Sold out by IFR

I used to subscribe to IFR until I realized that they offered a much better
rate to new subscribers than to existing ones. After realizing this, my
four year old decided to subscribe :-). Today he recieved a solicitation
from another aviation magazine. Obviously they sold his (and my) name and
address. I always check the little box indicating that I don't want my
information shared and I don't want to recieve any offers. I will never
subscribe to any Belvoire publication again.

Just had to vent after calling a credit card company and telling them not to
send me any more ot their stupid balance tranfer checks. It was the third
time I called them. I am in the national opt out list for all pre-approved
credit and I still get at least two "offers" a day. I guess that Congress
is so busy spending our hard earned money developing rainforests in Iowa and
subsidized rail to Disneyland that they don't have time for legislation that
ordinary people really care about.

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net...

time I called them. I am in the national opt out list for all
pre-approved
credit and I still get at least two "offers" a day. I guess that Congress
is so busy spending our hard earned money developing rainforests in Iowa
and
subsidized rail to Disneyland that they don't have time for legislation
that
ordinary people really care about.

Well, they are working on legistlation you and I care about: It's called
pork spending and running up the deficit to obscene levels.

I know we all care about that!!

"Plumb Bob" wrote in message
news:veaTb.156226$sv6.854729@attbi_s52...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net...

time I called them. I am in the national opt out list for all
pre-approved
credit and I still get at least two "offers" a day. I guess that
Congress
is so busy spending our hard earned money developing rainforests in Iowa
and
subsidized rail to Disneyland that they don't have time for legislation
that
ordinary people really care about.

Well, they are working on legistlation you and I care about: It's called
pork spending and running up the deficit to obscene levels.

I know we all care about that!!


I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we want! Pork
spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to contain it.
Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I read (I
think it was by the CBO or GAO).

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we want!
Pork
spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to contain
it.
Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I read (I
think it was by the CBO or GAO).


In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government
spending was pork/waste.

But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want (you
probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what your
NEIGHBOR wants.

"What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." - P.J.
O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we want!
Pork
spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to contain
it.
Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I read
(I
think it was by the CBO or GAO).


In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government
spending was pork/waste.

But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want (you
probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what
your
NEIGHBOR wants.

"What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." - P.J.
O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_.




I agree completely. Everybody wants lots of things if they don't have to
pay for them. The federal government should stick to national issues,
defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce, national parks, some
research ect. The state governments should stick to state issues, state
highways, law enforcement and so on. Local projects should be funded
locally. If Anaheim needs a railway to Disneyland which is only going to
benefit Anaheim hotels, I don't see why someone in New York should pay for
it. All pork spending is a result of people wanting things they don't have
to pay for.

I don't have any pet projects that I expect someone else to pay for.

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we want!
Pork
spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to
contain
it.
Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I
read
(I
think it was by the CBO or GAO).


In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government
spending was pork/waste.

But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want
(you
probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what
your
NEIGHBOR wants.

"What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." -
P.J.
O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_.




I agree completely. Everybody wants lots of things if they don't have to
pay for them. The federal government should stick to national issues,
defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce, national parks, some
research ect.

See, even that last couple are outside the vail of the Constitution.
EVERYBODY and I mean EVERYBODY has some pet project the want the feds to
perform outside their assigned duties.

You want Parks and R&D. Someone else wants health care. Another wants cheap
gas.

That's where it goes haywire.


The state governments should stick to state issues, state
highways, law enforcement and so on. Local projects should be funded
locally. If Anaheim needs a railway to Disneyland which is only going to
benefit Anaheim hotels, I don't see why someone in New York should pay for
it.

Why should TAXPAYERS in ANY locale pay for a private companies
infrastructure?


All pork spending is a result of people wanting things they don't have
to pay for.

I don't have any pet projects that I expect someone else to pay for.


You mentioned two above.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we want!
Pork
spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to contain
it.
Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I read
(I
think it was by the CBO or GAO).


In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government
spending was pork/waste.

But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want (you
probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what
your
NEIGHBOR wants.

"What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." - P.J.
O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_.



I agree completely. Everybody wants lots of things if they don't have to
pay for them. The federal government should stick to national issues,
defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce, national parks, some
research ect. The state governments should stick to state issues, state
highways, law enforcement and so on. Local projects should be funded
locally. If Anaheim needs a railway to Disneyland which is only going to
benefit Anaheim hotels, I don't see why someone in New York should pay for
it. All pork spending is a result of people wanting things they don't have
to pay for.

I don't have any pet projects that I expect someone else to pay for.

Mike
MU-2

These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and other
border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal government
refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as responsible foe
the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is Uncle Joe in
California.

Well the elections are comming up, if you think things are getting bad now,
wait untill GW gets re-elected (if he does), then he has no reason to not hold
back since he would be on his last term.


Plumb Bob wrote:

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net...

time I called them. I am in the national opt out list for all
pre-approved
credit and I still get at least two "offers" a day. I guess that Congress
is so busy spending our hard earned money developing rainforests in Iowa
and
subsidized rail to Disneyland that they don't have time for legislation
that
ordinary people really care about.

Well, they are working on legistlation you and I care about: It's called
pork spending and running up the deficit to obscene levels.

I know we all care about that!!

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Well the elections are comming up, if you think things are getting bad
now,
wait untill GW gets re-elected (if he does), then he has no reason to not
hold
back since he would be on his last term.

And how is this different from the elections over the past 100-150 years?

This didn't just materialize in the past few years, or even the past
generation or so.

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 10:12:54 -0800, Jeff wrote:

Well the elections are comming up, if you think things are getting bad now,
wait untill GW gets re-elected (if he does), then he has no reason to not hold
back since he would be on his last term.

Let's kick his dumb ass out! Might be nice to have a president that
has at least half a brain and not a puppet.