From: SMS on
Bill Graham wrote:

> We have been over this ground too many times already. Let's just look at
> the present and near future. How can any good come out of spending
> several trillion dollars right now? You can't recover from a monetary
> loss by spending more money, whether you are an individual or a country.
> We are on a big path to certain doom.

Spending that money will indeed devalue our currency and lead to
inflation. Thanks to W, the U.S. standard of living will be lower for
decades or even a century.

However the alternative of letting the economy go from recession to
depression would have been much worse. You have to learn to look at the
big picture.

There is a big difference between the reckless deficit spending of
Reagan and W, and the current bailout of major financial institutions
and manufacturers. The former was to enrich the wealthy at the expense
of the lower and middle class. The latter is to prevent the whole world
from going into a depression caused by the former. As distasteful as it
may be to bail out GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc., the alternative would have
been much worse.

It will take many decades to undo the problems wrought by supply-side
economics, ignoring the threat of radical Islam, ignoring environmental
degradation, and alienating most of the industrialized world in the
process, but it isn't hopeless or certain doom.
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

"John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:cp63b59d8hrrav15d8dnuugq4h654ub9ni(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:20:26 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:4ab10a6e$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Andrew Cook" <nospam(a)nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>> I'm having difficulty working out how free competion works in health
>>>>>> care.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Say I've just been shot / had a heart attack / have some other
>>>>>> immediately life threatening illness. How does 'free competion in
>>>>>> healthcare' help me? I don't have time to shop around between
>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>> providers - my options are get in the first ambulance and go to the
>>>>>> nearest hospital, or die.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Them when I can't afford the co-pay, I either don't have it, or con
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> hospital I can afford it then go bankrupt later - competition doesn't
>>>>>> help me there either.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The free competition allows you to buy a very good health insurance
>>>>> policy for a minimum amount of money.
>>>>
>>>> If you consider $1000 to $3000 per month to be a "minimum" amount of
>>>> money.
>>>
>>> Yeah, those sorts of figures astound me. In Australia, people were
>>> bitching when the government increased the Medicare levy from 1% to 1.5%
>>> of salary.
>>
>>Well, you guys need an AMA to lobby your congressmen the way they do
>>here......
>
> The AMA originally lobbied against the way we do it here.

Then your congressmen are a lot more honest than are ours.