page 2

I've been waiting for a long time to set 'em up. I don't know whether to be happy or ashamed.

[Edited on November 16, 2006 at 6:30 PM. Reason : blah]

11/16/2006 6:29:11 PM

We covered that already: people do not need food stamps. People did not starve to death before food stamps and they damn sure are not going to starve to death today when the real price of food is 1/20th what it was.

For example, from 1980 to 2006 (the data I have available) the average price of a lb of white bread went from $0.50 to $1.10. Meanwhile, the average hourly wage went from $2.50 to $16.91. So, in 1980 earning the prevalent wage you needed to work 12 minutes to afford a lb of bread, in 2006 you need to work 3.9 minutes.

Today, if you rake one family's yard you can feed your kids for a week. The same could not be said in 1964, when the food stamp act was passed.

11/16/2006 6:31:19 PM

the average hourly wage in 1980 was 2.50???

also saying that the average hourly wage now is $16.91 also includes people like bill gates who makes $100000000000000 dollars an hour.

im not trying to say your wrong or anything but im just questioning those facts. Also raking a familys yard will not feed your kids for a week. I worked at a the record exchange and I made $5.40 an hour and I worked about 30 hours a week. No way I would be able to pay rent and feed multiple kids even if i worked 40 hours a week. My kids would be unhealthy from eating fast food and there would be no health care. Im not saying food stamps are need at all but you live in lala land.

11/16/2006 6:40:59 PM

just found this

Average Hourly Wages (Total private industry, 1982 dollars)

Year Wage
1947 $4.88
1948 4.90
1949 5.14
1950 5.34
1951 5.39
1952 5.51
1953 5.79
1954 5.91
1955 6.15
1956 6.38
1957 6.47
1958 6.50
1959 6.69
1960 6.79
1961 6.88
1962 7.07
1963 7.17
1964 7.33
1965 7.52
1966 7.62
1967 7.72
1968 7.89
1969 7.98
1970 8.03
1971 8.21
1972 8.53
1973 8.55
1974 8.28
1975 8.12
1976 8.24
1977 8.36
1978 8.40
1979 8.17
1980 7.78
1981 7.69
1982 7.68
1983 7.79
1984 7.80
1985 7.77
1986 7.81
1987 7.73
1988 7.69
1989 7.64
1990 7.52
1991 7.45
1992 7.41
1993 7.39
1994 7.40
1995 7.40

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Series ID: eeu00500049

11/16/2006 6:42:07 PM

i haven't crunched the numbers, but i suspect that you're right.


that said, food stamps (and even welfare in general) are very low on the list of dumbass fiscal programs that I hate. They're more of a perennial whipping boy than a real priority problem.

Social Security is probably the biggest offender, followed by capital gains and then estate taxes, and then the steeply increasing progressive income tax brackets.

The amount of money I pay in taxes to support welfare (to include food stamps) is comparatively small. Furthermore, I don't begrudge helping the truly destitute, up until the point that they are capable of doing better for themselves and just aren't trying (for example, a large percentage of the people on welfare are poor single mothers).

What I hate is the bullshit Robin Hood approach of taking from me to ease the load on Joe Blow, when I busted my ass in school, went to college and busted my ass there getting a mechanical engineering degree, busted my ass to become an officer in the Marine Corps, am busting my ass to become a military aviator. I'm working 70 hours per week at a fairly high-pressure job at which I could get fucking KILLED, and saving/investing 25% of my pay so that someday I will be wealthy...and my wallet is getting raided so that some dude who's lollygagging through life, working banker's hours, buying whatever he wants and not saving shit will have an easier time? Fuck that.

[Edited on November 16, 2006 at 6:49 PM. Reason : asdfas]

11/16/2006 6:46:51 PM

Quote :

"My kids would be unhealthy from eating fast food"

Which is luxury food. Look, today we think McDonalds is cheap food, but 50 years ago people rarely ate out anywhere, and McDonalds is still eating out. When I said "feed your kids for a week" I mean: 1 loaf of bread, $1. 1 pack of bologna, $2. 1 pack of cheese, $2. Mustard, $1. a total of $6 times number of people. We are serving beans and rice next week.

Quote :

"Average Hourly Wages (Total private industry, 1982 dollars)"

The crux of your figures is "1982 dollars", my figures were not adjusted for inflation. But you are right, I did make a boo-boo. I used the figure from 1964, my target year because that was the year the act passed. It was really $6.56 an hour in 1980 which severely hurts my case on this subject. In 1980 you needed to work 4.57 minutes for a lb of bread, in 2004 you needed to work 3.66 minutes, a reduction of only 20%. Not very impressive I admit; probably would have been better if I managed to find bread prices from an earlier year.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=ap
http://www.bls.gov/home.htm

Quote :

"also saying that the average hourly wage now is $16.91 also includes people like bill gates who makes $100000000000000 dollars an hour."

And there were people making $100000000000000 dollars an hour in 1980 as well. I refer you to the CEOs of Atari, IBM, Exxon, and GE.

[Edited on November 16, 2006 at 10:27 PM. Reason : .,.]

11/16/2006 10:23:40 PM

Quote :

"The fact is, there is no such person that would starve to death if the government did not feed them. We provide food stamps to make it easier to feed them well, not to guarantee basic survival, which any half competent person over the age of 6 can manage on their own."

I've already explained this to you, the reason for food stamps is so that children can be provided with decent meals.

Quote :

"As I've said, society has never failed in the way you are thinking. In 200 years of history free people do not starve to death under any known circumstances."

You're completely missing the point. Just stop thinking about the word starved so literally.

Quote :

"my figures were not adjusted for inflation"

Ah, so then your numbers were completely meaningless.

11/16/2006 10:28:48 PM

Quote :

"Just stop thinking about the word starved so literally."

Well, that's the proper sense when you're talking about you know...programs to feed the starving.

I suppose starving should mean "basic cable"?

Also, I'm not so sure that those hourly wage rates include Bill Gates. First, the majority of his wealth isn't realized in income, its from stock ownership. Second, I'm not sure salaried employees are even included in that number. Does it or does it only include those paid hourly?

11/16/2006 10:36:21 PM

Quote :

"Well, that's the proper sense when you're talking about you know...programs to feed the starving."

The word came up when someone compared poor people to fish.

11/16/2006 10:47:32 PM

Quote :

"Ah, so then your numbers were completely meaningless."

Ah, no, had I used wage data that was adjusted for inflation then the results would have been meaningless because the bread price data was obviously not inflation adjusted.

Quote :

"I've already explained this to you, the reason for food stamps is so that children can be provided with decent meals."

Right, so stop using phrases such as "keeping them alive" and "basic food supply" when you admit that without these programs they are already guaranteed to be kept alive with a basic food supply, and probably a healthy one at that. As such, all the food stamp program does is guarantee a more than completely healthy diet (making sure everyone in America has the opportunity to over-eat).

11/16/2006 10:48:35 PM

Quote :

"Ah, no, had I used wage data that was adjusted for inflation then the results would have been meaningless because the bread price data was obviously not inflation adjusted."

I'm just saying you might has well have posted your golf scores.

Quote :

"Right, so stop using phrases such as "keeping them alive" and "basic food supply" when you admit that without these programs they are already guaranteed to be kept alive with a basic food supply, and probably a healthy one at that."

Haven't I already defined the word "context" for you?

Quote :

"y guaranteed to be kept alive with a basic food supply, and probably a healthy one at that. As such, all the food stamp program does is guarantee a more than completely healthy diet (making sure everyone in America has the opportunity to over-eat)."

I've already explained this, how would you feed kids who usually have one parent who doesn't even have time to pick them up from or drive to school? Are kids supposed to walk to a soup kitchen?

11/16/2006 11:30:41 PM

Quote :

"What I hate is the bullshit Robin Hood approach of taking from me to ease the load on Joe Blow, when I busted my ass in school, went to college and busted my ass there getting a mechanical engineering degree, busted my ass to become an officer in the Marine Corps, am busting my ass to become a military aviator. I'm working 70 hours per week at a fairly high-pressure job at which I could get fucking KILLED, and saving/investing 25% of my pay so that someday I will be wealthy...and my wallet is getting raided so that some dude who's lollygagging through life, working banker's hours, buying whatever he wants and not saving shit will have an easier time? Fuck that. "

What would happen then if everyone took your advice and busted their ass to go to college/join the marines/shave 25% of their money? Is such a society even sustainable with current mechanisms?

11/16/2006 11:38:34 PM

Quote :

"sanctimonious blah blah blah busted What I hate is the bullshit Robin Hood approach of taking from me to ease the load on Joe Blow ..... to become an officer in the Marine Corps sanctimonious blah blah blah "

Newsflash: you are Joe Blow. Your pay comes from taxing ~1/3 of people's income. Taxpayers didn't agree to it. Your skill is not particularly unique, your organization is probably one of the most noncompetitive, wasteful and inefficient in the world, and your organization's performance is arguable. (It doesn't matter whether you work hard, either. You can work hard and still deserve to fail in private industry). You leech off of taxpayer's wealth MUCH more than a lazy ass person on welfare.

I don't have a problem with the military, but you need to realize that you are 100% on the government taxpayer dole, and people can't decide to pay or not pay you in the same way they can for just about any other good or service (the same goes for SS, welfare, any other gov. program). You don't find your position at all hypocritical?

Let people donate to the military on their tax form like they can public campaign funding. Let's see where the chips fall, then.

[Edited on November 17, 2006 at 2:06 AM. Reason : asda]

11/17/2006 2:00:57 AM

^^no, of course it's not possible. there will always be movers and shakers who strive to get ahead, and there will always be others who take a more laid back approach (and then there are a few who are downright lazy, but they're another issue), and that's perfectly fine. I'm not saying that they are bad--I'm just saying that I don't get any of that guy's extra time, and he shouldn't get any of my money.

Quote :

"Newsflash: you are Joe Blow. Your pay comes from taxing ~1/3 of people's income. Taxpayers didn't agree to it. Your skill is not particularly unique, your organization is probably one of the most noncompetitive, wasteful and inefficient in the world, and your organization's performance is arguable. (It doesn't matter whether you work hard, either. You can work hard and still deserve to fail in private industry). You leech off of taxpayer's wealth MUCH more than a lazy ass person on welfare."

1. My skill, I would argue, is quite unique, maybe even exceptionally so.
2. My organization is very competitive, and of pretty much unmatched performance.
3. I will concede wasteful and inefficient in many senses (though less so than other branches of the military, from what I've seen). However, I have read business articles about how corporations should apply lessons from the USMC's organization and command structure.
4. It absolutely matters whether or not you work hard in my job. If you do, you'll move up. If you don't, you'll fail to be promoted and will be processed out.
5. Being on the taxpayers' payroll and leeching off the taxpayers are two very different things. I probably average 70 hour work weeks, and you get a return on your investment in me (not so with a "lazy ass person on welfare").

Quote :

" I don't have a problem with the military, but you need to realize that you are 100% on the government taxpayer dole, and people can't decide to pay or not pay you in the same way they can for just about any other good or service (the same goes for SS, welfare, any other gov. program). You don't find your position at all hypocritical? Let people donate to the military on their tax form like they can public campaign funding. Let's see where the chips fall, then."

I don't find my position hypocritical in the least, because my job is, by nearly anyone's measure, one that the federal government should be handling and footing the bill for.





and what my specific job happens to be is not central at all to my greater point.

[Edited on November 17, 2006 at 5:59 AM. Reason : asdf]

11/17/2006 5:59:04 AM

Kris, my numbers are correct. "In 1980 you needed to work 4.57 minutes for a lb of bread, in 2004 you needed to work 3.66 minutes, a reduction of...20%."
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=ap
http://www.bls.gov/home.htm

Quote :

"I've already explained this, how would you feed kids who usually have one parent who doesn't even have time to pick them up from or drive to school? Are kids supposed to walk to a soup kitchen?"

Then they should go to a school that provides bus service, duh.

[Edited on November 17, 2006 at 8:01 AM. Reason : .,.]

11/17/2006 7:54:54 AM

this thread has kinda gotten ahead of me but....

Quote :

"LoneSnark Which is luxury food. Look, today we think McDonalds is cheap food, but 50 years ago people rarely ate out anywhere, and McDonalds is still eating out. When I said "feed your kids for a week" I mean: 1 loaf of bread, $1. 1 pack of bologna, $2. 1 pack of cheese, $2. Mustard, $1. a total of $6 times number of people. We are serving beans and rice next week."

even though I think you're shooting pretty low on those numbers...
...
anyone who eats that three times a day for a long period of time is headed towards some serious health problems. Which intern costs tax payers money when that kid is unheathly and gets sick and has to go to the hospital which his parents cant pay for.

now also your numbers for the average hourly pay of individuals cant be taken 100% imo. As far as I can find by googling around the richest man in 1986 was Adnan Khashoggi (not a us citizen so the richest american would have to have a lower income) and had an estimated wealth of 4 billion dollars. Bill Gates has upwards of 60 billion dollars and im sure the average salary of your average american hasnt increased 15 times in the last 20 years.

that has to screw around with your numbers alittle bit.


[Edited on November 17, 2006 at 9:52 AM. Reason : loneshark?????]

11/17/2006 9:50:02 AM

Sorry, I misunderstood your question.

Bill Gates is not skewing my hourly wage numbers because Bill Gates is not paid by the hour. If you clicked the link, you would see the graph labelled "AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF PRODUCTION WORKERS".

11/17/2006 10:22:51 AM

that makes sense

so then who has an hourly wage and how high up do they go on those numbers?

11/17/2006 10:24:42 AM

While that is a sensible question I cannot answer it. My data comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and they do not describe the data set any further than "Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers (1) on private nonfarm payrolls"

A more in-dept description I'm sure can be found somewhere on the http://www.bls.gov website, but I have not located it.

Quote :

"anyone who eats that three times a day for a long period of time is headed towards some serious health problems."

I was making a point, not a recommendation. I realize the occasional can of peas, corn, and other vegetable/fruit items will need to be included in many meals to fortify the needed nutrients, but these too are fairly cheap. My point was that you can eat far healthier meals than McDonalds for far less money, just ask your grandparents what they ate when they were young and proceed to copy them.

[Edited on November 17, 2006 at 11:13 AM. Reason : .,.]

11/17/2006 11:09:35 AM

well they lived on a farm so they ate alot of eggs, beef and pork and now all have heart disease.

also, fast food is easier for the lazy parent of any income bracket (no clean up or prep). Which is a shame.

11/17/2006 11:18:58 AM

Well, you don't have to get double mcBurgers and fries everytime you eat fast food.

11/17/2006 11:21:36 AM

even the small burgers have way to much sodium and saturated fat.

but how many people are full off of one of those little things? But I guess this is about why kids are fat to begin with.

11/17/2006 11:40:51 AM

http://wendys.com/food/Nutrition.jsp

This is what I get for fast food when I go out.
Crispy Chicken Sandwich and a small cup of chili

It costs me around $2.25.

I don't know all that much about nutrition. Is this killing me? (it very well may be)

11/17/2006 12:18:44 PM

Quote :

" no, of course it's not possible. there will always be movers and shakers who strive to get ahead, and there will always be others who take a more laid back approach (and then there are a few who are downright lazy, but they're another issue), and that's perfectly fine. I'm not saying that they are bad--I'm just saying that I don't get any of that guy's extra time, and he shouldn't get any of my money. "

That was not my point. I was saying hypothetically if no one was lazy, how could things work? The answer is that it couldn't (barring robots that could do the crappy jobs). This is a latent mechanism in our society that encourages some people to not be very ambitious. Basically, if your ability to rise up is directly reliant on someone else choosing to be lazy, then why can't some of your money go to making sure their life isn't squalor?

We should still encourage everyone to reach for their full potential, but we shouldn't spit on the people that don't, because we need them too.

11/17/2006 12:49:03 PM

Quote :

"I was saying hypothetically if no one was lazy, how could things work? The answer is that it couldn't"

Wha? Where on earth did you get that idea?!?!

The system is not the way it is because this is the only way it could work, far from it. If the people truly wished it to change it would. The price system will act, over time, to keep everything functioning as long as people remain greedy and obey the laws against force or fraud, everything else is irrelevant. The point is, if you take people and make them better workers then you have increased their productivity, nothing more. If others become more productive, how can that be bad for you? The productive capacity of mankind has increased so there is a larger pie to go around, odds are you will get more pie even if your share goes down (depending on circumstances).

Everyone always said "Well, who's going to pick up the garbage?" and the answer was always easy: whoever wants to! Today, a robotic arm picks it up, the garbage guy has been boosted to a mere truck driver, sitting in the cab listening to his iPod with heat/AC readily available. But we don't even need to technologically eliminate the jobs for the system to operate. There is no structural reason garbage men should not get paid $80k a year for their work, the garbage needs to be picked up so households (society) will pay whatever it takes to get it done, or go without. But mankind has not suffered, every dollar lost by homeowners is gained by the former garbage men. Only now, existing technology which was shunned earlier to preserve these low skill jobs will be utilized to collect garbage with less labor, freeing up these workers (since they now have access to other fields of work) to boost the productive capacity of society elsewhere. Of course, these newly capable workers could come and bid down the wages in your field of work, harming you personally, but overall society has benefited.

11/17/2006 1:22:40 PM

if no one was lazy then hypothetical everyone would work the same amount and at the same pace and efficiency. Then we would be in a socialist collective buttfuck orgy.

11/17/2006 4:48:12 PM

I think you're ignoring inherent differences in people's abilities and their interests, damn that was lame.

[Edited on November 17, 2006 at 4:53 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2006 4:53:33 PM

but if no on was lazy then who would we say is the model of "unlazyness"

obviously if no one was lazy then everyone would be exactly the same.

11/17/2006 4:55:39 PM

Quote :

"but if no on was lazy then who would we say is the model of "unlazyness" obviously if no one was lazy then everyone would be exactly the same."

My point was that even in your impossible world a free economic system works just fine (arguably much better because it eliminates a degree of risk by making it easier to predict consumer behavior). But, in your imaginary work, if everyone is exactly the same we still cannot all do exactly the same job and we are going to all prefer similar jobs but cannot all occupy those jobs. Which means some people will need to be encouraged to take shunned jobs with higher salaries and some preferred jobs will be discouraged with low salaries.

So even if we are all identical in every respect, the real world will quickly make us differentiate ourselves because while we all can have a suburban house and Saturn SUV we all cannot be bakers, so some of us will need to relegate our desire to bake to a mere hobby.

11/17/2006 6:50:19 PM

Quote :

"We should still encourage everyone to reach for their full potential, but we shouldn't spit on the people that don't, because we need them too."

i'm not advocating spitting on them

i'm advocating not subsidizing their laziness (or lesser ambition) at my expense

11/17/2006 6:55:41 PM

i agree some people are worthless but...

Where does the line of laziness get drawn. Someone might think Duke is a lazy mother fucker and should be allowed to drive on roads because he didnt help build them or cant eat food at the super market because he didnt grow any of it.

now those examples are silly but who says you have to be a complete asshole to those you think are lazy when its obvious someone out there thinks you to are a lazy shit who used the military to get where you are today when "they" dug up rocks and ate them for years and then bla bla bla bla. Its kinda silly to make claims like this.

11/18/2006 11:18:05 AM

i'm not advocating drawing any lines.

I understand that I (and probably a high percentage of people in this forum) work harder and have greater ambition than the average person. That's fine--I understand someone having a ho-hum, 8-5 job (I'm not talking about the truly lazy who are a minority, but a legitimate problem). He has more free time, lower stress, more flexibility on when he goes on a ski trip or takes his kids to the beach, etc. Those are perfectly legitimate legitimate things to consider in choosing such a job (and yes, those jobs absolutely have to be done).

All I'm arguing is that redistribution of wealth is shitty. Yes, I make more money than a lot of people (although still nothing more than the middle of the middle class). Yes, I will eventually make a substantially higher than average wage, and further down the road, will have a great deal of wealth from investments. However, I've paid a price in a number of ways, and there are still a LOT more dues to be paid. By the time I really have a lot of money, I will have done a helluva lot of hard work, made a lot of smart decisions, and sacrificed things I could've had or done at the time in order for a greater return later.

the guy that Robin Hood is giving my money to (and by giving my money to, I don't mean welfare so much as hammering me excessively on taxes to keep him from having to pay) didn't pay his dues, and in return, saw the aforementioned benefits.

Quote :

" Someone might think Duke is a lazy mother fucker and should be allowed to drive on roads because he didnt help build them or cant eat food at the super market because he didnt grow any of it."

that's kind of apples to oranges. a similar argument could be made for any person, regardless of his job, due to the way our economy works. we--thankfully in terms of efficiency--don't try to each do it all. we each specialize in something and contribute our highest and greatest use. me not contributing 1 "unit" to the road building effort allows me to contribute 10 "units" to the defense effort. The same could be said of, say, a teacher. There is a reason that CPAs don't dig ditches and ditch diggers don't do your taxes.

11/18/2006 1:01:27 PM

yeah can kinda agree with that.

and robin hood did pay his dues. He had to fight that dude in the river and kinda got his ass kicked.

11/18/2006 1:05:37 PM

Quote :

"Then they should go to a school that provides bus service, duh."

We're not talking about how to get them to and from school, we're talking about how to get them to and from the soup kitchen.

11/18/2006 2:47:24 PM

Kris, you do realize that you could bus them there...right?

11/18/2006 3:04:28 PM

Meals on wheels, Kris. Meals on wheels!

Besides, when I lived in Tennessee a local business bought breakfast for every student in the county. It wasn't much, a pint of milk and a granola bar. But that is irrelevant: parents should use their EITC and make their kids some damn breakfast. Oatmeal is fucking cheap, it's like a dollar for twenty bowls worth. It's the poor man's cereal and it is easy to make if you have running hot water available, otherwise you need a stove or coffee maker. It is even good tasting if you have some sugar and raisins.

11/18/2006 3:09:22 PM

Quote :

"Kris, you do realize that you could bus them there...right?"

You're going to bus kids out to the soup kitchen? Do you want them to just call when they're hungry? Plus think of all the new labor the government is going to have to pay for. Why not just give them the food stamps and let them get their own food? I'd think you'd be for this, it's like school vouchers, just with food.

Quote :

"make their kids some damn breakfast"

Yeah, I doubt those single moms have to work or anything.

11/18/2006 3:19:23 PM

Kris, of course I'd want to see some plans and costs on it, but with the Soup Kitchen you don't have to worry about the parent's using the food on themselves (whom we aren't responsible to feed).

And why couldn't you just have them eat at specified times? It works for schools, right?

Quote :

"Yeah, I doubt those single moms have to work or anything. "

You're right, every single mom works 24 hours a day and has no time to pour milk into a bowl.

[Edited on November 18, 2006 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2006 3:21:06 PM

Quote :

"Kris, of course I'd want to see some plans and costs on it, but with the Soup Kitchen you don't have to worry about the parent's using the food on themselves (whom we aren't responsible to feed)."

God forbid we give a hungry person food!

Quote :

"And why couldn't you just have them eat at specified times?"

Because kids have different schedules. You can't expect them all to eat dinner at the same time.

Quote :

"You're right, every single mom works 24 hours a day and has no time to pour milk into a bowl."

That would be more accurate than the inverse, that no single mom works and all of them have all day to slave after their child's needs.

11/18/2006 3:26:28 PM

Quote :

"Because kids have different schedules. You can't expect them all to eat dinner at the same time. "

Right, which is why they all don't eat lunch at the same time...?

11/18/2006 3:41:37 PM

ha kris completely goes to extremes in every situation.

11/18/2006 3:47:34 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, I doubt those single moms have to work or anything."

Wait, yet giving the parents food stamps means they don't have to work or anything and can spend all the time needed to serve oatmeal?

11/18/2006 6:26:38 PM

Quote :

"Right, which is why they all don't eat lunch at the same time...?"

They're all at school during lunch, unless of course you're suggesting we extend school hours untill 6:00.

Quote :

"Wait, yet giving the parents food stamps means they don't have to work or anything and can spend all the time needed to serve oatmeal?"

Actually recipients of foodstamps have to work in order to get them in most states.

11/18/2006 8:07:07 PM

Quote :

"They're all at school during lunch, unless of course you're suggesting we extend school hours untill 6:00. "

Of course not, but what I'm saying is that mass scheduling is pretty simple. If you are broke and you want your kid to eat free, have him get on the bus at X time and he can eat for free.

11/18/2006 10:03:05 PM

And why is setting up this entirely new system for hungry people better than just privatizing it and using the system we already have?

11/18/2006 10:26:55 PM

Well, that would depend on the CBA of how well the system works now. How often it is abused and what it costs to operate it vs. a new one.

What, are you a traditionalist or something? (lol)

11/18/2006 10:35:58 PM

There's more than just costs involved, the systems operate in a different way, and one offers benefits that you aren't considering. I mean if you started suggesting we start up government owned grocery stores or socialized to grocery stores we already have, I'd say it would be fine to do a cost-benefit analysis, but you're suggesting to use a model that simply wouldn't work for the majority of people who would be using it.

11/18/2006 10:58:41 PM