First it was "Slick Willy", now it appears to be "Slippery John, The
Chameleon.
McCain has repeatably emphasized that he is for less gov't, less
regulation.
Even voted for some of the legislation that created the loop holes the
wall St sleaze balls used to their advantage.
Now, with the fiasco on Wall St coming down around the countries ears,
he wants to legislation so that it won't happen again.
Well "Slippery", which is it?
Total free market or a market with some gov't controls?
You don't get both, pick one.
Tell us a vision has come to you while you slept and it has given you
new insight.
If so, tell us something.
McCain was against the "bailout" of AIG, now he admits it was a
necessity.
BTW, Hank Greenberg, founder and former majority stockholder of AIG,
whose personal loss exceeds over $3.5 billion as a result of the AIG
problem, calls the $85B transaction a "bridge loan" rather than a
bailout, a short term loan to be repaid with interest.
He indicates AIG can be saved and rebuilt.
He built it the first time, maybe he knows something.
Sure hope so.
Some how, I think he has a better handle on things than any of the
politicians.
Wonder what position Chameleon John will take tomorrow?
Stay tuned.....................
Lew
Well soon Obama will be in office and use his VAST experience to fix it
all.........maybe NOT!
cm
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:llkAk.458$8v5.10@trnddc01...
> First it was "Slick Willy", now it appears to be "Slippery John, The
> Chameleon.
>
> McCain has repeatably emphasized that he is for less gov't, less
> regulation.
>
> Even voted for some of the legislation that created the loop holes the
> wall St sleaze balls used to their advantage.
>
> Now, with the fiasco on Wall St coming down around the countries ears, he
> wants to legislation so that it won't happen again.
>
> Well "Slippery", which is it?
>
> Total free market or a market with some gov't controls?
>
> You don't get both, pick one.
>
> Tell us a vision has come to you while you slept and it has given you new
> insight.
>
> If so, tell us something.
>
> McCain was against the "bailout" of AIG, now he admits it was a necessity.
>
> BTW, Hank Greenberg, founder and former majority stockholder of AIG, whose
> personal loss exceeds over $3.5 billion as a result of the AIG problem,
> calls the $85B transaction a "bridge loan" rather than a bailout, a short
> term loan to be repaid with interest.
>
> He indicates AIG can be saved and rebuilt.
>
> He built it the first time, maybe he knows something.
>
> Sure hope so.
>
> Some how, I think he has a better handle on things than any of the
> politicians.
>
> Wonder what position Chameleon John will take tomorrow?
>
> Stay tuned.....................
>
> Lew
>
>
On Sep 19, 5:38=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> D'ohBoy wrote:
>
> .. snip
>
>
>
> > This IS the TIME!
>
> > THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION PLANTED BY THE
> > REPUBLICANS OVER YEARS OF GUTTING CONTROLS ON THE FINANCIAL
> > INSTITUTIONS ARE BEARING THEIR BITTER FRUIT. =A0EAT UP YOU SCUMSUCKING
> > BASTARDS!
>
> =A0 What the heck are you talking about? =A0Gutting controls? =A0Have you=
heard of
> Sarbanes-Oxley? =A0There is so much regulation now that it takes an army =
of
> lawyers for a company to comply with all the regulations out there. =A0Th=
e
> current problem now was facilitated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- two
> government run organizations that were making bad loans to people who
> couldn't pay them back -- at the behest of the Congress. =A0
>
> > Man, this is gonna be so much fun when the Congress, Senate and White
> > House are all dominated by the Democrats. =A0Gonna be a lotta stinky
> > Repugnant carcass swinging from the gallows.....
>
> > D'ohBoy
>
> =A0 So much fun. =A0Hang on to your wallets boys, "Change!", it's all you=
're
> going to have left after the dems get done raising taxes should that very
> frightening scenario come to pass.
>
How nice. Stick your country with a bill, JUST prior to passing the
torch to a Democratic president.
What a class act. It will be, of course, Obama's fault when the
citizens of the US are going to have to pay for W's economic policies.
On Sep 24, 10:47=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> As best as I can determine, I do not fear collectivists. =A0I hold them
> in utter contempt for their irrationality and evil practices.
>
I think what's at issue here, is that you hurl about the term
'collectivist' in a random and sanctimonious way. Enhanced by a
sprinkling of smug, arrogant self-righteousness, your arguments do
appear, to some, to hold some substance, but I see right through the
hollowness.
I suppose we should all consider ourselves 'chosen' that you'll even
speak to us.
But I admit, you talk shit rather well.
r
On Sep 23, 5:08=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> To the extent that the CDC needs to exist to prevent examples
> like the one you cite - people knowingly infecting one another -
There you go again, injecting parameters which weren't part of the
original discussion.
About the chess game?
No, I won't play with you, which means you already lost.
r
On Sep 24, 5:39=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 1:22 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Robatoy wrote:
>
> >>> But I admit, you talk shit rather well.
> >> Good conversations are built on good manners. Using vulgar language
> >> undermines the former because it demonstrates a lack of the latter.
>
> > =A0But I admit, you talk poop rather well. =A0There is that better?
>
> Only slightly.
>
>
>
> > To chose a word to make a point, a word you may not like, does not
> > automatically negate the rest of the statement. You'll need another
>
> I never said it did. =A0I said it was poor form, bad manners, etc.
> and that it is.
>
> > skirt to hide under. Next thing you know, you'll disagree with someone
> > and the strength of you position is based on the fact that he uses a
> > different typewriter than you do.
>
> I don't disagree with you because you used rude language. =A0I disagree
> with you because you have false ideas. =A0
>
False ideas? You mean ideas you disagree with? In my mind, ideas can
never be 'false'. I can see that if an idea leads to a solution which
may not solve a problem, the idea might not be suitable, but I can't
see an idea being 'false'. Maybe one needs to be a collectivist to
have false ideas? Or is this another one of your slight-of-thoughts
again?
In article <[email protected]>, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
><nothing of substance>
>
>Well, you at least /sound/ like an over-schooled, under-educated
>navel-gazer who hopes to change what he doesn't like in the world by
>raving incoherently in a woodworking newsgroup.
Morris, I'd expected better of you than an ad hominem such as this -- as Tim
points out, it's a sure sign that you know you can't debate the issue on its
merits.
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Thanks for bolstering my point. Where does the rest of the money come
from,
Quite obviously it's subsidized by the government using taxes paid by the
people. So what? What exactly is your point?
On Sep 19, 4:51=A0pm, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 8:59=A0am, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
> > You can't possibly come up with a cite for him railing for "total free
> > market", can you? Didn't think so. Stop making stuff up.
>
> Actually, I heard a quote the other day stating that he was 'always
> for less regulation'. =A0So if there is less regulation, but regulation
> still existed, he would still be for less. =A0The only case in which his
> desire for less would be satisfied, i.e., when there couldn't be *LESS
> REGULATION* would be a total free market.
>
> So no, Woodie didn't make it up. =A0So you stop. =A0Jackass.
>
> And what is with this free market shite? =A0I guess free markets are
> good when people die due to that freedom, or little people get hurt
> but when Republicans LOSE MONEY, that's just wrong.
>
> Did you happen to see that Republican Senator (or Congressman, I don't
> recall) the other night whining about how now is not the time to point
> fingers?!
>
> This IS the TIME!
>
> THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION PLANTED BY THE
> REPUBLICANS OVER YEARS OF GUTTING CONTROLS ON THE FINANCIAL
> INSTITUTIONS ARE BEARING THEIR BITTER FRUIT. =A0EAT UP YOU SCUMSUCKING
> BASTARDS!
>
> Man, this is gonna be so much fun when the Congress, Senate and White
> House are all dominated by the Democrats. =A0Gonna be a lotta stinky
> Repugnant carcass swinging from the gallows.....
>
> D'ohBoy
What I get a kick out of, is all the neocon/fundie nutbars whining
that it was all Clinton's fault.
They were some laws passed during the Clinton years that certainly
were partially responsible for the mess, but the Oh-So-Smart business
savvy Repuglicans has 7.5 year to fix Clinton's wrongs.... Now Bush
wants "some extra/more" powers to fix things...is there nothing else
that asshole thinks about but "more power"????
You know, if Obama threw money at a problem like the Repuglicans would
be all over him for his socialist/tax-crazy ideas.
"Elrond Hubbard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> I love it.
>
> Over the course of 12 hours, John McCain does a 180 degree four-wheel
> locked-brake slide from saying "The economy is fundamentally sound" to
> "This is the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression," and you
> characterize it as 'altering course.'
>
> With spin like that, you could get a job as a human gyroscope.
Why, thank you. Really - I find that to be a great phrase. Though... you
misunderstand my point. McCain didn't simply assume the former position
three or four days ago. He reversed a position that he held of some time.
He reversed it in light of very recent circumstances that nobody predicted,
or could predict. If you wish to see it as flip flopping, that's exactly
how you'll see it. It appears to me to be more of a response to events.
>
> If the opposition candidate had done the same, you would excoriate his
> action as a flip-flop of Titanic proportions. With full justification.
>
Why do you say that? You've never seen me do that, and you don't even know
enough about me to guess whether I'd do so, or not. Your projections are
showing, sir.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sep 23, 12:30=A0pm, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> [bandwidth snip]
>
>
>
> > Viva La Revolucion Comrade - I hope you get exactly what you
> > (and others here) are demanding - a complete subjugation of
> > your liberty at the hands of the state. =A0Oh, you don't know
> > that's what you're asking for, but it is. =A0I just hope to
> > have checked out by then ...
>
> We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
> union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
> common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of
> liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
> Constitution for the United States of America.
>
> "We the people" Tim. =A0In reading your postings, I get the picture of a
> frightened person who has circled his personal wagon and is waiting for
> the "we the people" to come and burn it down.
>
> Should the collectivist/socialist democrats win in Nov. where will you
> go to live?
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 sigh,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 jo4hn
Canada??
snort, chuckle, guffaw
r
Han wrote:
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
> <snip>
>>> And now FICA taxes hould be leveled on ALL income, earned and
>>> unearned, so the fat cats pay a little more of the War costs.
>>> Although it would mean I would pay more taxes too.
>> That will result in running up debt at a faster rate as every excess
>> SS dollar that goes into the "trust fund" is a dollar of debt with
>> interest. When the funds need to redeem those debt bonds, future
>> taxpayers will have to bail out the funds.
>>
> Again, no matter what you think the rhetoric implied, retirements ar paid
> from current taxes,
If the excess contributions were invested in corporate stocks/bonds
rather than government debt, future shortfalls would be covered by the
profits of those corporations - such as Exxon-Mobil - rather than taxing
future generations a second time for the same purpose.
if you really want to have a real retirement, it is
> up to you, through your union (puke), employer (double puke), 401K, IRA
> or what have you. SS is just a drop in the bucket, not really enough to
> live on.
Agree. That is exactly what I am living on in retirement - the
investments I made during my working career. And those investments are
also paying my medical insurance premiums with no undue financial pain.
On Sep 20, 7:56=A0am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:a460ee1e-e24e-4d3f-b0db-
> [email protected]:
>
> > There should be war-crime trials.
>
> No, retroactive taxation on war profiteering is better. =A0And that shoul=
d
> include taxation to pay for the future care of the war victims on all sid=
es
> (both physical and mental trauma).
>
Retribution AND punishment.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 23, 5:08 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> To the extent that the CDC needs to exist to prevent examples
>> like the one you cite - people knowingly infecting one another -
>
>
> There you go again, injecting parameters which weren't part of the
> original discussion.
>
> About the chess game?
>
> No, I won't play with you, which means you already lost.
>
> r
Actually ... it mean you have no madd chess skillz ... you
are what we call a patzer...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:22:25 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mark & Juanita" wrote:
>
>> I want to see Lew rant equally about those who initiated this
>> mess --
>
>Nice try to divert the discussion, but that crap doesn't stick on the
>wall.
>
I'd also like to hear Lew's take on it. After all, he brought up in
his post the fiasco on wall street. M & J's post spot on as to the
root cause of the current mess.
If you want to talk about politicians playing to the audience and the
changing environment, then you better bring them all into that
discussion, not just the one you don't care for. And then we would be
here all week.
Frank
>Back to the subject.
>
>What's next?
>
>Lew
>
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I'm not the only one who says so, nor am I the first. Pretty much
> everyone I know (except you evidently) thinks that stealing is wrong,
> even if they have no particularly deep religious practice.
Guess you don't know too many people. You're shunned by most who know you
and you're a sanctimonious hypocrite at the same time. Must be a tough life
for you, eh Tim? I don't feel sorry for you though, because you've earned
the isolation you know.
> The "Rights" enshrined in the US Constitution are understood to be
> "natural rights" - the government is not *granting* them, but rather
Riiiiigggghhhhttttt!!!!! But of course, healthcare isn't a natural right.
You are so clueless as to what's right and what's not that you wouldn't know
it if it bit you in the ass. With you, it's all about what you can get and
keep. Naturally, owning firearms bolsters that need you struggle to fulfill.
The really sad part out of all of this is that you're a pretty smart guy,
but your values are so screwed up that you appear to be relatively stupid to
all that know you. Quite the contradiction. Life has been tough on you
hasn't it? Dirt poor family, worked for everything you have.
You really want to make money and succeed Tim? Go open your own manure farm.
With all the bullshit you sling, you'll be filthy rich in no time at all.
:)
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Please explain to me where this "right" comes from? Does a doctor
> not have a "Right" to their time and effort? How about a drug
> researcher? A nurse? Why do the rights of the "poor" trump those
> of everyone else in the society?
All those people get paid and paid well. They enjoy an exalted position in
our society both monetarily and socially. They just don't get paid to your
greedy standards. The poor trump nothing.
> Game-Set-Match - you ran out of rational ideas and started the
Wrong again. It's impossible to argue the point because you're entirely
incapable of the difference between the giving of health care and the giving
of a physical object like a car. To you, they're both the same when it comes
to value and that's why you're emotionally and logically unequipped to
differentiate between the two. That makes you an asshole. I'm not calling
you a name, I'm just stating a fact.
Lew,
The real shame is the two choices we have for President.
cm
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4GQAk.455$pp3.111@trnddc06...
> "Elrond Hubbard" wrote:
>
>> I love it.
>>
>> Over the course of 12 hours, John McCain does a 180 degree four-wheel
>> locked-brake slide from saying "The economy is fundamentally sound" to
>> "This is the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression," and you
>> characterize it as 'altering course.'
>>
>> With spin like that, you could get a job as a human gyroscope.
>>
>> If the opposition candidate had done the same, you would excoriate his
>> action as a flip-flop of Titanic proportions. With full justification.
>>
>> Priceless.
>
> You noticed.
>
> McCain appears to have become a practioner of the Mitt Romney school of
> politics:
>
> IOW, say and do anything necessary to satisfy your audience at the moment.
>
> Forget principles, they no longer seem to matter.
>
> It's a damn shame.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
On Sep 24, 1:22=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > But I admit, you talk shit rather well.
>
> Good conversations are built on good manners. Using vulgar language
> undermines the former because it demonstrates a lack of the latter.
But I admit, you talk poop rather well. There is that better?
To chose a word to make a point, a word you may not like, does not
automatically negate the rest of the statement. You'll need another
skirt to hide under. Next thing you know, you'll disagree with someone
and the strength of you position is based on the fact that he uses a
different typewriter than you do.
r
jo4hn wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> D'ohBoy wrote:
>>
>> .. snip
>>> This IS the TIME!
>>>
>>> THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION PLANTED BY THE
>>> REPUBLICANS OVER YEARS OF GUTTING CONTROLS ON THE FINANCIAL
>>> INSTITUTIONS ARE BEARING THEIR BITTER FRUIT. EAT UP YOU SCUMSUCKING
>>> BASTARDS!
>>>
>>
>> What the heck are you talking about? Gutting controls? Have you heard
>> of
>> Sarbanes-Oxley? There is so much regulation now that it takes an army of
>> lawyers for a company to comply with all the regulations out there. The
>> current problem now was facilitated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- two
>> government run organizations that were making bad loans to people who
>> couldn't pay them back -- at the behest of the Congress.
>
> Lessee now. "The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 also known as the Public
> Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 and
> commonly called SOX or Sarbox; is a United States federal law enacted on
> July 30, 2002 in response to a number of major corporate and accounting
> scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia,
> Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors
> billions of dollars when the share prices of the affected companies
> collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation's securities markets.
> Named after sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative
> Michael G. Oxley (R-OH), the Act was approved by the House by a vote of
> 423-3 and by the Senate 99-0. President George W. Bush signed it into
> law, stating it included "the most far-reaching reforms of American
> business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt."" [Wikipedia]
>
> Those pesky Democrats snuck that one through.
Geez, you don't pay any attention here. The point was that SOX is an
extremely onerous regulation (I know this based upon personal experience in
my job, and I'm only peripherally affected) that taps deep into corporate
workings with (from the looks of Lehman and AIG) very little benefit. This
was in response to the original poster's ridiculous assertion that controls
and regulations had been gutted by the sitting administration. You
actually make my point for me -- this ponderous piece of legislation was
passed during the current administration when the Republicans were in
control of both houses -- hardly the "gutting" that the OP was screaming
about.
>>> Man, this is gonna be so much fun when the Congress, Senate and White
>>> House are all dominated by the Democrats. Gonna be a lotta stinky
>>> Repugnant carcass swinging from the gallows.....
>>>
>>> D'ohBoy
>>
>> So much fun. Hang on to your wallets boys, "Change!", it's all you're
>> going to have left after the dems get done raising taxes should that very
>> frightening scenario come to pass.
>>
> Hell yes! Let our grandchildren pay off all those countries that we are
> borrowing from. Oh and some of those countries don't always have our
> best interests at heart.
You know you are welcome to send as much money to the government as you
wish. You don't have to limit yourself to only the amount of taxes you
have due. Why are you expecting to use other peoples' money to solve this
problem?
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:bi0lq5-
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> > So while I know we'll never agree, I'll continue to believe that getting
> > rich off the miseries of others is, if not downright immoral, certainly
> > distasteful.
>
> I heartily agree - that's why I could never be a liberal Democrat.
You're full of shit. Feeble try at a flip-flop.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Utter nonsense. People at or below the poverty line get medical care
> on a regular basis in the US without regard for their ability to pay.
And, that's exactly what I said. To get that free health care in the US, you
have to be poor. I repeated it more than once. Try reading a little closer.
> It is flatly better for *most* people but there are exceptions.
That I certainly don't agree with. *Most* people as you state are not rich,
but of middle income. A few serious brushes with the US medical system and
there's every chance their middle income status is in jeopardy.
> I don't see a giant rush of wealthy Europeans and Asians going to
> Canada for treatment of serious illness. The Canadian system is
> good, but does not attract the best medical folk, acts very slowly
Ahh, I see, you're stuck on "wealthy people". Most people are NOT WEALTHY.
Typical money grubbing outlook. If you've got money, then screw everybody
else. As long as you can pay for what you need, then everybody else can go
to hell. Absolutely zero social conscience just as long at your needs are
looked after. Very selfish of you.
> How about drug abusers with HIV and AIDS? How about people who
> never exercise, eat a horrible diet, and then drain the system
So tell me Tim. Have you ever in your life had unprotected sex? Not once?
Have you ever eaten a Big Mac? No? You've never eaten a bag of potato chips
or had a beer? I realize you're as pure as they come and society has no one
except itself to blame. But, I have to ask, exactly how much hypocritical
bullshit do you expect people to believe?
> crying for nationalized healthcare here are those who either want
> something they have never earned or want a "get out of jail free" card
> for their personal behaviors.
And that's your problem. You're absolutely convinced that everyone who
supports socialized healthcare is looking for a freebie. You *know without a
doubt* that there's nobody out there who has consideration for others
besides themselves.
Selfishness is your highest ideal and you live by might is right. Common
ideals of many citizens of the US. All the current financial woes of those
financial institutions that failed in the US are a direct result of that
kind of greedy outlook and now it's starting to bite you in the butt big
time.
Enjoy!
On Sep 23, 4:28=A0am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote:
> >......................................................................
>
> Haven't you people figured out how to use the "block sender" feature
> to simplify the house keeping function?
>
> Gets to be a little much to still have to ignore this guy after
> blocking him.
>
> Lew
Michael Johnson (a well established musician) and I were driving down
the road and he was sharing the joy he was experiencing in life after
having come face-to-face with both the monsters of alcoholism (and
music industry executives <G>). He said something to me that day that
I have carried with me for those last 20 years. He said: "Robbie, an
alcoholic is a megalomaniac with an inferiority complex."
When I read Tim Daneliuk's posts, I am somehow reminded of that. I
detect an insecurity wrapped up in blankets of highly skilled
verbosity, a serious indication of over-achievement and a deep desire
to be loved. Tim feels the constant need to prove something,
regardless of its validity. But, as an independent observer and level-
headed 'collectivist' (a word which bears much hate, usually used by
previous iron-curtain survivors ) I recommend we all give Tim a group
hug.
r
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "B A R R Y" wrote
>> In 2007, The "uptick rule" was eliminated in the US stock markets. This
>> allows hedge funds to grossy short stocks, in some cases greatly hurting
>> the market cap of a company.
>>
> The "uptick" or short selling rules have been reinstated.
When?
Or do you mean "The List"?
On Sep 23, 12:35=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:24:22 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> >> =A0That's the problem with
> >> socialized systems, eventually people who aren't paying for the benefi=
ts
> >> start taking more and more advantage of those benefits, forcing those =
who
> >> are paying taxes to provide those benefits to have to pay more.
>
> > If insurance companies can avoid that scenario, I see no reason why a
> > government agency can't do the same. =A0I frequently read of someone
> > arrested for defrauding SS or Medicare or the IRS. =A0Of course they do=
n't
> > catch them all, but neither do the insurance companies. =A0But both sho=
uld
> > be able to hold fraud to an acceptable level.
>
> Methinks you're missing his point. The issue is not primarily people
> defrauding government programs (though that is surely *a* problem, no
> different than in the private sector). The issue has to do with the
> inherent nature of tax-funded programs - they apply to everyone who
> "qualifies" whether they pay taxes or not.
>
> Private companies can avoid this by not granting benefits to people
> who don't pay for one of their insurance policies. But government-run
> programs provide coverage based on "class" (age, socio-economic
> standing, gender, and, sometimes, even race). There are inevitably many
> class members who pay nothing but get program benefits. They do this
> entirely *legally*. =A0In so doing, the non-contributors burden the
> system to the detriment of the contributors. =A0So, the contributor
> is forced - at the point of the government's gun - to participate
> in a program (possibly against their will) AND pay for other people
> who contribute nothing. =A0Somehow in the Do-Gooders Lexicon, this
> qualifies as a noble act. =A0I find that alone astonishing and
> a searing indictment of how deeply morally corrupt the ideas of
> the intellectual/political left have become...
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
If somebody stands on the ledge and gives all indications of jumping
off... do we try to talk them out of it?
How do you consolidate cops cruising down your street even though you
don't want protection? Or do you?
Maxwell Lol wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> I don't know how. But just to make it clear to you: I do not reject
>> evolution as a mechanism out of hand. I reject the blind worship of
>> science as being the only way we can know truth.
>
> Blind? You don't really understand the scientific method, do you?
I understand it quite well. The *method* is - as best as we can
make it - unbiased. But the people who practice it are not
unbiased. I spent a number of years in research. If it's not
clear to you, then let me be the first to clue you in. There
is *lots* of bias in the business of science. What gets published
does go through peer review. But what gets funded doesn't come
anywhere near to that level of standard. Moreover, a lot of
what does get funded never sees the light of day in publication.
When scientists wander around declaring the primacy of science
and the absence of God, as the radical atheists do regularly,
they are not practicing science, they are engaging in theology.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Thanks for bolstering my point. Where does the rest of the money come
> from,
>
> Quite obviously it's subsidized by the government using taxes paid by the
> people. So what? What exactly is your point?
That contrary to the original assertion, "The maximum one would pay is $900
a year, even if they're billionaires", is bull. I also see you've
conveniently dropped the part about the Canadian system being bigger "a much
larger system" than private insurance in the US.
todd
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Then there are those of us who are anti-collectivist to our roots. We
> believe that the only role of government is to keep us free.
Yup, you're even more deluded than I thought. That vaunted "freedom" you
support with all your might is mostly an illusion. You (and our society)
haven't had the full freedom you're talking about for centuries.
It's an illusion and has been for a long, long time. You only survive
because you've settled into a comfortable state of self-delusion. I guess
that's something that makes us uniquely human, the ability to delude
ourselves. Only problem is that you've taken it to the extreme. You're sick
Tim, get some help.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> 4) Does is strike you as even slightly incongruous that you - the
> self-proclaimed defender of mankind, the downtrodden, and
> protector of all that is human - is wishing disease upon me?
Read again. As usual, one of your biggest problems is that you read what you
want to see, not what's actually written. You're so caught up in yourself
that you're incapable of seeing anything but your own words.
> > When are you voting yourself into sainthood?
> I'm not sufficiently self-loathing and personally inadequate
> to require that much approval from others.
Of course not. You're your own self indulgent cheering section that believes
your own lies. It's called self delusion Tim and you're a master at it.
'nite.
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> He reversed it in light of very recent circumstances that nobody
>> predicted, or could predict.
>
> [1] I think the only people who could have failed to predict it are those
> who believed that the housing "bubble" would continue indefinitely.
>
> In Des Moines, an average person earns 30-40K. The average price of a new
> home here passed the quarter-million mark a year or two ago, and homes
> were sold as quickly as banks could process mortgage applications.
>
> [2] The legislature recognized that lenders had become too greedy and that
> credit card debt had become a serious problem for many cardholders. It was
> interesting to note that in the course of the congressional hearings, it
> was the lenders' predatory practices that were identified as the most
> significant part of the problem.
>
> [3] Under pressure from lobbyists representing lenders who recognized that
> borrowers were over-extending, the legislature tightened up the bankruptcy
> laws to protect the lenders - a clear departure from the principle that
> bankruptcy laws were to protect honest debtors.
>
> [4] With the bankruptcy legislation in place, lenders exercised their
> options to raise rates on ARM's - and foreclosure rates skyrocketed.
> Unfortunately for the lenders, they had made mortages for homes whose
> actual values were considerably less than the amount of the loan and,
> following foreclosure, could not recover the principal by selling the
> property in a rapidly disintegrating market.
>
Excellent points one and all. But - while they are all true, they only
point out the fundamental greed of the system and they only pessimistically
predict the future. What those points don't do though is explain the
suddenness of Lehman, AIG, Morgan, etc. That's what took everybody by
surprise. One would not have to agree with the prevailing practices to feel
more secure in the economy, up until Wall Street took a dive. That
suddenness is what I was making reference to in my statement.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Upscale" wrote
> My mistake, I thought the US system was comprised of a bunch of
> independent
> insurance companies.
Nay, lad ... you've got it only partly right.
Driver runs into tree with his car. First guy on scene runs to the mangled
vehicle, opens the door and asks the driver: "Are you badly hurt?".
Driver groggily looks up from his daze and says: "How the hell should I
know? ... I'm not a lawyer!"
(Eat your heart out jo4hn ...)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> That contrary to the original assertion, "The maximum one would pay is
$900
> a year, even if they're billionaires", is bull.
Really? Read the second paragraph and then tell me it's bull again.
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/english/media/2004/bk-ohp.html
Mike Marlow wrote:
> He reversed it in light of very recent circumstances that nobody predicted,
> or could predict.
[1] I think the only people who could have failed to predict it are
those who believed that the housing "bubble" would continue indefinitely.
In Des Moines, an average person earns 30-40K. The average price of a
new home here passed the quarter-million mark a year or two ago, and
homes were sold as quickly as banks could process mortgage applications.
[2] The legislature recognized that lenders had become too greedy and
that credit card debt had become a serious problem for many cardholders.
It was interesting to note that in the course of the congressional
hearings, it was the lenders' predatory practices that were identified
as the most significant part of the problem.
[3] Under pressure from lobbyists representing lenders who recognized
that borrowers were over-extending, the legislature tightened up the
bankruptcy laws to protect the lenders - a clear departure from the
principle that bankruptcy laws were to protect honest debtors.
[4] With the bankruptcy legislation in place, lenders exercised their
options to raise rates on ARM's - and foreclosure rates skyrocketed.
Unfortunately for the lenders, they had made mortages for homes whose
actual values were considerably less than the amount of the loan and,
following foreclosure, could not recover the principal by selling the
property in a rapidly disintegrating market.
IMO, any one (and certainly all) of these things was sufficient to make
a crystal ball unnecessary. YMMV.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Excellent points one and all. But - while they are all true, they only
> point out the fundamental greed of the system and they only pessimistically
> predict the future. What those points don't do though is explain the
> suddenness of Lehman, AIG, Morgan, etc. That's what took everybody by
> surprise. One would not have to agree with the prevailing practices to feel
> more secure in the economy, up until Wall Street took a dive. That
> suddenness is what I was making reference to in my statement.
Greed was only the motivation. What the greed produced was an unstable
structure without real support, like a house of cards. When it fails, it
doesn't fail slowly, one element at a time, but in an accelerating
cascade of failures. The suddenness shouldn't be a surprise.
It's worth noting that while Congress was aware of the mess all along
the way, it chose to not act to promote the interests of ordinary
citizens in a disturbingly bipartisan fashion.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Han wrote:
> Again, no matter what you think the rhetoric implied, retirements ar paid
> from current taxes, if you really want to have a real retirement, it is
> up to you, through your union (puke), employer (double puke), 401K, IRA
> or what have you. SS is just a drop in the bucket, not really enough to
> live on.
And yet, a large number of retired people do just that.
Consider, if you would, the situation faced by the retired spouse or
parent(s) of a cancer patient when all available resources had been
spent on medical treatments.
Consider also what happens when pension fund (of whatever kind) is
rendered valueless through no fault of the retiree.
> As far as Medicare/Medicaid/health insurance is concerned, I believe that
> a certain fairly low level should be compulsory. Add-on insurance should
> be affordable, and available at different levels of benefits and
> premiums. It should also be underestood that smoking or other dangerous
> habits should carry a penalty.
Hmm. Have you ever tried making a list of "dangerous practices"? Off the
top of my head...
Smoking
Firefighting
Motorcycling
Holding a microwave transmitter against the side of your skull
Entering a conflict zone
Entering a disaster zone
Teaching in an inner city school
Being a student in an inner city school
Working in law enforcement
Residing in an [earthquake/tornado/flood/hurricane] zone
Driving a motor vehicle
Consuming alcohol
What is the nature of the penalty you would choose
(fine/imprisonment/exile/death/other)?
I think I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think you've
thought things through quite far enough...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Morris, in your list above, you missed one that hits all of us on this
> forum (except for a few trolls):
>
> Use of power tools
Eh? Power tools are safe - it's the operators who're dangerous!
(I almost wish I hadn't said that right out loud.)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> I live like I do today for three reasons:
>
> 1) I was granted health and family through no merit of my own. I am
> grateful to God.
I would suggest that additional gratitude might be appropriate - to
those who contributed every single medical advance that made it possible
for your parents' family lines to survive and converge to produce you.
> 2) I was granted access to a nation that places (or used to anyway)
> the individual ahead of the group. I am grateful to the USA.
If you're talking about the USA, then you declare yourself an ungrateful
misfit. Yes we value the individual, but from our very beginnings we
have recognized that the price of keeping our ideals is paid _always_ by
individuals. The best summation I can think of at the moment is that
this entire country expects you to, if the situation ever arose, throw
yourself on the grenade that comes through the window to protect those
around you. You only seem grateful when there's no cost to you.
> 3) I have worked my bottom off to come from poverty to the middle
> class. I am proud of my family, and happy I had the opportunity, but
> Sparky, I *earned* every bit of it.
From the way you whine, you show that not only do you not understand
the magnificence of the gifts you have received - but that you are so
clueless and conceited that you actually believe that a single lifetime
might ever be enough to actually *earn* all the benefits bestowed upon you.
> Actually, your beloved collectivism is what leads to dictatorship,
> not my rational individualism.
From the evidence of your words, your "rational individualism" is a
delusion in which the only individual to be valued is yourself.
You live like you do today because more people than you could ever count
created the global, cultural, societal, and community contexts within
which you live your life.
I suspect your contribution is relatively microscopic.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
<nothing of substance>
Well, you at least /sound/ like an over-schooled, under-educated
navel-gazer who hopes to change what he doesn't like in the world by
raving incoherently in a woodworking newsgroup.
Good luck with that...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>> <nothing of substance>
>>
>> Well, you at least /sound/ like an over-schooled, under-educated
>> navel-gazer who hopes to change what he doesn't like in the world by
>> raving incoherently in a woodworking newsgroup.
>
> You ought to ponder the notion that because something is incoherent
> to *you* does not make it generally incoherent. You are also
> being dishonest. There's nothing I've said that's incoherent,
> you understand it pretty well. You just don't *like* it, don't have
> a meaningful counterpoint, and have to resort to school yard
> dirt throwing.
Au contraire - what I don't like is wasting time.
Your woodworking question is...?
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Morris, I'd expected better of you than an ad hominem such as this -- as Tim
>>> points out, it's a sure sign that you know you can't debate the issue on its
>>> merits.
>> Merits??? You're right - I can't.
>>
> I meant, you should be defending *your* position on its merits. If it had any,
> you wouldn't need to resort to ad hominems.
Quite right. I offer my apologies to the group. My position is has
already been presented in this group, and I don't feel the need to waste
additional bandwidth on this individual. He seems perfectly capable of
digging his own hole.
Thanks for your reminder.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
"Elrond Hubbard" wrote:
> I love it.
>
> Over the course of 12 hours, John McCain does a 180 degree
> four-wheel
> locked-brake slide from saying "The economy is fundamentally sound"
> to
> "This is the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression," and
> you
> characterize it as 'altering course.'
>
> With spin like that, you could get a job as a human gyroscope.
>
> If the opposition candidate had done the same, you would excoriate
> his
> action as a flip-flop of Titanic proportions. With full
> justification.
>
> Priceless.
You noticed.
McCain appears to have become a practioner of the Mitt Romney school
of politics:
IOW, say and do anything necessary to satisfy your audience at the
moment.
Forget principles, they no longer seem to matter.
It's a damn shame.
Lew
"cm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lew,
>
> The real shame is the two choices we have for President.
>
Buy that man a beer.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I have been treated and survived colon cancer and my wife has survived
> two strokes and carotid artery surgery as well as multiple stents. We
> had zero waiting periods for treatment.
There are wait times for cancer treatment and long wait times for many other
types of treatment, but it's free. One thing I didn't mention, is that "Yes"
Tim is correct in that in many respects the Canadian Health Care system is
bloated and wasteful. I can't fault him for saying that, but there's also a
great many advantages to the Canadian health system and I've benefited from
them more than once. Time either doesn't believe there's any good within our
system or he chose to ignore them which is why I rushed to defend it despite
its inadequacies.
If I was hobbling around in great pain while waiting for a hip replacement,
I admit that I'd investigate going to the US to pay for immediate treatment.
But, that kind of treatment costs thousands of dollars and is certainly not
within the reach of many people unless they wanted to take out a second
mortgage on their house, assuming they owned a house in the first place.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Actually ... it mean you have no madd chess skillz ... you
> are what we call a patzer...
Well I do have chess skills. Nothing professional, but a number of years in
school and after with a few chess clubs. What's your rating? Are you even
rated?
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 23, 12:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:24:22 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>> That's the problem with
>>>> socialized systems, eventually people who aren't paying for the benefits
>>>> start taking more and more advantage of those benefits, forcing those who
>>>> are paying taxes to provide those benefits to have to pay more.
>>> If insurance companies can avoid that scenario, I see no reason why a
>>> government agency can't do the same. I frequently read of someone
>>> arrested for defrauding SS or Medicare or the IRS. Of course they don't
>>> catch them all, but neither do the insurance companies. But both should
>>> be able to hold fraud to an acceptable level.
>> Methinks you're missing his point. The issue is not primarily people
>> defrauding government programs (though that is surely *a* problem, no
>> different than in the private sector). The issue has to do with the
>> inherent nature of tax-funded programs - they apply to everyone who
>> "qualifies" whether they pay taxes or not.
>>
>> Private companies can avoid this by not granting benefits to people
>> who don't pay for one of their insurance policies. But government-run
>> programs provide coverage based on "class" (age, socio-economic
>> standing, gender, and, sometimes, even race). There are inevitably many
>> class members who pay nothing but get program benefits. They do this
>> entirely *legally*. In so doing, the non-contributors burden the
>> system to the detriment of the contributors. So, the contributor
>> is forced - at the point of the government's gun - to participate
>> in a program (possibly against their will) AND pay for other people
>> who contribute nothing. Somehow in the Do-Gooders Lexicon, this
>> qualifies as a noble act. I find that alone astonishing and
>> a searing indictment of how deeply morally corrupt the ideas of
>> the intellectual/political left have become...
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> If somebody stands on the ledge and gives all indications of jumping
> off... do we try to talk them out of it?
Yes we do (if we're decent people). What we don't do is pick
up a gun and force our other neighbor who scared of heights
to go out on the ledge on our behalf and then take credit for
our "charity". Get the difference?
>
> How do you consolidate cops cruising down your street even though you
> don't want protection? Or do you?
I'm not sure what you mean by "consolidate cops" but ... one of the
very few things that government is *supposed* to do is interdict
in matters of fraud, force, and threat. That is necessary to maintain
a democratic republic designed to protect individual liberty.
Cops, courts, the military and so forth are a necessary part of
protecting the liberty of the citizens. Handing out other people's
money taken at the point of a gun to do social engineering is not
part of defending liberty. Get the difference?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sep 18, 8:59=A0am, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
> You can't possibly come up with a cite for him railing for "total free
> market", can you? Didn't think so. Stop making stuff up.
>
Actually, I heard a quote the other day stating that he was 'always
for less regulation'. So if there is less regulation, but regulation
still existed, he would still be for less. The only case in which his
desire for less would be satisfied, i.e., when there couldn't be *LESS
REGULATION* would be a total free market.
So no, Woodie didn't make it up. So you stop. Jackass.
And what is with this free market shite? I guess free markets are
good when people die due to that freedom, or little people get hurt
but when Republicans LOSE MONEY, that's just wrong.
Did you happen to see that Republican Senator (or Congressman, I don't
recall) the other night whining about how now is not the time to point
fingers?!
This IS the TIME!
THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION PLANTED BY THE
REPUBLICANS OVER YEARS OF GUTTING CONTROLS ON THE FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS ARE BEARING THEIR BITTER FRUIT. EAT UP YOU SCUMSUCKING
BASTARDS!
Man, this is gonna be so much fun when the Congress, Senate and White
House are all dominated by the Democrats. Gonna be a lotta stinky
Repugnant carcass swinging from the gallows.....
D'ohBoy
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> It is *legal*, it is still stealing - i.e., It is immoral. Your
> inability to grasp that the law is not the instrument that defines
> morality may explain why you keep defending evil.
Oh, excuse me. If you say it, then it must be immoral. Kind of like your
second amendment eh? You know, the one that protects the right to keep and
bear arms. But, that wouldn't be immoral would it, shooting some hapless
government employee come to tax you further for healthcare? How many guns do
you have Tim? You cry so much about the collectivists lining up to take your
money that I'm betting cower in fear at night with a gun beside you.
Doug Winterburn wrote:
<SNIP>
> Is there some reason Canadians can't save during their working careers
> so that they can afford medical insurance in retirement?
Yes there is. When you subsidize something, you get more of it.
Paying for healthcare via the taxman guarantees that individuals
will *not* act responsibly in this area.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Then there are those of us who are anti-collectivist to our roots. We
>> believe that the only role of government is to keep us free.
>
> Yup, you're even more deluded than I thought. That vaunted "freedom" you
> support with all your might is mostly an illusion. You (and our society)
> haven't had the full freedom you're talking about for centuries.
And you oppressive collectivists - the self anointed saviors of
mankind - lacking any skill to do much on your own - are happy to
continue and even grow the enslavement. You are actually
*proud* of the loss of freedom the West as undergone. Your ideas
are really revolting. It's a shame you can't spend a few years
in a true Marxist paradise that embraces your values fully. Sadly
(for you), they're almost all gone now, having failed under the
weight of their own evil.
>
> It's an illusion and has been for a long, long time. You only survive
> because you've settled into a comfortable state of self-delusion. I guess
> that's something that makes us uniquely human, the ability to delude
> ourselves. Only problem is that you've taken it to the extreme. You're sick
> Tim, get some help.
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Demonstrating yet another outcome of all socialist schemes - they lead
> to some form of slavery. Why not just let the students pay their own
> way and then use the education they paid for as they wish. There is
> no theft, no slavery, and no mob rule.
You really aren't too bright are you? If doctors had to pay their entire
tuition without society's help (ie. the government), there would be
extremely few of them around. Transfer that notion to most every profession
and we'd still be living in the dark ages with a few powerful and educated
while the rest living short lives in serfdom.
It's long been known that the highest level a society can attain is balanced
by that level attained by the least disadvantaged. Whether you like it or
not, society and it's values are the reason that you live at the level you
do today. You might call much of it socialism, but it's been proven many
times the greater number that benefit from those values the longer society
will survive. What you advocate ends up in a pure dictatorship where the
only value is might makes right.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Again, you've no idea about my personal behaviors in this regard.
> Theft is theft. I do not like the idea of profiting from the
> misery of other and have - even recently -refused to do so.
> But a poor man stealing from a rich man is just as dishonorable
> as the reverse situation. We are either people of principle
> or we can abandon all notion of civil behavior.
Again, it comes down to your logical inadequacies to understand. Health care
professionals are paid and paid well, just not to the excessive standards
you'd like to see. The problem is that you don't see the right to health and
life as being intrinsically linked. You are not a person of principal,
you're a person of greed, taking what you can get and screw everyone else. I
don't have to know you personally to make that statement, anybody can see
just by your words what kind of person you are.
Sure, you might have made the occasional contribution here and there, but
you'd only have done it entirely for personal benefit thinking all along
that it might get you something more tangible than just a good feeling.
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> So, I guess if just a few people steal, it makes stealing OK, huh?
>
> Since healthcare is a legal, enshrined right in Canada, the only stealing
> that's going on is your feeble opinion further warping your inane logic.
It is *legal*, it is still stealing - i.e., It is immoral. Your
inability to grasp that the law is not the instrument that defines
morality may explain why you keep defending evil.
> But, I guess that's your business. You seem to relish playing the fool in
> this newsgroup. You have very little support with your screwed up thought
> processes and have quite effectively lowered yourself to the status of
> newgroup clown.
You are still appealing to the collective for some moral authority,
I see. As you flail around irrationally, grasping the coattails of
others and putting words in their mouths does not give your
argument any credence - it undermines it. Whether or not any or
all of the others here "support" my argument bears in no way to
its merits and thus I couldn't care less one way or another.
>
> The only problem I have at this point is that I seem to get some type of
> perverse pleasure from poking you with a sharp stick. I'll get tired of you
> eventually since your rhetoric repeats itself ad nauseam.
Of course you enjoy this kind of perverse self-mutilation. When you
defend the indefensible, the immoral, and the evil, you get that what
you deserve, the cognitive dissonance that follows. Your only remaining
tactic is to swing in circles blaming me because you feel so bad about
yourself.
>
> What else have you got? You're going to have to try a little harder to keep
> me entertained if I'm going poke you some more.
>
>
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
B A R R Y wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>> Awwwwwwwwwwww ... will I catch anything communicable?
>>
>
> Not from me, and not because I wouldn't participate. <G>
I only ask because I cannot count on Nationalized Healthcare
to save me from myself (and you people)...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 23, 1:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Sep 23, 12:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:24:22 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>>>> That's the problem with
>>>>>> socialized systems, eventually people who aren't paying for the benefits
>>>>>> start taking more and more advantage of those benefits, forcing those who
>>>>>> are paying taxes to provide those benefits to have to pay more.
>>>>> If insurance companies can avoid that scenario, I see no reason why a
>>>>> government agency can't do the same. I frequently read of someone
>>>>> arrested for defrauding SS or Medicare or the IRS. Of course they don't
>>>>> catch them all, but neither do the insurance companies. But both should
>>>>> be able to hold fraud to an acceptable level.
>>>> Methinks you're missing his point. The issue is not primarily people
>>>> defrauding government programs (though that is surely *a* problem, no
>>>> different than in the private sector). The issue has to do with the
>>>> inherent nature of tax-funded programs - they apply to everyone who
>>>> "qualifies" whether they pay taxes or not.
>>>> Private companies can avoid this by not granting benefits to people
>>>> who don't pay for one of their insurance policies. But government-run
>>>> programs provide coverage based on "class" (age, socio-economic
>>>> standing, gender, and, sometimes, even race). There are inevitably many
>>>> class members who pay nothing but get program benefits. They do this
>>>> entirely *legally*. In so doing, the non-contributors burden the
>>>> system to the detriment of the contributors. So, the contributor
>>>> is forced - at the point of the government's gun - to participate
>>>> in a program (possibly against their will) AND pay for other people
>>>> who contribute nothing. Somehow in the Do-Gooders Lexicon, this
>>>> qualifies as a noble act. I find that alone astonishing and
>>>> a searing indictment of how deeply morally corrupt the ideas of
>>>> the intellectual/political left have become...
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>>>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>>>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>>> If somebody stands on the ledge and gives all indications of jumping
>>> off... do we try to talk them out of it?
>> Yes we do (if we're decent people). What we don't do is pick
>> up a gun and force our other neighbor who scared of heights
>> to go out on the ledge on our behalf and then take credit for
>> our "charity". Get the difference?
>
> Of course I get the difference because it is not the same argument.
> Straw man with a hint of red herring. Now I'm supposed to go chasing
> you curve ball? Naaa.. I'm a bit more aware of that tactic of yours.
I see. So when your position is shown to be a fraud, you shrug
and refuse to defend it.
>>
>>> How do you consolidate cops cruising down your street even though you
>>> don't want protection? Or do you?
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "consolidate cops" but ... one of the
>> very few things that government is *supposed* to do is interdict
>> in matters of fraud, force, and threat.
>
> How kind of you to allow that much. So if a plague were to sweep the
> country, too bad, so sad, we all die? It wouldn't be cool for medical
> professionals to organize and force people to get immunized, right? Do
> you get the difference?
There is no difference. Your analysis is bogus. Someone with a communicable
disease who does not get vaccinated or treated is committing an act
of *force* upon their fellow citizens by exposing them to the disease
knowingly - presumably against their will.
>
>> That is necessary to maintain
>> a democratic republic designed to protect individual liberty.
>> Cops, courts, the military and so forth are a necessary part of
>> protecting the liberty of the citizens.
>
> But not, under any circumstances would a universal medical solution be
> allowed, right?
Sure - if it's voluntary.
> The CDC, a tax funded set up, is fraudulent?
To the extent that the CDC needs to exist to prevent examples
like the one you cite - people knowingly infecting one another -
it is legitimate. As a general matter though, there is no
Constitutional authority for the Federal government to do this
sort of thing.
>
>
>> Handing out other people's
>> money taken at the point of a gun to do social engineering is not
>> part of defending liberty. Get the difference?
>>
> You know I get the difference. You seem to have trouble deciding at
> what point life and liberty are separated.
They are the same thing. You take my money, you took my life because
I spent some hours producing that money that I cannot get back.
> But enough of your decoy arguments, that's okay in chess, but I'm not
> very good at chess.
Evidently. Wanna play for money?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Mike, you say that as if it is a bad thing. I've always wanted to own my
> own insurance company and now I do. I'm going to get interest on my money,
> of course so that makes it a great investment. The interest will assure
> that I have a comfortable retirement when the checks start rolling in.
> We're now eligible for the "Friends and Family Discount" on al AIG
> policies too.
>
> With the added interest income, maybe I'll buy General Motors. As an
> owner, we all get company cars. Are you in?
>
Yeahbut you don't understand the real problem here Edwin. Leave it to the
government to do a deal... So here we are, now part owners in our own
insurance/finance company. Could be good - we should be expecting those
nice big bonuses pretty soon, don't you think? I mean - just give it a
short time to get things right, and then we should be able to expect those.
But - like I said leave it to the government to screw up a deal. Just about
the time the company is healthy enough to start paying us those sweet
bonuses, we have to give the damned thing back.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 24, 1:22 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>
>>> But I admit, you talk shit rather well.
>> Good conversations are built on good manners. Using vulgar language
>> undermines the former because it demonstrates a lack of the latter.
>
> But I admit, you talk poop rather well. There is that better?
Only slightly.
>
> To chose a word to make a point, a word you may not like, does not
> automatically negate the rest of the statement. You'll need another
I never said it did. I said it was poor form, bad manners, etc.
and that it is.
> skirt to hide under. Next thing you know, you'll disagree with someone
> and the strength of you position is based on the fact that he uses a
> different typewriter than you do.
I don't disagree with you because you used rude language. I disagree
with you because you have false ideas.
>
> r
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Han wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Rod Jacobson wrote:
>>> Elrond Hubbard wrote:
>>>> I love it.
>>>>
>>>> Over the course of 12 hours, John McCain does a 180 degree
>>>> four-wheel locked-brake slide from saying "The economy is
>>>> fundamentally sound" to "This is the worst fiscal crisis since the
>>>> Great Depression," and you characterize it as 'altering course.'
>>>>
>>>> With spin like that, you could get a job as a human gyroscope.
>>>>
>>>> If the opposition candidate had done the same, you would excoriate
>>>> his action as a flip-flop of Titanic proportions. With full
>>>> justification.
>>>>
>>>> Priceless.
>>>> Scott
>>> I can understand how clue less TV talking heads can't grasp simple
>>> concepts but isn't the general public at least supposed to think on
>>> occasion? The country has a 6.1 % unemployment rate (historically
>>> never considered high or particularly significant). The mortgage
>>> industry has a approx. 6.2% default rate that is 3X higher than
>>> probably desired but well under the 40% rate of the 30's. The country
>>> has a well trained and educated work force. A infrastructure of
>>> roads, rail and air that allow relatively cheap and abundant
>>> transport. A farm and food production capacity dwarfing any
>>> historical norm. A college and university system that attracts the
>>> best and brightest from around the world. We have millions clamoring
>>> both legally and otherwise to get into the country. Please explain
>>> for us less mentally endowed how a temporary Wall street big paper
>>> shuffling debt problem trumps all of the real physical properties
>>> that actually make this a great and the most productive country in
>>> the world. In fact if the country in both the business and private
>>> sector could learn that credit should be used with serious discretion
>>> and that indeed you should pay cash whenever possible, long term
>>> we'll be much better off.......The easy credit and borrow mentality
>>> is really a fairly recent development (20-30yrs).....Rod
>>>
>>>
>> Uh ... you are going to confuse the Bush-haters and assorted other
>> effluvium from the left with all those facts and numbers. See,
>> you don't learn math when doing ritual tribal dances to get your
>> political viewpoint clarified. The stock market is not the
>> economy, this too shall pass, and - as you point out - we
>> are not remotely in Depression era trouble. However, Comrade
>> Obama and his fellow Marxists *are* in political trouble. They
>> need to manufacture and emergency to have a hope of being elected.
>>
> The manufactured emergency is produced by greed and an ability of Madison
> Avenue to entice people who are not credit-worthy to go into debt over
> (far over) their heads. Plus incompetents who sell Ponzi schemes of
Ohhh, those poor people. They clearly cannot be responsible for
themselves and need a huge government to be their daddy ... viva la
revolucion comrade. Madison Ave. (and no one else, for that matter)
has never managed to entice me into debt far over my head. Ditto
most of my friends. However did we manage to do this without the
help of Big Brother, I wonder?
> insurance on that exorbitant debt. It is a defect of laissez-faire and
> utter lack of regulation, as well expressed by the short sellers who now
What you have witnessed is NOT laisses-faire. A true free market would
not be bailing out either the borrowers or the lenders. You and your
ilk want to bail out the borrowers but screw the lenders. This is a
particularly nasty bit of dishonesty. (Similarly, the bias of the
right is to protect the lenders first - also a horrid travesty.
Moreover, in many states, some kinds of insurance are mandatory (auto,
leaps to mind). When you have government-forced insurance, you no
longer have laissez-faire. In general, people love to criticize the
defects of *interfering* with laissez-faire, while blaming it at the
same time.
> want to have their cloak of deception back now short selling has to be
> publicized unless totally forbidden. Finally the despicpublicans realize
> that unfettered financial deception has led us to the brink of financial
> disaster as a country, not just a few individuals and corporations,
> because of the domino effect and the ability of short sellers to trash
> big and small companies. My Lehman stock is still on the books, but
Or ... maybe the companies in question really were overvalued and needed
the market to correct them. People with your views always make me
chuckle. You act as if the short sellers have no market forces controlling
stupidity on their part. There is a slight case to be made against
naked short selling because it trades "value" without an underlying
equity. But shorting as a general trading mechanism is no better- or
worse than buying long positions.
> practically worthless of course. The Us is founded on free exchange of
> information and free trade where people can take risks without having the
> wool pulled over their eyes. Indeed I have never voted Republican, but
> that doesn't mean that fisccal responsibility is really (REALLY) my first
> concern. Fairness is the only thing that trumps that.
Then let me be the first to point out to you that life is not "fair"
and in some particular way, neither are markets. A Noble was won
years ago (Hayek) for demonstrating that all opportunities to profit
in markets come from an *imbalance* in information. (At least, that's
how it was explained to me.) Should markets be *honest*? Yup.
Should they be transparent? Yup. But markets are never going to be
"fair".
>
> As always, my opinions are just that, opinions, and I respect yours even
> if I disagree. I admit even to sometimes being wrong, but not this time,
> <grin>!
At this point, it matters very little who is right or wrong. The
Big Government monsters are using this set of events to further
Federalize our nation. We have taken another gigantic step into the
hell of a collectivist nation - in large part to our own foolish greed
as individual citizens who want what we want without caring much whether
we are legitimately entitled to it.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> OK. Fair enough. I happen to have direct experience with
> the healthcare system in Canada
> They are not enthused by the system. By *their* testimony
> (not my opinion - theirs), the system is bloated, inefficient,
And as a Canadian so do I. My experience is and was directly on a
professionally basis for many years and also for many years as a person in
dire need of medical care. If I lived in the US, the only way I'd get
sufficient medical care to actually survive would be for my living status to
be reduced that of a person of abject poverty living totally on the welfare
system. I don't call that living. Criticise the Canadian system as much as
you and your relatives want Tim, but don't for one second try state that the
US system is better until you've actually experienced multiple, long term,
medical difficulties.
> Note that when people need the best possible care, they don't fly
> to Canada, Norway, Sweden, UK, or Germany. They come to the US
> most of the time. There is a reason for this. The reason is
> that the profit motive brings the best and brightest to the playing
> field.
And, that profit motive limits that best possible care solely to those who
have the money to pay for it. It certainly is not available to those of
middle or lower income. Is that the kind of medical system you'd like to see
in Canada? God help you in that kind of system if you become seriously ill.
> I am happy to voluntarily contribute to causes the help the
> genuinely underprivileged ... and I do, as do millions of
> Americans.
And I say to you again, to benefit from that kind of system, you have to
become genuinely underprivileged to benefit from it. Imagine, working all
your life to achieve a certain level of comfort and then suddenly becoming
sick or getting into a serious accident. In the US system, all you've worked
for all your life is suddenly snatched away from you to pay for your
survival and then what's next when you eventually wind up broke?
> I am unwilling to see *my* care diminished to help
> those whose problems are repetitive and largely self induced.
Those self induced problems as you state it are a matter of opinion. There
isn't a person on this world who doesn't partake in some type of dangerous
or unhealth acts, you included. Exactly who is to state what is dangerous
and what isn't? Almost everything anyone does on a daily basis can be termed
unhealthy at some point or another.
> every year? I think I'd prefer the Benz driving doc because
> it signifies some level of financial achievement, and probably
> some level of skill. But that's just me ...
I'd prefer the Benz doctor too if I could get him to treat me, but that
wouldn't be likely would it? I can tell from the way that you're talking
that you've never really experience anything close to a long term, seriously
affecting illness. Oh sure, maybe you've talked to people or read a bit, but
until you've actually experienced what it's like to be on both sides of the
fence, don't for one second think that you actually know what you're talking
about.
I for one, am glad that I'm part of and benefiting from the Canadian medical
system. Sure, like any other system it isn't perfect and there's always room
for improvement. Am I being selfish? Damned right I am. I want to survive as
much as the next person and I'd like being able to do so with a certain
level of self respect. That wouldn't happen in the US system.
In the past, I've been offered well paying jobs in the US and I've always
turned them down because of what it would cost to pay for my medical needs.
The reality is that I'd be working to survive in the US while up here in
Canada at least I can work to live with some hope. There's a big difference
between the two.
"Woodie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:I8tAk.347947$yE1.10008@attbi_s21...
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>
>> Some how, I think he has a better handle on things than any of the
>> politicians.
>
> Successful business people usually do.
>
>> Wonder what position Chameleon John will take tomorrow?
>
> He's a politican. No telling.
>
And... as most successful business people would do, they alter their course
and their actions based on what lies before them. Only a fool would want a
business leader or a politician to embrace a course and hold to it
regardless of what faces them now. Things change - smart people change to
deal with those changes. Fools sit and decry these things simply for the
sake of complaining. Bigger fools simply do not realize the need for
constant changes in direction in response to conditions surrounding you.
Then there are those who simply like to bitch...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
> I don't know how. But just to make it clear to you: I do not reject
> evolution as a mechanism out of hand. I reject the blind worship of
> science as being the only way we can know truth.
Blind? You don't really understand the scientific method, do you?
D'ohBoy wrote:
.. snip
>
> This IS the TIME!
>
> THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION PLANTED BY THE
> REPUBLICANS OVER YEARS OF GUTTING CONTROLS ON THE FINANCIAL
> INSTITUTIONS ARE BEARING THEIR BITTER FRUIT. EAT UP YOU SCUMSUCKING
> BASTARDS!
>
What the heck are you talking about? Gutting controls? Have you heard of
Sarbanes-Oxley? There is so much regulation now that it takes an army of
lawyers for a company to comply with all the regulations out there. The
current problem now was facilitated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- two
government run organizations that were making bad loans to people who
couldn't pay them back -- at the behest of the Congress.
> Man, this is gonna be so much fun when the Congress, Senate and White
> House are all dominated by the Democrats. Gonna be a lotta stinky
> Repugnant carcass swinging from the gallows.....
>
> D'ohBoy
So much fun. Hang on to your wallets boys, "Change!", it's all you're
going to have left after the dems get done raising taxes should that very
frightening scenario come to pass.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Tim;
A couple of years ago the premier of Alberta was bragging that the local
health care service was down to only 400 people who needed bypass
surgery. This was down from several thousand a few years before. They
were making progress unless you were one of the 400.
My wife was diagnosed as requiring bypass surgery. The only reason she
didn't go directly to the OR was because they were working on someone
else. She was the first person the next morning.
Yes we did have insurance and she also worked for the hospital but that
only affected the cost, which was on the order of one dollar. Don't know
what that was for.
Canadian health care is not a panaciea, it has some serious problems
that have to be worked out.
Dave Nagel
BTW; What does this have to do with woodworking?
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:56:14 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, and BTW,
>>> "we're only one of two nations not offering nationalized healtcare"
>>> is the worst of all possible reasoning. You want healthcare to be
>>> the same here as it is in Burundi or Senegal?
>> Last I heard Tim, those were not industrialised nations :-).
>>
>
> OK. Fair enough. I happen to have direct experience with
> the healthcare system in Canada - a place where I have
> multiple family members who work in that system as nurses.
> They are not enthused by the system. By *their* testimony
> (not my opinion - theirs), the system is bloated, inefficient,
> sometimes ineffective, and nowhere near as cutting edge as
> that horrible profit-motivated system here in the US.
> So, I don't even want US healthcare to become the "equivalent"
> of the Canadian system.
>
> Look, there is a simple calculus here: There is far more demand
> for healthcare than supply in the industrial West for the simple
> reason the people live a long time. No law, or other forceful
> action changes this fact. You can pass laws 'till you are blue
> in the face. All it will do is *lower* the level of care that
> people currently receive to benefit the people who currently
> receive little or no care. I do not want medicine reduced to
> a lowest common denominator. I would much rather provide care
> for those in real need by means of private charity - a vehicle
> in which US citizens excel - than to reduce everything by law to
> its lowest possible form.
>
> Note that when people need the best possible care, they don't fly
> to Canada, Norway, Sweden, UK, or Germany. They come to the US
> most of the time. There is a reason for this. The reason is
> that the profit motive brings the best and brightest to the playing
> field.
>
> I am happy to voluntarily contribute to causes the help the
> genuinely underprivileged ... and I do, as do millions of
> Americans. I am unwilling to see *my* care diminished to help
> those whose problems are repetitive and largely self induced.
> I speak as someone who had to massively change personal behavior
> to improve *my* health - which I did. I also, BTW, speak as
> someone who has not had healthcare insurance for extended periods
> of my lifetime but still managed, somehow, to get medical care
> when and as needed without going broke.
>
> P.S. Given the option, would you rather see the doctor who drives
> a 1969 Ford Fairlane, or the doctor who drives a new Benz
> every year? I think I'd prefer the Benz driving doc because
> it signifies some level of financial achievement, and probably
> some level of skill. But that's just me ...
>
>
>
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>
>>> <nothing of substance>
>>>
>>> Well, you at least /sound/ like an over-schooled, under-educated
>>> navel-gazer who hopes to change what he doesn't like in the world by
>>> raving incoherently in a woodworking newsgroup.
>>
>> You ought to ponder the notion that because something is incoherent
>> to *you* does not make it generally incoherent. You are also
>> being dishonest. There's nothing I've said that's incoherent,
>> you understand it pretty well. You just don't *like* it, don't have
>> a meaningful counterpoint, and have to resort to school yard
>> dirt throwing.
>
> Au contraire - what I don't like is wasting time.
That's clearly false - you are a regular Wreck participant.
>
> Your woodworking question is...?
>
Oh... the things I could say here...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> First, the Canadian system is not by any means larger than the private
> insurance system in the US. Approximately 2/3 of US citizens have private
> health insurance, which works out to about 200 million people. Last I
> checked, Canada's population is about 33 million.
My mistake, I thought the US system was comprised of a bunch of independent
insurance companies.
>
> In 2004, there were 47 million people on Medicaid. If $900/person/year
> covered the costs, Medicaid would have cost $42 billion.
The $900 I stated is the Ontario maximum. For most people, the premiums paid
are quite a bit cheaper.
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Is there some reason Canadians can't save during their working careers
> so that they can afford medical insurance in retirement?
All Canadians automatically have health insurance. In Canada, there really
isn't anything medical to save for. Yes, one can buy some types of extended
health insurance for stuff like prescriptions, dental care, eyeglasses and
stuff like that, but that's about it. You can't buy insurance that will let
you jump the queue in an emergency room and you can't buy insurance to get
an immediate hip replacement or similar stuff like that.
The closest you could come to this stuff would be to save for medical
service in the US and I wouldn't exactly call that a type of medical
insurance.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 24, 10:47 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> As best as I can determine, I do not fear collectivists. I hold them
>> in utter contempt for their irrationality and evil practices.
>>
>
> I think what's at issue here, is that you hurl about the term
> 'collectivist' in a random and sanctimonious way. Enhanced by a
> sprinkling of smug, arrogant self-righteousness, your arguments do
> appear, to some, to hold some substance, but I see right through the
> hollowness.
Let's see if I can provide the substance you feel is missing:
A "collectivist" is ordinarily understood to be someone who favors the
interests of the group (the "collective") over those of the
individual. There are degrees of this viewpoint. Some collectivists
believe the interests of the group entirely trump those of the
individual - historically, this has been expressed by the Communists,
the German 3rd Reich, the Italian Fascists, the Red Chinese, Japan
under Tojo, most of Africa, most of the 3rd world, and so forth. In
every case cited, collectivism worked out very nicely for everyone.
Witness, for example, the fine quality of life the Africans have
enjoyed as they've protected their various tribal collectives.
Another view some at least try to hold is that the interest of the
group and the individual must be "balanced". This is the view of most
European neo-Leninists (Social Democrats) and so-called 'liberals' in
the Anglosphere. This inevitably devolves into more and more power for
the collective because no person or government can every agree what
"balance" means. By default, power then flows to the few who govern
the collective. That's how modern Marxists like Barak Obama ascend to
power. It's also how phony conservatives like John McCain get a shot
at power - they promise to protect the individual, and promptly start
making laws for "the good of the nation". This kind of collectivism
has also worked out very well. It has given the Western powers a
crushing burden of debt because of social services spending, and the
consequent corruption of government that follows the money. This has
also led abuses of individual liberty. Examples include hate-speech
laws in the US and Speech Tribunals in Canada, wherein unpopular
speech is actually prosecuted as criminal. There are many other
examples of the evils that follow collectivism - not the least of
which is the current economic mess in the West.
Then there are those of us who are anti-collectivist to our roots. We
believe that the only role of government is to keep us free. This
restricts government to interdicting in matters of force, fraud, or
threat. This limitation is necessary because government without such
limitation will naturally use its power to oppress people as the
examples above demonstrate. We who oppose collectivism also tend to
have a much higher degree of confidence in the intellect, good will,
and ethics of our fellow citizens: We believe that good people will
step up to help those in real need without having to stick a gun to
the head of those good people and make them do it. We are generally
called "libertarians" (which is different than "Libertarian", a
political party).
Collectivists operate by force and mob rule masking their intentions
and methods in the guise of doing good things. Libertarians operate by
cooperation and good will and manage to do good things without harming
those around them.
Still think this is "random and sanctimonious"? If you do, here's a
way to shut me up: Show me a single example of collectivist rule that
does not over time cause harm to individual liberty and lead to a net
reduction in freedom. Hint: You won't find one.
>
> I suppose we should all consider ourselves 'chosen' that you'll even
> speak to us.
You chose to engage every bit as much as I did. This is called
a "conversation".
>
> But I admit, you talk shit rather well.
Good conversations are built on good manners. Using vulgar language
undermines the former because it demonstrates a lack of the latter.
Grow up.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> That is not the alternative. The alternative is to allow people
> to keep what is theirs, thereby creating so much aggregate wealth
> that there is plenty of charity available for those really in need.
That's some feeble attempt at a joke right? In our North American society,
the rich are richer than ever before and the divide between rich and poor
grows exponentionally on a daily basis. Very few are contributing to those
charities you're exalting. The rich of our society are essentially a case of
absolute power corrupting absolutely. There's little interest in charitable
contributions other than the occasional lip service to silence the masses.
At one point I believed you were a little smarter than that. But, it's
obvious that you're so petrified at losing hold of the little that you have
that it's obliterated any semblence of logic you have or once had. Life must
be tough for you cowering in fear behind your barricades.
On Sep 19, 4:44=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> =A0One of the Obama's leading economic advisors is Frank
> Raines,
That is a lie, Mark.
Raines has never been an advisor to Obama. Simply not true.
Next time you join the smear gang, do your homework.
Guess you don't want to talk about McCain's advisors?
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:42:27 -0700, Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
>
>> What I don't understand is why it is the Gov. or insurance companies
>> or everybody but who are often treated as the villains when it is
>> the medical providers themselves and the drug companies that have
>> increased medical costs by at least 3X the inflation rate for the
>> past few decades. Profiteering at the expense of the ill seems like
>> the true problem.
>
> I think we agree here. But while the greed of doctors varies by
> individual, the greed of stockholders in drug companies and for-profit
> hospitals seems to peg the meter every time.
Actually the problem goes well past industry greed......standards of care
add greatly to the cost as well.....My daughter as a CNA (for several years)
while working for a temp service would often be hired to sit with
emotionally disturbed hospitalized individuals. The hospital would pay her
$15-18 per hour and the temp service markup, simply to watch (all night)
these disturbed patients(easier than hiring their own people but not
cheaper). While indeed the patient was troubled and/or a suicide risk
......a dollar sleeping pill would have done as much good. Compare $300(12hr
shift) for labor or $1.00 for effectively the same care. Naturally the
hospital didn't care all that much since they could charge $2000 or so for
the bed.
The public and medical employees as well demand new shiny buildings with
marble, expensive carpets and often spacious "new" offices. Additional quasi
and questionable medical services including chiropractors have crept into
many health plans.
There has also been a determined effort via the schools to limit doctors and
nurses entering the profession....aside from the public statements made in
1996 by some national medical association about a fear of a doctor surplus
and the need to limit entry. My daughter spent 3 years trying to get into a
registered nurse program with a 3.5 GPA and three other nursing certificates
including a CNA, phlebotomy and ER certification....she finally made it into
a program this fall 200 miles away.
Malpractice insurance as well is a serious problem and/or cost and not all
that difficult to control...bad doctors get removed and reasonable standards
for expected care are established.....8 years ago I was initially diagnosed
with stage 4 cancer, after 4 months of extraordinary pain (morphine didn't
work much) and multiple procedures they settled on Retroperitoneal fibrosis.
By that time I had lost 50lbs and was very near deaths door....much of
medicine is not a exact science nor should we expect it to be, incidentally
I didn't sue. Rod
>
> We had two non-profit hospital groups (and four hospitals) here. One
> of the groups just got bought out by the one of the biggest for-profit
> hospital chains in the country. They swear, attest, and affirm that
> neither the costs or the standard of care will be affected by the
> sale. Wanna' bet? I'll report back in a few years.
krw wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> Han wrote:
>>> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in news:zksBk.16947
>>> [email protected]:
>>>
>>>> It ain't just corporate America - our lawmakers have devised a scheme
>>>> whereby they have run up over $4 trillion of debt called "trust funds"
>>>> that they claim are assets. Same accounting deceitful practices used by
>>>> Enron. Been going on since FDR.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't think it was ever a trust fund in the sense of being set aside for
>>> the future. That's just ostrich mentality. All it ever was was a way to
>>> fund retirements from current workers' income taxes.
>>>
>>> And now FICA taxes hould be leveled on ALL income, earned and unearned, so
>>> the fat cats pay a little more of the War costs. Although it would mean I
>>> would pay more taxes too.
>
> The "fat cats" are already paying the "war costs".
>> I'd be all for that so long as:
>>
>> 1) The money *had* to be used to fund SS/Medicare/Medicaid and any
>> surplus had to be banked and untouchable for other purposes.
>
> How exactly does the government "bank" anything?
What I meant was that any surplus derived hereby would have to be use
to accelerate the retirement of the SS system and /or pay for benefits.
It could not be redirected to general budget items. And, yes, the
government could "bank" money - they could open a savings account ;)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> OK. Fair enough. I happen to have direct experience with
>> the healthcare system in Canada
>> They are not enthused by the system. By *their* testimony
>> (not my opinion - theirs), the system is bloated, inefficient,
>
> And as a Canadian so do I. My experience is and was directly on a
> professionally basis for many years and also for many years as a person in
> dire need of medical care. If I lived in the US, the only way I'd get
> sufficient medical care to actually survive would be for my living status to
> be reduced that of a person of abject poverty living totally on the welfare
> system. I don't call that living. Criticise the Canadian system as much as
> you and your relatives want Tim, but don't for one second try state that the
> US system is better until you've actually experienced multiple, long term,
> medical difficulties.
>
>> Note that when people need the best possible care, they don't fly
>> to Canada, Norway, Sweden, UK, or Germany. They come to the US
>> most of the time. There is a reason for this. The reason is
>> that the profit motive brings the best and brightest to the playing
>> field.
>
> And, that profit motive limits that best possible care solely to those who
> have the money to pay for it. It certainly is not available to those of
> middle or lower income. Is that the kind of medical system you'd like to see
> in Canada? God help you in that kind of system if you become seriously ill.
>
>> I am happy to voluntarily contribute to causes the help the
>> genuinely underprivileged ... and I do, as do millions of
>> Americans.
>
> And I say to you again, to benefit from that kind of system, you have to
> become genuinely underprivileged to benefit from it. Imagine, working all
> your life to achieve a certain level of comfort and then suddenly becoming
> sick or getting into a serious accident. In the US system, all you've worked
> for all your life is suddenly snatched away from you to pay for your
> survival and then what's next when you eventually wind up broke?
>
>> I am unwilling to see *my* care diminished to help
>> those whose problems are repetitive and largely self induced.
>
> Those self induced problems as you state it are a matter of opinion. There
> isn't a person on this world who doesn't partake in some type of dangerous
> or unhealth acts, you included. Exactly who is to state what is dangerous
> and what isn't? Almost everything anyone does on a daily basis can be termed
> unhealthy at some point or another.
>
>> every year? I think I'd prefer the Benz driving doc because
>> it signifies some level of financial achievement, and probably
>> some level of skill. But that's just me ...
>
> I'd prefer the Benz doctor too if I could get him to treat me, but that
> wouldn't be likely would it? I can tell from the way that you're talking
> that you've never really experience anything close to a long term, seriously
> affecting illness. Oh sure, maybe you've talked to people or read a bit, but
> until you've actually experienced what it's like to be on both sides of the
> fence, don't for one second think that you actually know what you're talking
> about.
>
> I for one, am glad that I'm part of and benefiting from the Canadian medical
> system. Sure, like any other system it isn't perfect and there's always room
> for improvement. Am I being selfish? Damned right I am. I want to survive as
> much as the next person and I'd like being able to do so with a certain
> level of self respect. That wouldn't happen in the US system.
>
> In the past, I've been offered well paying jobs in the US and I've always
> turned them down because of what it would cost to pay for my medical needs.
> The reality is that I'd be working to survive in the US while up here in
> Canada at least I can work to live with some hope. There's a big difference
> between the two.
>
>
I am one who has been in need of medical treatment as well as my wife.
I have medical insurance that I pay for from the long term investments I
made during my working career in the US. Granted that my employers
provided low cost health insurance when I was employed, however I
decided early on that I should try to be self sufficient at the earliest
possible opportunity - which meant putting aside 10% of gross all during
my working career. By the way, this is less than the SS and medicare
deductions made by me and my employers during a longer period and
provides me with about 5 times the income that SS provides. I did all
this on a middle class income while several of my fellow employees
making much more than I lived paycheck to paycheck because they wanted
everything now.
I have been treated and survived colon cancer and my wife has survived
two strokes and carotid artery surgery as well as multiple stents. We
had zero waiting periods for treatment.
Is there some reason Canadians can't save during their working careers
so that they can afford medical insurance in retirement?
Upscale wrote:
>
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> That is not the alternative. The alternative is to allow people
>> to keep what is theirs, thereby creating so much aggregate wealth
>> that there is plenty of charity available for those really in need.
>
> That's some feeble attempt at a joke right? In our North American society,
> the rich are richer than ever before and the divide between rich and poor
> grows exponentionally on a daily basis.
That's a statement laced with hyperbole. Growing exponentially on a daily
basis? Since the left seems to believe that history started in 2000 when
the evil Bush took office, let's take a look at the 2006 IRS statistics
(latest year available) for the top 1% of taxpayers: Their share of total
income over the past 8 years (and we'll go back a couple of years to the
glorious Clinton years):
Top 1%
Year %Adjusted Gross Income Share
1998 18.47
1999 19.51
2000 20.81
2001 17.53
2002 16.12
2003 16.77
2004 19.00
2005 21.20
2006 22.06
Now, for the top 50%
Year %Adjusted Gross Income Share
1998 86.33
1999 86.75
2000 87.01
2001 86.19
2002 85.77
2003 86.01
2004 86.58
2005 87.17
2006 87.49
Hardly an exponential growth on a daily basis. Note that during the bulk
of the eeevil Bush years, top 1% AGI share actually dropped and then has
risen the past couple of years. Top 50% has remained roughly the same.
> Very few are contributing to those
> charities you're exalting.
Do you have a cite for this?
> The rich of our society are essentially a case
> of absolute power corrupting absolutely. There's little interest in
> charitable contributions other than the occasional lip service to silence
> the masses.
Well, that's certainly true of the Dem side of the aisle, they seem to
believe that charity begins in other peoples' wallets. Let's see, Biden
gave what, $3000 on $3M in income, but he wants the rest of us to do our
patriotic duty and pay more taxes so he can appear generous by giving away
the money he takes from the rest of us. Obama didn't give much to charity
until he was called on it. Al Gore was equally parsimonious in his gifts
to charity. Yeah, you're right -- those are the people seeking more and
more power; they are more than willing to give away others' money, just
keep our hands off of their stack.
>
> At one point I believed you were a little smarter than that. But, it's
> obvious that you're so petrified at losing hold of the little that you
> have that it's obliterated any semblence of logic you have or once had.
> Life must be tough for you cowering in fear behind your barricades.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> Good heavens! How much more regulation can we stand!? After Enron,
> Sarbanes-Oxley should have prevented anything like happened to Lehman what
> with all of its reporting requirements, transparency, and data collection
> down to the smallest project. How much more intrusive do things have to
> get?
From a non-paritisan standpoint:
In 1999, Glass-Steagal was repealed. This law from the 1930's
distinctly separated commercial and investment banking. Phil Grahmm (R)
sponsored it, Clinton signed it. Grahmm soon became a banking lobbyist.
In 2007, The "uptick rule" was eliminated in the US stock markets. This
allows hedge funds to grossy short stocks, in some cases greatly hurting
the market cap of a company.
These should be re-regulated.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>> "Mark & Juanita" wrote:
>>
>>> I want to see Lew rant equally about those who initiated this
>>> mess --
>> Nice try to divert the discussion, but that crap doesn't stick on the
>> wall.
>>
>> Back to the subject.
>>
>> What's next?
>>
>> Lew
>
> Yep, that's pretty much what I expected. ... and people accuse *me* of
> being partisan.
>
> It doesn't take much rummaging around to find significant amounts of
> issues with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; problem is, they all lead to Lew's
> favorite party. One of the Obama's leading economic advisors is Frank
> Raines, the guy who got off with over $50M while Fannie Mae was writing
> mortgages for which we taxpayers are going to wind up paying.
>
>
Close but no cigar. This from
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/19/1427108.aspx
From NBC's Mark Murray and NBC/NJ's Adam Aigner-Treworgy
On the campaign trail in Minnesota today, McCain incorrectly suggested
that the executive pay that former Fannie Mae CEOs Frank Raines and Jim
Johnson earned came from taxpayers.
"That same executive got $21 million of your money," McCain said of
Johnson. "And the other CEO, another supporter of Senator Obama, Mr.
Raines got $25 million of your money. Let's tell them to give it back.
Let's tell them to give it back."
Lucian Bebchuk of Harvard Law School, an expert on corporate governance,
confirmed to First Read that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were private
companies until being recently taken over by the federal government
(which came after Raines' and Johnson's tenures).
Bebchuk said that maybe McCain was referring to past Fannie shareholders
in the audience when he asserted that the executive compensation was
"your money." Or perhaps McCain was making the point -- very loosely --
that now the federal government has taken over Fannie, any money that
Raines or Johnson received is money taxpayers no longer have. But both
assertions, he said, would be stretches.
Rich Ferlauto, the director of corporate governance and pension
investment at the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees -- a union which has endorsed Obama in the presidential
contest -- was more blunt about Raines' and Johnson's compensation
"It was not taxpayer money," he said. "It was shareholder money."
hang in there,
jo4hn
Han wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:6p1iq5-2572.ln1
> @ozzie.tundraware.com:
>
>> At this point, it matters very little who is right or wrong. The
>> Big Government monsters are using this set of events to further
>> Federalize our nation. We have taken another gigantic step into the
>> hell of a collectivist nation - in large part to our own foolish greed
>> as individual citizens who want what we want without caring much whether
>> we are legitimately entitled to it.
>>
>
> I think we are much more alike than you suspect. I am for individual
> responsibility, and I do think those who went in over their head should
> not
> come off scott-free (sp?). But I still think the basic mistake for want
> of
> a better word is not enough regulation and oversight. In a free market
> there should be responsibility (enforced or natural) to prevent excesses
> such as the savings and loan debacle, the dotcom bubble and now the
> housing
> and debt bubble. To let the free market correct itself with boom and bust
> is not good governance.
>
Good heavens! How much more regulation can we stand!? After Enron,
Sarbanes-Oxley should have prevented anything like happened to Lehman what
with all of its reporting requirements, transparency, and data collection
down to the smallest project. How much more intrusive do things have to
get? As Hank Greeneburg stated, "there is no amount of regulation that can
save you from bad management."
The problem here has been the fact that with the government backing these
loans and pushing by regulation or threat the requirement for "affordable
housing" (code for loans to people with little or no ability to repay), the
onus of responsibility was removed from both lenders and borrowers, leaving
the mess at the feet of taxpayers.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> First it was "Slick Willy", now it appears to be "Slippery John, The
> Chameleon.
>
> McCain has repeatably emphasized that he is for less gov't, less
> regulation.
>
> Even voted for some of the legislation that created the loop holes the
> wall St sleaze balls used to their advantage.
So did, apparently, the majority of house and senate members.
>
> Now, with the fiasco on Wall St coming down around the countries ears,
> he wants to legislation so that it won't happen again.
So do, apparently, the majority of house and senate members.
>
> Well "Slippery", which is it?
>
> Total free market or a market with some gov't controls?
You can't possibly come up with a cite for him railing for "total free
market", can you? Didn't think so. Stop making stuff up.
> You don't get both, pick one.
see above.
> Tell us a vision has come to you while you slept and it has given you
> new insight.
...
> If so, tell us something.
...
> McCain was against the "bailout" of AIG, now he admits it was a
> necessity.
>
> BTW, Hank Greenberg, founder and former majority stockholder of AIG,
> whose personal loss exceeds over $3.5 billion as a result of the AIG
> problem, calls the $85B transaction a "bridge loan" rather than a
> bailout, a short term loan to be repaid with interest.
>
> He indicates AIG can be saved and rebuilt.
>
> He built it the first time, maybe he knows something.
>
> Sure hope so.
>
> Some how, I think he has a better handle on things than any of the
> politicians.
Successful business people usually do.
> Wonder what position Chameleon John will take tomorrow?
He's a politican. No telling.
> Stay tuned.....................
>
> Lew
Woodie wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> First it was "Slick Willy", now it appears to be "Slippery John, The
>> Chameleon.
>>
>> McCain has repeatably emphasized that he is for less gov't, less
>> regulation.
>>
>> Even voted for some of the legislation that created the loop holes the
>> wall St sleaze balls used to their advantage.
>
> So did, apparently, the majority of house and senate members.
>
>>
>> Now, with the fiasco on Wall St coming down around the countries ears,
>> he wants to legislation so that it won't happen again.
>
> So do, apparently, the majority of house and senate members.
>
>>
I want to see Lew rant equally about those who initiated this mess --
those who have used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for both their personal
aggrandizement (Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, etc.) and for the
political benefit of their benefactors in the Congress (Barnie Frank, Chris
Dodd, Charlie Rangle, Chuck Schumer) by using those institutions for the
massive re-distribution we are about to see in the name of "affordable
housing". Those entities required that lenders give loans to people they
knew would not be able to repay -- the real people who were going to pay
were the taxpayers of the US because those loans were federally backed.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Han wrote:
> > Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in news:zksBk.16947
> > [email protected]:
> >
> >> It ain't just corporate America - our lawmakers have devised a scheme
> >> whereby they have run up over $4 trillion of debt called "trust funds"
> >> that they claim are assets. Same accounting deceitful practices used by
> >> Enron. Been going on since FDR.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I don't think it was ever a trust fund in the sense of being set aside for
> > the future. That's just ostrich mentality. All it ever was was a way to
> > fund retirements from current workers' income taxes.
> >
> > And now FICA taxes hould be leveled on ALL income, earned and unearned, so
> > the fat cats pay a little more of the War costs. Although it would mean I
> > would pay more taxes too.
The "fat cats" are already paying the "war costs".
>
> I'd be all for that so long as:
>
> 1) The money *had* to be used to fund SS/Medicare/Medicaid and any
> surplus had to be banked and untouchable for other purposes.
How exactly does the government "bank" anything?
> 2) A simultaneous program of phasing out all SS/Medicare over, say,
> 50 years was implemented to get government OUT of the business
> of retirement - where it has neither any business nor Constitutional
> authority to operate.
I'd go for this, but your congress critter wouldn't like the pay
cut.
> 3) Take the caps off 401Ks and make it clear to people it is their
> responsibility to worry about their own retirement. Better yet,
> go to a flat tax like the Fair Tax system and eliminate income taxes
> altogether.
I'm unconvinced by the "fair tax" but your suggestion, taken as a
whole, is a lot better than what we have now.
--
Keith
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:25:11 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> > 2) A simultaneous program of phasing out all SS/Medicare over, say,
> > 50 years was implemented to get government OUT of the business
> > of retirement - where it has neither any business nor Constitutional
> > authority to operate.
>
> AFAIK, there are only two industrialized nations that do not provide
> health care and pensions to all. Those are the United States and South
> Africa.
>
> Tim, I think you've got a bad case of "every one is out of step but me."
Just because all the kids...
> Yes, I know - you're going to tell me the Constitution doesn't allow it.
> I happen to think you're wrong, but if you're right I think the
> Constitution needs to be changed.
It doesn't. So change it. The instructions are included.
> A document written for an agrarian society where life expectancy was 40 or
> less and the medical establishment didn't even know about bacteria needs
> to be interpreted to fit today's society.
Irrelevant. It was written by some pretty smart dudes, of which
there are too few today.
--
Keith
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Han wrote:
> > Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:[email protected]:
> >
> >> Han wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>> And now FICA taxes hould be leveled on ALL income, earned and
> >>> unearned, so the fat cats pay a little more of the War costs.
> >>> Although it would mean I would pay more taxes too.
> >> That will result in running up debt at a faster rate as every excess
> >> SS dollar that goes into the "trust fund" is a dollar of debt with
> >> interest. When the funds need to redeem those debt bonds, future
> >> taxpayers will have to bail out the funds.
> >>
> > Again, no matter what you think the rhetoric implied, retirements ar paid
> > from current taxes,
>
> If the excess contributions were invested in corporate stocks/bonds
> rather than government debt, future shortfalls would be covered by the
> profits of those corporations - such as Exxon-Mobil - rather than taxing
> future generations a second time for the same purpose.
Do you really want Congress owning (all) corporations?
> if you really want to have a real retirement, it is
> > up to you, through your union (puke), employer (double puke), 401K, IRA
> > or what have you. SS is just a drop in the bucket, not really enough to
> > live on.
>
> Agree. That is exactly what I am living on in retirement - the
> investments I made during my working career. And those investments are
> also paying my medical insurance premiums with no undue financial pain.
--
Keith
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
<snip>
> > A document written for an agrarian society where life expectancy was 40 or
> > less and the medical establishment didn't even know about bacteria needs
> > to be interpreted to fit today's society.
> >
>
> I do not like seeing my freedoms and economic future eroded because
> people who see things your way are unwilling to follow the law to
> achieve what they want. We live with a lawless government, a thieving
> public, and a permanent whining victim class as a result. Oh, and BTW,
> "we're only one of two nations not offering nationalized healtcare"
> is the worst of all possible reasoning. You want healthcare to be
> the same here as it is in Burundi or Senegal? I like our healthcare
> system - it's just fine with me as it is ... or it least it is better
> than anything those morons in D.C. could ever do. You want healthcare
> run with the same effectiveness as the people who scan our luggage
> at the airport. I don't.
s/luggage/security/
--
Keith
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> krw wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >> Han wrote:
> >>> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in news:zksBk.16947
> >>> [email protected]:
> >>>
> >>>> It ain't just corporate America - our lawmakers have devised a scheme
> >>>> whereby they have run up over $4 trillion of debt called "trust funds"
> >>>> that they claim are assets. Same accounting deceitful practices used by
> >>>> Enron. Been going on since FDR.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I don't think it was ever a trust fund in the sense of being set aside for
> >>> the future. That's just ostrich mentality. All it ever was was a way to
> >>> fund retirements from current workers' income taxes.
> >>>
> >>> And now FICA taxes hould be leveled on ALL income, earned and unearned, so
> >>> the fat cats pay a little more of the War costs. Although it would mean I
> >>> would pay more taxes too.
> >
> > The "fat cats" are already paying the "war costs".
> >> I'd be all for that so long as:
> >>
> >> 1) The money *had* to be used to fund SS/Medicare/Medicaid and any
> >> surplus had to be banked and untouchable for other purposes.
> >
> > How exactly does the government "bank" anything?
>
> What I meant was that any surplus derived hereby would have to be use
> to accelerate the retirement of the SS system and /or pay for benefits.
> It could not be redirected to general budget items. And, yes, the
> government could "bank" money - they could open a savings account ;)
A very bad idea. How much money does that "savings account" have to
have in it before it grossly warps the market worse than deficit
spending does? How much direct influence does the federal
government have to have in the private sector before...
--
Keith
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> "krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
>
> > Do you really want Congress owning (all) corporations?
>
> Wouldn't that be a 180 degree turn-around? Don't corporations own
> Congress now?
So, you'd rather have the incompetent crooks in Washington owning
all corporations? Perhaps you'd be happier in the FSU?
--
Keith
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote:
>
> >......................................................................
>
> Haven't you people figured out how to use the "block sender" feature
> to simplify the house keeping function?
Classic Lew, when confronted with an argument he cannot defend;
stick fingers in ears, hum loudly.
> Gets to be a little much to still have to ignore this guy after
> blocking him.
Yep, that's Lew.
--
Keith
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> krw <[email protected]> writes:
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >[email protected] says...
> >> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote:
> >>
> >> >......................................................................
> >>
> >> Haven't you people figured out how to use the "block sender" feature
> >> to simplify the house keeping function?
> >
> >Classic Lew, when confronted with an argument he cannot defend;
> >stick fingers in ears, hum loudly.
>
> Classic Keith. Express disdain and contempt for anyone who disagrees.
Classic Lurndal, another attempt to censor anyone who disagrees with
the might Scott.
--
Keith
krw <[email protected]> writes:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote:
>>
>> >......................................................................
>>
>> Haven't you people figured out how to use the "block sender" feature
>> to simplify the house keeping function?
>
>Classic Lew, when confronted with an argument he cannot defend;
>stick fingers in ears, hum loudly.
Classic Keith. Express disdain and contempt for anyone who disagrees.
scott
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Excellent points one and all. But - while they are all true, they only
> point out the fundamental greed of the system and they only
> pessimistically predict the future. What those points don't do though is
> explain the suddenness of Lehman, AIG, Morgan, etc. That's what took
> everybody by surprise. One would not have to agree with the prevailing
> practices to feel more secure in the economy, up until Wall Street took a
> dive. That suddenness is what I was making reference to in my statement.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
Mike, you say that as if it is a bad thing. I've always wanted to own my
own insurance company and now I do. I'm going to get interest on my money,
of course so that makes it a great investment. The interest will assure
that I have a comfortable retirement when the checks start rolling in.
We're now eligible for the "Friends and Family Discount" on al AIG policies
too.
With the added interest income, maybe I'll buy General Motors. As an owner,
we all get company cars. Are you in?
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> conveniently dropped the part about the Canadian system being bigger "a
> much
>> larger system" than private insurance in the US.
>
> Proportionally, it is bigger because it's country wide. And, it's not the
> same as your medicaid which only treats the poor as long as they don't
> have
> any assets. Canadian health insurance supplies full medical access to
> anyone
> who is a Canadian citizen. Yup, it's not a perfect system by any means,
> but
> that's discussion for another time.
"Proportionally, it is bigger because it's country wide." So, it's bigger
even though it's smaller? Can't argue with that logic.
todd
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" wrote:
>
>> I want to see Lew rant equally about those who initiated this
>> mess --
>
> Nice try to divert the discussion, but that crap doesn't stick on the
> wall.
>
> Back to the subject.
>
> What's next?
>
> Lew
Yep, that's pretty much what I expected. ... and people accuse *me* of
being partisan.
It doesn't take much rummaging around to find significant amounts of
issues with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; problem is, they all lead to Lew's
favorite party. One of the Obama's leading economic advisors is Frank
Raines, the guy who got off with over $50M while Fannie Mae was writing
mortgages for which we taxpayers are going to wind up paying.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Upscale" wrote
> I think that tide will be stemmed to a large degree. Taking on Tim's
> warped
> view of what consists of theft, it's stealing from our Canadian society to
> get their training and then going to the US for profit. At the very least,
> I
> can envision some type of mandated term of service in Canada before
> they're
> eligible to leave.
I wish, no pray (and I'm not particularly religious), that we forge a system
in this country, that, at the very least, let's us at die with dignity and
without stripping our families of the fruits of a lifetime of our collective
labors.
That said, there has never been a guarantee of that wish in human history
... we are destined to die.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
[bandwidth snip]
>
> Viva La Revolucion Comrade - I hope you get exactly what you
> (and others here) are demanding - a complete subjugation of
> your liberty at the hands of the state. Oh, you don't know
> that's what you're asking for, but it is. I just hope to
> have checked out by then ...
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.
"We the people" Tim. In reading your postings, I get the picture of a
frightened person who has circled his personal wagon and is waiting for
the "we the people" to come and burn it down.
Should the collectivist/socialist democrats win in Nov. where will you
go to live?
sigh,
jo4hn
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
> snip
>> Nobody in Canada or other countries with "socialized" medicine goes
>> bankrupt from medical bills.
>>
>> It happens in the US with disturbing frequency. I'd say at least 2
>> or 3 times a year I read appeals for help in our local paper - not for
>> indigents, but for middle class people who have exhausted their
>> resources, and in some cases the resources of family members.
>
>
> You've heard of Medicaid? Those in such unfortunate circumstances do and
> will receive needed care....as well as transportation(in most locales) to
> said needed medical appointments.
My mother went bankrupt from medical bills.
I'm not going into details here, but there are very necessary medical
treatments not covered my Medicaid.
In article <[email protected]>, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> Morris, I'd expected better of you than an ad hominem such as this -- as Tim
>> points out, it's a sure sign that you know you can't debate the issue on its
>> merits.
>
>Merits??? You're right - I can't.
>
I meant, you should be defending *your* position on its merits. If it had any,
you wouldn't need to resort to ad hominems.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>>> Wonder what position Chameleon John will take tomorrow?
>>
>> He's a politican. No telling.
>>
>
> And... as most successful business people would do, they alter their
> course and their actions based on what lies before them.
I love it.
Over the course of 12 hours, John McCain does a 180 degree four-wheel
locked-brake slide from saying "The economy is fundamentally sound" to
"This is the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression," and you
characterize it as 'altering course.'
With spin like that, you could get a job as a human gyroscope.
If the opposition candidate had done the same, you would excoriate his
action as a flip-flop of Titanic proportions. With full justification.
Priceless.
Scott
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>> Over the course of 12 hours, John McCain does a 180 degree four-wheel
>> locked-brake slide from saying "The economy is fundamentally sound"
>> to "This is the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression," and
>> you characterize it as 'altering course.'
>>
>> With spin like that, you could get a job as a human gyroscope.
>
> Why, thank you. Really - I find that to be a great phrase. Though...
> you misunderstand my point. McCain didn't simply assume the former
> position three or four days ago. He reversed a position that he held
> of some time. He reversed it in light of very recent circumstances
> that nobody predicted, or could predict.
Excuse me? In light of *recent* circumstances? Does the man not read
the news? Do you?
> If you wish to see it as
> flip flopping, that's exactly how you'll see it. It appears to me to
> be more of a response to events.
It appears to me to be a response to his handlers. To go from
"fundamentally sound" to "worst crisis since the depression" without any
steps in between... there hasn't been a conversion that quick since Paul
ambled off to Damascus.
>> If the opposition candidate had done the same, you would excoriate
>> his action as a flip-flop of Titanic proportions. With full
>> justification.
> Why do you say that? You've never seen me do that, and you don't even
> know enough about me to guess whether I'd do so, or not. Your
> projections are showing, sir.
My apologies for putting words into your mouth. I should not have
assumed that just because you came to the defense of McCain's expedient
philosophical backflip you would find the similar behavior in the other
party to be absurd.
Scott
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>> He reversed it in light of very recent circumstances that nobody
>>> predicted, or could predict.
>>
>> [1] I think the only people who could have failed to predict it are
>> those who believed that the housing "bubble" would continue
>> indefinitely.
>>
>> In Des Moines, an average person earns 30-40K. The average price of a
>> new home here passed the quarter-million mark a year or two ago, and
>> homes were sold as quickly as banks could process mortgage
>> applications.
>>
>> [2] The legislature recognized that lenders had become too greedy and
>> that credit card debt had become a serious problem for many
>> cardholders. It was interesting to note that in the course of the
>> congressional hearings, it was the lenders' predatory practices that
>> were identified as the most significant part of the problem.
>>
>> [3] Under pressure from lobbyists representing lenders who recognized
>> that borrowers were over-extending, the legislature tightened up the
>> bankruptcy laws to protect the lenders - a clear departure from the
>> principle that bankruptcy laws were to protect honest debtors.
>>
>> [4] With the bankruptcy legislation in place, lenders exercised their
>> options to raise rates on ARM's - and foreclosure rates skyrocketed.
>> Unfortunately for the lenders, they had made mortages for homes whose
>> actual values were considerably less than the amount of the loan and,
>> following foreclosure, could not recover the principal by selling the
>> property in a rapidly disintegrating market.
>>
>
> Excellent points one and all. But - while they are all true, they
> only point out the fundamental greed of the system and they only
> pessimistically predict the future. What those points don't do though
> is explain the suddenness of Lehman, AIG, Morgan, etc. That's what
> took everybody by surprise. One would not have to agree with the
> prevailing practices to feel more secure in the economy, up until Wall
> Street took a dive. That suddenness is what I was making reference to
> in my statement.
>
All true, IMNSHO, both Morris and Mike.
And I agree (unfortunately) wth McPain that it is due to excessive greed
of the bankers - which is what regulators and legislators should protect
the "common" man from. Now, caveat emptor should go both ways - the
unscrupulous bankers and the stupid borrowers should be punished, but in
a way that leaves the rest of US (pun intended) protected. If I have
been prudently spending and borrowing within my means, why should I have
to bail out the aforementioned unscrupulous bankers and the stupid
borrowers?
And to protect the future, more regulation, including more openness with
short sellers, is absolutely required.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:a460ee1e-e24e-4d3f-b0db-
[email protected]:
> There should be war-crime trials.
>
No, retroactive taxation on war profiteering is better. And that should
include taxation to pay for the future care of the war victims on all sides
(both physical and mental trauma).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:1b7f96cc-87af-4917-8987-173f8fed898b@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 20, 7:56 am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:a460ee1e-e24e-4d3f-b0db-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>> > There should be war-crime trials.
>>
>> No, retroactive taxation on war profiteering is better. And that
>> should include taxation to pay for the future care of the war victims on
>> all sides (both physical and mental trauma).
>>
> Retribution AND punishment.
>
Monetary retribution and physical punishment, preferably.
(I had to manually fix the quotation indentations, don't know why)
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
>>> He reversed a position
>>> that he held of some time. He reversed it in light of very recent
>>> circumstances that nobody predicted, or could predict.
>>
>> Excuse me? In light of *recent* circumstances? Does the man not
>> read the news? Do you?
>
> Do you correspond intelligently? Just what in the hell is that
> supposed to mean? Other than yet another failed attempt by you to
> throw a jab. You are proving yourself to be unworthy of any
> intelligent form of conversation. Content yourself with simply
> throwing out meaningless insults. You can converse with yourself.
Happiness can never be mine now, having proven my unworthiness.
I come to rec.woodworking for a bit of repartee and to poke fun at the most
egregious bits of silliness that I come across, your "altering course"
comment falling squarely into that category. If I want deadly earnest
discussions of important issues, I can find that at home or with friends -
yakking into my laptop is an ephemeral source of amusement at best.
Sorry if I hit a nerve.
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Rod Jacobson wrote:
>> Elrond Hubbard wrote:
>>> I love it.
>>>
>>> Over the course of 12 hours, John McCain does a 180 degree
>>> four-wheel locked-brake slide from saying "The economy is
>>> fundamentally sound" to "This is the worst fiscal crisis since the
>>> Great Depression," and you characterize it as 'altering course.'
>>>
>>> With spin like that, you could get a job as a human gyroscope.
>>>
>>> If the opposition candidate had done the same, you would excoriate
>>> his action as a flip-flop of Titanic proportions. With full
>>> justification.
>>>
>>> Priceless.
>>> Scott
>>
>> I can understand how clue less TV talking heads can't grasp simple
>> concepts but isn't the general public at least supposed to think on
>> occasion? The country has a 6.1 % unemployment rate (historically
>> never considered high or particularly significant). The mortgage
>> industry has a approx. 6.2% default rate that is 3X higher than
>> probably desired but well under the 40% rate of the 30's. The country
>> has a well trained and educated work force. A infrastructure of
>> roads, rail and air that allow relatively cheap and abundant
>> transport. A farm and food production capacity dwarfing any
>> historical norm. A college and university system that attracts the
>> best and brightest from around the world. We have millions clamoring
>> both legally and otherwise to get into the country. Please explain
>> for us less mentally endowed how a temporary Wall street big paper
>> shuffling debt problem trumps all of the real physical properties
>> that actually make this a great and the most productive country in
>> the world. In fact if the country in both the business and private
>> sector could learn that credit should be used with serious discretion
>> and that indeed you should pay cash whenever possible, long term
>> we'll be much better off.......The easy credit and borrow mentality
>> is really a fairly recent development (20-30yrs).....Rod
>>
>>
>
> Uh ... you are going to confuse the Bush-haters and assorted other
> effluvium from the left with all those facts and numbers. See,
> you don't learn math when doing ritual tribal dances to get your
> political viewpoint clarified. The stock market is not the
> economy, this too shall pass, and - as you point out - we
> are not remotely in Depression era trouble. However, Comrade
> Obama and his fellow Marxists *are* in political trouble. They
> need to manufacture and emergency to have a hope of being elected.
>
The manufactured emergency is produced by greed and an ability of Madison
Avenue to entice people who are not credit-worthy to go into debt over
(far over) their heads. Plus incompetents who sell Ponzi schemes of
insurance on that exorbitant debt. It is a defect of laissez-faire and
utter lack of regulation, as well expressed by the short sellers who now
want to have their cloak of deception back now short selling has to be
publicized unless totally forbidden. Finally the despicpublicans realize
that unfettered financial deception has led us to the brink of financial
disaster as a country, not just a few individuals and corporations,
because of the domino effect and the ability of short sellers to trash
big and small companies. My Lehman stock is still on the books, but
practically worthless of course. The Us is founded on free exchange of
information and free trade where people can take risks without having the
wool pulled over their eyes. Indeed I have never voted Republican, but
that doesn't mean that fisccal responsibility is really (REALLY) my first
concern. Fairness is the only thing that trumps that.
As always, my opinions are just that, opinions, and I respect yours even
if I disagree. I admit even to sometimes being wrong, but not this time,
<grin>!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>>
>> All true, IMNSHO, both Morris and Mike.
>> And I agree (unfortunately) wth McPain that it is due to excessive
>> greed of the bankers - which is what regulators and legislators
>> should protect the "common" man from. Now, caveat emptor should go
>> both ways - the unscrupulous bankers and the stupid borrowers should
>> be punished, but in a way that leaves the rest of US (pun intended)
>> protected. If I have been prudently spending and borrowing within my
>> means, why should I have to bail out the aforementioned unscrupulous
>> bankers and the stupid borrowers?
>>
>
> Have you been listening in to the conversations in my neck of the
> woods? Though it will never happen, the single most common thought in
> our conversations has been that of holding the decision makers in
> these events personally responsible. Financially responsible. And
> not just in light of this debacle - this type of house of cards
> problem persists throughout corporate America as CEO's play fast and
> loose in the name of creating the appearance of profit and health.
> They leave - they take their golden parachutes or their bonus package
> and the mess is left behind. No matter - they're off with their
> wealth. I'm every bit a capitalist, and I do not begrudge anyone
> wealth - even excess wealth, but I do have a big problem with the ill
> gotten gains of deceit.
>
EXACTLY!
But then there are the lobbyists ... I'll do you one good, but see,
there is this terrible provision ... Or, it would be so much better if
(there was a road to nowhere) ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in news:zksBk.16947
[email protected]:
> It ain't just corporate America - our lawmakers have devised a scheme
> whereby they have run up over $4 trillion of debt called "trust funds"
> that they claim are assets. Same accounting deceitful practices used by
> Enron. Been going on since FDR.
>
>
I don't think it was ever a trust fund in the sense of being set aside for
the future. That's just ostrich mentality. All it ever was was a way to
fund retirements from current workers' income taxes.
And now FICA taxes hould be leveled on ALL income, earned and unearned, so
the fat cats pay a little more of the War costs. Although it would mean I
would pay more taxes too.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:6p1iq5-2572.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:
> At this point, it matters very little who is right or wrong. The
> Big Government monsters are using this set of events to further
> Federalize our nation. We have taken another gigantic step into the
> hell of a collectivist nation - in large part to our own foolish greed
> as individual citizens who want what we want without caring much whether
> we are legitimately entitled to it.
>
I think we are much more alike than you suspect. I am for individual
responsibility, and I do think those who went in over their head should not
come off scott-free (sp?). But I still think the basic mistake for want of
a better word is not enough regulation and oversight. In a free market
there should be responsibility (enforced or natural) to prevent excesses
such as the savings and loan debacle, the dotcom bubble and now the housing
and debt bubble. To let the free market correct itself with boom and bust
is not good governance.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
<snip>
>> And now FICA taxes hould be leveled on ALL income, earned and
>> unearned, so the fat cats pay a little more of the War costs.
>> Although it would mean I would pay more taxes too.
>
> That will result in running up debt at a faster rate as every excess
> SS dollar that goes into the "trust fund" is a dollar of debt with
> interest. When the funds need to redeem those debt bonds, future
> taxpayers will have to bail out the funds.
>
Again, no matter what you think the rhetoric implied, retirements ar paid
from current taxes, if you really want to have a real retirement, it is
up to you, through your union (puke), employer (double puke), 401K, IRA
or what have you. SS is just a drop in the bucket, not really enough to
live on.
As far as Medicare/Medicaid/health insurance is concerned, I believe that
a certain fairly low level should be compulsory. Add-on insurance should
be affordable, and available at different levels of benefits and
premiums. It should also be underestood that smoking or other dangerous
habits should carry a penalty.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>> Again, no matter what you think the rhetoric implied, retirements ar
>> paid from current taxes, if you really want to have a real
>> retirement, it is up to you, through your union (puke), employer
>> (double puke), 401K, IRA or what have you. SS is just a drop in the
>> bucket, not really enough to live on.
>
> And yet, a large number of retired people do just that.
It would put a real crimp in my lifestyle. I hope my other investments
don't go the way of my Lehman stock. Not that I would choose single
investments for something like my pension.
> Consider, if you would, the situation faced by the retired spouse or
> parent(s) of a cancer patient when all available resources had been
> spent on medical treatments.
Note that I also said that affordable health insurance at a certain
minimal level should be compulsory, and it should be possible to augment
it to one's heart's content. I think that's were we get to the point
were individual responsibility needs to take over. At what point is
treatment only prolonging life, and who has to decide? Very difficult
but necessary questions.
> Consider also what happens when pension fund (of whatever kind) is
> rendered valueless through no fault of the retiree.
It is always the fault of the retiree (well, almost always). Pension
funds should be very diversified. Just Enron stock is criminal - both
for the employee and the employer.
>> As far as Medicare/Medicaid/health insurance is concerned, I believe
>> that a certain fairly low level should be compulsory. Add-on
>> insurance should be affordable, and available at different levels of
>> benefits and premiums. It should also be underestood that smoking or
>> other dangerous habits should carry a penalty.
>
> Hmm. Have you ever tried making a list of "dangerous practices"? Off
> the top of my head...
Some answers ...
> Smoking
I stopped in 1976
> Firefighting
> Motorcycling
Never done that, unless a oped when I was around 20 counts.
> Holding a microwave transmitter against the side of your skull
Does a cell phone count?
> Entering a conflict zone
> Entering a disaster zone
I work in NY City, in a Veterans Affairs Hospital (but they don't pay me)
> Teaching in an inner city school
Son-in-law teaches Math in Paterson NJ, daughter in a not too much better
area. They are enjoying it tremendously, truely! And seeing
disadvantaged kids "get it" is a real treat.
> Being a student in an inner city school
> Working in law enforcement
That's Raoul
> Residing in an [earthquake/tornado/flood/hurricane] zone
> Driving a motor vehicle
I do that seldomly, and probably should be more careful.
> Consuming alcohol
Never in excess. It makes me morose and sick. I guess I'm lucky
> What is the nature of the penalty you would choose
> (fine/imprisonment/exile/death/other)?
Sorry, increased insurance rates or reduced coverage or both, so among
your choices, it would be death <grin>.
> I think I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think
> you've thought things through quite far enough...
You know or should know that I was born in Holland many years ago, and
came to the US in 1969, where I have been in HMOs ever since.
As far as thinking it through, I don't think you can ever think it
through completely.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Mark and/or Juanita wrote:
- If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
> A taste of the future:
> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2983652/Baroness-Warnock-Dement
> ia-sufferers-may-have-a-duty-to-die.html?source=EMC-new_19092008
> Note
> one of the primary drivers here for a death penalty for the living is
> to limit the impact upon the National Health Service; and this coming
> from a country that doesn't have the death penalty for even the most
> vicious of criminals just to add to the irony.
This is the the widely vilified opinion of one senile British loony.
It takes some tough logic to get from there to:
> This is one of those countries that so many are wringing their hands
> that
> we aren't emulating by providing for everyone's health care.
I think that providing health care only to those who are willing to support
the insurance industry's shareholders is every bit as criminal as what
Baroness Warnock is proposing. But it's the American way, no?
"Larry Blanchard" wrote
> Nobody in Canada or other countries with "socialized" medicine goes
> bankrupt from medical bills.
But maybe not for long, eh? New York Times, Monday September 22, 2008:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E1D91338F93AA35756C0A9669C8B63
Besides, the 4,000 Canadian doctors and 6,000 nurses who've come here to
practice in the last ten years, plus the mandated 20% reduction in the
number of doctors graduating from medical schools, may well insure that an
increasing number, who would rather be bankrupt and alive, will come to the
US to get the "best medical care money can buy" ... and without having to
wait for it?
IOW, TINSTAAFL, eh?
I too, wish there was ... but the bright side for us, since there was no
guarantee issued granted with "life", is that it's the 21st century, not the
1st - 20th.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> but no one wants to hear them ... they're too busy demanding
>> "free" healthcare ...
>
> Well, I have to admit, you are the quintessential bulldog refusing to
> relinquish your grip for any reason. Your teeth are embedded into the word
> "free". It's NOT free, it's health insurance paid for by the citizens and
> collected by employers. Only difference to your private insurance system
> is
> that it's a much larger system and it's administered by the government.
First, the Canadian system is not by any means larger than the private
insurance system in the US. Approximately 2/3 of US citizens have private
health insurance, which works out to about 200 million people. Last I
checked, Canada's population is about 33 million.
> And if you bothered to look into it, that minimum wage for health
> insurance
> premium exemption is pretty low. (<$20,000) in Ontario, Canada. That
> leaves
> a huge lot of people over the $20,000 threshold who do pay for it. The
> maximum one would pay is $900 a year, even if they're billionaires.
In 2004, there were 47 million people on Medicaid. If $900/person/year
covered the costs, Medicaid would have cost $42 billion. The US spent $295
billion. Scale that up to 305 million people and let me know what the price
tag will be.
todd
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Thanks for bolstering my point. Where does the rest of the money come
>from,
>
>Quite obviously it's subsidized by the government using taxes paid by the
>people. So what? What exactly is your point?
>
The point is, it's "subsidized by the government using taxes paid by the
people" -- in other words, you're paying for it. That means it's not free.
>
"B A R R Y" wrote
>
> In 2007, The "uptick rule" was eliminated in the US stock markets. This
> allows hedge funds to grossy short stocks, in some cases greatly hurting
> the market cap of a company.
>
The "uptick" or short selling rules have been reinstated. This originally
were imposed as a result of Joseph's Kennedy's pulling enormous amount of
money out of the stock market during the 1929 crash. It was an anti Kennedy
rule.
The big problem was not so much the short selling, which can work quite well
as eveidenced in the futures and currency markets. It was the practice of
"naked short selling". It was the ability to make a trade without putting
up any of your own money. No matter how highly leveraged the futures and
currency markets are. you put your own ass on the line with every trade. And
you have the funds to back it up. The exchanges have strict margin
requirements.
If you have a bad trade, you pay for it. And if you can't, your broker
does. This keeps the traders honest. And this is strictly regulated. Some
margin requirements were changed for a short while about three months ago.
These were rescinded because nothing had changed and the risk was being
addressed in the way that it had worked will for quite some time. That said,
some brokerages that handle commodities and futures are tightening up on
their margin requirements.
Anyway, what had occurred recently by the big boys speculating in stocks was
that they were making some vry big short sells WITHOUT PUTTING UP ANY OF
THEIR OWN MONEY. This is what John Mc Cain has been referring to as not
having any skin in the game. The whole problem with the subprime martgages,
etc has always been is that the folks who make the loans pass them off to
others. And that is exactly what the stock short sellers had done. Without
any risk to themselves, they make others pay for their trades. Indeed, in
many ways, they fueled a market that may not have existed as strongly as it
did because of their naked short sells.
On Sep 20, 12:48=A0am, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
> > jo4hn wrote:
>
> >> Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >>> D'ohBoy wrote:
>
> >>> .. snip
> >>>> This IS the TIME!
>
> >>>> THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION PLANTED BY THE
> >>>> REPUBLICANS OVER YEARS OF GUTTING CONTROLS ON THE FINANCIAL
> >>>> INSTITUTIONS ARE BEARING THEIR BITTER FRUIT. =A0EAT UP YOU SCUMSUCKI=
NG
> >>>> BASTARDS!
>
> >>> =A0 What the heck are you talking about? =A0Gutting controls? =A0Have=
you heard
> >>> =A0 of
> >>> Sarbanes-Oxley? =A0There is so much regulation now that it takes an a=
rmy of
> >>> lawyers for a company to comply with all the regulations out there. =
=A0The
> >>> current problem now was facilitated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- =
two
> >>> government run organizations that were making bad loans to people who
> >>> couldn't pay them back -- at the behest of the Congress.
> >> Lessee now. =A0"The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 also known as the Publi=
c
> >> Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 and
> >> commonly called SOX or Sarbox; is a United States federal law enacted =
on
> >> July 30, 2002 in response to a number of major corporate and accountin=
g
> >> scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia=
,
> >> Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors
> >> billions of dollars when the share prices of the affected companies
> >> collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation's securities markets.
> >> Named after sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative
> >> Michael G. Oxley (R-OH), the Act was approved by the House by a vote o=
f
> >> 423-3 and by the Senate 99-0. President George W. Bush signed it into
> >> law, stating it included "the most far-reaching reforms of American
> >> business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt."" [Wikiped=
ia]
>
> >> Those pesky Democrats snuck that one through.
>
> > =A0 Geez, you don't pay any attention here. =A0The point was that SOX i=
s an
> > extremely onerous regulation (I know this based upon personal experienc=
e in
> > my job, and I'm only peripherally affected) that taps deep into corpora=
te
> > workings with (from the looks of Lehman and AIG) very little benefit. T=
his
> > was in response to the original poster's ridiculous assertion that cont=
rols
> > and regulations had been gutted by the sitting administration. =A0You
> > actually make my point for me -- this ponderous piece of legislation wa=
s
> > passed during the current administration when the Republicans were in
> > control of both houses -- hardly the "gutting" that the OP was screamin=
g
> > about.
>
> >>>> Man, this is gonna be so much fun when the Congress, Senate and Whit=
e
> >>>> House are all dominated by the Democrats. =A0Gonna be a lotta stinky
> >>>> Repugnant carcass swinging from the gallows.....
>
> >>>> D'ohBoy
> >>> =A0 So much fun. =A0Hang on to your wallets boys, "Change!", it's all=
you're
> >>> going to have left after the dems get done raising taxes should that =
very
> >>> frightening scenario come to pass.
>
> >> Hell yes! =A0Let our grandchildren pay off all those countries that we=
are
> >> borrowing from. =A0Oh and some of those countries don't always have ou=
r
> >> best interests at heart.
>
> > =A0 You know you are welcome to send as much money to the government as=
you
> > wish. =A0You don't have to limit yourself to only the amount of taxes y=
ou
> > have due. =A0Why are you expecting to use other peoples' money to solve=
this
> > problem?
>
> I am not expecting to use other peoples' money to solve this or any
> other problem. =A0It is called sarcasm. =A0Look it up. =A0It's new. =A0I =
have
> little control over the debt being run up by the current administration.
> =A0 Nearly a half trillion per year in the deficit column.
>
> If you're going to be tough, you better be dumb
There should be war-crime trials.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E1D91338F93AA35756C0A9669C8B63
>
> Besides, the 4,000 Canadian doctors and 6,000 nurses who've come here to
> practice in the last ten years, plus the mandated 20% reduction in the
> number of doctors graduating from medical schools, may well insure that an
> increasing number, who would rather be bankrupt and alive, will come to
the
> US to get the "best medical care money can buy" ... and without having to
> wait for it?
Very possible, but I'm willing to wager that the conditions will change in
the not too distant future. Despite the cost of medical training that
students pay out of their own pockets, a sizable portion of it is subsidized
by the government. And then what happens, but many of them head down to the
US solely for the profit motive.
I think that tide will be stemmed to a large degree. Taking on Tim's warped
view of what consists of theft, it's stealing from our Canadian society to
get their training and then going to the US for profit. At the very least, I
can envision some type of mandated term of service in Canada before they're
eligible to leave.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
Have you ever for one minute stopped to listen to yourself? By your claims
of success solely by your own hands, you are a Mother Teresa, Dalai Lama and
Jimmy Carter Jr. combined or a liar of outlandish proportions. I'm finished
with this conversation and your self admiration society. It's impossible to
reason with such a stunted intellect as you seem to have. You might be smart
in some areas, but in regards to your fellow man, you're nothing but a
greedy, selfish con artist. I sincerely hope you never find yourself in dire
physical health because with your view of life, you'd be emotionally
incapable of coping.
======================================
I am happy to voluntarily contribute to causes the help the genuinely
underprivileged
My highest ideal is integrity. It is dishonest to steal from one citizen
and give it to another, and then try and claim some imaginary moral high
ground.
Theft is theft. I do not like the idea of profiting from the misery of other
and have - even recently -refused to do so.
You are very wrong. I am happy to help those in need.
I went to private undergrad and grad school without taking a dime of tax
money and without debt.
I will not discuss my charitable actions because: a) It's none of your
business and b) Talking about it takes all the fun out of doing such things
anonymously.
I have worked my bottom off to come from poverty to the middle class
===================================
When are you voting yourself into sainthood?
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Makers, Fakers, and Takers. You are certainly not the first.
But, not like you with your wagons circled and cowering terrified in your
hole. And you forgot to mention one other category. That's the liar category
developed solely for scared little rabbits like you. You subsist on greed,
but unfortunately you just haven't had the chutzpah to attain the station in
life to accommodate that greed.
"Elrond Hubbard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>> Over the course of 12 hours, John McCain does a 180 degree four-wheel
>>> locked-brake slide from saying "The economy is fundamentally sound"
>>> to "This is the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression," and
>>> you characterize it as 'altering course.'
>>>
>>> With spin like that, you could get a job as a human gyroscope.
>>
>> Why, thank you. Really - I find that to be a great phrase. Though...
>> you misunderstand my point. McCain didn't simply assume the former
>> position three or four days ago. He reversed a position that he held
>> of some time. He reversed it in light of very recent circumstances
>> that nobody predicted, or could predict.
>
> Excuse me? In light of *recent* circumstances? Does the man not read
> the news? Do you?
Do you correspond intelligently? Just what in the hell is that supposed to
mean? Other than yet another failed attempt by you to throw a jab. You are
proving yourself to be unworthy of any intelligent form of conversation.
Content yourself with simply throwing out meaningless insults. You can
converse with yourself.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> David G. Nagel wrote:
>> Tim;
>>
>> A couple of years ago the premier of Alberta was bragging that the local
>> health care service was down to only 400 people who needed bypass
>> surgery. This was down from several thousand a few years before. They
>> were making progress unless you were one of the 400.
>>
>> My wife was diagnosed as requiring bypass surgery. The only reason she
>> didn't go directly to the OR was because they were working on someone
>> else. She was the first person the next morning.
>
> For life threatening situations, Canadian healthcare seems to work
> well for most people - though I doubt you'd find a state in the US
> with a backlog of 400 bypasses. OTOH, ask someone with kidney
> stones or gall stones how they feel about their "care" in Canada.
>
>
>> Yes we did have insurance and she also worked for the hospital but that
>> only affected the cost, which was on the order of one dollar. Don't know
>> what that was for.
>>
>> Canadian health care is not a panaciea, it has some serious problems
>> that have to be worked out.
>>
>> Dave Nagel
>>
>> BTW; What does this have to do with woodworking?
>
> It's marked "OT" and ... is ...
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Heart bypass operations can be life threatening and non life
threatening. That still doesn't justify a 400 person backlog.
Dave
Larry Blanchard wrote:
<SNIP>
> So while I know we'll never agree, I'll continue to believe that getting
> rich off the miseries of others is, if not downright immoral, certainly
> distasteful.
I heartily agree - that's why I could never be a liberal Democrat.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
> All true, IMNSHO, both Morris and Mike.
> And I agree (unfortunately) wth McPain that it is due to excessive greed
> of the bankers - which is what regulators and legislators should protect
> the "common" man from. Now, caveat emptor should go both ways - the
> unscrupulous bankers and the stupid borrowers should be punished, but in
> a way that leaves the rest of US (pun intended) protected. If I have
> been prudently spending and borrowing within my means, why should I have
> to bail out the aforementioned unscrupulous bankers and the stupid
> borrowers?
>
Have you been listening in to the conversations in my neck of the woods?
Though it will never happen, the single most common thought in our
conversations has been that of holding the decision makers in these events
personally responsible. Financially responsible. And not just in light of
this debacle - this type of house of cards problem persists throughout
corporate America as CEO's play fast and loose in the name of creating the
appearance of profit and health. They leave - they take their golden
parachutes or their bonus package and the mess is left behind. No matter -
they're off with their wealth. I'm every bit a capitalist, and I do not
begrudge anyone wealth - even excess wealth, but I do have a big problem
with the ill gotten gains of deceit.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> As best as I can determine, I do not fear collectivists. I hold them
> in utter contempt for their irrationality and evil practices.
Of course you wouldn't think so. However, the past few days reading your
thoughts on the immorality of universal health care has displayed your naked
fear for all to see. Can't get away from that.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> but no one wants to hear them ... they're too busy demanding
> "free" healthcare ...
Well, I have to admit, you are the quintessential bulldog refusing to
relinquish your grip for any reason. Your teeth are embedded into the word
"free". It's NOT free, it's health insurance paid for by the citizens and
collected by employers. Only difference to your private insurance system is
that it's a much larger system and it's administered by the government.
And if you bothered to look into it, that minimum wage for health insurance
premium exemption is pretty low. (<$20,000) in Ontario, Canada. That leaves
a huge lot of people over the $20,000 threshold who do pay for it. The
maximum one would pay is $900 a year, even if they're billionaires. So you
tell me, who exactly are the indigent stealing from? I don't see any filthy
rich being forced into servitude by the thieving poor. If anything, the
reverse is true with the filthy rich using whatever method they can find to
increase their holdings while the poor get poorer. If it was a static
system, I might agree some with your viewpoint, but it's not by a long shot.
Your whole viewpoint is based on the fear that somewhere, somehow your
personal worth is going to be snatched away from you by the "collectivists".
The sad fact is that if anything is taken from you, it's going to be the
rich and powerful who do the taking, not the less affluent of society. All
the businesses that are cheated and defrauded and bilked of millions of
dollars into bankruptcy in the US, it's always the CEO's and people of power
who do the taking. Yet, here you are jumping on the little guy solely
because of your misdirected delusion of fear.
Tighten your bulldog teeth as much as you want, but it's wasted effort for
the wrong reason.
On Sep 22, 9:02=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Please explain to me where this "right" comes from? =A0
>
When you pay insurance premiums, you have the 'right' to have whatever
fixed if you've paid your premiums (either direct or via direct pay-
cheque (tax) withdrawal.
In the automotive version, many people pay to fix my car if my damage
exceeds the total premiums I have paid.
I suppose the difference lies in the area of what a doctor is allowed
to charge for a certain product...but that is ultimately his/her
choice to belong to that system. The autobody guy isn't regulated.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
snip
> Nobody in Canada or other countries with "socialized" medicine goes
> bankrupt from medical bills.
>
> It happens in the US with disturbing frequency. I'd say at least 2
> or 3 times a year I read appeals for help in our local paper - not for
> indigents, but for middle class people who have exhausted their
> resources, and in some cases the resources of family members.
You've heard of Medicaid? Those in such unfortunate circumstances do and
will receive needed care....as well as transportation(in most locales) to
said needed medical appointments. They may indeed lose assets but that kind
of follows anyone whom declines or can't afford insurance be it for their
house (fire), car (wreck) or medical (health).
What I don't understand is why it is the Gov. or insurance companies or
everybody but who are often treated as the villains when it is the medical
providers themselves and the drug companies that have increased medical
costs by at least 3X the inflation rate for the past few decades.
Profiteering at the expense of the ill seems like the true problem. I have
a few co-pays today exceeding the total cost of a specific medical service
in the 70's........Rod
Rod Jacobson wrote:
> Elrond Hubbard wrote:
>> I love it.
>>
>> Over the course of 12 hours, John McCain does a 180 degree four-wheel
>> locked-brake slide from saying "The economy is fundamentally sound"
>> to "This is the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression," and
>> you characterize it as 'altering course.'
>>
>> With spin like that, you could get a job as a human gyroscope.
>>
>> If the opposition candidate had done the same, you would excoriate his
>> action as a flip-flop of Titanic proportions. With full
>> justification.
>>
>> Priceless.
>> Scott
>
> I can understand how clue less TV talking heads can't grasp simple concepts
> but isn't the general public at least supposed to think on occasion? The
> country has a 6.1 % unemployment rate (historically never considered high
> or particularly significant). The mortgage industry has a approx. 6.2%
> default rate that is 3X higher than probably desired but well under the 40%
> rate of the 30's. The country has a well trained and educated work force. A
> infrastructure of roads, rail and air that allow relatively cheap and
> abundant transport. A farm and food production capacity dwarfing any
> historical norm. A college and university system that attracts the best and
> brightest from around the world. We have millions clamoring both legally and
> otherwise to get into the country. Please explain for us less mentally
> endowed how a temporary Wall street big paper shuffling debt problem trumps
> all of the real physical properties that actually make this a great and the
> most productive country in the world. In fact if the country in both the
> business and private sector could learn that credit should be used with
> serious discretion and that indeed you should pay cash whenever possible,
> long term we'll be much better off.......The easy credit and borrow
> mentality is really a fairly recent development (20-30yrs).....Rod
>
>
Uh ... you are going to confuse the Bush-haters and assorted other
effluvium from the left with all those facts and numbers. See,
you don't learn math when doing ritual tribal dances to get your
political viewpoint clarified. The stock market is not the
economy, this too shall pass, and - as you point out - we
are not remotely in Depression era trouble. However, Comrade
Obama and his fellow Marxists *are* in political trouble. They
need to manufacture and emergency to have a hope of being elected.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> 1) I was granted health and family through no merit of my own. I am
> grateful
>> to God.
>
>> 3) I have worked my bottom off to come from poverty to the middle class.
>> I am proud of my family, and happy I had the opportunity, but Sparky,
>> I *earned* every bit of it.
>
> Really? And next you're going to claim that your family didn't help you out
> at all with your education. They didn't contribute one cent, they didn't
> give you food and shelter. You left home at the tender age of fifteen and
> never received any sort of help from them after that.
I already stipulated that my family was part of my success - and that
this was gift, not by my merit. This is not collectivism in any form,
it is family. It is not built on ripping off my fellow citizens.
>
> Then you attended college. You paid ALL the tuition out of your own pocket.
> You never received any sort of subsidy or student loan while you were in
> college.
I went to private undergrad and grad school without taking a dime of
tax money and without debt. How? I worked multiple jobs in college
and got excellent grades thereby earning *private* financial aid.
In fact, my undergrad program was so enlightened that the entire
school *refused* ANY public/tax money into their school. They
(properly) saw it as corrupting of education and their ability to
teach as they saw fit.
I did, however, miss the following classes in the aforementioned
school, "Why Capitalism Sucks 101", "How To Whine For What You
Have Not Earned 201", and "Everyone's A Victim 400".
>
> You earned every bit if it?
> BULLSHIT! YOU WERE SUPPORTED ALL THE WAY BY THAT COLLECTIVIST SYSTEM YOU'RE
> NOW CRITICISING.
You are silly assuming that everyone is weak and needs
to be "helped" by government. Again - not a single dime of tax
money passed through my checkbook at any point in my education.
That's what happens when you work hard ...
>
> And by the way, exactly what kind of education was it? A number of times
> you've been unable to differentiate between "your" and "you're). Whatever
> king of education, apparently you scored in the lower percentile.
I was in the upper 5% of the SATs, got a full ride *private* scholarship
to undergrad, then went to work for a *private* company that
paid a portion of my graduate school on the condition that I maintain
excellent grades - I got straight As, and ended up teaching in that
same school between Masters and Ph.D. work (the latter I did not finish).
Oh, and I grew up very poor in a single parent family and we NEVER
took welfare or public aid ... we *worked*. Oh, and English is
my second written/read language. Any more stereotypes you'd like
me to demolish before you concede that you have no defensible position
here?
Government handouts are for the terminally lazy for the most part.
There are a few folks for whom this does not apply - and there is
more than enough private charity to help those people out.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> conveniently dropped the part about the Canadian system being bigger "a
much
> larger system" than private insurance in the US.
Proportionally, it is bigger because it's country wide. And, it's not the
same as your medicaid which only treats the poor as long as they don't have
any assets. Canadian health insurance supplies full medical access to anyone
who is a Canadian citizen. Yup, it's not a perfect system by any means, but
that's discussion for another time.
In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
>
> Good conversations are built on good manners. Using vulgar language
> undermines the former because it demonstrates a lack of the latter.
> Grow up.
Sorry. I forgot the height of your horse.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> 1) I was granted health and family through no merit of my own. I am
grateful
> to God.
> 3) I have worked my bottom off to come from poverty to the middle class.
> I am proud of my family, and happy I had the opportunity, but Sparky,
> I *earned* every bit of it.
Really? And next you're going to claim that your family didn't help you out
at all with your education. They didn't contribute one cent, they didn't
give you food and shelter. You left home at the tender age of fifteen and
never received any sort of help from them after that.
Then you attended college. You paid ALL the tuition out of your own pocket.
You never received any sort of subsidy or student loan while you were in
college.
You earned every bit if it?
BULLSHIT! YOU WERE SUPPORTED ALL THE WAY BY THAT COLLECTIVIST SYSTEM YOU'RE
NOW CRITICISING.
And by the way, exactly what kind of education was it? A number of times
you've been unable to differentiate between "your" and "you're). Whatever
king of education, apparently you scored in the lower percentile.
On Sep 22, 12:58=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> So I'll at least check out the doc in the Ford to see why he's driving it=
.
> He may be a drinker, a gambler, a loser in a malpractice suit, or he may
> just be my kind of doctor.
>
Or, as is the case with my doctor.. his exes are driving Benz's and he
drives a 12 year old 320i
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> For life threatening situations, Canadian healthcare seems to work
> well for most people - though I doubt you'd find a state in the US
> with a backlog of 400 bypasses. OTOH, ask someone with kidney
> stones or gall stones how they feel about their "care" in Canada.
I can't argue with you there. If I was in that kind of pain, I'd search
frantically for medical care to relieve that pain.
krw wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>> "krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Do you really want Congress owning (all) corporations?
>> Wouldn't that be a 180 degree turn-around? Don't corporations own
>> Congress now?
>
> So, you'd rather have the incompetent crooks in Washington owning
> all corporations? Perhaps you'd be happier in the FSU?
>
I'd rather have citizens owning corporations in privatized accounts.
The current method of having government spend the money in retirement
accounts and replacing it with government IOUs adds up to $4 trillion in
debt with another $40 or so trillion to go. Our kids and grandkids are
going to love being taxed a second time for the same thing we already
paid taxes for.
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> That is not the alternative. The alternative is to allow people
>> to keep what is theirs, thereby creating so much aggregate wealth
>> that there is plenty of charity available for those really in need.
>
> That's some feeble attempt at a joke right? In our North American society,
> the rich are richer than ever before and the divide between rich and poor
> grows exponentionally on a daily basis. Very few are contributing to those
You need to lay off the crack pipe. There are fewer people who are
"poor" in objective terms than at any time in Western history. THe
big "divide" you mention does exist ... because more people than ever
are, um *rich*.
> charities you're exalting. The rich of our society are essentially a case of
> absolute power corrupting absolutely. There's little interest in charitable
> contributions other than the occasional lip service to silence the masses.
Is it hard to sleep at night with that much bile for people that have
more than you? Is it possible they do so because you are their
inferior?
> At one point I believed you were a little smarter than that. But, it's
> obvious that you're so petrified at losing hold of the little that you have
> that it's obliterated any semblence of logic you have or once had. Life must
> be tough for you cowering in fear behind your barricades.
>
I am "terrified" that collectivist bottom feeders with little or no
real skin in the game of life will terrorize those of us who are
productive. There are only three kinds of people in the world,
Makers, Fakers, and Takers. You are certainly not the first.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:m1kkq5-
> So, let me get this right. You have a *right* to keep what you've
> earned AND a simultaneous *right* to healthcare, even if others have to
> pay for it. IOW, it is the job of other people to ensure your
> middle class lifestyle is not compromised. Is that correct?
Tim, you're so full of crap, that it's galling. Try as you might, you keep
attempting to put your words into the mouths people with whom you disagree.
Canadian health care is paid for by everyone and administered by the
government. If you have the money, your taxes contribute to the system. If
you don't then you're still covered. You consider health care a luxury that
only the rich should receive, everyone else can go to hell. We treat it as a
basic right, not any different than many of the rights that the US has
enshrined in their constitution.
> You're the one advocating a "screw everybody else" scheme not me.
> I advocate that everyone maintain title to that which they have earned
> legitimately. You advocate a system wherein other people are forced to
> pay for what you want. Lovely.
You're a flat out liar. Still trying to put words in my mouth. Your feeble
attempt to compare healthcare to "what people want" is as misdirecting a
statement at it gets. Healthcare is not "a want", it's a right in our
society. What you advocate is a complete separation into a two tier system,
the rich and the poor and you'd be just as happy for the rich to get richer
and the poor to stay that way.
> It is not selfish to object to having your wallet looted or being
> robbed at the point of a government gun. It takes a particular
> kind of dishonesty to try and paint this kind of theft as noble,
> but you're sure good at it.
> My highest ideal is integrity. It is dishonest to steal from one citizen,
> give it to another, and then try and claim some imaginary moral high
ground.
You're highest ideal is lieing and BullShitting as long as you can get away
with it. Thanks for the lesson in trolling. You like being an asshole and
quite obviously, I'm not the only one to think so.
Bye.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Ah, I think I see the difference of opinion here. You think that you
> get "free" medical care. Somebody, somewhere is paying for that care --
> the money has to be coming from someone. That's the problem with
> socialized systems, eventually people who aren't paying for the benefits
> start taking more and more advantage of those benefits, forcing those who
> are paying taxes to provide those benefits to have to pay more.
Up to a point, I agree with you. But, looking at it from Tim's extremely
warped point of view, everybody who receives that paid for health care is
stealing it. As far as he's concerned, they're all low level cheats, drug
addicts with AIDS, or hope to live for the rest of their lives on social
handouts.
Tim seems to believe everybody in that state is eminently content to stay
that way. Let me tell you, nobody wants to live their life that way. Having
had a disability for almost thirty years, I can tell you categorically that
it stinks. Nobody in those conditions likes it. As a peer support volunteer
with the Canadian Paraplegic Organization I know for sure fact that
everybody I counselled and supported hated being in that state and most
often, did what they could to get out of it.
I hated it so much that I used that health assistance "I stole" to stay
healthy enough so I could go back to school with education assistance "I
stole". Then I got a job and became a contributing, working taxpayer again.
That's the final scenario. Society supported me health-wise and
education-wise until I was again able to again become a contributing member
of society.
Which scenario is preferable? Supported by society health-wise but also
contributing back to society or just subsisting while contributing nothing.
There really is only one answer and it certainly is not anything remotely
close to what Tim thinks.
On Sep 21, 10:20=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped evaluation of Canadian healthcare system... sort of]
Healthcare varies quite a bit from province to province. Many of the
people my wife and I socialise with are medical professionals. They
are aware of the flaws. And many work on the US side as well, and they
are aware of their flaws.
And people from all over the world also come to Canada for treatment,
especially children.
There are weak spots in healthcare in Canada, but it is functioning.
Overheard on a golf course in Michigan:
Doctor # 1 : "Say, did you know Johnson the contractor?"
Doctor # 2 : "Yes, I had my house built by him. Why?"
Doctor # 1 : "Well, he was a patient of mine, he passed away. ."
Doctor # 2 : "Really? What did he have?"
Doctor # 1 : "Sixty thousand dollars."
On Sep 20, 10:12=A0am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote
>
> > Mike, you say that as if it is a bad thing. =A0I've always wanted to ow=
n my
> > own insurance company and now I do. I'm going to get interest on my mon=
ey,
> > of course so that makes it a great investment. =A0The interest will ass=
ure
> > that I have a comfortable retirement when the checks start rolling in.
> > We're now eligible for the "Friends and Family Discount" on al AIG
> > policies too.
>
> > With the added interest income, maybe I'll buy General Motors. =A0As an
> > owner, we all get company cars. =A0Are you in?
>
> And since I have no credit card debt - zero, zip, nada, none, I should go
> out and get me a boatload while I can so it can be forgiven.
>
> ... and speaking of boatloads, there's that bass boat I've always wanted,
> and it's only $32,000 .... used!
>
> I'm in!
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 8/18/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
At a limit of say, 32 x 3 lb bass times 10 years.. lemme see... that's
about $ 30 per pound of bass. Not including fuel, magaritas and
maintenance.
That's okay. I paid $ 600 per duck on a trip once.
<G>
D'ohBoy wrote:
> On Sep 18, 8:59 am, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>> You can't possibly come up with a cite for him railing for "total free
>> market", can you? Didn't think so. Stop making stuff up.
>>
>
> Actually, I heard a quote the other day stating that he was 'always
> for less regulation'. So if there is less regulation, but regulation
> still existed, he would still be for less. The only case in which his
> desire for less would be satisfied, i.e., when there couldn't be *LESS
> REGULATION* would be a total free market.
>
> So no, Woodie didn't make it up. So you stop. Jackass.
You're misquoting.
I said the above "You can't possibly..." paragraph in response to Lew.
As for your logic... you're taking McCain's position, and running to a
ridiculous extreme in which there is no government regulation (hasn't
happened in any of our lifetimes, and isn't likely to ever happen)
You're attributing to McCain your own extreme interpretation based on a
near impossible scenario. It's all far removed from reality.
If that isn't 'making stuff up', I don't know what is.
As for the rant below - you shouldn't have taken the brown acid at the DNC.
> And what is with this free market shite? I guess free markets are
> good when people die due to that freedom, or little people get hurt
> but when Republicans LOSE MONEY, that's just wrong.
>
> Did you happen to see that Republican Senator (or Congressman, I don't
> recall) the other night whining about how now is not the time to point
> fingers?!
>
> This IS the TIME!
>
> THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION PLANTED BY THE
> REPUBLICANS OVER YEARS OF GUTTING CONTROLS ON THE FINANCIAL
> INSTITUTIONS ARE BEARING THEIR BITTER FRUIT. EAT UP YOU SCUMSUCKING
> BASTARDS!
>
> Man, this is gonna be so much fun when the Congress, Senate and White
> House are all dominated by the Democrats. Gonna be a lotta stinky
> Repugnant carcass swinging from the gallows.....
>
> D'ohBoy
>
>
>
>
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Methinks you're missing his point. The issue is not primarily people
>> defrauding government programs (though that is surely *a* problem, no
>> different than in the private sector). The issue has to do with the
>> inherent nature of tax-funded programs - they apply to everyone who
>> "qualifies" whether they pay taxes or not.
>
> A scenerio of pay your money and get your stuff is realistically a store and
> not a Government......
Correct - which is why government has no business in this area.
>
>> Private companies can avoid this by not granting benefits to people
>> who don't pay for one of their insurance policies. But government-run
>> programs provide coverage based on "class" (age, socio-economic
>> standing, gender, and, sometimes, even race). There are inevitably many
>> class members who pay nothing but get program benefits.
>
> And a society that does not care for those in need is better because?
That is not the alternative. The alternative is to allow people
to keep what is theirs, thereby creating so much aggregate wealth
that there is plenty of charity available for those really in need.
> Historically and/or simply world wide why are the most productive and
> successful countries those with more social programs than those with little
> to none? Should the aggregate whole produce and have less merely based on
> your principle of self reliance first and last?
You have correlation and cause mixed up. The US - though blighted
by collectivist sewage - is nowhere near as collectivized as most
of Western Europe and has, for the most part, far out performed
Europe in productivity and "success" (if by that you actually mean
wealth creation).
>
>
>
> They do this
>> entirely *legally*. In so doing, the non-contributors burden the
>> system to the detriment of the contributors.
>
> Are you missing the purpose?....a big pool of people with some swimming,
> some treading water and others being furnished a life jacket.......the
> pooling of resources, abilities and talent makes for a stronger whole. If
But cutting every lifejacket in half so everyone
gets a small piece leads to a net increase in drowning.
> private voluntary charity is good (you seem to be a strong proponent) why
> would a country whom cares and provides for those less fortunate not be good
> as well? When my kids were home, while I much preferred voluntary household
Because the act is involuntary, and done under threat of force. This is
called "stealing".
> contributions or efforts, mandatory chores were both needed and a price for
> living here.
Your home is a private place. At most, you could kick out the kids who
would not pay. What you could not do, was make your neighbors pay for
your kids to stay there. Big difference.
>
>> So, the contributor
>> is forced - at the point of the government's gun -
>
> The gun thing is far more rhetorical than informational, even downright
> irritating at times.....It is also far from unique to Gov. run social
> welfare programs. Seriously refuse any Gov. mandate from military service to
> seat belts and eventually you'll find a gun poking you where it shouldn't.
That's exactly right - that's *why* the Framers limited the scope and
power of the government so carefully - to the defense of liberty itself
and little more - well, that and running the Post Office.
You seem to think that if it's OK for a cop to stick a gun in a
criminals gut to stop them, that this constitutes moral authority
for the state to put a gun to my head and pay for your childrens'
rent (by analogy).
>
> to participate
>> in a program (possibly against their will) AND pay for other people
>> who contribute nothing.
>
> The price of admission.....and also seriously dwarfed by current and past
I had to read the document that granted me admission. It's called
the Constitution Of The United State. No such price is stipulated
anywhere therein. You are inventing this out of whole cloth.
> fiscal disasters....one might even argue that welfare queens are much
> cheaper to keep than our cherished wallstreet types.
The slimiest "wall street types" do more good (unintentionally) for
more people in an afternoon than the whole of the welfare system does
in a decade. That said, welfare for *anyone* is morally repugnant.
Face it, you are articulating a loud form of class warfare.
Welfare recipients are the noble poor, and successful and rich
business people are eeeeeeevil. Try that theory out the next time
you're looking for work - see how many of those po' folks are in
a position to help you.
>
>
>> Somehow in the Do-Gooders Lexicon, this
>> qualifies as a noble act.
>
> It is...without doubt the majority of citizens wish to pool resources and
> provide for the elderly, those in need and the disabled. Ultimately a
And I am among them. I "pool" my resources to help via private charity.
Why do you mistrust your fellow citizens so much that you insist on
using force to make them do what you think they want to do anyway?
Here's a hint: Another core tenet of collectivism is a fundamental
lack of respect for other people - not just their wallets - but their
persons, intentions and actions.
> serious justification for any sovereign country is to fulfill the will, the
> needs or even the whim of the populous...... why else would it exist?
This nation exists to preserve liberty, not flog your collectivist
nonsense. Well, it used to. Now evil ideas like yours are prevailing
and the path to hell has been nicely paved.
>
>> I find that alone astonishing and
>> a searing indictment of how deeply morally corrupt the ideas of
>> the intellectual/political left have become...
>
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> Indeed I'd think they often are but not for these concepts.....Rod
Proving that collectivism is not the sole province of the left...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"B A R R Y" wrote
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>>
>>
>> I do know that the naked short selling is now prohibited.
>
> I read that only applies to a list of mostly-financial stocks.
That could be. That sounds right.
Short selling of stocks in general isn't that popular.
But profiteering on the financial shipwrecks does seem quite popular in
certain circles.
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Demonstrating yet another outcome of all socialist schemes - they lead
>> to some form of slavery. Why not just let the students pay their own
>> way and then use the education they paid for as they wish. There is
>> no theft, no slavery, and no mob rule.
>
> You really aren't too bright are you? If doctors had to pay their entire
> tuition without society's help (ie. the government), there would be
> extremely few of them around. Transfer that notion to most every profession
> and we'd still be living in the dark ages with a few powerful and educated
> while the rest living short lives in serfdom.
May I suggest, "Economics In One Lesson" by Hazlitt, followed by
"The Road To Serfdom" by Hayek, followed by "Atlas Shrugged" by Rand.
These three giants should be able to purge your mind of such irredeemable
silliness.
>
> It's long been known that the highest level a society can attain is balanced
> by that level attained by the least disadvantaged. Whether you like it or
Known by whom and demonstrated how? (And no, you saying so, doesn't make
it true.)
> not, society and it's values are the reason that you live at the level you
> do today. You might call much of it socialism, but it's been proven many
I live like I do today for three reasons:
1) I was granted health and family through no merit of my own. I am grateful
to God.
2) I was granted access to a nation that places (or used to anyway)
the individual ahead of the group. I am grateful to the USA.
3) I have worked my bottom off to come from poverty to the middle class.
I am proud of my family, and happy I had the opportunity, but Sparky,
I *earned* every bit of it.
> times the greater number that benefit from those values the longer society
> will survive. What you advocate ends up in a pure dictatorship where the
> only value is might makes right.
Actually, your beloved collectivism is what leads to dictatorship, not
my rational individualism.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:44:45 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> You ought to ponder the notion that because something is incoherent
>> to *you* does not make it generally incoherent. You are also
>> being dishonest. There's nothing I've said that's incoherent,
>> you understand it pretty well. You just don't *like* it, don't have
>> a meaningful counterpoint, and have to resort to school yard
>> dirt throwing.
>
> I also find I have no meaningful counterpoint to those who reject
> evolution and dismiss every bit of evidence supporting it as God's little
> joke. I'm sure you won't see the parallel to yourself here, but others
> will.
>
I don't know how. But just to make it clear to you: I do not reject
evolution as a mechanism out of hand. I reject the blind worship of
science as being the only way we can know truth. I also reject the
science worshipers who insist that strong science removes the need for
any kind of God. But I don't, as I say, reject evolution. I merely
question how well established it really is, given the *religious*
fervor of its staunch defenders.
> I'm going to try very hard not to get drawn into replying to your posts in
> the future. But given prior evidence, you'll undoubtedly post something
> so outlandish that I can't resist :-).
You can't help yourself, I know ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> So, I guess if just a few people steal, it makes stealing OK, huh?
Since healthcare is a legal, enshrined right in Canada, the only stealing
that's going on is your feeble opinion further warping your inane logic.
But, I guess that's your business. You seem to relish playing the fool in
this newsgroup. You have very little support with your screwed up thought
processes and have quite effectively lowered yourself to the status of
newgroup clown.
The only problem I have at this point is that I seem to get some type of
perverse pleasure from poking you with a sharp stick. I'll get tired of you
eventually since your rhetoric repeats itself ad nauseam.
What else have you got? You're going to have to try a little harder to keep
me entertained if I'm going poke you some more.
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> 4) Does is strike you as even slightly incongruous that you - the
>> self-proclaimed defender of mankind, the downtrodden, and
>> protector of all that is human - is wishing disease upon me?
>
> Read again. As usual, one of your biggest problems is that you read what you
> want to see, not what's actually written. You're so caught up in yourself
> that you're incapable of seeing anything but your own words.
You're right, I apologize. I read through that part of that post
too quickly.
>
>>> When are you voting yourself into sainthood?
>
>> I'm not sufficiently self-loathing and personally inadequate
>> to require that much approval from others.
>
> Of course not. You're your own self indulgent cheering section that believes
> your own lies. It's called self delusion Tim and you're a master at it.
Name a single lie I've uttered here. You manners are execrable. A
difference of opinion is not a lie. Demonstrate a single "self
delusion" I've demonstrated. A difference of opinion is not a
delusion. Identify any self-indulgence on my part. A difference
of opinion does not make one self-indulgent.
Face it. You have no argument to support *your* opinions. You have
some vague mushy ideas propped up with your touching story of
personal achievement in the face of adversity from which you leap
to defend the raiding of other people's wallets. When confronted
by the essence of *your* argument, you get first defensive, then
vulgar, then outright rude. I'm not the one who is swinging blindly
with both fists here. You are. See if you can figure out why ...
>
> 'nite.
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sep 19, 7:23=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" wrote:
> > =A0Yep, that's pretty much what I expected. =A0... and people accuse
> > *me* of
> > being partisan.
>
> Good, glad you understand.
>
> This is a thread I started, so don't try to hijack it, if you want a
> thread, try starting =A0your own.
>
> Back to the subject.
>
> =A0What's next?
>
> =A0Lew
I'll tell you what's next. You became a socialist nation today.
On Sep 23, 1:33=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Sep 23, 12:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:24:22 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >>>> =A0That's the problem with
> >>>> socialized systems, eventually people who aren't paying for the bene=
fits
> >>>> start taking more and more advantage of those benefits, forcing thos=
e who
> >>>> are paying taxes to provide those benefits to have to pay more.
> >>> If insurance companies can avoid that scenario, I see no reason why a
> >>> government agency can't do the same. =A0I frequently read of someone
> >>> arrested for defrauding SS or Medicare or the IRS. =A0Of course they =
don't
> >>> catch them all, but neither do the insurance companies. =A0But both s=
hould
> >>> be able to hold fraud to an acceptable level.
> >> Methinks you're missing his point. The issue is not primarily people
> >> defrauding government programs (though that is surely *a* problem, no
> >> different than in the private sector). The issue has to do with the
> >> inherent nature of tax-funded programs - they apply to everyone who
> >> "qualifies" whether they pay taxes or not.
>
> >> Private companies can avoid this by not granting benefits to people
> >> who don't pay for one of their insurance policies. But government-run
> >> programs provide coverage based on "class" (age, socio-economic
> >> standing, gender, and, sometimes, even race). There are inevitably man=
y
> >> class members who pay nothing but get program benefits. They do this
> >> entirely *legally*. =A0In so doing, the non-contributors burden the
> >> system to the detriment of the contributors. =A0So, the contributor
> >> is forced - at the point of the government's gun - to participate
> >> in a program (possibly against their will) AND pay for other people
> >> who contribute nothing. =A0Somehow in the Do-Gooders Lexicon, this
> >> qualifies as a noble act. =A0I find that alone astonishing and
> >> a searing indictment of how deeply morally corrupt the ideas of
> >> the intellectual/political left have become...
>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------=
----- -
> >> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> >> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> > If somebody stands on the ledge and gives all indications of jumping
> > off... do we try to talk them out of it?
>
> Yes we do (if we're decent people). =A0What we don't do is pick
> up a gun and force our other neighbor who scared of heights
> to go out on the ledge on our behalf and then take credit for
> our "charity". =A0Get the difference?
Of course I get the difference because it is not the same argument.
Straw man with a hint of red herring. Now I'm supposed to go chasing
you curve ball? Naaa.. I'm a bit more aware of that tactic of yours.
>
>
>
> > How do you consolidate cops cruising down your street even though you
> > don't want protection? Or do you?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "consolidate cops" but ... one of the
> very few things that government is *supposed* to do is interdict
> in matters of fraud, force, and threat.
How kind of you to allow that much. So if a plague were to sweep the
country, too bad, so sad, we all die? It wouldn't be cool for medical
professionals to organize and force people to get immunized, right? Do
you get the difference?
>=A0That is necessary to maintain
> a democratic republic designed to protect individual liberty.
> Cops, courts, the military and so forth are a necessary part of
> protecting the liberty of the citizens.
But not, under any circumstances would a universal medical solution be
allowed, right?
The CDC, a tax funded set up, is fraudulent?
>=A0Handing out other people's
> money taken at the point of a gun to do social engineering is not
> part of defending liberty. =A0Get the difference?
>
You know I get the difference. You seem to have trouble deciding at
what point life and liberty are separated.
But enough of your decoy arguments, that's okay in chess, but I'm not
very good at chess.
On Sep 23, 7:22=A0am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Morris Dovey <mrdo=
[email protected]> wrote:
> >Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> ><nothing of substance>
>
> >Well, you at least /sound/ like an over-schooled, under-educated
> >navel-gazer who hopes to change what he doesn't like in the world by
> >raving incoherently in a woodworking newsgroup.
>
> Morris, I'd expected better of you than an ad hominem such as this -- as =
Tim
> points out, it's a sure sign that you know you can't debate the issue on =
its
> merits.
..and so the Vulture lands on what he thinks is a wounded snack....but
fails to see the trip-wire.
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I'm not the only one who says so, nor am I the first. Pretty much
>> everyone I know (except you evidently) thinks that stealing is wrong,
>> even if they have no particularly deep religious practice.
>
> Guess you don't know too many people. You're shunned by most who know you
> and you're a sanctimonious hypocrite at the same time. Must be a tough life
> for you, eh Tim? I don't feel sorry for you though, because you've earned
> the isolation you know.
>
>> The "Rights" enshrined in the US Constitution are understood to be
>> "natural rights" - the government is not *granting* them, but rather
>
> Riiiiigggghhhhttttt!!!!! But of course, healthcare isn't a natural right.
> You are so clueless as to what's right and what's not that you wouldn't know
> it if it bit you in the ass. With you, it's all about what you can get and
> keep. Naturally, owning firearms bolsters that need you struggle to fulfill.
>
> The really sad part out of all of this is that you're a pretty smart guy,
> but your values are so screwed up that you appear to be relatively stupid to
> all that know you. Quite the contradiction. Life has been tough on you
> hasn't it? Dirt poor family, worked for everything you have.
>
> You really want to make money and succeed Tim? Go open your own manure farm.
> With all the bullshit you sling, you'll be filthy rich in no time at all.
> :)
>
>
I think you've your eloquence here entirely befits your worldview...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> That's the problem with
> socialized systems, eventually people who aren't paying for the
> benefits
> start taking more and more advantage of those benefits, forcing
> those who
> are paying taxes to provide those benefits to have to pay more.
Your paranoia is showing.
Might be able to cover it if you change the way you comb your hair.
Lew
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> Morris, in your list above, you missed one that hits all of us on this
>> forum (except for a few trolls):
>>
>> Use of power tools
>
> Eh? Power tools are safe - it's the operators who're dangerous!
>
> (I almost wish I hadn't said that right out loud.)
>
http://www.allmax.com/MILT/
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:20:39 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> P.S. Given the option, would you rather see the doctor who drives
>> a 1969 Ford Fairlane, or the doctor who drives a new Benz
>> every year? I think I'd prefer the Benz driving doc because
>> it signifies some level of financial achievement, and probably
>> some level of skill. But that's just me ...
>
> Perhaps my point of view has been influenced by my experiences. My
> best friend throughout grade school and high school came from a
> family of medical professionals. One brother was a doctor, one a
> vet, and his sister was a pharmacist. His father was the first
> licensed physician in the state.
>
> All of them considered medicine a calling, not a business. The
> doctor
> brother came out of med school and went to work in Appalachia. He
> chuckled as he told stories of being paid in corn, chickens, and
> occasionally moonshine.
>
> My doctor sometime later had given up a lucrative practice in
> Chicago
> and moved to a little town near the Wisconsin border because he
> couldn't stand the way he was starting to treat medicine as a
> business.
>
> So I'll at least check out the doc in the Ford to see why he's
> driving it. He may be a drinker, a gambler, a loser in a malpractice
> suit, or he may just be my kind of doctor.
Or maybe he just doesn't care much about cars. The CEO of Word
Perfect used to ride around in a clapped out 20 year old pickup truck
until the marketing guys got it across to him that people seeing him
in that though that the company was in trouble and he got some kind of
shiny new econobox to go to work in.
> So while I know we'll never agree, I'll continue to believe that
> getting rich off the miseries of others is, if not downright
> immoral,
> certainly distasteful. When medicine became a "business" instead of
> a "calling" we all became poorer.
Cost me a thousand bucks at the emergency room to get four stitches
the other day. I don't think anybody was profiteering though--most of
that was "emergency room charge", which I understand is a kind of tax
(imposed by the hospital, not the government) on those who can pay to
cover the costs for those who can't, since the ER is required by law
to take all comers regardless of financial situation. The doctor's
fee was something like a hundred bucks.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
> snip
>> Nobody in Canada or other countries with "socialized" medicine goes
>> bankrupt from medical bills.
>>
>> It happens in the US with disturbing frequency. I'd say at least 2
>> or 3 times a year I read appeals for help in our local paper - not
>> for indigents, but for middle class people who have exhausted their
>> resources, and in some cases the resources of family members.
>
>
> You've heard of Medicaid? Those in such unfortunate circumstances do
> and will receive needed care....as well as transportation(in most
> locales) to said needed medical appointments. They may indeed lose
> assets but that kind of follows anyone whom declines or can't afford
> insurance be it for their house (fire), car (wreck) or medical
> (health).
If they fall into one of the eligibility categories. Just being sick,
broke, and uninsured doesn't do it.
> What I don't understand is why it is the Gov. or insurance companies
> or everybody but who are often treated as the villains when it is
> the
> medical providers themselves and the drug companies that have
> increased medical costs by at least 3X the inflation rate for the
> past few decades. Profiteering at the expense of the ill seems like
> the true problem. I have a few co-pays today exceeding the total
> cost of a specific medical service in the 70's........Rod
Next time you think someone is gouging you on medical costs, ask them
what they pay for malpractice insurance. It's not just doctors who
have to pay it by the way, nurses and just about anyone else who is
likely to touch a patient generally pay it.
As for "kind of follows anyone who declines or can't afford
insurance", try "had insurance from employer, got sick, company went
under, group policy was cancelled due to nonpayment of premiums by
employer, couldn't get coverage for his preexisting condition from
another carrier".
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:m1kkq5-
>> So, let me get this right. You have a *right* to keep what you've
>> earned AND a simultaneous *right* to healthcare, even if others have to
>> pay for it. IOW, it is the job of other people to ensure your
>> middle class lifestyle is not compromised. Is that correct?
>
> Tim, you're so full of crap, that it's galling. Try as you might, you keep
> attempting to put your words into the mouths people with whom you disagree.
>
> Canadian health care is paid for by everyone and administered by the
> government. If you have the money, your taxes contribute to the system. If
> you don't then you're still covered. You consider health care a luxury that
> only the rich should receive, everyone else can go to hell. We treat it as a
> basic right, not any different than many of the rights that the US has
> enshrined in their constitution.
Which is your privilege. It has been done before. It is called
"socialism". It has failed over the long- and short- term in most
every case ... the time it takes to fail seems to be proportional
to how severe a case of the socialism disease a society inflicts
upon itself.
>
>> You're the one advocating a "screw everybody else" scheme not me.
>> I advocate that everyone maintain title to that which they have earned
>> legitimately. You advocate a system wherein other people are forced to
>> pay for what you want. Lovely.
>
> You're a flat out liar. Still trying to put words in my mouth. Your feeble
> attempt to compare healthcare to "what people want" is as misdirecting a
> statement at it gets. Healthcare is not "a want", it's a right in our
> society. What you advocate is a complete separation into a two tier system,
Please explain to me where this "right" comes from? Does a doctor
not have a "Right" to their time and effort? How about a drug
researcher? A nurse? Why do the rights of the "poor" trump those
of everyone else in the society?
> the rich and the poor and you'd be just as happy for the rich to get richer
> and the poor to stay that way.
I want everyone to keep what they have *Earned* and not take things
away from other citizens just because they need or want something.
I need to eat. Do I have a "right" to steal food just because
I am hungry? Your conception of rights is deeply flawed if you
think need=right. Indeed that very ideas has been the basis
for some of the most evil actions mankind has ever inflicted
upon itself.
>
>> It is not selfish to object to having your wallet looted or being
>> robbed at the point of a government gun. It takes a particular
>> kind of dishonesty to try and paint this kind of theft as noble,
>> but you're sure good at it.
>
>> My highest ideal is integrity. It is dishonest to steal from one citizen,
>> give it to another, and then try and claim some imaginary moral high
> ground.
>
> You're highest ideal is lieing and BullShitting as long as you can get away
> with it. Thanks for the lesson in trolling. You like being an asshole and
> quite obviously, I'm not the only one to think so.
Game-Set-Match - you ran out of rational ideas and started the
inevitable name calling that follows. I am more than happy to
voluntarily help those in genuine need. I am not happy to
outsource that process to mob rule using government as their
thugs to carry out their wishes.
>
> Bye.
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
David G. Nagel wrote:
> Tim;
>
> A couple of years ago the premier of Alberta was bragging that the local
> health care service was down to only 400 people who needed bypass
> surgery. This was down from several thousand a few years before. They
> were making progress unless you were one of the 400.
>
> My wife was diagnosed as requiring bypass surgery. The only reason she
> didn't go directly to the OR was because they were working on someone
> else. She was the first person the next morning.
For life threatening situations, Canadian healthcare seems to work
well for most people - though I doubt you'd find a state in the US
with a backlog of 400 bypasses. OTOH, ask someone with kidney
stones or gall stones how they feel about their "care" in Canada.
>
> Yes we did have insurance and she also worked for the hospital but that
> only affected the cost, which was on the order of one dollar. Don't know
> what that was for.
>
> Canadian health care is not a panaciea, it has some serious problems
> that have to be worked out.
>
> Dave Nagel
>
> BTW; What does this have to do with woodworking?
It's marked "OT" and ... is ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> First it was "Slick Willy", now it appears to be "Slippery John, The
> Chameleon.
>
> McCain has repeatably emphasized that he is for less gov't, less
> regulation.
>
> Even voted for some of the legislation that created the loop holes the
> wall St sleaze balls used to their advantage.
>
> Now, with the fiasco on Wall St coming down around the countries ears,
> he wants to legislation so that it won't happen again.
1) Have the government spend money it does not have for decades
because people have a "right" to ...(healthcare, retirement,
cheap drugs, a house, a BMW, midnight basketball, education ...).
2) When the looming debt - the overwhelming majority of which is
the consequences of government social spending - comes back to
haunt us, set fiscal policy to ensure a weak dollar - thereby
paying off old debt with now very weak dollars.
3) When the credit markets then go illiquid (because the money is
phony), blame Wall St., the Republicans, pretty much anyone
*except* the big government fools who are actually responsible
(aka "progressives", "liberals", "compassionate conservatives",
"social democrats" and other peddlers of economic fairy tales).
4) Do not allow the markets to correct for this economic house of
cards. Use it as an excuse to further Federalize US business
and its people.
5) Blame Bush, McCain, fiscal conservatives/libertarians, and
their ilk in a massive act of misdirection while the US slips
much more deeply into the collectivist sewer, possibly to be
overseen by the arch Leninist, Comrade Obama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
jo4hn wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [bandwidth snip]
>>
>> Viva La Revolucion Comrade - I hope you get exactly what you
>> (and others here) are demanding - a complete subjugation of
>> your liberty at the hands of the state. Oh, you don't know
>> that's what you're asking for, but it is. I just hope to
>> have checked out by then ...
>
>
> We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
> union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
> common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of
> liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
> Constitution for the United States of America.
>
> "We the people" Tim. In reading your postings, I get the picture of a
> frightened person who has circled his personal wagon and is waiting for
> the "we the people" to come and burn it down.
You need to read more than the Preamble. You need to read the whole
document and a good explanation of what it means - every piece of it.
"We the people" was never meant to be "We the people will tell you
the individual what you can- and cannot do." It was intended to
mean "We the people are setting up a government to protect our
*individual* liberties." I guess they don't teach much American
political history any more.
>
> Should the collectivist/socialist democrats win in Nov. where will you
> go to live?
>
To WHICH collectivist do you refer? Both are horrible choices. Either
will be lying when they swear to "Defend And Uphold The Constitution
of The United States" - a document they've either never understood,
or just intentionally ignore. Living near Chicago and being
painfully aware of Obama's actual past, I will say that he is
the more revolting of the two for one particular reason: He
has the worst possible political friends - corrupt politicians,
scummy supporters, and violent radical retreads from the 1960s.
Have a look at the New Yorker article (the one with the Obama
fist bump cover) for all the gory details. Obama may be
personally a nice enough fellow - I have no idea - but he is
a professional scoundrel and political whore of the worst kind.
He makes McCain look like a saint.
Where am I going - nowhere. I'm content to live my years out on
the strands of liberty that still exist in this country. But that
won't stop me from pointing out the many violations of our laws
and our freedoms that so many people (including a depressing number
of 'Wreckers) demand. The thwarting of evil always requires loud
counterpoint.
Liberty is almost never first and foremost lost by attacks from
outside. Liberty is lost when its recipients fail to defend it.
This whole misbegotten thread demonstrates the level of personal
depravity, dishonesty, and greed people will defend to get
what they want. They call it "rights" or "doing the right thing"
or "serving the community", but it's none of the above. Collectivism
is fundamentally evil, destroys freedom, enfranchises political
scoundrels, and decimates lives. There are dozens of examples,
but no one wants to hear them ... they're too busy demanding
"free" healthcare ...
> sigh,
> jo4hn
T
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Again, you've no idea about my personal behaviors in this regard.
>> Theft is theft. I do not like the idea of profiting from the
>> misery of other and have - even recently -refused to do so.
>> But a poor man stealing from a rich man is just as dishonorable
>> as the reverse situation. We are either people of principle
>> or we can abandon all notion of civil behavior.
>
> Again, it comes down to your logical inadequacies to understand. Health care
> professionals are paid and paid well, just not to the excessive standards
According to you. However, you are not smart enough to know whether
that is *enough*. Enough to cause more people to enter the field?
pursue research? make major breakthroughs? You've written
the number you've made up on an imaginary blackboard and said, "That is
enough." Just who appointed you and your ilk to decide what
the "enough" number is? Can I do the same for your profession? Say
you're a home builder. Pretty much everyone needs shelter in some
form. I say you're not allowed to make more than $5 CN / hour.
Is that OK with you? Would it be OK with your if we all voted on it
and agreed to that number. After all, shelter is "intrinsically linked
to life" as you like to preach.
> you'd like to see. The problem is that you don't see the right to health and
> life as being intrinsically linked. You are not a person of principal,
You do not have a "right" to steal. I do not steal and object to your
doing so. That makes me principled.
> you're a person of greed, taking what you can get and screw everyone else. I
You are very wrong. I am happy to help those in need. Just not with
your gun to my head demanding the power over my wallet because you've
anointed yourself as my better and appointed yourself the czar of what's
good for everybody.
> don't have to know you personally to make that statement, anybody can see
> just by your words what kind of person you are.
Sputtering ... another evidence of a failed argument.
>
> Sure, you might have made the occasional contribution here and there, but
> you'd only have done it entirely for personal benefit thinking all along
> that it might get you something more tangible than just a good feeling.
I will not discuss my charitable actions because: a) It's none of
your business and b) Talking about it takes all the fun out of
doing such things anonymously.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Elrond Hubbard wrote:
> I love it.
>
> Over the course of 12 hours, John McCain does a 180 degree four-wheel
> locked-brake slide from saying "The economy is fundamentally sound"
> to "This is the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression," and
> you characterize it as 'altering course.'
>
> With spin like that, you could get a job as a human gyroscope.
>
> If the opposition candidate had done the same, you would excoriate his
> action as a flip-flop of Titanic proportions. With full
> justification.
>
> Priceless.
> Scott
I can understand how clue less TV talking heads can't grasp simple concepts
but isn't the general public at least supposed to think on occasion? The
country has a 6.1 % unemployment rate (historically never considered high
or particularly significant). The mortgage industry has a approx. 6.2%
default rate that is 3X higher than probably desired but well under the 40%
rate of the 30's. The country has a well trained and educated work force. A
infrastructure of roads, rail and air that allow relatively cheap and
abundant transport. A farm and food production capacity dwarfing any
historical norm. A college and university system that attracts the best and
brightest from around the world. We have millions clamoring both legally and
otherwise to get into the country. Please explain for us less mentally
endowed how a temporary Wall street big paper shuffling debt problem trumps
all of the real physical properties that actually make this a great and the
most productive country in the world. In fact if the country in both the
business and private sector could learn that credit should be used with
serious discretion and that indeed you should pay cash whenever possible,
long term we'll be much better off.......The easy credit and borrow
mentality is really a fairly recent development (20-30yrs).....Rod
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> OK. Fair enough. I happen to have direct experience with
>> the healthcare system in Canada
>> They are not enthused by the system. By *their* testimony
>> (not my opinion - theirs), the system is bloated, inefficient,
>
> And as a Canadian so do I. My experience is and was directly on a
> professionally basis for many years and also for many years as a person in
> dire need of medical care. If I lived in the US, the only way I'd get
> sufficient medical care to actually survive would be for my living status to
> be reduced that of a person of abject poverty living totally on the welfare
> system. I don't call that living. Criticise the Canadian system as much as
Utter nonsense. People at or below the poverty line get medical care
on a regular basis in the US without regard for their ability to pay.
Witness the many gunshot victims that are treated in ER trauma all over
the US daily, for example. You don't know what you're talking about.
> you and your relatives want Tim, but don't for one second try state that the
> US system is better until you've actually experienced multiple, long term,
> medical difficulties.
It is flatly better for *most* people but there are exceptions.
I don't see a giant rush of wealthy Europeans and Asians going to
Canada for treatment of serious illness. The Canadian system is
good, but does not attract the best medical folk, acts very slowly
for people whose problems are painful but not life threatening and
places government bureaucrats in charge of the medical process.
>
>> Note that when people need the best possible care, they don't fly
>> to Canada, Norway, Sweden, UK, or Germany. They come to the US
>> most of the time. There is a reason for this. The reason is
>> that the profit motive brings the best and brightest to the playing
>> field.
>
> And, that profit motive limits that best possible care solely to those who
> have the money to pay for it. It certainly is not available to those of
> middle or lower income. Is that the kind of medical system you'd like to see
> in Canada? God help you in that kind of system if you become seriously ill.
>
>> I am happy to voluntarily contribute to causes the help the
>> genuinely underprivileged ... and I do, as do millions of
>> Americans.
>
> And I say to you again, to benefit from that kind of system, you have to
> become genuinely underprivileged to benefit from it. Imagine, working all
> your life to achieve a certain level of comfort and then suddenly becoming
> sick or getting into a serious accident. In the US system, all you've worked
It happens here all the time and people do get care. They just don't
get the same care as, say, Bill Gates. So what? Your Candadian
wealthy don't wait for the national healthcare system when they have
a serious problem either. They come.... here.
> for all your life is suddenly snatched away from you to pay for your
> survival and then what's next when you eventually wind up broke?
Everyone ends up broke ... and dead.
>
>> I am unwilling to see *my* care diminished to help
>> those whose problems are repetitive and largely self induced.
>
> Those self induced problems as you state it are a matter of opinion. There
> isn't a person on this world who doesn't partake in some type of dangerous
> or unhealth acts, you included. Exactly who is to state what is dangerous
> and what isn't? Almost everything anyone does on a daily basis can be termed
> unhealthy at some point or another.
How about drug abusers with HIV and AIDS? How about people who
never exercise, eat a horrible diet, and then drain the system
while they die by inches? The list of this sort of thing is endless
and demonstrates one of the many reasons that communist healthcare
punishes the responsible and rewards the irresponsible.
>
>> every year? I think I'd prefer the Benz driving doc because
>> it signifies some level of financial achievement, and probably
>> some level of skill. But that's just me ...
>
> I'd prefer the Benz doctor too if I could get him to treat me, but that
> wouldn't be likely would it? I can tell from the way that you're talking
It would in the US. I am not wealthy, but I've certainly been treated
by wealthy doctors here as have any number of friends and family. Profit
motivated business rewards *everyone* with its efficiencies and economies
of scale. It just doesn't reward them *equally*.
> that you've never really experience anything close to a long term, seriously
> affecting illness. Oh sure, maybe you've talked to people or read a bit, but
> until you've actually experienced what it's like to be on both sides of the
> fence, don't for one second think that you actually know what you're talking
> about.
You are the clueless one here. I *have* seen exactly what you describe
up close and personal. I have watched a great many people of limited
or middle class means get excellent care in the US. The only people
crying for nationalized healthcare here are those who either want
something they have never earned or want a "get out of jail free" card
for their personal behaviors.
>
> I for one, am glad that I'm part of and benefiting from the Canadian medical
> system. Sure, like any other system it isn't perfect and there's always room
> for improvement. Am I being selfish? Damned right I am. I want to survive as
> much as the next person and I'd like being able to do so with a certain
> level of self respect. That wouldn't happen in the US system.
>
> In the past, I've been offered well paying jobs in the US and I've always
> turned them down because of what it would cost to pay for my medical needs.
> The reality is that I'd be working to survive in the US while up here in
> Canada at least I can work to live with some hope. There's a big difference
> between the two.
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Makers, Fakers, and Takers. You are certainly not the first.
>
> But, not like you with your wagons circled and cowering terrified in your
> hole.
As best as I can determine, I do not fear collectivists. I hold them
in utter contempt for their irrationality and evil practices.
> And you forgot to mention one other category. That's the liar category
> developed solely for scared little rabbits like you.
I am unclear on just what I've lied about. Do clarify it that for me.
If you cannot, this makes you, um .... the liar.
> You subsist on greed,
> but unfortunately you just haven't had the chutzpah to attain the station in
> life to accommodate that greed.
I subsist without threatening, harming, or stealing from others. That
isn't greed, it's known as "civil behaviour". You might try to develop
a bit of that yourself.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 22, 9:02 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Please explain to me where this "right" comes from?
>>
>
> When you pay insurance premiums, you have the 'right' to have whatever
> fixed if you've paid your premiums (either direct or via direct pay-
> cheque (tax) withdrawal.
There is another big difference: With socialist healthcare of the sort
found in Canada and elsewhere, even if you have *never* paid a
premium, you get to make claims against the system. If people choose
to band together to spread risk via an insurance mechanism, there is
absolutely no problem. When they are *forced* to do so AND forced to
pay for people who never contributed a dime, this is known as ... er
.... fraud.
I was born in Canada but never lived there full time for any long
period. Suppose I moved back and retired there, having never paid a
penny of Canadian taxes. Is it morally OK that I should reap the
benefits of the healthcare and elder care system in place there?
Again, these are the kinds of problems innate to wealth redistribution
schemes.
>
> In the automotive version, many people pay to fix my car if my damage
> exceeds the total premiums I have paid.
All of whom voluntarily participate in the insurance system. Moreover,
there are many insurers competing for your business thereby providing
the best possible rates to the lowest risk customers. This
eeeeeeevil market behavior helps keep a cap on premiums in a way
no government thug ever could.
>
> I suppose the difference lies in the area of what a doctor is allowed
> to charge for a certain product...but that is ultimately his/her
> choice to belong to that system. The autobody guy isn't regulated.
Sure he/she is. Autobody prices are "regulated" by what the
insurance company is willing to pay for a particular bit of work.
The distinction here though, is that the entire process is *voluntary*.
You don't *have* to pay comprehensive insurance on any car you own
outright (though most states here require liability before you can
get on the road as a protection for others - even there, though, they
do no mandate *who* insures, only that you be insured).
Contrast this with socialist healthcare. There is one provider, and
there is no competition for lowest price, best service, or highest
quality care. The only "option" is whether you want to be in the
medical business or not. Once you decide to do so, you are forced
to place this perverse game of stealing from some to give to others.
Worse still, since there is always more demand for healthcare than there
is supply, the limited supply is forcibly redistributed to the entire
population without regard to their personal behaviors or willingness
to pay. The result is that most people (everyone except the nominal
poor) see a *decrease* in the quality, efficiency, and speed of care.
In short, it's a deal done strictly by government coercion and it's
a system that causes most people to be served more poorly than they
would otherwise be. In the mean time, the real answer to care for
the poor - incenting the rest of us to help them on a voluntary
charitable basis - gets tossed in the wastebasket because private
charity is something the political critters cannot use to their
personal benefit and ambition.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Actually ... it mean you have no madd chess skillz ... you
>> are what we call a patzer...
>
> Well I do have chess skills. Nothing professional, but a number of years in
> school and after with a few chess clubs. What's your rating? Are you even
> rated?
>
>
I was.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> It is *legal*, it is still stealing - i.e., It is immoral. Your
>> inability to grasp that the law is not the instrument that defines
>> morality may explain why you keep defending evil.
>
> Oh, excuse me. If you say it, then it must be immoral. Kind of like
> your
I'm not the only one who says so, nor am I the first. Pretty much
everyone I know (except you evidently) thinks that stealing is wrong,
even if they have no particularly deep religious practice.
> second amendment eh? You know, the one that protects the right to
> keep and bear arms. But, that wouldn't be immoral would it, shooting
> some hapless
The "Rights" enshrined in the US Constitution are understood to be
"natural rights" - the government is not *granting* them, but rather
affirming them. In the case of the 2nd Amendment, the actual right
being affirmed is that right to self-defense and defense of property.
> government employee come to tax you further for healthcare? How many
> guns do
It would be immoral to initiate violent force in the absence of a
similar level of threat.
> you have Tim? You cry so much about the collectivists lining up to
> take your money that I'm betting cower in fear at night with a gun
> beside you.
I never cower in fear. I have never had to use a weapon or even my
fists in violence. That's because I behave in a civil manner and the
respect the property and person of the people around me. In
particular, I do not try to steal from them in the name of my
self-anointed charity by assuming that I know better than them what
they should do with their lives and property. You should try this some
time. You end up get along with people much better that way.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Please explain to me where this "right" comes from? Does a doctor
>> not have a "Right" to their time and effort? How about a drug
>> researcher? A nurse? Why do the rights of the "poor" trump those
>> of everyone else in the society?
>
> All those people get paid and paid well. They enjoy an exalted position in
> our society both monetarily and socially. They just don't get paid to your
Which they *earned* by working and studying hard, only to discover
that the dishonest mob (aka "The Public") have decided that they
get to determine just how rewarded the individual should be for
all that hard work. It is nothing short of mob rule.
> greedy standards. The poor trump nothing.
Sure they do. They get to benefit from something they do not
have to earn. Their rights become more important than those
who are not poor, who *do* have to pay for what they want.
>
>> Game-Set-Match - you ran out of rational ideas and started the
>
> Wrong again. It's impossible to argue the point because you're entirely
> incapable of the difference between the giving of health care and the giving
> of a physical object like a car. To you, they're both the same when it comes
Neither are "given". Both have to be earned by someone. People of
your philosophical persuasion love to ignore this little fact. You
just want someone other than the person who actually earned it to have
use of it. Using your logic, I should pay for a car and you should
be able to drive it anytime you like.
> to value and that's why you're emotionally and logically unequipped to
> differentiate between the two. That makes you an asshole. I'm not calling
There is no difference in principle. Both require human time and effort
to create. Both require the application of skill. You want to elevate
one over the other for no defensible reason other than you like being
in charge and telling everyone else what the owe you.
> you a name, I'm just stating a fact.
No, your still name calling - it's the last resort of a completely
failed argument.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> jo4hn wrote:
>
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>> D'ohBoy wrote:
>>>
>>> .. snip
>>>> This IS the TIME!
>>>>
>>>> THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION PLANTED BY THE
>>>> REPUBLICANS OVER YEARS OF GUTTING CONTROLS ON THE FINANCIAL
>>>> INSTITUTIONS ARE BEARING THEIR BITTER FRUIT. EAT UP YOU SCUMSUCKING
>>>> BASTARDS!
>>>>
>>> What the heck are you talking about? Gutting controls? Have you heard
>>> of
>>> Sarbanes-Oxley? There is so much regulation now that it takes an army of
>>> lawyers for a company to comply with all the regulations out there. The
>>> current problem now was facilitated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- two
>>> government run organizations that were making bad loans to people who
>>> couldn't pay them back -- at the behest of the Congress.
>> Lessee now. "The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 also known as the Public
>> Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 and
>> commonly called SOX or Sarbox; is a United States federal law enacted on
>> July 30, 2002 in response to a number of major corporate and accounting
>> scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia,
>> Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors
>> billions of dollars when the share prices of the affected companies
>> collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation's securities markets.
>> Named after sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative
>> Michael G. Oxley (R-OH), the Act was approved by the House by a vote of
>> 423-3 and by the Senate 99-0. President George W. Bush signed it into
>> law, stating it included "the most far-reaching reforms of American
>> business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt."" [Wikipedia]
>>
>> Those pesky Democrats snuck that one through.
>
> Geez, you don't pay any attention here. The point was that SOX is an
> extremely onerous regulation (I know this based upon personal experience in
> my job, and I'm only peripherally affected) that taps deep into corporate
> workings with (from the looks of Lehman and AIG) very little benefit. This
> was in response to the original poster's ridiculous assertion that controls
> and regulations had been gutted by the sitting administration. You
> actually make my point for me -- this ponderous piece of legislation was
> passed during the current administration when the Republicans were in
> control of both houses -- hardly the "gutting" that the OP was screaming
> about.
>
>
>>>> Man, this is gonna be so much fun when the Congress, Senate and White
>>>> House are all dominated by the Democrats. Gonna be a lotta stinky
>>>> Repugnant carcass swinging from the gallows.....
>>>>
>>>> D'ohBoy
>>> So much fun. Hang on to your wallets boys, "Change!", it's all you're
>>> going to have left after the dems get done raising taxes should that very
>>> frightening scenario come to pass.
>>>
>> Hell yes! Let our grandchildren pay off all those countries that we are
>> borrowing from. Oh and some of those countries don't always have our
>> best interests at heart.
>
> You know you are welcome to send as much money to the government as you
> wish. You don't have to limit yourself to only the amount of taxes you
> have due. Why are you expecting to use other peoples' money to solve this
> problem?
>
I am not expecting to use other peoples' money to solve this or any
other problem. It is called sarcasm. Look it up. It's new. I have
little control over the debt being run up by the current administration.
Nearly a half trillion per year in the deficit column.
If you're going to be tough, you better be dumb
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Utter nonsense. People at or below the poverty line get medical care
>> on a regular basis in the US without regard for their ability to pay.
>
> And, that's exactly what I said. To get that free health care in the US, you
> have to be poor. I repeated it more than once. Try reading a little closer.
>
>> It is flatly better for *most* people but there are exceptions.
>
> That I certainly don't agree with. *Most* people as you state are not rich,
> but of middle income. A few serious brushes with the US medical system and
> there's every chance their middle income status is in jeopardy.
So, let me get this right. You have a *right* to keep what you've
earned AND a simultaneous *right* to healthcare, even if others have to
pay for it. IOW, it is the job of other people to ensure your
middle class lifestyle is not compromised. Is that correct?
>
>> I don't see a giant rush of wealthy Europeans and Asians going to
>> Canada for treatment of serious illness. The Canadian system is
>> good, but does not attract the best medical folk, acts very slowly
>
> Ahh, I see, you're stuck on "wealthy people". Most people are NOT WEALTHY.
> Typical money grubbing outlook. If you've got money, then screw everybody
> else. As long as you can pay for what you need, then everybody else can go
You're the one advocating a "screw everybody else" scheme not me.
I advocate that everyone maintain title to that which they have earned
legitimately. You advocate a system wherein other people are forced to
pay for what you want. Lovely.
> to hell. Absolutely zero social conscience just as long at your needs are
> looked after. Very selfish of you.
It is not selfish to object to having your wallet looted or being
robbed at the point of a government gun. It takes a particular
kind of dishonesty to try and paint this kind of theft as noble,
but you're sure good at it.
>
>> How about drug abusers with HIV and AIDS? How about people who
>> never exercise, eat a horrible diet, and then drain the system
>
> So tell me Tim. Have you ever in your life had unprotected sex? Not once?
> Have you ever eaten a Big Mac? No? You've never eaten a bag of potato chips
> or had a beer? I realize you're as pure as they come and society has no one
> except itself to blame. But, I have to ask, exactly how much hypocritical
> bullshit do you expect people to believe?
I never claimed to have never done something irresponsible. But I
do not advocate the use of government force to steal from you to
may for my mistakes ... and that's the difference between us.
>
>> crying for nationalized healthcare here are those who either want
>> something they have never earned or want a "get out of jail free" card
>> for their personal behaviors.
>
> And that's your problem. You're absolutely convinced that everyone who
> supports socialized healthcare is looking for a freebie. You *know without a
They are. Socialized healthcare punishes the healthy/responsible to
the benefit of the ill/irresponsible and it does so using force - the
force of government. It is dishonest and immoral.
> doubt* that there's nobody out there who has consideration for others
> besides themselves.
You, of course, care so much about others that your "consideration"
involves giving yourself permission to steal from your fellow citizens.
Bravo.
>
> Selfishness is your highest ideal and you live by might is right. Common
My highest ideal is integrity. It is dishonest to steal from one citizen,
give it to another, and then try and claim some imaginary moral high ground.
> ideals of many citizens of the US. All the current financial woes of those
> financial institutions that failed in the US are a direct result of that
> kind of greedy outlook and now it's starting to bite you in the butt big
> time.
>
> Enjoy!
The current "financial woes" are not just those of the US, they are
global and they have a common cause, and it is indeed greed. It is
the greed of the rank and file citizens around the world who insist
on things they have not earned being their "right" and use their
respective governments to loot other citizens to get what they want.
The current financial problems showed up in the banks only because
that's where the money is moved, but at its core, this is payday for
the socialism/communism you adore so much.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> First, the Canadian system is not by any means larger than the private
>> insurance system in the US. Approximately 2/3 of US citizens have
>> private
>> health insurance, which works out to about 200 million people. Last I
>> checked, Canada's population is about 33 million.
>
> My mistake, I thought the US system was comprised of a bunch of
> independent
> insurance companies.
That may be what you thought, but it isn't what you wrote. But even if you
wrote it, you original point would still be wrong. Wellpoint Inc. has
approximately 34 million subscribers to its medical plans. 34>33.
>> In 2004, there were 47 million people on Medicaid. If $900/person/year
>> covered the costs, Medicaid would have cost $42 billion.
>
> The $900 I stated is the Ontario maximum. For most people, the premiums
> paid
> are quite a bit cheaper.
Thanks for bolstering my point. Where does the rest of the money come from,
then? Because those premiums wouldn't even *begin* to cover the costs in
the government-run healthcare we already have here.
todd
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:25:11 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> 2) A simultaneous program of phasing out all SS/Medicare over, say,
>> 50 years was implemented to get government OUT of the business
>> of retirement - where it has neither any business nor Constitutional
>> authority to operate.
>
> AFAIK, there are only two industrialized nations that do not provide
> health care and pensions to all. Those are the United States and South
> Africa.
>
> Tim, I think you've got a bad case of "every one is out of step but me."
>
> Yes, I know - you're going to tell me the Constitution doesn't allow it.
> I happen to think you're wrong, but if you're right I think the
> Constitution needs to be changed.
>
> A document written for an agrarian society where life expectancy was 40 or
> less and the medical establishment didn't even know about bacteria needs
> to be interpreted to fit today's society.
>
I do not like seeing my freedoms and economic future eroded because
people who see things your way are unwilling to follow the law to
achieve what they want. We live with a lawless government, a thieving
public, and a permanent whining victim class as a result. Oh, and BTW,
"we're only one of two nations not offering nationalized healtcare"
is the worst of all possible reasoning. You want healthcare to be
the same here as it is in Burundi or Senegal? I like our healthcare
system - it's just fine with me as it is ... or it least it is better
than anything those morons in D.C. could ever do. You want healthcare
run with the same effectiveness as the people who scan our luggage
at the airport. I don't.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:56:14 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> Oh, and BTW,
>> "we're only one of two nations not offering nationalized healtcare"
>> is the worst of all possible reasoning. You want healthcare to be
>> the same here as it is in Burundi or Senegal?
>
> Last I heard Tim, those were not industrialised nations :-).
>
OK. Fair enough. I happen to have direct experience with
the healthcare system in Canada - a place where I have
multiple family members who work in that system as nurses.
They are not enthused by the system. By *their* testimony
(not my opinion - theirs), the system is bloated, inefficient,
sometimes ineffective, and nowhere near as cutting edge as
that horrible profit-motivated system here in the US.
So, I don't even want US healthcare to become the "equivalent"
of the Canadian system.
Look, there is a simple calculus here: There is far more demand
for healthcare than supply in the industrial West for the simple
reason the people live a long time. No law, or other forceful
action changes this fact. You can pass laws 'till you are blue
in the face. All it will do is *lower* the level of care that
people currently receive to benefit the people who currently
receive little or no care. I do not want medicine reduced to
a lowest common denominator. I would much rather provide care
for those in real need by means of private charity - a vehicle
in which US citizens excel - than to reduce everything by law to
its lowest possible form.
Note that when people need the best possible care, they don't fly
to Canada, Norway, Sweden, UK, or Germany. They come to the US
most of the time. There is a reason for this. The reason is
that the profit motive brings the best and brightest to the playing
field.
I am happy to voluntarily contribute to causes the help the
genuinely underprivileged ... and I do, as do millions of
Americans. I am unwilling to see *my* care diminished to help
those whose problems are repetitive and largely self induced.
I speak as someone who had to massively change personal behavior
to improve *my* health - which I did. I also, BTW, speak as
someone who has not had healthcare insurance for extended periods
of my lifetime but still managed, somehow, to get medical care
when and as needed without going broke.
P.S. Given the option, would you rather see the doctor who drives
a 1969 Ford Fairlane, or the doctor who drives a new Benz
every year? I think I'd prefer the Benz driving doc because
it signifies some level of financial achievement, and probably
some level of skill. But that's just me ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
B A R R Y wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>> Good heavens! How much more regulation can we stand!? After Enron,
>> Sarbanes-Oxley should have prevented anything like happened to Lehman
>> what
>> with all of its reporting requirements, transparency, and data collection
>> down to the smallest project. How much more intrusive do things have to
>> get?
>
> From a non-paritisan standpoint:
>
> In 1999, Glass-Steagal was repealed. This law from the 1930's
> distinctly separated commercial and investment banking. Phil Grahmm (R)
> sponsored it, Clinton signed it. Grahmm soon became a banking lobbyist.
>
> In 2007, The "uptick rule" was eliminated in the US stock markets. This
> allows hedge funds to grossy short stocks, in some cases greatly hurting
> the market cap of a company.
>
> These should be re-regulated.
I'm about as anti regulation as you get, and I at least partly agree
with you. The idea of naked shorting seems to be the ultimate
ponzi scheme to me. It distorts the financial reality of the markets
by trading "value" that doesn't even exist. On its face, it sure
feels like a scam to me ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E1D91338F93AA35756C0A9669C8B63
>> Besides, the 4,000 Canadian doctors and 6,000 nurses who've come here to
>> practice in the last ten years, plus the mandated 20% reduction in the
>> number of doctors graduating from medical schools, may well insure that an
>> increasing number, who would rather be bankrupt and alive, will come to
> the
>> US to get the "best medical care money can buy" ... and without having to
>> wait for it?
>
> Very possible, but I'm willing to wager that the conditions will change in
> the not too distant future. Despite the cost of medical training that
> students pay out of their own pockets, a sizable portion of it is subsidized
> by the government. And then what happens, but many of them head down to the
i.e. At the point of taxman's gun.
> US solely for the profit motive.
You are making my point. The students got something they did not earn
in the first place, and then "steal" it by applying elsewhere. This
is the innate problem with all wealth redistribution schemes.
>
> I think that tide will be stemmed to a large degree. Taking on Tim's warped
> view of what consists of theft, it's stealing from our Canadian society to
> get their training and then going to the US for profit. At the very least, I
yes - theft begets theft - one kind of immoral action creates another.
> can envision some type of mandated term of service in Canada before they're
> eligible to leave.
Demonstrating yet another outcome of all socialist schemes - they lead
to some form of slavery. Why not just let the students pay their own
way and then use the education they paid for as they wish. There is
no theft, no slavery, and no mob rule.
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:24:22 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> That's the problem with
>> socialized systems, eventually people who aren't paying for the benefits
>> start taking more and more advantage of those benefits, forcing those who
>> are paying taxes to provide those benefits to have to pay more.
>
> If insurance companies can avoid that scenario, I see no reason why a
> government agency can't do the same. I frequently read of someone
> arrested for defrauding SS or Medicare or the IRS. Of course they don't
> catch them all, but neither do the insurance companies. But both should
> be able to hold fraud to an acceptable level.
>
Methinks you're missing his point. The issue is not primarily people
defrauding government programs (though that is surely *a* problem, no
different than in the private sector). The issue has to do with the
inherent nature of tax-funded programs - they apply to everyone who
"qualifies" whether they pay taxes or not.
Private companies can avoid this by not granting benefits to people
who don't pay for one of their insurance policies. But government-run
programs provide coverage based on "class" (age, socio-economic
standing, gender, and, sometimes, even race). There are inevitably many
class members who pay nothing but get program benefits. They do this
entirely *legally*. In so doing, the non-contributors burden the
system to the detriment of the contributors. So, the contributor
is forced - at the point of the government's gun - to participate
in a program (possibly against their will) AND pay for other people
who contribute nothing. Somehow in the Do-Gooders Lexicon, this
qualifies as a noble act. I find that alone astonishing and
a searing indictment of how deeply morally corrupt the ideas of
the intellectual/political left have become...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> I live like I do today for three reasons:
>>
>> 1) I was granted health and family through no merit of my own. I am
>> grateful to God.
>
> I would suggest that additional gratitude might be appropriate - to
> those who contributed every single medical advance that made it possible
> for your parents' family lines to survive and converge to produce you.
My progenitors largely made it to these shores without much, if any,
medical care. They survived largely by grit and hard work. As recently
as 40 years ago, a regular doctor visit was a dream in the corners
of my family's lineage.
However, *I* have directly benefited from those aforementioned
medical advances. Funny thing about that medicine - it came
from *profit motivated* drug companies and doctors trying
maximize their incomes. These are the very things that you
collectivists decry, but they are the only mechanisms know
to man (to date anyway) that actually work to produce innovation
and real human progress.
But, no. We see - in this very thread - intellectual drooling
complaining about doctors who make "too much" and medicine become a
"business". Yeah, its really terrible. Lifespans are increasing,
problems like heart disease, diabetes, many forms of cancer,
congenital defects, and a a host of other problems that once killed
people in the relative youth are now managed or even cured. But that's
not good enough, is it? We have to make sure that the instruments of
this progress - the doctors, nurses, researchers, scientists and drug
companies are thwarted at every turn. Why? Because they make too much
money. The fact that they're smarter, work harder, and are
proportionally far greater contributors to all of our lives is
*exactly* what collectivists hate because they themselves are no such
thing and are incapable of any meaningful lives in their own right.
>
>> 2) I was granted access to a nation that places (or used to anyway)
>> the individual ahead of the group. I am grateful to the USA.
>
> If you're talking about the USA, then you declare yourself an ungrateful
> misfit. Yes we value the individual, but from our very beginnings we
I shall do no such thing. It takes a particularly perverse misreading
of US political and intellectual history to come to any such conclusion.
The very foundations of this nation were built in opposition to the
Leviathan of the state and to the promotion of the individual and
his liberty. I can provide references if you doubt this. I can
even explain the big words.
> have recognized that the price of keeping our ideals is paid _always_ by
> individuals. The best summation I can think of at the moment is that
On this we agree - liberty isn't free and requires free citizens
to be prepared to defend it. "No one wants to fight, but somebody
has to know how." Unfortunately, it is not the threat from without
that dooms us today. It is the cancerous collectivist perversion that
characterizes today's political debate that will be our undoing.
No terrorist, no armed enemy, no military assault will ever be
as dangerous as the citizens demanding more "free" things from
their own government. Our founders said as much.
> this entire country expects you to, if the situation ever arose, throw
> yourself on the grenade that comes through the window to protect those
> around you. You only seem grateful when there's no cost to you.
You are deeply mistaken. If and when I were called upon to defend
liberty by force or by argument I would do so. And that's what I am
doing - the the most evident threat, the collectivist sewage that
permeates our culture - needs to be exposed for the fraud and danger
it represents to us all. But I wouldn't (and am not) doing it for the
collective good you so adore. I would (and am) doing it because it is
in my own self-interest to defend liberty. When millions of citizens
do this - defend liberty in their own interest - you get a great and
prosperous nation. When millions of citizens sit around demanding
government rescue them from their own choices, the circumstances of
their lives, the misfortunes that befall all of us, you get Soviet
Russia.
>
>> 3) I have worked my bottom off to come from poverty to the middle
>> class. I am proud of my family, and happy I had the opportunity, but
>> Sparky, I *earned* every bit of it.
>
> From the way you whine, you show that not only do you not understand the
> magnificence of the gifts you have received - but that you are so
> clueless and conceited that you actually believe that a single lifetime
> might ever be enough to actually *earn* all the benefits bestowed upon you.
I have only one lifetime. Whether it is sufficient to "earn" what I
was given is irrelevant - I can't - no one can. But that doesn't
automatically therefore demand that I sacrifice liberty on the altar
of big government, collectivist drooling, and mindless self-sacrifice
that is erected as the ideal. The greatest way to pay back my debt
and show my gratitude is to leave a free society in my wake, not
enfranchise the political classes as they buy votes by handing out
money and goods taken my force and theft.
>
>> Actually, your beloved collectivism is what leads to dictatorship,
>> not my rational individualism.
>
> From the evidence of your words, your "rational individualism" is a
> delusion in which the only individual to be valued is yourself.
No, "rational individualism" is an individualism that recognizes
that all of us cannot be free unless *each* of us is individually
free. This means we produce law to thwart fraud, force, and threat,
leaving each of us to act "rationally" in our own self interest
in all other cases. Part of that self-interest is to *voluntarily*
help each other as we are able. It is in none of our self-interest
to outsource the job to a overweening government that takes from some
to give to others in a blind, mechanical, and often evil way. But that
takes brains, hard work, a moral center - qualities that the
collectivists despise, because it thwarts their relentless quest
for power.
>
> You live like you do today because more people than you could ever count
> created the global, cultural, societal, and community contexts within
> which you live your life.
This is largely false. I live like I do today because this is the one
and only nation in recorded history that made individual liberty
primary, and the state a servant of the individual. All collectivist
enterprises throughout history devolved into despotic and oppressive
rule by the few - at least the major ones did. It is only because the
US was built on the primacy of the individual this has not yet
happened here. Sadly, so many beneficiaries of this very system - like
you - aren't happy with the results and want to institute the very
collective schemes that have destroyed the lives of "more people than
you could ever count."
>
> I suspect your contribution is relatively microscopic.
As is yours. As is pretty much everyone's. But - like all apologists
for collectivism - you skip to a bogus conclusion: "Since I can only
do a very small bit as a free person, I shall sacrifice my liberty
on the altar of the collective." The largest collectivist schemes
in human history - the grand, eloquent (and evil) plans to
collectivize society for the "common good", did not remotely
contribute to the human experience what us free "microscopic"
contributors have managed to do in something less than 300 years.
That won't stop you though, will it? Instead of celebrating
your individuality and liberty that makes it possible, you'll
focus on your "microscopic" contribution, and decide that it's
better to be a slave than to make that small contribution.
You don't like my ideas? Fine. Then you don't much like Locke, Hume,
Hobbes, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Paine, and De Tocqueville. They're
not *my* ideas. They're the ideas of a bunch of brilliant
Enlightenment-era thinkers, who had that bad habit of not trusting
government much. That why they argued for the individual above the
state, a small and limited government, rule of law, and personal
responsibility. It's a modern tragedy that those of you who most
benefit from this, dismiss them so flippantly because you need
protection from yourselves.
Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, et al did not run around mumbling
stupid platitudes like "It takes a village" or "If we can just
save one child" or "It's for the greater good". They wrote
in some great detail about the nature of a free nation begins
with a free individual. Too bad they're so out of date these
days ...
Viva La Revolucion Comrade - I hope you get exactly what you
(and others here) are demanding - a complete subjugation of
your liberty at the hands of the state. Oh, you don't know
that's what you're asking for, but it is. I just hope to
have checked out by then ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> D'ohBoy wrote:
>
> .. snip
>> This IS the TIME!
>>
>> THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION PLANTED BY THE
>> REPUBLICANS OVER YEARS OF GUTTING CONTROLS ON THE FINANCIAL
>> INSTITUTIONS ARE BEARING THEIR BITTER FRUIT. EAT UP YOU SCUMSUCKING
>> BASTARDS!
>>
>
> What the heck are you talking about? Gutting controls? Have you heard of
> Sarbanes-Oxley? There is so much regulation now that it takes an army of
> lawyers for a company to comply with all the regulations out there. The
> current problem now was facilitated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- two
> government run organizations that were making bad loans to people who
> couldn't pay them back -- at the behest of the Congress.
Lessee now. "The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 also known as the Public
Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 and
commonly called SOX or Sarbox; is a United States federal law enacted on
July 30, 2002 in response to a number of major corporate and accounting
scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia,
Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors
billions of dollars when the share prices of the affected companies
collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation's securities markets.
Named after sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative
Michael G. Oxley (R-OH), the Act was approved by the House by a vote of
423-3 and by the Senate 99-0. President George W. Bush signed it into
law, stating it included "the most far-reaching reforms of American
business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt."" [Wikipedia]
Those pesky Democrats snuck that one through.
>
>> Man, this is gonna be so much fun when the Congress, Senate and White
>> House are all dominated by the Democrats. Gonna be a lotta stinky
>> Repugnant carcass swinging from the gallows.....
>>
>> D'ohBoy
>
> So much fun. Hang on to your wallets boys, "Change!", it's all you're
> going to have left after the dems get done raising taxes should that very
> frightening scenario come to pass.
>
Hell yes! Let our grandchildren pay off all those countries that we are
borrowing from. Oh and some of those countries don't always have our
best interests at heart.
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Have you ever for one minute stopped to listen to yourself? By your claims
> of success solely by your own hands, you are a Mother Teresa, Dalai Lama and
> Jimmy Carter Jr. combined or a liar of outlandish proportions. I'm finished
> with this conversation and your self admiration society. It's impossible to
> reason with such a stunted intellect as you seem to have. You might be smart
> in some areas, but in regards to your fellow man, you're nothing but a
> greedy, selfish con artist. I sincerely hope you never find yourself in dire
> physical health because with your view of life, you'd be emotionally
> incapable of coping.
Still out of ideas I see. I have calmly responded to your personal
attack, vulgar language, and hyperbole because nothing flushes out
the complete lack of content in arguments like yours more than letting
you speak for yourself. Just to help you understand the big
concepts here:
1) I made it quite clear that I succeeded by many means, a good part
of which were *outside* my own hands. I also expressed my
gratitude. Something you did at no point in this debate. Apparently,
your fellow citizens *owe* you what you got from them. I'm sure
they'd be thrilled to see your deep appreciation for it.
2) I have refused to take your bait and talk about just how much and
how I practice charity. It's none of your business now or ever.
I do not answer to you in this (or any other) matter and I can't
help it if you have such a low opinion of your fellow man that the
only way you can imagine good things happening is if you have to
steal to get them to happen. Some (most?) of us actually believe
that charity is a noble and powerful thing and live our lives
accordingly. Oh, and I *never* want to be seen as
the equivalent of Jimmy Carter - a man who never met a despotic
dictator he didn't love. He is a prima facia example of
collectivist political scum.
3) My intellect - however small or large - isn't on trial here.
I've not made it a topic of discussion because - again - it is
a personal matter that is none of your business. What is on
trial is your inability to argue your position without personal
attack - a sure sign you cannot defend your ideas with reason and
logic. If it makes you feel better ... nobody can ... they're
really bad ideas.
4) Does is strike you as even slightly incongruous that you - the
self-proclaimed defender of mankind, the downtrodden, and
protector of all that is human - is wishing disease upon me?
Like I said, Game-Set-Match - you have lousy ideas, can't defend them,
and are personally rude. In short, you are the perfect collectivist...
> When are you voting yourself into sainthood?
>
>
I'm not sufficiently self-loathing and personally inadequate
to require that much approval from others. Your mileage may
vary.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:25:11 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> 2) A simultaneous program of phasing out all SS/Medicare over, say,
> 50 years was implemented to get government OUT of the business
> of retirement - where it has neither any business nor Constitutional
> authority to operate.
AFAIK, there are only two industrialized nations that do not provide
health care and pensions to all. Those are the United States and South
Africa.
Tim, I think you've got a bad case of "every one is out of step but me."
Yes, I know - you're going to tell me the Constitution doesn't allow it.
I happen to think you're wrong, but if you're right I think the
Constitution needs to be changed.
A document written for an agrarian society where life expectancy was 40 or
less and the medical establishment didn't even know about bacteria needs
to be interpreted to fit today's society.
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:56:14 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Oh, and BTW,
> "we're only one of two nations not offering nationalized healtcare"
> is the worst of all possible reasoning. You want healthcare to be
> the same here as it is in Burundi or Senegal?
Last I heard Tim, those were not industrialised nations :-).
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:20:39 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> P.S. Given the option, would you rather see the doctor who drives
> a 1969 Ford Fairlane, or the doctor who drives a new Benz
> every year? I think I'd prefer the Benz driving doc because
> it signifies some level of financial achievement, and probably
> some level of skill. But that's just me ...
Perhaps my point of view has been influenced by my experiences. My best
friend throughout grade school and high school came from a family of
medical professionals. One brother was a doctor, one a vet, and his
sister was a pharmacist. His father was the first licensed physician in
the state.
All of them considered medicine a calling, not a business. The doctor
brother came out of med school and went to work in Appalachia. He
chuckled as he told stories of being paid in corn, chickens, and
occasionally moonshine.
My doctor sometime later had given up a lucrative practice in Chicago and
moved to a little town near the Wisconsin border because he couldn't stand
the way he was starting to treat medicine as a business.
So I'll at least check out the doc in the Ford to see why he's driving it.
He may be a drinker, a gambler, a loser in a malpractice suit, or he may
just be my kind of doctor.
So while I know we'll never agree, I'll continue to believe that getting
rich off the miseries of others is, if not downright immoral, certainly
distasteful. When medicine became a "business" instead of a "calling" we
all became poorer.
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:28:11 -0500, Upscale wrote:
> I for one, am glad that I'm part of and benefiting from the Canadian medical
> system. Sure, like any other system it isn't perfect and there's always room
> for improvement. Am I being selfish? Damned right I am. I want to survive as
> much as the next person and I'd like being able to do so with a certain
> level of self respect. That wouldn't happen in the US system.
>
> In the past, I've been offered well paying jobs in the US and I've always
> turned them down because of what it would cost to pay for my medical needs.
> The reality is that I'd be working to survive in the US while up here in
> Canada at least I can work to live with some hope. There's a big difference
> between the two.
That's a very good summation of what I hear from the Canadians I know.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 01:26:52 -0500, Upscale wrote:
> That I certainly don't agree with. *Most* people as you state are not rich,
> but of middle income. A few serious brushes with the US medical system and
> there's every chance their middle income status is in jeopardy.
Tim will never get that point.
Nobody in Canada or other countries with "socialized" medicine goes
bankrupt from medical bills.
It happens in the US with disturbing frequency. I'd say at least 2 or 3
times a year I read appeals for help in our local paper - not for
indigents, but for middle class people who have exhausted their resources,
and in some cases the resources of family members.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:42:27 -0700, Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> What I don't understand is why it is the Gov. or insurance companies or
> everybody but who are often treated as the villains when it is the medical
> providers themselves and the drug companies that have increased medical
> costs by at least 3X the inflation rate for the past few decades.
> Profiteering at the expense of the ill seems like the true problem.
I think we agree here. But while the greed of doctors varies by
individual, the greed of stockholders in drug companies and for-profit
hospitals seems to peg the meter every time.
We had two non-profit hospital groups (and four hospitals) here. One of
the groups just got bought out by the one of the biggest for-profit
hospital chains in the country. They swear, attest, and affirm that
neither the costs or the standard of care will be affected by the sale.
Wanna' bet? I'll report back in a few years.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:24:22 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> That's the problem with
> socialized systems, eventually people who aren't paying for the benefits
> start taking more and more advantage of those benefits, forcing those who
> are paying taxes to provide those benefits to have to pay more.
If insurance companies can avoid that scenario, I see no reason why a
government agency can't do the same. I frequently read of someone
arrested for defrauding SS or Medicare or the IRS. Of course they don't
catch them all, but neither do the insurance companies. But both should
be able to hold fraud to an acceptable level.
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:44:45 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> You ought to ponder the notion that because something is incoherent
> to *you* does not make it generally incoherent. You are also
> being dishonest. There's nothing I've said that's incoherent,
> you understand it pretty well. You just don't *like* it, don't have
> a meaningful counterpoint, and have to resort to school yard
> dirt throwing.
I also find I have no meaningful counterpoint to those who reject
evolution and dismiss every bit of evidence supporting it as God's little
joke. I'm sure you won't see the parallel to yourself here, but others
will.
I'm going to try very hard not to get drawn into replying to your posts in
the future. But given prior evidence, you'll undoubtedly post something
so outlandish that I can't resist :-).
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 23, 4:28 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote:
>>> ......................................................................
>> Haven't you people figured out how to use the "block sender" feature
>> to simplify the house keeping function?
>>
>> Gets to be a little much to still have to ignore this guy after
>> blocking him.
>>
>> Lew
>
> Michael Johnson (a well established musician) and I were driving down
> the road and he was sharing the joy he was experiencing in life after
> having come face-to-face with both the monsters of alcoholism (and
> music industry executives <G>). He said something to me that day that
> I have carried with me for those last 20 years. He said: "Robbie, an
> alcoholic is a megalomaniac with an inferiority complex."
>
> When I read Tim Daneliuk's posts, I am somehow reminded of that. I
> detect an insecurity wrapped up in blankets of highly skilled
> verbosity, a serious indication of over-achievement and a deep desire
> to be loved. Tim feels the constant need to prove something,
> regardless of its validity. But, as an independent observer and level-
> headed 'collectivist' (a word which bears much hate, usually used by
> previous iron-curtain survivors ) I recommend we all give Tim a group
> hug.
>
> r
Awwwwwwwwwwww ... will I catch anything communicable?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
B A R R Y wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>> Good heavens! How much more regulation can we stand!? After Enron,
>> Sarbanes-Oxley should have prevented anything like happened to Lehman
>> what with all of its reporting requirements, transparency, and data
>> collection
>> down to the smallest project. How much more intrusive do things have to
>> get?
>
> From a non-paritisan standpoint:
>
> In 1999, Glass-Steagal was repealed. This law from the 1930's
> distinctly separated commercial and investment banking. Phil Grahmm (R)
> sponsored it, Clinton signed it. Grahmm soon became a banking lobbyist.
>
> In 2007, The "uptick rule" was eliminated in the US stock markets. This
> allows hedge funds to grossy short stocks, in some cases greatly hurting
> the market cap of a company.
>
> These should be re-regulated.
Re-instating those two regulations seems to make some sense, particularly
the need to eliminate naked short-selling.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Upscale wrote:
>
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Utter nonsense. People at or below the poverty line get medical care
>> on a regular basis in the US without regard for their ability to pay.
>
> And, that's exactly what I said. To get that free health care in the US,
> you have to be poor. I repeated it more than once. Try reading a little
> closer.
>
Ah, I think I see the difference of opinion here. You think that you
get "free" medical care. Somebody, somewhere is paying for that care --
the money has to be coming from someone. That's the problem with
socialized systems, eventually people who aren't paying for the benefits
start taking more and more advantage of those benefits, forcing those who
are paying taxes to provide those benefits to have to pay more. At some
point, the people paying more eventually give up and either bail out from
the system by emigrating somewhere else or start letting the state take
care of them also.
... snip
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote
> Mike, you say that as if it is a bad thing. I've always wanted to own my
> own insurance company and now I do. I'm going to get interest on my money,
> of course so that makes it a great investment. The interest will assure
> that I have a comfortable retirement when the checks start rolling in.
> We're now eligible for the "Friends and Family Discount" on al AIG
> policies too.
>
> With the added interest income, maybe I'll buy General Motors. As an
> owner, we all get company cars. Are you in?
And since I have no credit card debt - zero, zip, nada, none, I should go
out and get me a boatload while I can so it can be forgiven.
... and speaking of boatloads, there's that bass boat I've always wanted,
and it's only $32,000 .... used!
I'm in!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> <nothing of substance>
>
> Well, you at least /sound/ like an over-schooled, under-educated
> navel-gazer who hopes to change what he doesn't like in the world by
> raving incoherently in a woodworking newsgroup.
>
You ought to ponder the notion that because something is incoherent
to *you* does not make it generally incoherent. You are also
being dishonest. There's nothing I've said that's incoherent,
you understand it pretty well. You just don't *like* it, don't have
a meaningful counterpoint, and have to resort to school yard
dirt throwing.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Larry Blanchard" wrote
>
>> Nobody in Canada or other countries with "socialized" medicine goes
>> bankrupt from medical bills.
>
> But maybe not for long, eh? New York Times, Monday September 22, 2008:
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E1D91338F93AA35756C0A9669C8B63
Correction, that was a article published in 2000, not 2008, which the mast
head reads... can't trust the NYT about anything.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Good conversations are built on good manners. Using vulgar language
>> undermines the former because it demonstrates a lack of the latter.
>> Grow up.
>
> Sorry. I forgot the height of your horse.
I am not trying to be arrogant - I just dislike vulgar public
discourse.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> but no one wants to hear them ... they're too busy demanding
>> "free" healthcare ...
>
> Well, I have to admit, you are the quintessential bulldog refusing to
> relinquish your grip for any reason. Your teeth are embedded into the word
Because neither you nor anyone else in this thread has provided even
the slightest argument for doing so. "Neener Neener" is not an argument,
so you'll need to retool your "reasoning".
> "free". It's NOT free, it's health insurance paid for by the citizens and
> collected by employers. Only difference to your private insurance system is
> that it's a much larger system and it's administered by the government.
Horse Hockey. The government system is both compulsory AND provides
benefits to those who pay *nothing*. Find me a private sector example
that does the same.
>
> And if you bothered to look into it, that minimum wage for health insurance
> premium exemption is pretty low. (<$20,000) in Ontario, Canada. That leaves
> a huge lot of people over the $20,000 threshold who do pay for it. The
So, I guess if just a few people steal, it makes stealing OK, huh?
> maximum one would pay is $900 a year, even if they're billionaires. So you
> tell me, who exactly are the indigent stealing from? I don't see any filthy
Those who do pay.
> rich being forced into servitude by the thieving poor. If anything, the
> reverse is true with the filthy rich using whatever method they can find to
> increase their holdings while the poor get poorer. If it was a static
> system, I might agree some with your viewpoint, but it's not by a long shot.
You really, really need a crash course in economics. It is the rich who
form the capital that animates the economy, not the poor. Well .. the
rich and the middle class do. Your class hatred it unbecoming of
a self-anointed savior of mankind.
>
> Your whole viewpoint is based on the fear that somewhere, somehow your
> personal worth is going to be snatched away from you by the "collectivists".
No, my viewpoint is based on the fact that stealing is morally wrong and
that voluntary charity is honorable, noble, and benefits both the giver
and the recipient. Your worldview, by contrast, is built on theft, fear,
and loathing of anyone with more than you as best as I can determine.
> The sad fact is that if anything is taken from you, it's going to be the
> rich and powerful who do the taking, not the less affluent of society. All
What utterly foolish nonsense. I have actually personally known a
few of the ultra wealthy. They gave me a job. The moochers never did.
> the businesses that are cheated and defrauded and bilked of millions of
> dollars into bankruptcy in the US, it's always the CEO's and people of power
> who do the taking. Yet, here you are jumping on the little guy solely
> because of your misdirected delusion of fear.
Yawn and barf. The next time you need a hand up or hand out, ask your
local crack whore, drug addict, drunk, or lazy slob for help and see
where that gets you. Then shave, get a haircut, take a shower and
present yourself at the door of the eeeeeeevil rich and see where that
leads. There is no inherent virtue or vice in wealth OR poverty. But
those of means hire other people. The greediest SOB who changes
Ferraris like underwear may not be nice, but in their quest for
more wealth they create opportunity for the rest of us. That's
Reality Sparky, whether you like it or not.
>
> Tighten your bulldog teeth as much as you want, but it's wasted effort for
> the wrong reason.
>
>
As Rand once commented, in a debate between the Irrational and the
Rational, the Irrational always wins. So .. you're right.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Han wrote:
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in news:zksBk.16947
> [email protected]:
>
>> It ain't just corporate America - our lawmakers have devised a scheme
>> whereby they have run up over $4 trillion of debt called "trust funds"
>> that they claim are assets. Same accounting deceitful practices used by
>> Enron. Been going on since FDR.
>>
>>
>
> I don't think it was ever a trust fund in the sense of being set aside for
> the future. That's just ostrich mentality. All it ever was was a way to
> fund retirements from current workers' income taxes.
If by that you mean the future taxpayers that will have to pay increased
income taxes to pay off the debt that the trust funds contain as a
result of spending the excess FICA taxes today, you are correct - dual
taxation.
>
> And now FICA taxes hould be leveled on ALL income, earned and unearned, so
> the fat cats pay a little more of the War costs. Although it would mean I
> would pay more taxes too.
That will result in running up debt at a faster rate as every excess SS
dollar that goes into the "trust fund" is a dollar of debt with
interest. When the funds need to redeem those debt bonds, future
taxpayers will have to bail out the funds.
>
Han wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:6p1iq5-2572.ln1
> @ozzie.tundraware.com:
>
>> At this point, it matters very little who is right or wrong. The
>> Big Government monsters are using this set of events to further
>> Federalize our nation. We have taken another gigantic step into the
>> hell of a collectivist nation - in large part to our own foolish greed
>> as individual citizens who want what we want without caring much whether
>> we are legitimately entitled to it.
>>
>
> I think we are much more alike than you suspect. I am for individual
> responsibility, and I do think those who went in over their head should not
> come off scott-free (sp?). But I still think the basic mistake for want of
> a better word is not enough regulation and oversight. In a free market
Really? You think Federal regulators are more trustworthy and honorable
than politicians and incompetent CEOs??? I don't. With the exception of
the military and parts of the DOJ, most government jobs draw people who
are *less* competent and would have trouble functioning in the private
sector in my observation.
> there should be responsibility (enforced or natural) to prevent excesses
> such as the savings and loan debacle, the dotcom bubble and now the housing
> and debt bubble. To let the free market correct itself with boom and bust
> is not good governance.
You need to read a bunch of Econ 101 stuff. What you propose is a fantasy:
That free markets can be regulated and remain effective/efficient. You
CANNOT regulate a financial system of any size without doing great harm
to it. The idea that economies can be managed should have died with
nauseating example of the USSR, but Western lefties never seem to get it.
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:bi0lq5-
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> So while I know we'll never agree, I'll continue to believe that getting
>>> rich off the miseries of others is, if not downright immoral, certainly
>>> distasteful.
>> I heartily agree - that's why I could never be a liberal Democrat.
>
> You're full of shit. Feeble try at a flip-flop.
>
>
Again, you've no idea about my personal behaviors in this regard.
Theft is theft. I do not like the idea of profiting from the
misery of other and have - even recently -refused to do so.
But a poor man stealing from a rich man is just as dishonorable
as the reverse situation. We are either people of principle
or we can abandon all notion of civil behavior.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Han wrote:
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in news:zksBk.16947
> [email protected]:
>
>> It ain't just corporate America - our lawmakers have devised a scheme
>> whereby they have run up over $4 trillion of debt called "trust funds"
>> that they claim are assets. Same accounting deceitful practices used by
>> Enron. Been going on since FDR.
>>
>>
>
> I don't think it was ever a trust fund in the sense of being set aside for
> the future. That's just ostrich mentality. All it ever was was a way to
> fund retirements from current workers' income taxes.
>
> And now FICA taxes hould be leveled on ALL income, earned and unearned, so
> the fat cats pay a little more of the War costs. Although it would mean I
> would pay more taxes too.
>
I'd be all for that so long as:
1) The money *had* to be used to fund SS/Medicare/Medicaid and any
surplus had to be banked and untouchable for other purposes.
2) A simultaneous program of phasing out all SS/Medicare over, say,
50 years was implemented to get government OUT of the business
of retirement - where it has neither any business nor Constitutional
authority to operate.
3) Take the caps off 401Ks and make it clear to people it is their
responsibility to worry about their own retirement. Better yet,
go to a flat tax like the Fair Tax system and eliminate income taxes
altogether.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Han wrote:
>
... snip
>
>> As far as Medicare/Medicaid/health insurance is concerned, I believe that
>> a certain fairly low level should be compulsory. Add-on insurance should
>> be affordable, and available at different levels of benefits and
>> premiums. It should also be underestood that smoking or other dangerous
>> habits should carry a penalty.
>
> Hmm. Have you ever tried making a list of "dangerous practices"? Off the
> top of my head...
>
> Smoking
> Firefighting
> Motorcycling
> Holding a microwave transmitter against the side of your skull
> Entering a conflict zone
> Entering a disaster zone
> Teaching in an inner city school
> Being a student in an inner city school
> Working in law enforcement
> Residing in an [earthquake/tornado/flood/hurricane] zone
> Driving a motor vehicle
> Consuming alcohol
>
> What is the nature of the penalty you would choose
> (fine/imprisonment/exile/death/other)?
>
> I think I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think you've
> thought things through quite far enough...
>
Morris, in your list above, you missed one that hits all of us on this
forum (except for a few trolls):
Use of power tools
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:25:11 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>> 2) A simultaneous program of phasing out all SS/Medicare over, say,
>>> 50 years was implemented to get government OUT of the business
>>> of retirement - where it has neither any business nor Constitutional
>>> authority to operate.
>>
>> AFAIK, there are only two industrialized nations that do not provide
>> health care and pensions to all. Those are the United States and South
>> Africa.
>>
>> Tim, I think you've got a bad case of "every one is out of step but me."
>>
>> Yes, I know - you're going to tell me the Constitution doesn't allow it.
>> I happen to think you're wrong, but if you're right I think the
>> Constitution needs to be changed.
>>
>> A document written for an agrarian society where life expectancy was 40
>> or less and the medical establishment didn't even know about bacteria
>> needs to be interpreted to fit today's society.
>>
>
> I do not like seeing my freedoms and economic future eroded because
> people who see things your way are unwilling to follow the law to
> achieve what they want. We live with a lawless government, a thieving
> public, and a permanent whining victim class as a result. Oh, and BTW,
> "we're only one of two nations not offering nationalized healtcare"
> is the worst of all possible reasoning. You want healthcare to be
> the same here as it is in Burundi or Senegal? I like our healthcare
> system - it's just fine with me as it is ... or it least it is better
> than anything those morons in D.C. could ever do. You want healthcare
> run with the same effectiveness as the people who scan our luggage
> at the airport. I don't.
>
A taste of the future:
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2983652/Baroness-Warnock-Dementia-sufferers-may-have-a-duty-to-die.html?source=EMC-new_19092008>
Note one of the primary drivers here for a death penalty for the living is
to limit the impact upon the National Health Service; and this coming from
a country that doesn't have the death penalty for even the most vicious of
criminals just to add to the irony.
This is one of those countries that so many are wringing their hands that
we aren't emulating by providing for everyone's health care.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Do you really want Congress owning (all) corporations?
Wouldn't that be a 180 degree turn-around? Don't corporations own
Congress now?
Dave [the Cynic] in Houston
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Methinks you're missing his point. The issue is not primarily people
> defrauding government programs (though that is surely *a* problem, no
> different than in the private sector). The issue has to do with the
> inherent nature of tax-funded programs - they apply to everyone who
> "qualifies" whether they pay taxes or not.
A scenerio of pay your money and get your stuff is realistically a store and
not a Government......
> Private companies can avoid this by not granting benefits to people
> who don't pay for one of their insurance policies. But government-run
> programs provide coverage based on "class" (age, socio-economic
> standing, gender, and, sometimes, even race). There are inevitably many
> class members who pay nothing but get program benefits.
And a society that does not care for those in need is better because?
Historically and/or simply world wide why are the most productive and
successful countries those with more social programs than those with little
to none? Should the aggregate whole produce and have less merely based on
your principle of self reliance first and last?
They do this
> entirely *legally*. In so doing, the non-contributors burden the
> system to the detriment of the contributors.
Are you missing the purpose?....a big pool of people with some swimming,
some treading water and others being furnished a life jacket.......the
pooling of resources, abilities and talent makes for a stronger whole. If
private voluntary charity is good (you seem to be a strong proponent) why
would a country whom cares and provides for those less fortunate not be good
as well? When my kids were home, while I much preferred voluntary household
contributions or efforts, mandatory chores were both needed and a price for
living here.
>So, the contributor
> is forced - at the point of the government's gun -
The gun thing is far more rhetorical than informational, even downright
irritating at times.....It is also far from unique to Gov. run social
welfare programs. Seriously refuse any Gov. mandate from military service to
seat belts and eventually you'll find a gun poking you where it shouldn't.
to participate
> in a program (possibly against their will) AND pay for other people
> who contribute nothing.
The price of admission.....and also seriously dwarfed by current and past
fiscal disasters....one might even argue that welfare queens are much
cheaper to keep than our cherished wallstreet types.
>Somehow in the Do-Gooders Lexicon, this
> qualifies as a noble act.
It is...without doubt the majority of citizens wish to pool resources and
provide for the elderly, those in need and the disabled. Ultimately a
serious justification for any sovereign country is to fulfill the will, the
needs or even the whim of the populous...... why else would it exist?
> I find that alone astonishing and
> a searing indictment of how deeply morally corrupt the ideas of
> the intellectual/political left have become...
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Indeed I'd think they often are but not for these concepts.....Rod
jo4hn wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>
>>> "Mark & Juanita" wrote:
>>>
>>>> I want to see Lew rant equally about those who initiated this
>>>> mess --
>>> Nice try to divert the discussion, but that crap doesn't stick on the
>>> wall.
>>>
>>> Back to the subject.
>>>
>>> What's next?
>>>
>>> Lew
>>
>> Yep, that's pretty much what I expected. ... and people accuse *me* of
>> being partisan.
>>
>> It doesn't take much rummaging around to find significant amounts of
>> issues with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; problem is, they all lead to
>> Lew's
>> favorite party. One of the Obama's leading economic advisors is Frank
>> Raines, the guy who got off with over $50M while Fannie Mae was writing
>> mortgages for which we taxpayers are going to wind up paying.
>>
>>
> Close but no cigar. This from
> http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/19/1427108.aspx
>
It misses the point. Those two companies were government-backed
companies. They set policies in accordance with government objectives
("affordable housing", etc). The push to expand the "American dream" was
expounded upon in an address to the Congressional Black Caucus by Daniel
Mudd for example are indicative of what this "company" was doing, knowing
its loans were backed by the government so the taxpayers would wind up
paying for any bad loans. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0>.
You can take or leave the pieces of commentary in the clip, but the real
words of Mudd (all strung together, not taken out of context) show a
political agenda and objectives that were running this GSE.
A GSE (government sponsored enterprise)that couldn't even obey government
accounting rules when real private enterprises were expected to do so:
<http://www.gsereport.com/2005/Dec%2013-January%203(2).pdf>.
As I pointed out in a previous link, their sponsors in Congress (who were
using "affordable housing" to buy votes) ridiculed the administration when
the administration rightly attempted to exert additional oversight and
loudly claimed that there was no impending disaster looming with those
agencies (Barney Frank).
Is it a bit of hyperbole to say that Raines, Gorelick, Mudd, Jesse
Jackson's Rainbow PUSH coalition, Chris Dodd, Obama, Kerry, et al got away
with taxpayer money? Perhaps, but only a bit when you look at where they
were spending money, how they were spending it and the low likelihood that
the borrowers would be able to repay and that taxpayers were ultimately
going to have to back up those loans.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"B A R R Y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>> "B A R R Y" wrote
>>> In 2007, The "uptick rule" was eliminated in the US stock markets. This
>>> allows hedge funds to grossy short stocks, in some cases greatly hurting
>>> the market cap of a company.
>>>
>> The "uptick" or short selling rules have been reinstated.
>
> When?
>
Within the last few days, I think last wednesday or thursday. Don't quote me
on that. This is not my area of expertise. Just the general fallout I hear
from the financial news. I do not directly work with stocks.
I do know that the naked short selling is now prohibited.
I am pretty sure that stock based futures are still intact. But these only
exist for certain stocks and it is a very limited market. It hasn't really
caught on. The equity index futures are available for that sort of thing.
And all of these have strict margin requirements.
> Or do you mean "The List"?
No.
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Morris Dovey
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> Morris, I'd expected better of you than an ad hominem such as this
>>>> -- as Tim points out, it's a sure sign that you know you can't
>>>> debate the issue on its merits.
>>> Merits??? You're right - I can't.
>>>
>> I meant, you should be defending *your* position on its merits. If it
>> had any, you wouldn't need to resort to ad hominems.
>
> Quite right. I offer my apologies to the group. My position is has
> already been presented in this group, and I don't feel the need to waste
> additional bandwidth on this individual. He seems perfectly capable of
> digging his own hole.
>
> Thanks for your reminder.
>
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20080923/lga080924.gif
Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> All true, IMNSHO, both Morris and Mike.
>> And I agree (unfortunately) wth McPain that it is due to excessive greed
>> of the bankers - which is what regulators and legislators should protect
>> the "common" man from. Now, caveat emptor should go both ways - the
>> unscrupulous bankers and the stupid borrowers should be punished, but in
>> a way that leaves the rest of US (pun intended) protected. If I have
>> been prudently spending and borrowing within my means, why should I have
>> to bail out the aforementioned unscrupulous bankers and the stupid
>> borrowers?
>>
>
> Have you been listening in to the conversations in my neck of the woods?
> Though it will never happen, the single most common thought in our
> conversations has been that of holding the decision makers in these events
> personally responsible. Financially responsible. And not just in light of
> this debacle - this type of house of cards problem persists throughout
> corporate America as CEO's play fast and loose in the name of creating the
> appearance of profit and health. They leave - they take their golden
> parachutes or their bonus package and the mess is left behind. No matter -
> they're off with their wealth. I'm every bit a capitalist, and I do not
> begrudge anyone wealth - even excess wealth, but I do have a big problem
> with the ill gotten gains of deceit.
>
It ain't just corporate America - our lawmakers have devised a scheme
whereby they have run up over $4 trillion of debt called "trust funds"
that they claim are assets. Same accounting deceitful practices used by
Enron. Been going on since FDR.