Re: Rationing

January 13, 2010

In one of your emails you laid out a scenario whereby the people who make the

most money would be taxed to theoretical oblivion. There is also a scenario

whereby the

people who make the least will cease to exist eventually because of illness or

death

and there will be no one to support the 5% who make the most money. Who will

pick

the produce, make the cars, build the roads, run the trains, lay the tracks,

pick up the

garbage, etc. All people need to make a decent living in order to live. All

levels of society are needed for the society to continue to exist. Rome forgot

that, France forgot that. That's why those societies ceased to be big powers.

It's the same with the eco system. If you destroy large parts of the earth's

natural recources, you will eventually destroy the earth.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

>

> From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>>

> Subject: Re: Rationing

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 1:30 PM

>

> Roni, the Congressional Budget reported that the top 5% of earners in

> the US pay 50% of all taxes. Do you not call that giving back? The

> bottom 50% pay virtually no income tax. It's old data but I doubt it's

> changed much:

> .

------------------------------------

January 13, 2010

His idea is still IMHO 100% socialism and 100% anti-free market system.

Still, I don't think I could come up with a better description of the

present proposal than yours: " ... bastardized, bloated, deal mongered

version... " It's so damned bad they had to bribe their own Democratic

party members to support it.

..

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

> <mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

> Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:49 pm (PST)

>

> I am not naive . Actually, if they congress had put together a

> package really based on Obamacare instead of their own bastardized,

> bloated, deal mongered version, I think most of us would be a lot

> happier. I blam the congress on both sides for most of this country's

> ills. Remember, the President presides, he doesn't legislate.

>

> Roni

> <>Just because something

> isn't seen doesn't mean it's

> not there<>

>

> From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>>

> Subject: Re: Rationing

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 1:33 PM

>

> Then it should be one h*ll of a massive red flag to anyone with that

> knowledge to know that the AMA and big pharma are firmly on board

> promoting Obamacare. Why do you think that is???

>

> .

January 13, 2010

Actually the seed of the present economic situation was planted,

nourished and grown from the Community Reconstruction Act of 1977. That

act and all of the regulation that followed from it changed the criteria

bands used for deciding to whom to make a loan from being the ability

and willingness to repay a mortgage to being some other irrelevant

factor such as skin color. And it sure as h*ll wasn't Bush and the

Republicans who pushed it through. Here's one description of it: " The

*1977* *Community* *Reconstruction* *Act* threatened commercial lenders

with half million dollar fines if they denied mortgages to unqualified

applicants. "

As for whom to blame for economic trends look at the much touted

Fabulous Clinton Years. But what really happened is that Bush one

turned over to Clinton an economy that had already turned around and was

heading up 8 or 10 months before Clinton took office. So the credit for

the turnaround that occurred in Bush one's term should properly go to him.

Then what happened? The upward economic trend handed of by Bush one to

Clinton continued almost throughout his terms in office... Except for

one tiny fact: Clinton turned over to his successor an economy already

headed for the toilet... A matter for which, of course, the democrats

blame that successor instead of the president who oversaw the creation

of the problem. That's a matter of the simple historical record and no

number of attempts to spin it will change it in the least.

My personal biggest gripe with Bush two [GW] is his lack of adherence to

conservative principles. The deficit spending alone is astonishing to

anyone fiscally conservative. I didn't really think that could get any

worse, but Obama makes GW look good in comparison.

..

>

> Posted by: " nancie barnett " deifspirit@...

> <mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

> Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:37 pm (PST)

>

> the problem with our economy has Nothing to do with the healthcare

> reform bill that is still being finalized in the house. It Hasn't even

> been signed into law yet. ERGO, you can't blame the economy problems

> on health care reform. blame it on Bush's era since the economy tanked

> in 2007 , that is when unemployment started. That was on Bush's watch.

January 13, 2010

And what happened to transparency and all those promises of this debate

being aired on CSPAN? Like Dr Phil says, " people who have nothing to hide,

hide nothing! "

CW

-- Re: Rationing

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 1:33 PM

>

> Then it should be one h*ll of a massive red flag to anyone with that

> knowledge to know that the AMA and big pharma are firmly on board

> promoting Obamacare. Why do you think that is???

>

> .

January 13, 2010

Nancie, I'm afraid you've lead a somewhat sheltered life if you're so

astounded that someone might have one heck of a lot more money than

anyone looking at them would guess. Read THE MILLIONAIRE NEXT DOOR, for

example. And here's a blog about a number of people who have been found

to have somehow accumulated much more money than anyone would probably

suspect:

..

Quote:

When Saving Money Goes Extreme: Serious Savers Who Died Very Wealthy

by Silicon Valley Blogger on March 10, 2008

*/How to become a millionaire

<http://www.thedigeratilife.com/blog/index.php/2007/05/31/10-steps-to-becoming-a\

-millionaire/>

by saving money to the extreme./*

While there are people who love to flaunt whatever they have and give

the impression that they are wealthier than they truly are, there’s this

subset of individuals who work in completely the opposite way: these

people are the ones who are wealthier than anyone ever suspects, and are

only discovered as millionaires right after they have passed away and

have bequeathed their millions to others.

I've always been quite inspired by such people, but also wondered about

what would possess them to hoard money in this manner. More often than

not, it’s an issue of control, with “pack rat like” behavior extending

to money as being the object of choice to squirrel away in this extreme

fashion.

Saving Money Goes Extreme: Stories Of The Unexpectedly Rich

These people have been called many things — from *rich paupers*, to

millionaire eccentrics, to the “surprisingly rich”. Here are some

accounts

<http://money.cnn.com/2003/07/31/pf/millionaire/surprisinglyrich/index.htm>

of people who've lived under the radar while secretly stashing away

their money. They’re living a double life. I don’t know about you, but I

find this somewhat cool and intriguing.

*ph Leek* left nearly $1.8 million to an organization that

provides guide dogs for the blind, and nobody, not even his own

family, had any idea that he had that kind of money. The 90-year-old

Britisher lived like a pauper. He watched television at a neighbor’s

house to save on electricity, put off home repairs, and bought

secondhand clothes.

*Rev. Vertrue Sharp* raised hay and cattle, preached and taught,

while saving every penny he made. When he died in 1999, he left an

estate of $2 million to the East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, the

University of Tennessee Medical Center, and other charities.

*English spinster, Guthrie Essame* was a retired nurse who

lived in an old n house and who clad herself in such worn

clothes and old shoes that no one knew how well off she was.

Neighbors were shocked to learn that her estate amounted to a

whopping $10 million when she died in January 2002. (The money was

left to a host of charities.)

Have you heard about the elementary school teacher

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/a_Langtry> who built up almost

$4 million dollars by the age of 89? There was also the 55 year old

transient

<http://www.topix.net/content/kri/2007/09/man-lived-in-trash-died-a-millionaire>

who lived in a trash-filled hotel room who had $1.4 million in

Wachovia stocks and funds because he was afraid “his health would go

bad” and that he needed to ensure he’d get medical attention when

the need arose.

And here’s my favorite story of all:

*Joe Temeczko* was a Polish immigrant and former prisoner of war who

did odd jobs and handyman repair work. He had no family and lived in

a modest house which he filled with stuff he scavenged from the

streets. He roamed the neighborhood to find junk to fix up and sell

or give away, and would get free food from local charities and read

newspapers in the store so he wouldn’t have to buy them. When he

passed away at the age of 86, he left behind a $1.4 million bank

account which he gifted to the City of New York. In fact, he’d

rewritten his will right after 9/11.

Interesting Notes About The Secretly Wealthy

* There are more people of this profile than you think. Don’t look

now but the shabby clothed guy standing in the corner can be worth

millions.

* A lot of these folks become philanthropists

<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_48/b3910406.htm>

and leave the bulk of their money to charity. They are ordinary

people who want to make a difference in society, and who’ve done

it in a special way — by allowing their money to grow throughout

the years, enabling them to bequeath a large gift to their causes

and helping them make an impact upon death.

* On the other hand, family members of the secretly wealthy have

also voiced their disappointment in finding out that they’re

actually richer than they thought they were. Many have lived lives

of sacrifice and deprivation affected by the lack of knowledge

about their true financial status. This true status is a closely

guarded secret by the patron (or matron) of the family throughout

their lifetime. Not surprisingly, this can trigger a backlash

among the heirs, who may then proceed to spend their inheritance

willy nilly.

* Many of the secretly wealth are actually quite happy and content

just living the way they do (as reported by those close to them),

although I’m rather baffled that anyone would like to live in

flea-bitten hotels, seemingly poverty-stricken, when they could

afford a decent apartment.

* Keeping one’s riches secret has been looked upon as a control

issue, although these extreme frugalists appear to have the common

desire to surprise their heirs when they die. For those who

pretend to be poorer than they are, it could be due to having the

baglady anxiety syndrome,

<http://www.thedigeratilife.com/blog/index.php/2007/03/13/help-could-i-have-bag-\

lady-syndrome/>

where they feel that no matter how much they have, it can all be

gone in a split second if an emergency arises. Or they may just

feel more comfortable hiding their wealth so that it could grow

uninterrupted, away from prying eyes and others’ involvement.

* They may also enjoy and derive pleasure from the idea that they

can become the “hero” once they die and leave a legacy to others.

Odd behaviors aside, these stories should prove one thing: *that

ordinary people CAN indeed find themselves sitting on millions by simply

living frugally.* Though I can hear you all making the argument that a

lot of these folks are found to be millionaires only after *many, many

years* of scrimping and only upon reaching the twilight of their lives,

you really can’t argue with the hard results: they still have a million

dollars more than most of us have.

..

End of quote. For other such stories just keep an eye on your local

newspaper unless you live in the boonies.

..

>

> Posted by: " nancie barnett " deifspirit@...

> <mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

> Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:44 pm (PST)

>

> tell me what homeless person has 200,000 in their fanny pack?? Lol

> I work with the homeless crystal on a medical level and I have NEVER

> met a homeless person who is carrying around 200,000.00 in a fanny

> pack and who doesn't want a roof over their heads and a safe secure

> place to live with food, shelter and clean clothes!

> where do you get this stuff? I can't wait to tell my colleagues who

> work with the homeless about this alleged person.

>

> From: Crystal

> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 10:59 AM

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Subject: Re: Re:Rationing

>

> It has something to do with healthcare because that homeless man with over

> 200,00 in his fanny pack can absolutely afford HC, but chooses to live on

> the tax payers monies. If you think beggin for money is a legit way to

> make

> money then you aren't realizing that they do not claim that money on their

> tax returns, therefore they are not paying into a system that supports

> them.

> This is un American and illeagal! If they are using this man as an example

> of a person without HC then how many thousands of people who can afford do

> not have it simply because they don't want to not because they can't

> afford?

> CW

January 13, 2010

I honeslty think this country started going down hill with the progressive

republican president Teddy Rooselvelt. BTW he was McCains presidential idol

I would still have preferred McCain over Obama though, but I didn't vote

for him in the primaries