Driver to drive?

Paul Hovnanian P.E. · May 1, 2012

Artemus wrote:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:OYWdnWdOELZtzgLSnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@posted.isomediainc...
Artemus wrote:

Since a timing light always remedies the problem that points to the
HV side of the ignition. In particular the coil to distributor wire.
You
say you've replaced everything. Does that include all the HV wires,
dist cap, rotor, coil, and plugs? All of those together are cheap
compared the ignition module.

Yes. New coil, wires, cap, rotor, plugs. Although this is an all on/off
problem, so its doubtfull all the plugs would fail simultaneously.

Agreed. Having ruled out everything downstream of the ign module ...
The only electrical effect I can think of is that the timing light added
capacitance to the coil output. This got reflected across the coil and
"fixes" the ign module.

Exactly. I just can't figure out what its 'fixing' and how. And what, left
to sit on its own, will fix itself in days/weeks.

The electrolytic cap suggestion has merit. The cap fails under normal
loading, but heals itself when left to rest or when the load is increased
by adding the strobe light.

Its a puzzle I'd like to solve, even if the fix is just to replace the
entire module. Its potted, so its probably a goner anyway.

Have you considered going to an aftermarket
CDI? This is the first one I found and it's considerably less than the
OEM module.

http://www.carbodyparts.net/1980-toyota-pickup/direct_ignition_coil-a18302850.html

That's a coil on plug retrofit, if I'm not mistaken. And it still needs an
ignition module to drive it. I'd rather stick with the OEM coil and
distributor. The Landcruiser setup has a few design features enabling it to
work submerged and I'd hate to go to a standard automotive setup not built
with rugged environments in mind.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto

aul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
If your only tool is a hammer then every problem looks like a thumb.

Spehro Pefhany · May 1, 2012

On Tue, 01 May 2012 13:04:00 -0700, the renowned Joel Koltner
<zapwire-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
_reduces_ the take.

It's not fair to punish the kids for the misdeeds of their parents.

If you want to be draconian about this, take away any kids after #2 (or
whatever) -- there are plenty of people out there who'd like to adopt
newborns.

...or require the parent(s) to show cause why they should not be
removed. Maybe sterilization and/or turning their vote over to the
political party in power at the time could be a defense.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

amdx · May 2, 2012

On 5/1/2012 6:38 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On May 1, 10:43 pm, amdx<a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:
On 4/30/2012 11:36 AM,BillSlomanwrote:

On Apr 30, 7:03 am, Robert Baer<robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
flipper wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:34:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:22:54 -0500, amdx<a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:

On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded

Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
some "competition," I suppose.

One video leads to another and I end up here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E

At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."

Mikek

The poor thang ;-)

What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
_reduces_ the take.

...Jim Thompson

The problem with notions of what is, in essence, a 'child tax' is it
punishes not only the 'excess' child but the others as well.

THAT is _exactly_ the point...

Which is what makes it immoral and moronic. It isn't the child's fault
that it was born to a mother without a sound grasp of social
realities, and it doesn't make much sense to punish the child for its
mother's errors.

It's in society's interest to see that the child is well enough fed
and educated while it grows up to be able to become potentially useful
adult.

Punishing the mother provides instant gratification, but risks
damaging the child. Taking the children away and putting them into
care is a theoretical possibility. but in practice it's too expensive
to be used as a matter of routine, and even good care-givers aren't
all that much better for the child than a tolerably bad biological
mother.

What ratio would you accept?
Can we damage one to prevent 20, 50, or 200 from be put into that
cesspool, which creates it's own damage.

None. Human sacrifice is no longer acceptable, no matter how you dress
it up.

And with adequate social security, a low income environment isn't a
cesspool. It's not a great environment, but lots of people survive it
and go to be useful and productive citizens. Good environments still
produce their own quota of bad apples.

Look at Ger
many. You can have adequate social security and a blooming
economy,

The people of Germany have a work ethic, we have generations
that think it's ethical to live on welfare. We have entitlement
programs that we do pay into but, we receive more out than we pay in.
We now have 150 million of our citizens receiving money from the
government.

Entitlements

If all Americans are "entitled" to help, who will pay for it?

by James Fallows

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/budget/fallowf.htm

This is funny, he thought we had a problem 30 yrs ago, it
is so much worse now.

I may not be far from joining the takers.

My business is trying to compete with someone that has told me he pays
taxes on 30% of his income. His wife and 5 kids are on food stamps and
medicaid.
I pay my own healthcare premium, now $6,000 and I pay the first
$10,000 of expenses as my deductible. The government pays his.
I buy all the food for my family. The government pays his.
I pay for my house, I suspect his wife gets some housing subsidy.
My problem is I'm to $%&# honest, I found an error in my bookkeeping
and filed an amended return, I had to pay an additional $3,300 in taxes.
My accountant said, I don't have many clients that would have brought
this to my attention.

Mikek

Bill Sloman · May 2, 2012

On May 1, 10:43 pm, amdx <a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:

On 4/30/2012 11:36 AM,BillSlomanwrote:

On Apr 30, 7:03 am, Robert Baer<robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
flipper wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:34:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:22:54 -0500, amdx<a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:

On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded

Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
some "competition," I suppose.

One video leads to another and I end up here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E

At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."

Mikek

The poor thang ;-)

What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
_reduces_ the take.

...Jim Thompson

The problem with notions of what is, in essence, a 'child tax' is it
punishes not only the 'excess' child but the others as well.

THAT is _exactly_ the point...

Which is what makes it immoral and moronic. It isn't the child's fault
that it was born to a mother without a sound grasp of social
realities, and it doesn't make much sense to punish the child for its
mother's errors.

It's in society's interest to see that the child is well enough fed
and educated while it grows up to be able to become potentially useful
adult.

Punishing the mother provides instant gratification, but risks
damaging the child. Taking the children away and putting them into
care is a theoretical possibility. but in practice it's too expensive
to be used as a matter of routine, and even good care-givers aren't
all that much better for the child than a tolerably bad biological
mother.

What ratio would you accept?
Can we damage one to prevent 20, 50, or 200 from be put into that
cesspool, which creates it's own damage.

None. Human sacrifice is no longer acceptable, no matter how you dress
it up.

And with adequate social security, a low income environment isn't a
cesspool. It's not a great environment, but lots of people survive it
and go to be useful and productive citizens. Good environments still
produce their own quota of bad apples.

Look at Germany. You can have adequate social security and a blooming
economy, and Will Hutton - amongst others - has argued that adequate
social security actually gives you are more productive work force and
a more productive society.

http://www.amazon.com/World-Were-Will-Hutton/dp/0316860816

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman · May 2, 2012

On May 1, 2:46 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Apr 29, 7:08 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:34:28 -0700, Jim Thompson

To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:22:54 -0500, amdx <a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:

On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded

Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
some "competition," I suppose.

One video leads to another and I end up here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E

At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."

Mikek

The poor thang ;-)

What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
_reduces_ the take.

...Jim Thompson

The problem with notions of what is, in essence, a 'child tax' is it
punishes not only the 'excess' child but the others as well.

Giving someone money, just less, is punishment?

Punishing the mother may make sense, but punishing her children
doesn't.

But, if they just published a schedule showing a decreasing
incremental benefit, the extra kid-for-ransom production would drop.

If there was kids-for-ransom production in the first place. Evolution
has instilled a pretty effective and largely irrational drive to have
kids in all of us. Financial incentives are all that effective in
changing that kind of programmed-in behaviour

Of course that'll never happen, since the formulas are always too
complicated for anyone to understand. Measuring everyone's "need" is
complicated.

Much too complicated for you. None so blind as those who do not wish
to see.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman · May 2, 2012

On May 1, 7:22 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
wrote:

On Tue, 1 May 2012 05:46:33 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 29, 7:08 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:34:28 -0700, Jim Thompson

To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:22:54 -0500, amdx <a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:

On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded

Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
some "competition," I suppose.

One video leads to another and I end up here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E

At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."

Mikek

The poor thang ;-)

What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
_reduces_ the take.

...Jim Thompson

The problem with notions of what is, in essence, a 'child tax' is it
punishes not only the 'excess' child but the others as well.

Giving someone money, just less, is punishment?

But, if they just published a schedule showing a decreasing
incremental benefit, the extra kid-for-ransom production would drop.

Of course that'll never happen, since the formulas are always too
complicated for anyone to understand. Measuring everyone's "need" is
complicated.

On welfare? Lose any children. It's child abuse to allow children to grow up
in a welfare home and become the next generation of dependents.

But most of them don't. And with slightly more generous social
security, even fewer of them end up dependent - not so many more as
end up dependent after having grown up with a silver spoon in their
mouths.

Right-wing nitwits find reality much too complicated to cope with so
they idealise the world into 100% good bits, replete with mom and
apple pie, and 100% bad bits where all fathers are absentees and every
mother is a crackhead.

It's nonsense, but it is the kind of nonsense that even krw can
understand.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman · May 2, 2012

On May 1, 11:48 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:00:17 -0700, Jim Thompson

To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded

No matter how I try to escape, a little birdie sends me E-mail saying that
namwolS still spits nonsense.

So I have a cure... shoot all people named namwolS ;-)

So Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson is going to start shooting
people? He may find that some of them can shoot back, and he
represents a bigger-than-average target, and can't take cover quite as
quickly as people who haven't needed hip-replacement surgery.

If he was serious, we wouldn't have to put up with him posting
nonsense here at all-too-regular intervals for very much longer. As
usual, he's got it backwards. He is not going to shoot people, but
rather get himself shot.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Michael A. Terrell · May 2, 2012

amdx wrote:

I may not be far from joining the takers.

My business is trying to compete with someone that has told me he pays
taxes on 30% of his income. His wife and 5 kids are on food stamps and
medicaid.

Report him to the IRS and the state for fraud. That's the honest
thing to do.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz · May 2, 2012

On Wed, 2 May 2012 07:57:02 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 1, 4:04 pm, Joel Koltner <zapwire-use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
_reduces_ the take.

It's not fair to punish the kids for the misdeeds of their parents.

If you want to be draconian about this, take away any kids after #2 (or
whatever) -- there are plenty of people out there who'd like to adopt
newborns.

Isn't that kind of eugenics, but backward?

It's motivation.

Charlie E. · May 2, 2012

On Tue, 1 May 2012 16:52:03 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<eacaws@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 7:22 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2012 05:46:33 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 29, 7:08 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:34:28 -0700, Jim Thompson

To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:22:54 -0500, amdx <a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:

On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded

Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
some "competition," I suppose.

One video leads to another and I end up here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E

At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."

Mikek

The poor thang ;-)

What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
_reduces_ the take.

...Jim Thompson

The problem with notions of what is, in essence, a 'child tax' is it
punishes not only the 'excess' child but the others as well.

Giving someone money, just less, is punishment?

But, if they just published a schedule showing a decreasing
incremental benefit, the extra kid-for-ransom production would drop.

Of course that'll never happen, since the formulas are always too
complicated for anyone to understand. Measuring everyone's "need" is
complicated.

On welfare? Lose any children. It's child abuse to allow children to grow up
in a welfare home and become the next generation of dependents.

But most of them don't. And with slightly more generous social
security, even fewer of them end up dependent - not so many more as
end up dependent after having grown up with a silver spoon in their
mouths.

Right-wing nitwits find reality much too complicated to cope with so
they idealise the world into 100% good bits, replete with mom and
apple pie, and 100% bad bits where all fathers are absentees and every
mother is a crackhead.

It's nonsense, but it is the kind of nonsense that even krw can
understand.

There used to be a stigma about being on relief. You didn't want to
do it, and if you did, you got off as quickly as you could.

But then, in the 60's and 70's, a new meme took hold, those that
purposely went on 'relief.' Welfare moms, entire households of
multiple generations living comfortably on the dole. And, the sad
truth was, it was ENCOURAGED by those in authority. People dependent
on the government voted for more government. Government that promised
to 'take care' of people got reelected. So, now we have a society in
which half of the population doesn't pay income taxes. More and more
people are encouraged to use government relief services in their
everyday lives, and those services are breaking down under the load.

And nutcases like Bill still don't understand that there is anything
wrong!

Charlie

May 2, 2012

On May 1, 4:04 pm, Joel Koltner <zapwire-use...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
_reduces_ the take.

It's not fair to punish the kids for the misdeeds of their parents.

If you want to be draconian about this, take away any kids after #2 (or
whatever) -- there are plenty of people out there who'd like to adopt
newborns.

Isn't that kind of eugenics, but backward?

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

Jim Thompson · May 2, 2012

On Wed, 02 May 2012 09:20:54 -0700, Charlie E. <edmondson@ieee.org> wrote:

On Tue, 1 May 2012 16:52:03 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
eacaws@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 7:22 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2012 05:46:33 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 29, 7:08 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:34:28 -0700, Jim Thompson

To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:22:54 -0500, amdx <a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:

On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded

Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
some "competition," I suppose.

One video leads to another and I end up here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E

At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."

Mikek

The poor thang ;-)

What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
_reduces_ the take.

...Jim Thompson

The problem with notions of what is, in essence, a 'child tax' is it
punishes not only the 'excess' child but the others as well.

Giving someone money, just less, is punishment?

But, if they just published a schedule showing a decreasing
incremental benefit, the extra kid-for-ransom production would drop.

Of course that'll never happen, since the formulas are always too
complicated for anyone to understand. Measuring everyone's "need" is
complicated.

On welfare? Lose any children. It's child abuse to allow children to grow up
in a welfare home and become the next generation of dependents.

But most of them don't. And with slightly more generous social
security, even fewer of them end up dependent - not so many more as
end up dependent after having grown up with a silver spoon in their
mouths.

Right-wing nitwits find reality much too complicated to cope with so
they idealise the world into 100% good bits, replete with mom and
apple pie, and 100% bad bits where all fathers are absentees and every
mother is a crackhead.

It's nonsense, but it is the kind of nonsense that even krw can
understand.

There used to be a stigma about being on relief. You didn't want to
do it, and if you did, you got off as quickly as you could.

But then, in the 60's and 70's, a new meme took hold, those that
purposely went on 'relief.' Welfare moms, entire households of
multiple generations living comfortably on the dole. And, the sad
truth was, it was ENCOURAGED by those in authority. People dependent
on the government voted for more government. Government that promised
to 'take care' of people got reelected. So, now we have a society in
which half of the population doesn't pay income taxes. More and more
people are encouraged to use government relief services in their
everyday lives, and those services are breaking down under the load.

And nutcases like Bill still don't understand that there is anything
wrong!

Charlie

The neighborhood where I grew up was a nice area of single-family homes (even
with some interspersed farm land) built for soldiers returning from WWII... my
parents bought a house there in 1947.

The neighborhood was a middle-class mix of whites _and_ blacks... the
wealthiest was a black family (with a turkey farm

Now it's a slum with many homes replaced by multi-story government housing
(tenements)... so run down and scary-looking that, when I was last in
Huntington (for my Father's funeral), I didn't feel safe leaving the car to
take photographs.

There are no Caucasians left there.

So much for government "assistance".

...Jim Thompson
--

| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

May 2, 2012

On May 1, 8:56 pm, amdx <a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:

On 5/1/2012 6:38 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On May 1, 10:43 pm, amdx<a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:
On 4/30/2012 11:36 AM,BillSlomanwrote:

On Apr 30, 7:03 am, Robert Baer<robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
flipper wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:34:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:22:54 -0500, amdx<a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:

On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded

Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
some "competition," I suppose.

One video leads to another and I end up here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E

At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."

Mikek

The poor thang ;-)

What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
_reduces_ the take.

...Jim Thompson

The problem with notions of what is, in essence, a 'child tax' is it
punishes not only the 'excess' child but the others as well.

THAT is _exactly_ the point...

Which is what makes it immoral and moronic. It isn't the child's fault
that it was born to a mother without a sound grasp of social
realities, and it doesn't make much sense to punish the child for its
mother's errors.

It's in society's interest to see that the child is well enough fed
and educated while it grows up to be able to become potentially useful
adult.

Punishing the mother provides instant gratification, but risks
damaging the child. Taking the children away and putting them into
care is a theoretical possibility. but in practice it's too expensive
to be used as a matter of routine, and even good care-givers aren't
all that much better for the child than a tolerably bad biological
mother.

What ratio would you accept?
Can we damage one to prevent 20, 50, or 200 from be put into that
cesspool, which creates it's own damage.

None. Human sacrifice is no longer acceptable, no matter how you dress
it up.

And with adequate social security, a low income environment isn't a
cesspool. It's not a great environment, but lots of people survive it
and go to be useful and productive citizens. Good environments still
produce their own quota of bad apples.

Look at Ger

many. You can have adequate social security and a blooming

economy,

The people of Germany have a work ethic, we have generations
that think it's ethical to live on welfare. We have entitlement
programs that we do pay into but, we receive more out than we pay in.
We now have 150 million of our citizens receiving money from the
government.

Entitlements

If all Americans are "entitled" to help, who will pay for it?

by James Fallows

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/budget/fallowf.htm

This is funny, he thought we had a problem 30 yrs ago, it
is so much worse now.

I may not be far from joining the takers.

My business is trying to compete with someone that has told me he pays
taxes on 30% of his income. His wife and 5 kids are on food stamps and
medicaid.
I pay my own healthcare premium, now $6,000 and I pay the first
$10,000 of expenses as my deductible. The government pays his.
I buy all the food for my family. The government pays his.
I pay for my house, I suspect his wife gets some housing subsidy.
My problem is I'm to $%&# honest, I found an error in my bookkeeping
and filed an amended return, I had to pay an additional $3,300 in taxes.
My accountant said, I don't have many clients that would have brought
this to my attention.

Mikek

Subsidizing lowers wages--your competitor's costs are lower, so he can
charge less.

That creates kind of a black-hole, sucking more and more people
inexorably into welfare, one after the other.

Farm subsidies do that too, e.g. the movie "King Corn."

James Arthur

May 2, 2012

On May 1, 7:44 pm, Bill Sloman <eac...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 2:46 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

But, if they just published a schedule showing a decreasing
incremental benefit, the extra kid-for-ransom production would drop.

Of course that'll never happen, since the formulas are always too
complicated for anyone to understand. Measuring everyone's "need" is
complicated.

Much too complicated for you. None so blind as those who do not wish
to see.

Sorry, I missed that webpage with the simple, printed formula that
computes a fair numerical benefit for any person, regardless of
circumstances, anywhere in America.

Where is it? What's the formula?

James Arthur

Les Cargill · May 2, 2012

Charlie E. wrote:

On Tue, 1 May 2012 16:52:03 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
eacaws@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 7:22 pm,
"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2012 05:46:33 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Apr 29, 7:08 pm, flipper<flip...@fish.net> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:34:28 -0700, Jim Thompson

To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:22:54 -0500,
amdx<a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:

On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded

Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
some "competition," I suppose.

One video leads to another and I end up here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E

At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held
accountable."

Mikek

The poor thang ;-)

What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_
you go on welfare _reduces_ the take.

...Jim Thompson

The problem with notions of what is, in essence, a 'child
tax' is it punishes not only the 'excess' child but the
others as well.

Giving someone money, just less, is punishment?

But, if they just published a schedule showing a decreasing
incremental benefit, the extra kid-for-ransom production would
drop.

Of course that'll never happen, since the formulas are always
too complicated for anyone to understand. Measuring everyone's
"need" is complicated.

On welfare? Lose any children. It's child abuse to allow
children to grow up in a welfare home and become the next
generation of dependents.

But most of them don't. And with slightly more generous social
security, even fewer of them end up dependent - not so many more
as end up dependent after having grown up with a silver spoon in
their mouths.

Right-wing nitwits find reality much too complicated to cope with
so they idealise the world into 100% good bits, replete with mom
and apple pie, and 100% bad bits where all fathers are absentees
and every mother is a crackhead.

It's nonsense, but it is the kind of nonsense that even krw can
understand.

There used to be a stigma about being on relief. You didn't want to
do it, and if you did, you got off as quickly as you could.

But then, in the 60's and 70's, a new meme took hold, those that
purposely went on 'relief.' Welfare moms, entire households of
multiple generations living comfortably on the dole. And, the sad
truth was, it was ENCOURAGED by those in authority.

Whut? I have known very, very few people who *preferred* to be on
relief/welfare. I know a lot of people who have had some measure
of trouble finding a job - not because they aren't qualified, but
because jobs are disappearing.

We did the math here - "welfare" welfare is not that significant a load
on the economy - under 5% of GDP (more like 2-3% ) .

Disability, SS and Medicare are a problem.

When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...

People dependent on the government voted for more government.
Government that promised to 'take care' of people got reelected. So,
now we have a society in which half of the population doesn't pay
income taxes.

That isn't a problem in itself, except that it reflects the fact that
wages are flat as a still pond.

More and more people are encouraged to use government relief services
in their everyday lives, and those services are breaking down under
the load.

And nutcases like Bill still don't understand that there is anything
wrong!

Charlie

--
Les Cargill

May 2, 2012

On May 1, 1:22 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
wrote:

On Tue, 1 May 2012 05:46:33 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 29, 7:08 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:34:28 -0700, Jim Thompson

To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:22:54 -0500, amdx <a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:

On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded

Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
some "competition," I suppose.

One video leads to another and I end up here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E

At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."

Mikek

The poor thang ;-)

What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
_reduces_ the take.

...Jim Thompson

The problem with notions of what is, in essence, a 'child tax' is it
punishes not only the 'excess' child but the others as well.

Giving someone money, just less, is punishment?

But, if they just published a schedule showing a decreasing
incremental benefit, the extra kid-for-ransom production would drop.

Of course that'll never happen, since the formulas are always too
complicated for anyone to understand. Measuring everyone's "need" is
complicated.

On welfare? Lose any children. It's child abuse to allow children to grow up
in a welfare home and become the next generation of dependents.

In a sense, the welfare itself is what makes the children possible.
Without that guarantee, people used to be a lot more careful. And
their families--who didn't like supporting them--screamed at them to
be more responsible too, keeping them in line.

President Johnson fixed all that.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

Charlie E. · May 2, 2012

On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:33:32 -0500, Les Cargill
<lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:

Charlie E. wrote:
,snip
There used to be a stigma about being on relief. You didn't want to
do it, and if you did, you got off as quickly as you could.

But then, in the 60's and 70's, a new meme took hold, those that
purposely went on 'relief.' Welfare moms, entire households of
multiple generations living comfortably on the dole. And, the sad
truth was, it was ENCOURAGED by those in authority.

Whut? I have known very, very few people who *preferred* to be on
relief/welfare. I know a lot of people who have had some measure
of trouble finding a job - not because they aren't qualified, but
because jobs are disappearing.

You see, you define relief = welfare, when it encompasses a much
larger number of programs today. You should go to the grocery store
more often. It seems like about half the folks in the check out are
doing the 'food stamp shuffle' where they pick one from column A, put
all their 'not-allowed' products in group B, and spend an extra five
minutes paying for everything.

We did the math here - "welfare" welfare is not that significant a load
on the economy - under 5% of GDP (more like 2-3% ) .

Disability, SS and Medicare are a problem.

When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...

People dependent on the government voted for more government.
Government that promised to 'take care' of people got reelected. So,
now we have a society in which half of the population doesn't pay
income taxes.

That isn't a problem in itself, except that it reflects the fact that
wages are flat as a still pond.

No, it is a problem. We have convinced over 50% of Americans that
they should get a 'free ride' from everyone else, or actually get
something more from everyone else. It is a pernicous attitude that
should be stopped!

More and more people are encouraged to use government relief services
in their everyday lives, and those services are breaking down under
the load.

And nutcases like Bill still don't understand that there is anything
wrong!

Charlie

Michael A. Terrell · May 2, 2012

Les Cargill wrote:

When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...

Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
because my health failed. I spent my life savings over three years and
went hungry for a while, before I filed. No one was going to hire
anyone in my condition, and the VA approved my disability so fast that
no one could believe it. The letter granting disability stated that it
was obvious that I would never be able to work again. Do you really
think that I want to scrape by on $1021 a month, instead of being able
to work? You should try it sometime, before you spout off. Then you
can see what it's like to go without anything more than the basics.
Hoping that a 15 year old truck will run for a few more years. Spending
a lot of time changing dressings on two year old wounds and needing
medical care that you can't afford. How would you like blood, puss and
plasma running down your legs daily, for years? Doctors telling you
that 'You aren't old enough to have that problem' when you've coped with
it for a decade, or more.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

Jim Thompson · May 2, 2012

On Wed, 02 May 2012 15:41:24 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Les Cargill wrote:

When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...

Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
because my health failed. I spent my life savings over three years and
went hungry for a while, before I filed. No one was going to hire
anyone in my condition, and the VA approved my disability so fast that
no one could believe it. The letter granting disability stated that it
was obvious that I would never be able to work again. Do you really
think that I want to scrape by on $1021 a month, instead of being able
to work? You should try it sometime, before you spout off. Then you
can see what it's like to go without anything more than the basics.
Hoping that a 15 year old truck will run for a few more years. Spending
a lot of time changing dressings on two year old wounds and needing
medical care that you can't afford. How would you like blood, puss and
plasma running down your legs daily, for years? Doctors telling you
that 'You aren't old enough to have that problem' when you've coped with
it for a decade, or more.

amdx · May 2, 2012

On 5/2/2012 11:20 AM, Charlie E. wrote:

On Tue, 1 May 2012 16:52:03 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
eacaws@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 7:22 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2012 05:46:33 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 29, 7:08 pm, flipper<flip...@fish.net> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:34:28 -0700, Jim Thompson

To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:22:54 -0500, amdx<a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:

On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded

Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
some "competition," I suppose.

One video leads to another and I end up here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E

At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."

Mikek

The poor thang ;-)

What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
_reduces_ the take.

...Jim Thompson

The problem with notions of what is, in essence, a 'child tax' is it
punishes not only the 'excess' child but the others as well.

Giving someone money, just less, is punishment?

But, if they just published a schedule showing a decreasing
incremental benefit, the extra kid-for-ransom production would drop.

Of course that'll never happen, since the formulas are always too
complicated for anyone to understand. Measuring everyone's "need" is
complicated.

On welfare? Lose any children. It's child abuse to allow children to grow up
in a welfare home and become the next generation of dependents.

But most of them don't. And with slightly more generous social
security, even fewer of them end up dependent - not so many more as
end up dependent after having grown up with a silver spoon in their
mouths.

Right-wing nitwits find reality much too complicated to cope with so
they idealise the world into 100% good bits, replete with mom and
apple pie, and 100% bad bits where all fathers are absentees and every
mother is a crackhead.

It's nonsense, but it is the kind of nonsense that even krw can
understand.

There used to be a stigma about being on relief. You didn't want to
do it, and if you did, you got off as quickly as you could.

But then, in the 60's and 70's, a new meme took hold, those that
purposely went on 'relief.' Welfare moms, entire households of
multiple generations living comfortably on the dole. And, the sad
truth was, it was ENCOURAGED by those in authority. People dependent
on the government voted for more government. Government that promised
to 'take care' of people got reelected. So, now we have a society in
which half of the population doesn't pay income taxes. More and more
people are encouraged to use government relief services in their
everyday lives, and those services are breaking down under the load.

And nutcases like Bill still don't understand that there is anything
wrong!

Charlie

Yes, there is no longer shame!
Here in Florida they have changed food stamps to EBT.
Electronic Funds Transfer
My business is selling shrimp, I have people ask "do you take EBT?"
I don't, but when I'm ask, I have this bubble over my head that says,
"if the taxpayers are buying the protein you need for survival, you
should buy $2.00 lb chicken rather than $10 lb shrimp."
But that's the mentality, it's not their money so they don't care.
Mikek

Driver to drive?

Paul Hovnanian P.E.

Guest

Spehro Pefhany

Guest

amdx

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz

Guest

Charlie E.

Guest

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Guest

Guest

Les Cargill

Guest

Guest

Charlie E.

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

amdx

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor