Saw a piece on TV last night where the price of wood (ply/OSB etc) is
going sky high because the Fed Gov is buying huge amounts to do some
rebuilding in Iraq. They showed a guy here (Albuquerque) who was adding
a room, old cost $14k, new cost with wood prices going up, $20k. They
interviewed a contractor who also verified the huge price increases in
the wood he's purchasing to build homes. Mind you, NOBODY has said
anything about any sort of shortage (which there will not be). They
said the 4x8 sheet of what they called 'wafer board' that cost $7 last
month was at $20 now and still climbing. I may have to hold off
building the storage shed I'd planned on doing. WTF is wrong with this
picture.
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 03:33:06 +0000, Leon wrote:
> The wood industry has adopted the Oil industry way of pricing.
We had the tip of the gasoline price thing here in Phoenix, supposedly because
of a pipeline rupture between Tucson and Phoenix (the gas comes from Texas
via pipeline to Tucson). 3/4ths of the Phoenix supply comes from California via
another pipeline (owned by the same people as the Tucson/Phoenix
pipeline).
Took a month to drive to Washington State, and what to my bewildered eyes
should appear but hugely escalating gasoline prices because of a pipeline
rupture in Arizona? I keep trying to understand the connection,
especially since everything I read says no supply problem, but still
searching for an answer.
-Doug
Doug Winterburn notes:
>
>Took a month to drive to Washington State, and what to my bewildered eyes
>should appear but hugely escalating gasoline prices because of a pipeline
>rupture in Arizona? I keep trying to understand the connection,
>especially since everything I read says no supply problem, but still
>searching for an answer.
>
It is probable that we need to return to the early '70s and the windfall profit
tax laws. A lot of this price gouging would disappear if there were no extra
profits made.
Charlie Self
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without
integrity is dangerous and dreadful."
Samuel Johnson
In rec.woodworking
[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
>It is probable that we need to return to the early '70s and the windfall profit
>tax laws. A lot of this price gouging would disappear if there were no extra
>profits made.
Sure, let's kill the industry again. I lived through that ill conceived
idea, right her in Texas buddy. It put hundreds of thousands on the
streets and killed the city of Houston for a decade. Screw that.
You want to talk windfall profits? Take a look at pharamacuticals,
banking, finance and medicine and leave the god damn oil industry alone.
I feel for you. My last one is graduates from High School this year.
In the past 20 years I have watched the public school system deteriorate,
while the taxes to pay for it increase to disbelief (I will pay $7000+ in
school taxes alone for 2003 on my only residence ... just got the bill).
From where I sit the biggest impediment to education in this neck of the
woods, as politically incorrect as it may appear, is racial bickering.
Racial issues permeate every single decision in this school district to such
an extent that the educrats, black, brown, or white, are paralyzed into
ineffectualness making sure that someone else doesn't get something they
don't. The only aim they serve is shooting themselves in their collective
foot.
I will say this unequivocally about Bush's education appointment. Rod Paige
is an idiot and a closet bigot. He was one when he was here, and he is a
bigger one in Washington. The man speaks in pleasing platitudes and fully
expects his words alone to take the place of actions. This is not arrogance.
He is, in short, and typical of so many of our educrats, educated beyond his
intelligence. He is simply incapable of any action that is not politically
or racially motivated. Under his administration cheating on standardized
tests was rampant and fraud in almost every aspect of his administration
kept the local TV "investigative journalist" in beans and weenies during his
tenure.
With him at the Federal level, expect things to only get worse for the rest
of you.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/13/03
"todd" wrote in message ...
> I don't have an answer where the money goes in the rat hole we call the
> public education system. Seems that I just saw a report that says the
> United States spends more money per child on education than any other
major
> country in the world. My children aren't in school yet, so I haven't had
an
> up-close look at the school system as an adult. Maybe I'd have a better
> handle on the problem if I did. And the states are screaming for more
> federal money because the feds are mandating testing that the states say
> they don't have the money for. I guess if they were doing their job in
the
> first place, all of this testing wouldn't be necessary.
bruce writes:
>>It is probable that we need to return to the early '70s and the windfall
>profit
>>tax laws. A lot of this price gouging would disappear if there were no extra
>>profits made.
>
>Sure, let's kill the industry again. I lived through that ill conceived
>idea, right her in Texas buddy. It put hundreds of thousands on the
>streets and killed the city of Houston for a decade. Screw that.
>
>You want to talk windfall profits? Take a look at pharamacuticals,
>banking, finance and medicine and leave the god damn oil industry alone.
>
Sure. Let 'em gouge the consumer to keep some others working.
I can't argue at least the pharmaceuticals need controls, but what they really
need is there is a share-out with other countries for the R&D, so the U.S.
consumer doesn't pay the entire load for the entire world. The medical industry
is a real case. I don't even begin to know what the solution is.
But I'm not exactly sure how a windfall profits tax could have done so much
damage: it taxed only excess profits.
Check your info. I think it was the Arabs and their shutting off the oil taps
that created the Houson problem.
If it wasn't, and the oil industry needs to screw the consumer more than it
normally does just to stay in business, then it's really time for tighter
regulation.
Charlie Self
"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson
Hmmm
Makes me think of a statement I heard yesterday made by a founding father.
It Started out "This government was made for a moral people....." The basic
Gist is our government was designed to keep a basically honest people
honest. As soon as The dishonest people became prevalent (E.g. monopolies,
unfair employers) the Laws/regulations in the book grew in number.
--
Young Carpenter
"Violin playing and Woodworking are similar, it takes plenty of money,
plenty of practice, and you usually make way more noise than intended"
"Mike in Mystic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You're a Democrat, aren't you, Charlie?
>
> I, for one, think we are already over-regulated. Sure, there are cases
> where some controls might be appropriate, but in general I feel that in
> terms of government "Less is More".
>
> Mike
>
> --
>
> There are no stupid questions.
> There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
>
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > bruce writes:
> >
> > >>It is probable that we need to return to the early '70s and the
windfall
> > >profit
> > >>tax laws. A lot of this price gouging would disappear if there were no
> extra
> > >>profits made.
> > >
> > >Sure, let's kill the industry again. I lived through that ill
conceived
> > >idea, right her in Texas buddy. It put hundreds of thousands on the
> > >streets and killed the city of Houston for a decade. Screw that.
> > >
> > >You want to talk windfall profits? Take a look at pharamacuticals,
> > >banking, finance and medicine and leave the god damn oil industry
alone.
> > >
> > Sure. Let 'em gouge the consumer to keep some others working.
> >
> > I can't argue at least the pharmaceuticals need controls, but what they
> really
> > need is there is a share-out with other countries for the R&D, so the
U.S.
> > consumer doesn't pay the entire load for the entire world. The medical
> industry
> > is a real case. I don't even begin to know what the solution is.
> >
> > But I'm not exactly sure how a windfall profits tax could have done so
> much
> > damage: it taxed only excess profits.
> >
> > Check your info. I think it was the Arabs and their shutting off the oil
> taps
> > that created the Houson problem.
> >
> > If it wasn't, and the oil industry needs to screw the consumer more than
> it
> > normally does just to stay in business, then it's really time for
tighter
> > regulation.
> >
> > Charlie Self
> >
> > "Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the
tranquil
> and
> > steady dedication of a lifetime. "
> > Adlai E. Stevenson
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
There we go, a less cumbersome statement meaning the same thing.
--
Young Carpenter
"Violin playing and Woodworking are similar, it takes plenty of money,
plenty of practice, and you usually make way more noise than intended"
"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> More accurately, laws increased as "rights" of individuals overtook their
> sense of obligation.
>
> Paranoia noted.
>
> "Young Carpenter" <Fiddleronroof*@*juno.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Hmmm
> > Makes me think of a statement I heard yesterday made by a founding
father.
> > It Started out "This government was made for a moral people....." The
> basic
> > Gist is our government was designed to keep a basically honest people
> > honest. As soon as The dishonest people became prevalent (E.g.
> monopolies,
> > unfair employers) the Laws/regulations in the book grew in number.
> >
>
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message
LOTS OF SNIPPAGE
> But I'm not exactly sure how a windfall profits tax could have done so much
> damage: it taxed only excess profits.
SNIP SOME MORE
> Charlie Self
What exactly are "excess profits". More than you get? More than you
think someone should get? 1%, 10%, 500%, 5000% ??? If you sell an
article or book, how do we determine how much of your profits are
"excess" so we can take them all?
Collusion and price fixing are criminal acts and should be prosecuted.
However, like any crime, you should be able to prove it and not punish
someone simply because you are envious or because you covet something
they have and don't want to pay their asking price.
Dave Hall
Dave Hall asks:
>[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message
> LOTS OF SNIPPAGE
>> But I'm not exactly sure how a windfall profits tax could have done so much
>> damage: it taxed only excess profits.
>SNIP SOME MORE
>> Charlie Self
>
>What exactly are "excess profits". More than you get? More than you
>think someone should get? 1%, 10%, 500%, 5000% ??? If you sell an
>article or book, how do we determine how much of your profits are
>"excess" so we can take them all?
Dave, c'mon. That's nonsense. The windfall profits tax hit profits that
exceeded those in a normal year by something like 1000%. It did stop the kind
of at-the-pump-gouging we're getting now. Maybe it was unfair to
business--pardon me while I choke at the total unfairness to bidness in this
country over the past couple decades.
>Collusion and price fixing are criminal acts and should be prosecuted.
>However, like any crime, you should be able to prove it and not punish
>someone simply because you are envious or because you covet something
>they have and don't want to pay their asking price.
I'm not exactly sure how you get covetessness out of a windfall profits tax,
nor do I much care, but it does seem that you might have some form to your
argument other than an insult. Otherwise, your argument doesn't stand up at all
well.
Charlie Self
"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson
The at the pump gouging right now starts somewhere that is not the US.
Just in case you haven't heard, OPEC is cutting production rates, AGAIN.
--
Young Carpenter
"Violin playing and Woodworking are similar, it takes plenty of money,
plenty of practice, and you usually make way more noise than intended"
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave Hall asks:
>
> >[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message
> > LOTS OF SNIPPAGE
> >> But I'm not exactly sure how a windfall profits tax could have done so
much
> >> damage: it taxed only excess profits.
> >SNIP SOME MORE
> >> Charlie Self
> >
> >What exactly are "excess profits". More than you get? More than you
> >think someone should get? 1%, 10%, 500%, 5000% ??? If you sell an
> >article or book, how do we determine how much of your profits are
> >"excess" so we can take them all?
>
> Dave, c'mon. That's nonsense. The windfall profits tax hit profits that
> exceeded those in a normal year by something like 1000%. It did stop the
kind
> of at-the-pump-gouging we're getting now. Maybe it was unfair to
> business--pardon me while I choke at the total unfairness to bidness in
this
> country over the past couple decades.
>
> >Collusion and price fixing are criminal acts and should be prosecuted.
> >However, like any crime, you should be able to prove it and not punish
> >someone simply because you are envious or because you covet something
> >they have and don't want to pay their asking price.
>
> I'm not exactly sure how you get covetessness out of a windfall profits
tax,
> nor do I much care, but it does seem that you might have some form to your
> argument other than an insult. Otherwise, your argument doesn't stand up
at all
> well.
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil
and
> steady dedication of a lifetime. "
> Adlai E. Stevenson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Young Carpenter writes:
>The at the pump gouging right now starts somewhere that is not the US.
>Just in case you haven't heard, OPEC is cutting production rates, AGAIN.
>
Of course they are. The price just started to moderate here. And you think
there's no collusion with U.S. refiners and distributors?
Charlie Self
"Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit
soft."
Theodore Roosevelt
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> You're a Democrat, aren't you, Charlie?
>
> I, for one, think we are already over-regulated. Sure, there are cases
> where some controls might be appropriate, but in general I feel that in
> terms of government "Less is More".
This is not directed at you, Mike, but the actual "less is more" crowd
is currently in power and what they mean by "less is more" is more for
them and less for you! ;~)
Kim
> The only problem with the Bush administration is that the smaller
government
> has grown from nearly 4 million to well over 12 million people. Where
has
> the Republican smaller government gone to? I realize that "smaller
> government" means more about less regulation but this is a lame way to
> decrease the unemployment figures. And the lower taxes will soon rise due
> to the rebuilding of Iraq (though somehow the Democrats will be blamed).
>
> I personally loathe all politicians but I'm a disgruntled Republican at
the
> moment. I'm still trying to figure out why our schools have cut out music
> programs, shop, teaching for advanced students, have three administrators
> for every one teacher, etc., and still want more money. Seems that 89
> billion would help more here in the states instead of rebuilding a country
> that is supposed to have trillions of dollars in oil reserves.........
>
> Gary
First, I don't necessarily dispute the figure, but can you back up the 4
million to 12 million number? I'd be shocked to learn than there were only
4 million federal government workers when Bush took office (even excluding
the military). Heck, I'd be suprised if it was only 12 million before or
after.
I don't have an answer where the money goes in the rat hole we call the
public education system. Seems that I just saw a report that says the
United States spends more money per child on education than any other major
country in the world. My children aren't in school yet, so I haven't had an
up-close look at the school system as an adult. Maybe I'd have a better
handle on the problem if I did. And the states are screaming for more
federal money because the feds are mandating testing that the states say
they don't have the money for. I guess if they were doing their job in the
first place, all of this testing wouldn't be necessary.
I'm a mildly disgruntled Republican in that I haven't agreed with everything
this administration has done. I think there have been mistakes, but
unfortunately, there isn't a book that tells you what to do after
terrorist-controlled planes kill a few thousand Americans. My hope for Iraq
is that there is a broader strategy at work that is aimed at containing the
Middle East, but it's the kind of plan you can't publish in the newspaper.
You can't convince me that the whole idea is to get some sweetheart deals
for Haliburton. Laura Bush would not be married to someone who would trade
American lives for Haliburton contracts.
todd
>First, I don't necessarily dispute the figure, but can you back up the 4
>million to 12 million number?
That sounds like a big number to me too. We do have to bear in mind the
DEMOCRATS are the ones who insisted on the government running the airport
security. That added about 50,000 employees the first day.
Well, I think the events of September 11th and the ensuing war on terrorism
have definitely caused some approaches in financial terms to change
dramatically, but in general I feel that President Bush's fiscal approach
has been economically sound and I agree with it. In point of fact, the
Presidential office has very little to do with actual economic trends and
when people try to make that kind of argument it only shows how little they
understand about economics.
I'm not real thrilled about the high billions of dollars being spent on
Iraq, but that's the situation at this point. I'm not going to pretend to
know what the best way to approach that is.
In general, I agree with most of the Republican platform - smaller
government, stronger military, lower taxes. I felt like puking my guts up
when Clinton downsized military bases and ballooned social programs. But,
thankfully, we live in a free country where differing opinions are welcome.
My Dad and I are the only Republicans in my family (that makes us 2 vs.
about 40, counting aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, etc.), so I learned
long ago that trying to convince a Republican of the virtues of being a
Democrat and vice versa is an exercise in futility.
Mike
--
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
"Kim Whitmyre" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > You're a Democrat, aren't you, Charlie?
> >
> > I, for one, think we are already over-regulated. Sure, there are cases
> > where some controls might be appropriate, but in general I feel that in
> > terms of government "Less is More".
>
> This is not directed at you, Mike, but the actual "less is more" crowd
> is currently in power and what they mean by "less is more" is more for
> them and less for you! ;~)
>
> Kim
"Mike in Mystic"
> In general, I agree with most of the Republican platform - smaller
> government, stronger military, lower taxes. I felt like puking my guts up
> when Clinton downsized military bases and ballooned social programs. But,
> thankfully, we live in a free country where differing opinions are
welcome.
> My Dad and I are the only Republicans in my family (that makes us 2 vs.
> about 40, counting aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, etc.), so I learned
> long ago that trying to convince a Republican of the virtues of being a
> Democrat and vice versa is an exercise in futility.
>
> Mike
The only problem with the Bush administration is that the smaller government
has grown from nearly 4 million to well over 12 million people. Where has
the Republican smaller government gone to? I realize that "smaller
government" means more about less regulation but this is a lame way to
decrease the unemployment figures. And the lower taxes will soon rise due
to the rebuilding of Iraq (though somehow the Democrats will be blamed).
I personally loathe all politicians but I'm a disgruntled Republican at the
moment. I'm still trying to figure out why our schools have cut out music
programs, shop, teaching for advanced students, have three administrators
for every one teacher, etc., and still want more money. Seems that 89
billion would help more here in the states instead of rebuilding a country
that is supposed to have trillions of dollars in oil reserves.........
Gary
>The only problem with the Bush administration is that the smaller government
>has grown from nearly 4 million to well over 12 million people.
Anyone who believes the Remocrats or the Depublicans are for smaller government
has not been paying attention. The uniparty that the GOP/DNC has become is
always going to expand the government.
They are all at the mercy of the "4th branch of government" the civil service
union.
Greg Fretwell writes:
>Anyone who believes the Remocrats or the Depublicans are for smaller
>government
>has not been paying attention. The uniparty that the GOP/DNC has become is
>always going to expand the government.
Sort of like Mobile/Exxon and Shell/Texaco. But who's in the catbird seat?
Charlie Self
"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson
Mike in Mystic <[email protected]> wrote:
: In general, I agree with most of the Republican platform - smaller
: government
The federal government is larger under the Bush Jr. administration
than under any administration since Johnson.
: stronger military
What do you think about the huge cuts in veteran benefits that occurred
last spring?
-- Andy Barss
> First, I don't necessarily dispute the figure, but can you back up the 4
> million to 12 million number? I'd be shocked to learn than there were
only
> 4 million federal government workers when Bush took office (even excluding
> the military). Heck, I'd be suprised if it was only 12 million before or
> after.
> todd
>
>
Me speakith before researchith.......
The employment figures were discussed on one of the network news broadcasts
a few weaks back. I don't remember which one. And of course, the media is
always correct in what they report <g>.
When I get more time I'll try searching for more info.
Now to post a question elsewhere on a woodworking issue.
Gary
On 19-Sep-2003, "Mike in Mystic" <[email protected]> wrote:
> In general, I agree with most of the Republican platform - smaller
> government, stronger military, lower taxes. I felt like puking my guts up
> when Clinton downsized military bases and ballooned social programs. But,
Interesting _fact_. In the first three years in office, Clinton increased govt
spending by 3.5%. In the first three years of Bush jr's term, he increased
spending by 13.5%.
Start puking.
Mike
PS - your grandchildren will be spitting on your grave when they see the
govt debts they've inherited. Debt-based government is the most immoral
form of theft and fraud. I thas been a fact of life in all western countries,
and all political parties (left, right or centre) for the last 35 years or so.
Tax cuts? yeah, right...
On 19-Sep-2003, "Mike in Mystic" <[email protected]> wrote:
> comparing those two spending figures is ridiculous. Different situations
> entirely.
Look into it. Bush has been expanding the cilly service without any reference
to war, terrorism or much of anything else. Iraq is budgeted outside of the
regular budget process. He and his cabinet have been expanding govt and
spending willy nilly to do it. Never give any idiot in govt the benefit of the
doubt.
Mike
More accurately, laws increased as "rights" of individuals overtook their
sense of obligation.
Paranoia noted.
"Young Carpenter" <Fiddleronroof*@*juno.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hmmm
> Makes me think of a statement I heard yesterday made by a founding father.
> It Started out "This government was made for a moral people....." The
basic
> Gist is our government was designed to keep a basically honest people
> honest. As soon as The dishonest people became prevalent (E.g.
monopolies,
> unfair employers) the Laws/regulations in the book grew in number.
>
You're a Democrat, aren't you, Charlie?
I, for one, think we are already over-regulated. Sure, there are cases
where some controls might be appropriate, but in general I feel that in
terms of government "Less is More".
Mike
--
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> bruce writes:
>
> >>It is probable that we need to return to the early '70s and the windfall
> >profit
> >>tax laws. A lot of this price gouging would disappear if there were no
extra
> >>profits made.
> >
> >Sure, let's kill the industry again. I lived through that ill conceived
> >idea, right her in Texas buddy. It put hundreds of thousands on the
> >streets and killed the city of Houston for a decade. Screw that.
> >
> >You want to talk windfall profits? Take a look at pharamacuticals,
> >banking, finance and medicine and leave the god damn oil industry alone.
> >
> Sure. Let 'em gouge the consumer to keep some others working.
>
> I can't argue at least the pharmaceuticals need controls, but what they
really
> need is there is a share-out with other countries for the R&D, so the U.S.
> consumer doesn't pay the entire load for the entire world. The medical
industry
> is a real case. I don't even begin to know what the solution is.
>
> But I'm not exactly sure how a windfall profits tax could have done so
much
> damage: it taxed only excess profits.
>
> Check your info. I think it was the Arabs and their shutting off the oil
taps
> that created the Houson problem.
>
> If it wasn't, and the oil industry needs to screw the consumer more than
it
> normally does just to stay in business, then it's really time for tighter
> regulation.
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil
and
> steady dedication of a lifetime. "
> Adlai E. Stevenson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mike in Mystic asks:
>You're a Democrat, aren't you, Charlie?
>
Actually, independent, with a slight--very slight--conservative tilt, which
does not mean I bend over and grab my ankles every time big business and its
political buddies cranks up another screwing for John Q.
Charlie Self
"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson
comparing those two spending figures is ridiculous. Different situations
entirely. Clinton was lucky enough to be President during a boom in the
economy (which he had absolutely nothing to do with) and Bush is fighting
wars all over the world. I'll grant you that even as a staunch Republican
I'm a little tired of paying for freedom in far off lands, but you can't
blame spending increases like that solely on the President. After 9/11 you
can't have expected us to sit by and reduce spending.
And as far as my grandchildren being pissed at me for leaving them debt,
that's the least of my worries. I honestly wonder if we'll make it through
the baby boomers retiring. When the average age of the largest demographic
group becomes older than retirement age, issues become ridiculously skewed.
Old sick people seem to think they deserve medicine for free. They think
everyone is out to get them and that everything costs too much. At least
they'll vacate a lot of the workforce and we shouldn't have a job shortage.
Well, as long as NAFTA get's revoked <vbeg> hehe.
These arguments are hilarious, neither of us can escape our ultimate doom at
the hands of self-serving political machines. At least we have wood and
tools and hopefully some time to use them to good effect.
Mike
Mike
--
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 19-Sep-2003, "Mike in Mystic" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In general, I agree with most of the Republican platform - smaller
> > government, stronger military, lower taxes. I felt like puking my guts
up
> > when Clinton downsized military bases and ballooned social programs.
But,
>
> Interesting _fact_. In the first three years in office, Clinton increased
govt
> spending by 3.5%. In the first three years of Bush jr's term, he
increased
> spending by 13.5%.
>
> Start puking.
>
> Mike
> PS - your grandchildren will be spitting on your grave when they see the
> govt debts they've inherited. Debt-based government is the most immoral
> form of theft and fraud. I thas been a fact of life in all western
countries,
> and all political parties (left, right or centre) for the last 35 years or
so.
> Tax cuts? yeah, right...
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
> Yeah, you could. He could have spent the money protecting the U.S.
How? If you have a better plan, call or write your congress critter.
The concept of fighting wars, even broad ones against terrorism, away from
these shores if possible, is a good one. Sure, it cost's money, lots of it,
and lives ... but a damn sight fewer of _our_ women and children are lost
that way. How soon you forget.
> I do love this bit though: Clinton had nothing to do with the good times
on his
> watch, but all the crap that's falling on Bush is Clinton's fault.
As if the previous administration's inaction on terrorism had no impact
whatsoever on what you are seeing now.
I have tax returns from two businesses, along with a kid's dwindling college
fund, that prove inarguably the economy was faltering months _before_ Bush
took office. Then 9/11.
This is real easy to document for those who shy away from the knee jerk,
blame the other party, reactions to every issue that crops up.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/13/03
Swingman responds:
>This is real easy to document for those who shy away from the knee jerk,
>blame the other party, reactions to every issue that crops up.
Bush ain't "the other party." He's an opportunistic clown who has bankrupted
every business he ever ran. As someone once said, he "was born on third base
and thinks he hit a triple."
None of that makes him Mr. Republican.
Charlie Self
"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson
"Opportunistic clown"? ... sounds more fitting for someone who got his
knob polished in the Oval Office.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/13/03
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
> Swingman responds:
>
> >This is real easy to document for those who shy away from the knee jerk,
> >blame the other party, reactions to every issue that crops up.
>
> Bush ain't "the other party." He's an opportunistic clown who has
bankrupted
> every business he ever ran. As someone once said, he "was born on third
base
> and thinks he hit a triple."
>
> None of that makes him Mr. Republican.
>
> Charlie Self
Swingman posits:
> "Opportunistic clown"? ... sounds more fitting for someone who got his
>knob polished in the Oval Office.
It might, but, then I wasn't describing anyone getting their knob polished
anywhere since it's a total irrelevancy.
Charlie Self
"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson
Lying under oath, impeachment and disbarment ... "total irrelevancies". What
a champion for the old cause, eh?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/13/03
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
> Swingman posits:
>
> > "Opportunistic clown"? ... sounds more fitting for someone who got his
> >knob polished in the Oval Office.
>
> It might, but, then I wasn't describing anyone getting their knob polished
> anywhere since it's a total irrelevancy.
>
> Charlie Self
On 19 Sep 2003 22:58:40 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Swingman responds:
>
>>> It might, but, then I wasn't describing anyone getting their knob polished
>>> anywhere since it's a total irrelevancy.
>
>Why don't you wait until you catch the ball before you run with it. You get a
>lot of drops doing it your way. I didn't mention Clinton to start with.
This is why I read this NG almost every day. Two accomplished
woodworkers, who are nice guys and gentlemen, discussing politics.
I'm just gonna sit back and read.
Barry
Swingman responds:
>Lying under oath, impeachment and disbarment ... "total irrelevancies". What
>a champion for the old cause, eh?
>
>--
>www.e-woodshop.net
>Last update: 9/13/03
>
>
>"Charlie Self" wrote in message
>> Swingman posits:
>>
>> > "Opportunistic clown"? ... sounds more fitting for someone who got his
>> >knob polished in the Oval Office.
>>
>> It might, but, then I wasn't describing anyone getting their knob polished
>> anywhere since it's a total irrelevancy.
Why don't you wait until you catch the ball before you run with it. You get a
lot of drops doing it your way. I didn't mention Clinton to start with. You
mentioned knob polishing. I responded to that comment. You add more about
Clinton.
All of which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with George W. Bush and
his abilities or lack of, something you are having a problem grasping, and
something I'm not interested in pursuing further at this time.
Charlie Self
"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson
You didn't mention Clinton? Read your own words: "I do love this bit though:
Clinton had nothing to do with the good times on his
watch, but all the crap that's falling on Bush is Clinton's fault."
Your memory is apparently as short as your reversionary tendencies are long.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/13/03
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Swingman responds:
>
> >Lying under oath, impeachment and disbarment ... "total irrelevancies".
What
> >a champion for the old cause, eh?
>
> Why don't you wait until you catch the ball before you run with it. You
get a
> lot of drops doing it your way. I didn't mention Clinton to start with.
You
> mentioned knob polishing. I responded to that comment. You add more about
> Clinton.
>
> All of which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with George W. Bush
and
> his abilities or lack of, something you are having a problem grasping, and
> something I'm not interested in pursuing further at this time.
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil
and
> steady dedication of a lifetime. "
> Adlai E. Stevenson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Here I go ... to get the Windex to clean the Jack/water off the monitor. ;>)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/13/03
"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." wrote in message
> On 19 Sep 2003 22:58:40 GMT, (Charlie Self)
> wrote:
>
> >Swingman responds:
> >
>
> >>> It might, but, then I wasn't describing anyone getting their knob
polished
> >>> anywhere since it's a total irrelevancy.
> >
> >Why don't you wait until you catch the ball before you run with it. You
get a
> >lot of drops doing it your way. I didn't mention Clinton to start with.
>
> This is why I read this NG almost every day. Two accomplished
> woodworkers, who are nice guys and gentlemen, discussing politics.
>
> I'm just gonna sit back and read.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I do love this bit though: Clinton had nothing to do with the good times
on his
> watch, but all the crap that's falling on Bush is Clinton's fault.
That's exactly my point, the good times weren't due to Clinton, but the bad
times aren't due to Bush and vice versa. Economic trends of the magnitude
of the 90's boom and the current downturn are way beyond the influence of
the President, regardless of what brand of idiot they are.
> Not all old people are sick. Not all need free medicine. But it would help
if
> pharmaceutical companies didn't put the screws to consumers.
Pharmaceutical companies do nothing of the sort, at least not in general and
in actuality not even very often. They spend billions of dollars a year
funding research to find medicines. They don't HAVE to do that, you know.
It's a business, though, which it seems to me that most people forget,
particularly the individuals who think everything should be controlled or
damn near free. Just because John Doe from Somewhereville, USA happens to
have a need for a particular drug that the big bad pharma company makes and
can't afford it doesn't entitle him to get it for free. In the end, any
price controls and other various forms of government intervention will
simply result in fewer drugs being developed, plain and simple. Why would
businesses choose to remain in an industry that won't allow them to grow and
compete? personally, the socialistic approach to health care that several
European nations and Canda utilize is horrid. So, basically, the elderly
"give me my drugs for free" crowd is likely going to have an impact on my
grandchildren maybe having a disease that they have no treatment for.
Thanks a lot.
>As the boomers vacate the workforce, something that will happen in a big
rush starting very,
> very soon, you won't have to worry about NAFTA or anything else taking
jobs
> away. There will be openings everywhere.
That's the only good thing I can think of resulting from the aging of the
over bred generation.
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil
and
> steady dedication of a lifetime. "
> Adlai E. Stevenson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mike in Mystic warbles:
>Pharmaceutical companies do nothing of the sort, at least not in general and
>in actuality not even very often. They spend billions of dollars a year
>funding research to find medicines. They don't HAVE to do that, you know.
Sure they do. Where do they get their new drugs if they don't?
>Just because John Doe from Somewhereville, USA happens to
>have a need for a particular drug that the big bad pharma company makes and
>can't afford it doesn't entitle him to get it for free.
Ah, but if he's able to drive to Canada he gets it for less than half price.
Why is that? Because our marvelous pharmaceutical companies think the U.S. is
the font of drug research blessings for the entire world, that's why.
>In the end, any
>price controls and other various forms of government intervention will
>simply result in fewer drugs being developed, plain and simple.
Nonsense. Profits may drop if drug prices are stabilized throughout the world,
but the drug companies are NOT about to stop developing their only source of
income.
>personally, the socialistic approach to health care that several
>European nations and Canda utilize is horrid.
How?
>That's the only good thing I can think of resulting from the aging of the
>over bred generation.
WTF does that mean? Over-bred? Compared to the whining ninnies of younger
generations, or what? Or are they like German shepherds and we can expect hip
displacia at a young age and in many?
Charlie Self
"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson
"Mike in Mystic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Mike in Mystic warbles:
> >
> > >Pharmaceutical companies do nothing of the sort, at least not in
general
> and
> > >in actuality not even very often. They spend billions of dollars a
year
> > >funding research to find medicines. They don't HAVE to do that, you
> know.
> >
> > Sure they do. Where do they get their new drugs if they don't?
>
> They are in business to grow revenues. If the government stops them from
> doing that freely, then the attractiveness of the business is greatly
> reduced. If you add up all the assets of Pfizer (the company I happen to
> work for, so I do have some insight here), it is only about 60% of their
> market capitalization. The other 40% is from shareholders opinion of our
> growth, our future revenues. If the government limits our ability to
grow,
> then we become a bad investment.
>
> >
> > >Just because John Doe from Somewhereville, USA happens to
> > >have a need for a particular drug that the big bad pharma company makes
> and
> > >can't afford it doesn't entitle him to get it for free.
> >
> > Ah, but if he's able to drive to Canada he gets it for less than half
> price.
> >
> > Why is that? Because our marvelous pharmaceutical companies think the
U.S.
> is
> > the font of drug research blessings for the entire world, that's why.
> >
> This opinon of yours is so misguided and inaccurate it literally made me
> laugh out loud. The pharmaceutical companies are in those markets because
> there is a potential to make a profit. Sure, the free market of the US
> might bear some of the burden in this system, but if a large enough
> population starts going to Canada and reduces profits in the US, all the
> pharmaceutical companies are going to do is to either stop offering their
> drugs in those markets (this is the most likely scenario), or attempt to
> negotiate with those markets for different trade practices. Either way,
> consumers going to Canada is only ensuring one thing - that they are
> compromising their health by increasing the likelihood that they get duped
> by some illegitimate third-party schlepping cheap drugs in front of their
> faces.
>
I recall a CBS 60 Minutes episode many years ago about counterfeit drugs
sold by U.S. wholesalers to U.S. pharmacies. Also, do you remember the
cancer medication that was diluted by a pharmacist in the U.S. to increase
his already obscene profit margins?
Several Republican politicians and pharmaceutical companies raise this dire
warning about the potential of counterfeit drugs from Canadian pharmacies,
but, when asked to cite specific cases, they can't. Can you? If not, then
where is it more dangerous to buy drugs?
> > >In the end, any
> > >price controls and other various forms of government intervention will
> > >simply result in fewer drugs being developed, plain and simple.
> >
> > Nonsense. Profits may drop if drug prices are stabilized throughout the
> world,
> > but the drug companies are NOT about to stop developing their only
source
> of
> > income.
>
> They might not STOP, but they might have to lay-off hundreds of thousdands
> of employees and greatly scale back their research and production
> activities. Sort of like the airlines. They didn't stop flying, but they
> changed their ways to deal with the situation. I'm sure you're looking
> forward to a government controlled airline, too.
>
> >
> > >personally, the socialistic approach to health care that several
> > >European nations and Canda utilize is horrid.
> >
> > How?
>
> I only have experience in a limited number of locations personally, but
have
> been told first-hand from friends that have dealt with these things. A
> friend of mine in England, for example, needed surgery that was deemed
> "elective". He was in a great deal of pain, but it wasn't life
threatening.
> So, he waited almost a YEAR!! to get the surgery. He looked up the same
> surgery and procedures in the US and found he would have likely had the
> surgery within a week in the US. For my own part, I was in Quebec on
> vacation and came down with a extremely serious illness and had to go to
the
> hospital for some blood tests. They had blood analyzers on the
receptionist
> counter so that the charge nurse (if that's what they're called) could
> analyze samples in between answering phones, filling out paperwork,
checking
> in patients, etc. And, they insisted I pay in cash in full before they
> would even let me in the phlebotomy chair. And they charged me up the
ass,
> thank you very much! But, that's beside the point. My point is that
> socialist-run medicine means fewer choices and likely mediocre at best
> services. Are you really willing to go that route in the US, just so you
> can save some money on prescriptions? I know you'll say "prescriptions
are
> one thing, the medical system is another", but I beg to differ. The two
are
> related, and it isn't too hard to see how letting the government control
one
> aspect will likely lead to them getting their hands on everything.
>
> >
> > >That's the only good thing I can think of resulting from the aging of
the
> > >over bred generation.
> >
> > WTF does that mean? Over-bred? Compared to the whining ninnies of
younger
> > generations, or what? Or are they like German shepherds and we can
expect
> hip
> > displacia at a young age and in many?
> >
> I just mean that the burden on our society by the lapsing social security
> system, other social systems, un-insured individuals, etc. by the "baby
> boomers" scares me to death. I really wonder lately listening to the more
> aged of my colleagues and their paranoid, almost terrified, view of their
> existences whether our nation will make it through their ability to screw
up
> the country. Do you really want a bunch of geriatrics having the power to
> influence decision making legislation? Last I checked, only a slim
minority
> of the let's say 70+ crowd really thought too much about the future other
> than their own. My grandmother lived to be 89 and the last about 10 years
> of her life were spent being terrified of anyone under the age of 35. I
> guess "they" will have their chance to get all of us "young'uns" back soon
> enough.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> >
> > Charlie Self
> >
> > "Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the
tranquil
> and
> > steady dedication of a lifetime. "
> > Adlai E. Stevenson
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike in Mystic warbles:
>
> >Pharmaceutical companies do nothing of the sort, at least not in general
and
> >in actuality not even very often. They spend billions of dollars a year
> >funding research to find medicines. They don't HAVE to do that, you
know.
>
> Sure they do. Where do they get their new drugs if they don't?
They are in business to grow revenues. If the government stops them from
doing that freely, then the attractiveness of the business is greatly
reduced. If you add up all the assets of Pfizer (the company I happen to
work for, so I do have some insight here), it is only about 60% of their
market capitalization. The other 40% is from shareholders opinion of our
growth, our future revenues. If the government limits our ability to grow,
then we become a bad investment.
>
> >Just because John Doe from Somewhereville, USA happens to
> >have a need for a particular drug that the big bad pharma company makes
and
> >can't afford it doesn't entitle him to get it for free.
>
> Ah, but if he's able to drive to Canada he gets it for less than half
price.
>
> Why is that? Because our marvelous pharmaceutical companies think the U.S.
is
> the font of drug research blessings for the entire world, that's why.
>
This opinon of yours is so misguided and inaccurate it literally made me
laugh out loud. The pharmaceutical companies are in those markets because
there is a potential to make a profit. Sure, the free market of the US
might bear some of the burden in this system, but if a large enough
population starts going to Canada and reduces profits in the US, all the
pharmaceutical companies are going to do is to either stop offering their
drugs in those markets (this is the most likely scenario), or attempt to
negotiate with those markets for different trade practices. Either way,
consumers going to Canada is only ensuring one thing - that they are
compromising their health by increasing the likelihood that they get duped
by some illegitimate third-party schlepping cheap drugs in front of their
faces.
> >In the end, any
> >price controls and other various forms of government intervention will
> >simply result in fewer drugs being developed, plain and simple.
>
> Nonsense. Profits may drop if drug prices are stabilized throughout the
world,
> but the drug companies are NOT about to stop developing their only source
of
> income.
They might not STOP, but they might have to lay-off hundreds of thousdands
of employees and greatly scale back their research and production
activities. Sort of like the airlines. They didn't stop flying, but they
changed their ways to deal with the situation. I'm sure you're looking
forward to a government controlled airline, too.
>
> >personally, the socialistic approach to health care that several
> >European nations and Canda utilize is horrid.
>
> How?
I only have experience in a limited number of locations personally, but have
been told first-hand from friends that have dealt with these things. A
friend of mine in England, for example, needed surgery that was deemed
"elective". He was in a great deal of pain, but it wasn't life threatening.
So, he waited almost a YEAR!! to get the surgery. He looked up the same
surgery and procedures in the US and found he would have likely had the
surgery within a week in the US. For my own part, I was in Quebec on
vacation and came down with a extremely serious illness and had to go to the
hospital for some blood tests. They had blood analyzers on the receptionist
counter so that the charge nurse (if that's what they're called) could
analyze samples in between answering phones, filling out paperwork, checking
in patients, etc. And, they insisted I pay in cash in full before they
would even let me in the phlebotomy chair. And they charged me up the ass,
thank you very much! But, that's beside the point. My point is that
socialist-run medicine means fewer choices and likely mediocre at best
services. Are you really willing to go that route in the US, just so you
can save some money on prescriptions? I know you'll say "prescriptions are
one thing, the medical system is another", but I beg to differ. The two are
related, and it isn't too hard to see how letting the government control one
aspect will likely lead to them getting their hands on everything.
>
> >That's the only good thing I can think of resulting from the aging of the
> >over bred generation.
>
> WTF does that mean? Over-bred? Compared to the whining ninnies of younger
> generations, or what? Or are they like German shepherds and we can expect
hip
> displacia at a young age and in many?
>
I just mean that the burden on our society by the lapsing social security
system, other social systems, un-insured individuals, etc. by the "baby
boomers" scares me to death. I really wonder lately listening to the more
aged of my colleagues and their paranoid, almost terrified, view of their
existences whether our nation will make it through their ability to screw up
the country. Do you really want a bunch of geriatrics having the power to
influence decision making legislation? Last I checked, only a slim minority
of the let's say 70+ crowd really thought too much about the future other
than their own. My grandmother lived to be 89 and the last about 10 years
of her life were spent being terrified of anyone under the age of 35. I
guess "they" will have their chance to get all of us "young'uns" back soon
enough.
Mike
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil
and
> steady dedication of a lifetime. "
> Adlai E. Stevenson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mike in Mystic responds:
>> Why is that? Because our marvelous pharmaceutical companies think the U.S.
>is
>> the font of drug research blessings for the entire world, that's why.
>>
>This opinon of yours is so misguided and inaccurate it literally made me
>laugh out loud. The pharmaceutical companies are in those markets because
>there is a potential to make a profit. Sure, the free market of the US
>might bear some of the burden in this system, but if a large enough
>population starts going to Canada and reduces profits in the US, all the
>pharmaceutical companies are going to do is to either stop offering their
>drugs in those markets (this is the most likely scenario), or attempt to
>negotiate with those markets for different trade practices.
Actually, what they're trying to do is force the feds to control the market for
them.
You can laugh, but your opinion is based on inside information that stops at
the walls of your office or lab.
>Either way,
>consumers going to Canada is only ensuring one thing - that they are
>compromising their health by increasing the likelihood that they get duped
>by some illegitimate third-party schlepping cheap drugs in front of their
>faces.
I've heard this one time and again and seen neither proof nor any kind of
rationale. The cheap drugs being schlepped are the cheap drugs manufactured by
divisions of U.S. companies in other countries. Or they're from non-U.S.
companies where the U.S. division is the overseas unit.
>
>They might not STOP, but they might have to lay-off hundreds of thousdands
>of employees and greatly scale back their research and production
>activities. Sort of like the airlines. They didn't stop flying, but they
>changed their ways to deal with the situation. I'm sure you're looking
>forward to a government controlled airline, too.
I'm not looking forward to a government controlled anything, but I'd sure as
hell like to see a medical set up in this country that works for everyone: the
most recent figures I've seen tell me that 41+ million Americans are without
health insurance. From personal experience, I can tell you that can be both
painful and expensive. The expense comes from the medical community having
allowed insurance companies to lock them in in charges for insureds. Thus, if
you're between policies for any reason, and you're not on the dole, you pay
from two to three times the insurance established cost for medical treatment.
>My grandmother lived to be 89 and the last about 10 years
>of her life were spent being terrified of anyone under the age of 35.
Jesus. I wonder why!
Charlie Self
"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson
Mike in Mystic responds:
>comparing those two spending figures is ridiculous. Different situations
>entirely. Clinton was lucky enough to be President during a boom in the
>economy (which he had absolutely nothing to do with) and Bush is fighting
>wars all over the world. I'll grant you that even as a staunch Republican
>I'm a little tired of paying for freedom in far off lands, but you can't
>blame spending increases like that solely on the President. After 9/11 you
>can't have expected us to sit by and reduce spending.
>
Yeah, you could. He could have spent the money protecting the U.S.
I do love this bit though: Clinton had nothing to do with the good times on his
watch, but all the crap that's falling on Bush is Clinton's fault.
>Old sick people seem to think they deserve medicine for free. They think
>everyone is out to get them and that everything costs too much. At least
>they'll vacate a lot of the workforce and we shouldn't have a job shortage.
>Well, as long as NAFTA get's revoked <vbeg> hehe.
Not all old people are sick. Not all need free medicine. But it would help if
pharmaceutical companies didn't put the screws to consumers. As the boomers
vacate the workforce, something that will happen in a big rush starting very,
very soon, you won't have to worry about NAFTA or anything else taking jobs
away. There will be openings everywhere.
Charlie Self
"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson
In rec.woodworking
Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
Interesting how he sees that the pharma companies spend billions on
research and yet he doesn't see that the oil companies do the same drilling
dry holes.
>They spend more on marketing than research of late.
>
>Tell me why an "established', been-around-a while-medicine went from ~
>$40 to $200 in about a year?
>
>Renata
>
>On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 21:09:17 GMT, "Mike in Mystic"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>--snip--
>>> pharmaceutical companies didn't put the screws to consumers.
>
>>
>>Pharmaceutical companies do nothing of the sort, at least not in general and
>>in actuality not even very often. They spend billions of dollars a year
>>funding research to find medicines. --snip--
>>> "Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil
>>and
>>> steady dedication of a lifetime. "
>>> Adlai E. Stevenson
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>(no stain for email)
In article <[email protected]>, "Morgans"
<[email protected]> wrote his usual whine about off-topic discussions, for
the second time in as many minutes, thereby inviting this response:
PLONK
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 08:28:06 -0400, Silvan wrote:
> IME so far, the boomers aren't going anywhere until they die. I don't know
> anybody who has the slightest illusion of being able to retire.
Well, now you do :-)
> The whole stock market thing didn't help either. Dad, for example, lost
> almost all of his retirement money to the downturn. At best, he can't
> retire until things pick back up, and more practically he's figuring on
> working until at least 10 years after his death.
I was stung, moved to cash before the biggest hit, moved back to the market
early this year and am mostly recovered from the market hit. You gotta
pay attention to what's going on and act rather than simply watching and
shrugging your shoulders.
-Doug
"Mike in Mystic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > I do love this bit though: Clinton had nothing to do with the good times
> on his
> > watch, but all the crap that's falling on Bush is Clinton's fault.
>
> That's exactly my point, the good times weren't due to Clinton, but the
bad
> times aren't due to Bush and vice versa. Economic trends of the magnitude
> of the 90's boom and the current downturn are way beyond the influence of
> the President, regardless of what brand of idiot they are.
>
>
> > Not all old people are sick. Not all need free medicine. But it would
help
> if
> > pharmaceutical companies didn't put the screws to consumers.
>
> Pharmaceutical companies do nothing of the sort, at least not in general
and
> in actuality not even very often. They spend billions of dollars a year
> funding research to find medicines. They don't HAVE to do that, you know.
> It's a business, though, which it seems to me that most people forget,
> particularly the individuals who think everything should be controlled or
> damn near free. Just because John Doe from Somewhereville, USA happens to
> have a need for a particular drug that the big bad pharma company makes
and
> can't afford it doesn't entitle him to get it for free. In the end, any
> price controls and other various forms of government intervention will
> simply result in fewer drugs being developed, plain and simple. Why would
> businesses choose to remain in an industry that won't allow them to grow
and
> compete? personally, the socialistic approach to health care that several
> European nations and Canda utilize is horrid.
I lived most of my life under the Canadian healthcare system, and it worked
very well for me. And I *never* personally knew anyone who was mistreated in
any way. Now that I live in the U.S., I heard lots of horror stories about
people turned away because of inadequate or no insurance. In my opinion, it
is the U.S. system which is horrid.
So, basically, the elderly
> "give me my drugs for free" crowd is likely going to have an impact on my
> grandchildren maybe having a disease that they have no treatment for.
> Thanks a lot.
>
> >As the boomers vacate the workforce, something that will happen in a big
> rush starting very,
> > very soon, you won't have to worry about NAFTA or anything else taking
> jobs
> > away. There will be openings everywhere.
>
> That's the only good thing I can think of resulting from the aging of the
> over bred generation.
>
> >
> > Charlie Self
> >
> > "Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the
tranquil
> and
> > steady dedication of a lifetime. "
> > Adlai E. Stevenson
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
: The concept of fighting wars, even broad ones against terrorism, away from
: these shores if possible, is a good one. Sure, it cost's money, lots of it,
: and lives ... but a damn sight fewer of _our_ women and children are lost
: that way. How soon you forget.
Give one fully documented reason to think that if we hadn't invaded Iraq,
any American woman or child (or man, for that matter) would have died as a
result of Iraqi actions. There are no weapons of mass destruction.
There is increasing evidence that any WMD were destroyed in the early
1990s. There is no evidence for the procurement of nuclear weapons-grade
uranium by Hussein. Etc. Al Quaeda tried to kill Hussein, not bond with
him. And so on.
Hundreds of patriotic soldiers have died in a war that was based on lies.
Anyone who really cares about US safety, and the strength and morale of
our troops, should be appalled. Every single soldier who died in the Iraq
war, and in the phenomenally bungled postwar situation, died in vain.
-- Andy Barss
You seem to spend more time worrying about it than doing anything else. It
sure seems like you enjoy it.
"Morgans" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> --
> Is there no way that you can keep yourself from using this newsgroup as a
> place to vent on politics? At least mark it with OT
>
>
In article <[email protected]>, "Morgans" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Is there no way that you can keep yourself from using this newsgroup as a
>place to vent on politics? At least mark it with OT
Is there no way that you can keep yourself from posting this same tripe every
time you read something you don't like? At least skip over it, and don't
bother the rest of us.
Furthermore, you've already proven that it doesn't make any difference if it
*is* marked OT, you're still gonna whine and moan about it anyway.
Unfortunately, Israel would most likely have gotten their target with fewer
casualties......
We missed Bin Laden and Saddam.
Gary
"Gfretwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> We attacked Iraq so Israel wouldn't have to.
The problem is if this war had been started by Israel it would end up being
WWIII. We would certainly be backing them and that would put us squarely
against a billion muslims. With us starting the war, citing 9-11 we had some
small plausible deniability that it was another crusade.
Don't get me wrong, I still think this whole thing was a dumb idea. Another war
without an exit strategy any no clear objectives.
>Unfortunately, Israel would most likely have gotten their target with fewer
>casualties......
>
>We missed Bin Laden and Saddam.
>
>Gary
>
>
>"Gfretwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> We attacked Iraq so Israel wouldn't have to.
They spend more on marketing than research of late.
Tell me why an "established', been-around-a while-medicine went from ~
$40 to $200 in about a year?
Renata
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 21:09:17 GMT, "Mike in Mystic"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
--snip--
>> pharmaceutical companies didn't put the screws to consumers.
>
>Pharmaceutical companies do nothing of the sort, at least not in general and
>in actuality not even very often. They spend billions of dollars a year
>funding research to find medicines. --snip--
>> "Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil
>and
>> steady dedication of a lifetime. "
>> Adlai E. Stevenson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
(no stain for email)
Renata notes:
>>
>>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>--snip--
>>> pharmaceutical companies didn't put the screws to consumers.
>
>>
>>Pharmaceutical companies do nothing of the sort, at least not in general and
>>in actuality not even very often. They spend billions of dollars a year
>>funding research to find medicines. --snip--
Lewt' not attritubte to me that which is not mine. I said that drug companies
screwed the consumer. The rest of it was someone else's take.
>They spend more on marketing than research of late.
>
>Tell me why an "established', been-around-a while-medicine went from ~
>$40 to $200 in about a year?
I'd love to know, too. Kind of like why I can get my VIoxx shipped in from NZ
for $132, while the same prescrip costs 3 times that here in the states, with
shipping.
Charlie Self
"Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit
soft."
Theodore Roosevelt
On 19 Sep 2003 18:19:21 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
pixelated:
>Mike in Mystic responds:
>
>>After 9/11 you can't have expected us to sit by and reduce spending.
Oh, SHIT! You can NOT be serious, Mike.
>Yeah, you could. He could have spent the money protecting the U.S.
(big sigh...)
Very shortly now, we're going to have a death count from the
Little Shrubbery War which is higher than the WTC attack. The
sad fact is that VERY little has been done to actually PROTECT
us because there is no way TO protect a free society. One
person can break into an armory (explosives cache, etc.) and
find enough boom booms to level half a city, then be halfway
across the country before it was found out. One errant soldier
could do even worse damage. What if that tank in LoCal a couple
years ago was fully armed and he wanted to do damage? He could
have leveled several city blocks before a rocket took him out.
Look how long it took to stop a simple sniper last year!
No, we're throwing away billions on false wars and false defenses
and it's making me sick. The terrorist are gettig their way. We
are no longer an entirely free nation and we're tossing more and
more of our freedoms and rights away with each new bill through
congress. As a country, we let fear stop us from living and moving
about. It's absolutely assinine. Wake UP, boys & girls.
I'm voting ANYBODY BUT BUSH at the next election. I hope we have
someone actually -worth- a vote by then, but I'm not holding my
breath.
-----------------------------------------
Jack Kevorkian for Congressional physician!
http://www.diversify.com Wondrous Website Design
=================================================
Doug Winterburn wrote:
> pay attention to what's going on and act rather than simply watching and
> shrugging your shoulders.
Yeah, well, I can't even worry about it at this point. I have -$130,000 so
far, and I need at least $500,000 for retirement. Yeah, right.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
Confirmed post number: 17857 Approximate word count: 535710
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
Charlie Self wrote:
> Not all old people are sick. Not all need free medicine. But it would help
> if pharmaceutical companies didn't put the screws to consumers. As the
Agreed. $60 a freaking PILL?! For 15 cents worth of chemicals.
> boomers vacate the workforce, something that will happen in a big rush
> starting very, very soon, you won't have to worry about NAFTA or anything
> else taking jobs away. There will be openings everywhere.
IME so far, the boomers aren't going anywhere until they die. I don't know
anybody who has the slightest illusion of being able to retire.
The whole stock market thing didn't help either. Dad, for example, lost
almost all of his retirement money to the downturn. At best, he can't
retire until things pick back up, and more practically he's figuring on
working until at least 10 years after his death.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
Confirmed post number: 17845 Approximate word count: 535350
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
Silvan responds:
>The whole stock market thing didn't help either. Dad, for example, lost
>almost all of his retirement money to the downturn. At best, he can't
>retire until things pick back up, and more practically he's figuring on
>working until at least 10 years after his death.
Fits my profile, except I may have to go 15 years after death.
Charlie Self
"Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit
soft."
Theodore Roosevelt
In rec.woodworking
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sure, let's kill the industry again. I lived through that ill conceived
>> idea, right her in Texas buddy. It put hundreds of thousands on the
>> streets and killed the city of Houston for a decade. Screw that.
>
>While some may have been out of jobs in Houston, I recall Houston in the 70
>as being a boom town with it being hard to hold on to good help by 1974. It
>very easy to find a job in the 70's in Houston. At least every one I knew
>that was looking for a job including engineers were tossing coins to decide
>which company to go with.
Leon, Houston was indeed booming in the 70s and employing tens of thousands
of displayed auto workers from Michigan and other mid eaetern states. The
Windfall Profits Tax was proposed by Jimmy Carter and was enacted in 1980.
By 1983, Houston was a dustbowl with over 2000 forclosures a month, the VA
and FHA were selling forclosed homes in lots of 100 for about .25 cents on
the 1980 dollar.
While the rest of the US prospered on the low price of energy, we in the
south floundered and even our own legislators and a Texas president could
have cared less. Republican Phil Graham voted against federal money to
retrain displaced oil workers. GWB did nothing to help us either.
Those engineers that were tossing coins to decide where to work? They
didn't have coins to toss. I know guys that were making $5000 a month in
1980 that ended up working for $8 an hour 5 years later. Homes bought for
$150k were forclosed and sold at auction for less than 1/2 that. One
friend put $65,000, his entire life savings, down on a home and later lost
it to forclosure. Even after that much down, he couldn't sell it for less
than he owed.
All you folks despise the "evil" oil companies and forget that real people
with families are working for them, just like you. We're trying to pay our
bills, raise our kids and enjoy our lives too. Gasoline is, by an order of
magnittue, the most inflation proof comodity there is. If the price of
gas appreciated like the price of cars, you'd be paying $15 a gallon for
it. But do you see me whining about the excess profits of GMAC, which are
in fact, HUGE!! Nope because I want folks working in Michigan. It is good
for this country. Ross Perot was right about that huge sucking sound of
jobs going to Mexico and I hate it. I know it isn't good for the country.
Incidentally, I've done my part. I just bought a brand new GMC Yukon,
nearly $40,000, and I did it with OIL money.
Bruce
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 04:02:43 GMT, [email protected] (Bruce) wrote:
>I was in a hanger today of the Commemorative Air Force. They had a sign
>that said, "There are old pilots. There are bold pilots. There are no
>old, bold pilots."
An oldie but a goodie.
How many boaters run checklists every time they use the boat, with
another checklist each time the boat is docked or released, and yet
another when it's parked for the day?
I'll bet pleasure boats have exponentially more mechanical failures
and accidents, per hour operated, than small aircraft.
I've also seen two, widely varying types of personalities between the
typical private pilot and the typical pleasure boater. Anyone who
thinks the typical private pilot has suicidal tendencies and is a
daredevil has been watching too many movies.
Barry
"B a r r y B u r k e J r ."
> I've also seen two, widely varying types of personalities between the
> typical private pilot and the typical pleasure boater. Anyone who
> thinks the typical private pilot has suicidal tendencies and is a
> daredevil has been watching too many movies.
>
> Barry
I've done both. Pilots are a very serious lot when it comes to caring for
their equipment and doing the pre-flight. Too often, the only thing boaters
check is that there is enough beer in the cooler. Fortunately, that is
starting to change and safety courses for boating are mandatory in many
states. .
Ed
[email protected]
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
B a r r y B u r k e J r . wrote:
> thinks the typical private pilot has suicidal tendencies and is a
> daredevil has been watching too many movies.
Oh, don't worry, I feel the same about everybody who rides as a passenger on
one of those things too. I used to fly with Dad, and ride on his
motorcycle, but that was when I was young and had no sense of my own
mortality.
Before I had the really horrible car wreck IOW. The one that could have
been so very much worse than it was, which was so completely beyond my
control. I didn't get injured, and neither did the other guy, but if the
angles or velocities had been the slightest bit different, one or both of
us would have been brutally mangled. It completely killed my spirit of
adventure.
Now I'm just a big ol' chickenshit, and I won't ride in anything with less
than four wheels, or anything that puts me more than eight feet off the
ground.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
Confirmed post number: 17880 Approximate word count: 536400
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.woodworking
> [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
>
> >It is probable that we need to return to the early '70s and the windfall
profit
> >tax laws. A lot of this price gouging would disappear if there were no
extra
> >profits made.
>
> Sure, let's kill the industry again. I lived through that ill conceived
> idea, right her in Texas buddy. It put hundreds of thousands on the
> streets and killed the city of Houston for a decade. Screw that.
While some may have been out of jobs in Houston, I recall Houston in the 70
as being a boom town with it being hard to hold on to good help by 1974. It
very easy to find a job in the 70's in Houston. At least every one I knew
that was looking for a job including engineers were tossing coins to decide
which company to go with.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It is probable that we need to return to the early '70s and the windfall
profit
> tax laws. A lot of this price gouging would disappear if there were no
extra
> profits made.
Bwaaa ha ha! That's a good one. Got any more?
Don't expect anyone in Washington to give a rat's
ass about windfall profits and price gouging. They
think that's just the market at work. Bwaaa ha ha!
Dennis Vogel
Dennis Vogel responds:
>> It is probable that we need to return to the early '70s and the windfall
>profit
>> tax laws. A lot of this price gouging would disappear if there were no
>extra
>> profits made.
>
>Bwaaa ha ha! That's a good one. Got any more?
>
>Don't expect anyone in Washington to give a rat's
>ass about windfall profits and price gouging. They
>think that's just the market at work. Bwaaa ha ha!
Dunno, but if memory serves, Nixon was the one who introduced the windfall
profits regulations during our first, greatest gas crisis (another invention of
our Middle Eastern buddies).
Hard to believe, isn't it?
Charlie Self
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without
integrity is dangerous and dreadful."
Samuel Johnson
I had never heard that but it makes sense. When you look at all the
trouble areas in the world today, many came from Britian and the way
they divided up/split the countries and to whom they gave them to.
Israel/Palestine, Iraq/Iran/etc., India/Pakistan, others, Egypt, heck
they owned most of the world it seems like. When they left Israel,
they couln't even leave at the correct hour; left an hour early and it
caught the Arabs off gurd and the Israeli's moved in. Anyway, thanks
for the information. I had not even considered tat. Happens all too
often when you look at problems and go (almost) to the source.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 23:07:11 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> Ramsey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> But Charlie, give credit where credit is due. The only people with a
>> worse track record of international screwups are the Btrit's. They
>> GAVE Iraq and the rest of the middle East away - and with it the oil.
>
>Just a day or two ago I watched a book presentation on C-Span2 titled -
>I think - "19 Weeks". The author stated that G.Britain was 6 months or
>so away from total and absolute bankruptcy during the summer of 1940.
>The British involvement in Western Europe as well as defending itself
>during the Battle of Britain cost the country extreme amounts of money.
>In his opinion that was the turning point of the British Empire losing
>its dominance as a world power and its need to lighten the load of all
>its colonies. They spent so much during such a short period of time and
>just couldn't afford to maintain the far reaches.
The British gave away the Middle East?...what an interesting way to think of
someone else's land.
John Emmons
"Ramsey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> But Charlie, give credit where credit is due. The only people with a
> worse track record of international screwups are the Btrit's. They
> GAVE Iraq and the rest of the middle East away - and with it the oil.
> Woops. Forgot the French. But they are so sorry they are a lesson unto
> themselves.
>
>
>
> On 18 Sep 2003 18:08:25 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
> wrote:
>
> >Dennis Vogel responds:
> >
> >>> It is probable that we need to return to the early '70s and the
windfall
> >>profit
> >>> tax laws. A lot of this price gouging would disappear if there were no
> >>extra
> >>> profits made.
> >>
> >>Bwaaa ha ha! That's a good one. Got any more?
> >>
> >>Don't expect anyone in Washington to give a rat's
> >>ass about windfall profits and price gouging. They
> >>think that's just the market at work. Bwaaa ha ha!
> >
> >Dunno, but if memory serves, Nixon was the one who introduced the
windfall
> >profits regulations during our first, greatest gas crisis (another
invention of
> >our Middle Eastern buddies).
> >
> >Hard to believe, isn't it?
> >
> >Charlie Self
> >
> >"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without
> >integrity is dangerous and dreadful."
> >Samuel Johnson
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
In article <[email protected]>,
Ramsey <[email protected]> wrote:
> But Charlie, give credit where credit is due. The only people with a
> worse track record of international screwups are the Btrit's. They
> GAVE Iraq and the rest of the middle East away - and with it the oil.
Just a day or two ago I watched a book presentation on C-Span2 titled -
I think - "19 Weeks". The author stated that G.Britain was 6 months or
so away from total and absolute bankruptcy during the summer of 1940.
The British involvement in Western Europe as well as defending itself
during the Battle of Britain cost the country extreme amounts of money.
In his opinion that was the turning point of the British Empire losing
its dominance as a world power and its need to lighten the load of all
its colonies. They spent so much during such a short period of time and
just couldn't afford to maintain the far reaches.
--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>
Owen Lowe responds:
>The author stated that G.Britain was 6 months or
>so away from total and absolute bankruptcy during the summer of 1940.
>The British involvement in Western Europe as well as defending itself
>during the Battle of Britain cost the country extreme amounts of money.
>In his opinion that was the turning point of the British Empire losing
>its dominance as a world power and its need to lighten the load of all
>its colonies. They spent so much during such a short period of time and
>just couldn't afford to maintain the far reaches.
Sounds like deja vu backwards, doesn't it?
Charlie Self
"Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit
soft."
Theodore Roosevelt
In rec.woodworking
[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
>Owen Lowe responds:
>
>>The author stated that G.Britain was 6 months or
>>so away from total and absolute bankruptcy during the summer of 1940.
>>The British involvement in Western Europe as well as defending itself
>>during the Battle of Britain cost the country extreme amounts of money.
>>In his opinion that was the turning point of the British Empire losing
>>its dominance as a world power and its need to lighten the load of all
>>its colonies. They spent so much during such a short period of time and
>>just couldn't afford to maintain the far reaches.
>
>Sounds like deja vu backwards, doesn't it?
Sounds like the Monopoly Game when you have to sell a property to pay rent
on someone elses. Once that happens, its all over but the crying.
But Charlie, give credit where credit is due. The only people with a
worse track record of international screwups are the Btrit's. They
GAVE Iraq and the rest of the middle East away - and with it the oil.
Woops. Forgot the French. But they are so sorry they are a lesson unto
themselves.
On 18 Sep 2003 18:08:25 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Dennis Vogel responds:
>
>>> It is probable that we need to return to the early '70s and the windfall
>>profit
>>> tax laws. A lot of this price gouging would disappear if there were no
>>extra
>>> profits made.
>>
>>Bwaaa ha ha! That's a good one. Got any more?
>>
>>Don't expect anyone in Washington to give a rat's
>>ass about windfall profits and price gouging. They
>>think that's just the market at work. Bwaaa ha ha!
>
>Dunno, but if memory serves, Nixon was the one who introduced the windfall
>profits regulations during our first, greatest gas crisis (another invention of
>our Middle Eastern buddies).
>
>Hard to believe, isn't it?
>
>Charlie Self
>
>"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without
>integrity is dangerous and dreadful."
>Samuel Johnson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:51:21 -0400, Dennis [email protected] wrote:
> It's even worse. Of those 3,000 many were not Americans.
> Lot's of people conveniently "forget" that.
For any who may have forgotten, here are the statistics:
http://66.223.12.161/september11Victims/COUNTRY_CITIZENSHIP.htm
-Doug
haha
I'm in CT, too and my wife drives 52 miles each way to work, and that's
usually in an SUV that get's 18 mpg on a good day. :( The last 3 times
I've filled up I had to pay over $30.
Of course, I only drive 6 miles each way to work, so I'm not really
complaining.
Mike
--
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:aVhab.997$N%[email protected]...
>
> "B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <[email protected]> >
> > Premium hit? <G>
> >
> > Premium here in CT is currently $1.98-$2.05. Yesterday I paid $2.01
> > for my 93 octane lawn mower gas. We paid $2.99 a gallon last weekend
> > for 100LL aviation gas for my buddy's plane, and that has a lot less
> > taxes than "street gas".
> >
> > 87 octane is $1.79-$1.90.
>
>
> Yeah but you live in CT, every thing there is within spittin distance..
;~)
> A typical to work and back trip is 40 miles in Houston. PLUS..!!!! All
you
> CT folk is rich ain't ya???? I guess we all could be in CA... LOL
>
>
Leon wrote:
>> It cost me $15 to fill up my car. I'll have to fill it up again in late
>> October or early November.
>
> OK,, Yugo's don't count..
It's a 1987 Oldsmobile thank you very much.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
Confirmed post number: 17832 Approximate word count: 534960
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
CW wrote:
> I bet his bills to fix that boat will be a lot less than fixing your plane
> if you crash. In the event of an accident, his survivability rate is
> higher than yours too.
Probably true, but boats, planes, motorcycles, they're all three toys only
for the suicidally reckless.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
Confirmed post number: 17856 Approximate word count: 535680
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
In rec.woodworking
Grandpa <[email protected]> wrote:
>Saw a piece on TV last night where the price of wood (ply/OSB etc) is
>going sky high because the Fed Gov is buying huge amounts to do some
>rebuilding in Iraq. They showed a guy here (Albuquerque) who was adding
>a room, old cost $14k, new cost with wood prices going up, $20k. They
>interviewed a contractor who also verified the huge price increases in
>the wood he's purchasing to build homes. Mind you, NOBODY has said
>anything about any sort of shortage (which there will not be). They
>said the 4x8 sheet of what they called 'wafer board' that cost $7 last
>month was at $20 now and still climbing. I may have to hold off
>building the storage shed I'd planned on doing. WTF is wrong with this
>picture.
We're the only nation that blows up countries then puts them back together
again. Kuwait, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and now sights are
being set on N. Korea, Iran, take your pick.. Wouldn't it be a lot less
trouble to not blow them up in the first place?
As for plywood, the demand in Iraq is NOT the reason for the increase
according to an article posted her a few weeks ago. Search the archives.
>We're the only nation that blows up countries then puts them back together
>again.
I think we are still trying to recreate the success we had with the Marshall
plan. I bet there are people making money in Vietnam, just not us "poor" folks.
We did create a market for Marlboros there.
I assume our long range plan in Iraq is to create a consumer culture so we can
get our oil money back. How much we spend for oil is not as important to the
fat cats as where THEY spend the money we ship over there. Unfortunately we
don't make much here to sell them.
Dontcha know:
*the NE blackout caused a refinery to close for 4 days and
*folks decided to take vacations, just as their kids are getting back
to school and
* someone discoved the mideast is unsettled (nothing to do
w/population)
Renata
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 04:05:13 GMT, "Doug Winterburn"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 03:33:06 +0000, Leon wrote:
>
>> The wood industry has adopted the Oil industry way of pricing.
>
>We had the tip of the gasoline price thing here in Phoenix, supposedly because
>of a pipeline rupture between Tucson and Phoenix (the gas comes from Texas
>via pipeline to Tucson). 3/4ths of the Phoenix supply comes from California via
>another pipeline (owned by the same people as the Tucson/Phoenix
>pipeline).
>
>Took a month to drive to Washington State, and what to my bewildered eyes
>should appear but hugely escalating gasoline prices because of a pipeline
>rupture in Arizona? I keep trying to understand the connection,
>especially since everything I read says no supply problem, but still
>searching for an answer.
>
>-Doug
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.woodworking
> We're the only nation that blows up countries then puts them back together
> again. Kuwait, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and now sights are
> being set on N. Korea, Iran, take your pick.. Wouldn't it be a lot less
> trouble to not blow them up in the first place?
Less trouble - dunno 'bout that - but sure as hell wouldn't give us the
Test Platform we need for these new weapons...
Reminds me of this joke I heard in OK. Says this farmer: what do you mean,
gas prices are higher? I don't notice. I always fill up for $10 at the same
station.
HNB
"Kim Whitmyre" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > It cost me $15 to fill up my car. I'll have to fill it up again in
late
> > > October or early November.
> > >
> >
> >
> > OK,, Yugo's don't count..
>
> Hehe, I've got a '90 Caprice with a 24.5 gallon tank. . . Premium is
> still over $2 here in Southern California. I try to fill it before its
> half empty, seems better that way ;~)
>
> Kim
Now she could be fun. Luckily I don't foresee her leaving a wake like
Andrew or I might pack up and go contract out of my car;)
--
Young Carpenter
"Violin playing and Woodworking are similar, it takes plenty of money,
plenty of practice, and you usually make way more noise than intended"
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> > Saw a piece on TV last night where the price of wood (ply/OSB etc) is
> > going sky high because the Fed Gov is buying huge amounts to do some
> > rebuilding in Iraq.
> >
> The article in our newspaper this morning said the Iraq purchases would
> have been a momentary blip if not for other factors coinciding. I don't
> remember them all, but one was that the mills had cut back production
> last fall vecause of low prices so reserve supply was nil.
>
> And then there's Isobel :-).
>
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Builder online article (or was it JLC) gave an overview. It is not actually
rebuilding Iraq. Iraq is more like Florida, there isn't much you want to
build outa wood if you can help it. The wood is actually supplying the
military.
No shortage? Well yes and know. Short here but no shortage of stock. I
could go into the part about tree huggers and spotted owls putting 1,000s of
people out of work over the past 10 years.
--
Young Carpenter
"Violin playing and Woodworking are similar, it takes plenty of money,
plenty of practice, and you usually make way more noise than intended"
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.woodworking
> Grandpa <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Saw a piece on TV last night where the price of wood (ply/OSB etc) is
> >going sky high because the Fed Gov is buying huge amounts to do some
> >rebuilding in Iraq. They showed a guy here (Albuquerque) who was adding
> >a room, old cost $14k, new cost with wood prices going up, $20k. They
> >interviewed a contractor who also verified the huge price increases in
> >the wood he's purchasing to build homes. Mind you, NOBODY has said
> >anything about any sort of shortage (which there will not be). They
> >said the 4x8 sheet of what they called 'wafer board' that cost $7 last
> >month was at $20 now and still climbing. I may have to hold off
> >building the storage shed I'd planned on doing. WTF is wrong with this
> >picture.
>
> We're the only nation that blows up countries then puts them back together
> again. Kuwait, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and now sights are
> being set on N. Korea, Iran, take your pick.. Wouldn't it be a lot less
> trouble to not blow them up in the first place?
>
> As for plywood, the demand in Iraq is NOT the reason for the increase
> according to an article posted her a few weeks ago. Search the archives.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
In rec.woodworking
B a r r y B u r k e J r . <[email protected]> wrote:
> We paid $2.99 a gallon last weekend
>for 100LL aviation gas for my buddy's plane, and that has a lot less
Well, to quote a Anthony Hopkins movie line, "Never feel sorry for a man
that owns his own plane."
In rec.woodworking
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>A typical to work and back trip is 40 miles in Houston. PLUS..!!!!
Plus is right. I drive Katy to the Astrodome area, 37 miles EACH way!!
In rec.woodworking
B a r r y B u r k e J r . <[email protected]> wrote:
>Did you know that you can buy a decent four seat aircraft for less
>than what many soccer moms pay for an SUV? <G>
>
>That 35-40k plane will hold it's value much better than the SUV, as
>it's already had some depreciation, and will probably outlast the SUV
>to boot.
>
>Another friend and myself are currently looking in the 45-50k range
>for a plane to go halves on.
Of course an SUV doesn't require expensive annual maintenance by certified
AP mechanics, hanger storage fees etc. Very few "poor" people own planes.
I wouldn't even consider it and my salary has 6 digits in it.
In rec.woodworking
B a r r y B u r k e J r . <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 17:54:13 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>I bet his bills to fix that boat will be a lot less than fixing your plane
>>if you crash. In the event of an accident, his survivability rate is higher
>>than yours too.
>
>Probably, that's why most pilots are much more careful than boaters.
><G>
I was in a hanger today of the Commemorative Air Force. They had a sign
that said, "There are old pilots. There are bold pilots. There are no
old, bold pilots."
:)
>That's why I'm going halves. While it's still money, 20-25k is more
>in my ball park. I've done business dealings with the other guy
>before, so the partnership detail is easy. My wife and I have become
>accustomed to living below our means, so stuff like this is now
>possible.
>
Owning the thing will
>allow both of us to build hours for much less money after soloing.
Barry - this is possible. My accountant and I bought a Cessna 182 -
kept it for around 6 years, took on another partner then sold the
plane for a health profit. I logged around 250 hours and got my
instrument rating. When we sold the plane it pretty much covered my
entire cost of owning and flying the plane - basically, we owned it
for free (if you don't count the labor doing some of the maintenance
and grunt work on annuals etc). The only drawback is that you have to
put out the money during that time and it can get expensive. It hurts
to pay out a couple thousand for maintenance items etc. Good luck -
hope you enjoy it.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 21:55:19 -0600, Jeff Clausen wrote:
> Wood prices in general including softwood lumber, plywood, osb and other
> panel products have gone up since the start of the year for many reasons.
> One is that the exhange rate with the Canadian dollar has gone from $.60 to
> $.73 since the first of the year. This coupled with the counter-vailing
> duty has slowed the flow of lumber products into the US from Canada. The
> same is true for imported lumber form Europe where the Euro has strengthened
> from roughly par with the US dollar to about $1.13. Two, the southeast
> timber industry has experienced a very wet spring and summer which has
> affected log supply to certain mills. Third, is this summers fire season.
> Many mills in the Inland Rocky Mountains on both sides of the border have
> been shut out of the woods since mid July. In southern British Columbia
> this combination has forced many mills to shut down or curtail. The net
> effect is a dip in supply which may continue for some time. Sawmills in the
> inland northwest are now able to get back to logging now that we have had
> some rain and snow, but they will be playing catch-up in their log decks
> between now and breakup next Spring. As far as price fixing in the industry,
> I wish it were possible. I work for a sawmill in Northwest Montana. We
> sell all of our product to the wholesale market as do most other sawmills
> except for those that sell directly to the big box stores (i.e. the Borg).
> Our only control over the price of our final product is the ability to tell
> the wholesaler "NO" if we feel the price is too low and you can only do that
> for so long. There are some large national wholesale companies that try to
> influence the market by timing purchases and sales but the idea that the
> large "evil corporations" are gouging the markets does not hold water. I
> work for a small family owned sawmill so I have no affiliation to the larger
> "evil corporations". In fact it has been my experience that most big
> company sawmills usually kill any good market by dumping lumber at the end
> of every month to keep the cash flow numbers up and the quarterly stock
> prices propped up. If there has been any price gouging it has been at the
> retail level. The average WWPA framing lumber index (the price that mills
> receive for their lumber) has been hovering near 20 year lows for the last
> several years, yet I have not seen any such reduction in prices at the local
> lumber yards. My two cents worth.
>
> Jeff Clausen
It apparently isn't because we don't have any more timber. The first few
pics in this album show some excess on the way to Japan last month:
http://www.winterburn.net/photo/index.php?folder=/2003%20Trip/Harstene/
a few show the wiley presto-log (or is that particle board) in the wild...
-Doug
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:23:17 -0700, Kim Whitmyre wrote:
>> Foreign policy makes no difference to radical Islam - they hate us because
>> we exist and we are infidels. The attacks around the world aren't aimed
>> at only the US, but also other infidels. We happen to be the most powerful
>> collection of infidels and are therefore a preferred target. That is the
>> logic of this war.
>>
>> -Doug
>>
> Hey Doug, I got a bridge, for you cheap! And now let's not harass the
> rec.woodworking forum any longer. . .
LOL - OK, but since you already bought that bridge, you can keep it. The
left, right and words of the murderers all say this is about converting us
or killing us...
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/World/sept11_terrorwar030911.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock120302.asp
I don't have any idea who is feeding you the idea that 911 was our fault
instead of the fault of the murderers. I certainly don't plan on taking
up their beliefs to get them to stop their terrorism.
-Doug
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike in Mystic wrote:
>
> > haha
> >
> > I'm in CT, too and my wife drives 52 miles each way to work, and that's
> > usually in an SUV that get's 18 mpg on a good day. :( The last 3 times
> > I've filled up I had to pay over $30.
>
> It cost me $15 to fill up my car. I'll have to fill it up again in late
> October or early November.
>
OK,, Yugo's don't count..
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:25:44 GMT, [email protected] (Bruce) wrote:
>Of course an SUV doesn't require expensive annual maintenance by certified
>AP mechanics,
$1500 +/-
> hanger storage fees
$40 / month for an outside tie down w/ key card access.
> Very few "poor" people own planes.
Nor do they own boats, R/V's, race cars, vacation homes, custom
motorcycles, horses, or really nice in ground swimming pools, but many
"average" folks I know do.
>I wouldn't even consider it and my salary has 6 digits in it.
You payz your money... <G>
Barry
Barry Burke responds:
>> Very few "poor" people own planes.
>
>Nor do they own boats, R/V's, race cars, vacation homes, custom
>motorcycles, horses, or really nice in ground swimming pools, but many
>"average" folks I know do.
And damned few poor folks own SUVs. Too bad ownership hasn't remained confined
to people will to take them where they belong, off-road.
Charlie Self
"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson
I totally Disagree. Poor has become increasingly relative with Loans,
Credit and plastic.
I have known individuals with salaries close to mine (at the time mine was 8
and hour theirs wasn't more than 10-15) Running around in brand-new shiny
something's that would take them 6 years to pay off.
As for Planes, boats, etc. They are all hobbies. Just as you might spend 3
grand a year feeding your WW habit. Some just spend that on flying or
boating.
Besides, not many of you buy a Powermatic with your two neighbors.
If you consider what I paid so I could make/build stuff (apparently I
haven't gotten much further than a hobby for the most part) with an
education, the flyers still come out on top even with training/license.
--
Young Carpenter
"Violin playing and Woodworking are similar, it takes plenty of money,
plenty of practice, and you usually make way more noise than intended"
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Barry Burke responds:
>
> >> Very few "poor" people own planes.
> >
> >Nor do they own boats, R/V's, race cars, vacation homes, custom
> >motorcycles, horses, or really nice in ground swimming pools, but many
> >"average" folks I know do.
>
> And damned few poor folks own SUVs. Too bad ownership hasn't remained
confined
> to people will to take them where they belong, off-road.
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil
and
> steady dedication of a lifetime. "
> Adlai E. Stevenson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 04:16:08 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> Crawled out of the shop and said. . .:
>I live in Houston,,,Premium hit $1.84 a gallon, and a very large percentage
>of the nations refineries for gasoline are here.. Never was a shortage here
>either...
>
>
hell up here in the twin cities area we have three major pipeline
heads, and two refineries fed straight outta the gulf. . . never had a
pipeline bust open and yet, strangely every time one "breaks"
somewhere else, or there is a major blackout, or a fly lands on a
beanstalk in the mediterranean, , , we suck on it at the pumps.
price is finally below 1.60 here from labor day...
Traves
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 15:38:18 -0700, Kim Whitmyre wrote:
> And even fewer raise a fuss about the foreign policy that has, over many
> years, engendered the hatred that the towers are only a symptom of. . .I
> guess as long as I'm fat and happy, the rest of the world can go to hell
> in a handbasket, eh?
>
> Logic?
Foreign policy makes no difference to radical Islam - they hate us because
we exist and we are infidels. The attacks around the world aren't aimed
at only the US, but also other infidels. We happen to be the most powerful
collection of infidels and are therefore a preferred target. That is the
logic of this war.
-Doug
I bet his bills to fix that boat will be a lot less than fixing your plane
if you crash. In the event of an accident, his survivability rate is higher
than yours too.
"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
>>
> My partner used to think a plane was expensive compared to other
> motorized toys until he rammed one of his boat out drives into some
> rocks. = 8^( After that, he sat down and really did the math. Once
> you buy the boat, maintain it, fuel it, launch or slip it, buy SeaTow
> insurance, etc... It's not all that different.
>
>
>
> Barry
I'll fly anything but forget the tree.
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> (Well, bearing in mind that, yes, I'm pretty much too much of a wuss these
> days to seriously think about going more than 8' off the ground, unless
I'm
> climbing a tree.)
>
> --
> Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
> Confirmed post number: 17885 Approximate word count: 536550
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
>
"Lee Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:wKdab.495907$uu5.85169@sccrnsc04...
> Of course wood prices are going up. That stuff doesn't grow on trees, you
> know.
>
> Lee
Yea, everybody knows OSB is made out of chips and particle board is made out
of sawdust.
--
JC from Gnat Flats, Texas
Home of the Notso OK Corral
Being a rather serious motorcyclist, member of the Iron Butt Association and
having ridden many thousands of miles safely I must take exception to your
generalising. I am neither reckless nor do I possess any suicidal
tendencies. Stick to analysing what you know about.
John Emmons
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> CW wrote:
>
> > I bet his bills to fix that boat will be a lot less than fixing your
plane
> > if you crash. In the event of an accident, his survivability rate is
> > higher than yours too.
>
> Probably true, but boats, planes, motorcycles, they're all three toys only
> for the suicidally reckless.
>
> --
> Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
> Confirmed post number: 17856 Approximate word count: 535680
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
>
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Doesn't really smell like market competition to me.
>
> Even so, we still pay a crapload less than just about everywhere in the
> world for gas, so it could be worse.
I just heard the Thief-in-Chief mention 87 Billion dollars. . .And most
everyone else said that was just starters! It is worse!
Kim
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 08:00:06 -0700, Kim Whitmyre wrote:
>
> >
> > I just heard the Thief-in-Chief mention 87 Billion dollars. . .And most
> > everyone else said that was just starters! It is worse!
>
> I heard the Congress mention 400 billion dollars for drugs for everyone -
> including Bill Gates - And that is just for starters. It is _much_ worse.
>
> -Doug
>
Rather have such for Americans than fork it over for imperial ambitions.
. .
Kim
> >
> > It cost me $15 to fill up my car. I'll have to fill it up again in late
> > October or early November.
> >
>
>
> OK,, Yugo's don't count..
Hehe, I've got a '90 Caprice with a 24.5 gallon tank. . . Premium is
still over $2 here in Southern California. I try to fill it before its
half empty, seems better that way ;~)
Kim
In article <[email protected]>,
mhburton@zzz|moment.net says...
> Kim Whitmyre <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 08:00:06 -0700, Kim Whitmyre wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I just heard the Thief-in-Chief mention 87 Billion dollars. . .And
> >> > most everyone else said that was just starters! It is worse!
> >>
> >> I heard the Congress mention 400 billion dollars for drugs for
> >> everyone - including Bill Gates - And that is just for starters. It
> >> is _much_ worse.
> >>
> >> -Doug
> >>
> > Rather have such for Americans than fork it over for imperial
> > ambitions. . .
> >
> > Kim
>
> American companies are where most of the money is being spent. That money
> comes back home. Plus the final bill gets repaid with the Iraqi oil money.
> The US pretty much broke even in the last Gulf War and by some accounts may
> have even made some money by the time eveyone chipped in to cover their
> part of the expenses.
> I personally know guys that are thinking of going over there and get a
> piece of the pie, specifically, going to work for Halliburton as well as
> other companies, getting the oil fields lined out again. Lots of other jobs
> getting the refineries and all the surface production equipment repaired.
> It takes a lot to keep that equipment functioning correctly with regular
> maintenance. I work on it for a living and it is a chore, believe me. With
> the neglect that country's infrastructure has seen I'll bet the oil fields
> are in a helluva mess.
> The figures I am hearing are approching $140K and up tax free just
> working as hands and pushing crews. If I didn't already have a pretty good
> oil field job right now, I would be thinking about it pretty hard myself.
There is personal profit to be made, as always, in war. Unfortunately,
even if we neglect the ethical considerations, most of this profit goes
to a very, very small percentage of "Americans." Ergo, it's a losing
proposition for most Americans.
Kim
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:17:37 -0700, Kim Whitmyre wrote:
>
>
> > There is personal profit to be made, as always, in war. Unfortunately,
> > even if we neglect the ethical considerations, most of this profit goes
> > to a very, very small percentage of "Americans." Ergo, it's a losing
> > proposition for most Americans.
>
> Possibly true, and by this same logic, since only 3000 out of 300,000,000
> people were killed on 9/11, it's probably not much to worry about. Why,
> that's only 1/10th of the number of automobile accident victims we have
> every year, and nobody raises a fuss about that.
>
> -Doug
>
And even fewer raise a fuss about the foreign policy that has, over many
years, engendered the hatred that the towers are only a symptom of. . .I
guess as long as I'm fat and happy, the rest of the world can go to hell
in a handbasket, eh?
Logic?
Kim
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 15:38:18 -0700, Kim Whitmyre wrote:
>
>
> > And even fewer raise a fuss about the foreign policy that has, over many
> > years, engendered the hatred that the towers are only a symptom of. . .I
> > guess as long as I'm fat and happy, the rest of the world can go to hell
> > in a handbasket, eh?
> >
> > Logic?
>
> Foreign policy makes no difference to radical Islam - they hate us because
> we exist and we are infidels. The attacks around the world aren't aimed
> at only the US, but also other infidels. We happen to be the most powerful
> collection of infidels and are therefore a preferred target. That is the
> logic of this war.
>
> -Doug
>
Hey Doug, I got a bridge, for you cheap! And now let's not harass the
rec.woodworking forum any longer. . .
Kim
Bruce wrote:
> In rec.woodworking
> Grandpa <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Saw a piece on TV last night where the price of wood (ply/OSB etc) is
>>going sky high because the Fed Gov is buying huge amounts to do some
>>rebuilding in Iraq. They showed a guy here (Albuquerque) who was adding
>>a room, old cost $14k, new cost with wood prices going up, $20k. They
>>interviewed a contractor who also verified the huge price increases in
>>the wood he's purchasing to build homes. Mind you, NOBODY has said
>>anything about any sort of shortage (which there will not be). They
>>said the 4x8 sheet of what they called 'wafer board' that cost $7 last
>>month was at $20 now and still climbing. I may have to hold off
>>building the storage shed I'd planned on doing. WTF is wrong with this
>>picture.
>
>
> We're the only nation that blows up countries then puts them back together
> again. Kuwait, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and now sights are
> being set on N. Korea, Iran, take your pick.. Wouldn't it be a lot less
> trouble to not blow them up in the first place?
>
> As for plywood, the demand in Iraq is NOT the reason for the increase
> according to an article posted her a few weeks ago. Search the archives.
I was simply relaying what our local news said. IMO its BS as I don't
forsee the Gov ever buying enough wood here to ship over there such that
it would increase prices 3+ fold. I agree with Leon, Oil Industry
pricing, aka creative financing and scalping.
"Jeff Clausen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Wood prices in general including softwood lumber, plywood, osb and other
> panel products have gone up since the start of the year for many reasons.
major snippage
> The average WWPA framing lumber index (the price that mills
> receive for their lumber) has been hovering near 20 year lows for the last
> several years, yet I have not seen any such reduction in prices at the
local
> lumber yards. My two cents worth.
>
> Jeff Clausen
>
> --
> To reply you need to dig the sliver out.
Away, troll...don't come around here and go spouting off with your facts.
Most people here like it better when you just say it's due to the Bush
administration's lack of a national lumber policy or that probably
Haliburton is controlling the price of wood pulp on the Board of Trade. We
don't want to hear about exchange rates and forest fires.
todd
Kim Whitmyre <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 08:00:06 -0700, Kim Whitmyre wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I just heard the Thief-in-Chief mention 87 Billion dollars. . .And
>> > most everyone else said that was just starters! It is worse!
>>
>> I heard the Congress mention 400 billion dollars for drugs for
>> everyone - including Bill Gates - And that is just for starters. It
>> is _much_ worse.
>>
>> -Doug
>>
> Rather have such for Americans than fork it over for imperial
> ambitions. . .
>
> Kim
American companies are where most of the money is being spent. That money
comes back home. Plus the final bill gets repaid with the Iraqi oil money.
The US pretty much broke even in the last Gulf War and by some accounts may
have even made some money by the time eveyone chipped in to cover their
part of the expenses.
I personally know guys that are thinking of going over there and get a
piece of the pie, specifically, going to work for Halliburton as well as
other companies, getting the oil fields lined out again. Lots of other jobs
getting the refineries and all the surface production equipment repaired.
It takes a lot to keep that equipment functioning correctly with regular
maintenance. I work on it for a living and it is a chore, believe me. With
the neglect that country's infrastructure has seen I'll bet the oil fields
are in a helluva mess.
The figures I am hearing are approching $140K and up tax free just
working as hands and pushing crews. If I didn't already have a pretty good
oil field job right now, I would be thinking about it pretty hard myself.
;-)
--
Michael Burton
Thunderbird Hardwoods
Llano, TX
mhburton at moment dot net
Silvan <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> B a r r y B u r k e J r . wrote:
>
>> Did you know that you can buy a decent four seat aircraft for less
>> than what many soccer moms pay for an SUV? <G>
>
> Dad and I just read the Popular Mechanics article talking about how
> the FAA is relaxing restrictions, and how many cheap airplanes are out
> there now...
>:)
>
> It's sort of exciting, and gets the ol' daydream motor running. OTOH,
> he went through a flying thing back when I was in high school. He
> eventually lost interest because there are almost no VFR days, and the
> other members of the club he joined were having to ditch the plane,
> rent cars and drive home (then drive back for the plane) in order to
> avoid getting stuck for some unknowable time in BFE.
>
> I've been looking at the sky and thinking about this since then, and
> he's right. Not that it really matters to me anyway. $40,000 might
> as well be $500 quadrillion for all the likelihood that I could come
> up with it.
>
I hadn't heard about prices coming down. I have been wanting a small plane
for a loooong time. Something like a Cessna 150 or 172 or the like. I have
a buddy that lives across the street from me that flys Airbus A300/600 for
Fed Ex and is also an instructor pilot. I may have to do a little more
checking on this. We have some gorgeous flying weather where I live.
--
Michael Burton
Thunderbird Hardwoods
Llano, TX
mhburton at moment dot net
"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <[email protected]> >
> Premium hit? <G>
>
> Premium here in CT is currently $1.98-$2.05. Yesterday I paid $2.01
> for my 93 octane lawn mower gas. We paid $2.99 a gallon last weekend
> for 100LL aviation gas for my buddy's plane, and that has a lot less
> taxes than "street gas".
>
> 87 octane is $1.79-$1.90.
Yeah but you live in CT, every thing there is within spittin distance.. ;~)
A typical to work and back trip is 40 miles in Houston. PLUS..!!!! All you
CT folk is rich ain't ya???? I guess we all could be in CA... LOL
todd wrote:
> "Jeff Clausen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Wood prices in general including softwood lumber, plywood, osb and other
>>panel products have gone up since the start of the year for many reasons.
>
>
> major snippage
>
>
>>The average WWPA framing lumber index (the price that mills
>>receive for their lumber) has been hovering near 20 year lows for the last
>>several years, yet I have not seen any such reduction in prices at the
>
> local
>
>>lumber yards. My two cents worth.
>>
>>Jeff Clausen
>>
>>--
>>To reply you need to dig the sliver out.
>
>
> Away, troll...don't come around here and go spouting off with your facts.
> Most people here like it better when you just say it's due to the Bush
> administration's lack of a national lumber policy or that probably
> Haliburton is controlling the price of wood pulp on the Board of Trade. We
> don't want to hear about exchange rates and forest fires.
>
> todd
>
>
I think it's because of SUVs. SUVs are polluting the whole world and
running over everybody, so there is nobody left to chop trees down.
Mike in Mystic wrote:
> haha
>
> I'm in CT, too and my wife drives 52 miles each way to work, and that's
> usually in an SUV that get's 18 mpg on a good day. :( The last 3 times
> I've filled up I had to pay over $30.
It cost me $15 to fill up my car. I'll have to fill it up again in late
October or early November.
I probably get worse mileage than that SUV because of some un-fixable
ignition problem, but I only drive an average of 18 miles a week. (Well,
to work and back anyway. I actually drive an average of 2,000 miles a
week, but that's another matter.)
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
Confirmed post number: 17826 Approximate word count: 534780
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Saw a piece on TV last night where the price of wood (ply/OSB etc) is
> going sky high because the Fed Gov is buying huge amounts to do some
> rebuilding in Iraq.
>
The article in our newspaper this morning said the Iraq purchases would
have been a momentary blip if not for other factors coinciding. I don't
remember them all, but one was that the mills had cut back production
last fall vecause of low prices so reserve supply was nil.
And then there's Isobel :-).
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
=
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:17:37 -0700, Kim Whitmyre wrote:
>
>
> > There is personal profit to be made, as always, in war. Unfortunately,
> > even if we neglect the ethical considerations, most of this profit goes
> > to a very, very small percentage of "Americans." Ergo, it's a losing
> > proposition for most Americans.
>
> Possibly true, and by this same logic, since only 3000 out of 300,000,000
> people were killed on 9/11, it's probably not much to worry about. Why,
> that's only 1/10th of the number of automobile accident victims we have
> every year, and nobody raises a fuss about that.
It's even worse. Of those 3,000 many were not Americans.
Lot's of people conveniently "forget" that.
Dennis Vogel
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 01:37:16 -0400, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Not that it really matters to me anyway. $40,000 might as well be
>$500 quadrillion for all the likelihood that I could come up with it.
That's why I'm going halves. While it's still money, 20-25k is more
in my ball park. I've done business dealings with the other guy
before, so the partnership detail is easy. My wife and I have become
accustomed to living below our means, so stuff like this is now
possible.
I've taken lessons on and off for years, as has the other guy. I was
previously renting aircraft @ $65-70 wet, plus about $25 for the
instructor, per hour. A twenty year old aircraft doesn't depreciate
very fast, so we could own it for a few years, maintain it, and still
sell it for a decent price should we choose to. Owning the thing will
allow both of us to build hours for much less money after soloing.
My partner used to think a plane was expensive compared to other
motorized toys until he rammed one of his boat out drives into some
rocks. = 8^( After that, he sat down and really did the math. Once
you buy the boat, maintain it, fuel it, launch or slip it, buy SeaTow
insurance, etc... It's not all that different.
Barry
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:56:05 -0700, Kim Whitmyre wrote:
>> I heard the Congress mention 400 billion dollars for drugs for everyone -
>> including Bill Gates - And that is just for starters. It is _much_ worse.
>>
>> -Doug
>>
> Rather have such for Americans than fork it over for imperial ambitions.
I'd rather not as I have perfectly good private drug coverage that will go the way
of the dodo bird if this passes, and with government efficiency to replace
it :-( Seems rather strange to provide taxpayer paid benefits to people who
have already provided those benefits for themselves. I'd much rather pay
the 400 billion to fight and defeat those who would harm us in their own
lairs rather than waiting for them to come to us as we know they will if
we do nothing.
-Doug
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 08:00:06 -0700, Kim Whitmyre wrote:
>
> I just heard the Thief-in-Chief mention 87 Billion dollars. . .And most
> everyone else said that was just starters! It is worse!
I heard the Congress mention 400 billion dollars for drugs for everyone -
including Bill Gates - And that is just for starters. It is _much_ worse.
-Doug
B a r r y B u r k e J r . wrote:
> Did you know that you can buy a decent four seat aircraft for less
> than what many soccer moms pay for an SUV? <G>
Dad and I just read the Popular Mechanics article talking about how the FAA
is relaxing restrictions, and how many cheap airplanes are out there now...
:)
It's sort of exciting, and gets the ol' daydream motor running. OTOH, he
went through a flying thing back when I was in high school. He eventually
lost interest because there are almost no VFR days, and the other members
of the club he joined were having to ditch the plane, rent cars and drive
home (then drive back for the plane) in order to avoid getting stuck for
some unknowable time in BFE.
I've been looking at the sky and thinking about this since then, and he's
right. Not that it really matters to me anyway. $40,000 might as well be
$500 quadrillion for all the likelihood that I could come up with it.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
Confirmed post number: 17841 Approximate word count: 535230
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:17:37 -0700, Kim Whitmyre wrote:
> There is personal profit to be made, as always, in war. Unfortunately,
> even if we neglect the ethical considerations, most of this profit goes
> to a very, very small percentage of "Americans." Ergo, it's a losing
> proposition for most Americans.
Possibly true, and by this same logic, since only 3000 out of 300,000,000
people were killed on 9/11, it's probably not much to worry about. Why,
that's only 1/10th of the number of automobile accident victims we have
every year, and nobody raises a fuss about that.
-Doug
Michael Burton wrote:
> I hadn't heard about prices coming down. I have been wanting a small plane
> for a loooong time. Something like a Cessna 150 or 172 or the like. I have
I'm just basing all of this on a four page article in Popular Mechanics this
month. It goes on about how there's a whole new generation of "sport"
aircraft that are going to be approved by the FAA soon. The Cessna 150 (or
172, I forget) is held out as an example of the old school bottom end at
$150,000, and the article talks about all the <$50,000 planes that will be
available very soon. They all look pretty dinky, mind you. Dinky but fun.
(Well, bearing in mind that, yes, I'm pretty much too much of a wuss these
days to seriously think about going more than 8' off the ground, unless I'm
climbing a tree.)
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
Confirmed post number: 17885 Approximate word count: 536550
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 17:54:13 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I bet his bills to fix that boat will be a lot less than fixing your plane
>if you crash. In the event of an accident, his survivability rate is higher
>than yours too.
Probably, that's why most pilots are much more careful than boaters.
<G>
I can get just as hurt or killed bombing my mountain bike down Mt.
Snow at 60 MPH, but I still do it.
Barry
B a r r y B u r k e J r . wrote:
> sell it for a decent price should we choose to. Owning the thing will
> allow both of us to build hours for much less money after soloing.
IIRC, under the new rules you only need 20 hours anyway. :)
More to it than hours though. Dad had 100 hours, and I don't know how many
solos, but he failed the flight test two or three times. He always failed
before he had even gotten off the ground. He was a skillful, natural
pilot, but he couldn't get the pre-flight technicalities down pat.
He had to stop flying when I wrecked Mom's car, back in high school. He
never has gotten back into it, which has been the subject of much guilt for
the last 15 year or so. ;)
> My partner used to think a plane was expensive compared to other
> motorized toys until he rammed one of his boat out drives into some
> rocks. = 8^( After that, he sat down and really did the math. Once
> you buy the boat, maintain it, fuel it, launch or slip it, buy SeaTow
> insurance, etc... It's not all that different.
Depends on what kind of boat you get too. Around here we have lakes, not
oceans. Sea faring vessles are a whole 'nother ballgame, but even bass
boats can really set you back. One of my neighbors is a 22-year-old kid
with the right good ol' boy connections to luck into a primo job. He makes
as much money as I do, has no wife, no kids, no house, no rent (lives with
his parents) and a $40,000 bass boat.
I'd rather have an airplane.
But really, if I had $40,000 to spend, I'd want a huge ass shop chock full
of big, three-phase power toys. :)
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
Confirmed post number: 17850 Approximate word count: 535500
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 02:21:36 GMT, [email protected] (Bruce) wrote:
>In rec.woodworking
>B a r r y B u r k e J r . <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> We paid $2.99 a gallon last weekend
>>for 100LL aviation gas for my buddy's plane, and that has a lot less
>
>Well, to quote a Anthony Hopkins movie line, "Never feel sorry for a man
>that owns his own plane."
Did you know that you can buy a decent four seat aircraft for less
than what many soccer moms pay for an SUV? <G>
That 35-40k plane will hold it's value much better than the SUV, as
it's already had some depreciation, and will probably outlast the SUV
to boot.
Another friend and myself are currently looking in the 45-50k range
for a plane to go halves on.
Barry
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 04:16:08 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I live in Houston,,,Premium hit $1.84 a gallon,
Premium hit? <G>
Premium here in CT is currently $1.98-$2.05. Yesterday I paid $2.01
for my 93 octane lawn mower gas. We paid $2.99 a gallon last weekend
for 100LL aviation gas for my buddy's plane, and that has a lot less
taxes than "street gas".
87 octane is $1.79-$1.90.
Barry
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:57:36 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Too often, the only thing boaters
>check is that there is enough beer in the cooler. Fortunately, that is
>starting to change and safety courses for boating are mandatory in many
>states. .
A healthy bill from SeaTow can also cause a major attitude adjustment.
Barry
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I live in Houston,,,Premium hit $1.84 a gallon, and a very large
percentage
> of the nations refineries for gasoline are here.. Never was a shortage
here
> either...
>
Yes there was! Didn't you see that fuel delivery truck broke down on the
LaPorte Freeway last week? That was the reason supply was so short for a few
minutes. Then, they let it slip that the truck was on it's way back from a
delivery. And the price immediately dropped a nickel. <G>
It's the old "any refuge in a storm" theory. "Any reason to gouge a
nickel".
--
JC from Gnat Flats, Texas
Home of the Notso OK Corral
Wood prices in general including softwood lumber, plywood, osb and other
panel products have gone up since the start of the year for many reasons.
One is that the exhange rate with the Canadian dollar has gone from $.60 to
$.73 since the first of the year. This coupled with the counter-vailing
duty has slowed the flow of lumber products into the US from Canada. The
same is true for imported lumber form Europe where the Euro has strengthened
from roughly par with the US dollar to about $1.13. Two, the southeast
timber industry has experienced a very wet spring and summer which has
affected log supply to certain mills. Third, is this summers fire season.
Many mills in the Inland Rocky Mountains on both sides of the border have
been shut out of the woods since mid July. In southern British Columbia
this combination has forced many mills to shut down or curtail. The net
effect is a dip in supply which may continue for some time. Sawmills in the
inland northwest are now able to get back to logging now that we have had
some rain and snow, but they will be playing catch-up in their log decks
between now and breakup next Spring. As far as price fixing in the industry,
I wish it were possible. I work for a sawmill in Northwest Montana. We
sell all of our product to the wholesale market as do most other sawmills
except for those that sell directly to the big box stores (i.e. the Borg).
Our only control over the price of our final product is the ability to tell
the wholesaler "NO" if we feel the price is too low and you can only do that
for so long. There are some large national wholesale companies that try to
influence the market by timing purchases and sales but the idea that the
large "evil corporations" are gouging the markets does not hold water. I
work for a small family owned sawmill so I have no affiliation to the larger
"evil corporations". In fact it has been my experience that most big
company sawmills usually kill any good market by dumping lumber at the end
of every month to keep the cash flow numbers up and the quarterly stock
prices propped up. If there has been any price gouging it has been at the
retail level. The average WWPA framing lumber index (the price that mills
receive for their lumber) has been hovering near 20 year lows for the last
several years, yet I have not seen any such reduction in prices at the local
lumber yards. My two cents worth.
Jeff Clausen
--
To reply you need to dig the sliver out.
[email protected] (Bruce) wrote:
>In rec.woodworking
>"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>A typical to work and back trip is 40 miles in Houston. PLUS..!!!!
>
>Plus is right. I drive Katy to the Astrodome area, 37 miles EACH way!!
I have to drive 33 miles, up hill both ways, to get to work ;)
Wes
--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.
Heck, we maxed at about $1.89 for low grade, premium was something around
$2.15. I think it's still about $1.75 for 87 octane.
I'm all for free markets, but it definitely makes you ponder things like
"price fixing" and "collusion" when every different gas station has prices
within $0.03 of each other and all change them at exactly the same time.
Doesn't really smell like market competition to me.
Even so, we still pay a crapload less than just about everywhere in the
world for gas, so it could be worse.
Mike
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I live in Houston,,,Premium hit $1.84 a gallon, and a very large
percentage
> of the nations refineries for gasoline are here.. Never was a shortage
here
> either...
>
>
>
"arizonabigguy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> todd wrote:
> > "Jeff Clausen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>Wood prices in general including softwood lumber, plywood, osb and other
> >>panel products have gone up since the start of the year for many
reasons.
> >
> >
> > major snippage
> >
> >
> >>The average WWPA framing lumber index (the price that mills
> >>receive for their lumber) has been hovering near 20 year lows for the
last
> >>several years, yet I have not seen any such reduction in prices at the
> >
> > local
> >
> >>lumber yards. My two cents worth.
> >>
> >>Jeff Clausen
> >>
> >>--
> >>To reply you need to dig the sliver out.
> >
> >
> > Away, troll...don't come around here and go spouting off with your
facts.
> > Most people here like it better when you just say it's due to the Bush
> > administration's lack of a national lumber policy or that probably
> > Haliburton is controlling the price of wood pulp on the Board of Trade.
We
> > don't want to hear about exchange rates and forest fires.
> >
> > todd
> >
> >
> I think it's because of SUVs. SUVs are polluting the whole world and
> running over everybody, so there is nobody left to chop trees down.
>
When I started building our new house, I told my wife it was going to be
worth a half a million bucks when i finished it. Little did I know.
--
JC from Gnat Flats, Texas
Home of the Notso OK Corral