Larry Blanchard wrote in news:j0v2ih$fak$3
@speranza.aioe.org:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:53:13 -0700, DGDevin wrote:

Yeah, you tell 'em, if the Founders really wanted separation of church
and state then why did they put "In God We Trust" on the money?

Just in case anyone took that statement seriously, it was the Eisenhower
administration who made it the official motto and had it added to paper
money. In 1956.

yes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article , says...

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:53:13 -0700, DGDevin wrote:

Yeah, you tell 'em, if the Founders really wanted separation of church
and state then why did they put "In God We Trust" on the money?

Just in case anyone took that statement seriously, it was the Eisenhower
administration who made it the official motto and had it added to paper
money. In 1956.

However the Founders did not seek "separation of church and state". The
First Amendment has unusual wording--"Congress shall make no law
resepecting an establishment of religion". In other words it's a
restriction specifically on what laws may be enacted by the Federal
government.

The reason that that particular item was included in the Bill of Rights
was that several states had state religions at the time and would not
have ratified the Constitution if there had been a chance that the
Federal government would override that state religion.

One can argue that incorporating it under the fourteenth to restrict the
actions of state governments is at variance with the original intent,
however that would be an uphill battle at this point.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:09:31 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where anyone suggested that
Obama's motive was to become dictator for life. Perhaps you could
refresh me...

"Then obama declares a state of emergency, declares martial law and
becomes the dictator for life as he would like to be."

posted by k-nuttle

Yup - clean miss. I hate it when that happens...

--

-Mike-

"Han" wrote in message ...

At first, I could have voted for McCain (would have been unlikely, but it
seemed possible). Then he went of the deep end in his opinions, and tried
to cover that up with a cover girl. Sorry, Twitsie did him in for good.

It's too bad Karl Rove was able to torpedo McCain's campaign in 2000, if he
had become President it seems reasonable to me he wouldn't have been so
quick to go to war with a nation that hadn't attacked the U.S.

I hadn't made up my mind between McCain and Obama until after it became
apparent just how bad Caribou Barbie really was, that did it for me. First
time in decades I didn’t think the Repubs had come up with the better
ticket.

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ...

Yeah, you tell 'em, if the Founders really wanted separation of church
and state then why did they put "In God We Trust" on the money?

Just in case anyone took that statement seriously, it was the Eisenhower
administration who made it the official motto and had it added to paper
money. In 1956.

Dammit, there's always some guy who's gotta blurt out the punchline halfway
through the joke.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...

However the Founders did not seek "separation of church and state".

Some folks insist that the Founders didn't want an armed citizenry aside
from service in a state militia. Actually the Founders made it clear that
an armed citizenry independent of the state was exactly what they wanted,
some of them wrote and spoke on the subject in very clear terms, just as
they did on the subject of how undesirable it was for govt. and religion to
be mixed. The courts consider such extra-constitutional evidence when they
are interpreting the Constitution, which seems a reasonable thing to do when
trying to figure out what the Founders *meant* which is the role which
inevitably came to the courts.

The
First Amendment has unusual wording--"Congress shall make no law
resepecting an establishment of religion". In other words it's a
restriction specifically on what laws may be enacted by the Federal
government.

Pretty much the theme of the Bill of Rights.

The reason that that particular item was included in the Bill of Rights
was that several states had state religions at the time and would not
have ratified the Constitution if there had been a chance that the
Federal government would override that state religion.

They had to agree to legal slavery for the same reason, but that doesn't
mean many weren't holding their noses when they signed.

One can argue that incorporating it under the fourteenth to restrict the
actions of state governments is at variance with the original intent,
however that would be an uphill battle at this point.

Put me down on the list of those who are pleased that the courts went that
route, state religions are things of horror.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...


This goes to the heart of what is wrong with American politics today.
It is no longer enough to claim the other side is wrong, they have to
be wicked as well and actively working to damage the nation and harm
its people. Is it any wonder compromise fails when politics is
practiced in a manner that requires painting the other side as
heretics?

Well - in a controversial world, it has always been that way.

It hasn't always been that way, there was a time when members of Congress
from different parties were friends who respected each other and could work
together, they didn't assume the R or the D after the other guy's name was
proof of incompetence and corruption.

The problem is that we are now inundated with too many idiots who feel a
false sense of obligation and remorse for the very things that have made
this nation great. For some reason they feel it is wrong to work hard and
be successful - wrong to be the unique model for how good things could be
for those living under worse conditions.

And of course you can quote Mr. Obama expounding on how wrong it is to work
hard and become successful, sure you can. No doubt you can also demonstrate
in convincing terms how no other nation has advanced science and industry
and economics and politics to provide a better standard of living for its
people, clearly America is, as you say, unique in that respect. Oh sure,
some of those smelly foreigners will point to their superior schools and
longer life expectancy and so on as if that means something, but run a
carrier battle group up and down their coastline a few times and they get
the message.

On 7/29/2011 2:14 PM, busbus wrote:
On Jul 29, 12:12 am, "Lew wrote:
The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by
08/02/2011.

As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise
the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment.

Obama will not allow default to happen.

Lew

I shouldn't do this but.....


I happened to find a link that shows the breakdown of the federal
Budget proposal for 2012. It doesn’t go deep enough and I need to
look at things on a higher level than I wanted but it gave me enough
insight that I wanted to puke. After I read this, I have been
thinking about these things and mo

1. The first place we need to cut is our defense budget.

Q. Why have so many National Guard units been called to active duty
over the past several decades?
A. Because the federal military budget is not large enough for the
Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force to fulfill their missions.


3. We need to start seriously looking at entitlements. Why should
Warren Buffett get Social Security or be allowed to sign up for
Medicare?

Do you have any evidence that Warren Buffett is collecting SS, or using
Medicare? I dunno, but I rather suspect most ultra-wealthy do not
participate because they can afford not to, and it's not worth the
hassle for them.


There are literally generations of people in the same family who have
never had a paying job—they have lived off the rest of us. I say stop
it. No more. My plan is not to pull the rug out from underneath them
because you would literally have violence. It needs to be a phased
approach and we would have to kick up the giving before we take it
away. My plan would be to train these people in whatever they want.
If they want to be a plumber, go for it. If they want to be an
accountant, go at it. If they want to be a hairdresser, so be it. We
will pay them to go to a trade school or college or whatever. We will
help them with child care and medical and living expenses until they
get their degree or certificate. We will buy them clothes to wear on
interviews and even give them low interest loans to open a business.
We will train them on how to take interviews. We will do whatever…but
there WILL be an end to it. I say 6-12 months after “graduation,”
they will be knocked off the public relief roles. There is nothing
like an empty stomach that will make somebody work.

I agree with the concept, BUT, in our present economy and high
unemployment rates, do you really expect that newly trained plumbers,
hairdressers etc. will be able to find unemployment when even
experienced workers cannot? Your solution would have to address that
problem. One alternative would be that instead of unearned welfare
benefits, they would have to work for the government, mowing lawns,
cleaning toilets, picking up litter, whatever, at 75% of the minimum
wage rate. They could either do that, or go out and get a private
sector job, but they couldn't simply sit at home watching TV on the
government dole.

DGDevin wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...


This goes to the heart of what is wrong with American politics
today. It is no longer enough to claim the other side is wrong,
they have to be wicked as well and actively working to damage the
nation and harm its people. Is it any wonder compromise fails when
politics is practiced in a manner that requires painting the other
side as heretics?

Well - in a controversial world, it has always been that way.

It hasn't always been that way, there was a time when members of
Congress from different parties were friends who respected each other
and could work together, they didn't assume the R or the D after the
other guy's name was proof of incompetence and corruption.

I don't think there is any difference in how Congressmen work today than
there ever was. Yeah - there's more rhetoric today, but that's a reflection
of technology making that possible.


The problem is that we are now inundated with too many idiots who
feel a false sense of obligation and remorse for the very things
that have made this nation great. For some reason they feel it is
wrong to work hard and be successful - wrong to be the unique model
for how good things could be for those living under worse conditions.

And of course you can quote Mr. Obama expounding on how wrong it is
to work hard and become successful, sure you can. No doubt you can
also demonstrate in convincing terms how no other nation has advanced
science and industry and economics and politics to provide a better
standard of living for its people, clearly America is, as you say,
unique in that respect.

That's not the way I was using the term. I don't believe you'd argue that
the United States had risen to a very unique position in the world. I have
no idea where you gathered all of the rest of your steam though. I never
mentioned the things you just introduced.

Oh sure, some of those smelly foreigners
will point to their superior schools and longer life expectancy and
so on as if that means something, but run a carrier battle group up
and down their coastline a few times and they get the message.

Smelly foreigners is your term. I never introduced, implied it, or
entertained it.

--

-Mike-

On 7/29/2011 7:44 PM, DGDevin wrote:
Well - in a controversial world, it has always been that way.

It hasn't always been that way, there was a time when members of
Congress from different parties were friends who respected each other
and could work together, they didn't assume the R or the D after the
other guy's name was proof of incompetence and corruption.

The problem is that we are now inundated with too many idiots who feel
a false sense of obligation and remorse for the very things that have
made this nation great. For some reason they feel it is wrong to work
hard and be successful - wrong to be the unique model for how good
things could be for those living under worse conditions.

And of course you can quote Mr. Obama expounding on how wrong it is to
work hard and become successful, sure you can. No doubt you can also
demonstrate in convincing terms how no other nation has advanced science
and industry and economics and politics to provide a better standard of
living for its people, clearly America is, as you say, unique in that
respect. Oh sure, some of those smelly foreigners will point to their
superior schools and longer life expectancy and so on as if that means
something, but run a carrier battle group up and down their coastline a
few times and they get the message.

Unfortunately one of the best ways which many congressmen and future
president used to resolve their differences was the dual. However we
became "civilized", so now the preferred choice of handling an opponent
is to dredge up every rumor any one ever made about him and publish it
as fact.

In article , Han wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

The 14th Amendment does not permit the President to do that: "The
validity of the public debt of the United States, AUTHORIZED BY LAW,
shall not be questioned ... [emphasis mine]" -- the point being that
any debt above the current ceiling is NOT "authorized by law".

Obama will not allow default to happen.

If Congress fails to act, he has no choice.

Didn't the 14th amendment predate the law that limits the national debt?
If that is so, then the SCOTUS needs to speak as to whether the later law
is constitutional ...
Or did SCOTUS?

It's not clear to me why you think that makes any difference. The amendment
refers to public debts authorized by law -- but there is no language there
restricting when, or how, such debts might be authorized. The historical
context of that clause shows that its purpose was to allow the United States
to repudiate debts incurred by the Confederacy or by individual Confederate
States, because those debts had *not* been "authorized by law."

It simply isn't applicable to the current situation.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , Han
wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

The 14th Amendment does not permit the President to do that: "The
validity of the public debt of the United States, AUTHORIZED BY LAW,
shall not be questioned ... [emphasis mine]" -- the point being that
any debt above the current ceiling is NOT "authorized by law".

Obama will not allow default to happen.

If Congress fails to act, he has no choice.

Didn't the 14th amendment predate the law that limits the national
debt? If that is so, then the SCOTUS needs to speak as to whether the
later law is constitutional ...
Or did SCOTUS?

It's not clear to me why you think that makes any difference. The
amendment refers to public debts authorized by law -- but there is no
language there restricting when, or how, such debts might be
authorized. The historical context of that clause shows that its
purpose was to allow the United States to repudiate debts incurred by
the Confederacy or by individual Confederate States, because those
debts had *not* been "authorized by law."

It simply isn't applicable to the current situation.

I didn't make myself clear. Congress has clearly authorized expenditures
that now result in what we call too much debt, by running deficit after
deficit for however many years (there were a few years with nominal
surpluses). To me (but IANAL!!) that means those debts were authorized
as per the 14th amendment. The later law setting a debt limit does or
doesn't make the 14th amendment moot. That is the question I am asking
(remember, IANAL). I am guessing that no one has challenged the debt
limit law, since Congress has always raised the limit in time.

Please remember also that I came to the US as a 23 year-old biomedical
researcher, and am only a citizen since 1984 or so. Since I am now
retired, I have more time for discussions snicker.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 2011-07-29 15:44:17 -0400, Larry Blanchard said:

Just in case anyone took that statement seriously, it was the
Eisenhower administration who made it the official motto and had it
added to paper money. In 1956.

As "one nation under God" was added to the pleadge of allegience in 1954.

On 30 Jul 2011 01:08:20 GMT, Han wrote:

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , Han
wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

The 14th Amendment does not permit the President to do that: "The
validity of the public debt of the United States, AUTHORIZED BY LAW,
shall not be questioned ... [emphasis mine]" -- the point being that
any debt above the current ceiling is NOT "authorized by law".

Obama will not allow default to happen.

If Congress fails to act, he has no choice.

Didn't the 14th amendment predate the law that limits the national
debt? If that is so, then the SCOTUS needs to speak as to whether the
later law is constitutional ...
Or did SCOTUS?

It's not clear to me why you think that makes any difference. The
amendment refers to public debts authorized by law -- but there is no
language there restricting when, or how, such debts might be
authorized. The historical context of that clause shows that its
purpose was to allow the United States to repudiate debts incurred by
the Confederacy or by individual Confederate States, because those
debts had *not* been "authorized by law."

It simply isn't applicable to the current situation.

I didn't make myself clear. Congress has clearly authorized expenditures
that now result in what we call too much debt, by running deficit after
deficit for however many years (there were a few years with nominal
surpluses). To me (but IANAL!!) that means those debts were authorized
as per the 14th amendment. The later law setting a debt limit does or
doesn't make the 14th amendment moot. That is the question I am asking
(remember, IANAL). I am guessing that no one has challenged the debt
limit law, since Congress has always raised the limit in time.

That simply means that servicing the debt has to take priority over
shrimp-on-the-treadmill. There is plenty of money coming in to pay the debt.

Please remember also that I came to the US as a 23 year-old biomedical
researcher, and am only a citizen since 1984 or so. Since I am now
retired, I have more time for discussions snicker.

On 7/29/2011 4:59 PM, HeyBub wrote:

And now we have you claiming Obama wants to declare martial law and
become dictator for life, proof (if any were needed) that when
considering left-wingnuts and right-wingnuts, the operative word is
"wingnut".

A right-wing president becoming president for life is more likely to succeed
than a left-wing president, but less likely to happen.

That only seems possible if you go with a convoluted view of Left and
Right. In reality, all the way on the Left is Totalitarianism, or total
government control. All the way on the Right is Anarchy, or zero
government control. Totally opposite, as one would expect. So, if you
are thinking president for life, IE dictator controlled regime rather
than an individual controlled republic, you are most likely on the Left
side of freedom.

The left includes King George, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Castro,
Chavez, Obama, Pelosi. Slightly right of those fools are people like
Bush, Carter, Clinton, Wilson. These guys all believe the individual is
too ****ing stupid to do anything right, and they MUST rule with an Iron
Fist (usually their motto unless disguised as right wingers)

On the right are people like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Reagen,
Bachmann, Paul, Stossle. These guys believe in the individual, and that
government interference in individual freedom should be minimal.

If it DID happen we right-wingers could sustain the coup because we have
most of the guns.

We don't have nearly as many guns as the government. In fact, if it
were up to the left, only the government would have guns, thus, would be
rather easy for the government to rule with an iron fist (the left
motto) whenever it chooses. To do this, the US would need to undergo a
fundamental change from right leaning to far left. This has been going
on for around 100 years and in the last few, has rapidly picked up pace,
and our current regime actually campaigned on it.

On the other hand, right wingers just don't do force and
intimidation very well.

Particularly once the left wingers take away their guns by government
decree.

Here's an example: Instead of McCain, many of us were rooting for Jeb Bush.
After him, that good-looking Hispanic Bush nephew for eight years. By then
the legacy would be firmly established and it would be only a small step to
a monarchy.

Goofy! More realistic is the government is taking away gun rights,
telling us what to eat, making our cars, owning our banks, confiscation
of property because of better tax possibilities, raising our children
(Chicago requires you keep children under 12 home after 8:30) Setting up
random roadblocks to make sure they approve of your seat belts, ask
where you have been, play with your junk at airports to make sure
granny's diaper, or sonny boys diaper is clean and so on. It's a small
step from that, to Total Government Control, or more accurately, not a
step at all.

But you'll note, we tried to work within the system.

Noted!

--
Jack
Got Change, now CHANGE IT BACK!
http://jbstein.com

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:08:07 -0400, Steve wrote:

On 2011-07-29 15:44:17 -0400, Larry Blanchard
said:

Just in case anyone took that statement seriously, it was the
Eisenhower administration who made it the official motto and had it
added to paper money. In 1956.

As "one nation under God" was added to the pleadge of allegience in
1954.

Actually, only the "under God" was added. As I started school in 1942
the new version still sounds strange to me :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:14:57 -0700, busbus wrote:

My plan would be to
train these people in whatever they want. If they want to be a plumber,
go for it.

Oh boy, another idealist :-). A great idea, but it runs into a brick
wall of reality.

A lot of those folks aren't trainable. By definition, half the
population is of below average intelligence. If someones mother was a
alkie or a drug addict, or even just had really bad eating habits, that
person is going to be considerably below the average.

Even that problem could be overcome if we could somehow bring back more
manual labor jobs, but the only way that would happen is with another
CCC. Still government assistance, but at least with some return.

But another problem remains. Some of the people you're trying to change
just plain don't want to work. How many times have we heard of some
black kid trying to better himself while the local gang members accuse
him of "acting white". And I'm not picking on black folks. The same
attitudes exist in other groups such as the "po' white trash" who accuse
a child in similar circumstances of "acting uppity" or "above himself".

And they pass those attitudes on to their children. The only way you'll
break that cycle is to remove the kids at birth and give them to a family
that will raise them properly. And even that doesn't solve the problem
of those who are born brain-damaged.

I'm an idealist too. But time has made me a cynical idealist.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 17:53:32 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

One
alternative would be that instead of unearned welfare benefits, they
would have to work for the government, mowing lawns, cleaning toilets,
picking up litter, whatever, at 75% of the minimum wage rate. They
could either do that, or go out and get a private sector job, but they
couldn't simply sit at home watching TV on the government dole.

I have a feeling a considerable number would turn to crime, resulting in
prison, resulting in us paying for them anyway - and at a higher rate.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 11:14:54 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

These guys all believe the individual is too ****ing stupid to do
anything right ...

And reading this newsgroup convinces you they are wrong?????

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:44:19 -0700, DGDevin wrote:

Oh sure, some of those smelly foreigners will point to their superior
schools and longer life expectancy and so on as if that means something,
but run a carrier battle group up and down their coastline a few times
and they get the message.

Nice one :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 7/30/2011 1:01 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 11:14:54 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

These guys all believe the individual is too ****ing stupid to do
anything right ...

And reading this newsgroup convinces you they are wrong?????

Nope. Seeing what results when the Government rules with an iron fist
(symbol of the left) vs what happens when the individual rules is enough
for me. A good example is what the socialist Hitler did when he
implemented your buddies (Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G.
B. Shaw) gas chambers on those he thought not fit enough to contribute
to his great society. I'm not sure if he used a painless gas to kill
everyone as Shaw advocated, but what ever he used worked.

--
Jack
Got Change: Individual Freedom ======= Government Control!
http://jbstein.com

On 7/30/2011 10:59 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 17:53:32 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

One
alternative would be that instead of unearned welfare benefits, they
would have to work for the government, mowing lawns, cleaning toilets,
picking up litter, whatever, at 75% of the minimum wage rate. They
could either do that, or go out and get a private sector job, but they
couldn't simply sit at home watching TV on the government dole.

I have a feeling a considerable number would turn to crime, resulting in
prison, resulting in us paying for them anyway - and at a higher rate.


If they did that, as prisoners they could be made to work at the same
jobs, for 25 cents an hour.

On Jul 28, 11:44*pm, "Dr. Deb" wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by
08/02/2011.

As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise
the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment.

Obama will not allow default to happen.

Lew

Except for the minor fact that the 14th Amendment does not allow him to do
that. *You really need to read it "all" for yourself, *rather than just
taking someone's word for it. *

Its kinda like the phrase that is supposed to be in the First Amendment, but
isn;t. *You know, "Seperation of Church and State." *

Liberals keep makings claims, which for a liberal makes it true,
irrespective of reality. *Of course, if you are a liberal you really don't
like dealing with that nasty subject anyway, because it messes up otherwise
perfectly good claims and agnedas.

Deb

Ayup, you'd never accuse a conservative of having an agneda. Kinda
like superior beings, all-knowing and stuff.

D'ohBoy

"Steve Turner" wrote in message ...

On 7/29/2011 10:22 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Tom B wrote:
snip

What cracks me up is when people compare the average salary of our
congressmen
to that of the average insert downtrodden member of society here and,
noting
the "huge" disparity, conclude that "I think we know where the problem
lies!"
As if adjusting the salaries of a few hundred congressmen is somehow going
to
reclaim enough taxpayer money to fix our economy... The amount of taxpayer
money recovered by making their salaries "fair" would be a drop in the ocean
compared to where they're spending the rest of it.

--
Add to that the retirement pay (2 years all that's necessary to get full
lifetime retirement) and the other perks.
But that is just then tip of the Government iceberg... how about all the
many Government employees that are exempt from Social Security, and have
their own heath plans the tax payers give them.

On 7/31/2011 8:38 AM, Tom B wrote:

What cracks me up is when people compare the average salary of our
congressmen to that of the average insert downtrodden member of society here and,
noting the "huge" disparity, conclude that "I think we know where the problem
lies!"
As if adjusting the salaries of a few hundred congressmen is somehow
going to reclaim enough taxpayer money to fix our economy... The amount of taxpayer
money recovered by making their salaries "fair" would be a drop in the
ocean compared to where they're spending the rest of it.

Their salaries are no biggie, throw in all the perks and you get a
little bigger. Throw in the corruption, and now you are talking
confiscatory tax rates, trillion dollar deficits and so on. Thank god
dead Rep. John Murtha is a good example: http://tinyurl.com/c8xs76.
That crook should have been tarred and feathered years ago. There are a
gaggle of them in Washington, and they all need thrown out of office,
about all socialist democrats, and about all the old school republicans.

--
Jack
Conservatives believe every day is the Fourth of July,
Liberals believe every day is April 15.
http://jbstein.com

On 7/31/2011 7:38 AM, Tom B wrote:


"Steve Turner" wrote in message ...

On 7/29/2011 10:22 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Tom B wrote:
snip

What cracks me up is when people compare the average salary of our
congressmen
to that of the average insert downtrodden member of society here and,
noting
the "huge" disparity, conclude that "I think we know where the problem
lies!"
As if adjusting the salaries of a few hundred congressmen is somehow
going to
reclaim enough taxpayer money to fix our economy... The amount of taxpayer
money recovered by making their salaries "fair" would be a drop in the
ocean
compared to where they're spending the rest of it.


I don't so much read the salary comparison of our government leaders to
the average wage earner as being the problem. I don't think any one
believes the salaries of the government positions as being what keeps
the debt going in the wrong direction.

I do believe that all of those government people that are receiving
those large salaries are in way over their heads and if they were
working in a non government job they would probably qualify for a salary
similar to a salary that a greater at WalMart would get.

If we got what we paid for we would be in a lot better shape.

"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote
I don't so much read the salary comparison of our government leaders to
the average wage earner as being the problem. I don't think any one
believes the salaries of the government positions as being what keeps the
debt going in the wrong direction.

I do believe that all of those government people that are receiving those
large salaries are in way over their heads and if they were working in a
non government job they would probably qualify for a salary similar to a
salary that a greater at WalMart would get.

If we got what we paid for we would be in a lot better shape.



I have to wonder if we need as many government employees though. Used to be
for every 10 private employees, there was one government. Now it is 4 to 1.

I don't know about the feds, but our state (CT) is top heavy. Private
industry has a ration of 7 workers to 1 supervisor. Our state has a 4 to 1
ratio.

My guess is that if the average citizen had the line item veto on the
budget, it would be cut by a minimum of 50%.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote
I don't so much read the salary comparison of our government leaders
to the average wage earner as being the problem. I don't think any
one believes the salaries of the government positions as being what
keeps the debt going in the wrong direction.

I do believe that all of those government people that are receiving
those large salaries are in way over their heads and if they were
working in a non government job they would probably qualify for a
salary similar to a salary that a greater at WalMart would get.

If we got what we paid for we would be in a lot better shape.



I have to wonder if we need as many government employees though. Used
to be for every 10 private employees, there was one government. Now
it is 4 to 1.

I don't know about the feds, but our state (CT) is top heavy. Private
industry has a ration of 7 workers to 1 supervisor. Our state has a 4
to 1 ratio.

My guess is that if the average citizen had the line item veto on the
budget, it would be cut by a minimum of 50%.

I hear that. Much of this is due to regulations. Before I retired, I
had to fulfill all these ethical and safety requirements. Not only did
they take days to do, and changed every 3 months, they also required
administrative personnel to keep records and file reports. Of course,
the jury is out on whether all this made things safer and prevented real
abuse and data manipulation in the medical research fields like mine. It
ALWAYS seemed to me that the penalties for real wrongdoing were to minute
to deter anyone bent on bending the rules. As I have mentioned before, a
good guy in the research administration of my VA complained that he
wasn't really doing the job anymore, because 75-85% of his time was taken
with checking "compliance".


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/31/2011 8:44 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I have to wonder if we need as many government employees though. Used to
be for every 10 private employees, there was one government. Now it is 4
to 1.

Hell, we need'em, doncha know!

... two cops, I mean two, count'em TWO cops, loaded down with weapons
worthy of a military exercise, came out and ordered me to quit mowing my
postage stamp of a yard at 11:30AM last Sunday ... a yard for which I
pay $13k + a year in property taxes for the privilege; and half of that
to pay for a broken educational system where 61.7% of the students are
from parents who are mostly here illegally, and only 7.8% of the entire
student body remotely share my heritage:

http://www.houstonisd.org/HISDConnec...52 147fa6RCRD

What would we do without these types of safeguards on our lives, eh?

We are past due for a revolution, but don't hold your breath. I fought
once, supposedly for this countries _values_ (Ha!) but no way would I do
it again for the current crop of ****head "citizens".

You got what you deserved, America ... including a politicized climate.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/31/2011 8:44 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I have to wonder if we need as many government employees though. Used
to be for every 10 private employees, there was one government. Now
it is 4 to 1.

Hell, we need'em, doncha know!

... two cops, I mean two, count'em TWO cops, loaded down with
weapons
worthy of a military exercise, came out and ordered me to quit mowing
my postage stamp of a yard at 11:30AM last Sunday ... a yard for which
I pay $13k + a year in property taxes for the privilege; and half of
that to pay for a broken educational system where 61.7% of the
students are from parents who are mostly here illegally, and only 7.8%
of the entire student body remotely share my heritage:

http://www.houstonisd.org/HISDConnec...toid=62c675776
1efc010VgnVCM10000052147fa6RCRD

What would we do without these types of safeguards on our lives, eh?

We are past due for a revolution, but don't hold your breath. I fought
once, supposedly for this countries _values_ (Ha!) but no way would I
do it again for the current crop of ****head "citizens".

You got what you deserved, America ... including a politicized
climate.

Assuming (I know ...) that was because you made too much noise, I suggest
you hire my spouse and get one of these:
http://www.amazon.com/American-Lawn-Mower-1204-14-14-
Inch/dp/B00004RA3F/ref=sr_1_2?s=garden&ie=UTF8&qid=1312126105&sr=1-2
or
http://tinyurl.com/3ljfnnt

It's hot here too, so hot and dry that lawn mowing isn't necessary
anymore.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/31/2011 10:32 AM, Han wrote:

Assuming (I know ...) that was because you made too much noise, I suggest
you hire my spouse and get one of these:
http://www.amazon.com/American-Lawn-Mower-1204-14-14-
Inch/dp/B00004RA3F/ref=sr_1_2?s=garden&ie=UTF8&qid=1312126105&sr=1-2
or
http://tinyurl.com/3ljfnnt

It's hot here too, so hot and dry that lawn mowing isn't necessary
anymore.

I understand, and agree with the spirit of the recently changed (with no
public notice ... apparently they, the city officials, forgot??)) city
ordinance, but not, as indicated, the implementation.

AAMOF, I immediately knocked on all my adjacent neighbor's doors and
apologized for being a criminal ... not a one even knew I have been mowing.

Besides, I already own a lawnmower. One that makes considerably less
noise than the gas powered leaf blowers and weed eaters that disrupt
EACH block for an average of 15 hours, six days a week, starting at 7AM.

Unlike most of the yuppies assholes who live here, I mow my own yard and
prefer to do it on Sunday mornings because I have to work the other six
and half days a week to pay the ****ing taxes!!

Actually, I had already mowed the yard (a ten minute job) and was using
an electric weed eater (which makes a swishing sound at less than 60db)
when shut down.

Basically, this is NOT the same country I grew up in ... if you weren't
here 50 years ago, you have NO idea how much it's changed, arguably, but
IMO, for the worse!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 7/31/2011 8:37 AM, Leon wrote:
On 7/31/2011 7:38 AM, Tom B wrote:


"Steve Turner" wrote in message ...

On 7/29/2011 10:22 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Tom B wrote:
snip

What cracks me up is when people compare the average salary of our
congressmen
to that of the average insert downtrodden member of society here and,
noting
the "huge" disparity, conclude that "I think we know where the problem
lies!"
As if adjusting the salaries of a few hundred congressmen is somehow
going to
reclaim enough taxpayer money to fix our economy... The amount of taxpayer
money recovered by making their salaries "fair" would be a drop in the
ocean
compared to where they're spending the rest of it.


I don't so much read the salary comparison of our government leaders to the
average wage earner as being the problem. I don't think any one believes the
salaries of the government positions as being what keeps the debt going in the
wrong direction.

There are a lot of stupid people that believe a lot of stupid stuff, but your
point speaks to something different than what I was talking about. I've seen
scads of replies to online new stories, emails, and Facebook posts circulated
that illustrate nothing more than shallow envy and jealousy of the salary and
perks enjoyed by our congressmen. I'd have no problem if congress suddenly
decided to adjust their own compensation and benefits to be more on par with
that of the average citizen, but I don't fool myself into thinking that all our
problems would be magically solved once that happens. The stupid people would
just be forced to direct their ire and jealousy to some other situation that
isn't "fair" and point the blame there instead.

I do believe that all of those government people that are receiving those large
salaries are in way over their heads and if they were working in a non
government job they would probably qualify for a salary similar to a salary
that a greater at WalMart would get.

If we got what we paid for we would be in a lot better shape.

Agreed.

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

"Swingman" wrote


Basically, this is NOT the same country I grew up in ... if you weren't
here 50 years ago, you have NO idea how much it's changed, arguably, but
IMO, for the worse!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Amen Brother!!

Max

In article m,
says...

"Steve Turner" wrote in message ...

On 7/29/2011 10:22 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Tom B wrote:
snip

What cracks me up is when people compare the average salary of our
congressmen
to that of the average insert downtrodden member of society here and,
noting
the "huge" disparity, conclude that "I think we know where the problem
lies!"
As if adjusting the salaries of a few hundred congressmen is somehow going
to
reclaim enough taxpayer money to fix our economy... The amount of taxpayer
money recovered by making their salaries "fair" would be a drop in the ocean
compared to where they're spending the rest of it.

The idea is that if they have to make ends meet on the same kind of
budget that most of us have available to us they might be a bit more
frugal.

But they can vote themselves raises and vote the government raises and
it all comes out of the pockets of people who don't have that luxury.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 07:38:11 -0500, "Tom B" wrote:

the "huge" disparity, conclude that "I think we know where the problem
lies!"
As if adjusting the salaries of a few hundred congressmen is somehow going
to
reclaim enough taxpayer money to fix our economy... The amount of taxpayer
money recovered by making their salaries "fair" would be a drop in the ocean
compared to where they're spending the rest of it.

--

Don't use a sig-separator to separate your contribution from your quote. Use
a real newsreader. Not only will it be easier for you, but also your reader.


Add to that the retirement pay (2 years all that's necessary to get full
lifetime retirement) and the other perks.

No, it's five years service at age 62, twenty years service at age 50, and any
age after 25 years service.

From http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf:

"Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed
20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service.
The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average
of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting amount
of a Member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her
final salary."

Still pretty damned generous of us.

But that is just then tip of the Government iceberg... how about all the
many Government employees that are exempt from Social Security, and have
their own heath plans the tax payers give them.

Also wrong, not that it matters really.

"Swingman" wrote

... two cops, I mean two, count'em TWO cops, loaded down with weapons
worthy of a military exercise, came out and ordered me to quit mowing my
postage stamp of a yard at 11:30AM last Sunday ... a yard for which I pay
$13k + a year in property taxes for the privilege;

Pet peeve. Sunday is one day that we can usually sit out on the deck and
enjoy a nice meal. Some asshole always has to crank up the mower at 6 PM on
an otherwise quiet evening.

Do it in the morning, do it after work the other six day. Just give the
rest of us a few hours for a quiet dinner on one evening.

At 11:30, I don't care, mow away if you desire.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 10:13:49 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 7/31/2011 8:44 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I have to wonder if we need as many government employees though. Used to
be for every 10 private employees, there was one government. Now it is 4
to 1.

Hell, we need'em, doncha know!

... two cops, I mean two, count'em TWO cops, loaded down with weapons
worthy of a military exercise, came out and ordered me to quit mowing my
postage stamp of a yard at 11:30AM last Sunday ... a yard for which I
pay $13k + a year in property taxes for the privilege; and half of that
to pay for a broken educational system where 61.7% of the students are
from parents who are mostly here illegally, and only 7.8% of the entire
student body remotely share my heritage:

$13K?! I moved out of VT because of taxes half that (to AL, where they're
less than an eighth of what you pay). I waited until 9:30 to mow my lawn this
morning. No problems, other than it's hot and humid. Hot happens here this
time of year.

http://www.houstonisd.org/HISDConnec...52 147fa6RCRD

What would we do without these types of safeguards on our lives, eh?

We are past due for a revolution, but don't hold your breath. I fought
once, supposedly for this countries _values_ (Ha!) but no way would I do
it again for the current crop of ****head "citizens".

You got what you deserved, America ... including a politicized climate.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 09:27:51 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

Their salaries are no biggie, throw in all the perks and you get a
little bigger.

One of the perks which you may or may not have included is the large
staffs of reps and sens. Something over 15,000 in total. Their salaries
and benefits add up to quite a bit.

I wonder if a senator with 34 staff members ever actually reads a bill
before he or she signs it?

For more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_staff

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/31/2011 10:32 AM, Han wrote:

Assuming (I know ...) that was because you made too much noise, I
suggest you hire my spouse and get one of these:
http://www.amazon.com/American-Lawn-Mower-1204-14-14-
Inch/dp/B00004RA3F/ref=sr_1_2?s=garden&ie=UTF8&qid=1312126105&sr=1-2
or
http://tinyurl.com/3ljfnnt

It's hot here too, so hot and dry that lawn mowing isn't necessary
anymore.

I understand, and agree with the spirit of the recently changed (with
no public notice ... apparently they, the city officials, forgot??))
city ordinance, but not, as indicated, the implementation.

AAMOF, I immediately knocked on all my adjacent neighbor's doors and
apologized for being a criminal ... not a one even knew I have been
mowing.

Besides, I already own a lawnmower. One that makes considerably less
noise than the gas powered leaf blowers and weed eaters that disrupt
EACH block for an average of 15 hours, six days a week, starting at
7AM.

Unlike most of the yuppies assholes who live here, I mow my own yard
and prefer to do it on Sunday mornings because I have to work the
other six and half days a week to pay the ****ing taxes!!

Actually, I had already mowed the yard (a ten minute job) and was
using an electric weed eater (which makes a swishing sound at less
than 60db) when shut down.

Basically, this is NOT the same country I grew up in ... if you
weren't here 50 years ago, you have NO idea how much it's changed,
arguably, but IMO, for the worse!

tongue thing
You're giving me more reasons not to go to Houston. And I had been
believing that Texas was God's country {actually, a friend from long ago
thought of NH as that).
/tongue thing

Actually, living here in NJ http://radburn.org in a small village
within a village has advantages. I can talk to the mayor etc, etc.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Jack Stein wrote:


Their salaries are no biggie, throw in all the perks and you get a
little bigger. Throw in the corruption, and now you are talking
confiscatory tax rates, trillion dollar deficits and so on. Thank god
dead Rep. John Murtha is a good example: http://tinyurl.com/c8xs76.
That crook should have been tarred and feathered years ago. There
are a gaggle of them in Washington, and they all need thrown out of
office, about all socialist democrats, and about all the old school
republicans.

That's an entirely different matter Jack. The original comment was
lamenting the salaries of listed public officials.

--

-Mike-