 1980 when the republican (no
rules for business)party took over the country. Everybody gets to do
anything they want and all in the name of freedom. Rational people call
that lawlessness. Cheating, scamming, and duping the ignorant has gone
on for ever. Those free-booting ways were rampant in the 1920s with
every kind of rip off imaginable happening on a daily basis. After the
debacle of the 1920s passed we came to our senses and put a leash on the
business/financial community. Forty years later, starting in 1980 the
republicans let the dogs off the leash again just like in the 20s. We
got the check for that irresponsibility in 2008 and we're still paying
for it. It looks like nobody learns and every generation or so makes
exactly the same mistakes again and again. It's embarrassing. It makes
us look as stupid as dogs. Are the people never going to learn not to
listen to the republicans when they say they need more freedom, meaning
no restraints on what business does?

Hawke

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:47:50 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
It is becoming more obvious that the only viable option is the
mandatory single payer public option.

Either that, or a private insurance system with not-for-profit insurance
companies. That switches the incentives all around. The way they run in
Switzerland, insurance executives are compensated on the basis of how many
people they cover and how much they cut operating expenses. Maybe we'll have
one or the other a generation from now.
snip
=========
Even with multiple not-for-profit insurance companies you still
wind up with massive duplication. For example each company has
their own Board, Chairman, President, multiple vice-presidents,
and other corporate officers, and each of these has a staff and
perks, etc. You still have duplication of IT and other services.
Each of the non-profits still accumulates "excessive of income
over expenses," as reserves.

It makes much more sense from the standpoint of maximizing the
impact of health care dollars for the public to have a single
payer public option, with the requirement that the salaries are
GSA [with possibly a few GSA "super grades"], the furniture is
GSA, the buildings are GSA, the benefits [medical/retirement] are
government standard, no corporate planes, no excessive executive
perks, etc.

Make no mistake about it. Some people will take it in the shorts
big time with a change to a single payer public system such as
the 30 Well point executives that make over 1 million dollars per
year each, but this largess is funded with money skimmed from
health care.

There is little to no chance that all of the money currently
being skimmed off the top will be recovered and used to pay for
actual health care, but much of it can and will be with a single
payer public option. However, much will depend on how well
Congress "micromanages" the new organization, for example by
specifying staffing/manning to prevent the establishment of
another "all chiefs, no indians" organization and by forcing the
use of GSA services/products where applicable, i.e. no antique
commodes for the executives offices, and GSA standard vehicles.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/20...st-12-million/


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

If anyone is still following this thread, one of the major health
care "canaries in the coal mine" [Miami Fl] is about to keel
over. It can only get worse.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/1...g-jackson.html
snip
With Jackson executives using end-of-life terms like "death
spiral'' and "insolvency'' and a grand jury starting to
investigate the public health system's problems, Miami-Dade Mayor
Carlos Alvarez said Wednesday he would help Jackson get a
short-term loan but demanded its governing body speed up a
decision on a recovery plan.

``At this point, delays are simply too costly to accept
lightly,'' Alvarez wrote to Jackson Chief Executive Eneida
Roldan, who has called for the Public Health Trust to approve a
plan to cut $160 million by March 22. Alvarez wants to see a plan
presented to the County Commission on Tuesday.
snip


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).