><n...@home.com> wrote:
>> BUT you must remember Obama said this will lower our costs! and yes
>> there is more to come in the next two years, you think the ins
>> industry is not going to make up the 60 billion a year they will be
>> paying the gov?
>> Obama said it would lower it plain and simple,
>> why is it you like the gov to put more laws into place?,
>> where did the constitution ever say you must be forced to have health
>> care?
>> more laws, bigger gov, more spending, forcing someone else to be what
>> you want them to be.
>Why isolate healthcare as the unreasonable govt expense?
I haven't isolated health care, it's just one more of his lies.
> How about trillion dollar wars? Trillion. Trillion. Doesn't that seem insane? We can kill
>innocents in Iraq for a coupla trillion but not provide basic healthcare
>for our own? Huh?
I never said it didn;t seem insane, but I also do not believe we went
in there for the hell of it either, I think our Intel had it right,
but we gave them too much time before we did "kick" in the door.
we are about to go full circle though. trillion dollar war, trillion
dollars a year on welfare, every year............ but we already agree
on welfare needs fixed
but lets move back to wars, seeing how you said trillion dollars on
wars
So under obama,
why are we still in Iraq?,
why are we still in aftrashastan?, why are we extending the troops stay in Afgan past 2014? why is Guantanamo Bay still open? why are killing innocent civilians in yemen and in Afgan where else?
I mean, hell if you going to say something about one president that is
not in office, why is it that it is ok for the current president to do
the same thing when he said he would stop it? has he cut spending on
wars?
look at the troops deaths too now, " According to the Afghanistan index kept by the Washington-based
research centre Brookings Institution, about 40 percent of the
American deaths were caused by improvised explosive devices."
The majority of those were after 2009, when President Barack Obama
ordered a surge that sent in 33,000 additional troops to combat
heightened Taliban activity. The surge brought the total number of
American troops to 101,000, the peak for the entire war.
1491: The number of US troop casualties in Afghanistan since Obama
took office.
2121: The total number of US troop casualties since the war started.
more troops have died since OMessiah took office!
so how is obama better? more troops killed in Afghanistan since obama
took office then when bush was in?
how many more new conflicts has Obama got us into?
http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html U.S. eyes return to some Southeast Asia military bases (in Vietnam,
Thailand and the Philippines) (read).
Obama Ignored CIA Report Against Afghan Escalation (read).
Under Obama, the export of American arms to countries around the world
-- even those actively repressing their own citizens -- is booming.
The United States is the world's top provider of major conventional
weapons (read).
C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition (read).
Drone strikes threaten 50 years of international law, says UN
rapporteur (read).
Obama asserts presidential powers he once spoke critically of (read).
Obama administration rejects FOIA requests from NYT, ACLU for
"targeted killing" papers (read).
Ex-CIA Official Slams Obama's 'Indiscriminate' Use of Drones (read).
What's behind Obama's new military base in Chile? (read).
<n...@home.com> wrote:
> On 18 Oct 2012 12:43:31 GMT, B <bg9696 bigYell> wrote:
>> How about trillion dollar wars? Trillion. Trillion. Doesn't that seem insane? We can kill
>> innocents in Iraq for a coupla trillion but not provide basic healthcare
>> for our own? Huh?
> I never said it didn;t seem insane, but I also do not believe we went
> in there for the hell of it either, I think our Intel had it right,
There is zero proof of that and there is proof that certain members of
GWB's cabinet were not truthful.
> but we gave them too much time before we did "kick" in the door.
Rhetoric and absurd. Zero proof of that.
Snip
> but lets move back to wars, seeing how you said trillion dollars on
> wars
> So under obama,
> why are we still in Iraq?,
Non-combat troops.
> why are we still in aftrashastan?,
Necessary. Pulling out is always much harder than getting in.
> why are we extending the troops stay in Afgan past 2014?
Pull outs are scheduled. The military advises the CIF and that's where the
decisions are made. Unless a Pres has direct military experience (last one?
jFK? Did Ford serve? I forget), they rely on advice.
> why is Guantanamo Bay still open?
Good question. Obviously it serves a military purpose, good, bad or
indifferent. I really can't offer an opinion on it.
> why are killing innocent civilians in yemen and in Afgan where else?
How can anyone answer that? Collateral risk of any war?
> I mean, hell if you going to say something about one president that is
> not in office, why is it that it is ok for the current president to do
> the same thing when he said he would stop it? has he cut spending on
> wars?
Because Obama did not out us in Iraq. Perhaps if so many dollars and
resources were not literally wasted in Iraq, we could have been more
efficient in Afghanistan. Conjecture on either side.
> look at the troops deaths too now, > " According to the Afghanistan index kept by the Washington-based
> research centre Brookings Institution, about 40 percent of the
> American deaths were caused by improvised explosive devices."
> The majority of those were after 2009, when President Barack Obama
> ordered a surge that sent in 33,000 additional troops to combat
> heightened Taliban activity. The surge brought the total number of
> American troops to 101,000, the peak for the entire war.
> 1491: The number of US troop casualties in Afghanistan since Obama
> took office.
> 2121: The total number of US troop casualties since the war started.
> more troops have died since OMessiah took office!
It's really ridiculous and disrespectful to name call any President. He's
not my messiah or anyone else's. your stats are pretty accurate from my
understanding but again, a Pres is advised by his military leaders in how
to proceed. They usually agree on it. War sucks by any standard. The
policies that got us attacked and into war to begin with, much of which
took place under Clinton, should be included in your comments.
> so how is obama better? more troops killed in Afghanistan since obama
> took office then when bush was in?
It's better, Obama has by and large pulled us out of Iraq where we had no
business being. The fact is, dictator overthrow has never worked to our
advantage. Remember, we funded Bin Laden when it suited our purposes. Same
with Hussein.
> how many more new conflicts has Obama got us into?
That's absurd and below your intelligence level (I'd lie to think).
Are you joking? That website has zero credibility. Snip the balance.
> Obama asserts presidential powers he once spoke critically of (read).
> Obama administration rejects FOIA requests from NYT, ACLU for
> "targeted killing" papers (read).
> Ex-CIA Official Slams Obama's 'Indiscriminate' Use of Drones (read).
> What's behind Obama's new military base in Chile? (read).
FOIA does not apply to current activities deemed to protect national
interests. Who deems it you ask? Yes, of course but that's the way it's
always been at the top off a food chain.
> Obama, he needs ousted.........
Give it your best shot. Ya got 2 weeks. Get to work! :)
><n...@home.com> wrote:
>> On 18 Oct 2012 12:43:31 GMT, B <bg9696 bigYell> wrote:
>>> How about trillion dollar wars? Trillion. Trillion. Doesn't that seem insane? We can kill
>>> innocents in Iraq for a coupla trillion but not provide basic healthcare
>>> for our own? Huh?
>> I never said it didn;t seem insane, but I also do not believe we went
>> in there for the hell of it either, I think our Intel had it right,
>There is zero proof of that and there is proof that certain members of
>GWB's cabinet were not truthful.
>> but we gave them too much time before we did "kick" in the door.
>Rhetoric and absurd. Zero proof of that.
>Snip
>> but lets move back to wars, seeing how you said trillion dollars on
>> wars
>> So under obama,
>> why are we still in Iraq?,
>Non-combat troops.
BS! My son-In law is headed back there
>> why are we still in aftrashastan?,
>Necessary. Pulling out is always much harder than getting in.
>> why are we extending the troops stay in Afgan past 2014?
>Pull outs are scheduled. The military advises the CIF and that's where the
>decisions are made. Unless a Pres has direct military experience (last one?
>jFK? Did Ford serve? I forget), they rely on advice.
and again, so did bush,. still why are they extending the troops there
past 2014, how much time do they need
>> why is Guantanamo Bay still open?
>Good question. Obviously it serves a military purpose, good, bad or
>indifferent. I really can't offer an opinion on it.
but he did say, he was going to close it.........
>> why are killing innocent civilians in yemen and in Afgan where else?
>How can anyone answer that? Collateral risk of any war?
oh, so now it is ok that we have collateral risk seeing how it;s a
democrat in charge?
>> I mean, hell if you going to say something about one president that is
>> not in office, why is it that it is ok for the current president to do
>> the same thing when he said he would stop it? has he cut spending on
>> wars?
>Because Obama did not out us in Iraq. Perhaps if so many dollars and
>resources were not literally wasted in Iraq, we could have been more
>efficient in Afghanistan. Conjecture on either side.
>> look at the troops deaths too now, >> " According to the Afghanistan index kept by the Washington-based
>> research centre Brookings Institution, about 40 percent of the
>> American deaths were caused by improvised explosive devices."
>> The majority of those were after 2009, when President Barack Obama
>> ordered a surge that sent in 33,000 additional troops to combat
>> heightened Taliban activity. The surge brought the total number of
>> American troops to 101,000, the peak for the entire war.
>> 1491: The number of US troop casualties in Afghanistan since Obama
>> took office.
>> 2121: The total number of US troop casualties since the war started.
>> more troops have died since OMessiah took office!
>It's really ridiculous and disrespectful to name call any President. He's
>not my messiah or anyone else's. your stats are pretty accurate from my
>understanding but again, a Pres is advised by his military leaders in how
>to proceed.
and so was bush........
> War sucks by any standard.
agreed
The
>policies that got us attacked and into war to begin with, much of which
>took place under Clinton, should be included in your comments.
>> so how is obama better? more troops killed in Afghanistan since obama
>> took office then when bush was in?
>It's better, Obama has by and large pulled us out of Iraq where we had no
>business being. The fact is, dictator overthrow has never worked to our
>advantage. Remember, we funded Bin Laden when it suited our purposes. Same
>with Hussein.
yes, still it;s ok for Obama to send troops elsewhere, don;t see you
hammering him for that
>> how many more new conflicts has Obama got us into?
>That's absurd and below your intelligence level (I'd lie to think).
<n...@home.com> wrote:
> On 19 Oct 2012 15:04:40 GMT, B <bg9696 bigYell> wrote:
>> <n...@home.com> wrote:
>>> On 18 Oct 2012 12:43:31 GMT, B <bg9696 bigYell> wrote:
>>>> How about trillion dollar wars? Trillion. Trillion. Doesn't that seem
>>>> insane? We can kill
>>>> innocents in Iraq for a coupla trillion but not provide basic healthcare
>>>> for our own? Huh?
>>> I never said it didn;t seem insane, but I also do not believe we went
>>> in there for the hell of it either, I think our Intel had it right,
>> There is zero proof of that and there is proof that certain members of
>> GWB's cabinet were not truthful.
>>> but we gave them too much time before we did "kick" in the door.
>> Rhetoric and absurd. Zero proof of that.
>> Snip
>>> but lets move back to wars, seeing how you said trillion dollars on
>>> wars
>>> So under obama,
>>> why are we still in Iraq?,
>> Non-combat troops.
> BS! My son-In law is headed back there
Combat? What exactly does he do? Did he say why!
>>> why are we still in aftrashastan?,
>> Necessary. Pulling out is always much harder than getting in.
>>> why are we extending the troops stay in Afgan past 2014?
>> Pull outs are scheduled. The military advises the CIF and that's where the
>> decisions are made. Unless a Pres has direct military experience (last one?
>> jFK? Did Ford serve? I forget), they rely on advice.
> and again, so did bush,. still why are they extending the troops there
> past 2014, how much time do they need
That's for his advisors to advise. Evidently, a little more time.
>>> why is Guantanamo Bay still open?
>> Good question. Obviously it serves a military purpose, good, bad or
>> indifferent. I really can't offer an opinion on it.
> but he did say, he was going to close it.........
Yes and he didn't. He did not keep THAT election promise, at least not yet.
>>> why are killing innocent civilians in yemen and in Afgan where else?
>> How can anyone answer that? Collateral risk of any war?
> oh, so now it is ok that we have collateral risk seeing how it;s a
> democrat in charge?
When did i say it was ok? I said, how can anyone answer? Bad shit happens
when people blow each other up.
>>> I mean, hell if you going to say something about one president that is
>>> not in office, why is it that it is ok for the current president to do
>>> the same thing when he said he would stop it? has he cut spending on
>>> wars?
>> Because Obama did not out us in Iraq. Perhaps if so many dollars and
>> resources were not literally wasted in Iraq, we could have been more
>> efficient in Afghanistan. Conjecture on either side.
> possibly, unlikely though......
>>> look at the troops deaths too now, >>> " According to the Afghanistan index kept by the Washington-based
>>> research centre Brookings Institution, about 40 percent of the
>>> American deaths were caused by improvised explosive devices."
>>> The majority of those were after 2009, when President Barack Obama
>>> ordered a surge that sent in 33,000 additional troops to combat
>>> heightened Taliban activity. The surge brought the total number of
>>> American troops to 101,000, the peak for the entire war.
>>> 1491: The number of US troop casualties in Afghanistan since Obama
>>> took office.
>>> 2121: The total number of US troop casualties since the war started.
>>> more troops have died since OMessiah took office!
>> It's really ridiculous and disrespectful to name call any President. He's
>> not my messiah or anyone else's. your stats are pretty accurate from my
>> understanding but again, a Pres is advised by his military leaders in how
>> to proceed.
> and so was bush........
>> War sucks by any standard.
> agreed
> The
>> policies that got us attacked and into war to begin with, much of which
>> took place under Clinton, should be included in your comments.
>>> so how is obama better? more troops killed in Afghanistan since obama
>>> took office then when bush was in?
>> It's better, Obama has by and large pulled us out of Iraq where we had no
>> business being. The fact is, dictator overthrow has never worked to our
>> advantage. Remember, we funded Bin Laden when it suited our purposes. Same
>> with Hussein.
> yes, still it;s ok for Obama to send troops elsewhere, don;t see you
> hammering him for that
>>> how many more new conflicts has Obama got us into?
>> That's absurd and below your intelligence level (I'd lie to think).
<n...@home.com> wrote:
> On 19 Oct 2012 15:04:40 GMT, B <bg9696 bigYell> wrote:
>> <n...@home.com> wrote:
>>> On 18 Oct 2012 12:43:31 GMT, B <bg9696 bigYell> wrote:
>>>> How about trillion dollar wars? Trillion. Trillion. Doesn't that seem
>>>> insane? We can kill
>>>> innocents in Iraq for a coupla trillion but not provide basic >>>> healthcare
>>>> for our own? Huh?
>>> I never said it didn;t seem insane, but I also do not believe we went
>>> in there for the hell of it either, I think our Intel had it right,
>> There is zero proof of that and there is proof that certain members of
>> GWB's cabinet were not truthful.
>>> but we gave them too much time before we did "kick" in the door.
>> Rhetoric and absurd. Zero proof of that.
>> Snip
>>> but lets move back to wars, seeing how you said trillion dollars on
>>> wars
>>> So under obama,
>>> why are we still in Iraq?,
>> Non-combat troops.
> BS! My son-In law is headed back there
Combat? What exactly does he do? Did he say why!
>^^^^
Saving YOUR HIDE, because because because!
Where IS Obama's, Clinton's, Your, or Harry Reid's military record, with the latter being a Morman as well?
Does having been in the military REALLY mean anything at all?
> Combat? What exactly does he do? Did he say why!
>> ^^^^
> Saving YOUR HIDE, because because because!
I assume yours isn't worth saving or keeping safe then?
>^^^^^^
Of course. My own family, friends and I are very capable of protecting each other and selves.
We're armed to the gills!
> Where IS Obama's, Clinton's, Your, or Harry Reid's military record, with
> the latter being a Morman as well?
Romney pulled a GWB. Daddy kept him safe. Not what ya know, but who.
> Does having been in the military REALLY mean anything at all?
It means a lot to me and my family. Did you serve? I don't recall your
mentioning it.
>^^^^^
Not in the military, but I served the US by being in the work force, staying out of trouble, and paying my fair share of taxes.
So if it " means all that" to you and your family, it's OK with you that Obama, Reid,Clinton, and Biden never did, and fought hard NOT to be?
> Combat? What exactly does he do? Did he say why!
>> ^^^^
> Saving YOUR HIDE, because because because!
I assume yours isn't worth saving or keeping safe then?
>^^^^^^
Of course. My own family, friends and I are very capable of protecting
each other and selves.
We're armed to the gills!
> Where IS Obama's, Clinton's, Your, or Harry Reid's military record, with
> the latter being a Morman as well?
Romney pulled a GWB. Daddy kept him safe. Not what ya know, but who.
> Does having been in the military REALLY mean anything at all?
It means a lot to me and my family. Did you serve? I don't recall your
mentioning it.
>^^^^^
Not in the military, but I served the US by being in the work force, staying
out of trouble, and paying my fair share of taxes.
So if it " means all that" to you and your family, it's OK with you that
Obama, Reid,Clinton, and Biden never did, and fought hard NOT to be?
It just can't be said enough............Panhead you are a fucking mental challenged fucking idiot !
> Combat? What exactly does he do? Did he say why!
>> ^^^^
> Saving YOUR HIDE, because because because!
I assume yours isn't worth saving or keeping safe then?
>^^^^^^
Of course. My own family, friends and I are very capable of protecting
each other and selves.
We're armed to the gills!
>^^^^^
Coming from a retard like you, I could see that as a compliment. Thanks.
> Where IS Obama's, Clinton's, Your, or Harry Reid's military record, with
> the latter being a Morman as well?
Romney pulled a GWB. Daddy kept him safe. Not what ya know, but who.
> Does having been in the military REALLY mean anything at all?
It means a lot to me and my family. Did you serve? I don't recall your
mentioning it.
>^^^^^
Not in the military, but I served the US by being in the work force, staying
out of trouble, and paying my fair share of taxes.
So if it " means all that" to you and your family, it's OK with you that
Obama, Reid,Clinton, and Biden never did, and fought hard NOT to be?
It just can't be said enough............Panhead you are a fucking mental
challenged fucking idiot !
>> Combat? What exactly does he do? Did he say why!
>>> ^^^^
>> Saving YOUR HIDE, because because because!
> I assume yours isn't worth saving or keeping safe then?
>> ^^^^^^
> Of course. My own family, friends and I are very capable of protecting
> each other and selves.
> We're armed to the gills!
>> Where IS Obama's, Clinton's, Your, or Harry Reid's military record, with
>> the latter being a Morman as well?
> Romney pulled a GWB. Daddy kept him safe. Not what ya know, but who.
>> Does having been in the military REALLY mean anything at all?
> It means a lot to me and my family. Did you serve? I don't recall your
> mentioning it.
>> ^^^^^
> Not in the military, but I served the US by being in the work force,
> staying out of trouble, and paying my fair share of taxes.
> So if it " means all that" to you and your family, it's OK with you that
> Obama, Reid,Clinton, and Biden never did, and fought hard NOT to be?
>> Combat? What exactly does he do? Did he say why!
>>> ^^^^
>> Saving YOUR HIDE, because because because!
> I assume yours isn't worth saving or keeping safe then?
>> ^^^^^^
> Of course. My own family, friends and I are very capable of protecting
> each other and selves.
> We're armed to the gills!
>> Where IS Obama's, Clinton's, Your, or Harry Reid's military record, with
>> the latter being a Morman as well?
> Romney pulled a GWB. Daddy kept him safe. Not what ya know, but who.
>> Does having been in the military REALLY mean anything at all?
> It means a lot to me and my family. Did you serve? I don't recall your
> mentioning it.
>> ^^^^^
> Not in the military, but I served the US by being in the work force,
> staying out of trouble, and paying my fair share of taxes.
> So if it " means all that" to you and your family, it's OK with you that
> Obama, Reid,Clinton, and Biden never did, and fought hard NOT to be?
Figured as much.
>^^^^^^
Figured as much what?
Why are avoiding the question?
<n...@home.com> wrote:
> On 19 Oct 2012 15:04:40 GMT, B <bg9696 bigYell> wrote:
>>> So under obama,
>>> why are we still in Iraq?,
>> Non-combat troops. > BS! My son-In law is headed back there
I feel like I genuinely have zero idea what the real truth is, not a clue:
"B" wrote in message news:5086d7f8$0$897$862e30e2@ngroups.net... <n...@home.com> wrote:
> On 19 Oct 2012 15:04:40 GMT, B <bg9696 bigYell> wrote:
>>> So under obama,
>>> why are we still in Iraq?,
>> Non-combat troops. > BS! My son-In law is headed back there
I feel like I genuinely have zero idea what the real truth is, not a clue:
>^^^^
That is very obvious, via your posts as of late. :)
You and Obama , Democrats in general, CLUELESS, "zero ideas!"
"Mike Huckabee" wrote in message news:5086e0ad$0$9793$607ed4bc@cv.net...
"B" wrote in message news:5086d7f8$0$897$862e30e2@ngroups.net...
<n...@home.com> wrote:
> On 19 Oct 2012 15:04:40 GMT, B <bg9696 bigYell> wrote:
>>> So under obama,
>>> why are we still in Iraq?,
>> Non-combat troops.
> BS! My son-In law is headed back there
I feel like I genuinely have zero idea what the real truth is, not a clue:
>^^^^
That is very obvious, via your posts as of late. :)
You and Obama , Democrats in general, CLUELESS, "zero ideas!"
No wait!
Let's TAX IT! :)
"B"? About Clinton's, Biden's, Obama's NON EXISTENT MILITARY records, and why "IT IS ALL THAT" to you?
The company I work for had a short meeting with us last week, they are self insured and use welmark for their dirty work. Our rates went up 3%. But I got a .65 per hour raise lol. They should have just paid my insurance increase!
On Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:35:18 PM UTC-5, gen3g...@gmail.com wrote:
> The company I work for had a short meeting with us last week, they are self insured and use welmark for their dirty work. Our rates went up 3%. But I got a .65 per hour raise lol. They should have just paid my insurance increase!
To bring this into perspective...
3% of a $400/month premium is $12/month
$0.65 hourly raise is $112/month (pre-tax)
I'm weary of ambiguous statistics and percentages.
On Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:35:18 PM UTC-5, gen3g...@gmail.com wrote: > The company I work for had a short meeting with us last week, they are self insured and use welmark for their dirty work. Our rates went up 3%. But I got a .65 per hour raise lol. They should have just paid my insurance increase!
To bring this into perspective...
3% of a $400/month premium is $12/month
$0.65 hourly raise is $112/month (pre-tax)
I'm weary of ambiguous statistics and percentages.
End quote
I know I came out ahead, they should have give me less of a raise and said we were not going to raise your insurance. Made it sound wahoo.
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:30:03 -0800 (PST), in rec.motorcycles.harley
> you wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:35:18 PM UTC-5, gen3g...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>> The company I work for had a short meeting with us last week,
>>> they are self insured and use welmark for their dirty work. Our
>>> rates went up 3%. But I got a .65 per hour raise lol. They should
>>> have just paid my insurance increase!
>> To bring this into perspective...
>> 3% of a $400/month premium is $12/month
> who only pays 400 a month for health care insurance anymore? I know
> our part is over 1000.
My portion of the premium for BSBC HMO New England is $400/month for family coverage (in Massachusetts; company has 500+ employees worldwide in engineering, management, sales, and service).
> so for some of us, a total of over $300 a month more, with a 2%
> increase in gross pay, ...
Just to stay on track with number correctness, 3% of $1000 is $30 and 2% of $45k/yr is $75/month (pre-tax). So even the median income earner still comes out ahead.
> ..now the tax hikes.... bush cuts expiring
> alone, plus whatever the final tally in the HC taxes, SS theft and
> Medicare increase (I think that alone is 2% more from our gross
> paychecks), our checks will definitely be smaller next year
>> $0.65 hourly raise is $112/month (pre-tax)
>> I'm weary of ambiguous statistics and percentages.
> I am too, that is why I alwyas want to know all factors, still his
> point stands
Yes. But insurance rates go up, with or without government intervention. The question is who sets the cap (A:the state) and who absorbs the increase (employer, employee, or both)?
>9:30 AMSteve
>On Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:35:18 PM UTC-5, gen3g...@gmail.com wrote: >> The company I work for had a short meeting with us last week, they are self insured and use welmark for their dirty work. Our rates went up 3%. But I got a .65 per hour raise lol. They should have just paid my insurance increase!
>To bring this into perspective...
>3% of a $400/month premium is $12/month
>$0.65 hourly raise is $112/month (pre-tax)
>I'm weary of ambiguous statistics and percentages.
I'm weary of wannabe 3rd grade teachers who think this is their
fucking classroom. First of all, his point didn't need to be
explained, he made it just fine all by hisself. Second, if yer gonna
go playin' teacher by showin' yer work, perhaps you'd better know how
to actually do 3rd grade math. .65 x 160 does not equal 112.
>> 9:30 AMSteve
>> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:35:18 PM UTC-5, gen3g...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> The company I work for had a short meeting with us last week, they are self insured and use welmark for their dirty work. Our rates went up 3%. But I got a .65 per hour raise lol. They should have just paid my insurance increase!
>> To bring this into perspective...
>> 3% of a $400/month premium is $12/month
>> $0.65 hourly raise is $112/month (pre-tax)
>> I'm weary of ambiguous statistics and percentages.
> I'm weary of wannabe 3rd grade teachers who think this is their
> fucking classroom. First of all, his point didn't need to be
> explained, he made it just fine all by hisself. Second, if yer gonna
> go playin' teacher by showin' yer work, perhaps you'd better know how
> to actually do 3rd grade math. .65 x 160 does not equal 112.
FWIW, average month is 4.3 weeks
40*4.3=172
172*.65=111.8
> >> The company I work for had a short meeting with us last week, they are self insured and use welmark for their dirty work. Our rates went up 3%. But I got a .65 per hour raise lol. They should have just paid my insurance increase!
> >To bring this into perspective...
> >3% of a $400/month premium is $12/month
> >$0.65 hourly raise is $112/month (pre-tax)
> >I'm weary of ambiguous statistics and percentages.
> I'm weary of wannabe 3rd grade teachers who think this is their
> fucking classroom. First of all, his point didn't need to be
> explained, he made it just fine all by hisself.
I just didn't think he'd really want his company to pay the 3% increase in premium rather than give him a .65/hour raise and let him pay it himself.
> Second, if yer gonna
> go playin' teacher by showin' yer work, perhaps you'd better know how
> to actually do 3rd grade math. .65 x 160 does not equal 112.
Where I work...
.65/hr x 40 hrs x 52 weeks / 12 months = 112.67
>On 11/14/2012 9:51 AM, sn...@trippin.com wrote:
>>> 9:30 AMSteve
>>> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:35:18 PM UTC-5, gen3g...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> The company I work for had a short meeting with us last week, they are self insured and use welmark for their dirty work. Our rates went up 3%. But I got a .65 per hour raise lol. They should have just paid my insurance increase!
>>> To bring this into perspective...
>>> 3% of a $400/month premium is $12/month
>>> $0.65 hourly raise is $112/month (pre-tax)
>>> I'm weary of ambiguous statistics and percentages.
>> I'm weary of wannabe 3rd grade teachers who think this is their
>> fucking classroom. First of all, his point didn't need to be
>> explained, he made it just fine all by hisself. Second, if yer gonna
>> go playin' teacher by showin' yer work, perhaps you'd better know how
>> to actually do 3rd grade math. .65 x 160 does not equal 112.
>FWIW, average month is 4.3 weeks
>40*4.3=172
>172*.65=111.8
Not any more it isn't, th' new average work week is 29 hours.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/bdafxj9 And 3rd graders use th' old
standard of 40 hours, my granddaughter told me so. She said obama was
screwin' her mom's 40 hour check down to 29 or she'd get fired.
>> >> The company I work for had a short meeting with us last week, they are self insured and use welmark for their dirty work. Our rates went up 3%. But I got a .65 per hour raise lol. They should have just paid my insurance increase!
>> >To bring this into perspective...
>> >3% of a $400/month premium is $12/month
>> >$0.65 hourly raise is $112/month (pre-tax)
>> >I'm weary of ambiguous statistics and percentages.
>> I'm weary of wannabe 3rd grade teachers who think this is their
>> fucking classroom. First of all, his point didn't need to be
>> explained, he made it just fine all by hisself.
>I just didn't think he'd really want his company to pay the 3% increase in premium rather than give him a .65/hour raise and let him pay it himself.
That's not a very good way to start a sentence...
>> Second, if yer gonna
>> go playin' teacher by showin' yer work, perhaps you'd better know how
>> to actually do 3rd grade math. .65 x 160 does not equal 112.
>Where I work...
>.65/hr x 40 hrs x 52 weeks / 12 months = 112.67
Are you still playin' in yer steamin' pile of minutia? Go for a
fuckin' ride or somethin'.
