Am 10.05.22 um 19:01 schrieb Chris:
> On 08/05/2022 15:52, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> We are discussing tracking and movement profiling of hardware pieces
>> that are on the move. As the topic suggests. Relatively useless with
>> stationary equipment. We are not discussing tracking in the cyber space.
>
> Your location when you're using a desktop computer is also useful
> tracking information.

Not in the context what is discussed in this thread.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Chris wrote:

> How about you back up your suspicion that 80% of tax spending is wasted?

Do you know anything about the Long Island Railroad retirement scandals?

Chris wrote:

>> The problem, as I see it, is the huge waste in government.
>> If 20% of your money goes to what your words state, I'd be surprised.
>
> Given all the state/federal budgets are public record it's easy to find
> out how wrong you are.

Where's the oversight in government spending?

When they want more money, all they do is raise taxes, right?

If every time they ask to raise taxes, we agree, then the question is...
*Where's the incentive for the government to be anywhere near efficient?*

Chris wrote:

> It's notable how neither you nor badgolferman are able to even try to
> evidence how the CDC's actions are "unreasonable" or an "abuse of power".

Is that a joke?
When you say things that dumb - I have to lower my assessment of your IQ.

Surely you're not _that_ stupid, are you?
Seriously.

Badgolferman and I provided _many_ articles together that said so.
Are you really _that_ incapable of clicking on a link & reading it Chris?
--
The inability to think at the adult level is what distuishes iKooks.

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2022 18:16:02 +1000, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 May 2022 17:03:01 +1000, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> sms wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, not at all. I just know that if you give money to the
>>>>>> government(s) they will waste it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly. The government will spend it on silly things like defense,
>>>>> roads, bridges, schools, police, Medicare, Social Security, parks,
>>>>> research, airports, Reagan's USF (universal service fund) to provide
>>>>> phone service for poor people, etc..
>>>>>
>>>>> Corporations will spend that money that used to pay for things that
>>>>> are
>>>>> much more sensible, like stock buy-backs to drive up the value of
>>>>> shares.
>>>>
>>>> It would be interesting to find out the exact percentage of gov waste.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect it's well over 80% of the money is wasted outright (e.g.,
>>>> some
>>>> pension plans like that of San Jose or the LIRR are downright
>>>> criminal).
>>>
>>> LOL. You're confusing fact with opinion again. What most people call
>>> government waste is actually a political opinion disagreeing *what* the
>>> government chooses to spend on.
>>>
>>> It's exacerbated by such a polarised society as the US where states
>>> spend
>>> so much time and money trying to counteract the federal government for
>>> purely ideological reasons.
>>>
>>>> There is only one way to reliably stop government waste, which is, oh,
>>>> I
>>>> don't know, five times that of corporate waste (it's huge whatever it
>>>> is),
>>>> which is to not give government the money in the first place, IMHO.
>>>>
>>>> Taxes will never stop rising, even when they're well over 100% of your
>>>> income (as they are for mine).
>>>
>>> Either you're doing it wrong or your declared income is incredibly low.
>>
>> Not possible even if his income is increadibly low unless he
>> didn't put aside enough to pay the taxes on his income when
>> it was high and it is now very low say due to covid etc.
>
> Or with substantial property taxes and fuck all income.

Like I said it's declared income that matters. If he's not declaring a
whole bunch revenue as income then it is possible that his tax will higher
than income.

I can imagine some high net worth individuals who are paid a low monetary
salary, but huge amount in stock options or some other form of payment like
pension contributions could up with a high tax/income ratio.

For the typical person it's impossible to pay more than 100% of your income
in tax.

On 5/8/2022 1:36 PM, Jock wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2022 23:21:43 +1000, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>
>> Am 08.05.22 um 12:38 schrieb badgolferman:
>>> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>>> Am 08.05.22 um 09:36 schrieb Chris:
>>>>> I don't click random yt links. What does it show? Or what point are
>>>>> you
>>>>> wanting to make.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is your concern about Youtube-inks?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can read faster than I can watch a video.
>>
>> That is a total illusion.
>
> No.
>
>> Using ears and eyes together you can at least
>> process ten times as much information.
>
> The problem is that when someone is saying something on
> youtube, you can read what they are saying much faster.

And miss all of John Oliver's nuance.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 05/08/2022 10:21 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-08 10:11 p.m., The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/08/2022 09:25 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-08 6:45 p.m., Jock wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 09 May 2022 07:14:18 +1000, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-08 1:48 p.m., Jock wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 09 May 2022 06:10:11 +1000, Mayayana
>>>>>>>>>> <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> | The CDC falls under the Executive Branch. It is the
>>>>>>>>>>> constitutional
>>>>>>>>>>> duty of
>>>>>>>>>>> | the Executive Branch to enforce laws created by the
>>>>>>>>>>> Legislative
>>>>>>>>>>> Branch. In
>>>>>>>>>>> | this case we have an Executive Branch federal agency
>>>>>>>>>>> purposely
>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring
>>>>>>>>>>> | existing laws and regarding privacy and buying tracking data
>>>>>>>>>>> from a
>>>>>>>>>>> private
>>>>>>>>>>> | business. Doesn’t this sound like a government agency using
>>>>>>>>>>> unfettered
>>>>>>>>>>> | power to skirt the law? You keep trying to pass this off as a
>>>>>>>>>>> problem with
>>>>>>>>>>> | business but it is really a problem with the government
>>>>>>>>>>> abusing
>>>>>>>>>>> its power.
>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's both. Government has no interest in you having privacy.
>>>>>>>>>>> Business wants to spy to make money. Law enforcement wants
>>>>>>>>>>> as much data as possible. Most citizens either don't care,
>>>>>>>>>>> don't understand, or regard the spying as a service to help
>>>>>>>>>>> them shop. Only common decency favors privacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The NSA has deals with all the major operators. Google
>>>>>>>>>>> sells location data the the government for thousands
>>>>>>>>>>> of people at a time. ("geofencing") On top of all that, the
>>>>>>>>>>> companies get paid for sharing, with your tax dollars!
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know of any law they're skirting. Those laws need
>>>>>>>>>>> to be created, as Europe is gradually doing. But Europe mainly
>>>>>>>>>>> serves the well being of the citizenry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The US mainly serves
>>>>>>>>>>> big business.
>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit with welfare alone.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not bullshit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fraid so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You really want to look at the numbers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And when that is done, even you would notice that the
>>>>>>>> US spends FAR more on welfare than on big business.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not when you factor in how little they collect in taxes from big
>>>>>>> business.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Business doesn't pay taxes, their customers -- YOU -- do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, this is such bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you actually advocating no taxes on ANY business?
>>>>
>>>> I haven't actually thought about it. But since ALL taxes are passed
>>>> on
>>>> to their customers, a case might be made for just that.
>>>
>>> So you're happy for a handful of individuals to hoard the majority of
>>> US
>>> personal wealth?

>> That hasn't happened. The absolutely vast bulk of
>> wealth is in fact in pension funds and mutual funds

> Pensions don't have a personal wealth...

That is part of the wealth of the individuals, stupid.

>> owed by almost everyone except those whoseentire income is welfare
>> handouts and illegals.

>> And yes, I am happy that those who have come up
>> with something most want to buy or use, end up
>> with vast amounts of personal wealth, because
>> that encourages others to attempt the same sort
>> of outcome, which benefits almost all of us.

> Billionaires only benefit themselves.

More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit with
all of Musk, Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos etc etc etc.

> They could pay their staff a proper wage

They do.

> without noticing a difference in their wealth, but they don't.

More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit.

Gates produced lots of millionaires in his staff.

> Amazon staff are some of the worst paid and treated in the world.

Complete and utter mindless pig ignorant bullshit, your trademark.

>>> That money comes from your pocket. Nowhere else.

>> Wrong, as always. The absolute vast bulk of the personal
>> wealth of the stinking rich does in fact come from the
>> massive hike in the stock price, not from what we have
>> paid for their products or services.

> Fair.

>>> It benefits no-one.

>> More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit.
>> It benefits those who find the products or services
>> useful and with plenty of those you don't even have
>> to pay for the services they provide, most obviously
>> with facebook, twitter and countless other free services.

> Has this thread not taught you anything?

That shit it mindless pig ignorant shit.

> They aren't free.

Corse they are.

> You're paying with your data.

You are free to give them NONE of your data
and just use the services they provide for FREE.

>> And plenty like Gates use lots of their wealth to fund all
>> sorts of ventures which mostly do benefit lots of people.

> Philanthropy doesn't work.

More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit.

> With exception of Gates the super wealthyare only interested in pet
> projects

More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit even
with just the museums some have provided.

> or being able to emblazon their names all over a hospital or university.

Still produces something useful that many can use, fuckwit.

> It makes them feel like they're making a difference. THey're not.

More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit.

>>>> Multiple taxes applied to the same money seem inherently unfair.

>>> Nonsense. Taxes are charged on transactions not money.

>> Wrong, as always, with income tax, capital gains, death dutys etc etc
>> etc.

> Those are all transactions...

Bullshit they are.

On Wed, 11 May 2022 03:01:19 +1000, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 08/05/2022 15:52, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 08.05.22 um 16:36 schrieb Chris:
>>> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>>> Am 08.05.22 um 13:03 schrieb Chris:
>>>>> Sharing yt links is also a little ironic given the topic of this
>>>>> thread.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. But the solution is simple: Watch it on your stationary
>>>> equipment ...
>>>
>>> How does that change anything? Stationary equipment can also be
>>> tracked.
>> We are discussing tracking and movement profiling of hardware pieces
>> that are on the move. As the topic suggests. Relatively useless with
>> stationary equipment. We are not discussing tracking in the cyber space.
>
> Your location when you're using a desktop computer is also useful
> tracking information.

Bullshit it is and no one gets any useful location information about where
mine is.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>> sms wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, not at all. I just know that if you give money to the
>>>>>>> government(s) they will waste it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly. The government will spend it on silly things like defense,
>>>>>> roads, bridges, schools, police, Medicare, Social Security, parks,
>>>>>> research, airports, Reagan's USF (universal service fund) to provide
>>>>>> phone service for poor people, etc..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Corporations will spend that money that used to pay for things that
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> much more sensible, like stock buy-backs to drive up the value of
>>>>>> shares.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be interesting to find out the exact percentage of gov
>>>>> waste.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect it's well over 80% of the money is wasted outright (e.g.,
>>>>> some
>>>>> pension plans like that of San Jose or the LIRR are downright
>>>>> criminal).
>>>>
>>>> LOL. You're confusing fact with opinion again. What most people call
>>>> government waste is actually a political opinion disagreeing *what*
>>>> the
>>>> government chooses to spend on.
>>>>
>>>> It's exacerbated by such a polarised society as the US where states
>>>> spend
>>>> so much time and money trying to counteract the federal government for
>>>> purely ideological reasons.
>>>>
>>>>> There is only one way to reliably stop government waste, which is,
>>>>> oh,
>>>>> I
>>>>> don't know, five times that of corporate waste (it's huge whatever it
>>>>> is),
>>>>> which is to not give government the money in the first place, IMHO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Taxes will never stop rising, even when they're well over 100% of
>>>>> your
>>>>> income (as they are for mine).
>>>>
>>>> Either you're doing it wrong or your declared income is incredibly
>>>> low.
>>>
>>> Not possible even if his income is increadibly low unless he
>>> didn't put aside enough to pay the taxes on his income when
>>> it was high and it is now very low say due to covid etc.
>>
>> Or with substantial property taxes and fuck all income.

> Like I said

Pig ignorantly as always with your mindless shit.

> it's declared income that matters.

It is actually the real income that matters with his claim.

> If he's not declaring a
> whole bunch revenue as income then it is possible that his tax will
> higher
> than income.

And if he is declaring all his income, he can still be paying
more in taxes than his real income, as I proved.

> I can imagine some high net worth individuals who are paid a low monetary
> salary, but huge amount in stock options or some other form of payment
> like
> pension contributions could up with a high tax/income ratio.

In spades with very low net worth income individuals who
do own their own house who have fuck all real income.

> For the typical person it's impossible to pay more than 100% of your
> income
> in tax.

Wrong as always when you are paying property taxes and have very little
real income.

On Wed, 11 May 2022 05:25:44 +1000, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/8/2022 1:36 PM, Jock wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 May 2022 23:21:43 +1000, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 08.05.22 um 12:38 schrieb badgolferman:
>>>> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>>>> Am 08.05.22 um 09:36 schrieb Chris:
>>>>>> I don't click random yt links. What does it show? Or what point are
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> wanting to make.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is your concern about Youtube-inks?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can read faster than I can watch a video.
>>>
>>> That is a total illusion.
>> No.
>>
>>> Using ears and eyes together you can at least
>>> process ten times as much information.
>> The problem is that when someone is saying something on
>> youtube, you can read what they are saying much faster.
>
> And miss all of John Oliver's nuance.

More of your mindless bullshit.

Chris wrote:

> For the typical person it's impossible to pay more than 100% of your income
> in tax.

Taxes are easily more than 100% of your income for retired people.

What if your house costs a thousand dollar a month in property taxes
(which, trust me, isn't even high where I live... ask Steve on that)?

Now your income has to be at least a thousand dollars just to offset that,
right (let's not get into deductions just yet as they're limited anyway).

Now, let's say you buy a $60K car (again, these aren't even high numbers),
so now your sales tax on that one purchase alone is another $500 a month.

Assuming income is, like mine, at the poverty level (which, in California,
is still pretty high by other standards), your income tax rate isn't going
to be high, and it's stepped, so for most people just the Federal rate will
be well over 20% even on a poverty level of income for California.

Likewise your state income tax will add about 3% more to that taxation
figure (these are rough numbers assuming a poverty level of income).

Ignoring the outrageous vehicle registration fee in California, the
additional yearly property tax (VLF) on each car adds another 0.65% of the
purchase price, which let's just call 1% since you likely have at least two
cars of varying values so that's another tax to consider.

In the end, your income is at the poverty level but your taxation is more
than your income. It's common. Just do the math for a retired person.

HINT: Social security, were I to collect it, is only a couple thousand a
month, which almost completely goes to paying for your taxes.

Taxes are easily more than 100% of your income for retired people.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>> The problem, as I see it, is the huge waste in government.
>>> If 20% of your money goes to what your words state, I'd be surprised.
>>
>> Given all the state/federal budgets are public record it's easy to find
>> out how wrong you are.
>
> Where's the oversight in government spending?
>
> When they want more money, all they do is raise taxes, right?
>
> If every time they ask to raise taxes, we agree, then the question is...
> *Where's the incentive for the government to be anywhere near efficient?*

You're simply speculating wildly. Show some numbers. If it's as bad as 80%
it should be easy.

Chris wrote:

> You're simply speculating wildly. Show some numbers. If it's as bad as 80%
> it should be easy.

And what are _you_ doing?

Did you look up the Long Island Railroad Retirement Disability Benefits
yet?

HINT: Something like 98% of all retired employees participated in that
scam.

There's no oversight, Chris.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> It's notable how neither you nor badgolferman are able to even try to
>> evidence how the CDC's actions are "unreasonable" or an "abuse of power".
>
> Is that a joke?

You're not even trying to address my point. I get it. You don't know.

> When you say things that dumb - I have to lower my assessment of your IQ.
>
> Surely you're not _that_ stupid, are you?
> Seriously.
>
> Badgolferman and I provided _many_ articles together that said so.

I want to know what *you* believe is the issue with the CDC doing
pandemic-related research. Not hand-wavey references to the 4th amendment.
Not links to different stories with other people's opinions. What is it
exactly you think the CDC did that was a violation?

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> How about you back up your suspicion that 80% of tax spending is wasted?
>
> Do you know anything about the Long Island Railroad retirement scandals?

Nope.

I am aware of Enron, Madoff, Ponzi, Worldcom, Lehemen Bros et al. Don't you
think they cost the country a hell of a lot of money (and worse)? Then
there's all the ones who never get caught. Trump is one of many.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> You're simply speculating wildly. Show some numbers. If it's as bad as 80%
>> it should be easy.
>
> And what are _you_ doing?
>
> Did you look up the Long Island Railroad Retirement Disability Benefits
> yet?
>
> HINT: Something like 98% of all retired employees participated in that
> scam.
>
> There's no oversight, Chris.
>

Who watches the watchers?

Chris wrote:

>>> It's notable how neither you nor badgolferman are able to even try to
>>> evidence how the CDC's actions are "unreasonable" or an "abuse of power".
>>
>> Is that a joke?
>
> You're not even trying to address my point. I get it. You don't know.

That response is from an idiot, Chris.
C'mon. Click on the freaking links that both badgolferman & I provided.
Hell, I even _summarized_ the damn things for you, Chris.

I have to shake my head whenever you post this idiotic crap, Chris.
We gave you more than you could ever hope for by way of explanation.

And yet, you're too stupid to even _see_ that they exist.
Jesus Christ, Chris.
You're a fucking moron.

Seriously.
Go play with the other morons in your kindergarten class.

>> When you say things that dumb - I have to lower my assessment of your IQ.
>>
>> Surely you're not _that_ stupid, are you?
>> Seriously.
>>
>> Badgolferman and I provided _many_ articles together that said so.
>
> I want to know what *you* believe is the issue with the CDC doing
> pandemic-related research. Not hand-wavey references to the 4th amendment.
> Not links to different stories with other people's opinions. What is it
> exactly you think the CDC did that was a violation?

Jesus Christ Chris.
How fuckin' _stupid_ can you possibly be?

Seriously.

The issue has _nothing_ to do with _why_ the government spied on us.
The only thing you need to know is we weren't accused of a crime.

The fact you don't get this, after what.... scores of explanations, just
means you're a moron who can't possibly understand _any_ adult point of
view.

The government has no right to spy on us, Chris.
It doesn't matter why (as long as we're not accused of a crime).

Why can't you comprehend something that fucking simple Chris?
Only to people like Steve does it matter _why_ the government broke the
laws because to Steve, the government can break teh laws all they want as
long as the end justifies the means.

Which is _why_ the laws exist, Chris.
Steve doesn't know that because Steve is as dumb as you are.

But badgolferman knows this.
Hell, even nospam, with his below-par 80 IQ knows this.

It's just you fuckin' morons who don't know the simplest things.
You're too stupid for me to even discuss this with, Chris.

This isn't a difficult concept.
Except to a kindergarten kid.
--
A moron can't see what every logical adult instantly sees.

Chris wrote:

>>> How about you back up your suspicion that 80% of tax spending is wasted?
>>
>> Do you know anything about the Long Island Railroad retirement scandals?
>
> Nope.
>
> I am aware of Enron, Madoff, Ponzi, Worldcom, Lehemen Bros et al. Don't you
> think they cost the country a hell of a lot of money (and worse)? Then
> there's all the ones who never get caught. Trump is one of many.

My point is there is no oversight in government.

When they need more money, they just raise taxes.

The LIRR scam is just _one_ of many.

Do you know about the San Jose Police Department retirements benefits scam?
I'm sure Steve does.

When there is no oversight, money is wasted left and right.
This isn't a hard concept for an adult to understand, Chris.
--
It's only kindergarten kids that can't fathom a concept that simple.

badgolferman wrote:

>> There's no oversight, Chris.
>>
>
> Who watches the watchers?

We only hear about the ones that get caught... of course...

I think it's the FBI and the NY Attorney General's office.
"For nearly three years, the FBI, the New York Attorney General's
office and the MTA's Inspector General have been looking into how
and why a disability pension was awarded to nearly every
LIRR employee who requested one. "

The LIRR is the most dangerous job in the world to _retire_ from!
*Almost 100% of the employees got hurt _after_ they retired!*

And they were able to 'prove' it using LIRR-provided doctors.
What a scam.

Basically, virtually every employee became disabled _after_
they retired, where everything was planned ahead that they
could pick their own (crooked) doctors to certify they
were disabled (when none of them were, of course).

Random hits...
*Investigators probe how and why a disability pension was awarded*
*to nearly every LIRR employee who asked for one*
<https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/fbi-arrest-corruption-long-island-rail-road-pension-scandal-taxpayer/1931848/>

*Twenty-Third Defendant Pleads Guilty In LIRR Disability Fraud Scheme*
<https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/twenty-third-defendant-pleads-guilty-lirr-disability-fraud-scheme>

*Long Island Railroad Workers Scam $1 Billion in Disability Benefits*
<https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/long-island-railroad-workers-scam-1-billion-in-disability-benefits>

*Fighting Disability Fraud: How the Long Island Railroad Could Be a Model for All Employers, USLAW Magazine*
<https://www.goldbergsegalla.com/news-and-knowledge/knowledge/fighting-disability-fraud-how-the-long-island-railroad-could-be-a-model-for-all-employers-uslaw-magazine>

*Arrests Made In Alleged $1 Billion Disability Scheme On Long Island*
<https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/10/27/141763550/arrests-made-in-alleged-1-billion-disability-scheme-on-long-island>

On 05/09/2022 11:20 PM, Chris wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 05/08/2022 10:21 PM, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-08 10:11 p.m., The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> On 05/08/2022 09:25 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-08 6:45 p.m., Jock wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 09 May 2022 07:14:18 +1000, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-08 1:48 p.m., Jock wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 09 May 2022 06:10:11 +1000, Mayayana
>>>>>>>> <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> | The CDC falls under the Executive Branch. It is the constitutional
>>>>>>>>> duty of
>>>>>>>>> | the Executive Branch to enforce laws created by the Legislative
>>>>>>>>> Branch. In
>>>>>>>>> | this case we have an Executive Branch federal agency purposely
>>>>>>>>> ignoring
>>>>>>>>> | existing laws and regarding privacy and buying tracking data from a
>>>>>>>>> private
>>>>>>>>> | business. Doesn’t this sound like a government agency using
>>>>>>>>> unfettered
>>>>>>>>> | power to skirt the law? You keep trying to pass this off as a
>>>>>>>>> problem with
>>>>>>>>> | business but it is really a problem with the government abusing
>>>>>>>>> its power.
>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's both. Government has no interest in you having privacy.
>>>>>>>>> Business wants to spy to make money. Law enforcement wants
>>>>>>>>> as much data as possible. Most citizens either don't care,
>>>>>>>>> don't understand, or regard the spying as a service to help
>>>>>>>>> them shop. Only common decency favors privacy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The NSA has deals with all the major operators. Google
>>>>>>>>> sells location data the the government for thousands
>>>>>>>>> of people at a time. ("geofencing") On top of all that, the
>>>>>>>>> companies get paid for sharing, with your tax dollars!
>>>>>>>>> I don't know of any law they're skirting. Those laws need
>>>>>>>>> to be created, as Europe is gradually doing. But Europe mainly
>>>>>>>>> serves the well being of the citizenry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The US mainly serves
>>>>>>>>> big business.
>>>>>>>> That's bullshit with welfare alone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fraid so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You really want to look at the numbers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And when that is done, even you would notice that the
>>>>>> US spends FAR more on welfare than on big business.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not when you factor in how little they collect in taxes from big
>>>>> business.
>>>>
>>>> Business doesn't pay taxes, their customers -- YOU -- do.
>>>
>>> Oh, this is such bullshit.
>>>
>>> Are you actually advocating no taxes on ANY business?
>>
>> I haven't actually thought about it. But since ALL taxes are passed on
>> to their customers, a case might be made for just that.
>
> So you're happy for a handful of individuals to hoard the majority of US
> personal wealth? That money comes from your pocket. Nowhere else. It
> benefits no-one. Not even them as they've no hope of spending it within
> their lifetimes.
> https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/

As far as I know none of it comes out of my pocket. I have a used copy
of windows 7 that I put on a used Dell computer and a used laptop with
winsows 10. I don't own -- and wouldn't accept as a gift -- a Tesla or
iThing. Facebook and google cost me nothing. I did buy a Pixel phone,
but it was used and cheap. I don't twitter. If I buy something through
Amazon it's because it's cheaper than buying locally. Sometimes easier,
since 'local' might be several gallons of gas away.

We have indeed bought Nvidia boards and would do so again.

Why should I resent the fact that other people got rich supplying these
things? I resent politicians taking my money and giving me NOTHING in
return a lot more.

> Even if taxes were directly passed on, which they're not, the effect on
> individual customers is negligible, but could release billions back into
> the economy.
>
>> Businesses are taxed on profits. The profits are distributed as
>> dividends,
>
> Not always. Profits are distributed as bonuses to staff

Those are costs, then. Just like ordinary salaries.

> and also hoarded by
> the company as a cash pile. Apple for example has more cash reserves than
> the GDP of most countries.

So what?

> https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/02/apples-cash-hoard-is-147-billion_n_4028576.html
>
>> Multiple taxes applied to the same money seem inherently unfair.
>
> Nonsense. Taxes are charged on transactions not money.

This is an opinion on what should be taxed. Like assholes, we all have one.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Many realize that the control of language is power. If you can't speak
your mind, your opinions have no weight." --nightfire-unique

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>>> How about you back up your suspicion that 80% of tax spending is wasted?
>>>
>>> Do you know anything about the Long Island Railroad retirement scandals?
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> I am aware of Enron, Madoff, Ponzi, Worldcom, Lehemen Bros et al. Don't you
>> think they cost the country a hell of a lot of money (and worse)? Then
>> there's all the ones who never get caught. Trump is one of many.
>
> My point is there is no oversight in government.

No. Your point was that 80% government spending is wasted. You've yet to
prove your point. I take it you can't.

> When they need more money, they just raise taxes.
>
> The LIRR scam is just _one_ of many.
>
> Do you know about the San Jose Police Department retirements benefits scam?
> I'm sure Steve does.
>
> When there is no oversight, money is wasted left and right.
> This isn't a hard concept for an adult to understand, Chris.

But you've not shown it be a systematic problem. Yes all governments have
had problems, but so has business. In far more damaging ways. Just look at
the 2008 financial crisis: 100% caused by business. It ruined the lives
across the world for nearly a decade.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> You're simply speculating wildly. Show some numbers. If it's as bad as 80%
>> it should be easy.
>
> And what are _you_ doing?

You're the one making the claim. Back it up.

> Did you look up the Long Island Railroad Retirement Disability Benefits
> yet?

Why is it the government's fault that people committed fraud against it?

> HINT: Something like 98% of all retired employees participated in that
> scam.

LOL

> There's no oversight, Chris.

What you're asking for is a larger government, but people like you and
about 50% of the US population want the opposite.

Small government also means no oversight of business so it's a lose-lose
situation for individuals across the board. Naked capitalism only benefits
the few who wield influence and power.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why should I resent the fact that other people got rich supplying these
> things?

There's rich and then there's so obscenely wealthy that makes the economy
dysfunctional. They are even asking to be taxed more.
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/rich-people-want-higher-taxes-200922076.html

> I resent politicians taking my money and giving me NOTHING in
> return a lot more.

Look out your window. Do you see roads? Is the area clear of rubbish? Is it
safe to go out at night? If yes then that's thanks to your taxes.

>> Even if taxes were directly passed on, which they're not, the effect on
>> individual customers is negligible, but could release billions back into
>> the economy.
>>
>>> Businesses are taxed on profits. The profits are distributed as
>>> dividends,
>>
>> Not always. Profits are distributed as bonuses to staff
>
> Those are costs, then. Just like ordinary salaries.
>
>> and also hoarded by
>> the company as a cash pile. Apple for example has more cash reserves than
>> the GDP of most countries.
>
> So what?

It unbalances the economy.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote

>> Why should I resent the fact that other people got rich supplying
>> these things?

> There's rich and then there's so obscenely wealthy that makes the economy
> dysfunctional.

Thats more mindless bullshit. They did in fact provide
goods and services that make the economy vastly better.

> They are even asking to be taxed more.
> https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/rich-people-want-higher-taxes-200922076.html

Fuck all are.

>> I resent politicians taking my money and giving me NOTHING in
>> return a lot more.

> Look out your window. Do you see roads? Is the area clear of rubbish? Is
> it safe to go out at night? If yes then that's thanks to your taxes.

>>> Even if taxes were directly passed on, which they're not, the effect on
>>> individual customers is negligible, but could release billions back
>>> into the economy.

>>>> Businesses are taxed on profits. The profits are distributed as
>>>> dividends,
>>>
>>> Not always. Profits are distributed as bonuses to staff
>>
>> Those are costs, then. Just like ordinary salaries.
>>
>>> and also hoarded by
>>> the company as a cash pile. Apple for example has more cash reserves
>>> than
>>> the GDP of most countries.
>>
>> So what?

> It unbalances the economy.

Bullshit it does.

On 11/05/2022 00:24, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>>> It's notable how neither you nor badgolferman are able to even try
>>>> to evidence how the CDC's actions are "unreasonable" or an "abuse of
>>>> power".
>>>
>>> Is that a joke?
>>
>> You're not even trying to address my point. I get it. You don't know.
>
> That response is from an idiot, Chris.

Still not addressing my point. Ad hominems are a clear admission that
you don't have an argument.

>> I want to know what *you* believe is the issue with the CDC doing
>> pandemic-related research. Not hand-wavey references to the 4th
>> amendment.
>> Not links to different stories with other people's opinions. What is it
>> exactly you think the CDC did that was a violation?
>
> Jesus Christ Chris.
> How fuckin' _stupid_ can you possibly be?
>
> Seriously.
>
> The issue has _nothing_ to do with _why_ the government spied on us.

They didn't.

> The only thing you need to know is we weren't accused of a crime.

Strawman. This wasn't a law enforcement exercise.

> The fact you don't get this, after what.... scores of explanations,

Links to articles are not explanations. Everything else you've provided
is either vague rhetoric, opinions or whataboutisms. None have been
explanations. For someone so enamoured with facts you've been devoid of
them in this thread.

> The government has no right to spy on us, Chris.

Correct. And they haven't here. All they've done is used information
readily available commercially and freely provided by individuals. I ask
again where's the issue? What did they do wrong?

Are you saying the CDC shouldn't be doing pandemic-related research as
per their very clear remit?

Now the fact that that kind of data is so readily available, as well
explained by John Oliver, is a real concern, but that's a separate issue.

> It doesn't matter why (as long as we're not accused of a crime).
>
> Why can't you comprehend something that fucking simple Chris?
> Only to people like Steve does it matter _why_ the government broke the
> laws because to Steve, the government can break teh laws all they want as
> long as the end justifies the means.
>
> Which is _why_ the laws exist, Chris.

Specifically which laws are you referring to?