BUMP
is this a worthwhile post from hypoluxa? :rolleyes:
:)
(read the first post in the topic)
Printable View
BUMP
is this a worthwhile post from hypoluxa? :rolleyes:
:)
(read the first post in the topic)
My govt has a national health service and it is closer to the truth to say that it's biggest single expense (barring wages maybe) is paying money to those drug companies you say would suffer.Quote:
An example: Medical Care is the eternal political football; the libs (if they had their way) would nationalize it, effectively dulling the "cutting edge" of medical research (no competition=no profit opportunity=no money for research=no breakthroughs) and we'd have to also pay the exhorbitant costs of the attendent bureaucracy (bureaucratic costs approach 85% of revenue income in some cases).
The UK also have a very vibrant medical research field, funded both by the state and private industry.
Care to prove your claim that 85% of the costs are "bureaucracy"?
these are all public record.that said i did give up reading after a while....we could probably compile a similar list about most political leaders...just happens GW is in power now and he is a hot topic, especially in an election year.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@7 July 2003 - 11:15
Would I be over-stepping if I asked you to prove perhaps even 10% of your charges?
That would only be 12.4; a manageable number, I think.
as to the context of each individual point well they are open to retort
I would prefer you prove that it is not.Quote:
Originally posted by 1234@11 January 2004 - 10:13
Care to prove your claim that 85% of the costs are "bureaucracy"?
Do you claim to have all relevant knowledge of the costs of a typical U.S. government bureaucracy?
85% is a figure entirely typical of ALL entitlement bureaucracies administered by the U.S. government; I would imagine actual individual (by department) figures swing +/- 4-5%.
It is for this particular reason that I am against most entitlements.
Perhaps you could enlighten me; how does the U.K. cope with bureaucracies and their inherent costs?
Or have you solved that problem already?
:lol: appoint a quango to look into it :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@12 January 2004 - 18:13
[
Perhaps you could enlighten me; how does the U.K. cope with bureaucracies and their inherent costs?
:huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:
Whatzit?
A quasi autonomous government organisation. Strangely, a Maggie Thatcher invention if I recall correctly.
Figures.Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles@12 January 2004 - 15:35
A quasi autonomous government organisation. Strangely, a Maggie Thatcher invention if I recall correctly.
I don't know how that one could possibly have slipped by me. <_<
Pretty sorry for a conservative, eh?
:)
When one is distracted by DIY (destroy it yourself?) these things take second place.
Eh? You make a spurious claim and the onus is on me to disprove it? Sorry but the way this works is that you have to prove your claims.Quote:
I would prefer you prove that it is not
Example - The planets orbiting our nearest neighbour stars are made of green cheese. Prove me wrong otherwise I am right.
You can't, as the data is not available since we can only track these planets by gravitational distortions not direct observations. Does that mean they are made of green cheese just because I said so? Nope, I'd have to prove it.
So please prove your claim otherwise it is uninformed opinion and nothing more.
Nope, so why are you claiming to have knowledge of how the NHS is financed?Quote:
Do you claim to have all relevant knowledge of the costs of a typical U.S. government bureaucracy?
The US is one of the fiscally corrupt western nations (cf Enron, Worldcom etc and their links to the Bush administration. Halliburton overcharging on Iraq contracts etc) where contracts are given to old friends and financial backers of the imcumbant administration. However, I still want to see you prove this claim too. Lets say social security in the US has a budget of 100 billion (just to keep figures simple), are you saying 85 billion is administration costs and only 15 billion is spent on benefits? If the UK operated at those levels the Audit Commission would have apoplexy. So, prove this claim too if you would be so kind.Quote:
85% is a figure entirely typical of ALL entitlement bureaucracies administered by the U.S. government; I would imagine actual individual (by department) figures swing +/- 4-5%.
From your previous posts I am guessing the real reason is that you don't like paying taxes to pay for them. As Thatcher said once, "No such thing as society" could apply to you maybe?Quote:
It is for this particular reason that I am against most entitlements.
The Audit Commission.Quote:
Perhaps you could enlighten me; how does the U.K. cope with bureaucracies and their inherent costs?
Anyway, lets not stray from the point here. Prove your claim that 85% of the NHS's budget is spent on bureaucracy. Hell, lets make it 80% so we fit into your +/- 5%.
You see you have made a simple mistake, so I will help you out a little. You are lumping in service providers with regulatory bodies and statutory functions. There is a difference you know ;)
You are once again mistaken.Quote:
Originally posted by 1234@12 January 2004 - 16:16
Eh? You make a spurious claim and the onus is on me to disprove it? Sorry but the way this works is that you have to prove your claims.Quote:
I would prefer you prove that it is not
Example - The planets orbiting our nearest neighbour stars are made of green cheese. Prove me wrong otherwise I am right.
You can't, as the data is not available since we can only track these planets by gravitational distortions not direct observations. Does that mean they are made of green cheese just because I said so? Nope, I'd have to prove it.
So please prove your claim otherwise it is uninformed opinion and nothing more.
Nope, so why are you claiming to have knowledge of how the NHS is financed?Quote:
Do you claim to have all relevant knowledge of the costs of a typical U.S. government bureaucracy?
The US is one of the fiscally corrupt western nations (cf Enron, Worldcom etc and their links to the Bush administration. Halliburton overcharging on Iraq contracts etc) where contracts are given to old friends and financial backers of the imcumbant administration. However, I still want to see you prove this claim too. Lets say social security in the US has a budget of 100 billion (just to keep figures simple), are you saying 85 billion is administration costs and only 15 billion is spent on benefits? If the UK operated at those levels the Audit Commission would have apoplexy. So, prove this claim too if you would be so kind.Quote:
85% is a figure entirely typical of ALL entitlement bureaucracies administered by the U.S. government; I would imagine actual individual (by department) figures swing +/- 4-5%.
From your previous posts I am guessing the real reason is that you don't like paying taxes to pay for them. As Thatcher said once, "No such thing as society" could apply to you maybe?Quote:
It is for this particular reason that I am against most entitlements.
The Audit Commission.Quote:
Perhaps you could enlighten me; how does the U.K. cope with bureaucracies and their inherent costs?
Anyway, lets not stray from the point here. Prove your claim that 85% of the NHS's budget is spent on bureaucracy. Hell, lets make it 80% so we fit into your +/- 5%.
You see you have made a simple mistake, so I will help you out a little. You are lumping in service providers with regulatory bodies and statutory functions. There is a difference you know ;)
I never claimed to have any knowledge of your National Health service other than the fact of your having one.
My figure of 85% expenditure applies to U.S. entitlements.
That fact alone is why I asked that you, oh, great and wondrous 1234, disprove it.
You are so eager to take me on that you dig threads out of the dustbin?
I suggest you get a life.
One more thing:
Were you aware that Halliburton was re-retained in Iraq at the behest of the Clinton administration? This predated Dick Cheney's tenure there, I believe.
As Clinton is doubtless (for you) a heroic figure, I shall refrain from a comprehensive recounting of this fact.
If you look, you will also find Clinton's links with Enron, Worldcom, et. al., to be even more comprehensive than with the current administration.
I'd also leave the "green cheese" alone, too, were I you.
Herez #1 proved:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=6&q=h...d_Me.pdf&e=7764
It talks about some old dude and his son and how this old dude is a vet of some war and how the government cut 25 billion in vet pay or something.
Good for you!Quote:
Originally posted by BabyGeniuses@13 January 2004 - 02:05
Herez #1 proved:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=6&q=h...d_Me.pdf&e=7764
It talks about some old dude and his son and how this old dude is a vet of some war and how the government cut 25 billion in vet pay or something.
Now, the other 123.....? :D
I hate to correct Biggles and I dare say it was just a slip of the digit but a Quango is a Quasi autonomous nongovernmental organisation.Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles@12 January 2004 - 19:35
A quasi autonomous government organisation. Strangely, a Maggie Thatcher invention if I recall correctly.
you might wanna put your glasses on and look again, to see who disturbed the hallowed burial ground of old threads. wasn't 1234, i'm afraid. :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@12 January 2004 - 21:47
That fact alone is why I asked that you, oh, great and wondrous 1234, disprove it.
You are so eager to take me on that you dig threads out of the dustbin?
I suggest you get a life.
Quote:
My figure of 85% expenditure applies to U.S. entitlements.
You try and link nationalised health care to no money for research and no breakthroughs, coupled with 85% bureaucratic costs.Quote:
Medical Care is the eternal political football; the libs (if they had their way) would nationalize it, effectively dulling the "cutting edge" of medical research (no competition=no profit opportunity=no money for research=no breakthroughs) and we'd have to also pay the exhorbitant costs of the attendent bureaucracy (bureaucratic costs approach 85% of revenue income in some cases)
I am showing you that this is not the case, using the NHS and UK medical research as an example.
Understand?
Now if you want to just say that the US is incapable of doing it thats fine, but many countries do manage it. So it would seem nationalisation is not the problem, wonder what the problem could be?
At what point? I seem to recall there being sanctions in place during Clintons tenure so Haliburton shouldn't have been there at all :) Halliburton also paid large sums to the democrats (along with Enron, Worldcom, etc) to grease the wheels when Clinton was in.Quote:
Were you aware that Halliburton was re-retained in Iraq at the behest of the Clinton administration? This predated Dick Cheney's tenure there, I believe.
A hero of mine? He is a good time guy from Alabama who managed to charm his way all the way to the White House. Infinitly preferable to Bush, but definitly not a hero of mine. Many US conservatives tend to forget that to most countries both your parties are right wing.Quote:
As Clinton is doubtless (for you) a heroic figure, I shall refrain from a comprehensive recounting of this fact.
So please, recount away. Tales of sanction busting are always welcome.
Heh, more comphrehensive? Bush's admin is full of ex oil. I'd list some, but it would probably be easier to list the ones that don't have a connection. However we can both agree though that whatever US party is in office they like a nice backhander. That is what you are saying isn't it?Quote:
If you look, you will also find Clinton's links with Enron, Worldcom, et. al., to be even more comprehensive than with the current administration
But your green cheese is still out there. Prove that social security payments (I believe you call that welfare) to individuals are 15% of the total welfare budget, with the other 85% being bureaucracy. That's in the US btw, like I asked earlier.Quote:
I'd also leave the "green cheese" alone, too, were I you
QUOTE
My figure of 85% expenditure applies to U.S. entitlements.
QUOTE
Medical Care is the eternal political football; the libs (if they had their way) would nationalize it, effectively dulling the "cutting edge" of medical research (no competition=no profit opportunity=no money for research=no breakthroughs) and we'd have to also pay the exhorbitant costs of the attendent bureaucracy (bureaucratic costs approach 85% of revenue income in some cases)
You try and link nationalised health care to no money for research and no breakthroughs, coupled with 85% bureaucratic costs.
Once again, not accurate.
My point is that a National Health Care system in the U.S. would, as a matter of habit and practice, be afflicted with a bureaucracy similar to those extant.
From there, it would only be prudent to forecast a similar cost for same.
I would ask you to provide us with the details of how the U.K. handles the bureaucratic problems inherent in this situation; indeed, what it spends on it's NHS, and what percentage of same goes to the attending bureaucracy?
Can you not answer this simple question?
I am showing you that this is not the case, using the NHS and UK medical research as an example.
For you to be, as you say, "showing me" you would have to provide details you have not so far.
As a result, you are telling me; you are showing me nothing.
Understand?
Sorry, no.
Now if you want to just say that the US is incapable of doing it thats fine, but many countries do manage it. So it would seem nationalisation is not the problem, wonder what the problem could be?
I have no problem saying the U.S. is incapable of "doing it".
I sincerely wish that were not the case, but as you mistakenly believe me to be afflicted with terminal jingoism, you have overlooked the possibility that I could be dissatisfied with my own government.
But I digress.
QUOTE
Were you aware that Halliburton was re-retained in Iraq at the behest of the Clinton administration? This predated Dick Cheney's tenure there, I believe.
At what point? I seem to recall there being sanctions in place during Clintons tenure so Haliburton shouldn't have been there at all Halliburton also paid large sums to the democrats (along with Enron, Worldcom, etc) to grease the wheels when Clinton was in.
QUOTE
As Clinton is doubtless (for you) a heroic figure, I shall refrain from a comprehensive recounting of this fact.
A hero of mine? He is a good time guy from Alabama who managed to charm his way all the way to the White House. Infinitly preferable to Bush, but definitly not a hero of mine. Many US conservatives tend to forget that to most countries both your parties are right wing.
So you are left of everyone, huh? That's too bad.
BTW-I wouldn't even mention it if it was someone else, but Clinton was from Arkansas (as shown graphically, and repeatedly, elsewhere in this very thread), not Alabama.
So please, recount away. Tales of sanction busting are always welcome.
No, I promised you I wouldn't do that.
QUOTE
If you look, you will also find Clinton's links with Enron, Worldcom, et. al., to be even more comprehensive than with the current administration
Heh, more comphrehensive? Bush's admin is full of ex oil. I'd list some, but it would probably be easier to list the ones that don't have a connection. However we can both agree though that whatever US party is in office they like a nice backhander. That is what you are saying isn't it?
Are you trying to co-opt my words? Shame on you.
QUOTE
I'd also leave the "green cheese" alone, too, were I you
But your green cheese is still out there. Prove that social security payments (I believe you call that welfare) to individuals are 15% of the total welfare budget, with the other 85% being bureaucracy. That's in the US btw, like I asked earlier.
No, I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for it.
3RA1N1AC-
1234 (or !@#$, as I refer to him in private) used as entree here a post of mine from July, I think, no matter who bumped the thread.
Sorry if my quibble was too nuanced for you to digest. :)
how could i not have inferred that your accusation toward 1234 carried a hostility that stands regardless of the mislaid blame for the aforementioned bumpage? well, at least you've more than filled my daily quota for instruction in nuance... i'll have to balance that out by viewing videos of people being kicked in the groin. :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@13 January 2004 - 08:08
Sorry if my quibble was too nuanced for you to digest. :) [/color][/i]
i wonder if j2 ever suffers from repeatative strain syndrom with all that typing :lol:
No.Quote:
Originally posted by vidcc@13 January 2004 - 14:13
i wonder if j2 ever suffers from repeatative strain syndrom with all that typing :lol:
I have to work quickly, however, due to a condition brought on by eyestrain.
I take frequent breaks, often between words.
Besides, I certainly don't type as much as you or the others do.
:)
how could i not have inferred that your accusation toward 1234 carried a hostility that stands regardless of the mislaid blame for the aforementioned bumpage? well, at least you've more than filled my daily quota for instruction in nuance... i'll have to balance that out by viewing videos of people being kicked in the groin. :lol:[/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+13 January 2004 - 13:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 13 January 2004 - 13:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@13 January 2004 - 08:08
Sorry if my quibble was too nuanced for you to digest. :) [/color][/i]
Wrong again.
I harbor no ill-will toward 1234, or leftism, for that matter.
Once I realized who they were, my animus left me.
You, on the other hand...... :)
Feel free to call me when next you run low on nuance.
I can address the problem and you'll never even notice. ;)
so you do just copy an paste :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@13 January 2004 - 18:41
Besides, I certainly don't type as much as you or the others do.
:)
so you do just copy an paste :lol: :lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by vidcc+13 January 2004 - 14:54--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 13 January 2004 - 14:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@13 January 2004 - 18:41
Besides, I certainly don't type as much as you or the others do.
:)
No.
Very rarely, actually, as I have found that it usually causes me more problems than I need.
After months and months of no C&P, I do it twice in succession, and what do I get for my trouble?
1234 and lefty.
What a deal, huh? ;)
I think I shall stick to my own guns, thank you.
What do you mean?Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@13 January 2004 - 19:47
Wrong again.
I harbor no ill-will toward 1234, or leftism, for that matter.
Once I realized who they were, my animus left me.
Who "are" they?
What do you mean?Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman+13 January 2004 - 20:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 13 January 2004 - 20:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@13 January 2004 - 19:47
Wrong again.
I harbor no ill-will toward 1234, or leftism, for that matter.
Once I realized who they were, my animus left me.
Who "are" they? [/b][/quote]
1234 is the sponser of sesame street :lol: a name that helps kids to count
you should have that checked out by a latin physician.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@13 January 2004 - 10:47
my animus left me.
What do you mean?Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman+13 January 2004 - 16:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 13 January 2004 - 16:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@13 January 2004 - 19:47
Wrong again.
I harbor no ill-will toward 1234, or leftism, for that matter.
Once I realized who they were, my animus left me.
Who "are" they? [/b][/quote]
"They" are veterans of the board who have chosen the cloak of new identities.
They come around once in a while; reminiscent of the 17-year locusts-I'm sure you are familiar with them, being in D.C.? ;)
you should have that checked out by a latin physician. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+13 January 2004 - 20:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 13 January 2004 - 20:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@13 January 2004 - 10:47
my animus left me.
Yes, I could-
But I will not.
I like the feeling of peace. :)
What is not accurate? You state that nationalisation brings about the stated ill effects. I am showing you that you are talking rubbish, with a real life example in the UK NHS. Just retract your statements before you sound even more uninformed than you actually appear to be.Quote:
Once again, not accurate.
So you are retracting the other statements you made and just focusing on the 85% figure now? Ok, fine with me.Quote:
My point is that a National Health Care system in the U.S. would, as a matter of habit and practice, be afflicted with a bureaucracy similar to those extant.
Please show us (and this is the third or fourth time I have asked) proof of this 85% figure in service providers within the US. Note, service providers such as welfare and health.
Here is a link with details of the NHS budget. Links from this page will take you to more detail than you could ever want if that page is not enough.Quote:
I would ask you to provide us with the details of how the U.K. handles the bureaucratic problems inherent in this situation; indeed, what it spends on it's NHS, and what percentage of same goes to the attending bureaucracy?
It states - Most of the £53.4bn pot for England goes on revenue expenditure, covering day to day running costs such as staff pay and drugs. The remainder is allocated to capital expenditure, used to purchase new equipment and buildings. Around 75% of the revenue funding is channelled to primary care trusts, which in addition to overseeing GP activities are responsible for commissioning hospital services.
That was never the point, it was about you proving what you had claimed - and have still yet to prove. But as a courtesy, there you go - my case is proven. Can yours be sometime?Quote:
Can you not answer this simple question?
Once again, you made the initial claim with no evidence (and have yet to present any) and yet you berate me for not giving figures? I was waiting on you to provide even a single piece of evidence before presenting mine, to avoid dignifying your claims with more work than they merited. However, I have provided the evidence now so eagerly await you to do the same.Quote:
For you to be, as you say, "showing me" you would have to provide details you have not so far.
As a result, you are telling me; you are showing me nothing.
Ah I see, you are one of those apathetic people who (as long as they are comfortable) don't really care about their fellow citizens or their welfare. Why are you not incredibly angry about the millions of people in your country who are dying and living in pain due to your lack of a national health care system? Other nations similar to the US can do it fine, yet you are happy to sit back and say "Oh well".Quote:
I have no problem saying the U.S. is incapable of "doing it".
I sincerely wish that were not the case, but as you mistakenly believe me to be afflicted with terminal jingoism, you have overlooked the possibility that I could be dissatisfied with my own government.
Left of everyone? If you mean left of the US Democrat's yep. Tony Blair's party is left of the US Democrats too, as are most of Europe's govts. Are you calling all of us the looney left and Comrade Citizen? Your parochialism is humourous.Quote:
So you are left of everyone, huh? That's too bad.
Sorry I should have guessed you would not understand references to things such as the Good Ol' Boys or the Blind Boys of Alabama. My apologies ;)Quote:
BTW-I wouldn't even mention it if it was someone else, but Clinton was from Arkansas (as shown graphically, and repeatedly, elsewhere in this very thread), not Alabama.
Because there is no evidence to support your claim? Oh well, you can't win 'em all. Or even one in your case.Quote:
No, I promised you I wouldn't do that.
Just asking you a question. Most of your posts are full of questions for me rather than actual points, but I can't ask a question?Quote:
Are you trying to co-opt my words? Shame on you.
Finally, you admit that you pulled those numbers out of your *** and have no way of proving them. Why didn't you do that pages ago? Would have saved much embarrassment on your part.Quote:
No, I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for it.
The thread was listed 2nd or 3rd on the board so I opened it and read it. Didn't even notice the dates till a few hours later. Don't blame me for necro posting this one, I just replied to it's content.Quote:
1234 (or !@#$, as I refer to him in private) used as entree here a post of mine from July, I think, no matter who bumped the thread.
I try to be helpful :)Quote:
1234 is the sponser of sesame street a name that helps kids to count
Though actually it was due to the band I was listening to at the time I needed to ask a quick question on the tech boards. Bonus points available to who knows who that band could have been.
Nope, I have only ever posted under this name on this board. Check my registered date for this name - are you saying I planned almost a year ago to tackle your ignorance now? Please, leave your delusions of importance at the door. I neither know nor care about you. You just happen to be the person posting unsubstantiated drivel on the board when I am in a posting mood. I reply to the Theresa fanboy the same way I reply to you.Quote:
"They" are veterans of the board who have chosen the cloak of new identities.
Delusions of importance?
Nah.
I am your humble servant.
Why do your take offense at my notice of your proud claim of being "left" of any American political party?
It would seem you believe you alone enjoy the sunshine of true enlightenment; I have a different opinion.
You, by virtue of your remarks, denigrate the U.S. and it's political system, then claim immunity from anyone who would question your motivation.
I haven't made remark one about the political systems of any European country.
You, on the other hand, can't make enough about mine, or the U.S.
You suffer the intolerance and tyranny of your extremism, and attempt to visit same on others who disagree with you, and you seem to have fixated on me.
While I am flattered by your obsessive behavior, I would not anticipate a dinner invitation.
BTW-Please attend to your ignorance as to correct use of the "QUOTE" function.
You have no excuse for this, as everyone here has the same one, and your pretension precludes your reliance on the sham of it "not working".
:)
For the fifth time j2k4 refuses to answer a simple question about his own argument and resorts to insults. I've witnessed exactly the same thing in the thread about global warming.Quote:
Originally posted by 1234
Please show us (and this is the third or fourth time I have asked) proof of this 85% figure in service providers within the US. Note, service providers such as welfare and health.
I suspect j2k4 wants a soapbox for his "the left are trying to destroy civilization" conspiracy theory. He has made it quite clear that he has no interest in any kind of debate.
Unless of course you define debate as "assert your position, refuse to defend it and spit out insults at anyone who is persistent enough to ask questions more than once".
Pray, lefty-
Where are these "insults"? :huh:
:frusty:
Can you give me one good reason why anyone should answer your questions when you refuse to answer their questions about your position on a topic 5 times?Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4
Where are these "insults"?
Your blatant double standards beggar belief.
Can you give me one good reason why anyone should answer your questions when you refuse to answer their questions about your position on a topic 5 times?Quote:
Originally posted by leftism+14 January 2004 - 12:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 14 January 2004 - 12:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Where are these "insults"?
Your blatant double standards beggar belief. [/b][/quote]
As do yours, sir. ;)
How do you like it?
Alpha-
Thank you-I feel the same way. ;)
That was not your statement. This is what you actually said -Quote:
Why do your take offense at my notice of your proud claim of being "left" of any American political party?
I am not left of everyone, however I am left of most US parties. Sorry, but the US does not qualify as "everyone".Quote:
So you are left of everyone, huh? That's too bad.
Where did I say that? I present things for debate and debate other people's posts.Quote:
It would seem you believe you alone enjoy the sunshine of true enlightenment
Opinion appears to be all you have, unnsupported by facts.Quote:
I have a different opinion.
But you are the one who pointed out the Democrats took backhanders from Enron etc, not me. So you are quite happy to point the finger at US politics too.Quote:
You, by virtue of your remarks, denigrate the U.S. and it's political system, then claim immunity from anyone who would question your motivation.
However I am not against the US, I am against the elite in the US that harm both US citizens and the wider world. Now if you cannot distinguish between criticism of political process and racism/nationalism (which if I attacked the US as a people for no reason I would be guilty of) that is not my problem but yours. Bush is not America, neither was Clinton.
Also, what immunity? From random insults like the ones you post? Now quite sure I follow you there.
Feel free if you want, I look forward to hearing how erroneous your views are there too. However, this thread is about George Bush so it's hardly surprising that it's mostly about US politics is it?Quote:
I haven't made remark one about the political systems of any European country.
The thread is about US politics you goof :) As for your views, I can only comment on what you post. Stop posting baseless drivel and I will stop pointing that drivel out.Quote:
You, on the other hand, can't make enough about mine, or the U.S.
What intolerance and tyranny? Care to provide examples? Or is this just one more baseless accusation from you, to add to the many. As for you, I have already said that I would attempt to expose the fallacies of anyone who posts as much baseless drivel as you (cf the guy defending Theresa). I can't help it if you post most of the crap here :P Stop thinking you are a special case, you are not.Quote:
You suffer the intolerance and tyranny of your extremism, and attempt to visit same on others who disagree with you, and you seem to have fixated on me.
Ah, back to the juvenile insults - with a gay undertone too! Ok, maybe you are a special case. But only as in special ed maybe.Quote:
While I am flattered by your obsessive behavior, I would not anticipate a dinner invitation.
Hmm you mean like you do? Typing Quote, followed by the quote in question? Or by using the tags? Oh dear you must be pretty desperate if you are attempting to use a board bug to belittle people now. I use code quotes whenever the board lets me, as do you. That is shown by when you don't use tags and just type Quote.Quote:
BTW-Please attend to your ignorance as to correct use of the "QUOTE" function.
You have no excuse for this, as everyone here has the same one, and your pretension precludes your reliance on the sham of it "not working".
Want me to post some examples?
QUOTE
My figure of 85% expenditure applies to U.S. entitlements.
QUOTE
Medical Care is the eternal political football; the libs (if they had their way) would nationalize it, effectively dulling the "cutting edge" of medical research (no competition=no profit opportunity=no money for research=no breakthroughs) and we'd have to also pay the exhorbitant costs of the attendent bureaucracy (bureaucratic costs approach 85% of revenue income in some cases)
QUOTE
As Clinton is doubtless (for you) a heroic figure, I shall refrain from a comprehensive recounting of this fact.
These are from this thread. Are you hoping no one would notice or something?
You sad little man heh. Every attempt at trying to be superior is shot down by your own inadequacies. First we had the laughs that were "estopped" and now quote tags.
Leftism, but I did answer him and provided links. He doesn't because he knows his first statement was fictitous and was hoping not to be pulled on it.Quote:
Can you give me one good reason why anyone should answer your questions when you refuse to answer their questions about your position on a topic 5 times?
As I just said, I provided answers and links supporting those answers. So your are incorrect saying neither side presents data or evidence. Just you mate, just you.Quote:
As do yours, sir.
How do you like it?
Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As do yours, sir.
How do you like it?[/b]
Translation:
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@
No I cant think of any good reason why anyone should answer my questions when I refuse to answer their's 5 times. I will however dig myself a deeper hole and ask another one.
Alpha-
Thank you-I feel the same way.[/quote]
After 5 attempts to get you to answer a simple question just think how 1234 feels :lol:
:frusty: :frusty: :frusty: :frusty: :frusty:
J2,
I have been ghosting along with this thread since it's inception and must admit that your assertion that 85% of SS assets is devoted to administration fees seems, well, very high.
Finally I decided to google a bit and found this link, a study devoted to exploring the potential costs of Bush's proposal to privatize SS.
They come up with a figure of between 1.1 and 1.8% for administration costs, which they admit is actually higher than current costs.
Even applying a generous fudge factor to the statistics, it doesn't begin to approach your figure of 85%.
What am I missing here?
Damn Clocker, I was saving those figures till he actually attempted to prove his case!
Ah well, they are out now :lol:
So j2k4, what is you response? We appear to have an 83% differential here, what's going on?
The board awaits with baited breath.
"Baited breath?"Quote:
Originally posted by 1234@14 January 2004 - 13:09
The board awaits with baited breath.
I suggest you stop eating raw fish.
I believe you mean 'bated breath.
Very well.
I shall conduct an archival expedition in search of the correct figures.
I must off to work shortly, so I beg a bit of time to complete the appointed task.
I will say, for now, that the figure I quoted did not spring from a google or other web search, so this may take some time.
Edit:
Also-
If you can fight your way into those figures, I suspect you will find the 1.1%-1.8%
figures probably apply to the actual costs of distribution of money; i.e., postage to mail the checks.