CNN said 17% of cleaning jobs are done by immigrants
lab~rat >:-)
a lot of people on welfare that could fill those jobs if there were to
be a sudden void.
Do you think major hotel chains are knowingly hiring illegals?
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
Möbius Idiot
--
We're taking this" Hillary, after "plopping down on a $6,000 sofa in the
White House" - Christopher Anderson, 2004, American Evita, HarperCollins,
New York, New York. p. 209
"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
news:9ebc521nvkge396d3...@4ax.com...
Gorf
> a lot of people on welfare that could fill those jobs if there were to
> be a sudden void.
>
> Do you think major hotel chains are knowingly hiring illegals?
> --
YES, I think it is pretty obvious when house keepers in the hotel can not
even speak English......
EMPLOYERS must be held accountable. If they are held liable for hiring
illegal aliens, the demand will drop quite suddenly.....
lab~rat >:-)
<DemsJustP...@aol.com> puked:
> What about the poor blacks?
Ok, I'll bite. What about them?
sinistersteve
> On Mon, 1 May 2006 11:57:18 -0400, "Mšbius Idiot"
The poor black used to do those jobs that illegals do. Now that they get
paid via welfare for doing nothing, there is no reason for them to clean up
rooms any more.
lab~rat >:-)
>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>news:9ebc521nvkge396d3...@4ax.com...
>> I don't know what that is in numbers, but I would wager that there are
>> a lot of people on welfare that could fill those jobs if there were to
>> be a sudden void.
>>
>> Do you think major hotel chains are knowingly hiring illegals?
>> --
>
>YES, I think it is pretty obvious when house keepers in the hotel can not
>even speak English......
Speaking English is a requirement of becoming a legal citizen? Damn
glad to hear it.
>EMPLOYERS must be held accountable. If they are held liable for hiring
>illegal aliens, the demand will drop quite suddenly.....
Then I would suggest that it should be legal for employers to ask
employment candidates to SHOW SOME FUCKING DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY'RE
LEGAL. The liberals are so afraid of offending some fence-climber's
sensibilities that they tie the employer's hands.
Oh, and since when is enforcement the Employer's responsibility?
Shouldn't immigration have something to do with who is getting into
this country?
Big Questions
poor blacks you should urge them to convert to Judaism. Jews are much
richer than other people.
lab~rat >:-)
<sinist...@goto.hell> puked:
Ok, so let's make it law that anyone on welfare has to put in 30 hours
a week doing SOMETHING. If they have kids, they work in a daycare and
watch other kids as well as their own. They have ten hours (of course
more) a week to look for a more 'dignified' job.
lab~rat >:-)
<bigquest...@yahoo.com> puked:
>I would think it was much higher than 17%.
I would, too, but that's what CNN claimed. Not to mention, I think
the racial makeup differs in different parts of the country.
>BTW if you want to help
>poor blacks you should urge them to convert to Judaism. Jews are much
>richer than other people.
Or muslim. There are some rich arabs out there...
sinistersteve
> On Mon, 1 May 2006 09:21:29 -0700, "sinistersteve"
> <sinist...@goto.hell> puked:
>
> a week doing SOMETHING. If they have kids, they work in a daycare and
> watch other kids as well as their own. They have ten hours (of course
> more) a week to look for a more 'dignified' job.
I like that idea...I would even be kind enough to drop it down to 20 hours a
week. They can keep 100% of their welfare plus the 100 bucks a week from the
legitimate job.
Arizona Bushwhacker
Just like George Bush (your one true God) you
support handing Azatlan back to Mexico!
Republicans hate America and love illegal aliens.
Roman Hans
constantly harping about the jobs illegal immigrants are doing? (I'll
answer it myself: because they're toadies to major corporations.)
Whoopee -- so illegal immigrants are cleaning our toilets, and picking
tomatoes, and sweeping our floors. Documented Americans would
*happily* do those jobs if they paid a reasonable wage. The solution
isn't importing people who'll work for nothing: it's raising pay so
EVERYONE makes a living wage.
Arizona Bushwhacker
illegal aliens. Just like the 32% who still
worship George Bush.
lab~rat >:-)
<ArizonaBu...@cox.net> puked:
You show your own inability to think for yourself by assuming that I
follow the Republican line on every issue. If you would care to
discuss the issue as presented, fine. If you want to spew your
liberal hate, bigotry and intolerance, I have no time for you.
George Ewart
Piss on you.
They want amnesty now.
If you don't give amnesty NOW, they are boycotting your businesses to show
you that they can PISS ON YOU.
Look at their FLAGS. PISS ON YOU AMERICANS
SCREW THE USA
GRANT AMNESTY NOW or more ILLEGALS will come.
MORE ILLEGALS are coming, GRANT AMNESTY NOW FOR ALL OF THEM.
THEY AL WANT TO PISS ON YOU.
SCREW YOU.
GRANT AMNESTY NOW
PISS ON YOU
"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
news:9ebc521nvkge396d3...@4ax.com...
Arizona Bushwhacker
You support Bush every time he sides against
America and Americans! EVERY TIME!
You and Bush Both support handing Azatlan back to
Mexico!
Republicans like you should be deported to
Mexico before the illegals are deported.
Jebus Saves
> a lot of people on welfare that could fill those jobs if there were to
> be a sudden void.
>
> Do you think major hotel chains are knowingly hiring illegals?
If these welfare moochers worked the jobs in the first place, they wouldn't
need to hire the immigrants. I think you confuse welfare with unemployment.
People on unemployment are looking for jobs, people on welfare either are
not looking for jobs or are teenage mothers that cannot work and take care
of their children because too many men are making babies and then not paying
for them. The social issue here is easy, either take babies away from people
that cannot afford them or take baseball bats and beat the shit out of men
that do not support their children(I prefer the baseball bat one). Just
gather up the deadbeat dads and beat the shit out of them, then cut off
their cocks and sew it to thier forehead so eveyone knows they abandoned
their child's welfare. 75% of black children live in single parent homes,
29% of white children live in single parent homes. If you aren't going to
raise your children, DON'T MAKE THEM.
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
Did you just call me a liberal?
But you are correct that illegals are doing work for CHEAP and
screwing up a lot of people's lives. Let's say suddenly they all
disappeared. Who would be paying for the higher-cost workers? The
hotel chains? The construction companies? The lawn maintenance
companies?
Hell no, it would be the people PAYING FOR THESE SERVICES. And for
the record, a lot of Americans wouldn't happily do that work. We pay
laborers between 12 and 14.50 per hour plus fringes (which nearly
double the cost of them per hour) and still have a difficult time
getting people to work. This is for UNSKILLED LABOR...
lab~rat >:-)
<ArizonaBu...@cox.net> puked:
>Bullshit!
You're just threatened by my idea of making welfare recipients take
those jobs...
lab~rat >:-)
<Georg...@drunkencokeheadedTraitorousAWOLCOWARDBITCHES.com> puked:
>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>news:9ebc521nvkge396d3...@4ax.com...
>>I don't know what that is in numbers, but I would wager that there are
>> a lot of people on welfare that could fill those jobs if there were to
>> be a sudden void.
>>
>> Do you think major hotel chains are knowingly hiring illegals?
>
>
>If these welfare moochers worked the jobs in the first place, they wouldn't
>need to hire the immigrants. I think you confuse welfare with unemployment.
>People on unemployment are looking for jobs, people on welfare either are
>not looking for jobs or are teenage mothers that cannot work and take care
>of their children because
Ok, so do what I suggested in an earlier post, make working a criteria
for receiving welfare. Open an 'employment office' inside the welfare
office where they match people of certain abilities to available jobs.
Put the mothers to work in daycare centers where their kids will be
cared for along with others. Sure, there will be a few cases where
people are unable to work, but there are a lot of bums.
too many men are making babies and then not paying
>for them. The social issue here is easy, either take babies away from people
>that cannot afford them or take baseball bats and beat the shit out of men
>that do not support their children(I prefer the baseball bat one). Just
>gather up the deadbeat dads and beat the shit out of them, then cut off
>their cocks and sew it to thier forehead so eveyone knows they abandoned
>their child's welfare. 75% of black children live in single parent homes,
>29% of white children live in single parent homes. If you aren't going to
>raise your children, DON'T MAKE THEM.
>
OK, that's all fine but outside of the scope of the discussion...
abracadabra
> a lot of people on welfare that could fill those jobs if there were to
> be a sudden void.
>
> Do you think major hotel chains are knowingly hiring illegals?
No, big business would never violate the law to make a quick buck! That'd be
as unlikely as Bush starting a war to help win the 2002 elections!
richar...@hotmail.com
the info out, and boycotting them? Force businesses to sign up for "We
hire only legally" list, that if they violate, they could be sued for
breach of contract.
- Richard Hutnik
My One and Only Hugh
> paying for the higher-cost workers?
If prices have to go up, they should go up. We shouldn't import a
lower class of workers who make a sub-minimum wage.
> We pay laborers between 12 and 14.50 per hour plus fringes
> (which nearly double the cost of them per hour) and still have
> a difficult time getting people to work. This is for UNSKILLED
> LABOR...
I don't believe you. Cite me a source, please: ONE job that paid this
well that couldn't find applicants. Here in New York, where the
government tells us the employment rate is 6%, it'd get a mob.
Want Sky High Oil PRices @dnc.org Democrats Block Oil Drilling
> a lot of people on welfare that could fill those jobs if there were to
> be a sudden void.
You racist bastard! Blakcs have the right NOT to work, and sit on their
asses all day like the did / do in New Orleans !
lab~rat >:-)
<pl...@quentincrisp.com> puked:
>> Let's say [illegal immigrants] all disappeared. ho would be
>> paying for the higher-cost workers?
>
>If prices have to go up, they should go up. We shouldn't import a
>lower class of workers who make a sub-minimum wage.
>
>> We pay laborers between 12 and 14.50 per hour plus fringes
>> (which nearly double the cost of them per hour) and still have
>> a difficult time getting people to work. his is for UNSKILLED
>> LABOR...
>
>I don't believe you. Cite me a source, please: ONE job that paid this
>well that couldn't find applicants. Here in New York, where the
>government tells us the employment rate is 6%, it'd get a mob.
What do you want me to do? Send you check stubs or something? If you
don't believe me, fine, this is a fact. And the source is me. I sign
the checks and pay the fringe benefits.
Go to a library and pick up a RSMeans Construction Cost Data book and
educate yourself.
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
Let me guess, your vote against Bush in 2002 was never counted, right?
KK
> If you don't give amnesty NOW, they are boycotting your businesses to show
> you that they can PISS ON YOU.
I'm in New York and didn't notice a fucking thing today.
KK
> it's raising pay so
> EVERYONE makes a living wage.
Every job is not worth a "living wage" suitable for raising a family and
owning a home.
KK
> Here in New York, where the
> government tells us the employment rate is 6%, it'd get a mob.
If it were for making sandwiches or stocking clothes on shelves, maybe.
If it were for the kind of work LR's talking about, no.
lab~rat >:-)
<Democrast Want Sky High Oil PRices @ dnc.org> puked:
That's true. We should just add the right for them not to get paid
for doing so...
lab~rat >:-)
I'm talking about swinging a hammer, dropping wire mesh and rebar,
stripping forms, fine grading, etc...
lab~rat >:-)
Traffic was thinner on the drive in. I guess the immigrants didn't
want to get protesting too early...
whome?
Hey man, after siesta! Not too late either, Holmes, got places to be
bendecco. Reconqista!!!!!!
Morton Davis
"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
news:9ebc521nvkge396d3...@4ax.com...
> I don't know what that is in numbers, but I would wager that there are
> a lot of people on welfare that could fill those jobs if there were to
> be a sudden void.
>
> Do you think major hotel chains are knowingly hiring illegals?
Not all immigrants are illegals.
KK
> On Mon, 01 May 2006 18:25:50 GMT, KK <_K...@furburger.net> puked:
>
>>On Mon, 01 May 2006 10:54:52 -0700, My One and Only Hugh wrote:
>>
>>> Here in New York, where the
>>> government tells us the employment rate is 6%, it'd get a mob.
>>
>>If it were for making sandwiches or stocking clothes on shelves, maybe.
>>If it were for the kind of work LR's talking about, no.
>
> I'm talking about swinging a hammer, dropping wire mesh and rebar,
> stripping forms, fine grading, etc...
Right - actual labor-intensive work.
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
Hey! You sound like that Mexican Jew, Marty Cohen!!!
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
>
>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>news:9ebc521nvkge396d3...@4ax.com...
>> I don't know what that is in numbers, but I would wager that there are
>> a lot of people on welfare that could fill those jobs if there were to
>> be a sudden void.
>>
>Don't bet on it.
Explain your reasoning. Why wouldn't they be able to do the work?
>> Do you think major hotel chains are knowingly hiring illegals?
>
>Not all immigrants are illegals.
Stick to the subject. No one mentioned legals.
Bernard Spilman
"sinistersteve" <sinist...@goto.hell> wrote in message
news:i_ednaffJahMpMvZ...@comcast.com...> news:rddc52tjjsq24kb65...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 1 May 2006 09:21:29 -0700, "sinistersteve"
>> <sinist...@goto.hell> puked:
>>
>> Ok, so let's make it law that anyone on welfare has to put in 30 hours
>> a week doing SOMETHING. If they have kids, they work in a daycare and
>> watch other kids as well as their own. They have ten hours (of course
>> more) a week to look for a more 'dignified' job.
>
> I like that idea...I would even be kind enough to drop it down to 20 hours
> a week. They can keep 100% of their welfare plus the 100 bucks a week from
> the legitimate job.
The only problem is that you are a fucking idiot nobody, and
fucking idiot nobodys like you don't control anything, so you
can't "be kind enough" to do a goddamn thing but sit in your
house and fume.
WS
whome?
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>> Hey man, after siesta! Not too late either, Holmes, got places to be
>> bendecco. Reconqista!!!!!!
>
> Hey! You sound like that Mexican Jew, Marty Cohen!!!
> --
> lab~rat >:-)
> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
Oy vay chingao!
lab~rat >:-)
Dude, relax. All of this is just conjecture. No one is gonna make
you work for your welfare check. (Yet)
911
>I don't know what that is in numbers, but I would wager that there are
> a lot of people on welfare that could fill those jobs if there were to
> be a sudden void.
>
The ones that don't allow exemptions on the W4 aren't hiring many illegal's.
The illegal's hate having taxes deducted and will only work in places that
let them put down 20 exemptions on their W4.
abracadabra
In the USA, we have "off year elections" - those are elections that take
place that are NOT during the Presidential election. In the USA we had
Presidential elections in 2000 and 2004, NOT in 2002 - sorry if you got
confused.
FFB-Exim axis of evil
the lead OFHEO investigator of Fannie Mae accounting scandal/fraud
audit of tens of billions of taxpayers dollars lost in an ever
deepening and corrupt hole, abruptly replacing Mr. Blumenthal, who had
been prying into the details before him.
James B. Lockhart III was the same guy who bunked with GW in the
elitist preppy high school for Connecticut Yankees that both bad little
boys attended, and who also thoroughly enjoyed along with the son of
George Herbert Bush, the Skull & Bones [secret order] fun and games at
Yale, directly alongside the younger GW, as his tomb mate. He was also
for many years the chief executive for GULF OIL over in Europe.
OFHEO, led by Mr. Blumenthal, is within weeks of completing a
multi-year examination into the accounting and management issues that
led several of the top brass at Fannie Mae (FNM) to resign over the
last two years. Fannie has said that its accounting errors required it
to recognize almost $20 billion in errors over several years.
NetRisk, Inc.
1 E. Weaver St., Greenwich, CT 06831
203-618-1200 Fax: 203-618-1255
Web Site: www.netrisk.com
Number of Employees: 30
CEO: Gene Shanks/President/CEO
Operations: James B. Lockhart/Managing Director [Binky]
Daniel T. Mudge/Managing Director
Christopher Lewis/Managing Director
http://www.angelfire.com/blog/ffb_exim/TREASURY.html
WHAT HAPPENED TO NETRISK? Binky Lockhart's business brainstorm seems
to have been swallowed up by Canadian and European juggernaut
Algorithmics. Algorithmics is now the world's leading provider of
enterprise risk management solutions and services that enable financial
institutions to effectively understand and manage their financial risk,
such as the staggeringly handsome payback to various owners of the
destroyed World Trace Center towers.
http://www.algorithmics.com/aboutalgo/WelcomeFitchRisk.shtml
HOW OUR U.S. TREASURY WAS ROBBED by CBOs
(Certificates of Beneficial Ownership)
http://www.angelfire.com/blog/ffb_exim/TREASURY.html
How the U.S. Treasury has been bilked out of most of its real holdings,
even more thoroughly than through the extremely foolish and unwise
selling of T-bonds to China in escrow in a sense for our uncountable
bad Fannie Mae mortgage loans totaling in the billions and trillions
[that newbie Ben Bernanke will be able to do nothing about, like a
fleecey little lamb]. This financial death sentence comes to us through
contracts and loans via our DoD, Pentagon and military & federal agency
"contractors," that abound like locusts now in the plagues of the
Bible.
You thought there was not another WORSE method of bleeding the U.S.A
dry overnight than the corrupted Fannie Mae slush fund[s] COVER UP?
Well, YES, there is! It is done by the Department of Defense [DOD]
through the Federal Finance Bank [FFB], and a lot of it through loans
to distant lands to buy our weapons hardware and software over in
foreign countries with GIANT loans handed out willy nilly by our Export
Import Bank [Exim] to them, so they can afford our death-delivery
manufactured goods, and these loans are guaranteed by our FFB and there
is ABSOLUTELY NO ACCOUNTABILITY!!!
This is how we taxpayers are ROBBED BLIND and why it makes no
difference to our current goverment if we are ALL OUTSOURCED overseas,
every last one of us, and not one more of us holds a job at home in our
own country anymore!
Here's how it works and the names of the major players----
FFB --- Federal Finance Bank --- this was created by Nixon in 1974 and
is able to loan money directly from our TREASURY (just like granny's
proverbial mattress stuffed with $100 bills!, but on a scale of
TRILLIONS!) to federal agencies without being held accountable to the
public. A recent dispute with the U.S. Post Office, when the FFB
threatened to cut off the USPS from this trillions of dollars of fun
money in our U.S. Treasry, the Post Office yelled "foul play," and was
deeply offended that they were no longer on the same tier of access to
the trillions of dollars that are not even documented in the
Congressional National Budget nor The Congressional Record. The DoD,
the Department of Defense [War], is not and never will be cut out of
the FFB, Federal Finance Bank gravey loop!
see
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/po125.htm
TESTIMONY OF DONALD V. HAMMOND
and, consider....
OPIC guarantee of slush funds to SubSaharan Africa through the Govcom
Incorporated agency [aka Govcom] of Citibank that does lots of giveaway
loans to foreign nations through Exim Bank, loans backed by our FFB and
Treasury!
http://www.opic.gov/FOIA/BoardResolutions/2003BDR/BDR-03-11.htm
A CBO and FFB deal online in which Exim Bank is the quarterback and
Citibank/Govcom the running backs, where Primary Tranche Lender A is
Exim and Tranche Lender B is Govco of CITIBANK, with Bank of America
picking up some of the slack in this, just one baby Exim bank loan for
six aircraft purchased from USA by Embraer of Brasil. BANKRUPTCY COURT
documentation provided below:
read about Citibank, Govcom, Embraer, Exim Bank and Tranche loans here!
http://www.donlinrecano.net/dr201/mwc/04-13819/dk001590-0000.pdf
The easiest way to explain this deranged despoilisation of our nation
[the USA] through these tools and instruments of financial mass
suicide, is the following.
Our Exim Bank, Export Import Bank, gets to make loans that the World
Bank and IMF only dream about, and that is why most of these loans are
camouflaged and concern themselves with global weapons, including
software for space and satellite warfare, and not just Piedmont jets
for banana republics to buy from us and destroy their next door
neighbors!
The Exim Bank and the FFB can drain our Treasury with no checks nor
balances and with virtually no public accountability, if they deem it
necessary to do so. Of course, they have many methods of putting their
OTHER inconsequential loans on the public record for their integrity to
appear intact.
The FFB Bank, aka Federal Finance Bank, is the best darned tool the
Department of Defense could ever have wished for, it is like weapons of
war paradise for the JAWS shark killer class controlling our destiny!
Here are some quotes and summaries from the finely created book by
Becker & McClenahan, two experts on the Exim Bank, about the EXPORT
IMPORT BANK, 1934-2000, published by Cambridge Books in 2000.
* 1938 -- ITT, International Telephone and Telegraph, became a big part
of Exim Bank and got yet another $10 million loan to provide phone
lines to nearly all the South American countries that requested them,
since they [ITT] controlled all the telecommunications knowhow at the
time. ITT controlled and owned the phone lines and the connecting brain
centers for North and South America at this time, as well as for half
of Mexico, all of Romania, Shanghai, and many many other nations.
* Exim Bank's role in WW2 was massive and no one could have foretold
then such a development would have emerged beforehand! This convenient
development led to Exim Bank playing a major leading role in the
MARSHALL PLAN for the Reconstruction of many parts of Europe after we
had bombed it [we did not loan money to build up bombed and ransacked
Russian cities on any near comparable scale].
1940 -- Exim Bank makes a $40 million loan to China.
1945 -- Exim becomes a part of the Federal Loan Agency. The Chairman of
the Federal Reserve is even beholden to them.
1984 -- many satellite deals for Intelsat with loans from Exim continue
on and on.
Westinghouse and General Electric are perhaps traditionally the two
biggest beneficiaires of Exim Bank, besides the DoD.
1991 -- the Foreign Credit Insurance Association, aka FCIA [aka the
Great American Insurance Company], spins off the FCIAM, the
"privatized" version of the FCIA.
http://www.gccrisk.com/related_forms.htm
Who are the two biggest 'front men' agencies for the Exim deals and who
in addition benefit the most from Exim, besides the arms dealers and
manufacturers, and their software jockeys??
SOCIETIES OF CINCINNATI
1. Great American Insurance Company, of Cincinnati [FCIA and Great
American Insurance Company, are one and the same!]
http://www.greatamericaninsurance.com/pages/index.jsp"
2. Meridian Export Import Insurers, of Cincinnati
http://www.meridianfinance.com/other_exim.shtml
A major exponential player of Exim deals in Europe is the consultancy
agency, MCKINSEY COMPANY.
http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/emerginggloballabormarket/index.asp
Aircraft, aerospace conveyances, satellites, telecommunications and its
infrastructure, weapons, nuclear power plants and devices,
hydroelectric dams, jet fuel production [especially the world king of
high quality hi speed jet fuel for aerospace and commercial jet planes,
NIGERIA, the king of kings of jet fuel], aluminum processing complexes,
etc., are the blood and iron of Exim loans.
CBOs [Certificates of Beneficial Ownership]
How the Orwellian sounding and named CBOs ["Certificates of Beneficial
Ownership"] play a role in this dreadful sacrifice of our national
treasury: [1982]
http://ftp.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/53xx/doc5329/doc01b-Entire.pdf
EZ-Treasury funds financing, using the magic wand of CBOs [direct
quote]
"To finance its purchases of agency debt and loan assets and its direct
loans to guaranteed borrowers, the FFB may either sell its own
securities directly to the public or it may borrow from the Treasury.
Although, according to the bank's charter, the FFB may borrow only $15
billion from the public at any time, it may, with the Secretary's
approval, borrow without limits from the Treasury.
Originally, it was thought that the FFB would borrow from the Treasury
on an interim basis, repaying these borrowings periodically through the
sale of its own securities in the market.
It was assumed that the bank's securities would pay the same low
interest rates paid by the Treasury on its own obligations.
Consider the following two examples. The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank)
has the authority to borrow to finance direct loans to promote exports
of American goods. Eximbank may borrow from the FFB, by selling a bond
to it, and then use the funds to make a direct loan to the national
airline of a foreign country to assist it to buy a U.S.-built
commercial jetliner. The loan from the FFB to Eximbank is treated as a
means of financing, and has no effects on the unified budget. The
direct loan by Eximbank to the foreign airline, however, is recorded as
an outlay in the Eximbank budget and in the unified budget totals.
Contrast that transaction to the following one.
The Department of Defense issues a guarantee to the same foreign
government for a loan to finance the purchase by that nation's armed
forces of U.S.-made military equipment. The loan is financed by the
FFB. In this case no outlays are recorded in the unified budget,
although the transaction was initiated by the Defense Department."
Since the FFB borrows all its funds from the Treasury, it has
practically unlimited available funds. This has enabled the FFB to
increase greatly the scope of its operations without having to seek
Congressional approval for increases in borrowing authority. For
example, at the end of fiscal year 1981, all but $10,000 of the FFB's
total holdings of $107.3 billion of agency debt, loan assets, and
direct loans to guaranteed borrowers had been financed by borrowing
from the Treasury. This is over seven times what the FFB could have
financed if it had been limited to its initial $15 billion of authority
to borrow from the public.
My, how the FFB-Exim Bank matrix has grown since 1981! Far back in 2001
the following was also written:
http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/economics/econ-114.pdf
"When it was initially established, the Bank was capitalized by an
appropriation of $1 billion from the U.S. Treasury. The Bank also is
authorized to borrow up to $6 billion directly from the Treasury, and
it may draw upon a substantial line of credit with the Federal
Financing Bank (FFB). (The Federal Financing Bank is a part of the
Departmentof the Treasury and obtains its funds from regular Treasury
issues.)
Eximbank uses its Treasury borrowings to finance its short-term needs,
and repays the Treasury quarterly from loan repayments and by borrowing
from the FFB on a medium- and long-term basis.The Bank's authority to
lend, guarantee, and insure is limited to a total of $75 billion.
Eximbank's direct loans are charged at their full value against the
$75 billion limitation. When it was initially established, the Bank was
capitalized by an appropriation of $1billion from the U.S. Treasury.
The Bank also is authorized to borrow up to $6 billion directly from
the Treasury, and it may draw upon a substantial [unlimited] line of
credit with the Federal Financing Bank (FFB). (The Federal Financing
Bank is a part of the Department of the Treasury and obtains its funds
from regular Treasury issues.)
"As part of its direct lending program, the Bank has a tied aid "war
chest" it uses to counter specific projects that are receiving
foreign officially subsidized export financing. Tied aid credits and
mixed credits are two of the primary methods whereby governments
provide their exporters with official assistance to promote exports.
Tied aid credits include loans and grants which reduce financing costs
below market rates for exporters and which are tied to the procurement
of goods and services from the donor country.
Mixed credits combine concessional government financing (funds at below
market rates or terms) with commercial or near-commercial funds to
produce an overall rate that is lower than market-based interest rates
and carries more lenient loan terms. The United States does tie
substantial amounts of its agricultural and military aid to U.S. goods,
but it generally has avoided using such financing to promote American
capital goods exports."
How much of the British arms race do you think, and also the British
Aerospace [BAE] military-global-trading WEAPONS-SOFTWARE FOCUS, is in
on this slush fund of FFB Bank goodies funneled through the Exim Bank
unlimited loans? THE GUARDIAN newspaper of London has written much on
the export certification and bank loan scandals they have had the
misfortune of bringing heaps of attention upon British Aerospace and
arms worldwide weapons conglomerate, based now a grenade's throw from
the Pentagon. BAE is now more a presence near the Pentagon in the
weapons loop around Washington DC than it is a member of the Airbus
Consortium of Europe near its own shores!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/story/0,,1733023,00.html
from Business Week magazine, how Tony Blair has lobbied GW Bush for a
waiver of export-license requirements in these BAE deals and Exim
loans...click if interested, please....
Jerry Baltimore
wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2006 09:21:29 -0700, "sinistersteve"
> <sinist...@goto.hell> puked:
>
> >
> >"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
> >news:gmcc52d2jdm53hte2...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 1 May 2006 11:57:18 -0400, "Mšbius Idiot"
> >> <DemsJustP...@aol.com> puked:
> >>
> >>> What about the poor blacks?
> >>
> >> Ok, I'll bite. What about them?
> >
> >
> >The poor black used to do those jobs that illegals do. Now that they get
> >paid via welfare for doing nothing, there is no reason for them to clean up
> >rooms any more.
> >
>
> Ok, so let's make it law that anyone on welfare has to put in 30 hours
> a week doing SOMETHING. If they have kids, they work in a daycare and
> watch other kids as well as their own. They have ten hours (of course
> more) a week to look for a more 'dignified' job.
Spoken like someone who has no and/or hates children. Jeez man - think
that one through a bit more. Would you really want someone who is
there by their own choice watching your kids? Also, real daycares -
the good ones that stay in business longer than a month - require some
degree of education and training.
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Danny BoyŽ
> On Mon, 1 May 2006 09:21:29 -0700, "sinistersteve"
> <sinist...@goto.hell> puked:
>
>>
>>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>>news:gmcc52d2jdm53hte2...@4ax.com...
>>> <DemsJustP...@aol.com> puked:
>>>
>>>> What about the poor blacks?
>>>
>>> Ok, I'll bite. What about them?
>>
>>
>>The poor black used to do those jobs that illegals do. Now that they get
>>paid via welfare for doing nothing, there is no reason for them to clean
>>up
>>rooms any more.
>>
>
> Ok, so let's make it law that anyone on welfare has to put in 30 hours
> a week doing SOMETHING. If they have kids, they work in a daycare and
> watch other kids as well as their own. They have ten hours (of course
> more) a week to look for a more 'dignified' job.
> lab~rat >:-)
> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
Didnt you see Bowling for Columbine? Michael Moore blamed that system
because some welfare woman had to go to her job as a "maid for rich people"
and her child was killed by a handgun because he was left alone.
The fact that the woman left her child at a junkies house in the first place
didnt seem to be a problem for Mr. Moore.
Damn, NRA!
Jerry Baltimore
wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2006 09:21:29 -0700, "sinistersteve"
> <sinist...@goto.hell> puked:
>
> >
> >"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
> >news:gmcc52d2jdm53hte2...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 1 May 2006 11:57:18 -0400, "Mšbius Idiot"
> >> <DemsJustP...@aol.com> puked:
> >>
> >>> What about the poor blacks?
> >>
> >> Ok, I'll bite. What about them?
> >
> >
> >The poor black used to do those jobs that illegals do. Now that they get
> >paid via welfare for doing nothing, there is no reason for them to clean up
> >rooms any more.
> >
>
> Ok, so let's make it law that anyone on welfare has to put in 30 hours
> a week doing SOMETHING. If they have kids, they work in a daycare and
> watch other kids as well as their own. They have ten hours (of course
> more) a week to look for a more 'dignified' job.
Spoken like someone who has no and/or hates children. Jeez man - think
that one through a bit more. Would you really want someone who is not
Jebus Saves
> On Mon, 01 May 2006 17:26:20 GMT, "Jebus Saves"
> <Georg...@drunkencokeheadedTraitorousAWOLCOWARDBITCHES.com> puked:
>>>I don't know what that is in numbers, but I would wager that there are
>>> a lot of people on welfare that could fill those jobs if there were to
>>> be a sudden void.
>>>
>>> Do you think major hotel chains are knowingly hiring illegals?
>>
>>
>>wouldn't
>>need to hire the immigrants. I think you confuse welfare with
>>unemployment.
>>People on unemployment are looking for jobs, people on welfare either are
>>not looking for jobs or are teenage mothers that cannot work and take care
>>of their children because
>
> Ok, so do what I suggested in an earlier post, make working a criteria
> for receiving welfare. Open an 'employment office' inside the welfare
> office where they match people of certain abilities to available jobs.
>
> Put the mothers to work in daycare centers where their kids will be
> cared for along with others. Sure, there will be a few cases where
> people are unable to work, but there are a lot of bums.
Do you know how many women would be working at Day Care Centers? And most of
these women are dipshit teenagers, they dont have enough sense to wipe their
own ass, much less someone else's kid's ass. I don't see welfare as a
problem, it's just a talking point to piss off the working poor and middle
class. "Why should they get paid when I have to work my ass off for less
money?". Well the same could be said about rich people "Why should I work my
ass off and he makes 3 times what I make off of my work while he sits on his
ass in the South Pacific on a 80 foot Yacht sipping mumosas and molesting
Thai 13 year old girls". Why get pissed off because a poor person is paid a
small amount for not working while a rich person makes billions while doing
nothing to deserve it but being born to a rich man that made his money
through crime and/or exploitation of the poor. I like when people get pissed
off about rich people, and I'm rich but I pay my employees very well and
they know I'm not some spoiled bastard ripping off the poor. Blacks scream
about the white man keeping them down and the white man had them as slaves.
They are wrong on both accounts, it wasn't the white man that had slaves or
keep them down, it's the RICH MAN. Slaves were expensive to own, a poor
white man couldn't support his own family, much less a bunch of slaves. The
racial group that is oppressed in today's world is the poor white man.
Blacks have affirmative action, Negro College fund, NAACP to provide
equality against the rich man but poor whites have nothing to help them. If
you are a poor white man, you are the bottom of the barrel and that is sad
as shit.
lab~rat >:-)
<NO-SPAM-jer...@mac.com> puked:
>In article <rddc52tjjsq24kb65...@4ax.com>, lab~rat >:-)
>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 1 May 2006 09:21:29 -0700, "sinistersteve"
>> <sinist...@goto.hell> puked:
>>
>> >
>> >"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>> >news:gmcc52d2jdm53hte2...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 1 May 2006 11:57:18 -0400, "MÅ¡bius Idiot"
>> >> <DemsJustP...@aol.com> puked:
>> >>
>> >>> What about the poor blacks?
>> >>
>> >> Ok, I'll bite. What about them?
>> >
>> >
>> >The poor black used to do those jobs that illegals do. Now that they get
>> >paid via welfare for doing nothing, there is no reason for them to clean up
>> >rooms any more.
>> >
>>
>> Ok, so let's make it law that anyone on welfare has to put in 30 hours
>> a week doing SOMETHING. If they have kids, they work in a daycare and
>> watch other kids as well as their own. They have ten hours (of course
>> more) a week to look for a more 'dignified' job.
>
>Spoken like someone who has no and/or hates children. Jeez man - think
>that one through a bit more. Would you really want someone who is
>there by their own choice watching your kids? Also, real daycares -
>the good ones that stay in business longer than a month - require some
>degree of education and training.
I agree, but look at it this way, the people working there don't have
to be RUNNING the place, they could be cleaning the bathrooms,
organizing supplies, sweeping leaves in the playground.
Water seeks its own level.
lab~rat >:-)
<Georg...@drunkencokeheadedTraitorousAWOLCOWARDBITCHES.com> puked:
All that is nice, but my effort was to fill those jobs that 'Americans
don't want'...
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
>
>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>news:6rjc52h4bj0ti1s1g...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 01 May 2006 17:48:37 GMT, "abracadabra" <ab...@hotmail.com>
>> puked:
>>
>>>
>>>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>>>news:9ebc521nvkge396d3...@4ax.com...
>>>>I don't know what that is in numbers, but I would wager that there are
>>>> a lot of people on welfare that could fill those jobs if there were to
>>>> be a sudden void.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think major hotel chains are knowingly hiring illegals?
>>>
>>>No, big business would never violate the law to make a quick buck! That'd
>>>be
>>>as unlikely as Bush starting a war to help win the 2002 elections!
>>>
>>
>> Let me guess, your vote against Bush in 2002 was never counted, right?
>
>In the USA, we have "off year elections" - those are elections that take
>place that are NOT during the Presidential election. In the USA we had
>Presidential elections in 2000 and 2004, NOT in 2002 - sorry if you got
>confused.
>
So Bush didn't win the 2002 elections as you claim? One of us is
clearly confused. Nice try to spin your fuckup, though.
wby...@ireland.com
wrote:
>On Mon, 01 May 2006 16:13:23 GMT, "Gorf" <sp...@nospam.com> puked:
>
>>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>>news:9ebc521nvkge396d3...@4ax.com...
>>> I don't know what that is in numbers, but I would wager that there are
>>> a lot of people on welfare that could fill those jobs if there were to
>>> be a sudden void.
>>>
>>> Do you think major hotel chains are knowingly hiring illegals?
>>> --
>>
>>YES, I think it is pretty obvious when house keepers in the hotel can not
>>even speak English......
>
>Speaking English is a requirement of becoming a legal citizen? Damn
>glad to hear it.
>
>>EMPLOYERS must be held accountable. If they are held liable for hiring
>>illegal aliens, the demand will drop quite suddenly.....
>
>Then I would suggest that it should be legal for employers to ask
>employment candidates to SHOW SOME FUCKING DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY'RE
>LEGAL. The liberals are so afraid of offending some fence-climber's
>sensibilities that they tie the employer's hands.
The problem isn't only the company asking for papers, you can get them
on Olivera St. in LA dirt cheap. The problem is the fact that many
companies that employ illegals don't follow up on ther papers to see
if they're valid.
>Oh, and since when is enforcement the Employer's responsibility?
>Shouldn't immigration have something to do with who is getting into
>this country?
Enforcement isn't the employer's responsibility. Ensuring their
employess are legal is.
WB Yeats
lab~rat >:-)
>On Mon, 01 May 2006 16:23:45 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 01 May 2006 16:13:23 GMT, "Gorf" <sp...@nospam.com> puked:
>>
>>>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>>>news:9ebc521nvkge396d3...@4ax.com...
>>>> I don't know what that is in numbers, but I would wager that there are
>>>> a lot of people on welfare that could fill those jobs if there were to
>>>> be a sudden void.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think major hotel chains are knowingly hiring illegals?
>>>> --
>>>
>>>YES, I think it is pretty obvious when house keepers in the hotel can not
>>>even speak English......
>>
>>Speaking English is a requirement of becoming a legal citizen? Damn
>>glad to hear it.
>>
>>>EMPLOYERS must be held accountable. If they are held liable for hiring
>>>illegal aliens, the demand will drop quite suddenly.....
>>
>>Then I would suggest that it should be legal for employers to ask
>>employment candidates to SHOW SOME FUCKING DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY'RE
>>LEGAL. The liberals are so afraid of offending some fence-climber's
>>sensibilities that they tie the employer's hands.
>
>The problem isn't only the company asking for papers, you can get them
>on Olivera St. in LA dirt cheap. The problem is the fact that many
>companies that employ illegals don't follow up on ther papers to see
>if they're valid.
So the employers receive the required documentation by law, then it's
their responsibility to see if the new hires are breaking the law?
I don't think that's true.
>
>>Oh, and since when is enforcement the Employer's responsibility?
>>Shouldn't immigration have something to do with who is getting into
>>this country?
>
>Enforcement isn't the employer's responsibility. Ensuring their
>employess are legal is.
If the enforcement end did their job, the employer could do theirs.
Bear in mind that the employer is not in business to regulate who gets
work and identify who is illegal, their job is to run a business.
abracadabra
> On Mon, 01 May 2006 21:09:33 GMT, "abracadabra" <ab...@hotmail.com>
> puked:
>
>>
>>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>>news:6rjc52h4bj0ti1s1g...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 01 May 2006 17:48:37 GMT, "abracadabra" <ab...@hotmail.com>
>>> puked:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:9ebc521nvkge396d3...@4ax.com...
>>>>>I don't know what that is in numbers, but I would wager that there are
>>>>> a lot of people on welfare that could fill those jobs if there were to
>>>>> be a sudden void.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think major hotel chains are knowingly hiring illegals?
>>>>
>>>>No, big business would never violate the law to make a quick buck!
>>>>That'd
>>>>be
>>>>as unlikely as Bush starting a war to help win the 2002 elections!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Let me guess, your vote against Bush in 2002 was never counted, right?
>>
>>In the USA, we have "off year elections" - those are elections that take
>>place that are NOT during the Presidential election. In the USA we had
>>Presidential elections in 2000 and 2004, NOT in 2002 - sorry if you got
>>confused.
>>
>
> So Bush didn't win the 2002 elections as you claim?
It was a goal of the Bush administration for the Republicans to take back
the Senate - that election. I never said that Bush was running for office in
2002, but it's pretty clear he was campaigning FOR REPUBLICANS. Maybe you
weren't following American politics in 2002 - I assumed you had.
>One of us is
> clearly confused.
I don't think either of us is confused! Look at the quote "as Bush starting
a war to help win the 2002 elections!" - see, nothing about Bush running for
office in 2002. I thought it was pretty clear, but English is my first
language, and I might have been assuming too much.
> Nice try to spin your fuckup, though.
What "fuckup" on my part? Your writing indicates that you are pretty clever
and I thought it was a fair assumption that "as Bush starting a war to help
win the 2002 elections!" was referring to "the elections that Bush was
campaigning in FOR REPUBLICANS". As you are a clever person who writes well,
it's pretty clear that you're pretending to be confused.
Maybe you ought to try being both polite and sincere!
Have a nice day!
Mike V.
lab~rat >:-) wrote:
> I don't know what that is in numbers, but I would wager that there are
> a lot of people on welfare that could fill those jobs if there were to
> be a sudden void.
>
> Do you think major hotel chains are knowingly hiring illegals?
Of course they are.
Them and other companies large and small.
This whole "problem" with illegal immigration could be solved by
busting companies that hire anyone not able to work in the US legally
and enforcing labor laws that are on the books.
The republican congress and the president will never do this, because
it will upset their business interest friends.
It is in their best interest and that of their friends to create and
maintain a permanent underclass of workers both legal and illegal.
They want a 21st century Gilded Age, and they want it now.
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
>What "fuckup" on my part? Your writing indicates that you are pretty clever
>and I thought it was a fair assumption that "as Bush starting a war to help
>win the 2002 elections!" was referring to "the elections that Bush was
>campaigning in FOR REPUBLICANS". As you are a clever person who writes well,
>it's pretty clear that you're pretending to be confused.
>Maybe you ought to try being both polite and sincere!
>Have a nice day!
Are you flirting with me?
lab~rat >:-)
I still don't buy into the idea that it is up to the employer to do
ANY type of enforcement. That's the government's issue. They've
suggested issuing National ID Cards, and I don't know if that would be
a step in the right direction.
If an employer takes reasonable steps to ensure that they are hiring
legal citizens, they shouldn't be penalized if some jackass is forging
documents.
In my case, I have a number of subcontractors working for me at any
given time. All of them are licensed and insured, all the good stuff,
but I'm sure that they have hired illegals to work for THEM. It is a
part of our contract that they are to use only legal help. If
Immigration rolls up on the site, would it be reasonable to hold ME
culpable?
abracadabra
I'm being both polite and sincere. Being married I don't flirt with anyone.
Jebus Saves
Those jobs have to be filled by immigrants. Poor Americans are like the
people of Rome, we deserve better treatment cause we's Amerikun. The fun
part is that the rich man uses the immigrants for 2 purposes, cheap labor
and to divert the middle class and working poor's anger away from the rich
man. "They took our jobs!" when the real outcry should be "The rich mother
fuckers are making billions, not paying us a fair wage and watching the gap
between poor and rich grow larger every day". The real fun starts when the
poor realize this and strike against the rich man but they wont bother the
real rich men, they'll attack the percieved rich(people they work for like
managers....). The real rich live in gated communities away from the scum
and out of reach.
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
Ok, ok, take it easy. No need to get defensive...
lab~rat >:-)
<Georg...@drunkencokeheadedTraitorousAWOLCOWARDBITCHES.com> puked:
So that's your answer to the problem? You must be poor or something.
wby...@ireland.com
wrote:
It's the employer's job to insure that he's not breaking the law -
that includes papers just as if he were checking references. It's just
good business.
>>>Oh, and since when is enforcement the Employer's responsibility?
>>>Shouldn't immigration have something to do with who is getting into
>>>this country?
>>
>>Enforcement isn't the employer's responsibility. Ensuring their
>>employess are legal is.
>
>If the enforcement end did their job, the employer could do theirs.
>Bear in mind that the employer is not in business to regulate who gets
>work and identify who is illegal, their job is to run a business.
Their job is to run their businesses legally. I don't disagree at all
about the enforcement. The employer doesn't have to turn in a
suspected illegal - just don't hire the individual. As for day labor -
that's a whole nuther can of worms.
WB Yeats
poldy
"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
> Explain your reasoning. Why wouldn't they be able to do the work?
How do you know employers would hire people who used to be on welfare?
Many employers have said immigrant workers, who may or may not be legal,
tended to work harder, show up on time and not give them any attitude
like a lot of native American workers.
Some may actually prefer immigrants over locals based on past experience.
Jebus Saves
It's not a problem, the REAL Problem is class inequality. I know you love
George Bush and think he's great so you are a slow learner but have you ever
read a book? Did you have a history class in your high school or did you not
make it that far in school? The solution is to tax these rich cocksuckers,
raise the minimum wage, require health care for all workers, penalize
employers that hire illegals and the rich man wont want the immigrant
workers around. If you have to pay a fine to hire an illegal, you wont hire
illegals. If AMERICANS are paid a fair salary and have health care, they
will do those jobs that Americans wont do.
FINE THE RICH MAN for hiring illegals, and TAX THE RICH MAN for the
privilege of being an American and making money in our free market economy.
Apparently you do not read posts before you respond, I am quite well off, I
own 3 businesses, one of which is a taxi service for the poor American
soldiers and veterans to and from the VA hospitals. I know first hand how
these men that served this country protecting you and the rich man have
been treated and how they feel. It breaks my heart to see a 19 year old kid
that should be working at Mcdonalds and going to college get on one of my
vans in a wheel chair missing a arm and a leg because George W Bush and his
billionaire criminal buddies decided that money was worth more than this
poor kid's arm and leg. It's disgusting when dipshitted idiots continue to
support this war but do NOTHING to help. If you think this is a just and
right war then you have NO EXCUSE to not be in uniform and over there taking
the place of one of the hundred thousand scared American poor TEENAGERS over
there dying and losing limbs for George W. Bush's bank account. Get your ass
in a uniform, NO EXCUSE, unless you are a coward and a hypocrite.
Jerry Baltimore
wrote:
> On Mon, 01 May 2006 19:26:15 -0400, Jerry Baltimore
> <NO-SPAM-jer...@mac.com> puked:
>
> >In article <rddc52tjjsq24kb65...@4ax.com>, lab~rat >:-)
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 1 May 2006 09:21:29 -0700, "sinistersteve"
> >> <sinist...@goto.hell> puked:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:gmcc52d2jdm53hte2...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Mon, 1 May 2006 11:57:18 -0400, "Mšbius Idiot"
> >> >> <DemsJustP...@aol.com> puked:
> >> >>
> >> >>> What about the poor blacks?
> >> >>
> >> >> Ok, I'll bite. What about them?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >The poor black used to do those jobs that illegals do. Now that they get
> >> >paid via welfare for doing nothing, there is no reason for them to clean
> >> >up
> >> >rooms any more.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Ok, so let's make it law that anyone on welfare has to put in 30 hours
> >> a week doing SOMETHING. If they have kids, they work in a daycare and
> >> watch other kids as well as their own. They have ten hours (of course
> >> more) a week to look for a more 'dignified' job.
> >
> >Spoken like someone who has no and/or hates children. Jeez man - think
> >that one through a bit more. Would you really want someone who is
> >there by their own choice watching your kids? Also, real daycares -
> >the good ones that stay in business longer than a month - require some
> >degree of education and training.
>
> I agree, but look at it this way, the people working there don't have
> to be RUNNING the place, they could be cleaning the bathrooms,
> organizing supplies, sweeping leaves in the playground.
So who pays for that? Again, you don't seem to know much about the
daycare biz. The "caregivers" usually do much of the janitorial work
as well as develop lesson plans and the actual teaching and
entertaining of the children. It isn't the owners and managers who
require the education and training, it is the actual caregivers and
teachers. Parents are only willing to pay so much for the service, yet
they expect the best. Usually the people who actually work in a room
with the kids and do all that other stuff get paid less than $8.00 an
hour. And then there is the issue of security clearances...
If you start bribing people off of welfare by paying them more than the
job would normally pay, what do you think happens to the people who
actually WANT to do the work? What happens when the time comes for the
person on welfare to go get a real job that pays less than they made on
welfare/workfare? The system is screwed up, but yours is not the
solution.
Now if you want to see your kind of socialism at work, try the Cayman
Islands. 0% unemployment because they will pay a guy a decent wage to
rake the same 40 foot section of beach all day. They turn a half hour
job into a career. Is that what you want to do? Give people money to
clean 4 bathrooms in some daycare all day for 30 hours a week?
Sounds great, until you look at the taxes.
Morton Davis
"poldy" <po...@kfu.com> wrote in message
news:poldy-BAFA1B....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Around here, the locals tend to show up for work if they need money and if
they feel like it during summer.
Morton Davis
"Jebus Saves" <Georg...@drunkencokeheadedTraitorousAWOLCOWARDBITCHES.com>
wrote in message news:umY5g.8958$tT....@news01.roc.ny...
It's condescending crappola like the above that sets off my fucktard meter.
<plonk>
lab~rat >:-)
<NO-SPAM-jer...@mac.com> puked:
>In article <5ake5216pph9jfajg...@4ax.com>, lab~rat >:-)
>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 May 2006 19:26:15 -0400, Jerry Baltimore
>> <NO-SPAM-jer...@mac.com> puked:
>>
>> >In article <rddc52tjjsq24kb65...@4ax.com>, lab~rat >:-)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 1 May 2006 09:21:29 -0700, "sinistersteve"
>> >> <sinist...@goto.hell> puked:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>> >> >news:gmcc52d2jdm53hte2...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Mon, 1 May 2006 11:57:18 -0400, "MÅ¡bius Idiot"
>> >> >> <DemsJustP...@aol.com> puked:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> What about the poor blacks?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ok, I'll bite. What about them?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >The poor black used to do those jobs that illegals do. Now that they get
>> >> >paid via welfare for doing nothing, there is no reason for them to clean
>> >> >up
>> >> >rooms any more.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Ok, so let's make it law that anyone on welfare has to put in 30 hours
>> >> a week doing SOMETHING. If they have kids, they work in a daycare and
>> >> watch other kids as well as their own. They have ten hours (of course
>> >> more) a week to look for a more 'dignified' job.
>> >
>> >Spoken like someone who has no and/or hates children. Jeez man - think
>> >that one through a bit more. Would you really want someone who is
>> >there by their own choice watching your kids? Also, real daycares -
>> >the good ones that stay in business longer than a month - require some
>> >degree of education and training.
>>
>> I agree, but look at it this way, the people working there don't have
>> to be RUNNING the place, they could be cleaning the bathrooms,
>> organizing supplies, sweeping leaves in the playground.
>
>So who pays for that?
Welfare dollars.
>Again, you don't seem to know much about the
>daycare biz.
No, I make sacrifices in my life so my wife can stay at home and care
for my children. I didn't shack up, have kids out of wedlock, have
children when I couldn't afford them, run out on my wife, etc. I am
ignorant when it comes to daycare.
>The "caregivers" usually do much of the janitorial work
>as well as develop lesson plans and the actual teaching and
>entertaining of the children. It isn't the owners and managers who
>require the education and training, it is the actual caregivers and
>teachers. Parents are only willing to pay so much for the service, yet
>they expect the best. Usually the people who actually work in a room
>with the kids and do all that other stuff get paid less than $8.00 an
>hour. And then there is the issue of security clearances...
Fine, then lets give the children a reduced rate at a state sponsored
daycare hosted at the local juvenile detention center, because that's
where a lot of them will likely end up. Then their mothers can work
half a day and look for work half a day.
>
>If you start bribing people off of welfare by paying them more than the
>job would normally pay,
Never said that, unless people make more money on welfare than they do
working at a daycare.
> what do you think happens to the people who
>actually WANT to do the work? What happens when the time comes for the
>person on welfare to go get a real job that pays less than they made on
>welfare/workfare? The system is screwed up, but yours is not the
>solution.
>
>Now if you want to see your kind of socialism at work, try the Cayman
>Islands. 0% unemployment because they will pay a guy a decent wage to
>rake the same 40 foot section of beach all day. They turn a half hour
>job into a career. Is that what you want to do? Give people money to
>clean 4 bathrooms in some daycare all day for 30 hours a week?
>Sounds great, until you look at the taxes.
My taxes are paying people to sit on their ever-widening asses right
now. My suggestion is to pay them the same but have them do SOMETHING
for the money.
lab~rat >:-)
So what if he's provided with falsified documents?
>
>>>>Oh, and since when is enforcement the Employer's responsibility?
>>>>Shouldn't immigration have something to do with who is getting into
>>>>this country?
>>>
>>>Enforcement isn't the employer's responsibility. Ensuring their
>>>employess are legal is.
>>
>>If the enforcement end did their job, the employer could do theirs.
>>Bear in mind that the employer is not in business to regulate who gets
>>work and identify who is illegal, their job is to run a business.
>
>Their job is to run their businesses legally. I don't disagree at all
>about the enforcement. The employer doesn't have to turn in a
>suspected illegal - just don't hire the individual. As for day labor -
>that's a whole nuther can of worms.
A can that I am more familiar with than hiring someone full time.
lab~rat >:-)
<Georg...@drunkencokeheadedTraitorousAWOLCOWARDBITCHES.com> puked:
I went to college, and it's pretty clear that you didn't. It may not
be your fault, but I think it may because even REALLY STUPID folk can
get into community colleges. What's your excuse?
>The solution is to tax these rich cocksuckers,
They already are taxed. They pay a majority of the taxes in the US.
Why do you have hate for people that have made something with their
life.
>raise the minimum wage,
To what? Do you know anyone that makes minimum wage?
>require health care for all workers,
Who would pay for that, genius? If I didn't provide health care to my
workers they would make more money. In fact, I have had employees
that had their spouse's health care, and I did...
>penalize
>employers that hire illegals
Great idea. The laws are already on the books. Get busy enforcing
it.
>and the rich man wont want the immigrant
>workers around. If you have to pay a fine to hire an illegal, you wont hire
>illegals. If AMERICANS are paid a fair salary and have health care, they
>will do those jobs that Americans wont do.
Ok, and let's kill all the lazy bastards on welfare while we're at it,
ok?
>FINE THE RICH MAN for hiring illegals, and TAX THE RICH MAN for the
>privilege of being an American and making money in our free market economy.
>Apparently you do not read posts before you respond, I am quite well off, I
>own 3 businesses,
Do you pay all of your employees health insurance or are you the only
employee?
>one of which is a taxi service for the poor American
>soldiers and veterans to and from the VA hospitals. I know first hand how
>these men that served this country protecting you and the rich man have
>been treated and how they feel. It breaks my heart to see a 19 year old kid
>that should be working at Mcdonalds and going to college get on one of my
>vans in a wheel chair missing a arm and a leg because George W Bush and his
>billionaire criminal buddies decided that money was worth more than this
>poor kid's arm and leg. It's disgusting when dipshitted idiots continue to
>support this war but do NOTHING to help. If you think this is a just and
>right war then you have NO EXCUSE to not be in uniform and over there taking
>the place of one of the hundred thousand scared American poor TEENAGERS over
>there dying and losing limbs for George W. Bush's bank account. Get your ass
>in a uniform, NO EXCUSE, unless you are a coward and a hypocrite.
>
Has America ever been in a war that you have supported? (No answer
expected)
lab~rat >:-)
Are you suggesting that employers are discriminating against people
that received welfare?
Morton Davis
> No, I make sacrifices in my life so my wife can stay at home and care
> for my children. I didn't shack up, have kids out of wedlock, have
> children when I couldn't afford them, run out on my wife, etc. I am
> ignorant when it comes to daycare.
>
who mistakenly believed their husband when he promised to be faithful and
lost him to the first bimbo who didn't have stretch marks who was willing to
spread her legs and her lips to get him so he could leave her when she got
stretch marks.
It would behooves you not to rant about things you know nothing about. Leave
that to the fucktard Democrats.
fiend999
wrote:
> On Wed, 03 May 2006 07:06:24 -0400, Jerry Baltimore
> <NO-SPAM-jer...@mac.com> puked:
>
> >In article <5ake5216pph9jfajg...@4ax.com>, lab~rat >:-)
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 01 May 2006 19:26:15 -0400, Jerry Baltimore
> >> <NO-SPAM-jer...@mac.com> puked:
> >>
> >> >In article <rddc52tjjsq24kb65...@4ax.com>, lab~rat >:-)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 1 May 2006 09:21:29 -0700, "sinistersteve"
> >> >> <sinist...@goto.hell> puked:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:gmcc52d2jdm53hte2...@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> On Mon, 1 May 2006 11:57:18 -0400, "Mšbius Idiot"
That is pretty shallow and unthinking of you. Not everyone with kids
in day care is a whore or a deadbeat. There are things like death,
illness, divorce, job loss, or heaven forbid - TWO parents with good
careers to provide a better life overall for their family.
Apparently it isn't just daycare that you are ignorant about - marriage
and life in general seem confusing to you.
--
.
Jerry Baltimore
wrote:
> On Wed, 03 May 2006 07:06:24 -0400, Jerry Baltimore
> <NO-SPAM-jer...@mac.com> puked:
>
> >In article <5ake5216pph9jfajg...@4ax.com>, lab~rat >:-)
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 01 May 2006 19:26:15 -0400, Jerry Baltimore
> >> <NO-SPAM-jer...@mac.com> puked:
> >>
> >> >In article <rddc52tjjsq24kb65...@4ax.com>, lab~rat >:-)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 1 May 2006 09:21:29 -0700, "sinistersteve"
> >> >> <sinist...@goto.hell> puked:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:gmcc52d2jdm53hte2...@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> On Mon, 1 May 2006 11:57:18 -0400, "Mšbius Idiot"
Many do. That is the point I have been trying to make.
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
>
>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>news:nfch52tnb00vjvi7v...@4ax.com...
>> No, I make sacrifices in my life so my wife can stay at home and care
>> for my children. I didn't shack up, have kids out of wedlock, have
>> children when I couldn't afford them, run out on my wife, etc. I am
>> ignorant when it comes to daycare.
>>
>Most of the people who utilize daycare are married couples. others are women
>who mistakenly believed their husband when he promised to be faithful and
>lost him to the first bimbo who didn't have stretch marks who was willing to
>spread her legs and her lips to get him so he could leave her when she got
>stretch marks.
The married couples are living beyond their means. I didn't have my
first child until I was established and could afford to have my wife
care for them at home. I have also remained faithful to my wife.
What I'm saying is that there are failures in judgement in most cases
where kids are in daycare. You seem to agree with me.
I'm sure there are some unavoidable circumstances, but I think most
circumstances are due to stupid or selfish people allowing strangers
to raise their kids.
>
>It would behooves you not to rant about things you know nothing about. Leave
>that to the fucktard Democrats.
>
I like to deal with them on their own level. ;)
lab~rat >:-)
<dontspam...@newsguy.com> puked:
>In article <nfch52tnb00vjvi7v...@4ax.com>, lab~rat >:-)
>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 May 2006 07:06:24 -0400, Jerry Baltimore
>> <NO-SPAM-jer...@mac.com> puked:
>>
>> >In article <5ake5216pph9jfajg...@4ax.com>, lab~rat >:-)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 01 May 2006 19:26:15 -0400, Jerry Baltimore
>> >> <NO-SPAM-jer...@mac.com> puked:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <rddc52tjjsq24kb65...@4ax.com>, lab~rat >:-)
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Mon, 1 May 2006 09:21:29 -0700, "sinistersteve"
>> >> >> <sinist...@goto.hell> puked:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:gmcc52d2jdm53hte2...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 1 May 2006 11:57:18 -0400, "MÅ¡bius Idiot"
Which are some of the exceptions.
>divorce,
Selfish.
>job loss,
Temporary. And if they lost a job, wouldn't they have no money to
send a kid to day care PLUS more time to watch them?
>or heaven forbid - TWO parents with good
>careers to provide a better life overall for their family.
No, you're wrong. You think that money can buy a good upbringing for
a child. You are SADLY mistaken. But then, that's the way a lot of
SELFISH people are these days. My wife went to college and had a
career before she gladly gave it up for our children.
Children do not benefit from being raised by strangers.
>Apparently it isn't just daycare that you are ignorant about - marriage
>and life in general seem confusing to you.
So tell me, how was it being stuck in daycare while your selfish
parents did whatever it was that they favored above YOU?
lab~rat >:-)
<NO-SPAM-jer...@mac.com> puked:
>In article <nfch52tnb00vjvi7v...@4ax.com>, lab~rat >:-)
>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 May 2006 07:06:24 -0400, Jerry Baltimore
>> <NO-SPAM-jer...@mac.com> puked:
>>
>> >In article <5ake5216pph9jfajg...@4ax.com>, lab~rat >:-)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 01 May 2006 19:26:15 -0400, Jerry Baltimore
>> >> <NO-SPAM-jer...@mac.com> puked:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <rddc52tjjsq24kb65...@4ax.com>, lab~rat >:-)
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Mon, 1 May 2006 09:21:29 -0700, "sinistersteve"
>> >> >> <sinist...@goto.hell> puked:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:gmcc52d2jdm53hte2...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 1 May 2006 11:57:18 -0400, "MÅ¡bius Idiot"
So do we pay people more for daycare or less for welfare? You can
guess what my choice would be...
Morton Davis
> On Wed, 03 May 2006 14:14:19 GMT, "Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com>
> puked:
>
> >
> >"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
> >news:nfch52tnb00vjvi7v...@4ax.com...
> >> No, I make sacrifices in my life so my wife can stay at home and care
> >> for my children. I didn't shack up, have kids out of wedlock, have
> >> children when I couldn't afford them, run out on my wife, etc. I am
> >> ignorant when it comes to daycare.
> >>
> >Most of the people who utilize daycare are married couples. others are
women
> >who mistakenly believed their husband when he promised to be faithful and
> >lost him to the first bimbo who didn't have stretch marks who was willing
to
> >spread her legs and her lips to get him so he could leave her when she
got
> >stretch marks.
>
> The married couples are living beyond their means. I didn't have my
> first child until I was established and could afford to have my wife
> care for them at home. I have also remained faithful to my wife.
> What I'm saying is that there are failures in judgement in most cases
> where kids are in daycare. You seem to agree with me.
>
> I'm sure there are some unavoidable circumstances, but I think most
> circumstances are due to stupid or selfish people allowing strangers
> to raise their kids.
>
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
Absolutely. You have to drop the selfish crap when you are
responsible for young ones...
Jebus Saves
> Has America ever been in a war that you have supported? (No answer
> expected)
>
Afghanistan to hunt Osama Bin Laden, WWII, WWI.... All valid wars. Attacking
Iraq to make money? Not Valid. And if you find the war in Iraq, WHY AREN'T
YOU IN UNIFORM IN IRAQ? Coward hypocrite!
fiend999
wrote:
> On Wed, 03 May 2006 10:32:14 -0400, fiend999
> <dontspam...@newsguy.com> puked:
>
> >In article <nfch52tnb00vjvi7v...@4ax.com>, lab~rat >:-)
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 03 May 2006 07:06:24 -0400, Jerry Baltimore
> >> <NO-SPAM-jer...@mac.com> puked:
> >>
> >> >In article <5ake5216pph9jfajg...@4ax.com>, lab~rat >:-)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 01 May 2006 19:26:15 -0400, Jerry Baltimore
> >> >> <NO-SPAM-jer...@mac.com> puked:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <rddc52tjjsq24kb65...@4ax.com>, lab~rat >:-)
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Mon, 1 May 2006 09:21:29 -0700, "sinistersteve"
> >> >> >> <sinist...@goto.hell> puked:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news:gmcc52d2jdm53hte2...@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 1 May 2006 11:57:18 -0400, "Mšbius Idiot"
More like the rule. You listen to too much Dr Laura or something if
you believe otherwise. Get out in the real world and meet some people
for a change. You'd be surprised what life is actually like.
>
> >divorce,
>
> Selfish.
Not always. Sometimes it is more selfish to pretend to be happy "for
the kids" or to appear to be proper. Then there is abuse. Should
someone stay married to an abusive spouse? People make mistakes, and
people change. Divorce is often a good solution to that.
>
> >job loss,
>
> Temporary. And if they lost a job, wouldn't they have no money to
> send a kid to day care PLUS more time to watch them?
And then they go on your beloved welfare because they can't pay the
bills.
Seriously - single parents who want to work for a living and have no
relative or neighbor to take care of the kids every single day do what
then? That's right - they hope to make enough to afford daycare.
You truly are a simpleton.
>
> >or heaven forbid - TWO parents with good
> >careers to provide a better life overall for their family.
>
> No, you're wrong. You think that money can buy a good upbringing for
> a child.
No, but it can get your family out of a bad neighborhood and into good
schools for example. You know, that whole American dream thing.
> You are SADLY mistaken.
Nope. I am happily looking at the real world. You should try it some
time.
> But then, that's the way a lot of
> SELFISH people are these days.
I see, wanting a safe neighborhood and good education for my family is
selfish. And you call ME mistaken?
> My wife went to college and had a
> career before she gladly gave it up for our children.
That's great for her. But it is also not everyone's choice. Why do
you seem to think your family's way is the only correct path?
>
> Children do not benefit from being raised by strangers.
Actually, there have been studies which show that in some ways they do.
Social skills, for instance. You already admitted ignorance on the
subject - why do you continue to perpetuate the myths and lies?
>
> >Apparently it isn't just daycare that you are ignorant about - marriage
> >and life in general seem confusing to you.
>
> So tell me, how was it being stuck in daycare while your selfish
> parents did whatever it was that they favored above YOU?
I wasn't ever in daycare. Both parents worked in order to pay the
bills and mortgage (much like most other families), but the schedules
overlapped so it was ok. How did you like growing up locked in your
room while your parents silently hated their lives, each other and
resented you while not having the guts to change their lives for the
better?
--
~~~
lab~rat >:-)
<Georg...@drunkencokeheadedTraitorousAWOLCOWARDBITCHES.com> puked:
>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
I'm financing the war, you dummy.
lab~rat >:-)
<dontspam...@newsguy.com> puked:
>> >That is pretty shallow and unthinking of you. Not everyone with kids
>> >in day care is a whore or a deadbeat. There are things like death,
>> >illness,
>>
>> Which are some of the exceptions.
>More like the rule. You listen to too much Dr Laura or something if
>you believe otherwise. Get out in the real world and meet some people
>for a change. You'd be surprised what life is actually like.
I don't listen to Dr. Laura and I am in the real world.
>
>>
>> >divorce,
>>
>> Selfish.
>
>Not always. Sometimes it is more selfish to pretend to be happy "for
>the kids" or to appear to be proper. Then there is abuse. Should
>someone stay married to an abusive spouse? People make mistakes, and
>people change. Divorce is often a good solution to that.
More often than not divorce is for selfish reasons. Paint it any
color you like, but it's a fact.
>>
>> >job loss,
>>
>> Temporary. And if they lost a job, wouldn't they have no money to
>> send a kid to day care PLUS more time to watch them?
>
>And then they go on your beloved welfare because they can't pay the
>bills.
>Seriously - single parents who want to work for a living and have no
>relative or neighbor to take care of the kids every single day do what
>then? That's right - they hope to make enough to afford daycare.
>You truly are a simpleton.
Name calling noted.
Beyond that, why are they single parents? Did they have a child out
of wedlock? Did they get a divorce? The reason is their fault
regardless, and the child suffers as a result.
In the instance of a death, that's one of the exceptions to the rule
I'm discussing.
>>
>> >or heaven forbid - TWO parents with good
>> >careers to provide a better life overall for their family.
>>
>> No, you're wrong. You think that money can buy a good upbringing for
>> a child.
>
>No, but it can get your family out of a bad neighborhood and into good
>schools for example. You know, that whole American dream thing.
Yeah, and what about vouchers?
>
>> You are SADLY mistaken.
>
>Nope. I am happily looking at the real world. You should try it some
>time.
So are you pretending that the real world is better than the ideal
world? Do you think parents who put their children in daycare prefer
to have them there? I say a good percentage do.
>> But then, that's the way a lot of
>> SELFISH people are these days.
>
>I see, wanting a safe neighborhood and good education for my family is
>selfish. And you call ME mistaken?
Then wait until you are financially able to afford to live in that
neighborhood before you have kids. Or move to a different state.
>> My wife went to college and had a
>> career before she gladly gave it up for our children.
>
>That's great for her. But it is also not everyone's choice. Why do
>you seem to think your family's way is the only correct path?
More correct than harboring children in daycare.
>> Children do not benefit from being raised by strangers.
>
>Actually, there have been studies which show that in some ways they do.
>Social skills, for instance. You already admitted ignorance on the
>subject - why do you continue to perpetuate the myths and lies?
I've seen studies like that . They are heavily weighted with an
agenda. Children get good social skills at school and benefit more
from parenting than being stuck in a daycare until 6:30 at night.
>>
>> >Apparently it isn't just daycare that you are ignorant about - marriage
>> >and life in general seem confusing to you.
>>
>> So tell me, how was it being stuck in daycare while your selfish
>> parents did whatever it was that they favored above YOU?
>
>I wasn't ever in daycare. Both parents worked in order to pay the
>bills and mortgage (much like most other families), but the schedules
>overlapped so it was ok. How did you like growing up locked in your
>room while your parents silently hated their lives, each other and
>resented you while not having the guts to change their lives for the
>better?
You missed the ball with that one, but I see where your perspective
is.
Now, let me add something about your reality as you see it. You are
one of these people that feel women in the workplace is important and
most people can't make it without dual incomes. I say you're wrong on
both counts.
Number one, water seeks its own level. Maybe a family doesn't need
two cars or premium cable subscription or a number of other luxuries
that the second income pays for. Maybe they don't need a house in a
big suburb.
Number two, women in the work place are the reason for two family
incomes being as prevalent as they are. Now that sounds stupid on the
surface, but think of supply and demand in the country's workforce.
Suddenly in the 60's women started taking more jobs, and as they
entered higher status than secretary or nurse, there were more
positions being filled. As a result, supply and demand would dictate
that overall wages would decrease as there's a greater quantity of
workers in the workplace.
As a result, women that wouldn't normally choose to work would be
forced into the workplace as a result of her husband's lower wage not
being able to cover the lifestyle that they want.
All of this to me rings as being selfish...
d whatever
howard stern fans shop for underwear after they have had an accident ...]
Any way .. he said that there would be an entire cleaning crew of
foreigners ... ones that spoke NO ENGLISH AT ALL .. they would stay for a
few months and then they were replaced with yet ANOTHER foreign cleaning
crew ... Usually from some other unheard of country .. This would happen
every couple of months .. I said that Target must be smuggling foreigners
across whatever boarders for cheap janitorial help .. THIS IS STILL GOING ON
NOW! [florida targets.]news:rkmh52h0mfeaglit5...@4ax.com...
Jebus Saves
Put a weapon in your hand and fight the war.Everyone finances the war when
they pay any tax.You are a coward and a hypocrite. Fucking coward, get your
ass in a uniform and go to Iraq! You Pussy Coward BITCH!
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
>Had this friend that worked after hours for Target [ you know .. where
>howard stern fans shop for underwear after they have had an accident ...]
>Any way .. he said that there would be an entire cleaning crew of
>foreigners ... ones that spoke NO ENGLISH AT ALL .. they would stay for a
>few months and then they were replaced with yet ANOTHER foreign cleaning
>crew ... Usually from some other unheard of country .. This would happen
>every couple of months .. I said that Target must be smuggling foreigners
>across whatever boarders for cheap janitorial help .. THIS IS STILL GOING ON
>NOW! [florida targets.]
Damn, that must be some toxic cleaning supplies they're using...
lab~rat >:-)
<Georg...@drunkencokeheadedTraitorousAWOLCOWARDBITCHES.com> puked:
>
>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>news:760k52pdmvb3tpdiq...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 04 May 2006 06:26:42 GMT, "Jebus Saves"
>> <Georg...@drunkencokeheadedTraitorousAWOLCOWARDBITCHES.com> puked:
>>
>>>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>>>news:bsch52hc35vp4o44g...@4ax.com...
>>>> Has America ever been in a war that you have supported? (No answer
>>>> expected)
>>>>
>>>
>>>Afghanistan to hunt Osama Bin Laden, WWII, WWI.... All valid wars.
>>>Attacking
>>>Iraq to make money? Not Valid. And if you find the war in Iraq, WHY AREN'T
>>>YOU IN UNIFORM IN IRAQ? Coward hypocrite!
>>>
>>
>> I'm financing the war, you dummy.
>
>
>Put a weapon in your hand and fight the war.Everyone finances the war when
>they pay any tax.
Yep, and I do to a much greater degree than you do.
>You are a coward and a hypocrite. Fucking coward, get your
>ass in a uniform and go to Iraq! You Pussy Coward BITCH!
>
I'll respond to this when you take an affirmative position on
anything. And not just harping about how bad Bush is and all your
other shallow moaning.
Let's hear what you are FOR and how you would FIX it and how you would
PAY for it.
Lame assholes such as yourself are a dime a dozen on usenet. Whine
and complain, say they have no party affiliation, don't stand FOR
anything, just AGAINST everything.
I don't play games with shallow losers. Come up with some content on
your own or don't bother me.
fiend999
wrote:
> On Thu, 04 May 2006 06:46:31 -0400, fiend999
> <dontspam...@newsguy.com> puked:
>
> >> >That is pretty shallow and unthinking of you. Not everyone with kids
> >> >in day care is a whore or a deadbeat. There are things like death,
> >> >illness,
> >>
> >> Which are some of the exceptions.
> >More like the rule. You listen to too much Dr Laura or something if
> >you believe otherwise. Get out in the real world and meet some people
> >for a change. You'd be surprised what life is actually like.
>
> I don't listen to Dr. Laura and I am in the real world.
Can't tell that from your posts. You seem quite uninformed and
disconnected from reality.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >divorce,
> >>
> >> Selfish.
> >
> >Not always. Sometimes it is more selfish to pretend to be happy "for
> >the kids" or to appear to be proper. Then there is abuse. Should
> >someone stay married to an abusive spouse? People make mistakes, and
> >people change. Divorce is often a good solution to that.
>
> More often than not divorce is for selfish reasons. Paint it any
> color you like, but it's a fact.
Prove it. The numbers just aren't there. You seem to live in a 1950's
TV fantasy land.
>
> >>
> >> >job loss,
> >>
> >> Temporary. And if they lost a job, wouldn't they have no money to
> >> send a kid to day care PLUS more time to watch them?
> >
> >And then they go on your beloved welfare because they can't pay the
> >bills.
> >Seriously - single parents who want to work for a living and have no
> >relative or neighbor to take care of the kids every single day do what
> >then? That's right - they hope to make enough to afford daycare.
> >You truly are a simpleton.
>
> Name calling noted.
If the shoe fits...
> Beyond that, why are they single parents? Did they have a child out
> of wedlock? Did they get a divorce? The reason is their fault
> regardless, and the child suffers as a result.
No, genius, see the previous bit about the reasons people become single
parents (death, divorce, spouse ran off, etc).
How is it someone's own fault if their spouse decides to take off? How
about if the town's main factory closes and both parents have to take a
job or two? You must be old enough to have forgotten what it is like
for some younger people. It takes time and money to get for most
people financially secure. If circumstances beyond one's control set
you back to square one, you cant return the children until you can
better afford them.
>
> In the instance of a death, that's one of the exceptions to the rule
> I'm discussing.
There is no "rule". I am not sure what planet you think your marital
and family Utopia is on, but it surely isn't this planet.
>
> >>
> >> >or heaven forbid - TWO parents with good
> >> >careers to provide a better life overall for their family.
> >>
> >> No, you're wrong. You think that money can buy a good upbringing for
> >> a child.
> >
> >No, but it can get your family out of a bad neighborhood and into good
> >schools for example. You know, that whole American dream thing.
>
> Yeah, and what about vouchers?
What about them? They have nothing to do with this topic.
>
> >
> >> You are SADLY mistaken.
> >
> >Nope. I am happily looking at the real world. You should try it some
> >time.
>
> So are you pretending that the real world is better than the ideal
> world?
Well dealing with reality rather than insisting people live as though
it was in fact a perfect world is a much better way to go about things.
> Do you think parents who put their children in daycare prefer
> to have them there? I say a good percentage do.
You have already said y ou know nothing about the daycare business -
why keep stepping in your own shit? Most parents that I have
encountered would much rather have one or both parents stay with the
children, but accept the reality and try to find the best possible
daycare.
>
> >> But then, that's the way a lot of
> >> SELFISH people are these days.
> >
> >I see, wanting a safe neighborhood and good education for my family is
> >selfish. And you call ME mistaken?
>
> Then wait until you are financially able to afford to live in that
> neighborhood before you have kids.
Well, not everyone has that kind of foresight. Try to deal with
reality for just a minute here. And sometimes a neighborhood goes
"bad" right in front of your eyes.
> Or move to a different state.
That takes money too, you know.
BTW - none of this changes the fact that it is NOT SELFISH to want a
better life for your family. Why did you try to dodge that?
>
> >> My wife went to college and had a
> >> career before she gladly gave it up for our children.
> >
> >That's great for her. But it is also not everyone's choice. Why do
> >you seem to think your family's way is the only correct path?
>
> More correct than harboring children in daycare.
That really isn't your decision to make about anyone but yourself and
your own family. And really, why do you think that anyway? Any fact
to support that or are y ou just so entrenched in your "family values"
mythology that you can't accept the real world?
>
> >> Children do not benefit from being raised by strangers.
> >
> >Actually, there have been studies which show that in some ways they do.
> >Social skills, for instance. You already admitted ignorance on the
> >subject - why do you continue to perpetuate the myths and lies?
>
> I've seen studies like that . They are heavily weighted with an
> agenda.
Ah, so if e factrs don't agree with you, you believe they are out to
get you. That is not very healthy.. or smart.
> Children get good social skills at school and benefit more
> from parenting than being stuck in a daycare until 6:30 at night.
Just saying so does not make it true. Children in a daycare interact
with more adults and other children than do kids who stay at home until
school age. I guess you overlooked those first 4 or 5 years. I am not
saying daycare is always better than staying with a parent all day, but
it isn't anything like what you seem to believe.
>
> >>
> >> >Apparently it isn't just daycare that you are ignorant about - marriage
> >> >and life in general seem confusing to you.
> >>
> >> So tell me, how was it being stuck in daycare while your selfish
> >> parents did whatever it was that they favored above YOU?
> >
> >I wasn't ever in daycare. Both parents worked in order to pay the
> >bills and mortgage (much like most other families), but the schedules
> >overlapped so it was ok. How did you like growing up locked in your
> >room while your parents silently hated their lives, each other and
> >resented you while not having the guts to change their lives for the
> >better?
>
> You missed the ball with that one, but I see where your perspective
> is.
Hey, you started playing the let's make assumptions about the other
guy's childhood game. See how silly it is?
>
> Now, let me add something about your reality as you see it. You are
> one of these people that feel women in the workplace is important and
> most people can't make it without dual incomes. I say you're wrong on
> both counts.
You are putting words in my mouth. I really have little opinion either
way about women in the workplace. The facts, however are against you
on the second. Many people do need two (or more) incomes, just to
maintain a lifestyle they had not too many years ago. Look it up.
> Number one, water seeks its own level. Maybe a family doesn't need
> two cars or premium cable subscription or a number of other luxuries
> that the second income pays for. Maybe they don't need a house in a
> big suburb.
Irrelevant. Why do you insist on acting like someone is saying everyone
deserves luxury?
People need a house. They need to pay the bills. They need food and
clothing for the family. Sometimes some people are in situations
where it takes two to afford that.
>
> Number two, women in the work place are the reason for two family
> incomes being as prevalent as they are.
Bullshit.
> Now that sounds stupid on the
> surface, but think of supply and demand in the country's workforce.
You'll need some numbers to back you on that one, not just your
dogmatic bullshit.
>
> Suddenly in the 60's women started taking more jobs, and as they
> entered higher status than secretary or nurse, there were more
> positions being filled. As a result, supply and demand would dictate
> that overall wages would decrease as there's a greater quantity of
> workers in the workplace.
Hmm it wouldn't have something to do with things like less jobs
overall, inflation, increased cost of living and that sort of thing now
would it? Ever take an economics class?
>
> As a result, women that wouldn't normally choose to work would be
> forced into the workplace as a result of her husband's lower wage not
> being able to cover the lifestyle that they want.
Damn, you must be smoking something special to believe all these fairy
tales.
--
~~~
lab~rat >:-)
<dontspam...@newsguy.com> puked:
>In article <7l0k52he4fsnpmucq...@4ax.com>, lab~rat >:-)
>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 04 May 2006 06:46:31 -0400, fiend999
>> <dontspam...@newsguy.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >That is pretty shallow and unthinking of you. Not everyone with kids
>> >> >in day care is a whore or a deadbeat. There are things like death,
>> >> >illness,
>> >>
>> >> Which are some of the exceptions.
>> >More like the rule. You listen to too much Dr Laura or something if
>> >you believe otherwise. Get out in the real world and meet some people
>> >for a change. You'd be surprised what life is actually like.
>>
>> I don't listen to Dr. Laura and I am in the real world.
>
>Can't tell that from your posts. You seem quite uninformed and
>disconnected from reality.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >divorce,
>> >>
>> >> Selfish.
>> >
>> >Not always. Sometimes it is more selfish to pretend to be happy "for
>> >the kids" or to appear to be proper. Then there is abuse. Should
>> >someone stay married to an abusive spouse? People make mistakes, and
>> >people change. Divorce is often a good solution to that.
>>
>> More often than not divorce is for selfish reasons. Paint it any
>> color you like, but it's a fact.
>
>Prove it. The numbers just aren't there. You seem to live in a 1950's
>TV fantasy land.
The numbers aren't where?
>>
>> >>
>> >> >job loss,
>> >>
>> >> Temporary. And if they lost a job, wouldn't they have no money to
>> >> send a kid to day care PLUS more time to watch them?
>> >
>> >And then they go on your beloved welfare because they can't pay the
>> >bills.
>> >Seriously - single parents who want to work for a living and have no
>> >relative or neighbor to take care of the kids every single day do what
>> >then? That's right - they hope to make enough to afford daycare.
>> >You truly are a simpleton.
>>
>> Name calling noted.
>
>If the shoe fits...
>
>> Beyond that, why are they single parents? Did they have a child out
>> of wedlock? Did they get a divorce? The reason is their fault
>> regardless, and the child suffers as a result.
>
>No, genius, see the previous bit about the reasons people become single
>parents (death, divorce, spouse ran off, etc).
>How is it someone's own fault if their spouse decides to take off? How
How is it NOT?
>about if the town's main factory closes and both parents have to take a
>job or two?
I said there were extenuating circumstances, but it is NOT better to
have both parents working. Are you arguing that?
>You must be old enough to have forgotten what it is like
>for some younger people. It takes time and money to get for most
>people financially secure. If circumstances beyond one's control set
>you back to square one, you cant return the children until you can
>better afford them.
>>
>> In the instance of a death, that's one of the exceptions to the rule
>> I'm discussing.
>
>There is no "rule". I am not sure what planet you think your marital
>and family Utopia is on, but it surely isn't this planet.
Are you jealous of that?
>>
>> >>
>> >> >or heaven forbid - TWO parents with good
>> >> >careers to provide a better life overall for their family.
>> >>
>> >> No, you're wrong. You think that money can buy a good upbringing for
>> >> a child.
>> >
>> >No, but it can get your family out of a bad neighborhood and into good
>> >schools for example. You know, that whole American dream thing.
>>
>> Yeah, and what about vouchers?
>
>What about them? They have nothing to do with this topic.
WELLLLL, they would allow people in bad neighborhoods go to other
schools.
>>
>> >
>> >> You are SADLY mistaken.
>> >
>> >Nope. I am happily looking at the real world. You should try it some
>> >time.
>>
>> So are you pretending that the real world is better than the ideal
>> world?
>
>Well dealing with reality rather than insisting people live as though
>it was in fact a perfect world is a much better way to go about things.
So should parents strive for the ideal or less than the ideal?
>
>> Do you think parents who put their children in daycare prefer
>> to have them there? I say a good percentage do.
>
>You have already said y ou know nothing about the daycare business -
Are we discussing the daycare business? I'm referring to raising
kids, which I DO know about.
>why keep stepping in your own shit? Most parents that I have
>encountered would much rather have one or both parents stay with the
>children, but accept the reality and try to find the best possible
>daycare.
So they can have a big screen tv, Lexus SUV, vacations to exotic
places, etc.
>>
>> >> But then, that's the way a lot of
>> >> SELFISH people are these days.
>> >
>> >I see, wanting a safe neighborhood and good education for my family is
>> >selfish. And you call ME mistaken?
>>
>> Then wait until you are financially able to afford to live in that
>> neighborhood before you have kids.
>
>Well, not everyone has that kind of foresight. Try to deal with
>reality for just a minute here. And sometimes a neighborhood goes
>"bad" right in front of your eyes.
And in that case it's better to have two working parents.
>> Or move to a different state.
>
>That takes money too, you know.
>BTW - none of this changes the fact that it is NOT SELFISH to want a
>better life for your family. Why did you try to dodge that?
I'm not, I'm clearly for that. It's just you have a much more
materialistic view of what comprises a 'better life'...
>>
>> >> My wife went to college and had a
>> >> career before she gladly gave it up for our children.
>> >
>> >That's great for her. But it is also not everyone's choice. Why do
>> >you seem to think your family's way is the only correct path?
>>
>> More correct than harboring children in daycare.
>
>That really isn't your decision to make about anyone but yourself and
>your own family. And really, why do you think that anyway? Any fact
>to support that or are y ou just so entrenched in your "family values"
>mythology that you can't accept the real world?
Are you saying that kids aren't being fucked up in the real world?
Part of the reason they are is because of SELFISH PARENTS.
>>
>> >> Children do not benefit from being raised by strangers.
>> >
>> >Actually, there have been studies which show that in some ways they do.
>> >Social skills, for instance. You already admitted ignorance on the
>> >subject - why do you continue to perpetuate the myths and lies?
>>
>> I've seen studies like that . They are heavily weighted with an
>> agenda.
>Ah, so if e factrs don't agree with you, you believe they are out to
>get you. That is not very healthy.. or smart.
Neither is believing everything you read. Just because it's a study
doesn't mean it's correct. And there were a lot of child raising
books in the 70's that are no longer accepted today.
>
>> Children get good social skills at school and benefit more
>> from parenting than being stuck in a daycare until 6:30 at night.
>
>Just saying so does not make it true. Children in a daycare interact
>with more adults and other children than do kids who stay at home until
>school age. I guess you overlooked those first 4 or 5 years. I am not
>saying daycare is always better than staying with a parent all day, but
>it isn't anything like what you seem to believe.
I never said anything about staying with a parent all day. My
children are involved with activities with other children on a daily
basis. And in case you were unaware, there are other children and
adults at the school they go to for six hours a day.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >Apparently it isn't just daycare that you are ignorant about - marriage
>> >> >and life in general seem confusing to you.
>> >>
>> >> So tell me, how was it being stuck in daycare while your selfish
>> >> parents did whatever it was that they favored above YOU?
>> >
>> >I wasn't ever in daycare. Both parents worked in order to pay the
>> >bills and mortgage (much like most other families), but the schedules
>> >overlapped so it was ok. How did you like growing up locked in your
>> >room while your parents silently hated their lives, each other and
>> >resented you while not having the guts to change their lives for the
>> >better?
>>
>> You missed the ball with that one, but I see where your perspective
>> is.
>
>Hey, you started playing the let's make assumptions about the other
>guy's childhood game. See how silly it is?
>>
>> Now, let me add something about your reality as you see it. You are
>> one of these people that feel women in the workplace is important and
>> most people can't make it without dual incomes. I say you're wrong on
>> both counts.
>
>You are putting words in my mouth. I really have little opinion either
>way about women in the workplace. The facts, however are against you
>on the second. Many people do need two (or more) incomes, just to
>maintain a lifestyle they had not too many years ago. Look it up.
Most need it for selfish reasons.
>
>> Number one, water seeks its own level. Maybe a family doesn't need
>> two cars or premium cable subscription or a number of other luxuries
>> that the second income pays for. Maybe they don't need a house in a
>> big suburb.
>
>Irrelevant. Why do you insist on acting like someone is saying everyone
>deserves luxury?
>People need a house. They need to pay the bills. They need food and
>clothing for the family. Sometimes some people are in situations
>where it takes two to afford that.
>>
>> Number two, women in the work place are the reason for two family
>> incomes being as prevalent as they are.
>
>Bullshit.
>
>> Now that sounds stupid on the
>> surface, but think of supply and demand in the country's workforce.
>
>You'll need some numbers to back you on that one, not just your
>dogmatic bullshit.
>>
>> Suddenly in the 60's women started taking more jobs, and as they
>> entered higher status than secretary or nurse, there were more
>> positions being filled. As a result, supply and demand would dictate
>> that overall wages would decrease as there's a greater quantity of
>> workers in the workplace.
>
>Hmm it wouldn't have something to do with things like less jobs
>overall, inflation, increased cost of living and that sort of thing now
>would it? Ever take an economics class?
Yes, and I applied it. You ignored what I said, and all of the
reasons you 'argued' against my point would be negated if women
weren't in the workforce.
>>
>> As a result, women that wouldn't normally choose to work would be
>> forced into the workplace as a result of her husband's lower wage not
>> being able to cover the lifestyle that they want.
>
>Damn, you must be smoking something special to believe all these fairy
>tales.
Tell me how my logic is wrong.
Jebus Saves
Fix what coward? Fix Iraq? Well for starters, DON'T ATTACK THEM! You can
easily support the rebels in Iraq and assist them in getting rid of Saddam
but then you wont get lucrative contracts for rebuilding and lucrative
defense contracts for Defense contractors. You are really that stupid that
you think that Saddam was a threat to the safety of the United States. So
coward, are you enlisting yet? What is wrong with you pussy? Hypocrite!
Fixing the terrorist problem is by removing our bases from Saudi Arabia and
capturing and executing Osama Bin Laden. Tell me how I am wrong and please
help me understand how your pussy coward hypocrite little brain thinks that
Iraq has ANYTHING to do with Terrorism or a threat to the United States.
Soon it will be 5 years since the towers came down and Osama Bin Laden is
still breathing. Any president of any competence would have killed that
bastard by now. Bush is a COMPLETE AND TOTAL FAILURE AND YOU ARE A COWARD
PUSSY HYPOCRITE THAT SUPPORTS A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FAILURE.
lab~rat >:-)
<Georg...@drunkencokeheadedTraitorousAWOLCOWARDBITCHES.com> puked:
Is this your content? You type the same thing every post. You don't
know how to think for yourself.
Jack A. Lopes
wrote:
You are so far out of whack on this one. You are talking about daycare
here. That would be BEFORE school age, for the most part.
You should just quit while you are ahead (well not really) and just
quit making a fool of yourself on the issue.
--
1+1+1+1+1...
Jebus Saves
That's your response? You are a brainless piece of shit drunk driver that is
all upset because your skanky wife has sex with black men and never let's
you lick up the black semen afterwards. You are a coward, a pile of shit and
not worth my time.
fiend999
wrote:
The numbers to back up your ridiculous claim that most divorces are for
selfish reasons.
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >job loss,
> >> >>
> >> >> Temporary. And if they lost a job, wouldn't they have no money to
> >> >> send a kid to day care PLUS more time to watch them?
> >> >
> >> >And then they go on your beloved welfare because they can't pay the
> >> >bills.
> >> >Seriously - single parents who want to work for a living and have no
> >> >relative or neighbor to take care of the kids every single day do what
> >> >then? That's right - they hope to make enough to afford daycare.
> >> >You truly are a simpleton.
> >>
> >> Name calling noted.
> >
> >If the shoe fits...
> >
> >> Beyond that, why are they single parents? Did they have a child out
> >> of wedlock? Did they get a divorce? The reason is their fault
> >> regardless, and the child suffers as a result.
> >
> >No, genius, see the previous bit about the reasons people become single
> >parents (death, divorce, spouse ran off, etc).
> >How is it someone's own fault if their spouse decides to take off? How
>
> How is it NOT?
Well, most people don't believe they have control over other people's
actions. I am beginning to see where you are coming from though. You
seem to think you can control 100% of your spouse's actions.
If your wife decided to leave you tomorrow, what would you do? Lock
her up? Who would watch the kids while you work? Oh, you would hire a
nanny, pass them off on a relative, or (gasp) send the kids to a
daycare? How selfish of you. See, that is the problem with trying to
live in a black & white fantasy world. Those colors and shades of gray
keep showing up and messing with your perfect world.
>
> >about if the town's main factory closes and both parents have to take a
> >job or two?
>
> I said there were extenuating circumstances, but it is NOT better to
> have both parents working. Are you arguing that?
I am saying that when the bills need to be paid and food needs to be
put on the table, people need to do what is necessary.
>
> >You must be old enough to have forgotten what it is like
> >for some younger people. It takes time and money to get for most
> >people financially secure. If circumstances beyond one's control set
> >you back to square one, you cant return the children until you can
> >better afford them.
> >>
> >> In the instance of a death, that's one of the exceptions to the rule
> >> I'm discussing.
> >
> >There is no "rule". I am not sure what planet you think your marital
> >and family Utopia is on, but it surely isn't this planet.
>
> Are you jealous of that?
No, I kind of enjoy living in reality. In your fantasy land financial
hardships, death, divorce, job loss and the like seem to happen ONLY
because of the actions of one's self. Life doesn't always work that
way. Didn't a parent or anyone else ever explain that to you?
>
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >or heaven forbid - TWO parents with good
> >> >> >careers to provide a better life overall for their family.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, you're wrong. You think that money can buy a good upbringing for
> >> >> a child.
> >> >
> >> >No, but it can get your family out of a bad neighborhood and into good
> >> >schools for example. You know, that whole American dream thing.
> >>
> >> Yeah, and what about vouchers?
> >
> >What about them? They have nothing to do with this topic.
>
> WELLLLL, they would allow people in bad neighborhoods go to other
> schools.
So you want to give hand outs to people who aren't willing to work to
better themselves. What does that have to do with the idea that
sometimes single parents (regardless of the reason for being single)
and often both married parents have reasons to work for a living?
> >> >
> >> >> You are SADLY mistaken.
> >> >
> >> >Nope. I am happily looking at the real world. You should try it some
> >> >time.
> >>
> >> So are you pretending that the real world is better than the ideal
> >> world?
> >
> >Well dealing with reality rather than insisting people live as though
> >it was in fact a perfect world is a much better way to go about things.
>
> So should parents strive for the ideal or less than the ideal?
>
Strive for the ideal of course, but when the rest of the real world
doesn't fit into the story book plan people need to do their best.
Pretending it is a perfect world when it is far from it does not
accomplish much.
> >
> >> Do you think parents who put their children in daycare prefer
> >> to have them there? I say a good percentage do.
> >
> >You have already said y ou know nothing about the daycare business -
>
> Are we discussing the daycare business?
Yes. You keep spouting rhetoric about daycare and the people who use
it. Unfortunately your rantings are based on myths and not facts.
> I'm referring to raising
> kids, which I DO know about.
Sure you do.
> >why keep stepping in your own shit? Most parents that I have
> >encountered would much rather have one or both parents stay with the
> >children, but accept the reality and try to find the best possible
> >daycare.
>
> So they can have a big screen tv, Lexus SUV, vacations to exotic
> places, etc.
>
Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? The parents I am
talking about have bills mortgages and things like that to pay for. No
Lexus or big screen and I don't know about vacations.
Why all the envy of material posessions on your part?
> >> >> But then, that's the way a lot of
> >> >> SELFISH people are these days.
> >> >
> >> >I see, wanting a safe neighborhood and good education for my family is
> >> >selfish. And you call ME mistaken?
> >>
> >> Then wait until you are financially able to afford to live in that
> >> neighborhood before you have kids.
> >
> >Well, not everyone has that kind of foresight. Try to deal with
> >reality for just a minute here. And sometimes a neighborhood goes
> >"bad" right in front of your eyes.
>
> And in that case it's better to have two working parents.
>
> >> Or move to a different state.
> >
> >That takes money too, you know.
> >BTW - none of this changes the fact that it is NOT SELFISH to want a
> >better life for your family. Why did you try to dodge that?
>
> I'm not, I'm clearly for that. It's just you have a much more
> materialistic view of what comprises a 'better life'...
You seem to believe lots of things without any real fact-based reason
to do so. You are the one who seems obsessed with big screen TVs and
such. Have I brought up the idea of having nice material posessions or
anything like that? No. You have done so repeatedly though.
>
> >>
> >> >> My wife went to college and had a
> >> >> career before she gladly gave it up for our children.
> >> >
> >> >That's great for her. But it is also not everyone's choice. Why do
> >> >you seem to think your family's way is the only correct path?
> >>
> >> More correct than harboring children in daycare.
> >
> >That really isn't your decision to make about anyone but yourself and
> >your own family. And really, why do you think that anyway? Any fact
> >to support that or are y ou just so entrenched in your "family values"
> >mythology that you can't accept the real world?
>
> Are you saying that kids aren't being fucked up in the real world?
No. Why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth every time I point
out your flawed "thinking"?
> Part of the reason they are is because of SELFISH PARENTS.
Rant all you want, but you are bitching about what comprises maybe 10%
of all people who use daycare facilities.
> >> >> Children do not benefit from being raised by strangers.
> >> >
> >> >Actually, there have been studies which show that in some ways they do.
> >> >Social skills, for instance. You already admitted ignorance on the
> >> >subject - why do you continue to perpetuate the myths and lies?
> >>
> >> I've seen studies like that . They are heavily weighted with an
> >> agenda.
> >Ah, so if e factrs don't agree with you, you believe they are out to
> >get you. That is not very healthy.. or smart.
>
> Neither is believing everything you read. Just because it's a study
> doesn't mean it's correct. And there were a lot of child raising
> books in the 70's that are no longer accepted today.
OK I get it now. You are one of those people who believes so stroongly
about something that no amount of factual data will change your mind.
Facts? Who needs facts?
> >> Children get good social skills at school and benefit more
> >> from parenting than being stuck in a daycare until 6:30 at night.
> >
> >Just saying so does not make it true. Children in a daycare interact
> >with more adults and other children than do kids who stay at home until
> >school age. I guess you overlooked those first 4 or 5 years. I am not
> >saying daycare is always better than staying with a parent all day, but
> >it isn't anything like what you seem to believe.
>
> I never said anything about staying with a parent all day. My
> children are involved with activities with other children on a daily
> basis. And in case you were unaware, there are other children and
> adults at the school they go to for six hours a day.
Try to stay focused here. Most school age kids are not in daycare.
This is another time that you are so busy spouting rhetoric that you
don't even notice you don't know what you are talking about. Did you
miss the words "daycare" and "school age"?
> >> >>
> >> >> >Apparently it isn't just daycare that you are ignorant about - marriage
> >> >> >and life in general seem confusing to you.
> >> >>
> >> >> So tell me, how was it being stuck in daycare while your selfish
> >> >> parents did whatever it was that they favored above YOU?
> >> >
> >> >I wasn't ever in daycare. Both parents worked in order to pay the
> >> >bills and mortgage (much like most other families), but the schedules
> >> >overlapped so it was ok. How did you like growing up locked in your
> >> >room while your parents silently hated their lives, each other and
> >> >resented you while not having the guts to change their lives for the
> >> >better?
> >>
> >> You missed the ball with that one, but I see where your perspective
> >> is.
> >
> >Hey, you started playing the let's make assumptions about the other
> >guy's childhood game. See how silly it is?
> >>
> >> Now, let me add something about your reality as you see it. You are
> >> one of these people that feel women in the workplace is important and
> >> most people can't make it without dual incomes. I say you're wrong on
> >> both counts.
> >
> >You are putting words in my mouth. I really have little opinion either
> >way about women in the workplace. The facts, however are against you
> >on the second. Many people do need two (or more) incomes, just to
> >maintain a lifestyle they had not too many years ago. Look it up.
>
> Most need it for selfish reasons.
Prove it. I am tired of you repeating some talk-radio bullshit and
you will need to back up your claims with some facts at least once in a
while if you want anyone to take you seriously.
OK, so now you want to turn back the clock. So all women must get
married ? What happens to those women who can't or don't want to get
married? Do they need to stay with their parents forever or do they
just starve?
Seriously, have you thought this crap through at all? Did women not
work before "the 60's"? You are too funny. Blaming women for taking
responsibility for their own lives is really not a good solution to
anything. This does make it clear, however, that you must have an
extremely low opinion of women in general if you think that they all
need a husband to take care of them and should not do anything on their
own. Just shut up , make dinner and squeeze out the offspring.
> >> As a result, women that wouldn't normally choose to work would be
> >> forced into the workplace as a result of her husband's lower wage not
> >> being able to cover the lifestyle that they want.
> >
> >Damn, you must be smoking something special to believe all these fairy
> >tales.
>
> Tell me how my logic is wrong.
I have been trying, but you just don't get it. Until you try to accept
reality about things like why there are two income households and that
women are not pets, you really won't be able to remain in this
conversation.
I got in this thread to respond to your misconceptions about daycare,
but it appears you are misguided on so many issues that this is a waste
of time. You can't help those who won't help themselves.
Try this - do you know any women who work for a living? Ask them why.
Listen to them. Do you know any parents who have kids in daycare? Ask
them why and listen to the answer.
--
~~~
lab~rat >:-)
<hu...@burninlove.com> puked:
>> I never said anything about staying with a parent all day. My
>> children are involved with activities with other children on a daily
>> basis. And in case you were unaware, there are other children and
>> adults at the school they go to for six hours a day.
>
>You are so far out of whack on this one. You are talking about daycare
>here. That would be BEFORE school age, for the most part.
>You should just quit while you are ahead (well not really) and just
>quit making a fool of yourself on the issue.
Ok, I give up. There is no after school day care. What a fool I am.
lab~rat >:-)
<Georg...@drunkencokeheadedTraitorousAWOLCOWARDBITCHES.com> puked:
Ok, so that was original. You obviously have some valuable time on
your hand with your vivid imagination or whatnot, so don't bother
replying to me anymore, 'kay?
lab~rat >:-)
<dontspam...@newsguy.com> puked:
I suppose you have those numbers then. And not to mention, you may
think it isn't selfish to divorce because you don't get along with
your spouse or something, but not working things out IS.
My wife and I have discussed how we are raising our kids and we
communicate so there are no surprises. She'll be working part time
when both are in school.
Divorces happen when there is no communication.
>
>
>>
>> >about if the town's main factory closes and both parents have to take a
>> >job or two?
>>
>> I said there were extenuating circumstances, but it is NOT better to
>> have both parents working. Are you arguing that?
>
>I am saying that when the bills need to be paid and food needs to be
>put on the table, people need to do what is necessary.
Like moving to a cheaper part of the world? Now answer my question,
are you telling me it's not better to have a stay at home mother?
>
>>
>> >You must be old enough to have forgotten what it is like
>> >for some younger people. It takes time and money to get for most
>> >people financially secure. If circumstances beyond one's control set
>> >you back to square one, you cant return the children until you can
>> >better afford them.
>> >>
>> >> In the instance of a death, that's one of the exceptions to the rule
>> >> I'm discussing.
>> >
>> >There is no "rule". I am not sure what planet you think your marital
>> >and family Utopia is on, but it surely isn't this planet.
>>
>> Are you jealous of that?
>
>No, I kind of enjoy living in reality. In your fantasy land financial
>hardships, death, divorce, job loss and the like seem to happen ONLY
>because of the actions of one's self. Life doesn't always work that
>way. Didn't a parent or anyone else ever explain that to you?
You are putting words in my mouth and I won't respond to this.
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >or heaven forbid - TWO parents with good
>> >> >> >careers to provide a better life overall for their family.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, you're wrong. You think that money can buy a good upbringing for
>> >> >> a child.
>> >> >
>> >> >No, but it can get your family out of a bad neighborhood and into good
>> >> >schools for example. You know, that whole American dream thing.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, and what about vouchers?
>> >
>> >What about them? They have nothing to do with this topic.
>>
>> WELLLLL, they would allow people in bad neighborhoods go to other
>> schools.
>
>So you want to give hand outs to people who aren't willing to work to
>better themselves. What does that have to do with the idea that
>sometimes single parents (regardless of the reason for being single)
>and often both married parents have reasons to work for a living?
Handouts like public schooling?
>
>> >> >
>> >> >> You are SADLY mistaken.
>> >> >
>> >> >Nope. I am happily looking at the real world. You should try it some
>> >> >time.
>> >>
>> >> So are you pretending that the real world is better than the ideal
>> >> world?
>> >
>> >Well dealing with reality rather than insisting people live as though
>> >it was in fact a perfect world is a much better way to go about things.
>>
>> So should parents strive for the ideal or less than the ideal?
>>
>
>Strive for the ideal of course, but when the rest of the real world
>doesn't fit into the story book plan people need to do their best.
>Pretending it is a perfect world when it is far from it does not
>accomplish much.
It's not, that's why I said people have to sacrifice and compromise.
Having another job to 'support the family', then taking expensive
trips and having expensive toys is not compromising.
>
>> >
>> >> Do you think parents who put their children in daycare prefer
>> >> to have them there? I say a good percentage do.
>> >
>> >You have already said y ou know nothing about the daycare business -
>>
>> Are we discussing the daycare business?
>
>Yes. You keep spouting rhetoric about daycare and the people who use
>it. Unfortunately your rantings are based on myths and not facts.
I was discussing parents that harbor their children in daycare
selfishly.
>
>> I'm referring to raising
>> kids, which I DO know about.
>
>Sure you do.
>
>> >why keep stepping in your own shit? Most parents that I have
>> >encountered would much rather have one or both parents stay with the
>> >children, but accept the reality and try to find the best possible
>> >daycare.
>>
>> So they can have a big screen tv, Lexus SUV, vacations to exotic
>> places, etc.
>>
>
>Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? The parents I am
>talking about have bills mortgages and things like that to pay for. No
>Lexus or big screen and I don't know about vacations.
>Why all the envy of material posessions on your part?
I have no envy of material possessions. I've been through all that.
I'm saying that they can't replace the time a mother spends with a
child raising them in formative years and being there for them when
they come home. And as for that mortgage and bills, if they are too
big, they are living beyond their means.
>
>> >> >> But then, that's the way a lot of
>> >> >> SELFISH people are these days.
>> >> >
>> >> >I see, wanting a safe neighborhood and good education for my family is
>> >> >selfish. And you call ME mistaken?
>> >>
>> >> Then wait until you are financially able to afford to live in that
>> >> neighborhood before you have kids.
>> >
>> >Well, not everyone has that kind of foresight. Try to deal with
>> >reality for just a minute here. And sometimes a neighborhood goes
>> >"bad" right in front of your eyes.
>>
>> And in that case it's better to have two working parents.
>>
>> >> Or move to a different state.
>> >
>> >That takes money too, you know.
>> >BTW - none of this changes the fact that it is NOT SELFISH to want a
>> >better life for your family. Why did you try to dodge that?
>>
>> I'm not, I'm clearly for that. It's just you have a much more
>> materialistic view of what comprises a 'better life'...
>
>You seem to believe lots of things without any real fact-based reason
>to do so. You are the one who seems obsessed with big screen TVs and
>such. Have I brought up the idea of having nice material posessions or
>anything like that? No. You have done so repeatedly though.
Because I know people that work two career households and that is what
they have. And their kids are in daycare. If you don't get it, maybe
that's the reason you're arguing with me instead of agreeing with me.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >> My wife went to college and had a
>> >> >> career before she gladly gave it up for our children.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's great for her. But it is also not everyone's choice. Why do
>> >> >you seem to think your family's way is the only correct path?
>> >>
>> >> More correct than harboring children in daycare.
>> >
>> >That really isn't your decision to make about anyone but yourself and
>> >your own family. And really, why do you think that anyway? Any fact
>> >to support that or are y ou just so entrenched in your "family values"
>> >mythology that you can't accept the real world?
>>
>> Are you saying that kids aren't being fucked up in the real world?
>
>No. Why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth every time I point
>out your flawed "thinking"?
Because each time you try, you presuppose the opposite to be true, and
I'm pointing out the inverse of what you think I think is true is more
flawed...
>
>> Part of the reason they are is because of SELFISH PARENTS.
>
>Rant all you want, but you are bitching about what comprises maybe 10%
>of all people who use daycare facilities.
A cite would be in order...
>
>> >> >> Children do not benefit from being raised by strangers.
>> >> >
>> >> >Actually, there have been studies which show that in some ways they do.
>> >> >Social skills, for instance. You already admitted ignorance on the
>> >> >subject - why do you continue to perpetuate the myths and lies?
>> >>
>> >> I've seen studies like that . They are heavily weighted with an
>> >> agenda.
>> >Ah, so if e factrs don't agree with you, you believe they are out to
>> >get you. That is not very healthy.. or smart.
>>
>> Neither is believing everything you read. Just because it's a study
>> doesn't mean it's correct. And there were a lot of child raising
>> books in the 70's that are no longer accepted today.
>
>OK I get it now. You are one of those people who believes so stroongly
>about something that no amount of factual data will change your mind.
>Facts? Who needs facts?
I believe facts change.
>
>> >> Children get good social skills at school and benefit more
>> >> from parenting than being stuck in a daycare until 6:30 at night.
>> >
>> >Just saying so does not make it true. Children in a daycare interact
>> >with more adults and other children than do kids who stay at home until
>> >school age. I guess you overlooked those first 4 or 5 years. I am not
>> >saying daycare is always better than staying with a parent all day, but
>> >it isn't anything like what you seem to believe.
>>
>> I never said anything about staying with a parent all day. My
>> children are involved with activities with other children on a daily
>> basis. And in case you were unaware, there are other children and
>> adults at the school they go to for six hours a day.
>
>Try to stay focused here. Most school age kids are not in daycare.
>This is another time that you are so busy spouting rhetoric that you
>don't even notice you don't know what you are talking about. Did you
>miss the words "daycare" and "school age"?
A great many of my daughter's friends are in what is called
'aftercare'. If you want to change the meaning in your mind it's your
problem, it's still DAYCARE...
What kind of fact would make you happy?
Did you read what I wrote?
> You are too funny. Blaming women for taking
>responsibility for their own lives is really not a good solution to
>anything. This does make it clear, however, that you must have an
>extremely low opinion of women in general if you think that they all
>need a husband to take care of them and should not do anything on their
>own. Just shut up , make dinner and squeeze out the offspring.
I find the role of raising a child and managing a household more
important than what I do for a living. Your statements say more about
you than they do about me.
>
>> >> As a result, women that wouldn't normally choose to work would be
>> >> forced into the workplace as a result of her husband's lower wage not
>> >> being able to cover the lifestyle that they want.
>> >
>> >Damn, you must be smoking something special to believe all these fairy
>> >tales.
>>
>> Tell me how my logic is wrong.
>
>I have been trying, but you just don't get it. Until you try to accept
>reality about things like why there are two income households and that
>women are not pets, you really won't be able to remain in this
>conversation.
You can infer that this is my position, but only because you don't
view raising a child as important.
>I got in this thread to respond to your misconceptions about daycare,
>but it appears you are misguided on so many issues that this is a waste
>of time. You can't help those who won't help themselves.
Funny, I feel the same way about you. You keep pretending that I am
somehow degrading women by thinking that they should raise children.
>Try this - do you know any women who work for a living? Ask them why.
>Listen to them. Do you know any parents who have kids in daycare? Ask
>them why and listen to the answer.
Hel-LO
Where do you think I came to my conclusions?
fiend999
wrote:
LOL - YOU made the claim, junior - try to back it up with facts just
once.
> And not to mention, you may
> think it isn't selfish to divorce because you don't get along with
> your spouse or something, but not working things out IS.
There you go again putting words in my mouth. I never said anything
like what you are now claiming I think. You are a dishonest person.
I see. So you still believe you know and/or control all about your
spouse. What happens if it turns out that she has been lying to you
(yes it does happen sometimes)? Or what if all of a sudden she changes
her mind and decides to leave when she gets tired of you talking out of
your ass? Can you at least try to get the point that not everything
that happens to a person is a result of their own actions as you claim?
>
> Divorces happen when there is no communication.
Yes that is a wonderful thought that communication can solve
everything. Divorces also happen for a ton of other reasons too. None
of which are really relevant to your idea that putting children in
daycare is always selfish.
> >
> >>
> >> >about if the town's main factory closes and both parents have to take a
> >> >job or two?
> >>
> >> I said there were extenuating circumstances, but it is NOT better to
> >> have both parents working. Are you arguing that?
> >
> >I am saying that when the bills need to be paid and food needs to be
> >put on the table, people need to do what is necessary.
>
> Like moving to a cheaper part of the world?
How do you move when you can't afford to, smarty pants? How is someone
who can barely pay the rent and bills supposed to save up for moving
expenses? This is the kind of thing that makes me think you have not
thought your "beliefs" through very well. All that "work hard make
sacrifices" stuff sounds great and is a good attitude to try to instill
in your kids and that sort of thing, but you can't expect several
million people to be able to undo what path their lives have taken and
do it over according to your advice. It amounts to a big "shoulda
coulda woulda".
> Now answer my question,
> are you telling me it's not better to have a stay at home mother?
Learn to read. The answer is in this thread.
I have told you repeatedly how that is not the issue. I got into this
conversation because you obviously had a lot of misconceptions about
daycare and the reasons people put their kids there. Why do you keep
trying to pretend I said something I did not? Could it be because you
know you are dead wrong and factless on the topic you originally
babbled about?
> >>
> >> >You must be old enough to have forgotten what it is like
> >> >for some younger people. It takes time and money to get for most
> >> >people financially secure. If circumstances beyond one's control set
> >> >you back to square one, you cant return the children until you can
> >> >better afford them.
> >> >>
> >> >> In the instance of a death, that's one of the exceptions to the rule
> >> >> I'm discussing.
> >> >
> >> >There is no "rule". I am not sure what planet you think your marital
> >> >and family Utopia is on, but it surely isn't this planet.
> >>
> >> Are you jealous of that?
> >
> >No, I kind of enjoy living in reality. In your fantasy land financial
> >hardships, death, divorce, job loss and the like seem to happen ONLY
> >because of the actions of one's self. Life doesn't always work that
> >way. Didn't a parent or anyone else ever explain that to you?
>
> You are putting words in my mouth and I won't respond to this.
No I am not. You have said that things like divorce and financial
hardship are always the fault of the person enduring the hardship. Did
you forget that already? Well, OK you made an exception for death.
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >or heaven forbid - TWO parents with good
> >> >> >> >careers to provide a better life overall for their family.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No, you're wrong. You think that money can buy a good upbringing for
> >> >> >> a child.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >No, but it can get your family out of a bad neighborhood and into good
> >> >> >schools for example. You know, that whole American dream thing.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah, and what about vouchers?
> >> >
> >> >What about them? They have nothing to do with this topic.
> >>
> >> WELLLLL, they would allow people in bad neighborhoods go to other
> >> schools.
> >
> >So you want to give hand outs to people who aren't willing to work to
> >better themselves. What does that have to do with the idea that
> >sometimes single parents (regardless of the reason for being single)
> >and often both married parents have reasons to work for a living?
>
> Handouts like public schooling?
It is a handout when you give someone "extra" funds to pay for
something that our tax system has already paid for. I would think this
would go against the grain of your belief that people should work
harder if they want better things. If you want to live in a better
neighborhood, improve your income situation and move there. Simple
enough even for you, right?
>
> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> You are SADLY mistaken.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Nope. I am happily looking at the real world. You should try it some
> >> >> >time.
> >> >>
> >> >> So are you pretending that the real world is better than the ideal
> >> >> world?
> >> >
> >> >Well dealing with reality rather than insisting people live as though
> >> >it was in fact a perfect world is a much better way to go about things.
> >>
> >> So should parents strive for the ideal or less than the ideal?
> >>
> >
> >Strive for the ideal of course, but when the rest of the real world
> >doesn't fit into the story book plan people need to do their best.
> >Pretending it is a perfect world when it is far from it does not
> >accomplish much.
>
> It's not, that's why I said people have to sacrifice and compromise.
> Having another job to 'support the family', then taking expensive
> trips and having expensive toys is not compromising
Why do you keep building that strawman? Nobody has said anything about
expensive trips and toys but you.
> >
> >> >
> >> >> Do you think parents who put their children in daycare prefer
> >> >> to have them there? I say a good percentage do.
> >> >
> >> >You have already said y ou know nothing about the daycare business -
> >>
> >> Are we discussing the daycare business?
> >
> >Yes. You keep spouting rhetoric about daycare and the people who use
> >it. Unfortunately your rantings are based on myths and not facts.
>
> I was discussing parents that harbor their children in daycare
> selfishly.
Actually, you claimed that most in daycare were selfish, and you
demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of what daycare is and how
it works. You even went so far as to propose a work for welfare kind
of idea which would end up doing more harm than good and cost more to
operate than even our current welfare mess.
Why the backpedalling now?
> >> I'm referring to raising
> >> kids, which I DO know about.
> >
> >Sure you do.
> >
> >> >why keep stepping in your own shit? Most parents that I have
> >> >encountered would much rather have one or both parents stay with the
> >> >children, but accept the reality and try to find the best possible
> >> >daycare.
> >>
> >> So they can have a big screen tv, Lexus SUV, vacations to exotic
> >> places, etc.
> >>
> >
> >Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? The parents I am
> >talking about have bills mortgages and things like that to pay for. No
> >Lexus or big screen and I don't know about vacations.
> >Why all the envy of material posessions on your part?
>
> I have no envy of material possessions. I've been through all that.
> I'm saying that they can't replace the time a mother spends with a
> child raising them in formative years and being there for them when
> they come home.
Then why do you keep bringing it up? Nobody has mentioned luxury items
except for you. Do you think it supports your argument to make things
up like that?
> And as for that mortgage and bills, if they are too
> big, they are living beyond their means.
>
OK I see you are having trouble with this concept but I will try again
for the child left behind. Sometimes a way of life is within your
means, and then circumstances beyond your control change that. There
are many things like unexpected job loss, divorce, death, unexpected
spikes in cost of living (like tripling gas prices and healthcare
costs) economic collapse (recession, depression)...
There is nothing wrong with working harder and sending your kids to a
daycare (where I should note they will often get a great preschool
education that they won't get in most homes) while the parents work to
remedy the financial situation. What do you propose people in that
sort of situation? Give up and go on welfare?
> >
> >> >> >> But then, that's the way a lot of
> >> >> >> SELFISH people are these days.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I see, wanting a safe neighborhood and good education for my family is
> >> >> >selfish. And you call ME mistaken?
> >> >>
> >> >> Then wait until you are financially able to afford to live in that
> >> >> neighborhood before you have kids.
> >> >
> >> >Well, not everyone has that kind of foresight. Try to deal with
> >> >reality for just a minute here. And sometimes a neighborhood goes
> >> >"bad" right in front of your eyes.
> >>
> >> And in that case it's better to have two working parents.
> >>
> >> >> Or move to a different state.
> >> >
> >> >That takes money too, you know.
> >> >BTW - none of this changes the fact that it is NOT SELFISH to want a
> >> >better life for your family. Why did you try to dodge that?
> >>
> >> I'm not, I'm clearly for that. It's just you have a much more
> >> materialistic view of what comprises a 'better life'...
> >
> >You seem to believe lots of things without any real fact-based reason
> >to do so. You are the one who seems obsessed with big screen TVs and
> >such. Have I brought up the idea of having nice material posessions or
> >anything like that? No. You have done so repeatedly though.
>
> Because I know people that work two career households and that is what
> they have.
Jealous?
> And their kids are in daycare.
And how are their kids doing?
> If you don't get it, maybe
> that's the reason you're arguing with me instead of agreeing with me.
No, what I don't get is why you have this idea that daycare is somehow
evil, and women working is the main reason for our social and economic
ills as a society.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> My wife went to college and had a
> >> >> >> career before she gladly gave it up for our children.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That's great for her. But it is also not everyone's choice. Why do
> >> >> >you seem to think your family's way is the only correct path?
> >> >>
> >> >> More correct than harboring children in daycare.
> >> >
> >> >That really isn't your decision to make about anyone but yourself and
> >> >your own family. And really, why do you think that anyway? Any fact
> >> >to support that or are y ou just so entrenched in your "family values"
> >> >mythology that you can't accept the real world?
> >>
> >> Are you saying that kids aren't being fucked up in the real world?
> >
> >No. Why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth every time I point
> >out your flawed "thinking"?
>
> Because each time you try, you presuppose the opposite to be true, and
> I'm pointing out the inverse of what you think I think is true is more
> flawed...
No, silly, I was talking about how YOU keep putting words in my mouth
every time I do something like point out the lack of facts in your
belief system. When you start posting some facts to back up your
claims, I will stop ripping on your fallacies.
>
> >
> >> Part of the reason they are is because of SELFISH PARENTS.
> >
> >Rant all you want, but you are bitching about what comprises maybe 10%
> >of all people who use daycare facilities.
>
> A cite would be in order...
You keep making the claim that you know that most parents who send kids
to daycare are selfish. YOU prove it.
My knowledge comes from first hand experience since my wife ran several
daycares for about 12 years. Some in the burbs, some in the hood.
Very few of the parents are as "selfish" as you imagine. Oddly, the
ones who seemed to care least about their kids also happened to be the
ones who had the least in terms of your expensive toys, houses, and
vacations. In those cases, their kids were MUCH better off in a
daycare where someone would pay attention to them and teach them.
You have already said you know nothing about daycare, and you even
spent the next few posts proving it. Now if you would like to use some
facts to support your beliefs, then give it a shot. If you'd like, I
would bet my wife still has piles of documented research on the topic
that I could send you.
>
> >
> >> >> >> Children do not benefit from being raised by strangers.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Actually, there have been studies which show that in some ways they
> >> >> >do.
> >> >> >Social skills, for instance. You already admitted ignorance on the
> >> >> >subject - why do you continue to perpetuate the myths and lies?
> >> >>
> >> >> I've seen studies like that . They are heavily weighted with an
> >> >> agenda.
> >> >Ah, so if e factrs don't agree with you, you believe they are out to
> >> >get you. That is not very healthy.. or smart.
> >>
> >> Neither is believing everything you read. Just because it's a study
> >> doesn't mean it's correct. And there were a lot of child raising
> >> books in the 70's that are no longer accepted today.
> >
> >OK I get it now. You are one of those people who believes so stroongly
> >about something that no amount of factual data will change your mind.
> >Facts? Who needs facts?
>
> I believe facts change.
OK you need a dictionary. Interpretations may change, but facts don't.
> >
> >> >> Children get good social skills at school and benefit more
> >> >> from parenting than being stuck in a daycare until 6:30 at night.
> >> >
> >> >Just saying so does not make it true. Children in a daycare interact
> >> >with more adults and other children than do kids who stay at home until
> >> >school age. I guess you overlooked those first 4 or 5 years. I am not
> >> >saying daycare is always better than staying with a parent all day, but
> >> >it isn't anything like what you seem to believe.
> >>
> >> I never said anything about staying with a parent all day. My
> >> children are involved with activities with other children on a daily
> >> basis. And in case you were unaware, there are other children and
> >> adults at the school they go to for six hours a day.
> >
> >Try to stay focused here. Most school age kids are not in daycare.
> >This is another time that you are so busy spouting rhetoric that you
> >don't even notice you don't know what you are talking about. Did you
> >miss the words "daycare" and "school age"?
>
> A great many of my daughter's friends are in what is called
> 'aftercare'. If you want to change the meaning in your mind it's your
> problem, it's still DAYCARE...
Actually, no it isn't the same. Daycare is primarily all day care
(thus the name) for preschool age kids. Many daycares as well as
schools and churches have after school programs. Those are something
very different from the daycare issue which we were discussing. Nice
attempt to pretend you aren't a blowhard.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=daycare
Facts to back up your claims about "most" people who need more than one
income being selfish might be a good start. Why do I have to explain
things to you repeatedly? Maybe if you had gone to a daycare you might
have better listening skills ;-)
Here's how it works: You look up the topic you are discussing and if
the facts are on your side, you post them like this:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0917/p12s03-lign.html
If the facts aren't on your side you either retract your statement like
a grown up or, like many knuckleheads on the newsgroups, you can just
pretend you are right anyway. Oh, you were already doing the second
one.
Yes and thanks for the laugh. I haven't had such a chuckle at that
sort of thing since some street preacher lectured me on the evil powers
of rock & roll a few years back. One really funny one is this: "if
women weren't in the workforce", you said. Do you really expect to be
taken seriously after throwing out such a big "if"?
>
> > You are too funny. Blaming women for taking
> >responsibility for their own lives is really not a good solution to
> >anything. This does make it clear, however, that you must have an
> >extremely low opinion of women in general if you think that they all
> >need a husband to take care of them and should not do anything on their
> >own. Just shut up , make dinner and squeeze out the offspring.
>
> I find the role of raising a child and managing a household more
> important than what I do for a living. Your statements say more about
> you than they do about me.
Well, explain yourself then. What happens to all those unmarried and
childless women in your fantasy world? And why do you seem to have
such contempt for women who work for a living?
>
> >
> >> >> As a result, women that wouldn't normally choose to work would be
> >> >> forced into the workplace as a result of her husband's lower wage not
> >> >> being able to cover the lifestyle that they want.
> >> >
> >> >Damn, you must be smoking something special to believe all these fairy
> >> >tales.
> >>
> >> Tell me how my logic is wrong.
> >
> >I have been trying, but you just don't get it. Until you try to accept
> >reality about things like why there are two income households and that
> >women are not pets, you really won't be able to remain in this
> >conversation.
>
> You can infer that this is my position, but only because you don't
> view raising a child as important.
There you go again. Lying about me. It is a shame you can't support
your beliefs with some kind of honesty. You have to make things up
about me and my family. So sad. When did I ever say that raising a
child was not important? Cite it or admit you are a liar, please.
>
> >I got in this thread to respond to your misconceptions about daycare,
> >but it appears you are misguided on so many issues that this is a waste
> >of time. You can't help those who won't help themselves.
>
> Funny, I feel the same way about you. You keep pretending that I am
> somehow degrading women by thinking that they should raise children.
No, I am not pretending anything. You blame women working for the ills
of our society. That speaks for itself.
>
> >Try this - do you know any women who work for a living? Ask them why.
> >Listen to them. Do you know any parents who have kids in daycare? Ask
> >them why and listen to the answer.
>
> Hel-LO
>
> Where do you think I came to my conclusions?
Certainly not from rational thought, objective observation and
research.
So these working single women you asked - what were their answers? Try
to resist the temptation to make things up.
--
~~~
lab~rat >:-)
<dontspam...@newsguy.com> puked:
If she left me because I was talking out my ass it would be my fault.
Or her decision and her fault. Great way to prove a point, genius.
>>
>> Divorces happen when there is no communication.
>
>Yes that is a wonderful thought that communication can solve
>everything. Divorces also happen for a ton of other reasons too. None
>of which are really relevant to your idea that putting children in
>daycare is always selfish.
Are you putting words in my mouth? Of course you are.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >about if the town's main factory closes and both parents have to take a
>> >> >job or two?
>> >>
>> >> I said there were extenuating circumstances, but it is NOT better to
>> >> have both parents working. Are you arguing that?
>> >
>> >I am saying that when the bills need to be paid and food needs to be
>> >put on the table, people need to do what is necessary.
>>
>> Like moving to a cheaper part of the world?
>
>How do you move when you can't afford to, smarty pants? How is someone
>who can barely pay the rent and bills supposed to save up for moving
>expenses? This is the kind of thing that makes me think you have not
>thought your "beliefs" through very well. All that "work hard make
>sacrifices" stuff sounds great and is a good attitude to try to instill
>in your kids and that sort of thing, but you can't expect several
>million people to be able to undo what path their lives have taken and
>do it over according to your advice. It amounts to a big "shoulda
>coulda woulda".
I've seen it happen over and over. You seem to be the one that isn't
in touch of with the real world. You don't seem all that
resourceful,either.
>
>> Now answer my question,
>> are you telling me it's not better to have a stay at home mother?
>
>Learn to read. The answer is in this thread.
>I have told you repeatedly how that is not the issue. I got into this
>conversation because you obviously had a lot of misconceptions about
>daycare and the reasons people put their kids there. Why do you keep
>trying to pretend I said something I did not? Could it be because you
>know you are dead wrong and factless on the topic you originally
>babbled about?
That wasn't the original topic. Read the subject line.
>> >>
>> >> >You must be old enough to have forgotten what it is like
>> >> >for some younger people. It takes time and money to get for most
>> >> >people financially secure. If circumstances beyond one's control set
>> >> >you back to square one, you cant return the children until you can
>> >> >better afford them.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In the instance of a death, that's one of the exceptions to the rule
>> >> >> I'm discussing.
>> >> >
>> >> >There is no "rule". I am not sure what planet you think your marital
>> >> >and family Utopia is on, but it surely isn't this planet.
>> >>
>> >> Are you jealous of that?
>> >
>> >No, I kind of enjoy living in reality. In your fantasy land financial
>> >hardships, death, divorce, job loss and the like seem to happen ONLY
>> >because of the actions of one's self. Life doesn't always work that
>> >way. Didn't a parent or anyone else ever explain that to you?
>>
>> You are putting words in my mouth and I won't respond to this.
>
>No I am not. You have said that things like divorce and financial
>hardship are always the fault of the person enduring the hardship. Did
>you forget that already? Well, OK you made an exception for death.
I made exceptions for a number of things. Reread and comprehend the
way I worded it.
>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >or heaven forbid - TWO parents with good
>> >> >> >> >careers to provide a better life overall for their family.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No, you're wrong. You think that money can buy a good upbringing for
>> >> >> >> a child.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >No, but it can get your family out of a bad neighborhood and into good
>> >> >> >schools for example. You know, that whole American dream thing.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yeah, and what about vouchers?
>> >> >
>> >> >What about them? They have nothing to do with this topic.
>> >>
>> >> WELLLLL, they would allow people in bad neighborhoods go to other
>> >> schools.
>> >
>> >So you want to give hand outs to people who aren't willing to work to
>> >better themselves. What does that have to do with the idea that
>> >sometimes single parents (regardless of the reason for being single)
>> >and often both married parents have reasons to work for a living?
>>
>> Handouts like public schooling?
>
>It is a handout when you give someone "extra" funds to pay for
>something that our tax system has already paid for. I would think this
>would go against the grain of your belief that people should work
>harder if they want better things. If you want to live in a better
>neighborhood, improve your income situation and move there. Simple
>enough even for you, right?
Vouchers give people that are economically disadvantaged an
opportunity to avoid that, but it isn't germane to the discussion, so
forget it.
>>
>> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> You are SADLY mistaken.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Nope. I am happily looking at the real world. You should try it some
>> >> >> >time.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So are you pretending that the real world is better than the ideal
>> >> >> world?
>> >> >
>> >> >Well dealing with reality rather than insisting people live as though
>> >> >it was in fact a perfect world is a much better way to go about things.
>> >>
>> >> So should parents strive for the ideal or less than the ideal?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Strive for the ideal of course, but when the rest of the real world
>> >doesn't fit into the story book plan people need to do their best.
>> >Pretending it is a perfect world when it is far from it does not
>> >accomplish much.
>>
>> It's not, that's why I said people have to sacrifice and compromise.
>> Having another job to 'support the family', then taking expensive
>> trips and having expensive toys is not compromising
>
>Why do you keep building that strawman? Nobody has said anything about
>expensive trips and toys but you.
I'm saying that they should be a litmus test to determine whether or
not it's important for both parents to work.
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Do you think parents who put their children in daycare prefer
>> >> >> to have them there? I say a good percentage do.
>> >> >
>> >> >You have already said y ou know nothing about the daycare business -
>> >>
>> >> Are we discussing the daycare business?
>> >
>> >Yes. You keep spouting rhetoric about daycare and the people who use
>> >it. Unfortunately your rantings are based on myths and not facts.
>>
>> I was discussing parents that harbor their children in daycare
>> selfishly.
>
>Actually, you claimed that most in daycare were selfish,
I still believe that.
>and you
>demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of what daycare is and how
>it works. You even went so far as to propose a work for welfare kind
>of idea which would end up doing more harm than good and cost more to
>operate than even our current welfare mess.
How do you figure?
>Why the backpedalling now?
Better question is why are you pretending I am?
>
>> >> I'm referring to raising
>> >> kids, which I DO know about.
>> >
>> >Sure you do.
>> >
>> >> >why keep stepping in your own shit? Most parents that I have
>> >> >encountered would much rather have one or both parents stay with the
>> >> >children, but accept the reality and try to find the best possible
>> >> >daycare.
>> >>
>> >> So they can have a big screen tv, Lexus SUV, vacations to exotic
>> >> places, etc.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? The parents I am
>> >talking about have bills mortgages and things like that to pay for. No
>> >Lexus or big screen and I don't know about vacations.
>> >Why all the envy of material posessions on your part?
>>
>> I have no envy of material possessions. I've been through all that.
>> I'm saying that they can't replace the time a mother spends with a
>> child raising them in formative years and being there for them when
>> they come home.
>
>Then why do you keep bringing it up? Nobody has mentioned luxury items
>except for you. Do you think it supports your argument to make things
>up like that?
You don't understand the argument. That's the problem. If you did,
you'd stop badgering me with your non-sequiturs and engage in a
discussion.
>
>> And as for that mortgage and bills, if they are too
>> big, they are living beyond their means.
>>
>OK I see you are having trouble with this concept but I will try again
>for the child left behind. Sometimes a way of life is within your
>means, and then circumstances beyond your control change that. There
>are many things like unexpected job loss, divorce, death, unexpected
>spikes in cost of living (like tripling gas prices and healthcare
>costs) economic collapse (recession, depression)...
>There is nothing wrong with working harder and sending your kids to a
>daycare (where I should note they will often get a great preschool
>education that they won't get in most homes) while the parents work to
>remedy the financial situation. What do you propose people in that
>sort of situation? Give up and go on welfare?
Modify their lifestyle, of course. There are more ways to do it than
stick a kid in daycare. Or do you disagree with that?
>
>> >
>> >> >> >> But then, that's the way a lot of
>> >> >> >> SELFISH people are these days.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I see, wanting a safe neighborhood and good education for my family is
>> >> >> >selfish. And you call ME mistaken?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then wait until you are financially able to afford to live in that
>> >> >> neighborhood before you have kids.
>> >> >
>> >> >Well, not everyone has that kind of foresight. Try to deal with
>> >> >reality for just a minute here. And sometimes a neighborhood goes
>> >> >"bad" right in front of your eyes.
>> >>
>> >> And in that case it's better to have two working parents.
>> >>
>> >> >> Or move to a different state.
>> >> >
>> >> >That takes money too, you know.
>> >> >BTW - none of this changes the fact that it is NOT SELFISH to want a
>> >> >better life for your family. Why did you try to dodge that?
>> >>
>> >> I'm not, I'm clearly for that. It's just you have a much more
>> >> materialistic view of what comprises a 'better life'...
>> >
>> >You seem to believe lots of things without any real fact-based reason
>> >to do so. You are the one who seems obsessed with big screen TVs and
>> >such. Have I brought up the idea of having nice material posessions or
>> >anything like that? No. You have done so repeatedly though.
>>
>> Because I know people that work two career households and that is what
>> they have.
>
>Jealous?
Do I seem jealous?
>
>> And their kids are in daycare.
>
>And how are their kids doing?
Oh, just fine, between the ADD medication and other survival issues.
Daycare is great and it really is best for children to spend as much
time away from a nurturing mother as possible. Makes total sense.
>> If you don't get it, maybe
>> that's the reason you're arguing with me instead of agreeing with me.
>
>
>No, what I don't get is why you have this idea that daycare is somehow
>evil, and women working is the main reason for our social and economic
>ills as a society.
Ok, you have convinced me. It's much better for a kid to be in
daycare. There are bundles of psychological studies proving that
children are in their best environments if they are stuck in daycare
and aftercare, and minimal involvement is spent by their mothers.
See how stupid your argument is? I'm done wasting time with this. I
have repeated myself enough times and it is abundantly clear that you
know where I'm coming from, you aren't changing my mind by arguing the
same points.
This is one of those cases where you'll just have to go through life
thinking your right until one day you have an epiphany and realize I'm
right. :)
Jerry Baltimore
wrote:
> Ok, you have convinced me. It's much better for a kid to be in
> daycare. There are bundles of psychological studies proving that
> children are in their best environments if they are stuck in daycare
> and aftercare, and minimal involvement is spent by their mothers.
Cite some? You have been painting this as a black & white issue when
it is not. Every time it is pointed out to you where your ideas are
inaccurate about day care, you try to change the subject or pretend the
other person was saying something else.
You have presented NO honest to goodness facts to support your ideas.
Maybe you might want to look some things up so you don't look so
foolish.
lab~rat >:-)
<NO-SPAM-jer...@mac.com> puked:
>In article <ri41625m3fkjesmf9...@4ax.com>, lab~rat >:-)
Are you suggesting that it's better for a child to be in daycare than
with his mother? I'm asking because I want to know if that's where
you are coming from.
If you are totally devoid of the ability to google, here's one for
starters:
www.developingchild.net/papers/ environment_of_relationships.pdf
There is no scientific evidence to support the belief that frequently
rotating relationships withlarge numbers of adult caregivers provide
valuable learning opportunities in the early years oflife. Quite the
contrary, although young children certainly can establish healthy
relationshipswith more than one or two adults and learn much from
them, prolonged separations fromfamiliar caregivers and repeated
“detaching” and “re-attaching” to people who matter areemotionally
distressing and can lead to enduring problems.