O/T: A Prognostication

On Jul 29, 7:53=A0pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 1. The first place we need to cut is our defense budget.
>
> Q. =A0Why have so many National Guard units been called to active duty
> over the past several decades?
> A. =A0Because the federal military budget is not large enough for the
> Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force to fulfill their missions.
>

Um, do you think maybe it is because we smack a little of
Imperialism? Is there any reason we have so many troops and
facilities abroad? Do we need that many? Are they all necessary?
Wouldn't they be better used to serve in these United States? Just
wonderin'...........



> > 3. We need to start seriously looking at entitlements. =A0Why 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? =A0I 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.
>

I have no evidence of that but they are allowed to tap into it. And,
yes, I do know people who are receiving it but don't really need it.
They use the check to fund their "fun" things. For example, one guy I
know uses it to go to Atlantic City for gambling money. Ain't that
wonderful? Seems like a good use of that money to me. He bristles
whenever questioned about the ethics involved and his response is that
he paid into it and he should be allowed to do what he wants with his
share because it is his. That is one example I know of. Maybe we
need to seriously increase the age when a person receives SS.
Whenever it was introduced (as a VOLUNTARY thing, mind you), the
average life expectancy was around 65--now it is much higher. T'ain't
working anymore, McGee!!


>
>
>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. =A0They 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.

Now, I like that idea!! I remember a guy who used to say this. He
called his plan Welfare Hall. It is like a union carpenter who is
sitting on the bench. Whenever his name is called, he either chooses
to accept the work (and the subsequent paycheck) or he doesn't (and he
goes hungry). The government would have a list of things that needed
done and would pay you your welfare check providing you performed the
task. He didn't think of the 75% of the minimum wage rate but that is
the key to this: it needs to be more worth somebody's while to work at
a minimum wage job than to sit back and collect welfare. GREAT
IDEA!!!

DGDevin wrote:
> "Dr. Deb" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> 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.
>
> 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?

Actually, the founding fathers said, in the 1st Amendment, that the FEDERAL
government should stay out of the religion business; states were free to
have their own state church (which several, including Connecticut and
Massachusetts, did). It wasn't until 1947 (Everson v. Board of Education)
that the 1st Amendment's clause on religion became binding on the individual
states.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 23:30:13 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 14:43:56 -0400, k-nuttle wrote:
>
>> ...when health care "reform" was being forced down the throat of the
>American People
>
>That's a somewhat biased comment. All of the polls I saw showed pretty
>much a 50-50 split - half approved, half didn't.

If you think that forcing healthcare down the throats of over 150
million people _isn't_ biased, what IS?

Granted, the phrase "half the American people" would have been better.

So, what do we have now? 26 states who got their people waived, so we
continue to have 26 states full of uninsured people. Is this a big
Obama win we're seeing? If so, please 'splain it to me.

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

Swingman wrote:

>
> Yep ... I've told the story here before of riding my buckskin mare to
> school of a morning, carrying my shotgun and shell vest to leave with
> the shop teacher, so I could go dove hunting on the way home.

Well, I'm a little younger than Swing - we had gasoline engines and school
buses when I went to school...

That said - I remember taking my shotgun on the bus, sticking it in my
locker in the hall, and taking the bus (another bus) home with my friend to
go shoot rabbits and squirrels. No note from home, no security issues -
just a couple of country kids going hunting.

>
> Lord have mercy, can you imagine doing that now?!?

Hell no! It's a gun - there must be danger involved! Quick - get the
soccer moms...

>
> We were indeed fortunate to live in those times, Doug. I just wished
> my kids could have had the same experience.

Mine didn't either, but they at least grew up to know about it and to
realize the difference between dangerous people and normal people - and that
said difference was not define by the presence of a gun. They also know how
to shoot...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

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

On 30 Jul 2011 01:08:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> 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>.

DGDevin wrote:
> "k-nuttle" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> Then obama declares a state of emergency, declares martial law and
>> becomes the dictator for life as he would like to be.
>
> Late in Bush's second term some left-wingnuts were pushing the idea
> that Bush was planning to stage a false-flag terrorist attack on the
> U.S. so he could suspend the 2008 election and hold onto power
> indefinitely so among other things he could attack Iran.
>
> 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".

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...
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

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 added this to a letter to our "leaders":
Any responsible citizen must have a budget, stick to that budget or face the
fallout... If I live beyond my means (as the government and many people have
done) my credit rating will plummet, and rightfully so. To repair it I must
pay down my debt, stop borrowing additionally and force myself to live
within my means. If I do not, only bankruptcy can "save" me, but I don't
believe our Nation has that fallback.

I am disappointed in the members of the Republican Party that abandoned
"Cut, Cap and Balance Plan"

As to extending the Ceiling date beyond 2012, why should we... it is
unpleasant business to be sure, but let's get it dealt with sooner rather
than later.

Salary of the US President ...................$400,000
Salary of retired US Presidents .............$180,000
Salary of House/Senate ........................$174,0​00
Salary of Speaker of the House ..............$223,500
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders ........ .$193,400
Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN IRAQ..$38,000

Let the above be put into the Social Security for retirement, and under the
VA for medical insurance. And who else in the work force can give themselves
raises?
I think we found where some of the cuts should be made !

Ben Franklin warned that if we let being a Legislator become a profitable
position, we soon would have only profiteers filling the seats... seems like
he hit it on the head!

On 7/29/2011 8:08 AM, Tom B wrote:
>
>
> "Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.
>

Do you mean the term that says, "The Congress shall have power to
enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article"? I
wasn't aware that "Congress" means "the President."

> Obama will not allow default to happen.

Then he'd better resign himself to not vetoing Congress's bill, as he's
threatened to do.

On 7/29/2011 2:14 PM, busbus wrote:
> On Jul 29, 12:12 am, "Lew Hodgett"<[email protected]> 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 more:
>
> 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.

On 2011-07-29 15:44:17 -0400, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> 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 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.

"Steve Turner" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

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.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> 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

On 7/31/2011 12:53 PM, k-nuttle wrote:
> On 7/31/2011 2:30 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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 that's false logic. They have to deal with totally different issues.
>> Not to say they couldn't improve their decisions, but to expect those
>> running a country to bring individual priniciples to bear against the
>> demands of a country, is not realistic.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Now you're close to my real gripe. I don't mind them making money, but
>> when
>> they decide that the electorate (SSI recipients, etc.) don't need more
>> than
>> 1-3% increase, but vote themselves much larger increases, then I have a
>> problem.
>>
>
> If the government can not work within a balanced budget how do the
> states that require the state operate with a balanced budget exist.
> Indiana is one of those states and in the obama depression has manage to
> end the year with about a 1.3 billion dollar surplus.
>
> It does not matter if you are a teenager working on a summer job, or the
> president of the United States, a budget is critical to managing your
> money and remaining solvent.
>
>
Part of the trouble is, our current Prez and a good part of Congress
consider your money and mine part of the resources they can look to in
financing the bloated government they want to give us.

On 7/31/2011 12:38 PM, Han wrote:
> k-nuttle<[email protected]> wrote in news:j148bo$9cb$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> a budget is critical to managing your
>> money and remaining solvent
>
> Problem is that a budget is just a plan. The difficult thing is to balance
> outlays and revenues. If revenues drop because of rising unemployment and
> expenses increase (because of rising unemployment), it'll be difficult to
> balance outlays and revenues, no matter what last year's plans say.
>

Apparently then, we've had rising unemployment and its associated budget
problems since Ike was President.

<http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm>

On 8/1/2011 3:56 AM, Han wrote:
> Doug Winterburn<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 7/31/2011 12:38 PM, Han wrote:
>>> k-nuttle<[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:j148bo$9cb$1@dont- email.me:
>>>
>>>> a budget is critical to managing your
>>>> money and remaining solvent
>>>
>>> Problem is that a budget is just a plan. The difficult thing is to
>>> balance outlays and revenues. If revenues drop because of rising
>>> unemployment and expenses increase (because of rising unemployment),
>>> it'll be difficult to balance outlays and revenues, no matter what
>>> last year's plans say.
>>>
>>
>> Apparently then, we've had rising unemployment and its associated
>> budget problems since Ike was President.
>>
>> <http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm>
>
> I'm confused. Is that inflation-adjusted or not?

Not inflation adjusted, just the actual debt numbers. The annual
increases in debt since the Eisenhower administration indicate that
spending has outpaced revenue for over 50 years - in other words deficit
spending for all that time. There hasn't been a surplus or balanced
budget in over half a century, no matter what the media and liberals claim.

And of course the debt
> goes up. Congress keeps authorizing constituent-friendly programs, and
> congresscritters keep hunting for ways to get reelected. Unemployment of
> course keeps fluctuating. When all those troops go home, it'll go up
> again, because a) Those troops will go after a decreasing number of jobs
> they are qualified for and b) all those military support jobs will dry
> up. Not that I find that in itself a bad thing, mind you, but what
> constructive jobs will be there for those people?
>
>

On 8/1/2011 7:17 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote:
>> k-nuttle wrote:
>>>>
>>> You are right a budget is a plan where you have considered all
>>> possibilities with plans for excesses and deficiencies. The reserve
>>> is part of the budget and absorbs the excess and can proved funds to
>>> cover the deficiencies
>>>
>>> About the only entities that try to operate with out a budget is the
>>> US government and some states. I believe all of the states with
>>> budget problems do not have the balance budget requirement. All
>>> successful companies work to a budget, and as private entities, must
>>> manage their excess and deficient revenues.
>>
>> Forty-nine states require a balanced budget. How they get there is
>> interesting:
>>
>> * One way is to determine the state's spending requirements then adjust
>> revenue (i.e., raise taxes) to meet the requirements.
>>
>> * The opposite (my state) is to calculate how much revenue is expected, then
>> adjust projected spending to match.
>>
>
> Then there's the approach used by a "balanced budget" amendment introduced in
> Congress in, IIRC, the early 1980s: it would have required the President to
> submit to Congress an estimate of revenue during the coming fiscal year, and a
> spending budget that did not exceed the revenue estimate -- but nothing
> required the estimate to be in any way realistic.
>
> A better way, IMHO, would be to require that expenditures in any calendar year
> not exceed revenues received during the immediately previous calendar year. No
> estimating, no fudging, just the hard numbers. There would, of course, need to
> be some means of suspending this requirement during wartime or national
> emergency.

An interesting phenomenon is what happens toward the end of a budget
year. If spending is below what was budgeted, a spending frenzy occurs
to make sure all budgeted money is spent so next years budget wont be cut.

Then there's federal baseline budgeting where a flat budget includes an
8% increase every year. Any increase less than this amount is
considered a cut.

On 8/1/2011 9:35 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> 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
>
> Another Amendment I'd love to see: Every congressman must recite a bill
> verbatim without error before he is allowed to vote in favor of it.
>
>
Unfortunately, being able to recite it and being able to understand it
are two different things...

On 8/1/2011 9:15 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 07:24:24 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>> Not inflation adjusted, just the actual debt numbers.
>
> When adjusted for inflation, the $257 billion debt in 1950 is the same as
> 2.3 trillion in 2010. So while the debt has definitely increased over
> time, 5.6 trillion vs 2.3 trillion is a lot less grotesque than the
> unadjusted numbers imply. And reflects reality, not a political position.

Where are you coming up with these current debt numbers? You appear to
about $10 trillion short.
>
>
>> The annual
>> increases in debt since the Eisenhower administration indicate that
>> spending has outpaced revenue for over 50 years - in other words deficit
>> spending for all that time. There hasn't been a surplus or balanced
>> budget in over half a century, no matter what the media and liberals
>> claim.
>
> That's just plain wrong. There have been several times when there was no
> deficit. Once again you're using unadjusted numbers to make a political
> point. I suggest you look at the following report from the OMB showing
> adjusted figures:
>
> http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf
>
> Finally, there is a rather lengthy discussion, well footnoted, of the US
> budget and deficits at:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
>
> that not only describes the problems, but analyzes some of the proposed
> solutions. But it's not light reading.

Any reading considering the basic definitions of deficit, surplus and
debt will tell you that since debt has increased each and every year
since the fifties, there have been no surpluses, only deficits.

The differences are entirely attributable to what is called
intragovernmental debt, that is the debt the government incurs as a
result of transferring all federal trust fund surpluses to the general
fund and placing the debt instrument into those trust funds in return.
Those surpluses are counted as revenues for the fiscal year, but the
debt instrument is not counted as an expense for that fiscal year -
however it is added to the debt.

When the holder of debt wants his cash, there is no difference in
intragovernmental debt versus regular debt.

On 8/1/2011 5:15 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 16:14:11 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>> On 8/1/2011 9:15 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
>>> When adjusted for inflation, the $257 billion debt in 1950 is the same
>>> as 2.3 trillion in 2010. So while the debt has definitely increased
>>> over time, 5.6 trillion vs 2.3 trillion is a lot less grotesque than
>>> the unadjusted numbers imply. And reflects reality, not a political
>>> position.
>>
>> Where are you coming up with these current debt numbers? You appear to
>> about $10 trillion short.
>
> You're right. I meant to say 2000, before Bush and then Obama ran it
> through the roof. One can only hope that was an aberration. But the
> point was that unadjusted numbers make both deficits and surpluses look
> bigger than they really are.
>
>>>
>>> That's just plain wrong. There have been several times when there was
>>> no deficit.
>
>> Any reading considering the basic definitions of deficit, surplus and
>> debt will tell you that since debt has increased each and every year
>> since the fifties, there have been no surpluses, only deficits.
>>
>
> You're still wrong. Look at:
>
> http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
>
> and look at 1951, 1956, and 1957.
>

The way I'm explaining all this to the kids is:

Your mother and I want to spend about $10,000 per month, but we only
have $5,800 a month income. So we (your parents generation)have opened
up a $17 trillion (by 2013) credit account in your and your kids (our
grandkids) names so we can spend the extra $4200 per month. The new
budget agreement that congress has just passed might lower the monthly
charges to only $4000. But don't worry - we'll be gone before the bill
comes due.

BTW, these are the approximate fractional amounts we are currently
racking up for our posterity.

On 8/2/2011 9:38 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 18:07:07 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>>> You're still wrong. Look at:
>>>
>>> http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
>>>
>>> and look at 1951, 1956, and 1957.
>>>
>>>
>> The way I'm explaining all this to the kids is:
>
> Lets see: I explained where I was wrong. You ignore data showing you
> were wrong. Which of us is more credible?
>
I pointed out that there have been no surpluses since the fifties, and
you confirmed? What's at issue?

I 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.
----------------------------------
One for three works for a prognostication.

Lew

On 8/2/2011 4:12 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:52:28 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>> Lets see: I explained where I was wrong. You ignore data showing you
>>> were wrong. Which of us is more credible?
>>>
>> I pointed out that there have been no surpluses since the fifties, and
>> you confirmed? What's at issue?
>
> I'm going to give up responding to you Doug You blithely ignore facts
> that disagree with you. In the years I asked you to look at, the US debt
> went *down*.

That's true for those years in the fifties as I pointed out - no
disagreement.

That means there was a surplus in those years. And for
> later years, look at:
>
> http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
>
> It shows a surplus in 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

Since the debt went up in those years, how was there a true surplus?

>
> But like I said, you won't believe those numbers either.

Oh, I understand them. As I also pointed out before, it was by counting
all trust fund surpluses as general fund revenue - some DC magic
accounting. However the SS part of that trick is over (because of
current unemployment) as SS revenues are not currently covering outlays.
That wasn't supposed to happen until 2047 or some such future date.


>
>
>

Han wrote:
> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in news:l6ednQ_
> [email protected]:
>
>> Actually, we live in a city (City of West University Place, TX)
>> within a city, and bordering another city, so I can talk to mine
>> also, but I'd prefer not. ;)
>
> Looks far enough from water to stay dry with the next hurricane, I
> hope ... Fair Lawn is a "borough" or "boro" of ~17K people, close to
> Paterson, NJ, the old silk city, now not too rich anymore, but still
> with its Great Falls
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Falls_%28Passaic_River%29

You're in trouble Han - I'm going to look you up on one of my trips to NJ.
I get down to Woodbridge from time to time. I don't think that is very far
from Fair lawn/Paterson - can you confirm? Dinner and drinks on me if it's
close enough.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Swingman" <[email protected]> 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.

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; 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:
>

$13-freakin'-K? Geezus Swingman - you gotta get outa there. I live in
cental NY (land of high taxes...) and only pay half that for my house and 20
acres. I mow my lawn whenever I damned well please. No noise ordinance in
our town. I restore and paint cars right in my garage, grind and shape
steel, and at the right time of the year, walk right out back in the woods
and shoot deer.


> http://www.houstonisd.org/HISDConnectDS/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=62c6757761efc010VgnVCM10000052147fa6RCRD
>

Could not load this link.


> 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 shithead "citizens".

AMEN BROTHER!!! Preach it! And... don't forget to mention your "smokin'
hot wife" in your preaching. (google NASCAR & smokin' hot wife if you don't
get it).

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

Yup.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Tom B wrote:

>
> Salary of the US President ...................$400,000
> Salary of retired US Presidents .............$180,000
> Salary of House/Senate ........................$174,0?00
> Salary of Speaker of the House ..............$223,500
> Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders ........ .$193,400
> Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN IRAQ..$38,000
>

I'm a fiscal conservative, and a capitalist at the same time - not that
those are opposing philosophies. That said, I don't find those salaries to
be so out of line. Think about what you think you are worth. Then compare
that to the responsibilities of the positions you list above. If you had to
carry the weight of those positions, I'm sure you would consider your worth
to be more than a simple charitable offering.

What I think is more absurd is the way that Congress votes themselves such
things as preferred healthcare priviledges that are not available to the
average American. Likewise, when cost of living increases for Social
Security are insulting, yet Congress votes themselves a much more attractive
increase package.

Personally, I'm more upset about who is entitled to Social Security, than I
am about the salaries of the leaders of our country. I have a brother who
became disabled and his two sons immediately became eligible for Social
Security. Why? What had they done to earn that? What makes his situation
different from the guy on the street who lost a good paying job and had to
settle for one paying a fraction of what he was used to earning? On top of
that, there is the whole matter of using Social Security funds for those
that are not even citizens...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> 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:
> 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-
[email protected]

SconnieRoadie wrote:

>
> 3. The US will continue to decline into second-class nationhood due to
> our inability to act with a consistent reasoned long-term strategy.
>

Nothing alarming about that prediction. For several years now we have been
overridden with people - Obama representing them well, who are embarassed by
our historical success as a nation. These are the voices who have advocated
that we should pay the same for a gallon of gas as they do in the UK, who
are somehow shamed by the fact that we don't, who feel we must apologize for
our success, and in fact, regress to the levels of the rest of the world.
They are the ones who feel that just because the rest of the world either
resented, or envied our success, we should throw it all away.


> 4. Idiots will continue to come out of the woodwork and poison the
> debate.
>

As is the nature of politics...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 7/31/2011 1:41 PM, Han wrote:

> Austin is still touted as a nice livable city (at least by HGTV). Looked
> nice on those programs too.

Only if you ride a bicyle ...

Don't believe ANYTHING you see on TV, Han! ;)

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

On 7/31/2011 1:39 PM, Han wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in news:l6ednQ_

>
>> Actually, we live in a city (City of West University Place, TX) within a
>> city, and bordering another city, so I can talk to mine also, but I'd
>> prefer not. ;)
>
> Looks far enough from water to stay dry with the next hurricane,


One would think. However, we lost our home, and most everything in it,
to flood waters from Tropical Storm Allison in June 2001 ... and were
not in the 100 year flood plain.

(Besides the natural event, piss poor planning and performance of the
area's flood control districts was a major contributor ... IOW, our
brand new storm sewer system, put in at HUGE expense to the tax payer,
had a "restrictor" placed in it to keep downstream from flooding,
flooding us instead ... it's still there ... a government project, in
case you didn't guess.)

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

On Jul 28, 11:12=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> 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

Here's some predictions:

1. This crisis will serve only to further polarize and alienate the
adherents of the two political parties. Calculus on both sides
suggests this is the path they must tread to be re-elected. One side
will be wrong.

2. There will be a viable third party candidate in 012. Like Perot,
he or she will not win, despite offering a valid, unbeholden to
historic promises approach to solving our current and longstanding
issues.

3. The US will continue to decline into second-class nationhood due to
our inability to act with a consistent reasoned long-term strategy.

4. Idiots will continue to come out of the woodwork and poison the
debate.

D'ohBoy

On Jul 30, 12:57=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> A lot of those folks aren't trainable. =A0By definition, half the
> population is of below average intelligence. =A0If 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. =A0Still government assistance, but at least with some return.
>
> But another problem remains. =A0Some of the people you're trying to chang=
e
> just plain don't want to work. =A0How many times have we heard of some
> black kid trying to better himself while the local gang members accuse
> him of "acting white". =A0And I'm not picking on black folks. =A0The 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. =A0The only way you'l=
l
> break that cycle is to remove the kids at birth and give them to a family
> that will raise them properly. =A0And even that doesn't solve the problem
> of those who are born brain-damaged.
>

I hate to say that you have a point. But what I am trying to do is
arm these people with something tangible, like a skill. I know a high
percentage of them will scoff at this but we need to quit just giving
money away. It is this practice of giving money away that gave these
people the attitudes they undoubtedly do. It took 40+ years to get to
this point, so I know it will take an entire generation or so to get
away from it. 20-30 years. But you need to do something instead of
just gripe about it.

On 7/28/2011 11:12 PM, 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
>
>

Oh there will be a resolution, all of those critters up there is
Washington know full well that if they don't come up with a plan or
agreement that it will be political suicide for them all regardless of
which party held out.

DGDevin wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>> 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-
[email protected]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 07:38:11 -0500, "Tom B" <[email protected]> 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.

On Jul 29, 12:12=A0am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> 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=92t 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 more:

1. The first place we need to cut is our defense budget. It is over
$650 BILLION!! We are in far too many places where we shouldn=92t be=97
and I don=92t mean in Iraq or Libya or places like that either. I mean
places like Japan and Poland. Screw that! Why do we need to be in
those places?! That smacks of Imperialism and we moan about China
being that way. If we close shop, we can reduce our military budget a
TON without sacrificing bullets and tanks for our soldiers. Heck, I
say let Japan rearm itself. That would take away a huge expenditure
away from us AND it would make China and North Korea sit up and pay
attention because they are both afraid of the Japanese.

2. We need to quit giving money to the IMF. We need to quit giving
money to Pakistan. We need to quit giving money to India, to Iceland,
to everybody!!! Unless there is a natural disaster of some sort, stop=85
even if there IS a natural disaster. We gave tons of money to Haiti
after what happened to them but, did you know, Americans donated much,
much more money than our Federal Government ever sent, so why use our
tax money?

3. We need to start seriously looking at entitlements. Why should
Warren Buffett get Social Security or be allowed to sign up for
Medicare? He shouldn=92t and the same goes for many, many people. At
the same time, there are FAR too many people abusing the system.
There are literally generations of people in the same family who have
never had a paying job=97they 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=85but
there WILL be an end to it. I say 6-12 months after =93graduation,=94
they will be knocked off the public relief roles. There is nothing
like an empty stomach that will make somebody work.

4. States should start paying their Federal representatives. Why
should a State with a small population like Rhode Island or Montana
have to pay equally for the paychecks to all 535 members in
Washington? Why should their tax dollars need to kick in to pay for
representatives from California and New York and Texas?? That is not
fair. And, even more, every State should be allowed to PAY their
representatives what they want=97not a standard pay for all of them.

<I'm dead!>

Leon wrote:
>
>
> Exactly, they will simply print more money and water down the dollar
> even more.

Can't do that. The government doesn't print money (well, it does, but under
contract to the Federal Reserve). But what the government CAN do is mint
coins. By executive fiat, the government could design and create a, say,
$100 coin (made out of pure aluminum) and monetize the debt with billions of
dollars worth of soda cans.

On 7/31/2011 2:19 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:

> Well, I'm a little younger than Swing - we had gasoline engines and school
> buses when I went to school...

LOL ... hell, even we had gasoline engines in those days. Mine was in
the form of a '49 Willys Jeepster (paid $200 for it out of summer jobs)
that I drove to school so I wouldn't have to ride the bus (unless Diana
Dukes happened to take it because her mother didn't want her riding with
me that day, probably due to the gleam in my eye).

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

SconnieRoadie wrote:
>
> 2. There will be a viable third party candidate in 012. Like Perot,
> he or she will not win, despite offering a valid, unbeholden to
> historic promises approach to solving our current and longstanding
> issues.
>

There is no such thing as a "viable" third-party candidate. The closest
we've ever come to that was when Teddy Roosevelt ran as the "Bull Moose"
candidate. His candidacy cost Howard Taft the election and handed the
presidency to Woodrow Wilson (arguably the most venal president we've EVER
had).

Third party candidates take votes away from the major party candidate to
which they are closest. If Al Gore decides to run as a 3rd party candidate,
he'll take votes away from Obama. If Ron Paul decides to run, he'll take
votes from Rick Perry.

What would be fun is if BOTH Gore and Paul decided to run!

On 7/29/2011 8:59 AM, SconnieRoadie wrote:

>
> Here's some predictions:
>
> 1. This crisis will serve only to further polarize and alienate the
> adherents of the two political parties. Calculus on both sides
> suggests this is the path they must tread to be re-elected. One side
> will be wrong.
>
> 2. There will be a viable third party candidate in 012. Like Perot,
> he or she will not win, despite offering a valid, unbeholden to
> historic promises approach to solving our current and longstanding
> issues.
>
> 3. The US will continue to decline into second-class nationhood due to
> our inability to act with a consistent reasoned long-term strategy.
>
> 4. Idiots will continue to come out of the woodwork and poison the
> debate.
>
> D'ohBoy

That that is an entirely likely scenario, considering the efforts at
"divisiveness", I could not agree more!

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

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] 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.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "Steve Turner" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> 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

Another Amendment I'd love to see: Every congressman must recite a bill
verbatim without error before he is allowed to vote in favor of it.

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 fucking 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)

Jack Stein wrote:
>
>> 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.
>

But the government would lack enough people to actually FIRE all the guns
they have warehoused.

Today's military is not composed of automatons or cannon-fodder. Today's
general is well aware that the corporal running the radio is as much an
expert at his job as the general is at his.

The American soldier will NEVER fire on American civilians, no matter who
gives the order (unless, of course, those civilians are rioting hippies).

busbus wrote:
> On Jul 29, 12:12 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> 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 more:
>
> 1. The first place we need to cut is our defense budget. It is over
> $650 BILLION!! We are in far too many places where we shouldn’t be—
> and I don’t mean in Iraq or Libya or places like that either. I mean
> places like Japan and Poland. Screw that! Why do we need to be in
> those places?! That smacks of Imperialism and we moan about China
> being that way. If we close shop, we can reduce our military budget a
> TON without sacrificing bullets and tanks for our soldiers. Heck, I
> say let Japan rearm itself. That would take away a huge expenditure
> away from us AND it would make China and North Korea sit up and pay
> attention because they are both afraid of the Japanese.

The United States maintains a military presence in over 180 countries (and
I'm not talking about Marine guards at the embassies). Certainly the larger
ones (Japan, Germany, UK0 could be reduced or eliminated.

>
> 2. We need to quit giving money to the IMF. We need to quit giving
> money to Pakistan. We need to quit giving money to India, to Iceland,
> to everybody!!! Unless there is a natural disaster of some sort,
> stop… even if there IS a natural disaster. We gave tons of money to
> Haiti after what happened to them but, did you know, Americans
> donated much, much more money than our Federal Government ever sent,
> so why use our tax money?

We don't give money to anybody. We give credits they can use to buy U.S.
stuff, such as military equipment or wheat.

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

Because he paid into the Social Security system for most of his life. We
call it "Social Security," but the program's real name is " Old-Age,
Survivors, and Disability Insurance" (OASDI) program. Note the word
"insurance." No other insurance vehicle determines claim amounts based on
how much you make.


> 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.

Good idea. Maimonides listed thirteen levels of charity. The worst was
publicly and officiously giving a poor person money. The best kind of
charity? Loaning someone sufficient funds for him to start a business.


>
> 4. States should start paying their Federal representatives. Why
> should a State with a small population like Rhode Island or Montana
> have to pay equally for the paychecks to all 535 members in
> Washington? Why should their tax dollars need to kick in to pay for
> representatives from California and New York and Texas?? That is not
> fair. And, even more, every State should be allowed to PAY their
> representatives what they want—not a standard pay for all of them.
>

Ooo! I LIKE that idea!

Another online chain letter?

You USanians are suckers for anything and everything.

---------------

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

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

On 7/31/2011 1:19 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Swingman wrote:


> $13-freakin'-K? Geezus Swingman - you gotta get outa there. I live in
> cental NY (land of high taxes...) and only pay half that for my house and 20
> acres. I mow my lawn whenever I damned well please. No noise ordinance in
> our town. I restore and paint cars right in my garage, grind and shape
> steel, and at the right time of the year, walk right out back in the woods
> and shoot deer.
>
>
>> http://www.houstonisd.org/HISDConnectDS/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=62c6757761efc010VgnVCM10000052147fa6RCRD
>>
>
> Could not load this link.


Worked fine this morning.

Not unusual, though. HISD's IT department, and much of the staff, has a
collective IQ well to the left hand, bottom side of the bell curve ... I
rest my case.

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

On 8/2/2011 6:25 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 8/2/2011 4:00 AM, Dave wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 22:57:34 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>> You and Linda still have a chance to move in to the burbs. There are 4
>>> empty lots on our street. ;~) Move out here with the "regular",
>>> people. ;~)
>>
>> So, what Festool products you haven't bought yet does Karl have that
>> you want to borrow? It would be really convenient to just walk across
>> the street to get them wouldn't it?<g>
>
>
> Actually I think I have more Festool with tails than he does. ;~) He has
> more rails and accessories.
>
> I think we both have an eye each others tool that essentially does the
> same thing, mine is portable and his is not.

Read that as: "I have a Domino, he does not <gloat,gloat>!" <g>

Ackshully ... I have three Festool sanders, a TS75, and a CT22E, all
with tails. For at total of four and 32/32nd tailed Festools (that's
five for you, Leon) ;>).

So, what have you bought that you didn't tell me about, eh? LOL

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

"Dr. Deb" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 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.

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?



"I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties
consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our
fellow-creatures happy.

But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in
addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things
I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman
church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant
church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish,
appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave
mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

Thomas Paine
The man of whom it was said (by John Adams), "Without the pen of Paine the
sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain."

On 7/31/2011 7:38 AM, Tom B wrote:
>
>
> "Steve Turner" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.

On 7/29/2011 10:10 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> SconnieRoadie wrote:
>
>>
>> 3. The US will continue to decline into second-class nationhood due to
>> our inability to act with a consistent reasoned long-term strategy.
>>
>
> Nothing alarming about that prediction. For several years now we have been
> overridden with people - Obama representing them well, who are embarassed by
> our historical success as a nation. These are the voices who have advocated
> that we should pay the same for a gallon of gas as they do in the UK, who
> are somehow shamed by the fact that we don't, who feel we must apologize for
> our success, and in fact, regress to the levels of the rest of the world.
> They are the ones who feel that just because the rest of the world either
> resented, or envied our success, we should throw it all away.

And unfortunately as we stoop and pay more for our accomplishments the
world hates more.

On 7/29/2011 7:22 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 7/28/2011 11:12 PM, 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.
>
> There will be NO "default" regardless of what Obama, congress, et al
> says/does and despite what the rating agencies may proffer (which is
> strictly opinion with no legal weight), all this is strictly political
> theater.
>
> The reality is that you are being strummed like an out of tune guitar ...
>


Exactly, they will simply print more money and water down the dollar
even more.

"Dr. Deb" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> 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

I'm a proud liberal, though a fiscal conservative. I believe in a
balanced budget, but also in deficit spending in times of need for such.
I do NOT believe there will be a default. The idiots in Congress WILL
get to a last minute compromise. Until now everyone in Congress and the
administration (pfft on you too) has just been posturing (hey, they are
politicians!). The idiot TP members (what else does TP stand for besides
Tea Party?) may not understand compromise, but that'll make them
excellent 1-term people makinf a point. The idiot free-spenders will get
their one-comeuppance (sp?) too. Someone will finally notice that we
have a simple choice. Generate jobs (=spending which=inflation) or
unemployment (=depression). The alternative is to also generate revenue.
I'm a biochemist (retired), not an economist, but then I'll pay any
single one economist a grand prize of $2.== for finding the solution ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> 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?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>, Han
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> 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

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

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

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.

And that is my opinion, YOU know the facts ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> 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

"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "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

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> 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/HISDConnectDS/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=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 shithead "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

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> 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 fucking 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

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in news:l6ednQ_
[email protected]:

> Actually, we live in a city (City of West University Place, TX) within a
> city, and bordering another city, so I can talk to mine also, but I'd
> prefer not. ;)

Looks far enough from water to stay dry with the next hurricane, I hope ...
Fair Lawn is a "borough" or "boro" of ~17K people, close to Paterson, NJ,
the old silk city, now not too rich anymore, but still with its Great Falls
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Falls_%28Passaic_River%29>

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in news:l6ednQ_
[email protected]:

> A good part of Texas is still just that. But it too has changed.
> Running an O&G lease brokerage and exploration company in the 70's and
> 80's, and therefore being heavily involved in land, land titles, and
> buying leases from farmers and ranchers, there were still plenty of
> landowners living, farming and ranching on the land for three or more
> generations ... now most of those folks are gone and absentee and
> corporate ownership has supplanted that way of life. An age based
> perspective on the way things have changed leaves much of it
> unrecognizable ... Austin is a prime example, might as well be in
> Lalafornia (Sorry, Steve ... ).

Austin is still touted as a nice livable city (at least by HGTV). Looked
nice on those programs too.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 7/31/2011 1:19 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> Swingman<[email protected]> 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!
>>
>> Isn't that the truth. My home town is Muskegon, Michigan, a city of
>> some 60K people, I think, when I lived there in the 1960s. I remember
>> frequently going downtown to the library, on the bus, *alone*, at the
>> age of six or seven. It was perfectly safe.
>>
>> Any parent who allowed a child to do that now would be facing an
>> investigation by Child Protective Services.
>
> Yep ... I've told the story here before of riding my buckskin mare to
> school of a morning, carrying my shotgun and shell vest to leave with
> the shop teacher, so I could go dove hunting on the way home.
>
> Lord have mercy, can you imagine doing that now?!?
>
> We were indeed fortunate to live in those times, Doug. I just wished
> my kids could have had the same experience.

I wasn't one for hunting when a kid (and not now either). But I did go
iceskating on the frozen meadows that the Rhine near Wageningen had
inundated in winter. However, I was warned when going into the "forest"
nearby for unexploded ordinance from the WWII battles nearby.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 7/31/2011 1:39 PM, Han wrote:
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in news:l6ednQ_
>
>>
>>> Actually, we live in a city (City of West University Place, TX)
>>> within a city, and bordering another city, so I can talk to mine
>>> also, but I'd prefer not. ;)
>>
>> Looks far enough from water to stay dry with the next hurricane,
>
>
> One would think. However, we lost our home, and most everything in it,
> to flood waters from Tropical Storm Allison in June 2001 ... and were
> not in the 100 year flood plain.
>
> (Besides the natural event, piss poor planning and performance of the
> area's flood control districts was a major contributor ... IOW, our
> brand new storm sewer system, put in at HUGE expense to the tax payer,
> had a "restrictor" placed in it to keep downstream from flooding,
> flooding us instead ... it's still there ... a government project, in
> case you didn't guess.)

We deal with a somewhat similar situation here. The Passaic river is
mainly a rain-fed river, so if it rains hard and long, the floodplains
fill. Some people had decided to build their homes there. In the last 2
years we have had 3 100 year floods there. Personally we are not
affected unless you count the fact that son-in-law has to drive 45+ min
to get to his teaching job rather than 10 min. And, oh, yes,he had an
extra week of teaching at the end of the past year because school had
been canceled so much that it had to be made up.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in news:l6ednQ_
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> Actually, we live in a city (City of West University Place, TX)
>>> within a city, and bordering another city, so I can talk to mine
>>> also, but I'd prefer not. ;)
>>
>> Looks far enough from water to stay dry with the next hurricane, I
>> hope ... Fair Lawn is a "borough" or "boro" of ~17K people, close to
>> Paterson, NJ, the old silk city, now not too rich anymore, but still
>> with its Great Falls
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Falls_%28Passaic_River%29
>
> You're in trouble Han - I'm going to look you up on one of my trips to
> NJ. I get down to Woodbridge from time to time. I don't think that is
> very far from Fair lawn/Paterson - can you confirm? Dinner and drinks
> on me if it's close enough.

Far is relative. It depends from which direction you come/go. We're
north of Woodbridge by about 50 or so minutes, almost all Parkway (says
Google). We're on the other side of Newark from Woodbridge, and traffic
can be rough. Let me know when you're coming!!


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 7/31/2011 1:41 PM, Han wrote:
>
>> Austin is still touted as a nice livable city (at least by HGTV).
>> Looked nice on those programs too.
>
> Only if you ride a bicyle ...

I'm Dutch, I ride a bicycle (short distances, anyway like the 400 yards to
the train station).
>
> Don't believe ANYTHING you see on TV, Han! ;)

Believe me, Karl, cynical is my middle name.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 7/31/2011 1:44 PM, Han wrote:
>>
>
>> I wasn't one for hunting when a kid (and not now either). But I did
>> go iceskating on the frozen meadows that the Rhine near Wageningen
>> had inundated in winter. However, I was warned when going into the
>> "forest" nearby for unexploded ordinance from the WWII battles
>> nearby.
>
> As 14 year old, I used to take an 11' flat bottomed jon boat, with a 5
> HP Johnston motor on it, out into the bays of the Gulf Coast, by
> myself, to go duck hunting.
>
> Do this when a Norther blows in (IOW, the best duck hunting weather),
> on an outgoing tide, and you had to wait until evening for the next
> tide came in to get back to shore ... I'm talking maybe ten to fifteen
> miles to the nearest walkable, dry (relatively) land.
>
> I don't recall the coast guard ever being called to the rescue, and
> AAMOF, I don't even think my parents were ever the least bit worried,
> or even missed me. :)

Reminds me of later years in high school. I was a member of the rowing
and sailing club (sailing is better, because it is less work <hehe>).
There were 3 of us in a canoe outfitted with a sail, in April. Was
blowing quite hard, so all 3 of us had to lean to windward. Wind was
from the west, Rhine was flowing east to west, generating waves traveling
westwards. Suddenly the wind fell away, and we all fell overboard to
windward. Rescue was fast, but it was cold, in April.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

k-nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in news:j148bo$9cb$1@dont-
email.me:

> a budget is critical to managing your
> money and remaining solvent

Problem is that a budget is just a plan. The difficult thing is to balance
outlays and revenues. If revenues drop because of rising unemployment and
expenses increase (because of rising unemployment), it'll be difficult to
balance outlays and revenues, no matter what last year's plans say.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:ce7d8$4e35b7fb
[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> Far is relative. It depends from which direction you come/go. We're
>> north of Woodbridge by about 50 or so minutes, almost all Parkway
>> (says Google). We're on the other side of Newark from Woodbridge,
>> and traffic can be rough. Let me know when you're coming!!
>
> I come down from Syracuse, so maybe it can be a good meet.

Looking forward to it. Let me know beforehand so I can give you
directions. Check your email, if I decoded it correctly. Email comes from
yahoo.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 7/31/2011 12:38 PM, Han wrote:
>> k-nuttle<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:j148bo$9cb$1@dont- email.me:
>>
>>> a budget is critical to managing your
>>> money and remaining solvent
>>
>> Problem is that a budget is just a plan. The difficult thing is to
>> balance outlays and revenues. If revenues drop because of rising
>> unemployment and expenses increase (because of rising unemployment),
>> it'll be difficult to balance outlays and revenues, no matter what
>> last year's plans say.
>>
>
> Apparently then, we've had rising unemployment and its associated
> budget problems since Ike was President.
>
> <http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm>

I'm confused. Is that inflation-adjusted or not? And of course the debt
goes up. Congress keeps authorizing constituent-friendly programs, and
congresscritters keep hunting for ways to get reelected. Unemployment of
course keeps fluctuating. When all those troops go home, it'll go up
again, because a) Those troops will go after a decreasing number of jobs
they are qualified for and b) all those military support jobs will dry
up. Not that I find that in itself a bad thing, mind you, but what
constructive jobs will be there for those people?


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> k-nuttle wrote:
>>>
>> You are right a budget is a plan where you have considered all
>> possibilities with plans for excesses and deficiencies. The reserve
>> is part of the budget and absorbs the excess and can proved funds to
>> cover the deficiencies
>>
>> About the only entities that try to operate with out a budget is the
>> US government and some states. I believe all of the states with
>> budget problems do not have the balance budget requirement. All
>> successful companies work to a budget, and as private entities, must
>> manage their excess and deficient revenues.
>
> Forty-nine states require a balanced budget. How they get there is
> interesting:
>
> * One way is to determine the state's spending requirements then
> adjust revenue (i.e., raise taxes) to meet the requirements.
>
> * The opposite (my state) is to calculate how much revenue is
> expected, then adjust projected spending to match.

I'd venture to guess that most states use "fancy accounting" to balance
their budgets. Certainly NY and NJ do.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> A better way, IMHO, would be to require that expenditures in any
> calendar year not exceed revenues received during the immediately
> previous calendar year. No estimating, no fudging, just the hard
> numbers.

That would be fine with this flaming liberal who is also a fiscal
conservative ... Good definition of national emergency is needed too, and
it has to be a true national emergency. Something as bad as Katrina was
NOT (IMNSHO) national in scope. A emergency fund for such natural
disasters needs to be established as well, but it needs to be a fund that
cannot be totally depleted and yearly adjustments to contributions to that
fund need to be made. Etc, etc, etc.

Also, "earmarks" cannot exceed $5/constituent.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Not inflation adjusted, just the actual debt numbers. The annual
> increases in debt since the Eisenhower administration indicate that
> spending has outpaced revenue for over 50 years - in other words
> deficit spending for all that time. There hasn't been a surplus or
> balanced budget in over half a century, no matter what the media and
> liberals claim.
>

Glancing at the last numbers, it seems that until 2007 there wasn't too
much of an increase if you guess a bit at inflation. But then, no
inflation to speak of and 10+ % yearly increases in debt ...

See, you can easily twist statistics your way or mine ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I spent 13 years as a civilian employee of the Navy; the last eight or
> nine of those years, I was the sysadmin for the mainframe that ran the
> procurement system at our facility. I'm well familiar with that
> phenomenon. We'd typically see transaction rates in September of about
> double the average for the other 11 months.
>

The salesman for Fisher Scientific explained this to us (rookie research
technicians at a Harvard lab) as follows.
You really use the money 3 times: Once because you didn't get what you
could have, second because next year's budget will get cut by that amount,
and third because now you have that much less to use (or some such thing).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid