On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 21:51:10 -0500, DSK wrote:

low income gets? Do I get home heating assistance? No.

You could if you wanted to stand in line and fill out a lot of paperwork.


Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
No I could not - it's income based.

In our area it's "need based" which I suppose could be code for "income
based." It seems to me that if you buy a huge house and can't afford to
heat it, you're still better off than somebody who cannot afford even a
small house, much less the heat.

BTW our power & gas companies both have assistance programs, it is not
just the gov't.

Heh - yeah - so do we. And as it happens, the power and gas companies
get a very nice cut on their corporate taxes for being such great
folks.

... Do I get food stamps? No.

You probably couldn't get those... do you want them?

No, but the point is that it's a direct benefit that I don't and can't
obtain.

Once again it's "direct benefit." Do you truly believe that the *only*
possible benefit the gov't provides is to hand some people money?

Not at all. I suppose you could argue that to benefit one is to
benefit all,but I don't see it that way.

Your argument that somehow I receive more direct, or indirect (I'll
allow you that) benefits than others is silly and I've proved it. I
get less exactly because I have more. Just because you don't like it
doesn't mean that it isn't true.

... Do I get Husky Healthcare for my kids? No.

But OTOH you do get medical care that is supervised by the gov't,
provided by doctors & nurses that have been trained in accordance with
carefully regulated programs... in short the gov't has provided all the
background services & infrastructure for your medical care... and you
can afford the best, lucky you.

That's part of the general common wealth - not direct assistance.

I see... if you benefit from it, but people who can't afford it don't,
then it's "general common wealth"...

That's not what I said and you know it. Once again, you said that I
benefit from having more and this particular benefit isn't something
that I get - direct or not. And for your information, the medicine
that I take for my arthritis once a month costs 12k a pop, half of
which I pay. The guy who is on the same schedule with me and shares
the other half of the in-patient room where we receive the treatment
doesn't pay a cent and up until I told him, didn't have a clue as to
how much it cost. Nice guy, former state prisoner (manslaughter),
getting SS disability for an injury obtained in prison - a fight I
believe he said. Get the point?

Do you really think that the State really has anything to do with
certifying doctors, nurses, health clinics, hospitals, etc other than
just being a check off on a form and a clearing house for information?
Got news for you, the individual Fellowships that doctors persue in
medical school are responsible for developing the codes of practice
and standards for care for patients - the state only provides the
administration services necessary to maintain order - no more no less.
The same is true for nurses, ambulance services, hospitals and
clinics. Do you think that hospitals are run at the convenience of
the state? Please - they are for profit corporations run under
anti-trust exemptions and pretty much control themselves.

How do you think people who can't afford a car feel about paying for
their share of the interstate highways?

I really don't know because I was under the impression that our
ridiculous Federal, State, local and Sales tax on a tax on a tax on a
tax system took care of that.

If you are as wealthy as you imply, then you probably have
investments... stocks, bonds, etc etc. Do you pay for the operation of
the SEC? Who benefits from it? How about the Federal Reserve System?

Well, the SEC is clearly a function of government and yes, I do pay
for the SEC by paying taxes. The Federal Reserve System is a private
corporation and while most politicians would like it to be under their
control, it is not.

Ah, now you want to muddy the water... it has to be "direct gov't
assistance" now, in the form of cash handed to you by the gov't?

No - you ain't getting away with that one. You said, right from the
git go, that I was benefitting more than those who have less income
that I have.

And you do... however, you want to look at the lowly ant, and make
statements about elephants. You insist that only "benefits" to be
included in the discussion are cash subsidies.

BTW you might consider looking at where your income is derived... are
you 100% positive that absolutely none of it is derived from any kind of
gov't contracting at all?

Positive.

... That means direct government assistance - not that which
promotes the general welfare. I'm sure you understand the difference.

Nope... *you* have decided that the only benefits *you* want to include
in your game are ones that you *think* you don't benefit from.

For example, day care assistance promotes "the general welfare" in that
provides a larger pool of labor and also feeds slightly better
socialized kids into the school system. And the public school system...
if you want to live in a society of cavemen, then you don't need public
schools... in the meantime, it promotes *your* well being by allowing
you to live in an industrialized and technical society with a higher
standard of knowledge & skill than would otherwise exist.



Let me put it this way... at the most basic level, the gov't prevents
some low-life from smacking you over the head and taking away all your
expensive toys.

Really? How so? It takes an officer approximately a half hour to get
here from the local barracks - that's if there is one available at the
local barracks immediately.

Oh? And there is absolutely *no* deterrent value in the presence of
police & the court system & prisons etc etc?

Email me your address

Oh see, you can't do that. I demonstrated why people in the cities
do much better in that area that I do and you went and snipped it.

Naughty naughty.

It's also why I carry.

Hint- so do crooks... and they often shoot first.

Trust me - they won't get a chance.

Oh please. Make a rational argument for crying out loud.

I am. You're the one insisting that the *only* beneficial function that
gov't has is to hand out checks, and crying that you ain't gettin' any
(or is it bragging?).

Neither. Just making a point that I don't benefit as much as you say
I do. Despite your attempt to make it a broadly defined discussion in
which nothing can ever be settled, sticking to the point you still
haven't demonstrated how I benefit more than those who have less than
I. Because it's not true.

Think.


I have. I might suggest the same for you.

I have... and you have not.

Of course I have. I've even helped do the math proofs and corrections
on several economic texts and helped design mathematical paradigms for
both micro/macro business and governmental financial models over the
years. I'm not an expert I will admit, but I know a benefit when I
see one.

Later,

Tom