A Compendium of Puntifications
1. I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.
2. Police were called to a daycare where a three-year-old was resisting a
rest.
3. Did you hear about the guy whose whole left side was cut off? He's all
right now.
4. The roundest knight at King Arthur's round table was Sir Cumference.
5. To write with a broken pencil is pointless.
6. When fish are in schools they sometimes take debate.
7. A thief who stole a calendar got twelve months.
8. A thief fell and broke his leg in wet concrete. He became a hardened
criminal.
9. Thieves who steal corn from a garden could be charged with stalking.
10. We'll never run out of math teachers because they always multiply.
11. When the smog lifts in Los Angeles, UCLA.
12. The professor discovered that her theory of earthquakes was on shaky
ground.
13. The dead batteries were given out free of charge.
14. If you take a laptop computer for a run, you could jog your memory.
15. A dentist and a manicurist fought tooth and nail.
16. What's the definition of a will? (It's a dead giveaway.)
17. I didn't know where the sun went at night, so I stayed up thinking
about it until it dawned on me.
18. I knew she was bulimic so I tried not to talk about food, but she kept
bringing it up!
A tough old cowboy counseled his grandson that if he wanted to live a long
life, the secret was to sprinkle a pinch of gunpowder on his oatmeal every
morning. The grandson did this religiously to the age of 103. When he died,
he left 14 children, 30 grandchildren, 45 great-grandchildren, 25
great-great-grandchildren and a 15-foot hole where the crematorium used to
be.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/8/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
The Washington Post's Mensa Invitational once again asked readers to
take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or
changing one letter, and supply a new definition. Here are this year's
winners. Read them carefully. Each is an artificial word with only one
letter altered to form a "real" word. Some are terrifically innovative.
1. Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you
realize it was your money to start with.
2. Reintarnation: Coming back to life as a hillbilly.
3. Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops
bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows
little sign of breaking down in the near future.
4. Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the
subject financially impotent for an indefinite period.
5. Giraffiti: Vandalism spray-painted very, very high.
6. Sarchasm : The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the
person who doesn't get it.
7. Inoculatte : To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.
8. Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.
9. Osteopornosis: A degenerate disease. (This one got extra credit.)
10. Karmageddon: It's like, when everybody is sending off all these
really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's,
like, a serious bummer.
11. Decafalon (n.): The gruelling event of getting through the day
consuming only things that are good for you.
12. Glibido: All talk and no action.
13. Dopeler effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when
they come at you rapidly.
14. Arachnoleptic fit (n.): The frantic dance performed just after
you've accidentally walked through a spider web.
15. Beelzebug (n.): Satan in the form of a mosquito, that gets into your
bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.
16. Caterpallor (n.): The color you turn after finding half a worm in
the fruit you're eating.
And the #1 pick:
17. Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an asshole.
"Woodie" wrote:
> I don't think that quite covers them... Politicians aren't JUST
> stupid assholes, they're also dishonest, self serving (not YOU
> Charlie, THEMselves), egotistical, devious, sniveling, manipulating,
> lying, stealing, vermin.
Does a pretty good job describing the folks they represent.
Lew
Woodie wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Woodie wrote:
>>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>>> On May 12, 3:33 pm, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> And the #1 pick:
>>>>>
>>>>> 17. Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an asshole.
>>>> You sure the proper term for #17 isn't "Politician"?
>>> I don't think that quite covers them... Politicians aren't JUST stupid
>>> assholes, they're also dishonest, self serving (not YOU Charlie,
>>> THEMselves), egotistical, devious, sniveling, manipulating, lying,
>>> stealing, vermin.
>>>
>>> Not sure if we need a whole new word for that, or just Politician.
>>
>> It's funny. Everyone says they hate politicians. But really,
>> politicians just do what is required for reelection - i.e.,
>> What their constituents want. If you don't like how your
>> politician is acting, take a close look at what your neighbors
>> and/or you are demanding of them. The real bad guy here is
>> The Sheeeple.
>
> As someone who worked for many years around politicians, who knows
> hundreds of them personally, I can tell you that the "Sheeple" don't
> know one percent of what their elected officials actually do. Most of
> their substantive activities are done in private, regardless of law
> requiring otherwise, and will never be publicized.
> That which you know about your elected officials is generally only that
> which they wish known.
>
That is certainly true. But, I also don't know the details of how my
doctor, accountant, plumber, or banker do their jobs. I primarily
focus on their results, since that's all that really matters to me.
This is also the case for politicians. No matter how honest or slimy
or good or bad or ... a politician may be, they get into their jobs
because The Sheeple, um, *vote* for them. Most people do this because
the politician promises to do or give them stuff they want. I suspect
that most people enter politics with the intent of making their
community, state, or nation better in some sense. They quickly
discover that "better" is not commonly defined in their constituency.
So - knowing they must stand for reelection to continue to make things
better - they find the "better" that has the widest support among
their voters and promptly pander to them, buying their votes (with
Other People's Money - taxes) in the process. You can hardly blame the
politicians for doing what they are being pressured to do.
Let me give you an example. Everyone screams about the vast US debt.
But, over 50% of the US Federal budget alone (never mind local and
state government) is made of *entitlements* - handouts to various
special interest and lobbying groups. The biggest lobby in the US is
not some big eeeeeeevil corporation, it is ... the elderly, via the
AARP. No matter how much people holler about the debt, the fact is
that no politician could survive if they proposed that people take
responsibility for themselves and thereby gutted the social handouts.
The enemy of a balanced budget is thus not the Congress, it's *all of
us*. This doesn't make politicians noble, it makes them pragmatic.
This behavior transcends social or economic status. People with little
money demand government care. People with large sums of money demand
special tax breaks. Farmers want subsidies. Corporations lobby
Congress for favors. Students want "free" university educations. Moms
want "free" daycare. In short, almost *everyone* wants something they
themselves have not earned, so they raid their neighbors wallets. This
puts the politicians in the position of deciding who gets raided and
who gets bought, and *we put them in that role*. In the end, the
only real difference between Left/Right/Republican/Democrat is
their respective definition of "better", who gets looted, and
who gets bought.
For years I shared your view that politicians were the problem. But I
was wrong. Even considering the overtly corrupt, thieving scoundrels
that occasionally get caught, they are nowhere near as ethically
compromised as John Q. Citizen who refuses to live within his means,
save for his retirement, care for his children, actively participate
in their education, and generally help himself to Other People's Money
via the politicians he elects. Democracy cannot survive when the
majority of the citizens view themselves as entitled, not responsible
for themselves, and willing to - in effect - steal from other
citizens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Woodie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:xUiWj.108144$TT4.69152@attbi_s22...
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > On May 12, 3:33 pm, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> And the #1 pick:
> >>
> >> 17. Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an asshole.
> >
> > You sure the proper term for #17 isn't "Politician"?
>
> I don't think that quite covers them... Politicians aren't JUST stupid
> assholes, they're also dishonest, self serving (not YOU Charlie,
> THEMselves), egotistical, devious, sniveling, manipulating, lying,
> stealing, vermin.
>
> Not sure if we need a whole new word for that, or just Politician.
The word "politics" explains it all. Poli = Many Tics = blood sucking
insects
Charley
On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:58:40 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Swingman wrote:
>> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote
>>
>>> special interest and lobbying groups. The biggest lobby in the US is
>>> not some big eeeeeeevil corporation, it is ... the elderly, via the
>>> AARP. No matter how much people holler about the debt, the fact is
>>> that no politician could survive if they proposed that people take
>>> responsibility for themselves and thereby gutted the social handouts.
>>
>> Not a fan of AARP (but a member, by proxy, cuz SWMBO is) and now officially
>> "elderly", under the property tax laws of the State of Texas, just where do
>> I go to get these "social handouts" due to my official status/membership??
>>
>> I be needing some ... cuz I'm one (married, filing jointly) of those who
>> only got $600/couple rebate (to spend on lottery tickets, Tom) because the
>> HUGE "self-employment" taxes I've been paying for the last 40 years (because
>> I "take responsibility for myself" by WORKING) were not counted as "net tax
>> liability" for purposes of figuring the rebate.
>>
>> The f*ckers! <pardon my French, but that really pisses me off!>
>>
>
>Yeah me too. We have reached the exalted position as a society
>where people who work hard, save actively, take responsibility
>for themselves and their families get *punished* by having
>to pick up the tab for people who do none of the above.
>I hope it brings you cheer to know that as you worked hard
>and paid lots of taxes, you taking care of losers, drug addicts,
>sex offenders, drunks, and thugs ... and that's just the Congress.
>
>Your "benefit" from the AARP comes in the form of them lobbying
>for financially disastrous programs like the senior's drug bill
>and doing everything in their power to prevent the privatization
>of retirement funds like Social Security (even though doing so
>could not possibly give us worse returns than the government has).
>We have met the enemy and it is our neighbors...
Guess I look at this in a slightly different way. One to calculate
things, I did a present value analysis on the series of sums into the
system that were my annual contribution to SS using a conservative 5%
rate of return. Then use the same conservative rate and did a series
of sums out that would be my payments to my actuarial end of life.
Turns out if I had control of the money, my payment would be about
double what it will be. Now that kinda makes me mad.
Then I think about my Grandmother who lived to be 101 and my mother
who is 84 who are or did live on that payment, whose hubands died
relatively young and probably did not contribute enough to warrant the
payments to their spouses and I don't feel so bad. Wife's Grandmother
lived to 94, husband died in his fifties, she worked in a textile
factory until forced to retire, and I'm sure she didn't pay in enough
to warrant the outlay. So, in a sense, I'm helping to cover them.
None of these people were the" losers" that you describe above, and
while I'm sure they exist, I would venture to say they are a small
percentage.
But I'm now considered elderly, so if you can send me a list of the
social handouts I'm due it would be appreciated.....
Frank
On May 12, 2:15=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> A Compendium of Puntifications
> 1. I wondered why the =A0baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.
> 2. Police were called to a =A0daycare where a three-year-old was resisting=
a
> rest.
> 3. Did you hear about =A0the guy whose whole left side was cut off? He's a=
ll
> right now.
> 4. The =A0roundest knight at King Arthur's round table was Sir Cumference.=
> 5. To write =A0with a broken pencil is pointless.
> 6. When fish are in schools they sometimes =A0take debate.
> 7. A thief who stole a calendar got twelve months.
> 8. A thief =A0fell and broke his leg in wet concrete. He became a hardened=
> criminal.
> 9. =A0Thieves who steal corn from a garden could be charged with stalking.=
> 10. =A0We'll never run out of math teachers because they always multiply.
> 11. When =A0the smog lifts in Los Angeles, UCLA.
> 12. The professor discovered that her =A0theory of earthquakes was on shak=
y
> ground.
> 13. The dead batteries were given =A0out free of charge.
> 14. If you take a laptop computer for a run, you could =A0jog your memory.=
> 15. A dentist and a manicurist fought tooth and nail.
> 16. =A0What's the definition of a will? (It's a dead giveaway.)
> 17. I didn't know =A0where the sun went at night, so I stayed up thinking
> about it until it dawned on =A0me.
> 18. I knew she was bulimic so I tried not to talk about food, but she =A0k=
ept
> bringing it up!
>
> A tough old cowboy counseled his =A0grandson that if he wanted to live a l=
ong
> life, the secret was to =A0sprinkle a pinch of gunpowder on his oatmeal ev=
ery
> morning. The =A0grandson did this religiously to the age of 103. When he d=
ied,
> he left 14 children, 30 grandchildren, 45 great-grandchildren, 25
> great-great-grandchildren =A0and a 15-foot hole where the crematorium used=
to
> be.
>
Oh my......
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/rflol_seal1.jpg
Woodie wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
>> On May 12, 3:33 pm, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> And the #1 pick:
>>>
>>> 17. Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an asshole.
>>
>> You sure the proper term for #17 isn't "Politician"?
>
> I don't think that quite covers them... Politicians aren't JUST stupid
> assholes, they're also dishonest, self serving (not YOU Charlie,
> THEMselves), egotistical, devious, sniveling, manipulating, lying,
> stealing, vermin.
>
> Not sure if we need a whole new word for that, or just Politician.
It's funny. Everyone says they hate politicians. But really,
politicians just do what is required for reelection - i.e.,
What their constituents want. If you don't like how your
politician is acting, take a close look at what your neighbors
and/or you are demanding of them. The real bad guy here is
The Sheeeple.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Woodie wrote:
>
>> Let me give you an example. Everyone screams about the vast US debt.
>> But, over 50% of the US Federal budget alone (never mind local and
>> state government) is made of *entitlements* - handouts to various
>> special interest and lobbying groups. The biggest lobby in the US is
>> not some big eeeeeeevil corporation, it is ... the elderly, via the
>> AARP. No matter how much people holler about the debt, the fact is
>> that no politician could survive if they proposed that people take
>> responsibility for themselves and thereby gutted the social handouts.
>> The enemy of a balanced budget is thus not the Congress, it's *all of
>> us*. This doesn't make politicians noble, it makes them pragmatic.
>>
>
> The difference between the AARP and some other groups is that the AARP
> is made up largely of people that have paid into a system all of their
> lives, and now would like some of that repaid to them to improve their
> golden years. They're generally looking for a repayment, not a handout.
> Yes, that's a broad generalization with notable exceptions, but a valid
> one nonetheless.
Well ... sort of. The point of insurance is that the insurer hopes to
pay out less than they take in premiums. The insured hopes to have a
limitless supply of coverage, no matter what they paid in. In the
private sector, very sophisticated actuarial models are used by the
insurers, and these drive the premiums. The insured then choose
what they can afford, knowing the amount of coverage they get.
But government being what it is, there is little such sophistication.
The fact is that a good many people today will live long enough to
collect far, far more than they ever put in. That wouldn't be so bad
had the government actually *invested* the "premiums" paid. Given the
growth of the economy since the mid-20th century, SS might even be
self-sustaining had they done so. But ... again pandering to all the
"I want something" crowd, the "premiums" were spent almost upon
receipt with the government writing itself IOUs for the future. Well,
the future is here. Instead of SS just being "supplementary", it is
now viewed by many seniors as "their" retirement. Instead of targeting
a retirement age as it did originally - wherein a certain significant
number of people died before collecting - we now have more people than
ever putting stress on the system.
Medicare is an even worse abyss. In fact, the entitlements system is
so bloated and out of touch with the reality, that the head of the GAO
recently went on a nationwide tour to try and sound the alarm - We
simply cannot spend what we do not have. Not only are we going broke
doing that, the interest we're paying on the consequent debt is
a significant part of our budget as well. Never mind the fact
that we're borrowing from less than reputable countries like China.
It's really simple: We - each of us - are entitled to what we earn.
No more. Need does not constitute right.
>> This behavior transcends social or economic status. People with little
>> money demand government care. People with large sums of money demand
>> special tax breaks. Farmers want subsidies. Corporations lobby
>> Congress for favors. Students want "free" university educations. Moms
>> want "free" daycare. In short, almost *everyone* wants something they
>> themselves have not earned, so they raid their neighbors wallets. This
>> puts the politicians in the position of deciding who gets raided and
>> who gets bought, and *we put them in that role*. In the end, the
>> only real difference between Left/Right/Republican/Democrat is
>> their respective definition of "better", who gets looted, and
>> who gets bought.
>
> Well said. But while *everyone* *wants* something they themselves have
> not earned, not all people are willing to plunder the public coffers and
> impact the well being of others to get it.
I agree.
>
>> For years I shared your view that politicians were the problem. But I
>> was wrong. Even considering the overtly corrupt, thieving scoundrels
>> that occasionally get caught, they are nowhere near as ethically
>> compromised as John Q. Citizen who refuses to live within his means,
>> save for his retirement, care for his children, actively participate
>> in their education, and generally help himself to Other People's Money
>> via the politicians he elects. Democracy cannot survive when the
>> majority of the citizens view themselves as entitled, not responsible
>> for themselves, and willing to - in effect - steal from other
>> citizens.
>
> I didn't state that politicians were THE problem. I merely gave my
> opinion of politicians, and I stand behind it.
> And while I agree largely with what you're saying, I disagree that
> *everyone* is plundering his neighbors to subsidize his laziness. Some
> of us have to be the plundered in order for this to work.
That's true and I am among the plundered as well. But, I think you'll
discover that a very small percentage of the general population picks
up the tab for the majority. The top 5% of income earners pay *60%* of
the Federal taxes alone. (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6)
It is an iniquitous arrangement enabled by unrestrained mob rule and
greed. Is it everyone? No. It's most people.
>
> I think the two party system, with left vs. right, to be at the heart of
> our problems. The parties lean as far in their respective directions as
> they can in order to differentiate themselves from the other party. The
> far leaning rhetoric seems to be what is necessary to garner votes.
> However, if you talk to most any American one-on-one, you'll find
> someone who is moderate in nature, and not particularly fond of either
> party's extreme view.
> It's a bit puzzling.
I am not a moderate, nor do I wish to be one. Freedom cannot be
compromised. I want rule of law especially as expressed in the
doctrine of Enumerated Powers that was supposed to limit the
action of the Federal government. If the states or municipalities
want to run Ponzi schemes like Social Security, that's fine with
me. I'll either live with it or move to another more rational
state. But I am proudly American. I don't want to be forced
to move elsewhere (and just where would that be anyway?) because
my government refuses to obey the law of the land.
And finally, here's something troubling. It is rumored that
people of significant wealth are starting to move their assets to
Grand Cayman because GC has much less banking transparency than
even Swizerland. What do you suppose will happen to the rest of
us when the wealthy - who've had just about enough of picking up
the tab for every lazy loser in society - no longer invest
their money here?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Woodie wrote:
<SNIP>
> Easy. Invade Grand Cayman. I'll volunteer to be the new Governor.
I want to be Minister Of Scuba Diving.
However, if Obama is President, we'd likely lose...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Swingman" <[email protected]> writes:
> What type of thread and needles do they use?
yaaaarn....
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Woodie" wrote:
>
>> I don't think that quite covers them... Politicians aren't JUST
>> stupid assholes, they're also dishonest, self serving (not YOU
>> Charlie, THEMselves), egotistical, devious, sniveling, manipulating,
>> lying, stealing, vermin.
>
> Does a pretty good job describing the folks they represent.
>
> Lew
Some of them perhaps, but if you think your elected representative is
ACTUALLY trying to represent you... Think again.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Woodie" wrote:
>
>> Some of them perhaps, but if you think your elected representative
>> is ACTUALLY trying to represent you... Think again.
>
> By definition:
>
> "Politics", the art of the possible.
That is, defined by a politician, Otto Von Bismarck.
> The electorate, by and large, reaps what it sews, and deserves what it
> gets.
The electorate, by and large, reaps what it sews, and sews what it knows.
Our press corps do a better job at exposing corruption in third world
countries than at exposing corruption at home.
I for one, believe we deserve better. And yes, I do work towards that
goal. I don't just sit around whining about it.
I'm active politically, and believe that if more Americans knew just
what went on behind close doors, more of them would be too.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Woodie wrote:
>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>> On May 12, 3:33 pm, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> And the #1 pick:
>>>>
>>>> 17. Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an asshole.
>>> You sure the proper term for #17 isn't "Politician"?
>> I don't think that quite covers them... Politicians aren't JUST stupid
>> assholes, they're also dishonest, self serving (not YOU Charlie,
>> THEMselves), egotistical, devious, sniveling, manipulating, lying,
>> stealing, vermin.
>>
>> Not sure if we need a whole new word for that, or just Politician.
>
> It's funny. Everyone says they hate politicians. But really,
> politicians just do what is required for reelection - i.e.,
> What their constituents want. If you don't like how your
> politician is acting, take a close look at what your neighbors
> and/or you are demanding of them. The real bad guy here is
> The Sheeeple.
As someone who worked for many years around politicians, who knows
hundreds of them personally, I can tell you that the "Sheeple" don't
know one percent of what their elected officials actually do. Most of
their substantive activities are done in private, regardless of law
requiring otherwise, and will never be publicized.
That which you know about your elected officials is generally only that
which they wish known.
"Woodie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:xUiWj.108144$TT4.69152@attbi_s22...
> Charlie Self wrote:
>> On May 12, 3:33 pm, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> And the #1 pick:
>>>
>>> 17. Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an asshole.
>>
>> You sure the proper term for #17 isn't "Politician"?
>
> I don't think that quite covers them... Politicians aren't JUST stupid
> assholes, they're also dishonest, self serving (not YOU Charlie,
> THEMselves), egotistical, devious, sniveling, manipulating, lying,
> stealing, vermin.
>
> Not sure if we need a whole new word for that, or just Politician.
What burns me about politicians/Al Gore is that they think we are dumb
enough to swallow the crap that they/Al Gore spew. If politicians/Al Gore
were smart, they/Al Gore would not be in politics.
J. Clarke wrote:
> Woodie wrote:
>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>> On May 12, 3:33 pm, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> And the #1 pick:
>>>>
>>>> 17. Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an asshole.
>>> You sure the proper term for #17 isn't "Politician"?
>> I don't think that quite covers them... Politicians aren't JUST
>> stupid
>> assholes, they're also dishonest, self serving (not YOU Charlie,
>> THEMselves), egotistical, devious, sniveling, manipulating, lying,
>> stealing, vermin.
>
> Aw, now, what have dishonest, self serving, egotistical, devious,
> sniveling, manipulating, lying, stealing vermin ever done to deserve
> an insult like that?
Sort of demeaning to regular vermin, ain't it?
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Woodie wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>> Woodie wrote:
>>>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>>>> On May 12, 3:33 pm, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> And the #1 pick:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 17. Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an asshole.
>>>>> You sure the proper term for #17 isn't "Politician"?
>>>> I don't think that quite covers them... Politicians aren't JUST stupid
>>>> assholes, they're also dishonest, self serving (not YOU Charlie,
>>>> THEMselves), egotistical, devious, sniveling, manipulating, lying,
>>>> stealing, vermin.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure if we need a whole new word for that, or just Politician.
>>> It's funny. Everyone says they hate politicians. But really,
>>> politicians just do what is required for reelection - i.e.,
>>> What their constituents want. If you don't like how your
>>> politician is acting, take a close look at what your neighbors
>>> and/or you are demanding of them. The real bad guy here is
>>> The Sheeeple.
>> As someone who worked for many years around politicians, who knows
>> hundreds of them personally, I can tell you that the "Sheeple" don't
>> know one percent of what their elected officials actually do. Most of
>> their substantive activities are done in private, regardless of law
>> requiring otherwise, and will never be publicized.
>> That which you know about your elected officials is generally only that
>> which they wish known.
>>
>
> That is certainly true. But, I also don't know the details of how my
> doctor, accountant, plumber, or banker do their jobs. I primarily
> focus on their results, since that's all that really matters to me.
> This is also the case for politicians. No matter how honest or slimy
> or good or bad or ... a politician may be, they get into their jobs
> because The Sheeple, um, *vote* for them. Most people do this because
> the politician promises to do or give them stuff they want. I suspect
> that most people enter politics with the intent of making their
> community, state, or nation better in some sense. They quickly
> discover that "better" is not commonly defined in their constituency.
> So - knowing they must stand for reelection to continue to make things
> better - they find the "better" that has the widest support among
> their voters and promptly pander to them, buying their votes (with
> Other People's Money - taxes) in the process. You can hardly blame the
> politicians for doing what they are being pressured to do.
Agreed many people vote based on what they think their politician
promises to give them, but a large number of people vote based on
politicians' promise to STOP what the government is doing to them. (I
include myself in that group) Of course, those promises seldom materialize.
> Let me give you an example. Everyone screams about the vast US debt.
> But, over 50% of the US Federal budget alone (never mind local and
> state government) is made of *entitlements* - handouts to various
> special interest and lobbying groups. The biggest lobby in the US is
> not some big eeeeeeevil corporation, it is ... the elderly, via the
> AARP. No matter how much people holler about the debt, the fact is
> that no politician could survive if they proposed that people take
> responsibility for themselves and thereby gutted the social handouts.
> The enemy of a balanced budget is thus not the Congress, it's *all of
> us*. This doesn't make politicians noble, it makes them pragmatic.
>
The difference between the AARP and some other groups is that the AARP
is made up largely of people that have paid into a system all of their
lives, and now would like some of that repaid to them to improve their
golden years. They're generally looking for a repayment, not a handout.
Yes, that's a broad generalization with notable exceptions, but a valid
one nonetheless.
> This behavior transcends social or economic status. People with little
> money demand government care. People with large sums of money demand
> special tax breaks. Farmers want subsidies. Corporations lobby
> Congress for favors. Students want "free" university educations. Moms
> want "free" daycare. In short, almost *everyone* wants something they
> themselves have not earned, so they raid their neighbors wallets. This
> puts the politicians in the position of deciding who gets raided and
> who gets bought, and *we put them in that role*. In the end, the
> only real difference between Left/Right/Republican/Democrat is
> their respective definition of "better", who gets looted, and
> who gets bought.
Well said. But while *everyone* *wants* something they themselves have
not earned, not all people are willing to plunder the public coffers and
impact the well being of others to get it.
> For years I shared your view that politicians were the problem. But I
> was wrong. Even considering the overtly corrupt, thieving scoundrels
> that occasionally get caught, they are nowhere near as ethically
> compromised as John Q. Citizen who refuses to live within his means,
> save for his retirement, care for his children, actively participate
> in their education, and generally help himself to Other People's Money
> via the politicians he elects. Democracy cannot survive when the
> majority of the citizens view themselves as entitled, not responsible
> for themselves, and willing to - in effect - steal from other
> citizens.
I didn't state that politicians were THE problem. I merely gave my
opinion of politicians, and I stand behind it.
And while I agree largely with what you're saying, I disagree that
*everyone* is plundering his neighbors to subsidize his laziness. Some
of us have to be the plundered in order for this to work.
I think the two party system, with left vs. right, to be at the heart of
our problems. The parties lean as far in their respective directions as
they can in order to differentiate themselves from the other party. The
far leaning rhetoric seems to be what is necessary to garner votes.
However, if you talk to most any American one-on-one, you'll find
someone who is moderate in nature, and not particularly fond of either
party's extreme view.
It's a bit puzzling.
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote
> special interest and lobbying groups. The biggest lobby in the US is
> not some big eeeeeeevil corporation, it is ... the elderly, via the
> AARP. No matter how much people holler about the debt, the fact is
> that no politician could survive if they proposed that people take
> responsibility for themselves and thereby gutted the social handouts.
Not a fan of AARP (but a member, by proxy, cuz SWMBO is) and now officially
"elderly", under the property tax laws of the State of Texas, just where do
I go to get these "social handouts" due to my official status/membership??
I be needing some ... cuz I'm one (married, filing jointly) of those who
only got $600/couple rebate (to spend on lottery tickets, Tom) because the
HUGE "self-employment" taxes I've been paying for the last 40 years (because
I "take responsibility for myself" by WORKING) were not counted as "net tax
liability" for purposes of figuring the rebate.
The f*ckers! <pardon my French, but that really pisses me off!>
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Woodie wrote:
>
>>> Let me give you an example. Everyone screams about the vast US debt.
>>> But, over 50% of the US Federal budget alone (never mind local and
>>> state government) is made of *entitlements* - handouts to various
>>> special interest and lobbying groups. The biggest lobby in the US is
>>> not some big eeeeeeevil corporation, it is ... the elderly, via the
>>> AARP. No matter how much people holler about the debt, the fact is
>>> that no politician could survive if they proposed that people take
>>> responsibility for themselves and thereby gutted the social handouts.
>>> The enemy of a balanced budget is thus not the Congress, it's *all of
>>> us*. This doesn't make politicians noble, it makes them pragmatic.
>>>
>> The difference between the AARP and some other groups is that the AARP
>> is made up largely of people that have paid into a system all of their
>> lives, and now would like some of that repaid to them to improve their
>> golden years. They're generally looking for a repayment, not a handout.
>> Yes, that's a broad generalization with notable exceptions, but a valid
>> one nonetheless.
>
>
>
> Well ... sort of. The point of insurance is that the insurer hopes to
> pay out less than they take in premiums. The insured hopes to have a
> limitless supply of coverage, no matter what they paid in. In the
> private sector, very sophisticated actuarial models are used by the
> insurers, and these drive the premiums. The insured then choose
> what they can afford, knowing the amount of coverage they get.
>
> But government being what it is, there is little such sophistication.
> The fact is that a good many people today will live long enough to
> collect far, far more than they ever put in. That wouldn't be so bad
> had the government actually *invested* the "premiums" paid. Given the
> growth of the economy since the mid-20th century, SS might even be
> self-sustaining had they done so. But ... again pandering to all the
> "I want something" crowd, the "premiums" were spent almost upon
> receipt with the government writing itself IOUs for the future. Well,
> the future is here. Instead of SS just being "supplementary", it is
> now viewed by many seniors as "their" retirement. Instead of targeting
> a retirement age as it did originally - wherein a certain significant
> number of people died before collecting - we now have more people than
> ever putting stress on the system.
>
> Medicare is an even worse abyss. In fact, the entitlements system is
> so bloated and out of touch with the reality, that the head of the GAO
> recently went on a nationwide tour to try and sound the alarm - We
> simply cannot spend what we do not have. Not only are we going broke
> doing that, the interest we're paying on the consequent debt is
> a significant part of our budget as well. Never mind the fact
> that we're borrowing from less than reputable countries like China.
>
> It's really simple: We - each of us - are entitled to what we earn.
> No more. Need does not constitute right.
>
>
>>> This behavior transcends social or economic status. People with little
>>> money demand government care. People with large sums of money demand
>>> special tax breaks. Farmers want subsidies. Corporations lobby
>>> Congress for favors. Students want "free" university educations. Moms
>>> want "free" daycare. In short, almost *everyone* wants something they
>>> themselves have not earned, so they raid their neighbors wallets. This
>>> puts the politicians in the position of deciding who gets raided and
>>> who gets bought, and *we put them in that role*. In the end, the
>>> only real difference between Left/Right/Republican/Democrat is
>>> their respective definition of "better", who gets looted, and
>>> who gets bought.
>> Well said. But while *everyone* *wants* something they themselves have
>> not earned, not all people are willing to plunder the public coffers and
>> impact the well being of others to get it.
>
> I agree.
>
>>> For years I shared your view that politicians were the problem. But I
>>> was wrong. Even considering the overtly corrupt, thieving scoundrels
>>> that occasionally get caught, they are nowhere near as ethically
>>> compromised as John Q. Citizen who refuses to live within his means,
>>> save for his retirement, care for his children, actively participate
>>> in their education, and generally help himself to Other People's Money
>>> via the politicians he elects. Democracy cannot survive when the
>>> majority of the citizens view themselves as entitled, not responsible
>>> for themselves, and willing to - in effect - steal from other
>>> citizens.
>> I didn't state that politicians were THE problem. I merely gave my
>> opinion of politicians, and I stand behind it.
>> And while I agree largely with what you're saying, I disagree that
>> *everyone* is plundering his neighbors to subsidize his laziness. Some
>> of us have to be the plundered in order for this to work.
>
> That's true and I am among the plundered as well. But, I think you'll
> discover that a very small percentage of the general population picks
> up the tab for the majority. The top 5% of income earners pay *60%* of
> the Federal taxes alone. (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6)
> It is an iniquitous arrangement enabled by unrestrained mob rule and
> greed. Is it everyone? No. It's most people.
>
>> I think the two party system, with left vs. right, to be at the heart of
>> our problems. The parties lean as far in their respective directions as
>> they can in order to differentiate themselves from the other party. The
>> far leaning rhetoric seems to be what is necessary to garner votes.
>> However, if you talk to most any American one-on-one, you'll find
>> someone who is moderate in nature, and not particularly fond of either
>> party's extreme view.
>> It's a bit puzzling.
>
> I am not a moderate, nor do I wish to be one. Freedom cannot be
> compromised. I want rule of law especially as expressed in the
> doctrine of Enumerated Powers that was supposed to limit the
> action of the Federal government. If the states or municipalities
> want to run Ponzi schemes like Social Security, that's fine with
> me. I'll either live with it or move to another more rational
> state. But I am proudly American. I don't want to be forced
> to move elsewhere (and just where would that be anyway?) because
> my government refuses to obey the law of the land.
>
Perhaps my use of the word 'moderate' was unfortunate, as that implies
moderate as defined by the political pundits. Perhaps what I should have
said was reasonable.
The majority of people, when talked to as individuals, feel that they
should take care of themselves financially, that they're happy to help
others that need it, that they're disgusted with foolish use of taxed
funds. Many disagree strongly on what defines foolish use, but there's a
solid common ground on which to build.
You seem a bit Libertarian-leaning, as am I. The notion that you're
responsible for your own well being, and responsible for what you do to
the well being of others, is what Libertarianism is founded upon.
You should be free to do as you please as long as you're not harming
someone else.
The 'responsible for yourself' part is what turns off the left-most
spectrum of America, and the 'responsible for what you do to the well
being of others' is what turns off the right-most of the spectrum.
> And finally, here's something troubling. It is rumored that
> people of significant wealth are starting to move their assets to
> Grand Cayman because GC has much less banking transparency than
> even Swizerland. What do you suppose will happen to the rest of
> us when the wealthy - who've had just about enough of picking up
> the tab for every lazy loser in society - no longer invest
> their money here?
Easy. Invade Grand Cayman. I'll volunteer to be the new Governor.
On May 12, 3:33 pm, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
> The Washington Post's Mensa Invitational once again asked readers to
> take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or
> changing one letter, and supply a new definition. Here are this year's
> winners. Read them carefully. Each is an artificial word with only one
> letter altered to form a "real" word. Some are terrifically innovative.
>
> 1. Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you
> realize it was your money to start with.
>
> 2. Reintarnation: Coming back to life as a hillbilly.
>
> 3. Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops
> bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows
> little sign of breaking down in the near future.
>
> 4. Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the
> subject financially impotent for an indefinite period.
>
> 5. Giraffiti: Vandalism spray-painted very, very high.
>
> 6. Sarchasm : The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the
> person who doesn't get it.
>
> 7. Inoculatte : To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.
>
> 8. Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.
>
> 9. Osteopornosis: A degenerate disease. (This one got extra credit.)
>
> 10. Karmageddon: It's like, when everybody is sending off all these
> really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's,
> like, a serious bummer.
>
> 11. Decafalon (n.): The gruelling event of getting through the day
> consuming only things that are good for you.
>
> 12. Glibido: All talk and no action.
>
> 13. Dopeler effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when
> they come at you rapidly.
>
> 14. Arachnoleptic fit (n.): The frantic dance performed just after
> you've accidentally walked through a spider web.
>
> 15. Beelzebug (n.): Satan in the form of a mosquito, that gets into your
> bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.
>
> 16. Caterpallor (n.): The color you turn after finding half a worm in
> the fruit you're eating.
>
> And the #1 pick:
>
> 17. Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an asshole.
You sure the proper term for #17 isn't "Politician"?
Swingman wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote
>
>> special interest and lobbying groups. The biggest lobby in the US is
>> not some big eeeeeeevil corporation, it is ... the elderly, via the
>> AARP. No matter how much people holler about the debt, the fact is
>> that no politician could survive if they proposed that people take
>> responsibility for themselves and thereby gutted the social handouts.
>
> Not a fan of AARP (but a member, by proxy, cuz SWMBO is) and now officially
> "elderly", under the property tax laws of the State of Texas, just where do
> I go to get these "social handouts" due to my official status/membership??
>
> I be needing some ... cuz I'm one (married, filing jointly) of those who
> only got $600/couple rebate (to spend on lottery tickets, Tom) because the
> HUGE "self-employment" taxes I've been paying for the last 40 years (because
> I "take responsibility for myself" by WORKING) were not counted as "net tax
> liability" for purposes of figuring the rebate.
>
> The f*ckers! <pardon my French, but that really pisses me off!>
>
Yeah me too. We have reached the exalted position as a society
where people who work hard, save actively, take responsibility
for themselves and their families get *punished* by having
to pick up the tab for people who do none of the above.
I hope it brings you cheer to know that as you worked hard
and paid lots of taxes, you taking care of losers, drug addicts,
sex offenders, drunks, and thugs ... and that's just the Congress.
Your "benefit" from the AARP comes in the form of them lobbying
for financially disastrous programs like the senior's drug bill
and doing everything in their power to prevent the privatization
of retirement funds like Social Security (even though doing so
could not possibly give us worse returns than the government has).
We have met the enemy and it is our neighbors...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Swingman wrote:
> "Woodie" wrote
>
>> The electorate, by and large, reaps what it sews, and sews what it knows.
>
> What type of thread and needles do they use?
>
> Inquiring minds, and all that ... :)
>
Part of my family are farmers. To the best of my knowledge, they reap
what they sow, but some of my aunts also sew, so there ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Swingman wrote:
> "Woodie" wrote
>
>> The electorate, by and large, reaps what it sews, and sews what it knows.
>
> What type of thread and needles do they use?
>
> Inquiring minds, and all that ... :)
The needle is freedom, and the thread is democracy, my inquisitive friend...
:)
I'm not sure what the velcro closures would be though...
Woodie wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
>> On May 12, 3:33 pm, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> And the #1 pick:
>>>
>>> 17. Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an asshole.
>>
>> You sure the proper term for #17 isn't "Politician"?
>
> I don't think that quite covers them... Politicians aren't JUST
> stupid
> assholes, they're also dishonest, self serving (not YOU Charlie,
> THEMselves), egotistical, devious, sniveling, manipulating, lying,
> stealing, vermin.
Aw, now, what have dishonest, self serving, egotistical, devious,
sniveling, manipulating, lying, stealing vermin ever done to deserve
an insult like that?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yeah me too. We have reached the exalted position as a society
> where people who work hard, save actively, take responsibility
> for themselves and their families get *punished* by having
> to pick up the tab for people who do none of the above.
> I hope it brings you cheer to know that as you worked hard
> and paid lots of taxes, you taking care of losers, drug addicts,
> sex offenders, drunks, and thugs ... and . . .
. . . and that's just the folks that occupy prison cells.
Dave in Houston
M R Goodens!
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>A Compendium of Puntifications
> 1. I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.
> 2. Police were called to a daycare where a three-year-old was resisting a
> rest.
> 3. Did you hear about the guy whose whole left side was cut off? He's all
> right now.
> 4. The roundest knight at King Arthur's round table was Sir Cumference.
> 5. To write with a broken pencil is pointless.
> 6. When fish are in schools they sometimes take debate.
> 7. A thief who stole a calendar got twelve months.
> 8. A thief fell and broke his leg in wet concrete. He became a hardened
> criminal.
> 9. Thieves who steal corn from a garden could be charged with stalking.
> 10. We'll never run out of math teachers because they always multiply.
> 11. When the smog lifts in Los Angeles, UCLA.
> 12. The professor discovered that her theory of earthquakes was on shaky
> ground.
> 13. The dead batteries were given out free of charge.
> 14. If you take a laptop computer for a run, you could jog your memory.
> 15. A dentist and a manicurist fought tooth and nail.
> 16. What's the definition of a will? (It's a dead giveaway.)
> 17. I didn't know where the sun went at night, so I stayed up thinking
> about it until it dawned on me.
> 18. I knew she was bulimic so I tried not to talk about food, but she
> kept bringing it up!
>
> A tough old cowboy counseled his grandson that if he wanted to live a
> long life, the secret was to sprinkle a pinch of gunpowder on his oatmeal
> every morning. The grandson did this religiously to the age of 103. When
> he died, he left 14 children, 30 grandchildren, 45 great-grandchildren, 25
> great-great-grandchildren and a 15-foot hole where the crematorium used
> to be.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 3/8/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
>
>
>
>
Frank Boettcher wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> Guess I look at this in a slightly different way. One to calculate
> things, I did a present value analysis on the series of sums into the
> system that were my annual contribution to SS using a conservative 5%
> rate of return. Then use the same conservative rate and did a series
> of sums out that would be my payments to my actuarial end of life.
> Turns out if I had control of the money, my payment would be about
> double what it will be. Now that kinda makes me mad.
>
> Then I think about my Grandmother who lived to be 101 and my mother
> who is 84 who are or did live on that payment, whose hubands died
> relatively young and probably did not contribute enough to warrant the
> payments to their spouses and I don't feel so bad. Wife's Grandmother
> lived to 94, husband died in his fifties, she worked in a textile
> factory until forced to retire, and I'm sure she didn't pay in enough
> to warrant the outlay. So, in a sense, I'm helping to cover them.
Had you (and your parents/grandparents) been able to invest your own
incomes (and actually done so), I rather think your family could have
covered each other nicely. Look at the stock market growth from the
end of WWII through 1970. 5% is very conservative, I'd guess.
> None of these people were the" losers" that you describe above, and
> while I'm sure they exist, I would venture to say they are a small
> percentage.
I did not say, nor do I think, that everyone involved is a "loser".
But beyond the obvious abuses of the system, what do you call
someone who lives an ordinary life, works the entire time, and
saves little or nothing for retirement. I am constantly amazed at
retirees driving new cars, with a nice condo, a flatscreen TV, etc.
who then complain they don't have enough to live on, that they need
someone else to pay for medical care, medicine, etc. I don't think
that is hyperbolic. The simple fact is that most Americans are
not savers or investors at anywhere near the rate they need to be
to retire even modestly.
I don't mind helping out people in genuine need though no fault of
their own. I object to paying for people who refuse to be self
sufficient when they could be. That just rips money out of my wallet
that ought to go to *my* family to support strangers.
>
> But I'm now considered elderly, so if you can send me a list of the
> social handouts I'm due it would be appreciated.....
>
Social Security for life
Medicare for life
Drug Benefits for life
An extra tax deduction
A more-or-less "free" (to you) giant lobby in D.C. demanding more every day.
Politicians who will do almost whatever you demand because of
the size of your voting block.
Again, I do not begrudge anyone in genuine need. To that end, I'd like
to see a reasonable approach to this mess. To whit:
Raise the retirement age.
Do means testing for all benefits.
Spend the next 30years weaning off the SS system in favor of
private retirement accounts.
Take the caps off 401Ks, Roths, and IRAs to incent people to save.
Better still, move to a Fair Sales Tax system that obviates the need
for retirement tax shelters. At least the criminals would be
contributing to the tax base that way. After all, drug dealers
buy Ferarris.
Start gutting the Federal government and move it back to
its Constitutionally mandated role (over time - this can't
happen in a year) of defending the borders, running the
Federal courts, and so forth. A 3% reduction in real terms
per year of the Federal budget would save a bunch of money
in not too many years. To do this, you have to do three
things it seems to me:
- Zero base the budget for *every* Federal program every year
- Give the President the line item veto
- Make earmarking and other non-relevant riders onto
Congressional bills illegal.
Get rid of unfunded Federal mandates and make the States sing
for their own supper when it comes to entitlements. If people
want "free" stuff, they should at least have the manners to
impose the requisite taxes on their local neighborhood where
people can vote with- or against them. It is flatly unethical
and wrong to use the Federal government to make some fisherman
in Alaska pick up the tab for lousy education in Detroit.
The Demographics here are scary. There are lots of us either in- or
about to enter retirement in the next decade. Far more than there are
children of ours to support our bloated entitlements. Historically,
nations in financial trouble "fix this sort of thing in one of several
ways:
1) Raise taxes, thereby crushing growth
2) Increase deficit spending, thereby raising the interest burden
3) Inflate the currency, thereby draining the wealth of all savers
4) Go to perpetual war
Any of this sound familiar?
The one outlier here is if our children and grandchildren can figure
out a way to become super productive. Wealth is ultimately a measure
of productivity. But that's not likely. US business is actually
very efficient these days, and finding a big bang improvement is
unlikely any time soon. Secondly, it requires a work ethic and
commitment to excellence that, frankly, I don't see much anywhere
these days, at almost any age. Maybe that's the Old Grump in me
talking, but I am regularly astonished at the sheer lack of paying
attention that characterizes our culture at-large.
Other than that, I think everything is fine ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I be needing some ... cuz I'm one (married, filing jointly) of those who
> only got $600/couple rebate (to spend on lottery tickets, Tom)
Only $500/couple? I gots a form letter from the IRS this very day
advising me and my SYB that our $1200 check will be here by the 16th.
WOO-HOOOOO!
Dave in Houston
"Frank Boettcher" wrote
> But I'm now considered elderly, so if you can send me a list of the
> social handouts I'm due it would be appreciated.....
Last time you looked in the mirror was there an "elderly" Anglo Saxon(+/-)
male looking back 'atcha?
Don't bother waiting ... you don't qualify.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Charlie Self wrote:
> On May 12, 3:33 pm, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
>> And the #1 pick:
>>
>> 17. Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an asshole.
>
> You sure the proper term for #17 isn't "Politician"?
I don't think that quite covers them... Politicians aren't JUST stupid
assholes, they're also dishonest, self serving (not YOU Charlie,
THEMselves), egotistical, devious, sniveling, manipulating, lying,
stealing, vermin.
Not sure if we need a whole new word for that, or just Politician.