Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: ADA (was Re: Building Codes on-line)[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: RE: ADA (was Re: Building Codes on-line)
- From: "Regis King" <steelfishes(--nospam--at)hotmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 23:56:33 +0000
Mr. Wish,It looks like Bill got you pretty hot under the collar. There are a lot of good points to be made about knee-jerk anti-goverment positions, but I think you've gotten pretty far out there yourself (and I mainly mean logically):
"It's easy for Bill to throw out statements like Johnson's Great Society plan cost the American Public Five Trillion dollars. He can't support this statement as the deficit at the time Johnson was in office rose less than 300-Billion dollars while the deficit under Republicans (Reagan alone) rose over one-trillion dollars."Thinking logically, what does the deficit have to do with whether X trillion dollars were spent? What do Republicans have to do with it? Why can't Bill "support" this? For better or worse, we have spent about that on "Great Society" programs. Look it up if you don't believe him. The state of the deficit, or what the deficit did under each political party, has nothing to do with the number of dollars spent. You need to tie these concepts together a little better. I think you're referring to the notion that the "Great Society" created our deficits, but that certainly isn't what you've said. Moving on to a more pointed look at deficits...
"the deficit rise during the Johnson administration was caused by the increase in Military spending that added 300-thousand troopss to the existing 181,000 at the time"If I go $2000 into debt after I spend $2000 on a computer and $2000 on car repairs, is it fair to say that the car repairs put me into debt or was it the computer? Doesn't matter, does it? You could say that I needed a working car more than I needed a new computer, and so maybe the computer spending was more at fault. Bill could rightly say that if I hadn't spent $2000 on the car I wouldn't have come out down $2000. Maybe I could have made due with a bus pass for $50. Either way, it is a meaningless argument because there is no right answer.
"Any increase in the deficit for the programs that Johnson started to protect Equality of the people who are citizens of this country are well worth the price."Any increase? Really, any at all? So, mortgaging our children's future to whatever extent we feel like on a given day is fine, as long as it's for a program that at one time had Johnson's seal of approval? Did you really mean this, or did you just mean you personally liked the programs? As written, your statement makes even less sense than his did.
"Medicare - an insurance program for the elderly who could not afford it or were rejected by private insurance companies. By the way - this was not welfare as Bill suggests. Medicare premiums are paid for by the retired elderly from their Social Security Benefits."If this is true, why does the goverment take $70 out of my paycheck every month? I'm not retired and don't collect social security. Do the retired elderly really pay for it themselves? If not, why is Bill wrong aside from the fact that you didn't like his tone? If you object to his use of the concept of welfare, are you saying that being welfare somehow makes it bad? Isn't government spending on the needy okay in your opinion? Why stretch the truth to say that the program isn't welfare if well-managed welfare is something to be proud of? Doesn't make sense.
"This is not charity - Social Security is a savings plan forced by the government to protect those who suffered during the depression era and to insure that it does not happen again."Social security is not a savings plan, and it has nothing to do with ensuring that the depression will not happen again. The money you get out is taken via taxes from current workers. The money you put into the system was spent long ago. It is more of a social contract. You pay for people today with the understanding that someone else will pay for you tomorrow. This works out fine as long as there are substantially more payer than collectors. This, in turn, implies that either the retirement age is fairly close to the life expectancy or that your society is growing and thus demographically weighted toward the young. The idea of this isn't to prevent a depression, it is just to make sure that people have some money in their declining years to keep them off the streets.
"Possible one of the problems is that those to retrieve their benefits don't need them but take them because they paid in. While this is true, it would be more beneficial to the people in this country if Americans who did not require use of their social security benefits to give them to the less advantaged and take a tax credit in its place to offset the capital gains they make on their investments."So, first Americans are greedy people who will only be moved by selfish profits, and now you are expecting them to voluntarily donate their social security checks that they "did not require" to charity? How will you explain that to people so selfish as to have created the apparently flawed economic system to begin with? Who will tell them what amount they do not require? So, explain again which sort of human nature you expect to find?
Why don't you just email Bill directly if you want a "good" debate. Vaugely tied together suppositions based on half-truths and opinions are not useful. Most of use are aware that government is neither always good nor always bad. ADA... what was the original question? Sometimes ADA can be a hassle, but sometimes it can be a good thing. Yeah, true enough. Next question...
Regis _________________________________________________________________Unlimited Internet access for only $21.95/month. Try MSN! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp* * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
- Prev by Subject: RE: ADA (was Re: Building Codes on-line)
- Next by Subject: RE: ADA (was Re: Building Codes on-line)
- Previous by thread: RE: ADA (was Re: Building Codes on-line)
- Next by thread: RE: ADA (was Re: Building Codes on-line)