From: Bill Graham on

"John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:fo33b5hm4djcgjc54v81dujvtgnqatfitk(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:28:21 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:h8qqki$ie5$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>
>>> "Twibil" <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3aab8f79-88b8-426d-9a9b-57a21d65ecaa(a)a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Sep 15, 9:24 pm, "Neil Harrington" <sec...(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> Fact is that the cost of medical care has risen all out of proportion
>>> to the income of the average wage earner, and medical problems that
>>> could easily be paid for in the '40s and '50s are now costly enough to
>>> put the guy on the street into a bankruptsy court if he has no medical
>>> insurance.
>>>
>>> If the fact that medical care in the US today costs slightly over
>>> *twice* what it does anywhere else in the world doesn't make you
>>> suspect that something has gone rotten in the medical industry, you're
>>> simply not paying attention.
>>>
>>> --It *should*, but..............................! ;-)
>>> --Can't have no "socialism" no-how, no-way - 'cuz it's, well, just
>>> --plain "un-American"! 8^)
>>> --BTW, in the very early '60s, I spent a night in the hospital, billed
>>> --$25. About seven years ago, I spent a night in a hospital, billed
>>> --$2200. Both were for plain double rooms, not ICU...
>>> --DR
>>Yes, but that's what 40 years of government interference in our medical
>>profession has done......It's not free enterprise when the AMA spends 40
>>years lobbying our congressmen to make laws in restraint of trade for
>>them.
>
> The AMA lobbied against the introduction of the health insurance
> industry, fearing having a "middle-man" would inflate costs and that
> said middle-man would come between them and their patients when making
> health care decisions. And guess what happened?

There is no legal way anyone can stop any insurance company from selling you
any insurance against any legal eventually. But, aside from that, the
insurance companies also have their lobby's, and they can get laws made in
restraint of free trade, too. We are today enjoying the 50 year results of
all that lobbying.....

From: SMS on
Bill Graham wrote:

> It's amazing how few people here
> break into houses, when they know that the occupants probably have a
> gun.

In fact, the opposite is true. Nearly all break-ins occur when the
occupants are not home. Guns are one of the items most likely to be
stolen in house break-ins.

> If I were a professional house breaker, I would go to some country
> where no one is allowed to own a gun. That's just good common sense.

A professional "house breaker" does not break into houses that are
occupied. They do break into houses where they think fence-able items
are available. An indication that the homeowner is a member of the NRA
would indicate the probability that handguns are stored in the house.

If you want to prevent break-ins, install security cameras, alarms, and
get a dog that barks a lot when strangers approach. You'll be much more
likely to prevent a break-in than you would by owning a gun.
From: D. Peter Maus on
On 9/17/09 17:33 , SMS wrote:
> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>> It's amazing how few people here break into houses, when they know
>> that the occupants probably have a gun.
>
> In fact, the opposite is true. Nearly all break-ins occur when the
> occupants are not home. Guns are one of the items most likely to be
> stolen in house break-ins.
>
>> If I were a professional house breaker, I would go to some country
>> where no one is allowed to own a gun. That's just good common sense.
>
> A professional "house breaker" does not break into houses that are
> occupied. They do break into houses where they think fence-able items
> are available. An indication that the homeowner is a member of the NRA
> would indicate the probability that handguns are stored in the house.
>

> If you want to prevent break-ins, install security cameras,
alarms, and
> get a dog that barks a lot when strangers approach. You'll be much more
> likely to prevent a break-in than you would by owning a gun.



Um...when Morton Grove banned handguns, home invasions went up 128%.


From: Bill Graham on

"Walter Banks" <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote in message
news:4AB228D8.59CB1866(a)bytecraft.com...
>
>
> SMS wrote:
>
>> David Ruether wrote:
>>
>> > I think you don't understand the predominant beliefs of the US
>> > electorate
>> > very well... I think few see the election of Democrats as specifically
>> > to
>> > "steal rich people's money so more can be given to (poor) me", as the
>> > unbelievably odd (to some of us) "bill of goods" the Republicans have
>> > sold
>> > to so many for so long that "supporting the interests of the rich is
>> > best for us
>> > (the poor) because, well, someday we may also be rich - which is a
>> > fantasy,
>> > but one that is widely held by Americans, especially now with
>> > widespread
>> > popular lotteries in existence. BTW, this nonsense predates the
>> > "anything
>> > socialistic is bad" myth sold also by those on the Right, who fail to
>> > mention
>> > that much of what is taken for granted as basic services *is*
>> > socialistic...
>> > Armed with these two myths, a disreputable bunch of rascals is often
>> > able
>> > to draw roughly 50% of the electorate's votes. Pushing these myths,
>> > with
>> > repeated lies and deceptions added, works for winning elections,
>> > alas...
>>
>> The other issue many people don't understand is how the salary
>> structures have evolved in the U.S. in regards to gross pay and net pay.
>> A position paying $100K where $30K is paid in a combination of all taxes
>> is not going to be paying $100K if the tax burden falls to $10K. Even
>> within the same corporation there are differentials based on cost of
>> living of different areas of the country (and world), and these
>> differentials are based on both expenses for taxes and the costs of
>> goods and services.
>>
>> If, after the past eight years, anyone voted Republican with the idea
>> that Republicans would protect their savings, investments, and job, then
>> they haven't been paying attention. Yet Republicans can talk about tax
>> cuts (unfunded tax cuts) and there are still some naive middle and lower
>> class voters that think that they'll automatically be better off paying
>> slightly lower taxes. These people are unable to look at the big picture
>> of how government is funded and the effects of increasing deficits. It's
>> the same people that whine about how we should have just let GM and
>> Chrysler go into liquidation, without understanding that the cost of
>> liquidation would be much higher.
>
> For most of the last generation in the US fiscal reality has been almost
> the opposite of the rhetoric. The Democrats by an large have balanced
> budgets and some cases created government surpluses and invested in
> economic growth. The Republicans have been deficient spending and
> investing in special interests.
>
> w..
>
Usually because the Republicans have had to handle the wars, (mostly because
they have happened to be in office when we were attacked, or otherwise
obligated to wage them)

From: Bill Graham on

"Walter Banks" <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote in message
news:4AB22FA5.7C1A29AC(a)bytecraft.com...
>
>
> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>> > Obama has only a year and a half to push through his agenda
>> > prior to the evil-doers having more of a chance to stop him.
>>
>> Lets see....A hundred days equals a trillion dollars, so a year and a
>> half.......Oh, oh.....
>
> A what is the GMROI on the trillion? On one part the cash for
> clunkers it may have been as high as 30%. I wouldn't mind
> making that kind of investment. $300B or so of the bank bailout
> is back, most of the rest is paying 5% for the first 5 years and
> 9% for the following 15 years.
>
> The stock market has risen 30% since the beginning of the year.
>
> Saving an economy priceless.
>
> There are some golden opportunities around now
>
> w..
>
>
Not for me, there aren't. I lost about half my retirement investment when
the market crashed. The "opportunities" are for those who have the money to
invest in my crashed stocks, but not for me. I have no choice but to try to
live until the market recovers, and the way the Dems are spending money,
that may never happen.....Even when it does, what will my dollars be worth
after those printing presses have been rumbling for 8 years?