The Media Shills for User Fees

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:07:05 GMT, ktbr wrote in
:

What has gone ballistic is [sic] entitlements.

Are you able to provide any examples?

I don't know if ktbr can but I'll be happy to. Look at the graph next to the
third paragraph.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021301091.html

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:07:05 GMT, ktbr wrote in
:

What has gone ballistic is [sic] entitlements.

Are you able to provide any examples?

I don't know if ktbr can but I'll be happy to. Look at the graph next to
the third paragraph.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021301091.html
Is there an echo in here?

Matt Barrow wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301091.html
Is there an echo in here?

Great minds and all that...

What has gone ballistic is [sic] entitlements.


Are you able to provide any examples?


I don't know if ktbr can but I'll be happy to. Look at the graph next to
the third paragraph.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021301091.html

Is there an echo in here?

"Beef and pork".

That is, the part of the graph that is growing is the one labled "Social
Security and other payments to individuals". This lumps together a
number of disparate items which are then inappropriately labeled
"entitlements". Social security is something that one pays into, and
one receives benefits based on what one has paid in (and when). It is a
form of insurance, albeit one that has been administered by the
government. One may just as well throw tax refunds into the "payments
to individuals" pot too!

This is different from welfare, which is simply given. Without a
breakdown as to how much each program contributes to this big category,
it is unfair to say that "entitlements have gone ballistic" based on
this graph. The article shows a Social security as the dominant form of
"payments to individuals" Medicare and medicaid =combined= equal this,
and the category "payments to the poor" is about one sixth of the total.

I don't defend the present situation, but one must be careful in the
analysis.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

Social security is something that one pays into, and
one receives benefits based on what one has paid in (and when).

If only it was. ..

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:59:03 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/35souz

http://preview.tinyurl.com/34p9ap

Huh. No mention of av-gas taxes in either of these articles, nor any
comment on what money-losers other transportation facilities like roads
are.

Am familiar with a local corporate flight department. They operated 2
mid-size bizjets what the NBAA considers to be the "average" number of
flight hours last year.

They paid around $65,000 in FET on fuel last year. For the airlines,
burning the same number of gallons would be around $12,000 in FET.

The really neat factoid is that over half of the $66K was "spent" at
the local FBO, which chooses NOT to file as an "aviation end user" or
whatever they call it. The way I understand the law (as of October
2005 ?) means that $30K or so in FET went into the federal highway
fund.

TC

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:45:13 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:07:05 GMT, ktbr wrote in
:

What has gone ballistic is [sic] entitlements.

Are you able to provide any examples?

I don't know if ktbr can but I'll be happy to. Look at the graph next to the
third paragraph.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021301091.html


I hope you're not suggesting that Social Security payments should be
slashed to provide more money for the military.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

I hope you're not suggesting that Social Security payments should be
slashed to provide more money for the military.

I hope you're not suggesting that as the only means of funding the military.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:45:13 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:07:05 GMT, ktbr wrote
in :

What has gone ballistic is [sic] entitlements.

Are you able to provide any examples?

I don't know if ktbr can but I'll be happy to. Look at the graph
next to the third paragraph.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301091.html


I hope you're not suggesting that Social Security payments should be
slashed to provide more money for the military.

I didn't suggest anything of the sort. Though, I wouldn't mind having my
share of the $199billion that the poor think they are entitled to back in my
bank account.

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:38:53 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote in
:


I hope you're not suggesting that as the only means of funding the military.

You didn't view the chart.