Search Forum

RSS Forum rules

11030 opinions matching your query "Bill"



#21
Bill - 13 Sep 2010 // 01:26:55

Bul:

"That 50% reduction also included Dod civilians as well."

Granted, but you're still talking DoD, and my guess is that Nellie's complaint involves the whole government structure, not just one department.

#22
Bill - 13 Sep 2010 // 01:10:11

Bul:

To be fair, I don't think Nellie was referring to the armed forces. Her complaint is directed at the civilian politicians.

Of course we already know her opinion of the military, but she still seems to be airing her view of expanded government in the civilian sense.

#23
Bill - 12 Sep 2010 // 22:22:37

Nellie:

I never had life insurance, either, till it came with the job when I went into the civil service. People used to ask me, "How come you don't have life insurance?". I'd tell them that I didn't need it, because I had no real beneficiaries. Then they asked, "But how will you pay your funeral expenses?". I told them, "I don't see that as my problem".

#24
Bill - 12 Sep 2010 // 22:06:12

Nellie:

I may be wrong, but as I understand it, the whole insurance business is built upon contributions from the many, hoping they'll never need it, and in the meantime providing financing for people who do.

I've been contributing to health insurance for years, and didn't get a dime out of it. But then, when I REALLY did need it, my insurer came through like a champ. I have them (and a few others) to thank that I'm still alive at all.

I don't think it's expected that those who need it will have contributed enough themselves to cover it.

I have life insurance, too. It's questionable that I've paid as much into that as will be paid out when I can no longer contribute.

People pay fire insurance, hoping they'll never need it. Again, it finances people who do need it.

What I have against most insurers, however, is that although their stock in trade is risk taking, when and if people need a lot of money, like for homes lost in a forest fire, the insurer will raise the premiums on the rest of us, while they should have been able to absorb the risk themselves. That's what they're paid for.

#25
Bill - 12 Sep 2010 // 21:32:21

Nellie:

Funny that you should say that. My sister (83) recently got a hip replacement. She still bowls and does all her own yard work.

The difference, of course, is that she has privte insurance. I'll never be able to repay what my insurance had to do with my long illness, either, but again my insurance is private.

#26
Bill - 12 Sep 2010 // 19:46:00

Part two:


How about this for new Immigration Laws: Read to the bottom or you will miss the message...
1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.
3. All government business will be conducted in our language.
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office.
6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.

7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
8. If foreigners come here and buy land... options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.

(The final sentence of the above page should be here.)

#27
Bill - 12 Sep 2010 // 19:44:32

Nellie:

I got the following in an e-mail just now. No source was cited, but it's interesting reading, purportedly extracted from an Arizona newspaper.

MEXICO IS ANGRY!
Three cheers for Arizona

The shoe is on the other foot and the Mexicans from the State of Sonora Mexico do not like it. Can you believe the nerve of these people?  It's almost funny.

The State of Sonora is angry at the influx of Mexicans into Mexico. Nine state legislators from the Mexican State of Sonora traveled to Tucson to complain about Arizona's new employer crackdown on illegal's from Mexico. It seems that many Mexican illegal's are returning to their hometowns and the officials in the Sonora state government are ticked off.

A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to state that Arizona's new Employer Sanctions Law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state. At a news conference, the legislators said that Sonora, - Arizona's southern neighbor - made up of mostly small towns - cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools that it will face as Mexican workers return to their hometowns from the USA without jobs or money.
                                 
The Arizona law, which took effect Jan. 1, punishes Arizona employers who knowingly hire individuals without valid legal documents to work in the United States. Penalties include suspension of, or loss of, their business license.
                                 
The Mexican legislators are angry because their own citizens are returning to their hometowns, placing a burden on THEIR state government. 'How can Arizona pass a law like this?' asked Mexican Rep Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales. 'There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona ,' she said, speaking in Spanish. 'Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and who were sending money to their families return to their home-towns in Sonora without jobs,' she said. 'We are one family, socially and economically,' she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona.

Wrong! The United States is a sovereign nation, not a subsidiary of Mexico, and its taxpayers are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico's citizens. It's time for the Mexican government, and its citizens, to stop feeding parasitically off the United States and to start taking care of its/their own needs.

Too bad other states within the USA don't pass a law just like that passed by Arizona. Maybe that's the answer, since our own Congress will do nothing!
 
Too strict ?   The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO !

#28
Bill - 12 Sep 2010 // 18:59:58

Bul:

I am not against universal medical care; I'm opposed to having the government running it. Just like with social security, the politicos should not have access to dip into it. (Right now, I'd settle for MEDICARE coverage for both of us. We paid for it, and we should get it.)

I agree about Homeland Security. I've always thought that business was within the bailiwick of the Department of the Interior, and we didn't need a whole new bureaucracy, especially not at cabinet level. From its inception, HS has been paranoid. I find it slightly humorous that passengers have to go through all kinds of security checks at airports while almost anyone can walk across the Canadian border through the woods.

As to opinion polls, sure, they can be manipulated according to whatever line the pollsters wish to take. I have to go on the information available, and that indicates that Rasmussen is a reliable source. It has a reputation for accuracy and timeliness. I can't argue that point. I only became aware of its existence a short time ago.

No opinion poll can be THAT accurate, simply because it surveys opinion. That chan change overnight, with small swings one way or another, but a mass exodus from one political program is difficult to ignore.

The sources available to me all agree that public opinion is heavily, if not in a majority, against Obama and his spending programs. He's throwing money at problems which he doesn't have, to begin with. It's typical of socialist thinking, you can solve problems be throwing money at them.

On the other hand, cutting taxes so that the consumer has more buying power, and thus the demand for goods rises, seems to me to be the better line of thinking when it comes to job creation. Firms have to be in a profit position in order to expand and create new jobs. So long as they're strangled by taxes and union bennies, they're either going out of business or moving their operations to places with lower labor costs.

#29
#30
Bill - 12 Sep 2010 // 15:08:50

Viking:

"I do not want to talk to you anymore!"

Is that a promise? I don't really enjoy exchanges with blockheads.

Bulgaria news Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) is unique with being a real time news provider in English that informs its readers about the latest Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also publishes a daily online newspaper "Sofia Morning News." Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) and Sofia Morning News publish the latest economic, political and cultural news that take place in Bulgaria. Foreign media analysis on Bulgaria and World News in Brief are also part of the web site and the online newspaper. News Bulgaria