In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 14 Oct 2004 13:03:38 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

From that moment on, the majority
always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the
public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over
loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

Good quote, Jon. But pretty funny coming from the guy backing a candidate
whose promise to every interest group is "I gonna give you [fill in the
blank--free health care, good schools, higher wages, etc. etc.] and that
fella over there is gonna pay for it."

Well, in Bush's case, he's already done that. Actually, not every
interest group... mostly just the energy ones, the ones who's execs
don't give a crap about anyone except themselves. Bummer about
teachers and healthcare workers wanting a voice... a real bummer isn't
it?

I may have pointed out before that we're getting very near the tipping point
where the majority of Americans pay no federal income tax. When that 50%
threshold is crossed, look for all hell to break loose as the non-taxpayers
vote to extract more and more for themselves from fewer and fewer.

This is exactly what BushCo is doing now. Why wait.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

We live in a Republic. A Democracy is mob rule, where 51% rule the other
49%.

Gilligan

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 14 Oct 2004 13:03:38 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

From that moment on, the majority
always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the
public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over
loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

Good quote, Jon. But pretty funny coming from the guy backing a candidate
whose promise to every interest group is "I gonna give you [fill in the
blank--free health care, good schools, higher wages, etc. etc.] and that
fella over there is gonna pay for it."

Well, in Bush's case, he's already done that. Actually, not every
interest group... mostly just the energy ones, the ones who's execs
don't give a crap about anyone except themselves. Bummer about
teachers and healthcare workers wanting a voice... a real bummer isn't
it?

I may have pointed out before that we're getting very near the tipping
point
where the majority of Americans pay no federal income tax. When that 50%
threshold is crossed, look for all hell to break loose as the
non-taxpayers
vote to extract more and more for themselves from fewer and fewer.

This is exactly what BushCo is doing now. Why wait.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article . net,
Gilligan wrote:
We live in a Republic. A Democracy is mob rule, where 51% rule the other
49%.

Gilligan

And, it's the obligation, the moral duty of the majority to protect
the rights of the minority.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 14 Oct 2004 16:42:25 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Bummer about
teachers and healthcare workers wanting a voice.

Voice isn't the issue. Its putting a hand in my pocket. Along with the
government employees' union, every other union, the trial lawyers, etc. etc.
etc. Something for each of them, and the other fella is gonna pay for it.

Voice is exactly the issue. The voices that BushCo listens to (no, not
the ones prevented by haldol) are from the extreme right wing,
Christain fundamentalists, and big energy companies. I would prefer to
err on the side of unions and teachers.

Special Edition, Autumn, 2004
IanSights
Issue: Whether or Not to Change Leaders


You are a shareholder in a major global enterprise. In early November
you
will be voting on various issues, including whether to renew the CEO's
contract. The CEO is controversial. Some shareholders are calling for
his
ouster while others are loyal to him. Though the shareholders' vote is
advisory to the board, they generally follow the shareholders'
directions.


Your challenge As a shareholder, you want to do what's right for the
future
of the enterprise and for your investment. Here are some issues about
the
CEO's performance:


a.. He undertook a hostile takeover based on faulty information
and
assumptions, and with no realistic plan for dealing with the conflict
after
the takeover. There is no end in sight to the hostilities. They will
likely
continue for years and are taking a high toll on both enterprises.
b.. Brand image has gone from being the highly respected three
years ago
to being mistrusted and despised by many now.
c.. The enterprise has gone from a record surplus to a record
deficit in
three years with no end in sight.
d.. He reduced prices for the richest customers, adding to the
deficit.
e.. He polarized shareholders instead of uniting them as promised.
f.. He curtailed R&D in a new technology for which your enterprise
could
have become a world leader.
g.. He awarded major contracts to cronies without competitive
bidding.
The CEO is proud of his performance and promises more of the same.
There is not a client I have had over the past 21 years that would
have kept
their CEO under such circumstances. They all have held their CEO to
higher
standards.


While it may be tempting to say, "You got us into this mess, so you
get us
out," most CEOs who have incurred major problems are replaced. They
are seen
as part of the problem. To paraphrase Albert Einstein, the significant
problems we face cannot be solved using the thinking that created
them.


You have probably surmised by now that I am writing about George
W. Bush.
You are a shareholder in the USA. The board is the Electoral
College. On
November 2, you will have the opportunity to vote on whether to renew
his
contract or replace him.


Your option Though there are other alternatives, John Kerry is the
only
candidate with a chance of unseating Bush. Kerry is not perfect (we
have
never had a perfect president and probably never will), but he offers
hope
for:


a.. Strong moral values
b.. Standing up for what he believes in
c.. Changing his mind as circumstances change
d.. A different view of terrorism and the war
e.. More global collaboration
f.. Re-establishing respect for and trust in the USA
g.. A more robust middle class
h.. A more balanced budget
I believe that Kerry is the better alternative.
Sincerely,


Ian


Ian Jacobsen
Certified Management Consultant


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 14 Oct 2004 21:56:30 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Special Edition, Autumn, 2004
IanSights

Dunno what "IanSights" is, but for an interesting view from a respected
publication, take a look at the first editorial in today's Journal.

Yes. We know you don't.

It points out that this is one of those rare elections when the incumbent
is
running on a platform of reform, while the challenger is running on a
platform of more of the failed policies of the past.

Bush is running on a platform of fear. His challenger is running on a
platform
that respects women, minorities, and has in mind building the economy,
becoming
less dependent on foreign oil, and honest national security.

Bush recognizes that social security is the kind of Ponzi scheme that
would
land its architects in jail if they were private citizens, and he wants to
reform it to replace it with a sustainable system. Kerry simply wants to
keep throwing more money at it.

Bush wants to destroy Social Security because it's a federally run program.
Good by seniors and others who rely on it.

Kerry wants to actually fix it instead of destroy it by using the money that
was
intended for s.s. instead of giving to the ultra-rich..

On the subject of medical costs, Bush recognizes that so long as everyone
thinks the other guy is paying his doctor bill he's gonna overuse the
health
care system and push costs of care up. He wants to reform the system to
reduce health care cost inflation by bringing market forces to bear.
Kerry,
on the other hand, wants to simply add more people to a failed Medicare
program, adding to the number who think somebody else is paying the bills
(and of course channeling more money to his unionized constituents) and
maybe considering fixing the system at some far off time in the future.

Bush claimed he would allow Canadian meds to be imported. Then he
reversed himself. He presided over the outlawing of medicare from pooling
benefit resources, something the VA does. He's cut funding for veterans.
What a great guy. He's allowed vets to be harassed by the pentagon until
they've gone broke after they've returned wounded.

Kerry wants to tax those who can afford to be taxed. People like me for
example, and give the rest tax breaks. The exact opposite of BushCo.

Similarly, on taxes Kerry wants to keep them high in order to throw more
money to his constituents in the government employees' unions, increasing
their ranks. Bush wants people to keep more of what they earn rather than
handing it over to the bureaucrats.

Interesting contrast.

Very interesting contract, and very interesting that you're an idiot Mr.
Poodle...
yap, yap!

"Dave" wrote

Bush recognizes that social security is the kind of Ponzi scheme .....

True - question is how to get out of it. Remember, it's not just
retirement. It was intended to open jobs for younger workers by encouraging
us geezers to quit.

On the subject of medical costs, Bush recognizes that so long as everyone
thinks the other guy is paying his doctor bill he's gonna overuse the
health
care system and push costs of care up. He wants to reform the system to
reduce health care cost inflation by bringing market forces to bear.

Wrong. Neither one wants to bring market forces to bear, altho that is what
we need. On the medical side, the AMA makes the Teamsters look like punks
when it comes to limiting the number of MDs and thus driving up saleries and
costs. A PhD Biologist, et cetera, might make $125K/yr but an MD thinks
he's killed if he makes 10X that. Moreover, one could argue that we'd have
fewer MDs getting thru med school and internship, where they work 16 hour
days, were it not for that income. Trouble is working somebody half to death
doesn't make better MDs it simply reduces the number of grad's. Solution?
Prosecute AMA under the RICO laws.

On the drug side, we need to first allow reimportation of US drugs - Kerry
will, Bush Won't. Next, we need to get all the non-narcotic drugs like
antibiotics off the prescription drug list and make them available over the
counter. That alone would save each/every diabetic 3 or 4 $hundred/year -
what are we going to do, abuse our Amaryl?

Kerry, on the other hand, wants to simply add more people to a failed
Medicare
program, adding to the number who think somebody else is paying the bills
......

Medicares PRIMARY beneficiaries are the MDs and drug companies who get to
overcharge patients who'd otherwise do without care and possibly die.
Breaking the back of AMA will do more for everybody than Medicare. Last
time I went for an uninsured MD visit I paid $100 for maybe 15 minutes of
his time. I think $25 would be fair but his union (AMA) disagrees.


Similarly, on taxes Kerry wants to keep them high in order to throw more
money to his constituents in the government employees' unions, increasing
their ranks. Bush wants people to keep more of what they earn rather than
handing it over to the bureaucrats.

Gee, my bride and I make just under $200K/yr. We didn't even notice Bush's
tax cut and folks making less noticed even less. AFAIK the only
beneficiaries were the idle rich and MDs making 1-10+ million/year.

I might agree had Bush cut spending - but no, like Reagan he borrowed
trillions on our kids credit and threw a party for his buddies.

I fail to see where this rather simple statement mentions welfare or
schools. Can you explain further?


Vito wrote:
Sure. They are not mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution either. Therefor
10 reserves them to the states or people making it unconstitutional for
fedgov to take part in or control our schools or welfare systems or police
or .... etc. That's the states' job.

Yes, and the states are the ones who are primarily responsible for
keeping the ball rolling. Personally, I'd agree that the Feds have no
business saying anything at all about schools but the big issues that
comes up is one of interstate accountability... and that *is*
constitutionally the Fed's job.

The income tax is also unconstitutional... the Supreme Court knocked
down a Federal income tax two or three times (maybe more) before they
finally let it stick... the reason? World War 1.

Frankly, the most important democracy in the world is our corporations.
The problem is that most shares are held by mutual funds or retirement
funds who just hand over a proxy. Would you do that with your vote for
President... or for county commissioner?

Regards
Doug King

"Dave" wrote ...
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:28:11 -0400, DSK said:

The income tax is also unconstitutional... the Supreme Court knocked
down a Federal income tax two or three times (maybe more) before they
finally let it stick... the reason? World War 1.

Nope. The Sixteenth Amendment. Just as today, the court got out of line,
and
the people gave them a slap the old fashioned way--by amending the
Constitution when the judges got it wrong.


That's not entirely true. The constitution spells out how it must be amended
and in offering the amendment congress stipulated a time limit for
ratification. That didn't happen. So congress extended the time for states
to consider it. During that extension enough states ratified it BUT at the
same time others withdrew their ratification.

"Dave" wrote
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:03:18 -0400, "Vito" said:


Wrong. Neither one wants to bring market forces to bear, altho that is
what
we need.

Gotta disagree there. Combine medical savings accounts with true insurance
(the kind with a high enough deductible so that it covers risks instead of
being a system of pre-payment) and you inject a healthy market input. Why?
Because you get to keep whatever you don't pay the Dr. or hospital from
the
MSA. That means you're not gonna run to the doctor every time you sprain
an
ankle, because you know what to do for a sprained ankle, and would just as
soon keep the money. On the other hand with the present system of
prepayment
there's essentially no cost for the Dr. visit, so why not go. Reduce the
demand for medical services, and you reduce the cost.

This approach offers only two alternatives for a sprained ankle - pay the MD
or hurt; or in the case of diabetes or cancer pay the MDs and drug dealers
whatever they want to charge or die. That's hardly "free market". In a free
market, I'd be able to buy my medicines over the counter at *competative*
prices and bargain with MDs for rates but US law forbids the former and AMA
the latter. So, whether I have a HMO or pay myself, I really have no
choices. Under either Bush's or Kerry's plan I (or my HMO) still have to pay
an MD $400 or more a year for permission to buy medicines I already know I
need. Then I have to pay 2 - 10 time more for them than in Canada and
Mexico. Kerry says he'd at least let us shop Canada ..... (c:

Dave still hasn't explained how he's been able to read "1000s" of Supreme
Court decsisions. We're still waiting Dave.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:11:45 -0400, "Vito" said:

This approach offers only two alternatives for a sprained ankle - pay the
MD
or hurt; or in the case of diabetes or cancer pay the MDs and drug dealers
whatever they want to charge or die.

You're missing something here. As to amounts below the level where the
deductible is exceeded and true insurance kicks in, yes, it's like any
other
service. You can buy the service or you can decide not to buy it and keep
the money, though you'd be paying in after-tax dollars from the first
dollar, unlike the present system where you pay in pre-tax dollars until
you
exceed a percentage of adjusted gross. In the case of serious illness the
true insurance kicks in to cover higher costs.

That's hardly "free market". In a free
market, I'd be able to buy my medicines over the counter at *competative*
prices and bargain with MDs for rates but US law forbids the former and
AMA
the latter.

Please explain the second part. How does the AMA prevent you from
selecting
someone with lower fees, or a reduction by the doc?

So, whether I have a HMO or pay myself, I really have no
choices. Under either Bush's or Kerry's plan I (or my HMO) still have to
pay
an MD $400 or more a year for permission to buy medicines I already know I
need.

Good point. There's really no reason to have an annual toll to buy
medicines
you know you need.

Then I have to pay 2 - 10 time more for them than in Canada and
Mexico. Kerry says he'd at least let us shop Canada ..... (c:

That's simply snake oil. One of two things happen. Either you create a
shortage in Canada, or the Canadians prohibit export. (Probably both. Or,
if
they are sensible about it, they allow the price to rise to a point where
it
won't make any difference.) Personally, I think it would be a good idea to
allow importation, since it would ultimately force the Canadians to pick
up
part of the development costs that are now being born entirely by
Americans.
But as a long-range solution, it doesn't work. The sizes of the markets
are
just too disparate.

Dave