OT: Analysts Warn of Spending Impact

OT: Analysts Warn of Spending Impact

Post by Wirt Atma » Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:25:09


Craig writes:

US.
of

Just to keep America safe for arithmetic, that would be $600 x 6 = $3600.

Wirt Atmar

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://www.yqcomputer.com/ *
 
 
 

OT: Analysts Warn of Spending Impact

Post by Craig Lall » Sat, 17 Sep 2005 01:21:19

Just to let everyone know, I was being sarcastic.

It seems a bit fiscally irresponsible to spend 200 BILLION of the government's money on a total of 7 or 8 million people.

Lets do some basic math here, there are only say 300 million people in the US. So every time the Government spends 1 Billion, that's 3 dollars for every man, woman and child. So this 200 Billion is going to cost every man woman and child in the US... 600 dollars a piece. Hmmm, for my family of 6 that is a total of $2400 to go directly to Louisiana, and Mississippi, assuming of course the end recipients even get the aid.

But remember only about 70% of the people even PAY taxes... And some of the people affected did have insurance.

Bottom line, we were all appalled by the looting after Katrina. Those looters are nothing compared to when the professional looters (Senators, Congressmen, Mayors) get involved.

-Craig





Which about half will spend on lottery tickets in Arkansas and Texas and the other half will use to replace all their ruined iPods and Xboxes, while the schools and highways remain unfixed.

I have a better plan than Bush.

Let's give every single man, woman and child in the state of Mississippi and Louisiana $50,000 cash.

Why not? It would be a lot cheaper than the 200 Billion, President Bush is proposing.

-Craig







__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://www.yqcomputer.com/

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://www.yqcomputer.com/ *

 
 
 

OT: Analysts Warn of Spending Impact

Post by Art Bahr » Sat, 17 Sep 2005 03:22:50

m... Craig???

I know I went to Portland Public Schools.... and Calculus really
messed with my brain by showing me how to divide by zero after 12+ years of
being told you couldn't divide by zero...

But 6 ($600) should be $3,600 right? Or were you using some of that
new math stuff? hehehe

Art "Couldn't resist" Bahrs

=======================================================
Art Bahrs, CISSP Information Security The Regence Group
(503) 225-4992 FAX (503) 220-3806



"Craig Lalley"
<mr_lalley@yah
oo.com> To
Sent by: XXXX@XXXXX.COM
"HP-3000 cc
Systems
Discussion" Subject
<HP3000-L@RAVE [HP3000-L] OT: Analysts Warn of
N.UTC.EDU> Spending Impact


09/15/2005
09:21 AM


Please respond
to
"Craig Lalley"
<mr_lalley@yah
oo.com>
|------------|
| [ ] Secure |
| E-mail |
|------------|





Just to let everyone know, I was being sarcastic.

It seems a bit fiscally irresponsible to spend 200 BILLION of the
government's money on a total of 7 or 8 million people.

Lets do some basic math here, there are only say 300 million people in the
US. So every time the Government spends 1 Billion, that's 3 dollars for
every man, woman and child. So this 200 Billion is going to cost every man
woman and child in the US... 600 dollars a piece. Hmmm, for my family of
6 that is a total of $2400 to go directly to Louisiana, and Mississippi,
assuming of course the end recipients even get the aid.

But remember only about 70% of the people even PAY taxes... And some of
the people affected did have insurance.

Bottom line, we were all appalled by the looting after Katrina. Those
looters are nothing compared to when the professional looters (Senators,
Congressmen, Mayors) get involved.

-Craig




Mark Landin <
 
 
 

OT: Analysts Warn of Spending Impact

Post by Reynolds, » Sat, 17 Sep 2005 03:26:59

Now come on guys...Craig was withholding taxes and a handling charge!!
:)




-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ] On
Behalf Of Wirt Atmar
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 2:25 PM
To: XXXX@XXXXX.COM
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Analysts Warn of Spending Impact


Craig writes:


US.
woman
that
assuming
of

Just to keep America safe for arithmetic, that would be $600 x 6 =
$3600.

Wirt Atmar

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://www.yqcomputer.com/ *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://www.yqcomputer.com/ *
 
 
 

OT: Analysts Warn of Spending Impact

Post by John Le » Sat, 17 Sep 2005 03:34:16

If the government calculated it, it would be 6 x $600 = $4800 including
interest and penalty.

John Lee (just assessed interest and penalty for something I didn't do).




* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://www.yqcomputer.com/ *
 
 
 

OT: Analysts Warn of Spending Impact

Post by Craig Lall » Sat, 17 Sep 2005 03:39:56

Ok, I used the spell checker....

I don't have a button for a math checker... :-)


-Craig



Craig writes:

US.
of

Just to keep America safe for arithmetic, that would be $600 x 6 = $3600.

Wirt Atmar

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://www.yqcomputer.com/ *

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://www.yqcomputer.com/

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://www.yqcomputer.com/ *
 
 
 

OT: Analysts Warn of Spending Impact

Post by russ smit » Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:18:33

raig Lalley wrote:

What should one think when reading your comments about it being
"fiscally irresponsible" to spend tax money collected from the entire
country and use it to rebuild one tiny section of it, Craig?

And why did you use the phrase "the government's money" to describe tax
dollars collected from the people to be spent for the people? I thought
you believed George's sound bites that "it's the people's money and they
should be allowed to keep it". Or do you now think that the tax cuts
should expire?

Your point is that a population of 7 million out of 300 million is only
2.3% of the people, and realistically, 3 out of the 50 states is only 6%
of our states, effected to the level we keep seeing on the dummy tube.
The implication is appalling, however. I can be a heartless b*stard,
but that made me cringe.

This situation is no different than any other with regard to the uses
made of our tax dollars, and yes, we should watch our leaders like a
hawk. We should not allow them to direct public dollars into the
pockets of their business friends, unless doing so is actually in the
best interest of the majority of the public. That need for monitoring,
however, does not remove the responsibility to rebuild a vital part of
our country's infrastructure.

More importantly, we should *NOT* fail to rescue our own people, whose
lives were destroyed by a natural disaster. And certainly, we should
not fail to do so because we were cheap, greedy, or heartless. While
you're throwing out statistics: what percentage of our nation's federal
budget is $200B?

If you are making these comments out of some defense mechanism: refusing
to believe the horrors these people are having to live thru, then fine.
If, however, you truly believe that it is not the responsibility of
our government to take action to rebuild the lives of these people and
their cities, then what exactly do you think governments are supposed to do?

I count myself lucky to have visited New Orleans before the flood,
danced in Jackson Square at the Jazz Festival, wandered the French
Quarter and the cemetaries, taken a horse drawn tour of the antebellum
homes, and gotten "a little inebriated" on Bourbon Street at more than
one Mardi Gras. I doubt whatever is rebuilt will ever be the same.

I am currently concerned for my family being pummeled by Ophelia, and
hope that the powers that be won't fail to provide for them were they
the subject of a similar disaster.

I note that George did not want to be caught like this again, and moved
National Guard units from Richmond, Virginia and somewhere in Maryland
to be closer to the Carolinas "just in case" this time.

Hmmmmm,
Rs~

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

 
 
 

OT: Analysts Warn of Spending Impact

Post by Craig Lall » Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:39:11

uss,

My point of fiscal responsibility is that 200Billion is a LOT of money.

According to the 2003 census estimates

Population of Louisiana 4,496,334
Population of Mississippi 2,844,658
Total 7,340,992

200,000,000,000 / 7,340,992 = $27, 000 for every man, woman and child.

This is not just the people involved in the flooded parts of New Orleans, but the entire state of Louisiana and Mississippi.

Given the government track record of add pork to large spending bills, I have no doubt that 200Billion is just a starting point. Also given the government track record of efficiency, I have no doubt that only a small fraction of that money will actually benefit the people of Louisiana, let alone New Orleans.

My point is, the looting that happened after Katrina is just a small fraction of the looting to follow.

-Craig



russ smith < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:
Craig Lalley wrote:

What should one think when reading your comments about it being
"fiscally irresponsible" to spend tax money collected from the entire
country and use it to rebuild one tiny section of it, Craig?

And why did you use the phrase "the government's money" to describe tax
dollars collected from the people to be spent for the people? I thought
you believed George's sound bites that "it's the people's money and they
should be allowed to keep it". Or do you now think that the tax cuts
should expire?

Your point is that a population of 7 million out of 300 million is only
2.3% of the people, and realistically, 3 out of the 50 states is only 6%
of our states, effected to the level we keep seeing on the dummy tube.
The implication is appalling, however. I can be a heartless b*stard,
but that made me cringe.

This situation is no different than any other with regard to the uses
made of our tax dollars, and yes, we should watch our leaders like a
hawk. We should not allow them to direct public dollars into the
pockets of their business friends, unless doing so is actually in the
best interest of the majority of the public. That need for monitoring,
however, does not remove the responsibility to rebuild a vital part of
our country's infrastructure.

More importantly, we should *NOT* fail to rescue our own people, whose
lives were destroyed by a natural disaster. And certainly, we should
not fail to do so because we were cheap, greedy, or heartless. While
you're throwing out statistics: what percentage of our nation's federal
budget is $200B?

If you are making these comments out of some defense mechanism: refusing
to believe the horrors these people are having to live thru, then fine.
If, however, you truly believe that it is not the responsibility of
our government to take action to rebuild the lives of these people and
their cities, then what exactly do you think governments are supposed to do?

I count myself lucky to have visited New Orleans before the flood,
danced in Jackson Square at the Jazz Festival, wandered the French
Quarter and the cemetaries, taken a horse drawn tour of the antebellum
homes, and gotten "a little inebriated" on Bourbon Street at more than
one Mardi Gras. I doubt whatever is rebuilt will ever be the same.

I am currently concerned for my family being pummeled by Ophelia, and
hope that the powers that be won't fail to provide for them were they
the subject of a similar disaster.

I note that George did not want to b
 
 
 

OT: Analysts Warn of Spending Impact

Post by russ smit » Sun, 18 Sep 2005 03:58:00

raig Lalley wrote:

When you're dealing with things at a national level, the numbers usually
are. After all...a million here and a million there...


All of which is data for a very valid argument about our need to monitor
how the money is spent, and I think also from where it is accumulated;
but is not an explanation as to why you would question the amount.


Again, "need to watch what they do" is not "don't do it".


Craig,

My intention is really not to single you out, and realistically, I
expect you are voicing one thought of many running around in a lot of
people's minds.

I'm not going to play the "looting" versus "finding food" game. Those
individuals who took advantage of the situation and stole (not looted,
stole) merchandise from stores in their areas, were wrong to do so, and
I'm pretty sure it's them you're mentioning, as opposed to those who
(regardless of skin color) were scavenging for food to stay alive.

Simply put: yes, $200B is a lot of money. It represents nearly 8% of
last year's fiscal federal budget. If that were to be paid out in a
single chunk to some other party, it could have a devastating effect on
this country. That's not the case, however.

That figure represents an estimate of what the cost of the recovery will
be, not what the federal government's check to Party Z will be.

Further, some of that money will come from insurance companies. Some
will be "instead of" other dollars that were already budgeted. For
example, federal highway dollars already budgeted for the repair of a
bridge will not need to be spent if this new figure includes the
replacement of that same bridge.

Plus, the money in large part will be used to pay for products and
services here in the U.S. It will pay the wages of the Americans who
are doing the construction on those new homes, or for the construction
materials (many of which are man made) to do the building. Much of that
will actually flow back up to the federal government in the form of
sales and income taxes.

There will be those who take their insurance checks, and walk away.
That is their choice. I would have a problem with a bunch of people
from those states, taking checks from FEMA and heading off on vacation.
I have no problem with them taking a check from FEMA and using it to
rebuild their home or their business.

Oddly, I feel like I'm playing Gary Olman's character in The Fifth
Element here, commenting that the act of destruction is what is driving
the economy. I should avoid bing cherries for the remainder of the day.

Anywho, it is far too easy to hear a number like $200B and react to it,
and while I can understand your reaction, I think you should question
why you reacted that way.

Do I think the federal government should pay the entire tab? Nope. Do
I think the insurance companies should? Nope. Do I think the people of
those cities, counties or states should? Nope. Do I think some
combination of the three should? Yep.

If the insurance companies went bankrupt, and all the "rich" people
decided to take their insurance payouts and leave the state so there was
no longer enough of tax base for the state to pony up much, should the
feds jump in and save the area? Probably, but not as a "hand out".

Keep in mind: we need the port, we need the gulf oil production
facilities, and we need the farmlands. We have no choice but to rebuild
the inf