" on Sun, 22 May 2011 18:08:35 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On May 22, 6:37*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


If you're going to descend into bitching about trivial costs, you're only
going to delude yourself about our real problems. Deal with the real ones
first. Then you can bitch about the trivia all you want. Just don't waste
the country's time and energy bitching about things that are so small you
can hardly measure them, while the big ones are eating us alive. Leave that
to the Tea Party.


I believe it is important to cut all the trivial costs. If you do not
cut trivial costs, you will never have the courage to cut the big
ones.

If it is only a few cents per person, then by all means, let us
eliminate that "few cents". "Take care of the pence and the pounds
will take care of themselves."


usefulness. But PP gets $75 million in federal funding. That's 5.35 x 10^-6
of the federal budget.

Are you going to get serious about this, or are you going to play child's
games?

If you are going to be serious, you have to take the same approach on
all costs. Saying you are only going to look at big programs is
really saying cost cutting does not matter.

I'd start with the question "Why is this the Business of the
Federal Government?" Then go on with "Do you favor funding the other
side, too?"

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
" on Sun, 22 May 2011 18:08:35 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On May 22, 6:37 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


If you're going to descend into bitching about trivial costs, you're
only
going to delude yourself about our real problems. Deal with the real
ones
first. Then you can bitch about the trivia all you want. Just don't
waste
the country's time and energy bitching about things that are so small
you
can hardly measure them, while the big ones are eating us alive. Leave
that
to the Tea Party.


I believe it is important to cut all the trivial costs. If you do not
cut trivial costs, you will never have the courage to cut the big
ones.

If it is only a few cents per person, then by all means, let us
eliminate that "few cents". "Take care of the pence and the pounds
will take care of themselves."

Nonsense. The big budget items aren't things you can nibble a few cents at a
time. And you can take all the things you *can* nibble, add them up, and
they'll amount to so little they get lost in the rounding.

The big items need serious solutions, or we get nowhere.



usefulness. But PP gets $75 million in federal funding. That's 5.35 x
10^-6
of the federal budget.

Are you going to get serious about this, or are you going to play
child's
games?

If you are going to be serious, you have to take the same approach on
all costs. Saying you are only going to look at big programs is
really saying cost cutting does not matter.

I'd start with the question "Why is this the Business of the
Federal Government?" Then go on with "Do you favor funding the other
side, too?"

tschus
pyotr

Meanwhile, insuring health care is eating us alive, while you're arguing
over Big Bird and Head Start.

That's why I'm skeptical that we'll get anywhere. The politicians can make
plenty of hay off of people like you and Roger, and avoid the big -- and
politically costly -- issues that are running us into the ground.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:



Nonsense. The big budget items aren't things you can nibble a few cents at a
time. And you can take all the things you *can* nibble, add them up, and
they'll amount to so little they get lost in the rounding.

The big items need serious solutions, or we get nowhere.


Meanwhile, insuring health care is eating us alive, while you're arguing
over Big Bird and Head Start.

That's why I'm skeptical that we'll get anywhere. The politicians can make
plenty of hay off of people like you and Roger, and avoid the big -- and
politically costly -- issues that are running us into the ground.

--
Ed Huntress

I have come to the conclusion that you do not want the budget cut.
And this bit about large versus small items is just to provide a
diversion. You say do not look at everything, and Congress will
comply by not looking at anything.


Dan

wrote in message
...


Ed Huntress wrote:



Nonsense. The big budget items aren't things you can nibble a few cents
at a
time. And you can take all the things you *can* nibble, add them up, and
they'll amount to so little they get lost in the rounding.

The big items need serious solutions, or we get nowhere.


Meanwhile, insuring health care is eating us alive, while you're arguing
over Big Bird and Head Start.

That's why I'm skeptical that we'll get anywhere. The politicians can
make
plenty of hay off of people like you and Roger, and avoid the big -- and
politically costly -- issues that are running us into the ground.

--
Ed Huntress

I have come to the conclusion that you do not want the budget cut.

Then you've come to the wrong conclusion.

And this bit about large versus small items is just to provide a
diversion.

The diversion is by the people who want to cut things that are fractions of
a percent of the budget, fighting cultural wars and wasting time, while
leaving over 50% of the budget alone.

I'd say it's some kind of affliction; possibly an acute avoidance of some
kind.

You say do not look at everything, and Congress will
comply by not looking at anything.

You've lost sight of the forest for the sake of a few saplings, Dan.

Meantime, I haven't heard a peep out of you about health care or defense --
the two enormous components of our budget. Do you just think they can be put
off while we diddle around with PBS and Planned Parenthood?

--
Ed Huntress

Until we can do something about the Defense budget this is all
rather academic.

And THAT will be a tough nut to crack.
(Militarized nut?)

--

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

On May 27, 5:19*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

...











Ed Huntress wrote:

Nonsense. The big budget items aren't things you can nibble a few cents
at a
time. And you can take all the things you *can* nibble, add them up, and
they'll amount to so little they get lost in the rounding.

The big items need serious solutions, or we get nowhere.

Meanwhile, insuring health care is eating us alive, while you're arguing
over Big Bird and Head Start.

That's why I'm skeptical that we'll get anywhere. The politicians can
make
plenty of hay off of people like you and Roger, and avoid the big -- and
politically costly -- issues that are running us into the ground.

--
Ed Huntress

I have come to the conclusion that you do not want the budget cut.

Then you've come to the wrong conclusion.

And this bit about large versus small items is just to provide a
diversion.

The diversion is by the people who want to cut things that are fractions of
a percent of the budget, fighting cultural wars and wasting time, while
leaving over 50% of the budget alone.

I'd say it's some kind of affliction; possibly an acute avoidance of some
kind.

You say do not look at everything, and Congress will
comply by not looking at anything.

You've lost sight of the forest for the sake of a few saplings, Dan.

Meantime, I haven't heard a peep out of you about health care or defense -- *
the two enormous components of our budget. Do you just think they can be put
off while we diddle around with PBS and Planned Parenthood?

--
Ed Huntress


I still think you are against cutting the budget.

I cut and pasted a previous message about cutting defense. I can not
help it if you do not read my posts.

Dan

On May 23, 9:39 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

So we have a non-starter for Medicare, and a nearly impenetrable wall of
resistance for defense and infrastructure spending. Those are the two
biggest cost problems we face. The present system of responsibilities and
authorities probably can't touch either one. Anyone who tries will get his
head handed to him.

--
Ed Huntress

The way around this is to do it similar to the military base
closures. Present a bill to Congress for a up or down vote on the
amount. Not on specific programs. A 1% cut in defense spending. The
Pentagon gets to choose how to accomplish it.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On May 27, 5:19 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

...











Ed Huntress wrote:

Nonsense. The big budget items aren't things you can nibble a few cents
at a
time. And you can take all the things you *can* nibble, add them up,
and
they'll amount to so little they get lost in the rounding.

The big items need serious solutions, or we get nowhere.

Meanwhile, insuring health care is eating us alive, while you're
arguing
over Big Bird and Head Start.

That's why I'm skeptical that we'll get anywhere. The politicians can
make
plenty of hay off of people like you and Roger, and avoid the big --
and
politically costly -- issues that are running us into the ground.

--
Ed Huntress

I have come to the conclusion that you do not want the budget cut.

Then you've come to the wrong conclusion.

And this bit about large versus small items is just to provide a
diversion.

The diversion is by the people who want to cut things that are fractions
of
a percent of the budget, fighting cultural wars and wasting time, while
leaving over 50% of the budget alone.

I'd say it's some kind of affliction; possibly an acute avoidance of some
kind.

You say do not look at everything, and Congress will
comply by not looking at anything.

You've lost sight of the forest for the sake of a few saplings, Dan.

Meantime, I haven't heard a peep out of you about health care or
defense --
the two enormous components of our budget. Do you just think they can be
put
off while we diddle around with PBS and Planned Parenthood?

--
Ed Huntress


I still think you are against cutting the budget.

I think you're thinking what you want to think, and it has little to do with
reality.


I cut and pasted a previous message about cutting defense. I can not
help it if you do not read my posts.

Dan

On May 23, 9:39 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

So we have a non-starter for Medicare, and a nearly impenetrable wall of
resistance for defense and infrastructure spending. Those are the two
biggest cost problems we face. The present system of responsibilities and
authorities probably can't touch either one. Anyone who tries will get
his
head handed to him.

--
Ed Huntress

The way around this is to do it similar to the military base
closures. Present a bill to Congress for a up or down vote on the
amount. Not on specific programs. A 1% cut in defense spending. The
Pentagon gets to choose how to accomplish it.

Right. I remember that now. 1%. Thank you for that contribution, Dan.

One percent here, one percent there...pretty soon, you've got six or seven
percent, while health care is expected to rise by 8.5% in 2012 alone, and
you haven't touched the deficit for many years ahead.

You've got a real winner of an idea there.

--
Ed Huntress

On May 27, 12:33*pm, pyotr filipivich wrote:
" on Sun, 22 May 2011 18:08:35 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking *the following:

On May 22, 6:37*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

If you're going to descend into bitching about trivial costs, you're only
going to delude yourself about our real problems. Deal with the real ones
first. Then you can bitch about the trivia all you want. Just don't waste
the country's time and energy bitching about things that are so small you
can hardly measure them, while the big ones are eating us alive. Leave that
to the Tea Party.

I believe it is important to cut all the trivial costs. *If you do not
cut trivial costs, you will never have the courage to cut the big
ones.

* * * * If it is only a few cents per person, then by all means, let us
eliminate that "few cents". *"Take care of the pence and the pounds
will take care of themselves."



usefulness. But PP gets $75 million in federal funding. That's 5.35 x 10^-6
of the federal budget.

Are you going to get serious about this, or are you going to play child's
games?

If you are going to be serious, you have to take the same approach on
all costs. *Saying you are only going to look at big programs is
really saying cost cutting does not matter.

* * * * I'd start with the question "Why is this the Business of the
Federal Government?" * Then go on with "Do you favor funding the other
side, too?"

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:

While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

rangerssuck wrote:

(...)

So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:

While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I made the same point, (albeit much less eloquently) almost
a week ago. Still no comment from The Roger.

--Winston

"Winston" wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:

(...)

So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:

While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I made the same point, (albeit much less eloquently) almost
a week ago. Still no comment from The Roger.

--Winston

Simply look up the reason these organizations are tax exempt. They are
providing a service, at least for their congregation, and in many cases they
should be saving the government much more than the value of the taxes.

In my own circumstance I sought to find out if God is real and at the same
time I was figuring out a way to kill the man my ex cheated on me with. I
was going to take a six pack of beer, drain all the cans, fill up 4 of the
cans with explosives, one can for the controls(microswitches and wiring),
one can for batteries. I would set the six pack on the hood of his vehicle
and arm it. When he got up the next morning he would see some of his
buddies left a six pack on his hood, lift it up, activating a microswitch,
and boom!

When I was serious enough to find God or risk life in prison, I found God.
I experienced supernatural answers to prayer like I never imagined, almost
every week I was seeing or experiencing miracles. My religion possibly
saved a mans (a taxpayer!) life and kept his kids from being fatherless, how
much $ did that save the government?

RogerN

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
"Winston" wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:

(...)

So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:

While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I made the same point, (albeit much less eloquently) almost
a week ago. Still no comment from The Roger.

--Winston

Simply look up the reason these organizations are tax exempt. They are
providing a service, at least for their congregation, and in many cases
they should be saving the government much more than the value of the
taxes.

They're tax-exempt because they're non-profit/charitable institutions, and
because of court rulings concerning the government keeping its hands off of
churches under the First Amendment. They don't even have to file tax returns
However, since the mid-'50s (I think), many churches file for tax-exempt
status under a revised tax code.

It's a complicated piece of tax law. Don't try it at home. d8-)


In my own circumstance I sought to find out if God is real and at the same
time I was figuring out a way to kill the man my ex cheated on me with. I
was going to take a six pack of beer, drain all the cans, fill up 4 of the
cans with explosives, one can for the controls(microswitches and wiring),
one can for batteries. I would set the six pack on the hood of his
vehicle and arm it. When he got up the next morning he would see some of
his buddies left a six pack on his hood, lift it up, activating a
microswitch, and boom!

When I was serious enough to find God or risk life in prison, I found God.
I experienced supernatural answers to prayer like I never imagined, almost
every week I was seeing or experiencing miracles. My religion possibly
saved a mans (a taxpayer!) life and kept his kids from being fatherless,
how much $ did that save the government?


And that, Roger, is the primary basis for my acceptance of organized
religion. You're not the only one I know who is not in prison, and who is
living a useful life, because he got religion.

Keep it up. Just don't lay it on the rest of us too thick, Ok?

--
Ed Huntress

503.c sounds like non-profit and sometimes tax free.
Some are taxed by local tax generators. Property tax...

Some are tax free in all ways except for a specialized tax unit -
a college or other special case.

Martin

On 5/27/2011 7:45 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
m...
wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:

(...)

So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:

While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I made the same point, (albeit much less eloquently) almost
a week ago. Still no comment from The Roger.

--Winston

Simply look up the reason these organizations are tax exempt. They are
providing a service, at least for their congregation, and in many cases
they should be saving the government much more than the value of the
taxes.

They're tax-exempt because they're non-profit/charitable institutions, and
because of court rulings concerning the government keeping its hands off of
churches under the First Amendment. They don't even have to file tax returns
However, since the mid-'50s (I think), many churches file for tax-exempt
status under a revised tax code.

It's a complicated piece of tax law. Don't try it at home. d8-)


In my own circumstance I sought to find out if God is real and at the same
time I was figuring out a way to kill the man my ex cheated on me with. I
was going to take a six pack of beer, drain all the cans, fill up 4 of the
cans with explosives, one can for the controls(microswitches and wiring),
one can for batteries. I would set the six pack on the hood of his
vehicle and arm it. When he got up the next morning he would see some of
his buddies left a six pack on his hood, lift it up, activating a
microswitch, and boom!

When I was serious enough to find God or risk life in prison, I found God.
I experienced supernatural answers to prayer like I never imagined, almost
every week I was seeing or experiencing miracles. My religion possibly
saved a mans (a taxpayer!) life and kept his kids from being fatherless,
how much $ did that save the government?


And that, Roger, is the primary basis for my acceptance of organized
religion. You're not the only one I know who is not in prison, and who is
living a useful life, because he got religion.

Keep it up. Just don't lay it on the rest of us too thick, Ok?

On May 27, 8:45*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"RogerN" wrote in message

m...





"Winston" wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:

(...)

So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:

While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I made the same point, (albeit much less eloquently) almost
a week ago. *Still no comment from The Roger.

--Winston

Simply look up the reason these organizations are tax exempt. *They are
providing a service, at least for their congregation, and in many cases
they should be saving the government much more than the value of the
taxes.

They're tax-exempt because they're non-profit/charitable institutions, and
because of court rulings concerning the government keeping its hands off of
churches under the First Amendment. They don't even have to file tax returns
However, since the mid-'50s (I think), many churches file for tax-exempt
status under a revised tax code.

It's a complicated piece of tax law. Don't try it at home. d8-)







In my own circumstance I sought to find out if God is real and at the same
time I was figuring out a way to kill the man my ex cheated on me with. *I
was going to take a six pack of beer, drain all the cans, fill up 4 of the
cans with explosives, one can for the controls(microswitches and wiring),
one can for batteries. *I would set the six pack on the hood of his
vehicle and arm it. *When he got up the next morning he would see some of
his buddies left a six pack on his hood, lift it up, activating a
microswitch, and boom!

When I was serious enough to find God or risk life in prison, I found God.
I experienced supernatural answers to prayer like I never imagined, almost
every week I was seeing or experiencing miracles. *My religion possibly
saved a mans (a taxpayer!) life and kept his kids from being fatherless,
how much $ did that save the government?

And that, Roger, is the primary basis for my acceptance of organized
religion. You're not the only one I know who is not in prison, and who is
living a useful life, because he got religion.

Keep it up. Just don't lay it on the rest of us too thick, Ok?

--
Ed Huntress

OK, I've been thinking about this for a couple of days and while I
can't argue that some significant number of people have been "saved"
by religion, what about the huge number of people who have been killed
in the name of religion? How many killed in the Crusades? How many in
the Inquisition? How many in the Holocaust?

Seems to me like a losing proposition that religion saves lives, so we
ought to pay for it.

And the fact that Roger chose to "find God or face life in prison" is
good, but why couldn't he have decided to find something else rather
than face life in prison? He could have decided, for instance, to find
a good therapist or gone back to school, or taken up origami rather
than going to prison. The point is that it was a choice that he made.
Does this all mean that anything anyone decides to do rather than
pusuing a life of crime should be tax-exempt?

RogerN wrote:
My religion possibly
saved a mans (a taxpayer!) life and kept his kids from being fatherless, how
much $ did that save the government?

So the people going to church are maniacal sociopathic killers
and the church keeps them from harming society.
That is why the churches deserve tax-exempt status
Your explanation makes perfect sense.

"jim" wrote in message
.. .
RogerN wrote:
My religion possibly
saved a mans (a taxpayer!) life and kept his kids from being fatherless,
how
much $ did that save the government?

So the people going to church are maniacal sociopathic killers
and the church keeps them from harming society.

Do you know many born-again types? Some of them were a real danger before
they got religion -- angst-ridden, angry, etc.

(I'm excempting G.W. Bush, of course, who became a bigger danger to society
*after* he got born again. g)

That is why the churches deserve tax-exempt status
Your explanation makes perfect sense.

Eh, they're in a special tax category, but it doesn't work out much
differently from other non-profits and charitable organizations.

--
Ed Huntress

RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:

(...)

So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:

While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I made the same point, (albeit much less eloquently) almost
a week ago. Still no comment from The Roger.

--Winston

Simply look up the reason these organizations are tax exempt. They are
providing a service, at least for their congregation, and in many cases they
should be saving the government much more than the value of the taxes.

$660 Million at a time. And counting.
http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/

Perhaps that is not what you meant.

(...)

lift it up, activating a microswitch,
and boom!

(...)

I experienced supernatural answers to prayer like I never imagined, almost
every week I was seeing or experiencing miracles. My religion possibly
saved a mans (a taxpayer!) life and kept his kids from being fatherless, how
much $ did that save the government?

Now *that* is Catholic Bookkeeping. Whoa. I am speechless.

00 Winston

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On May 27, 12:33 pm, pyotr filipivich wrote:
" on Sun, 22 May 2011 18:08:35 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

On May 22, 6:37 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

If you're going to descend into bitching about trivial costs, you're
only
going to delude yourself about our real problems. Deal with the real
ones
first. Then you can bitch about the trivia all you want. Just don't
waste
the country's time and energy bitching about things that are so small
you
can hardly measure them, while the big ones are eating us alive. Leave
that
to the Tea Party.

I believe it is important to cut all the trivial costs. If you do not
cut trivial costs, you will never have the courage to cut the big
ones.

If it is only a few cents per person, then by all means, let us
eliminate that "few cents". "Take care of the pence and the pounds
will take care of themselves."



usefulness. But PP gets $75 million in federal funding. That's 5.35 x
10^-6
of the federal budget.

Are you going to get serious about this, or are you going to play
child's
games?

If you are going to be serious, you have to take the same approach on
all costs. Saying you are only going to look at big programs is
really saying cost cutting does not matter.

I'd start with the question "Why is this the Business of the
Federal Government?" Then go on with "Do you favor funding the other
side, too?"

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
\
\So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:
\
\While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
\about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
\initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
\religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
\federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
\what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

How many crimes are prevented by pastoral council? How about Pastors that
visit the sick in the Hospitals? Many churches help the poor with food
and/or clothing, what $ value is that? In other words, these religious
organizations also serve a secular purpose. Thomas Jefferson gave taxpayer
money to missionaries because they were beneficial with the Indians. In
many instances, if we would have sent a few more missionaries we probably
would not have had to send as many troops.

Today as you see crime on the increase, as you see the world going down the
****ter, thank people just like yourself, your kind of thinking is the
cause.

RogerN

On 5/27/2011 7:51 PM, RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...
On May 27, 12:33 pm, pyotr wrote:
on Sun, 22 May 2011 18:08:35 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

On May 22, 6:37 pm, "Ed wrote:

If you're going to descend into bitching about trivial costs, you're
only
going to delude yourself about our real problems. Deal with the real
ones
first. Then you can bitch about the trivia all you want. Just don't
waste
the country's time and energy bitching about things that are so small
you
can hardly measure them, while the big ones are eating us alive. Leave
that
to the Tea Party.

I believe it is important to cut all the trivial costs. If you do not
cut trivial costs, you will never have the courage to cut the big
ones.

If it is only a few cents per person, then by all means, let us
eliminate that "few cents". "Take care of the pence and the pounds
will take care of themselves."



usefulness. But PP gets $75 million in federal funding. That's 5.35 x
10^-6
of the federal budget.

Are you going to get serious about this, or are you going to play
child's
games?

If you are going to be serious, you have to take the same approach on
all costs. Saying you are only going to look at big programs is
really saying cost cutting does not matter.

I'd start with the question "Why is this the Business of the
Federal Government?" Then go on with "Do you favor funding the other
side, too?"

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
\
\So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:
\
\While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
\about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
\initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
\religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
\federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
\what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

How many crimes are prevented by pastoral council? How about Pastors that
visit the sick in the Hospitals? Many churches help the poor with food
and/or clothing, what $ value is that? In other words, these religious
organizations also serve a secular purpose. Thomas Jefferson gave taxpayer
money to missionaries because they were beneficial with the Indians. In
many instances, if we would have sent a few more missionaries we probably
would not have had to send as many troops.

Today as you see crime on the increase, as you see the world going down the
****ter, thank people just like yourself, your kind of thinking is the
cause.

RogerN




How many underfunded schools are supplemented by solid educational
television on sesame street? How many people are enlightened by Ken
Burns' documentaries?

There's an Ironclad case for PBS if you ever created one! thanks!

Stuart Wheaton wrote:

On 5/27/2011 7:51 PM, RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...
On May 27, 12:33 pm, pyotr wrote:
on Sun, 22 May 2011 18:08:35 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

On May 22, 6:37 pm, "Ed wrote:

If you're going to descend into bitching about trivial costs, you're
only
going to delude yourself about our real problems. Deal with the real
ones
first. Then you can bitch about the trivia all you want. Just don't
waste
the country's time and energy bitching about things that are so small
you
can hardly measure them, while the big ones are eating us alive. Leave
that
to the Tea Party.

I believe it is important to cut all the trivial costs. If you do not
cut trivial costs, you will never have the courage to cut the big
ones.

If it is only a few cents per person, then by all means, let us
eliminate that "few cents". "Take care of the pence and the pounds
will take care of themselves."



usefulness. But PP gets $75 million in federal funding. That's 5.35 x
10^-6
of the federal budget.

Are you going to get serious about this, or are you going to play
child's
games?

If you are going to be serious, you have to take the same approach on
all costs. Saying you are only going to look at big programs is
really saying cost cutting does not matter.

I'd start with the question "Why is this the Business of the
Federal Government?" Then go on with "Do you favor funding the other
side, too?"

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
\
\So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:
\
\While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
\about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
\initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
\religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
\federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
\what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

How many crimes are prevented by pastoral council? How about Pastors that
visit the sick in the Hospitals? Many churches help the poor with food
and/or clothing, what $ value is that? In other words, these religious
organizations also serve a secular purpose. Thomas Jefferson gave taxpayer
money to missionaries because they were beneficial with the Indians. In
many instances, if we would have sent a few more missionaries we probably
would not have had to send as many troops.

Today as you see crime on the increase, as you see the world going down the
****ter, thank people just like yourself, your kind of thinking is the
cause.

RogerN




How many underfunded schools are supplemented by solid educational
television on sesame street? How many people are enlightened by Ken
Burns' documentaries?

There's an Ironclad case for PBS if you ever created one! thanks!


It would be cheaper and more effective to put up a bird and use the
Dish/Direct TV DBS hardware. It could deliver hundreds of channels of
educational TV for thousands of hours per day and cover everything from
kindergarten to college courses. Not only would it work for schools,
but home schooling, continuing education and to update employee training
on 'scrambled' channels


--
It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch.

On May 27, 11:45*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Stuart Wheaton wrote:

On 5/27/2011 7:51 PM, RogerN wrote:
*wrote in message
....
On May 27, 12:33 pm, pyotr *wrote:
*on Sun, 22 May 2011 18:08:35 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

On May 22, 6:37 pm, "Ed *wrote:

If you're going to descend into bitching about trivial costs, you're
only
going to delude yourself about our real problems. Deal with the real
ones
first. Then you can bitch about the trivia all you want. Just don't
waste
the country's time and energy bitching about things that are so small
you
can hardly measure them, while the big ones are eating us alive. Leave
that
to the Tea Party.

I believe it is important to cut all the trivial costs. If you do not
cut trivial costs, you will never have the courage to cut the big
ones.

If it is only a few cents per person, then by all means, let us
eliminate that "few cents". "Take care of the pence and the pounds
will take care of themselves."

usefulness. But PP gets $75 million in federal funding. That's 5.35 x
10^-6
of the federal budget.

Are you going to get serious about this, or are you going to play
child's
games?

If you are going to be serious, you have to take the same approach on
all costs. Saying you are only going to look at big programs is
really saying cost cutting does not matter.

I'd start with the question "Why is this the Business of the
Federal Government?" Then go on with "Do you favor funding the other
side, too?"

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
\
\So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:
\
\While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
\about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
\initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
\religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
\federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
\what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

How many crimes are prevented by pastoral council? *How about Pastors that
visit the sick in the Hospitals? *Many churches help the poor with food
and/or clothing, what $ value is that? *In other words, these religious
organizations also serve a secular purpose. *Thomas Jefferson gave taxpayer
money to missionaries because they were beneficial with the Indians. *In
many instances, if we would have sent a few more missionaries we probably
would not have had to send as many troops.

Today as you see crime on the increase, as you see the world going down the
****ter, thank people just like yourself, your kind of thinking is the
cause.

RogerN

How many underfunded schools are supplemented by solid educational
television on sesame street? *How many people are enlightened by Ken
Burns' documentaries?

There's an Ironclad case for PBS if you ever created one! *thanks!

* *It would be cheaper and more effective to put up a bird and use the
Dish/Direct TV DBS hardware. *It could deliver hundreds of channels of
educational TV for thousands of hours per day and cover everything from
kindergarten to college courses. *Not only would it work for schools,
but home schooling, continuing education and to update employee training
on 'scrambled' channels

--
It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And the programming would come from...

On May 27, 7:51*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On May 27, 12:33 pm, pyotr filipivich wrote:



" on Sun, 22 May 2011 18:08:35 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

On May 22, 6:37 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

If you're going to descend into bitching about trivial costs, you're
only
going to delude yourself about our real problems. Deal with the real
ones
first. Then you can bitch about the trivia all you want. Just don't
waste
the country's time and energy bitching about things that are so small
you
can hardly measure them, while the big ones are eating us alive. Leave
that
to the Tea Party.

I believe it is important to cut all the trivial costs. If you do not
cut trivial costs, you will never have the courage to cut the big
ones.

If it is only a few cents per person, then by all means, let us
eliminate that "few cents". "Take care of the pence and the pounds
will take care of themselves."

usefulness. But PP gets $75 million in federal funding. That's 5.35 x
10^-6
of the federal budget.

Are you going to get serious about this, or are you going to play
child's
games?

If you are going to be serious, you have to take the same approach on
all costs. Saying you are only going to look at big programs is
really saying cost cutting does not matter.

I'd start with the question "Why is this the Business of the
Federal Government?" Then go on with "Do you favor funding the other
side, too?"

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

\
\So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:
\
\While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
\about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
\initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
\religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
\federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
\what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

How many crimes are prevented by pastoral council? *How about Pastors that
visit the sick in the Hospitals? *Many churches help the poor with food
and/or clothing, what $ value is that? *In other words, these religious
organizations also serve a secular purpose. *Thomas Jefferson gave taxpayer
money to missionaries because they were beneficial with the Indians. *In
many instances, if we would have sent a few more missionaries we probably
would not have had to send as many troops.

Today as you see crime on the increase, as you see the world going down the
****ter, thank people just like yourself, your kind of thinking is the
cause.

RogerN- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How many abortions are prevented by the family planning services
offered by Planned Parenthood? I'm not talking about abortions, I'm
talking about contraception and counseling.

How many tax dollars are saved by Planned Parenthood's providing early
detection of breast cancer and a host of other diseases?

Roger, I NEVER said that religious organizations should not be tax
exempt. I was trying to put the discussion into a frame that you might
understand. I see I touched a nerve.

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On May 27, 7:51 pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On May 27, 12:33 pm, pyotr filipivich wrote:



" on Sun, 22 May 2011 18:08:35 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

On May 22, 6:37 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

If you're going to descend into bitching about trivial costs, you're
only
going to delude yourself about our real problems. Deal with the real
ones
first. Then you can bitch about the trivia all you want. Just don't
waste
the country's time and energy bitching about things that are so small
you
can hardly measure them, while the big ones are eating us alive.
Leave
that
to the Tea Party.

I believe it is important to cut all the trivial costs. If you do not
cut trivial costs, you will never have the courage to cut the big
ones.

If it is only a few cents per person, then by all means, let us
eliminate that "few cents". "Take care of the pence and the pounds
will take care of themselves."

usefulness. But PP gets $75 million in federal funding. That's 5.35 x
10^-6
of the federal budget.

Are you going to get serious about this, or are you going to play
child's
games?

If you are going to be serious, you have to take the same approach on
all costs. Saying you are only going to look at big programs is
really saying cost cutting does not matter.

I'd start with the question "Why is this the Business of the
Federal Government?" Then go on with "Do you favor funding the other
side, too?"

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

\
\So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:
\
\While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
\about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
\initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
\religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
\federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
\what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

How many crimes are prevented by pastoral council? How about Pastors that
visit the sick in the Hospitals? Many churches help the poor with food
and/or clothing, what $ value is that? In other words, these religious
organizations also serve a secular purpose. Thomas Jefferson gave taxpayer
money to missionaries because they were beneficial with the Indians. In
many instances, if we would have sent a few more missionaries we probably
would not have had to send as many troops.

Today as you see crime on the increase, as you see the world going down
the
****ter, thank people just like yourself, your kind of thinking is the
cause.

RogerN- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
\
\How many abortions are prevented by the family planning services
\offered by Planned Parenthood? I'm not talking about abortions, I'm
\talking about contraception and counseling.

Won't Obamacare provide these services?

A woman went to a planned parenthood abortion mill to inquire about an
abortion, she hadn't made up her mind but wanted to discuss it. She was
nervous and all so they gave her some medicine to help her relax. After
thinking it over, she decided she didn't want the abortion. They told her
that the medicine they gave her could harm the baby and talked her into the
abortion. Afterward she found out the medicine they gave her wasn't harmful
to the baby, they lied to her to talk her into the abortion.

\How many tax dollars are saved by Planned Parenthood's providing early
\detection of breast cancer and a host of other diseases?

So we need to fund Obamacare and planned parenthood?

\Roger, I NEVER said that religious organizations should not be tax
\exempt. I was trying to put the discussion into a frame that you might
\understand. I see I touched a nerve.

I don't know the details but I think there are some that shouldn't be tax
exempt, some use religion as a way to get rich, Jesus threw that type out of
the temple saying they turned the house of prayer into a den of thieves. I
also know of some that do quite a bit of good for the little bit of money
they make.

RogerN

On May 29, 3:30*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On May 27, 7:51 pm, "RogerN" wrote:



"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On May 27, 12:33 pm, pyotr filipivich wrote:

" on Sun, 22 May 2011 18:08:35 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

On May 22, 6:37 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

If you're going to descend into bitching about trivial costs, you're
only
going to delude yourself about our real problems. Deal with the real
ones
first. Then you can bitch about the trivia all you want. Just don't
waste
the country's time and energy bitching about things that are so small
you
can hardly measure them, while the big ones are eating us alive.
Leave
that
to the Tea Party.

I believe it is important to cut all the trivial costs. If you do not
cut trivial costs, you will never have the courage to cut the big
ones.

If it is only a few cents per person, then by all means, let us
eliminate that "few cents". "Take care of the pence and the pounds
will take care of themselves."

usefulness. But PP gets $75 million in federal funding. That's 5.35 x
10^-6
of the federal budget.

Are you going to get serious about this, or are you going to play
child's
games?

If you are going to be serious, you have to take the same approach on
all costs. Saying you are only going to look at big programs is
really saying cost cutting does not matter.

I'd start with the question "Why is this the Business of the
Federal Government?" Then go on with "Do you favor funding the other
side, too?"

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

\
\So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:
\
\While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
\about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
\initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
\religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
\federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
\what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

How many crimes are prevented by pastoral council? How about Pastors that
visit the sick in the Hospitals? Many churches help the poor with food
and/or clothing, what $ value is that? In other words, these religious
organizations also serve a secular purpose. Thomas Jefferson gave taxpayer
money to missionaries because they were beneficial with the Indians. In
many instances, if we would have sent a few more missionaries we probably
would not have had to send as many troops.

Today as you see crime on the increase, as you see the world going down
the
****ter, thank people just like yourself, your kind of thinking is the
cause.

RogerN- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

\
\How many abortions are prevented by the family planning services
\offered by Planned Parenthood? I'm not talking about abortions, I'm
\talking about contraception and counseling.

Won't Obamacare provide these services?

A woman went to a planned parenthood abortion mill to inquire about an
abortion, she hadn't made up her mind but wanted to discuss it. *She was
nervous and all so they gave her some medicine to help her relax. *After
thinking it over, she decided she didn't want the abortion. *They told her
that the medicine they gave her could harm the baby and talked her into the
abortion. *Afterward she found out the medicine they gave her wasn't harmful
to the baby, they lied to her to talk her into the abortion.

Without credible cites, that is nothing more than a fairy tale.

\How many tax dollars are saved by Planned Parenthood's providing early
\detection of breast cancer and a host of other diseases?

So we need to fund Obamacare and planned parenthood?


If government run health care truly provided all the services that
Planned Parenthood currently does, then of course there would be no
need to fund both. Let me know when that happens.


\Roger, I NEVER said that religious organizations should not be tax
\exempt. I was trying to put the discussion into a frame that you might
\understand. I see I touched a nerve.

I don't know the details but I think there are some that shouldn't be tax
exempt, some use religion as a way to get rich, Jesus threw that type out of
the temple saying they turned the house of prayer into a den of thieves. *I
also know of some that do quite a bit of good for the little bit of money
they make.

o, how does the Government decide which institutions to tax?


RogerN-