What to love about the United States.
 

Touché, oh sphincter breath. However, agreement, or disagreement, is moot when the point is missed. And you couldn't find a piano
in the bathroom.


"Scout" wrote in message ...
My splinter? hahaha!
Oh Please! Maybe I should just copy and paste someone else's opinion and
call it my own. As you do, for example. Your MO seems to consist mainly of
piggy-backing on what others are saying. This is America pal, surely you
can afford your own thoughts. I've read your work too, and no offense, but I
don't think I'll be worrying about your opinion anytime soon.
Ironically, I agreed with many of D'Souza's points. Still, you are saying I
must agree with everything he says, or risk your reprisals? Are you one of
those folks who cannot even be agreed with? Well, such is life (at least, in
America).
Scout


"jlrogers" wrote
I've seen you miss the point before, but this time you missed it while
simultaneously surrounding it with your ass. It must 'ave
slipped 'tween your cheeks and tickled your splinter.


"Scout" wrote in message
...
I've heard Dinesh D'Souza speak, and I like most of what he says.
However,
when he speaks of plumbers and waiters and other such workers, and is in
awe
that they have some cash and some rights, he also needs to know that it
was
plumbers and waiters construction workers who fought, suffered, and
often
died to make America what it is today.

We now live in a country where construction workers regularly pay $4
for a
nonfat latte
where maids drive nice cars, and where plumbers take their families on
vacation to Europe.
- Which is how it should be.

"I really want to live in a country where the poor people are fat."
- this is true

no country has created a better ladder than America for people to
ascend
from modest circumstances to success.
- this is true

Work and trade are respectable in America
- They deserve respect, but America still looks down on the
tradespeople,
big mistake. This is not true in some other places, like Germany, where
the
trades are honored. In America, we send our academically failing
students,
behavior problems, malcontents, and social misfits to the Vocational
high
schools to learn a trade. It is only the trade unions who are seeing
through this farce, and they recruit new members not from vocational
high
schools, but from colleges. Trade Union members are told to not send
their
children to vocational high schools. How sad this is that the
educational
systems has *******ized an ancient and proven system of apprenticing.

In the American view, there is nothing vile or degraded about serving
your
customers either as a CEO or as a waiter.
- Unfortunately, neither is likely to get good service. Try dealing with
the
IRS, any insurance agency, any governmental agency, any business with
more
than 50 employees. Good luck.

Indeed America is the only country in the world where we call the
waiter
"sir," as if he were a knight.
- I was a waiter when I was a young college student, so I can't agree
with
this one. People, especially our visiting neighbors from New York,
treated
us like ****. Then they typically stiffed us for a tip. Meanwhile, food
workers make less than minimum wage.


For all his riches, Bill Gates could not approach the typical
American
and say, "Here's a $100 bill. I'll give
it to you if you kiss my feet." Most likely the person would tell
Gates
to go to hell!
- He should visit Times Square, people are doing a lot more than kiss
feet
for a lot less money.

Scout

What to love about the United States.
 

How would you know if I missed the point, or for that matter what the point
really is? And btw, when you throw something out there, particularly
something you didn't even bother to write yourself, then just be quiet, be
patient, and listen to what comes back. Ever fancy that an American might
have some legitimate feelings, based on personal experiences, about what it
means to labor, sacrifice, and live in America? Or do you suppose that only
Indians are experts on Americans?
Had you paused to cogitate, you might have considered the fact that I have
heard D'Souza speak at length, and might have formulated a different take on
his perspective than you gleaned from the blurb you pasted in here. And I'm
not even disagreeing with his thesis for God's sake!
So listen up Admiral Splinter, I think you can be saved in spite of your
narrow views and rude ways, but you must read this quotation aloud, or
nothing good can come of this. Ok? Ready?
"From now on, the point is whatever Scout says it is!"
Did you say it? Yes? Good Boy!
Scout
p.s. It shouldn't surprise anyone that you'd keep a piano in the bathroom,
it would explain the splinters in your sphincter. A fluffy cover would make
a nifty stool softener.
Touché Douché



"jlrogers" wrote in message
. ..
Touché, oh sphincter breath. However, agreement, or disagreement, is moot
when the point is missed. And you couldn't find a piano
in the bathroom.


"Scout" wrote in message
...
My splinter? hahaha!
Oh Please! Maybe I should just copy and paste someone else's opinion and

What to love about the United States.
 

and where plumbers take their families on
vacation to Europe.

Our plumber lives in a 250K house and has a cottage on the lake and still takes extravagant vacations. Our electrician has an
even more expensive house, a second house on the lake and a 30 foot motor boat.
--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit.
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

What to love about the United States.
 

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 15:18:04 GMT, "Gilligan"
wrote this crap:

What you have described here is America of the past.

Let's take a look at the futu

The law of the land, the US Constitution is becoming less and less relevant.

Spending under the Bush administrations first three years has gone up 13.5%.
The same time duration under Clinton only yielded an increase of 3.3%.

Bull****.

[all other bull**** deleted]




Ave Imperator Bush!
Bush Was Right! Four More Beers!

What to love about the United States.
 

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:04:27 GMT, "Gilligan"
wrote this crap:

Housing prices have been dropping in Japan and Germany for the last ten
years.

Where the hell did you hear that?

The Japanese bought Rockefeller Center in NYC because property values
were rising so fast they couldn't buy investment property in Tokyo.
They thought property in NYC would be a good investment.




Ave Imperator Bush!
Bush Was Right! Four More Beers!

What to love about the United States.
 

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 16:28:26 -0400, "katysails"
wrote this crap:


and where plumbers take their families on
vacation to Europe.

Our plumber lives in a 250K house and has a cottage on the lake and still takes extravagant vacations. Our electrician has an
even more expensive house, a second house on the lake and a 30 foot motor boat.


I pity those people who have such small houses and small boats.




Ave Imperator Bush!
Bush Was Right! Four More Beers!

What to love about the United States.
 

Read it in The Economist about three issues ago.


"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:04:27 GMT, "Gilligan"
wrote this crap:

Housing prices have been dropping in Japan and Germany for the last ten
years.

Where the hell did you hear that?

The Japanese bought Rockefeller Center in NYC because property values
were rising so fast they couldn't buy investment property in Tokyo.
They thought property in NYC would be a good investment.




Ave Imperator Bush!
Bush Was Right! Four More Beers!

What to love about the United States.
 

2003 Budget Completes Big Jump in Spending


By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 15, 2002; Page A01


The Bush administration is poised to complete the biggest increase in
government spending since the 1960s' "Great Society," the result of
conducting the war on terrorism while substantially boosting the education
and transportation budgets, according to a detailed analysis of government
spending patterns.

Spending on government programs will increase by 22 percent from 1999 to
2003 in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to the analysis by The
Washington Post and vetted by budget experts in both parties.

The president's 2003 budget proposals, combined with spending approved in
the first year of his administration and the last two years of the Clinton
administration, dwarf the spending increase from any four-year period since
President Lyndon Johnson fought the Vietnam War while launching a war on
poverty. Other periods of substantial increases in domestic spending,
including the Nixon and Carter administrations, were accompanied by cuts in
military spending. President Ronald Reagan boosted money for the mili- tary
while trimming the domestic budget.

In the short term, the latest spending hike is one factor helping to pull
the nation out of recession. But over the long run, some experts say, most
of the spending will be a drag on the economy, heighten the risk of
sustained budget deficits and limit the maneuvering room of policymakers
when, 10 years from now, the government must help fund the baby boomers'
health care and retirement needs.

"We should be very concerned," said John Cogan, a budget expert at the
Hoover Institution who advised the Bush campaign. "Clearly, the defense and
national security increases are warranted. The failure to offset those
increases with reductions should be a source of concern. The wrong thing to
do is not confront those choices."

President Bush has regularly warned against the perils of federal spending,
declaring last year that "excessive federal spending threatens economic
vitality." Although administration officials vow to control spending once
the current emergency has passed, many experts believe that will be
difficult, if not impossible. Last year's tax cut and the recent recession
may result in the first back-to-back years of falling revenue since the late
1950s.

Now, the military is slated to get the biggest increase in two decades,
matching the previous Bush administration's budget when adjusted for
inflation. Homeland security needs dominate the nonmilitary budget in 2003,
but nonmilitary spending had already risen dramatically in recent years as
the nation briefly enjoyed budget surpluses.

Measured another way, federal spending, minus interest costs on the debt,
will have grown by nearly 2 percentage points of the overall U.S. economy
from 1999 to 2003 -- from 16.6 percent to 18.5 percent.

The total for the 2003 budget likely will go higher as pressure builds in
Congress to add to the administration's budget requests in this election
year and to enact new benefits such as a prescription drug plan for Medicare
recipients. The calculations also do not include the effect of the
administration's recent $27 billion supplemental spending request for fiscal
2002.

Bush administration officials say that they tried to clamp down on
spending -- and intend to take a hard line in the future -- but that now
they are focusing on ensuring the safety of Americans. Spending on annually
funded programs, in inflation-adjusted dollars, rose about 9 percent in the
last two years of the Clinton administration and is scheduled to grow nearly
15 percent in the first two years of the Bush administration.

"This is an important phenomenon that needs to be closely watched," Office
of Management and Budget Director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. said after
reviewing The Post research. "We cannot make the 'guns and butter' mistake"
of the 1960s, he said, referring to simultaneous spending hikes for military
and domestic items.

Daniels said he believed much of the homeland security spending would be
one-time expenses, such as building a vaccine stockpile, and thus would not
be built into future spending. He said the administration has tried to slow
the growth in other spending. For example, after approving last year a
substantial increase in education spending -- which has risen nearly 50
percent in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1999 -- the administration has
proposed essentially to freeze education spending until 2007.

The White House says that if homeland security and Sept. 11 emergency
spending is excluded, nondefense spending rose by 3.3 percent in 2002 and is
slated to decline by 0.4 percent in 2003. In a meeting with congressional
leaders last week, Bush vowed to veto spending bills that exceeded his
spending targets, a White House official said.

"If we are not prepared to roll back spending" once the current crisis is
over, Daniels said, "we will make a fundamental mistake."

That may be difficult. Robert Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute
and a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, noted that only
once during the 1990s, when the government struggled to get the deficit
under control, did the spending on annually funded domestic programs decline
after inflation is taken into account.

"Congress didn't really show a great ability to hold down nondefense
discretionary spending," Reischauer said.

Kevin Hassett, a budget expert at the conservative-leaning American
Enterprise Institute, said the emergence of budget surpluses led directly to
the spending growth. "It is really obvious that when there is money around,
they will spend it, even if they are Republicans," he said.

Hassett noted that the administration last year pushed for a tax cut by
arguing it would restrain spending. "They said it would starve the beast,"
he said. "But we have a hungry beast who is somehow finding food anyway. . .
.. You've got to wonder how fiscally conservative the Bush guys are. Granted,
you could say there are a lot of priorities. But shucks, couldn't we find
other things to cut?"

Peter Orszag, a former Clinton economic aide and now fellow at the liberal
Brookings Institution, said much of the spending growth could be attributed
to pent-up demands after a period of frugality.

"These are significant increases, but from very low levels," Orszag said.
"Discretionary spending as a share of the gross domestic product had fallen
to low levels. There were needs and demands that had been built up and
needed to be addressed."

Orszag said the revenue loss from the Bush tax cut in future years will
begin to dwarf the spending increases in the recent past.

Thomas Kahn, Democratic staff director of the House Budget Committee, noted
that the calculations do not include the huge defense buildup that the
administration plans beyond 2003.

"The story is even more troubling than these numbers suggest," he said.
"Republican rhetoric suggests they are fiscally tight. But they are big
spenders as long as it is on programs they want to spend money on."

Reischauer said that despite the recent emergence of deficits, the overall
fiscal picture is still bright, in part because the deficit this year will
be relatively small. "We are not in deep doo-doo by the standards of the
1980s and 1990s at all," he said.

But he added, "the pressures for additional spending are going to be very
strong. Institutionally, the restraints are crumbling. The political
environment is not auspicious" given the narrowly divided Congress.

"The administration doesn't want to lose the House, and it is mindful of the
fallout of any discipline they impose on their election chances," Reischauer
said. "They can talk the talk. Can they walk the walk?"


"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 15:18:04 GMT, "Gilligan"
wrote this crap:

What you have described here is America of the past.

Let's take a look at the futu

The law of the land, the US Constitution is becoming less and less
relevant.

Spending under the Bush administrations first three years has gone up
13.5%.
The same time duration under Clinton only yielded an increase of 3.3%.

Bull****.

[all other bull**** deleted]




Ave Imperator Bush!
Bush Was Right! Four More Beers!

What to love about the United States.
 

It's obvious which generation is the most important:


Government Budget Spending

Families have long been recognized as the basic foundation of every society.
Children have long been recognized our hope for the future. There is little
doubt that in today's society, families and our children are under extreme
pressure from many sources. Politicians coined the term "family values," but
most elected officials have ignored children's issues when they get to
Congress. Our federal government has failed miserably in promoting and
funding programs and ideals that strengthen the family. Just look at our
government's failed "War on Drugs, the Tax Code, our declining Educational
System, or the many liberal laws that have given us such things as abortion,
no-fault divorce, a ban on prayer in schools, widespread pornography,
violence on TV, state intrusion into family autonomy, etc. and the reasons
for this pressure becomes obvious.

For those GPs on that advocate GP "forced visitation" laws and use as their
argument their concern for the "best interests and welfare of the children",
here's your chance to help, your chance to put you money where your mouth
is.

A study of federal spending, using the U.S. Federal Budget reveals some
interesting facts. One glaring inequity that stands out is the fact that
while the government often gives lip service to their concern for our
children, they fail miserably when it comes to providing the funding and
programs necessary to help. As we all know, the Federal Government is quick
to tax and spend, but it is how the money is spent that is quite revealing.
The federal government currently spends more than five times more on
programs and entitlements for Americans over 65 than it spends on children,
even though there are twice as many children as elderly. If this isn't
shocking enough, how about this. The lion's share of this money spent on the
elderly is not even means tested. This means the money is just doled out
without verifying whether it is needed.

What's even more shocking is that organizations that purport to support our
children, are in fact partners in this injustice. Let's just look at one
such organization's (the NEA) legislative program agenda. In a study, John
Berthoud, Vice President of the Alexis de Toqueville Institution, revealed
that "If every item in the National Education Association's (NEA)
Legislative Program for the 104th Congress were enacted, federal spending
would increase by at least $702 billion annually." The study uses data on
legislative proposals compiled by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation in
their BillTally tracking system. The spending estimates for the different
proposals come from non-partisan sources such as the Congressional Budget
Office. One of the findings in this report is that the NEA's spending
priorities are heavily skewed towards elderly Americans, despite NEA's claim
that it is an educational organization with a primary focus on schools and
children. The study finds that "for each dollar in new spending on children
and education that the NEA proposes (over $24 billion annually), it
advocates $5.24 in new spending on Social Security". The report also claims
"that the taxes to fund the NEA agenda are probably politically impractical.
According to the report, the NEA would need over thirteen times as much in
taxes as was raised by the 1993 budget package". Berthoud points out, "no
organization that advocates this massive expansion of federal spending and
probably massive increase in deficits can claim to be helping children. This
agenda will break the financial back of America's future generations."

If that isn't shocking enough for you, let's examine the U.S. Budget and see
how the government actually spent its money on areas affecting children,
families, and the elderly. The source for this data is the U.S. Budget FY
1998, Historical Tables, OMB Feb. 1997, and The Economic and Budget Outlook
FY 1998-2007, CBO, Jan. 1997)

In the postwar era entitlements have grown rapidly. Nearly all of this
growth has been due to age-based retirement and health-care programs, not
programs targeted to children, youth, families, the unskilled, the
unemployed, or poor.

Entitlements are cash or in-kind payments to (or on behalf of) individuals
that are not contractually linked to payments or services received by the
government in return. The federal government distributes most entitlement
benefits directly, but some are disbursed through grants to state and local
authorities. The entitlements outlay category includes only benefit
payments; it excludes the cost of program administration.

Federal entitlement spending

$35.4 billion
1996 $914.4 billion

1996 FY Federal spending

Entitlements $914.4 billion 58.6%

Defense $265.7 billion 17.0%

Interest $241.1 billion 15.5%

All Other $139.1 billion 8.9%

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

1560.3 billion

Over the postwar era, entitlements have been the fastest-growing category of
federal spending, rising from under half to more than triple the size of
defense, and far outstripping the growth of the economy.

Actual Federal entitlement spending

FY 1965 $35.9 billion

FY 1996 $914.4 billion

Retirement and health-care programs that primarily benefit older Americans
account for virtually all the expansion, and today comprise four-fifths of
all federal entitlement spending.

FY 1996 Federal entitlement spending

Food and housing $62.3 billion 6.8%

Cash welfare $62.7 billion 6.9%

Other non-retirement $60.2 billion 6.6%

Health benefits $308.0 billion 33.7%

Federal pensions $74.4 billion 8.1%

Social security $346.8 billion 37.9%

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

$914.4 billion





The lion's share of federal entitlement dollars is paid out without regard
to financial need.

FY 1996 Federal entitlement spending

Means tested $218.2 billion 23.9%

Partially means tested $36.1 billion 4.0%

Non-means tested $660.1 billion 72.2%

---------

$914.4 billion

Means-tested entitlements are those for which recipients must demonstrate
some degree of financial need. They include AFDC, SSI, the EITC, Food
Stamps, and Medicaid. Non-means-tested entitlements do not consider
financial need in determining eligibility; instead, eligibility is based on
categorical requirements, such as age, disability, or prior employment.
Non-means-tested entitlements include Social Security, Medicare, federal
civilian and military retirement, Unemployment Insurance, and farm price
supports. Partly means-tested entitlements (mainly veterans' health care and
student loans) sometimes consider financial need in determining eligibility,
but according to rules that do not apply to all benefits granted.

Of all government benefit dollars, less than one out of seven serves to
raise Americans out of poverty. Indeed, federal entitlements are as likely
to benefit the affluent as the needy.

Although only one in eight Americans is aged sixty-five or older, the
elderly receive three-fifths of all federal entitlements.

Federal entitlements by age group FY 1996

Ages under 18 $88.5 billion 9.7%

Ages 18-64 $234.1 billion 25.4%

Ages 65 and older $557.0 billion 60.9%

Ages unknown $34.9 billion 3.8%

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

$914.4 billion

Federal benefits to the elderly have grown dramatically in recent decades
and, in per capita dollars, now dwarf benefits going to other age groups.

Per capita entitlements by age group FY 1996

Ages under 18 $1,282.00

Ages 18-64 $1,442.00

Ages 65 and older $16,451.00

Even including nonentitlement outlays, per capita federal spending on the
elderly towers 9 to 1 over per capita spending on children.

The United states has gained a troubling distinction among developed
nations: In no other country do government benefits so favor the old.

Now you're probably thinking, "But they need it right?" Sort of the same
myth as poor old grannie being denied visitation and the cookies getting
cold.

Let's look..

The myth about widespread senior poverty to the contrary, the elderly rank
about average in comparison to all households in per capita cash income.

Per capita before-tax cash income by household type in FY 1996.

All households $18,250

Elderly households $17,197

Households with children $13,692

Single mother households $ 7,385

Households w/o children $24,584

Please note the elderly is 25.6% greater than households with children.

1996 Federal tax liability for a working couple and an elderly couple with
$30,000 income

Working couple $6,938

Elderly couple $690

Beyond income, the elderly have advantages in financial assets, where they
do better than any younger age group.

Average household financial net worth by age group in 1993

Under age 35 $7,950

Ages 35-44 $35,081

Ages 45-54 $35,073

Ages 55-64 $56,727

Ages 65 & older $61,946

Average household total net worth by age group in 1993

Under age 35 $30,144

Ages 35-44 $93,598

Ages 45-54 $125,856

Ages 55-64 $169,491

Ages 65 & older $151,681


The elderly also enjoy high rates of homeownership, which are declining for
the young but still rising for seniors.

Homeownership rates by age group 1995

Under age 25 14.20%

Ages 25-34 44.80%

Ages 34-44 65.20%

Ages 45-64 77.25%

Ages 65 and older 77.80%

As for health care, the share of Americans without insurance declines
dramatically with age.

Percentage of persons without health insurance in 1995 as a percentage of
all persons in their age group.

Under age 18 14.8%

Ages 18-24 28.9%

Ages 25-34 22.3%

Ages 35-44 16.3%

Ages 45-54 13.7%

Ages 55-64 13.8%

Ages 65 and older 1.1%

This information is from a study done by NEIL HOWE AND RICHARD JACKSON for
the National Taxpayers Union.

These statistics clearly show that lobbying efforts by senior citizen
organizations have been quite successful in "providing" for entitlements for
the elderly, with the lion's share not being means tested. They also show
that many elderly people should be means tested for they not only receive
the lion's share of the entitlements by are also the best off financially.
The most alarming statistics show how much is allocated to seniors that
least need it, and how little is allocated to children, families, and the
poor, that most need it.

My challenge to all grandparents and parents that are "truly" concerned
about the best interests of children is to call your congressmen and demand
means testing for entitlements. Demand that the entitlements are taken away
from those that do not need them and reallocated to those that do, mainly
the children and the poor. This could be don without even raising taxes and
we could do something for our children.

Here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is. Our children are
counting on you.

What to love about the United States.
 

Rush said in 1999:

National Review (NR Wire)

October 6, 1999

LIMBAUGH: BUSH "NO CONSERVATIVE"

Conservative talkmeister Rush Limbaugh blasted away at George W. Bush with
both barrels today, stoking a possible clash between grass-roots
conservatives and the front-running candidate who is already pursuing a
centerist general election strategy.

"He's really wandered off the reservation here lately folks," Limbaugh
intoned, before making the case against the recent Bush positioning.

"In my mind," he told his listeners, "no conservative running for president
would make the kind of statements that he's made. No conservative running
for president would leave his philosophical brothers and sisters dying on
the congressional battlefield the way Bush did with that EITC (Earned Income
Tax Credit) thing. And now he's done it again with the speech at the
Manhattan Institute. He's done it twice in seven or eight days time."

"This obviously is a carefully crafted strategy." Limbaugh continued. "What
it means is that solid conservatives from Tom DeLay to Dick Armey, who are
doing all they can to eke out small majorities and beat back Clinton and all
his Big Government schemes-issue after issue-end up being emasculated by
Bush's comments."

"Who wants a Republican moderate as president?" Limbaugh asked, a question
the Bush camp must hope that other conservatives don't begin asking.