|
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:52:08 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:02:27 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:15:26 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:21:48 -0500, John H wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:59:25 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:45:06 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:21:09 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:43:26 -0800, wrote: The problem with defense cuts is most if that budget is a jobs program, building hardware we don't need and the Pentagon doesn't want. I would bring the troops home tho. Why prop up the economy of other countries when we have as much trouble as we have. We do have the precedent of having the military working on infrastructure here with the Army Corps of Engineers. Maybe we should declare war on bad bridges and roads here with a CCC type service. The unions would never tolerate it. So, it should all be done without union workers? Doesn't sound like much of a jobs effort to me. I was thinking more about what you can do with a half million military people if we stop the wars and pull back all the people we have scattered around the world in places where we won the war a half century ago. So, you want to use the military to do the same jobs as regular citizens for 1/10th the pay? I'm sure that would do a lot for the economy. "1/10th"? Why do you think military people are so poorly paid? Your typical GI is making over $20k by the end of his first hitch and if he really moves up through the ranks it could be $27k or more. They also have most of their living expenses paid by Uncle Sam. It may not be as much as an attorney makes but once you factor in room and board, it is certainly competitive with a basic construction worker who may only be making $14 an hour ... when he can find work. $27K... wow, that's over the poverty line for sure. And, they get to get shot at from time to time. So, you'd prefer to throw the basic construction worker out of a job to save some money? Even that doesn't compute. As usual you totally miss the point. I am talking about creating enough new infrastructure construction to put all of them to work. I am also talking about bringing these guys home so they won't get shot at. I'm not missing the point at all. How do you intend to create the infrastructure without government funding? You say you didn't miss the point then you go off in the wrong direction Co back up to the top if this snip. the whole thing is about REDIRECTING the DoD budget I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs to be a relatively slow process. Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone. Besides, it doesn't have to be a relatively slow process. We damn sure moved out a corps and a half to Kuwait in very little time. I know, I was there. I think he's a liar, so why would I believe this? Perhaps he's got some pictures of himself standing next to a burning oil well... I doubt it. Why is that so hard to believe. It only took 180 days to move them all over there and when we left, we destroyed a lot of stuff in place or just left it. That isn't the same as having an established military base for 40 years. I don't believe him because he's a liar. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:48:31 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:59:45 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:59:25 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:45:06 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:21:09 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:43:26 -0800, wrote: The problem with defense cuts is most if that budget is a jobs program, building hardware we don't need and the Pentagon doesn't want. I would bring the troops home tho. Why prop up the economy of other countries when we have as much trouble as we have. We do have the precedent of having the military working on infrastructure here with the Army Corps of Engineers. Maybe we should declare war on bad bridges and roads here with a CCC type service. The unions would never tolerate it. So, it should all be done without union workers? Doesn't sound like much of a jobs effort to me. I was thinking more about what you can do with a half million military people if we stop the wars and pull back all the people we have scattered around the world in places where we won the war a half century ago. So, you want to use the military to do the same jobs as regular citizens for 1/10th the pay? I'm sure that would do a lot for the economy. "1/10th"? Why do you think military people are so poorly paid? Your typical GI is making over $20k by the end of his first hitch and if he really moves up through the ranks it could be $27k or more. They also have most of their living expenses paid by Uncle Sam. It may not be as much as an attorney makes but once you factor in room and board, it is certainly competitive with a basic construction worker who may only be making $14 an hour ... when he can find work. $27K... wow, that's over the poverty line for sure. And, they get to get shot at from time to time. So, you'd prefer to throw the basic construction worker out of a job to save some money? Even that doesn't compute. As usual you totally miss the point. I am talking about creating enough new infrastructure construction to put all of them to work. I am also talking about bringing these guys home so they won't get shot at. I'm not missing the point at all. How do you intend to create the infrastructure without government funding? You say you didn't miss the point then you go off in the wrong direction Co back up to the top if this snip. the whole thing is about REDIRECTING the DoD budget So, how are you going to "redirect" all these "low-paid" troops into homeland jobs without displacing those low-paid construction jobs? By starting new projects. Ok. So, you have no objection to projects sponsored and paid for by the gov't! Sounds like the heavy hand of gov't to me. I have no objection your honor! I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs to be a relatively slow process. Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone. Good grief! You know that little about economics and/or how the military works? You can't just decide one day to close bases and then everyone leaves. Now you are worried about the Germans? I'm thoughtful about how we as a nation are perceived and our effect on the rest of the world. You aren't I guess. We could close foreign bases pretty fast if we wanted to and it is not our job to replace the hole in the German economy. There are a few people here saying the locals don't get that much money from our bases anyway. Sure thing! I guess that was the same sort of decision that was made post WW1. That worked out pretty well, didn't it. |
Winning elections is not good enough
|
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:10:29 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:08:11 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:03:36 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 08:31:08 -0500, Ziggy® wrote: wrote in message m... On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:47:52 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:25:27 -0500, wrote: I'm sure a kid probably would, and then when he gets in a wreck, he should just "pay" for the medical help out of his own pocket, of course he wouldn't have any money by then, but you don't care about that. If he "gets in a wreck" there is car insurance to cover medical expenses. Again you are drifting. How is he supposed to afford the insurance if he spends the money on the car? Keep trying to put me down by claiming a bunch of nonsense. It's not helping your cause. Which state lets you drive without insurance? It sure isn't the ones we live in. I'll bet there are a lot of uninsured Mexicans driving their wrecks in Florida, Texas, Arizona, And The People's Republic of Kalifonia. Can't get rid of em either. Washington will come down hard on anyone who tries. That is really getting a lot harder to do here. The cops have lap tops in their cars, insurance coverage is available in real time and that is probable cause for a stop, a ticket and that immigration check everyone on the left is so ****ed about. Driving a junker without insurance is the express lane to Krome Avenue (the ICE detention center) I'm just wondering... if an illegal and perhaps illiterate (in English) Mexican can buy a car and not have insurance, why would it be difficult for a presumably English speaking/reading teen to do the same thing? Why do you presume that the police are going to be randomly stopping teens to get them to prove they have said insurance? So, basically the kid will spend the money and buy the car, and not get any insurance unless forced to by a parent, or he'll just get in a wreck at some point. If we're LUCKY he'll get stopped, but even not having insurance is just a fine/fix-it-like ticket, so they don't take away the car on the spot. What part of this is so hard to understand, your insurance is on the cops computer in his car in real time. It is not a "random stop". It is a flashing message on the laptop that tells the cop, not only that your insurance was canceled but who your agent/company is. You can't even get a tag without insurance and if it lapses for any reason you tag is flagged. So, how come all those illegals aren't getting stopped as soon as they get on the road?? They aren't. No insurance is a tow in Florida and you ride to the station in cuffs. I doubt it. Most likely you're given a ticket unless there's some other reason to detain you. I suppose you could run someone elses tag but that is fraught with it's own perils. I would certainly expect a "felony stop" if I was doing that. (dragged out of the car, knocked to the ground and a cops foot on your neck) The assumption is you are up to no good, car theft at the minimum and perhaps something a lot worse. That computer in the cop car has taken a lot of mystery out of who they are looking at and certainly which car that tag belongs to. Yet, there are lots and lots of people on the road without insurance... |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:00:43 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:04:39 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:00:34 -0500, wrote: If he "gets in a wreck" there is car insurance to cover medical expenses. Again you are drifting. How is he supposed to afford the insurance if he spends the money on the car? Keep trying to put me down by claiming a bunch of nonsense. It's not helping your cause. Which state lets you drive without insurance? It sure isn't the ones we live in. You believe you have to have car insurance in order to buy a car? Do you think some kid is going to rush right out and buy that expensive insurance? He will if he wants tags and in florida your current insurance coverage comes up when a cop runs your tag. If you cancel, it shows up in real time, pretty much as soon as the agent types it into his computer. This is the 21st century and computers are connected. We are even testing a camera the cops will have on their car that independently scans tags and checks everyone it sees against the database for wants, warrants, insurance, stolen etc and alerts the cop right then. A cop could be parked on the side of the road asleep and he would be woken up if an uninsured car drove by. Listen up... if you walk into a used car lot and buy a car with cash, you just drive out. The salesperson isn't going to ask you about insurance. All of a sudden you think technology is going to just kick in and solve all the problems? Come on. BTW this is why I have been saying for years, insurance companies should be titling cars and issuing tags. They are the ones with the skin in the game and the databases the cops use anyway. The whole thing could be rolled up into one national database and eliminate 51 state (remember DC) operations that are not that good about talking to each other National db? Perhaps administered by insurance companies? Or, by the gov't??? Sounds like a police state to me... |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:12:57 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:10:19 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:11:45 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:50:17 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:33:35 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 13:10:55 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... I guarantee you, if you take one of those people who are not paying any income tax now and show them what their Canadian tax bill would be (the templates are on the web if you want to try it) those people would rather keep their extra $15-20,000 and buy insurance on the open market. Kids being who they are, they would probably buy a car and just hope they never have to go to the doctor tho. Your "guarantee" wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on. No logic there. Those not paying taxes now couldn't come up with $15-20k. That's why they call it "socialist" health care. Besides, all these so-called "socialist" countries with universal health care are democracies last I knew. They can vote in politicians who would pass law to mimic the U.S. atrocity health system. Ever wonder why that doesn't happen? Everyone likes voting themselves generous gifts from the government. It is when they have to actually pay the bill that they are in the street burning tires and carrying signs. Lets see how all of those socialist countries are doing when their boomers hit their system. They average age of Europeans is older and out-pacing our average age. Don't believe me? Look it up. I know it, that is why some of them are burning tires and carrying signs. Greece was first of the PIIGS to blow up but they are all in trouble. It has already started in UK. You just can't fight demographics. 2 or 3 kids can not support a retired person and maintain their own lifestyle, especially when that retired person expects the same lifestyle he had when he was working. Before you ask, I live on about a third of my working salary. Good for you, but as I've said, we aren't Greece. People want to come here, do business, protect their money. OK we aren't Greece and we aren't Sweden, now we are getting somewhere. As soon as you figure out we aren't UK or Canada I think we will have it. We are still broke. When you charge 40% of your Visa bill on your Mastercard you are broke. We are not "still broke." We've got a problem. There are long term solutions being proposed. There isn't going to be any short-term melt down. Feel free to hide under the blanket along with that loony Canadian. |
Winning elections is not good enough
|
Winning elections is not good enough
In article ,
says... In article , says... Listen up... if you walk into a used car lot and buy a car with cash, you just drive out. The salesperson isn't going to ask you about insurance. Listen up.. No matter how many times you say it, it isn't true, at least not here in CT. Might be in Kaliforna, but only to accommodate illegals and derelicts... But not in CT. Every car sale is recorded, cash or otherwise, the Tax man wouldn't have it any other way. Oh, and any sale, cash or otherwise made on any car lot requires the seller to not release the car without registration and insurance.. They have to check... |
, , , , , , ,
|
, , , , , , ,
|
Winning elections is not good enough
|
Winning elections is not good enough
In article ,
says... On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 15:11:11 -0500, I_am_Tosk wrote: In article , says... Listen up... if you walk into a used car lot and buy a car with cash, you just drive out. The salesperson isn't going to ask you about insurance. Listen up.. No matter how many times you say it, it isn't true, at least not here in CT. Might be in Kaliforna, but only to accommodate illegals and derelicts... But not in CT. Every car sale is recorded, cash or otherwise, the Tax man wouldn't have it any other way. As I suspected, California has online linkage between DMV and the insurance company and a cop can check your insurance from his car.+ Five years ago. http://dmv.ca.gov/vr/insurance_suspension.htm Here are some things you need to know about recent vehicle liability insurance changes: * As of January 1, 2006, all insurance companies are required to report insurance status information to DMV for all private use vehicles (CVC §16058). * As of July 1, 2006, law enforcement and court personnel have access to DMV records to verify that your California registered vehicle is currently insured (CVC §16058.1). * Effective October 1, 2006, your vehicle registration is subject to suspension if the liability insurance is canceled, OR if your insurance company has not electronically provided evidence of insurance when you purchase and register your vehicle, OR if you provide DMV with false insurance information (CVC §4000.38). That's a lot of homework for the Plum. I think as soon as she noted the "cash" thing, we all knew she was talking out of her ass... again. In CT like you said in Fla, when someone drops insurance, the authorities are notified right away. |
Winning elections is not good enough
"I_am_Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 15:11:11 -0500, I_am_Tosk wrote: In article , says... Listen up... if you walk into a used car lot and buy a car with cash, you just drive out. The salesperson isn't going to ask you about insurance. Listen up.. No matter how many times you say it, it isn't true, at least not here in CT. Might be in Kaliforna, but only to accommodate illegals and derelicts... But not in CT. Every car sale is recorded, cash or otherwise, the Tax man wouldn't have it any other way. As I suspected, California has online linkage between DMV and the insurance company and a cop can check your insurance from his car.+ Five years ago. http://dmv.ca.gov/vr/insurance_suspension.htm Here are some things you need to know about recent vehicle liability insurance changes: * As of January 1, 2006, all insurance companies are required to report insurance status information to DMV for all private use vehicles (CVC §16058). * As of July 1, 2006, law enforcement and court personnel have access to DMV records to verify that your California registered vehicle is currently insured (CVC §16058.1). * Effective October 1, 2006, your vehicle registration is subject to suspension if the liability insurance is canceled, OR if your insurance company has not electronically provided evidence of insurance when you purchase and register your vehicle, OR if you provide DMV with false insurance information (CVC §4000.38). That's a lot of homework for the Plum. I think as soon as she noted the "cash" thing, we all knew she was talking out of her ass... again. In CT like you said in Fla, when someone drops insurance, the authorities are notified right away. Any comments you read from DePlume/Jessica come straight from her ass. It's obvious that her comments never passed close to her brain. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:52:08 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:02:27 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:15:26 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:21:48 -0500, John H wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:59:25 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:45:06 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:21:09 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:43:26 -0800, wrote: The problem with defense cuts is most if that budget is a jobs program, building hardware we don't need and the Pentagon doesn't want. I would bring the troops home tho. Why prop up the economy of other countries when we have as much trouble as we have. We do have the precedent of having the military working on infrastructure here with the Army Corps of Engineers. Maybe we should declare war on bad bridges and roads here with a CCC type service. The unions would never tolerate it. So, it should all be done without union workers? Doesn't sound like much of a jobs effort to me. I was thinking more about what you can do with a half million military people if we stop the wars and pull back all the people we have scattered around the world in places where we won the war a half century ago. So, you want to use the military to do the same jobs as regular citizens for 1/10th the pay? I'm sure that would do a lot for the economy. "1/10th"? Why do you think military people are so poorly paid? Your typical GI is making over $20k by the end of his first hitch and if he really moves up through the ranks it could be $27k or more. They also have most of their living expenses paid by Uncle Sam. It may not be as much as an attorney makes but once you factor in room and board, it is certainly competitive with a basic construction worker who may only be making $14 an hour ... when he can find work. $27K... wow, that's over the poverty line for sure. And, they get to get shot at from time to time. So, you'd prefer to throw the basic construction worker out of a job to save some money? Even that doesn't compute. As usual you totally miss the point. I am talking about creating enough new infrastructure construction to put all of them to work. I am also talking about bringing these guys home so they won't get shot at. I'm not missing the point at all. How do you intend to create the infrastructure without government funding? You say you didn't miss the point then you go off in the wrong direction Co back up to the top if this snip. the whole thing is about REDIRECTING the DoD budget I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs to be a relatively slow process. Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone. Besides, it doesn't have to be a relatively slow process. We damn sure moved out a corps and a half to Kuwait in very little time. I know, I was there. I think he's a liar, so why would I believe this? Perhaps he's got some pictures of himself standing next to a burning oil well... I doubt it. Why is that so hard to believe. It only took 180 days to move them all over there and when we left, we destroyed a lot of stuff in place or just left it. WADF! (Not you...her.) |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:49:39 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:00:38 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:19:25 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:09:49 -0500, I_am_Tosk wrote: I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs to be a relatively slow process. Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone. It's a nice way of handing over a bunch of Foreign aid, send a bunch of Americans over and pay them to become a part of another countries economy for a few years. Not saying there is no need for a presence, I don't know the details, but still... We probably have a better reason to be in Japan than Europe but make no mistake, it is just to be a staging area for restarting the Korean war. In any case, you can't just give them a call and tell them to get on the next plane. Why not? They could certainly be gone in 180 days and that is a blink in government talk. If we donated the equipment to the German military, we could be out of there in much less than 180 days. |
Winning elections is not good enough
wrote in message ...
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 15:11:11 -0500, I_am_Tosk wrote: In article , says... Listen up... if you walk into a used car lot and buy a car with cash, you just drive out. The salesperson isn't going to ask you about insurance. Listen up.. No matter how many times you say it, it isn't true, at least not here in CT. Might be in Kaliforna, but only to accommodate illegals and derelicts... But not in CT. Every car sale is recorded, cash or otherwise, the Tax man wouldn't have it any other way. If I get a minute I will look up the California insurance law but I bet it is as strict as any state. The open question is whether the cops enforce it. It is possible in that touchy feely state they do not want to take a chance of finding an illegal. Florida is more serious about it. We have gone paperless too, no "insurance card" in your wallet. The cop gets your insurance status as soon as he punches in your tag number. They do impound your car if you are not in compliance Reply" At least on new cars, the dealer copies your insurance tag. All companies will cover the new car Liability for about 30 days. They do not care about the collision coverage, just liability. |
Winning elections is not good enough
"I_am_Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 15:11:11 -0500, I_am_Tosk wrote: In article , says... Listen up... if you walk into a used car lot and buy a car with cash, you just drive out. The salesperson isn't going to ask you about insurance. Listen up.. No matter how many times you say it, it isn't true, at least not here in CT. Might be in Kaliforna, but only to accommodate illegals and derelicts... But not in CT. Every car sale is recorded, cash or otherwise, the Tax man wouldn't have it any other way. As I suspected, California has online linkage between DMV and the insurance company and a cop can check your insurance from his car.+ Five years ago. http://dmv.ca.gov/vr/insurance_suspension.htm Here are some things you need to know about recent vehicle liability insurance changes: * As of January 1, 2006, all insurance companies are required to report insurance status information to DMV for all private use vehicles (CVC §16058). * As of July 1, 2006, law enforcement and court personnel have access to DMV records to verify that your California registered vehicle is currently insured (CVC §16058.1). * Effective October 1, 2006, your vehicle registration is subject to suspension if the liability insurance is canceled, OR if your insurance company has not electronically provided evidence of insurance when you purchase and register your vehicle, OR if you provide DMV with false insurance information (CVC §4000.38). That's a lot of homework for the Plum. I think as soon as she noted the "cash" thing, we all knew she was talking out of her ass... again. In CT like you said in Fla, when someone drops insurance, the authorities are notified right away. Reply: Buying a car for cash from a private party you do not have to show insurance. And the lack of insurance takes a while to kick in. I sold my 96 s10 and the person failed to register the car in a timely manner. We file a document with the DMV when you sell a car that removes you from the liability for the car. I got a letter months later about expired insurance. But that is more a problem with the DMV and their crappy records system. |
Winning elections is not good enough
In article ,
says... "I_am_Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 15:11:11 -0500, I_am_Tosk wrote: In article , says... Listen up... if you walk into a used car lot and buy a car with cash, you just drive out. The salesperson isn't going to ask you about insurance. Listen up.. No matter how many times you say it, it isn't true, at least not here in CT. Might be in Kaliforna, but only to accommodate illegals and derelicts... But not in CT. Every car sale is recorded, cash or otherwise, the Tax man wouldn't have it any other way. As I suspected, California has online linkage between DMV and the insurance company and a cop can check your insurance from his car.+ Five years ago. http://dmv.ca.gov/vr/insurance_suspension.htm Here are some things you need to know about recent vehicle liability insurance changes: * As of January 1, 2006, all insurance companies are required to report insurance status information to DMV for all private use vehicles (CVC §16058). * As of July 1, 2006, law enforcement and court personnel have access to DMV records to verify that your California registered vehicle is currently insured (CVC §16058.1). * Effective October 1, 2006, your vehicle registration is subject to suspension if the liability insurance is canceled, OR if your insurance company has not electronically provided evidence of insurance when you purchase and register your vehicle, OR if you provide DMV with false insurance information (CVC §4000.38). That's a lot of homework for the Plum. I think as soon as she noted the "cash" thing, we all knew she was talking out of her ass... again. In CT like you said in Fla, when someone drops insurance, the authorities are notified right away. Reply: Buying a car for cash from a private party you do not have to show insurance. And the lack of insurance takes a while to kick in. I sold my 96 s10 and the person failed to register the car in a timely manner. We file a document with the DMV when you sell a car that removes you from the liability for the car. I got a letter months later about expired insurance. But that is more a problem with the DMV and their crappy records system. I agree, but she was talking about car dealers... She specifically said "used car lot".. To talk about private roadside sales, would be the same as talking about illicit sales of handguns, and not relevant to the conversation. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 2/28/11 1:39 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In , says... "I_am_Tosk" wrote in message ... In , says... On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 15:11:11 -0500, I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... Listen up... if you walk into a used car lot and buy a car with cash, you just drive out. The salesperson isn't going to ask you about insurance. Listen up.. No matter how many times you say it, it isn't true, at least not here in CT. Might be in Kaliforna, but only to accommodate illegals and derelicts... But not in CT. Every car sale is recorded, cash or otherwise, the Tax man wouldn't have it any other way. As I suspected, California has online linkage between DMV and the insurance company and a cop can check your insurance from his car.+ Five years ago. http://dmv.ca.gov/vr/insurance_suspension.htm Here are some things you need to know about recent vehicle liability insurance changes: * As of January 1, 2006, all insurance companies are required to report insurance status information to DMV for all private use vehicles (CVC §16058). * As of July 1, 2006, law enforcement and court personnel have access to DMV records to verify that your California registered vehicle is currently insured (CVC §16058.1). * Effective October 1, 2006, your vehicle registration is subject to suspension if the liability insurance is canceled, OR if your insurance company has not electronically provided evidence of insurance when you purchase and register your vehicle, OR if you provide DMV with false insurance information (CVC §4000.38). That's a lot of homework for the Plum. I think as soon as she noted the "cash" thing, we all knew she was talking out of her ass... again. In CT like you said in Fla, when someone drops insurance, the authorities are notified right away. Reply: Buying a car for cash from a private party you do not have to show insurance. And the lack of insurance takes a while to kick in. I sold my 96 s10 and the person failed to register the car in a timely manner. We file a document with the DMV when you sell a car that removes you from the liability for the car. I got a letter months later about expired insurance. But that is more a problem with the DMV and their crappy records system. I agree, but she was talking about car dealers... She specifically said "used car lot".. To talk about private roadside sales, would be the same as talking about illicit sales of handguns, and not relevant to the conversation. Private roadside sales of guns is perfectly legal in Virginia. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 2/28/2011 1:28 PM, Califbill wrote:
"I Reply: Buying a car for cash from a private party you do not have to show insurance. And the lack of insurance takes a while to kick in. I sold my 96 s10 and the person failed to register the car in a timely manner. We file a document with the DMV when you sell a car that removes you from the liability for the car. I got a letter months later about expired insurance. But that is more a problem with the DMV and their crappy records system. I think in some states you are libel for the car until it is retitled under someone else's name. Too bad for the seller if the car was bought to be used in a crime or if the car killed someone and was later abandoned. |
Winning elections is not good enough
|
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 02:10:34 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:53:21 -0800, wrote: Maybe there is something on Pennsylvania that makes fracking a problem there or it could just be the particular operator but compared to a nuke accident or an oil spill this is trivial. Or, maybe it's an industry-wide problem about to happen elsewhere. Do you object to some research to find out or should we just drill baby drill? I think that is most of the places they do this it is not a problem or we would have heard about it before,. This is not a new process. We've been "hearing about it" for quite a while. Just because the was little or no environmental regulation or oversight for the last 10 years doesn't mean everything was just fine. You can try and make that claim about deep offshore drilling if you want, but I wouldn't suggest it. You can find problems with every form of energy production. You are the one who gave me the list of nuclear accidents. Compare the number of accidents to the number of reactors, the danger posed by those accidents and get back to me about a few fracked wells that cause a problem. So, read again where I said standardization and regulation. Then we can start comparing that to Exxon Valdez and BP or the never ending wars in the middl;e east. I thought 9/11 only cost $500M? It cost Bin Laden less than a half million to do $2 trillion (your number, probably low) in damage. That is a pretty good return on investment. Imagine what they could do with a couple million (a small ransom these days) Imagine if you were a poor, illiterate fisherman, and suddenly came into $10000... I bet the first thing you would do would be to plan a sophisticated attack on the US. NOT That is not what we are talking about Al Qaeda IS in Somalia and they are not illiterate fishermen. We are also talking about millions of dollars, not a lousy 10 grand. I don't think the pirates are terrorists, beyond being pirates, which is it's own form of terrorism but we don't have a clue who is behind them or what their motivations are. It is easy to just write them all off as "criminals" but we don't know for sure. We don't even know how many different groups are involved. Most of the money isn't going to AQ. It's in the hand of the locals. Read up. Yemen is the real problem and it is right next door even closer to where the 4 Americans were killed than Somalia. They have fishermen too. If Al Qaeda has not figured this source of easy money yet, they will. Uh huh... well, since you're now an expert on AQ I guess we should just take your word for it. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:51:18 -0500, John H
wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:49:39 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:00:38 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:19:25 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:09:49 -0500, I_am_Tosk wrote: I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs to be a relatively slow process. Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone. It's a nice way of handing over a bunch of Foreign aid, send a bunch of Americans over and pay them to become a part of another countries economy for a few years. Not saying there is no need for a presence, I don't know the details, but still... We probably have a better reason to be in Japan than Europe but make no mistake, it is just to be a staging area for restarting the Korean war. In any case, you can't just give them a call and tell them to get on the next plane. Why not? They could certainly be gone in 180 days and that is a blink in government talk. If we donated the equipment to the German military, we could be out of there in much less than 180 days. Sounds like socialism to me.... |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:45:35 -0500, John H
wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:52:08 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:02:27 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:15:26 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:21:48 -0500, John H wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:59:25 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:45:06 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:21:09 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:43:26 -0800, wrote: The problem with defense cuts is most if that budget is a jobs program, building hardware we don't need and the Pentagon doesn't want. I would bring the troops home tho. Why prop up the economy of other countries when we have as much trouble as we have. We do have the precedent of having the military working on infrastructure here with the Army Corps of Engineers. Maybe we should declare war on bad bridges and roads here with a CCC type service. The unions would never tolerate it. So, it should all be done without union workers? Doesn't sound like much of a jobs effort to me. I was thinking more about what you can do with a half million military people if we stop the wars and pull back all the people we have scattered around the world in places where we won the war a half century ago. So, you want to use the military to do the same jobs as regular citizens for 1/10th the pay? I'm sure that would do a lot for the economy. "1/10th"? Why do you think military people are so poorly paid? Your typical GI is making over $20k by the end of his first hitch and if he really moves up through the ranks it could be $27k or more. They also have most of their living expenses paid by Uncle Sam. It may not be as much as an attorney makes but once you factor in room and board, it is certainly competitive with a basic construction worker who may only be making $14 an hour ... when he can find work. $27K... wow, that's over the poverty line for sure. And, they get to get shot at from time to time. So, you'd prefer to throw the basic construction worker out of a job to save some money? Even that doesn't compute. As usual you totally miss the point. I am talking about creating enough new infrastructure construction to put all of them to work. I am also talking about bringing these guys home so they won't get shot at. I'm not missing the point at all. How do you intend to create the infrastructure without government funding? You say you didn't miss the point then you go off in the wrong direction Co back up to the top if this snip. the whole thing is about REDIRECTING the DoD budget I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs to be a relatively slow process. Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone. Besides, it doesn't have to be a relatively slow process. We damn sure moved out a corps and a half to Kuwait in very little time. I know, I was there. I think he's a liar, so why would I believe this? Perhaps he's got some pictures of himself standing next to a burning oil well... I doubt it. Why is that so hard to believe. It only took 180 days to move them all over there and when we left, we destroyed a lot of stuff in place or just left it. WADF! (Not you...me.) I agree! |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 02:17:16 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:57:30 -0800, wrote: So, how are you going to "redirect" all these "low-paid" troops into homeland jobs without displacing those low-paid construction jobs? By starting new projects. Ok. So, you have no objection to projects sponsored and paid for by the gov't! Sounds like the heavy hand of gov't to me. I have no objection your honor! \\ Good deal I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs to be a relatively slow process. Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone. Good grief! You know that little about economics and/or how the military works? You can't just decide one day to close bases and then everyone leaves. Now you are worried about the Germans? I'm thoughtful about how we as a nation are perceived and our effect on the rest of the world. You aren't I guess. I imagine there are plenty of Germans who wish we would go but even if they didn't we are not the world's p[olicemen. If they want us there, pay us to be there. There are plenty more who appreciate us spending our money there. I think we need to stay engaged there, but we don't need lots and lots of bases. There are a few that should probably remain. We could close foreign bases pretty fast if we wanted to and it is not our job to replace the hole in the German economy. There are a few people here saying the locals don't get that much money from our bases anyway. Sure thing! I guess that was the same sort of decision that was made post WW1. That worked out pretty well, didn't it. False equivalency again. Really? Well, you just got done saying you don't care about the German economy. That's what we said after WW1. There was nothing in common with the surrender of a largely intact Germany at the end of WWI, left to it;s own devices and their total destruction in WWII. We have occupied them for 66 years. When will we decide they are OK? As I said, I have no objection to closing most of the bases. It just doesn't need to devastate our or their economy to do that. Again, we're looking for a long-term solution not a short-term reactionary policy. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 02:28:35 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:01:00 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:10:29 -0500, wrote: What part of this is so hard to understand, your insurance is on the cops computer in his car in real time. It is not a "random stop". It is a flashing message on the laptop that tells the cop, not only that your insurance was canceled but who your agent/company is. You can't even get a tag without insurance and if it lapses for any reason you tag is flagged. So, how come all those illegals aren't getting stopped as soon as they get on the road?? They aren't. They run legal tags and they have insurance ? Huh? You believe that illegals have insurance on their to do list? No insurance is a tow in Florida and you ride to the station in cuffs. I doubt it. Most likely you're given a ticket unless there's some other reason to detain you. That is simply not true. They do tow cars stopped with no insurance. My wife has had it happen to employees. They have even waited at the gate for them to come out and bust them right there. Sounds like a police state to me. My neighbor got stopped for expired tags. He didn't even have his DL on him. They gave him a fix it ticket. I suppose you could run someone elses tag but that is fraught with it's own perils. I would certainly expect a "felony stop" if I was doing that. (dragged out of the car, knocked to the ground and a cops foot on your neck) The assumption is you are up to no good, car theft at the minimum and perhaps something a lot worse. That computer in the cop car has taken a lot of mystery out of who they are looking at and certainly which car that tag belongs to. Yet, there are lots and lots of people on the road without insurance... Not so much here, maybe you just need better enforcement there. Maryland was bad about that, mostly because DC did not require insurance. That may be better but they also do not talk to each other. They have 2 deputies here in each district who do nothing but insurance, out of state tags and radar. They drive around all day just running tags to see what pops. That was the allure of that camera system that did it automatically. They are checking every tag that comes in range. These guys also look for out of state tags in employee parking lots. That one is a ticket but it is a ticket with a warrant attached if you don't buy a Florida tag right away. The next time it is that tow and the ride downtown. They do all of this because we do have a lot of out of state people here who will blow off a wreck and leave the injured party trying to catch someone across a state line. Well, good for FL. However, there are 49 other states plus DC. |
Winning elections is not good enough
|
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 02:56:51 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 15:11:11 -0500, I_am_Tosk wrote: In article , says... Listen up... if you walk into a used car lot and buy a car with cash, you just drive out. The salesperson isn't going to ask you about insurance. Listen up.. No matter how many times you say it, it isn't true, at least not here in CT. Might be in Kaliforna, but only to accommodate illegals and derelicts... But not in CT. Every car sale is recorded, cash or otherwise, the Tax man wouldn't have it any other way. As I suspected, California has online linkage between DMV and the insurance company and a cop can check your insurance from his car.+ Five years ago. http://dmv.ca.gov/vr/insurance_suspension.htm Here are some things you need to know about recent vehicle liability insurance changes: * As of January 1, 2006, all insurance companies are required to report insurance status information to DMV for all private use vehicles (CVC §16058). * As of July 1, 2006, law enforcement and court personnel have access to DMV records to verify that your California registered vehicle is currently insured (CVC §16058.1). * Effective October 1, 2006, your vehicle registration is subject to suspension if the liability insurance is canceled, OR if your insurance company has not electronically provided evidence of insurance when you purchase and register your vehicle, OR if you provide DMV with false insurance information (CVC §4000.38). And, that covers new cars or cars bought through a dealer. How many illegals do that? Most buy cars 2nd hand from private parties. Sure... they *can* look it up. Most are going somewhere for more important things. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:28:31 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote: "I_am_Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 15:11:11 -0500, I_am_Tosk wrote: In article , says... Listen up... if you walk into a used car lot and buy a car with cash, you just drive out. The salesperson isn't going to ask you about insurance. Listen up.. No matter how many times you say it, it isn't true, at least not here in CT. Might be in Kaliforna, but only to accommodate illegals and derelicts... But not in CT. Every car sale is recorded, cash or otherwise, the Tax man wouldn't have it any other way. As I suspected, California has online linkage between DMV and the insurance company and a cop can check your insurance from his car.+ Five years ago. http://dmv.ca.gov/vr/insurance_suspension.htm Here are some things you need to know about recent vehicle liability insurance changes: * As of January 1, 2006, all insurance companies are required to report insurance status information to DMV for all private use vehicles (CVC §16058). * As of July 1, 2006, law enforcement and court personnel have access to DMV records to verify that your California registered vehicle is currently insured (CVC §16058.1). * Effective October 1, 2006, your vehicle registration is subject to suspension if the liability insurance is canceled, OR if your insurance company has not electronically provided evidence of insurance when you purchase and register your vehicle, OR if you provide DMV with false insurance information (CVC §4000.38). That's a lot of homework for the Plum. I think as soon as she noted the "cash" thing, we all knew she was talking out of her ass... again. In CT like you said in Fla, when someone drops insurance, the authorities are notified right away. Reply: Buying a car for cash from a private party you do not have to show insurance. And the lack of insurance takes a while to kick in. I sold my 96 s10 and the person failed to register the car in a timely manner. We file a document with the DMV when you sell a car that removes you from the liability for the car. I got a letter months later about expired insurance. But that is more a problem with the DMV and their crappy records system. Exactly. Thus, the argument about the insurance police will get you completely falls apart. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:51:06 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:28:31 -0800, "Califbill" wrote: "I_am_Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 15:11:11 -0500, I_am_Tosk wrote: In article , says... Listen up... if you walk into a used car lot and buy a car with cash, you just drive out. The salesperson isn't going to ask you about insurance. Listen up.. No matter how many times you say it, it isn't true, at least not here in CT. Might be in Kaliforna, but only to accommodate illegals and derelicts... But not in CT. Every car sale is recorded, cash or otherwise, the Tax man wouldn't have it any other way. As I suspected, California has online linkage between DMV and the insurance company and a cop can check your insurance from his car.+ Five years ago. http://dmv.ca.gov/vr/insurance_suspension.htm Here are some things you need to know about recent vehicle liability insurance changes: * As of January 1, 2006, all insurance companies are required to report insurance status information to DMV for all private use vehicles (CVC §16058). * As of July 1, 2006, law enforcement and court personnel have access to DMV records to verify that your California registered vehicle is currently insured (CVC §16058.1). * Effective October 1, 2006, your vehicle registration is subject to suspension if the liability insurance is canceled, OR if your insurance company has not electronically provided evidence of insurance when you purchase and register your vehicle, OR if you provide DMV with false insurance information (CVC §4000.38). That's a lot of homework for the Plum. I think as soon as she noted the "cash" thing, we all knew she was talking out of her ass... again. In CT like you said in Fla, when someone drops insurance, the authorities are notified right away. Reply: Buying a car for cash from a private party you do not have to show insurance. And the lack of insurance takes a while to kick in. I sold my 96 s10 and the person failed to register the car in a timely manner. We file a document with the DMV when you sell a car that removes you from the liability for the car. I got a letter months later about expired insurance. But that is more a problem with the DMV and their crappy records system. The buyer still has to come up with a tag and the insurance is tied to that tag. I can't speak for everywhere but the wrong tag on a care around here is a "felony stop". ( get out of the car, lay on the ground, don't make any fast moves) The assumption is you are up to no good, car theft at the minimum but you could be a drug courier or driving a getaway car. This all sounds like a paranoid fantasy to me. Most illegals are going back and forth to work. They avoid doing stupid things and are just regular people trying to get by. Sure, sometimes there are hardened criminals doing dirty deeds. This has nothing to do with most people. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 02:39:53 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:03:39 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:00:43 -0500, wrote: He will if he wants tags and in florida your current insurance coverage comes up when a cop runs your tag. If you cancel, it shows up in real time, pretty much as soon as the agent types it into his computer. This is the 21st century and computers are connected. We are even testing a camera the cops will have on their car that independently scans tags and checks everyone it sees against the database for wants, warrants, insurance, stolen etc and alerts the cop right then. A cop could be parked on the side of the road asleep and he would be woken up if an uninsured car drove by. Listen up... if you walk into a used car lot and buy a car with cash, you just drive out. The salesperson isn't going to ask you about insurance. The salesman isn't but that green eyeshade guy in the closing office will if he values his license. Have you ever bought a car for cash? I do it every time. They can not issue you that paper tag or transfer your tag without proof of insurance I suppose you could buy a car and take it out on a trailer but if you are driving it you need a tag and you can't get a tag without insurance You're right about actual, legal used car lots. I doubt most illegals do that, however. I am really starting to think you don't drive. I'm really starting to think you'd prefer to be insulting and can just barely contain yourself. All of a sudden you think technology is going to just kick in and solve all the problems? Come on. It is sure chipping away at the problem. I am sure there are uninsured drivers but they get caught often enough to be a deterrent and the technology is making that a lot easier. A Mexican in a junker probably gets his tag run a couple times a day. Racist? Profiling? maybe but cops go where the likely arrests are. BS. The cops have better things to do. BTW this is why I have been saying for years, insurance companies should be titling cars and issuing tags. They are the ones with the skin in the game and the databases the cops use anyway. The whole thing could be rolled up into one national database and eliminate 51 state (remember DC) operations that are not that good about talking to each other National db? Perhaps administered by insurance companies? Or, by the gov't??? Sounds like a police state to me... Insurance companies already maintain a national database. That was my point. The insurance company database is a whole lot more accurate than the police database unless the police link to the insurance companies, which they do in Florida. Why do we need the police anyway? Why not just hire the insurance companies to do it all? Sheesh.. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 07:59:45 -0500, BAR wrote:
In article , says... BTW this is why I have been saying for years, insurance companies should be titling cars and issuing tags. They are the ones with the skin in the game and the databases the cops use anyway. The whole thing could be rolled up into one national database and eliminate 51 state (remember DC) operations that are not that good about talking to each other National db? Perhaps administered by insurance companies? Or, by the gov't??? Sounds like a police state to me... Insurance companies already maintain a national database. That was my point. The insurance company database is a whole lot more accurate than the police database unless the police link to the insurance companies, which they do in Florida. It is amazing how private enterprise can get a system up and running between many companies extremely quickly. However when there are government agencies involved it never seems to get done. Yeah all those civil liberty issues are really a bummer. |
Winning elections is not good enough
In article ,
says... On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 02:28:35 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:01:00 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:10:29 -0500, wrote: What part of this is so hard to understand, your insurance is on the cops computer in his car in real time. It is not a "random stop". It is a flashing message on the laptop that tells the cop, not only that your insurance was canceled but who your agent/company is. You can't even get a tag without insurance and if it lapses for any reason you tag is flagged. So, how come all those illegals aren't getting stopped as soon as they get on the road?? They aren't. They run legal tags and they have insurance ? Huh? You believe that illegals have insurance on their to do list? No insurance is a tow in Florida and you ride to the station in cuffs. I doubt it. Most likely you're given a ticket unless there's some other reason to detain you. That is simply not true. They do tow cars stopped with no insurance. My wife has had it happen to employees. They have even waited at the gate for them to come out and bust them right there. Sounds like a police state to me. My neighbor got stopped for expired tags. He didn't even have his DL on him. They gave him a fix it ticket. Doesn't matter unless you are trying to deflect the conversation away from insurance, to DL, or even further into a political thing.. .oh wait...;) I suppose you could run someone elses tag but that is fraught with it's own perils. I would certainly expect a "felony stop" if I was doing that. (dragged out of the car, knocked to the ground and a cops foot on your neck) The assumption is you are up to no good, car theft at the minimum and perhaps something a lot worse. That computer in the cop car has taken a lot of mystery out of who they are looking at and certainly which car that tag belongs to. Yet, there are lots and lots of people on the road without insurance... Not so much here, maybe you just need better enforcement there. Maryland was bad about that, mostly because DC did not require insurance. That may be better but they also do not talk to each other. They have 2 deputies here in each district who do nothing but insurance, out of state tags and radar. They drive around all day just running tags to see what pops. That was the allure of that camera system that did it automatically. They are checking every tag that comes in range. These guys also look for out of state tags in employee parking lots. That one is a ticket but it is a ticket with a warrant attached if you don't buy a Florida tag right away. The next time it is that tow and the ride downtown. They do all of this because we do have a lot of out of state people here who will blow off a wreck and leave the injured party trying to catch someone across a state line. Well, good for FL. However, there are 49 other states plus DC. non |
Winning elections is not good enough
|
Winning elections is not good enough
|
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:37:49 -0500, wrote:
Yemen is the real problem and it is right next door even closer to where the 4 Americans were killed than Somalia. They have fishermen too. If Al Qaeda has not figured this source of easy money yet, they will. Uh huh... well, since you're now an expert on AQ I guess we should just take your word for it. And we are supposed to take your word for who has the money? All we have is guesses. I've posted the links. It's fairly well documented. As I said, look up your guess, then discuss facts. Here it is again as a starting point... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7650415.stm |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:38:27 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:21:07 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:51:18 -0500, John H wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:49:39 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:00:38 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:19:25 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:09:49 -0500, I_am_Tosk wrote: I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs to be a relatively slow process. Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone. It's a nice way of handing over a bunch of Foreign aid, send a bunch of Americans over and pay them to become a part of another countries economy for a few years. Not saying there is no need for a presence, I don't know the details, but still... We probably have a better reason to be in Japan than Europe but make no mistake, it is just to be a staging area for restarting the Korean war. In any case, you can't just give them a call and tell them to get on the next plane. Why not? They could certainly be gone in 180 days and that is a blink in government talk. If we donated the equipment to the German military, we could be out of there in much less than 180 days. Sounds like socialism to me.... We call it foreign aid. All of our foreign aid combined is about 1% of the budget or some similarly small number. I guess taxing rich people an extra 4% might cover it. What do you think. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:42:05 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:25:11 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 02:17:16 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:57:30 -0800, wrote: So, how are you going to "redirect" all these "low-paid" troops into homeland jobs without displacing those low-paid construction jobs? By starting new projects. Ok. So, you have no objection to projects sponsored and paid for by the gov't! Sounds like the heavy hand of gov't to me. I have no objection your honor! \\ Good deal I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs to be a relatively slow process. Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone. Good grief! You know that little about economics and/or how the military works? You can't just decide one day to close bases and then everyone leaves. Now you are worried about the Germans? I'm thoughtful about how we as a nation are perceived and our effect on the rest of the world. You aren't I guess. I imagine there are plenty of Germans who wish we would go but even if they didn't we are not the world's p[olicemen. If they want us there, pay us to be there. There are plenty more who appreciate us spending our money there. I think we need to stay engaged there, but we don't need lots and lots of bases. There are a few that should probably remain. We could close foreign bases pretty fast if we wanted to and it is not our job to replace the hole in the German economy. There are a few people here saying the locals don't get that much money from our bases anyway. Sure thing! I guess that was the same sort of decision that was made post WW1. That worked out pretty well, didn't it. False equivalency again. Really? Well, you just got done saying you don't care about the German economy. That's what we said after WW1. Do you really think the best way to help the German economy is to occupy them? No. I think the best thing for the US to do is to carefully reduce our presence there without damaging their economy. There was nothing in common with the surrender of a largely intact Germany at the end of WWI, left to it;s own devices and their total destruction in WWII. We have occupied them for 66 years. When will we decide they are OK? As I said, I have no objection to closing most of the bases. It just doesn't need to devastate our or their economy to do that. Again, we're looking for a long-term solution not a short-term reactionary policy. We are looking for ways to cut an $800 billion dollar pentagon budget. You have to cut something. Let's start with getting the facts right... http://www.janes.com/events/OnlineSe...DefenceBudget/ Maybe we can get rid of some nukes... oh wait, this was opposed by all those fiscal conservative Republicans. |
Winning elections is not good enough
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com