annual interruptus

Jay Honeck wrote:


This is quite true. But I also lose everything if the government
decides to fund another new hotel. (They've built two in the last two
years...)


I fully understand you being ****ed about this but you really need to get in
line and let them build you an new hotel. If you can't beat 'em join 'em.

(They've built two in the last two
years...)

I fully understand you being ****ed about this but you really need to get in
line and let them build you an new hotel. If you can't beat 'em join 'em.

I have to shave this face every morning, and I wouldn't be able to
look my kids in the eye if I accepted welfare.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
(They've built two in the last two
years...)

I fully understand you being ****ed about this but you really need
to get in line and let them build you an new hotel. If you can't
beat 'em join 'em.

I have to shave this face every morning, and I wouldn't be able to
look my kids in the eye if I accepted welfare.

I know what you mean but I really don't see this as welfare. The people of
the city as represented by the council or whoever is making the decision to
build these hotels and lease them to private organizations. They are doing
it because they are going to get something in return. Increased tourism,
larger tax base, whatever.

Let's say the Corp of Engineers were to build a dam somewhere and create a
new lake and went looking for hotels to be built around the new lake. Would
that be welfare?

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:
(They've built two in the last two
years...)

I fully understand you being ****ed about this but you really need
to get in line and let them build you an new hotel. If you can't
beat 'em join 'em.

I have to shave this face every morning, and I wouldn't be able to
look my kids in the eye if I accepted welfare.

I know what you mean but I really don't see this as welfare. The people of
the city as represented by the council or whoever is making the decision
to build these hotels and lease them to private organizations. They are
doing it because they are going to get something in return. Increased
tourism, larger tax base, whatever.

Let's say the Corp of Engineers were to build a dam somewhere and create a
new lake and went looking for hotels to be built around the new lake.
Would that be welfare?

How is that any different from any other form of corporate welfare?

Have Americans become such whores?

Jeez, Jay, if I had your face, I'd shave my ass and walk backwards.

{;-)

On a more serious note, some of the part time faculty at the college feel
the same way about applying for unemployment over the summer break. The
other side of that coin says that if the college paid the premiums for
unemployment insurance directly to the faculty, or offered the faculty a
full year contract, or loaded up the schedule so that everybody could teach
in the summer, then there wouldn't be the need for those $$ to fill a three
month gap of no income. Hell, after 30 years at this gig I've got a $25K
credit in my "account" with the State of Californicate that I'll never see.
When I quit, it gets dumped into the general fund, lost and gone forever.

"Welfare" is collecting money for doing nothing. Working your ass off in a
structure that has been funded with public money for public purposes is not.
Forget thee not that part of your sweat in that structure is going back into
the public treasury, along with all the tax money that it generates. You
might have scruples about part of your labor going into the public treasury,
but don't call it welfare.


Jim



"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...

I have to shave this face every morning

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:
(They've built two in the last two
years...)

I fully understand you being ****ed about this but you really need
to get in line and let them build you an new hotel. If you can't
beat 'em join 'em.

I have to shave this face every morning, and I wouldn't be able to
look my kids in the eye if I accepted welfare.

I know what you mean but I really don't see this as welfare. The
people of the city as represented by the council or whoever is
making the decision to build these hotels and lease them to private
organizations. They are doing it because they are going to get
something in return. Increased tourism, larger tax base, whatever.

Let's say the Corp of Engineers were to build a dam somewhere and
create a new lake and went looking for hotels to be built around the
new lake. Would that be welfare?

How is that any different from any other form of corporate welfare?

Have Americans become such whores?


You can define corporate welfare in a lot of different ways. If a government
entity decides that having more people stay in hotels in their location will
be of benefit then there are only so many things they can do to get more
people to open and run hotels.

Now you can argue that it isn't the governments job to promote tourism, help
create jobs, ect... but in the real world they do and if one city or state
is doing it the others have to do it to compete.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
Let's say the Corp of Engineers were to build a dam somewhere and
create a new lake and went looking for hotels to be built around the
new lake. Would that be welfare?

How is that any different from any other form of corporate welfare?

Have Americans become such whores?


You can define corporate welfare in a lot of different ways.

Yes.

If a government entity decides that having more people stay in hotels in
their location will be of benefit then there are only so many things they
can do to get more people to open and run hotels.

That's one form.


Now you can argue that it isn't the governments job to promote tourism,
help create jobs, ect... but in the real world they do and if one city or
state is doing it the others have to do it to compete.

So, your answer to my second question is "yes"?

Jeez, Jay, if I had your face, I'd shave my ass and walk backwards.

{;-)

You forgot the part about learning to walk on my hands...

;-)

On a more serious note, some of the part time faculty at the college feel
the same way about applying for unemployment over the summer break. The
other side of that coin says that if the college paid the premiums for
unemployment insurance directly to the faculty, or offered the faculty a
full year contract, or loaded up the schedule so that everybody could teach
in the summer, then there wouldn't be the need for those $$ to fill a three
month gap of no income. Hell, after 30 years at this gig I've got a $25K
credit in my "account" with the State of Californicate that I'll never see.
When I quit, it gets dumped into the general fund, lost and gone forever.

One point: You have no "account", and there are far more people
sucking from the teat than are carressing it.

Another point: Your employer has no choice but to pay into it -- they
cannot, by law, give it to you instead. But you know that.

/rant mode on/

In Iowa, unemployment compensation is a blending of two easily-
corrupted groups -- the bureacrats who run the system, and the
recipients of the money. Because of the way "Unemployment" is set
up, these two groups -- which, in the interest of "checks and
balances", should have as semi-adversarial role -- instead work
together hand-in-glove to fleece the system.

Bureacrats love new benefit recipients -- it keeps them busy, and
diverts our elected officials' attention elsewhere when they're
looking for places to cut the budget. More unemployment paid out
justifies their existence, and provides an incentive to build their
department -- two very compelling reasons for them to approve
benefits.

Recipients, of course, are more than happy to take the benefits.
While I might admit, on a good day, that many recipients of
"unemployment" are in need of the money, there are a signficant number
of dastardly and nefarious scumbags who will always try to scam the
system. Those people, combined with the bureaucrats, make for a
system that is full of fluff and waste.

Hapless employers are forced to pay into this corrupt system, and have
virtually no input or control over where the money is spent. In our
10 years in business in Iowa, we have had precisely one (1) employee
claim unemployment compensation. The claim was completely bogus, I
was able to document it six ways to China, but, in the end, it didn't
matter -- the guy (then living in a beach house in Florida) was able
to get paid for six months of sitting on his butt.

Now you might say "Good for him" -- except that because of this, my
overall unemployment insurance rate (or "Workforce Development" rate,
as the State of Iowa sickeningly coins it) went up 400%, and has
stayed at that higher rate for five years.

That extra money -- and we're talking many thousands of dollars -- was
money that could have been used for any number of productive things,
from remodeling the hotel, to giving my night manager a raise.
Instead, it was sucked into the never-satisfied maw of Gummint, never
to be seen again.

Don't talk to me about EVER accepting government welfare money. The
waste and fraud in our government, from Federal to State to Local,
sickens me, and I would rather accept money from organized crime.

/rant mode off/
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

One point: You have no "account",

Yes I do, Jay, and for the times during the year when my teaching contract
has run out and I have absolutely no assurance that it will be renegotiated
for the coming semester (like during summer and winter breaks) I have an
account with a known number of dollars in it that is printed on the
unemployment forms that I get every semester. Right now it stands somewere
in the vicinity of $25 grand. That account is debited for every dollar I
draw from it, and when it goes to zero so does my unemployment check.


and there are far more people
sucking from the teat than are carressing it.

That would be caressing, but let's not suck the tits from nits. I don't get
your point.



Another point: Your employer has no choice but to pay into it -- they
cannot, by law, give it to you instead. But you know that.

SUUURRRRE THEY CAN. You have heard of the initiative and referendum
process, yes? Or is Iowa not yet on board with these 19th century
innovations for power to the people?


/rant mode on/

In Iowa, unemployment compensation is a blending of two easily-
corrupted groups

/rant^2 mode on/

Ya know, Jay, you seem to have this "poor helpless little me" syndrome that
just drives me buggy. The people on your city council, on your state
legislature, and on your state senate put their clothes on one piece at a
time, just like you and I. You think they were BORN to the office? A lot
of them are poor dirt farmers that had the intestinal fortitude (with a
capital G) to stand up and say, "to hell with this system." And then do
something about it.

You keep saying how much money is required to run for office. I agree; it
is one of the warts on our political system. However, if somebody runs, and
if their message rings true with enough of the local factions, the money
will flow. It is amazing ... just like sticking a pipe into a wall and
turning on the spigot and watching the water flow. But you have to resonate
with the people and organizations.

But ya gotta do it. And you need to dedicate the time to do it. Or let
Mary run. I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.


Hapless employers are forced to pay into this corrupt system, and have
virtually no input or control over where the money is spent. In our
10 years in business in Iowa, we have had precisely one (1) employee
claim unemployment compensation. The claim was completely bogus, I
was able to document it six ways to China, but, in the end, it didn't
matter -- the guy (then living in a beach house in Florida) was able
to get paid for six months of sitting on his butt.

And did you appeal it, as is your right (at least in Californicate) or did
you let that ****ant little "administrative law judge" at the first hearing
be the deciding judge? Those idiots are not really skilled in UI law; they
are picked from a group of attorneys who hope someday to land the plush job
of "real" judge.


Don't talk to me about EVER accepting government welfare money. The
waste and fraud in our government, from Federal to State to Local,
sickens me, and I would rather accept money from organized crime.

I'll talk to Bugsy, and if he okays the vigorish arrangement you can have as
much as you want. Just watch out for your kneecaps {;-)

/rant^2 mode off/

Jim



/rant mode off/
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
Let's say the Corp of Engineers were to build a dam somewhere and
create a new lake and went looking for hotels to be built around
the new lake. Would that be welfare?

How is that any different from any other form of corporate welfare?

Have Americans become such whores?


You can define corporate welfare in a lot of different ways.

Yes.

If a government entity decides that having more people stay in
hotels in their location will be of benefit then there are only so
many things they can do to get more people to open and run hotels.

That's one form.


Now you can argue that it isn't the governments job to promote
tourism, help create jobs, ect... but in the real world they do and
if one city or state is doing it the others have to do it to compete.

So, your answer to my second question is "yes"?

No it isn't. Welfare, at least in my mind, pay people or companies to do
nothing or pays them more for something than it is worth.

If a city spends $1,000,000 today in the hope of earning $10,000,000 in
taxes and other income over the next 10 years that's not welfare that's
investment.