Driver to drive?

[Les Cargill]

Charlie E. wrote:

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.

This is true. Scope is always iffy in these threads.

I thought the subject was "welfare moms, entire households... on
the dole" above. That sounds suspiciously like *welfare* welfare,
not a modest food subsidy to the working poor.

Once upon a time, there were "commdities". You went to the ... USDA?
office, signed up they gave you stuff like powdered milk, beans, cheese.

These were in essence oversupply bought by the USDA as part of farm
subsidies.

Some genius decided that rather than keep that whole infrastructure in
place, why we'd just have "generic" foodstuffs and allow people to
buy the stuff in stores. To replace the subsidy, food stamps were
invented. Maybe it saved money; I dunno. Ex ante, it looks like
it would be very price-distorting, and it is.

Other than the delay in line, I doubt the whole program really
costs *anything* in real terms. It's kind a' like WIC; it runs
the price of cheese and milk up.

If I read this right:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm

It's (rounding up) $78B. That's in the noise. I don't
see any positive feedback runaway here...

We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of production.
Because you have to absorb facts.

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!

I do not give a rat's patoot about *anybody's* "attitude". We do
progressive taxation in the US. This is a good thing, for cultural as
well as economic efficiency reasons.

The reason people are out of work is that more and more work
is done by machines. It's not like we're short on goods and
services. If you're gonna enjoy the resulting low prices,
you gotta pony up to keep people alive who got "made redundant"
by that process.

We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of production.
Because you have to absorb facts.

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

 

[Les Cargill]

Michael A. Terrell 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.

They should have, sounds like. That's not what I am talking about.

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.

Where did anything I wrote apply to you? You have an obvious diability.
I'd say the system worked, with a handful of horror stories to
go along with it.

--
Les Cargill

 

[Les Cargill]

Jim Thompson wrote:

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.

Cargill is another one of those useless leftist weenies who, when Obama
completely collapses the country, can be shot without penalty ;-)

Hang in there, Michael, so you can participate !-)

...Jim Thompson

You couldn't identify a leftist with a compass, map and a big orange
arrow saying "LEFTIST HERE!." s.e.d is a bastion of utter, complete and
total economic ignorance. It's amusing.

--
Les Cargill

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 02 May 2012 16:39:13 -0500, amdx <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

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

Sell them some old shrimp... make the world a better place ;-)

...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 | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 2 May 2012 08:34:46 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

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.

Exactly. The threat of removing them from the parents, and with the child the
crack ticket, the incentive to keep the oven hot ends.

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.

He "fixed" a lot. Chasing the father out of the home was such a good idea,
too.

 

[Joe Chisolm]

On Wed, 02 May 2012 16:04:17 -0400, dh wrote:

I heard that all incandescent bulbs will quit being produced and illegal
to sell in 2013. Is that true? I've also heard that some bulbs like the
Par 38 outdoor spots and floods might continue to be available. Is that
true? Someone said they thought pretty much all halogen bulbs will still
be available... Can someone there tell me what the truth actually is?
What about entertainment bulbs, like Par 64s and 56s, and aircraft
landing lights...???

Get your 100W ones here, buy them online:

http://newcandescent.com/index.html

http://thesenewtimes.com/when-they-give-you-lemons-make-lemonade


--
Chisolm
Republic of Texas

 

[Chiron]

On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:33:32 -0500, 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...

I dunno... the way some people sound, you'd think we should just use
these disabled folks for organ donors. Solves two or three problems all
at once.



--
The most important design issue... is the fact that Linux is supposed to
be fun...
-- Linus Torvalds at the First Dutch International
Symposium on Linux

 

[Chiron]

On Wed, 02 May 2012 15:41:24 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

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.

I'll second that. The way some people say it, you'd think we're living
in the lap of luxury, doing drugs and booze just waiting for our next
check so we can go to Europe or buy a yacht or something. Trust me on
this, no one's getting rich on disability.

I spend half my pension on rent, leaving me with precious little for
luxuries such as food. The only way I could afford to take drugs would
be for me to sell them, which would probably generate enough income where
I wouldn't have to be on disability in the first place. I can't even
afford the drugs I'm *supposed* to be taking, far less any I'm not
supposed to take.

When I want to have a good time, I save up my money and blow it on a wild
spree at Starbucks. Just living la vida loca, that's me...

In the meantime I get to listen to all those experts telling me how I'm a
useless drain on society, too lazy to work, blah, blah, blah. I worked
for nearly fifty years and paid into the system I'm "draining." For a
good thirty of those years, doctors were encouraging me to go on
disability. I didn't feel it was the "right" thing to do, so I kept
trying to work.

The problem is that people get a very biased view of what's going on.
Guys like me and Michael don't make the news. It's the occasional
welfare fraud, the "octomoms" who get all the attention, giving people
the impression that everyone receiving benefits is a leech. That's
simply not true. But you never learn this from the news. The only way
to really understand is to go through the experience yourself - and by
the time that happens, it's too late. No one listens to you because
you're one of "them" - another leech.

I wouldn't wish this life on anyone, but I do wish the people who so
easily dismiss us as being parasites would somehow have their eyes opened
to the reality of what it's like. Michael and I are not the exceptions.
Most of us are like this. The frauds are rare.

This is not a life anyone would choose. I am grateful that my basic
needs are taken care of. I can eat, I have a roof over my head, and I
can sometimes get the medicine I need. It's better than nothing. But
it's not a great lifestyle.

--
What's a cult? It just means not enough people to make a minority.
-- Robert Altman

 

[Bill Sloman]

On May 2, 4:28 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

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?

It's a little more complicated than that, and way ti complicated for
you to understand, even if you wanted to.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On May 2, 4:34 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

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.

Have you got any evidence to support that claim? IIRR the proportion
of kids born out of wedlock didn't start rising until people stopped
bothering to get married, which wasn't until quite a while after
President Johnson.

And
their families--who didn't like supporting them--screamed at them to
be more responsible too, keeping them in them in .

It might have kept some of them in line, but parental influence has
never been absolute, no matter how much financial clout they wield.

President Johnson fixed all that.

You'd like to think so, which isn't enough - on its own - to make the
idea credible.

--
Cheers,
James Ar

 

[Bill Sloman]

On May 2, 5:20 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Tue, 1 May 2012 16:52:03 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman









eac...@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.'

Really? And your evidence for this implausible statement is?

Welfare moms, entire households of
multiple generations living comfortably on the dole.

"Comfortably" is one of those right wing myths.

 And, the sad
truth was, it was ENCOURAGED by those in authority.

By which he means "not discouraged as ferociously and unreasonably as
right wing nitwits would have liked".

 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.

Was there a time when more than half the population did pay income
taxes? By the time you have subtracted out the children, the
pensioners and the stay at home mothers, it's hard to find enough
people left over to form a tax-paying majority.

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

Presumably because the right-wing nitwit element is sabotaging them.
The US spends less on social security than the richer countries of
Europe, and the system works fine there.

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

Nutcases like Charlie E understand a whole lot of things that don't
happen to be true. It makes it difficult for them to comprehend the
attitudes of those who are in better contact with reality.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 02 May 2012 21:24:51 -0500, Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net>
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2012 16:04:17 -0400, dh wrote:

I heard that all incandescent bulbs will quit being produced and illegal
to sell in 2013. Is that true? I've also heard that some bulbs like the
Par 38 outdoor spots and floods might continue to be available. Is that
true? Someone said they thought pretty much all halogen bulbs will still
be available... Can someone there tell me what the truth actually is?
What about entertainment bulbs, like Par 64s and 56s, and aircraft
landing lights...???

Get your 100W ones here, buy them online:

http://newcandescent.com/index.html

http://thesenewtimes.com/when-they-give-you-lemons-make-lemonade

All fluff and no meat. Do you get the same lumens at 30% less energy, or is
it a scam?

I stock up on incandescents at...

http://1000bulbs.com/

Though I must confess... while no fan of CFL's, I have been replacing
incandescents at hard to reach locations with LED equivalents.

...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 | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On May 2, 1:56 am, 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 Germany. 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.

Do you know the equivalent figures for Germany? Do you have enough
sense to realise that you need to find out before you present that
argument?

"US exceptionalism" is the the idea that what works everywhere else
can't work n the US because the US is "different" rather than merely
saddled with a crummy constitution and a bunch of politicians who
won't look at the way other countries manage their problems.

US health-care - which is over-priced and inadequate by international
standards - is the worst example of this endemic short-sightedness,
but it's not the only one.

                 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.

Fine. That's genuinely admirable. Now try and be as honest in
constructing your arguments.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Joe Chisolm]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 08:02:51 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2012 21:24:51 -0500, Joe Chisolm
jchisolm6@earthlink.net> wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2012 16:04:17 -0400, dh wrote:

I heard that all incandescent bulbs will quit being produced and
illegal to sell in 2013. Is that true? I've also heard that some bulbs
like the Par 38 outdoor spots and floods might continue to be
available. Is that true? Someone said they thought pretty much all
halogen bulbs will still be available... Can someone there tell me
what the truth actually is? What about entertainment bulbs, like Par
64s and 56s, and aircraft landing lights...???

Get your 100W ones here, buy them online:

http://newcandescent.com/index.html

http://thesenewtimes.com/when-they-give-you-lemons-make-lemonade

All fluff and no meat. Do you get the same lumens at 30% less energy,
or is it a scam?

Dont know. Was listening to Rush one day and heard him talking to
this guy about them. The key was you could still get incandescents
of any wattage and not have to deal with CFL. If I remember correctly
the CR they passed in December only delayed the ban for 9 months.

BTW: If anyone should be recalled it's Harry Reid and the rest of
the senate for not doing their constitutionally mandated job.

I stock up on incandescents at...

http://1000bulbs.com/

Though I must confess... while no fan of CFL's, I have been replacing
incandescents at hard to reach locations with LED equivalents.

...Jim Thompson

I rarely use 100W and have a supply of 75 and 60 while I shift over
to LED. I still use CFL in a few ceiling cans becuase they run cooler.
When they die I'll move them to LED. Redoing the kitchen lights
now - they will all be LED

--
Chisolm
Republic of Texas

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:25:47 -0500, Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net>
wrote:

On Thu, 03 May 2012 08:02:51 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2012 21:24:51 -0500, Joe Chisolm
jchisolm6@earthlink.net> wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2012 16:04:17 -0400, dh wrote:

I heard that all incandescent bulbs will quit being produced and
illegal to sell in 2013. Is that true? I've also heard that some bulbs
like the Par 38 outdoor spots and floods might continue to be
available. Is that true? Someone said they thought pretty much all
halogen bulbs will still be available... Can someone there tell me
what the truth actually is? What about entertainment bulbs, like Par
64s and 56s, and aircraft landing lights...???

Get your 100W ones here, buy them online:

http://newcandescent.com/index.html

http://thesenewtimes.com/when-they-give-you-lemons-make-lemonade

All fluff and no meat. Do you get the same lumens at 30% less energy,
or is it a scam?


Dont know. Was listening to Rush one day and heard him talking to
this guy about them. The key was you could still get incandescents
of any wattage and not have to deal with CFL. If I remember correctly
the CR they passed in December only delayed the ban for 9 months.

BTW: If anyone should be recalled it's Harry Reid and the rest of
the senate for not doing their constitutionally mandated job.

I stock up on incandescents at...

http://1000bulbs.com/

Though I must confess... while no fan of CFL's, I have been replacing
incandescents at hard to reach locations with LED equivalents.

...Jim Thompson

I rarely use 100W and have a supply of 75 and 60 while I shift over
to LED. I still use CFL in a few ceiling cans becuase they run cooler.
When they die I'll move them to LED. Redoing the kitchen lights
now - they will all be LED

Same here. You can now get an LED recess assembly that will drop right in
where the halogen flood fixture was. $$$, but pushing towards 1000 Lumens.

...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 | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Dave Platt]

In article <EqmdnaPROdc2UD_SnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> wrote:

Get your 100W ones here, buy them online:

http://newcandescent.com/index.html

http://thesenewtimes.com/when-they-give-you-lemons-make-lemonade

All fluff and no meat. Do you get the same lumens at 30% less energy,
or is it a scam?

It looks to me as if these folks are trying to take advantage of one
of the exemptions in the law. "Rough service" and "vibration service"
lamps are specifically exempted from the new lumen-efficiency
regulations.

I note that these bulbs list a 10,000 hour lifespan. If I recall
correctly, standard incandescents are rated at about 2,000 hours.
Longer-life incandescents tend to have heavier, higher-resistance
filaments that operate at a somewhat lower temperature than standard
incandescents... and because they run cooler, their emissions are
shifted even more towards the IR than is usual for an incandescent.

So, you get somewhat lower lumens per watt than with a standard
incandescent. For a given amount of light delivered, these bulbs may
cost significantly more to operate than a normal incandescent... let
alone one of the 70-watt halogen-capsule "100-watt replacement" bulbs
now on the market.


--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Dave Platt wrote:

In article <EqmdnaPROdc2UD_SnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> wrote:

Get your 100W ones here, buy them online:

http://newcandescent.com/index.html

http://thesenewtimes.com/when-they-give-you-lemons-make-lemonade

All fluff and no meat. Do you get the same lumens at 30% less energy,
or is it a scam?

It looks to me as if these folks are trying to take advantage of one
of the exemptions in the law. "Rough service" and "vibration service"
lamps are specifically exempted from the new lumen-efficiency
regulations.

I note that these bulbs list a 10,000 hour lifespan. If I recall
correctly, standard incandescents are rated at about 2,000 hours.
Longer-life incandescents tend to have heavier, higher-resistance
filaments that operate at a somewhat lower temperature than standard
incandescents... and because they run cooler, their emissions are
shifted even more towards the IR than is usual for an incandescent.

So, you get somewhat lower lumens per watt than with a standard
incandescent. For a given amount of light delivered, these bulbs may
cost significantly more to operate than a normal incandescent... let
alone one of the 70-watt halogen-capsule "100-watt replacement" bulbs
now on the market.

The good ones (1690 lumens @ 100W) are 750 hours.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[gregz]

Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
You want to replace arc lamps with LEDs?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


That is a very reasonable question and goal.
There are a number of available LED-based lights and spotlights that
can be adapted to use as replacements for a goodly number of arc-lamp applications.

Looking at recent additions, about the strongest single led puts out about
1000 lumens at near 9 watts, cool. White. It would be advantage to use
color LEDs not requiring filters, but the higher output ones only produce
150-200 lumens. The only true way to get a single spot with multiple LEDs
is with fiber optics. It is possible to focus multiple LEDs, but it's
tricky, and you end up with a large device.

Greg

 

[Robert Macy]

On May 3, 1:32 pm, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net>
wrote:

Dave Platt wrote:

In article <EqmdnaPROdc2UD_SnZ2dnUVZ_judn...@earthlink.com>,
Joe Chisolm  <jchiso...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Get your 100W ones here, buy them online:

http://newcandescent.com/index.html

http://thesenewtimes.com/when-they-give-you-lemons-make-lemonade

All fluff and no meat.  Do you get the same lumens at 30% less energy,
or is it a scam?

It looks to me as if these folks are trying to take advantage of one
of the exemptions in the law.  "Rough service" and "vibration service"
lamps are specifically exempted from the new lumen-efficiency
regulations.

I note that these bulbs list a 10,000 hour lifespan.  If I recall
correctly, standard incandescents are rated at about 2,000 hours.
Longer-life incandescents tend to have heavier, higher-resistance
filaments that operate at a somewhat lower temperature than standard
incandescents... and because they run cooler, their emissions are
shifted even more towards the IR than is usual for an incandescent.

So, you get somewhat lower lumens per watt than with a standard
incandescent.  For a given amount of light delivered, these bulbs may
cost significantly more to operate than a normal incandescent... let
alone one of the 70-watt halogen-capsule "100-watt replacement" bulbs
now on the market.

The good ones (1690 lumens @ 100W) are 750 hours.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot nethttp://electrooptical.net

I don't know. I think I'll go back to teh reliable carbon filament.
What was good enough for Edison [the inventor of the electric chair]
is good enough for me.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 05:44:46 GMT, Chiron
<chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:33:32 -0500, 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...

Why not?

I dunno... the way some people sound, you'd think we should just use
these disabled folks for organ donors. Solves two or three problems all
at once.

Even more strawmen.