"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in news:b9udnYayDvbuvZ3WnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:
Yeah, yeah ...
LOL!
Some here in Jersey are looking forward to less taxes now they have elected a new governor. Sounds good. Hope my real estate and schooltaxes would go down too. Not holding my breath. Now that apparently some legal stuff is hopefully nearing its end, the Radburn assessments are estimated to go down, and that'll help my budget. But again: seeing is believing.
Greg G. wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Now, now. You are underestimating the capabilities of congressmen to weigh what is good for the nation. Phooey on you to doubt their good intentions.
Have you replaced your legislature yet? If, it might not go up as fast but nothing is going down.
As Seamus O'Foolery was often wont to remark, "The whole country's fooked, for want of an Irish king."
diggerop
Yes, this is common. First, have you ever see an ad for a product touting the superiority of the competition? Even our criminal justice system is adversarial. Each side presents its most compelling case and the job of the participants is to sort out the good from the bad. The evaluator(s) should also take into consideration the source of the information given.
Secondly, I suggest there IS no source of unbiased information. Anywhere.
Thirdly, I stand by my position that the problem, if any, lies with the congressman who cannot tell the difference between fact and fantasy or is unwilling (or incapable) of either weighing the facts or the reputation of the proponents.
Blame simply cannot be attached to the lobbyists.
"HeyBub" wrote in news:-NOdncSEp61JPp3WnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:
This time I fully agree.
Now how is a voter to react in the middle of a legislative session? The a*h* congress critter is there for the rest of the term.
That's why the "participants" make the salaries/benefits they do. Theoretically. But it's apparently not enough for many. Ethics are nearly nonexistent in many of the players. And that includes judges, lawyers, congressmen, preachers, media, and your favorite corporation.
Not much. But it does exist. Even I'm not that cynical. ;-) If there were no unbiased sources for truth there would be no affordable technology or science or physics.
And by extension, the voters who put them there. Yet I consider it improper that if a man does his job with integrity he makes what the taxpayers allot for the job. But if he exercises poor judgment or outright ignores the facts he is rewarded on the sly for doing favors for those who desire them. IMHO that is a systemic defect which harms us all. Remove the in-your-face temptation and most would relent.
Of course it can. It's called morality, decency, honor, honesty. Are they the only ones at fault? Of course not. If lobbying didn't work, people would stop paying them to shill. I'm not picking on any one lobbyist, I'm picking on one facet of the system as it exists as a whole. I could sell non-existent timeshares, bogus stocks, or crack on the street corner. But I don't. Not from fear of prosecution, but because I consider it bad for society - the one I live in and hope will better itself. Additionally, lobbyists are paid huge sums of money and where do you think these funds come from? You and I, every time we buy a product from a company who employs a lobbyist. Most know full well what they are doing and yet exercise no self-restraint in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.
Ignorant voters, venal politicians, agenda driven lobbyists and media. I understand what you are driving at, but at this rate we'd be better of with a King. At least you'd only have one candidate to vet. ;-)
Greg G.
Amusing statement from a man I've never heard of. Nor Google. But it does seem there is nary a good king fit for this day and time.
Greg G.
One hit from Google
often, but another old-timer that doesn't search newsgroups.
So that makes you Digger O'Pfoolery - a wise(acre) man indeed! ;-)
Greg G.
I would agree that it's a scandalous statement to make, true or not. But, my guess would be that the statement was designed to insert some anger against the medical industry thereby using that anger to gain additional public support for his health care bills. Whatever designs the man has, he's certainly not stupid.
Considering the scavenging and greed for profit that is gaining so much notoriety lately in the financial and health care industries, it makes one wonder how much truth if any, is in the statement.
Look the dude doesn't even know where the legislative language has come from, nor what is in the bill -- why on earth would you expect him to know where any support for or agin' it originates? These people are voting on legislation that will fundamentally alter the nature of the relationship between citizens and the government and they haven't even frickin' READ THE @#$% BILL! Doesn't that concern anyone that people casting those votes don't have any idea what they are voting for?
Meep!
Read a book once wherein the protagonist was the wife of a professor of mathematics. Her observation of the faculty and students was interesting. In those disciplines where truth was empirical (math, physics, engineering, etc.), neither the students nor faculty paid much mind to how they dressed. Their socks didn't match, the colors clashed, and so on.
In those disciplines where "truth" was a matter of majority vote (English Literature, History, Renaissance Poetry, etc.), everybody wore a uniform. The men wore tweed jackets with leather elbow patches and the women wore basic black with a string of pearls.
The fine arts people had the worst of both worlds: "Truth" was equivocal (Mozart or Maler?) and their clothes were tatters.
Geeks?
Authoritarians?
Hippies?
;-)
Greg G.
I recall reading somewhere that some observer of human nature or other had observed that "scientists are boring people with interesting ideas, artists are interesting people with boring ideas".
I'll buy that - as a generalization. I should be able to quote the source, as it sounds familiar, but memory fails me. And I suppose that makes authoritarians boring people with boring ideas. Sounds even more reasonable. :)
Greg G.
: I know maths is hard, but try to follow along. : : Suppose someone in their early twenties is considered "at risk" for : diabetes. At $400 per quarter for testing, that's $1,600 per year. Assuming : 40 years for the disease to become acute, that's $64,000 directly out of : pocket. Factoring in lost opportunity costs, the real figure is in the : neighborhood of $75,000. Further, only one person out of some larger number : (about ten) ever contract the disease. So then, $750,000 worth of wealth is : destroyed to protect some "thousands and thousands of dollars." : : Trust me on this, "thousands and thousands of dollars" is less than
3/4 of a : million dollars. : : Admittedly, I'm not an expert (although I am good at maths). I just : recollect seeing a compendium of reports that insist preventative care, in : the aggregate, is more expensive than the undetected result. Of course this : mantra ignores such things as Polio vaccine... : : Aside: I know it's what liberals do, and it's hard to avoid it, but insults : really are unbecoming.So, what you're saying is that you'd rather lose your foot. $1600/year sounds like cheap insurance to me. That's less than my yearly deductible and 20% (plus?) that I shell out every other year for a colonoskopy. But, I have a family history; nothing to do with my lifestyle choices mind you. If I follow your logic I should bank that money and put it toward my colon cancer treatment(s). That's special.
Dave in Houston
: >> Now tell me anything useful is ever going to occur in this country as : >> long as K-Street stands... : >
: > That is indeed scary. Especially when the congressman says he didn't know : > where his staff had gotten the script from. : : Look the dude doesn't even know where the legislative language has come : from, nor what is in the bill -- why on earth would you expect him to know : where any support for or agin' it originates? These people are voting on : legislation that will fundamentally alter the nature of the relationship : between citizens and the government and they haven't even frickin' READ THE : @#$% BILL! Doesn't that concern anyone that people casting those votes : don't have any idea what they are voting for?
Sure they do. You can bet they know their major contributors - personally. You act as if legislators have no contact with his big-money donors. What is that, a blind trust? Baucus has reportedly taken $10 million from the insurance industry going back some years. Do you expect people to believe that he doesn't know where the language in a pro-insurance piece of legislation comes from? Who's being naive now?
Dave in Houston
You must be reading some awfully dumbed-down newspapers. Where you from? the deep South?
I'm not saying that. I AM saying that one cannot justify prevention vs ultimate outcome on the basis of cost alone.
Those who say spending money now for prevention reducees costs later for the consequences are simply wrong.
In your case, if you can find nine other people similarily configured, you SHOULD all put your money in a pool to be used when ONE of you gets in trouble.
From a purely economic perspective, that is.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.