DougH

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    5,888

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

  • Feedback

    0%

  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by DougH

  1. DougH
    I reinvested my stimulus check in EE savings bonds. At least it would be that amount less that we mortgaged against our childrens' future with our foreign mortgage brokers. I will be happy to contribute any interest to your bizzaro economy. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  2. DougH
    In what bizzaro world do you live in that individuals have zero latitude when it comes to enforcing policies. . The operative word here is "ZERO". That, apparently, WAS this board's policy. Not a small amount of tolerance, not tolerance at the teacher's discretion, but ZERO tolerance. I understand the concept of ZERO. Are you going to honestly tell me that a official has ZERO latitude when it comes to enforcing ZERO tolerance policies. Our educational costs are going to go down dramatically!!!
  3. DougH
    Right! Because economies are partisan. Must have been all of those evil Republicans that were sucking up sub prime mortgages, cooking up CDO's, and fueling excessive consumer consumption through inflated credit lines and smoke and mirrors home equity. All of the democrats and independents have been absent from politics, and the economy, laying low and collect welfare until just before Obushma's recent election? I must have missed when we excluded people from government, and the economy, solely on party affiliation coinciding with presidential terms. There were no democrats in congress for both of Bush's term? Did democrats run some sort of bizzaro professor parallel alternative economy for the past two Bush terms while at the same never participating in our evil republican economy? What is the currency for this alternate economy, E85 and puppies? "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  4. DougH
    Who enforces the board's policies? Are the board members in the schools teaching every class, and acting as administrators in each school? What a simple school system we must have. We have students, and we have elected school boards with absolutely no intermediaries in between. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  5. DougH
    I think I have a better question. Why don't you define what you consider the poor to be. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  6. DougH
    Please show me where I said anything that supported: Kicking people to the curb. Dissaproval of educational programs. If you are going to argue with me, and least show the mental clarity to actually attack something I said, instead of having shadow arguments with yourself. Political gain, and taxes, are two totally seperate concepts. Your line of thinking is one dimensional. In congress you have power when you head a program, or chair a comitee that oversees a specific agency. The more you chair, or head, the more political capital you have. Perfect example for you: the SEC and the CFTC. We will never see the agency powers of the SEC and the CFTC merge, even if it would result in a better financial system in the US. No congressman is willing to give up their political power. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  7. DougH
    In what bizzaro world do you live in that individuals have zero latitude when it comes to enforcing policies. Do police officers enforce every single law exactly as they are written on the books? Do you get a speeding ticket every time you exceed the speed limit by any measure above the posted speed? What about an instant ticket every time you stop in a no stopping fire zone for just a fraction of a second? The board, the principle, the teacher, and the stupid voters in that district are all to blame. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  8. DougH
    It could be argued that many in the left are incompassionate because they continue to support certain social programs for political gains that have perpetuated the plight of poor people, generation after generation, in our country . Why would they be interested in programs that break the cycle and actually improve peoples life. It is much better to continue to encourage people to put themselves in a situation that requires social life support. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  9. DougH
    Irrelevant. Once you pay your taxes the money is the government's, not yours. That is your opinion. Simple personal accounting says otherwise. Record all of the credits coming in, and all of the debits going out. Accounting isn't very difficult. I for sure didn't expect it to be so far over the head of a higher education professor. Nothing whatsoever to do with accounting. Did you miss out on civics classes or something? The government doesn't owe you services in proportion to the taxes you pay. Far from it. No more than you skipped english comp. I didn't say that the government owed me a service. I said that if you receive a government payment that exceeds your tax liability you are getting a hand out, or revenue if you care to call it that. If you pay more taxes than any government payment you received you are getting a discount on your tax expense. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  10. DougH
    If you really think deregulation is a consumer-beneficial activity, I've got a bridge to sell you. Cheap, too! I am a low credit risk with all three scores in the 760+ range. I read my credit agreements and I understand the variability of the business arangment. If this regulation causes my credit related expense to go up then I would have to conclude that this legislation is bad for me, and I was better off before. If this regulation is good for some, it has to bad for some consumers too. The reverse would also be true. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  11. DougH
    Irrelevant. Once you pay your taxes the money is the government's, not yours. That is your opinion. Simple personal accounting says otherwise. Record all of the credits coming in, and all of the debits going out. Accounting isn't very difficult. I for sure didn't expect it to be so far over the head of a higher education professor. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  12. DougH
    "Group" insurance is offered to a employer or some other collective purchasing group. The insurer sets rates based on the group as a whole. They don't exclude certain individuals who are part of the group. This is not the case in this story. Their employers group policy didn't exclude this child. They didn't like the rates of their "group" insurer, and tried to take out an invididual policy. Since they are now an individual and not part of a overall group, the policy underwriters will base their cost on the actuaries perceived level of risk. Their risk model may be off, but that is exactly how insurance is supposed to work. It is their perogative to do manual underwriting at that point and accept that child, or not to accept that child. They should have stuck with the group policy until they found a cheaper viable alternative. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  13. DougH
    I figure that my alarm system would send most right back out the way they came in. That doesn't change the fact that they could pose a serious risk to your loved ones. I don't care about my stuff, stuff is stuff. But it isn't far fetched that some one with enough lack of concern for the law to break into a private residence could also commit more heinous acts. True or false, a home invader that could steal your TV also has the physical capacity to hurt your 6 year old daughter? "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  14. DougH
    The alternative is for people not to break into my home and put me in a position where I must make the reasonable assumption that they are capable of causing serious harm to my loved ones. I have never shot anyone that didn't break into my house. My shot gun has never run a cop style sting where it enticed people the break into my house. Are you seeing the trend here? "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  15. DougH
    I rest my case. You have no case. Stay the fuck out of my house. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  16. DougH
    You are missing the point. It doesn't matter if a person is breaking into your house to assisinate you, or if they were just looking for a TV to fund their crack addiction. They already broke into your house, therefore you can reasonably assume that if they will break into a house, they could also cause a loved one serious harm. Please feel free to great any intruders in your own home with milk and cookies if you are so inclined. I heard crack heads will leave your daughter alone if you give them puppies and sunshine. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  17. DougH
    Yes. If you break into my house I don't care your intent. You are the lowest risk to my loved ones and myself if you are dead. If you don't want a huge hole in your chest don't break into my house. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  18. DougH
    Blame congress not Chase. The new regulations make the business more expensive to the credit card companies. You get to share the expense, regardless of how resposible you were with your use of credit in the past. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  19. DougH
    I understand the mechanics surrounding the EIC rather well. Plenty of the individuals that I prepare no cost tax returns for under the IRS's Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program qualify for the credit. Your apparant lack of concept of a negative number, and a positive number, and the difference between a debit and a credit makes this conversation more than futile. One more time, your or my opinion about the worth, effectiveness, etc of the stimulus, the EIC, or any other tax credit or government assistance measure has no bearing on simple math. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  20. DougH
    Paying poor people to have kids is just about the most idiotic idea ever. Only in government.... You are going to get labeled a Fascist or a Nazi if your not careful. Questioning the logic of government programs, and how they motivate behavior, and incur a net cost or a net benefit overall, is getting awfully close to death camps and mass graves. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  21. DougH
    I am sure the facts will show that they racked up the 18k balance over a fairly long period of time, with multiple credit card companies. I am fairly confident that they were playing with the balance transfer merry go round, and using a period of loose credit to keep utilization artificially low and credit scores high, despite a debt that they couldn't support over time. Most likely the Lane's debt was untenable had they continued to carry the balance with the OC's. This was just the end of the loose credit market gravy train for them. They should have budgeted better and got off at an early station. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  22. DougH
    I am not criticizing others for taking stimulus payments in 2009. I am not criticizing Obama and Congress for giving individuals discounts on their taxes paid in. I am reserving any opinion on government hand outs to individuals who do not contribute to the system and only pull resources out until the following is known: A. What was the overall expense of the hand outs. This would include incurred interest. B. What was the economic benefit of the hand outs. Did it actually help people avoid foreclosures, spur jobs, spur investment in these areas. Did it net savings in other government assistance programs. Did it avoid an increase in police spending that would have resulted if this hadn't been done. Are we to expect any savings to be realized because the hand outs encouraged individuals to act in a more economic manner in the future. Please report back with this data professor. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  23. DougH
    Wrong. We both paid in. I would argue since both of us paid tax in, and the cash is going into a general pool with no earmarks, it makes most sense to look at each tax payer as a individual equation. My tax liability far exceeded the ObushMa money that I received in 2008, and that I expect to receive if any in 2009. Put what ever "spin" on it that you want. If you a receiving money from the IRS that is less than your overall liability is that benifit is effectively a discount. Again, any opinion of worth, reasonableness, fairness, doesn't change the equation. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  24. DougH
    I said nothing about the merit or worth, and my approval or dissaproval of EIC, or other refundable tax credits. Let me try again. At the end of the year you either: A. Contributed more tax revenue to the government, than the payments you received from the goverment. or B. Received more from the government than the tax revenue that you contributed. Once you figure out the simple math, let me know. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P
  25. DougH
    Disagreeing with one distinct method of assistance is the same as supporting strict class divisions? The extreme leap you are making doesn't really support your argument as rationale. Does supporting some methods of government assistance make you a socialist, or a communist? "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P