Image of the day

Captured by
andrews porter

Hart nebula

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Posts Made By: Terry Friedrichsen

March 15, 2010 12:35 PM Forum: Polls

Health Care

Posted By Terry Friedrichsen

Luca Grella said:

Terry Friedrichsen said:
Where's the limit to how much taxes we should pay? I already pay over half my income in taxes. I presume that you'll grant that the limit should be less than 100%. Can you narrow down the range a little more? How much is enough?
You are doing enough already.

Great. Now if somebody can just convince Nancy Pelosi of that ...

Unfortunately not everybody is, the Keynesian theory has been put into practice and the only thing that has produced is a huge speculative bubble and no infrastructure and services.

This, to me, is always where philosophies diverge.

I maintain that it's better to let people *keep* their money. They'll either spend it or invest it, and both of those things will create and sustain jobs, which will grow the economy and make things better for everyone.

(I think I've already mentioned here that a study by one of Obama's own advisors showed that every $1 of tax cut yields $3 to the economy.)

For others, that's too nebulous, and their idea is to levy taxes and give that money to people through aid programs.

The problem I have with the latter philosophy is that it doesn't solve anything; you have to keep handing out money every year with no sustainable solution in sight.

You can lament "no infrastructure and services", but that ignores the massive number of new jobs created over the last 30 years. While it's true that there is a temporary job downturn right now, the fact is that job creation has not only kept up with the population, but has also absorbed huge numbers of women who have entered the workforce. Back then, stay-at-home moms were the norm, but now, it's quite common for both parents to work. I recall reading some years ago that that effect alone has taken up some *30 million* new jobs.

Somebody has to invest and spend in order to create those jobs. They can't do that if the government takes it all away in taxes.

March 15, 2010 05:55 PM Forum: Polls

Health Care

Posted By Terry Friedrichsen

BZZZT. Nice try and thanks for playing, Luca...

I think your calling ME a Racist for my initial response takes the "insult" prize...

I wouldn't take this too seriously; it's the way they're taught to argue.

Back in 1992, I got into a discussion with someone over the supposed tragedy of Columbus discovering the New World. When I opened with a statement that, while there was undoubtedly tragedy, on balance, I thought it was a net gain for the progress of humanity because of the consequent emergence of the United States, I of course got called a racist.

After a couple of rounds in which I finally got the person to admit that I *wasn't* a racist, he confided that he'd been to some sort of anti-Columbus-Day seminar with his friends, where they'd been counseled to yell "racist" at the first opportunity, to divert the discussion from the actual issues.

The upshot was that it turned out this individual had *no* ability to argue logically. It got down to the point where I was giving him *tips* on disputing assumptions, refuting arguments, and falsifying conclusions. He finally gave up the conversation, saying that he just couldn't argue that way.

"Racist" was the only tool in his kit; once that was blunted, he had nowhere else to turn. You're supposed to be appalled, give up, and slink away when they shout "racist!"

March 15, 2010 06:24 PM Forum: Polls

Health Care

Posted By Terry Friedrichsen

I disagree.

Well, you're wrong about that. Social Security is a *classic* Ponzi scheme.

Do you imagine that the government is taking your Social Security taxes and investing them against your retirement? They are not; they take the current tax monies and use them to pay promised benefits to the *previous* investors (retirees). *Our* future benefits (should we be so fortunate that they actually materialize) are going to be squeezed out of future investors (our children). The government uses any excess (if and when that occurs) to line its own figurative pockets rather than investing it.

This is *exactly* what Charles Ponzi did.

Social Security is such a great program that the majority of Americans want out of it, according to a poll I saw some years ago. It's such a great program that liberals go apoplectic when you suggest making it *voluntary*, because they know so many people would leave that it would destroy the program.

The only people who *support* Social Security (aside from the inevitable bleeding-heart crowd) are those who will pay very little in but expect to get a *lot* out.

March 17, 2010 06:04 AM Forum: Polls

Health Care

Posted By Terry Friedrichsen

Luca Grella said:
Social security is an agreement between generations, ...

Conveniently, the agreement is made before the next generation is old enough to vote. It's not actually an "agreement" if only one party to the discussion is doing the agreeing ...

a ponzi scheme is a financial
scam done for the profit of whoever starts it.

That certainly sounds like Social Security to *me*.

There is a big difference.

This is a meaning of the word "big" with which I was previously unacquainted.

The mechanism of social security insures the retiree an income, regardless of market fluctuations.

Until the government decides it can no longer afford its Social Security obligations or that "next generation" that was *forced* into the "agreement" gets sick to death of seeing a large chunk of their income go south.

March 17, 2010 05:50 AM Forum: Polls

Health Care

Posted By Terry Friedrichsen

Michael A. Barlow said:

Here's a challenge for you: come up with a better two-word name than "death panel" for this bit of government "assistance".

Cost cutting
Down sizing

Yep. Call it *anything* as long as what you call it gives no clue to what it actually *is* ...

March 16, 2010 03:52 AM Forum: Polls

Astromart should

Posted By Terry Friedrichsen

I voted for the $15 subscription fee, but I take the other poster's point that folks who won't support probably won't subscribe, either.

My problem with the $1 per ad fee is that I've posted a few ads but have never successfully sold anything through an ad. It would be no fun watching the dollars dribble away in a string of ads for items that just don't sell.

And weigh all of that against the fact that I *have*, in the past, purchased two years of annual support. It would rather rankle me to have to pay a non-supporter's fee at this point, although $15 wouldn't hurt me any and I'd gladly pay it.

A percentage-of-sale fee is another interesting idea, but you'd be utterly dependent on the honesty of the seller, with no real method of enforcement. And I can just imagine the ill will that could be stirred up by just a few bad apples.

Astromart was and is a GREAT idea, but no good deed ever goes unpunished.

August 18, 2010 10:39 AM Forum: Polls

I agree with Mr Obama

Posted By Terry Friedrichsen

I think the issue here is why the President of the United States has to address a NYC issue that has nothing to do with him personally.

On the one hand, I appreciate the President telling us what his position is on any and all issues; it's the proper way to help us decide whether to vote for him or not. On the other hand, his opinion carries a great deal of weight, due to his position; it's difficult to disentangle his personal opinion from the official position of the office -- so it's problematic for him to express a simple personal opinion.

In this case, however, he used the phrase "and as President", which means that he intended to convey an official position.

I, too, wonder why he felt he had to weigh in as President on this issue when it would seem to me that it is very much something for New Yorkers to decide. Also, from a purely political point of view, this looks like a situation in which he would have served himself better by remaining silent.

August 18, 2010 10:14 AM Forum: Polls

I agree with Mr Obama

Posted By Terry Friedrichsen

Spit on the faces of our forefathers and take a big stinky dump on the bill of rights and the constitution....

A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll says that 61% of Americans believe they have a perfect right to build the mosque at the proposed location. So the majority of folks understand the constitutional issue involved.

... not all muslims are bad, murderous villains.

True, but that still doesn't make it a good idea to build a mosque so near to "Ground Zero" (a term I don't care for, BTW).

hate Obama all y'all want, ...

Speaking for myself, I don't "hate" President Obama, though I do disagree with nearly everything he does. There seems to be a tendency in today's culture to use the word "hate" to mean something far short of what the term used to mean. I think that's due to the fact that there's a lot less true "hate" going around than there used to be. We are (perhaps too slowly) becoming a more tolerant society. Tolerating a mosque anywhere near "Ground Zero" is still a bit much to ask, though.

August 18, 2010 06:57 PM Forum: Polls

I agree with Mr Obama

Posted By Terry Friedrichsen

Yet another typical left-wing response -- just call names rather than responding to arguments. Do you people believe *at all* in debating an issue on its merits?

August 18, 2010 07:27 PM Forum: Polls

I agree with Mr Obama

Posted By Terry Friedrichsen

Among the things that amaze me about the left is their delusion that their every opinion is so obviously *correct* that only a nutjob could possibly disagree with them. The majority of Americans understand that the Muslim group has a right to build the mosque in their chosen location, and certainly nobody in this thread has disputed that. The issue is whether the mosque should be built at that location; the viewpoints there run the gamut from "insensitive" to "deliberately provocative".

You can pretend its about constitutional rights all you want, but THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE; you're just avoiding addressing the real concern.

And it's no surprise that Pelosi is now calling for an investigation -- she can't believe anybody could possibly disagree with her, either.