From: Bill Graham on

"D. Peter Maus" <DPeterMaus(a)> wrote in message
> On 9/11/09 16:34 , Bill Graham wrote:
>> Everyone (all 300 million of us citizens)
>> should have a government ID card, and/or a chip implanted in us that
>> identifies us as US citizens in good standing, and if we are sick, then
>> the chip should get us the treatment we need. Today's technology is more
>> than adequate to accomplish this.
> Be careful what you wish for.

Well, we are fast approaching the alternative, which is to treat everyone as
citizens whether they pay any taxes or are illegal aliens or not. If I am
going to pay taxes, then I would like to be identified as a, "taxpayer" in
good standing, and that means a valid ID that goes with me wherever I am. It
will be my license to vote, and get medical care. I am very tired of paying
for other peoples way.

From: Bill Graham on

"John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:12:17 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)>
> wrote:
>>"Bowser" <its(a)bowzah.ukme> wrote in message
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:zsWdnTu-rKfl_zTXnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d(a)
>>>> Obama is dedicated to stealing from the rich. (read: anyone with any
>>>> money) and giving it to the poor. (read: anyone who has no money) This
>>>> is
>>>> called, "Robinhoodism". It is a story as old as time, and I have been
>>>> fighting it all of my life. Even when I was a little kid, and saw Errol
>>>> Flynn in the role, I knew that Robin Hood was, in the final analysis,
>>>> nothing but a thief. Just because he gave the proceeds to charity, that
>>>> didn't mean he had the right to steal.
>>> Bush gave the rich huge tax cuts, and as a result, in large part, we're
>>> (the US) is bankrupt and trillions in debt. Governments, democrat or
>>> republican, can't or won't stop spending money, so they'll take it from
>>> whoever has it. No mystery here.
>>> My idea is simple: abandon the income tax and use a value added tax. The
>>> more you spend, the more you pay. that way the rich get soaked and can't
>>> complain.
>>Talk about a gift to the rich! You don't think that richies like Bill
>>wouldn't like that? He would get filthy rich overnight. You can only wear
>>one outfit at a time, and drive one auto at a time. The real rich don't
>>spend near enough of their incomes for the government to make any money
>>your plan. It's ordinary people like me that would suffer and end up
>>all the bills. Even I would make out like a bandit. At 74, my appetite for
>>fast cars and fancy junk is no longer there.....I end up saving most of my
>>money for grandkids and the like. I drink a lot more prune juice than
>>Caviar, I can tell you that.....
> How about go the other way: a 50% (or more) income tax on income you
> don't spend. Basically make *everything* deductible. It would
> certainly spur some spending and goose the economy. The less you make
> in excess of what you need the less you'd pay in taxes. It would
> automatically adjust the tax bourdon according to cost of living
> fluctuations.
> I'm sure there are some problems with the idea, but I think it has
> potential.

It might work, but you'd have to give a tax break for investing. People who
invest their excess income in American business are the ones who provide
most of the jobs for the others, and that should be rewarded.

From: Savageduck on
On 2009-09-13 12:44:24 -0700, "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)> said:

> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
> news:2009091312135077923-savageduck(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2009-09-13 11:39:56 -0700, "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)> said:
>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
>>> news:2009091309555850878-savageduck(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>> On 2009-09-13 03:11:49 -0700, Chris H <chris(a)> said:
>>>>> What has some local inter-party politics of a foreign country got to do
>>>>> with photography?
>>>> Well they got some pretty candid shots of all the participants, and the
>>>> distribution was widespread. Without cameras and a few
>>>> different types of photography, how would we have known? --
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Savageduck
>>> 8^)
>>> But, for those who are not in the US and are understandably bored
>>> with what appears to be only a local-to-the-US issue (especially since
>>> many of you know from experience with it that your single-payer
>>> "socialist" solution to providing health care does in fact work very
>>> well, and you may wonder why we don't just look at it from the point
>>> of view of your experience), there is more involved - and I fear, much
>>> as I generally abhor "doom-and-gloom" prognostications and conspiracy
>>> theories, things are afoot here that are scary.
> [Rest deleted for brevity - see the rest above...]
>> Damn!
>> When I was initially faced with the obvious verbosity of your
>> explanation, I was prepared to write it off, until I read it.
>> I have to agree with all you have expressed.
>> To paraphrase Mencken; Never underestimate the potential for the
>> American voter to impersonate sheep.
>> :-) --
>> Regards,
>> Savageduck
> I have never seen anything like this short of (MAYBE) during the "Commie
> under every bed" era (with McCarthy and cohorts) and its resulting wholesale
> shunning of anyone who expressed anything even faintly resembling a "liberal"
> opinion (yuh, I know - the base form of that word means "free"...;-). It looks
> like the Right is trying to do this again - but fortunately a large
> number of their
> leaders have been occupied falling flat on their faces (but not enough,
> alas, to
> keep us out of trouble - and their followers just don't seem to notice yet that
> their leaders are repeatedly proving themselves to be hypocritical liars, and
> they still feel free to call honorable leaders liars without any real
> justification...).
> Yuck!
> --DR

Agreed. This is almost worse than HUAC and McCarthy, as Fox and Co.
have developed a following of the misinformed and easily led. You know
how it goes, Fox teaches liberal=left=socialist= gasp! commie!! by
introducing FUD regarding deprival of benefits and/or helping to pay
for others less fortunate, or at least establish a program to help them.
So much for Christian charity.
....and these hypocrites are the squeaky wheel demanding attention. One
day they will realize they have been fighting against their own best


From: Twibil on
On Sep 13, 2:51 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...(a)> wrote:
> Our schools have become socialist training grounds..

Uh....sure. For a given value of "socialist". In this case meaning
"not socialist".

> ...9 out of 10 university instructors are liberals.

As are most well educated people. (Does this come as a shock? It's
been the case for as long as anyone's bothered to keep track, you

Do you recommend we outlaw education entirely, or perhaps only allow
teachers and lessons that have been pre-approved by Sarah Palin and
Sean Hannity?

> Have you read any textbooks recently?

Yes. I retired after teaching for 12 years at the Universty of
California, and instructors frquently *do* read textbooks.

> They might as well have been written by card carrying communists.

Erm, sure, for a given value of "communist". In this case meaning "not
communist". (With a few college-level exceptions where the authors
make no secret of their political orientation.)

> They are winning the battle simply by being better organized.

Ever known any real honest-to-goodness communists personally, Bunky?
I have, and they're among the least practical, worst orgainized, and
utterly ineffective people on the planet. That's why most -to bend the
term- "true communist" states fell apart some twenty years ago beneath
their own weight -or kept the "communist" title while embracing
capitalism with both arms.

Here's a free hint: everything you dislike isn't automatically
"socialist" or "communist". Those words have real definitions, and
using them the same way some folks yell "NAZI!" at anyone they dislike
only devalues the words and convinces everyone who has even a marginal
grip on reality that you don't.

From: David J. Littleboy on

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)> wrote:
>> Actually, juries have very good "bullshit detectors" by and large, and
>> it's very rare for a frivolous or fraudulent malpractice suit to
>> succeed. Any little guy vs big guy sympathies are balanced by the
>> pleasure to be had in sending a con packing. Seriously, the whole idea
>> that's been going around of capping awards in these cases serves no
>> one near as well as the *real* incompetent and/or reckless medical
>> professionals who will save money but who should be out of the
>> business entirely. Hey, if folks are hell-bent on capping rightfully
>> won awards, I guess they will, but let's have some professional
>> repercussions to weed out the real bad doctors, nurses, etc. and keep
>> them out.
> The trouble is that most cases never go to trial. The insurance companies
> nearly always settle for something, because the cost of defending is
> greater than the cost of paying something on even the most frivolous
> claim. That raises insurance rates for everyone, plus it encourages
> medical professionals to practice exceedingly defensive medicine.

Actually, people who have looked at medical malpractice cases find that
frivolous claims are few and far between and almost never get paid (and, as
above, the ones that make it to trial do badly).

Inversely, the number of cases where people are hurt by medical malpractice
and don't get compensated is large. Many don't even turn into claims, it
would have been difficult to sue), and many valid claims get discarded,
rejected, or lose in court. The bottom line is that the reason there is so
much paid out to patients from malpractice insurance is that there's so much

And the amount of money changing hands in malpractice cases is insignificant
and falling.

Thus there are three problems in medical malpractice system: (1) (as above)
too few people are being compensated, (2) the malpractice insurance
companies aren't lowering their premiums even though the number of cases and
awards has been falling (and thus are ripping off the doctors*, but not by
an amount that has any significance at the policy level), and (3) the
doctors don't want there to be any malpractice system at all, i.e. don't
want to take responsibility for their mistakes.


David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Prev: Pittsburgh
Next: Incompatible jpeg?