If George Bush........
Gunner Asch
installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have
laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and
is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take
Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM
stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have
approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special
Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and
incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful
and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing
videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly
narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have
approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the
non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a
minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with
people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you
have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco
de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May
(Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you
have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have
hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and "potatoe" as proof of
what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a
single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had OK'd Air Force One to fly low
over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan
causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually
get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims
throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in
New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue
with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created 32 or more Czars who report directly to
him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in
America , would you have approved.
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major
corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so,
would you have approved?
If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had
taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have
approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10
years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had spent more than all the Presidents combined since
George Washington, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant
and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this
in one year -- so you'll have 3 years to come up with an answer.
hal
wrote:
>If George W. Bush
Give it a rest Gummer. You lost, now get over it.
Alim Nassor
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 04:39:48 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >If George W. Bush
>
> Give it a rest Gummer. You lost, now get over it.
Tacit approval?
Too_Many_Tools
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 04:39:48 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >If George W. Bush
>
> Give it a rest Gummer. You lost, now get over it.
Gummer needs to figure out how he is going to pay for health insurance
now instead of leaching off the American taxpayer.
I suggest that he sells some of his guns...any takers?
Laugh..laugh..laugh
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
Because he is not George Bush.
Thank God.
TMT
rangerssuck
Gunner for tax evasion and lock him up forever, I would have approved
of that action, but that would not have any effect on the disapproval
I have for virtually everything else he did in his 8 years of
incompetence.
pyotr filipivich
<gunne...@gmail.com> reported Elvis on Mon, 22 Mar 2010 04:39:48
-0700 in misc.survivalism:
>
>
>So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant
>and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this
>in one year -- so you'll have 3 years to come up with an answer.
>
Obama has managed to convince a lot of people to buy the Emperors
new line of Clothing.
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
rangerssuck
> So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant
> and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this
> in one year -- so you'll have 3 years to come up with an answer.
He can pronounce "Nuclear."
Too_Many_Tools
And can spell it.
Laugh..laugh...laugh..
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
Every journey starts with one taxcheating welfare sucking winger
thrown in jail.
TMT
hal
<du...@spamherelots.com> wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> Give it a rest Gummer. You lost, now get over it.
>
>Waterloo
>March 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm by David Frum
>
>Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing
>legislative defeat since the 1960s.
>
>It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may
>cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a
>big win in the November 2010 elections. But:
>
>(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November –
>by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the
>healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.
>
>(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is
>forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.
You misspelled success. But you are right about conservatives being
overly optimistic about their chances in November.
>
>So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the
>hard lesson:
>
>A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and
>Republicans ourselves.
>
>At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say,
>Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would
>make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise,
>nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo
>– just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.
>
>Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53%
>of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic
>congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of
>course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the
>consequences of their 1994 failure.
>
>This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
>
>Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap
>between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big.
Horseshit. The conservatives wanted nothing whatsoever to do with
anything that helped regular Americans at all. All they wanted was to
make it easier for the insurance companies to screw people.
> The
>Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts
>plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early
>1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare
>in 1993-1994.
If that were true at least a few Republicans would have supported it.
None did.
>
>Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have
>leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative
>views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise
>– without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding
>Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.
Conservatives did everything they could to destroy the bill, or at
least water it down until it was nothing useful at all.
>
>No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans
>scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster
>to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription
>drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they
>discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds
>from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there –
>would President Obama sign such a repeal?
Of course not. You lose. Now get over it.
>
>We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they
>led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
That's because most Americans know you people are a bunch of stupid
losers.
>
>There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they
>were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the
>Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered
>impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your
>grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been
>persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
>
>I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated
>talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them
>with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has
>made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to
>lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different
>imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation
>and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama
>to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted
>to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to
>fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and
>negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less
>angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear
>fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
>
>So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge
>win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and
>viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more
>disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on
>television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause
>they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.
Right-o. You're not quite as dumb as you sound.
>
>--
>Rationality belongs to the cool observer, but because of the stupidity of
>the average man, he follows not reason but faith - Reinhold Niebuhr
John Martin
Couldn't pronounce "corpsman", though, could he?
And Jimmy Carter had the same trouble with "nuclear" - in spite of his
being a nuclear engineer.
John Martin
rangerssuck
Actually, Jimmy Carter sort of swallowed the "middle syllable" making
it sound like nuk'lar.
Here's a few of G.W.'s gaffes:
http://www.trinicenter.com/modules.php?file=article&name=News&sid=27
Bush would definitely have benefited from never opening his mouth
without a teleprompter. Now, don't get me wrong - I don't think that
his lack of verbal skills made him a bad President (though it was kind
of embarrassing to hear foreign diplomats with a better command of the
English language than our president), I think he would have been a
lousy President even if he had spoken perfectly.
vinny
"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:amleq513qh8u0qbl4...@4ax.com...
Try to imagine this parralell universe....
The world trade buildings get knocked down, our leader flys to afganastan
and says...
"I'm sorry we are such dicks you had to do that...here's a check to cover
your plane tickets"
John Martin
Bush's pronunciation of "nuclear" wasn't all that different from
Carter's. Maybe it's a Southern thing. Remember, though - Carter was
a nuclear engineer. Hard to think of anyone who should be more
attuned to the proper pronunciation of the word, isn't it?
You skipped over my question about Obama's pronunciation of
"corpsman". Did you find that at all embarassing? Or should we chalk
it up to being just a Chicago thing?
I served in the Marine Corps. Guess I'll now have to be a lot more
attentive when the Commander-In-Chief is speaking about Marines.
John Martin
RogerN
Planned Parenthood has a list of scum to put the crosshairs on:
http://www.ppaction.org/network/hcr10fvt_targets
They even call them targets!
RogerN
Ed Huntress
"RogerN" <re...@midwest.net> wrote in message
news:Mvmdne1EOe3TmzXW...@earthlink.com...
<snip>
> Planned Parenthood has a list of scum to put the crosshairs on:
> http://www.ppaction.org/network/hcr10fvt_targets
>
> They even call them targets!
>
> RogerN
You're a true contemporary Christian, Roger. You even have murder fantasies!
--
Ed Huntress
Hawke
> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Gunner Asch
> <gunne...@gmail.com> reported Elvis on Mon, 22 Mar 2010 04:39:48
> -0700 in misc.survivalism:
>>
>>
>> So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant
>> and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this
>> in one year -- so you'll have 3 years to come up with an answer.
>>
>
> Obama has managed to convince a lot of people to buy the Emperors
> new line of Clothing.
Too bad that he can't convince people like you of anything because
you're so biased against him that you wouldn't see positive results even
if they were right in front of your face. Obama is improving the country
and turning things around from the worst situation we have seen in
decades. Of course, to your ilk everything is only worse. That's too bad
for you because it means you won't be on board for the bull run that's
already under way. You're still betting against America. Your loss.
Hawke
Hawke
What makes you think he actually owns any? Or if he does that they are
anything but junk? Have you seen some of his other "assets"? If his guns
are on par with them they won't have much value just like everything
else he has. He reminds me of Fred Sanford. All he has is junk.
Hawke
Buerste
"sittingduck" <du...@spamherelots.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D437977C3BA2du...@nomail.afraid.org...
> wrote:
>
>> Give it a rest Gummer. You lost, now get over it.
>
> March 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm by David Frum
>
> Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing
> legislative defeat since the 1960s.
Yep, the Party of "Takers" has dealt a huge blow to the Party of
"Producers". Since the "Takers" far outweigh the "Producers", the voting is
rather predictable. However, how much can the "Takers" take from the
"Producers" before the well runs dry? In time, the "Takers" won't be able
to tax, borrow or print money and the "Producers" will be broke from paying
all the new taxes. On top of all of that, wealth creation in the US is
punished. I congratulate you! You DO get something for nothing...for a
little while...enjoy! That dull roar you hear is jobs fleeing the country
faster than ever before. Yep, CONGRATULATIONS!!!
RogerN
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4ba8c8b4$0$31283$607e...@cv.net...
Planned Parenthood called them targets, maybe it's never too late for late
term abortions!
RogerN
F. George McDuffee
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:58:33 -0700, sittingduck
<du...@spamherelots.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Conservatives did everything they could to destroy the bill, or at
>> least water it down until it was nothing useful at all.
<snip>
-------
It is good to be a concerned and engaged [enraged?] citizen but
it is important to be concerned and engaged about the right
things.
While health care reform may indeed prove to be [much] less that
what is anticipated and possibly even counter-productive, it
served to divert attention of the majority of the U.S. voters
from two intertwined, imminent and exceedingly dangerous threats
to the Republic.
I. The continued failure to enact even the most elementary
reforms for the financial services sector such as reinstating and
strengthening Glass-Steagall, preventing proprietary trading
using directly and indirectly governmentally insured deposits
[e.g. FDIC, PBGC]; regulating and monitoring the creation and
sale of novel financial instruments such as derivatives and
insuring that the counter-parties have adequate financial
resources [e.g. AIG, Enron]; and imposing "small enough to fail"
size caps by both total capitalization and market share. [FWIW --
even if the size cap is set at 5 billion dollars and/or 10% of
market, which will break-up the existing super banks, this is
still one hell of a big corporation!] The Dodd bill is a
travesty, and is the equivalent of treating late-stage cancer
with aspirin and Band-Aids (and possibly kissing it to make it
well). The banksters wrote this bill, which is for the
banksters, by the banksters and of the banksters.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-full-text-of-chris-dodds-financial-regulation-bill-2010-3
II. The obstinate and reactionary refusal of our political
classes, bordering on a "death wish," [e.g. California and
Illinois and of course the Feds] to even consider the dangers of
rapidly increasing, and evidently uncontainable, debt levels. As
indicated in other posts, 800 years of history clearly shows that
a debt "tipping point" exists and it makes no difference if the
debt is internal [we owe it to ourselves], external [we owe it to
the Chinese] or if the debt is personal, corporate, governmental,
or some combination. The U.S. is at this point, and several of
the major global economies are far past this point, e.g. the U.K
and Japan. Because of the interlinking of the global economies,
any default on, or repudiation of, debt [ala Argentina], by the
major players, or some combination of the minor players [PIIGS]
is almost certain to collapse the entire global economic house of
cards, as very nearly occurred with the failure of a *SINGLE*
investment bank, e.g. Lehman Brothers. [Question: what
contingency plans have been made for the default/repudiation by a
single major foreign economy or several smaller economies? What
"firewalls" are in place?]
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/51_This_Time_Is_Different.pdf
N.B. When items I and II are combined, as they currently are, a
synergism is created where the combined risk and likelihood of
occurrence is much greater than the simple sum of their
individual dangers.
Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
Buerste
> Buerste wrote:
>
>> CONGRATULATIONS!!!
>
> Boehner and Latest Hypocrisy from Republican-Tea Bag Party
<snip>
I see you know how to cut/paste! Congratulations! Have you EVER had an
original thought?
Write on of your original thoughts here, I've left plenty of space.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
John
> Distro pruned to RCM& AMC and #OT# added to subject.
George,
You left out left out the fanny mae and freddie mac attack.
John
azotic
"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
news:eriiq5hc9jeicrrmr...@4ax.com...
Delusional Congressional priorities regarding health care will not
divert the incoming torpedoes, president say immagration reform
is next on the agenda. Wont be any immagration if there are no
jobs. Do they have a clue ??????
By Nathan Martin
The latest U.S. Treasury Z1 Flow of Funds report was released on March 11,
2010, bringing the data current through the end of 2009. What follows is the
most important chart of your lifetime. It relegates almost all modern
economists and economic theory to the dustbin of history. Any economic
theory, formula, or relationship that does not consider this non-linear
relationship of DEBT and phase transition is destined to fail.
It explains the "jobless" recoveries of the past and how each recent
economic cycle produces higher money figures, yet lower employment. It
explains why we are seeing debt driven events that circle the globe. It
explains the psychological uneasiness that underpins this point in history,
the elephant in the room that nobody sees or can describe.
http://fedupusa.org/2010/03/20/the-most-important-chart-of-the-century/
By Gordon T. Long
Explaining $605 Trillion of Derivatives!
When asked why there are $605 Trillion derivatives outstanding (1) how do
you articulate an answer to this horrendous and almost unimaginable number?
The US is the largest economy in the world but tallies only 2.3% in
comparison. Global bank reserves amount to only 1.2% of this accumulation.
The gargantuan size appears to defy all logic.
Before some of you experts out there accuse me of sensationalism let me
quickly give you the response of the "all knowing" to knock this number down
to something that is intended to allow you to once again sleep at night.
First $605 is the notional value. This number according to experts (2) is
best used simply to get an indication of how rapidly the overall derivatives
market is growing (wow) since it doesn't represent the value of what is at
stake to the parties engaged in the transaction. It double counts positions,
doesn't represent what changes hands and doesn't discount hedges that offset
each other. What we need to consider is settlement amounts if all the
contracts had to be settled today for some unknown reason (i.e. a 1930's
bank holiday crisis?). Our number then drops to just over $25T. That sounds
better but still is a staggering figure considering the assets of the US are
estimated to be $56T and is 1/3 of global assets (3). Not to be deterred our
'all knowing' experts would then assuredly point out that actually the
number is a mere $3.7T when all the contracts directly offsetting each other
are netted. Appeased, our cocktail chatter would resume in a much more
subdued tone. Or should it?
http://www.kitco.com/ind/Long/feb252010.html
Best Regards
Tom.
F. George McDuffee
wrote:
<snip>
>George,
>
>You left out left out the fanny mae and freddie mac attack.
>
>
>John
These fall under both items.
Real financial reform would immediately break up both these
monstrosities, and as the pieces would be prevented from
"proprietary" derivative trading and hedging, reorganization and
quite likely liquidation would quickly follow.
A freeze on additional government direct and indirect debt would
also doom these "financial black holes," as their government
[taxpayer] fronted Ponzi schemes could no longer function.
More than likely some sort of housing financial assistance
through the government will be justified, but for "normal" people
living in "normal" houses with "normal" mortgages, on the scale
of the 1950s/60s. [There must be no more government funded
"Magic Money Machines."]
F. George McDuffee
wrote:
<snip>
>Delusional Congressional priorities regarding health care will not
>divert the incoming torpedoes, president say immagration reform
>is next on the agenda. Wont be any immagration if there are no
>jobs. Do they have a clue ??????
The Grand No Party [formerly the Grand Old Party] is between a
rock and a hard place on this one. On the one hand, their major
corporate fat cats want continuing, even increased, immigration
to provide abundant cheap exploitable labor and to hold down
wages. On the other hand, the immigrants tend [legally and
illegally] to vote Democratic by a large margin.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20100323/cm_uc_crpbux/op_3313354
As to the lack of a clue by Congress:
Many of the people elected to Congress have been there for years,
becoming increasingly isolated and insulated in their gated
communities and country clubs from the situations and concerns of
their constituents.
Many of these individuals are in their dotage, suffering from
senile dementia and/or Alzheimers and are unduly susceptible to
staff influence.
An additional factor is the highly toxic social/cultural
environment in which they live, where the majority are supplied
with all the money they can spend, all the liquor they can drink,
all the women they can lay, etc. by the lobbyists and other
"seekers of favors." Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul would be
severely tested in this situation.
While it is always popular and very tempting to shout "get a
rope," it will be far more productive of positive change to cast
their replacement as relief after many years of service in a
highly toxic and hostile environment. It should be stressed that
these fossils cannot be replaced, only relieved at long last,
from their position in the line after many years of faithful
service, to enjoy a well earned rest [even if they don't want to
go].
Hawke
Geez!, when are you right wing doomsayers going to wake up and smell the
coffee? Things are starting to go right for the first time in a long
time. The stock market is back to nearly 11,000. First quarter earnings
data is coming out soon and the reports are that corporate profits for
the first quarter of the year are going to be very good. Business is
doing well. I guess you must be having another lousy quarter for your
business. Sorry to hear that. You might soon be a "taker" yourself. But
at least lots of other American businesses are doing very well, they are
flush with cash, and they are ready to do a lot of new mergers. The
economy is turning around. How is it that you so called business types
are the last to know? No wonder you don't know how to invest. You don't
even know which way the economy is going even when all the signs are
right there. You guys need to wake up. The problems were created when
republicans ran things. They are being solved now that Democrats are in
charge. Just like always.
Hawke
RogerN
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hoc1s2$10r$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
All Right! We should have all that Obama bail out money paid back soon
then, right? You know, the billions borrowed from our kids and grandkids.
And add to that we have ten years of taxes to pay for 5 or 6 years of health
care.
RogerN
Buerste
> hatred has caused them to suffer what may be their biggest losses in
> history.
> You dumb cunts think your ranting and raving and teabagging is going to
> somehow help the party, but you're only digging the hole deeper.
> Which will be painfully obvious in November.
>
> --
VERY GOOD! An original thought! I didn't think you had it in ya'!
F. George McDuffee
>divert the incoming torpedoes, president say immagration reform
>is next on the agenda. Wont be any immagration if there are no
>jobs. Do they have a clue ??????
If you have a high speed internet connection watch _To rob a
country, own a bank_ parts 1-4. [*NOT* Fox news] Have a barf bag
handy....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA_MkJB84VA&feature=youtube_gdata
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISsR7ZiWlsk&feature=youtube_gdata
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_xdQyfNLnc&feature=youtube_gdata
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQbcNP0MUQY&feature=youtube_gdata
pyotr filipivich
-0700 in misc.survivalism:
>
>>> Now was there something else you wished to show self effacing discontent
>>> and envy about?
>>
>>Does it smell oily all the time?
>
>It smells like money <VBG>
that's what we said about the paperplant (yoicks did they have a
'distinctive olfactory presence) - that's the smell of money.
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
Buerste
Tell the 20% that are unemployed. Did you fail EVERY math class you ever
had? You must have, you certainly can't understand Economics 101. So good
of you to try to insult me personally, very predictable when you have no
argument. Run a D&B on me anytime you like...but then your insults would
just be more lies. You are a "Taker" and always will be...another millstone
on society...that can't do math.
John
There was some rather enlightening figures in the local paper's
financial section today:
GDP % change Y to Y change
U.S. +0.1
China +10.7
Consumer Prices
U.S. +2.6
China +2.7
Industrial Production
U.S. +1.8
China +19.2
Unemployment (Rate)
U.S. 9.7
China 4.3
Trade balance (B $)
U.S. -43..4
China +7.6
Yield (10 year Government Bond)
U.S. 3.66
China 3.56
Current Account (billion $)
U.S. -124.1
China 284.1
But everything is roses?
John B.
Hawke
You failed. Bringing up unemployment, which is called a "lagging
indicator" to try to make it look like things are not improving isn't
going to work. Earnings reports come out in less than three weeks and
they are going to be very good. That means lots of businesses are doing
very well and making lots of profits. The market is at nearly 11,000.
Retail sales are up too. Try to make those facts look bad all you want.
The policies that Obama put in place are working and the economy is
coming back. The signs are all around. Like I said, if you aren't aware
of that you are pretty uninformed. You also don't seem to know what an
insult is. Bringing to light what is observably true isn't an insult. Is
your business doing poorly and you are mad because others are doing
well? I don't know, but you are acting like it is. The facts are that
things are turning around. If you don't know that then it's your fault
not mine for point out the truth. You need to get your head out of the
sand and look around because you don't seem to know what is going on.
And you're the one throwing personal insults around. So I guess you
don't know an insult when you hear one...or give one.
Hawke
Hawke
No, but why are you comparing the U.S. to China? China is the country
that has done the best of all during the worldwide economic slowdown.
You compare it to any other country and it makes the other look bad.
That's an old salesman's trick.
Is the stock market up over 4000 points in the last year? Are retail
sales up? Are the first quarter earnings reports coming out soon and are
they going to be very good? You can compare us to the best economy in
the world and make us look bad in comparison. But if you compare the
economic situation right now to what it was a year ago and if you look
at the economic predictions you see that the outlook is definitely
improving. I'm not saying the economy is booming yet. I'm saying the
indicators say it's on the way up, not down. And that we're much better
off now than a year ago. All in all that's not bad. So if you hear
people saying we're in the shits it's simply not true. Last year it was
but not any more. It's real bad news for the republicans that things are
improving. They were hoping we would still be in a bad recession in
November so they could get reelected. Now it is looking more and more
like 2010 is going to be a good year, which bodes poorly for the right wing.
Hawke
Buerste
<snip>
> Is your business doing poorly and you are mad because others are doing
> well? I don't know, but you are acting like it is. The facts are that
> things are turning around. If you don't know that then it's your fault not
> mine for point out the truth. You need to get your head out of the sand
> and look around because you don't seem to know what is going on. And
> you're the one throwing personal insults around. So I guess you don't know
> an insult when you hear one...or give one.
>
> Hawke
I'm embarrassed that I WASN'T affected very much by the downturn, therefore
I don't brag or complain. But, I certainly won't go on a hiring spree. As
I said, run a D&B anytime you like...or, stfu. All small business owners I
know won't hire unless they absolutely have to and if we do, we hire temps.
THAT'S why unemployment is so high, we small business owners---the ones that
are responsible for 70% of jobs---don't feel comfortable with all the
anti-business liberals and unions making the rules. We're not GOING to hire
people the same way EVER again! And we're all looking into even higher
levels of automation and imports to eliminate all the artificial expenses
associated with more employees. You liberals drove millions of Big-Business
jobs overseas, now you're punishing the small businesses. Good strategy!
You just don't understand any of this, do you? Just like you can't do the
math on healthcare.
Hawke
You seem to be the one who can't do the math on healthcare. Every single
country that has gone to a universal system spends about half what we do
and covers everyone. How come it doesn't add up to you that it'll be the
same here? Or can they do that in every other country but we can't?
You're proof that having a business doesn't mean you know much about
business. Why don't you small businessmen hire more workers? Could it be
because you don't have enough business to need more workers? If you had
a lot more business you would have to hire more. So the reason you
aren't hiring is simple, you don't have enough customers. Why is that?
That's simple too. Bush and his gang cost us so much money that most
Americans don't have money to spend anymore, and they can't borrow
either. On your products or anything else. Everyone is so much poorer
than they were in 2001 that they can't buy anything but the necessities.
It's going to take many years for Americans to regain anywhere near the
wealth they lost due to the malfeasance of the republicans. You like to
pretend it was the fault of someone else for our financial woes but most
people know who is to blame. We know who messed things up and we know
who is trying to fix the problems. You think you know so much but you
are one of the few that hasn't figured out how we got in such a mess so
all you do is repeat what you hear right wingers like Hannity and
Limbaugh say. That is clearly not smart because only idiots listen to them.
Hawke
John
<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>> Current Account (billion $)
>> U.S. -124.1
>> China 284.1
>>
>> But everything is roses?
>>
>> John B.
>
>No, but why are you comparing the U.S. to China? China is the country
>that has done the best of all during the worldwide economic slowdown.
>You compare it to any other country and it makes the other look bad.
>That's an old salesman's trick.
Certainly I used China - the country that is most likely to become the
new world economic leader. But here is the numbers for a little,
insignificant country, to compare.
GDP % change Y to Y change
U.S. +0.1
Thailand +5.3
Consumer Prices
U.S. +2.6
Thai +3.7
Industrial Production
U.S. +1.8
Thai +28.6
Unemployment (Rate)
U.S. 9.7
Thai 1.4
Trade balance (B $)
U.S. -43..4
Thai +0.5
Yield (10 year Government Bond)
U.S. 3.66
Thai 4.07
Current Account (billion $)
U.S. -124.1
Thai +2.0
>Is the stock market up over 4000 points in the last year? Are retail
>sales up? Are the first quarter earnings reports coming out soon and are
>they going to be very good? You can compare us to the best economy in
>the world and make us look bad in comparison. But if you compare the
>economic situation right now to what it was a year ago and if you look
>at the economic predictions you see that the outlook is definitely
>improving. I'm not saying the economy is booming yet. I'm saying the
>indicators say it's on the way up, not down. And that we're much better
>off now than a year ago. All in all that's not bad. So if you hear
>people saying we're in the shits it's simply not true. Last year it was
>but not any more. It's real bad news for the republicans that things are
>improving. They were hoping we would still be in a bad recession in
>November so they could get reelected. Now it is looking more and more
>like 2010 is going to be a good year, which bodes poorly for the right wing.
>
>Hawke
The problem, and it does appear that many people do not realize, or
perhaps accept, that the U.S. essentially, through what can only be
termed mismanagement, has become a second class nation. With your high
cost of labor you have priced yourself out of the majority of the
world's market in the name of free trade, you engage in unpopular and
in several cases unwinable wars, for nebulas, or falsified reasons,
you can't even agree on an equitable public health scheme.
Perhaps you aren't in "the shit" at the moment but you are on a
slippery slope and I see no indication that anything is going to
change.
I hesitate to use Thailand as an example but it does serve to
illustrate some of my arguments. In 2002 the Thai parliament passed
the "Thirty Baht Medical Scheme" which covers all Thai citizens
resident in Thailand. It provides totally free medical care for all
children up the age of 12 years and medical treatment, for 30 baht
(currently equal to $0.96), for those above the age of twelve.
This charge is on a visit by visit basis. In other words, if you have
a chronic illness you go to the hospital, pay your 30 baht and receive
a one month supply of medicine. Next month you will go back and pay an
additional 30 baht. Note that this is for any and all medicine and/or
treatment that you receive.
Buerste
> You seem to be the one who can't do the math on healthcare. Every single
> country that has gone to a universal system spends about half what we do
> and covers everyone. How come it doesn't add up to you that it'll be the
> same here? Or can they do that in every other country but we can't?
Why do you think free healthcare is a right? Why can't you just buy
insurance? Why do I have to buy you insurance and every other
cheese-checker and illegal import?
*************************************
>
> You're proof that having a business doesn't mean you know much about
> business. Why don't you small businessmen hire more workers? Could it be
> because you don't have enough business to need more workers? If you had a
> lot more business you would have to hire more. So the reason you aren't
> hiring is simple, you don't have enough customers.
You know nothing about business or manufacturing. I know "profit" is a
dirty word for you but who's going to invest with no profit? I'm not
obligated to operate with a loss. So, we continue to increase automation
and import more materials and goods thus keeping domestic employees at a
minimum, they are too expensive and the libtards have made them MORE
expensive with no end in sight. Until you guys take over ALL business (and
ruin it), we will find ways to control costs...thus, high unemployment. You
also think that the US is the only market for me and other small businesses,
the rest of the world consumes way more than the US and many countries are
much more friendly to business, they seem to value wealth creation where the
US punishes it. I have a significant percentage of sales overseas and could
easily move my operation anywhere I like. My Board of Directors have been
discussing this for years. Talk to any manufacturer, they will say the
EXACT same thing. Why are you too simple minded to understand that? Why am
I arguing with you, your perception is limited to your liberal talking
points and you have no idea how the real world works.
> It's going to take many years for Americans to regain anywhere near the
> wealth they lost due to the malfeasance of the republicans.
Who is going to create these jobs? Do you even have a CLUE as to how wealth
IS created? Tell me, I need a good laugh.
Buerste
"John" <johnbs...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:m1jlq5t9i3sl5ths6...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> The problem, and it does appear that many people do not realize, or
> perhaps accept, that the U.S. essentially, through what can only be
> termed mismanagement, has become a second class nation. With your high
> cost of labor you have priced yourself out of the majority of the
> world's market in the name of free trade, you engage in unpopular and
> in several cases unwinable wars, for nebulas, or falsified reasons,
> you can't even agree on an equitable public health scheme.
>
> Perhaps you aren't in "the shit" at the moment but you are on a
> slippery slope and I see no indication that anything is going to
> change.
>
> I hesitate to use Thailand as an example but it does serve to
> illustrate some of my arguments. In 2002 the Thai parliament passed
> the "Thirty Baht Medical Scheme" which covers all Thai citizens
> resident in Thailand. It provides totally free medical care for all
> children up the age of 12 years and medical treatment, for 30 baht
> (currently equal to $0.96), for those above the age of twelve.
>
> This charge is on a visit by visit basis. In other words, if you have
> a chronic illness you go to the hospital, pay your 30 baht and receive
> a one month supply of medicine. Next month you will go back and pay an
> additional 30 baht. Note that this is for any and all medicine and/or
> treatment that you receive.
>
> But everything is roses?
>
> John B.
Well stated! It will take a miracle to turn the US around and I don't see
one coming. The buzzards are circling while the other scavengers are trying
to tear off pieces of the rotting flesh. I doubt resuscitation is in the
cards. Anybody with a brain has a contingency plan.
rangerssuck
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:55:33 -0700, Hawke
>
>
>
>
>
> <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
> >On 3/24/2010 7:27 AM, John wrote:
> >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:45:02 -0700, Hawke
>
> >>> On 3/23/2010 12:38 PM, Buerste wrote:
Uhmmm, nice story, John. You'd think that with numbers like that we
should all be running off to Thailand. But you left out something
rather significant: The average gross income in Thailand is $4500 per
year.
http://www.worldsalaries.org/thailand.shtml
John
wrote:
The thing I find interesting, if that is the proper term, is that it
is not a case of the U.S. blundering into terra incognita. Great
Britain went through a very similar series of events after WW II. A
socialistic government, costs rising to the point they could no longer
compete in the market, etc. Of course, their problems were compounded
by the Japanese entering the market with cheaper goods that in many
cases were higher in quality. the British motorcycle industry comes to
mind. British motorcycles literally disappeared in less then ten
years. Driven out by cheaper, higher quality, machines from Japan.
What is the saying? Those who refuse to study history are doomed to
repeat it?
John B.
Hawke
> I hesitate to use Thailand as an example but it does serve to
> illustrate some of my arguments. In 2002 the Thai parliament passed
> the "Thirty Baht Medical Scheme" which covers all Thai citizens
> resident in Thailand. It provides totally free medical care for all
> children up the age of 12 years and medical treatment, for 30 baht
> (currently equal to $0.96), for those above the age of twelve.
>
> This charge is on a visit by visit basis. In other words, if you have
> a chronic illness you go to the hospital, pay your 30 baht and receive
> a one month supply of medicine. Next month you will go back and pay an
> additional 30 baht. Note that this is for any and all medicine and/or
> treatment that you receive.
>
> But everything is roses?
>
> John B.
Everything isn't roses in the U.S. that's for sure. But for the first
time in years at least we are starting to move in the right direction
again. We are now starting to make some of the big changes that we need
to make to improve. Addressing our health care problems is a good first
step. Do we have a long way to go to get back to where we should be?
That's a big affirmative. But we're still a hell of a long way from
Thailand.
Hawke
Hawke
>> You seem to be the one who can't do the math on healthcare. Every single
>> country that has gone to a universal system spends about half what we do
>> and covers everyone. How come it doesn't add up to you that it'll be the
>> same here? Or can they do that in every other country but we can't?
> ***********************************
> Why do you think free healthcare is a right? Why can't you just buy
> insurance? Why do I have to buy you insurance and every other
> cheese-checker and illegal import?
> *************************************
It's amazing that you can actually have a business when you can't even
read and understand English. Your questions show you didn't understand a
word of the paragraph I wrote. I said every other industrial country
spends half what we do on health care and covers everyone and why can't
we. You answer by saying I think healthcare is a right, which I don't.
You also don't seem to know even the basics of how a country works. It's
like this, people elect a government to do what the country wants done.
This country wants all it's people to have basic health care no matter
what. The government collects taxes to pay for what the citizens told
them they want, whether it's roads, sewers, police, armies, or health
insurance. You have to pay your share for what the country decided it
needs. That's what happened. It's called democracy. You pay whether you
get a benefit or not. I have no kids but I pay for schools anyway. You
have to pay for some people who can't afford insurance. Get it?
>> You're proof that having a business doesn't mean you know much about
>> business. Why don't you small businessmen hire more workers? Could it be
>> because you don't have enough business to need more workers? If you had a
>> lot more business you would have to hire more. So the reason you aren't
>> hiring is simple, you don't have enough customers.
> **************************************
>
> You know nothing about business or manufacturing. I know "profit" is a
> dirty word for you but who's going to invest with no profit? I'm not
> obligated to operate with a loss. So, we continue to increase automation
> and import more materials and goods thus keeping domestic employees at a
> minimum, they are too expensive and the libtards have made them MORE
> expensive with no end in sight. Until you guys take over ALL business (and
> ruin it), we will find ways to control costs...thus, high unemployment. You
> also think that the US is the only market for me and other small businesses,
> the rest of the world consumes way more than the US and many countries are
> much more friendly to business, they seem to value wealth creation where the
> US punishes it. I have a significant percentage of sales overseas and could
> easily move my operation anywhere I like. My Board of Directors have been
> discussing this for years. Talk to any manufacturer, they will say the
> EXACT same thing. Why are you too simple minded to understand that? Why am
> I arguing with you, your perception is limited to your liberal talking
> points and you have no idea how the real world works.
First off you don't have a clue as to what I know about business. You
think business is complicated? You think you are so much smarter than I
am that you can understand how to make a product and sell it for a
profit but I can't, is that right? You are grossly overestimating your
intelligence. Any kid who opens a lemonade stand understands how to make
a profit. So you're not the repository of information the rest of us
don't have.
In addition, you just avoid anything you don't want to face. Take your
automation argument. You won't hire because you just automate instead of
hiring workers. That's fine only for a company that is in the
manufacturing business. Other businesses need more customers to increase
their business. Can you increase business without more customers? Not
much if you have to depend on a limited supply of customers. I'm talking
about business in general not your specific one. American businesses
depend on American customers to buy their products and services. When
those customers are broke the businesses fail too. Bush created a
disaster that took trillions from the American public. That's not an
opinion. It's a fact. Without the money to buy things business suffers.
70% of the American economy is based on consumer spending. When that
base is eroded by loss of a tremendous amount of wealth it hurts
business just as much. But you can talk about your company and ignore
all that like it isn't the truth. You're good at avoiding the truth.
>> It's going to take many years for Americans to regain anywhere near the
>> wealth they lost due to the malfeasance of the republicans.
>
> Who is going to create these jobs? Do you even have a CLUE as to how wealth
> IS created? Tell me, I need a good laugh.
It's not going to be big businesses. I can tell you that. They haven't
created jobs in years. The jobs will be created by individuals starting
new businesses and it will be businesses that partner with the
government to get a start in new industries that are just getting going.
You seem to think you know some secret about how wealth is created. I
would love to hear it. I can guarantee it won't be something I don't
already know. But it'll probably be some bullshit about the wealthy
creating the jobs. One thing is for sure. It won't be entrepreneurs like
you though will it? You just told us you won't hire anybody and will
just automate. Except maybe for make work jobs for a dufus like Gunner.
Hawke
Buerste
<snip>
> It's not going to be big businesses. I can tell you that. They haven't
> created jobs in years. The jobs will be created by individuals starting
> new businesses and it will be businesses that partner with the government
> to get a start in new industries that are just getting going. You seem to
> think you know some secret about how wealth is created. I would love to
> hear it. I can guarantee it won't be something I don't already know. But
> it'll probably be some bullshit about the wealthy creating the jobs. One
> thing is for sure. It won't be entrepreneurs like you though will it? You
> just told us you won't hire anybody and will just automate. Except maybe
> for make work jobs for a dufus like Gunner.
>
> Hawke
How many jobs has my company created in 131 years? How many jobs has my
>$15k/wk payroll created considering that those dollars circulate in a
community 7 times? You create wealth by mining it, growing it or adding
value (manufacturing) to it and arguably by creating intellectual property.
The wealthy only provide capital to risk and maybe expertise and for this
they are entitled to a fair ROI proportional to risk. Wealthy people don't
hoard money, it's ALWAYS put to work. Take it away from them and there is
less to invest and less incentive to invest it in the US. The gov likes to
confiscate as much as it can and give it away to buy votes. The more people
on the hand-out end will keep voting to keep the free money coming thus
insuring the continual elections of the politicians giving the confiscated
money away. Why should these people learn anything and go to work? They
get it all for free! Good system you got going there! It sure is to the
advantage to these politicians to keep these people lazy and stupid...and,
it's working very well!
What ever you subsidize, you get more of...what ever you tax you get less
of. Write that down and live it! Consider very carefully what you want to
subsidize and what you want to tax. You want to tax business and money
suppliers and subsidize illegal aliens, welfare recipients and abortions. I
want to create favorable conditions for businesses and investors to create
jobs, teach skills to people and create wealth. You guys have it completely
backwards.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Brainless socialists always do that.
Gunner
"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.
This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost
Chief Egalitarian
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hog9ih$t6a$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Everything isn't roses in the U.S. that's for sure. But for the first time
> in years at least we are starting to move in the right direction again. We
> are now starting to make some of the big changes that we need to make to
> improve. Addressing our health care problems is a good first step. Do we
> have a long way to go to get back to where we should be? That's a big
> affirmative. But we're still a hell of a long way from Thailand.
>
> Hawke
Hey dipshit! Where is the metalworking content in your post asshole-face?
John
No, I don't advocate everyone running off to Thailand but it would be
nice to see a few facing reality.
In talking about average income you make a fundamental error - at
least you appear to equate a Thai's salary to living costs in the U.S.
While $375 a month undoubtedly seems like a tiny amount of money to
you there are multitudes of Thais who are quite happy to receive
11,000 baht a month.
John B.
John
You are correct, however I'm not sure whether the big changes are
reality, or just window dressing. Is the new health plan really going
to do much for the average working guy?
If he is working he probably has some sort of health plan already,
doesn't he? Every company I have worked for here in Asia has had
medical coverage, of some sort. The cheapest bunch had a company medic
at every site and would pay for all on-the-job injuries.
I haven't read the bill but from hearsay it seems to be mainly day
laborers and the unemployed. who will benefit.
.
John B.
John
wrote:
>
But passing a medical plan for the masses sure gets a lot of votes
next election.
John B.
Hawke
> How many jobs has my company created in 131 years? How many jobs has my
> >$15k/wk payroll created considering that those dollars circulate in a
> community 7 times? You create wealth by mining it, growing it or adding
> value (manufacturing) to it and arguably by creating intellectual property.
> The wealthy only provide capital to risk and maybe expertise and for this
> they are entitled to a fair ROI proportional to risk. Wealthy people don't
> hoard money, it's ALWAYS put to work. Take it away from them and there is
> less to invest and less incentive to invest it in the US. The gov likes to
> confiscate as much as it can and give it away to buy votes. The more people
> on the hand-out end will keep voting to keep the free money coming thus
> insuring the continual elections of the politicians giving the confiscated
> money away. Why should these people learn anything and go to work? They
> get it all for free! Good system you got going there! It sure is to the
> advantage to these politicians to keep these people lazy and stupid...and,
> it's working very well!
Just as I expected, your explanations for how wealth is created is
exactly what is always trotted out. The traditional three ways of
creating wealth; mining, manufacturing, and agriculture. Nothing new
there. Then there are the three factors of production; land, labor, and
capital. Nothing new there either. So there you go. Everything you cited
as how wealth is created I've known for 40 years. But you are wrong in
your assessment of how government works or how it is supposed to work.
Government that is run by the consent of the governed does not
confiscate money from the people. The people indicate to their leaders
what they want and the leaders collect enough in taxes from them to
accomplish their goals.
What you don't comprehend is that under our capitalist economic system
there will always be a large proportion of the population that will not
be able to make a decent living not matter how hard they try. I think
you can see that no matter how much you may want a good job today they
just don't exist. That is how capitalist systems work. They never
produce enough jobs for everyone to have a decent level of living. The
whole point of a safety net acknowledges that fact. Society as a whole
has made the choice to help those who cannot provide an adequate level
of life. You may not like that choice but that is what our people have
chosen. You also don't understand that people who need government help
don't want to be in that position. They would rather have a good job and
good pay than to barely get by on government handouts. At least most
would. But there's never going to be enough good jobs to go around.
> What ever you subsidize, you get more of...what ever you tax you get less
> of. Write that down and live it! Consider very carefully what you want to
> subsidize and what you want to tax. You want to tax business and money
> suppliers and subsidize illegal aliens, welfare recipients and abortions. I
> want to create favorable conditions for businesses and investors to create
> jobs, teach skills to people and create wealth. You guys have it completely
> backwards.
Now we don't. We want the same thing as to creating favorable conditions
for businesses to be successful. Without them the people are not going
to have a high level of wealth. No good businesses, only poor people. So
we do want that. But we also know the government is supposed to do what
the people want. That requires taking a certain amount of money in
taxes. If you have to get money for taxes it only makes sense to go to
those who have it. In the last decade the wealth of the country has
become way too concentrated in too few hands. That means we have to take
a lot more from those lucky few. If we had an egalitarian society where
everyone had equal wealth we could go to everyone for the money. But
when all the money is held by the few then they are going to have to pay
for everything, but they have it so why not. So you choose. You can have
an unequal society where a few own everything and thus pay all the
taxes, or you can have a more economically equal society where all the
people pay the taxes. Right now most wealth is held by a small number.
So they have to pay. To which I say, if you don't like it you can move
to another country.
Hawke
Hawke
>> How many jobs has my company created in 131 years? How many jobs has my
>>> $15k/wk payroll created considering that those dollars circulate in a
>> community 7 times? You create wealth by mining it, growing it or adding
>> value (manufacturing) to it and arguably by creating intellectual property.
>> The wealthy only provide capital to risk and maybe expertise and for this
>> they are entitled to a fair ROI proportional to risk. Wealthy people don't
>> hoard money, it's ALWAYS put to work. Take it away from them and there is
>> less to invest and less incentive to invest it in the US. The gov likes to
>> confiscate as much as it can and give it away to buy votes. The more people
>> on the hand-out end will keep voting to keep the free money coming thus
>> insuring the continual elections of the politicians giving the confiscated
>> money away. Why should these people learn anything and go to work? They
>> get it all for free! Good system you got going there! It sure is to the
>> advantage to these politicians to keep these people lazy and stupid...and,
>> it's working very well!
>>
>> What ever you subsidize, you get more of...what ever you tax you get less
>> of. Write that down and live it! Consider very carefully what you want to
>> subsidize and what you want to tax. You want to tax business and money
>> suppliers and subsidize illegal aliens, welfare recipients and abortions. I
>> want to create favorable conditions for businesses and investors to create
>> jobs, teach skills to people and create wealth. You guys have it completely
>> backwards.
>>
>
> Brainless socialists always do that.
>
> Gunner
Brainless capitalists like Gunner wind up just like he has, broken and
living in poverty while collecting huge amounts of taxpayer's money in
handouts from the government. And don't forget, as he takes every
possible benefit he can from the government he's complaining about the
government doing too much for the poor.
Hawke
Hawke
>> Everything isn't roses in the U.S. that's for sure. But for the first
>> time in years at least we are starting to move in the right direction
>> again. We are now starting to make some of the big changes that we
>> need to make to improve. Addressing our health care problems is a good
>> first step. Do we have a long way to go to get back to where we should
>> be? That's a big affirmative. But we're still a hell of a long way
>> from Thailand.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> Hey dipshit! Where is the metalworking content in your post asshole-face?
Same place as yours you stupid cunt!
Hawke
Hawke
>> Everything isn't roses in the U.S. that's for sure. But for the first
>> time in years at least we are starting to move in the right direction
>> again. We are now starting to make some of the big changes that we need
>> to make to improve. Addressing our health care problems is a good first
>> step. Do we have a long way to go to get back to where we should be?
>> That's a big affirmative. But we're still a hell of a long way from
>> Thailand.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> You are correct, however I'm not sure whether the big changes are
> reality, or just window dressing. Is the new health plan really going
> to do much for the average working guy?
>
> If he is working he probably has some sort of health plan already,
> doesn't he? Every company I have worked for here in Asia has had
> medical coverage, of some sort. The cheapest bunch had a company medic
> at every site and would pay for all on-the-job injuries.
>
> I haven't read the bill but from hearsay it seems to be mainly day
> laborers and the unemployed. who will benefit.
Then by your own admission you don't know very much about how the health
care bill is going to work. You see that the countries in Asia have
taken the step we just did but they did it years ago. The question is if
every other country has already taken the step why so late for us?
Here's why. Everyone knows that we were on an unsustainable path with
our system. The other countries saw the same facts and made the changes
to their systems they thought were necessary. We finally did what we had
to do but only minimally, and not right away. Things aren't going to
change much here for a number of years but at least we're not still
moving in the wrong direction. The main thing we did was to take some
power away from the insurance companies. They will not be able to rip
people off like they were doing. All countries are in the process of
changing from one kind of health care system to a modern one. There are
a lot of different variations in different places and some are better
than others. As time passes they will change as we see which really work
and which aren't so efficient. The main thing is the over arching goal
is now the same for everyone, to provide taxpayer funded basic health
care for everyone. That was not a function of government for many years.
Now it is accepted by just about every country. With that goal in mind
everyone is now looking to reach the same goal but they will have
different methods for doing it. What will be interesting is to see
exactly what health care looks like around the world in ten years,
twenty years, and longer. I'm guessing it'll be a lot different than
what we are seeing today.
Hawke
Buerste
<snip>
> Now we don't. We want the same thing as to creating favorable conditions
> for businesses to be successful. Without them the people are not going to
> have a high level of wealth. No good businesses, only poor people. So we
> do want that. But we also know the government is supposed to do what the
> people want. That requires taking a certain amount of money in taxes. If
> you have to get money for taxes it only makes sense to go to those who
> have it. In the last decade the wealth of the country has become way too
> concentrated in too few hands. That means we have to take a lot more from
> those lucky few. If we had an egalitarian society where everyone had equal
> wealth we could go to everyone for the money. But when all the money is
> held by the few then they are going to have to pay for everything, but
> they have it so why not. So you choose. You can have an unequal society
> where a few own everything and thus pay all the taxes, or you can have a
> more economically equal society where all the people pay the taxes. Right
> now most wealth is held by a small number. So they have to pay. To which I
> say, if you don't like it you can move to another country.
>
> Hawke
At least you are honest in your socialism. Socialist/Marxist Liberals have
created the situation where a portion of the population is uneducated,
skill-less, jobless and a drain on society...but they VOTE! THAT'S how
liberals self-perpetuate. And, you guys keep those people in that position.
You've gotten that population high enough to ensure power for liberals so
they can extract MORE wealth from those that produce it and redistribute it
to the voting leeches. But, what happens when you drain all the wealth than
can be created by those that create it? Robbing Peter to pay Paul works
well if you're Paul...until you bankrupt Peter.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/
President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in
cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than
the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of
the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office
reported Thursday
Buerste
<snip>
> But passing a medical plan for the masses sure gets a lot of votes
> next election.
>
> John B.
EXACTLY!!!!
Larry Jaques
<johnbs...@invalid.com> scrawled the following:
>On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:46:57 -0400, "Buerste" <bue...@buerste.com>
>wrote:
>>What ever you subsidize, you get more of...what ever you tax you get less
>>of. Write that down and live it! Consider very carefully what you want to
>>subsidize and what you want to tax. You want to tax business and money
>>suppliers and subsidize illegal aliens, welfare recipients and abortions. I
>>want to create favorable conditions for businesses and investors to create
>>jobs, teach skills to people and create wealth. You guys have it completely
>>backwards.
>>
>
>But passing a medical plan for the masses sure gets a lot of votes
>next election.
What medical plan, John? The major mandate is here is to force people
to pay insurance companies.
--
Challenges are gifts that force us to search for a new center of gravity.
Don't fight them. Just find a different way to stand.
-- Oprah Winfrey
John
You are correct, I don't know much about the health scheme, hell, I
don't know anything about it. Which is why I asked the question: "I'm
not sure whether the big changes are reality, or just window
dressing. Is the new health plan really going to do much for the
average working guy?"
(Note the question mark there on the end of the line)
But, if the government is really intent on overhauling the health
system in the U.S. why didn't they simply rule that the U.S.
government would pay all medical costs by a similar system to Social
Security? Real socialized medicine. I suggest that as a percent of GNP
it would be cheaper.
In a separate post someone mentioned a charity patient - went to the
hospital to have a baby. Room cost was $2,000-something a day.
Certainly this is excessive isn't it? I've staid in some pretty posh
hotels and never paid more then $900 a day, for a single room w/bath.
The government needs to do a survey to determine whether the medical
industry makes an unusually high profit and prosecute them if they do.
John B.
John R. Carroll
Total US taxes, the total tax divided by the number of citizens, has ranged
between the lowest and third-lowest among developed countries (the OECD
countries) in recent years. Our corporate tax, which was the lowest among
that group until not many years ago, is now nominally one of the highest
because those other countries have been in a race to keep companies from
leaving their countries and moving elsewhere -- like big pharma did when
much of it moved to the US. But in practice, because of all of the
complexities in our tax code, our corporations pay less tax than those in
any other developed country. Our real average corporate tax is around 19% of
their profits.
The total tax burden is another issue, but one thing is absolutely clear
from the numbers: The US is not at a competitive disadvantage because of our
total tax rates. And corporations are paying much less in fact, even though
our *nominal* rates are higher, than their competitors in other developed
countries.
The big "tax" disadvantage our larger corporations suffer from is paying
healthcare and pensions, much of which are picked up by the state in other
countries. That's why they have higher *overall* tax rates, in terms of
total taxes per individual. Corporations get off that hook in many other
countries. The taxes are still there, but they're shifted off the
corporations' backs and onto individual citizens.
There are other, smaller examples that explain why taxes are so high in
other countries, even while we yell about taxes here. Our system is skewed
in some ways that hurt performance (like our health care system) while
turning the screws in some places but not in others. But flat taxes and VATs
don't, in themselves, help to straighten out the matters of performance of
social institutions or corporate competitiveness. If you flattened out the
taxes without introducing a universal health care system, you'd just put the
squeeze on the middle class, particularly the lower-middle. And VATs are
steeply regressive. European countries use a very steeply progressive income
tax -- the opposite of a flat income tax -- to compensate. You *would*
succeed in depressing consumption with a VAT in the US, but then you'd be
forced, like Germany and Japan, to depend excessively on a mercantilist
(export-based) economy. You can see where it's gotten them: in a downturn,
they're sucking wind from all directions. Not only do they feel the
recession more sharply than we do, but they can't do a damned thing about it
until the economies of their trading partners pick up.
All in all, it wouldn't be healthy for us to have a flat tax and/or a VAT.
We be in a real race to the bottom against China, SE Asia, and a few others.
Our economy really does rely on high rates of domestic consumption, and,
most of the time, it leaves us in a stronger position overall. That's why
our Treasury bills still sell to foreigners. They've lost some of their
glitter lately but you would expect, all else being equal, that they would
have completely tanked.
All else isn't equal because we can recover from a recession better than
most. And our tax system is part of the reason. Tinker with it at your
peril.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:B5mdna0Ao5ynjzPW...@giganews.com...
Is there an echo in here? d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
I hope so <G>
I'm also wondering why, if Tom is doing such a splendid job creating jobs,
Ohio is going to be without two Congressional Districts as the result of the
current census. I wonder if Tang Face is going to be back to running the
family bar?
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
I think he's giving a lot of them the brush-off.
> I wonder if Tang Face is going to be back to running the
> family bar?
Huh. Tang. Yeah, that's good. The color on my TV is off a little bit, I
guess. His face still looks like Pontiac Firegold from here.
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> news:PPadnQio4fEJiDPW...@giganews.com...
>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>> news:B5mdna0Ao5ynjzPW...@giganews.com...
>>>> Buerste wrote:
>>>>> "Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hoj3hn$6t8$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>> <snip>
>>
>> I hope so <G>
>> I'm also wondering why, if Tom is doing such a splendid job creating
>> jobs, Ohio is going to be without two Congressional Districts as the
>> result of the
>> current census.
>
> I think he's giving a lot of them the brush-off.
Well....
They lost two in 1990, two more in 2000 and now another two in 2010.
At 630,000 a pop, that's a lot of brushing.
LOL
It's also a huge dent in the tax base.
>
>> I wonder if Tang Face is going to be back to running the
>> family bar?
>
> Huh. Tang. Yeah, that's good. The color on my TV is off a little bit,
> I guess. His face still looks like Pontiac Firegold from here.
It's a spray on so he can vary the color to suit his mood if he likes. He
was much less radiant when he took to the well of the House before the
reconcilliation vote than he'd been on Sunday. Did you notice that? It would
be funny as hell if the service he uses turned him a dark shade of ebony by
mistake one day <G> That really would be "Magic".
LOL
--
John R. Carroll
Buerste
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
I'm just a tiny flyspeck and have absolutely no impact on anything. I see
first hand the worst part of one of the hardest hit cities in the US. I see
the symptoms of the huge underlying problems...jobs and education! We used
to have a model school system, now it's been politicized when they started
election the BOE rather than appointing them. The system quickly corrupted
and disintegrated. There used to be huge numbers of good manufacturing jobs
that attracted people from all over the country. Now those jobs are gone
and the decedents of the factory workers have nothing comparable. And,
there seems to be a disincentive for kids to do well in school and the
schools have lost their incentive to impress these kids. I have a real hard
time getting new employees that can do simple math or read a tape measure.
We hold classes, on the clock, just to teach some necessary skills. We also
cover the families' medical and pay for children's and grandchildren's
school books through college if they hold a "B" average. BUT, that's a fart
in a windstorm. My costs get repaid many-fold as my employees on the whole
go above and beyond.
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
Maybe it will leave him spotted. Or maybe it breaks down from skin acids
into something paisley. <g>
--
Ed Huntress
Hawke
>
> At least you are honest in your socialism.
Are you honest to admit that the U.S. is a socialist country? Because
Americans are socialists. They want socialist programs. Any country that
has huge programs like Medicare, Social Security, and the VA, just to
name a few, is socialist. If you're honest enough to admit we are
socialists then just accept that you are too.
Socialist/Marxist Liberals have
> created the situation where a portion of the population is uneducated,
> skill-less, jobless and a drain on society...but they VOTE!
You're wrong on two points. First, the uneducated, jobless, skill-less
do not vote very often. Most of the time they don't vote or participate
in the system at all. Which is why we get only fifty or sixty percent
turnout at most elections. It's those folks who are not voting. Second,
it's not liberals who have created the situation that put those people
where they are. Unless you consider all the out of work people today are
in that position because of liberals. Which would be BS considering that
conservatives ran the country for 8 out of the last 10 years.
THAT'S how
> liberals self-perpetuate. And, you guys keep those people in that position.
> You've gotten that population high enough to ensure power for liberals so
> they can extract MORE wealth from those that produce it and redistribute it
> to the voting leeches.
It sure would be nice if you had facts to back up your statements
instead of just plain myths. Why don't you look up the facts? Is it
because if you did it would make your beliefs wrong? The wealth of the
country, which in the 1950s was mainly held by the middle class, is now
mainly in the hands of only 5% of the population. That is what has
changed. The wealth has gone into the hands of the few. That's not
opinion, pal. So when the money all goes to the few it leaves the
majority with nothing, and that's about where we are today. Those people
on the bottom used to have something. Now it's all owned by the few.
Look up the facts before denying it, okay?
But, what happens when you drain all the wealth than
> can be created by those that create it? Robbing Peter to pay Paul works
> well if you're Paul...until you bankrupt Peter.
As I said the wealth has not been drained. It has been sucked up to the
upper 5%. Try finding out the truth before blathering your baseless
ideas. The country was actually wealthier than it's ever been as of
2007. The problem is that the wealth is maldistributed. The few have
most of it. It wasn't like this when I was a kid. The middle class was
where all the wealth was. Not anymore. Learn the facts so that you don't
keep perpetuating myths, and sounding so ignorant, okay.
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/
> President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in
> cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than
> the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of
> the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office
> reported Thursday
Ten year projections aren't worth the paper they are printed on. The
recession is over. The economy is starting to rebound. I'm even hearing
that in the next jobs report they are saying that instead of jobs lost
there are going to be jobs created for the first time in over 2 years.
So don't listen to the bullcrap about Obama doing nothing but messing
things up worse than Bush. He's going to do much better, already has.
Mark my words. No, don't bother. I'll be reminding you myself.
Hawke
Hawke
I'm not hearing one. But I thought I would be hearing a lot of carping
and arguing about what JC just said. Because whenever anyone tells the
truth about our country the right wing boys come out of the woodwork to
argue against it. So I'm expecting a barrage against what he said any
minute now. Probably led by the Goober, who knows nothing about what was
said.
Hawke
Hawke
> You are correct, I don't know much about the health scheme, hell, I
> don't know anything about it. Which is why I asked the question: "I'm
> not sure whether the big changes are reality, or just window
> dressing. Is the new health plan really going to do much for the
> average working guy?"
> (Note the question mark there on the end of the line)
Yeah, I saw it. To answer your question, yes, there really are big
changes coming but they aren't going to happen over night. It's going to
take a while. But eventually we're going to have a radically different
system from the one we had up until now.
>
> But, if the government is really intent on overhauling the health
> system in the U.S. why didn't they simply rule that the U.S.
> government would pay all medical costs by a similar system to Social
> Security? Real socialized medicine. I suggest that as a percent of GNP
> it would be cheaper.
You're correct a real socialized system would be the cheapest and most
efficient way to provide health care to everyone. Why we didn't do that
is because nobody is in a position to rule that such a system be
adopted. If we could have we would have. Unfortunately, one of the
deficiencies of our government is that it is so hard to effect change
that the only way we can do it is incrementally. So we just did what we
could. We took the first step. But as we go we will alter the system to
being more and more socialized as time passes. All the inefficiencies of
the current system will be phased out over time until we have a truly
universal system. That may take decades to accomplish though. But maybe
not. It depends.
> In a separate post someone mentioned a charity patient - went to the
> hospital to have a baby. Room cost was $2,000-something a day.
> Certainly this is excessive isn't it? I've staid in some pretty posh
> hotels and never paid more then $900 a day, for a single room w/bath.
>
> The government needs to do a survey to determine whether the medical
> industry makes an unusually high profit and prosecute them if they do.
Our costs are way out of line. Today I heard that if you spend a day in
the hospital in the U.S. it is usually more than 3,000 a day but in
Europe it is always less than 1,000 a day. So we need to cut costs I
also heard today that a general practitioner makes an average of 173,000
a year but an oncologist makes 313,000, and a cardiologist makes over
400,000 a year. Clearly, the amount we pay our doctors for their work is
very high. But everything else is ridiculously expensive as well. Which
is why the whole system has to be revamped. But as you saw, getting
anything passed is really hard to do. I saw Rahm Emmanuel today in an
interview and he said that it took about 14 months to get this health
bill passed. But then he said it took almost 2 years to get social
security passed and 18 months to get medicare done. So it's always a
real struggle to pass any meaningful legislation in this country. Chalk
that up to the inefficiency of our system, thanks founding fathers, and
to the republicans, whose job in life is to maintain the status quo as
if their lives depended on it.
Hawke
F. George McDuffee
<gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:29:42 -0700, "azotic" <azo...@cox.net>
>wrote:
><snip>
>>Delusional Congressional priorities regarding health care will not
>>divert the incoming torpedoes, president say immagration reform
>>is next on the agenda. Wont be any immagration if there are no
>>jobs. Do they have a clue ??????
><snip>
>If you have a high speed internet connection watch _To rob a
>country, own a bank_ parts 1-4. [*NOT* Fox news] Have a barf bag
>handy....
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA_MkJB84VA&feature=youtube_gdata
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISsR7ZiWlsk&feature=youtube_gdata
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_xdQyfNLnc&feature=youtube_gdata
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQbcNP0MUQY&feature=youtube_gdata
>
-----------
If you thought parts 1-4 had something to say, part 5 is just
out. click on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IENsfk40sYU&feature=youtube_gdata
Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
Buerste
"Because Americans are socialists."
(L, S or I)?
"First, the uneducated, jobless, skill-less do not vote very often."
(L, S or I)?
"Conservatives ran the country for 8 out of the last 10 years."
(L, S or I)?
"Those people on the bottom used to have something. Now it's all owned by
the few."
(L, S or I)?
"The problem is that the wealth is maldistributed."
(L, S or I)?
"I'm even hearing that in the next jobs report they are saying that instead
of jobs lost
there are going to be jobs created for the first time in over 2 years."
(L, S or I)?
Any of the answers are correct for you.
So, redistributing somebody else's money to those you think deserving is
your answer to all the worlds problems. I bet you're on the receiving end,
aren't you Paul?
John R. Carroll
So all of that nonsense about 131 years in business was just posturing?
OK
What you and yours did yesterday doesn't matter much anyway. It's what you
do today that counts.
You know that.
> I see first hand the worst part of one of the hardest hit cities in
> the US.
Head on over to Cincinnati if you want to see worse.
You guys in Cleveland can't even fail properly.
You are a close second though.
>I see the symptoms of the huge underlying problems...jobs
> and education!
Those are results Tom, not symptoms.
>We used to have a model school system, now it's been
> politicized when they started election the BOE rather than appointing
> them. The system quickly corrupted and disintegrated.
Bah!
The problem is shitty parents. All of the crap you list is what you get from
idiots with kids.
>There used to
> be huge numbers of good manufacturing jobs that attracted people from
> all over the country.
It wasn't only the jobs, it was Ohio, once a GREAT place to live, work and
raise a family.
Turning it into a cesspool in the 50's and 60's was a bad idea. Anyone with
a brain got out and it became impossible for manufacturers to attract good
talent. That's what happens when you shit where you eat and in your own hat
simultaneously.
Once the best parents had taken themselves and their families to places
where the rivers and streams didn't leap into toxin producing flame
spontaneously, you ended up with the crowd that couldn't get out and
manufacturer's hit the road.
>Now those jobs are gone and the decedents of
> the factory workers have nothing comparable.
Sure they do, just in a different neighborhood far away.
> And, there seems to be
> a disincentive for kids to do well in school and the schools have
> lost their incentive to impress these kids.
No parenting skills. You can cast blame anywhere, and you do, but the
simple fact is that parents are the first and strongest role models for
their offspring. Shitty parents = low quality offspring.
>I have a real hard time
> getting new employees that can do simple math or read a tape measure.
> We hold classes, on the clock, just to teach some necessary skills.
> We also cover the families' medical and pay for children's and
> grandchildren's school books through college if they hold a "B"
> average. BUT, that's a fart in a windstorm. My costs get repaid
> many-fold as my employees on the whole go above and beyond.
Yeah, what you are is a surrogate parent. I'd have thought that would be
obvious to you.
It isn't the kids or the schools that are defective or you wouldn't have any
luck with these people either.
Ship the whole lot of them off for military service and they'd come back
useful men and women with a little self respect.
They would be teaching you something then and that would be that you'r
current blathering is just a bunch of uninformed and emotional BS.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
This is a bit of a joke. John cut and pasted one of my old messages. I'm
curious to see if it gets a different reaction when his name is on it. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
So far, Tom's just changed hobby horses <G>
First it was taxes, now he's riding school boards and teachers.
I think my alternative is a lot closer to reality than either of those.
Cleveland, Cincinnati and Detroit are going to have to go through the same
evolution that Flint, Michigan has undertaken to heal themselves.
--
John R. Carroll
Wes
>>> I hope so <G>
>>> I'm also wondering why, if Tom is doing such a splendid job creating
>>> jobs, Ohio is going to be without two Congressional Districts as the
>>> result of the
>>> current census.
>>
>> I think he's giving a lot of them the brush-off.
>
>Well....
>They lost two in 1990, two more in 2000 and now another two in 2010.
>At 630,000 a pop, that's a lot of brushing.
>LOL
>It's also a huge dent in the tax base.
Now that you have busted Tom's chops, explain this one:
http://www.mercurynews.com/business-headlines/ci_14758479?nclick_check=1
Excerpted.
Whatever the reasons, the numbers are grim. In 2009, California lost 146,000 manufacturing
jobs, the state's Employment Development Department reported.
And California compares unfavorably to nearby states and Texas in terms of retaining
manufacturing jobs — or at least not losing them as quickly.
During the five years that ended in 2009, California lost 18.5 percent of its
manufacturing work force. Only two nearby states, Oregon and New Mexico, suffered a
greater rate of loss in manufacturing, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Wes
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>
>>>> I hope so <G>
>>>> I'm also wondering why, if Tom is doing such a splendid job
>>>> creating jobs, Ohio is going to be without two Congressional
>>>> Districts as the result of the
>>>> current census.
>>>
>>> I think he's giving a lot of them the brush-off.
>>
>> Well....
>> They lost two in 1990, two more in 2000 and now another two in 2010.
>> At 630,000 a pop, that's a lot of brushing.
>> LOL
>> It's also a huge dent in the tax base.
>
> Now that you have busted Tom's chops, explain this one:
>
> http://www.mercurynews.com/business-headlines/ci_14758479?nclick_check=1
>
> Excerpted.
>
>
>
> Whatever the reasons, the numbers are grim. In 2009, California lost
> 146,000 manufacturing jobs, the state's Employment Development
> Department reported.
>
> And California compares unfavorably to nearby states and Texas in
> as quickly.
>
> During the five years that ended in 2009, California lost 18.5
> percent of its manufacturing work force. Only two nearby states,
> Oregon and New Mexico, suffered a greater rate of loss in
> manufacturing, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
We don't want manufacturing jobs in California Wes. Except, of course, for
the very high value adds.
Been kicking out 300,000 or more of those jobs every year for a decade now.
Irvine and the Los Angeles South Bay are the model. Tons of automotive,
aerospace, and EE R&D going on there and those people make a lot more money
than button pushers. The stretch between Sacramento and Tahoe is solid
aerospace.
That's how you leverage good wheather and a clean environment into GOOD
jobs.
TRD, to use and example in your industry, is in Torrance and they aren't
going anywhere.
Lexus has their North American HQ right down the street. Ford has eight R&D
units in Huntington Beach and Irvine and Honda has nine in the same general
area. Most of the jobs in those places pay six figures.
Even in todays economy, California has a tremendous pool of pretty well
educated young people and the number of educational opportunities is
stagering.
There are also a large number of unskilled or under skilled people here.
They look a lot like Gunner and the State's attitude is that we'd wish
they'd either get with the program and train up or just take a hike.
Something else that is starting to kill California is our countries energy
policy. 1,500 high paying jobs at Applied Materials just ended up in China
because the Chinese are serious about energy and we aren't.
--
John R. Carroll
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>So far, Tom's just changed hobby horses <G>
>First it was taxes, now he's riding school boards and teachers.
>I think my alternative is a lot closer to reality than either of those.
>Cleveland, Cincinnati and Detroit are going to have to go through the same
>evolution that Flint, Michigan has undertaken to heal themselves.
Quite a while back he claimed that Obama had ruined all hope for his
biz. But at the same time he said that he was turning down lucrative
offers to sell. At other times he's bragged on his capable staff, but
now it turns out that they need training to read a tape measure. He
also says that he pays well. We might expect good pay plus fire-sale
real estate prices to equal desperate workers with 175 IQs parachuting
in, so I guess there must not be any roads in Ohio or something. And
let's not forget that he claims to be wealthy, confirming everybody's
long-held suspicion that the rich love to spend their golden years
training workers how to read tape measures, and bitching about how
great a tough life is. Or is it how tough his great life is? Anyway,
what a bunch of idiots who retire to warmer climates, eh? It seems
that Tom's true talent might be competing with John Ensign for most
illogical-excuses. I suggest that he contact Cleveland's sister city
of Taft, and ask them to ship him another experienced hand in order to
set up a tourist attraction like this one
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A791219. :-)
Wayne
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>So far, Tom's just changed hobby horses <G>
>First it was taxes, now he's riding school boards and teachers.
>I think my alternative is a lot closer to reality than either of those.
>Cleveland, Cincinnati and Detroit are going to have to go through the same
>evolution that Flint, Michigan has undertaken to heal themselves.
Quite a while back he claimed that Obama had ruined all hope for his
Hawke
I hate to be the one to tell you this but every time you pay a tax you
are participating in the redistribution of wealth. The government's job
is to redistribute wealth. That's the job the people want it to do. Take
taxes according to the ability to pay and use the money for the common
good, that's what governments do. Most of us pay taxes and don't get
anything for it. I pay taxes for school kids but have no kids of my own.
So somebody is redistributing my wealth for other people's needs, but I
don't mind. I guess you never understood how things actually work.
Wealth is redistributed every time taxes are collected and used for the
collective good. So don't you think it's about time that you stop acting
like wealth redistribution is something new or is wrong? Or is it just
you conservatives who never understand how the country works? People in
the know understand that when the proportion of wealth held by the few
becomes too high a country falls apart. We are nearly at that point now.
The nation's wealth needs to be redistributed down so that it's more
widely held. The country will be better for it. But since you care more
about yourself and business interests than you do about America, I
understand why you're against a more equal distribution of wealth. Guys
like you never see the problem with too much wealth in the hands of too
few people. You need to visit Mexico. Maybe then you'll see why it's bad
for a few to own everything. But maybe not.
Hawke