http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/federal-pay-advantage-narrows/
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/federal-pay-advantage-narrows/
What does this have to do with the Subject line?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> How about this one instead:
>
> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-lacey-act-protectionism-through-criminalization/
http://www.science20.com/science_20/gibson_guitars_and_lacey_act_misused-82210
--
www.ewoodshop.com
-MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>On 8/13/12 12:57 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>>> On 8/13/12 12:25 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/13/2012 12:04 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/12/2012 8:59 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> How about this one instead:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-lacey-act-protectionism-through-criminalization/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.science20.com/science_20/gibson_guitars_and_lacey_act_misused-82210
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imagine that - the Obama administration, in the face of chronic high
>>>>>> unemployment, is telling a U.S. manufacturer to export jobs to India.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obama wants to be the "NEW World" leader. He has to be concerned
>>>>> about unemployment in other countries if he wants their vote. He has
>>>>> already suckered the lefties here into voting for him here, mission
>>>>> accomplished.
>>>>
>>>> I am no Obama fan, but Leon... what do you mean by wanting their vote?
>>>> People in other countries cannot vote in our elections (under republican
>>>> rules...)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Citizens of foreign countries voted a lot in the least election.
>>> They just happen to be living in this country. Lots of dead people
>>> voted, too.
>>
>> Funny, all the non-partisan voting experts can't find any evidence
>> of this (particularly the "lot" part).
>>
>>>
>>> There are many, many loopholes in the voter registration process that
>>> allows for citizens of other countries to vote in our elections. That is
>>> precisely why the Dems are against proof of citizen requirements for
>>> voter registration.
>>
>> Actually, this is completely false. Democrats want it easier for americans
>> to vote, Republicans want to make it harder for americans to vote. Please
>> name one single democrat who want to allow citizens of other countries
>> to vote? You can't.
>>
>> scott
>>
>
>Voter registration is under the jurisdiction of local election boards.
>In many places you can get registered simply by getting a driver's
>license. In many of those places, all you need to get a drivers license
>is as little as a utility bill with your name on it addressed to your
>residence. I can drive down my street and within 5 minutes, point to a
>dozen or more people driving who are not legal citizens of the US.
>
>It's funny that you can hardly do anything in the US without a valid ID,
>yet the Dems want to allow anyone to walk up to a voting booth and vote,
>without any proof they are who they say they are. Even though, there is
>very little one can do in everyday life without a valid ID, the Dems
>think it's some kind of hardship to show an ID to vote.
Very good - you've managed to sidestep the questions completely. You
neither have shown that there is a problem, nor have you shown that your
statements that "Democrat desires for foreign citizens to vote" have
any accuracy.
> Someone could go
>to my precinct, give my name and address, go into the booth and vote for
>me. This is perfectly fine with the Dems.
Please name one single democrat that believes that it is fine for
"someone could go to my precinct, give my name and address, go into the boot
and vote for me".
You can't name one because this is your strawman position, not the position
of a single democrat.
A desire to make voting easier for americans (and increasing the percentage of
eligable voters is _good_ regardless of your politics) does not equate to
being "fine" with voter fraud.
scott
On 8/12/2012 8:59 PM, Swingman wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> How about this one instead:
>>
>> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-lacey-act-protectionism-through-criminalization/
> http://www.science20.com/science_20/gibson_guitars_and_lacey_act_misused-82210
>
Imagine that - the Obama administration, in the face of chronic high
unemployment, is telling a U.S. manufacturer to export jobs to India.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 14 Aug 2012 20:51:56 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 14 Aug 2012 15:39:59 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/13/2012 2:31 PM, Han wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I find it funny that those who say that voter fraud is rampant
>>>>>> never seem to be able to get a link to established facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your kidding, or you get all your info from the government
>>>>> controlled media (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NY Times etc.)
>>>>>
>>>>>> At least not recent,
>>>>>> documented facts. I have heard the Mayor Daley etc jokes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Voter fraud is no joke, it got Franken elected to the Minnesota
>>>>> Senate and ergo socialized medicine foisted on all of the US.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please read this and you may be enlightened to why you don't get
>>>>> any "established facts". It is difficult to establish "facts" if
>>>>> you can't get the wolves to investigate their own duplicity. The
>>>>> facts that are "established" as in court convictions are not
>>>>> reported much in the lame stream media.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any doubts you may have regarding rampant voter fraud should be
>>>>> erased when you observe how ridiculously hard the crooks fight any
>>>>> attempt to enact common sense election law reforms to ensure that
>>>>> our election system is secure, accurate and transparent.
>>>>
>>>>If voter fraud is so rampant, surely you can find some convictions
>>>>...
>>>
>>> You know, Han, there is this thing called "Google" that you could
>>> use to find such information.
>>>
>>> http://specfriggintacular.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/democrats-arrested
>>> -a ndor-convicted-of-voter-fraud/
>>
>>Great link, right? Apart from the fact that there are only a few
>>people listed, out of millions (I hope) that voted, I was not claiming
>>that there is rampant voter fraud.
>
> You were claiming that it didn't exist, or three would be
> convictions...
>
>>Let the claimant show the link. That has been thrown at me, you know.
>
> Why? The facts stand for themselves. It doesn't matter who shows you
> the link. Indeed you could have found it in about five seconds. It
> was nonsensical to even ask for it.
>
>>I'll be the first to want to punish a fraudulent voter.
>
> Yet you claim it doesn't exist.
>
>>On the other hand, I became a green card holder and
>>was disappointed I couldn't vote (and didn't). But I thought it a
>>good idea to try and become a citizen, and was successful (I think in
>>1984).
>
> Tough shit! A green-card holder *shouldn't* vote!
>
>>> That aside, did you even read what he wrote? How can you claim an
>>> honest election when there are more "votes" counted than there are
>>> registered voters? When there are dead people voting. Get real,
>>> Han.
>>
>>When I tried to look up things like that, I found that there were more
>>registered voters than eligible voters in some jurisdictions.
>>Obviously that is ridiculous, and should be investigated and cleaned
>>up. The number of registered voters is usually about twice the number
>>of votes cast.
>
> But there are far more "irregularities" than that. Enough that all
> ties go to the Democrats. Funny, that.
>
>>In Holland there used to be a duty to come to a polling place with
>>a financial penalty if you didn't (they would have liked to force you
>>to vote, but they couldn't very well check whether you filled out the
>>paper form). I remember that from the few times I had to go vote, and
>>it is detailed here: <http://nlkiest.nl/achtergronden/stemplicht/>
>>Sorry, it's a Dutch page. In 1970 they dispensed with the duty to
>>come and vote. I still feel it is a citizen's duty to vote.
>
> I don't give a rat's ass what goes on in Holland.
>
>>As I mentioned before in NJ you can go and sit in the polling place
>>(after filling out a form and getting approved) and check up on voters
>>that come walking in. Not that I will go and do it, but a person
>>could.
>
> So what? Do you think you know everyone in your district? Why don't
> you have to show IDs before voting? That's *really* dumb!
I don't think I claimed there wasn't any fraud. It's a big country, you
know. And perhaps I was indeed too idealistic and naive. As you know,
there are many who say that Bush stole the election in FL in 2000, so
apparently the "fraud" isn't exclusively Democrat-inspired.
The law is rather circumspect in requiring ID when registering to vote.
Apparently if you have lived in your district since before (2000?) you
don't need as much ID as when you moved in after that date (Fed law). We
are still free enough that we don't need ID to walk about, unless there
is reasonable suspicion we committed some offense/crime. That makes the
US the only country where that is the case, since Holland submitted to EU
regs requiring ID at all times. Eventually the Big Brother is watching
you state will require ID at all times. And then the fake ID industry
will really take off.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 14 Aug 2012 20:51:56 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 14 Aug 2012 15:39:59 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 8/13/2012 2:31 PM, Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I find it funny that those who say that voter fraud is rampant
>>>>> never seem to be able to get a link to established facts.
>>>>
>>>> Your kidding, or you get all your info from the government
>>>> controlled media (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NY Times etc.)
>>>>
>>>>> At least not recent,
>>>>> documented facts. I have heard the Mayor Daley etc jokes.
>>>>
>>>> Voter fraud is no joke, it got Franken elected to the Minnesota
>>>> Senate and ergo socialized medicine foisted on all of the US.
>>>>
>>>> Please read this and you may be enlightened to why you don't get any
>>>> "established facts". It is difficult to establish "facts" if you
>>>> can't get the wolves to investigate their own duplicity. The facts
>>>> that are "established" as in court convictions are not reported much
>>>> in the lame stream media.
>>>>
>>>> Any doubts you may have regarding rampant voter fraud should be
>>>> erased when you observe how ridiculously hard the crooks fight any
>>>> attempt to enact common sense election law reforms to ensure that
>>>> our election system is secure, accurate and transparent.
>>>
>>>If voter fraud is so rampant, surely you can find some convictions ...
>>
>> You know, Han, there is this thing called "Google" that you could use
>> to find such information.
>>
>> http://specfriggintacular.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/democrats-arrested-a
>> ndor-convicted-of-voter-fraud/
>
>Great link, right? Apart from the fact that there are only a few people
>listed, out of millions (I hope) that voted, I was not claiming that
>there is rampant voter fraud.
You were claiming that it didn't exist, or three would be convictions...
>Let the claimant show the link. That has been thrown at me, you know.
Why? The facts stand for themselves. It doesn't matter who shows you the
link. Indeed you could have found it in about five seconds. It was
nonsensical to even ask for it.
>I'll be the first to want to punish a fraudulent voter.
Yet you claim it doesn't exist.
>On the other hand, I became a green card holder and
>was disappointed I couldn't vote (and didn't). But I thought it a good
>idea to try and become a citizen, and was successful (I think in 1984).
Tough shit! A green-card holder *shouldn't* vote!
>> That aside, did you even read what he wrote? How can you claim an
>> honest election when there are more "votes" counted than there are
>> registered voters? When there are dead people voting. Get real, Han.
>
>When I tried to look up things like that, I found that there were more
>registered voters than eligible voters in some jurisdictions. Obviously
>that is ridiculous, and should be investigated and cleaned up. The
>number of registered voters is usually about twice the number of votes
>cast.
But there are far more "irregularities" than that. Enough that all ties go to
the Democrats. Funny, that.
>In Holland there used to be a duty to come to a polling place with
>a financial penalty if you didn't (they would have liked to force you to
>vote, but they couldn't very well check whether you filled out the paper
>form). I remember that from the few times I had to go vote, and it is
>detailed here: <http://nlkiest.nl/achtergronden/stemplicht/> Sorry, it's
>a Dutch page. In 1970 they dispensed with the duty to come and vote. I
>still feel it is a citizen's duty to vote.
I don't give a rat's ass what goes on in Holland.
>As I mentioned before in NJ you can go and sit in the polling place
>(after filling out a form and getting approved) and check up on voters
>that come walking in. Not that I will go and do it, but a person could.
So what? Do you think you know everyone in your district? Why don't you have
to show IDs before voting? That's *really* dumb!
On 8/14/12 6:57 PM, Han wrote:
> I don't think I claimed there wasn't any fraud. It's a big country, you
> know. And perhaps I was indeed too idealistic and naive. As you know,
> there are many who say that Bush stole the election in FL in 2000, so
> apparently the "fraud" isn't exclusively Democrat-inspired.
>
Except that recounts, which you never hear about except when
fictionalized by leftist hollywood, showed that Bush won by more votes
than the first results showed.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 8/13/2012 4:14 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 08/13/2012 12:04 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 8/12/2012 8:59 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> How about this one instead:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-lacey-act-protectionism-through-criminalization/
>>>>
>>> http://www.science20.com/science_20/gibson_guitars_and_lacey_act_misused-82210
>>>
>>>
>> Imagine that - the Obama administration, in the face of chronic high
>> unemployment, is telling a U.S. manufacturer to export jobs to India.
>
> I hate to tell you this, but trade is good for everyone involved and
> labor
> is like any other good or service that can be bought and sold - it has a
> natural market price. While I dislike this administration from tip
> to tail, there is no particular reason to believe that exporting jobs
> is inherently bad.
>
I never said otherwise. I'm just pointing out a fact that is evidence
of Obama's hypocrisy.
On 8/14/2012 8:07 AM, Jack wrote:
> On 8/13/2012 1:57 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> Citizens of foreign countries voted a lot in the least election.
>>> They just happen to be living in this country. Lots of dead people
>>> voted, too.
>>
>> Funny, all the non-partisan voting experts can't find any evidence
>> of this (particularly the "lot" part).
>
> By "non-partisan" I assume you mean "Non-Democrat"
>
> There is a ton of voter fraud, including dead people, felons, fake
> people, duplicate voters. Plenty of districts have more registered
> voters than people.
>
> Moreover, the source of information does not minimize any facts
> uncovered or used.
>
> Get a clue.
>
>>> There are many, many loopholes in the voter registration process that
>>> allows for citizens of other countries to vote in our elections.
>>> That is
>>> precisely why the Dems are against proof of citizen requirements for
>>> voter registration.
>>
>> Actually, this is completely false. Democrats want it easier for
>> americans
>> to vote, Republicans want to make it harder for americans to vote.
>> Please
>> name one single democrat who want to allow citizens of other countries
>> to vote? You can't.
>
> Anyone that wants to allow anyone that walks in the voting booth to be
> able to vote, regardless of who they say they are, fits that
> description, and you can start with the leader of the democratic
> (socialist) party, Obummer, and work your way down to the local
> Marxist dog catcher.
>
The whole reason BO and Dems oppose voter identification is to make it
easier for citizens of Mexico to vote in U.S. elections, because Mexican
illegal aliens, if allowed to vote, would tend to vote Democrat, because
Dems want to shovel your and my hard-earned money out to them.
.
On 8/15/2012 5:43 AM, Jack wrote:
> On 8/14/2012 11:39 AM, Han wrote:
>> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 8/13/2012 2:31 PM, Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> I find it funny that those who say that voter fraud is rampant never
>>>> seem to be able to get a link to established facts.
>
>>> Please read this and you may be enlightened to why you don't get any
>>> "established facts".
>
> Sorry Han, I somehow left out the link to what I wanted you to read.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3dv729h
>
> Please read it, and perhaps you will get an inkling as to what sort of
> corruption is going on, and has been going on in this country.
>
> It is difficult to establish "facts" if you
>>> can't get the wolves to investigate their own duplicity. The facts
>>> that are "established" as in court convictions are not reported much
>>> in the lame stream media.
>
>> If voter fraud is so rampant, surely you can find some convictions ...
>
> A simple google search will turn up a bunch. 113 were convicted just
> in Minnesota since the last election, and if you read the article I
> posted, you should be totally amazed anyone ever gets convicted of
> voter fraud. The freaking politicians make it almost impossible to
> uncover the fraud, and when it is, the refuse to do anything about it.
> Acorn has had a slew of crooks convicted of voter fraud, but again, it
> is totally amazing that anyone ever gets convicted, considering the
> politicians do everything in their power to ignore what is going on,
> and generally refuse to do anything about it when thrown in their
> face, as the above referenced article clearly addresses.
>
That would be turning their backs on their constituents. There's no way
they would do that.
On 8/13/2012 12:25 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 8/13/2012 12:04 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 8/12/2012 8:59 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> How about this one instead:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-lacey-act-protectionism-through-criminalization/
>>>>>
>>>> http://www.science20.com/science_20/gibson_guitars_and_lacey_act_misused-82210
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Imagine that - the Obama administration, in the face of chronic high
>>> unemployment, is telling a U.S. manufacturer to export jobs to India.
>>
>> Obama wants to be the "NEW World" leader. He has to be concerned
>> about unemployment in other countries if he wants their vote. He has
>> already suckered the lefties here into voting for him here, mission
>> accomplished.
>
> I am no Obama fan, but Leon... what do you mean by wanting their vote?
> People in other countries cannot vote in our elections (under republican
> rules...)
>
Perhaps you missed my first sentence. He wants to be the "New World"
leader. If you want to be the leader of the world you have get more
than the USA votes. His sites are not only set on the USA.
In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
> Perhaps you missed my first sentence. He wants to be the "New World"
> leader. If you want to be the leader of the world you have get more
> than the USA votes. His sites are not only set on the USA.
Somehow I think Bilderberg doesn't want Obama anywhere near power.
-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 8/13/12 12:57 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>>> On 8/13/12 12:25 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/13/2012 12:04 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/12/2012 8:59 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> How about this one instead:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-lacey-act-protectionism-throu
>>>>>>>> gh-criminalization/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.science20.com/science_20/gibson_guitars_and_lacey_act_
>>>>>>> misused-82210
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imagine that - the Obama administration, in the face of chronic
>>>>>> high unemployment, is telling a U.S. manufacturer to export jobs
>>>>>> to India.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obama wants to be the "NEW World" leader. He has to be concerned
>>>>> about unemployment in other countries if he wants their vote. He
>>>>> has already suckered the lefties here into voting for him here,
>>>>> mission accomplished.
>>>>
>>>> I am no Obama fan, but Leon... what do you mean by wanting their
>>>> vote? People in other countries cannot vote in our elections (under
>>>> republican rules...)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Citizens of foreign countries voted a lot in the least election.
>>> They just happen to be living in this country. Lots of dead people
>>> voted, too.
>>
>> Funny, all the non-partisan voting experts can't find any evidence
>> of this (particularly the "lot" part).
>>
>>>
>>> There are many, many loopholes in the voter registration process
>>> that allows for citizens of other countries to vote in our
>>> elections. That is precisely why the Dems are against proof of
>>> citizen requirements for voter registration.
>>
>> Actually, this is completely false. Democrats want it easier for
>> americans to vote, Republicans want to make it harder for americans
>> to vote. Please name one single democrat who want to allow citizens
>> of other countries to vote? You can't.
>>
>> scott
>>
>
> Voter registration is under the jurisdiction of local election boards.
> In many places you can get registered simply by getting a driver's
> license. In many of those places, all you need to get a drivers
> license is as little as a utility bill with your name on it addressed
> to your residence. I can drive down my street and within 5 minutes,
> point to a dozen or more people driving who are not legal citizens of
> the US.
>
> It's funny that you can hardly do anything in the US without a valid
> ID, yet the Dems want to allow anyone to walk up to a voting booth and
> vote, without any proof they are who they say they are. Even though,
> there is very little one can do in everyday life without a valid ID,
> the Dems think it's some kind of hardship to show an ID to vote.
> Someone could go to my precinct, give my name and address, go into the
> booth and vote for me. This is perfectly fine with the Dems.
Here in Bergen County NJ you have to register to vote at least 21 days
prior to election. The form states you swear that you are a US citizen.
There are also forms for challengers who need to be filled out 14 days
prior to election and sit with the voter checkers and can challenge a
voter's credentials. I have never seen it done, but then anyone can
recognize me as the most legitimate and innocent Democratic voter around
...
I find it funny that those who say that voter fraud is rampant never seem
to be able to get a link to established facts. At least not recent,
documented facts. I have heard the Mayor Daley etc jokes.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:32:37 -0700, Mike M
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:20:13 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I call BULLSHIT on that one, Han. With so many people out of work
>>> right now, I'd bet not one of those jobs went empty for very long if
>>> we were to finally deport all the illegals.
>>
>>Not so sure Larry. There have been more times when I've hears "i would not
>>work for that wage", or "I would not do that", than would cause me to
>>believe that the unemployment roles are filled with people willing to do
>>that agricultural work. In fact - if that were the case, those people could
>>be right at work besides the migrant workers even as we speak. How many
>>unemployed people have you heard say that they would take those crop jobs?
>>I am calling BULLSHIT on your comment.
>>
>>>
>>> 'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
>>> only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
>>> particular line of expertise. After 6 months (or less?), they should
>>> be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple days
>>> training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles. Unlimited
>>> unemployment checks breed worse things. Get 'em off their asses!
>>
>Basically I agree with you, but hopefully some fairness should apply.
>Try to put yourself in their situation. Some traumatic medical
>condition has left you unable to do your former job, is it fair to go
>make you pick crops for minimum wage. I don't see a lot of us on this
>group surviving many days of agricultural work at our age.
You totally overlooked my qualification there. I said "which they
qualify for", meaning that neither you 90 year olds nor the 1-legged
folks have to pick cotton...much.
--
Make awkward sexual advances, not war.
"<<<__ Bøb __>>>" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
>> I find it funny that those who say that voter fraud is rampant never
>> seem to be able to get a link to established facts. At least not
>> recent, documented facts. I have heard the Mayor Daley etc jokes.
>>
>
> You have obviously been unaware of ACORN and their Voter Registration
> antics of the last few elections ...
>
> I lived in Chicago for 30 years ... believe me ... the Mayor Daley
> comments ARE NOT JOKES !!! Ask ANY retired City Employee about their
> feelings ... most will tell you that, at least now they can vote their
> values ... NOT for the Demoncrats just to keep a job.
Well, I do not see anything wrong with encouraging people who have the
right to vote to indeed do so. Obviously I am very much against people
who do not have that right to do so. What fraction of ACORN recruiters
were not on the up and up, I don't know. They and their recruits should
have been challenged. On the other hand, we lived for a while in Queens,
NY, where residents (whether or not they were citizens) had a limited
right to vote, I recall for school elections.
As I said, there are forms to be filled out, but there is here in NJ a
definite mechanism to challenge people's voting qualifications. As it
should be.
Sometimes I think there should be an intelligence test for voters,
because the shit that flies around at election times is beyond belief.
And people ARE influenced by that shit, from either side.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On 8/13/2012 2:31 PM, Han wrote:
>
>> I find it funny that those who say that voter fraud is rampant never
>> seem to be able to get a link to established facts.
>
> Your kidding, or you get all your info from the government controlled
> media (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NY Times etc.)
>
>> At least not recent,
>> documented facts. I have heard the Mayor Daley etc jokes.
>
> Voter fraud is no joke, it got Franken elected to the Minnesota Senate
> and ergo socialized medicine foisted on all of the US.
>
> Please read this and you may be enlightened to why you don't get any
> "established facts". It is difficult to establish "facts" if you
> can't get the wolves to investigate their own duplicity. The facts
> that are "established" as in court convictions are not reported much
> in the lame stream media.
>
> Any doubts you may have regarding rampant voter fraud should be erased
> when you observe how ridiculously hard the crooks fight any attempt to
> enact common sense election law reforms to ensure that our election
> system is secure, accurate and transparent.
If voter fraud is so rampant, surely you can find some convictions ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 18:42:32 -0600, Just Wondering
>That's a result of supply and demand. If the crops had to come in, and
>the illegals were not there to do the job, farmers would have to pay
>what the market demanded for their labor costs. Which would make your
>and my grocery bill that much higher, but that's another story.
And worse than that, a number of those farmers might go out of
business because they couldn't make enough profit ~ resulting in even
higher prices for the consumer.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:56:44 +0000, Han wrote:
>>
>>> My point is that many
>>> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are
>>> paid insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make
>>> everything more expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion
>>> is that more income equality would benefit our society.
>>
>>I've occasionally wondered if it wouldn't be more equitable to pay
>>workers based on how well they do a job, not on what the job is.
>>
>>There are people who excel in their jobs, whether that be clerks,
>>engineers, physicians, or dogcatchers. All those jobs are essential.
>>Maybe the top performers should all be paid the same?
>
> Again, why would I bust my butt to do a difficult (impossible for
> others, even) job when I can be the best Wallyworld greeter in the
> world without breaking a sweat?
>
>>Yeah, I know - it's a utopian fantasy :-).
>
> No, simply a dumb idea. Why do you want the government, or any third
> party, to get between an employer and employee (both assumed to be
> adults). Can't we just let employers and employees decide for
> themselves? ...or is that too much like freedom?
I would like to reward effort and capabilities/knowledge. Not the tricks
used to get up to a certain level. The Peter Principle has been observed
... Now do we keep giving Peter "merit" increases (ie increases over the
change in cost of living)?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 8/15/12 8:01 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 18:42:32 -0600, Just Wondering
>> That's a result of supply and demand. If the crops had to come in, and
>> the illegals were not there to do the job, farmers would have to pay
>> what the market demanded for their labor costs. Which would make your
>> and my grocery bill that much higher, but that's another story.
>
> And worse than that, a number of those farmers might go out of
> business because they couldn't make enough profit ~ resulting in even
> higher prices for the consumer.
>
They already don't make enough money which is why we subsidize them.
I don't know about you, but I don't need a artificially low priced can
of corn.
We're paying the higher price already, through our taxes, so why not
just pay a buck a can and lower our taxes. Oh that's right, once the
government takes your money, there's no going back.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:56:44 +0000, Han wrote:
>
>> My point is that many
>> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are paid
>> insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make everything more
>> expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion is that more income
>> equality would benefit our society.
>
>I've occasionally wondered if it wouldn't be more equitable to pay
>workers based on how well they do a job, not on what the job is.
>
>There are people who excel in their jobs, whether that be clerks,
>engineers, physicians, or dogcatchers. All those jobs are essential.
>Maybe the top performers should all be paid the same?
Again, why would I bust my butt to do a difficult (impossible for others,
even) job when I can be the best Wallyworld greeter in the world without
breaking a sweat?
>Yeah, I know - it's a utopian fantasy :-).
No, simply a dumb idea. Why do you want the government, or any third party,
to get between an employer and employee (both assumed to be adults). Can't we
just let employers and employees decide for themselves? ...or is that too
much like freedom?
Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On 8/13/2012 1:57 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> Citizens of foreign countries voted a lot in the least election.
>>> They just happen to be living in this country. Lots of dead people
>>> voted, too.
>>
>> Funny, all the non-partisan voting experts can't find any evidence
>> of this (particularly the "lot" part).
>
> By "non-partisan" I assume you mean "Non-Democrat"
>
> There is a ton of voter fraud, including dead people, felons, fake
> people, duplicate voters. Plenty of districts have more registered
> voters than people.
>
> Moreover, the source of information does not minimize any facts
> uncovered or used.
>
> Get a clue.
>
>>> There are many, many loopholes in the voter registration process
>>> that allows for citizens of other countries to vote in our
>>> elections. That is precisely why the Dems are against proof of
>>> citizen requirements for voter registration.
>>
>> Actually, this is completely false. Democrats want it easier for
>> americans to vote, Republicans want to make it harder for americans
>> to vote. Please name one single democrat who want to allow citizens
>> of other countries to vote? You can't.
>
> Anyone that wants to allow anyone that walks in the voting booth to be
> able to vote, regardless of who they say they are, fits that
> description, and you can start with the leader of the democratic
> (socialist) party, Obummer, and work your way down to the local
> Marxist dog catcher.
As I said before, there are laws that should prevent voter fraud. If
there were everywhere as there is here in NJ, a mechanism by which a
voter's right to vote could be challenged, the actual voter fraud could
rather easily be eliminated. The apparent fact (??) that voter
registration documents are not up to date is terrible, but it is not at
all evidence of actual fraud - only of a potential for fraud.
If I leave my door unlocked, I make it easy for an unauthorized person to
enter my home. It doesn't prove someone did enter my home.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On 8/14/2012 11:39 AM, Han wrote:
>> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 8/13/2012 2:31 PM, Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> I find it funny that those who say that voter fraud is rampant
>>>> never seem to be able to get a link to established facts.
>
>>> Please read this and you may be enlightened to why you don't get any
>>> "established facts".
>
> Sorry Han, I somehow left out the link to what I wanted you to read.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3dv729h
>
> Please read it, and perhaps you will get an inkling as to what sort of
> corruption is going on, and has been going on in this country.
>
> It is difficult to establish "facts" if you
>>> can't get the wolves to investigate their own duplicity. The facts
>>> that are "established" as in court convictions are not reported much
>>> in the lame stream media.
>
>> If voter fraud is so rampant, surely you can find some convictions
>> ...
>
> A simple google search will turn up a bunch. 113 were convicted just
> in Minnesota since the last election, and if you read the article I
> posted, you should be totally amazed anyone ever gets convicted of
> voter fraud.
> The freaking politicians make it almost impossible to uncover the
> fraud, and when it is, the refuse to do anything about it. Acorn has
> had a slew of crooks convicted of voter fraud, but again, it is
> totally amazing that anyone ever gets convicted, considering the
> politicians do everything in their power to ignore what is going on,
> and generally refuse to do anything about it when thrown in their
> face, as the above referenced article clearly addresses.
As you might have gathered by now, I am NOT condoning any kind of voter
fraud. But from a cursory reading shows a number of frauds in the 100
range (or did I read wrong?). Of the 5.3 million people in Minnesota
some 3 million are registered voters, according to state figures
http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=531
I applaud such a great participation, especially the great turnout (near
80% in 2008). So how much difference could fraud on this scale have
made? Zero fraud is what we should strive for, but a problem should be
addressed in proportion to its severity.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Aug 15, 2:08=A0pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8/15/2012 5:43 AM, Jack wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8/14/2012 11:39 AM, Han wrote:
> >> Jack <[email protected]> wrote innews:[email protected]:
>
> >>> On 8/13/2012 2:31 PM, Han wrote:
>
> >>>> I find it funny that those who say that voter fraud is rampant never
> >>>> seem to be able to get a link to established facts.
>
> >>> Please read this and you may be enlightened to why you don't get any
> >>> "established facts".
>
> > Sorry Han, I somehow left out the link to what I wanted you to read.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/3dv729h
>
> > Please read it, and perhaps you will get an inkling as to what sort of
> > corruption is going on, and has been going on in this country.
>
> > It is difficult to establish "facts" if you
> >>> can't get the wolves to investigate their own duplicity. The facts
> >>> that are "established" as in court convictions are not reported much
> >>> in the lame stream media.
>
> >> If voter fraud is so rampant, surely you can find some convictions ...
>
> > A simple google search will turn up a bunch. =A0113 were convicted just
> > in Minnesota since the last election, and if you read the article I
> > posted, you should be totally amazed anyone ever gets convicted of
> > voter fraud. =A0The freaking politicians make it almost impossible to
> > uncover the fraud, and when it is, the refuse to do anything about it.
> > Acorn has had a slew of crooks convicted of voter fraud, but again, it
> > is totally amazing that anyone ever gets convicted, considering the
> > politicians do everything in their power to ignore what is going on,
> > and generally refuse to do anything about it when thrown in their
> > face, as the above referenced article clearly addresses.
>
> That would be turning their backs on their constituents. =A0There's no wa=
y
> they would do that.
No one cares about the self-centered, moronic comments of an absolute
nobody who is a few beers short of a six pack. Just shy of 60 years
old, how come you are are already suffering from age-related dementia?
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 09:21:21 -0500, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 08/13/2012 08:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:14:48 -0500, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/13/2012 12:04 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 8/12/2012 8:59 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> How about this one instead:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-lacey-act-protectionism-through-criminalization/
>>>>> http://www.science20.com/science_20/gibson_guitars_and_lacey_act_misused-82210
>>>>>
>>>> Imagine that - the Obama administration, in the face of chronic high unemployment, is telling a U.S. manufacturer to export jobs to India.
>>>
>>> I hate to tell you this, but trade is good for everyone involved and labor
>>> is like any other good or service that can be bought and sold - it has a
>>> natural market price. While I dislike this administration from tip
>>> to tail, there is no particular reason to believe that exporting jobs
>>> is inherently bad.
>>>
>>> What IS inherently bad is when government uses its
>>> considerable force to *distort* the value of labor, say, for example,
>>> preserving the compensation of UAW auto workers while the rest of us
>>> experience a diminishing real incomes. Markets work, fiddling with tehm
>>> does not.
>>
>> You don't think that suggesting that an employer export jobs with the threat
>> of imprisonment isn't a distortion the labor market?
>>
>>
>
>I am not suggesting that at all because, obviously, it is a distortion.
>But why should this surprise anyone? Every special interest group
>in the country goes trotting off to get special treatment. In this
>case, the tree huggers won one...
No, the Democratic Party won one.
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:46:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 8/13/12 1:26 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>>> On 8/13/12 12:57 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>> On 8/13/12 12:25 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/13/2012 12:04 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2012 8:59 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> How about this one instead:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-lacey-act-protectionism-through-criminalization/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.science20.com/science_20/gibson_guitars_and_lacey_act_misused-82210
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Imagine that - the Obama administration, in the face of chronic high
>>>>>>>> unemployment, is telling a U.S. manufacturer to export jobs to India.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obama wants to be the "NEW World" leader. He has to be concerned
>>>>>>> about unemployment in other countries if he wants their vote. He has
>>>>>>> already suckered the lefties here into voting for him here, mission
>>>>>>> accomplished.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am no Obama fan, but Leon... what do you mean by wanting their vote?
>>>>>> People in other countries cannot vote in our elections (under republican
>>>>>> rules...)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Citizens of foreign countries voted a lot in the least election.
>>>>> They just happen to be living in this country. Lots of dead people
>>>>> voted, too.
>>>>
>>>> Funny, all the non-partisan voting experts can't find any evidence
>>>> of this (particularly the "lot" part).
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are many, many loopholes in the voter registration process that
>>>>> allows for citizens of other countries to vote in our elections. That is
>>>>> precisely why the Dems are against proof of citizen requirements for
>>>>> voter registration.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, this is completely false. Democrats want it easier for americans
>>>> to vote, Republicans want to make it harder for americans to vote. Please
>>>> name one single democrat who want to allow citizens of other countries
>>>> to vote? You can't.
>>>>
>>>> scott
>>>>
>>>
>>> Voter registration is under the jurisdiction of local election boards.
>>> In many places you can get registered simply by getting a driver's
>>> license. In many of those places, all you need to get a drivers license
>>> is as little as a utility bill with your name on it addressed to your
>>> residence. I can drive down my street and within 5 minutes, point to a
>>> dozen or more people driving who are not legal citizens of the US.
>>>
>>> It's funny that you can hardly do anything in the US without a valid ID,
>>> yet the Dems want to allow anyone to walk up to a voting booth and vote,
>>> without any proof they are who they say they are. Even though, there is
>>> very little one can do in everyday life without a valid ID, the Dems
>>> think it's some kind of hardship to show an ID to vote.
>>
>> Very good - you've managed to sidestep the questions completely. You
>> neither have shown that there is a problem, nor have you shown that your
>> statements that "Democrat desires for foreign citizens to vote" have
>> any accuracy.
>>
>
>Two words: Al Franken. Only in his case, it's turning out he got
>elected by felons.
Three letters: JFK Except he got elected by the Chicago political machine.
Same difference. The more things change...
>>> Someone could go
>>> to my precinct, give my name and address, go into the booth and vote for
>>> me. This is perfectly fine with the Dems.
>>
>> Please name one single democrat that believes that it is fine for
>> "someone could go to my precinct, give my name and address, go into the boot
>> and vote for me".
>>
>> You can't name one because this is your strawman position, not the position
>> of a single democrat.
>>
>> A desire to make voting easier for americans (and increasing the percentage of
>> eligable voters is _good_ regardless of your politics) does not equate to
>> being "fine" with voter fraud.
>>
>> scott
>>
>
>
>If Dems don't don't have any desire to require ID for voting, and in
>fact, fight all attempts to require it, what else does that say than they
>are ok with fraud. What legal citizen in this country does not already
>have a valid ID? And if they don't, well gee, they only have 2 years
>between election to obtain one. But no, that's a hardship.
An ID is already a requirement in this country. An ID is required to go into
a courtroom, or heaven forbid, the Capitol. I don't see the left whining
about that. The states that do require ID to vote make it trivial to get an
ID, if one doesn't already have one. They'll come to you. The left still
whines. It really is obvious that they don't want an honest election.
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:14:48 -0500, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 08/13/2012 12:04 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 8/12/2012 8:59 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> How about this one instead:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-lacey-act-protectionism-through-criminalization/
>>> http://www.science20.com/science_20/gibson_guitars_and_lacey_act_misused-82210
>>>
>> Imagine that - the Obama administration, in the face of chronic high unemployment, is telling a U.S. manufacturer to export jobs to India.
>
>I hate to tell you this, but trade is good for everyone involved and labor
>is like any other good or service that can be bought and sold - it has a
>natural market price. While I dislike this administration from tip
>to tail, there is no particular reason to believe that exporting jobs
>is inherently bad.
>
>What IS inherently bad is when government uses its
>considerable force to *distort* the value of labor, say, for example,
>preserving the compensation of UAW auto workers while the rest of us
>experience a diminishing real incomes. Markets work, fiddling with tehm
>does not.
You don't think that suggesting that an employer export jobs with the threat
of imprisonment isn't a distortion the labor market?
-MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>On 8/13/12 12:25 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> On 8/13/2012 12:04 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 8/12/2012 8:59 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> How about this one instead:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-lacey-act-protectionism-through-criminalization/
>>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.science20.com/science_20/gibson_guitars_and_lacey_act_misused-82210
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Imagine that - the Obama administration, in the face of chronic high
>>>> unemployment, is telling a U.S. manufacturer to export jobs to India.
>>>
>>> Obama wants to be the "NEW World" leader. He has to be concerned
>>> about unemployment in other countries if he wants their vote. He has
>>> already suckered the lefties here into voting for him here, mission
>>> accomplished.
>>
>> I am no Obama fan, but Leon... what do you mean by wanting their vote?
>> People in other countries cannot vote in our elections (under republican
>> rules...)
>>
>
>Citizens of foreign countries voted a lot in the least election.
>They just happen to be living in this country. Lots of dead people
>voted, too.
Funny, all the non-partisan voting experts can't find any evidence
of this (particularly the "lot" part).
>
>There are many, many loopholes in the voter registration process that
>allows for citizens of other countries to vote in our elections. That is
>precisely why the Dems are against proof of citizen requirements for
>voter registration.
Actually, this is completely false. Democrats want it easier for americans
to vote, Republicans want to make it harder for americans to vote. Please
name one single democrat who want to allow citizens of other countries
to vote? You can't.
scott
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 15 Aug 2012 11:13:04 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 15 Aug 2012 00:09:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great link, right? Apart from the fact that there are only a few
>>>>>> people listed, out of millions (I hope) that voted, I was not
>>>>>> claiming that there is rampant voter fraud. Let the claimant
>>>>>> show the link. That has been thrown at me, you know. I'll be
>>>>>> the first to want to punish a fraudulent voter. On the other
>>>>>> hand, I became a green card holder and was disappointed I
>>>>>> couldn't vote (and didn't). But I thought it a good idea to try
>>>>>> and become a citizen, and was successful (I think in 1984).
>>>>>>
>>>>> In some few jurisdictions, you CAN vote for local offices. It is a
>>>>> federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal office.
>>>>
>>>>That is correct, and the best way to phrase it. You have to draw
>>>>the line somewhere and I agree that green card holders should
>>>>naturalize first. And learn real English. It would help.
>>>
>>> OMG! That's quite illiberal of you. ;-)
>>
>>Well, it's me :)
>>
>>> There is no shortage of candidates for citizenship. Fluent English,
>>> both written and oral, should be a requirement for a green card.
>>
>>I forget what the requirements for the green card were in my (special)
>>case. The "interview" by the examiner was cute. Do you read a
>>newspaper? which? how often? (This was 1984, before the internet,
>>basically). I know you can guess my answers from Nassau county, NY :)
>
> NY Post, right?
Wrong, and you knew that :)
>>>>Such as that nice older
>>>>lady who didn't understand <erased for privacy at the doctor's
>>>>office>. Too many around here who (not that) only speak Russian,
>>>>Ukranian or Spanish.
>>>
>>> It's not just "around here" (though the languages vary).
>>
>>It's quite common, then.
>
> Too. Although, around here at work it's usually Japanese (I work for
> a Japanese company who's off-shored work here). ;-)
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:26:11 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Jack wrote:
>>
>> That's true only because illegals would not be around to take the
>> jobs. I could sell cars cheap if I could pay illegals $4.00 an hour
>> to build them.
>
>Robots build cars today. At considerably less than $4/hr.
Not sure that's true after amortizing the costs.
>In the case of agriculture, the difference is not between $5/hr and $7.25
>(if you insist agricultural workers come under the minimum wage). The
>difference is between $5/hr and nothing!
>
>At some point in the wage scale, it is cheaper to do away with much of the
>manual labor and emply a (admittedly expensive) machine. Obviously there are
>harvesters for wheat and corn, but I've seen harvesters for nuts, tomatoes,
>and oranges.
At $8/hr for labor, you will.
>I've seen a machine that automatically washes, bags, and boxes lettuce. In
>this instance, stoop workers cut the lettuce and pitch it into the machine,
>which is covering 10-12 rows at a time, with the laborers following along
>behind.
>
>This lettuce gizmo has to have cut the work, and the amount of labor,
>required by 80%.
>
On 15 Aug 2012 11:13:04 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 15 Aug 2012 00:09:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Great link, right? Apart from the fact that there are only a few
>>>>> people listed, out of millions (I hope) that voted, I was not
>>>>> claiming that there is rampant voter fraud. Let the claimant show
>>>>> the link. That has been thrown at me, you know. I'll be the first
>>>>> to want to punish a fraudulent voter. On the other hand, I became
>>>>> a green card holder and was disappointed I couldn't vote (and
>>>>> didn't). But I thought it a good idea to try and become a citizen,
>>>>> and was successful (I think in 1984).
>>>>>
>>>> In some few jurisdictions, you CAN vote for local offices. It is a
>>>> federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal office.
>>>
>>>That is correct, and the best way to phrase it. You have to draw the
>>>line somewhere and I agree that green card holders should naturalize
>>>first. And learn real English. It would help.
>>
>> OMG! That's quite illiberal of you. ;-)
>
>Well, it's me :)
>
>> There is no shortage of candidates for citizenship. Fluent English,
>> both written and oral, should be a requirement for a green card.
>
>I forget what the requirements for the green card were in my (special)
>case. The "interview" by the examiner was cute. Do you read a
>newspaper? which? how often? (This was 1984, before the internet,
>basically). I know you can guess my answers from Nassau county, NY :)
NY Post, right?
>>>Such as that nice older
>>>lady who didn't understand <erased for privacy at the doctor's
>>>office>. Too many around here who (not that) only speak Russian,
>>>Ukranian or Spanish.
>>
>> It's not just "around here" (though the languages vary).
>
>It's quite common, then.
Too. Although, around here at work it's usually Japanese (I work for a
Japanese company who's off-shored work here). ;-)
"<<<__ Bøb __>>>" wrote:
>> I find it funny that those who say that voter fraud is rampant never
>> seem to be able to get a link to established facts. At least not
>> recent, documented facts. I have heard the Mayor Daley etc jokes.
>>
>
> You have obviously been unaware of ACORN and their Voter Registration
> antics of the last few elections ...
>
> I lived in Chicago for 30 years ... believe me ... the Mayor Daley
> comments ARE NOT JOKES !!! Ask ANY retired City Employee about their
> feelings ... most will tell you that, at least now they can vote their
> values ... NOT for the Demoncrats just to keep a job.
Hey Bob - if you are going to quote previous posters in your replies (which
is the right thing to do...), then at least include the poster and not just
the text, so that it is clear whose comments you are replying to.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Leon wrote:
> On 8/13/2012 12:04 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 8/12/2012 8:59 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> How about this one instead:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-lacey-act-protectionism-through-criminalization/
>>>>
>>> http://www.science20.com/science_20/gibson_guitars_and_lacey_act_misused-82210
>>>
>>>
>> Imagine that - the Obama administration, in the face of chronic high
>> unemployment, is telling a U.S. manufacturer to export jobs to India.
>
> Obama wants to be the "NEW World" leader. He has to be concerned
> about unemployment in other countries if he wants their vote. He has
> already suckered the lefties here into voting for him here, mission
> accomplished.
I am no Obama fan, but Leon... what do you mean by wanting their vote?
People in other countries cannot vote in our elections (under republican
rules...)
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 8/15/2012 1:37 PM, basilisk wrote:
>
>> I think that much unemployment or underemployment stems from
>> insufficient wages. But then, we have gotten used to cheap food and
>> other things cheap, so we're not willing to pay what we in all
>> likelihood should. I agree that people should take a job, almost any
>> job once their unemployment runs out. Who (OTOH) is in charge of
>> generating jobs for those whose prior jobs have disappeared? All this
>> is hugely easy for me to say, because I don't need a job anymore ...
>
> Who is John Galt?
>
> basilisk
Appropriate question...
On 15 Aug 2012 21:46:57 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Just Wondering <[email protected]> writes:
>>On 8/15/2012 12:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>
>>>> 'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
>>>> only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
>>>> particular line of expertise.
>>> Either you don't know a damned thing about unemployment, or things must run
>>> very differently out there than they do here in NY.
>>>
>>>> After 6 months (or less?), they should
>>>> be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple days
>>>> training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles. Unlimited
>>>> unemployment checks breed worse things. Get 'em off their asses!
>>> Yeah - sounds good to spout that kind of shit when you are talking about
>>> other people. You are being an ass Larry.
>>>
>>What is your proposal? Do you have some other means to induce those
>>folk to find productive work?
>
> You seem to be under the somewhat mistaken assumption that "those folk"
> aren't doing everything in their power to _find_ work.
>
>>If so, how would you do it? If not, do
>>you propose to force Larry and me through our taxes to support those
>>people indefinitely while they sit home and watch TV all day?
>
> You've a seriously warped understanding of the unemployed.
>
> You also seem to be unaware of the fact that unemployment insurance
> is not indefinite, nor is welfare.
>
> You seem to be one of the lucky ones that hasn't lost a job and found
> it difficult to find another. My SO sells capital medical equipment to
> hospitals and clinics (MRI, CT, XRay, etc). She lost her job over 18
> months ago now[*], and cannot find another in that field, in general medical
> device sales, or in other non-related sales opportunities. She spends
> 6 to 8 hours daily responding to want-ads, on-line resume farms, every
> medical device company in the western half of the US, and is frankly
> miserable about the whole thing.
>
> Telling someone who has spent 20 years in medical device sales to go
> pick tomatoes is the type of republican lack of respect for the individual
> that is characteristic of the modern republican politician.
>
> [*] company went out of business.
Picking tomatoes is honorable work that pays real dollars.
basilisk
Just Wondering wrote:
> That's a result of supply and demand. If the crops had to come in,
> and the illegals were not there to do the job, farmers would have to
> pay what the market demanded for their labor costs. Which would make
> your and my grocery bill that much higher, but that's another story.
Agreed on that point, but that is a different scenario. It's not what
exists now. So - while we agree on what you say above, it's a bit removed
from what we were previously discussing.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 08/15/2012 10:47 AM, Han wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 15 Aug 2012 12:51:07 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 8/14/2012 7:49 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>> It is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal
>>>> office.
>>>>
>>>> It's a federal crime to break into our country and be here
>>>> illegally, and the Feds ignore that crime as well...
>>>
>>> Agriculture as we know it would cease if we didn't have illegal aliens
>>> harvesting ... Guess who hires them
>>
>> It wouldn't cease at all. It might get more expensive, or, *perhaps*
>> Congress could come up with some great idea to allow *legal* seasonal
>> workers. Legalizing and regulating; what a concept. Nah, then it
>> would be too hard to get them to vote.
>
> Yes it would get much more expensive. Much more equitable to the workers
> as well. And I would be hugely in favor of legalizing immigrant workers,
> of course with some regulation. That's how I got here after all. Fill
> out the paperwork ...
>
Tall fences, wide gates.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
On 8/15/2012 12:20 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> I call BULLSHIT on that one, Han. With so many people out of work
>> right now, I'd bet not one of those jobs went empty for very long if
>> we were to finally deport all the illegals.
> Not so sure Larry. There have been more times when I've hears "i would not
> work for that wage", or "I would not do that", than would cause me to
> believe that the unemployment roles are filled with people willing to do
> that agricultural work. In fact - if that were the case, those people could
> be right at work besides the migrant workers even as we speak. How many
> unemployed people have you heard say that they would take those crop jobs?
> I am calling BULLSHIT on your comment.
There's a geographical disconnect on that comparison. Most of the
unemployed live in cities. Most of the agricultural jobs are out in the
country. There's no easy way physically for the urban unemployed to get
to and from the fields.
But without illegal aliens doing the low-paying urban jobs (fast food,
janitorial, etc.), the urban unemployed could take those jobs.
>> 'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
>> only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
>> particular line of expertise. After 6 months (or less?), they should
>> be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple days
>> training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles. Unlimited
>> unemployment checks breed worse things. Get 'em off their asses!
>
On 8/15/2012 12:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> 'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
>> only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
>> particular line of expertise.
> Either you don't know a damned thing about unemployment, or things must run
> very differently out there than they do here in NY.
>
>> After 6 months (or less?), they should
>> be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple days
>> training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles. Unlimited
>> unemployment checks breed worse things. Get 'em off their asses!
> Yeah - sounds good to spout that kind of shit when you are talking about
> other people. You are being an ass Larry.
>
What is your proposal? Do you have some other means to induce those
folk to find productive work? If so, how would you do it? If not, do
you propose to force Larry and me through our taxes to support those
people indefinitely while they sit home and watch TV all day?
On 8/15/2012 4:33 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 8/15/2012 12:20 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>
>>>> I call BULLSHIT on that one, Han. With so many people out of work
>>>> right now, I'd bet not one of those jobs went empty for very long if
>>>> we were to finally deport all the illegals.
>>> Not so sure Larry. There have been more times when I've hears "i
>>> would not work for that wage", or "I would not do that", than would
>>> cause me to believe that the unemployment roles are filled with
>>> people willing to do that agricultural work. In fact - if that were
>>> the case, those people could be right at work besides the migrant
>>> workers even as we speak. How many unemployed people have you heard
>>> say that they would take those crop jobs? I am calling BULLSHIT on
>>> your comment.
>> There's a geographical disconnect on that comparison. Most of the
>> unemployed live in cities. Most of the agricultural jobs are out in
>> the country. There's no easy way physically for the urban unemployed
>> to get to and from the fields.
> Correct - but that's only because most of the population is centered in and
> around cities. I contend that even in rural areas, where unemployment is
> high, there are not lines of people trying to get that kind of job.
>
>
>> But without illegal aliens doing the low-paying urban jobs (fast food,
>> janitorial, etc.), the urban unemployed could take those jobs.
>>
> Could - yes. Would - I believe... not so much. Part of the reason that
> those illegals can get those jobs is because legals here did not take them.
>
>
That's a result of supply and demand. If the crops had to come in, and
the illegals were not there to do the job, farmers would have to pay
what the market demanded for their labor costs. Which would make your
and my grocery bill that much higher, but that's another story.
Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> I call BULLSHIT on that one, Han. With so many people out of work
> right now, I'd bet not one of those jobs went empty for very long if
> we were to finally deport all the illegals.
Not so sure Larry. There have been more times when I've hears "i would not
work for that wage", or "I would not do that", than would cause me to
believe that the unemployment roles are filled with people willing to do
that agricultural work. In fact - if that were the case, those people could
be right at work besides the migrant workers even as we speak. How many
unemployed people have you heard say that they would take those crop jobs?
I am calling BULLSHIT on your comment.
>
> 'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
> only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
> particular line of expertise. After 6 months (or less?), they should
> be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple days
> training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles. Unlimited
> unemployment checks breed worse things. Get 'em off their asses!
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:29:34 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:34:53 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:02:06 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is easiest for me to come down in agreement on the aspect of
>>>>>> being intollerant of the illegal alien. For me that is an easy
>>>>>> decision. I'm not convinced though, that the non-working citizen
>>>>>> would readily move in to take over those jobs if the illegals
>>>>>> were not here. Perhaps over time, but I just can't see that
>>>>>> happening at all quickly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that it *DID* happen, and more than once.
>>>>
>>>> In our worst of our worst past - that I would agree with. There is
>>>> a point where desparation overwhelms all other considerations. But
>>>> - that's not really what we are talking about - is it?
>>>
>>> Huh? It was just a couple of years ago. ...and yes, actually, it is.
>>
>> You'll have to refresh me then, because I do not recall any time
>> since the great depression that people displaced from "normal" jobs
>> turned to things like picking crops.
>
> So you're saying that the only jobs that illegals take are picking
> crops? That's just absurd.
No but this conversation stemmed from that earlier on. The assertion at one
point was that if the illegals weren't here to pick the crops, that our
displaced workers would gladly do it - paraphrased.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:29:34 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:34:53 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:02:06 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is easiest for me to come down in agreement on the aspect of
>>>>> being intollerant of the illegal alien. For me that is an easy
>>>>> decision. I'm not convinced though, that the non-working citizen
>>>>> would readily move in to take over those jobs if the illegals were
>>>>> not here. Perhaps over time, but I just can't see that happening
>>>>> at all quickly.
>>>>
>>>> Except that it *DID* happen, and more than once.
>>>
>>> In our worst of our worst past - that I would agree with. There is
>>> a point where desparation overwhelms all other considerations. But
>>> - that's not really what we are talking about - is it?
>>
>> Huh? It was just a couple of years ago. ...and yes, actually, it is.
>
>You'll have to refresh me then, because I do not recall any time since the
>great depression that people displaced from "normal" jobs turned to things
>like picking crops.
So you're saying that the only jobs that illegals take are picking crops?
That's just absurd.
Larry Jaques wrote:
> 'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
> only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
> particular line of expertise.
Either you don't know a damned thing about unemployment, or things must run
very differently out there than they do here in NY.
> After 6 months (or less?), they should
> be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple days
> training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles. Unlimited
> unemployment checks breed worse things. Get 'em off their asses!
Yeah - sounds good to spout that kind of shit when you are talking about
other people. You are being an ass Larry.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 15 Aug 2012 00:09:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Great link, right? Apart from the fact that there are only a few
>>>> people listed, out of millions (I hope) that voted, I was not
>>>> claiming that there is rampant voter fraud. Let the claimant show
>>>> the link. That has been thrown at me, you know. I'll be the first
>>>> to want to punish a fraudulent voter. On the other hand, I became
>>>> a green card holder and was disappointed I couldn't vote (and
>>>> didn't). But I thought it a good idea to try and become a citizen,
>>>> and was successful (I think in 1984).
>>>>
>>> In some few jurisdictions, you CAN vote for local offices. It is a
>>> federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal office.
>>
>>That is correct, and the best way to phrase it. You have to draw the
>>line somewhere and I agree that green card holders should naturalize
>>first. And learn real English. It would help.
>
> OMG! That's quite illiberal of you. ;-)
Well, it's me :)
> There is no shortage of candidates for citizenship. Fluent English,
> both written and oral, should be a requirement for a green card.
I forget what the requirements for the green card were in my (special)
case. The "interview" by the examiner was cute. Do you read a
newspaper? which? how often? (This was 1984, before the internet,
basically). I know you can guess my answers from Nassau county, NY :)
>>Such as that nice older
>>lady who didn't understand <erased for privacy at the doctor's
>>office>. Too many around here who (not that) only speak Russian,
>>Ukranian or Spanish.
>
> It's not just "around here" (though the languages vary).
It's quite common, then.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 15 Aug 2012 12:51:07 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 8/14/2012 7:49 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> It is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal
>>> office.
>>>
>>> It's a federal crime to break into our country and be here
>>> illegally, and the Feds ignore that crime as well...
>>
>>Agriculture as we know it would cease if we didn't have illegal aliens
>>harvesting ... Guess who hires them
>
> It wouldn't cease at all. It might get more expensive, or, *perhaps*
> Congress could come up with some great idea to allow *legal* seasonal
> workers. Legalizing and regulating; what a concept. Nah, then it
> would be too hard to get them to vote.
Yes it would get much more expensive. Much more equitable to the workers
as well. And I would be hugely in favor of legalizing immigrant workers,
of course with some regulation. That's how I got here after all. Fill
out the paperwork ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 05:40:58 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:28:59 -0400, "[email protected]"
>>OK, so you believe that one group of people should be able to make political
>>contributions but another should not. How positively discriminating of you.
>
>It's not des crimination you twit, it's called conflict of interest
>and there should be laws against it in certain cases. Only someone
>like you would want to make it easier for those with money to buy
>influence.
What conflict? What "conflict" is there, over say, private unions? ...or
the PTA? Perhaps a leftist twit like you can't see the conflict of interest in
public unions?
>Sure, it happens, but people like you would open the floodgates to
>that kind of manipulation. Sad fact is, little people like you and me
>would get eaten alive.
You're a moron. You can't even see that you want to limit speech to those who
you agree with. HEaven forbid someone else disagrees!
Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> I used the saw stop as an example because this is a woodworking group,
> and most woodworkers, even the idiots, know what a saw stop is. Some
> don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw buyers to
> only buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let government
> mandate wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well let them
> mandate a the price of the saw.
Yes a cow is a mammal, we get our milk from cows. Cats are mammals too,
why not get our milk from them? That's the above reasoning (IMO) ...
Actually the sawstop may be a good example of the multiple things that
are "wrong". Gass had good ideas, but when he tried to sell them,
nobody would buy. He is a good patent lawyer, so he definitely could
cover his invention to lock it up. Then he went 2-prong - he made his
own excellent (expensive) saw and he went lobbying for regulations that
would force people to buy his saw. (Something about petitioning
government for redress of grievances, perhaps - I'm not a constitutional
lawyer).
So what is wrong here? Please add your opinions. Mine are:
- The saw makers were stupid. Now they are on the hook.
- Gass is a monopolist. He is a very capable lawyer and wants his
"due", to the max. - Gass deserves compensation for his inventions.
- If people are too stupid to follow simple directions about safety, let
Darwin rule. - People should be protected from having to work under
dangerous conditions.
If I have to, or want to buy a new saw, the sawstop is something I'd
give thought to. I can probably afford it. If a guy/company goes for
the easiest profit he'd ignore worker safety unless forced to obey
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:59:24 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> It wouldn't work even if it was a good idea, which I don't think it
>>> is. The same First Amendment that gives you a constitutional right
>>> to post to newsgroups gives others the right to political speech.
>>> People have the constitutional right to support their favored
>>> candidates. To abridge that right would require a constitutional
>>> amendment (which ain't gonna happen), not a mere statute.
>>
>> Here, here!
>
>I think you meant "Hear, hear!"
Actuall, I did and wrote it that way first. It looked odd so I changed it.
That's what I get for 13 hours sleep (after a week with no more than five).
...and no coffee yet.
>Unless you want the money sent to you...
Please do!
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:09:17 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>Let me put it so [hopefully] even a dimwit can understand. If I make
>minimum wage $10/hr or $100/hr, Saw Stop will raise the price of their
>saw relative to the raise in wages, as everyone wages will rise.
>(adding zeros to everyone's freaking money does nothing)
Why should I be surprised? As usual, it all comes down to the bee up
your ass about the SawStop. Grow up and learn to live with it jackASS.
On 18 Aug 2012 22:29:25 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 08/18/2012 05:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Colleges graduate students where the market is heading - perhaps with
>>> a little lag.
>>
>> Maybe. But have you tried to hire a high quality plumber or
>> electrician lately. There is a TON of opportunity in the trades
>> and these are jobs that cannot easily be offshored. Unfortunately
>> a generation of American parents were brainwashed by the 1960s
>> Smelliest Generation that runs the universities that no one
>> can succeed without a college degree. Speaking as someone who
>> HAS a graduate degree (and briefly taught grad school) this is
>> nonsense.
>
>Fully agree, but it seems some of that is coming back. Problem is that
>a fully licensed (independent) plumber or electrician just about has to
>get at least an associate degree to be able to read the regs and do the
>accounting.
Even employees are needed.
>>> You are right about the web development stuff, but that's where
>>> the market is. Hardcore engineering is dying here.
>>
>> I'm actually saying the opposite: Web programming and Java are
>> now commodity skills - the manual labor of the IT industry.
>> There are too many people that can do this work and not enough
>> job openings.
>>
>> Hardcore engineering is exactly what we're missing and where
>> all the demand is. I could probably place between 5-20 people
>> right now with just 1 year's experience in Linux engineering
>> and infrastructure if they knew basic system administration,
>> networking, and troubleshooting, and had good people skills
>> and a high integrity work ethic. The jobs I'm thinking of
>> start at well north of $50K/yr with full benefits, vacation,
>> 401K matching, and instant vesting of all the money the company
>> does contribute to the 401K. A great first job for a young,
>> smart engineer ... and the company can't find 'em. That, sir,
>> is why jobs are leaving Dodge...
>
>That would also be the kind of job to return ASAP when the
>schools/students see the opportunity. Indeed, some of the lower level
>off-shored jobs are coming back, I heard (don't ask, I don't remember
>where I heard).
Not sure the (what was called "hard") engineering schools will. It takes math,
something sorely lacking in public schools these days. I believe lower level
jobs are coming back, or will if allowed to. My CPoE shipped all production
to Mexico in '08 and has already found that it was a mistake (not sure the
execs have admitted it yet). Much of the engineering is already being
"off-shored" from Japan to the US. ;-)
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 18 Aug 2012 22:29:25 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 08/18/2012 05:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>> Colleges graduate students where the market is heading - perhaps
>>>> with a little lag.
>>>
>>> Maybe. But have you tried to hire a high quality plumber or
>>> electrician lately. There is a TON of opportunity in the trades
>>> and these are jobs that cannot easily be offshored. Unfortunately
>>> a generation of American parents were brainwashed by the 1960s
>>> Smelliest Generation that runs the universities that no one
>>> can succeed without a college degree. Speaking as someone who
>>> HAS a graduate degree (and briefly taught grad school) this is
>>> nonsense.
>>
>>Fully agree, but it seems some of that is coming back. Problem is
>>that a fully licensed (independent) plumber or electrician just about
>>has to get at least an associate degree to be able to read the regs
>>and do the accounting.
>
> Even employees are needed.
Not sure what you mean. The employees of the plumber need to know
basics, but should follow the boss's instructions. I'd like to see more
kids go into the trades than are presently doing so, but if they want to
be more than just a bit over the position of gofer, they will soon need a
real high school education, or an associate's.
>>>> You are right about the web development stuff, but that's where
>>>> the market is. Hardcore engineering is dying here.
>>>
>>> I'm actually saying the opposite: Web programming and Java are
>>> now commodity skills - the manual labor of the IT industry.
>>> There are too many people that can do this work and not enough
>>> job openings.
>>>
>>> Hardcore engineering is exactly what we're missing and where
>>> all the demand is. I could probably place between 5-20 people
>>> right now with just 1 year's experience in Linux engineering
>>> and infrastructure if they knew basic system administration,
>>> networking, and troubleshooting, and had good people skills
>>> and a high integrity work ethic. The jobs I'm thinking of
>>> start at well north of $50K/yr with full benefits, vacation,
>>> 401K matching, and instant vesting of all the money the company
>>> does contribute to the 401K. A great first job for a young,
>>> smart engineer ... and the company can't find 'em. That, sir,
>>> is why jobs are leaving Dodge...
>>
>>That would also be the kind of job to return ASAP when the
>>schools/students see the opportunity. Indeed, some of the lower level
>>off-shored jobs are coming back, I heard (don't ask, I don't remember
>>where I heard).
>
> Not sure the (what was called "hard") engineering schools will. It
> takes math, something sorely lacking in public schools these days. I
> believe lower level jobs are coming back, or will if allowed to. My
> CPoE shipped all production to Mexico in '08 and has already found
> that it was a mistake (not sure the execs have admitted it yet). Much
> of the engineering is already being "off-shored" from Japan to the US.
> ;-)
What's CPoE?
Math is coming back, I hope and think. Although I was pissed by some
kind of editorial somewhere that claimed algebra wasn't really necessary
any more.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 18:55:24 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>Man Tim - you should start a recruiting business because you'd have a corner
>on the market. I do see those openings here and there but I probably
>haven't seen 20 since the beginning of the year. Maybe it's a reflection of
>where you live.
No, it's a reflection of his bullshit.
On 8/18/2012 5:24 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:09:17 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Let me put it so [hopefully] even a dimwit can understand. If I make
>> minimum wage $10/hr or $100/hr, Saw Stop will raise the price of their
>> saw relative to the raise in wages, as everyone wages will rise.
>> (adding zeros to everyone's freaking money does nothing)
>
> Why should I be surprised?
You should be surprised because you are an idiot!
As usual, it all comes down to the bee up
> your ass about the SawStop. Grow up and learn to live with it jackASS.
I used the saw stop as an example because this is a woodworking group,
and most woodworkers, even the idiots, know what a saw stop is. Some
don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw buyers to only
buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let government mandate
wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well let them mandate a the
price of the saw.
--
Jack
I'm not as dumb as you look.
http://jbstein.com
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:10:06 -0400, "[email protected]"
>>As usual, your sweeping statements and incredible lack of humanity is
>>overwhelming.
>
>As usual, content of your posts matches your IQ; zero.
Oh ouch, that hurts. I'd rather be me with a zero IQ than be the
sanctimonious asshole you are every day of the week.
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:25:27 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On 17 Aug 2012 16:48:39 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You'd have to convince me of the societal benefit of having an
>>>>> economy run purely on the basis of supply and demand versus one that
>>>>> provides a little for those that have a lot less than enough. Are you
>>>>> willing to watch people go hungry in the streets in order to maintain
>>>>> the purity of your religion (S & D)?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course. Hunger is a great motivator.
>>>>
>>>> I saw this scenario on a blog, which I'll condense and paraphrase.
>>>>
>>>> While working in my front-lawn flower-bed, my very liberal neighbors
>>>> passed by with their 9-year old girl. They stopped to admire the
>>>> flowers and I asked the girl "What do you want to be when you grow
>>>> up?"
>>>>
>>>> "President" she replied.
>>>>
>>>> "Oh," said I, "why?"
>>>>
>>>> "Then I could make sure everybody had food and a home," was her
>>>> heartfelt answer.
>>>>
>>>> "You don't have to become president to do that. Tell you what: I'll
>>>> give you fifty dollars each week to mow my grass and weed the flower
>>>> beds. Then you can take the fifty dollars down to the store and give
>>>> it to somebody that's hungry and homeless."
>>>>
>>>> She thought for a moment, then said: "Why doesn't the homeless person
>>>> work for the fifty dollars himself?"
>>>>
>>>> "Congratulations," I said. "You've just become a conservative."
>>>>
>>>> Her parents became as close to spontaneous human combustion as I've
>>>> personally ever witnessed.
>>>
>>> Nice story, and perfectly suited to an able-bodied person of sound mind.
>>> There are others, though. Some homeless are sick, one way or another,
>>> some paid exorbitant rents in house that suddenly blew up. And don't
>>> misunderstand me, I don't think that abovementioned able-bodied person
>>> should be cuddled.
>>
>> Surely you're not saying that *everyone* taking public assistance is insane?
>> ...or that *none* are able-bodied? Surely not.
>>
>
>I hope you don't find your hyperbole a compelling argument not to
>provide any public assistance?
No, I don't want to eliminate it at all. I want to *LIMIT* it severely,
though. Say, 10% of what it is now? From 47% of the people on assistance, of
some sort, to say, 5% or even 1%?
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 15 Aug 2012 12:51:07 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 8/14/2012 7:49 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> It is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal
>>> office.
>>>
>>> It's a federal crime to break into our country and be here
>>> illegally, and the Feds ignore that crime as well...
>>
>>Agriculture as we know it would cease if we didn't have illegal aliens
>>harvesting ... Guess who hires them
>
> I call BULLSHIT on that one, Han. With so many people out of work
> right now, I'd bet not one of those jobs went empty for very long if
> we were to finally deport all the illegals.
I'm going by reports of harvest gone unharvested when Alabama or Arizona
or both decided to let illegals deport themselves, and they did.
> 'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
> only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
> particular line of expertise. After 6 months (or less?), they should
> be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple days
> training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles. Unlimited
> unemployment checks breed worse things. Get 'em off their asses!
I think that much unemployment or underemployment stems from
insufficient wages. But then, we have gotten used to cheap food and
other things cheap, so we're not willing to pay what we in all
likelihood should. I agree that people should take a job, almost any
job once their unemployment runs out. Who (OTOH) is in charge of
generating jobs for those whose prior jobs have disappeared? All this
is hugely easy for me to say, because I don't need a job anymore ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 18 Aug 2012 20:27:36 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 17 Aug 2012 15:34:12 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 17 Aug 2012 12:32:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm, the original immigration bill, 535, was introduced in 2/2011,
>>>>>> 13 months before. Gambling obviously didn't pay and I don't have
>>>>>> any sympathy whatsoever for the farmers for that self-inflicted
>>>>>> injury.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not in favor of illegal immigration, but I do have much more
>>>>>sympathy for the workers that fled the state(s) where these laws
>>>>>were passed than for the farmers.
>>>>
>>>> What the 'ell for, Han? They're unlawfully here! If I were king,
>>>> I'd deport 'em all today. Let them get in line like you and
>>>> everyone else did, eh?
>>>
>>>If the farmers hadn't employed them they wouldn't have come.
>>
>> WHAT? The only reason famers _could_ employ them is because they were
>> here _already_.
>
>I don't think they would have come if reports from their friends hadn't
>told them of the untold riches they could scoop up here. In other words,
>the jobs were waiting for them. Certainly compared to their job
>prospects back home. Luckily for all, that has turned around. Now
>indeed we need to make illegal entry much more difficult and with bigger
>punishment. But perhaps we should be more considerate to those who have
>been here peacefully and productively for many years paying taxes
>(certainly sales taxes, if not payroll taxes they /should/ get deducted
>from their wages). And I believe the kids who we have educated now
>should get a chance like in the 2-year deferment of their deportation
>Obama has instituted. Two years hence, they should go and get (likely)
>preferential treatment in immigration. They really know our customs .
If they're here illegally, I want them unceremonially deported, with
few exceptions. Most were brought up speaking Spanish/Chinese/some
African dialect. Those who were not, and speak only English, would
have an extremely hard time if returned to their country of origin.
Those few I'd show consideration to.
>>>Those
>>>illegals were permitted to enter by all previous administrations, left
>>>and right, and encouraged by the economic and political systems.
>>
>> No, temp workers weren't illegal, and isn't there still a migrant
>> worker program going? I didn't think that had ever stopped.
>
>I'm not talking about legal temp workers, but about the extras that came
>uninvited by government, but scooped up by companies in need of low cost
>workers.
Skilled technical workers in the C3PO (no, that's not it) visa
program?
>>>Moreover, I am pretty sure the system is still as leaky as anything.
>>>There is no way anyone can check where a visitor is now after he/she
>>>has outstayed their alotted time (even if the visa system would be
>>>able to easily identify people who overstayed). We would need big
>>>changes in law, such as national (unforgable) ID's and the ability of
>>>some police branch or another to stop people willynilly to check ID.
>>>Seems out of touch with previous or current sensibilities, if not
>>>unconstitutional (comments welcome). It is now law in all EU
>>>countries, even Holland.
>>
>> WHOA! You're mixing up the legal visa folks with the blatant
>> illegals. National IDs would probably help, though I hate to admit
>> leaning that way. But /nothing/ is unforgeable.
>
>Great, we agree. Personally I have nothing against national IDs, just am
>fearful of (whatever branch here) police officers. My passport was once
>a bit crumpled and an immigration officer told me she just could put me
>in an office and forget about me, while she pretended to find out whether
>I had a valid passport. One of many examples where innocent until proven
>guilty is not applicable (perhaps rightly so).
But she didn't, luckily. She might have if you were one of 20 million
Hispanics, umpty million Chinese, etc. People who abuse their power
(CONgresscritters, police, State Department, Border Patrol, etc.)
really burn me up.
>>>> And your man Obama's scheme of amnesty for illegals just to get more
>>>> votes is undermining the integrity of the Union. His letting in
>>>> 80,000 Muslim immigrants _ensured_ that there are terrorists in the
>>>> USA now, with the full blessing of the President of the United
>>>> States. That says more than I ever could.
>>>
>>>Just in case you hadn't noticed, Larry, there is currently a Congress
>>>that delights in stopping any and all legislation, left, right,
>>>whatever.
>>
>> I'm -not- in agreement with many things the Right does in Congress or
>> with nearly anything the Left tries to do there. Shrub was a tax and
>> spend Republican and Obama is outdoing him by 10x.
>
>Obama has reduced expenditures in each year. And reduced extent of the
>yearly deficit.
I hope the DEA finds you soon. You're obviously smoking something
mighty potent there, boy. The deficits triple in his first term and
you think it's going DOWN?
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html
Oh, I forgot, we don't count any expenditures The Exalted One doesn't
want included in the figures. Like keeping gas and food prices out of
some of the cost formulae. <thud>
So, put down the Washington Post and the NYT and read something a bit
less liberally biased. Listen to a few BBC broadcasts, tune in Rush
(sorry, just kidding. No, put down that knife, Han. I mean it.) But
break out of your liberal-only-media rut and see the light. Watch Fox
news and then go research all the things you disagree with. Surely,
you will be surprised at what you find. Conservatives -and- Liberals
should do this on a regular basis, lest we get over our heads in deep
ruts.
>>>> I spit on his grandmother's shadow. (Native American curse)
>>>
>>>I hadn't thought you capable of senseless hatred. Sorry.
>>
>> SENSELESS? Please. The man has lied to us from even before Day One.
>> He is trying to destroy the country from the inside, and he's doing a
>> pretty good job at it.
>
>Well, speaking for myself, he could have done a better job, but given the
>circumstances it is a pretty good job he has done.
I _truly_ don't see why. When he played all moderate and such before
election, I had hopes for him and for the country. But then look what
he did in office. He turned radically liberal, nearly from day one. I
understand that the man had debts to pay. <wink, wink, nudge, nudge,
knowwhatImean?> Now he's doing the exact same thing to get REelected,
and, damnit, it's working. <woeful sigh>
And considering the circumstances, look at his position in the
Congressional Black Caucus and how the CBC and he _personally_
harassed the Freddie Mac/Fannie May folks into extending known bad
loans to too many unqualified people. Christ, I've read reports which
showed that some of the loan recipients weren't even WORKING!
--
The business of America is not business. Neither is it war. The business
of America is justice and securing the blessings of liberty.
-- George F. Will
On 17 Aug 2012 16:09:32 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 17 Aug 2012 12:24:36 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 16 Aug 2012 19:48:34 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So you're saying that *NONE* of the children in that school get an
>>>>>> education? I'd say it's time to close it down. Here they have a
>>>>>> thing called "charter schools". Perhaps it's time for a rich
>>>>>> Northern state like New Jersey to learn from the poor South.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is the poor North we are talking about. Where the state has
>>>>>taken some jurisdiction over some school districts.
>>>>
>>>> With your huge taxes, why is it so poor, Han. Could it be because
>>>> they're PAYING TOO MUCH?
>>>
>>>Paterson used to be quite rich, but now is trying to dig out from
>>>being a failed ghetto. It is rather poor, and has a miserable
>>>population.
>>
>> That's a result, not a cause. Why did it go down so fast?
>
>Northeast industrial city. Was called Silk City at some point. Water
>power started it. There are still the Great Falls of Paterson (77 ft):
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Falls_%28Passaic_River%29>
Yet with all those skilled employees, they couldn't attract any other
business. I wonder why?
>>>>>In Paterson they are called academies. This is what Paterson did,
>>>>>as I understand it. They closed the school. Then they open the
>>>>>"academies" (maybe next to a "regular" school) and select from the
>>>>>fired teachers (I believe just about all were RIF'ed) who will be
>>>>>rehired and get which kind of kids for which subject. Of course all
>>>>>in the same old building, with new signs, probably also more
>>>>>administrators.
>>>>
>>>> That sounds like New Jersey. In with the new school - same as the
>>>> old school. If you find yourself getting in deeper, stop digging!
>>>
>>>Yes, it sounds silly to me too, but apparently it is working to a
>>>surprising extent.
>>
>> Or someone is pulling the wool over your eyes.
>
>:)
Changing nothing and having/expecting a different result is
wishful-thinking/insanity.
>>>>>My SIL did well, some other teachers not so. He seems appreciated
>>>>>by the alumni who took his lessons to heart. I am confident he
>>>>>teaches math, manners and demeanor equally well; he is the kind of
>>>>>guy who can wear a T-shirt declaiming "Sarcasm, just another service
>>>>>we offer".
>>>>
>>>> He probably has no business working in the public sector.
>>>
>>>He was making much more money in the financial sector as chief of
>>>email. Got out before the place went belly up spectacularly. While
>>>his income is now a fraction, his pleasure in the work is much, much
>>>greater. He loves teaching. Almost as much as playing bridge.
>>
>> He could work somewhere he's appreciated.
>
>He is apparently appreciated and he believes in giving back.
Aparently not enough.
On 18 Aug 2012 20:27:36 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
>Obama has reduced expenditures in each year. And reduced extent of the
>yearly deficit.
WHAT?!!!!! <CHOKE!!!>
On 17 Aug 2012 16:12:50 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> How about not, with fiscal restraint?
>
>?? You mean - How about "not with fiscal restraint"?
How about leaving some context?
You said: "How about a mix of things? A little of this and a little of that.
With fiscal restraint."
I said: "How about not [mixing things - capitalism is just fine], with fiscal
restraint?" [comments added]
>Politics without fiscal restraint is only irresponsible. That's my
>philosophy. And mind you, if I really want something, I find the means to
>get it, or I just pine for it. I don't get it on credit without paying it
>off at the end of the cycle.
As long as "getting what you want" doesn't involve stealing, OK. But what you
want *does*.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:15:11 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > How about leaving some context?
>
> How about leaving, period? There were 80 unread messages in this group
> this evening. 22 were from you. 20 were from Han. Don't you think the
> two of you have said about all there is to say on the issue?
USENET really needs a "get a room" function. If invoked, all posts in
which one of the two participants was responding to the other would
automatically go to email.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 17 Aug 2012 16:09:32 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 17 Aug 2012 12:24:36 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16 Aug 2012 19:48:34 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you're saying that *NONE* of the children in that school get
>>>>>>> an education? I'd say it's time to close it down. Here they
>>>>>>> have a thing called "charter schools". Perhaps it's time for a
>>>>>>> rich Northern state like New Jersey to learn from the poor
>>>>>>> South.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is the poor North we are talking about. Where the state has
>>>>>>taken some jurisdiction over some school districts.
>>>>>
>>>>> With your huge taxes, why is it so poor, Han. Could it be because
>>>>> they're PAYING TOO MUCH?
>>>>
>>>>Paterson used to be quite rich, but now is trying to dig out from
>>>>being a failed ghetto. It is rather poor, and has a miserable
>>>>population.
>>>
>>> That's a result, not a cause. Why did it go down so fast?
>>
>>Northeast industrial city. Was called Silk City at some point. Water
>>power started it. There are still the Great Falls of Paterson (77
>>ft): <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Falls_%28Passaic_River%29>
>
> Yet with all those skilled employees, they couldn't attract any other
> business. I wonder why?
It happened to the whole rustbelt recently, and to the textile industry
up in the northeast it happened twice: First it moved to the South, then
to Shri Lanka etc.
>>>>>>In Paterson they are called academies. This is what Paterson did,
>>>>>>as I understand it. They closed the school. Then they open the
>>>>>>"academies" (maybe next to a "regular" school) and select from the
>>>>>>fired teachers (I believe just about all were RIF'ed) who will be
>>>>>>rehired and get which kind of kids for which subject. Of course
>>>>>>all in the same old building, with new signs, probably also more
>>>>>>administrators.
>>>>>
>>>>> That sounds like New Jersey. In with the new school - same as the
>>>>> old school. If you find yourself getting in deeper, stop digging!
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it sounds silly to me too, but apparently it is working to a
>>>>surprising extent.
>>>
>>> Or someone is pulling the wool over your eyes.
>>
>>:)
>
> Changing nothing and having/expecting a different result is
> wishful-thinking/insanity.
No in this case they did change something. Hopefully it will work
sitting the kids down in more focused environments, with more "suited"
teachers. And I have a story from a guy who just missed the Nobel prize
about trying and trying again. Sometimes it works ...
>>>>>>My SIL did well, some other teachers not so. He seems appreciated
>>>>>>by the alumni who took his lessons to heart. I am confident he
>>>>>>teaches math, manners and demeanor equally well; he is the kind of
>>>>>>guy who can wear a T-shirt declaiming "Sarcasm, just another
>>>>>>service we offer".
>>>>>
>>>>> He probably has no business working in the public sector.
>>>>
>>>>He was making much more money in the financial sector as chief of
>>>>email. Got out before the place went belly up spectacularly. While
>>>>his income is now a fraction, his pleasure in the work is much, much
>>>>greater. He loves teaching. Almost as much as playing bridge.
>>>
>>> He could work somewhere he's appreciated.
>>
>>He is apparently appreciated and he believes in giving back.
>
> Aparently not enough.
It is a "free" market system. He is satisfied with the job, when you
combine every aspect, and they keep him on. Everyone wins, according to
your economic views (and mine too). That does not mean that he wouldn't
like to be paid more, or that they wouldn't like to pay him less.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 17 Aug 2012 16:12:50 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> How about not, with fiscal restraint?
>>
>>?? You mean - How about "not with fiscal restraint"?
>
> How about leaving some context?
>
> You said: "How about a mix of things? A little of this and a little
> of that. With fiscal restraint."
>
> I said: "How about not [mixing things - capitalism is just fine], with
> fiscal restraint?" [comments added]
In my view, fiscal restraint is paramount. Don't try to do what is
fiscally not "kosher". And capitalism, with constraints as well, is fine
by me. (constraints are negotiable ... <grin>)
>>Politics without fiscal restraint is only irresponsible. That's my
>>philosophy. And mind you, if I really want something, I find the
>>means to get it, or I just pine for it. I don't get it on credit
>>without paying it off at the end of the cycle.
>
> As long as "getting what you want" doesn't involve stealing, OK. But
> what you want *does*.
Stealing is never OK. In my case, if something is worthwhile enough for
an administration to put in place, and if there isn't enough income right
now, tax them, whoever them turn out to be. All of us are now (or will
be) taxed by the enormous deficits of Bush that Obama has big trouble to
overcome.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Conservatives -and- Liberals
> should do this on a regular basis, lest we get over our heads in deep
> ruts.
Agree. I try. In 4 out of 5 cases I get very disgusted.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I _truly_ don't see why. When he played all moderate and such before
> election, I had hopes for him and for the country. But then look what
> he did in office. He turned radically liberal, nearly from day one.
OTOH, the liberals complain that as soon as he was elected he turned to
compromising, sorry giving in, to the right, and they are hammering him and
congressional democrats to not give in any more.
I guess perception is what consfuses us all.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:15:11 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
> How about leaving some context?
How about leaving, period? There were 80 unread messages in this group
this evening. 22 were from you. 20 were from Han. Don't you think the
two of you have said about all there is to say on the issue?
--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying the cross."
On 8/18/2012 5:53 PM, Han wrote:
All of us are now (or will be) taxed by the enormous deficits of Bush
that Obama has big trouble to
> overcome.
Are you having trouble with english, or do you really think Obama's is
having trouble overcoming Bush's big spending?
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 8/18/2012 6:58 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
He [obama] turned radically liberal, nearly from day one.
Wrong Larry, the little puke was radically liberal from birth through
today. By "radically liberal" I mean a full blown, anti-Amerikan,
commie puke! Because you misunderstood who he was, thanks to the great
media we have, you think he suddenly changed... Nope, no change, he
started out that way.
--
Jack
If it sounds like Marx, acts like Stalin, it's probably Obama
On 8/18/2012 7:52 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:15:11 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> How about leaving some context?
>
> How about leaving, period? There were 80 unread messages in this group
> this evening. 22 were from you. 20 were from Han. Don't you think the
> two of you have said about all there is to say on the issue?
How about you skipping what you are not interested in rather than trying
to force your views on someone else? When they are done saying what
they want, they will be done. When your done participating, don't.
> "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
> carrying the cross."
Fascism, a fancy word for socialism, came to America a while ago, and it
is neither wrapped in the flag, nor carrying a cross. It is currently
wrapped in the lies and deceit of the Obama Regime and it's left wing
media.
--
Jack
Conservatives believe every day is the Fourth of July, Liberals believe
every day is April 15.
Just Wondering wrote:
> On 8/15/2012 12:20 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> I call BULLSHIT on that one, Han. With so many people out of work
>>> right now, I'd bet not one of those jobs went empty for very long if
>>> we were to finally deport all the illegals.
>> Not so sure Larry. There have been more times when I've hears "i
>> would not work for that wage", or "I would not do that", than would
>> cause me to believe that the unemployment roles are filled with
>> people willing to do that agricultural work. In fact - if that were
>> the case, those people could be right at work besides the migrant
>> workers even as we speak. How many unemployed people have you heard
>> say that they would take those crop jobs? I am calling BULLSHIT on
>> your comment.
>
> There's a geographical disconnect on that comparison. Most of the
> unemployed live in cities. Most of the agricultural jobs are out in
> the country. There's no easy way physically for the urban unemployed
> to get to and from the fields.
Correct - but that's only because most of the population is centered in and
around cities. I contend that even in rural areas, where unemployment is
high, there are not lines of people trying to get that kind of job.
> But without illegal aliens doing the low-paying urban jobs (fast food,
> janitorial, etc.), the urban unemployed could take those jobs.
>
Could - yes. Would - I believe... not so much. Part of the reason that
those illegals can get those jobs is because legals here did not take them.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:46:21 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:29:34 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:34:53 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:02:06 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is easiest for me to come down in agreement on the aspect of
>>>>>>> being intollerant of the illegal alien. For me that is an easy
>>>>>>> decision. I'm not convinced though, that the non-working citizen
>>>>>>> would readily move in to take over those jobs if the illegals
>>>>>>> were not here. Perhaps over time, but I just can't see that
>>>>>>> happening at all quickly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that it *DID* happen, and more than once.
>>>>>
>>>>> In our worst of our worst past - that I would agree with. There is
>>>>> a point where desparation overwhelms all other considerations. But
>>>>> - that's not really what we are talking about - is it?
>>>>
>>>> Huh? It was just a couple of years ago. ...and yes, actually, it is.
>>>
>>> You'll have to refresh me then, because I do not recall any time
>>> since the great depression that people displaced from "normal" jobs
>>> turned to things like picking crops.
>>
>> So you're saying that the only jobs that illegals take are picking
>> crops? That's just absurd.
>
>No but this conversation stemmed from that earlier on. The assertion at one
>point was that if the illegals weren't here to pick the crops, that our
>displaced workers would gladly do it - paraphrased.
The conversation is *far* more general than that. That said, if there is no
one willing to pick crops for whatever makes sense, they'll come from
somewhere else, some sort of legal visa program will be put in place, or
machines will do it. Any way you go, it's better than having illegals in the
country.
[email protected] wrote:
>
> The conversation is *far* more general than that. That said, if
> there is no one willing to pick crops for whatever makes sense,
> they'll come from somewhere else, some sort of legal visa program
> will be put in place, or machines will do it. Any way you go, it's
> better than having illegals in the country.
We agree on that.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Aug 15, 5:06=A0pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8/15/2012 12:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:> Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> >> 'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
> >> only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
> >> particular line of expertise.
> > Either you don't know a damned thing about unemployment, or things must=
run
> > very differently out there than they do here in NY.
>
> >> After 6 months (or less?), they should
> >> be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple days
> >> training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles. Unlimited
> >> unemployment checks breed worse things. =A0Get 'em off their asses!
> > Yeah - sounds good to spout that kind of shit when you are talking abou=
t
> > other people. =A0You are being an ass Larry.
>
> What is your proposal? =A0Do you have some other means to induce those
> folk to find productive work? =A0If so, how would you do it? =A0If not, d=
o
> you propose to force Larry and me through our taxes to support those
> people indefinitely while they sit home and watch TV all day?
No one cares about the self-centered, moronic comments of an absolute
nobody who is a few beers short of a six pack. Just shy of 60 years
old, how come you are are already suffering from age-related dementia?
Just Wondering wrote:
> On 8/15/2012 12:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> 'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
>>> only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
>>> particular line of expertise.
>> Either you don't know a damned thing about unemployment, or things
>> must run very differently out there than they do here in NY.
>>
>>> After 6 months (or less?), they should
>>> be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple days
>>> training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles. Unlimited
>>> unemployment checks breed worse things. Get 'em off their asses!
>> Yeah - sounds good to spout that kind of shit when you are talking
>> about other people. You are being an ass Larry.
>>
> What is your proposal? Do you have some other means to induce those
> folk to find productive work? If so, how would you do it? If not, do
> you propose to force Larry and me through our taxes to support those
> people indefinitely while they sit home and watch TV all day?
You and Larry? I pay those same taxes so I am as burdened by it as you. It
is easy to say that someone else should take any job at any pay rate, when
you are talking about someone else. Even easier when one says that from a
position where they are comfortable with what they are earning. That
however, does not take into consideration the very real financial needs of
people. There are tens of thousands of people who are out there looking for
any kind of decent work after having lost good paying jobs. People at all
levels. To just say they should take any minumum wage job is a bit
presumptuous. Sit home and watch TV all day? I'm sure there is some
percentage of the unemployed population that does just that, but there is a
huge population of unemployed who were very successful, contributing members
of society. Do you really understand what the unemployed roles even look
like today?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 8/15/2012 5:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> You seem to be under the somewhat mistaken assumption that "those folk"
> aren't doing everything in their power to _find_ work.
You seem to be the one mistaken.
>> If so, how would you do it? If not, do
>> you propose to force Larry and me through our taxes to support those
>> people indefinitely while they sit home and watch TV all day?
> You've a seriously warped understanding of the unemployed.
I think he has it spot on.
> Telling someone who has spent 20 years in medical device sales to go
> pick tomatoes is the type of republican lack of respect for the individual
> that is characteristic of the modern republican politician.
Telling someone that they have to give their hard earned money to
support someone not willing to take a job in another field after 18
months of looking for work in their field is the type of disrespect that
drives Americans to detest the modern day democrat (socialist) politician.
--
Jack
Got Change: More Unemployment! More Debt! More Fraud! Less Freedom!
http://jbstein.com
Just Wondering <[email protected]> writes:
>On 8/15/2012 12:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> 'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
>>> only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
>>> particular line of expertise.
>> Either you don't know a damned thing about unemployment, or things must run
>> very differently out there than they do here in NY.
>>
>>> After 6 months (or less?), they should
>>> be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple days
>>> training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles. Unlimited
>>> unemployment checks breed worse things. Get 'em off their asses!
>> Yeah - sounds good to spout that kind of shit when you are talking about
>> other people. You are being an ass Larry.
>>
>What is your proposal? Do you have some other means to induce those
>folk to find productive work?
You seem to be under the somewhat mistaken assumption that "those folk"
aren't doing everything in their power to _find_ work.
>If so, how would you do it? If not, do
>you propose to force Larry and me through our taxes to support those
>people indefinitely while they sit home and watch TV all day?
You've a seriously warped understanding of the unemployed.
You also seem to be unaware of the fact that unemployment insurance
is not indefinite, nor is welfare.
You seem to be one of the lucky ones that hasn't lost a job and found
it difficult to find another. My SO sells capital medical equipment to
hospitals and clinics (MRI, CT, XRay, etc). She lost her job over 18
months ago now[*], and cannot find another in that field, in general medical
device sales, or in other non-related sales opportunities. She spends
6 to 8 hours daily responding to want-ads, on-line resume farms, every
medical device company in the western half of the US, and is frankly
miserable about the whole thing.
Telling someone who has spent 20 years in medical device sales to go
pick tomatoes is the type of republican lack of respect for the individual
that is characteristic of the modern republican politician.
[*] company went out of business.
On 15 Aug 2012 00:09:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>> Great link, right? Apart from the fact that there are only a few
>>> people listed, out of millions (I hope) that voted, I was not
>>> claiming that there is rampant voter fraud. Let the claimant show
>>> the link. That has been thrown at me, you know. I'll be the first
>>> to want to punish a fraudulent voter. On the other hand, I became a
>>> green card holder and was disappointed I couldn't vote (and didn't).
>>> But I thought it a good idea to try and become a citizen, and was
>>> successful (I think in 1984).
>>>
>> In some few jurisdictions, you CAN vote for local offices. It is a
>> federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal office.
>
>That is correct, and the best way to phrase it. You have to draw the
>line somewhere and I agree that green card holders should naturalize
>first. And learn real English. It would help.
OMG! That's quite illiberal of you. ;-)
There is no shortage of candidates for citizenship. Fluent English, both
written and oral, should be a requirement for a green card.
>Such as that nice older
>lady who didn't understand <erased for privacy at the doctor's office>.
>Too many around here who (not that) only speak Russian, Ukranian or
>Spanish.
It's not just "around here" (though the languages vary).
On 8/15/2012 7:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>
>>
> That's a result of supply and demand. If the crops had to come in, and
> the illegals were not there to do the job, farmers would have to pay
> what the market demanded for their labor costs. Which would make your
> and my grocery bill that much higher, but that's another story.
No, actually that's the entire story in a nut shell.
On 14 Aug 2012 23:57:35 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 14 Aug 2012 20:51:56 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 14 Aug 2012 15:39:59 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/13/2012 2:31 PM, Han wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I find it funny that those who say that voter fraud is rampant
>>>>>>> never seem to be able to get a link to established facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your kidding, or you get all your info from the government
>>>>>> controlled media (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NY Times etc.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At least not recent,
>>>>>>> documented facts. I have heard the Mayor Daley etc jokes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Voter fraud is no joke, it got Franken elected to the Minnesota
>>>>>> Senate and ergo socialized medicine foisted on all of the US.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please read this and you may be enlightened to why you don't get
>>>>>> any "established facts". It is difficult to establish "facts" if
>>>>>> you can't get the wolves to investigate their own duplicity. The
>>>>>> facts that are "established" as in court convictions are not
>>>>>> reported much in the lame stream media.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any doubts you may have regarding rampant voter fraud should be
>>>>>> erased when you observe how ridiculously hard the crooks fight any
>>>>>> attempt to enact common sense election law reforms to ensure that
>>>>>> our election system is secure, accurate and transparent.
>>>>>
>>>>>If voter fraud is so rampant, surely you can find some convictions
>>>>>...
>>>>
>>>> You know, Han, there is this thing called "Google" that you could
>>>> use to find such information.
>>>>
>>>> http://specfriggintacular.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/democrats-arrested
>>>> -a ndor-convicted-of-voter-fraud/
>>>
>>>Great link, right? Apart from the fact that there are only a few
>>>people listed, out of millions (I hope) that voted, I was not claiming
>>>that there is rampant voter fraud.
>>
>> You were claiming that it didn't exist, or three would be
>> convictions...
>>
>>>Let the claimant show the link. That has been thrown at me, you know.
>>
>> Why? The facts stand for themselves. It doesn't matter who shows you
>> the link. Indeed you could have found it in about five seconds. It
>> was nonsensical to even ask for it.
>>
>>>I'll be the first to want to punish a fraudulent voter.
>>
>> Yet you claim it doesn't exist.
>>
>>>On the other hand, I became a green card holder and
>>>was disappointed I couldn't vote (and didn't). But I thought it a
>>>good idea to try and become a citizen, and was successful (I think in
>>>1984).
>>
>> Tough shit! A green-card holder *shouldn't* vote!
>>
>>>> That aside, did you even read what he wrote? How can you claim an
>>>> honest election when there are more "votes" counted than there are
>>>> registered voters? When there are dead people voting. Get real,
>>>> Han.
>>>
>>>When I tried to look up things like that, I found that there were more
>>>registered voters than eligible voters in some jurisdictions.
>>>Obviously that is ridiculous, and should be investigated and cleaned
>>>up. The number of registered voters is usually about twice the number
>>>of votes cast.
>>
>> But there are far more "irregularities" than that. Enough that all
>> ties go to the Democrats. Funny, that.
>>
>>>In Holland there used to be a duty to come to a polling place with
>>>a financial penalty if you didn't (they would have liked to force you
>>>to vote, but they couldn't very well check whether you filled out the
>>>paper form). I remember that from the few times I had to go vote, and
>>>it is detailed here: <http://nlkiest.nl/achtergronden/stemplicht/>
>>>Sorry, it's a Dutch page. In 1970 they dispensed with the duty to
>>>come and vote. I still feel it is a citizen's duty to vote.
>>
>> I don't give a rat's ass what goes on in Holland.
>>
>>>As I mentioned before in NJ you can go and sit in the polling place
>>>(after filling out a form and getting approved) and check up on voters
>>>that come walking in. Not that I will go and do it, but a person
>>>could.
>>
>> So what? Do you think you know everyone in your district? Why don't
>> you have to show IDs before voting? That's *really* dumb!
>
>I don't think I claimed there wasn't any fraud. It's a big country, you
>know. And perhaps I was indeed too idealistic and naive. As you know,
>there are many who say that Bush stole the election in FL in 2000, so
>apparently the "fraud" isn't exclusively Democrat-inspired.
That's an absurd claim. By no reasonable standard did Bush "steal" the
election.
>The law is rather circumspect in requiring ID when registering to vote.
Why>?
>Apparently if you have lived in your district since before (2000?) you
>don't need as much ID as when you moved in after that date (Fed law). We
>are still free enough that we don't need ID to walk about, unless there
>is reasonable suspicion we committed some offense/crime.
You need an ID to travel by air, to go into your local court house, and pretty
much to exist. Why is it such a burden to show an ID to vote? Isn't that as
important as going to see your congresscritter?
>That makes the
>US the only country where that is the case, since Holland submitted to EU
>regs requiring ID at all times.
I've already told that for all I care, what goes on in Holland can stay in
Holland. It has *NO* relevance to what goes on here. You're a US citizen
now. Stop pining for the old country and act like it.
>Eventually the Big Brother is watching you state will require ID at all times.
Don't be an idiot.
>And then the fake ID industry will really take off.
Good grief!
On 15 Aug 2012 17:51:20 GMT, Han wrote:
> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 15 Aug 2012 12:51:07 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 8/14/2012 7:49 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>> It is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal
>>>> office.
>>>>
>>>> It's a federal crime to break into our country and be here
>>>> illegally, and the Feds ignore that crime as well...
>>>
>>>Agriculture as we know it would cease if we didn't have illegal aliens
>>>harvesting ... Guess who hires them
>>
>> I call BULLSHIT on that one, Han. With so many people out of work
>> right now, I'd bet not one of those jobs went empty for very long if
>> we were to finally deport all the illegals.
>
> I'm going by reports of harvest gone unharvested when Alabama or Arizona
> or both decided to let illegals deport themselves, and they did.
>
>> 'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
>> only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
>> particular line of expertise. After 6 months (or less?), they should
>> be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple days
>> training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles. Unlimited
>> unemployment checks breed worse things. Get 'em off their asses!
>
> I think that much unemployment or underemployment stems from
> insufficient wages. But then, we have gotten used to cheap food and
> other things cheap, so we're not willing to pay what we in all
> likelihood should. I agree that people should take a job, almost any
> job once their unemployment runs out. Who (OTOH) is in charge of
> generating jobs for those whose prior jobs have disappeared? All this
> is hugely easy for me to say, because I don't need a job anymore ...
Who is John Galt?
basilisk
On 15 Aug 2012 12:51:07 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/14/2012 7:49 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> It is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal office.
>>
>> It's a federal crime to break into our country and be here illegally,
>> and the Feds ignore that crime as well...
>
>Agriculture as we know it would cease if we didn't have illegal aliens
>harvesting ... Guess who hires them
I call BULLSHIT on that one, Han. With so many people out of work
right now, I'd bet not one of those jobs went empty for very long if
we were to finally deport all the illegals.
'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
particular line of expertise. After 6 months (or less?), they should
be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple days
training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles. Unlimited
unemployment checks breed worse things. Get 'em off their asses!
--
Make awkward sexual advances, not war.
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
<snip>
> Must have been rough, down to only $60k/year for that time, eh? <g>
1976. We were probably down to 10 on a yearly basis. We (family of 4)
moved to NYC where I was to get ~15K/yr. Wife /had to/ get a job.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:16:11 -0700, chaniarts
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 8/17/2012 7:25 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On 17 Aug 2012 12:51:01 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:02:38 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That theory falls apart in places like Iowa, where after raiding a
>>>>>>> meat packaging plant (Hormel?), they had *no* problem hiring locals
>>>>>>> at the same wage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That may be true - but that is where each of our own perspectives
>>>>>> can fail us. We see or know about things local to us, or we see or
>>>>>> hear about one-off situations, and then we try to apply them
>>>>>> universally. We're all probably somewhat guilty of that to a
>>>>>> degree. I don't think that the Iowa meat packing plant is all that
>>>>>> representative of the unemployment situation across the country
>>>>>> though.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are two issues here. Illegals and unemployment. They're
>>>>> pretty much separate issues, except that in this case a working
>>>>> illegal is a non-working citizen. It's not unique and shouldn't be
>>>>> tolerated.
>>>>
>>>> It is easiest for me to come down in agreement on the aspect of being
>>>> intollerant of the illegal alien. For me that is an easy decision.
>>>> I'm not convinced though, that the non-working citizen would readily
>>>> move in to take over those jobs if the illegals were not here.
>>>> Perhaps over time, but I just can't see that happening at all quickly.
>>>
>>> I agree. I just don't see a 50+ year-old out of work plumber take over
>>> the job of a 25 yo tomatopicker. Although unemployment among the young
>>> there is very high too ...
>>
>> How many of you have been out of work and starving? Think about that
>> when you guess about what jobs you'd take to stop it. Although you
>> might not last long on the farm in the sun, you'd at least try it,
>> wouldn't you, to keep yourself and your family fed?
>
>i think, unfortunately, you'd find that there is a significant
>percentage of people who wouldn't.
Probably true. But I think there is a much larger percentage who
would. I think we'd both be surprised.
--
All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
-- Anna Quindlen
On 17 Aug 2012 15:40:37 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> How many of you have been out of work and starving? Think about that
>> when you guess about what jobs you'd take to stop it. Although you
>> might not last long on the farm in the sun, you'd at least try it,
>> wouldn't you, to keep yourself and your family fed?
>
>I'd probably think of moving to a cheaper area and home first. Nothing too
>close to this happened to us except once. My wife had to go and find a
>better paying job, while I waited on the returns of my resumes. At the
>time we were living in a pretty cheap apartment (Cambridgeport, Cambridge,
>MA).
Must have been rough, down to only $60k/year for that time, eh? <g>
--
All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
-- Anna Quindlen
On 15 Aug 2012 12:51:07 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/14/2012 7:49 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> It is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal office.
>>
>> It's a federal crime to break into our country and be here illegally,
>> and the Feds ignore that crime as well...
>
>Agriculture as we know it would cease if we didn't have illegal aliens
>harvesting ... Guess who hires them
It wouldn't cease at all. It might get more expensive, or, *perhaps* Congress
could come up with some great idea to allow *legal* seasonal workers.
Legalizing and regulating; what a concept. Nah, then it would be too hard to
get them to vote.
Han <[email protected] wrote:
> Yes it would get much more expensive. Much more equitable to the workers
> as well. And I would be hugely in favor of legalizing immigrant workers,
> of course with some regulation. That's how I got here after all. Fill
> out the paperwork ...
+1
--
www.ewoodshop.com
On 17 Aug 2012 16:48:39 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> You'd have to convince me of the societal benefit of having an
>>> economy run purely on the basis of supply and demand versus one that
>>> provides a little for those that have a lot less than enough. Are you
>>> willing to watch people go hungry in the streets in order to maintain
>>> the purity of your religion (S & D)?
>>>
>>
>> Of course. Hunger is a great motivator.
>>
>> I saw this scenario on a blog, which I'll condense and paraphrase.
>>
>> While working in my front-lawn flower-bed, my very liberal neighbors
>> passed by with their 9-year old girl. They stopped to admire the
>> flowers and I asked the girl "What do you want to be when you grow
>> up?"
>>
>> "President" she replied.
>>
>> "Oh," said I, "why?"
>>
>> "Then I could make sure everybody had food and a home," was her
>> heartfelt answer.
>>
>> "You don't have to become president to do that. Tell you what: I'll
>> give you fifty dollars each week to mow my grass and weed the flower
>> beds. Then you can take the fifty dollars down to the store and give
>> it to somebody that's hungry and homeless."
>>
>> She thought for a moment, then said: "Why doesn't the homeless person
>> work for the fifty dollars himself?"
>>
>> "Congratulations," I said. "You've just become a conservative."
>>
>> Her parents became as close to spontaneous human combustion as I've
>> personally ever witnessed.
>
>Nice story, and perfectly suited to an able-bodied person of sound mind.
>There are others, though. Some homeless are sick, one way or another,
>some paid exorbitant rents in house that suddenly blew up. And don't
>misunderstand me, I don't think that abovementioned able-bodied person
>should be cuddled.
Surely you're not saying that *everyone* taking public assistance is insane?
...or that *none* are able-bodied? Surely not.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> Well, as it happens, I know a little something about this very topic.
> I am in the middle of moving a bunch of work offshore. You know why?
> Because - even in this lousy Obama economy - the company I am doing
> this for cannot find qualified Americans for the jobs at hand.
> American universities, flush with tax money and run by a bunch of
> 1960s retreads have been getting people to major in truly useless degrees
> like Womens' Studies, Sociology, Psychology, Black History, and
> Political Science.
Well - if I had not been part of hiring techology graduates, I might have
fallen for that, but it is pure bull Tim. Not to say those things don't
exist, but to suggest as you do, that they have overtaken engineering
degrees of all sorts, is just foolish, and only serves to makes a point
relevant one's own personal agenda. In short - it ignores reality.
> But the workforce needs engineers, scientists, doctors, and
> tradespeople. I have NO sympathy for the "whah, whah, they took our
> jobs" arguments because we did this to ourselves.
You are clearly out of touch with what universities and colleges are
graduating these days. Do yourself a favor and research the number of
engineering degrees that are going unfulfilled these days.
>
> Trade benefits everyone. But it REALLY benefits us. In the little
> picture, moving jobs offshore impacts the people who lost their jobs
> here. In the big picture it returns many times the economic benefit
> to *US*. Example:
>
> Say 10,000 manufacturing jobs building TVs get moved from the US to
> Japan, as was the case in the 1960s. Back then, those jobs probably
> paid about $5000 (see: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html).
>
> So, a total salary base of $50M was lost in the US.
>
> BUT, when TVs were made in the US, they were VERY expensive. I'd
> guess they were something around $700-900 in 1965 - or nearly 20% of
> average income.
You would serve your own arguments better Tim if you actually researched
what things were REALLY like back then, rather than guessing what they were.
Many of us lived through those times and when you make a statment like the
above, you do nothing but discredit yourself based on the shear inaccuracy
of it. You are off base by more than a mile.
>
> The offshore TVs began to become imported at a much lower price -
> more like $500 for a net savings conservatively of $200 per set.
>
> And here's were trade benefits us: Now 10 MILLION people can buy a TV,
> thereby saving $200 a whack (and the real number is probably higher
> than 10M) for a net savings of $2B dollars. AND, not all 10,000 jobs
> were "lost"
> because some of those people went on to become sales and repair people for
> the Japanese TVs now being imported.
I'm not even going to take you back through all of the errors in this
analysis. This argument is a lost cause.
>
> In short, an economic downside of $50M was offset by an upside of $2B
> and THAT, is what makes trade so powerful.
If trade is all you care about. It is not about trade Tim. It's about
jobs, earnings and revenue - and where those exist.
>
> Several other points:
>
> - You buy and sell labor like you do any other good or service. The
> price of labor is set by supply and demand.
>
> - There is no such thing as an "American job". There is a job and a
> global marketplace for labor. Over time, the work will migrate to
> the lowest cost providers that can do the work.
In a short-sighted way. Value comes in there too Tim. There used to be a
value in the phrase "Made In USA". Not now - because nothing is made here
anymore. Now... there is an acceptance that has crept in over decades, for
lesser value - in the name of lower prices. Damned that we have to replace
things twice as frequently - all your model cares about is that we can do so
more cheaply. Your model does not even consider TCO.
>
> - Over time, salaries for the same job will pay the same around the
> world, currency adjusted. Indian labor rates are rising, so are
> Chinese labor rates. Trade is the tide that truly lifts all boats.
> At some point within 20 years or so, there will be no huge salary
> advantage to offshoring. At that point, the decision will be made
> based on who does what well. Maybe the US will be R&D, India will
> be IT specialists, and China hard manufacturing.
God Tim - I'd hope you'd think this through a bit more.
>
> - Countries that trade peacefully do not go to war with each other
> very often.
Huh? Please reference history.
>
> - The US is far from being a 3rd world country. This is a talking
> point of the idiotic left. The US is still 12x the manufacturing
> power of China last I checked.
I'm as far from the left as one generally finds. If you can't see the
normalization of our economy with third world countries (owing to political
agendas), then I'm not even going to enter this arena of discussion. We
will just agree to disagree.
>
> - What is turning the US into an economic sewer are its greedy
> citizens that want what they have not earned and the politicians
> they hire to get that for them. It's our own fault.
And all of those citizens who are still alive and have lived through the
building and growth decades of our country - they did what? They
disappeared and let a new generation of totally and completely selfish and
horrid people swoop in and take their place? This is a real problem I have
with thoughts like yours and others who do nothing but talk stupid stuff
about Americans today. It's pure BS and is founded not much more than their
own agendas.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 08/18/2012 07:28 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
<Selected SNIPs for brevity not rhetorical advantage>
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 00:37:14 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> I used to be anti-min-wage but research showed me that it makes little
> difference in the long run. Most decent businesses that I know of, no
> matter how small, pay their employees that or better to start anyway.
> They get better performance out of them as a result. <shrug>
Ordinarily, you'd be right, it's kind of a non issue. The problem is
that we have a seriously wounded economy and the President is
busy executing policy that keeps it that way or makes it worse.
The only way the economy improves is with *Jobs*, and that means
entry level/low pay jobs are really important right now: For people
struggling who will work several lower pay jobs to make things go
and for the economy as a whole. In times like this, min wage
reduces the number of jobs that would otherwise be available.
Here in the USA, it's more often from eating junk. But apparent
> obesity can be caused by starvation. Look at any pic of a bloated kid
> from Africa, etc. regarding starvation.
> http://www.naturalnews.com/033376_starvation_obesity.html Interesting?
>
I'm sorry. but the herd of lumbering thunderthighs I see on the bus
and train every day did not get that way from a lack of food.
>> I had fun in the 1990s helping create and run a few
>> businesses. I loved seeing people get jobs and prosper. You know
>> what? I wouldn't do it now on a bet. I wouldn't start a new business,
>> and I wouldn't hire anyone. You'd be shocked home many body brokers
>> are out there offering jobs on a 1099 or corp-to-corp basis that will
>> not hire anyone as an actual employee.It's just not worth it. We're
>> becoming a nation of day laborers even at the most highly paid
>> professional jobs.
>
> Expand on that, please.
>
There are four ways to have a job:
1. Employ yourself
2. Be employed by someone else
3. Create a corporation or LLC to sell your services
4. Work on an hourly contract basis using IRS Form 1099 reporting
More and more professionals are doing 3. or 4. because they don't
have the capital to do 1. and 2. is hard to find.
>
> I'd truly love to put a check in the box beside a Perot/Paul ticket.
> I can't, in good conscience, vote for Romney or Obama. And I doubt
> that Obama will lose his throne in Nov. Romney continues to piss off
> the public and Obamunists aren't changing their minds (since they
> -never- research how ineffective and dangerous the SOB is) about their
> savior. <kaff,kaff>
>
> Stock up on necessaries. You may need them sooner than you think.
>
I don't love Romney and I almost never vote for Rs. I say "almost"
because I am a true independent libertarian. I voted for Carter
(which I'm ashamed to admit) and Reagan (who I thought did a great
job playing the Cold War end game). But Obama is SO very bad all the
time, that my vote this year will be Not Obama. I used to think he
was a good guy with bad ideas. I have come to understand that he
is a morally malignant guy with terrible ideas. So I'm gonna vote
holding my nose this time hoping to help unseat the worst US President
in 100 years.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 08/18/2012 07:28 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> <Selected SNIPs for brevity not rhetorical advantage>
>
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 00:37:14 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>
>> I used to be anti-min-wage but research showed me that it makes
>> little difference in the long run. Most decent businesses that I
>> know of, no matter how small, pay their employees that or better to
>> start anyway. They get better performance out of them as a result.
>> <shrug>
>
> Ordinarily, you'd be right, it's kind of a non issue. The problem is
> that we have a seriously wounded economy and the President is
> busy executing policy that keeps it that way or makes it worse.
> The only way the economy improves is with *Jobs*, and that means
> entry level/low pay jobs are really important right now: For people
> struggling who will work several lower pay jobs to make things go
> and for the economy as a whole. In times like this, min wage
> reduces the number of jobs that would otherwise be available.
>
I have to disagree Tim. When this country was great it was built upon much
more than the lowest paying jobs. The thing that has dragged this country
down is moving everything offshore in the name of profits, and leaving
nothing BUT the lowest paying jobs. So - now we are embarking upon a
journey of becoming a third world economy. Isn't that wonderful? And you
suggest that furthering this by creating low paying jobs just because people
will become desparate enough to take them - is a good thing? We
fundamentally disagree on that point.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:17:28 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:28:01 -0400, "[email protected]"
>>If they're capable of work, I have no problem seeing bums starve (they won't).
>>If not, charity works.
>
>As usual, your sweeping statements and incredible lack of humanity is
>overwhelming.
As usual, content of your posts matches your IQ; zero.
On 08/18/2012 02:12 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> On 08/18/2012 07:28 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>> <Selected SNIPs for brevity not rhetorical advantage>
>>
>>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 00:37:14 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>>
>>> I used to be anti-min-wage but research showed me that it makes
>>> little difference in the long run. Most decent businesses that I
>>> know of, no matter how small, pay their employees that or better to
>>> start anyway. They get better performance out of them as a result.
>>> <shrug>
>>
>> Ordinarily, you'd be right, it's kind of a non issue. The problem is
>> that we have a seriously wounded economy and the President is
>> busy executing policy that keeps it that way or makes it worse.
>> The only way the economy improves is with *Jobs*, and that means
>> entry level/low pay jobs are really important right now: For people
>> struggling who will work several lower pay jobs to make things go
>> and for the economy as a whole. In times like this, min wage
>> reduces the number of jobs that would otherwise be available.
>>
>
> I have to disagree Tim. When this country was great it was built upon much
> more than the lowest paying jobs. The thing that has dragged this country
> down is moving everything offshore in the name of profits, and leaving
> nothing BUT the lowest paying jobs. So - now we are embarking upon a
Well, as it happens, I know a little something about this very topic.
I am in the middle of moving a bunch of work offshore. You know why?
Because - even in this lousy Obama economy - the company I am doing
this for cannot find qualified Americans for the jobs at hand.
American universities, flush with tax money and run by a bunch of 1960s
retreads have been getting people to major in truly useless degrees
like Womens' Studies, Sociology, Psychology, Black History, and Political
Science. But the workforce needs engineers, scientists, doctors, and
tradespeople. I have NO sympathy for the "whah, whah, they took our
jobs" arguments because we did this to ourselves.
> journey of becoming a third world economy. Isn't that wonderful? And you
> suggest that furthering this by creating low paying jobs just because people
> will become desparate enough to take them - is a good thing? We
> fundamentally disagree on that point.
Trade benefits everyone. But it REALLY benefits us. In the little
picture, moving jobs offshore impacts the people who lost their jobs
here. In the big picture it returns many times the economic benefit
to *US*. Example:
Say 10,000 manufacturing jobs building TVs get moved from the US to
Japan, as was the case in the 1960s. Back then, those jobs probably
paid about $5000 (see: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html).
So, a total salary base of $50M was lost in the US.
BUT, when TVs were made in the US, they were VERY expensive. I'd guess
they were something around $700-900 in 1965 - or nearly 20% of average
income.
The offshore TVs began to become imported at a much lower price - more like
$500 for a net savings conservatively of $200 per set.
And here's were trade benefits us: Now 10 MILLION people can buy a TV,
thereby saving $200 a whack (and the real number is probably higher than 10M) for
a net savings of $2B dollars. AND, not all 10,000 jobs were "lost" because
some of those people went on to become sales and repair people for the Japanese
TVs now being imported.
In short, an economic downside of $50M was offset by an upside of $2B and THAT,
is what makes trade so powerful.
Several other points:
- You buy and sell labor like you do any other good or service. The
price of labor is set by supply and demand.
- There is no such thing as an "American job". There is a job and a global
marketplace for labor. Over time, the work will migrate to the lowest
cost providers that can do the work.
- Over time, salaries for the same job will pay the same around the world,
currency adjusted. Indian labor rates are rising, so are Chinese labor
rates. Trade is the tide that truly lifts all boats. At some point within
20 years or so, there will be no huge salary advantage to offshoring. At
that point, the decision will be made based on who does what well. Maybe
the US will be R&D, India will be IT specialists, and China hard manufacturing.
- Countries that trade peacefully do not go to war with each other very often.
- The US is far from being a 3rd world country. This is a talking point of the
idiotic left. The US is still 12x the manufacturing power of China last I checked.
- What is turning the US into an economic sewer are its greedy citizens that want
what they have not earned and the politicians they hire to get that for them.
It's our own fault.
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
[email protected] wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2012 16:48:39 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You'd have to convince me of the societal benefit of having an
>>>> economy run purely on the basis of supply and demand versus one that
>>>> provides a little for those that have a lot less than enough. Are you
>>>> willing to watch people go hungry in the streets in order to maintain
>>>> the purity of your religion (S & D)?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course. Hunger is a great motivator.
>>>
>>> I saw this scenario on a blog, which I'll condense and paraphrase.
>>>
>>> While working in my front-lawn flower-bed, my very liberal neighbors
>>> passed by with their 9-year old girl. They stopped to admire the
>>> flowers and I asked the girl "What do you want to be when you grow
>>> up?"
>>>
>>> "President" she replied.
>>>
>>> "Oh," said I, "why?"
>>>
>>> "Then I could make sure everybody had food and a home," was her
>>> heartfelt answer.
>>>
>>> "You don't have to become president to do that. Tell you what: I'll
>>> give you fifty dollars each week to mow my grass and weed the flower
>>> beds. Then you can take the fifty dollars down to the store and give
>>> it to somebody that's hungry and homeless."
>>>
>>> She thought for a moment, then said: "Why doesn't the homeless person
>>> work for the fifty dollars himself?"
>>>
>>> "Congratulations," I said. "You've just become a conservative."
>>>
>>> Her parents became as close to spontaneous human combustion as I've
>>> personally ever witnessed.
>>
>> Nice story, and perfectly suited to an able-bodied person of sound mind.
>> There are others, though. Some homeless are sick, one way or another,
>> some paid exorbitant rents in house that suddenly blew up. And don't
>> misunderstand me, I don't think that abovementioned able-bodied person
>> should be cuddled.
>
> Surely you're not saying that *everyone* taking public assistance is insane?
> ...or that *none* are able-bodied? Surely not.
>
I hope you don't find your hyperbole a compelling argument not to
provide any public assistance?
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 00:37:14 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 08/17/2012 08:58 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:54:38 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/16/2012 11:51 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> Are you willing to watch people go hungry in the streets in order to maintain the purity of your religion (S & D)?
>>>
>>> There is no example of starvation or famine on any scale in free, democratic,
>>> capitalist nations. Starvation is almost always an artifact of either
>>> political collectivism or personal malignancy (like substance abuse and so forth).
>>>
>>> In point of fact, there was never starvation on any scale or people dying in
>>> the streets prior to the inception of min wage laws. These laws are nothing
>>> more than transparent vote buying and do nothing to help the plight of
>>> the underclass. If anything, they make said plight worse.
>>
>> You're misguided, Tim. Do some more research about starvation in the
>> USA today. It's rampant.
>>
>> --
>
>It is not "rampant". There is some increase due to Obamanomics.
>It's worrisome because it is affecting people that we never
>thought it would, but it is not a some out of control scale
>like the left would have you believe. In any case, even if
>it were true, the worst possible response would be min wage laws.
I used to be anti-min-wage but research showed me that it makes little
difference in the long run. Most decent businesses that I know of, no
matter how small, pay their employees that or better to start anyway.
They get better performance out of them as a result. <shrug>
>I like to inspect Reality to check my premises. Now I know that
>anecdotal evidence is not the same thing as a serious scientific
>study, but here's what I see pretty much daily working in a very
>large city and having traveled all over the US:
Small city here.
>- Morbid obesity - not a sign of starvation last I checked.
> The lower the socio-economic class, the worse the lard generally
> speaking, although that's changing too. Now even the more affluent
> are turning into couch buffaloes.
Here in the USA, it's more often from eating junk. But apparent
obesity can be caused by starvation. Look at any pic of a bloated kid
from Africa, etc. regarding starvation.
http://www.naturalnews.com/033376_starvation_obesity.html Interesting?
>- Lots of street hustlers trying to guilt people into giving them money
> but they're not poor, underfed, or starving by any definition. The
> worst of them are really high and have problems because of their
> substance abuse issues, not because there is no food.
Street hustlers can make $50k/yr tax free.
>- The supposed downtrodden - all over the country, all ethnic groups -
> with expensive shoes, clothes, phones, and other electronics. (Not
> to mention jewelry and other bling that does not come cheap.)
>There isn't much "starvation". There is certainly what's called
>"food insecurity" caused by lots of things.
Going hungry is a form of starvation, so let's include hunger, shall
we? http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm
>The most fundamental
>cause is a lack of low end/entry level jobs. These are not offered
>because of the tons of regulatory hoops you have to jump through, so
>why bother?
I couldn't possibly hire anyone to work with me. It would cost an
extra $5k (bare minimum) just to meet the Work Comp regs. So I hire
guys a day at a time, 3-4 times a year, to handle the larger jobs.
>Thing like Obamacare create nothing but negative
>incentives for businesses because the idiots in D.C. keep trying
>to get businesses to pay more and more to bail out the government
>from the mess created by the politicians.
Ain't that the truth?
>I had fun in the 1990s helping create and run a few
>businesses. I loved seeing people get jobs and prosper. You know
>what? I wouldn't do it now on a bet. I wouldn't start a new business,
>and I wouldn't hire anyone. You'd be shocked home many body brokers
>are out there offering jobs on a 1099 or corp-to-corp basis that will
>not hire anyone as an actual employee.It's just not worth it. We're
>becoming a nation of day laborers even at the most highly paid
>professional jobs.
Expand on that, please.
>I'm a drop in the economic ocean. The Big Money players feel exactly the
>same way and THEY are not hiring - they're sitting on their money,
>praying the Obama gets kicked out in Nov. The market volumes are way
>down right now because the street does not trust this guy (nor should
>they). He's attacked the very engine of jobs, GDP growth, and indirectly
>tax revenue because ... he's a fool. Is it any wonder people right on
>the margin are struggling - most of 'em are not starving, but they're
>hurting pretty badly. As an aside, one of the financial guys told me
>that if Romney wins, the street is expecting the Dow to be at 15,000
>by the end of 2013, but if he loses, things will stay the same as they
>are now: stagnant. I dunno if he is right, but that's sounds sensible
>to me.
I'd truly love to put a check in the box beside a Perot/Paul ticket.
I can't, in good conscience, vote for Romney or Obama. And I doubt
that Obama will lose his throne in Nov. Romney continues to piss off
the public and Obamunists aren't changing their minds (since they
-never- research how ineffective and dangerous the SOB is) about their
savior. <kaff,kaff>
Stock up on necessaries. You may need them sooner than you think.
--
The business of America is not business. Neither is it war. The business
of America is justice and securing the blessings of liberty.
-- George F. Will
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:28:59 -0400, "[email protected]"
>OK, so you believe that one group of people should be able to make political
>contributions but another should not. How positively discriminating of you.
It's not des crimination you twit, it's called conflict of interest
and there should be laws against it in certain cases. Only someone
like you would want to make it easier for those with money to buy
influence.
Sure, it happens, but people like you would open the floodgates to
that kind of manipulation. Sad fact is, little people like you and me
would get eaten alive.
On 8/13/2012 10:25 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 8/13/2012 12:04 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 8/12/2012 8:59 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> How about this one instead:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-lacey-act-protectionism-through-criminalization/
>>>>>
>>>> http://www.science20.com/science_20/gibson_guitars_and_lacey_act_misused-82210
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Imagine that - the Obama administration, in the face of chronic high
>>> unemployment, is telling a U.S. manufacturer to export jobs to India.
>>
>> Obama wants to be the "NEW World" leader. He has to be concerned
>> about unemployment in other countries if he wants their vote. He has
>> already suckered the lefties here into voting for him here, mission
>> accomplished.
>
> I am no Obama fan, but Leon... what do you mean by wanting their vote?
> People in other countries cannot vote in our elections (under republican
> rules...)
>
please decrease your sarcasm-o-meter a bit.
On 8/13/12 12:25 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 8/13/2012 12:04 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 8/12/2012 8:59 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> How about this one instead:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-lacey-act-protectionism-through-criminalization/
>>>>>
>>>> http://www.science20.com/science_20/gibson_guitars_and_lacey_act_misused-82210
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Imagine that - the Obama administration, in the face of chronic high
>>> unemployment, is telling a U.S. manufacturer to export jobs to India.
>>
>> Obama wants to be the "NEW World" leader. He has to be concerned
>> about unemployment in other countries if he wants their vote. He has
>> already suckered the lefties here into voting for him here, mission
>> accomplished.
>
> I am no Obama fan, but Leon... what do you mean by wanting their vote?
> People in other countries cannot vote in our elections (under republican
> rules...)
>
Citizens of foreign countries voted a lot in the least election.
They just happen to be living in this country. Lots of dead people
voted, too.
There are many, many loopholes in the voter registration process that
allows for citizens of other countries to vote in our elections. That is
precisely why the Dems are against proof of citizen requirements for
voter registration.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 8/13/12 12:57 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>> On 8/13/12 12:25 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>> On 8/13/2012 12:04 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> On 8/12/2012 8:59 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> How about this one instead:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-lacey-act-protectionism-through-criminalization/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.science20.com/science_20/gibson_guitars_and_lacey_act_misused-82210
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Imagine that - the Obama administration, in the face of chronic high
>>>>> unemployment, is telling a U.S. manufacturer to export jobs to India.
>>>>
>>>> Obama wants to be the "NEW World" leader. He has to be concerned
>>>> about unemployment in other countries if he wants their vote. He has
>>>> already suckered the lefties here into voting for him here, mission
>>>> accomplished.
>>>
>>> I am no Obama fan, but Leon... what do you mean by wanting their vote?
>>> People in other countries cannot vote in our elections (under republican
>>> rules...)
>>>
>>
>> Citizens of foreign countries voted a lot in the least election.
>> They just happen to be living in this country. Lots of dead people
>> voted, too.
>
> Funny, all the non-partisan voting experts can't find any evidence
> of this (particularly the "lot" part).
>
>>
>> There are many, many loopholes in the voter registration process that
>> allows for citizens of other countries to vote in our elections. That is
>> precisely why the Dems are against proof of citizen requirements for
>> voter registration.
>
> Actually, this is completely false. Democrats want it easier for americans
> to vote, Republicans want to make it harder for americans to vote. Please
> name one single democrat who want to allow citizens of other countries
> to vote? You can't.
>
> scott
>
Voter registration is under the jurisdiction of local election boards.
In many places you can get registered simply by getting a driver's
license. In many of those places, all you need to get a drivers license
is as little as a utility bill with your name on it addressed to your
residence. I can drive down my street and within 5 minutes, point to a
dozen or more people driving who are not legal citizens of the US.
It's funny that you can hardly do anything in the US without a valid ID,
yet the Dems want to allow anyone to walk up to a voting booth and vote,
without any proof they are who they say they are. Even though, there is
very little one can do in everyday life without a valid ID, the Dems
think it's some kind of hardship to show an ID to vote. Someone could go
to my precinct, give my name and address, go into the booth and vote for
me. This is perfectly fine with the Dems.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Han wrote:
>
> Either that and lots of shovels, or education and discussion. I'm not
> against the second amendment, just against wanton violence. (AS you
> guys know).
Sorry Han - what does that really mean, and how is it relevant? Your
either/or statement implies education and discussion is superior. You
should have been around in 1774 and you could have saved everybody a lot of
grief with that thought.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 08/17/2012 02:29 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Meanwhile back in Reality: Most everything the Bush administration
>>> put in place was ... ALREADY in place courtesy of the War On Drugs.
>>> Bush was able to legally get stuff done via Patriot I because of the
>>> many usurpations of personal liberty undertaken by this ridiculous
>>> "war" - usurpations, BTW, done both by right- and leftwing
>>> governments. So don't blame Bush (it will make you sound too much
>>> like that loser Obama). Blame JFK and every government forward for
>>> creating a culture in which the Big Powerful Government gets to pee
>>> on the 4th Amendment...
>>
>> Gotta call Bullshit on that one Tim. Those things may have been
>> done in a cloak and dagger manner, but it was Bush that pulled the
>> wool over America's eys by capitalizing on 911 to legalize it.
>>
>
> I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. The legal precedents set by the War
> On Drugs are exactly what made Patriot I unremarkable legally. Most
> of what's in it had already been done in the name of the drug war.
Please define your use of the term "unremarkable legally".
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 08/16/2012 01:54 PM, Bill wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> On 08/16/2012 09:56 AM, Han wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>
>>> Opinions versus facts. What I say are my opinions. I think I was paid
>>> what I was worth at most if not all points in my career. I know that
>>> others in similar positions and with similar capabilities were paid less
>>> and others more, but that is besides the point. My point is that many
>>> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are paid
>>> insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make everything more
>>> expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion is that more income
>>> equality would benefit our society.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You're missing the point. Unless force it brought to bear to MAKE you
>> take a job, you're always "paid what you're worth" because you are
>> "worth" what the market will bear.
>
> So if there are way more people than jobs. Then a person's worth may be close to negligible
That's right. This is called the law of supply and demand. All min
wage laws do is distort economic feedback and prevent new jobs
from being created.
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
On 08/16/2012 03:29 PM, Han wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:6c00g9-n1i2.ln1
> @ozzie.tundraware.com:
>
>> You are not describing a free market. You are describing a fantasy
>> world in which people get paid what they want irrespective of
>> market conditions. Why should employees have preferential treatment
>> over employers. What makes the rights of sellers superior to that
>> of buyers? You cannot make the moral case for this ... ever.
>
> I wasn't describing a free market, and I certainly don't call it moral.
> Sometimes the real world isn't that moral. And remember, institutions and
> corporations are run by people. And in some instances there is no morally
> correct accounting done.
>
That's true, but what you're proposing adds to the pillaging and thieving.
Min wage laws and their many variant cousins effectively use force to
constrain the buyer while giving the seller a benefit they have not earned.
You're solution is thus effectively to increase evil, not decrease it.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 19 Aug 2012 00:57:14 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> If Gass wins, he will have been handed a legal monopoly on table saws,
>> and who knows what else. I suppose you would be in favor of that.
>
>If you look back through this newsgroup, you'd find that I proposed that
>Gass should be forced to accept a (mediated) licensing settlement that
>would give him a fair return on investment, but would not give him the
>blackmail that he now expects.
You're naive. There is no way the CSPC can do that (well, with Obama, perhaps
that's not true - he's already done worse). He should get *nothing* other
than what people willingly give him for his invention. If you're willing to
pay him $1M, so be it.
>I'm not sure whether legally institutionalizing armtwisting of a Federal
>agency by an inventor, no matter how smart and deserving he might be is a
>good idea.
You're not sure? <shivers up the spine>
>This case might be the precedent (if there isn't any other) to
>limit extortion by a monopolist.
If there is "extortion" it would be at the hand of the federal government. You
seem to be OK with this.
>Mind you, I think Gass should be fairly
>compensated, and I don't know how much that should be.
He should be "fairly" compensated with as much as *you* are willing to give
him. Leave me out of this transaction.
On 18 Aug 2012 22:12:32 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 18 Aug 2012 15:49:37 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> BINGO! Corruption encompasses all branches, beginning with some of
>>>> the lowly city gov't folks, worsening in state gov't, and
>>>> skyrocketing in the totally corrupt CONgress. That's why it will
>>>> take the people, all of us, to bring about REAL change in our
>>>> country.
>>>>
>>>
>>>How, Larry? We have a Constitution to work with. A very powerful
>>>status quo vehicle.
>>
>> Good question. We have to force the corrupt CONgresscritters into
>> doing our actual wishes, LISTENING to their constituents and acting on
>> it. If they continue to fail do do so, they may force the public into
>> action. I sense another revolution brewing in our future. Don't you?
>> Let's hope it isn't a bloody one. (Or racially motivated, which would
>> be even worse.)
>
>Great!!
>
>> Things I'd like to see immediately are:
>>
>> 1) Downsizing gov't (50-75% oughta do it) since it's rife with
>> duplication and unnecessary agencies.
>
>I think that has been tried without much success. In part because the
>lawyers are too smart (sic!!) to allow the intent of a regulation or law
>to overrule the loophole seekers.
>
>> 2) Elimination of deficits.
>
>Means taxes ...
Or not. Remember, losing all that gov't would do wonders to the
budget. Even if the Fed paid the states' unemployment bennies.
>> 3) Reduction of the US debt.
>
>Paying them off costs ...
Reduced gov't costs far less. With the same tax rates, much more gets
done on a much smaller amount.
>> 4) Buttoning up of the borders, eliminating ILlegal entry.
>
>I think we are on the way. Of course, if the Mexicans (substitute at
>will) have a better economy and safer environment, they'd probably like
>to stay where they are.
Damned straight they would. They'll be taking over our country in a
decade or two. I think we're 33% Hispanic now.
>> 5) Deportation of bad actors and all illegals of all races.
>
>Fine. Does that include the grownups who were brought (illegally) here
>when they were 6? Who never even knew they were illegal until they
>needed papers? Who got educated here, have our customs, and no criminal
>record?
What part of "illegal" do you not understand?
>> 6) Elimination of money in politics by moving to a (dare I say it?)
>> somewhat socialistic "kitty" base.
>
>I'd like that too, but it is probably wildly utopian,
Of course it is. It's also extremely effective. Don't expect the gov't
to jump on it any time soon.
>> 7) Elimination of "use it or lose it" funding in gov't agencies so we
>> don't see year-end mass buying sprees to use up current funds which
>> aren't needed.
>
>Yes! I'm all for it. I remember the calls from upstairs (around this
>time): We have $10K to spend, what instrument do you want?
>
>> 8) Elimination of the DHS, reverting to FBI (internal), CIA (external)
>> plus a few others as necessary.
>
>Accepted.
>
>> 9) Ending the Wars on Terror, Drugs, and Poverty since they are having
>> the opposite effect.
>
>That should include legalizing drugs and taxing them twice as much as
>treatments cost.
There ya go.
>> 10) No delays in execution of prisoners found to be guilty. No more
>> ten years on death row, death row suicide(!) watches, seventeen
>> appeals (which can happen even if the prisoner doesn't want -any-),
>> etc.
>
>That is dubious given the terrible record of bad verdicts. I'm against
>the death penalty unless for really, really egregious and well-proven
>crimes. Such as the murder of a family in CT.
The false death penalty rate is 1%. That's too high and extremely
unfortunate, but when we catch the guys pulling this crap on us, let's
take them out, too. Bad cops are worse than bad criminals. Still,
why warehouse all those bad guys, at extreme cost, when we're hurting
financially?
>> 11) Review of all foreign aid and elimination of most. (Let's fix our
>> own country first, huh? Then, when we can afford it, maybe send some
>> out, but the debt elimination comes first, damnit.)
>
>Foreign aid is OK, but military aid should be carefully scrutinized.
>pissing my pants right now because the President of Egypt is going to
>visit Iran himself, rather than send a vice-president.
<g>
>> 12) Elimination of the Patriot Acts.
>
>Good!! They are duplicative and coercive, and without constitutional
>safeguards.
>
>> 13) Elimination of perqs for CONgress, including A) lifetime pensions
>> for a 2-year service to the country, and B) lifetime Cadillac
>> healthcare. Give them the same thing we get from the gov't. These
>> bloody assholes think they're _royalty_, fer chrissake.
>
>Yep!
>
>> 14) Laws against lobbying to be enacted. (Help stop corruption.)
>
>In favor, but it is dubious that it can be done. Petition for redress of
>grievances, and the lack of expertise in the business/whatever that is
>being legislated on the part of the legislators.
>
>> 15) Elimination of some of the automatic citizenship laws which are
>> allowing illegal familes to invade us.
>
>??? That may go against the idea of family reunion, and of sponsoring
>immigrants by citizens.
Too bad. What about the Mexican mothers who cross the border, give
birth to their child in the Emergency Room, then go back to Mexico to
collect their and their kids' social security for the rest of their
lives? Some of the Mexican scams are really out there since they're
so close and the border is so loose. We really need to stop all this
crap. The Canadians are closer friends and our borders there are wide
open, too.
>> 16) Elimination of automatic welcoming of persons claiming political
>> asylum/boat people. (Obama let in 80k potential terrorists recently.)
>
>That's a claim needing substantiation. It was tried before WWII. Some
>people who could have really contributed to our economy and culture ended
>up in Argentina and Brazil, and I'm not talking about nazis.
Yeah, but how many dirtbags DIDN'T end up here, too? Weigh it all
out.
>> OK, carpal tunnel setting in. Those are a good start. Please add to
>> this list and then we can all send the complete list to our
>> representative government offices.
>
>Haha.
I'm serious. SOMEONE has to start to rein these assholes in.
>> I switched the subject to OT for obvious reasons. OT filters will now
>> work on this thread, too.
>
>Good
--
The business of America is not business. Neither is it war. The business
of America is justice and securing the blessings of liberty.
-- George F. Will
Dave wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:53:08 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> That is a good piece of information Edwin. Worth watching to see
>> what does develop within the insurance industry. But - in contrast
>> to the current claims about insurance companies, it remains
>> something that is on the radar scope, and not something that is in
>> effect today.
>
> If doesn't have to be in effect in writing for it to be in active. The
> unspoken suggestion is reason enough.
>
> Perhaps you should ask why a few companies have switched entirely over
> to SawStops? Lee Valley Tools is one that comes to mind. Between their
> customer seminars and the occasional cutting their employees do, they
> had little choice when it came to putting SawStops in all their
> stores.
>
> No mandating of SawStops by Canadian insurance industries as far as I
> know, but the unspoken suggestion to get them has spread pretty wide.
> Imagine one of those customers (or an employee) cutting off a finger?
> The lawsuits would fly. LV being the responsible company it is plus
> the chance of getting sued for an injury, LV had little alternative to
> protect itself except to comply with an as yet unspoken insurance
> company desire..
Yet - that was a decision of theirs.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 18 Aug 2012 21:23:12 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 18 Aug 2012 15:49:37 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> BINGO! Corruption encompasses all branches, beginning with some
>>>>> of the lowly city gov't folks, worsening in state gov't, and
>>>>> skyrocketing in the totally corrupt CONgress. That's why it will
>>>>> take the people, all of us, to bring about REAL change in our
>>>>> country.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How, Larry? We have a Constitution to work with. A very powerful
>>>>status quo vehicle.
>>>
>>> But Han, you're one who doesn't care a fig about the Constitution,
>>> particularly as a "status quo vehicle".
>>
>>Keith, that is a non-sequitur to me. Maybe you can explain ...
>
> You're constantly pushing an anti-Constitutional agenda, at least one
> that gives even lip service to a durable Constitution.
With all the anti-constitutional activities ever since (as I remember it)
the Tonkin resolution, why blame it on me? I am not a constitutional
scholar, and my rantings don't carry any weight to responsible people
other than bringing up discussion points. As a matter of fact, the
SCOTUS can't agree on many constitutional affairs, and I am truly amazed
it has been only verbal fisticuffs (if I can call the disagreements
between justices that, especially in the ACA case). If what I say is
anticonstitutional, I need to apologize. It isn't meant to be. OTOH,
whatever you refer to, it is my interpretation of what IS constitutional.
>>Yes, the fact that there are amendments to the Constitution means it
>>is subject to revision (and re-revision, a la prohibition).
>
> Fine. Then amend it, if you don't think the US doesn't stand up to
> your Holland. The rules are enclosed inside. Good luck!
If you drive that a little bit further, you'd have to go back to, and
hand everything over to the original occupants of this land.
>>Moreover, as I
>>understand the Constitution, it prescribes a division of powers, with
>>(I think) the SCOTUS as the last arbiter. AT least that is the
>>current interpretation. I think it was Scalia who in an interview
>>re-iterated what Roberts had said in slightly different words. We are
>>loath to overturn on ideology if the legal phraseology can be
>>interpreted in favor of a passed law.
>>
>>What I meant as a status quo vehicle was that Congress has difficulty
>>making laws (certainly at the moment) that would re-interpret previous
>>laws. And with that I mean to say that once a law is on the books,
>>changing for instance dividends and capital gains into ordinary income
>>for tax purposes is difficult. Lobbyists and all.
>
> Um, that's *not* unintentional. The Constitution is all about
> "gridlock". It's not a bad thing at all.
I think you're right on the things in those last 2 sentences.
>>Sorry, I may make less sense now than I first thought. Damned
>>whooping cough ...
>
> Blame it on the drugs. ;-)
>
>>Guys, do yourselves a favor and get the booster vaccination for
>>pertussis, I think it is call Tdap. I've been sick or sickish for
>>months now, and the coughing is terrible.
>
> I had it as a teen. Wasn't fun.
It surely isn't either as adult. Less bounce-back.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 19 Aug 2012 00:57:14 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> If Gass wins, he will have been handed a legal monopoly on table
>>> saws, and who knows what else. I suppose you would be in favor of
>>> that.
>>
>>If you look back through this newsgroup, you'd find that I proposed
>>that Gass should be forced to accept a (mediated) licensing settlement
>>that would give him a fair return on investment, but would not give
>>him the blackmail that he now expects.
>
> You're naive. There is no way the CSPC can do that (well, with Obama,
> perhaps that's not true - he's already done worse). He should get
> *nothing* other than what people willingly give him for his invention.
> If you're willing to pay him $1M, so be it.
>
>>I'm not sure whether legally institutionalizing armtwisting of a
>>Federal agency by an inventor, no matter how smart and deserving he
>>might be is a good idea.
>
> You're not sure? <shivers up the spine>
>
>>This case might be the precedent (if there isn't any other) to
>>limit extortion by a monopolist.
>
> If there is "extortion" it would be at the hand of the federal
> government. You seem to be OK with this.
>
>>Mind you, I think Gass should be fairly
>>compensated, and I don't know how much that should be.
>
> He should be "fairly" compensated with as much as *you* are willing to
> give him. Leave me out of this transaction.
I think we really agree that Gass is out for himself, and that we have to
resist. If the CPSC says that his invention is required, what is going to
determine the price?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 18 Aug 2012 21:23:12 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 18 Aug 2012 15:49:37 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> BINGO! Corruption encompasses all branches, beginning with some of
>>>> the lowly city gov't folks, worsening in state gov't, and
>>>> skyrocketing in the totally corrupt CONgress. That's why it will
>>>> take the people, all of us, to bring about REAL change in our
>>>> country.
>>>>
>>>
>>>How, Larry? We have a Constitution to work with. A very powerful
>>>status quo vehicle.
>>
>> But Han, you're one who doesn't care a fig about the Constitution,
>> particularly as a "status quo vehicle".
>
>Keith, that is a non-sequitur to me. Maybe you can explain ...
You're constantly pushing an anti-Constitutional agenda, at least one that
gives even lip service to a durable Constitution.
>Yes, the fact that there are amendments to the Constitution means it is
>subject to revision (and re-revision, a la prohibition).
Fine. Then amend it, if you don't think the US doesn't stand up to your
Holland. The rules are enclosed inside. Good luck!
>Moreover, as I
>understand the Constitution, it prescribes a division of powers, with (I
>think) the SCOTUS as the last arbiter. AT least that is the current
>interpretation. I think it was Scalia who in an interview re-iterated
>what Roberts had said in slightly different words. We are loath to
>overturn on ideology if the legal phraseology can be interpreted in favor
>of a passed law.
>
>What I meant as a status quo vehicle was that Congress has difficulty
>making laws (certainly at the moment) that would re-interpret previous
>laws. And with that I mean to say that once a law is on the books,
>changing for instance dividends and capital gains into ordinary income
>for tax purposes is difficult. Lobbyists and all.
Um, that's *not* unintentional. The Constitution is all about "gridlock".
It's not a bad thing at all.
>Sorry, I may make less sense now than I first thought. Damned whooping
>cough ...
Blame it on the drugs. ;-)
>Guys, do yourselves a favor and get the booster vaccination for
>pertussis, I think it is call Tdap. I've been sick or sickish for months
>now, and the coughing is terrible.
I had it as a teen. Wasn't fun.
On 8/18/2012 9:29 PM, Han wrote:
> I think we really agree that Gass is out for himself,
Someone needs to be out for you, best be yourself. It's when gov't gets
their sorry ass involved things start getting ugly.
and that we have to resist.
Simple to resist Gass, difficult to resist Uncle Sam.
You can puff out your chest and give Gass the bird, but when Uncle Sam
comes to help you, bend over, grab your ankles and get ready to feel the
love!
> If the CPSC says that his invention is required, what is going to
> determine the price?
Required? REQUIRED? Leon, he said /REQUIRED/...
Silly man...
--
Jack
The government cannot give to anybody anything that it doesn't first
take from somebody else
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:53:08 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>That is a good piece of information Edwin. Worth watching to see what does
>develop within the insurance industry. But - in contrast to the current
>claims about insurance companies, it remains something that is on the radar
>scope, and not something that is in effect today.
If doesn't have to be in effect in writing for it to be in active. The
unspoken suggestion is reason enough.
Perhaps you should ask why a few companies have switched entirely over
to SawStops? Lee Valley Tools is one that comes to mind. Between their
customer seminars and the occasional cutting their employees do, they
had little choice when it came to putting SawStops in all their
stores.
No mandating of SawStops by Canadian insurance industries as far as I
know, but the unspoken suggestion to get them has spread pretty wide.
Imagine one of those customers (or an employee) cutting off a finger?
The lawsuits would fly. LV being the responsible company it is plus
the chance of getting sued for an injury, LV had little alternative to
protect itself except to comply with an as yet unspoken insurance
company desire..
On 08/16/2012 06:57 PM, Han wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 08/16/2012 03:29 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:6c00g9-n1i2.ln1
>>> @ozzie.tundraware.com:
>>>
>>>> You are not describing a free market. You are describing a fantasy
>>>> world in which people get paid what they want irrespective of
>>>> market conditions. Why should employees have preferential
>>>> treatment over employers. What makes the rights of sellers superior
>>>> to that of buyers? You cannot make the moral case for this ...
>>>> ever.
>>>
>>> I wasn't describing a free market, and I certainly don't call it
>>> moral. Sometimes the real world isn't that moral. And remember,
>>> institutions and corporations are run by people. And in some
>>> instances there is no morally correct accounting done.
>>>
>>
>> That's true, but what you're proposing adds to the pillaging and
>> thieving. Min wage laws and their many variant cousins effectively use
>> force to constrain the buyer while giving the seller a benefit they
>> have not earned. You're solution is thus effectively to increase evil,
>> not decrease it.
>
> We disagree, I think. Minimum wage is not pillaging and thieving but
> protecting people from abuse by exploiters. We have a military to
> protect the country. We all pay for it, huge amounts at that. But you'd
> leave the little man to fight for himself, without the protection of a
> minimum wage? I think that is icky, with all due respect for your
> opinion.
>
2/3 of American business is small/medium sized. Minimum wage laws FORCE
the small business owner to pay above market rates for jobs. So what do they
do? Hire no one and stress their existing staff more. Notice the 14+%
effective unemployment rate at the moment. Part of this is directly attributable
to travesties like min wage laws.
> Minimum wage is not pillaging and thieving but
> protecting people from abuse by exploiters.
This is absurd. No one makes you work for someone but
somehow, it's OK to make someone hire you. It's unfair and
it is evil.
> I think that is icky, with all due respect for your
> opinion.
I think screwing people that take all the risk is icky.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 08/17/2012 10:12 AM, Han wrote:
> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/16/2012 3:35 PM, Han wrote:
>> Also, when
>>> companies pay their CEOs more than they pay in taxes, something is
>>> amiss, I think.
>>
>> Companies don't pay taxes, people do.
>
> Then companies should not be allowed to make political contributions.
>
Fine. Then neither should unions, PACs, the AARP, or any other lobbying
group. Similarly, groups like MoveOn, AlterNet, and so forth should
not be permitted to raise funds in support of any political action.
'Sound good to you?
What you're not getting here is that one of our fundamental natural
rights is to "associate" as we wish. Why is OK for an individual
to do something, but not for a bunch of individuals with common
goals and interests to do the same thing? A corporation is not some
faceless entity. It has owners - owners that have a shared set of
economic ambitions and owners that often have to act politically to
support those ambitions. And, BTW, these owners are not typically the
hated eeeeeeeeevil rich people, but more usually they are investment
and retirement institutions working on behalf of millions of the average
folks.
So, the neverending attack on corporations is both morally malignant and
harms the middle and lower classes primarily....
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 08/17/2012 11:42 AM, Han wrote:
> I don't think that (much as I'd want to) we can overturn the SCOTUS
> decision that corporations are people (which I disagree with, as
> previously noted, but it is now the law of the land). But it isn't right
> that people can freely associate in claok and dagger groups that don't
> reveal their identity.
So now you don't think we have a natural right to privacy? I hate to
tell you this, but the cornerstone of any despotic dictatorship is
remove said privacy and thereby force people to either lie or openly
state their opposition to the regime so they can either be "reeducated"
or "removed". Privacy is pretty important. If you don't think so, imagine
being forced to vote where everyone could see your choices ... say like
the pigs in the various unions want...
...
> Let the corporations be good citizens, rather than enrichment vehicles
> for greedy executives.
This is a leftie talking point and it is wrong. The percentage of any corporation's
(at least any one of size) spends on executive compensation pales by comparison
to their other big line items. Usually, the biggest single line item
is either natural resource extraction/use or bargaining unit labor. I once
worked at an airline where we calculated that if all of us non-union
folks made $0 per year, it would have had NO effect on the profitability
of the company... that's how much more the union labor and fuel costs were
in the scheme of things. Interestingly, that airlines selfish unions
complained just as you have about excessive exec comp, bought the
company by pledging their pension funds as collateral, and promptly
flew the company straight into bankruptcy. The US taxpayer now gets to
make good on a significant chunk of those pensions.
The real problem here is that corporate execs do not own ENOUGH of their own stock.
They don't have enough of their income tied to the performance of the company. Why?
Because the whiny left howled when this was the case. When Jack Welsh left GE with
100+ Million in retirement, the the social justice chimps screamed about excessive
compensation. What they failed to note is that he made this over a period of decades
*by increasing the stock value* of which he was given/bought quite a bit. He had an
incentive to make the company prosper.
But noooooooo, we can't have people actually making lots of money because they
did well, can we now? So ... the accounting rules were changed to force
the recognition of stock options in a way that created a significant disincentive
for companies to make that a big part of executive compensation. In response,
execs started demanding higher and higher salaries ... which, of course, are not
correlated to corporate performance, but are contractual obligations.
In short, the idiot left created the exact environment they are now screaming
about. But that's no surprise. This is what happens when you put the Smelliest
Generation of the 1960s in charge of anything. The only thing they actually know how
to run is their mouths.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 08/17/2012 12:57 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>> On 08/17/2012 11:42 AM, Han wrote:
>>> I don't think that (much as I'd want to) we can overturn the SCOTUS
>>> decision that corporations are people (which I disagree with, as
>>> previously noted, but it is now the law of the land). But it isn't right
>>> that people can freely associate in claok and dagger groups that don't
>>> reveal their identity.
>>
>> So now you don't think we have a natural right to privacy? I hate to
>> tell you this, but the cornerstone of any despotic dictatorship is
>> remove said privacy and thereby force people to either lie or openly
>> state their opposition to the regime so they can either be "reeducated"
>> or "removed". Privacy is pretty important. If you don't think so, imagine
>> being forced to vote where everyone could see your choices ... say like
>> the pigs in the various unions want...
>
> Absolutely agreed. Too bad that the Bush administration put into place so
> many illegal surveillance programs on americans. Not that the current
> administration has eliminated them - which is one of the few things they've
> done wrong.
>
>
Meanwhile back in Reality: Most everything the Bush administration put
in place was ... ALREADY in place courtesy of the War On Drugs. Bush
was able to legally get stuff done via Patriot I because of the many
usurpations of personal liberty undertaken by this ridiculous "war" -
usurpations, BTW, done both by right- and leftwing governments. So
don't blame Bush (it will make you sound too much like that loser Obama).
Blame JFK and every government forward for creating a culture in which
the Big Powerful Government gets to pee on the 4th Amendment...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 8/16/2012 3:31 PM, Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:56:44 +0000, Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My point is that many
>>>>> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are
>>>>> paid insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make
>>>>> everything more expensive. You may or may not agree, but my
>>>>> opinion is that more income equality would benefit our society.
>>>>
>>>> I've occasionally wondered if it wouldn't be more equitable to pay
>>>> workers based on how well they do a job, not on what the job is.
>>>>
>>>> There are people who excel in their jobs, whether that be clerks,
>>>> engineers, physicians, or dogcatchers. All those jobs are essential.
>>>> Maybe the top performers should all be paid the same?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I know - it's a utopian fantasy :-).
>>>
>>> I don't see anything utopian about undermining peoples motivation.
>>
>> Undermining their motivation? How do you see that Bill? Pay for
>> performance - that is motivation.
>>
>
> I agree with paying for performance--though measuring performance can
> get really complex very fast. I thought he wanted to reward a "good"
> engineer, a "good" clerk and a "good" dogcather with the same pay.
>
> Larry B. does say, "Maybe all top performers should be paid the same".
> Paying them all the same would, for some IMO, undermine the motivation
> to be an engineer or physician: "I like to work with animals, I think
> I'll work for animal control so I don't have to go to school for 8
> years to be a veteranarian".
Plus, different activities have different values. A good engineer might
put 1,000 hours into a project that returns $1, $10 or even $100 million
to his employer as a return on its investment in his time. It would not
be out of line to pay such a worker $200,000 a year. No matter how good
a tomato picker might be, it's highly likely that his labors will return
$1,000 an hour to the farmer who hires him.
On 8/17/2012 12:49 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>>> On 08/17/2012 11:42 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> I don't think that (much as I'd want to) we can overturn the SCOTUS
>>>> decision that corporations are people (which I disagree with, as
>>>> previously noted, but it is now the law of the land). But it isn't
>>>> right that people can freely associate in claok and dagger groups
>>>> that don't reveal their identity.
>>> So now you don't think we have a natural right to privacy? I hate to
>>> tell you this, but the cornerstone of any despotic dictatorship is
>>> remove said privacy and thereby force people to either lie or openly
>>> state their opposition to the regime so they can either be
>>> "reeducated"
>>> or "removed". Privacy is pretty important. If you don't think so,
>>> imagine being forced to vote where everyone could see your choices
>>> ... say like the pigs in the various unions want...
>> Absolutely agreed. Too bad that the Bush administration put into
>> place so many illegal surveillance programs on americans. Not that
>> the current administration has eliminated them - which is one of the
>> few things they've done wrong.
> Here, here! As republican as I can be at times, that whoe Patriot Act thing
> was a legal abomination. Sadly, too many feel good people in this country
> fell prey to the impact of 911 and forgot to get up in arms about that
> thing.
>
Probably because it had no noticeable impact on most people.
On 8/17/2012 1:57 PM, Jack wrote:
> On 8/17/2012 11:42 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:28:11 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Entering the country w/o permission is a misdemeanor (crime) the first
>>> offense, and a felony (crime) thereafter.
>>
>> AIUI, it's a civil offense the first time (not a misdemeanor).
>
> AIUI, It's a misdemeanor
>
> mis·de·mean·or
> noun
> 1. Law . a criminal offense defined as less serious than a felony.
>
> The reason
>> being that it doesn't require a trial (by jury) to deport an alien,
>> only an
>> administrative action. The second offense, after deportation, can
>> result in a
>> prison sentence, so would naturally require a trial.
>
> The second offense is a felony, both amazingly are ignored by our
> [fed] government at this time, to the point of suing states for trying
> to keep it real.
>
You can certainly make up definitions. Apparently, you can't quote the
statute that you claim makes illegal entry a misdemeanor or felony.
On 8/17/2012 2:08 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 8/17/2012 12:49 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>> On 08/17/2012 11:42 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>>> I don't think that (much as I'd want to) we can overturn the
>>>>>> SCOTUS decision that corporations are people (which I disagree
>>>>>> with, as previously noted, but it is now the law of the land). But it
>>>>>> isn't right that people can freely associate in claok and
>>>>>> dagger groups that don't reveal their identity.
>>>>> So now you don't think we have a natural right to privacy? I hate
>>>>> to tell you this, but the cornerstone of any despotic dictatorship
>>>>> is remove said privacy and thereby force people to either lie or
>>>>> openly state their opposition to the regime so they can either be
>>>>> "reeducated"
>>>>> or "removed". Privacy is pretty important. If you don't think so,
>>>>> imagine being forced to vote where everyone could see your choices
>>>>> ... say like the pigs in the various unions want...
>>>> Absolutely agreed. Too bad that the Bush administration put into
>>>> place so many illegal surveillance programs on americans. Not that
>>>> the current administration has eliminated them - which is one of the
>>>> few things they've done wrong.
>>> Here, here! As republican as I can be at times, that whoe Patriot
>>> Act thing was a legal abomination. Sadly, too many feel good people
>>> in this country fell prey to the impact of 911 and forgot to get up
>>> in arms about that thing.
>>>
>> Probably because it had no noticeable impact on most people.
> Yet...
>
> The worst part about a law is not always what it has done, but what it can
> do.
>
Which is partly why we need the Second Amendment.
On 8/17/2012 7:08 PM, Jack wrote:
> On 8/17/2012 5:08 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>
>> Apparently, you can't quote the
>> statute that you claim makes illegal entry a misdemeanor or felony.
>
> I'm too busy being amused by how goofy it is consider illegal entry
> not illegal (a crime).
>
>
If it's a crime, there's a statute out there making it a crime. Just
because it's illegal doesn't make it criminal. What statute is it that
makes illegal entry a crime?
On 8/19/2012 5:58 AM, Han wrote:
> So why not register those firearms, so there is a way to trace a
> weapon that escapes responsible control? So we can, hey Joe, you used
> to have a (X), but didn't report it stolen, and now it was used in (Y)
> illegal way. How come? Is that really too much to ask? How does
> that infringe anyone's rights?
It clearly infringes the right to be let alone. Of what actual
beneficial use is the registration you describe? At the point the
authorities knew of the firearm, they would confiscated the weapon after
its illegal use. Once confiscated, it's no longer in circulation. At
that point, what good would it be to harass the former legal owner?
Answer: none.
On 15 Aug 2012 17:51:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 15 Aug 2012 12:51:07 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 8/14/2012 7:49 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>> It is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal
>>>> office.
>>>>
>>>> It's a federal crime to break into our country and be here
>>>> illegally, and the Feds ignore that crime as well...
>>>
>>>Agriculture as we know it would cease if we didn't have illegal aliens
>>>harvesting ... Guess who hires them
>>
>> I call BULLSHIT on that one, Han. With so many people out of work
>> right now, I'd bet not one of those jobs went empty for very long if
>> we were to finally deport all the illegals.
>
>I'm going by reports of harvest gone unharvested when Alabama or Arizona
>or both decided to let illegals deport themselves, and they did.
Did you mean Georgia? The farmers should have known that was coming
and made sure they had workers lined up beforehand, don't you think?
Or, if the state gov't pushed the deadline or hit them without
warning, they should have helped find workers for the farmers, don't
you think? I'm thinking the two groups bent -themselves- over this
time.
>> 'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
>> only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
>> particular line of expertise. After 6 months (or less?), they should
>> be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple days
>> training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles. Unlimited
>> unemployment checks breed worse things. Get 'em off their asses!
>
>I think that much unemployment or underemployment stems from
>insufficient wages. But then, we have gotten used to cheap food and
>other things cheap, so we're not willing to pay what we in all
>likelihood should. I agree that people should take a job, almost any
>job once their unemployment runs out. Who (OTOH) is in charge of
>generating jobs for those whose prior jobs have disappeared? All this
>is hugely easy for me to say, because I don't need a job anymore ...
That's just it. Unemployment isn't running out. Some people have been
on it for over three years, Han! I think that after whatever the
initial run is (I think it was 13 weeks when I last used it, back in
the '70s) and the unemployed person hasn't found work, they should be
forced to take whatever job IS available in their town, at their
unemployment office. If the wages are less than their unemployment
check (usually for very highly paid people), maybe cover the
difference? But the unemployment office isn't forcing anything. That
should change. Forcing unearned money on people isn't good for anyone
involved: Not the worker, not the EDD office, and not the taxpayers.
--
Make awkward sexual advances, not war.
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:46:18 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Just Wondering <[email protected]> writes:
>>> On 8/17/2012 9:34 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> And your man Obama's scheme of amnesty for illegals just to get
>>>>> more votes is undermining the integrity of the Union. His letting
>>>>> in 80,000 Muslim immigrants _ensured_ that there are terrorists in
>>>>> the USA now, with the full blessing of the President of the United
>>>>> States. That says more than I ever could.
>>>> Just in case you hadn't noticed, Larry, there is currently a
>>>> Congress. . .
>>>
>>> And it's Congress, not the President, that makes the laws. It's the
>>> President's job to enforce the laws that Congress passes. If the
>>> President doesn't like a particular law, tough for him, he took an
>>> oath to enforce it anyway.
>>
>> Of course, every president has used the side letter business to
>> work around this.
>>
>> http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm
>>
>>> The President simply lacks the authority to
>>> nullify or waive enforcement of a law on the books. Obama has
>>> repeatedly violated his oath of office by refusing to enforce the
>>> law as written.
>>
>> He learned the technique from GWB.
>>
>
>Oh geezus... please! Been around more than the past 4 or 5 years? Oh
>wait - that was a dig, wasn't it?
He's just learning from BHO.
Han wrote:
> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> Whatsamatter, you don't like someone else arbitrarily deciding pay
>> rates and what's a "fair" wage? There is a reason the free market
>> works better than government control. It's the same reason the USA
>> at one time was the greatest country on earth and people fought to
>> get in, instead of out as in government controlled (socialist)
>> environments.
>
> In this communist-controlled country there is no free market.
> In this capitalist-monopolized country they make believe there is a
> free market.
> Take your pick.
So what are you really saying Han? It seems you don't like capitalism. I
don't like the alternatives. Differences of opinion.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Jack <[email protected]> writes:
>On 8/17/2012 11:46 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> On 08/17/2012 10:19 AM, Han wrote:
>>> And no, the
>>> oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give them more, au
>>> contraire.
>>
>> I think you have this wrong. The oil companies pay more in taxes than they
>> make in profit in a typical year. Here is just one analysis with
>> supporting citation:
>>
>> http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/10/gas_taxes_excee.html
>>
>> It is the *government* that is subsidized by the oilcos not the other way
>> around....
>
>Recently heard on TV that oil companies make about 6-8 cents on a gallon
>of gas. Government makes 40 to 66 cents on the same gallon. In
>Californica the gov makes 66 cents on a gallon.
5 minutes of research would show that california makes 35.3 cents on
a gallon (WA 37.5 cents, NC 35.2 cents, maine 30 cents, Minnesota 27 cents).
When you add local (e.g. sales) taxes, CA is 50 cents, Connecticut is 51 cents,
Hawaii 49 cents, Illinois 50.6 cents, usw).
http://www.californiagasprices.com/tax_info.aspx
Don't believe everything you hear on TV, especially on Fox News.
Just Wondering wrote:
> On 8/17/2012 12:49 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> On 08/17/2012 11:42 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>> I don't think that (much as I'd want to) we can overturn the
>>>>> SCOTUS decision that corporations are people (which I disagree
>>>>> with, as previously noted, but it is now the law of the land). But it
>>>>> isn't right that people can freely associate in claok and
>>>>> dagger groups that don't reveal their identity.
>>>> So now you don't think we have a natural right to privacy? I hate
>>>> to tell you this, but the cornerstone of any despotic dictatorship
>>>> is remove said privacy and thereby force people to either lie or
>>>> openly state their opposition to the regime so they can either be
>>>> "reeducated"
>>>> or "removed". Privacy is pretty important. If you don't think so,
>>>> imagine being forced to vote where everyone could see your choices
>>>> ... say like the pigs in the various unions want...
>>> Absolutely agreed. Too bad that the Bush administration put into
>>> place so many illegal surveillance programs on americans. Not that
>>> the current administration has eliminated them - which is one of the
>>> few things they've done wrong.
>> Here, here! As republican as I can be at times, that whoe Patriot
>> Act thing was a legal abomination. Sadly, too many feel good people
>> in this country fell prey to the impact of 911 and forgot to get up
>> in arms about that thing.
>>
> Probably because it had no noticeable impact on most people.
Yet...
The worst part about a law is not always what it has done, but what it can
do.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 19 Aug 2012 11:58:13 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There are (I think) people who believe that their 2nd amendment
>>> rights are about to be violated, and they go out and get armed to the
>>> teeth. As well as those who are afraid of perceived rising chances of
>>> being involved in violence. I am definitely not sure that all those
>>> people in either category get enough education in how to handle their
>>> weapons safely, and how to keep them secure. But those are my fears.
>>> I don't know squat about firearms.
>>
>> That is where I was going with my question Han. I appreciate your
>> fears as I said before, but to hold those closely in the face of what
>> you admit is a lack of knowledge speaks more about your own fears than
>> it does about those you fear. Knowledge Han - go learn something
>> about these guys. Admitely - they are whackos of one sort or another,
>> but not generally in the sense that you currently fear.
>>
>> Here's why I ask questions and engage dialog like that. Your current
>> fears and level of knowledge are not terribly atypical. So - suppose
>> a piece of legislation is proposed that would "limit" or "control"
>> these "fearful" things. In your current state of understanding, that
>> would seem prudent to you and you might well find yourself a supporter
>> of it. But - is it real and is it meaningful? It will certainly
>> affect the rights of others, but for a good reason, or not? That's
>> how feel good laws get passed and they do nothing more than that -
>> make uninformed people feel good. But the rhetoric from the
>> now-feeling-good uninformed people rises to loud levels - as if there
>> really were some value to it. Meanwhile...
>
>Well, Mike, The current sharply increasing rate of weapons going out to
>people who may not be able to use them or protect them is a real fear of
>mine. As you might have gathered, I have nothing against knowledgable
>people possessing and using firearms responsibly.
>
>So why not register those firearms, so there is a way to trace a weapon
>that escapes responsible control? So we can, hey Joe, you used to have a
>(X), but didn't report it stolen, and now it was used in (Y) illegal way.
>How come?
>
>Is that really too much to ask? How does that infringe anyone's rights?
Whoa! Registration doesn't stop theft or criminal use of anything,
Han. All it does is give the police a person to go after when the
weapon is found, after it was used in a crime. And it wasn't the owner
who committed the crime. Besides, most weapon sales in shops are
already traceable. Don't get all gun-controlly on us, please.
--
The business of America is not business. Neither is it war. The business
of America is justice and securing the blessings of liberty.
-- George F. Will
On 19 Aug 2012 11:58:13 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There are (I think) people who believe that their 2nd amendment
>>> rights are about to be violated, and they go out and get armed to the
>>> teeth. As well as those who are afraid of perceived rising chances of
>>> being involved in violence. I am definitely not sure that all those
>>> people in either category get enough education in how to handle their
>>> weapons safely, and how to keep them secure. But those are my fears.
>>> I don't know squat about firearms.
>>
>> That is where I was going with my question Han. I appreciate your
>> fears as I said before, but to hold those closely in the face of what
>> you admit is a lack of knowledge speaks more about your own fears than
>> it does about those you fear. Knowledge Han - go learn something
>> about these guys. Admitely - they are whackos of one sort or another,
>> but not generally in the sense that you currently fear.
>>
>> Here's why I ask questions and engage dialog like that. Your current
>> fears and level of knowledge are not terribly atypical. So - suppose
>> a piece of legislation is proposed that would "limit" or "control"
>> these "fearful" things. In your current state of understanding, that
>> would seem prudent to you and you might well find yourself a supporter
>> of it. But - is it real and is it meaningful? It will certainly
>> affect the rights of others, but for a good reason, or not? That's
>> how feel good laws get passed and they do nothing more than that -
>> make uninformed people feel good. But the rhetoric from the
>> now-feeling-good uninformed people rises to loud levels - as if there
>> really were some value to it. Meanwhile...
>
>Well, Mike, The current sharply increasing rate of weapons going out to
>people who may not be able to use them or protect them is a real fear of
>mine. As you might have gathered, I have nothing against knowledgable
>people possessing and using firearms responsibly.
You don't know that. You *fear* it. It could easily be that gun owners are
simply buying another. Before an anticipated ban is a good time.
>So why not register those firearms, so there is a way to trace a weapon
>that escapes responsible control? So we can, hey Joe, you used to have a
>(X), but didn't report it stolen, and now it was used in (Y) illegal way.
>How come?
1) it accomplishes nothing.
2) the first step in confiscation has always been registration. It's almost a
night follows day axiom.
>Is that really too much to ask? How does that infringe anyone's rights?
Yes! See above.
On 08/16/2012 02:35 PM, Han wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> You're missing the point. Unless force it brought to bear to MAKE you
>> take a job, you're always "paid what you're worth" because you are
>> "worth" what the market will bear. If a job is offered at a price,
>> it is because the buyer (employer) values the work more than the money
>> they pay for it. If the seller (you) accepts the job, then you value
>> the money more highly than you do your time to do the work. Everyone
>> wins. You may not be making as much as you would LIKE or THINK you
>> should get, but that doesn't make you "worth" it. Again, this is
>> true as long as no one is pointing a gun at your head.
>
> That is fine in a really free market. I was glad that my boss always
> valued my work and could convince his bosses of it (I was indeed
> convinced). On the other hand, I was taken into the office of the
> division head once and told that it was better to take a 30% cut now that
> portion of the grants had run out. I did, and within a year had managed
> to get another grant. I am not sure whether I could have insisted that
> my salary should remain the same, and that departmental funds should
> cover the shortfall (I heard that might have been the "law"). I was too
> afraid of not getting institutional support for my next grant
> application, which would have been it for my career.
>
> So a free market may exist for some professions. I am wondering how free
> the market is in actual fact. It isn't for many "trades" that limit to
> union members. Obviously for people in sales of high-faluting medical
> equipment there was a recent collapse as another poster indicated. The
> really good salaries in the pharmaceutical industry are likely also a
> thing of the past. We have had really big discussions, sometimes of
> varying degrees of politeness, whether teachers are paid as deserved, too
> little or grossly too much.
>
> Until there is at least a 5% surplus in each profession for an extended
> period of time, it is unlikely that a truly free market develops. The 5%
> figure is taken from what I heard was a healthy vacancy rate for rental
> housing - neither too much nor too little. Obviously for "protected"
> professions such as department heads at universities, unionized jobs and
> others, the extended period of time might be very long. Also, when
> companies pay their CEOs more than they pay in taxes, something is amiss,
> I think. Of course someone could make a case, perhaps ...
>
You are not describing a free market. You are describing a fantasy
world in which people get paid what they want irrespective of
market conditions. Why should employees have preferential treatment
over employers. What makes the rights of sellers superior to that
of buyers? You cannot make the moral case for this ... ever.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
On 08/18/2012 05:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Colleges graduate students where the market is heading - perhaps with a
> little lag.
Maybe. But have you tried to hire a high quality plumber or
electrician lately. There is a TON of opportunity in the trades
and these are jobs that cannot easily be offshored. Unfortunately
a generation of American parents were brainwashed by the 1960s
Smelliest Generation that runs the universities that no one
can succeed without a college degree. Speaking as someone who
HAS a graduate degree (and briefly taught grad school) this is
nonsense.
> You are right about the web development stuff, but that's where
> the market is. Hardcore engineering is dying here.
I'm actually saying the opposite: Web programming and Java are
now commodity skills - the manual labor of the IT industry.
There are too many people that can do this work and not enough
job openings.
Hardcore engineering is exactly what we're missing and where
all the demand is. I could probably place between 5-20 people
right now with just 1 year's experience in Linux engineering
and infrastructure if they knew basic system administration,
networking, and troubleshooting, and had good people skills
and a high integrity work ethic. The jobs I'm thinking of
start at well north of $50K/yr with full benefits, vacation,
401K matching, and instant vesting of all the money the company
does contribute to the 401K. A great first job for a young,
smart engineer ... and the company can't find 'em. That, sir,
is why jobs are leaving Dodge...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 18 Aug 2012 21:09:48 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 18 Aug 2012 15:47:37 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> I used the saw stop as an example because this is a woodworking
>>>> group, and most woodworkers, even the idiots, know what a saw stop
>>>> is. Some don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw
>>>> buyers to only buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let
>>>> government mandate wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well
>>>> let them mandate a the price of the saw.
>>>
>>>Yes a cow is a mammal, we get our milk from cows. Cats are mammals
>>>too, why not get our milk from them? That's the above reasoning (IMO)
>>>...
>>>
>>>Actually the sawstop may be a good example of the multiple things that
>>>are "wrong". Gass had good ideas, but when he tried to sell them,
>>>nobody would buy. He is a good patent lawyer, so he definitely could
>>>cover his invention to lock it up. Then he went 2-prong - he made his
>>>own excellent (expensive) saw and he went lobbying for regulations
>>>that would force people to buy his saw. (Something about petitioning
>>>government for redress of grievances, perhaps - I'm not a
>>>constitutional lawyer).
>>>
>>>So what is wrong here? Please add your opinions. Mine are:
>>>- The saw makers were stupid.
>>
>> No, they weren't.
>>
>>>Now they are on the hook.
>>
>> Not yet.
>
>Whether they were stupid or not will wait until this whole thing has
>played out. My feeling at this point is that they should have accepted
>Gass's first offer in some form.
Because they didn't even consider that the power of the US government would be
used to put them out of business? No, I expect they didn't expect this from
"hope and change".
>But I do see the lawyer argument that
>doing so would make them admit to having been selling dangerous toys.
Hindsight, without considering the consequences, is wonderful.
>>>- Gass is a monopolist. He is a very capable lawyer and wants his
>>>"due", to the max. - Gass deserves compensation for his inventions.
>>
>> He *only* deserves compensation to the extent that people are willing
>> to give him is pound of flesh. If *they* decide that his invention is
>> not worth the money, *they* should be free to pass on it.
>
>Easy to say, not necessarily true. If Gass wins the Safety commission
>endorsement, they'll have to accept his monopoly pricing. There is no
>viable alternative (yet).
If Gass wins, he will have been handed a legal monopoly on table saws, and who
knows what else. I suppose you would be in favor of that. "It's for the
children."
>>>- If people are too stupid to follow simple directions about safety,
>>>let Darwin rule. - People should be protected from having to work
>>>under dangerous conditions.
>>
>> The government can't protect idiots. With your extension of the nanny
>> state, I guess we'd better outlaw hydrogen hydroxide, too.
>
>Misspelling. It's dihydrogen oxide. :)
Nope. It's (slightly) ionic. ;-)
>The stats say that it is the single man workshop who begets the injuries,
>or at least those that are NOT under OSHA regulation. Those are safe.
>So in actual fact, government can protect idiots, or at least educate
>them via OSHA.
How many die from drowning every year? Should be ban swimming, too?
How about five-gallon buckets?
>>>>If I have to, or want to buy a new saw, the sawstop is something I'd
>>>give thought to. I can probably afford it.
>>
>> Good for you. I can, too, but chose not to. You'd rather take that
>> choice away from me. How tyrannical of you.
>
>It's not MY choice. I'd rather have competition and education do the
>work. I'm against the Gass maneuvers to use the Safety Commission.
You seem to be just peachy with the whole idea.
>>>If a guy/company goes for
>>>the easiest profit he'd ignore worker safety unless forced to obey
>>
>> The worker can chose to work for the guy with the SawStop, too.
>
>With unlimited work options in town, yes. Too many little contractors
>with Ridgid saw who chose not to educate their workers sufficiently, but
>too few real choice between them.
They can choose to do something else for a living, or go to work for
themselves. Heck, they can even buy their own tools.
On 08/19/2012 12:53 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 10:33:57 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>>>
>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Gov't making 50 cents on a gallon is between 40 and 66 cents. The oil
>>>> companies make far, far, far less at 6 - 8% profit/ and they do all
>>>> the work. The asshole socialists want to tack on a windfall profit
>>>> tax on companies making a small profit, while they are the ones
>>>> ripping off the public. Then, the dicks turn around and give 1/2 a
>>>> billion to Solyndra to piss away into the wind. Meanwhile, MS and
>>>> Apple are making 30-40% profits on their monopoly, and no one even
>>>> whispers windfall profit. Quite a joke.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's because Microsoft and Apple are not exactly monopolies: they have
>>> robust and effective competitors. Their competitors are themselves.
>>
>> It's rather ridiculous to talk about "MS and Apple monopoly" given that
>> the two are arch-rivals and that Apple would prefer that no Apple
>> product ever run a single line of Microsoft code.
>
> Not buying that. How about Word? What about dual booting Windows? That was
> one of the selling points they bought by switching from IBM/PPC to Intel/X86.
Apple was forced to do this to stay competitive and live in Reality. But they
are the most closed source company in the world, far, far worse than Microsoft.
They also are currently behaving quite badly. See:
http://culturewrench.com/?p=141
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 10:33:57 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> Jack wrote:
>> >
>> > Gov't making 50 cents on a gallon is between 40 and 66 cents. The oil
>> > companies make far, far, far less at 6 - 8% profit/ and they do all
>> > the work. The asshole socialists want to tack on a windfall profit
>> > tax on companies making a small profit, while they are the ones
>> > ripping off the public. Then, the dicks turn around and give 1/2 a
>> > billion to Solyndra to piss away into the wind. Meanwhile, MS and
>> > Apple are making 30-40% profits on their monopoly, and no one even
>> > whispers windfall profit. Quite a joke.
>> >
>>
>> That's because Microsoft and Apple are not exactly monopolies: they have
>> robust and effective competitors. Their competitors are themselves.
>
>It's rather ridiculous to talk about "MS and Apple monopoly" given that
>the two are arch-rivals and that Apple would prefer that no Apple
>product ever run a single line of Microsoft code.
Not buying that. How about Word? What about dual booting Windows? That was
one of the selling points they bought by switching from IBM/PPC to Intel/X86.
>Further, most of Apple's profits these days come from iphones and ipads
>and ipods, all product niches in which Microsoft is pretty much a non-
>starter.
Can't start. They can't get out of their own way. Such always happens with
"monopolies".
>> If they didn't improve their products with new features and the like,
>their
>> revenue streams would wither.
>>
>> So it is with most "monopolies." They've got to periodically provide a
>> better product at a lower price or they're out of business. The exceptions
>> to this rule are the monopolies established or controlled by some agency of
>> government (think cable TV).
>
>There are product monopolies and service monopolies. A service monopoly
>has a pretty much guaranteed continuous revenue stream--people aren't
>going to stop talking on the phone or watching TV because the
>infrastructure is old unless it gets so old that it stops working. On
>the other hand, once every potential consumer of a product has the
>product, the revenue model goes from first sales to replacement sales,
>and to get those sales in any kind of volume you have to improve the
>product enough that someone wants to replace it even though their old
>product is still working.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> Hardcore engineering is exactly what we're missing and where
> all the demand is. I could probably place between 5-20 people
> right now with just 1 year's experience in Linux engineering
> and infrastructure if they knew basic system administration,
> networking, and troubleshooting, and had good people skills
> and a high integrity work ethic. The jobs I'm thinking of
> start at well north of $50K/yr with full benefits, vacation,
> 401K matching, and instant vesting of all the money the company
> does contribute to the 401K. A great first job for a young,
> smart engineer ... and the company can't find 'em. That, sir,
> is why jobs are leaving Dodge...
Man Tim - you should start a recruiting business because you'd have a corner
on the market. I do see those openings here and there but I probably
haven't seen 20 since the beginning of the year. Maybe it's a reflection of
where you live.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:04:09 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Agreed - despite the unfounded claims that insurance companies are driving
>this, I've not yet seen one single piece of proof of this claim.
AIM Mutual insurance is our workmen's comp carrier. They are strongly
suggesting new equipment be replaced with Saw Stop or equal. They are
not yet refusing to write a policy (that I'm aware of), but they are
certainly pushing for safety features like Saw Stop. It was indicated
that it may be mandatory, but that was during last year's inspection.
I'll try to remember to ask about it.
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:04:09 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> Agreed - despite the unfounded claims that insurance companies are
>> driving this, I've not yet seen one single piece of proof of this
>> claim.
>
> AIM Mutual insurance is our workmen's comp carrier. They are strongly
> suggesting new equipment be replaced with Saw Stop or equal. They are
> not yet refusing to write a policy (that I'm aware of), but they are
> certainly pushing for safety features like Saw Stop. It was indicated
> that it may be mandatory, but that was during last year's inspection.
> I'll try to remember to ask about it.
That is a good piece of information Edwin. Worth watching to see what does
develop within the insurance industry. But - in contrast to the current
claims about insurance companies, it remains something that is on the radar
scope, and not something that is in effect today. It stands to reason that
they would make this push. What remains to be seen is where that ultimately
goes. What happens if the CPSC does not for some reason, come down in favor
of SawStop... will that cause the insurance companies to back off these
"suggestions"? Worth watching to see.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 19 Aug 2012 19:16:05 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> No, licensed plumbers. Maybe all the outfits in New Jersey are
>> one-man shops, but they certainly aren't here. There are radio
>> advertisements for licensed plumbers to join companies all the time,
>> here. There *is* a high demand.
>
>I think most plumbers are corporations.
I *HIGHLY* doubt that. Most of the plumbers I've known have been union
members and certainly do not work for themselves.
>I am not sure whether everyone
>of their workers doing plumbing work need to be fully licensed. I am
>pretty sure that either there are different levels of licensing, or that
>the lower echelon just follows instructions, but I'll ask my plumber
>friend when I see him again.
It's a hierarchy, just like most trades. There are helpers, apprentices,
journeymen, etc. That doesn't change the fact that plumbers work for
corporations, too.
>> If they're all one-man shop, there, I assume there are no plumber's
>> unions? That's cool, but it must make building all those skyscrapers a
>> pain. ;-)
>
>The one I know best is not in a union shop, just part of a company doing
>residential work in the 'burbs here.
A non-union shop in Jersey? Shock! ;-)
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 08/18/2012 05:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Colleges graduate students where the market is heading - perhaps with
>> a little lag.
>
> Maybe. But have you tried to hire a high quality plumber or
> electrician lately. There is a TON of opportunity in the trades
> and these are jobs that cannot easily be offshored. Unfortunately
> a generation of American parents were brainwashed by the 1960s
> Smelliest Generation that runs the universities that no one
> can succeed without a college degree. Speaking as someone who
> HAS a graduate degree (and briefly taught grad school) this is
> nonsense.
Fully agree, but it seems some of that is coming back. Problem is that
a fully licensed (independent) plumber or electrician just about has to
get at least an associate degree to be able to read the regs and do the
accounting.
>> You are right about the web development stuff, but that's where
>> the market is. Hardcore engineering is dying here.
>
> I'm actually saying the opposite: Web programming and Java are
> now commodity skills - the manual labor of the IT industry.
> There are too many people that can do this work and not enough
> job openings.
>
> Hardcore engineering is exactly what we're missing and where
> all the demand is. I could probably place between 5-20 people
> right now with just 1 year's experience in Linux engineering
> and infrastructure if they knew basic system administration,
> networking, and troubleshooting, and had good people skills
> and a high integrity work ethic. The jobs I'm thinking of
> start at well north of $50K/yr with full benefits, vacation,
> 401K matching, and instant vesting of all the money the company
> does contribute to the 401K. A great first job for a young,
> smart engineer ... and the company can't find 'em. That, sir,
> is why jobs are leaving Dodge...
That would also be the kind of job to return ASAP when the
schools/students see the opportunity. Indeed, some of the lower level
off-shored jobs are coming back, I heard (don't ask, I don't remember
where I heard).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> If Gass wins, he will have been handed a legal monopoly on table saws,
> and who knows what else. I suppose you would be in favor of that.
If you look back through this newsgroup, you'd find that I proposed that
Gass should be forced to accept a (mediated) licensing settlement that
would give him a fair return on investment, but would not give him the
blackmail that he now expects.
I'm not sure whether legally institutionalizing armtwisting of a Federal
agency by an inventor, no matter how smart and deserving he might be is a
good idea. This case might be the precedent (if there isn't any other) to
limit extortion by a monopolist. Mind you, I think Gass should be fairly
compensated, and I don't know how much that should be.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Hmm, Afina, Aquafina? Is there a connection? Perhaps she owns a chunk
> without your knowledge? ;-)
Afina is a not so common Dutch name. She does NOT like jokes involving her
name.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>
> My analysis is not substantially wrong, though there may be small
> errors of detail. There are NOT enough technology grads to fill the jobs
> we
> need filled. Most of the people going into so-called CS programs are
> actually learning web programming and Java where there are way too
> many people already. The jobs are in real hardcore engineering and true
> computer science. Trade DOES materially lift all boats in the macro
> picture. Trade DOES reduce the tendency of nations to go to war. These
> are unremarkable observations. The only people that disagree with
> them are not doing so on factual grounds but because they do not like the
> outcomes.
Colleges graduate students where the market is heading - perhaps with a
little lag. You are right about the web development stuff, but that's where
the market is. Hardcore engineering is dying here. As you say below -
technology has evolved past that - for good or for bad - that's the way it
is.
>
> It makes no difference whether my view of trade is right or your
> complaints are valid. Here is REALITY: Jobs are- and will continue
> to globalize. You can either embrace this change and learn to
> function in this new larger pool of talent or sit in the corner whining
> about how things used to be. I am well into my 50s and have had to
> completely reinvent my profession 3
> times (so far). I do not expect to be given a job, I do not think I
> am entitled to anything (beyond fair treatment by my government), and I
> sure as
> heck don't think I am magically granted the ownership of a job for
> all time. And, yes, I do know what long term unemployment feels like.
> (And yes, I do
> know what it's like to bust your butt to do a great job and to be
> rewarded by being laid off.)
>
All of what you say above I would say as well.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
> Adapt or die. This is the lesson of nature and the lesson of history.
On 8/18/2012 8:57 PM, Han wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> If Gass wins, he will have been handed a legal monopoly on table saws,
>> and who knows what else. I suppose you would be in favor of that.
>
> If you look back through this newsgroup, you'd find that I proposed that
> Gass should be forced to accept a (mediated) licensing settlement that
> would give him a fair return on investment, but would not give him the
> blackmail that he now expects.
So then, you not only like government mandated wages, but also
government mandated pricing.
So much for the silly cow cat milk fiasco.
Mind you, I think Gass should be fairly
> compensated, and I don't know how much that should be.
I think 3 cents over minimum wage would be perfect!
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 08/18/2012 03:53 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:04:09 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Agreed - despite the unfounded claims that insurance companies are
>>> driving this, I've not yet seen one single piece of proof of this
>>> claim.
>>
>> AIM Mutual insurance is our workmen's comp carrier. They are strongly
>> suggesting new equipment be replaced with Saw Stop or equal. They are
>> not yet refusing to write a policy (that I'm aware of), but they are
>> certainly pushing for safety features like Saw Stop. It was indicated
>> that it may be mandatory, but that was during last year's inspection.
>> I'll try to remember to ask about it.
>
> That is a good piece of information Edwin. Worth watching to see what does
> develop within the insurance industry. But - in contrast to the current
> claims about insurance companies, it remains something that is on the radar
> scope, and not something that is in effect today. It stands to reason that
> they would make this push. What remains to be seen is where that ultimately
> goes. What happens if the CPSC does not for some reason, come down in favor
> of SawStop... will that cause the insurance companies to back off these
> "suggestions"? Worth watching to see.
>
My analysis is not substantially wrong, though there may be small errors
of detail. There are NOT enough technology grads to fill the jobs we
need filled. Most of the people going into so-called CS programs are
actually learning web programming and Java where there are way too many
people already. The jobs are in real hardcore engineering and true
computer science. Trade DOES materially lift all boats in the macro
picture. Trade DOES reduce the tendency of nations to go to war. These
are unremarkable observations. The only people that disagree with them
are not doing so on factual grounds but because they do not like the
outcomes.
It makes no difference whether my view of trade is right or your complaints
are valid. Here is REALITY: Jobs are- and will continue to globalize. You can
either embrace this change and learn to function in this new larger pool
of talent or sit in the corner whining about how things used to be. I am
well into my 50s and have had to completely reinvent my profession 3 times
(so far). I do not expect to be given a job, I do not think I am entitled
to anything (beyond fair treatment by my government), and I sure as heck don't
think I am magically granted the ownership of a job for all time. And, yes,
I do know what long term unemployment feels like. (And yes, I do know what
it's like to bust your butt to do a great job and to be rewarded by being
laid off.)
Adapt or die. This is the lesson of nature and the lesson of history.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:41:52 -0400, "[email protected]"
>Of course but try convincing a leftist loser like Lurndal of that.
Better that than trying to explain facts to an asshole nutbar like
you.
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 12:45:18 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 08/18/2012 10:49 AM, Han wrote:
>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> BINGO! Corruption encompasses all branches, beginning with some of
>>> the lowly city gov't folks, worsening in state gov't, and skyrocketing
>>> in the totally corrupt CONgress. That's why it will take the people,
>>> all of us, to bring about REAL change in our country.
>>>
>>
>> How, Larry? We have a Constitution to work with. A very powerful status
>> quo vehicle.
>>
>
>Which is routinely avoided and ignored by the people it is supposed to rein
>in. You cannot have durable republic when the President himself has
>contempt for the document and wants to pack the courts with people
>that similarly don't care about limited Federal power.
+1
--
The business of America is not business. Neither is it war. The business
of America is justice and securing the blessings of liberty.
-- George F. Will
On 08/18/2012 05:55 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>
>> Hardcore engineering is exactly what we're missing and where
>> all the demand is. I could probably place between 5-20 people
>> right now with just 1 year's experience in Linux engineering
>> and infrastructure if they knew basic system administration,
>> networking, and troubleshooting, and had good people skills
>> and a high integrity work ethic. The jobs I'm thinking of
>> start at well north of $50K/yr with full benefits, vacation,
>> 401K matching, and instant vesting of all the money the company
>> does contribute to the 401K. A great first job for a young,
>> smart engineer ... and the company can't find 'em. That, sir,
>> is why jobs are leaving Dodge...
>
> Man Tim - you should start a recruiting business because you'd have a corner
> on the market. I do see those openings here and there but I probably
> haven't seen 20 since the beginning of the year. Maybe it's a reflection of
> where you live.
>
The company in question is in metro Chicago. The rest of the job
market is deader than a doornail, but this particular space -
Linux data center operations - it very strong.
And no, I do not want to be a recruiter - it's one step below
being the piano player in a cathouse: You aren't part of the action
but everyone notices when you don't play your part.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 19 Aug 2012 11:50:52 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/18/2012 3:52 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 8/17/2012 5:16 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> On 8/17/2012 1:56 PM, Jack wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do know bottled water costs more than gas . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I can buy bottled water for under $2/gallon. Tell me where I can
>>>>> buy gasoline at under $2/gallon.
>>>>
>>>> Quick look on the net found PERRIER for just $19/gal. I suggest you
>>>> buy all you can for under $2 a gallon and get yourself good and
>>>> filthy rich.
>>>
>>> Aquafina @ Amazon 32 bottles of 16.9 fl oz for $5.92. That is
>>> $3.70/gal, like gasoline. Better look for specails ...
>>
>> Aquafina is tap water, comes out of the Detroit river. $3.70 a gallon
>> for water you get from the local river vs. gas that is a bit more
>> difficult to get out of the ground and refine is plain stupid. You
>> pay 2000 times more for Aquafina than you would from the tap.
>> Gasoline on the other hand is a great deal, and the oil companies
>> should be applauded not attacked.
>
>I'll tell Afina (my wife, who buys it, knowing it's a waste of money).
Hmm, Afina, Aquafina? Is there a connection? Perhaps she owns a chunk
without your knowledge? ;-)
On 18 Aug 2012 21:09:48 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 18 Aug 2012 15:47:37 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> I used the saw stop as an example because this is a woodworking
>>>> group, and most woodworkers, even the idiots, know what a saw stop
>>>> is. Some don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw
>>>> buyers to only buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let
>>>> government mandate wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well
>>>> let them mandate a the price of the saw.
>>>
>>>Yes a cow is a mammal, we get our milk from cows. Cats are mammals
>>>too, why not get our milk from them? That's the above reasoning (IMO)
>>>...
>>>
>>>Actually the sawstop may be a good example of the multiple things that
>>>are "wrong". Gass had good ideas, but when he tried to sell them,
>>>nobody would buy. He is a good patent lawyer, so he definitely could
>>>cover his invention to lock it up. Then he went 2-prong - he made his
>>>own excellent (expensive) saw and he went lobbying for regulations
>>>that would force people to buy his saw. (Something about petitioning
>>>government for redress of grievances, perhaps - I'm not a
>>>constitutional lawyer).
>>>
>>>So what is wrong here? Please add your opinions. Mine are:
>>>- The saw makers were stupid.
>>
>> No, they weren't.
>>
>>>Now they are on the hook.
>>
>> Not yet.
>
>Whether they were stupid or not will wait until this whole thing has
>played out. My feeling at this point is that they should have accepted
>Gass's first offer in some form. But I do see the lawyer argument that
>doing so would make them admit to having been selling dangerous toys.
I believe Gass' first offer seemed like something Don Corleone might
have said...when he wasn't in a very good mood. Ryobi ended up with a
horse head in their bed, too, thanks to Don Gass.
>>>- Gass is a monopolist. He is a very capable lawyer and wants his
>>>"due", to the max. - Gass deserves compensation for his inventions.
>>
>> He *only* deserves compensation to the extent that people are willing
>> to give him is pound of flesh. If *they* decide that his invention is
>> not worth the money, *they* should be free to pass on it.
Bingo!
>Easy to say, not necessarily true. If Gass wins the Safety commission
>endorsement, they'll have to accept his monopoly pricing. There is no
>viable alternative (yet).
That's precisely why we love to hate the jerk.
>>>- If people are too stupid to follow simple directions about safety,
>>>let Darwin rule. - People should be protected from having to work
>>>under dangerous conditions.
>>
>> The government can't protect idiots. With your extension of the nanny
>> state, I guess we'd better outlaw hydrogen hydroxide, too.
>
>Misspelling. It's dihydrogen oxide. :)
DHMO - DiHydrogen Monoxide. See the website for ALL the scary facts:
http://www.dhmo.org/
--
The business of America is not business. Neither is it war. The business
of America is justice and securing the blessings of liberty.
-- George F. Will
On 08/17/2012 10:19 AM, Han wrote:
> And no, the
> oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give them more, au
> contraire.
I think you have this wrong. The oil companies pay more in taxes than they
make in profit in a typical year. Here is just one analysis with
supporting citation:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/10/gas_taxes_excee.html
It is the *government* that is subsidized by the oilcos not the other way
around....
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Han wrote:
> I was born in the last year of WWII. Large parts of the town I grew
> up in (Wageningen) were destroyed twice in that war. I know pretty
> well that at times armed insurrection is necessary, and I am also
> eternally grateful (that's not a sop) for the Allies who gave their
> lives for our freedom. Still, I am rather fearful of white
> supremacists and other paramilitary groups, whether left or right.
Those guys though, are not the people who are protected by the 2nd
Ammendment. At least the ones who act out their "anxieties".
>
> Therefore, I would like to emphasize education and discussion rather
> then arming ourselves. Here I try to stay polite, and most often I
> can indeed put myself into the trains of thought that people who
> don't agree with me are expressing. But there are many paths to the
> ultimate goal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I like
> to express my views as how to achieve that, respecting different
> views.
I respect your views, and I hold them to be nieve. But - I do respect them.
BTW - I have always found your postions to be respectful of others.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
>
> There are (I think) people who believe that their 2nd amendment rights
> are about to be violated, and they go out and get armed to the teeth.
> As well as those who are afraid of perceived rising chances of being
> involved in violence. I am definitely not sure that all those people
> in either category get enough education in how to handle their weapons
> safely, and how to keep them secure. But those are my fears. I don't
> know squat about firearms.
That is where I was going with my question Han. I appreciate your fears as
I said before, but to hold those closely in the face of what you admit is a
lack of knowledge speaks more about your own fears than it does about those
you fear. Knowledge Han - go learn something about these guys. Admitely -
they are whackos of one sort or another, but not generally in the sense that
you currently fear.
Here's why I ask questions and engage dialog like that. Your current fears
and level of knowledge are not terribly atypical. So - suppose a piece of
legislation is proposed that would "limit" or "control" these "fearful"
things. In your current state of understanding, that would seem prudent to
you and you might well find yourself a supporter of it. But - is it real
and is it meaningful? It will certainly affect the rights of others, but
for a good reason, or not? That's how feel good laws get passed and they do
nothing more than that - make uninformed people feel good. But the rhetoric
from the now-feeling-good uninformed people rises to loud levels - as if
there really were some value to it. Meanwhile...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
>>>
>> Which is partly why we need the Second Amendment.
>
> Either that and lots of shovels, or education and discussion. I'm not
> against the second amendment, just against wanton violence. (AS you
> guys know).
But you've never explained WHY you're against wanton violence.
Me? I'm in favor of a certain level of violence - it culls the herd.
[Metaphor alert]
Most of the drivers in New York City (or Mexico City for that matter) are
expert drivers. Why? Because the incompetent drivers didn't last very long.
Yesterday, there were 20 people shot in Chicago, a city officially without
guns
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-shooting-gun-violence-chicago-august-17-august-18-2012-south-side-west-side-20120817,0,2092902.story
All those shot were members of street gangs.
Just think how much safer the city would be if guns were freely available.
Admittedly, it might take a few months...
Han wrote:
>>
>> It is the *government* that is subsidized by the oilcos not the other
>> way around....
>
> I'm sure this takes into account the subsidies like oil depletion
> allowance etc. Takes into account environmental costs, surely!
>
Let me tell you how this works. Some years ago, I had an opportunity to
invest in a sand pit (a hole in the ground from which sand was mined -
actually scooped out). The promoter explained how things worked.
1. As you sell the sand, you're allowed a "depletion allowance" on your
taxes inasmuch as you are "using up" an asset (the available sand).
2. At some point, you run out of sand and are left with a big honkin' hole
in the ground.
3. You turn around and charge people to dump stuff in your hole. Tree
stumps, broken concrete, that sort of thing.
4. As the hole fills, you get another "depletion allowance" in that you are
"using up" another asset (the hole).
5. When the hole is filled, you scatter some dirt atop the whole site, turn
the acreage into a sub-division, and build low-cost housing.
Han wrote:
> You may or may not agree, but my
> opinion is that more income equality would benefit our society.
It''s income inequality that has made this the most powerful engine of
economic development in the world.
Who would try harder for the same money? Who would take a risk?
Three things go into making a successful company: capital, labor, and,
usually, raw materials. In most businesses, labor is not only the greatest
cost, but it is sometimes the easiest to control.
A prudent businessman pays his labor force the minimum each is willing to
take. In many cases, if he pays them more, they'll simply spend it on drugs
or buy a motorcycle and adios.
Jack wrote:
>>
>> That's because Microsoft and Apple are not exactly monopolies: they
>> have robust and effective competitors. Their competitors are
>> themselves.
>
> I'd love to not have a monopoly like that. MS controls 93% of the
> market, Apple most of the rest. Sounds like a monopoly to me,
> probably more of a monopoly than AT&T had when they were broken up.
>
>> If they didn't improve their products with new features and the
>> like, their revenue streams would wither.
>
> Nope, that is the problem with monopolies like MS. Lack of
> competition means they can sell garbage with little fear of revenue
> streams withering, and, regardless of what the stooges say, Windows
> has been crap from day one. Any sort of healthy competition and MS
> would have died or provided a quality product. They are a perfect
> example of exactly why monopolies are bad for the consumer.
If MS did not develop a successor to Windows 3.11 or XP or any other
version, their revenue stream would wither. If everybody already has, say,
XP, where is any new sale going to come from? Oh, there will be some buying
their first computer, but that's not the same as the millions who replace
XP, at some cost, with a newer version.
>
> That is exactly wrong. Without competition, they do not have to
> provide a better product. It's one of the problems with capitalism
> addressed by the Sherman Anti trust act.
Not true. Not true at all. Assume you have a company in a town with 100
prospects. You sell each of the 100 prospects your product your first year
in business. Where does your revenue come from next year? If you don't make
a NEW product to replace the first, you're out of business.
Secondly, monopolies are GUARANTEED by the US Constitution (Article I,
Section 8).
Third, a monopoly that comes into existence and continues by actions solely
within the organization are NOT covered by the Sherman act. A company can
set whatever price it wants for its product or service and nothing illegal
has taken place. Only when a company suppresses competition by some external
process (such as buying the competing company) does the Act latch in.
>
> The exceptions
>> to this rule are the monopolies established or controlled by some
>> agency of government (think cable TV).
>
> Cable TV is a monopoly? I can get Comcast, Direct TV, Verison, Dish
> TV and more, already more than the 2 companies that control 97% of
> the PC OS market. So, if MS is not exactly a monopoly, neither are
> the myriad of cable companies.
Jack <[email protected]> writes:
>On 8/18/2012 1:11 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Jack <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> Recently heard on TV that oil companies make about 6-8 cents on a gallon
>>> of gas. Government makes 40 to 66 cents on the same gallon. In
>>> Californica the gov makes 66 cents on a gallon.
>>
>> 5 minutes of research would show that california makes 35.3 cents on
>> a gallon (WA 37.5 cents, NC 35.2 cents, maine 30 cents, Minnesota 27 cents).
>> When you add local (e.g. sales) taxes, CA is 50 cents, Connecticut is 51 cents,
>> Hawaii 49 cents, Illinois 50.6 cents, usw).
>
>Gov't making 50 cents on a gallon is between 40 and 66 cents.
You explicitly said that California makes 66 cents/gal.
You were wrong.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Han wrote:
> > You may or may not agree, but my
> > opinion is that more income equality would benefit our society.
>
> It''s income inequality that has made this the most powerful engine of
> economic development in the world.
>
> Who would try harder for the same money? Who would take a risk?
>
> Three things go into making a successful company: capital, labor, and,
> usually, raw materials. In most businesses, labor is not only the greatest
> cost, but it is sometimes the easiest to control.
>
> A prudent businessman pays his labor force the minimum each is willing to
> take. In many cases, if he pays them more, they'll simply spend it on drugs
> or buy a motorcycle and adios.
Henry Ford was a prudent businessman. He paid his workforce enough that
they could buy the products his company made.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Jack wrote:
> >
> > Gov't making 50 cents on a gallon is between 40 and 66 cents. The oil
> > companies make far, far, far less at 6 - 8% profit/ and they do all
> > the work. The asshole socialists want to tack on a windfall profit
> > tax on companies making a small profit, while they are the ones
> > ripping off the public. Then, the dicks turn around and give 1/2 a
> > billion to Solyndra to piss away into the wind. Meanwhile, MS and
> > Apple are making 30-40% profits on their monopoly, and no one even
> > whispers windfall profit. Quite a joke.
> >
>
> That's because Microsoft and Apple are not exactly monopolies: they have
> robust and effective competitors. Their competitors are themselves.
It's rather ridiculous to talk about "MS and Apple monopoly" given that
the two are arch-rivals and that Apple would prefer that no Apple
product ever run a single line of Microsoft code.
Further, most of Apple's profits these days come from iphones and ipads
and ipods, all product niches in which Microsoft is pretty much a non-
starter.
> If they didn't improve their products with new features and the like,
their
> revenue streams would wither.
>
> So it is with most "monopolies." They've got to periodically provide a
> better product at a lower price or they're out of business. The exceptions
> to this rule are the monopolies established or controlled by some agency of
> government (think cable TV).
There are product monopolies and service monopolies. A service monopoly
has a pretty much guaranteed continuous revenue stream--people aren't
going to stop talking on the phone or watching TV because the
infrastructure is old unless it gets so old that it stops working. On
the other hand, once every potential consumer of a product has the
product, the revenue model goes from first sales to replacement sales,
and to get those sales in any kind of volume you have to improve the
product enough that someone wants to replace it even though their old
product is still working.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
> >>
> >> That's because Microsoft and Apple are not exactly monopolies: they
> >> have robust and effective competitors. Their competitors are
> >> themselves.
> >
> > It's rather ridiculous to talk about "MS and Apple monopoly" given
> > that the two are arch-rivals and that Apple would prefer that no Apple
> > product ever run a single line of Microsoft code.
>
> Uh, much of the code that runs on an Apple was written by Microsoft. For
> example, MS-Word.
I'm sorry, but a single office suite does not constitute "much of the
code that runs on Apple". I did not say that there is no Microsoft code
that runs on Apple, I said that Apple would prefer that there not be.
Note that Word runs on Linux, too, so I guess there's a "MS and Linux
monopoloy".
Jack wrote:
>
> Gov't making 50 cents on a gallon is between 40 and 66 cents. The oil
> companies make far, far, far less at 6 - 8% profit/ and they do all
> the work. The asshole socialists want to tack on a windfall profit
> tax on companies making a small profit, while they are the ones
> ripping off the public. Then, the dicks turn around and give 1/2 a
> billion to Solyndra to piss away into the wind. Meanwhile, MS and
> Apple are making 30-40% profits on their monopoly, and no one even
> whispers windfall profit. Quite a joke.
>
That's because Microsoft and Apple are not exactly monopolies: they have
robust and effective competitors. Their competitors are themselves.
If they didn't improve their products with new features and the like, their
revenue streams would wither.
So it is with most "monopolies." They've got to periodically provide a
better product at a lower price or they're out of business. The exceptions
to this rule are the monopolies established or controlled by some agency of
government (think cable TV).
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 15 Aug 2012 17:51:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 15 Aug 2012 12:51:07 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/14/2012 7:49 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>>> It is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal
>>>>> office.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a federal crime to break into our country and be here
>>>>> illegally, and the Feds ignore that crime as well...
>>>>
>>>>Agriculture as we know it would cease if we didn't have illegal
>>>>aliens harvesting ... Guess who hires them
>>>
>>> I call BULLSHIT on that one, Han. With so many people out of work
>>> right now, I'd bet not one of those jobs went empty for very long if
>>> we were to finally deport all the illegals.
>>
>>I'm going by reports of harvest gone unharvested when Alabama or
>>Arizona or both decided to let illegals deport themselves, and they
>>did.
>
> Did you mean Georgia? The farmers should have known that was coming
> and made sure they had workers lined up beforehand, don't you think?
> Or, if the state gov't pushed the deadline or hit them without
> warning, they should have helped find workers for the farmers, don't
> you think? I'm thinking the two groups bent -themselves- over this
> time.
Alabama. This is a site that promotes the law that says you have to be
legal <grin> and led to the harvesting problems
<http://www.alipac.us/f12/ala-governor-signs-revisions-targeting-illegal-
immigrants-257760/>
>>> 'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
>>> only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
>>> particular line of expertise. After 6 months (or less?), they
>>> should be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple
>>> days training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles. Unlimited
>>> unemployment checks breed worse things. Get 'em off their asses!
>>
>>I think that much unemployment or underemployment stems from
>>insufficient wages. But then, we have gotten used to cheap food and
>>other things cheap, so we're not willing to pay what we in all
>>likelihood should. I agree that people should take a job, almost any
>>job once their unemployment runs out. Who (OTOH) is in charge of
>>generating jobs for those whose prior jobs have disappeared? All this
>>is hugely easy for me to say, because I don't need a job anymore ...
>
> That's just it. Unemployment isn't running out. Some people have been
> on it for over three years, Han! I think that after whatever the
> initial run is (I think it was 13 weeks when I last used it, back in
> the '70s) and the unemployed person hasn't found work, they should be
> forced to take whatever job IS available in their town, at their
> unemployment office. If the wages are less than their unemployment
> check (usually for very highly paid people), maybe cover the
> difference? But the unemployment office isn't forcing anything. That
> should change. Forcing unearned money on people isn't good for anyone
> involved: Not the worker, not the EDD office, and not the taxpayers.
I'm not familiar with all the laws about unemployment, especially since
they seem to change often in terms of time periods covered. The problem
is not unemployment compensation in general, but the way the US (in
general) fails to generate employment and educational opportunities,
especially when the economy turns sour. I think that covering the
difference between previous high wages and the lower wages in current
opportunities has been considered in some places. But that can get dicey
very fast, especially in the middle income ranges. Example: Your
previous job had generous benefits and pension arrangements, but you were
RIF'ed. There is a new job somewhere else, but at 60% of your previous
wages, with less benefits and pension arrangements. If you do take that,
not only will you have to really limit your expenditures (including
probably selling your house at a moment it isn't advantageous), but your
resume will show that precipitous decrease. Not good for the next job.
Maybe that scenario isn't too important for farm workers and others, but
it is a very important point to a large portion of currently unemployed
middle income people.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> "retirement" has its benefits.
Indeed, except for the whooping cough ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 18 Aug 2012 21:53:59 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 17 Aug 2012 16:12:50 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> How about not, with fiscal restraint?
>>>
>>>?? You mean - How about "not with fiscal restraint"?
>>
>> How about leaving some context?
>>
>> You said: "How about a mix of things? A little of this and a little
>> of that. With fiscal restraint."
>>
>> I said: "How about not [mixing things - capitalism is just fine], with
>> fiscal restraint?" [comments added]
>
>In my view, fiscal restraint is paramount. Don't try to do what is
>fiscally not "kosher". And capitalism, with constraints as well, is fine
>by me. (constraints are negotiable ... <grin>)
You certainly don't want to restrain government.
>>>Politics without fiscal restraint is only irresponsible. That's my
>>>philosophy. And mind you, if I really want something, I find the
>>>means to get it, or I just pine for it. I don't get it on credit
>>>without paying it off at the end of the cycle.
>>
>> As long as "getting what you want" doesn't involve stealing, OK. But
>> what you want *does*.
>
>Stealing is never OK. In my case, if something is worthwhile enough for
>an administration to put in place, and if there isn't enough income right
>now, tax them, whoever them turn out to be. All of us are now (or will
>be) taxed by the enormous deficits of Bush that Obama has big trouble to
>overcome.
What do you think taxes, taken from one person and given to another, is?
On 18 Aug 2012 21:53:59 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 17 Aug 2012 16:12:50 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> How about not, with fiscal restraint?
>>>
>>>?? You mean - How about "not with fiscal restraint"?
>>
>> How about leaving some context?
>>
>> You said: "How about a mix of things? A little of this and a little
>> of that. With fiscal restraint."
>>
>> I said: "How about not [mixing things - capitalism is just fine], with
>> fiscal restraint?" [comments added]
>
>In my view, fiscal restraint is paramount. Don't try to do what is
>fiscally not "kosher". And capitalism, with constraints as well, is fine
>by me. (constraints are negotiable ... <grin>)
Sure there are constraints, honoring contracts, legal redress, etc. No one,
not even the libest libertarian wants to get rid of these.
>>>Politics without fiscal restraint is only irresponsible. That's my
>>>philosophy. And mind you, if I really want something, I find the
>>>means to get it, or I just pine for it. I don't get it on credit
>>>without paying it off at the end of the cycle.
>>
>> As long as "getting what you want" doesn't involve stealing, OK. But
>> what you want *does*.
>
>Stealing is never OK.
Yet you think it is, if government does it.
>In my case, if something is worthwhile enough for
>an administration to put in place, and if there isn't enough income right
>now, tax them, whoever them turn out to be.
So you are in fact in favor of theft, as long as the majority favors it.
>All of us are now (or will
>be) taxed by the enormous deficits of Bush that Obama has big trouble to
>overcome.
Good Lord, Han. Wise up!
On 18 Aug 2012 21:48:40 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 17 Aug 2012 16:09:32 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 17 Aug 2012 12:24:36 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16 Aug 2012 19:48:34 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you're saying that *NONE* of the children in that school get
>>>>>>>> an education? I'd say it's time to close it down. Here they
>>>>>>>> have a thing called "charter schools". Perhaps it's time for a
>>>>>>>> rich Northern state like New Jersey to learn from the poor
>>>>>>>> South.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is the poor North we are talking about. Where the state has
>>>>>>>taken some jurisdiction over some school districts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With your huge taxes, why is it so poor, Han. Could it be because
>>>>>> they're PAYING TOO MUCH?
>>>>>
>>>>>Paterson used to be quite rich, but now is trying to dig out from
>>>>>being a failed ghetto. It is rather poor, and has a miserable
>>>>>population.
>>>>
>>>> That's a result, not a cause. Why did it go down so fast?
>>>
>>>Northeast industrial city. Was called Silk City at some point. Water
>>>power started it. There are still the Great Falls of Paterson (77
>>>ft): <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Falls_%28Passaic_River%29>
>>
>> Yet with all those skilled employees, they couldn't attract any other
>> business. I wonder why?
>
>It happened to the whole rustbelt recently, and to the textile industry
>up in the northeast it happened twice: First it moved to the South, then
>to Shri Lanka etc.
Got a clue why someone wouldn't settle in a place where costs are too high?
>>>>>>>In Paterson they are called academies. This is what Paterson did,
>>>>>>>as I understand it. They closed the school. Then they open the
>>>>>>>"academies" (maybe next to a "regular" school) and select from the
>>>>>>>fired teachers (I believe just about all were RIF'ed) who will be
>>>>>>>rehired and get which kind of kids for which subject. Of course
>>>>>>>all in the same old building, with new signs, probably also more
>>>>>>>administrators.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That sounds like New Jersey. In with the new school - same as the
>>>>>> old school. If you find yourself getting in deeper, stop digging!
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, it sounds silly to me too, but apparently it is working to a
>>>>>surprising extent.
>>>>
>>>> Or someone is pulling the wool over your eyes.
>>>
>>>:)
>>
>> Changing nothing and having/expecting a different result is
>> wishful-thinking/insanity.
>
>No in this case they did change something. Hopefully it will work
>sitting the kids down in more focused environments, with more "suited"
>teachers. And I have a story from a guy who just missed the Nobel prize
>about trying and trying again. Sometimes it works ...
I thought it was the same teachers, administration, and building. Different
name.
>>>>>>>My SIL did well, some other teachers not so. He seems appreciated
>>>>>>>by the alumni who took his lessons to heart. I am confident he
>>>>>>>teaches math, manners and demeanor equally well; he is the kind of
>>>>>>>guy who can wear a T-shirt declaiming "Sarcasm, just another
>>>>>>>service we offer".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He probably has no business working in the public sector.
>>>>>
>>>>>He was making much more money in the financial sector as chief of
>>>>>email. Got out before the place went belly up spectacularly. While
>>>>>his income is now a fraction, his pleasure in the work is much, much
>>>>>greater. He loves teaching. Almost as much as playing bridge.
>>>>
>>>> He could work somewhere he's appreciated.
>>>
>>>He is apparently appreciated and he believes in giving back.
>>
>> Aparently not enough.
>
>It is a "free" market system. He is satisfied with the job, when you
>combine every aspect, and they keep him on. Everyone wins, according to
>your economic views (and mine too). That does not mean that he wouldn't
>like to be paid more, or that they wouldn't like to pay him less.
No, I meant they don't appreciate him enough. I'm completely with you on not
chasing the biggest buck. Doing what you enjoy is far more important. My
father was a uni professor because he wanted to be. He turned down multiples
of his salary, many times, to go back to industry. I've had several chances
to work for bigger bucks, at work I know I'd hate (already done it - and hated
it ;-). Of course "retirement" has its benefits. ;-)
On 8/18/2012 8:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 23:52:28 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>> How about leaving, period? There were 80 unread messages in this group
>> this evening. 22 were from you. 20 were from Han. Don't you think the
>> two of you have said about all there is to say on the issue?
>
> Are you really too stupid to use a killfile? ...or are you always trying to
> limit other's speech?
Apparently he is a flaming liberal, so yes, too stupid would be where to
place your bets...
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 23:52:28 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:15:11 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> How about leaving some context?
>
>How about leaving, period? There were 80 unread messages in this group
>this evening. 22 were from you. 20 were from Han. Don't you think the
>two of you have said about all there is to say on the issue?
Are you really too stupid to use a killfile? ...or are you always trying to
limit other's speech?
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 15 Aug 2012 15:47:39 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 15 Aug 2012 12:51:07 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/14/2012 7:49 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>>> It is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal
>>>>> office.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a federal crime to break into our country and be here
>>>>> illegally, and the Feds ignore that crime as well...
>>>>
>>>>Agriculture as we know it would cease if we didn't have illegal
>>>>aliens harvesting ... Guess who hires them
>>>
>>> It wouldn't cease at all. It might get more expensive, or,
>>> *perhaps* Congress could come up with some great idea to allow
>>> *legal* seasonal workers. Legalizing and regulating; what a concept.
>>> Nah, then it would be too hard to get them to vote.
>>
>>Yes it would get much more expensive. Much more equitable to the
>>workers as well. And I would be hugely in favor of legalizing
>>immigrant workers, of course with some regulation. That's how I got
>>here after all. Fill out the paperwork ...
>
> Equitable? Are you saying that you weren't paid what you were worth?
> Obviously that's not true because you took the job.
Opinions versus facts. What I say are my opinions. I think I was paid
what I was worth at most if not all points in my career. I know that
others in similar positions and with similar capabilities were paid less
and others more, but that is besides the point. My point is that many
people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are paid
insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make everything more
expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion is that more income
equality would benefit our society.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 08/18/2012 10:49 AM, Han wrote:
> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> BINGO! Corruption encompasses all branches, beginning with some of
>> the lowly city gov't folks, worsening in state gov't, and skyrocketing
>> in the totally corrupt CONgress. That's why it will take the people,
>> all of us, to bring about REAL change in our country.
>>
>
> How, Larry? We have a Constitution to work with. A very powerful status
> quo vehicle.
>
Which is routinely avoided and ignored by the people it is supposed to rein
in. You cannot have durable republic when the President himself has
contempt for the document and wants to pack the courts with people
that similarly don't care about limited Federal power.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 8/18/2012 9:49 AM, Han wrote:
> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> BINGO! Corruption encompasses all branches, beginning with some of
>> the lowly city gov't folks, worsening in state gov't, and skyrocketing
>> in the totally corrupt CONgress. That's why it will take the people,
>> all of us, to bring about REAL change in our country.
>>
> How, Larry? We have a Constitution to work with. A very powerful status
> quo vehicle.
>
Plus, your (or my) idea of what change should be made may be very
different from the change Larry wants. So, who decides whose vision of
change will be adopted?
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:22:15 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw buyers to only
>buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let government mandate
>wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well let them mandate a the
>price of the saw.
Every conversation you get into, you bring up the SawStop. What Gass
did, has done, or attempted is completely irrelevant because it's the
insurance industry that's pushing the SawStop into businesses.
Fact is, you're just too stupid to let it go. Your continuing wasted
outrage is old and stale. Get a life for Christ's sake.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 19 Aug 2012 01:03:33 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 18 Aug 2012 22:29:25 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 08/18/2012 05:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>>>> Colleges graduate students where the market is heading - perhaps
>>>>>> with a little lag.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe. But have you tried to hire a high quality plumber or
>>>>> electrician lately. There is a TON of opportunity in the trades
>>>>> and these are jobs that cannot easily be offshored. Unfortunately
>>>>> a generation of American parents were brainwashed by the 1960s
>>>>> Smelliest Generation that runs the universities that no one
>>>>> can succeed without a college degree. Speaking as someone who
>>>>> HAS a graduate degree (and briefly taught grad school) this is
>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>Fully agree, but it seems some of that is coming back. Problem is
>>>>that a fully licensed (independent) plumber or electrician just
>>>>about has to get at least an associate degree to be able to read the
>>>>regs and do the accounting.
>>>
>>> Even employees are needed.
>>
>>Not sure what you mean.
>
> I thought I was writing English. Plumbing companies hire plumbers,
> no? These plumbers have no need to do the accounting and shit still
> runs downhill. ;-)
OK. Those are more like plumbers' helpers then.
>>The employees of the plumber need to know
>>basics, but should follow the boss's instructions. I'd like to see
>>more kids go into the trades than are presently doing so, but if they
>>want to be more than just a bit over the position of gofer, they will
>>soon need a real high school education, or an associate's.
>
> A associate's is overkill. OTOH, a real high school education may be
> difficult to find, these days.
Yep!
>>>>>> You are right about the web development stuff, but that's where
>>>>>> the market is. Hardcore engineering is dying here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm actually saying the opposite: Web programming and Java are
>>>>> now commodity skills - the manual labor of the IT industry.
>>>>> There are too many people that can do this work and not enough
>>>>> job openings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hardcore engineering is exactly what we're missing and where
>>>>> all the demand is. I could probably place between 5-20 people
>>>>> right now with just 1 year's experience in Linux engineering
>>>>> and infrastructure if they knew basic system administration,
>>>>> networking, and troubleshooting, and had good people skills
>>>>> and a high integrity work ethic. The jobs I'm thinking of
>>>>> start at well north of $50K/yr with full benefits, vacation,
>>>>> 401K matching, and instant vesting of all the money the company
>>>>> does contribute to the 401K. A great first job for a young,
>>>>> smart engineer ... and the company can't find 'em. That, sir,
>>>>> is why jobs are leaving Dodge...
>>>>
>>>>That would also be the kind of job to return ASAP when the
>>>>schools/students see the opportunity. Indeed, some of the lower
>>>>level off-shored jobs are coming back, I heard (don't ask, I don't
>>>>remember where I heard).
>>>
>>> Not sure the (what was called "hard") engineering schools will. It
>>> takes math, something sorely lacking in public schools these days. I
>>> believe lower level jobs are coming back, or will if allowed to. My
>>> CPoE shipped all production to Mexico in '08 and has already found
>>> that it was a mistake (not sure the execs have admitted it yet).
>>> Much of the engineering is already being "off-shored" from Japan to
>>> the US. ;-)
>>
>>What's CPoE?
>
> Same as a PPoE, but more current. ;-) (Current Place of Employment)
>
>>Math is coming back, I hope and think. Although I was pissed by some
>>kind of editorial somewhere that claimed algebra wasn't really
>>necessary any more.
>
> I think someone's pulling the wool over your eyes again. The second
> statement is far more usual than you want to believe.
I can hope, can't I? And the believers in the second statement are wrong
:)
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 19 Aug 2012 01:03:33 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 18 Aug 2012 22:29:25 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 08/18/2012 05:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>>> Colleges graduate students where the market is heading - perhaps
>>>>> with a little lag.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe. But have you tried to hire a high quality plumber or
>>>> electrician lately. There is a TON of opportunity in the trades
>>>> and these are jobs that cannot easily be offshored. Unfortunately
>>>> a generation of American parents were brainwashed by the 1960s
>>>> Smelliest Generation that runs the universities that no one
>>>> can succeed without a college degree. Speaking as someone who
>>>> HAS a graduate degree (and briefly taught grad school) this is
>>>> nonsense.
>>>
>>>Fully agree, but it seems some of that is coming back. Problem is
>>>that a fully licensed (independent) plumber or electrician just about
>>>has to get at least an associate degree to be able to read the regs
>>>and do the accounting.
>>
>> Even employees are needed.
>
>Not sure what you mean.
I thought I was writing English. Plumbing companies hire plumbers, no? These
plumbers have no need to do the accounting and shit still runs downhill. ;-)
>The employees of the plumber need to know
>basics, but should follow the boss's instructions. I'd like to see more
>kids go into the trades than are presently doing so, but if they want to
>be more than just a bit over the position of gofer, they will soon need a
>real high school education, or an associate's.
A associate's is overkill. OTOH, a real high school education may be
difficult to find, these days.
>>>>> You are right about the web development stuff, but that's where
>>>>> the market is. Hardcore engineering is dying here.
>>>>
>>>> I'm actually saying the opposite: Web programming and Java are
>>>> now commodity skills - the manual labor of the IT industry.
>>>> There are too many people that can do this work and not enough
>>>> job openings.
>>>>
>>>> Hardcore engineering is exactly what we're missing and where
>>>> all the demand is. I could probably place between 5-20 people
>>>> right now with just 1 year's experience in Linux engineering
>>>> and infrastructure if they knew basic system administration,
>>>> networking, and troubleshooting, and had good people skills
>>>> and a high integrity work ethic. The jobs I'm thinking of
>>>> start at well north of $50K/yr with full benefits, vacation,
>>>> 401K matching, and instant vesting of all the money the company
>>>> does contribute to the 401K. A great first job for a young,
>>>> smart engineer ... and the company can't find 'em. That, sir,
>>>> is why jobs are leaving Dodge...
>>>
>>>That would also be the kind of job to return ASAP when the
>>>schools/students see the opportunity. Indeed, some of the lower level
>>>off-shored jobs are coming back, I heard (don't ask, I don't remember
>>>where I heard).
>>
>> Not sure the (what was called "hard") engineering schools will. It
>> takes math, something sorely lacking in public schools these days. I
>> believe lower level jobs are coming back, or will if allowed to. My
>> CPoE shipped all production to Mexico in '08 and has already found
>> that it was a mistake (not sure the execs have admitted it yet). Much
>> of the engineering is already being "off-shored" from Japan to the US.
>> ;-)
>
>What's CPoE?
Same as a PPoE, but more current. ;-) (Current Place of Employment)
>Math is coming back, I hope and think. Although I was pissed by some
>kind of editorial somewhere that claimed algebra wasn't really necessary
>any more.
I think someone's pulling the wool over your eyes again. The second statement
is far more usual than you want to believe.
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> BINGO! Corruption encompasses all branches, beginning with some of
> the lowly city gov't folks, worsening in state gov't, and skyrocketing
> in the totally corrupt CONgress. That's why it will take the people,
> all of us, to bring about REAL change in our country.
>
How, Larry? We have a Constitution to work with. A very powerful status
quo vehicle.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:11:44 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 08/17/2012 11:33 AM, Han wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 08/17/2012 10:19 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> And no, the
>>>> oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give them more,
>>>> au contraire.
>>>
>>> I think you have this wrong. The oil companies pay more in taxes than
>>> they make in profit in a typical year. Here is just one analysis with
>>> supporting citation:
>>>
>>> http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/10/gas_taxes_excee.htm
>>> l
>>>
>>> It is the *government* that is subsidized by the oilcos not the other
>>> way around....
>>
>> I'm sure this takes into account the subsidies like oil depletion
>> allowance etc. Takes into account environmental costs, surely!
>>
>> Full disclosure: I own 130 shares of Exxon directly, probably more oil
>> company stock through mutual funds.
>>
>
>
>I too own a chunk of ExxonMobil and wish them many happy years of high
>profits and low taxes.
>
>The problem in the US is not the lack of taxation. It is the complete lack
>of fiscal control among the height and breadth of government...
BINGO! Corruption encompasses all branches, beginning with some of
the lowly city gov't folks, worsening in state gov't, and skyrocketing
in the totally corrupt CONgress. That's why it will take the people,
all of us, to bring about REAL change in our country.
--
All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
-- Anna Quindlen
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 15:12:23 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>nothing BUT the lowest paying jobs. So - now we are embarking upon a
>journey of becoming a third world economy. Isn't that wonderful? And you
>suggest that furthering this by creating low paying jobs just because people
>will become desparate enough to take them - is a good thing? We
>fundamentally disagree on that point.
Disagreeing with Daneliuk is like eating potato chips. One is just not
enough. Daneliuk is only here to advance discontent which doesn't and
never has had any relationship to woodworking.
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> You're missing the point. Unless force it brought to bear to MAKE you
> take a job, you're always "paid what you're worth" because you are
> "worth" what the market will bear. If a job is offered at a price,
> it is because the buyer (employer) values the work more than the money
> they pay for it. If the seller (you) accepts the job, then you value
> the money more highly than you do your time to do the work. Everyone
> wins. You may not be making as much as you would LIKE or THINK you
> should get, but that doesn't make you "worth" it. Again, this is
> true as long as no one is pointing a gun at your head.
That is fine in a really free market. I was glad that my boss always
valued my work and could convince his bosses of it (I was indeed
convinced). On the other hand, I was taken into the office of the
division head once and told that it was better to take a 30% cut now that
portion of the grants had run out. I did, and within a year had managed
to get another grant. I am not sure whether I could have insisted that
my salary should remain the same, and that departmental funds should
cover the shortfall (I heard that might have been the "law"). I was too
afraid of not getting institutional support for my next grant
application, which would have been it for my career.
So a free market may exist for some professions. I am wondering how free
the market is in actual fact. It isn't for many "trades" that limit to
union members. Obviously for people in sales of high-faluting medical
equipment there was a recent collapse as another poster indicated. The
really good salaries in the pharmaceutical industry are likely also a
thing of the past. We have had really big discussions, sometimes of
varying degrees of politeness, whether teachers are paid as deserved, too
little or grossly too much.
Until there is at least a 5% surplus in each profession for an extended
period of time, it is unlikely that a truly free market develops. The 5%
figure is taken from what I heard was a healthy vacancy rate for rental
housing - neither too much nor too little. Obviously for "protected"
professions such as department heads at universities, unionized jobs and
others, the extended period of time might be very long. Also, when
companies pay their CEOs more than they pay in taxes, something is amiss,
I think. Of course someone could make a case, perhaps ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 10:43:57 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 8/19/2012 8:55 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Jack wrote:
>>>
>>> Gov't making 50 cents on a gallon is between 40 and 66 cents. The oil
>>> companies make far, far, far less at 6 - 8% profit/ and they do all
>>> the work. The asshole socialists want to tack on a windfall profit
>>> tax on companies making a small profit, while they are the ones
>>> ripping off the public. Then, the dicks turn around and give 1/2 a
>>> billion to Solyndra to piss away into the wind. Meanwhile, MS and
>>> Apple are making 30-40% profits on their monopoly, and no one even
>>> whispers windfall profit. Quite a joke.
>>>
>>
>> That's because Microsoft and Apple are not exactly monopolies: they have
>> robust and effective competitors. Their competitors are themselves.
>
>I'd love to not have a monopoly like that. MS controls 93% of the
>market, Apple most of the rest. Sounds like a monopoly to me, probably
>more of a monopoly than AT&T had when they were broken up.
Not buying 93% but... Yet Apple's market cap is larger. Go figure.
>> If they didn't improve their products with new features and the like, their
>> revenue streams would wither.
>
>Nope, that is the problem with monopolies like MS. Lack of competition
>means they can sell garbage with little fear of revenue streams
>withering, and, regardless of what the stooges say, Windows has been
>crap from day one. Any sort of healthy competition and MS would have
>died or provided a quality product. They are a perfect example of
>exactly why monopolies are bad for the consumer.
Except that there have been competitors. None have done well. Sure, M$ has
pulled some pretty underhanded crap, and should have been slapped around. That
was long ago and milk spilled...
>> So it is with most "monopolies." They've got to periodically provide a
>> better product at a lower price or they're out of business.
>
>That is exactly wrong. Without competition, they do not have to provide
>a better product. It's one of the problems with capitalism addressed by
>the Sherman Anti trust act.
They do have to provide a better product or no one will buy the new. Exactly
that happened with Vista. It was crap, so people (almost all corporations)
told them to pound salt, and forced them to keep XP around. M$ can only force
so much crap before they lose. ...and lose they did; big time.
>The exceptions
>> to this rule are the monopolies established or controlled by some agency of
>> government (think cable TV).
>
>Cable TV is a monopoly?
In most areas, you bet.
>I can get Comcast, Direct TV, Verison, Dish TV
>and more, already more than the 2 companies that control 97% of the PC
>OS market. So, if MS is not exactly a monopoly, neither are the myriad
> of cable companies.
Very few areas have more than one terrestrial cable source. Many (including
myself) have none. I have a choice between DTV and DISH for TV. Hughes or
DSL (AT&T) for Internet. Many don't have a place to put a dish or don't have
a satellite "view". Yes, cable television is usually a government controlled
monopoly, like your power company.
On 08/21/2012 03:40 PM, Han wrote:
> Yes, I do indeed
> think that oil companies and their executives should be satisfied with a
> little less.
Why? What makes them somehow special? Software makers like Microsoft
and Apple make many times this in pre-tax profit but I don't see
the left howling about this ... oh wait, they contribute to the
leftie causes...
Let me acquaint you with Reality in this matter:
- Your entire quality of life - from necessities, to medical care,
to entertainment *depends fundamentally on cheap energy*. Energy will
not be cheap if no one can make money going after it because the
government is creating big friction via taxation.
- The vast majority of the money invested in the Big Eeeeeeevil Oil Cos.
is *institutional* money. That's IRAs, 401Ks, pension funds for
public sector employees and unions, and so forth. You cripple the
profitability of the oil companies and you gut the retirement
of well over half the nation I'd guess.
Oil companies HAVE to be huge to function. It takes unbelievable amounts
of capital to explore, extract, transport, and refine oil. You cannot
do this efficiently if you do not do so at large scale.
Personally, I wish their profits approached those of Apple and Microsoft
and that they put their money behind adults in politics instead of the ignorant
class warriors that support the bottom of the political sewer currently in
office. It's not only astonishing to hear people complain about wealth,
it astonishing that people don't grasp that they will harm *themselves*
if they get what they ask for....
-
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 18 Aug 2012 15:49:37 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> BINGO! Corruption encompasses all branches, beginning with some of
>>> the lowly city gov't folks, worsening in state gov't, and
>>> skyrocketing in the totally corrupt CONgress. That's why it will
>>> take the people, all of us, to bring about REAL change in our
>>> country.
>>>
>>
>>How, Larry? We have a Constitution to work with. A very powerful
>>status quo vehicle.
>
> Good question. We have to force the corrupt CONgresscritters into
> doing our actual wishes, LISTENING to their constituents and acting on
> it. If they continue to fail do do so, they may force the public into
> action. I sense another revolution brewing in our future. Don't you?
> Let's hope it isn't a bloody one. (Or racially motivated, which would
> be even worse.)
Great!!
> Things I'd like to see immediately are:
>
> 1) Downsizing gov't (50-75% oughta do it) since it's rife with
> duplication and unnecessary agencies.
I think that has been tried without much success. In part because the
lawyers are too smart (sic!!) to allow the intent of a regulation or law
to overrule the loophole seekers.
> 2) Elimination of deficits.
Means taxes ...
> 3) Reduction of the US debt.
Paying them off costs ...
> 4) Buttoning up of the borders, eliminating ILlegal entry.
I think we are on the way. Of course, if the Mexicans (substitute at
will) have a better economy and safer environment, they'd probably like
to stay where they are.
> 5) Deportation of bad actors and all illegals of all races.
Fine. Does that include the grownups who were brought (illegally) here
when they were 6? Who never even knew they were illegal until they
needed papers? Who got educated here, have our customs, and no criminal
record?
> 6) Elimination of money in politics by moving to a (dare I say it?)
> somewhat socialistic "kitty" base.
I'd like that too, but it is probably wildly utopian,
> 7) Elimination of "use it or lose it" funding in gov't agencies so we
> don't see year-end mass buying sprees to use up current funds which
> aren't needed.
Yes! I'm all for it. I remember the calls from upstairs (around this
time): We have $10K to spend, what instrument do you want?
> 8) Elimination of the DHS, reverting to FBI (internal), CIA (external)
> plus a few others as necessary.
Accepted.
> 9) Ending the Wars on Terror, Drugs, and Poverty since they are having
> the opposite effect.
That should include legalizing drugs and taxing them twice as much as
treatments cost.
===========================================================================
That should work. Run the prices up to the point that the black market stays
in business.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 18 Aug 2012 15:49:37 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> BINGO! Corruption encompasses all branches, beginning with some of
>>> the lowly city gov't folks, worsening in state gov't, and
>>> skyrocketing in the totally corrupt CONgress. That's why it will
>>> take the people, all of us, to bring about REAL change in our
>>> country.
>>>
>>
>>How, Larry? We have a Constitution to work with. A very powerful
>>status quo vehicle.
>
> But Han, you're one who doesn't care a fig about the Constitution,
> particularly as a "status quo vehicle".
Keith, that is a non-sequitur to me. Maybe you can explain ...
Yes, the fact that there are amendments to the Constitution means it is
subject to revision (and re-revision, a la prohibition). Moreover, as I
understand the Constitution, it prescribes a division of powers, with (I
think) the SCOTUS as the last arbiter. AT least that is the current
interpretation. I think it was Scalia who in an interview re-iterated
what Roberts had said in slightly different words. We are loath to
overturn on ideology if the legal phraseology can be interpreted in favor
of a passed law.
What I meant as a status quo vehicle was that Congress has difficulty
making laws (certainly at the moment) that would re-interpret previous
laws. And with that I mean to say that once a law is on the books,
changing for instance dividends and capital gains into ordinary income
for tax purposes is difficult. Lobbyists and all.
Sorry, I may make less sense now than I first thought. Damned whooping
cough ...
Guys, do yourselves a favor and get the booster vaccination for
pertussis, I think it is call Tdap. I've been sick or sickish for months
now, and the coughing is terrible.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 18 Aug 2012 15:49:37 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> BINGO! Corruption encompasses all branches, beginning with some of
>>> the lowly city gov't folks, worsening in state gov't, and
>>> skyrocketing in the totally corrupt CONgress. That's why it will
>>> take the people, all of us, to bring about REAL change in our
>>> country.
>>>
>>
>>How, Larry? We have a Constitution to work with. A very powerful
>>status quo vehicle.
>
> Good question. We have to force the corrupt CONgresscritters into
> doing our actual wishes, LISTENING to their constituents and acting on
> it. If they continue to fail do do so, they may force the public into
> action. I sense another revolution brewing in our future. Don't you?
> Let's hope it isn't a bloody one. (Or racially motivated, which would
> be even worse.)
Great!!
> Things I'd like to see immediately are:
>
> 1) Downsizing gov't (50-75% oughta do it) since it's rife with
> duplication and unnecessary agencies.
I think that has been tried without much success. In part because the
lawyers are too smart (sic!!) to allow the intent of a regulation or law
to overrule the loophole seekers.
> 2) Elimination of deficits.
Means taxes ...
> 3) Reduction of the US debt.
Paying them off costs ...
> 4) Buttoning up of the borders, eliminating ILlegal entry.
I think we are on the way. Of course, if the Mexicans (substitute at
will) have a better economy and safer environment, they'd probably like
to stay where they are.
> 5) Deportation of bad actors and all illegals of all races.
Fine. Does that include the grownups who were brought (illegally) here
when they were 6? Who never even knew they were illegal until they
needed papers? Who got educated here, have our customs, and no criminal
record?
> 6) Elimination of money in politics by moving to a (dare I say it?)
> somewhat socialistic "kitty" base.
I'd like that too, but it is probably wildly utopian,
> 7) Elimination of "use it or lose it" funding in gov't agencies so we
> don't see year-end mass buying sprees to use up current funds which
> aren't needed.
Yes! I'm all for it. I remember the calls from upstairs (around this
time): We have $10K to spend, what instrument do you want?
> 8) Elimination of the DHS, reverting to FBI (internal), CIA (external)
> plus a few others as necessary.
Accepted.
> 9) Ending the Wars on Terror, Drugs, and Poverty since they are having
> the opposite effect.
That should include legalizing drugs and taxing them twice as much as
treatments cost.
> 10) No delays in execution of prisoners found to be guilty. No more
> ten years on death row, death row suicide(!) watches, seventeen
> appeals (which can happen even if the prisoner doesn't want -any-),
> etc.
That is dubious given the terrible record of bad verdicts. I'm against
the death penalty unless for really, really egregious and well-proven
crimes. Such as the murder of a family in CT.
> 11) Review of all foreign aid and elimination of most. (Let's fix our
> own country first, huh? Then, when we can afford it, maybe send some
> out, but the debt elimination comes first, damnit.)
Foreign aid is OK, but military aid should be carefully scrutinized. I'm
pissing my pants right now because the President of Egypt is going to
visit Iran himself, rather than send a vice-president.
> 12) Elimination of the Patriot Acts.
Good!! They are duplicative and coercive, and without constitutional
safeguards.
> 13) Elimination of perqs for CONgress, including A) lifetime pensions
> for a 2-year service to the country, and B) lifetime Cadillac
> healthcare. Give them the same thing we get from the gov't. These
> bloody assholes think they're _royalty_, fer chrissake.
Yep!
> 14) Laws against lobbying to be enacted. (Help stop corruption.)
In favor, but it is dubious that it can be done. Petition for redress of
grievances, and the lack of expertise in the business/whatever that is
being legislated on the part of the legislators.
> 15) Elimination of some of the automatic citizenship laws which are
> allowing illegal familes to invade us.
??? That may go against the idea of family reunion, and of sponsoring
immigrants by citizens.
> 16) Elimination of automatic welcoming of persons claiming political
> asylum/boat people. (Obama let in 80k potential terrorists recently.)
That's a claim needing substantiation. It was tried before WWII. Some
people who could have really contributed to our economy and culture ended
up in Argentina and Brazil, and I'm not talking about nazis.
> OK, carpal tunnel setting in. Those are a good start. Please add to
> this list and then we can all send the complete list to our
> representative government offices.
Haha.
> I switched the subject to OT for obvious reasons. OT filters will now
> work on this thread, too.
Good
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On 8/20/2012 9:41 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 21:36:09 -0400, Jack <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/19/2012 2:19 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>>>> You explicitly said that California makes 66 cents/gal.
>>>
>>> I explicitly said I heard it on TV. I could have heard wrong, but
>>> according to you, they make 50 cents which is between 40 and 66
>>> cents, and, the point, it's over 6 times more than the oil companies
>>> themselves make.
>
>> California takes $.491 per gallon (not the worst but right there) and
>> the feds take $.184 totaling $.675. So the state shares it with the
>> feds.
>
>> http://www.commonsensejunction.com/notes/gas-tax-rate.html
>
> Thanks for that link. Lurndal was wrong then, and TV was right.
> Pretty stinking bad when TV beats you at accuracy.
>
> Scott probably got his info from O'Reilly on Fox... that'd be my
> guess, since he (O'Reilly) thinks the 8% profit Hans' Oil company
> makes is outrageous.
>
>>> The best part is the oil companies get every stinking penny they pay
>>> in taxes from their customers, so we pay every dime, and Hans' oil
>>> company pays nothing.
>>
>> Of course but try convincing a leftist loser like Lurndal of that.
>
> He probably believes employers actually pay half the 15% SS "tax" to
> Uncle Sam as well.
Do I really have to get into this again?
Regulated monopolies at one time (with higher interest rates than are
currrent) were guaranteed a 6% return or something like that. That makes
8% profit indeed outrageous in comparison (we aren't talking about
dollars, but about millions or billions). Then we have the total
compensation packages of the executives (the shareholders let them get
those), and the dividends paid out (taxed somewhat). Yes, I do indeed
think that oil companies and their executives should be satisfied with a
little less.
Even to a wildly leftist person as myself, I believe that SS
contributions come out of a person's total compensation, or the prices
their customers pay. Remember that I worked for a medical school
associated with Cornell University, and I know some of fringe benefit
rules and the "indirect costs" that are part of every grant application.
Fringe was around 30% of wages/salaries and part of "direct" costs.
Overhead "indirect costs" were around 70%, added to the total of direct
costs (salaries, fringe, chemicals, equipment, travel - I'd have to dig
up an actual budget for details). Indirect costs pay for support staff,
including purchasing department, engineering, room and utilities.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 18 Aug 2012 15:49:37 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> BINGO! Corruption encompasses all branches, beginning with some of
>> the lowly city gov't folks, worsening in state gov't, and skyrocketing
>> in the totally corrupt CONgress. That's why it will take the people,
>> all of us, to bring about REAL change in our country.
>>
>
>How, Larry? We have a Constitution to work with. A very powerful status
>quo vehicle.
But Han, you're one who doesn't care a fig about the Constitution,
particularly as a "status quo vehicle".
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:55:26 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Jack wrote:
>>
>> Gov't making 50 cents on a gallon is between 40 and 66 cents. The oil
>> companies make far, far, far less at 6 - 8% profit/ and they do all
>> the work. The asshole socialists want to tack on a windfall profit
>> tax on companies making a small profit, while they are the ones
>> ripping off the public. Then, the dicks turn around and give 1/2 a
>> billion to Solyndra to piss away into the wind. Meanwhile, MS and
>> Apple are making 30-40% profits on their monopoly, and no one even
>> whispers windfall profit. Quite a joke.
>>
>
>That's because Microsoft and Apple are not exactly monopolies: they have
>robust and effective competitors. Their competitors are themselves.
Considering that there are two, they can hardly be monopolies. ...and that
Apple has a larger market cap than M$, it's hard to pin that one on M$,
either.
>If they didn't improve their products with new features and the like, their
>revenue streams would wither.
>
>So it is with most "monopolies." They've got to periodically provide a
>better product at a lower price or they're out of business. The exceptions
>to this rule are the monopolies established or controlled by some agency of
>government (think cable TV).
Better, consider the phone company, historically. Does anyone really think
we'd have 4G phones if it were left to Ma Bell and Uncle Sam?
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 15:48:52 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Han wrote:
>
>>
>> Being liberal does not mean I live in lala land.
>
>I knew it Han! - You aren't really liberal!
Only on odd days. ;-)
On 8/19/2012 2:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 10:43:57 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 8/19/2012 8:55 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Jack wrote:
Meanwhile, MS and
>>>> Apple are making 30-40% profits on their monopoly, and no one even
>>>> whispers windfall profit. Quite a joke.
>>>>
>>> That's because Microsoft and Apple are not exactly monopolies: they have
>>> robust and effective competitors. Their competitors are themselves.
>> I'd love to not have a monopoly like that. MS controls 93% of the
>> market, Apple most of the rest. Sounds like a monopoly to me, probably
>> more of a monopoly than AT&T had when they were broken up.
>
> Not buying 93% but...
What would you buy? MS has slipped a bit because of mobile OS's but
there DT share is still in excess of 90%. Mac about 5.25%, iOS has
2.05%, Linux is at 0.95%, Java ME is at 0.81% and Android is at just
0.49%. So MS controls 90% of the market, close enough to a monopoly for
me. Moreover, when competition is "robust" your profit margin will be
way closer to 7% of oil companies than the 30% of MS.
Yet Apple's market cap is larger. Go figure.
Stock prices are related to the imagination of the buyer. It may or may
not reflect whats going on.
>>> If they didn't improve their products with new features and the like, their
>>> revenue streams would wither.
>>
>> Nope, that is the problem with monopolies like MS. Lack of competition
>> means they can sell garbage with little fear of revenue streams
>> withering, and, regardless of what the stooges say, Windows has been
>> crap from day one. Any sort of healthy competition and MS would have
>> died or provided a quality product. They are a perfect example of
>> exactly why monopolies are bad for the consumer.
>
> Except that there have been competitors. None have done well. Sure, M$ has
> pulled some pretty underhanded crap, and should have been slapped around. That
> was long ago and milk spilled...
Yes, and the consumer is still paying the price, and MS continues with a
monopoly on the DT PC OS. What will happen with Mobile crap may or may
not be another issue.
>>> So it is with most "monopolies." They've got to periodically provide a
>>> better product at a lower price or they're out of business.
>>
>> That is exactly wrong. Without competition, they do not have to provide
>> a better product. It's one of the problems with capitalism addressed by
>> the Sherman Anti trust act.
> They do have to provide a better product or no one will buy the new. Exactly
> that happened with Vista.
So you think if a monopoly turns out crap, then sells you some improved
crap, but still crap, and does it in a way that makes their old crap
obsolete with no support, that is somehow competition? You sound like
HeyBubba...
It was crap, so people (almost all corporations)
> told them to pound salt, and forced them to keep XP around. M$ can only force
> so much crap before they lose. ...and lose they did; big time.
What did they lose, market domination went from 93% to 92.99%? They
lost nothing, they are a monopoly.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 8/20/2012 9:41 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 21:36:09 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 8/19/2012 2:19 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> You explicitly said that California makes 66 cents/gal.
>>
>> I explicitly said I heard it on TV. I could have heard wrong, but
>> according to you, they make 50 cents which is between 40 and 66 cents,
>> and, the point, it's over 6 times more than the oil companies themselves
>> make.
> California takes $.491 per gallon (not the worst but right there) and the feds
> take $.184 totaling $.675. So the state shares it with the feds.
> http://www.commonsensejunction.com/notes/gas-tax-rate.html
Thanks for that link. Lurndal was wrong then, and TV was right. Pretty
stinking bad when TV beats you at accuracy.
Scott probably got his info from O'Reilly on Fox... that'd be my guess,
since he (O'Reilly) thinks the 8% profit Hans' Oil company makes is
outrageous.
>> The best part is the oil companies get every stinking penny they pay in
>> taxes from their customers, so we pay every dime, and Hans' oil company
>> pays nothing.
>
> Of course but try convincing a leftist loser like Lurndal of that.
He probably believes employers actually pay half the 15% SS "tax" to
Uncle Sam as well.
--
Jack
QUINNs FIRST LAW: Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its
stated intent.
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 21:36:09 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 8/19/2012 2:19 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Jack <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>>>> Recently heard on TV that oil companies make about 6-8 cents on a gallon
>>>>> of gas. Government makes 40 to 66 cents on the same gallon. In
>>>>> Californica the gov makes 66 cents on a gallon.
>>>>
>>>> 5 minutes of research would show that california makes 35.3 cents on
>>>> a gallon (WA 37.5 cents, NC 35.2 cents, maine 30 cents, Minnesota 27 cents).
>>>> When you add local (e.g. sales) taxes, CA is 50 cents, Connecticut is 51 cents,
>>>> Hawaii 49 cents, Illinois 50.6 cents, usw).
>>>
>>> Gov't making 50 cents on a gallon is between 40 and 66 cents.
>>
>> You explicitly said that California makes 66 cents/gal.
>
>I explicitly said I heard it on TV. I could have heard wrong, but
>according to you, they make 50 cents which is between 40 and 66 cents,
>and, the point, it's over 6 times more than the oil companies themselves
>make.
California takes $.491 per gallon (not the worst but right there) and the feds
take $.184 totaling $.675. So the state shares it with the feds.
http://www.commonsensejunction.com/notes/gas-tax-rate.html
>The best part is the oil companies get every stinking penny they pay in
>taxes from their customers, so we pay every dime, and Hans' oil company
>pays nothing.
Of course but try convincing a leftist loser like Lurndal of that.
On 18 Aug 2012 15:49:37 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> BINGO! Corruption encompasses all branches, beginning with some of
>> the lowly city gov't folks, worsening in state gov't, and skyrocketing
>> in the totally corrupt CONgress. That's why it will take the people,
>> all of us, to bring about REAL change in our country.
>>
>
>How, Larry? We have a Constitution to work with. A very powerful status
>quo vehicle.
Good question. We have to force the corrupt CONgresscritters into
doing our actual wishes, LISTENING to their constituents and acting on
it. If they continue to fail do do so, they may force the public into
action. I sense another revolution brewing in our future. Don't you?
Let's hope it isn't a bloody one. (Or racially motivated, which would
be even worse.)
Things I'd like to see immediately are:
1) Downsizing gov't (50-75% oughta do it) since it's rife with
duplication and unnecessary agencies.
2) Elimination of deficits.
3) Reduction of the US debt.
4) Buttoning up of the borders, eliminating ILlegal entry.
5) Deportation of bad actors and all illegals of all races.
6) Elimination of money in politics by moving to a (dare I say it?)
somewhat socialistic "kitty" base.
7) Elimination of "use it or lose it" funding in gov't agencies so we
don't see year-end mass buying sprees to use up current funds which
aren't needed.
8) Elimination of the DHS, reverting to FBI (internal), CIA (external)
plus a few others as necessary.
9) Ending the Wars on Terror, Drugs, and Poverty since they are having
the opposite effect.
10) No delays in execution of prisoners found to be guilty. No more
ten years on death row, death row suicide(!) watches, seventeen
appeals (which can happen even if the prisoner doesn't want -any-),
etc.
11) Review of all foreign aid and elimination of most. (Let's fix our
own country first, huh? Then, when we can afford it, maybe send some
out, but the debt elimination comes first, damnit.)
12) Elimination of the Patriot Acts.
13) Elimination of perqs for CONgress, including A) lifetime pensions
for a 2-year service to the country, and B) lifetime Cadillac
healthcare. Give them the same thing we get from the gov't. These
bloody assholes think they're _royalty_, fer chrissake.
14) Laws against lobbying to be enacted. (Help stop corruption.)
15) Elimination of some of the automatic citizenship laws which are
allowing illegal familes to invade us.
16) Elimination of automatic welcoming of persons claiming political
asylum/boat people. (Obama let in 80k potential terrorists recently.)
OK, carpal tunnel setting in. Those are a good start. Please add to
this list and then we can all send the complete list to our
representative government offices.
I switched the subject to OT for obvious reasons. OT filters will now
work on this thread, too.
--
The business of America is not business. Neither is it war. The business
of America is justice and securing the blessings of liberty.
-- George F. Will
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:6c00g9-n1i2.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:
> You are not describing a free market. You are describing a fantasy
> world in which people get paid what they want irrespective of
> market conditions. Why should employees have preferential treatment
> over employers. What makes the rights of sellers superior to that
> of buyers? You cannot make the moral case for this ... ever.
I wasn't describing a free market, and I certainly don't call it moral.
Sometimes the real world isn't that moral. And remember, institutions and
corporations are run by people. And in some instances there is no morally
correct accounting done.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:48:24 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:04:09 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Agreed - despite the unfounded claims that insurance companies are driving
>>this, I've not yet seen one single piece of proof of this claim.
>
>AIM Mutual insurance is our workmen's comp carrier. They are strongly
>suggesting new equipment be replaced with Saw Stop or equal. They are
>not yet refusing to write a policy (that I'm aware of), but they are
>certainly pushing for safety features like Saw Stop. It was indicated
>that it may be mandatory, but that was during last year's inspection.
>I'll try to remember to ask about it.
I'm not so concerned what insurance carriers do. They, and their customers,
are free to enter into whatever contract floats their boat. When the law is
brought to bear, it changes everything.
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:04:37 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:41:52 -0400, "[email protected]"
>>Of course but try convincing a leftist loser like Lurndal of that.
>
>Better that than trying to explain facts to an asshole nutbar like
>you.
I just posted the facts, loser.
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 08/16/2012 03:29 PM, Han wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:6c00g9-n1i2.ln1
>> @ozzie.tundraware.com:
>>
>>> You are not describing a free market. You are describing a fantasy
>>> world in which people get paid what they want irrespective of
>>> market conditions. Why should employees have preferential
>>> treatment over employers. What makes the rights of sellers superior
>>> to that of buyers? You cannot make the moral case for this ...
>>> ever.
>>
>> I wasn't describing a free market, and I certainly don't call it
>> moral. Sometimes the real world isn't that moral. And remember,
>> institutions and corporations are run by people. And in some
>> instances there is no morally correct accounting done.
>>
>
> That's true, but what you're proposing adds to the pillaging and
> thieving. Min wage laws and their many variant cousins effectively use
> force to constrain the buyer while giving the seller a benefit they
> have not earned. You're solution is thus effectively to increase evil,
> not decrease it.
We disagree, I think. Minimum wage is not pillaging and thieving but
protecting people from abuse by exploiters. We have a military to
protect the country. We all pay for it, huge amounts at that. But you'd
leave the little man to fight for himself, without the protection of a
minimum wage? I think that is icky, with all due respect for your
opinion.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>> You may or may not agree, but my
>> opinion is that more income equality would benefit our society.
>
> It''s income inequality that has made this the most powerful engine of
> economic development in the world.
>
> Who would try harder for the same money? Who would take a risk?
>
> Three things go into making a successful company: capital, labor, and,
> usually, raw materials. In most businesses, labor is not only the
> greatest cost, but it is sometimes the easiest to control.
>
> A prudent businessman pays his labor force the minimum each is willing
> to take. In many cases, if he pays them more, they'll simply spend it
> on drugs or buy a motorcycle and adios.
Eventually, even the riobber barons didn't get away with all of it.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On 8/16/2012 3:35 PM, Han wrote:
> Also, when
>> companies pay their CEOs more than they pay in taxes, something is
>> amiss, I think.
>
> Companies don't pay taxes, people do.
Then companies should not be allowed to make political contributions.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On 8/16/2012 7:57 PM, Han wrote:
>
>> We disagree, I think. Minimum wage is not pillaging and thieving but
>> protecting people from abuse by exploiters.
>
> That's what the politicians tell you.
>
> We have a military to protect the country. We all pay for it, huge
> amounts at that.
>
> Yes, a primary purpose of government.
>
>> But you'd leave the little man to fight for himself, without the
>> protection of a minimum wage? I think that is icky, with all due
>> respect for your opinion.
>
> How would you feel about the government mandating a Chevy Volt or
> Chevy pickup cost no more than $2,000 so those getting paid minimum
> wage can get to work? How about 20 cents a gal for gas, that would be
> great, right? Personally, I don't think any teacher should make more
> than 10 cents above minimum wage. How the hell can a minimum wage
> worker afford to buy a $3000 saw stop. Don't you think he deserves
> full protection, so lets mandate saw stop sell for no more than a
> Ryobi?
>
> I take it you don't like competition, or do you think it only works
> when *you* like the results?
I never said that, as Dave pointed out. I think a minimu wage is a good
idea to set a floor for wages. Perhaps that should be $7.50 in Alabama
(just an example - I have almost nothing against Alabama), perhaps $10 or
more in NY & NJ and thereabouts (currently $7.25 in NJ). And no, the
oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give them more, au
contraire.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 08/17/2012 10:19 AM, Han wrote:
>> And no, the
>> oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give them more,
>> au contraire.
>
> I think you have this wrong. The oil companies pay more in taxes than
> they make in profit in a typical year. Here is just one analysis with
> supporting citation:
>
> http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/10/gas_taxes_excee.htm
> l
>
> It is the *government* that is subsidized by the oilcos not the other
> way around....
I'm sure this takes into account the subsidies like oil depletion
allowance etc. Takes into account environmental costs, surely!
Full disclosure: I own 130 shares of Exxon directly, probably more oil
company stock through mutual funds.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 08/17/2012 10:12 AM, Han wrote:
>> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 8/16/2012 3:35 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Also, when
>>>> companies pay their CEOs more than they pay in taxes, something is
>>>> amiss, I think.
>>>
>>> Companies don't pay taxes, people do.
>>
>> Then companies should not be allowed to make political contributions.
>
> Fine. Then neither should unions, PACs, the AARP, or any other
> lobbying group. Similarly, groups like MoveOn, AlterNet, and so
> forth should not be permitted to raise funds in support of any
> political action. 'Sound good to you?
Yes. It should be a level playing field. BUT, what I object to is the
fact that currently much of the election hoopla is via advertisements etc
that do NOT disclose the individuals and groups supporting them. I think
it should be disclosed whether the money for the ad came from Adelson or
from AFLCIO.
> What you're not getting here is that one of our fundamental natural
> rights is to "associate" as we wish. Why is OK for an individual
> to do something, but not for a bunch of individuals with common
> goals and interests to do the same thing? A corporation is not some
> faceless entity. It has owners - owners that have a shared set of
> economic ambitions and owners that often have to act politically to
> support those ambitions. And, BTW, these owners are not typically
> the hated eeeeeeeeevil rich people, but more usually they are
> investment and retirement institutions working on behalf of millions
> of the average folks.
I don't think that (much as I'd want to) we can overturn the SCOTUS
decision that corporations are people (which I disagree with, as
previously noted, but it is now the law of the land). But it isn't right
that people can freely associate in claok and dagger groups that don't
reveal their identity.
> So, the neverending attack on corporations is both morally malignant
> and harms the middle and lower classes primarily....
Let the corporations be good citizens, rather than enrichment vehicles
for greedy executives.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On 8/17/2012 11:19 AM, Han wrote:
>> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 8/16/2012 7:57 PM, Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> We disagree, I think. Minimum wage is not pillaging and thieving
>>>> but protecting people from abuse by exploiters.
>>>
>>> That's what the politicians tell you.
>>>
>>> We have a military to protect the country. We all pay for it, huge
>>> amounts at that.
>>>
>>> Yes, a primary purpose of government.
>>>
>>>> But you'd leave the little man to fight for himself, without the
>>>> protection of a minimum wage? I think that is icky, with all due
>>>> respect for your opinion.
>>>
>>> How would you feel about the government mandating a Chevy Volt or
>>> Chevy pickup cost no more than $2,000 so those getting paid minimum
>>> wage can get to work? How about 20 cents a gal for gas, that would
>>> be great, right? Personally, I don't think any teacher should make
>>> more than 10 cents above minimum wage. How the hell can a minimum
>>> wage worker afford to buy a $3000 saw stop. Don't you think he
>>> deserves full protection, so lets mandate saw stop sell for no more
>>> than a Ryobi?
>>>
>>> I take it you don't like competition, or do you think it only works
>>> when *you* like the results?
>>
>> I never said that, as Dave pointed out.
>
> Dave is an idiot at best.
>
> I think a minimu wage is a good idea to set a floor for wages.
>
> The "floor" is meaningless. Water seeks it's own level, government
> and it's subjects thinking they can somehow control it to work better
> than the free market just doesn't work, and in fact, does exactly the
> opposite.
>
> Perhaps that should be $7.50 in Alabama
>> (just an example - I have almost nothing against Alabama), perhaps
>> $10 or more in NY & NJ and thereabouts (currently $7.25 in NJ). And
>> no, the oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give
>> them more, au contraire.
>
> I think teachers in NY should make 5 cents over minimum wage, and in
> Alabama 10 cents. OK wit you?
No
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On 8/17/2012 12:33 PM, Han wrote:
>
>> Full disclosure: I own 130 shares of Exxon directly, probably more oil
>> company stock through mutual funds.
>
> Well then, you must be filthy, steenkin rich, one of the 1 per centers,
> owning a capitalist pig oil company and all...
>
> I hope you feel damn guilty making all those windfall (8%) profits while
> Micky Soft makes 30%, apple 40% and so on an so forth.
Thank you, thank you ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On 8/17/2012 12:44 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>>> On 08/17/2012 10:19 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> And no, the
>>>> oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give them
>>>> more, au contraire.
>>>
>>> I think you have this wrong. The oil companies pay more in taxes
>>> than they make in profit in a typical year. Here is just one
>>> analysis with supporting citation:
>>
>> You should actually _read_ your citations to make sure they support
>> your assertions before posting.
>>
>>>
>>> http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/10/gas_taxes_excee.h
>>> tml
>>
>> The citation here points out that taxes paid by consumers (e.g. taxes
>> paid at the pump or when refilling a farm tank),
>
> Hey, a dimwit at large.
>
> when added to the minimal taxes paid by the oil companies,
>
> Also paid by the consumer unless the oil company also has a printing
> press in the basement printing out the cash for taxes.
>
> exceeds oil company profits. That's adding
>> apples and oranges and comparing them to bananas.
>
> In the words of KRW, Idiot.
>
>> It surely doesn't support your assertions. Fact is that the oil
>> companies make profits, very large ones.
>
> 8% profit is not so large, particularly when the governments make far
> more than that on oil company earnings, and plenty of companies make
> FAR greater profits, like MS, Apple and a ton of others (Not
> government motors though)
>
> Please refer to the relevent 10K and 10Q reports for the
>> actual facts, not some silly blog.
>
> Ask Han what his return on investment is on his $11,000 worth of EOM
> stock, not counting his pension fund?
XOM is at just about 52-week high. This is a link to the kind of data
you wanted:
<http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/Ratios.jsp?
tkr=xom>
Currently Quicken tells me cost basis is ~8200, market value indeed
around 11,500. I am currently taking dividends in cash.
Being liberal does not mean I live in lala land. My Dad taught me the
rules of prudent investing, though he flaunted the rules to his detriment
later in life.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On 8/17/2012 5:16 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 8/17/2012 1:56 PM, Jack wrote:
>>>
>>> I do know bottled water costs more than gas . . .
>>>
>>
>> I can buy bottled water for under $2/gallon. Tell me where I can buy
>> gasoline at under $2/gallon.
>
> Quick look on the net found PERRIER for just $19/gal. I suggest you buy
> all you can for under $2 a gallon and get yourself good and filthy rich.
Aquafina @ Amazon 32 bottles of 16.9 fl oz for $5.92. That is $3.70/gal,
like gasoline. Better look for specails ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> Whatsamatter, you don't like someone else arbitrarily deciding pay
> rates and what's a "fair" wage? There is a reason the free market
> works better than government control. It's the same reason the USA at
> one time was the greatest country on earth and people fought to get in,
> instead of out as in government controlled (socialist) environments.
In this communist-controlled country there is no free market.
In this capitalist-monopolized country they make believe there is a free
market.
Take your pick.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 8/17/2012 12:49 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> On 08/17/2012 11:42 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>> I don't think that (much as I'd want to) we can overturn the
>>>>> SCOTUS decision that corporations are people (which I disagree
>>>>> with, as previously noted, but it is now the law of the land).
>>>>> But it isn't right that people can freely associate in claok and
>>>>> dagger groups that don't reveal their identity.
>>>> So now you don't think we have a natural right to privacy? I hate
>>>> to tell you this, but the cornerstone of any despotic dictatorship
>>>> is remove said privacy and thereby force people to either lie or
>>>> openly state their opposition to the regime so they can either be
>>>> "reeducated"
>>>> or "removed". Privacy is pretty important. If you don't think so,
>>>> imagine being forced to vote where everyone could see your choices
>>>> ... say like the pigs in the various unions want...
>>> Absolutely agreed. Too bad that the Bush administration put into
>>> place so many illegal surveillance programs on americans. Not that
>>> the current administration has eliminated them - which is one of the
>>> few things they've done wrong.
>> Here, here! As republican as I can be at times, that whoe Patriot
>> Act thing was a legal abomination. Sadly, too many feel good people
>> in this country fell prey to the impact of 911 and forgot to get up
>> in arms about that thing.
>>
> Probably because it had no noticeable impact on most people.
Martin Niemöller:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak out for me
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 8/17/2012 2:08 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 8/17/2012 12:49 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>> On 08/17/2012 11:42 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>>>> I don't think that (much as I'd want to) we can overturn the
>>>>>>> SCOTUS decision that corporations are people (which I disagree
>>>>>>> with, as previously noted, but it is now the law of the land).
>>>>>>> But it isn't right that people can freely associate in claok and
>>>>>>> dagger groups that don't reveal their identity.
>>>>>> So now you don't think we have a natural right to privacy? I
>>>>>> hate to tell you this, but the cornerstone of any despotic
>>>>>> dictatorship is remove said privacy and thereby force people to
>>>>>> either lie or openly state their opposition to the regime so they
>>>>>> can either be "reeducated"
>>>>>> or "removed". Privacy is pretty important. If you don't think
>>>>>> so, imagine being forced to vote where everyone could see your
>>>>>> choices ... say like the pigs in the various unions want...
>>>>> Absolutely agreed. Too bad that the Bush administration put into
>>>>> place so many illegal surveillance programs on americans. Not
>>>>> that the current administration has eliminated them - which is one
>>>>> of the few things they've done wrong.
>>>> Here, here! As republican as I can be at times, that whoe Patriot
>>>> Act thing was a legal abomination. Sadly, too many feel good
>>>> people in this country fell prey to the impact of 911 and forgot to
>>>> get up in arms about that thing.
>>>>
>>> Probably because it had no noticeable impact on most people.
>> Yet...
>>
>> The worst part about a law is not always what it has done, but what
>> it can do.
>>
> Which is partly why we need the Second Amendment.
Either that and lots of shovels, or education and discussion. I'm not
against the second amendment, just against wanton violence. (AS you guys
know).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Whatsamatter, you don't like someone else arbitrarily deciding pay
>>> rates and what's a "fair" wage? There is a reason the free market
>>> works better than government control. It's the same reason the USA
>>> at one time was the greatest country on earth and people fought to
>>> get in, instead of out as in government controlled (socialist)
>>> environments.
>>
>> In this communist-controlled country there is no free market.
>> In this capitalist-monopolized country they make believe there is a
>> free market.
>> Take your pick.
>
> So what are you really saying Han? It seems you don't like
> capitalism. I don't like the alternatives. Differences of opinion.
I think capitalism could be the least objectionable system. Problem is
that some regulation is needed to avoid unbridled greed and selfishness.
Communism with its prescribed stalinist (non)economy is stupid. Stomping
down on the masses is equally self-destructive. I guess we just differ
on the exact form of the bread and circuses to keep Joe in place ...
That is self-deprecating humor or sarcasm ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> Either that and lots of shovels, or education and discussion. I'm
>> not against the second amendment, just against wanton violence. (AS
>> you guys know).
>
> Sorry Han - what does that really mean, and how is it relevant? Your
> either/or statement implies education and discussion is superior. You
> should have been around in 1774 and you could have saved everybody a
> lot of grief with that thought.
I was born in the last year of WWII. Large parts of the town I grew up
in (Wageningen) were destroyed twice in that war. I know pretty well
that at times armed insurrection is necessary, and I am also eternally
grateful (that's not a sop) for the Allies who gave their lives for our
freedom. Still, I am rather fearful of white supremacists and other
paramilitary groups, whether left or right.
Therefore, I would like to emphasize education and discussion rather then
arming ourselves. Here I try to stay polite, and most often I can indeed
put myself into the trains of thought that people who don't agree with me
are expressing. But there are many paths to the ultimate goal of life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I like to express my views as how
to achieve that, respecting different views.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>>>>
>>> Which is partly why we need the Second Amendment.
>>
>> Either that and lots of shovels, or education and discussion. I'm
>> not against the second amendment, just against wanton violence. (AS
>> you guys know).
>
> But you've never explained WHY you're against wanton violence.
wan·ton/?wäntn/
Adjective: (of a cruel or violent action) Deliberate and unprovoked.
Does that explain why I'm against it?
> Me? I'm in favor of a certain level of violence - it culls the herd.
Ther is enough already
> [Metaphor alert]
> Most of the drivers in New York City (or Mexico City for that matter)
> are expert drivers. Why? Because the incompetent drivers didn't last
> very long.
Most are also the products of driving lessons, and want to keep their
vehicles. Traffic infractions in NYC are expensive.
> Yesterday, there were 20 people shot in Chicago, a city officially
> without guns
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-shooting-gun-viol
> ence-chicago-august-17-august-18-2012-south-side-west-side-20120817,0,2
> 092902.story
>
> All those shot were members of street gangs.
>
> Just think how much safer the city would be if guns were freely
> available. Admittedly, it might take a few months...
And the guns would then magically disappear? Or would Susie think the
death of her lover should be avenged?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>> I was born in the last year of WWII. Large parts of the town I grew
>> up in (Wageningen) were destroyed twice in that war. I know pretty
>> well that at times armed insurrection is necessary, and I am also
>> eternally grateful (that's not a sop) for the Allies who gave their
>> lives for our freedom. Still, I am rather fearful of white
>> supremacists and other paramilitary groups, whether left or right.
>
> Those guys though, are not the people who are protected by the 2nd
> Ammendment. At least the ones who act out their "anxieties".
But the anxiety that the 2nd Amendment is getting compromised is played
out in front of those, and they (unfortunately) act on it.
>> Therefore, I would like to emphasize education and discussion rather
>> then arming ourselves. Here I try to stay polite, and most often I
>> can indeed put myself into the trains of thought that people who
>> don't agree with me are expressing. But there are many paths to the
>> ultimate goal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I like
>> to express my views as how to achieve that, respecting different
>> views.
>
> I respect your views, and I hold them to be nieve. But - I do respect
> them. BTW - I have always found your postions to be respectful of
> others.
Thanks! I know that I am perhaps somewhat naive. I've lived a protected
life, despite or because I walked across midtown Manhattan twice a day
and worked in a VA Hospital ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was born in the last year of WWII. Large parts of the town I
>>>> grew up in (Wageningen) were destroyed twice in that war. I know
>>>> pretty well that at times armed insurrection is necessary, and I am
>>>> also eternally grateful (that's not a sop) for the Allies who gave
>>>> their lives for our freedom. Still, I am rather fearful of white
>>>> supremacists and other paramilitary groups, whether left or right.
>>>
>>> Those guys though, are not the people who are protected by the 2nd
>>> Ammendment. At least the ones who act out their "anxieties".
>>
>> But the anxiety that the 2nd Amendment is getting compromised is
>> played out in front of those, and they (unfortunately) act on it.
>
> So - do you have some links showing these acts? I get the fear part,
> but I don't get the part of you believing they are acting out threats
> to the second ammendment.
There are (I think) people who believe that their 2nd amendment rights
are about to be violated, and they go out and get armed to the teeth. As
well as those who are afraid of perceived rising chances of being
involved in violence. I am definitely not sure that all those people in
either category get enough education in how to handle their weapons
safely, and how to keep them secure. But those are my fears. I don't
know squat about firearms.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On 8/18/2012 3:52 PM, Han wrote:
>> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 8/17/2012 5:16 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 8/17/2012 1:56 PM, Jack wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I do know bottled water costs more than gas . . .
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can buy bottled water for under $2/gallon. Tell me where I can
>>>> buy gasoline at under $2/gallon.
>>>
>>> Quick look on the net found PERRIER for just $19/gal. I suggest you
>>> buy all you can for under $2 a gallon and get yourself good and
>>> filthy rich.
>>
>> Aquafina @ Amazon 32 bottles of 16.9 fl oz for $5.92. That is
>> $3.70/gal, like gasoline. Better look for specails ...
>
> Aquafina is tap water, comes out of the Detroit river. $3.70 a gallon
> for water you get from the local river vs. gas that is a bit more
> difficult to get out of the ground and refine is plain stupid. You
> pay 2000 times more for Aquafina than you would from the tap.
> Gasoline on the other hand is a great deal, and the oil companies
> should be applauded not attacked.
I'll tell Afina (my wife, who buys it, knowing it's a waste of money).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> Gov't making 50 cents on a gallon is between 40 and 66 cents.
Be happy. In Europe the price of gas is at least twice of what it is here,
and 2/3 goes to government. Yet they still drive big Mercedes and sit in
traffic jams rivaling LA and the LIE.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> There are (I think) people who believe that their 2nd amendment
>> rights are about to be violated, and they go out and get armed to the
>> teeth. As well as those who are afraid of perceived rising chances of
>> being involved in violence. I am definitely not sure that all those
>> people in either category get enough education in how to handle their
>> weapons safely, and how to keep them secure. But those are my fears.
>> I don't know squat about firearms.
>
> That is where I was going with my question Han. I appreciate your
> fears as I said before, but to hold those closely in the face of what
> you admit is a lack of knowledge speaks more about your own fears than
> it does about those you fear. Knowledge Han - go learn something
> about these guys. Admitely - they are whackos of one sort or another,
> but not generally in the sense that you currently fear.
>
> Here's why I ask questions and engage dialog like that. Your current
> fears and level of knowledge are not terribly atypical. So - suppose
> a piece of legislation is proposed that would "limit" or "control"
> these "fearful" things. In your current state of understanding, that
> would seem prudent to you and you might well find yourself a supporter
> of it. But - is it real and is it meaningful? It will certainly
> affect the rights of others, but for a good reason, or not? That's
> how feel good laws get passed and they do nothing more than that -
> make uninformed people feel good. But the rhetoric from the
> now-feeling-good uninformed people rises to loud levels - as if there
> really were some value to it. Meanwhile...
Well, Mike, The current sharply increasing rate of weapons going out to
people who may not be able to use them or protect them is a real fear of
mine. As you might have gathered, I have nothing against knowledgable
people possessing and using firearms responsibly.
So why not register those firearms, so there is a way to trace a weapon
that escapes responsible control? So we can, hey Joe, you used to have a
(X), but didn't report it stolen, and now it was used in (Y) illegal way.
How come?
Is that really too much to ask? How does that infringe anyone's rights?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>On 08/17/2012 10:19 AM, Han wrote:
>> And no, the
>> oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give them more, au
>> contraire.
>
>I think you have this wrong. The oil companies pay more in taxes than they
>make in profit in a typical year. Here is just one analysis with
>supporting citation:
You should actually _read_ your citations to make sure they support your
assertions before posting.
>
> http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/10/gas_taxes_excee.html
The citation here points out that taxes paid by consumers (e.g. taxes
paid at the pump or when refilling a farm tank), when added to the minimal taxes
paid by the oil companies, exceeds oil company profits. That's adding
apples and oranges and comparing them to bananas.
It surely doesn't support your assertions. Fact is that the oil companies make
profits, very large ones. Please refer to the relevent 10K and 10Q reports for the
actual facts, not some silly blog.
s
J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> That's because Microsoft and Apple are not exactly monopolies: they
>> have robust and effective competitors. Their competitors are
>> themselves.
>
> It's rather ridiculous to talk about "MS and Apple monopoly" given
> that the two are arch-rivals and that Apple would prefer that no Apple
> product ever run a single line of Microsoft code.
Uh, much of the code that runs on an Apple was written by Microsoft. For
example, MS-Word.
Han wrote:
>
> Being liberal does not mean I live in lala land.
I knew it Han! - You aren't really liberal!
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>> On 08/17/2012 11:42 AM, Han wrote:
>>> I don't think that (much as I'd want to) we can overturn the SCOTUS
>>> decision that corporations are people (which I disagree with, as
>>> previously noted, but it is now the law of the land). But it isn't
>>> right that people can freely associate in claok and dagger groups
>>> that don't reveal their identity.
>>
>> So now you don't think we have a natural right to privacy? I hate to
>> tell you this, but the cornerstone of any despotic dictatorship is
>> remove said privacy and thereby force people to either lie or openly
>> state their opposition to the regime so they can either be
>> "reeducated"
>> or "removed". Privacy is pretty important. If you don't think so,
>> imagine being forced to vote where everyone could see your choices
>> ... say like the pigs in the various unions want...
>
> Absolutely agreed. Too bad that the Bush administration put into
> place so many illegal surveillance programs on americans. Not that
> the current administration has eliminated them - which is one of the
> few things they've done wrong.
Here, here! As republican as I can be at times, that whoe Patriot Act thing
was a legal abomination. Sadly, too many feel good people in this country
fell prey to the impact of 911 and forgot to get up in arms about that
thing.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 19 Aug 2012 01:16:54 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I was born in the last year of WWII. Large parts of the town I
>>>>> grew up in (Wageningen) were destroyed twice in that war. I know
>>>>> pretty well that at times armed insurrection is necessary, and I am
>>>>> also eternally grateful (that's not a sop) for the Allies who gave
>>>>> their lives for our freedom. Still, I am rather fearful of white
>>>>> supremacists and other paramilitary groups, whether left or right.
>>>>
>>>> Those guys though, are not the people who are protected by the 2nd
>>>> Ammendment. At least the ones who act out their "anxieties".
>>>
>>> But the anxiety that the 2nd Amendment is getting compromised is
>>> played out in front of those, and they (unfortunately) act on it.
>>
>> So - do you have some links showing these acts? I get the fear part,
>> but I don't get the part of you believing they are acting out threats
>> to the second ammendment.
>
>There are (I think) people who believe that their 2nd amendment rights
>are about to be violated, and they go out and get armed to the teeth. As
It has been said by many gun store owners that Obama has been the
biggest boon to gun sales they have ever experienced.
>well as those who are afraid of perceived rising chances of being
>involved in violence. I am definitely not sure that all those people in
>either category get enough education in how to handle their weapons
>safely, and how to keep them secure. But those are my fears. I don't
>know squat about firearms.
You don't ever have to say that again, Han.
Both your and their insufficient education on weapons handling are
easily remedied in a single day for a very low cost, Han. Drop by
your local gun range and take a weapons handling class. You'll never
regret it and you'll instantly be more familiar and less afraid of
weapons (and probably the good guys on the street who own them).
http://www.nrainstructors.org/searchcourse.aspx
or, if you're anti-NRA
http://www.damonfinch.com/id77.html
http://www.njfirearms.com/
One of those might be close to you if you don't already know of a
local range. Or ask any cop where to get training.
Is it worth $25 or $50 to lose those fears? You bet!
--
The business of America is not business. Neither is it war. The business
of America is justice and securing the blessings of liberty.
-- George F. Will
On 19 Aug 2012 01:16:54 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I was born in the last year of WWII. Large parts of the town I
>>>>> grew up in (Wageningen) were destroyed twice in that war. I know
>>>>> pretty well that at times armed insurrection is necessary, and I am
>>>>> also eternally grateful (that's not a sop) for the Allies who gave
>>>>> their lives for our freedom. Still, I am rather fearful of white
>>>>> supremacists and other paramilitary groups, whether left or right.
>>>>
>>>> Those guys though, are not the people who are protected by the 2nd
>>>> Ammendment. At least the ones who act out their "anxieties".
>>>
>>> But the anxiety that the 2nd Amendment is getting compromised is
>>> played out in front of those, and they (unfortunately) act on it.
>>
>> So - do you have some links showing these acts? I get the fear part,
>> but I don't get the part of you believing they are acting out threats
>> to the second ammendment.
>
>There are (I think) people who believe that their 2nd amendment rights
>are about to be violated, and they go out and get armed to the teeth.
It makes a statement when a few tens of millions all of a sudden buy guns.
Open wallets speak loudly, even if the politicians don't get any of the
contents.
>As well as those who are afraid of perceived rising chances of being
>involved in violence.
You don't think that self-defense preparation is a natural and healthy
reaction? Do you believe that people shouldn't keep water/food supplies in
case of emergency? Fire extinguishers?
>I am definitely not sure that all those people in
>either category get enough education in how to handle their weapons
>safely, and how to keep them secure.
It doesn't take a lot.
>But those are my fears. I don't know squat about firearms.
That makes them phobias, not fears.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> Meanwhile back in Reality: Most everything the Bush administration
> put in place was ... ALREADY in place courtesy of the War On Drugs. Bush
> was able to legally get stuff done via Patriot I because of the
> many usurpations of personal liberty undertaken by this ridiculous
> "war" - usurpations, BTW, done both by right- and leftwing
> governments. So don't blame Bush (it will make you sound too much
> like that loser Obama). Blame JFK and every government forward for
> creating a culture in which the Big Powerful Government gets to pee
> on the 4th Amendment...
Gotta call Bullshit on that one Tim. Those things may have been done in a
cloak and dagger manner, but it was Bush that pulled the wool over America's
eys by capitalizing on 911 to legalize it.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:56:44 +0000, Han wrote:
>>
>>> My point is that many
>>> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are
>>> paid insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make
>>> everything more expensive. You may or may not agree, but my
>>> opinion is that more income equality would benefit our society.
>>
>> I've occasionally wondered if it wouldn't be more equitable to pay
>> workers based on how well they do a job, not on what the job is.
>>
>> There are people who excel in their jobs, whether that be clerks,
>> engineers, physicians, or dogcatchers. All those jobs are essential.
>> Maybe the top performers should all be paid the same?
>>
>> Yeah, I know - it's a utopian fantasy :-).
>
> I don't see anything utopian about undermining peoples motivation.
Undermining their motivation? How do you see that Bill? Pay for
performance - that is motivation.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
>
> Well, Mike, The current sharply increasing rate of weapons going out
> to people who may not be able to use them or protect them is a real
> fear of mine. As you might have gathered, I have nothing against
> knowledgable people possessing and using firearms responsibly.
I don't follow it, so I don't know - but what is the "sharply increasing
rate of weapons going out to people who may not be able to use them..." that
you state?
>
> So why not register those firearms, so there is a way to trace a
> weapon that escapes responsible control? So we can, hey Joe, you
> used to have a (X), but didn't report it stolen, and now it was used
> in (Y) illegal way. How come?
Well, the most common argument is that those registration requirements have
not proven very beneficial over a long period of time. Again - feel good
laws. Beyond that there have been stricter requirements based on the same
sort of thinking. NY used to have a COBiS law which required all handguns
sold in the state to be accompanied by a spent casing which had to be sent
to the NYSP for identification if that gun were ever used in a crime. In
all of the years that was in effect, a huge database of spent casing
characterisics was built - and never once used to solve a crime or convict a
criminal. The law sure felt good to people who saw the "common sense" in it
and knowing no better, felt it must be a good thing. Now - it has been
de-funded because all that ever did was impose administrative burdens on the
NYSP, and never fulfilled against its promise.
>
> Is that really too much to ask? How does that infringe anyone's
> rights?
It's not always that legislation infringes on rights. There are other
reasons to be more aware of these things. Reasons like - even though that
sounds good to your ear - it does not work as you thought.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:20:13 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>
>> I call BULLSHIT on that one, Han. With so many people out of work
>> right now, I'd bet not one of those jobs went empty for very long if
>> we were to finally deport all the illegals.
>
>Not so sure Larry. There have been more times when I've hears "i would not
>work for that wage", or "I would not do that", than would cause me to
>believe that the unemployment roles are filled with people willing to do
>that agricultural work. In fact - if that were the case, those people could
>be right at work besides the migrant workers even as we speak. How many
>unemployed people have you heard say that they would take those crop jobs?
>I am calling BULLSHIT on your comment.
>
>>
>> 'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
>> only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
>> particular line of expertise. After 6 months (or less?), they should
>> be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple days
>> training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles. Unlimited
>> unemployment checks breed worse things. Get 'em off their asses!
>
Basically I agree with you, but hopefully some fairness should apply.
Try to put yourself in their situation. Some traumatic medical
condition has left you unable to do your former job, is it fair to go
make you pick crops for minimum wage. I don't see a lot of us on this
group surviving many days of agricultural work at our age.
Mike M
Mike M
On 15 Aug 2012 15:47:39 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 15 Aug 2012 12:51:07 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 8/14/2012 7:49 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>> It is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal
>>>> office.
>>>>
>>>> It's a federal crime to break into our country and be here
>>>> illegally, and the Feds ignore that crime as well...
>>>
>>>Agriculture as we know it would cease if we didn't have illegal aliens
>>>harvesting ... Guess who hires them
>>
>> It wouldn't cease at all. It might get more expensive, or, *perhaps*
>> Congress could come up with some great idea to allow *legal* seasonal
>> workers. Legalizing and regulating; what a concept. Nah, then it
>> would be too hard to get them to vote.
>
>Yes it would get much more expensive. Much more equitable to the workers
>as well. And I would be hugely in favor of legalizing immigrant workers,
>of course with some regulation. That's how I got here after all. Fill
>out the paperwork ...
Equitable? Are you saying that you weren't paid what you were worth?
Obviously that's not true because you took the job.
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 05:12:40 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:10:06 -0400, "[email protected]"
>>>As usual, your sweeping statements and incredible lack of humanity is
>>>overwhelming.
>>
>>As usual, content of your posts matches your IQ; zero.
>
>Oh ouch, that hurts. I'd rather be me with a zero IQ than be the
>sanctimonious asshole you are every day of the week.
We're both happy, then. <what a maroon>
On 8/18/2012 3:43 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 08/18/2012 02:30 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 05:12:40 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> As usual, content of your posts matches your IQ; zero.
>>>
>>> Oh ouch, that hurts. I'd rather be me with a zero IQ than be the
>>> sanctimonious asshole you are every day of the week.
>> We're both happy, then. <what a maroon>
> PDFTT
Dave is an idiot, not a troll. krw doesn't waste much time talking to
the idiot, he pretty much keeps his replies concise and on target. Much
better than trying to talk sense to him, as I've seen you try many
times. An occasional 2 seconds spent with krw simply calling the
numbskull an idiot or a maroon is ok with me. Watching you try to pound
some sense into the blockhead is trying.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:56:04 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>I do know bottled water costs more than gas in spite of government
>stupidity, so the gas companies are doing better than should be
>expected. I also know the commies are really pissed off that US oil is
>making money, regardless of what our screwed up socialist government
>throws at them.
No jackass. You know shit.
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:19:48 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>That's the kind of thinking that I have a problem with Dave. The statement
>that the average worker does not need something is a presumptuous statement.
>That presumes a level of living upon people. Can't agree with that.
I was addressing the comparison of getting to work against the need
for a SawStop.
Are you telling me that everybody needs a SawStop? Hell, most of the
general population probably doesn't even know what one is.
On 08/18/2012 02:30 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 05:12:40 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:10:06 -0400, "[email protected]"
>>>> As usual, your sweeping statements and incredible lack of humanity is
>>>> overwhelming.
>>>
>>> As usual, content of your posts matches your IQ; zero.
>>
>> Oh ouch, that hurts. I'd rather be me with a zero IQ than be the
>> sanctimonious asshole you are every day of the week.
>
> We're both happy, then. <what a maroon>
>
PDFTT
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:56:44 +0000, Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My point is that many
>>>>> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are
>>>>> paid insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make
>>>>> everything more expensive. You may or may not agree, but my
>>>>> opinion is that more income equality would benefit our society.
>>>>
>>>> I've occasionally wondered if it wouldn't be more equitable to pay
>>>> workers based on how well they do a job, not on what the job is.
>>>>
>>>> There are people who excel in their jobs, whether that be clerks,
>>>> engineers, physicians, or dogcatchers. All those jobs are
>>>> essential. Maybe the top performers should all be paid the same?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I know - it's a utopian fantasy :-).
>>>
>>> I don't see anything utopian about undermining peoples motivation.
>>
>> Undermining their motivation? How do you see that Bill? Pay for
>> performance - that is motivation.
>>
>
> I agree with paying for performance--though measuring performance can
> get really complex very fast. I thought he wanted to reward a "good"
> engineer, a "good" clerk and a "good" dogcather with the same pay.
>
> Larry B. does say, "Maybe all top performers should be paid the same".
> Paying them all the same would, for some IMO, undermine the motivation
> to be an engineer or physician: "I like to work with animals, I think
> I'll work for animal control so I don't have to go to school for 8
> years to be a veteranarian".
Ok - I misunderstood your comments prior.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>> I was born in the last year of WWII. Large parts of the town I grew
>>> up in (Wageningen) were destroyed twice in that war. I know pretty
>>> well that at times armed insurrection is necessary, and I am also
>>> eternally grateful (that's not a sop) for the Allies who gave their
>>> lives for our freedom. Still, I am rather fearful of white
>>> supremacists and other paramilitary groups, whether left or right.
>>
>> Those guys though, are not the people who are protected by the 2nd
>> Ammendment. At least the ones who act out their "anxieties".
>
> But the anxiety that the 2nd Amendment is getting compromised is
> played out in front of those, and they (unfortunately) act on it.
So - do you have some links showing these acts? I get the fear part, but I
don't get the part of you believing they are acting out threats to the
second ammendment.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Mike M wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:20:13 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I call BULLSHIT on that one, Han. With so many people out of work
>>> right now, I'd bet not one of those jobs went empty for very long if
>>> we were to finally deport all the illegals.
>>
>> Not so sure Larry. There have been more times when I've hears "i
>> would not work for that wage", or "I would not do that", than would
>> cause me to believe that the unemployment roles are filled with
>> people willing to do that agricultural work. In fact - if that were
>> the case, those people could be right at work besides the migrant
>> workers even as we speak. How many unemployed people have you heard
>> say that they would take those crop jobs? I am calling BULLSHIT on
>> your comment.
>>
>>>
>>> 'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
>>> only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
>>> particular line of expertise. After 6 months (or less?), they
>>> should be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple
>>> days training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles. Unlimited
>>> unemployment checks breed worse things. Get 'em off their asses!
>>
> Basically I agree with you, but hopefully some fairness should apply.
> Try to put yourself in their situation. Some traumatic medical
> condition has left you unable to do your former job, is it fair to go
> make you pick crops for minimum wage. I don't see a lot of us on this
> group surviving many days of agricultural work at our age.
>
The only problem with agreeing with Larry's point is that there is no such
thing as unlimited unemployment checks. Sounds good if you want to close
with a statement like "Get 'em off their asses", but it's only rhetorical.
Those two sentences only serve to show a lack of understanding for what the
world of the unemployed really looks like today.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:56:44 +0000, Han wrote:
>
>> My point is that many
>> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are paid
>> insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make everything
>> more expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion is that
>> more income equality would benefit our society.
>
> I've occasionally wondered if it wouldn't be more equitable to pay
> workers based on how well they do a job, not on what the job is.
>
Have you not ever experienced that in your career? That has been the norm
in my career, but I've never worked in a union shop where the opposite
prevails.
> There are people who excel in their jobs, whether that be clerks,
> engineers, physicians, or dogcatchers. All those jobs are essential.
> Maybe the top performers should all be paid the same?
Don't understand why you just applied a contradictory principle. Surely
there will be differentiators - there always are. Stick with your original
thought.
>
> Yeah, I know - it's a utopian fantasy :-).
No - it is the way that the commercial world works in many areas of
employment.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 08/17/2012 03:11 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> On 08/17/2012 02:29 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile back in Reality: Most everything the Bush administration
>>>> put in place was ... ALREADY in place courtesy of the War On Drugs.
>>>> Bush was able to legally get stuff done via Patriot I because of the
>>>> many usurpations of personal liberty undertaken by this ridiculous
>>>> "war" - usurpations, BTW, done both by right- and leftwing
>>>> governments. So don't blame Bush (it will make you sound too much
>>>> like that loser Obama). Blame JFK and every government forward for
>>>> creating a culture in which the Big Powerful Government gets to pee
>>>> on the 4th Amendment...
>>>
>>> Gotta call Bullshit on that one Tim. Those things may have been
>>> done in a cloak and dagger manner, but it was Bush that pulled the
>>> wool over America's eys by capitalizing on 911 to legalize it.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. The legal precedents set by the War
>> On Drugs are exactly what made Patriot I unremarkable legally. Most
>> of what's in it had already been done in the name of the drug war.
>
> Please define your use of the term "unremarkable legally".
>
US law is driven by two things: What is actually legislated and what legal
precedents have been established, particularly by the appellate courts.
Patriot I was mostly a restatement of methods already in use in the so-called
War Drugs. It simply was a reapplication of these methods to the War On Terror.
As such it was legally "unremarkable" under domestic US law because there
was a precedent for the legal use of the methods described therein.
Patriot I was "unremarkable" under *international* law because it mostly
directed itself against foreign nationals for whom no Geneva Conventions
apply: Non-uniformed combatants are treated as spies/saboteurs and, under the
GCs at least, have no rights other than to have a hearing that establishes that
they are, in fact, spies/saboteurs.
The only real legal fouls the Bush administration made were:
- The railroading of the "American Taliban" after being held for so long
without charge or trial. As an American citizen he, unlike all the other
little dirtbags we were picking up, was entitled to due process *under US law*.
- The failure to properly use FISA courts to oversee what was going on. The
Bush administration argued (properly) that they simply did not have enough
FISA resources to handle the tidal wave of work the suddenly had. However,
they should have gone to Congress (while they were still for things but before
they were against them because ... you know ... the left side of Congress
is particularly weaselly) and asked for more FISA resources to get the job done.
You can argue lots of things they should/should not have done on *practical* grounds
but not legal ones. For example, there is a case to be made that waterboarding
should be avoided because doing so means our captured troops will be treated
to the same or worse. What you cannot do is argue against waterboarding on legal
grounds because - like I said - the people we were doing this to had no protection
under international law - at least not any we've signed.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 08/17/2012 02:29 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>
>> Meanwhile back in Reality: Most everything the Bush administration
>> put in place was ... ALREADY in place courtesy of the War On Drugs. Bush
>> was able to legally get stuff done via Patriot I because of the
>> many usurpations of personal liberty undertaken by this ridiculous
>> "war" - usurpations, BTW, done both by right- and leftwing
>> governments. So don't blame Bush (it will make you sound too much
>> like that loser Obama). Blame JFK and every government forward for
>> creating a culture in which the Big Powerful Government gets to pee
>> on the 4th Amendment...
>
> Gotta call Bullshit on that one Tim. Those things may have been done in a
> cloak and dagger manner, but it was Bush that pulled the wool over America's
> eys by capitalizing on 911 to legalize it.
>
I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. The legal precedents set by the War
On Drugs are exactly what made Patriot I unremarkable legally. Most
of what's in it had already been done in the name of the drug war.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 08/16/2012 09:56 AM, Han wrote:
<SNIP>
> Opinions versus facts. What I say are my opinions. I think I was paid
> what I was worth at most if not all points in my career. I know that
> others in similar positions and with similar capabilities were paid less
> and others more, but that is besides the point. My point is that many
> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are paid
> insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make everything more
> expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion is that more income
> equality would benefit our society.
>
>
You're missing the point. Unless force it brought to bear to MAKE you
take a job, you're always "paid what you're worth" because you are
"worth" what the market will bear. If a job is offered at a price,
it is because the buyer (employer) values the work more than the money
they pay for it. If the seller (you) accepts the job, then you value
the money more highly than you do your time to do the work. Everyone
wins. You may not be making as much as you would LIKE or THINK you should
get, but that doesn't make you "worth" it. Again, this is true as long
as no one is pointing a gun at your head.
Relevant: http://jwh.fastmail.fm/essaysfolder.htm/essays_market.htm
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 13:08:19 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:22:15 -0400, Jack <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw buyers to
>>> only buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let government
>>> mandate wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well let them
>>> mandate a the price of the saw.
>>
>> Every conversation you get into, you bring up the SawStop. What Gass
>> did, has done, or attempted is completely irrelevant because it's the
>> insurance industry that's pushing the SawStop into businesses.
>
> The issue is the CSPC. They are also considering making the SS
> mechanism mandatory.
>
Agreed - despite the unfounded claims that insurance companies are driving
this, I've not yet seen one single piece of proof of this claim.
Institutional lawyers may be casting fears into their clients, but I have
not seen or heard of one single push by an insurance company - except for
some folks who say that took place - with no evidence. Around here, I know
that the insurance companies are not doing any such sort of pushing - I know
the guy that heads this up for the BOCES in this area. Lawyers - that's a
different story. They promote their own well being by keeping their clients
in fear. And - as you say - right now this is a CSPC thing, and it isn't
even decided yet.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> No, licensed plumbers. Maybe all the outfits in New Jersey are
> one-man shops, but they certainly aren't here. There are radio
> advertisements for licensed plumbers to join companies all the time,
> here. There *is* a high demand.
I think most plumbers are corporations. I am not sure whether everyone
of their workers doing plumbing work need to be fully licensed. I am
pretty sure that either there are different levels of licensing, or that
the lower echelon just follows instructions, but I'll ask my plumber
friend when I see him again.
> If they're all one-man shop, there, I assume there are no plumber's
> unions? That's cool, but it must make building all those skyscrapers a
> pain. ;-)
The one I know best is not in a union shop, just part of a company doing
residential work in the 'burbs here.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 19 Aug 2012 11:45:12 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 19 Aug 2012 01:03:33 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 18 Aug 2012 22:29:25 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 08/18/2012 05:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>>>>> Colleges graduate students where the market is heading - perhaps
>>>>>>> with a little lag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe. But have you tried to hire a high quality plumber or
>>>>>> electrician lately. There is a TON of opportunity in the trades
>>>>>> and these are jobs that cannot easily be offshored. Unfortunately
>>>>>> a generation of American parents were brainwashed by the 1960s
>>>>>> Smelliest Generation that runs the universities that no one
>>>>>> can succeed without a college degree. Speaking as someone who
>>>>>> HAS a graduate degree (and briefly taught grad school) this is
>>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fully agree, but it seems some of that is coming back. Problem is
>>>>>that a fully licensed (independent) plumber or electrician just
>>>>>about has to get at least an associate degree to be able to read the
>>>>>regs and do the accounting.
>>>>
>>>> Even employees are needed.
>>>
>>>Not sure what you mean.
>>
>> I thought I was writing English. Plumbing companies hire plumbers,
>> no? These plumbers have no need to do the accounting and shit still
>> runs downhill. ;-)
>
>OK. Those are more like plumbers' helpers then.
No, licensed plumbers. Maybe all the outfits in New Jersey are one-man shops,
but they certainly aren't here. There are radio advertisements for licensed
plumbers to join companies all the time, here. There *is* a high demand.
If they're all one-man shop, there, I assume there are no plumber's unions?
That's cool, but it must make building all those skyscrapers a pain. ;-)
>>>The employees of the plumber need to know
>>>basics, but should follow the boss's instructions. I'd like to see
>>>more kids go into the trades than are presently doing so, but if they
>>>want to be more than just a bit over the position of gofer, they will
>>>soon need a real high school education, or an associate's.
>>
>> A associate's is overkill. OTOH, a real high school education may be
>> difficult to find, these days.
>
>Yep!
...yet you want to pay teachers (unions) even more. Amazing.
>>>>>>> You are right about the web development stuff, but that's where
>>>>>>> the market is. Hardcore engineering is dying here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm actually saying the opposite: Web programming and Java are
>>>>>> now commodity skills - the manual labor of the IT industry.
>>>>>> There are too many people that can do this work and not enough
>>>>>> job openings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hardcore engineering is exactly what we're missing and where
>>>>>> all the demand is. I could probably place between 5-20 people
>>>>>> right now with just 1 year's experience in Linux engineering
>>>>>> and infrastructure if they knew basic system administration,
>>>>>> networking, and troubleshooting, and had good people skills
>>>>>> and a high integrity work ethic. The jobs I'm thinking of
>>>>>> start at well north of $50K/yr with full benefits, vacation,
>>>>>> 401K matching, and instant vesting of all the money the company
>>>>>> does contribute to the 401K. A great first job for a young,
>>>>>> smart engineer ... and the company can't find 'em. That, sir,
>>>>>> is why jobs are leaving Dodge...
>>>>>
>>>>>That would also be the kind of job to return ASAP when the
>>>>>schools/students see the opportunity. Indeed, some of the lower
>>>>>level off-shored jobs are coming back, I heard (don't ask, I don't
>>>>>remember where I heard).
>>>>
>>>> Not sure the (what was called "hard") engineering schools will. It
>>>> takes math, something sorely lacking in public schools these days. I
>>>> believe lower level jobs are coming back, or will if allowed to. My
>>>> CPoE shipped all production to Mexico in '08 and has already found
>>>> that it was a mistake (not sure the execs have admitted it yet).
>>>> Much of the engineering is already being "off-shored" from Japan to
>>>> the US. ;-)
>>>
>>>What's CPoE?
>>
>> Same as a PPoE, but more current. ;-) (Current Place of Employment)
>>
>>>Math is coming back, I hope and think. Although I was pissed by some
>>>kind of editorial somewhere that claimed algebra wasn't really
>>>necessary any more.
>>
>> I think someone's pulling the wool over your eyes again. The second
>> statement is far more usual than you want to believe.
>
>I can hope, can't I? And the believers in the second statement are wrong
>:)
They're not. Try something simple like get change for $10.24, after giving
the cashier $10.25. Heaven forbid that you give them $10.29.
On 18 Aug 2012 15:47:37 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> I used the saw stop as an example because this is a woodworking group,
>> and most woodworkers, even the idiots, know what a saw stop is. Some
>> don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw buyers to
>> only buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let government
>> mandate wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well let them
>> mandate a the price of the saw.
>
>Yes a cow is a mammal, we get our milk from cows. Cats are mammals too,
>why not get our milk from them? That's the above reasoning (IMO) ...
>
>Actually the sawstop may be a good example of the multiple things that
>are "wrong". Gass had good ideas, but when he tried to sell them,
>nobody would buy. He is a good patent lawyer, so he definitely could
>cover his invention to lock it up. Then he went 2-prong - he made his
>own excellent (expensive) saw and he went lobbying for regulations that
>would force people to buy his saw. (Something about petitioning
>government for redress of grievances, perhaps - I'm not a constitutional
>lawyer).
>
>So what is wrong here? Please add your opinions. Mine are:
>- The saw makers were stupid.
No, they weren't.
>Now they are on the hook.
Not yet.
>- Gass is a monopolist. He is a very capable lawyer and wants his
>"due", to the max. - Gass deserves compensation for his inventions.
He *only* deserves compensation to the extent that people are willing to give
him is pound of flesh. If *they* decide that his invention is not worth the
money, *they* should be free to pass on it.
>- If people are too stupid to follow simple directions about safety, let
>Darwin rule. - People should be protected from having to work under
>dangerous conditions.
The government can't protect idiots. With your extension of the nanny state,
I guess we'd better outlaw hydrogen hydroxide, too.
>If I have to, or want to buy a new saw, the sawstop is something I'd
>give thought to. I can probably afford it.
Good for you. I can, too, but chose not to. You'd rather take that choice
away from me. How tyrannical of you.
>If a guy/company goes for
>the easiest profit he'd ignore worker safety unless forced to obey
The worker can chose to work for the guy with the SawStop, too.
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 18 Aug 2012 15:47:37 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> I used the saw stop as an example because this is a woodworking
>>> group, and most woodworkers, even the idiots, know what a saw stop
>>> is. Some don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw
>>> buyers to only buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let
>>> government mandate wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well
>>> let them mandate a the price of the saw.
>>
>>Yes a cow is a mammal, we get our milk from cows. Cats are mammals
>>too, why not get our milk from them? That's the above reasoning (IMO)
>>...
>>
>>Actually the sawstop may be a good example of the multiple things that
>>are "wrong". Gass had good ideas, but when he tried to sell them,
>>nobody would buy. He is a good patent lawyer, so he definitely could
>>cover his invention to lock it up. Then he went 2-prong - he made his
>>own excellent (expensive) saw and he went lobbying for regulations
>>that would force people to buy his saw. (Something about petitioning
>>government for redress of grievances, perhaps - I'm not a
>>constitutional lawyer).
>>
>>So what is wrong here? Please add your opinions. Mine are:
>>- The saw makers were stupid. Now they are on the hook.
>
> According to lawyers, they could have been on the hook by accepting
> the safety device, too. Moot point.
That only makes the lawyers stupid (my opinion).
>>- Gass is a monopolist. He is a very capable lawyer and wants his
>>"due", to the max. - Gass deserves compensation for his inventions.
>
> Yes, damned greedy monopolist. He deserves compensation and could
> have made millions without all the patents and nefarious doings.
Agreed
>>- If people are too stupid to follow simple directions about safety,
>>let Darwin rule. - People should be protected from having to work
>>under dangerous conditions.
>
> Aren't these two contradictory?
Indeed
> Anyway, tablesaws have safety devices
> installed on them now, by gov't mandate. SawStop isn't necessary but
> could be considered an additional safety device. It should be a
> person's own choice, not the government's. I'm with Darwin.
I would have been too, but the lawyers ...
> As to the culpability of the initial case for SawStop, I'd have ruled
> 50% idiot's fault and 50% contractor's fault. ZERO fault of mfgr.
> It's both a company's and a worker's responsibility to be safe on the
> worksite, and neither was acting responsible in Osorio's case. Those
> saws have looked/worked like that for 100 years and were not faulty as
> the damned speaking weasels maintained. It sickens me.
I wonder whether the case is going to a court higher than the Apellate
...
>>If I have to, or want to buy a new saw, the sawstop is something I'd
>>give thought to. I can probably afford it. If a guy/company goes for
>>the easiest profit he'd ignore worker safety unless forced to obey
>
> People with the money have the choice of expensive saws, where the
> SawStop is comparable in price. It's too expensive for most of us po
> unwashed folks who have to save up for a $100 saw, or save for years
> for a Grizzly 1023. Splitters and guards rule!
Lawyers may rule too ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 18 Aug 2012 15:47:37 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> I used the saw stop as an example because this is a woodworking
>>> group, and most woodworkers, even the idiots, know what a saw stop
>>> is. Some don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw
>>> buyers to only buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let
>>> government mandate wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well
>>> let them mandate a the price of the saw.
>>
>>Yes a cow is a mammal, we get our milk from cows. Cats are mammals
>>too, why not get our milk from them? That's the above reasoning (IMO)
>>...
>>
>>Actually the sawstop may be a good example of the multiple things that
>>are "wrong". Gass had good ideas, but when he tried to sell them,
>>nobody would buy. He is a good patent lawyer, so he definitely could
>>cover his invention to lock it up. Then he went 2-prong - he made his
>>own excellent (expensive) saw and he went lobbying for regulations
>>that would force people to buy his saw. (Something about petitioning
>>government for redress of grievances, perhaps - I'm not a
>>constitutional lawyer).
>>
>>So what is wrong here? Please add your opinions. Mine are:
>>- The saw makers were stupid.
>
> No, they weren't.
>
>>Now they are on the hook.
>
> Not yet.
Whether they were stupid or not will wait until this whole thing has
played out. My feeling at this point is that they should have accepted
Gass's first offer in some form. But I do see the lawyer argument that
doing so would make them admit to having been selling dangerous toys.
>>- Gass is a monopolist. He is a very capable lawyer and wants his
>>"due", to the max. - Gass deserves compensation for his inventions.
>
> He *only* deserves compensation to the extent that people are willing
> to give him is pound of flesh. If *they* decide that his invention is
> not worth the money, *they* should be free to pass on it.
Easy to say, not necessarily true. If Gass wins the Safety commission
endorsement, they'll have to accept his monopoly pricing. There is no
viable alternative (yet).
>>- If people are too stupid to follow simple directions about safety,
>>let Darwin rule. - People should be protected from having to work
>>under dangerous conditions.
>
> The government can't protect idiots. With your extension of the nanny
> state, I guess we'd better outlaw hydrogen hydroxide, too.
Misspelling. It's dihydrogen oxide. :)
The stats say that it is the single man workshop who begets the injuries,
or at least those that are NOT under OSHA regulation. Those are safe.
So in actual fact, government can protect idiots, or at least educate
them via OSHA.
>>If I have to, or want to buy a new saw, the sawstop is something I'd
>>give thought to. I can probably afford it.
>
> Good for you. I can, too, but chose not to. You'd rather take that
> choice away from me. How tyrannical of you.
It's not MY choice. I'd rather have competition and education do the
work. I'm against the Gass maneuvers to use the Safety Commission.
>>If a guy/company goes for
>>the easiest profit he'd ignore worker safety unless forced to obey
>
> The worker can chose to work for the guy with the SawStop, too.
With unlimited work options in town, yes. Too many little contractors
with Ridgid saw who chose not to educate their workers sufficiently, but
too few real choice between them.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 19 Aug 2012 11:53:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Gov't making 50 cents on a gallon is between 40 and 66 cents.
>>
>>Be happy. In Europe the price of gas is at least twice of what it is
>>here, and 2/3 goes to government. Yet they still drive big Mercedes
>>and sit in traffic jams rivaling LA and the LIE.
>
> But Han, you *like* "free" everything.
Funny thing is, in Europe they don't complain about taxes as much as here,
by far!! And their taxes are definitely higher than here.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 18 Aug 2012 15:47:37 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> I used the saw stop as an example because this is a woodworking group,
>> and most woodworkers, even the idiots, know what a saw stop is. Some
>> don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw buyers to
>> only buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let government
>> mandate wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well let them
>> mandate a the price of the saw.
>
>Yes a cow is a mammal, we get our milk from cows. Cats are mammals too,
>why not get our milk from them? That's the above reasoning (IMO) ...
>
>Actually the sawstop may be a good example of the multiple things that
>are "wrong". Gass had good ideas, but when he tried to sell them,
>nobody would buy. He is a good patent lawyer, so he definitely could
>cover his invention to lock it up. Then he went 2-prong - he made his
>own excellent (expensive) saw and he went lobbying for regulations that
>would force people to buy his saw. (Something about petitioning
>government for redress of grievances, perhaps - I'm not a constitutional
>lawyer).
>
>So what is wrong here? Please add your opinions. Mine are:
>- The saw makers were stupid. Now they are on the hook.
According to lawyers, they could have been on the hook by accepting
the safety device, too. Moot point.
>- Gass is a monopolist. He is a very capable lawyer and wants his
>"due", to the max. - Gass deserves compensation for his inventions.
Yes, damned greedy monopolist. He deserves compensation and could
have made millions without all the patents and nefarious doings.
>- If people are too stupid to follow simple directions about safety, let
>Darwin rule. - People should be protected from having to work under
>dangerous conditions.
Aren't these two contradictory? Anyway, tablesaws have safety devices
installed on them now, by gov't mandate. SawStop isn't necessary but
could be considered an additional safety device. It should be a
person's own choice, not the government's. I'm with Darwin.
As to the culpability of the initial case for SawStop, I'd have ruled
50% idiot's fault and 50% contractor's fault. ZERO fault of mfgr.
It's both a company's and a worker's responsibility to be safe on the
worksite, and neither was acting responsible in Osorio's case. Those
saws have looked/worked like that for 100 years and were not faulty as
the damned speaking weasels maintained. It sickens me.
>If I have to, or want to buy a new saw, the sawstop is something I'd
>give thought to. I can probably afford it. If a guy/company goes for
>the easiest profit he'd ignore worker safety unless forced to obey
People with the money have the choice of expensive saws, where the
SawStop is comparable in price. It's too expensive for most of us po
unwashed folks who have to save up for a $100 saw, or save for years
for a Grizzly 1023. Splitters and guards rule!
--
The business of America is not business. Neither is it war. The business
of America is justice and securing the blessings of liberty.
-- George F. Will
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 21:08:58 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>Quick look on the net found PERRIER for just $19/gal. I suggest you buy
>all you can for under $2 a gallon and get yourself good and filthy rich.
Naturally, you being the twit you are, you ignore his example of plain
old drinking water and introduce exotic specialty water into the mix.
You really do like being a fool don't you?
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 13:08:19 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:22:15 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw buyers to only
>>buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let government mandate
>>wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well let them mandate a the
>>price of the saw.
>
>Every conversation you get into, you bring up the SawStop. What Gass
>did, has done, or attempted is completely irrelevant because it's the
>insurance industry that's pushing the SawStop into businesses.
The issue is the CSPC. They are also considering making the SS mechanism
mandatory.
>Fact is, you're just too stupid to let it go. Your continuing wasted
>outrage is old and stale. Get a life for Christ's sake.
This is a WW group and the SS is closer to the topic, however the issue is
universal across society, today.
On 19 Aug 2012 11:53:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> Gov't making 50 cents on a gallon is between 40 and 66 cents.
>
>Be happy. In Europe the price of gas is at least twice of what it is here,
>and 2/3 goes to government. Yet they still drive big Mercedes and sit in
>traffic jams rivaling LA and the LIE.
But Han, you *like* "free" everything.
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:56:44 +0000, Han wrote:
> My point is that many
> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are paid
> insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make everything more
> expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion is that more income
> equality would benefit our society.
I've occasionally wondered if it wouldn't be more equitable to pay
workers based on how well they do a job, not on what the job is.
There are people who excel in their jobs, whether that be clerks,
engineers, physicians, or dogcatchers. All those jobs are essential.
Maybe the top performers should all be paid the same?
Yeah, I know - it's a utopian fantasy :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:14:29 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 8/17/2012 1:09 PM, Jack wrote:
>> On 8/17/2012 11:25 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same
>>>> as dog catchers.
>>>
>>> No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)
>>
>> Yes, that would be Larry Blanchard, the guy that quotes GB Shaw, the
>> Fabian socialist prick that thought the solution to stupid,
>> unproductive people was to gas the suckers albeit as painlessly as
>> possible.
>>
>>>> I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.
>>
>> Yeah, that's a thought that seems out of sync with the times, if you
>> pay attention to the lame stream media, the educational system, the
>> democratic party, and at least a part of the repuglican party.
>>
>> However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
>>> are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the
>>> employee.
>>> It's none of anyone else's damned business.
>>
>> Amen brother!
>>
>
> The difficulty comes when two parties to a contract don't have equal
> bargaining power. Just try bargaining with an insurance company over
> the terms of your automobile liability policy and the premium you will
> pay for coverage.
What your saying is true for a single insurance company, they don't
negotiate much. I once changed auto insurance companies five times in
2 months, ended back at the beginning company at significantly lower
rates.
It was a pain in the ass and I had a good deal of money tied up in
premiums until refunds were issued for canceled policies, but I
got what I wanted in the end.
All free market based, you have to be willing to walk with your
money if one party won't negotiate.
basilisk
Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Call me sentimental. If there were both an asshole and a
>>> sympathetic person working for me and I had to get rid of one, I'd
>>> get rid of the asshole, other things being roughly equal.
>>
>> Well - you just created a self serving scenario there Han. First
>> off, you define two extremes. On one end - the likeable. On the
>> other end - the despicable. Then you throw in the escape clause
>> "other things being equal". How often have you ever really seen that
>> in life?
>
> I have seen it. And I don't really have a very wide circle of work
> acquaintances. Can't go in more detail.
Anecdotal? As I asked - how often?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 08/17/2012 11:57 AM, Han wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 08/17/2012 10:25 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Effort doesn't count. The only thing that count is*results*. Some
>>> work hard as hell and accomplish nothing (or less), other create
>>> wonders with apparently no effort.
>>
>> That's not actually even quite right. Absent fraud, force, or threat
>> (either in the private sector - unions, thugs, criminals - or by
>> government - laws, regulations) the price of labor is set by the
>> relative supply to the demand.
>>
>> For example, pretty much any able bodied person can dig a ditch, so
>> this doesn't pay much ... well, it does now because of the distorting
>> forceful effects of unions.
>>
>> OTOH, there is a very small supply of neurologists in the country and
>> they get paid many, many multiples of what ditch diggers do. (Expect
>> this supply to further decrease as the We-Know-What's-Good-For-You
>> crowd tries to implement their insane "social justice" perversions.)
>>
>> All things (results) being the same, if the situation were suddenly
>> reversed and there was a shortage of able bodied ditch diggers and a
>> surplus of neurologists, their incomes would invert.
>>
>> For anyone reading this thread that is interested in a good grounding
>> in economics written for the non-specialist, I highly, highly
>> recommend this book. It is a classic and flattens a lot of the social
>> justice boobery heard these days even though the book itself is
>> apolitical:
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0
>> 517548232?tag=duckduckgo-lm-20
>
> Not necessarily apolitical. It is (according to Amazon) written by a
> disciple of Ron Paul-like philosophies. Since it is thus likely anti-
> Keynesian, it is prejudiced in ways opposite my prejudice.
>
> :)
>
It is not "anti Keyesian" (but Reality is as the past 3 years demonstrate).
It is a primer in economic basics.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 8/17/2012 1:09 PM, Jack wrote:
> On 8/17/2012 11:25 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> Han wrote:
>
>>> I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same
>>> as dog catchers.
>>
>> No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)
>
> Yes, that would be Larry Blanchard, the guy that quotes GB Shaw, the
> Fabian socialist prick that thought the solution to stupid,
> unproductive people was to gas the suckers albeit as painlessly as
> possible.
>
>>> I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.
>
> Yeah, that's a thought that seems out of sync with the times, if you
> pay attention to the lame stream media, the educational system, the
> democratic party, and at least a part of the repuglican party.
>
> However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
>> are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the
>> employee.
>> It's none of anyone else's damned business.
>
> Amen brother!
>
The difficulty comes when two parties to a contract don't have equal
bargaining power. Just try bargaining with an insurance company over
the terms of your automobile liability policy and the premium you will
pay for coverage.
On 8/17/2012 3:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 8/17/2012 1:09 PM, Jack wrote:
>>> On 8/17/2012 11:25 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same
>>>>> as dog catchers.
>>>> No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)
>>> Yes, that would be Larry Blanchard, the guy that quotes GB Shaw, the
>>> Fabian socialist prick that thought the solution to stupid,
>>> unproductive people was to gas the suckers albeit as painlessly as
>>> possible.
>>>
>>>>> I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.
>>> Yeah, that's a thought that seems out of sync with the times, if you
>>> pay attention to the lame stream media, the educational system, the
>>> democratic party, and at least a part of the repuglican party.
>>>
>>> However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
>>>> are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the
>>>> employee.
>>>> It's none of anyone else's damned business.
>>> Amen brother!
>>>
>> The difficulty comes when two parties to a contract don't have equal
>> bargaining power. Just try bargaining with an insurance company over
>> the terms of your automobile liability policy and the premium you will
>> pay for coverage.
> Different kind of relationship.
>
But the principle is the same. Unequal bargaining power in hiring
situations leads to employment contracts for an amount different than
what a person's labors are actually worth.
On 8/18/2012 2:06 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:14:29 -0600, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 8/17/2012 1:09 PM, Jack wrote:
>>> On 8/17/2012 11:25 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same
>>>>> as dog catchers.
>>>> No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)
>>> Yes, that would be Larry Blanchard, the guy that quotes GB Shaw, the
>>> Fabian socialist prick that thought the solution to stupid,
>>> unproductive people was to gas the suckers albeit as painlessly as
>>> possible.
>>>
>>>>> I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.
>>> Yeah, that's a thought that seems out of sync with the times, if you
>>> pay attention to the lame stream media, the educational system, the
>>> democratic party, and at least a part of the repuglican party.
>>>
>>> However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
>>>> are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the
>>>> employee.
>>>> It's none of anyone else's damned business.
>>> Amen brother!
>>>
>> The difficulty comes when two parties to a contract don't have equal
>> bargaining power. Just try bargaining with an insurance company over
>> the terms of your automobile liability policy and the premium you will
>> pay for coverage.
> Easy, get a quote from another company.
That's not a negotiation between parties of comparable bargaining
power. Look up "adhesion contract":
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Adhesion+Contract
On 8/19/2012 5:59 AM, Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>> Call me sentimental. If there were both an asshole and a sympathetic
>>> person working for me and I had to get rid of one, I'd get rid of the
>>> asshole, other things being roughly equal.
>> Well - you just created a self serving scenario there Han. First off,
>> you define two extremes. On one end - the likeable. On the other end
>> - the despicable. Then you throw in the escape clause "other things
>> being equal". How often have you ever really seen that in life?
All other things are never equal.
Just Wondering wrote:
> On 8/17/2012 1:09 PM, Jack wrote:
>> On 8/17/2012 11:25 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same
>>>> as dog catchers.
>>>
>>> No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)
>>
>> Yes, that would be Larry Blanchard, the guy that quotes GB Shaw, the
>> Fabian socialist prick that thought the solution to stupid,
>> unproductive people was to gas the suckers albeit as painlessly as
>> possible.
>>
>>>> I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.
>>
>> Yeah, that's a thought that seems out of sync with the times, if you
>> pay attention to the lame stream media, the educational system, the
>> democratic party, and at least a part of the repuglican party.
>>
>> However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
>>> are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the
>>> employee.
>>> It's none of anyone else's damned business.
>>
>> Amen brother!
>>
>
> The difficulty comes when two parties to a contract don't have equal
> bargaining power. Just try bargaining with an insurance company over
> the terms of your automobile liability policy and the premium you will
> pay for coverage.
Different kind of relationship.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
>
> I believe that earnest effort counts for something. Call it utopian,
> but I think that with more effort or drive I could have performed
> better. But that would have required even more stress and less
> family-life.
Ok - fair enough on the surface. But... who determines that thing you call
"earnest effort"? You - who may be completely uniformed of the requirements
of the job or the industry - or the employer? I would be afraid of the
former (and not because it's you).
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
>
> Call me sentimental. If there were both an asshole and a sympathetic
> person working for me and I had to get rid of one, I'd get rid of the
> asshole, other things being roughly equal.
Well - you just created a self serving scenario there Han. First off, you
define two extremes. On one end - the likeable. On the other end - the
despicable. Then you throw in the escape clause "other things being equal".
How often have you ever really seen that in life?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:56:27 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:56:44 +0000, Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> My point is that many
>>>> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are
>>>> paid insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make
>>>> everything more expensive. You may or may not agree, but my
>>>> opinion is that more income equality would benefit our society.
>>>
>>> I've occasionally wondered if it wouldn't be more equitable to pay
>>> workers based on how well they do a job, not on what the job is.
>>>
>>
>>Have you not ever experienced that in your career? That has been the
>>norm in my career, but I've never worked in a union shop where the
>>opposite prevails.
>
> I think he's saying that the best Wallyworld greeter should be paid
> the same as the best brain surgeon. "Everyone is equal", sort of
> poppycock.
>
>>> There are people who excel in their jobs, whether that be clerks,
>>> engineers, physicians, or dogcatchers. All those jobs are
>>> essential. Maybe the top performers should all be paid the same?
>>
>>Don't understand why you just applied a contradictory principle.
>>Surely there will be differentiators - there always are. Stick with
>>your original thought.
>
> You didn't catch his original thought. No contradiction at all.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I know - it's a utopian fantasy :-).
>>
>>No - it is the way that the commercial world works in many areas of
>>employment.
>
> Read what he wrote again.
I'm not quite sure who "he" is here. I don't think I have ever called
for paying brain surgeons the same as dog catchers. I think effort,
ability and execution of the job are what count.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 17 Aug 2012 12:16:56 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:56:27 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:56:44 +0000, Han wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My point is that many
>>>>>> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are
>>>>>> paid insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make
>>>>>> everything more expensive. You may or may not agree, but my
>>>>>> opinion is that more income equality would benefit our society.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've occasionally wondered if it wouldn't be more equitable to pay
>>>>> workers based on how well they do a job, not on what the job is.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Have you not ever experienced that in your career? That has been
>>>>the norm in my career, but I've never worked in a union shop where
>>>>the opposite prevails.
>>>
>>> I think he's saying that the best Wallyworld greeter should be paid
>>> the same as the best brain surgeon. "Everyone is equal", sort of
>>> poppycock.
>>>
>>>>> There are people who excel in their jobs, whether that be clerks,
>>>>> engineers, physicians, or dogcatchers. All those jobs are
>>>>> essential. Maybe the top performers should all be paid the same?
>>>>
>>>>Don't understand why you just applied a contradictory principle.
>>>>Surely there will be differentiators - there always are. Stick with
>>>>your original thought.
>>>
>>> You didn't catch his original thought. No contradiction at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I know - it's a utopian fantasy :-).
>>>>
>>>>No - it is the way that the commercial world works in many areas of
>>>>employment.
>>>
>>> Read what he wrote again.
>>
>>I'm not quite sure who "he" is here.
>
> Larry B.
>
>>I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same as
>>dog catchers.
>
> No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)
Thanks!!
>>I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.
>
> Effort doesn't count. The only thing that count is *results*. Some
> work hard as hell and accomplish nothing (or less), other create
> wonders with apparently no effort. However, the real problem is third
> parties deciding what others are "worth". It should be *entirely*
> between the employer and the employee. It's none of anyone else's
> damned business.
I believe that earnest effort counts for something. Call it utopian, but
I think that with more effort or drive I could have performed better.
But that would have required even more stress and less family-life.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> I believe that earnest effort counts for something. Call it utopian,
>> but I think that with more effort or drive I could have performed
>> better. But that would have required even more stress and less
>> family-life.
>
> Ok - fair enough on the surface. But... who determines that thing you
> call "earnest effort"? You - who may be completely uniformed of the
> requirements of the job or the industry - or the employer? I would be
> afraid of the former (and not because it's you).
Obviously that is part of the direct supervisor's job. And nowadays
often (always?) part of job performance review. While I may dislike the
tree company's people lounging about instead of trimming that tree,
unless it is affecting me, I'm not complaining.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 08/17/2012 10:25 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> Effort doesn't count. The only thing that count is*results*. Some
>> work hard as hell and accomplish nothing (or less), other create
>> wonders with apparently no effort.
>
> That's not actually even quite right. Absent fraud, force, or threat
> (either in the private sector - unions, thugs, criminals - or by
> government - laws, regulations) the price of labor is set by the
> relative supply to the demand.
>
> For example, pretty much any able bodied person can dig a ditch, so
> this doesn't pay much ... well, it does now because of the distorting
> forceful effects of unions.
>
> OTOH, there is a very small supply of neurologists in the country and
> they get paid many, many multiples of what ditch diggers do. (Expect
> this supply to further decrease as the We-Know-What's-Good-For-You
> crowd tries to implement their insane "social justice" perversions.)
>
> All things (results) being the same, if the situation were suddenly
> reversed and there was a shortage of able bodied ditch diggers and a
> surplus of neurologists, their incomes would invert.
>
> For anyone reading this thread that is interested in a good grounding
> in economics written for the non-specialist, I highly, highly
> recommend this book. It is a classic and flattens a lot of the social
> justice boobery heard these days even though the book itself is
> apolitical:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0
> 517548232?tag=duckduckgo-lm-20
Not necessarily apolitical. It is (according to Amazon) written by a
disciple of Ron Paul-like philosophies. Since it is thus likely anti-
Keynesian, it is prejudiced in ways opposite my prejudice.
:)
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> When you can show me how "earnest effort" adds to the bottom line, I'll
> listen. Effort is meaningless. "Work" (think physics) makes money.
There is more than the bottom line, in my opinion. Being charitable gets
at least brownie points. And I would as supervisor definitely discuss
work-related problems with the problem person. Sometimes my hands were
tied, though.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 18 Aug 2012 21:40:57 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> When you can show me how "earnest effort" adds to the bottom line,
>>> I'll listen. Effort is meaningless. "Work" (think physics) makes
>>> money.
>>
>>There is more than the bottom line, in my opinion. Being charitable
>>gets at least brownie points. And I would as supervisor definitely
>>discuss work-related problems with the problem person. Sometimes my
>>hands were tied, though.
>
> Huh? What does charity have to do with work? An employer hires fir
> charity? I suppose it happens (wife's no-good nephew needs a job) but
> should it be normal? You want to reward those who put out the
> greatest effort at being poor? It must be your meds again. The first
> two sentences make no sense.
>
> The second two are just as weird. Sure, I'll stipulate that a
> supervisor discusses "work-related problems". Yes, sometimes hands
> are tied. OK?
>
> Paint me totally confused by the above paragraph.
Call me sentimental. If there were both an asshole and a sympathetic
person working for me and I had to get rid of one, I'd get rid of the
asshole, other things being roughly equal.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> Call me sentimental. If there were both an asshole and a sympathetic
>> person working for me and I had to get rid of one, I'd get rid of the
>> asshole, other things being roughly equal.
>
> Well - you just created a self serving scenario there Han. First off,
> you define two extremes. On one end - the likeable. On the other end
> - the despicable. Then you throw in the escape clause "other things
> being equal". How often have you ever really seen that in life?
I have seen it. And I don't really have a very wide circle of work
acquaintances. Can't go in more detail.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1bd56$5030d9e7
[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Call me sentimental. If there were both an asshole and a
>>>> sympathetic person working for me and I had to get rid of one, I'd
>>>> get rid of the asshole, other things being roughly equal.
>>>
>>> Well - you just created a self serving scenario there Han. First
>>> off, you define two extremes. On one end - the likeable. On the
>>> other end - the despicable. Then you throw in the escape clause
>>> "other things being equal". How often have you ever really seen that
>>> in life?
>>
>> I have seen it. And I don't really have a very wide circle of work
>> acquaintances. Can't go in more detail.
>
> Anecdotal? As I asked - how often?
It relates to people I know or have known. Just a few times.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
[email protected] wrote:
> Effort doesn't count. The only thing that count is *results*. Some
> work hard as hell and accomplish nothing (or less), other create
> wonders with apparently no effort. However, the real problem is
> third parties deciding what others are "worth". It should be
> *entirely* between the employer and the employee. It's none of anyone
> else's damned business.
Thank God - a word of wisdom...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 17 Aug 2012 12:16:56 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:56:27 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:56:44 +0000, Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My point is that many
>>>>> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are
>>>>> paid insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make
>>>>> everything more expensive. You may or may not agree, but my
>>>>> opinion is that more income equality would benefit our society.
>>>>
>>>> I've occasionally wondered if it wouldn't be more equitable to pay
>>>> workers based on how well they do a job, not on what the job is.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Have you not ever experienced that in your career? That has been the
>>>norm in my career, but I've never worked in a union shop where the
>>>opposite prevails.
>>
>> I think he's saying that the best Wallyworld greeter should be paid
>> the same as the best brain surgeon. "Everyone is equal", sort of
>> poppycock.
>>
>>>> There are people who excel in their jobs, whether that be clerks,
>>>> engineers, physicians, or dogcatchers. All those jobs are
>>>> essential. Maybe the top performers should all be paid the same?
>>>
>>>Don't understand why you just applied a contradictory principle.
>>>Surely there will be differentiators - there always are. Stick with
>>>your original thought.
>>
>> You didn't catch his original thought. No contradiction at all.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I know - it's a utopian fantasy :-).
>>>
>>>No - it is the way that the commercial world works in many areas of
>>>employment.
>>
>> Read what he wrote again.
>
>I'm not quite sure who "he" is here.
Larry B.
>I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same as dog catchers.
No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)
>I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.
Effort doesn't count. The only thing that count is *results*. Some work hard
as hell and accomplish nothing (or less), other create wonders with apparently
no effort. However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the employee.
It's none of anyone else's damned business.
Just Wondering wrote:
> On 8/17/2012 3:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Different kind of relationship.
>>
> But the principle is the same. Unequal bargaining power in hiring
> situations leads to employment contracts for an amount different than
> what a person's labors are actually worth.
To a point. But - competition keeps things in check somewhat. Pay a wage
that is below the worth of the employee, and if the employee is any good,
someone else will pick him up. Not universally true, I understand, but
wages are reflective of demand. Insurance is different due to its inbread
nature. They all play close enough to each other to prevent much advantage
of playing one against another.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 17 Aug 2012 16:52:04 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I believe that earnest effort counts for something. Call it utopian,
>>> but I think that with more effort or drive I could have performed
>>> better. But that would have required even more stress and less
>>> family-life.
>>
>> Ok - fair enough on the surface. But... who determines that thing you
>> call "earnest effort"? You - who may be completely uniformed of the
>> requirements of the job or the industry - or the employer? I would be
>> afraid of the former (and not because it's you).
>
>Obviously that is part of the direct supervisor's job. And nowadays
>often (always?) part of job performance review. While I may dislike the
>tree company's people lounging about instead of trimming that tree,
>unless it is affecting me, I'm not complaining.
But it does affect you. Perhaps the affect isn't immediate, but it does
affect the cost of doing business.
On 8/17/2012 11:25 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Han wrote:
>> I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same as dog catchers.
>
> No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)
Yes, that would be Larry Blanchard, the guy that quotes GB Shaw, the
Fabian socialist prick that thought the solution to stupid, unproductive
people was to gas the suckers albeit as painlessly as possible.
>> I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.
Yeah, that's a thought that seems out of sync with the times, if you pay
attention to the lame stream media, the educational system, the
democratic party, and at least a part of the repuglican party.
However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
> are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the employee.
> It's none of anyone else's damned business.
Amen brother!
--
Jack
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have".
-- Thomas Jefferson
Just Wondering wrote:
> On 8/17/2012 1:09 PM, Jack wrote:
>> On 8/17/2012 11:25 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same
>>>> as dog catchers.
>>>
>>> No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)
>>
>> Yes, that would be Larry Blanchard, the guy that quotes GB Shaw, the
>> Fabian socialist prick that thought the solution to stupid,
>> unproductive people was to gas the suckers albeit as painlessly as
>> possible.
>>
>>>> I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.
>>
>> Yeah, that's a thought that seems out of sync with the times, if you
>> pay attention to the lame stream media, the educational system, the
>> democratic party, and at least a part of the repuglican party.
>>
>> However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
>>> are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the
>>> employee.
>>> It's none of anyone else's damned business.
>>
>> Amen brother!
>>
>
> The difficulty comes when two parties to a contract don't have equal
> bargaining power. Just try bargaining with an insurance company over
> the terms of your automobile liability policy and the premium you will
> pay for coverage.
Yes. Nice example.
On 8/17/2012 5:14 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 8/17/2012 1:09 PM, Jack wrote:
>> On 8/17/2012 11:25 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
>>> are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the
>>> employee.
>>> It's none of anyone else's damned business.
>>
>> Amen brother!
> The difficulty comes when two parties to a contract don't have equal
> bargaining power. Just try bargaining with an insurance company over
> the terms of your automobile liability policy and the premium you will
> pay for coverage.
I did that long ago and the poor State Farm guy was unable to bargain
with me for the coverage and premium I wanted, so I switched to Erie.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:14:29 -0600, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 8/17/2012 1:09 PM, Jack wrote:
>> On 8/17/2012 11:25 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same
>>>> as dog catchers.
>>>
>>> No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)
>>
>> Yes, that would be Larry Blanchard, the guy that quotes GB Shaw, the
>> Fabian socialist prick that thought the solution to stupid,
>> unproductive people was to gas the suckers albeit as painlessly as
>> possible.
>>
>>>> I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.
>>
>> Yeah, that's a thought that seems out of sync with the times, if you
>> pay attention to the lame stream media, the educational system, the
>> democratic party, and at least a part of the repuglican party.
>>
>> However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
>>> are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the
>>> employee.
>>> It's none of anyone else's damned business.
>>
>> Amen brother!
>>
>
>The difficulty comes when two parties to a contract don't have equal
>bargaining power. Just try bargaining with an insurance company over
>the terms of your automobile liability policy and the premium you will
>pay for coverage.
Easy, get a quote from another company.
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:17:04 -0600, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 8/17/2012 3:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 8/17/2012 1:09 PM, Jack wrote:
>>>> On 8/17/2012 11:25 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same
>>>>>> as dog catchers.
>>>>> No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)
>>>> Yes, that would be Larry Blanchard, the guy that quotes GB Shaw, the
>>>> Fabian socialist prick that thought the solution to stupid,
>>>> unproductive people was to gas the suckers albeit as painlessly as
>>>> possible.
>>>>
>>>>>> I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.
>>>> Yeah, that's a thought that seems out of sync with the times, if you
>>>> pay attention to the lame stream media, the educational system, the
>>>> democratic party, and at least a part of the repuglican party.
>>>>
>>>> However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
>>>>> are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the
>>>>> employee.
>>>>> It's none of anyone else's damned business.
>>>> Amen brother!
>>>>
>>> The difficulty comes when two parties to a contract don't have equal
>>> bargaining power. Just try bargaining with an insurance company over
>>> the terms of your automobile liability policy and the premium you will
>>> pay for coverage.
>> Different kind of relationship.
>>
>But the principle is the same. Unequal bargaining power in hiring
>situations leads to employment contracts for an amount different than
>what a person's labors are actually worth.
No, it's exactly the same. Buy from another insurance company => Work for
another employer.
On 17 Aug 2012 16:05:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 17 Aug 2012 12:16:56 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:56:27 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:56:44 +0000, Han wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My point is that many
>>>>>>> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are
>>>>>>> paid insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make
>>>>>>> everything more expensive. You may or may not agree, but my
>>>>>>> opinion is that more income equality would benefit our society.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've occasionally wondered if it wouldn't be more equitable to pay
>>>>>> workers based on how well they do a job, not on what the job is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Have you not ever experienced that in your career? That has been
>>>>>the norm in my career, but I've never worked in a union shop where
>>>>>the opposite prevails.
>>>>
>>>> I think he's saying that the best Wallyworld greeter should be paid
>>>> the same as the best brain surgeon. "Everyone is equal", sort of
>>>> poppycock.
>>>>
>>>>>> There are people who excel in their jobs, whether that be clerks,
>>>>>> engineers, physicians, or dogcatchers. All those jobs are
>>>>>> essential. Maybe the top performers should all be paid the same?
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't understand why you just applied a contradictory principle.
>>>>>Surely there will be differentiators - there always are. Stick with
>>>>>your original thought.
>>>>
>>>> You didn't catch his original thought. No contradiction at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, I know - it's a utopian fantasy :-).
>>>>>
>>>>>No - it is the way that the commercial world works in many areas of
>>>>>employment.
>>>>
>>>> Read what he wrote again.
>>>
>>>I'm not quite sure who "he" is here.
>>
>> Larry B.
>>
>>>I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same as
>>>dog catchers.
>>
>> No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)
>
>Thanks!!
>
>>>I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.
>>
>> Effort doesn't count. The only thing that count is *results*. Some
>> work hard as hell and accomplish nothing (or less), other create
>> wonders with apparently no effort. However, the real problem is third
>> parties deciding what others are "worth". It should be *entirely*
>> between the employer and the employee. It's none of anyone else's
>> damned business.
>
>I believe that earnest effort counts for something. Call it utopian, but
>I think that with more effort or drive I could have performed better.
>But that would have required even more stress and less family-life.
When you can show me how "earnest effort" adds to the bottom line, I'll
listen. Effort is meaningless. "Work" (think physics) makes money.
On 08/17/2012 10:25 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> Effort doesn't count. The only thing that count is*results*. Some work hard
> as hell and accomplish nothing (or less), other create wonders with apparently
> no effort.
That's not actually even quite right. Absent fraud, force, or threat (either
in the private sector - unions, thugs, criminals - or by government - laws,
regulations) the price of labor is set by the relative supply to the demand.
For example, pretty much any able bodied person can dig a ditch, so this
doesn't pay much ... well, it does now because of the distorting forceful
effects of unions.
OTOH, there is a very small supply of neurologists in the country and they
get paid many, many multiples of what ditch diggers do. (Expect this
supply to further decrease as the We-Know-What's-Good-For-You crowd tries
to implement their insane "social justice" perversions.)
All things (results) being the same, if the situation were suddenly reversed
and there was a shortage of able bodied ditch diggers and a surplus of
neurologists, their incomes would invert.
For anyone reading this thread that is interested in a good grounding
in economics written for the non-specialist, I highly, highly recommend
this book. It is a classic and flattens a lot of the social justice boobery
heard these days even though the book itself is apolitical:
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232?tag=duckduckgo-lm-20
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 01:04:29 -0600, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 8/18/2012 2:06 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:14:29 -0600, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/17/2012 1:09 PM, Jack wrote:
>>>> On 8/17/2012 11:25 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same
>>>>>> as dog catchers.
>>>>> No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)
>>>> Yes, that would be Larry Blanchard, the guy that quotes GB Shaw, the
>>>> Fabian socialist prick that thought the solution to stupid,
>>>> unproductive people was to gas the suckers albeit as painlessly as
>>>> possible.
>>>>
>>>>>> I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.
>>>> Yeah, that's a thought that seems out of sync with the times, if you
>>>> pay attention to the lame stream media, the educational system, the
>>>> democratic party, and at least a part of the repuglican party.
>>>>
>>>> However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
>>>>> are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the
>>>>> employee.
>>>>> It's none of anyone else's damned business.
>>>> Amen brother!
>>>>
>>> The difficulty comes when two parties to a contract don't have equal
>>> bargaining power. Just try bargaining with an insurance company over
>>> the terms of your automobile liability policy and the premium you will
>>> pay for coverage.
>> Easy, get a quote from another company.
>
>That's not a negotiation between parties of comparable bargaining
>power.
Certainly it is. They have the right to sell whatever product makes sense for
them. I have the right to refuse and go somewhere else. It's a quite level
playing field, until government gets involved.
>Look up "adhesion contract":
>http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Adhesion+Contract
Irrelevant. You enter into the contract voluntarily.
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 09:01:50 -0500, basilisk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:14:29 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:
>
>> On 8/17/2012 1:09 PM, Jack wrote:
>>> On 8/17/2012 11:25 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same
>>>>> as dog catchers.
>>>>
>>>> No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)
>>>
>>> Yes, that would be Larry Blanchard, the guy that quotes GB Shaw, the
>>> Fabian socialist prick that thought the solution to stupid,
>>> unproductive people was to gas the suckers albeit as painlessly as
>>> possible.
>>>
>>>>> I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's a thought that seems out of sync with the times, if you
>>> pay attention to the lame stream media, the educational system, the
>>> democratic party, and at least a part of the repuglican party.
>>>
>>> However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
>>>> are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the
>>>> employee.
>>>> It's none of anyone else's damned business.
>>>
>>> Amen brother!
>>>
>>
>> The difficulty comes when two parties to a contract don't have equal
>> bargaining power. Just try bargaining with an insurance company over
>> the terms of your automobile liability policy and the premium you will
>> pay for coverage.
>
>What your saying is true for a single insurance company, they don't
>negotiate much. I once changed auto insurance companies five times in
>2 months, ended back at the beginning company at significantly lower
>rates.
>
>It was a pain in the ass and I had a good deal of money tied up in
>premiums until refunds were issued for canceled policies, but I
>got what I wanted in the end.
>
>All free market based, you have to be willing to walk with your
>money if one party won't negotiate.
The same is true with employers.
On 18 Aug 2012 21:40:57 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> When you can show me how "earnest effort" adds to the bottom line, I'll
>> listen. Effort is meaningless. "Work" (think physics) makes money.
>
>There is more than the bottom line, in my opinion. Being charitable gets
>at least brownie points. And I would as supervisor definitely discuss
>work-related problems with the problem person. Sometimes my hands were
>tied, though.
Huh? What does charity have to do with work? An employer hires fir charity? I
suppose it happens (wife's no-good nephew needs a job) but should it be
normal? You want to reward those who put out the greatest effort at being
poor? It must be your meds again. The first two sentences make no sense.
The second two are just as weird. Sure, I'll stipulate that a supervisor
discusses "work-related problems". Yes, sometimes hands are tied. OK?
Paint me totally confused by the above paragraph.
On 19 Aug 2012 01:19:31 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 18 Aug 2012 21:40:57 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> When you can show me how "earnest effort" adds to the bottom line,
>>>> I'll listen. Effort is meaningless. "Work" (think physics) makes
>>>> money.
>>>
>>>There is more than the bottom line, in my opinion. Being charitable
>>>gets at least brownie points. And I would as supervisor definitely
>>>discuss work-related problems with the problem person. Sometimes my
>>>hands were tied, though.
>>
>> Huh? What does charity have to do with work? An employer hires fir
>> charity? I suppose it happens (wife's no-good nephew needs a job) but
>> should it be normal? You want to reward those who put out the
>> greatest effort at being poor? It must be your meds again. The first
>> two sentences make no sense.
>>
>> The second two are just as weird. Sure, I'll stipulate that a
>> supervisor discusses "work-related problems". Yes, sometimes hands
>> are tied. OK?
>>
>> Paint me totally confused by the above paragraph.
>
>Call me sentimental. If there were both an asshole and a sympathetic
>person working for me and I had to get rid of one, I'd get rid of the
>asshole, other things being roughly equal.
That hasn't cleared up a thing. in fact, it has nothing to do with the
discussion at hand. Han, please get well soon.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 08/16/2012 09:56 AM, Han wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
>
>> Opinions versus facts. What I say are my opinions. I think I was paid
>> what I was worth at most if not all points in my career. I know that
>> others in similar positions and with similar capabilities were paid less
>> and others more, but that is besides the point. My point is that many
>> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are paid
>> insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make everything more
>> expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion is that more income
>> equality would benefit our society.
>>
>>
>
> You're missing the point. Unless force it brought to bear to MAKE you
> take a job, you're always "paid what you're worth" because you are
> "worth" what the market will bear.
So if there are way more people than jobs. Then a person's worth may be
close to negligible because they all want to eat (people who want to eat
are competing against one another)? As a society, do we really wish
to support this phenomenon of the free marketplace? Maybe that's why we
have (and may need) "minimum wage" laws?
Bill
If a job is offered at a price,
> it is because the buyer (employer) values the work more than the money
> they pay for it. If the seller (you) accepts the job, then you value
> the money more highly than you do your time to do the work. Everyone
> wins. You may not be making as much as you would LIKE or THINK you should
> get, but that doesn't make you "worth" it. Again, this is true as long
> as no one is pointing a gun at your head.
>
> Relevant: http://jwh.fastmail.fm/essaysfolder.htm/essays_market.htm
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:56:44 +0000, Han wrote:
>
>> My point is that many
>> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are paid
>> insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make everything more
>> expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion is that more income
>> equality would benefit our society.
>
> I've occasionally wondered if it wouldn't be more equitable to pay
> workers based on how well they do a job, not on what the job is.
>
> There are people who excel in their jobs, whether that be clerks,
> engineers, physicians, or dogcatchers. All those jobs are essential.
> Maybe the top performers should all be paid the same?
>
> Yeah, I know - it's a utopian fantasy :-).
I don't see anything utopian about undermining peoples motivation.
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:56:44 +0000, Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> My point is that many
>>>> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are
>>>> paid insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make
>>>> everything more expensive. You may or may not agree, but my
>>>> opinion is that more income equality would benefit our society.
>>>
>>> I've occasionally wondered if it wouldn't be more equitable to pay
>>> workers based on how well they do a job, not on what the job is.
>>>
>>> There are people who excel in their jobs, whether that be clerks,
>>> engineers, physicians, or dogcatchers. All those jobs are essential.
>>> Maybe the top performers should all be paid the same?
>>>
>>> Yeah, I know - it's a utopian fantasy :-).
>>
>> I don't see anything utopian about undermining peoples motivation.
>
> Undermining their motivation? How do you see that Bill? Pay for
> performance - that is motivation.
>
I agree with paying for performance--though measuring performance can
get really complex very fast. I thought he wanted to reward a "good"
engineer, a "good" clerk and a "good" dogcather with the same pay.
Larry B. does say, "Maybe all top performers should be paid the same".
Paying them all the same would, for some IMO, undermine the motivation
to be an engineer or physician: "I like to work with animals, I think
I'll work for animal control so I don't have to go to school for 8 years
to be a veteranarian".
On 8/16/2012 10:56 AM, Han wrote:
My point is that many
> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are paid
> insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make everything more
> expensive.
So, by artificially raising wages to a "sufficient wage" and making
everything more expensive, all you would do is increase the amount of
paper you carry around to buy stuff, or add some zeros to everyone's
income and outgo.
You may or may not agree, but my opinion is that more income
> equality would benefit our society.
Based on what you just said, I don't think you agree with your own
opinion, unless you think adding zeros to the dollar bill would somehow
help society.
--
Jack
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy
out of prosperity.
http://jbstein.com
On 8/16/2012 2:54 PM, Bill wrote:
> So if there are way more people than jobs. Then a person's worth may be
> close to negligible because they all want to eat (people who want to eat
> are competing against one another)?
A persons value is based on what he can produce, not on what he can eat.
> As a society, do we really wish to support this phenomenon of the free marketplace?
Yes! It worked so well the first couple of hundred years that the US
had to limit entry rather than egress. That has been changing the past
100 years, and rapidly under the communist Obummer regime.
Maybe that's why we have (and may need) "minimum wage" laws?
It's why minimum wage laws are asinine, unneeded and counter productive.
They, like corporate taxes, are a political hoax, perpetuated on a
dimwitted public.
I'll bet you actually believe your employer pays half your 15% SS tax,
right?
--
Jack
If Ignorance is Bliss, You must be One Happy Liberal!
http://jbstein.com
On 8/16/2012 3:35 PM, Han wrote:
Also, when
> companies pay their CEOs more than they pay in taxes, something is amiss,
> I think.
Companies don't pay taxes, people do.
--
Jack
A nation trying to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in
a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
- Winston Churchill
On 8/16/2012 7:57 PM, Han wrote:
> We disagree, I think. Minimum wage is not pillaging and thieving but
> protecting people from abuse by exploiters.
That's what the politicians tell you.
We have a military to protect the country. We all pay for it, huge
amounts at that.
Yes, a primary purpose of government.
> But you'd leave the little man to fight for himself, without the protection of a
> minimum wage? I think that is icky, with all due respect for your
> opinion.
How would you feel about the government mandating a Chevy Volt or Chevy
pickup cost no more than $2,000 so those getting paid minimum wage can
get to work? How about 20 cents a gal for gas, that would be great,
right? Personally, I don't think any teacher should make more than 10
cents above minimum wage. How the hell can a minimum wage worker afford
to buy a $3000 saw stop. Don't you think he deserves full protection,
so lets mandate saw stop sell for no more than a Ryobi?
I take it you don't like competition, or do you think it only works when
*you* like the results?
--
Jack
News Flash: Government Motors (GM) fines their top competitor $16 Mil.
http://jbstein.com
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 18:09:55 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> My analysis is not substantially wrong, though there may be small
>> errors of detail. There are NOT enough technology grads to fill the jobs
>> we
>> need filled. Most of the people going into so-called CS programs are
>> actually learning web programming and Java where there are way too
>> many people already. The jobs are in real hardcore engineering and true
>> computer science. Trade DOES materially lift all boats in the macro
>> picture. Trade DOES reduce the tendency of nations to go to war. These
>> are unremarkable observations. The only people that disagree with
>> them are not doing so on factual grounds but because they do not like the
>> outcomes.
>
>Colleges graduate students where the market is heading - perhaps with a
>little lag. You are right about the web development stuff, but that's where
>the market is. Hardcore engineering is dying here. As you say below -
>technology has evolved past that - for good or for bad - that's the way it
>is.
I'm actually on the benefit side of this. My boss looks for gray-hairs
because of what is being turned out by the universities. When I was a
graduate, large companies weren't hire a 60YO on a bet. It's an interesting
bit of reverse age-discrimination. ;-)
On 19 Aug 2012 01:29:18 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 19 Aug 2012 00:57:14 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> If Gass wins, he will have been handed a legal monopoly on table
>>>> saws, and who knows what else. I suppose you would be in favor of
>>>> that.
>>>
>>>If you look back through this newsgroup, you'd find that I proposed
>>>that Gass should be forced to accept a (mediated) licensing settlement
>>>that would give him a fair return on investment, but would not give
>>>him the blackmail that he now expects.
>>
>> You're naive. There is no way the CSPC can do that (well, with Obama,
>> perhaps that's not true - he's already done worse). He should get
>> *nothing* other than what people willingly give him for his invention.
>> If you're willing to pay him $1M, so be it.
>>
>>>I'm not sure whether legally institutionalizing armtwisting of a
>>>Federal agency by an inventor, no matter how smart and deserving he
>>>might be is a good idea.
>>
>> You're not sure? <shivers up the spine>
>>
>>>This case might be the precedent (if there isn't any other) to
>>>limit extortion by a monopolist.
>>
>> If there is "extortion" it would be at the hand of the federal
>> government. You seem to be OK with this.
>>
>>>Mind you, I think Gass should be fairly
>>>compensated, and I don't know how much that should be.
>>
>> He should be "fairly" compensated with as much as *you* are willing to
>> give him. Leave me out of this transaction.
>
>I think we really agree that Gass is out for himself, and that we have to
>resist. If the CPSC says that his invention is required, what is going to
>determine the price?
Gass.
Dave wrote:
> On 19 Aug 2012 01:29:18 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I think we really agree that Gass is out for himself, and that we
>> have to resist. If the CPSC says that his invention is required,
>> what is going to determine the price?
>
> The US is close to if not the most capitalist country in the world.
> That recognition suggests that they deserve people like Gass. Get rich
> any way you can. Isn't that a motto in the US?
Not that I've ever heard.
>
> There's swindlers and embezzlers in the US that have ripped of
> thousands of people for their accumulated wealth. And, people are
> complaining about Gass? What a crock!
Yeah - same as everywhere.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 19 Aug 2012 01:29:18 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>I think we really agree that Gass is out for himself, and that we have to
>resist. If the CPSC says that his invention is required, what is going to
>determine the price?
The US is close to if not the most capitalist country in the world.
That recognition suggests that they deserve people like Gass. Get rich
any way you can. Isn't that a motto in the US?
There's swindlers and embezzlers in the US that have ripped of
thousands of people for their accumulated wealth. And, people are
complaining about Gass? What a crock!
On 8/17/2012 11:12 AM, Han wrote:
> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/16/2012 3:35 PM, Han wrote:
>> Also, when
>>> companies pay their CEOs more than they pay in taxes, something is
>>> amiss, I think.
>>
>> Companies don't pay taxes, people do.
>
> Then companies should not be allowed to make political contributions.
They get their money for political contributions from you when you buy
their products, same place they get their money to pay their taxes. They
are not forced to make contributions on your behalf, they are forced to
pay taxes on your behalf.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 8/17/2012 11:19 AM, Han wrote:
> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/16/2012 7:57 PM, Han wrote:
>>
>>> We disagree, I think. Minimum wage is not pillaging and thieving but
>>> protecting people from abuse by exploiters.
>>
>> That's what the politicians tell you.
>>
>> We have a military to protect the country. We all pay for it, huge
>> amounts at that.
>>
>> Yes, a primary purpose of government.
>>
>>> But you'd leave the little man to fight for himself, without the
>>> protection of a minimum wage? I think that is icky, with all due
>>> respect for your opinion.
>>
>> How would you feel about the government mandating a Chevy Volt or
>> Chevy pickup cost no more than $2,000 so those getting paid minimum
>> wage can get to work? How about 20 cents a gal for gas, that would be
>> great, right? Personally, I don't think any teacher should make more
>> than 10 cents above minimum wage. How the hell can a minimum wage
>> worker afford to buy a $3000 saw stop. Don't you think he deserves
>> full protection, so lets mandate saw stop sell for no more than a
>> Ryobi?
>>
>> I take it you don't like competition, or do you think it only works
>> when *you* like the results?
>
> I never said that, as Dave pointed out.
Dave is an idiot at best.
I think a minimu wage is a good idea to set a floor for wages.
The "floor" is meaningless. Water seeks it's own level, government and
it's subjects thinking they can somehow control it to work better than
the free market just doesn't work, and in fact, does exactly the opposite.
Perhaps that should be $7.50 in Alabama
> (just an example - I have almost nothing against Alabama), perhaps $10 or
> more in NY & NJ and thereabouts (currently $7.25 in NJ). And no, the
> oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give them more, au
> contraire.
I think teachers in NY should make 5 cents over minimum wage, and in
Alabama 10 cents. OK wit you?
--
Jack
Socialism: Your Tax Dollars at work for those who don't!
http://jbstein.com
On 8/17/2012 11:46 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 08/17/2012 10:19 AM, Han wrote:
>> And no, the
>> oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give them more, au
>> contraire.
>
> I think you have this wrong. The oil companies pay more in taxes than they
> make in profit in a typical year. Here is just one analysis with
> supporting citation:
>
> http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/10/gas_taxes_excee.html
>
> It is the *government* that is subsidized by the oilcos not the other way
> around....
Recently heard on TV that oil companies make about 6-8 cents on a gallon
of gas. Government makes 40 to 66 cents on the same gallon. In
Californica the gov makes 66 cents on a gallon.
We, the buyers of gas and related products pay for all of it, the gas,
the profit and the taxes.
I do know bottled water costs more than gas in spite of government
stupidity, so the gas companies are doing better than should be
expected. I also know the commies are really pissed off that US oil is
making money, regardless of what our screwed up socialist government
throws at them.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 8/17/2012 12:33 PM, Han wrote:
> Full disclosure: I own 130 shares of Exxon directly, probably more oil
> company stock through mutual funds.
Well then, you must be filthy, steenkin rich, one of the 1 per centers,
owning a capitalist pig oil company and all...
I hope you feel damn guilty making all those windfall (8%) profits while
Micky Soft makes 30%, apple 40% and so on an so forth.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 8/17/2012 11:42 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:28:11 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Entering the country w/o permission is a misdemeanor (crime) the first
>> offense, and a felony (crime) thereafter.
>
> AIUI, it's a civil offense the first time (not a misdemeanor).
AIUI, It's a misdemeanor
mis·de·mean·or
noun
1. Law . a criminal offense defined as less serious than a felony.
The reason
> being that it doesn't require a trial (by jury) to deport an alien, only an
> administrative action. The second offense, after deportation, can result in a
> prison sentence, so would naturally require a trial.
The second offense is a felony, both amazingly are ignored by our [fed]
government at this time, to the point of suing states for trying to keep
it real.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 8/17/2012 12:44 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>> On 08/17/2012 10:19 AM, Han wrote:
>>> And no, the
>>> oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give them more, au
>>> contraire.
>>
>> I think you have this wrong. The oil companies pay more in taxes than they
>> make in profit in a typical year. Here is just one analysis with
>> supporting citation:
>
> You should actually _read_ your citations to make sure they support your
> assertions before posting.
>
>>
>> http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/10/gas_taxes_excee.html
>
> The citation here points out that taxes paid by consumers (e.g. taxes
> paid at the pump or when refilling a farm tank),
Hey, a dimwit at large.
when added to the minimal taxes paid by the oil companies,
Also paid by the consumer unless the oil company also has a printing
press in the basement printing out the cash for taxes.
exceeds oil company profits. That's adding
> apples and oranges and comparing them to bananas.
In the words of KRW, Idiot.
> It surely doesn't support your assertions. Fact is that the oil companies make
> profits, very large ones.
8% profit is not so large, particularly when the governments make far
more than that on oil company earnings, and plenty of companies make FAR
greater profits, like MS, Apple and a ton of others (Not government
motors though)
Please refer to the relevent 10K and 10Q reports for the
> actual facts, not some silly blog.
Ask Han what his return on investment is on his $11,000 worth of EOM
stock, not counting his pension fund?
--
Jack
You can't Tax your way into Prosperity!
http://jbstein.com
On 8/17/2012 5:08 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 8/17/2012 1:57 PM, Jack wrote:
>> On 8/17/2012 11:42 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:28:11 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Entering the country w/o permission is a misdemeanor (crime) the first
>>>> offense, and a felony (crime) thereafter.
>>>
>>> AIUI, it's a civil offense the first time (not a misdemeanor).
>>
>> AIUI, It's a misdemeanor
>>
>> mis·de·mean·or
>> noun
>> 1. Law . a criminal offense defined as less serious than a felony.
>>
>> The reason
>>> being that it doesn't require a trial (by jury) to deport an alien,
>>> only an
>>> administrative action. The second offense, after deportation, can
>>> result in a
>>> prison sentence, so would naturally require a trial.
>>
>> The second offense is a felony, both amazingly are ignored by our
>> [fed] government at this time, to the point of suing states for trying
>> to keep it real.
>>
>
> You can certainly make up definitions.
I cut and pasted them right out of dictionary.com. You are the one
having trouble with words and have produced nothing but hot air with no
substance. You have a problem with the dictionary not agreeing with
you, send them a letter, don't bother me.
> Apparently, you can't quote the
> statute that you claim makes illegal entry a misdemeanor or felony.
I'm too busy being amused by how goofy it is consider illegal entry not
illegal (a crime).
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 8/17/2012 5:16 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 8/17/2012 1:56 PM, Jack wrote:
>>
>> I do know bottled water costs more than gas . . .
>>
>
> I can buy bottled water for under $2/gallon. Tell me where I can buy
> gasoline at under $2/gallon.
Quick look on the net found PERRIER for just $19/gal. I suggest you buy
all you can for under $2 a gallon and get yourself good and filthy rich.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 8/18/2012 12:34 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 8/17/2012 7:08 PM, Jack wrote:
>> On 8/17/2012 5:08 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently, you can't quote the
>>> statute that you claim makes illegal entry a misdemeanor or felony.
>>
>> I'm too busy being amused by how goofy it is consider illegal entry
>> not illegal (a crime).
> If it's a crime, there's a statute out there making it a crime.
If it is illegal, it is a crime, by definition.
> Just because it's illegal doesn't make it criminal.
What statute is it that
> makes illegal entry a crime?
What dictionary are you using that says an illegal act is not a crime?
I quoted (2x) exactly what dictionary.com defines as "crime" as well as
"misdemeanor" and you say I make up definitions. So, your turn, what
dictionary are you using, or are you making up your own?
--
Jack
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.
http://jbstein.com
On 8/17/2012 3:15 PM, Han wrote:
> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>> I think a minimu wage is a good idea to set a floor for wages.
>>
>> The "floor" is meaningless. Water seeks it's own level, government
>> and it's subjects thinking they can somehow control it to work better
>> than the free market just doesn't work, and in fact, does exactly the
>> opposite.
>>
>> Perhaps that should be $7.50 in Alabama
>>> (just an example - I have almost nothing against Alabama), perhaps
>>> $10 or more in NY & NJ and thereabouts (currently $7.25 in NJ). And
>>> no, the oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give
>>> them more, au contraire.
>>
>> I think teachers in NY should make 5 cents over minimum wage, and in
>> Alabama 10 cents. OK wit you?
>
> No
Whatsamatter, you don't like someone else arbitrarily deciding pay
rates and what's a "fair" wage? There is a reason the free market
works better than government control. It's the same reason the USA at
one time was the greatest country on earth and people fought to get in,
instead of out as in government controlled (socialist) environments.
--
Jack
Got Change: Supply and Demand ======> Command and Control!
http://jbstein.com
On 8/18/2012 3:54 PM, Han wrote:
> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> Whatsamatter, you don't like someone else arbitrarily deciding pay
>> rates and what's a "fair" wage? There is a reason the free market
>> works better than government control. It's the same reason the USA at
>> one time was the greatest country on earth and people fought to get in,
>> instead of out as in government controlled (socialist) environments.
>
> In this communist-controlled country there is no free market.
> In this capitalist-monopolized country they make believe there is a free
> market.
No not lately, thats for sure.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 8/18/2012 1:11 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Jack <[email protected]> writes:
>> Recently heard on TV that oil companies make about 6-8 cents on a gallon
>> of gas. Government makes 40 to 66 cents on the same gallon. In
>> Californica the gov makes 66 cents on a gallon.
>
> 5 minutes of research would show that california makes 35.3 cents on
> a gallon (WA 37.5 cents, NC 35.2 cents, maine 30 cents, Minnesota 27 cents).
> When you add local (e.g. sales) taxes, CA is 50 cents, Connecticut is 51 cents,
> Hawaii 49 cents, Illinois 50.6 cents, usw).
Gov't making 50 cents on a gallon is between 40 and 66 cents. The oil
companies make far, far, far less at 6 - 8% profit/ and they do all the
work. The asshole socialists want to tack on a windfall profit tax on
companies making a small profit, while they are the ones ripping off the
public. Then, the dicks turn around and give 1/2 a billion to Solyndra
to piss away into the wind. Meanwhile, MS and Apple are making 30-40%
profits on their monopoly, and no one even whispers windfall profit.
Quite a joke.
> http://www.californiagasprices.com/tax_info.aspx
> Don't believe everything you hear on TV, especially on Fox News.
I rarely watch Fox news, but I no longer, ever watch the other democrat
controlled news networks, they are a total joke, geared towards the
clueless.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 8/18/2012 3:52 PM, Han wrote:
> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/17/2012 5:16 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 8/17/2012 1:56 PM, Jack wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I do know bottled water costs more than gas . . .
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can buy bottled water for under $2/gallon. Tell me where I can buy
>>> gasoline at under $2/gallon.
>>
>> Quick look on the net found PERRIER for just $19/gal. I suggest you buy
>> all you can for under $2 a gallon and get yourself good and filthy rich.
>
> Aquafina @ Amazon 32 bottles of 16.9 fl oz for $5.92. That is $3.70/gal,
> like gasoline. Better look for specails ...
Aquafina is tap water, comes out of the Detroit river. $3.70 a gallon
for water you get from the local river vs. gas that is a bit more
difficult to get out of the ground and refine is plain stupid. You pay
2000 times more for Aquafina than you would from the tap. Gasoline on
the other hand is a great deal, and the oil companies should be
applauded not attacked.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 8/19/2012 8:55 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>>
>> Gov't making 50 cents on a gallon is between 40 and 66 cents. The oil
>> companies make far, far, far less at 6 - 8% profit/ and they do all
>> the work. The asshole socialists want to tack on a windfall profit
>> tax on companies making a small profit, while they are the ones
>> ripping off the public. Then, the dicks turn around and give 1/2 a
>> billion to Solyndra to piss away into the wind. Meanwhile, MS and
>> Apple are making 30-40% profits on their monopoly, and no one even
>> whispers windfall profit. Quite a joke.
>>
>
> That's because Microsoft and Apple are not exactly monopolies: they have
> robust and effective competitors. Their competitors are themselves.
I'd love to not have a monopoly like that. MS controls 93% of the
market, Apple most of the rest. Sounds like a monopoly to me, probably
more of a monopoly than AT&T had when they were broken up.
> If they didn't improve their products with new features and the like, their
> revenue streams would wither.
Nope, that is the problem with monopolies like MS. Lack of competition
means they can sell garbage with little fear of revenue streams
withering, and, regardless of what the stooges say, Windows has been
crap from day one. Any sort of healthy competition and MS would have
died or provided a quality product. They are a perfect example of
exactly why monopolies are bad for the consumer.
> So it is with most "monopolies." They've got to periodically provide a
> better product at a lower price or they're out of business.
That is exactly wrong. Without competition, they do not have to provide
a better product. It's one of the problems with capitalism addressed by
the Sherman Anti trust act.
The exceptions
> to this rule are the monopolies established or controlled by some agency of
> government (think cable TV).
Cable TV is a monopoly? I can get Comcast, Direct TV, Verison, Dish TV
and more, already more than the 2 companies that control 97% of the PC
OS market. So, if MS is not exactly a monopoly, neither are the myriad
of cable companies.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 8/19/2012 2:19 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Jack <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> Recently heard on TV that oil companies make about 6-8 cents on a gallon
>>>> of gas. Government makes 40 to 66 cents on the same gallon. In
>>>> Californica the gov makes 66 cents on a gallon.
>>>
>>> 5 minutes of research would show that california makes 35.3 cents on
>>> a gallon (WA 37.5 cents, NC 35.2 cents, maine 30 cents, Minnesota 27 cents).
>>> When you add local (e.g. sales) taxes, CA is 50 cents, Connecticut is 51 cents,
>>> Hawaii 49 cents, Illinois 50.6 cents, usw).
>>
>> Gov't making 50 cents on a gallon is between 40 and 66 cents.
>
> You explicitly said that California makes 66 cents/gal.
I explicitly said I heard it on TV. I could have heard wrong, but
according to you, they make 50 cents which is between 40 and 66 cents,
and, the point, it's over 6 times more than the oil companies themselves
make.
The best part is the oil companies get every stinking penny they pay in
taxes from their customers, so we pay every dime, and Hans' oil company
pays nothing.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 8/19/2012 5:05 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>> That is exactly wrong. Without competition, they do not have to
>> provide a better product. It's one of the problems with capitalism
>> addressed by the Sherman Anti trust act.
>
> Not true. Not true at all.
Yes, it is true, totally true.
Assume you have a company in a town with 100
> prospects. You sell each of the 100 prospects your product your first year
> in business. Where does your revenue come from next year? If you don't make
> a NEW product to replace the first, you're out of business.
If you make a piece of crap, your out of business, unless you have a
monopoly that makes it close to impossible for competitors to get a foot
in the door.
> Secondly, monopolies are GUARANTEED by the US Constitution (Article I,
> Section 8).
Limited time exclusive right to the inventor does not mean you have the
right to prevent competition from like products. MS did exactly that,
and were found guilty in court, but apparently learned that huge
political contributions would make their problems go away.
> Third, a monopoly that comes into existence and continues by actions solely
> within the organization are NOT covered by the Sherman act. A company can
> set whatever price it wants for its product or service and nothing illegal
> has taken place.
I don't give a damn what MS charges, they sell junk, and they made sure
competing systems could not get a foot in the door.
Only when a company suppresses competition by some external
> process (such as buying the competing company) does the Act latch in.
Or threaten business that dare sell competing products with sanction,
among other things.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>On 08/17/2012 11:42 AM, Han wrote:
>> I don't think that (much as I'd want to) we can overturn the SCOTUS
>> decision that corporations are people (which I disagree with, as
>> previously noted, but it is now the law of the land). But it isn't right
>> that people can freely associate in claok and dagger groups that don't
>> reveal their identity.
>
>So now you don't think we have a natural right to privacy? I hate to
>tell you this, but the cornerstone of any despotic dictatorship is
>remove said privacy and thereby force people to either lie or openly
>state their opposition to the regime so they can either be "reeducated"
>or "removed". Privacy is pretty important. If you don't think so, imagine
>being forced to vote where everyone could see your choices ... say like
>the pigs in the various unions want...
Absolutely agreed. Too bad that the Bush administration put into place so
many illegal surveillance programs on americans. Not that the current
administration has eliminated them - which is one of the few things they've
done wrong.
Han wrote:
> Also, when companies pay their CEOs more than
> they pay in taxes, something is amiss, I think. Of course someone
> could make a case, perhaps ...
Absolutely! Companies that pay their CEOs more than they pay in taxes should
be commended!
The tax code exists for two reasons: To collect revenue and Promote social
goals.
Companies that paid no taxes took advantage of the law's promotion of social
goals via legal exemptions, deductions, and the like. To the degree that the
company activated these social goals (solar power, hiring numbskulls, etc.),
they should be praised for their effort!
One way to acknowledge this kind of company's contribution to the public
weal is to reward it's CEO for finding and implementing these social
targets.
As an example, General Electric paid NO taxes on revenues of, what, $32
billion? The CEO not only gets a pretty nice compensation, but he becomes a
best-buddy of the president. GE is probably an exemplar of the quest for
social justice.
Think of the children!
On 15 Aug 2012 17:51:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 15 Aug 2012 12:51:07 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 8/14/2012 7:49 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>> It is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal
>>>> office.
>>>>
>>>> It's a federal crime to break into our country and be here
>>>> illegally, and the Feds ignore that crime as well...
>>>
>>>Agriculture as we know it would cease if we didn't have illegal aliens
>>>harvesting ... Guess who hires them
>>
>> I call BULLSHIT on that one, Han. With so many people out of work
>> right now, I'd bet not one of those jobs went empty for very long if
>> we were to finally deport all the illegals.
>
>I'm going by reports of harvest gone unharvested when Alabama or Arizona
>or both decided to let illegals deport themselves, and they did.
Perhaps if government didn't pay half the people to do nothing, someone would
decide that work wasn't all bad.
>> 'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
>> only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
>> particular line of expertise. After 6 months (or less?), they should
>> be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple days
>> training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles. Unlimited
>> unemployment checks breed worse things. Get 'em off their asses!
>
>I think that much unemployment or underemployment stems from
>insufficient wages. But then, we have gotten used to cheap food and
>other things cheap, so we're not willing to pay what we in all
>likelihood should. I agree that people should take a job, almost any
>job once their unemployment runs out. Who (OTOH) is in charge of
>generating jobs for those whose prior jobs have disappeared? All this
>is hugely easy for me to say, because I don't need a job anymore ...
Where "insufficient wages" == "less than the government steals for me"
On 08/17/2012 11:33 AM, Han wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 08/17/2012 10:19 AM, Han wrote:
>>> And no, the
>>> oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give them more,
>>> au contraire.
>>
>> I think you have this wrong. The oil companies pay more in taxes than
>> they make in profit in a typical year. Here is just one analysis with
>> supporting citation:
>>
>> http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/10/gas_taxes_excee.htm
>> l
>>
>> It is the *government* that is subsidized by the oilcos not the other
>> way around....
>
> I'm sure this takes into account the subsidies like oil depletion
> allowance etc. Takes into account environmental costs, surely!
>
> Full disclosure: I own 130 shares of Exxon directly, probably more oil
> company stock through mutual funds.
>
I too own a chunk of ExxonMobil and wish them many happy years of high
profits and low taxes.
The problem in the US is not the lack of taxation. It is the complete lack
of fiscal control among the height and breadth of government...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:28:11 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 8/16/2012 12:33 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>
>>> The consequences are all civil, not criminal. For example,
>>>> an illegal alien can be deported, but without more cannot be sentenced
>>>> to a prison term.
>>>
>>> Yes, some crimes are civil, some are criminal, but are crimes by
>>> definition.
>
>> Nonsense. There's no such thing as a civil, noncriminal crime. If you
>> disagree, you can prove me wrong by citing a statute as an example. But
>> you can't because there isn't one.
>
>I cited the definition of "crime". If you choose to make up your own
>definitions, have at it. I'll cite it again for your edification:
>
>crime
>noun
>1.
>an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the
>public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is
>legally prohibited.
>
>Entering the country w/o permission is a misdemeanor (crime) the first
>offense, and a felony (crime) thereafter.
AIUI, it's a civil offense the first time (not a misdemeanor). The reason
being that it doesn't require a trial (by jury) to deport an alien, only an
administrative action. The second offense, after deportation, can result in a
prison sentence, so would naturally require a trial.
Han wrote:
>>
>> A prudent businessman pays his labor force the minimum each is
>> willing to take. In many cases, if he pays them more, they'll simply
>> spend it on drugs or buy a motorcycle and adios.
>
> Eventually, even the riobber barons didn't get away with all of it.
Yep. Take the classic case of John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil. Standard
Oil became a monopoly, but what did it accomplish?
It single-handedly drove down the price of Kerosene from $3.00/gallon to
five cents. In only three years. Now just who was hurt by this effort? The
whale-oil suppliers went out of business and candle makers took a hit. But
for millions of others, the night became bearable.
This, of course, was unacceptable. Standard Oil wasn't fair to the whalers
and candle-makers (and to the drillers and shippers and refiners of oil).
Nothing for it but to break up the company.
The ONLY monopolies that screw the general public are the ones sanctioned by
the government (think cable tv). Virtually all other monopolies, and the
really rich folks who run them - the modern day "robber barons", are a boon
to the average person.
On 8/13/12 1:26 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>> On 8/13/12 12:57 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> On 8/13/12 12:25 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/13/2012 12:04 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/12/2012 8:59 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> How about this one instead:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-lacey-act-protectionism-through-criminalization/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.science20.com/science_20/gibson_guitars_and_lacey_act_misused-82210
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Imagine that - the Obama administration, in the face of chronic high
>>>>>>> unemployment, is telling a U.S. manufacturer to export jobs to India.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obama wants to be the "NEW World" leader. He has to be concerned
>>>>>> about unemployment in other countries if he wants their vote. He has
>>>>>> already suckered the lefties here into voting for him here, mission
>>>>>> accomplished.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am no Obama fan, but Leon... what do you mean by wanting their vote?
>>>>> People in other countries cannot vote in our elections (under republican
>>>>> rules...)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Citizens of foreign countries voted a lot in the least election.
>>>> They just happen to be living in this country. Lots of dead people
>>>> voted, too.
>>>
>>> Funny, all the non-partisan voting experts can't find any evidence
>>> of this (particularly the "lot" part).
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are many, many loopholes in the voter registration process that
>>>> allows for citizens of other countries to vote in our elections. That is
>>>> precisely why the Dems are against proof of citizen requirements for
>>>> voter registration.
>>>
>>> Actually, this is completely false. Democrats want it easier for americans
>>> to vote, Republicans want to make it harder for americans to vote. Please
>>> name one single democrat who want to allow citizens of other countries
>>> to vote? You can't.
>>>
>>> scott
>>>
>>
>> Voter registration is under the jurisdiction of local election boards.
>> In many places you can get registered simply by getting a driver's
>> license. In many of those places, all you need to get a drivers license
>> is as little as a utility bill with your name on it addressed to your
>> residence. I can drive down my street and within 5 minutes, point to a
>> dozen or more people driving who are not legal citizens of the US.
>>
>> It's funny that you can hardly do anything in the US without a valid ID,
>> yet the Dems want to allow anyone to walk up to a voting booth and vote,
>> without any proof they are who they say they are. Even though, there is
>> very little one can do in everyday life without a valid ID, the Dems
>> think it's some kind of hardship to show an ID to vote.
>
> Very good - you've managed to sidestep the questions completely. You
> neither have shown that there is a problem, nor have you shown that your
> statements that "Democrat desires for foreign citizens to vote" have
> any accuracy.
>
Two words: Al Franken. Only in his case, it's turning out he got
elected by felons.
>> Someone could go
>> to my precinct, give my name and address, go into the booth and vote for
>> me. This is perfectly fine with the Dems.
>
> Please name one single democrat that believes that it is fine for
> "someone could go to my precinct, give my name and address, go into the boot
> and vote for me".
>
> You can't name one because this is your strawman position, not the position
> of a single democrat.
>
> A desire to make voting easier for americans (and increasing the percentage of
> eligable voters is _good_ regardless of your politics) does not equate to
> being "fine" with voter fraud.
>
> scott
>
If Dems don't don't have any desire to require ID for voting, and in
fact, fight all attempts to require it, what else does that say than they
are ok with fraud. What legal citizen in this country does not already
have a valid ID? And if they don't, well gee, they only have 2 years
between election to obtain one. But no, that's a hardship.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 8/13/2012 1:57 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>> Citizens of foreign countries voted a lot in the least election.
>> They just happen to be living in this country. Lots of dead people
>> voted, too.
>
> Funny, all the non-partisan voting experts can't find any evidence
> of this (particularly the "lot" part).
By "non-partisan" I assume you mean "Non-Democrat"
There is a ton of voter fraud, including dead people, felons, fake
people, duplicate voters. Plenty of districts have more registered
voters than people.
Moreover, the source of information does not minimize any facts
uncovered or used.
Get a clue.
>> There are many, many loopholes in the voter registration process that
>> allows for citizens of other countries to vote in our elections. That is
>> precisely why the Dems are against proof of citizen requirements for
>> voter registration.
>
> Actually, this is completely false. Democrats want it easier for americans
> to vote, Republicans want to make it harder for americans to vote. Please
> name one single democrat who want to allow citizens of other countries
> to vote? You can't.
Anyone that wants to allow anyone that walks in the voting booth to be
able to vote, regardless of who they say they are, fits that
description, and you can start with the leader of the democratic
(socialist) party, Obummer, and work your way down to the local Marxist
dog catcher.
--
Jack
From Little A.C.O.R.N.S Mighty Marxist Grow!
http://jbstein.com
On 8/13/2012 2:31 PM, Han wrote:
> I find it funny that those who say that voter fraud is rampant never seem
> to be able to get a link to established facts.
Your kidding, or you get all your info from the government controlled
media (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NY Times etc.)
> At least not recent,
> documented facts. I have heard the Mayor Daley etc jokes.
Voter fraud is no joke, it got Franken elected to the Minnesota Senate
and ergo socialized medicine foisted on all of the US.
Please read this and you may be enlightened to why you don't get any
"established facts". It is difficult to establish "facts" if you can't
get the wolves to investigate their own duplicity. The facts that are
"established" as in court convictions are not reported much in the lame
stream media.
Any doubts you may have regarding rampant voter fraud should be erased
when you observe how ridiculously hard the crooks fight any attempt to
enact common sense election law reforms to ensure that our election
system is secure, accurate and transparent.
--
Jack
A.C.O.R.N: For Democrats that just can't vote often enough...
http://jbstein.com
Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> If people hadn't been living so _far_ above their means in the first
> place, the reduction wouldn't hurt nearly as bad and wouldn't cause
> many of them to lose their homes, etc.
Bullshit and this is where your arrogance really pisses me off Larry. We
have never lived above our means, paid our mortgage off early, sent 4 kids
through college, contributed to our community and our church - all of our
lives. Guess what - unemployment hit me. I don't mind doing whatever I
have to do to earn a buck but your bullshit above is nothing more than your
pride and arrogance speaking. That is just too damned insulting not to
respond to. Maybe you never had anything, so going backwards wasn't a big
step. More of America is represented by people like me than the Mcmansion
types that are over their heads in debt and those people are hurting from
this economy. The unemployment rate is hurting a lot of people who are very
willing to work and are accustomed to doing so. The internet is full of
people like you who just spout bullshit because you think way too much of
yourself.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 8/16/2012 9:32 AM, Han wrote:
> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> If people hadn't been living so _far_ above their means in the first
>> place, the reduction wouldn't hurt nearly as bad and wouldn't cause
>> many of them to lose their homes, etc.
> Yes, and yes. They believed what were essentially slick second hand car
> salesmen, both with their extravagant homes and mortgages.
Any reasonably intelligent person should be able to figure out for
himself if he can afford a purchase.
On 16 Aug 2012 11:27:21 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 15 Aug 2012 17:51:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 15 Aug 2012 12:51:07 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/14/2012 7:49 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>>>> It is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal
>>>>>> office.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a federal crime to break into our country and be here
>>>>>> illegally, and the Feds ignore that crime as well...
>>>>>
>>>>>Agriculture as we know it would cease if we didn't have illegal
>>>>>aliens harvesting ... Guess who hires them
>>>>
>>>> I call BULLSHIT on that one, Han. With so many people out of work
>>>> right now, I'd bet not one of those jobs went empty for very long if
>>>> we were to finally deport all the illegals.
>>>
>>>I'm going by reports of harvest gone unharvested when Alabama or
>>>Arizona or both decided to let illegals deport themselves, and they
>>>did.
>>
>> Did you mean Georgia? The farmers should have known that was coming
>> and made sure they had workers lined up beforehand, don't you think?
>> Or, if the state gov't pushed the deadline or hit them without
>> warning, they should have helped find workers for the farmers, don't
>> you think? I'm thinking the two groups bent -themselves- over this
>> time.
>
>Alabama. This is a site that promotes the law that says you have to be
>legal <grin> and led to the harvesting problems
><http://www.alipac.us/f12/ala-governor-signs-revisions-targeting-illegal-
>immigrants-257760/>
You're both right (I live in both states ;-). There was no surprise, here.
>>>> 'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
>>>> only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
>>>> particular line of expertise. After 6 months (or less?), they
>>>> should be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple
>>>> days training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles. Unlimited
>>>> unemployment checks breed worse things. Get 'em off their asses!
>>>
>>>I think that much unemployment or underemployment stems from
>>>insufficient wages. But then, we have gotten used to cheap food and
>>>other things cheap, so we're not willing to pay what we in all
>>>likelihood should. I agree that people should take a job, almost any
>>>job once their unemployment runs out. Who (OTOH) is in charge of
>>>generating jobs for those whose prior jobs have disappeared? All this
>>>is hugely easy for me to say, because I don't need a job anymore ...
>>
>> That's just it. Unemployment isn't running out. Some people have been
>> on it for over three years, Han! I think that after whatever the
>> initial run is (I think it was 13 weeks when I last used it, back in
>> the '70s) and the unemployed person hasn't found work, they should be
>> forced to take whatever job IS available in their town, at their
>> unemployment office. If the wages are less than their unemployment
>> check (usually for very highly paid people), maybe cover the
>> difference? But the unemployment office isn't forcing anything. That
>> should change. Forcing unearned money on people isn't good for anyone
>> involved: Not the worker, not the EDD office, and not the taxpayers.
>
>I'm not familiar with all the laws about unemployment, especially since
>they seem to change often in terms of time periods covered. The problem
>is not unemployment compensation in general, but the way the US (in
>general) fails to generate employment and educational opportunities,
Absolute nonsense. Everyone is offered an education, some several times.
Because they choose not to participate isn't my problem. It shouldn't be the
(federal) government's either.
>especially when the economy turns sour. I think that covering the
>difference between previous high wages and the lower wages in current
>opportunities has been considered in some places.
That's absurd. Why the hell would I work at a high-stress job if the
government (you) is going to pay me to loaf?
>But that can get dicey
>very fast, especially in the middle income ranges. Example: Your
>previous job had generous benefits and pension arrangements, but you were
>RIF'ed. There is a new job somewhere else, but at 60% of your previous
>wages, with less benefits and pension arrangements. If you do take that,
>not only will you have to really limit your expenditures (including
>probably selling your house at a moment it isn't advantageous), but your
>resume will show that precipitous decrease. Not good for the next job.
>Maybe that scenario isn't too important for farm workers and others, but
>it is a very important point to a large portion of currently unemployed
>middle income people.
If you want a life with no risk (but also with no reward), why did you move to
the US, Han? Freedom to succeed is also the freedom to fail. You *can't*
have one without the other.
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:33:44 -0400, "[email protected]"
>Are you really too stupid to use a killfile? ...or are you always trying to
>limit other's speech?
The only limits to speech should be the type of bullshit you spew
here.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 16 Aug 2012 11:27:21 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 15 Aug 2012 17:51:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15 Aug 2012 12:51:07 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/14/2012 7:49 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>>>>> It is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal
>>>>>>> office.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a federal crime to break into our country and be here
>>>>>>> illegally, and the Feds ignore that crime as well...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Agriculture as we know it would cease if we didn't have illegal
>>>>>>aliens harvesting ... Guess who hires them
>>>>>
>>>>> I call BULLSHIT on that one, Han. With so many people out of work
>>>>> right now, I'd bet not one of those jobs went empty for very long
>>>>> if we were to finally deport all the illegals.
>>>>
>>>>I'm going by reports of harvest gone unharvested when Alabama or
>>>>Arizona or both decided to let illegals deport themselves, and they
>>>>did.
>>>
>>> Did you mean Georgia? The farmers should have known that was coming
>>> and made sure they had workers lined up beforehand, don't you think?
>>> Or, if the state gov't pushed the deadline or hit them without
>>> warning, they should have helped find workers for the farmers, don't
>>> you think? I'm thinking the two groups bent -themselves- over this
>>> time.
>>
>>Alabama. This is a site that promotes the law that says you have to
>>be legal <grin> and led to the harvesting problems
>><http://www.alipac.us/f12/ala-governor-signs-revisions-targeting-illega
>>l- immigrants-257760/>
>
> You're both right (I live in both states ;-). There was no surprise,
> here.
>
>>>>> 'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
>>>>> only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
>>>>> particular line of expertise. After 6 months (or less?), they
>>>>> should be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple
>>>>> days training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles.
>>>>> Unlimited unemployment checks breed worse things. Get 'em off
>>>>> their asses!
>>>>
>>>>I think that much unemployment or underemployment stems from
>>>>insufficient wages. But then, we have gotten used to cheap food and
>>>>other things cheap, so we're not willing to pay what we in all
>>>>likelihood should. I agree that people should take a job, almost
>>>>any job once their unemployment runs out. Who (OTOH) is in charge
>>>>of generating jobs for those whose prior jobs have disappeared? All
>>>>this is hugely easy for me to say, because I don't need a job
>>>>anymore ...
>>>
>>> That's just it. Unemployment isn't running out. Some people have
>>> been on it for over three years, Han! I think that after whatever
>>> the initial run is (I think it was 13 weeks when I last used it,
>>> back in the '70s) and the unemployed person hasn't found work, they
>>> should be forced to take whatever job IS available in their town, at
>>> their unemployment office. If the wages are less than their
>>> unemployment check (usually for very highly paid people), maybe
>>> cover the difference? But the unemployment office isn't forcing
>>> anything. That should change. Forcing unearned money on people
>>> isn't good for anyone involved: Not the worker, not the EDD office,
>>> and not the taxpayers.
>>
>>I'm not familiar with all the laws about unemployment, especially
>>since they seem to change often in terms of time periods covered. The
>>problem is not unemployment compensation in general, but the way the
>>US (in general) fails to generate employment and educational
>>opportunities,
>
> Absolute nonsense. Everyone is offered an education, some several
> times. Because they choose not to participate isn't my problem. It
> shouldn't be the (federal) government's either.
True, as well as false. My son-in-law teaches high school math in
Paterson, NJ (read ghetto school). He delights in the observation he is
making a difference there. He also is shown daily the deficiencies of
the local school system (Paterson isn't exactly an example of how to
educate kids), the indifference of parents, as well as the (lack of)
culture among the kids. So, yes, if you are gung-ho to get educated AND
get a committed mentor, you can get educated anywhere in the US. But it
is really tough in some environments.
>>especially when the economy turns sour. I think that covering the
>>difference between previous high wages and the lower wages in current
>>opportunities has been considered in some places.
>
> That's absurd. Why the hell would I work at a high-stress job if the
> government (you) is going to pay me to loaf?
I wasn't loafing, and the high-stress job I had, I eventually ditched.
Before that, though, I saw the high-stress job as a challenge, plus I was
paid enough to live. I was able to buy my first home, and now have
little debt on that home left. On the salary I made last, it would be
really, really tough to buy this house now with just a meager deposit.
>>But that can get dicey
>>very fast, especially in the middle income ranges. Example: Your
>>previous job had generous benefits and pension arrangements, but you
>>were RIF'ed. There is a new job somewhere else, but at 60% of your
>>previous wages, with less benefits and pension arrangements. If you
>>do take that, not only will you have to really limit your expenditures
>>(including probably selling your house at a moment it isn't
>>advantageous), but your resume will show that precipitous decrease.
>>Not good for the next job. Maybe that scenario isn't too important
>>for farm workers and others, but it is a very important point to a
>>large portion of currently unemployed middle income people.
>
> If you want a life with no risk (but also with no reward), why did you
> move to the US, Han? Freedom to succeed is also the freedom to fail.
> You *can't* have one without the other.
I moved to the US because upon finishing my masters in Holland I got
offered a job as a technician in a Harvard lab, with the promise from my
Dutch professor (Laurens van Deenen) that if my work was good enough
there, I would get a (Dutch) PhD. My alternative was compulsory military
service (in 1969, there was a draft in Holland). I got a J-1 visa, later
converted to a green card by reason of me being indispensable for the
lab's work. My wife got an interview with a highly regarded professor at
the Mass General Hospital for a technician's job, so we could live in
Cambridge, Mass, not the cheapest place on earth. I took the chance
because it seemed the way to start a career. I was unemployed for a 3
months (long story), but found a job in New York that I stayed with for
34 years. So yes, I did "fail" at some point, but was lucky/capable
enough to get going again. So, one thing led to another, and as many, but
not all in similar positions, I stayed in the US, not too far from where
my grandchildren live. My son-in-law and daughter-in-law think we might
the right choice, did and do the right things. Now I got pertussis and
have to overcome that cough ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 02:43:16 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:33:44 -0400, "[email protected]"
>>Are you really too stupid to use a killfile? ...or are you always trying to
>>limit other's speech?
>
>The only limits to speech should be the type of bullshit you spew
>here.
Case closed. You are truly a moron's moron.
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 10:26:13 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:15:11 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> > How about leaving some context?
>>
>> How about leaving, period? There were 80 unread messages in this group
>> this evening. 22 were from you. 20 were from Han. Don't you think the
>> two of you have said about all there is to say on the issue?
>
>USENET really needs a "get a room" function. If invoked, all posts in
>which one of the two participants was responding to the other would
>automatically go to email.
>
Learn how to use a kill file or grow up enough to learn how to ignore what you
don't want to read. You're no different than Larry or Dave.
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Jesus, Han. You really -are- a liberal. <sigh> OK, how long did
> farmers (and others who employ illegals) have to comply with laws
> which were already on the books? How long did they have between the
> time the bill was introduced and passed? The time frame is likely
> _years, not just months. Why hadn't they rehired _legal_ replacements
> during those many months and years, hmm?
This was sprung on them fairly fast. Perhaps they had hoped that the law
would be overturned and gambled wrong.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> If people hadn't been living so _far_ above their means in the first
> place, the reduction wouldn't hurt nearly as bad and wouldn't cause
> many of them to lose their homes, etc.
Yes, and yes. They believed what were essentially slick second hand car
salesmen, both with their extravagant homes and mortgages. The
homeowners and construction workers got punished, but some other equally
guilty ones didn't. Did you read that the higher-ups in MFGlobal were
punished? Not criminally, they weren't. And they were in my opinion
criminally negligent as were many other banking execs, but as my buddy
the ex-New York banking inspector says, there was plausable denial (my
words). No provable offenses. As the Germans used to say "Das habe ich
nicht gewusst".
> I also believe that many, if not most, middle management jobs
> shouldn't have ever existed, so don't get me started there. ;)
Aw, shucks, really? <grin>.
> It'll hurt, with millions losing their jobs, but we need to shear off
> all the unnecessary governmental divisions NOW. Duplication is really
> rampant when as many as 30 agencies cover the same tasks. I don't
> even want to hear about deficits when they can be immediately reversed
> by cutting the minions who spend them. I want to see the US -debt-
> start going down and down in my lifetime, please!
I'm with you there. But that is a job for Congress. And you know what?
I'm afraid it'll never happen.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:ounvf9-ipe2.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:
> On 08/16/2012 10:25 AM, Han wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
>> as well as the (lack of) culture among the kids.
>
> That IS the problem in a nutshell and it's systemic across all
> the demographics. This was interesting:
>
> http://culturewrench.com/?p=10
Tim Daneliuk, that is interesting. I'll have to really read it (like so
many things) to comment. I just glanced at it. Is it that we are too
isolated in our homes, too little interacting and too self-centered that
the idea of "it takes a village to educate a kid" doesn't apply anymore?
Civility and respect is what should be taught together with math.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 8/16/2012 9:32 AM, Han wrote:
>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> If people hadn't been living so _far_ above their means in the first
>>> place, the reduction wouldn't hurt nearly as bad and wouldn't cause
>>> many of them to lose their homes, etc.
>> Yes, and yes. They believed what were essentially slick second hand
>> car salesmen, both with their extravagant homes and mortgages.
>
> Any reasonably intelligent person should be able to figure out for
> himself if he can afford a purchase.
Operative word is "should". Never had the experience of a salesperson
selling you more than you went in for?? Be really honest. Maybe he
explained the benefits of this or that option that you hadn't thought of
really well, and you did decide to go for it. Not that you couldn't
have done without, but it seemed like a good idea. Like Ed Pawloski's
(sorry if I misspell) new car with built-in NAV gadget.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
[email protected] wrote:
>
> That theory falls apart in places like Iowa, where after raiding a
> meat packaging plant (Hormel?), they had *no* problem hiring locals
> at the same wage.
That may be true - but that is where each of our own perspectives can fail
us. We see or know about things local to us, or we see or hear about
one-off situations, and then we try to apply them universally. We're all
probably somewhat guilty of that to a degree. I don't think that the Iowa
meat packing plant is all that representative of the unemployment situation
across the country though.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:57:59 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 8/17/2012 11:42 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:28:11 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Entering the country w/o permission is a misdemeanor (crime) the first
>>> offense, and a felony (crime) thereafter.
>>
>> AIUI, it's a civil offense the first time (not a misdemeanor).
>
>AIUI, It's a misdemeanor
>
>mis·de·mean·or
>noun
>1. Law . a criminal offense defined as less serious than a felony.
No, it's not. A traffic ticket is less than a felony but it is not a
misdemeanor, either. It is an infraction. Being here illegally is similar,
at least technically.
>The reason
>> being that it doesn't require a trial (by jury) to deport an alien, only an
>> administrative action. The second offense, after deportation, can result in a
>> prison sentence, so would naturally require a trial.
>
>The second offense is a felony, both amazingly are ignored by our [fed]
>government at this time, to the point of suing states for trying to keep
>it real.
There, I agree with you.
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 18:33:01 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 8/15/2012 12:20 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>
>>>> I call BULLSHIT on that one, Han. With so many people out of work
>>>> right now, I'd bet not one of those jobs went empty for very long if
>>>> we were to finally deport all the illegals.
>>> Not so sure Larry. There have been more times when I've hears "i
>>> would not work for that wage", or "I would not do that", than would
>>> cause me to believe that the unemployment roles are filled with
>>> people willing to do that agricultural work. In fact - if that were
>>> the case, those people could be right at work besides the migrant
>>> workers even as we speak. How many unemployed people have you heard
>>> say that they would take those crop jobs? I am calling BULLSHIT on
>>> your comment.
>>
>> There's a geographical disconnect on that comparison. Most of the
>> unemployed live in cities. Most of the agricultural jobs are out in
>> the country. There's no easy way physically for the urban unemployed
>> to get to and from the fields.
>
>Correct - but that's only because most of the population is centered in and
>around cities. I contend that even in rural areas, where unemployment is
>high, there are not lines of people trying to get that kind of job.
>
>
>> But without illegal aliens doing the low-paying urban jobs (fast food,
>> janitorial, etc.), the urban unemployed could take those jobs.
>>
>
>Could - yes. Would - I believe... not so much. Part of the reason that
>those illegals can get those jobs is because legals here did not take them.
That theory falls apart in places like Iowa, where after raiding a meat
packaging plant (Hormel?), they had *no* problem hiring locals at the same
wage.
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 18:41:32 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Mike M wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:20:13 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I call BULLSHIT on that one, Han. With so many people out of work
>>>> right now, I'd bet not one of those jobs went empty for very long if
>>>> we were to finally deport all the illegals.
>>>
>>> Not so sure Larry. There have been more times when I've hears "i
>>> would not work for that wage", or "I would not do that", than would
>>> cause me to believe that the unemployment roles are filled with
>>> people willing to do that agricultural work. In fact - if that were
>>> the case, those people could be right at work besides the migrant
>>> workers even as we speak. How many unemployed people have you heard
>>> say that they would take those crop jobs? I am calling BULLSHIT on
>>> your comment.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
>>>> only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
>>>> particular line of expertise. After 6 months (or less?), they
>>>> should be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple
>>>> days training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles. Unlimited
>>>> unemployment checks breed worse things. Get 'em off their asses!
>>>
>> Basically I agree with you, but hopefully some fairness should apply.
>> Try to put yourself in their situation. Some traumatic medical
>> condition has left you unable to do your former job, is it fair to go
>> make you pick crops for minimum wage. I don't see a lot of us on this
>> group surviving many days of agricultural work at our age.
>>
>
>The only problem with agreeing with Larry's point is that there is no such
>thing as unlimited unemployment checks. Sounds good if you want to close
>with a statement like "Get 'em off their asses", but it's only rhetorical.
>Those two sentences only serve to show a lack of understanding for what the
>world of the unemployed really looks like today.
I should have qualified it better I was actually more in agreement
with you.
Mike M
Larry Jaques wrote:
> It'll hurt, with millions losing their jobs, but we need to shear off
> all the unnecessary governmental divisions NOW. Duplication is really
> rampant when as many as 30 agencies cover the same tasks. I don't
> even want to hear about deficits when they can be immediately reversed
> by cutting the minions who spend them. I want to see the US -debt-
> start going down and down in my lifetime, please!
It would probably bother you to know that a school district in CA (I
think) that borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars, on a long term
load that they will not and cannot (as there are no prepay provisions)
make the FIRST payment on until 20 years from now! They "snuck it by"
the voters.
>
> --
> All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
> good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
> -- Anna Quindlen
>
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>
>> If people hadn't been living so _far_ above their means in the first
>> place, the reduction wouldn't hurt nearly as bad and wouldn't cause
>> many of them to lose their homes, etc.
>
> Bullshit and this is where your arrogance really pisses me off Larry. We
> have never lived above our means, paid our mortgage off early, sent 4 kids
> through college, contributed to our community and our church - all of our
> lives. Guess what - unemployment hit me. I don't mind doing whatever I
> have to do to earn a buck but your bullshit above is nothing more than your
> pride and arrogance speaking. That is just too damned insulting not to
> respond to. Maybe you never had anything, so going backwards wasn't a big
> step. More of America is represented by people like me than the Mcmansion
> types that are over their heads in debt and those people are hurting from
> this economy. The unemployment rate is hurting a lot of people who are very
> willing to work and are accustomed to doing so. The internet is full of
> people like you who just spout bullshit because you think way too much of
> yourself.
He is not talking about you Mike. There seem to be plenty of people who
choose to live their lives "in the red". Funny, when things get tougher
they still take expensive vacations, buy expensive toys, etc.
The unemployment and shift in the standard of living is the result of a
leveling-out (rebalancing) of the standard of living between the 3rd
world countries, who now have many of our old jobs, and ours. It started
in the 80s (a friend gave me a sort of blow-by-blow account as it
happened, from his perspective as a Ford employee). Unfortunately I
don't think we've experienced all of the pain yet.
On 08/16/2012 03:01 PM, Han wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:ounvf9-ipe2.ln1
> @ozzie.tundraware.com:
>
>> On 08/16/2012 10:25 AM, Han wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>> as well as the (lack of) culture among the kids.
>>
>> That IS the problem in a nutshell and it's systemic across all
>> the demographics. This was interesting:
>>
>> http://culturewrench.com/?p=10
>
> Tim Daneliuk, that is interesting. I'll have to really read it (like so
> many things) to comment. I just glanced at it. Is it that we are too
> isolated in our homes, too little interacting and too self-centered that
> the idea of "it takes a village to educate a kid" doesn't apply anymore?
> Civility and respect is what should be taught together with math.
>
It never took a village. This is political jabbering by the repugnant
"we want to run your life" crowd.
Civility and respect are taught by *parents*, not a village. But parents that
have children at 15 or are too busy with their upper middle class lives
to pay any attention to them at all are not teaching their children much of
anything other than resentment.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 16 Aug 2012 11:27:21 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 15 Aug 2012 17:51:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 15 Aug 2012 12:51:07 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/14/2012 7:49 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>>>> It is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal
>>>>>> office.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a federal crime to break into our country and be here
>>>>>> illegally, and the Feds ignore that crime as well...
>>>>>
>>>>>Agriculture as we know it would cease if we didn't have illegal
>>>>>aliens harvesting ... Guess who hires them
>>>>
>>>> I call BULLSHIT on that one, Han. With so many people out of work
>>>> right now, I'd bet not one of those jobs went empty for very long if
>>>> we were to finally deport all the illegals.
>>>
>>>I'm going by reports of harvest gone unharvested when Alabama or
>>>Arizona or both decided to let illegals deport themselves, and they
>>>did.
>>
>> Did you mean Georgia? The farmers should have known that was coming
>> and made sure they had workers lined up beforehand, don't you think?
>> Or, if the state gov't pushed the deadline or hit them without
>> warning, they should have helped find workers for the farmers, don't
>> you think? I'm thinking the two groups bent -themselves- over this
>> time.
>
>Alabama. This is a site that promotes the law that says you have to be
>legal <grin> and led to the harvesting problems
><http://www.alipac.us/f12/ala-governor-signs-revisions-targeting-illegal-
>immigrants-257760/>
Jesus, Han. You really -are- a liberal. <sigh> OK, how long did
farmers (and others who employ illegals) have to comply with laws
which were already on the books? How long did they have between the
time the bill was introduced and passed? The time frame is likely
_years, not just months. Why hadn't they rehired _legal_ replacements
during those many months and years, hmm?
>>>> 'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
>>>> only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
>>>> particular line of expertise. After 6 months (or less?), they
>>>> should be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple
>>>> days training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles. Unlimited
>>>> unemployment checks breed worse things. Get 'em off their asses!
>>>
>>>I think that much unemployment or underemployment stems from
>>>insufficient wages. But then, we have gotten used to cheap food and
>>>other things cheap, so we're not willing to pay what we in all
>>>likelihood should. I agree that people should take a job, almost any
>>>job once their unemployment runs out. Who (OTOH) is in charge of
>>>generating jobs for those whose prior jobs have disappeared? All this
>>>is hugely easy for me to say, because I don't need a job anymore ...
>>
>> That's just it. Unemployment isn't running out. Some people have been
>> on it for over three years, Han! I think that after whatever the
>> initial run is (I think it was 13 weeks when I last used it, back in
>> the '70s) and the unemployed person hasn't found work, they should be
>> forced to take whatever job IS available in their town, at their
>> unemployment office. If the wages are less than their unemployment
>> check (usually for very highly paid people), maybe cover the
>> difference? But the unemployment office isn't forcing anything. That
>> should change. Forcing unearned money on people isn't good for anyone
>> involved: Not the worker, not the EDD office, and not the taxpayers.
>
>I'm not familiar with all the laws about unemployment, especially since
>they seem to change often in terms of time periods covered. The problem
>is not unemployment compensation in general, but the way the US (in
>general) fails to generate employment and educational opportunities,
>especially when the economy turns sour.
You're absolutely right. Since CONgress is all about power and money,
that's the way they think. They have no idea what honesty, truth,
integrity, or good work feel like.
>I think that covering the
>difference between previous high wages and the lower wages in current
>opportunities has been considered in some places. But that can get dicey
>very fast, especially in the middle income ranges. Example: Your
>previous job had generous benefits and pension arrangements, but you were
>RIF'ed. There is a new job somewhere else, but at 60% of your previous
>wages, with less benefits and pension arrangements. If you do take that,
>not only will you have to really limit your expenditures (including
>probably selling your house at a moment it isn't advantageous), but your
>resume will show that precipitous decrease. Not good for the next job.
>Maybe that scenario isn't too important for farm workers and others, but
>it is a very important point to a large portion of currently unemployed
>middle income people.
If people hadn't been living so _far_ above their means in the first
place, the reduction wouldn't hurt nearly as bad and wouldn't cause
many of them to lose their homes, etc.
I also believe that many, if not most, middle management jobs
shouldn't have ever existed, so don't get me started there. ;)
It'll hurt, with millions losing their jobs, but we need to shear off
all the unnecessary governmental divisions NOW. Duplication is really
rampant when as many as 30 agencies cover the same tasks. I don't
even want to hear about deficits when they can be immediately reversed
by cutting the minions who spend them. I want to see the US -debt-
start going down and down in my lifetime, please!
--
All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
-- Anna Quindlen
On 08/16/2012 10:25 AM, Han wrote:
<SNIP>
> as well as the (lack of) culture among the kids.
That IS the problem in a nutshell and it's systemic across all
the demographics. This was interesting:
http://culturewrench.com/?p=10
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
On 8/13/2012 2:13 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
All good points Mike. There amazingly a good number of voting districts
that have more registered voters than people, and they still won't lift
a finger to clean up the rolls. They instead fight tooth and nail every
effort to clean things up.
--
Jack
Those who vote decide nothing;
those who count the votes decide everything.
- Joseph Stalin
http://jbstein.com
> Voter registration is under the jurisdiction of local election boards.
> In many places you can get registered simply by getting a driver's
> license. In many of those places, all you need to get a drivers license
> is as little as a utility bill with your name on it addressed to your
> residence. I can drive down my street and within 5 minutes, point to a
> dozen or more people driving who are not legal citizens of the US.
>
> It's funny that you can hardly do anything in the US without a valid ID,
> yet the Dems want to allow anyone to walk up to a voting booth and vote,
> without any proof they are who they say they are. Even though, there is
> very little one can do in everyday life without a valid ID, the Dems
> think it's some kind of hardship to show an ID to vote. Someone could go
> to my precinct, give my name and address, go into the booth and vote for
> me. This is perfectly fine with the Dems.
>
>
On 8/14/2012 11:39 AM, Han wrote:
> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/13/2012 2:31 PM, Han wrote:
>>
>>> I find it funny that those who say that voter fraud is rampant never
>>> seem to be able to get a link to established facts.
>> Please read this and you may be enlightened to why you don't get any
>> "established facts".
Sorry Han, I somehow left out the link to what I wanted you to read.
http://tinyurl.com/3dv729h
Please read it, and perhaps you will get an inkling as to what sort of
corruption is going on, and has been going on in this country.
It is difficult to establish "facts" if you
>> can't get the wolves to investigate their own duplicity. The facts
>> that are "established" as in court convictions are not reported much
>> in the lame stream media.
> If voter fraud is so rampant, surely you can find some convictions ...
A simple google search will turn up a bunch. 113 were convicted just in
Minnesota since the last election, and if you read the article I posted,
you should be totally amazed anyone ever gets convicted of voter fraud.
The freaking politicians make it almost impossible to uncover the
fraud, and when it is, the refuse to do anything about it. Acorn has had
a slew of crooks convicted of voter fraud, but again, it is totally
amazing that anyone ever gets convicted, considering the politicians do
everything in their power to ignore what is going on, and generally
refuse to do anything about it when thrown in their face, as the above
referenced article clearly addresses.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
The VOTER'S DOCTRINE of COOK COUNTY., IL.
"VOTE EARLY ... VOTE OFTEN"
>
> Actually, this is completely false. Democrats want it easier for americans
> to vote, Republicans want to make it harder for americans to vote.
Demoncrats want it easier for anyone who shows up to vote ...
Republicans are simply asking those folks to verify/prove who/what they
are ... what's wrong with that concept ???
You need valid I.D. to get : a car .. a house .. a driver's license ..
utilities turned on .. a bank account .. a job (not that obummer's
followers are concerned with THAT tiny detail) .. unemployment benefits
(for those obummer faithfuls). Why should it be a problem to simply
identify yourself at a polling place ??? In what way does such a
requirement "suppress" the vote ??? OH YEAH ... it SUPRESES the
ILLEGAL ALIENS ... WOW ... what a strange concept ... YOU CAN'T
PARTICIPATE BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO EVEN BE STANDING HERE !!! !!!
--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
fools that made him their prince".
On 08/13/2012 12:04 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 8/12/2012 8:59 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> How about this one instead:
>>>
>>> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-lacey-act-protectionism-through-criminalization/
>> http://www.science20.com/science_20/gibson_guitars_and_lacey_act_misused-82210
>>
> Imagine that - the Obama administration, in the face of chronic high unemployment, is telling a U.S. manufacturer to export jobs to India.
I hate to tell you this, but trade is good for everyone involved and labor
is like any other good or service that can be bought and sold - it has a
natural market price. While I dislike this administration from tip
to tail, there is no particular reason to believe that exporting jobs
is inherently bad.
What IS inherently bad is when government uses its
considerable force to *distort* the value of labor, say, for example,
preserving the compensation of UAW auto workers while the rest of us
experience a diminishing real incomes. Markets work, fiddling with tehm
does not.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
> I find it funny that those who say that voter fraud is rampant never seem
> to be able to get a link to established facts. At least not recent,
> documented facts. I have heard the Mayor Daley etc jokes.
>
You have obviously been unaware of ACORN and their Voter Registration
antics of the last few elections ...
I lived in Chicago for 30 years ... believe me ... the Mayor Daley
comments ARE NOT JOKES !!! Ask ANY retired City Employee about their
feelings ... most will tell you that, at least now they can vote their
values ... NOT for the Demoncrats just to keep a job.
--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
fools that made him their prince".
On 8/13/2012 12:04 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 8/12/2012 8:59 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> How about this one instead:
>>>
>>> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-lacey-act-protectionism-through-criminalization/
>>>
>> http://www.science20.com/science_20/gibson_guitars_and_lacey_act_misused-82210
>>
>>
> Imagine that - the Obama administration, in the face of chronic high
> unemployment, is telling a U.S. manufacturer to export jobs to India.
Obama wants to be the "NEW World" leader. He has to be concerned about
unemployment in other countries if he wants their vote. He has already
suckered the lefties here into voting for him here, mission accomplished.
On 08/13/2012 08:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:14:48 -0500, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 08/13/2012 12:04 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 8/12/2012 8:59 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> How about this one instead:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-lacey-act-protectionism-through-criminalization/
>>>> http://www.science20.com/science_20/gibson_guitars_and_lacey_act_misused-82210
>>>>
>>> Imagine that - the Obama administration, in the face of chronic high unemployment, is telling a U.S. manufacturer to export jobs to India.
>>
>> I hate to tell you this, but trade is good for everyone involved and labor
>> is like any other good or service that can be bought and sold - it has a
>> natural market price. While I dislike this administration from tip
>> to tail, there is no particular reason to believe that exporting jobs
>> is inherently bad.
>>
>> What IS inherently bad is when government uses its
>> considerable force to *distort* the value of labor, say, for example,
>> preserving the compensation of UAW auto workers while the rest of us
>> experience a diminishing real incomes. Markets work, fiddling with tehm
>> does not.
>
> You don't think that suggesting that an employer export jobs with the threat
> of imprisonment isn't a distortion the labor market?
>
>
I am not suggesting that at all because, obviously, it is a distortion.
But why should this surprise anyone? Every special interest group
in the country goes trotting off to get special treatment. In this
case, the tree huggers won one...
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 08/10/2012 04:35 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/federal-pay-advantage-narrows/
>>
>> What does this have to do with the Subject line?
>>
>
> Sorry Mike, I had a cut-and-paste malfunction.
>
> How about this one instead:
>
> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-lacey-act-protectionism-through-criminalization/
Ahhhhh - that makes more sense Tim. Thanks for the link.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 08/10/2012 04:35 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/federal-pay-advantage-narrows/
>
> What does this have to do with the Subject line?
>
Sorry Mike, I had a cut-and-paste malfunction.
How about this one instead:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-lacey-act-protectionism-through-criminalization/
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 14 Aug 2012 15:39:59 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/13/2012 2:31 PM, Han wrote:
>>
>>> I find it funny that those who say that voter fraud is rampant never
>>> seem to be able to get a link to established facts.
>>
>> Your kidding, or you get all your info from the government controlled
>> media (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NY Times etc.)
>>
>>> At least not recent,
>>> documented facts. I have heard the Mayor Daley etc jokes.
>>
>> Voter fraud is no joke, it got Franken elected to the Minnesota Senate
>> and ergo socialized medicine foisted on all of the US.
>>
>> Please read this and you may be enlightened to why you don't get any
>> "established facts". It is difficult to establish "facts" if you
>> can't get the wolves to investigate their own duplicity. The facts
>> that are "established" as in court convictions are not reported much
>> in the lame stream media.
>>
>> Any doubts you may have regarding rampant voter fraud should be erased
>> when you observe how ridiculously hard the crooks fight any attempt to
>> enact common sense election law reforms to ensure that our election
>> system is secure, accurate and transparent.
>
>If voter fraud is so rampant, surely you can find some convictions ...
You know, Han, there is this thing called "Google" that you could use to find
such information.
http://specfriggintacular.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/democrats-arrested-andor-convicted-of-voter-fraud/
That aside, did you even read what he wrote? How can you claim an honest
election when there are more "votes" counted than there are registered voters?
When there are dead people voting. Get real, Han.
On 08/17/2012 09:02 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Dave <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> You're taking this too personally Mike. Larry didn't attack people
>> like you who have been caught in the unemployment crunch. What he said
>> could easily apply to many other areas of consumerism.
>>
>> In defense of Larry's statement about people living above their means,
>> it's evidenced in one respect by people who have outlandish credit
>> card debt. That segment of people living above their means is rampant.
>
> Although, thanks to the new credit card rules instituted in the last
> couple of years, the number of credit card bankruptcies has dropped
> precipitously. CC issuers/banks profits have gone up. So, the
> regulations that were so bemoaned by the banks and the right have been good for both
> sides - the consumer wins (less debt) and the banks win (more profit).
>
Just one teensy problem with your theory: These laws have caused people to
borrow less and thereby tremendously slow down GDP growth. 2/3 of the
US economy alone is consumer spending. So - as usual - the cure was worse than
the disease. The cure was never needed in the first place. Financial institutions,
auto makers, and the guy next door lying on his mortgage application so he can
get into the home speculation business would all self-correct if they knew there
was no tax money to save them from their own stupidities via bailouts. No regulation
was needed. All that was needed was ... nothing ... allowing economic feedback to do
its job.
But we cannot have that, now, can we? It would have prevented the Hoax And Shame
administration from buying votes ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:02:38 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> That theory falls apart in places like Iowa, where after raiding a
>> meat packaging plant (Hormel?), they had *no* problem hiring locals
>> at the same wage.
>
>That may be true - but that is where each of our own perspectives can fail
>us. We see or know about things local to us, or we see or hear about
>one-off situations, and then we try to apply them universally. We're all
>probably somewhat guilty of that to a degree. I don't think that the Iowa
>meat packing plant is all that representative of the unemployment situation
>across the country though.
There are two issues here. Illegals and unemployment. They're pretty much
separate issues, except that in this case a working illegal is a non-working
citizen. It's not unique and shouldn't be tolerated.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:56:27 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:56:44 +0000, Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> My point is that many
>>>> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are
>>>> paid insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make
>>>> everything more expensive. You may or may not agree, but my
>>>> opinion is that more income equality would benefit our society.
>>>
>>> I've occasionally wondered if it wouldn't be more equitable to pay
>>> workers based on how well they do a job, not on what the job is.
>>>
>>
>> Have you not ever experienced that in your career? That has been
>> the norm in my career, but I've never worked in a union shop where
>> the opposite prevails.
>
> I think he's saying that the best Wallyworld greeter should be paid
> the same as the best brain surgeon. "Everyone is equal", sort of
> poppycock.
>
>>> There are people who excel in their jobs, whether that be clerks,
>>> engineers, physicians, or dogcatchers. All those jobs are
>>> essential. Maybe the top performers should all be paid the same?
>>
>> Don't understand why you just applied a contradictory principle.
>> Surely there will be differentiators - there always are. Stick with
>> your original thought.
>
> You didn't catch his original thought. No contradiction at all.
Correct - I got twisted up. Your comment above is appropriate - poppycock!
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:02:38 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That theory falls apart in places like Iowa, where after raiding a
>>> meat packaging plant (Hormel?), they had *no* problem hiring locals
>>> at the same wage.
>>
>> That may be true - but that is where each of our own perspectives
>> can fail us. We see or know about things local to us, or we see or
>> hear about one-off situations, and then we try to apply them
>> universally. We're all probably somewhat guilty of that to a
>> degree. I don't think that the Iowa meat packing plant is all that
>> representative of the unemployment situation across the country
>> though.
>
> There are two issues here. Illegals and unemployment. They're
> pretty much separate issues, except that in this case a working
> illegal is a non-working citizen. It's not unique and shouldn't be
> tolerated.
It is easiest for me to come down in agreement on the aspect of being
intollerant of the illegal alien. For me that is an easy decision. I'm not
convinced though, that the non-working citizen would readily move in to take
over those jobs if the illegals were not here. Perhaps over time, but I
just can't see that happening at all quickly.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:09:11 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> The unemployment rate is hurting a lot of people who are very
>> willing to work and are accustomed to doing so. The internet is
>> full of people like you who just spout bullshit because you think
>> way too much of yourself.
>
> You're taking this too personally Mike. Larry didn't attack people
> like you who have been caught in the unemployment crunch. What he said
> could easily apply to many other areas of consumerism.
>
I didn't actually take it personally at all. I used myself as an example,
not because I took personal offense at Larry's comments.
> In defense of Larry's statement about people living above their means,
> it's evidenced in one respect by people who have outlandish credit
> card debt. That segment of people living above their means is rampant.
Yes it is, and that is one segment of society - and it is not the only
segment of society affected by this economy. There is another segment of
our society that lived far more diligent lives (as I tried to point out by
using myself as the example), and who are suffering losses currently, as
they never have. We haven't experienced that, but plenty are.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:28:25 -0400, Jack <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 8/16/2012 2:54 PM, Bill wrote:
>
>> So if there are way more people than jobs. Then a person's worth may be
>> close to negligible because they all want to eat (people who want to eat
>> are competing against one another)?
>
>A persons value is based on what he can produce, not on what he can eat.
What if he is a food taster?
---
Jimbeaux's law:
Keep it in the family,
marry yer couson.
Laissez les bon temps roulez
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>On 08/17/2012 09:02 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Dave <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> You're taking this too personally Mike. Larry didn't attack people
>>> like you who have been caught in the unemployment crunch. What he said
>>> could easily apply to many other areas of consumerism.
>>>
>>> In defense of Larry's statement about people living above their means,
>>> it's evidenced in one respect by people who have outlandish credit
>>> card debt. That segment of people living above their means is rampant.
>>
>> Although, thanks to the new credit card rules instituted in the last
>> couple of years, the number of credit card bankruptcies has dropped
>> precipitously. CC issuers/banks profits have gone up. So, the
>> regulations that were so bemoaned by the banks and the right have been good for both
>> sides - the consumer wins (less debt) and the banks win (more profit).
>>
>
>
>Just one teensy problem with your theory: These laws have caused people to
>borrow less and thereby tremendously slow down GDP growth. 2/3 of the
>US economy alone is consumer spending.
Those laws had absolutely ZERO to do with the slowdown in GDP growth.
scott
On 16 Aug 2012 19:35:54 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> You're missing the point. Unless force it brought to bear to MAKE you
>> take a job, you're always "paid what you're worth" because you are
>> "worth" what the market will bear. If a job is offered at a price,
>> it is because the buyer (employer) values the work more than the money
>> they pay for it. If the seller (you) accepts the job, then you value
>> the money more highly than you do your time to do the work. Everyone
>> wins. You may not be making as much as you would LIKE or THINK you
>> should get, but that doesn't make you "worth" it. Again, this is
>> true as long as no one is pointing a gun at your head.
>
>That is fine in a really free market. I was glad that my boss always
>valued my work and could convince his bosses of it (I was indeed
>convinced). On the other hand, I was taken into the office of the
>division head once and told that it was better to take a 30% cut now that
>portion of the grants had run out. I did, and within a year had managed
>to get another grant. I am not sure whether I could have insisted that
>my salary should remain the same, and that departmental funds should
>cover the shortfall (I heard that might have been the "law"). I was too
>afraid of not getting institutional support for my next grant
>application, which would have been it for my career.
>So a free market may exist for some professions. I am wondering how free
>the market is in actual fact. It isn't for many "trades" that limit to
>union members.
In backward "closed shop states", perhaps.
>Obviously for people in sales of high-faluting medical
>equipment there was a recent collapse as another poster indicated. The
>really good salaries in the pharmaceutical industry are likely also a
>thing of the past. We have had really big discussions, sometimes of
>varying degrees of politeness, whether teachers are paid as deserved, too
>little or grossly too much.
The fact that it's a public union settled that one. ;-)
>Until there is at least a 5% surplus in each profession for an extended
>period of time, it is unlikely that a truly free market develops. The 5%
>figure is taken from what I heard was a healthy vacancy rate for rental
>housing - neither too much nor too little. Obviously for "protected"
>professions such as department heads at universities, unionized jobs and
>others, the extended period of time might be very long.
What's a 5% surplus? Surplus of what?
>Also, when
>companies pay their CEOs more than they pay in taxes, something is amiss,
>I think. Of course someone could make a case, perhaps ...
Utter nonsense. One has *NOTHING* to do with the other.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> So you're saying that *NONE* of the children in that school get an
> education? I'd say it's time to close it down. Here they have a thing
> called "charter schools". Perhaps it's time for a rich Northern state
> like New Jersey to learn from the poor South.
This is the poor North we are talking about. Where the state has taken
some jurisdiction over some school districts.
In Paterson they are called academies. This is what Paterson did, as I
understand it. They closed the school. Then they open the "academies"
(maybe next to a "regular" school) and select from the fired teachers (I
believe just about all were RIF'ed) who will be rehired and get which
kind of kids for which subject. Of course all in the same old building,
with new signs, probably also more administrators.
My SIL did well, some other teachers not so. He seems appreciated by the
alumni who took his lessons to heart. I am confident he teaches math,
manners and demeanor equally well; he is the kind of guy who can wear a
T-shirt declaiming "Sarcasm, just another service we offer".
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 16 Aug 2012 15:25:11 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
<snip>
>>I moved to the US because upon finishing my masters in Holland I got
>>offered a job as a technician in a Harvard lab, with the promise from
>>my Dutch professor (Laurens van Deenen) that if my work was good
>>enough there, I would get a (Dutch) PhD.
>
> Why couldn't you get the same opportunity in Holland?
I was not offered that opportunity in Holland. Maybe I wasn't good
enough, maybe my buddy and I were the only ones who could get "tricked"
into going to Boston.
>>My alternative was compulsory military service (in 1969, there was a
>>draft in Holland). I got a J-1 visa, later
>>converted to a green card by reason of me being indispensable for the
>>lab's work. My wife got an interview with a highly regarded professor
>>at the Mass General Hospital for a technician's job, so we could live
>>in Cambridge, Mass, not the cheapest place on earth. I took the
>>chance because it seemed the way to start a career. I was unemployed
>>for a 3 months (long story), but found a job in New York that I stayed
>>with for 34 years. So yes, I did "fail" at some point, but was
>>lucky/capable enough to get going again. So, one thing led to another,
>>and as many, but not all in similar positions, I stayed in the US, not
>>too far from where my grandchildren live. My son-in-law and
>>daughter-in-law think we might the right choice, did and do the right
>>things. Now I got pertussis and have to overcome that cough ...
>
> I don't need your life's story. OTOH, I don't understand how you can
> come here because the opportunities are better and turn around and
> want everything that crushed the opportunities where you're from.
It was an opportunity that I couldn't refuse, as I felt it. I am
relating my ideas and feelings, because they are different from some of
the feelings and ideas others here have, and because it is always good to
discuss those and perhaps open minds to different ways of doing things.
No judgement to better or worse, just different. And yes, while Holland
is doing very well in the EU today and there are many opportunities
there, at the few times I could have made a switch from here to there,
the opportunities weren't there. So it was better to try in a country of
300 million than in a country of 15 million.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Hmm, the original immigration bill, 535, was introduced in 2/2011, 13
> months before. Gambling obviously didn't pay and I don't have any
> sympathy whatsoever for the farmers for that self-inflicted injury.
I'm not in favor of illegal immigration, but I do have much more sympathy
for the workers that fled the state(s) where these laws were passed than
for the farmers. I also sympathize with whoever had to pay more for their
food as a consequence.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:02:38 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That theory falls apart in places like Iowa, where after raiding a
>>>> meat packaging plant (Hormel?), they had *no* problem hiring locals
>>>> at the same wage.
>>>
>>> That may be true - but that is where each of our own perspectives
>>> can fail us. We see or know about things local to us, or we see or
>>> hear about one-off situations, and then we try to apply them
>>> universally. We're all probably somewhat guilty of that to a
>>> degree. I don't think that the Iowa meat packing plant is all that
>>> representative of the unemployment situation across the country
>>> though.
>>
>> There are two issues here. Illegals and unemployment. They're
>> pretty much separate issues, except that in this case a working
>> illegal is a non-working citizen. It's not unique and shouldn't be
>> tolerated.
>
> It is easiest for me to come down in agreement on the aspect of being
> intollerant of the illegal alien. For me that is an easy decision.
> I'm not convinced though, that the non-working citizen would readily
> move in to take over those jobs if the illegals were not here.
> Perhaps over time, but I just can't see that happening at all quickly.
I agree. I just don't see a 50+ year-old out of work plumber take over
the job of a 25 yo tomatopicker. Although unemployment among the young
there is very high too ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
[email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Although, thanks to the new credit card rules instituted in the last
> couple of years, the number of credit card bankruptcies has dropped
> precipitously. CC issuers/banks profits have gone up. So, the
> regulations that were so bemoaned by the banks and the right have been
> good for both sides - the consumer wins (less debt) and the banks win
> (more profit).
I have always thought of a credit card as a means of paying for something
the easy way. It never entered my mind to donate 15-20% or more to a bank.
So I pay in full, every month. And sometimes I dip a little into my
savings to do so, but that gets paid back soon. And I do harass the bank
for bad policies. Ask the nice lady mananger at the local Chase.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:28:25 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>It's why minimum wage laws are asinine, unneeded and counter productive.
>They, like corporate taxes, are a political hoax, perpetuated on a
>dimwitted public.
As usual, you're the dimwit here. You don't have any idea you're
talking about. One reason why many unions proliferated in the first
place was because the average worker was being taken advantage of by
business owners. Admittedly, many unions these days take advantage of
businesses, but they're on the way out. The pendulum has swung in the
opposite direction.
History, especially US employee history, is absolutely rife with
examples of companies taking advantage of their workers. The fact is,
there's any number of people who will take advantage of others if the
option presents itself and businesses are no exception.
Those 'minimum wage laws' that you put down are in place to prevent
taking advantage of workers.
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:08:05 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> It'll hurt, with millions losing their jobs, but we need to shear off
>> all the unnecessary governmental divisions NOW. Duplication is really
>> rampant when as many as 30 agencies cover the same tasks. I don't
>> even want to hear about deficits when they can be immediately reversed
>> by cutting the minions who spend them. I want to see the US -debt-
>> start going down and down in my lifetime, please!
>
>It would probably bother you to know that a school district in CA (I
>think) that borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars, on a long term
>load that they will not and cannot (as there are no prepay provisions)
>make the FIRST payment on until 20 years from now! They "snuck it by"
>the voters.
They didn't sneak anything by. Those taxpayers will never pay the note and
they don't care if their children do or not. The can can always be kicked.
Until it can't.
On 16 Aug 2012 15:25:11 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 16 Aug 2012 11:27:21 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
<trying something unique - snipping>
>>>> That's just it. Unemployment isn't running out. Some people have
>>>> been on it for over three years, Han! I think that after whatever
>>>> the initial run is (I think it was 13 weeks when I last used it,
>>>> back in the '70s) and the unemployed person hasn't found work, they
>>>> should be forced to take whatever job IS available in their town, at
>>>> their unemployment office. If the wages are less than their
>>>> unemployment check (usually for very highly paid people), maybe
>>>> cover the difference? But the unemployment office isn't forcing
>>>> anything. That should change. Forcing unearned money on people
>>>> isn't good for anyone involved: Not the worker, not the EDD office,
>>>> and not the taxpayers.
>>>
>>>I'm not familiar with all the laws about unemployment, especially
>>>since they seem to change often in terms of time periods covered. The
>>>problem is not unemployment compensation in general, but the way the
>>>US (in general) fails to generate employment and educational
>>>opportunities,
>>
>> Absolute nonsense. Everyone is offered an education, some several
>> times. Because they choose not to participate isn't my problem. It
>> shouldn't be the (federal) government's either.
>
>True, as well as false. My son-in-law teaches high school math in
>Paterson, NJ (read ghetto school). He delights in the observation he is
>making a difference there. He also is shown daily the deficiencies of
>the local school system (Paterson isn't exactly an example of how to
>educate kids), the indifference of parents, as well as the (lack of)
>culture among the kids. So, yes, if you are gung-ho to get educated AND
>get a committed mentor, you can get educated anywhere in the US. But it
>is really tough in some environments.
So you're saying that *NONE* of the children in that school get an education?
I'd say it's time to close it down. Here they have a thing called "charter
schools". Perhaps it's time for a rich Northern state like New Jersey to
learn from the poor South.
>>>especially when the economy turns sour. I think that covering the
>>>difference between previous high wages and the lower wages in current
>>>opportunities has been considered in some places.
>>
>> That's absurd. Why the hell would I work at a high-stress job if the
>> government (you) is going to pay me to loaf?
>
>I wasn't loafing, and the high-stress job I had, I eventually ditched.
>Before that, though, I saw the high-stress job as a challenge, plus I was
>paid enough to live. I was able to buy my first home, and now have
>little debt on that home left. On the salary I made last, it would be
>really, really tough to buy this house now with just a meager deposit.
Were we talking about *you*? I missed that part. Hell, I'll take a job
greeting at Wallyworld if they'll pay me what I'm making now, complete with
retirement and bennies. I could have stayed home with my wife last weekend
and wouldn't have had to work every night this week. ...AND paid the bills.
Kewl! I may like this Democrat thing. BTW, who pays for it all? John Gault?
>>>But that can get dicey
>>>very fast, especially in the middle income ranges. Example: Your
>>>previous job had generous benefits and pension arrangements, but you
>>>were RIF'ed. There is a new job somewhere else, but at 60% of your
>>>previous wages, with less benefits and pension arrangements. If you
>>>do take that, not only will you have to really limit your expenditures
>>>(including probably selling your house at a moment it isn't
>>>advantageous), but your resume will show that precipitous decrease.
>>>Not good for the next job. Maybe that scenario isn't too important
>>>for farm workers and others, but it is a very important point to a
>>>large portion of currently unemployed middle income people.
>>
>> If you want a life with no risk (but also with no reward), why did you
>> move to the US, Han? Freedom to succeed is also the freedom to fail.
>> You *can't* have one without the other.
>
>I moved to the US because upon finishing my masters in Holland I got
>offered a job as a technician in a Harvard lab, with the promise from my
>Dutch professor (Laurens van Deenen) that if my work was good enough
>there, I would get a (Dutch) PhD.
Why couldn't you get the same opportunity in Holland?
>My alternative was compulsory military service (in 1969, there was a
>draft in Holland). I got a J-1 visa, later
>converted to a green card by reason of me being indispensable for the
>lab's work. My wife got an interview with a highly regarded professor at
>the Mass General Hospital for a technician's job, so we could live in
>Cambridge, Mass, not the cheapest place on earth. I took the chance
>because it seemed the way to start a career. I was unemployed for a 3
>months (long story), but found a job in New York that I stayed with for
>34 years. So yes, I did "fail" at some point, but was lucky/capable
>enough to get going again. So, one thing led to another, and as many, but
>not all in similar positions, I stayed in the US, not too far from where
>my grandchildren live. My son-in-law and daughter-in-law think we might
>the right choice, did and do the right things. Now I got pertussis and
>have to overcome that cough ...
I don't need your life's story. OTOH, I don't understand how you can come
here because the opportunities are better and turn around and want everything
that crushed the opportunities where you're from.
On 16 Aug 2012 15:32:54 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> If people hadn't been living so _far_ above their means in the first
>> place, the reduction wouldn't hurt nearly as bad and wouldn't cause
>> many of them to lose their homes, etc.
>
>Yes, and yes. They believed what were essentially slick second hand car
>salesmen, both with their extravagant homes and mortgages. The
>homeowners and construction workers got punished, but some other equally
>guilty ones didn't. Did you read that the higher-ups in MFGlobal were
>punished? Not criminally, they weren't. And they were in my opinion
>criminally negligent as were many other banking execs, but as my buddy
>the ex-New York banking inspector says, there was plausable denial (my
>words). No provable offenses. As the Germans used to say "Das habe ich
>nicht gewusst".
>
>> I also believe that many, if not most, middle management jobs
>> shouldn't have ever existed, so don't get me started there. ;)
>
>Aw, shucks, really? <grin>.
>
>> It'll hurt, with millions losing their jobs, but we need to shear off
>> all the unnecessary governmental divisions NOW. Duplication is really
>> rampant when as many as 30 agencies cover the same tasks. I don't
>> even want to hear about deficits when they can be immediately reversed
>> by cutting the minions who spend them. I want to see the US -debt-
>> start going down and down in my lifetime, please!
>
>I'm with you there. But that is a job for Congress. And you know what?
>I'm afraid it'll never happen.
It will, and it won't be pretty. The corrupt gov't is shoving the
American public toward their critical mass with their daily antics,
and some day soon, 300 million Americans are going to melt down and
do something drastic to change all that corruption. Gunner's Great
Cull is inevitable, don't you think? Perhaps not in his described
form, but a 2nd American Revolution is in the air.
--
All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
-- Anna Quindlen
On 8/17/2012 8:56 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:28:25 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It's why minimum wage laws are asinine, unneeded and counter productive.
>> They, like corporate taxes, are a political hoax, perpetuated on a
>> dimwitted public.
>
> As usual, you're the dimwit here. You don't have any idea you're
> talking about. One reason why many unions proliferated in the first
> place was because the average worker was being taken advantage of by
> business owners. Admittedly, many unions these days take advantage of
> businesses, but they're on the way out. The pendulum has swung in the
> opposite direction.
>
> History, especially US employee history, is absolutely rife with
> examples of companies taking advantage of their workers. The fact is,
> there's any number of people who will take advantage of others if the
> option presents itself and businesses are no exception.
>
> Those 'minimum wage laws' that you put down are in place to prevent
> taking advantage of workers.
>
Yeah, you are the exact dimwit I was mentioning.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:09:11 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>The unemployment rate is hurting a lot of people who are very
>willing to work and are accustomed to doing so. The internet is full of
>people like you who just spout bullshit because you think way too much of
>yourself.
You're taking this too personally Mike. Larry didn't attack people
like you who have been caught in the unemployment crunch. What he said
could easily apply to many other areas of consumerism.
In defense of Larry's statement about people living above their means,
it's evidenced in one respect by people who have outlandish credit
card debt. That segment of people living above their means is rampant.
On 16 Aug 2012 23:59:46 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>> You may or may not agree, but my
>>> opinion is that more income equality would benefit our society.
>>
>> It''s income inequality that has made this the most powerful engine of
>> economic development in the world.
>>
>> Who would try harder for the same money? Who would take a risk?
>>
>> Three things go into making a successful company: capital, labor, and,
>> usually, raw materials. In most businesses, labor is not only the
>> greatest cost, but it is sometimes the easiest to control.
>>
>> A prudent businessman pays his labor force the minimum each is willing
>> to take. In many cases, if he pays them more, they'll simply spend it
>> on drugs or buy a motorcycle and adios.
>
>Eventually, even the riobber barons didn't get away with all of it.
...and that's the way it's *supposed* to work. If they don't pay enough,
someone else will. It's no different than buying veggies. If they're too
expensive you buy fruit.
On 16 Aug 2012 15:26:30 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Jesus, Han. You really -are- a liberal. <sigh> OK, how long did
I said that RE: the links you keep coming up with. Right out of the
Liberal Talking Points book, or whatever they use. ;)
>> farmers (and others who employ illegals) have to comply with laws
>> which were already on the books? How long did they have between the
>> time the bill was introduced and passed? The time frame is likely
>> _years, not just months. Why hadn't they rehired _legal_ replacements
>> during those many months and years, hmm?
>
>This was sprung on them fairly fast. Perhaps they had hoped that the law
>would be overturned and gambled wrong.
Hmm, the original immigration bill, 535, was introduced in 2/2011, 13
months before. Gambling obviously didn't pay and I don't have any
sympathy whatsoever for the farmers for that self-inflicted injury.
--
All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
-- Anna Quindlen
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:56:27 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:56:44 +0000, Han wrote:
>>
>>> My point is that many
>>> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are paid
>>> insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make everything
>>> more expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion is that
>>> more income equality would benefit our society.
>>
>> I've occasionally wondered if it wouldn't be more equitable to pay
>> workers based on how well they do a job, not on what the job is.
>>
>
>Have you not ever experienced that in your career? That has been the norm
>in my career, but I've never worked in a union shop where the opposite
>prevails.
I think he's saying that the best Wallyworld greeter should be paid the same
as the best brain surgeon. "Everyone is equal", sort of poppycock.
>> There are people who excel in their jobs, whether that be clerks,
>> engineers, physicians, or dogcatchers. All those jobs are essential.
>> Maybe the top performers should all be paid the same?
>
>Don't understand why you just applied a contradictory principle. Surely
>there will be differentiators - there always are. Stick with your original
>thought.
You didn't catch his original thought. No contradiction at all.
>>
>> Yeah, I know - it's a utopian fantasy :-).
>
>No - it is the way that the commercial world works in many areas of
>employment.
Read what he wrote again.
On 16 Aug 2012 15:26:30 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Jesus, Han. You really -are- a liberal. <sigh> OK, how long did
>> farmers (and others who employ illegals) have to comply with laws
>> which were already on the books? How long did they have between the
>> time the bill was introduced and passed? The time frame is likely
>> _years, not just months. Why hadn't they rehired _legal_ replacements
>> during those many months and years, hmm?
>
>This was sprung on them fairly fast. Perhaps they had hoped that the law
>would be overturned and gambled wrong.
That's a lie. Governments don't do *anything* fast and this was no exception.
On 08/17/2012 07:56 AM, Dave wrote:
> History, especially US employee history, is absolutely rife with
> examples of companies taking advantage of their workers.
This is absurd. Unless someone FORCES you to work for them, how
on earth are they "taking advantage" of you? You are the seller
(of labor), the employer is the buyer. Unless one of the two
parties is acting unethically - say the seller doesn't do the work
they're being paid for or the buyer doesn't pay them for work already
done - no one is getting screwed.
It is not taking advantage of anyone to pay them the minimum they
will accept to do the job. For instance, I have my own consulting
business. Rates today are less than half of what they were even
a decade ago. Why? Because the economy is in the tank and there is -
relatively speaking - a far greater supply of people like me than
there is demand. Am I getting screwed when I sell my time for half
of what I used to get? No. I am entering into a transaction of
trade voluntarily under the prevailing market conditions. When
The Worst President In 100 Years is finally kicked out of office,
the economy will start to heal and hourly rates will rise. Will I
then be screwing the buyer, according to your worldview?
You - and people that think like you - need to go start a business
and hire employees - enough employees to have the many lunatic labor
laws kick in. It's the only way you'll get how desperately wrong
you are.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:49:26 -0400, "[email protected]"
>Again, why would I bust my butt to do a difficult (impossible for others,
>even) job when I can be the best Wallyworld greeter in the world without
>breaking a sweat?
Maybe you wouldn't, but some people take satisfaction out of doing a
decent day's work, even if it doesn't pay a decent wage. To many, a
job as a Wallyworld greeter is boring and demeaning and underpaying.
Dave <[email protected]> writes:
>You're taking this too personally Mike. Larry didn't attack people
>like you who have been caught in the unemployment crunch. What he said
>could easily apply to many other areas of consumerism.
>
>In defense of Larry's statement about people living above their means,
>it's evidenced in one respect by people who have outlandish credit
>card debt. That segment of people living above their means is rampant.
Although, thanks to the new credit card rules instituted in the last
couple of years, the number of credit card bankruptcies has dropped
precipitously. CC issuers/banks profits have gone up. So, the
regulations that were so bemoaned by the banks and the right have been good for both
sides - the consumer wins (less debt) and the banks win (more profit).
On 8/15/2012 6:13 AM, Jack wrote:
> On 8/14/2012 7:49 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> It is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal office.
>
> It's a federal crime to break into our country and be here illegally,
> and the Feds ignore that crime as well...
>
I've read the federal statute. It is not a crime to enter the country
illegally. The consequences are all civil, not criminal. For example,
an illegal alien can be deported, but without more cannot be sentenced
to a prison term.
On 8/16/2012 8:42 AM, Jack wrote:
> On 8/15/2012 2:10 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 8/15/2012 6:13 AM, Jack wrote:
>>> On 8/14/2012 7:49 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> It is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal office.
>>>
>>> It's a federal crime to break into our country and be here illegally,
>>> and the Feds ignore that crime as well...
>>>
>
>> I've read the federal statute. It is not a crime to enter the country
>> illegally.
>
> It is illegal (legally prohibited, a crime) to enter the country
> illegally. The first offense is a misdemeanor the first time and no
> jury trial is needed, but is a crime and the criminal is supposed to
> be deported. The feds ignore that crime. The second offense is a
> felony, and the criminal can go to jail.
Please cite the federal statute making it a crime.
>
> The federal government is ignoring most all crimes related to illegal
> entry, and they are ignoring it hoping to garner votes to keep their
> sorry asses in power, the same reason the ignore voter fraud. Obummer
> is not alone, although his audacity is no less than spectacular.
>
> The consequences are all civil, not criminal. For example,
>> an illegal alien can be deported, but without more cannot be sentenced
>> to a prison term.
>
> Yes, some crimes are civil, some are criminal, but are crimes by
> definition.
Nonsense. There's no such thing as a civil, noncriminal crime. If you
disagree, you can prove me wrong by citing a statute as an example. But
you can't because there isn't one.
On 8/16/2012 1:11 PM, Bill wrote:
>
> Doensn't it seems like there is adequate room for a 3rd party--we
> could call them the "Realists"?
>
According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States,
the USA already has at least these 37 political parties:
Republican Party Democrat Party Libertarian Party Green Party
Constitution Party America First Party American Party
American Populist Party American Third Position Party
Americans Elect Party America's Party Christian Liberty Party
Citizens Party of the United States Communist Party of the United
States of America
Freedom Socialist Party Independence Party of America
Independent American Party Jefferson Republican Party Justice Party
Labor Party Modern Whig Party National Socialist Movement
Objectivist Party Party for Socialism and Liberation
Peace and Freedom Party Prohibition Party Raza Unida Party
Reform Party of the United States of America Socialist Action Party
Socialist Alternative Party Socialist Equality Party Socialist
Party USA
Socialist Workers Party United States Pacifist Party
United States Pirate Party Unity Party of America Workers World Party
If you want to form a 38th party and call it the "Realists Party",
nobody's stopping you.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 08/14/2012 03:51 PM, Han wrote:
>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 14 Aug 2012 15:39:59 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>> On 8/13/2012 2:31 PM, Han wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I find it funny that those who say that voter fraud is rampant
>>>>>> never seem to be able to get a link to established facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your kidding, or you get all your info from the government
>>>>> controlled media (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NY Times etc.)
>>>>>
>>>>>> At least not recent,
>>>>>> documented facts. I have heard the Mayor Daley etc jokes.
>
> None of this matters any more. Soros is in charge of counting the
> votes:
>
>
> http://www.dailypaul.com/228915/spanish-company-owned-by-geo-soros-will-count-americas-votes-overseas-in-november
>
>
> Prepare to see a stolen election.
Do yourself a favor - type "scytl & vote" into a google search engine.
Then... read any one, or any number of the search results. Sheese - do
people even check things out anymore?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
>
> When I tried to look up things like that, I found that there were more
> registered voters than eligible voters in some jurisdictions.
> Obviously that is ridiculous, and should be investigated and cleaned
> up. The number of registered voters is usually about twice the
> number of votes cast.
First, ONE fraudulent vote is one too many.
Second, a Google search of "voter+fraud+statistics" yields over 700,000
hits.
It's out there. Whatever the expense and effort, we've got to drive the
number to zero. If it saves one child's life...
No, wait...
That's about guns. Never mind.
As an aside...
Three weeks ago, two Florida election officials deposited a total of 1,100
absentee ballots with the post office. Today is election day in Florida and
the ballots were not delivered until today.
The post office, when contacted, thought the ballots were bulk rate, to be
delivered when convenient (they all had first-class postage).
That's 1,100 people who did not get to vote in today's Florida primary.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2918453/posts
Han wrote:
>
> Yes I think that voter fraud should be rooted out. Seriously.
> Really!
>
> But how to do that? We would need honest and reliable civil servants
> for that, who won't sell a few votes here and there to help the good
> candidates. See where I am going? Perhaps the best way would be to
> implant an RFID into every legal citizen and making sure his/her vote
> gets properly registered. All that socalled privacy and secrecy is
> just show. Let's dispense with that. Right?
Civil servants do not conduct the elections, volunteers do. That is, the
poll workers are either volunteers (GOP primaries) or paid temporary
workers. (Paid by the party in the case of a primary, or by the county or
city in the case of a general election.) And neither civil servants nor poll
workers are responsible for fraudulent votes.
It is very difficult to mess with the returns or ballots after they are
cast. I've worked on ballot security teams and the mantra is "prevent a
fraudulent ballot at all cost" because once a vote is cast, legit or dodgy,
it's virtually impossible to undo it. Only in the case of a "provisional" or
absentee ballot (usually) is it possible to tie a specific vote to a
specific person.
It's not totally impossible for the election headquarters to mess with the
results. When you get a chance, look up "Landslide Lyndon."
Poll workers process each voter by the numbers - you do this, you go there,
etc. If all the workers are Democrats (I'll skip how they are selected),
they are back-stopped by Republican poll-watchers who make sure each step is
followed precisely. The Democrats usually don't bother sending poll watchers
to Republican precincts - they know that Republicans don't do nasty things
at the polling place*.
-----------
* Here's why: Democrats are universally concerned with outcome - the end
justifies the means, hence the vast preponderance of hanky-panky involves
Democrats. Republicans worship process - the means determine the result.
Consider the Republican insistence on picture-ID. They want to perfect the
process, to eliminate any error. The Democrats object because they believe
personal IDs will affect the results adversely. Process vs. results.
I guess my statement "Republicans don't do nasty things at the polling
place" needs some clarification. Consider an example:
In some heavily Democratic precincts, it's common for the Republicans to
hire off-duty police officers to stand, in full uniform, at the entrance to
the polling place with a clipboard. The thought is that 80% or so of the
voters have an outstanding criminal arrest warrant and that any potential
voter, upon seeing the cop, would look down and say "feet, make tracks!"
Is this "nasty"?
Only your hairdresser knows for sure.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 14 Aug 2012 15:39:59 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 8/13/2012 2:31 PM, Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> I find it funny that those who say that voter fraud is rampant
>>>> never seem to be able to get a link to established facts.
>>>
>>> Your kidding, or you get all your info from the government
>>> controlled media (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NY Times etc.)
>>>
>>>> At least not recent,
>>>> documented facts. I have heard the Mayor Daley etc jokes.
>>>
>>> Voter fraud is no joke, it got Franken elected to the Minnesota
>>> Senate and ergo socialized medicine foisted on all of the US.
>>>
>>> Please read this and you may be enlightened to why you don't get any
>>> "established facts". It is difficult to establish "facts" if you
>>> can't get the wolves to investigate their own duplicity. The facts
>>> that are "established" as in court convictions are not reported much
>>> in the lame stream media.
>>>
>>> Any doubts you may have regarding rampant voter fraud should be
>>> erased when you observe how ridiculously hard the crooks fight any
>>> attempt to enact common sense election law reforms to ensure that
>>> our election system is secure, accurate and transparent.
>>
>>If voter fraud is so rampant, surely you can find some convictions ...
>
> You know, Han, there is this thing called "Google" that you could use
> to find such information.
>
> http://specfriggintacular.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/democrats-arrested-a
> ndor-convicted-of-voter-fraud/
Great link, right? Apart from the fact that there are only a few people
listed, out of millions (I hope) that voted, I was not claiming that
there is rampant voter fraud. Let the claimant show the link. That has
been thrown at me, you know. I'll be the first to want to punish a
fraudulent voter. On the other hand, I became a green card holder and
was disappointed I couldn't vote (and didn't). But I thought it a good
idea to try and become a citizen, and was successful (I think in 1984).
> That aside, did you even read what he wrote? How can you claim an
> honest election when there are more "votes" counted than there are
> registered voters? When there are dead people voting. Get real, Han.
When I tried to look up things like that, I found that there were more
registered voters than eligible voters in some jurisdictions. Obviously
that is ridiculous, and should be investigated and cleaned up. The
number of registered voters is usually about twice the number of votes
cast. In Holland there used to be a duty to come to a polling place with
a financial penalty if you didn't (they would have liked to force you to
vote, but they couldn't very well check whether you filled out the paper
form). I remember that from the few times I had to go vote, and it is
detailed here: <http://nlkiest.nl/achtergronden/stemplicht/> Sorry, it's
a Dutch page. In 1970 they dispensed with the duty to come and vote. I
still feel it is a citizen's duty to vote.
As I mentioned before in NJ you can go and sit in the polling place
(after filling out a form and getting approved) and check up on voters
that come walking in. Not that I will go and do it, but a person could.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:03:04 -0500, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 08/16/2012 01:54 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>> On 08/16/2012 09:56 AM, Han wrote:
>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Opinions versus facts. What I say are my opinions. I think I was paid
>>>> what I was worth at most if not all points in my career. I know that
>>>> others in similar positions and with similar capabilities were paid less
>>>> and others more, but that is besides the point. My point is that many
>>>> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are paid
>>>> insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make everything more
>>>> expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion is that more income
>>>> equality would benefit our society.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're missing the point. Unless force it brought to bear to MAKE you
>>> take a job, you're always "paid what you're worth" because you are
>>> "worth" what the market will bear.
>>
>> So if there are way more people than jobs. Then a person's worth may be close to negligible
>
>That's right. This is called the law of supply and demand. All min
>wage laws do is distort economic feedback and prevent new jobs
>from being created.
And eliminate entry level jobs so people never learn how to hold one.
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:51:24 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If people hadn't been living so _far_ above their means in the first
>>> place, the reduction wouldn't hurt nearly as bad and wouldn't cause
>>> many of them to lose their homes, etc.
>>
>> Bullshit and this is where your arrogance really pisses me off Larry. We
>> have never lived above our means, paid our mortgage off early, sent 4 kids
>> through college, contributed to our community and our church - all of our
>> lives. Guess what - unemployment hit me. I don't mind doing whatever I
>> have to do to earn a buck but your bullshit above is nothing more than your
>> pride and arrogance speaking. That is just too damned insulting not to
>> respond to. Maybe you never had anything, so going backwards wasn't a big
>> step. More of America is represented by people like me than the Mcmansion
>> types that are over their heads in debt and those people are hurting from
>> this economy. The unemployment rate is hurting a lot of people who are very
>> willing to work and are accustomed to doing so. The internet is full of
>> people like you who just spout bullshit because you think way too much of
>> yourself.
>
>He is not talking about you Mike.
Nope, I wasn't, but you can certainly understand now why I filtered
the obnoxious fella, eh? LOL!
>There seem to be plenty of people who
>choose to live their lives "in the red". Funny, when things get tougher
>they still take expensive vacations, buy expensive toys, etc.
New cars every year or two, 84" teevees, $400 sneakers and $250 jeans
for the kids, etc.
>The unemployment and shift in the standard of living is the result of a
>leveling-out (rebalancing) of the standard of living between the 3rd
>world countries, who now have many of our old jobs, and ours. It started
>in the 80s (a friend gave me a sort of blow-by-blow account as it
>happened, from his perspective as a Ford employee). Unfortunately I
>don't think we've experienced all of the pain yet.
I don't, either. While the talking heads are saying the economy is
improving, my workload has halved since 2 years ago. People started
to use more of my handyman services a few years ago, when the economy
started the big slide. Now, it appears, they're doing without, waiting
for a better day.
I think next year is going to be worse than the past two, and I'm
shaking over it. The CNC router is another hope I have of additional
income production, hoping I can find the people with money who are
still spending it. Running only two businesses isn't cutting it today.
And at age 59, I'm pretty much -not- on the list of hireables.
--
All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
-- Anna Quindlen
On 08/16/2012 11:51 PM, Bill wrote:
> Are you willing to watch people go hungry in the streets in order to maintain the purity of your religion (S & D)?
There is no example of starvation or famine on any scale in free, democratic,
capitalist nations. Starvation is almost always an artifact of either
political collectivism or personal malignancy (like substance abuse and so forth).
In point of fact, there was never starvation on any scale or people dying in
the streets prior to the inception of min wage laws. These laws are nothing
more than transparent vote buying and do nothing to help the plight of
the underclass. If anything, they make said plight worse.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
>On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:03:04 -0500, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On 08/16/2012 01:54 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>> On 08/16/2012 09:56 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Opinions versus facts. What I say are my opinions. I think I was paid
>>>>> what I was worth at most if not all points in my career. I know that
>>>>> others in similar positions and with similar capabilities were paid less
>>>>> and others more, but that is besides the point. My point is that many
>>>>> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are paid
>>>>> insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make everything more
>>>>> expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion is that more income
>>>>> equality would benefit our society.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're missing the point. Unless force it brought to bear to MAKE you
>>>> take a job, you're always "paid what you're worth" because you are
>>>> "worth" what the market will bear.
>>>
>>> So if there are way more people than jobs. Then a person's worth may be close to negligible
>>
>>That's right. This is called the law of supply and demand. All min
>>wage laws do is distort economic feedback and prevent new jobs
>>from being created.
>
>And eliminate entry level jobs so people never learn how to hold one.
In what bizzare world are you living? Every first job is an "entry level job".
Your blanket statements are less than compelling.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Bill wrote:
>>
>> You'd have to convince me of the societal benefit of having an
>> economy run purely on the basis of supply and demand versus one that
>> provides a little for those that have a lot less than enough. Are you
>> willing to watch people go hungry in the streets in order to maintain
>> the purity of your religion (S & D)?
>>
>
> Of course. Hunger is a great motivator.
>
> I saw this scenario on a blog, which I'll condense and paraphrase.
>
> While working in my front-lawn flower-bed, my very liberal neighbors
> passed by with their 9-year old girl. They stopped to admire the
> flowers and I asked the girl "What do you want to be when you grow
> up?"
>
> "President" she replied.
>
> "Oh," said I, "why?"
>
> "Then I could make sure everybody had food and a home," was her
> heartfelt answer.
>
> "You don't have to become president to do that. Tell you what: I'll
> give you fifty dollars each week to mow my grass and weed the flower
> beds. Then you can take the fifty dollars down to the store and give
> it to somebody that's hungry and homeless."
>
> She thought for a moment, then said: "Why doesn't the homeless person
> work for the fifty dollars himself?"
>
> "Congratulations," I said. "You've just become a conservative."
>
> Her parents became as close to spontaneous human combustion as I've
> personally ever witnessed.
Nice story, and perfectly suited to an able-bodied person of sound mind.
There are others, though. Some homeless are sick, one way or another,
some paid exorbitant rents in house that suddenly blew up. And don't
misunderstand me, I don't think that abovementioned able-bodied person
should be cuddled.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Bill wrote:
>
> You'd have to convince me of the societal benefit of having an economy
> run purely on the basis of supply and demand versus one that provides
> a little for those that have a lot less than enough. Are you willing
> to watch people go hungry in the streets in order to maintain the
> purity of your religion (S & D)?
>
Of course. Hunger is a great motivator.
I saw this scenario on a blog, which I'll condense and paraphrase.
While working in my front-lawn flower-bed, my very liberal neighbors passed
by with their 9-year old girl. They stopped to admire the flowers and I
asked the girl "What do you want to be when you grow up?"
"President" she replied.
"Oh," said I, "why?"
"Then I could make sure everybody had food and a home," was her heartfelt
answer.
"You don't have to become president to do that. Tell you what: I'll give you
fifty dollars each week to mow my grass and weed the flower beds. Then you
can take the fifty dollars down to the store and give it to somebody that's
hungry and homeless."
She thought for a moment, then said: "Why doesn't the homeless person work
for the fifty dollars himself?"
"Congratulations," I said. "You've just become a conservative."
Her parents became as close to spontaneous human combustion as I've
personally ever witnessed.
On 16 Aug 2012 19:39:26 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:56:44 +0000, Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> My point is that many
>>>> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are
>>>> paid insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make
>>>> everything more expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion
>>>> is that more income equality would benefit our society.
>>>
>>>I've occasionally wondered if it wouldn't be more equitable to pay
>>>workers based on how well they do a job, not on what the job is.
>>>
>>>There are people who excel in their jobs, whether that be clerks,
>>>engineers, physicians, or dogcatchers. All those jobs are essential.
>>>Maybe the top performers should all be paid the same?
>>
>> Again, why would I bust my butt to do a difficult (impossible for
>> others, even) job when I can be the best Wallyworld greeter in the
>> world without breaking a sweat?
>>
>>>Yeah, I know - it's a utopian fantasy :-).
>>
>> No, simply a dumb idea. Why do you want the government, or any third
>> party, to get between an employer and employee (both assumed to be
>> adults). Can't we just let employers and employees decide for
>> themselves? ...or is that too much like freedom?
>
>I would like to reward effort and capabilities/knowledge. Not the tricks
>used to get up to a certain level. The Peter Principle has been observed
>... Now do we keep giving Peter "merit" increases (ie increases over the
>change in cost of living)?
Start by passing "right to work laws". Then an outright ban on public
employees unions. You're now over half way there.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:03:04 -0500, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 08/16/2012 01:54 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>> On 08/16/2012 09:56 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Opinions versus facts. What I say are my opinions. I think I was paid
>>>>> what I was worth at most if not all points in my career. I know that
>>>>> others in similar positions and with similar capabilities were paid less
>>>>> and others more, but that is besides the point. My point is that many
>>>>> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are paid
>>>>> insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make everything more
>>>>> expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion is that more income
>>>>> equality would benefit our society.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're missing the point. Unless force it brought to bear to MAKE you
>>>> take a job, you're always "paid what you're worth" because you are
>>>> "worth" what the market will bear.
>>>
>>> So if there are way more people than jobs. Then a person's worth may be close to negligible
>>
>> That's right. This is called the law of supply and demand. All min
>> wage laws do is distort economic feedback and prevent new jobs
>>from being created.
You'd have to convince me of the societal benefit of having an economy
run purely on the basis of supply and demand versus one that provides a
little for those that have a lot less than enough. Are you willing to
watch people go hungry in the streets in order to maintain the purity of
your religion (S & D)?
>
> And eliminate entry level jobs so people never learn how to hold one.
>
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:56:09 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:49:26 -0400, "[email protected]"
>>Again, why would I bust my butt to do a difficult (impossible for others,
>>even) job when I can be the best Wallyworld greeter in the world without
>>breaking a sweat?
>
>Maybe you wouldn't, but some people take satisfaction out of doing a
>decent day's work, even if it doesn't pay a decent wage. To many, a
>job as a Wallyworld greeter is boring and demeaning and underpaying.
Utter nonsense. Sure, I like my job but I'm not there because it's fun. Even
though I like my boss a lot, I'd certainly tell him where to stick it if he
offered me $10/hr. OTOH, I didn't bitch at this week's 58 hours, either.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>>
>> When I tried to look up things like that, I found that there were
>> more registered voters than eligible voters in some jurisdictions.
>> Obviously that is ridiculous, and should be investigated and cleaned
>> up. The number of registered voters is usually about twice the
>> number of votes cast.
>
> First, ONE fraudulent vote is one too many.
>
> Second, a Google search of "voter+fraud+statistics" yields over
> 700,000 hits.
>
> It's out there. Whatever the expense and effort, we've got to drive
> the number to zero. If it saves one child's life...
>
> No, wait...
>
> That's about guns. Never mind.
>
> As an aside...
>
> Three weeks ago, two Florida election officials deposited a total of
> 1,100 absentee ballots with the post office. Today is election day in
> Florida and the ballots were not delivered until today.
>
> The post office, when contacted, thought the ballots were bulk rate,
> to be delivered when convenient (they all had first-class postage).
>
> That's 1,100 people who did not get to vote in today's Florida
> primary.
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2918453/posts
Didn't look at the link, sorry. Wasn't FL contested a few years back
because of "hanging chads" or whatever, that delivered the national
election to Bush?
Yes I think that voter fraud should be rooted out. Seriously. Really!
But how to do that? We would need honest and reliable civil servants for
that, who won't sell a few votes here and there to help the good
candidates. See where I am going? Perhaps the best way would be to
implant an RFID into every legal citizen and making sure his/her vote
gets properly registered. All that socalled privacy and secrecy is just
show. Let's dispense with that. Right?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>>
>> Great link, right? Apart from the fact that there are only a few
>> people listed, out of millions (I hope) that voted, I was not
>> claiming that there is rampant voter fraud. Let the claimant show
>> the link. That has been thrown at me, you know. I'll be the first
>> to want to punish a fraudulent voter. On the other hand, I became a
>> green card holder and was disappointed I couldn't vote (and didn't).
>> But I thought it a good idea to try and become a citizen, and was
>> successful (I think in 1984).
>>
> In some few jurisdictions, you CAN vote for local offices. It is a
> federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal office.
That is correct, and the best way to phrase it. You have to draw the
line somewhere and I agree that green card holders should naturalize
first. And learn real English. It would help. Such as that nice older
lady who didn't understand <erased for privacy at the doctor's office>.
Too many around here who (not that) only speak Russian, Ukranian or
Spanish.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On 8/14/2012 8:05 PM, Han wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>
>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2918453/posts
>>
>> Didn't look at the link, sorry. Wasn't FL contested a few years back
>> because of "hanging chads" or whatever, that delivered the national
>> election to Bush?
>
> Yes, the chads were hanging because the democrats were trying to punch
> too f***ing many fake cards at one time. The voter machine
> manufacturer said the machine was designed for one card at a time, and
> to get hanging chads and dimpled cards, you would have to try punching
> many cards at once. Now the F***ing politicians have gone to
> electronic machines so you don't even know who gets the vote you cast,
> and checking would be impossible.
>
>> Yes I think that voter fraud should be rooted out. Seriously.
>> Really!
>
> So you are for voter ID, right? Most democrats are against voter ID
> even though you can bet they would find a way to get fake voter id's
> out to all the dead, felons, illegals and donald ducks they could
> find. Of course, with electronic voting, I wonder if voting means
> much today as it is.
>
>> But how to do that? We would need honest and reliable civil servants
>> for that, who won't sell a few votes here and there to help the good
>> candidates. See where I am going? Perhaps the best way would be to
>> implant an RFID into every legal citizen and making sure his/her vote
>> gets properly registered. All that socalled privacy and secrecy is
>> just show. Let's dispense with that. Right?
>
> I think the purple thumb thing would work 100% better than what we
> have now. I'd like a finger print thing instead of a voter ID. You
> can bet that ain't happening with the crooks in office now.
Yes, I'd like the purple thumb thing too. Get a free coffee with a
purple thumb at Dunkin Donuts!!
And yes, I'm a flaming liberal, but voter fraud is a really bad thing, so
just for the heck of it, let's eliminate the possibility of voter-level
fraud by instituting an ID requirement that is fool-proof right after the
next election, so in 4 years it will be fully established. Once that is
done, we can go after voting fraud at the counting and higher levels ...
Btw, what about the NY Times editorial today?
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/opinion/overt-discrimination-in-
ohio.html?hp>
For the access impaired, let me know whether you want a pdf.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On 8/14/2012 7:49 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> It is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal office.
>
> It's a federal crime to break into our country and be here illegally,
> and the Feds ignore that crime as well...
Agriculture as we know it would cease if we didn't have illegal aliens
harvesting ... Guess who hires them
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:41:36 -0400, Jack <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> How the hell can a minimum wage worker afford
>>> to buy a $3000 saw stop. Don't you think he deserves full
>>> protection, so lets mandate saw stop sell for no more than a Ryobi?
>>
>> As usual, you take things to the extreme with flights into the
>> ridiculous. The average work needs the ability to get to his job. He
>> does NOT need a SawStop.
>
> That's the kind of thinking that I have a problem with Dave. The
> statement that the average worker does not need something is a
> presumptuous statement. That presumes a level of living upon people. Can't
> agree with that.
Responding to my own reply - I see another aspect of your reply Dave. I do
agree (it this is what you meant) that sufficient work can be accomplished
with a lesser tool. Sometimes the way it comes across in usenet is not so
revealing of the original intent.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:41:36 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
> How the hell can a minimum wage worker afford
>to buy a $3000 saw stop. Don't you think he deserves full protection,
>so lets mandate saw stop sell for no more than a Ryobi?
As usual, you take things to the extreme with flights into the
ridiculous. The average work needs the ability to get to his job. He
does NOT need a SawStop.
On 17 Aug 2012 12:24:36 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 16 Aug 2012 19:48:34 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> So you're saying that *NONE* of the children in that school get an
>>>> education? I'd say it's time to close it down. Here they have a
>>>> thing called "charter schools". Perhaps it's time for a rich
>>>> Northern state like New Jersey to learn from the poor South.
>>>
>>>This is the poor North we are talking about. Where the state has
>>>taken some jurisdiction over some school districts.
>>
>> With your huge taxes, why is it so poor, Han. Could it be because
>> they're PAYING TOO MUCH?
>
>Paterson used to be quite rich, but now is trying to dig out from being a
>failed ghetto. It is rather poor, and has a miserable population.
That's a result, not a cause. Why did it go down so fast?
>>>In Paterson they are called academies. This is what Paterson did, as
>>>I understand it. They closed the school. Then they open the
>>>"academies" (maybe next to a "regular" school) and select from the
>>>fired teachers (I believe just about all were RIF'ed) who will be
>>>rehired and get which kind of kids for which subject. Of course all
>>>in the same old building, with new signs, probably also more
>>>administrators.
>>
>> That sounds like New Jersey. In with the new school - same as the old
>> school. If you find yourself getting in deeper, stop digging!
>
>Yes, it sounds silly to me too, but apparently it is working to a
>surprising extent.
Or someone is pulling the wool over your eyes.
>>>My SIL did well, some other teachers not so. He seems appreciated by
>>>the alumni who took his lessons to heart. I am confident he teaches
>>>math, manners and demeanor equally well; he is the kind of guy who can
>>>wear a T-shirt declaiming "Sarcasm, just another service we offer".
>>
>> He probably has no business working in the public sector.
>
>He was making much more money in the financial sector as chief of email.
>Got out before the place went belly up spectacularly. While his income
>is now a fraction, his pleasure in the work is much, much greater. He
>loves teaching. Almost as much as playing bridge.
He could work somewhere he's appreciated.
On 17 Aug 2012 15:34:12 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 17 Aug 2012 12:32:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Hmm, the original immigration bill, 535, was introduced in 2/2011,
>>>> 13 months before. Gambling obviously didn't pay and I don't have
>>>> any sympathy whatsoever for the farmers for that self-inflicted
>>>> injury.
>>>
>>>I'm not in favor of illegal immigration, but I do have much more
>>>sympathy for the workers that fled the state(s) where these laws were
>>>passed than for the farmers.
>>
>> What the 'ell for, Han? They're unlawfully here! If I were king, I'd
>> deport 'em all today. Let them get in line like you and everyone else
>> did, eh?
>
>If the farmers hadn't employed them they wouldn't have come.
WHAT? The only reason famers _could_ employ them is because they were
here _already_.
>Those
>illegals were permitted to enter by all previous administrations, left
>and right, and encouraged by the economic and political systems.
No, temp workers weren't illegal, and isn't there still a migrant
worker program going? I didn't think that had ever stopped.
>Moreover, I am pretty sure the system is still as leaky as anything.
>There is no way anyone can check where a visitor is now after he/she has
>outstayed their alotted time (even if the visa system would be able to
>easily identify people who overstayed). We would need big changes in
>law, such as national (unforgable) ID's and the ability of some police
>branch or another to stop people willynilly to check ID. Seems out of
>touch with previous or current sensibilities, if not unconstitutional
>(comments welcome). It is now law in all EU countries, even Holland.
WHOA! You're mixing up the legal visa folks with the blatant
illegals. National IDs would probably help, though I hate to admit
leaning that way. But /nothing/ is unforgeable.
>> And your man Obama's scheme of amnesty for illegals just to get more
>> votes is undermining the integrity of the Union. His letting in 80,000
>> Muslim immigrants _ensured_ that there are terrorists in the USA now,
>> with the full blessing of the President of the United States. That
>> says more than I ever could.
>
>Just in case you hadn't noticed, Larry, there is currently a Congress
>that delights in stopping any and all legislation, left, right, whatever.
I'm -not- in agreement with many things the Right does in Congress or
with nearly anything the Left tries to do there. Shrub was a tax and
spend Republican and Obama is outdoing him by 10x.
>These idiots had many opportunities to hammer out a revised, sensible
>immigration policy. The DREAM Act wasn't that bad. The current
Not that bad? From the Wiki: Supporters argue that the Act would not
create an "amnesty program" and would produce a variety of social and
economic benefits, while critics contend that it would reward illegal
immigration and encourage further illegal immigration, inviting fraud
and shielding gang members from deportation.
>/temporary/ work permit program just permits people who were brought here
>before their 16th birthday /and/ are productive (non)citizens with no
>criminal background, to obtain temporary legal status. As for the
>terrorists, the sooner we eliminate all domestic terrorists the better.
>And I have no objection to the NY police infiltrating/monitoring suspect
>organizations.
>
>> I spit on his grandmother's shadow. (Native American curse)
>
>I hadn't thought you capable of senseless hatred. Sorry.
SENSELESS? Please. The man has lied to us from even before Day One.
He is trying to destroy the country from the inside, and he's doing a
pretty good job at it.
>>>I also sympathize with whoever had to pay more for their
>>>food as a consequence.
>>
>> Ditto here.
>>
>> --
>> All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
>> good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
>> -- Anna Quindlen
>
>Act like the saying you quote.
I do, just not in legalities regarding illegal immigrants. And I have
multi-cultural friends, so please don't think me bigoted. Our country
is in turmoil and wasting billions of dollars on illegal aliens is
something we can ill afford right now. Expand legal immigration and
deport illegals. Simple, inexpensive, RIGHT.
--
All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
-- Anna Quindlen
Dave wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:41:36 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>> How the hell can a minimum wage worker afford
>> to buy a $3000 saw stop. Don't you think he deserves full
>> protection, so lets mandate saw stop sell for no more than a Ryobi?
>
> As usual, you take things to the extreme with flights into the
> ridiculous. The average work needs the ability to get to his job. He
> does NOT need a SawStop.
That's the kind of thinking that I have a problem with Dave. The statement
that the average worker does not need something is a presumptuous statement.
That presumes a level of living upon people. Can't agree with that.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> It wouldn't work even if it was a good idea, which I don't think it
>> is. The same First Amendment that gives you a constitutional right
>> to post to newsgroups gives others the right to political speech.
>> People have the constitutional right to support their favored
>> candidates. To abridge that right would require a constitutional
>> amendment (which ain't gonna happen), not a mere statute.
>
> Here, here!
I think you meant "Hear, hear!"
Unless you want the money sent to you...
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 17 Aug 2012 12:24:36 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 16 Aug 2012 19:48:34 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> So you're saying that *NONE* of the children in that school get an
>>>>> education? I'd say it's time to close it down. Here they have a
>>>>> thing called "charter schools". Perhaps it's time for a rich
>>>>> Northern state like New Jersey to learn from the poor South.
>>>>
>>>>This is the poor North we are talking about. Where the state has
>>>>taken some jurisdiction over some school districts.
>>>
>>> With your huge taxes, why is it so poor, Han. Could it be because
>>> they're PAYING TOO MUCH?
>>
>>Paterson used to be quite rich, but now is trying to dig out from
>>being a failed ghetto. It is rather poor, and has a miserable
>>population.
>
> That's a result, not a cause. Why did it go down so fast?
Northeast industrial city. Was called Silk City at some point. Water
power started it. There are still the Great Falls of Paterson (77 ft):
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Falls_%28Passaic_River%29>
>>>>In Paterson they are called academies. This is what Paterson did,
>>>>as I understand it. They closed the school. Then they open the
>>>>"academies" (maybe next to a "regular" school) and select from the
>>>>fired teachers (I believe just about all were RIF'ed) who will be
>>>>rehired and get which kind of kids for which subject. Of course all
>>>>in the same old building, with new signs, probably also more
>>>>administrators.
>>>
>>> That sounds like New Jersey. In with the new school - same as the
>>> old school. If you find yourself getting in deeper, stop digging!
>>
>>Yes, it sounds silly to me too, but apparently it is working to a
>>surprising extent.
>
> Or someone is pulling the wool over your eyes.
:)
>>>>My SIL did well, some other teachers not so. He seems appreciated
>>>>by the alumni who took his lessons to heart. I am confident he
>>>>teaches math, manners and demeanor equally well; he is the kind of
>>>>guy who can wear a T-shirt declaiming "Sarcasm, just another service
>>>>we offer".
>>>
>>> He probably has no business working in the public sector.
>>
>>He was making much more money in the financial sector as chief of
>>email. Got out before the place went belly up spectacularly. While
>>his income is now a fraction, his pleasure in the work is much, much
>>greater. He loves teaching. Almost as much as playing bridge.
>
> He could work somewhere he's appreciated.
He is apparently appreciated and he believes in giving back.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> How about not, with fiscal restraint?
?? You mean - How about "not with fiscal restraint"?
Politics without fiscal restraint is only irresponsible. That's my
philosophy. And mind you, if I really want something, I find the means to
get it, or I just pine for it. I don't get it on credit without paying it
off at the end of the cycle.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Dave wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:41:36 -0400, Jack <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> How the hell can a minimum wage worker afford
>>> to buy a $3000 saw stop. Don't you think he deserves full
>>> protection, so lets mandate saw stop sell for no more than a Ryobi?
>>
>> As usual, you take things to the extreme with flights into the
>> ridiculous. The average work needs the ability to get to his job. He
>> does NOT need a SawStop.
>
> Sorry, that's one of the tests of Quality Control Thinking: take an
> idea to its logical extreme and see if the idea is still meaningful.
FAIL! Both ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 17 Aug 2012 15:34:12 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 17 Aug 2012 12:32:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, the original immigration bill, 535, was introduced in 2/2011,
>>>>> 13 months before. Gambling obviously didn't pay and I don't have
>>>>> any sympathy whatsoever for the farmers for that self-inflicted
>>>>> injury.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not in favor of illegal immigration, but I do have much more
>>>>sympathy for the workers that fled the state(s) where these laws
>>>>were passed than for the farmers.
>>>
>>> What the 'ell for, Han? They're unlawfully here! If I were king,
>>> I'd deport 'em all today. Let them get in line like you and
>>> everyone else did, eh?
>>
>>If the farmers hadn't employed them they wouldn't have come.
>
> WHAT? The only reason famers _could_ employ them is because they were
> here _already_.
I don't think they would have come if reports from their friends hadn't
told them of the untold riches they could scoop up here. In other words,
the jobs were waiting for them. Certainly compared to their job
prospects back home. Luckily for all, that has turned around. Now
indeed we need to make illegal entry much more difficult and with bigger
punishment. But perhaps we should be more considerate to those who have
been here peacefully and productively for many years paying taxes
(certainly sales taxes, if not payroll taxes they /should/ get deducted
from their wages). And I believe the kids who we have educated now
should get a chance like in the 2-year deferment of their deportation
Obama has instituted. Two years hence, they should go and get (likely)
preferential treatment in immigration. They really know our customs .
>>Those
>>illegals were permitted to enter by all previous administrations, left
>>and right, and encouraged by the economic and political systems.
>
> No, temp workers weren't illegal, and isn't there still a migrant
> worker program going? I didn't think that had ever stopped.
I'm not talking about legal temp workers, but about the extras that came
uninvited by government, but scooped up by companies in need of low cost
workers.
>>Moreover, I am pretty sure the system is still as leaky as anything.
>>There is no way anyone can check where a visitor is now after he/she
>>has outstayed their alotted time (even if the visa system would be
>>able to easily identify people who overstayed). We would need big
>>changes in law, such as national (unforgable) ID's and the ability of
>>some police branch or another to stop people willynilly to check ID.
>>Seems out of touch with previous or current sensibilities, if not
>>unconstitutional (comments welcome). It is now law in all EU
>>countries, even Holland.
>
> WHOA! You're mixing up the legal visa folks with the blatant
> illegals. National IDs would probably help, though I hate to admit
> leaning that way. But /nothing/ is unforgeable.
Great, we agree. Personally I have nothing against national IDs, just am
fearful of (whatever branch here) police officers. My passport was once
a bit crumpled and an immigration officer told me she just could put me
in an office and forget about me, while she pretended to find out whether
I had a valid passport. One of many examples where innocent until proven
guilty is not applicable (perhaps rightly so).
>>> And your man Obama's scheme of amnesty for illegals just to get more
>>> votes is undermining the integrity of the Union. His letting in
>>> 80,000 Muslim immigrants _ensured_ that there are terrorists in the
>>> USA now, with the full blessing of the President of the United
>>> States. That says more than I ever could.
>>
>>Just in case you hadn't noticed, Larry, there is currently a Congress
>>that delights in stopping any and all legislation, left, right,
>>whatever.
>
> I'm -not- in agreement with many things the Right does in Congress or
> with nearly anything the Left tries to do there. Shrub was a tax and
> spend Republican and Obama is outdoing him by 10x.
Obama has reduced expenditures in each year. And reduced extent of the
yearly deficit.
>>These idiots had many opportunities to hammer out a revised, sensible
>>immigration policy. The DREAM Act wasn't that bad. The current
>
> Not that bad? From the Wiki: Supporters argue that the Act would not
> create an "amnesty program" and would produce a variety of social and
> economic benefits, while critics contend that it would reward illegal
> immigration and encourage further illegal immigration, inviting fraud
> and shielding gang members from deportation.
You have to have a clean record to be able to apply. Here are all the
rules. I am supposing they will be followed.
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/7ksa6of>
I suppose a gang member with a clean record is not a gang meber, legally.
>>/temporary/ work permit program just permits people who were brought
>>here before their 16th birthday /and/ are productive (non)citizens
>>with no criminal background, to obtain temporary legal status. As for
>>the terrorists, the sooner we eliminate all domestic terrorists the
>>better. And I have no objection to the NY police
>>infiltrating/monitoring suspect organizations.
>>
>>> I spit on his grandmother's shadow. (Native American curse)
>>
>>I hadn't thought you capable of senseless hatred. Sorry.
>
> SENSELESS? Please. The man has lied to us from even before Day One.
> He is trying to destroy the country from the inside, and he's doing a
> pretty good job at it.
Well, speaking for myself, he could have done a better job, but given the
circumstances it is a pretty good job he has done.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 17 Aug 2012 16:49:55 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 17 Aug 2012 15:12:39 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 8/16/2012 3:35 PM, Han wrote:
>>>> Also, when
>>>>> companies pay their CEOs more than they pay in taxes, something is
>>>>> amiss, I think.
>>>>
>>>> Companies don't pay taxes, people do.
>>>
>>>Then companies should not be allowed to make political contributions.
>>
>> Unions are tax exempt. They shouldn't be able to participate in
>> elections, either.
>
>Not without full disclosure. And expres consent of their members.
OK, so you believe that one group of people should be able to make political
contributions but another should not. How positively discriminating of you.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:34:53 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:02:06 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> It is easiest for me to come down in agreement on the aspect of
>>>> being intollerant of the illegal alien. For me that is an easy
>>>> decision. I'm not convinced though, that the non-working citizen
>>>> would readily move in to take over those jobs if the illegals were
>>>> not here. Perhaps over time, but I just can't see that happening
>>>> at all quickly.
>>>
>>> Except that it *DID* happen, and more than once.
>>
>> In our worst of our worst past - that I would agree with. There is
>> a point where desparation overwhelms all other considerations. But
>> - that's not really what we are talking about - is it?
>
> Huh? It was just a couple of years ago. ...and yes, actually, it is.
You'll have to refresh me then, because I do not recall any time since the
great depression that people displaced from "normal" jobs turned to things
like picking crops.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 8/17/2012 9:48 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:41:36 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>> How the hell can a minimum wage worker afford
>> to buy a $3000 saw stop. Don't you think he deserves full protection,
>> so lets mandate saw stop sell for no more than a Ryobi?
>
> As usual, you take things to the extreme with flights into the
> ridiculous.
What's ridiculous is to think government can determine wages or prices
better than the free market.
The average work needs the ability to get to his job. He
> does NOT need a SawStop.
So dimwit, you think a minimum wage worker can get by on a Ryobi saw,
and losing a fing-ee means nothing to you, or are you saying if you make
minimum wage, the government should prevent you from buying a dangerous
saw as opposed to mandating equal access to the saw stop?
Let me put it so [hopefully] even a dimwit can understand. If I make
minimum wage $10/hr or $100/hr, Saw Stop will raise the price of their
saw relative to the raise in wages, as everyone wages will rise.
(adding zeros to everyone's freaking money does nothing)
If you want the minimum wage earner to afford an expensive saw, or car,
or anything, you will have to mandate the maximum price of the saw or
car as well. That never ends well and you eventually will be building
walls to keep your fucking sorry ass citizens IN your country rather
than out.
--
Jack
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery..."
- Winston Churchill
On 17 Aug 2012 12:29:26 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 16 Aug 2012 19:57:22 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 16 Aug 2012 15:25:11 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>><snip>
>>>>>I moved to the US because upon finishing my masters in Holland I got
>>>>>offered a job as a technician in a Harvard lab, with the promise
>>>>>from my Dutch professor (Laurens van Deenen) that if my work was
>>>>>good enough there, I would get a (Dutch) PhD.
>>>>
>>>> Why couldn't you get the same opportunity in Holland?
>>>
>>>I was not offered that opportunity in Holland. Maybe I wasn't good
>>>enough, maybe my buddy and I were the only ones who could get
>>>"tricked" into going to Boston.
>>
>> Maybe nothing grew there because they poisoned the soil? ...and you
>> want to do the same here.
>
>Or maybe I wasn't good enough for them. PhD slots were/are fewer there
>than here.
You've said nothing that refutes my assertion.
>>>>>My alternative was compulsory military service (in 1969, there was a
>>>>>draft in Holland). I got a J-1 visa, later
>>>>>converted to a green card by reason of me being indispensable for
>>>>>the lab's work. My wife got an interview with a highly regarded
>>>>>professor at the Mass General Hospital for a technician's job, so we
>>>>>could live in Cambridge, Mass, not the cheapest place on earth. I
>>>>>took the chance because it seemed the way to start a career. I was
>>>>>unemployed for a 3 months (long story), but found a job in New York
>>>>>that I stayed with for 34 years. So yes, I did "fail" at some
>>>>>point, but was lucky/capable enough to get going again. So, one
>>>>>thing led to another, and as many, but not all in similar positions,
>>>>>I stayed in the US, not too far from where my grandchildren live.
>>>>>My son-in-law and daughter-in-law think we might the right choice,
>>>>>did and do the right things. Now I got pertussis and have to
>>>>>overcome that cough ...
>>>>
>>>> I don't need your life's story. OTOH, I don't understand how you
>>>> can come here because the opportunities are better and turn around
>>>> and want everything that crushed the opportunities where you're
>>>> from.
>>>
>>>It was an opportunity that I couldn't refuse, as I felt it. I am
>>>relating my ideas and feelings, because they are different from some
>>>of the feelings and ideas others here have, and because it is always
>>>good to discuss those and perhaps open minds to different ways of
>>>doing things.
>>
>> Socialism is *not* a new idea. It's tired; about ready for death.
>
>You're misusing the term. Social-democratic ideas are fine. Especially
>when combined with fiscal restraint. It's things like the waging of wars
>without paying for them that gets us into what we are now, debt.
Utter nonsense.
>>>No judgement to better or worse, just different. And yes, while
>>>Holland is doing very well in the EU today and there are many
>>>opportunities there, at the few times I could have made a switch from
>>>here to there, the opportunities weren't there. So it was better to
>>>try in a country of 300 million than in a country of 15 million.
>>
>> "The opportunities weren't there" says it all. Sorry, Han, but you're
>> wishing for the same here.
>
>How about a mix of things? A little of this and a little of that. With
>fiscal restraint.
How about not, with fiscal restraint?
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:41:12 -0600, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 8/17/2012 9:10 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Make sure that all contributions go into a kitty. Each kitty is for a
>> certain office. Each kitty is divided up equally between all
>> qualifying office seekers. It all must be spent for the particular
>> election or returned to the kitty for the next election. NOBODY gets
>> specific contributions, NOBODY gets more than any other 'contestant',
>> and NOBODY takes home millions just for trying. It removes the money
>> from the political game. Now _try_ to get that one through CONgress.
>
>It wouldn't work even if it was a good idea, which I don't think it is.
>The same First Amendment that gives you a constitutional right to post
>to newsgroups gives others the right to political speech. People have
>the constitutional right to support their favored candidates. To
>abridge that right would require a constitutional amendment (which ain't
>gonna happen), not a mere statute.
Here, here!
Dave wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:41:36 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>> How the hell can a minimum wage worker afford
>> to buy a $3000 saw stop. Don't you think he deserves full
>> protection, so lets mandate saw stop sell for no more than a Ryobi?
>
> As usual, you take things to the extreme with flights into the
> ridiculous. The average work needs the ability to get to his job. He
> does NOT need a SawStop.
Sorry, that's one of the tests of Quality Control Thinking: take an idea to
its logical extreme and see if the idea is still meaningful.
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:34:53 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:02:06 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>> It is easiest for me to come down in agreement on the aspect of being
>>> intollerant of the illegal alien. For me that is an easy decision.
>>> I'm not convinced though, that the non-working citizen would readily
>>> move in to take over those jobs if the illegals were not here.
>>> Perhaps over time, but I just can't see that happening at all
>>> quickly.
>>
>> Except that it *DID* happen, and more than once.
>
>In our worst of our worst past - that I would agree with. There is a point
>where desparation overwhelms all other considerations. But - that's not
>really what we are talking about - is it?
Huh? It was just a couple of years ago. ...and yes, actually, it is.
Jack wrote:
>
> That's true only because illegals would not be around to take the
> jobs. I could sell cars cheap if I could pay illegals $4.00 an hour
> to build them.
Robots build cars today. At considerably less than $4/hr.
In the case of agriculture, the difference is not between $5/hr and $7.25
(if you insist agricultural workers come under the minimum wage). The
difference is between $5/hr and nothing!
At some point in the wage scale, it is cheaper to do away with much of the
manual labor and emply a (admittedly expensive) machine. Obviously there are
harvesters for wheat and corn, but I've seen harvesters for nuts, tomatoes,
and oranges.
I've seen a machine that automatically washes, bags, and boxes lettuce. In
this instance, stoop workers cut the lettuce and pitch it into the machine,
which is covering 10-12 rows at a time, with the laborers following along
behind.
This lettuce gizmo has to have cut the work, and the amount of labor,
required by 80%.
On 08/14/2012 03:51 PM, Han wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 14 Aug 2012 15:39:59 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 8/13/2012 2:31 PM, Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I find it funny that those who say that voter fraud is rampant
>>>>> never seem to be able to get a link to established facts.
>>>>
>>>> Your kidding, or you get all your info from the government
>>>> controlled media (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NY Times etc.)
>>>>
>>>>> At least not recent,
>>>>> documented facts. I have heard the Mayor Daley etc jokes.
None of this matters any more. Soros is in charge of counting the
votes:
http://www.dailypaul.com/228915/spanish-company-owned-by-geo-soros-will-count-americas-votes-overseas-in-november
Prepare to see a stolen election.
On 17 Aug 2012 12:51:01 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:02:38 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That theory falls apart in places like Iowa, where after raiding a
>>>>> meat packaging plant (Hormel?), they had *no* problem hiring locals
>>>>> at the same wage.
>>>>
>>>> That may be true - but that is where each of our own perspectives
>>>> can fail us. We see or know about things local to us, or we see or
>>>> hear about one-off situations, and then we try to apply them
>>>> universally. We're all probably somewhat guilty of that to a
>>>> degree. I don't think that the Iowa meat packing plant is all that
>>>> representative of the unemployment situation across the country
>>>> though.
>>>
>>> There are two issues here. Illegals and unemployment. They're
>>> pretty much separate issues, except that in this case a working
>>> illegal is a non-working citizen. It's not unique and shouldn't be
>>> tolerated.
>>
>> It is easiest for me to come down in agreement on the aspect of being
>> intollerant of the illegal alien. For me that is an easy decision.
>> I'm not convinced though, that the non-working citizen would readily
>> move in to take over those jobs if the illegals were not here.
>> Perhaps over time, but I just can't see that happening at all quickly.
>
>I agree. I just don't see a 50+ year-old out of work plumber take over
>the job of a 25 yo tomatopicker. Although unemployment among the young
>there is very high too ...
How many of you have been out of work and starving? Think about that
when you guess about what jobs you'd take to stop it. Although you
might not last long on the farm in the sun, you'd at least try it,
wouldn't you, to keep yourself and your family fed?
--
All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
-- Anna Quindlen
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2012 12:51:01 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:02:38 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That theory falls apart in places like Iowa, where after raiding
>>>>>> a meat packaging plant (Hormel?), they had *no* problem hiring
>>>>>> locals at the same wage.
>>>>>
>>>>> That may be true - but that is where each of our own perspectives
>>>>> can fail us. We see or know about things local to us, or we see
>>>>> or hear about one-off situations, and then we try to apply them
>>>>> universally. We're all probably somewhat guilty of that to a
>>>>> degree. I don't think that the Iowa meat packing plant is all
>>>>> that representative of the unemployment situation across the
>>>>> country though.
>>>>
>>>> There are two issues here. Illegals and unemployment. They're
>>>> pretty much separate issues, except that in this case a working
>>>> illegal is a non-working citizen. It's not unique and shouldn't be
>>>> tolerated.
>>>
>>> It is easiest for me to come down in agreement on the aspect of
>>> being intollerant of the illegal alien. For me that is an easy
>>> decision. I'm not convinced though, that the non-working citizen
>>> would readily move in to take over those jobs if the illegals were
>>> not here. Perhaps over time, but I just can't see that happening at
>>> all quickly.
>>
>> I agree. I just don't see a 50+ year-old out of work plumber take
>> over the job of a 25 yo tomatopicker. Although unemployment among
>> the young there is very high too ...
>
> How many of you have been out of work and starving? Think about that
> when you guess about what jobs you'd take to stop it. Although you
> might not last long on the farm in the sun, you'd at least try it,
> wouldn't you, to keep yourself and your family fed?
Out of work - sure. Starving - no. That though, is a lot different from
the opinonated garbage you've posted in this thread. Remember them phrase
"Get off their asses" (or similar)? So Larry - you're the opinionated one
with all of the ideas for what others should do - how was your last day out
in the sun? Pretty easy to tell others that they should do that - isn't it?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 02:39:15 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 23:06:39 -0400, "[email protected]"
>>>Maybe you wouldn't, but some people take satisfaction out of doing a
>>>decent day's work, even if it doesn't pay a decent wage. To many, a
>>>job as a Wallyworld greeter is boring and demeaning and underpaying.
>
>>Utter nonsense. Sure, I like my job but I'm not there because it's fun. Even
>>though I like my boss a lot, I'd certainly tell him where to stick it if he
>>offered me $10/hr. OTOH, I didn't bitch at this week's 58 hours, either.
>
>Not at all surprising at all that it's you posting this reply. You
>whine and complain about everything. Just reinforces your status as an
>asshole.
Good Lord, what an idiot!
Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> You're misguided, Tim. Do some more research about starvation in the
> USA today. It's rampant.
That's just plain silly.
Aside from an occasional insane parent withholding food from a child there
have been no deaths due to starvation in living memory.
There might be some odd sets of hunger, such as having a child go to bed
without supper, but starvation? Absolutely not.
I'll go even further: There has never been a famine in a democracy. There
HAVE been food shortages in some areas (of India for example) caused by
inept governments or transportation woes, but never a legitimate famine.
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> How many of you have been out of work and starving? Think about that
> when you guess about what jobs you'd take to stop it. Although you
> might not last long on the farm in the sun, you'd at least try it,
> wouldn't you, to keep yourself and your family fed?
I'd probably think of moving to a cheaper area and home first. Nothing too
close to this happened to us except once. My wife had to go and find a
better paying job, while I waited on the returns of my resumes. At the
time we were living in a pretty cheap apartment (Cambridgeport, Cambridge,
MA).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:28:01 -0400, "[email protected]"
>If they're capable of work, I have no problem seeing bums starve (they won't).
>If not, charity works.
As usual, your sweeping statements and incredible lack of humanity is
overwhelming.
On 08/17/2012 08:58 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:54:38 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 08/16/2012 11:51 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Are you willing to watch people go hungry in the streets in order to maintain the purity of your religion (S & D)?
>>
>> There is no example of starvation or famine on any scale in free, democratic,
>> capitalist nations. Starvation is almost always an artifact of either
>> political collectivism or personal malignancy (like substance abuse and so forth).
>>
>> In point of fact, there was never starvation on any scale or people dying in
>> the streets prior to the inception of min wage laws. These laws are nothing
>> more than transparent vote buying and do nothing to help the plight of
>> the underclass. If anything, they make said plight worse.
>
> You're misguided, Tim. Do some more research about starvation in the
> USA today. It's rampant.
>
> --
It is not "rampant". There is some increase due to Obamanomics.
It's worrisome because it is affecting people that we never
thought it would, but it is not a some out of control scale
like the left would have you believe. In any case, even if
it were true, the worst possible response would be min wage laws.
I like to inspect Reality to check my premises. Now I know that
anecdotal evidence is not the same thing as a serious scientific
study, but here's what I see pretty much daily working in a very
large city and having traveled all over the US:
- Morbid obesity - not a sign of starvation last I checked.
The lower the socio-economic class, the worse the lard generally
speaking, although that's changing too. Now even the more affluent
are turning into couch buffaloes.
- Lots of street hustlers trying to guilt people into giving them money
but they're not poor, underfed, or starving by any definition. The
worst of them are really high and have problems because of their
substance abuse issues, not because there is no food.
- The supposed downtrodden - all over the country, all ethnic groups -
with expensive shoes, clothes, phones, and other electronics. (Not
to mention jewelry and other bling that does not come cheap.)
There isn't much "starvation". There is certainly what's called
"food insecurity" caused by lots of things. The most fundamental
cause is a lack of low end/entry level jobs. These are not offered
because of the tons of regulatory hoops you have to jump through, so
why bother? Thing like Obamacare create nothing but negative
incentives for businesses because the idiots in D.C. keep trying
to get businesses to pay more and more to bail out the government
from the mess created by the politicians.
I had fun in the 1990s helping create and run a few
businesses. I loved seeing people get jobs and prosper. You know
what? I wouldn't do it now on a bet. I wouldn't start a new business,
and I wouldn't hire anyone. You'd be shocked home many body brokers
are out there offering jobs on a 1099 or corp-to-corp basis that will
not hire anyone as an actual employee.It's just not worth it. We're
becoming a nation of day laborers even at the most highly paid
professional jobs.
I'm a drop in the economic ocean. The Big Money players feel exactly the
same way and THEY are not hiring - they're sitting on their money,
praying the Obama gets kicked out in Nov. The market volumes are way
down right now because the street does not trust this guy (nor should
they). He's attacked the very engine of jobs, GDP growth, and indirectly
tax revenue because ... he's a fool. Is it any wonder people right on
the margin are struggling - most of 'em are not starving, but they're
hurting pretty badly. As an aside, one of the financial guys told me
that if Romney wins, the street is expecting the Dow to be at 15,000
by the end of 2013, but if he loses, things will stay the same as they
are now: stagnant. I dunno if he is right, but that's sounds sensible
to me.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 8/17/2012 7:25 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2012 12:51:01 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:02:38 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That theory falls apart in places like Iowa, where after raiding a
>>>>>> meat packaging plant (Hormel?), they had *no* problem hiring locals
>>>>>> at the same wage.
>>>>>
>>>>> That may be true - but that is where each of our own perspectives
>>>>> can fail us. We see or know about things local to us, or we see or
>>>>> hear about one-off situations, and then we try to apply them
>>>>> universally. We're all probably somewhat guilty of that to a
>>>>> degree. I don't think that the Iowa meat packing plant is all that
>>>>> representative of the unemployment situation across the country
>>>>> though.
>>>>
>>>> There are two issues here. Illegals and unemployment. They're
>>>> pretty much separate issues, except that in this case a working
>>>> illegal is a non-working citizen. It's not unique and shouldn't be
>>>> tolerated.
>>>
>>> It is easiest for me to come down in agreement on the aspect of being
>>> intollerant of the illegal alien. For me that is an easy decision.
>>> I'm not convinced though, that the non-working citizen would readily
>>> move in to take over those jobs if the illegals were not here.
>>> Perhaps over time, but I just can't see that happening at all quickly.
>>
>> I agree. I just don't see a 50+ year-old out of work plumber take over
>> the job of a 25 yo tomatopicker. Although unemployment among the young
>> there is very high too ...
>
> How many of you have been out of work and starving? Think about that
> when you guess about what jobs you'd take to stop it. Although you
> might not last long on the farm in the sun, you'd at least try it,
> wouldn't you, to keep yourself and your family fed?
i think, unfortunately, you'd find that there is a significant
percentage of people who wouldn't.
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:11:14 -0400, "[email protected]"
>You're a leftist kook, but I've always known that.
+1
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:54:38 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 08/16/2012 11:51 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Are you willing to watch people go hungry in the streets in order to maintain the purity of your religion (S & D)?
>
>There is no example of starvation or famine on any scale in free, democratic,
>capitalist nations. Starvation is almost always an artifact of either
>political collectivism or personal malignancy (like substance abuse and so forth).
>
>In point of fact, there was never starvation on any scale or people dying in
>the streets prior to the inception of min wage laws. These laws are nothing
>more than transparent vote buying and do nothing to help the plight of
>the underclass. If anything, they make said plight worse.
You're misguided, Tim. Do some more research about starvation in the
USA today. It's rampant.
--
All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
-- Anna Quindlen
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 02:39:15 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 23:06:39 -0400, "[email protected]"
>>>Maybe you wouldn't, but some people take satisfaction out of doing a
>>>decent day's work, even if it doesn't pay a decent wage. To many, a
>>>job as a Wallyworld greeter is boring and demeaning and underpaying.
>
>>Utter nonsense. Sure, I like my job but I'm not there because it's fun. Even
>>though I like my boss a lot, I'd certainly tell him where to stick it if he
>>offered me $10/hr. OTOH, I didn't bitch at this week's 58 hours, either.
>
>Not at all surprising at all that it's you posting this reply. You
>whine and complain about everything. Just reinforces your status as an
>asshole.
Good Lord, you're a moron.
On 8/14/2012 8:05 PM, Han wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2918453/posts
>
> Didn't look at the link, sorry. Wasn't FL contested a few years back
> because of "hanging chads" or whatever, that delivered the national
> election to Bush?
Yes, the chads were hanging because the democrats were trying to punch
too f***ing many fake cards at one time. The voter machine manufacturer
said the machine was designed for one card at a time, and to get hanging
chads and dimpled cards, you would have to try punching many cards at
once. Now the F***ing politicians have gone to electronic machines so
you don't even know who gets the vote you cast, and checking would be
impossible.
> Yes I think that voter fraud should be rooted out. Seriously. Really!
So you are for voter ID, right? Most democrats are against voter ID
even though you can bet they would find a way to get fake voter id's out
to all the dead, felons, illegals and donald ducks they could find. Of
course, with electronic voting, I wonder if voting means much today as
it is.
> But how to do that? We would need honest and reliable civil servants for
> that, who won't sell a few votes here and there to help the good
> candidates. See where I am going? Perhaps the best way would be to
> implant an RFID into every legal citizen and making sure his/her vote
> gets properly registered. All that socalled privacy and secrecy is just
> show. Let's dispense with that. Right?
I think the purple thumb thing would work 100% better than what we have
now. I'd like a finger print thing instead of a voter ID. You can bet
that ain't happening with the crooks in office now.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 8/14/2012 11:50 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Civil servants do not conduct the elections, volunteers do. That is, the
> poll workers are either volunteers (GOP primaries) or paid temporary
> workers. (Paid by the party in the case of a primary, or by the county or
> city in the case of a general election.) And neither civil servants nor poll
> workers are responsible for fraudulent votes.
The day after the 2004 election, I overheard a good friend of mine
talking to one of her girlfriends about the (Bush) election. She said
she was standing in line to vote and the poll worker checking the
registrations asked the girl in front of her where her mother was. "She
passed last month" was the reply. The poll worker acknowledged sorrow,
and said it's a shame, and gave her her mothers ticked and told her to
vote for her. This was in a black area where 99% vote democratic, and
democrats have run the city since the turn of the century. She seemed
perplexed and amazed that this could go on, and I asked why don't you
report this? She looked at me like I was a tropical fruit, making it
clear things would not go well for her in the land of democratic gang
bangers.
I don't think you could get away with that in my district, but who
knows, the poll workers are mostly old ladies between the ages of 80 and
100...
> It is very difficult to mess with the returns or ballots after they are
> cast.
Thus the wonders of electronic voting. How do they uncover fraud in a
machine? Really, I don't know, and I'm not comfortable with the concept.
I've worked on ballot security teams and the mantra is "prevent a
> fraudulent ballot at all cost" because once a vote is cast, legit or dodgy,
> it's virtually impossible to undo it.
This mantra may be true in most districts, or some districts, but I
guarantee not in all districts.
Read the link I posted to Han (http://tinyurl.com/3dv729h) to get an
idea of how hard it can be to get this stuff looked at. I think to
penalty for voter fraud should be death at best, by tar and feather at
worst...
It is imperative that every single conservative votes in this elections
and overwhelm the fraud. That's what happened in Florida when there
were so many voting against AlGore that the frantic democrats were
leaving hanging chads all over the place trying to punch too many fake
votes at a time...
--
Jack
Got Change: Inconvenient Truth =====> Convenient Lies!
http://jbstein.com
Only in the case of a "provisional" or
> absentee ballot (usually) is it possible to tie a specific vote to a
> specific person.
>
> It's not totally impossible for the election headquarters to mess with the
> results. When you get a chance, look up "Landslide Lyndon."
>
> Poll workers process each voter by the numbers - you do this, you go there,
> etc. If all the workers are Democrats (I'll skip how they are selected),
> they are back-stopped by Republican poll-watchers who make sure each step is
> followed precisely. The Democrats usually don't bother sending poll watchers
> to Republican precincts - they know that Republicans don't do nasty things
> at the polling place*.
>
> -----------
> * Here's why: Democrats are universally concerned with outcome - the end
> justifies the means, hence the vast preponderance of hanky-panky involves
> Democrats. Republicans worship process - the means determine the result.
> Consider the Republican insistence on picture-ID. They want to perfect the
> process, to eliminate any error. The Democrats object because they believe
> personal IDs will affect the results adversely. Process vs. results.
>
> I guess my statement "Republicans don't do nasty things at the polling
> place" needs some clarification. Consider an example:
>
> In some heavily Democratic precincts, it's common for the Republicans to
> hire off-duty police officers to stand, in full uniform, at the entrance to
> the polling place with a clipboard. The thought is that 80% or so of the
> voters have an outstanding criminal arrest warrant and that any potential
> voter, upon seeing the cop, would look down and say "feet, make tracks!"
>
> Is this "nasty"?
>
> Only your hairdresser knows for sure.
>
>
On 8/15/2012 8:51 AM, Han wrote:
> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/14/2012 7:49 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> It is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal office.
>>
>> It's a federal crime to break into our country and be here illegally,
>> and the Feds ignore that crime as well...
>
> Agriculture as we know it would cease if we didn't have illegal aliens
> harvesting ...
That's true only because illegals would not be around to take the jobs.
I could sell cars cheap if I could pay illegals $4.00 an hour to build
them.
Guess who hires them
Whomever it is, they couldn't do it if the Feds didn't ignore current
laws, and our anti-American prez was less anti-Amerikan.
It is patently clear that the Democrats (socialists) want open boarders
so they can get someone to vote for them. They do everything possible
to open our boarders to illegals, then do everything possible to promote
voter fraud, and nothing to stop it.
--
Jack
If it sounds like Marx, acts like Stalin, it's probably Obama
http://jbstein.com
On 8/15/2012 2:10 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 8/15/2012 6:13 AM, Jack wrote:
>> On 8/14/2012 7:49 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> It is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal office.
>>
>> It's a federal crime to break into our country and be here illegally,
>> and the Feds ignore that crime as well...
>>
> I've read the federal statute. It is not a crime to enter the country
> illegally.
It is illegal (legally prohibited, a crime) to enter the country
illegally. The first offense is a misdemeanor the first time and no
jury trial is needed, but is a crime and the criminal is supposed to be
deported. The feds ignore that crime. The second offense is a felony,
and the criminal can go to jail.
The federal government is ignoring most all crimes related to illegal
entry, and they are ignoring it hoping to garner votes to keep their
sorry asses in power, the same reason the ignore voter fraud. Obummer
is not alone, although his audacity is no less than spectacular.
The consequences are all civil, not criminal. For example,
> an illegal alien can be deported, but without more cannot be sentenced
> to a prison term.
Yes, some crimes are civil, some are criminal, but are crimes by definition.
crime
noun
1.
an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the
public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is
legally prohibited.
--
Jack
A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!
http://jbstein.com
Jack wrote:
> It is patently clear that the Democrats (socialists) want open boarders
> so they can get someone to vote for them. They do everything possible
> to open our boarders to illegals, then do everything possible to promote
> voter fraud, and nothing to stop it.
Doensn't it seems like there is adequate room for a 3rd party--we could
call them the "Realists"?
Just Wondering wrote:
> On 8/16/2012 1:11 PM, Bill wrote:
>>
>> Doensn't it seems like there is adequate room for a 3rd party--we
>> could call them the "Realists"?
>>
>
> According to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States,
>
> the USA already has at least these 37 political parties:
>
> Republican Party Democrat Party Libertarian Party Green Party
> Constitution Party America First Party American Party
> American Populist Party American Third Position Party
> Americans Elect Party America's Party Christian Liberty Party
> Citizens Party of the United States Communist Party of the United
> States of America
> Freedom Socialist Party Independence Party of America
> Independent American Party Jefferson Republican Party Justice Party
> Labor Party Modern Whig Party National Socialist Movement
> Objectivist Party Party for Socialism and Liberation
> Peace and Freedom Party Prohibition Party Raza Unida Party
> Reform Party of the United States of America Socialist Action Party
> Socialist Alternative Party Socialist Equality Party Socialist
> Party USA
> Socialist Workers Party United States Pacifist Party
> United States Pirate Party Unity Party of America Workers World Party
>
> If you want to form a 38th party and call it the "Realists Party",
> nobody's stopping you.
I knew there were really more than two, but I did not know there were
37! I think that the main two parties love it when folks go off and
sub-divide (rendering the main two parties more powerful).
Without some change, things could get uglier.
On 8/16/2012 12:33 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> The consequences are all civil, not criminal. For example,
>>> an illegal alien can be deported, but without more cannot be sentenced
>>> to a prison term.
>>
>> Yes, some crimes are civil, some are criminal, but are crimes by
>> definition.
> Nonsense. There's no such thing as a civil, noncriminal crime. If you
> disagree, you can prove me wrong by citing a statute as an example. But
> you can't because there isn't one.
I cited the definition of "crime". If you choose to make up your own
definitions, have at it. I'll cite it again for your edification:
crime
noun
1.
an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the
public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is
legally prohibited.
Entering the country w/o permission is a misdemeanor (crime) the first
offense, and a felony (crime) thereafter.
--
Jack
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong.
http://jbstein.com
On 8/16/2012 3:11 PM, Bill wrote:
> Doensn't it seems like there is adequate room for a 3rd party--we could
> call them the "Realists"?
We have two parties now, one communist/socialist, and one horrifically
liberal. A "realists" party, or libertarian party would simply make it
possible for the communist party to win without a majority. That would
eliminate the need for voter fraud, but I'd prefer to eliminate voter
fraud, hold my nose and vote for the liberal repuglican, and work to
purge Communism from our system.
I would support a third party system though, say a socialist party and a
communist party vs a conservative party. That would work but is not
needed. 70% of the US is conservative so simply eliminating voter fraud
should suffice to flush the socialist out of our lives for a while.
--
Jack
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have".
- Thomas Jefferson
On 8/16/2012 7:26 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>>
>> That's true only because illegals would not be around to take the
>> jobs. I could sell cars cheap if I could pay illegals $4.00 an hour
>> to build them.
>
> Robots build cars today. At considerably less than $4/hr.
Government Motors alone employees 70,000 just in the US, and not one
makes $4/hr. The average wage is far closer to $80/hr than $4/hr. What
GM employees make in China I have no clue.
> At some point in the wage scale, it is cheaper to do away with much of the
> manual labor and emply a (admittedly expensive) machine. Obviously there are
> harvesters for wheat and corn, but I've seen harvesters for nuts, tomatoes,
> and oranges.
Whatever is your point? There is less need for migrant workers at
minimum wage than before machinery or, who needs machinery if you can
illegally pay illegals 10 cents an hour to pick nuts?
--
Jack
To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit
the target
Han wrote:
>
> Great link, right? Apart from the fact that there are only a few
> people listed, out of millions (I hope) that voted, I was not
> claiming that there is rampant voter fraud. Let the claimant show
> the link. That has been thrown at me, you know. I'll be the first
> to want to punish a fraudulent voter. On the other hand, I became a
> green card holder and was disappointed I couldn't vote (and didn't).
> But I thought it a good idea to try and become a citizen, and was
> successful (I think in 1984).
>
In some few jurisdictions, you CAN vote for local offices. It is a federal
crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal office.
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Just Wondering <[email protected]> writes:
>> On 8/17/2012 9:34 AM, Han wrote:
>>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> And your man Obama's scheme of amnesty for illegals just to get
>>>> more votes is undermining the integrity of the Union. His letting
>>>> in 80,000 Muslim immigrants _ensured_ that there are terrorists in
>>>> the USA now, with the full blessing of the President of the United
>>>> States. That says more than I ever could.
>>> Just in case you hadn't noticed, Larry, there is currently a
>>> Congress. . .
>>
>> And it's Congress, not the President, that makes the laws. It's the
>> President's job to enforce the laws that Congress passes. If the
>> President doesn't like a particular law, tough for him, he took an
>> oath to enforce it anyway.
>
> Of course, every president has used the side letter business to
> work around this.
>
> http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm
>
>> The President simply lacks the authority to
>> nullify or waive enforcement of a law on the books. Obama has
>> repeatedly violated his oath of office by refusing to enforce the
>> law as written.
>
> He learned the technique from GWB.
>
Oh geezus... please! Been around more than the past 4 or 5 years? Oh
wait - that was a dig, wasn't it?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 8/17/2012 9:34 AM, Han wrote:
> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> And your man Obama's scheme of amnesty for illegals just to get more
>> votes is undermining the integrity of the Union. His letting in 80,000
>> Muslim immigrants _ensured_ that there are terrorists in the USA now,
>> with the full blessing of the President of the United States. That
>> says more than I ever could.
> Just in case you hadn't noticed, Larry, there is currently a Congress. . .
And it's Congress, not the President, that makes the laws. It's the
President's job to enforce the laws that Congress passes. If the
President doesn't like a particular law, tough for him, he took an oath
to enforce it anyway. The President simply lacks the authority to
nullify or waive enforcement of a law on the books. Obama has
repeatedly violated his oath of office by refusing to enforce the law as
written.
On 8/17/2012 9:10 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> Make sure that all contributions go into a kitty. Each kitty is for a
> certain office. Each kitty is divided up equally between all
> qualifying office seekers. It all must be spent for the particular
> election or returned to the kitty for the next election. NOBODY gets
> specific contributions, NOBODY gets more than any other 'contestant',
> and NOBODY takes home millions just for trying. It removes the money
> from the political game. Now _try_ to get that one through CONgress.
It wouldn't work even if it was a good idea, which I don't think it is.
The same First Amendment that gives you a constitutional right to post
to newsgroups gives others the right to political speech. People have
the constitutional right to support their favored candidates. To
abridge that right would require a constitutional amendment (which ain't
gonna happen), not a mere statute.
On 16 Aug 2012 19:48:34 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> So you're saying that *NONE* of the children in that school get an
>> education? I'd say it's time to close it down. Here they have a thing
>> called "charter schools". Perhaps it's time for a rich Northern state
>> like New Jersey to learn from the poor South.
>
>This is the poor North we are talking about. Where the state has taken
>some jurisdiction over some school districts.
With your huge taxes, why is it so poor, Han. Could it be because they're
PAYING TOO MUCH?
>In Paterson they are called academies. This is what Paterson did, as I
>understand it. They closed the school. Then they open the "academies"
>(maybe next to a "regular" school) and select from the fired teachers (I
>believe just about all were RIF'ed) who will be rehired and get which
>kind of kids for which subject. Of course all in the same old building,
>with new signs, probably also more administrators.
That sounds like New Jersey. In with the new school - same as the old school.
If you find yourself getting in deeper, stop digging!
>My SIL did well, some other teachers not so. He seems appreciated by the
>alumni who took his lessons to heart. I am confident he teaches math,
>manners and demeanor equally well; he is the kind of guy who can wear a
>T-shirt declaiming "Sarcasm, just another service we offer".
He probably has no business working in the public sector.
On 16 Aug 2012 19:57:22 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 16 Aug 2012 15:25:11 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>>I moved to the US because upon finishing my masters in Holland I got
>>>offered a job as a technician in a Harvard lab, with the promise from
>>>my Dutch professor (Laurens van Deenen) that if my work was good
>>>enough there, I would get a (Dutch) PhD.
>>
>> Why couldn't you get the same opportunity in Holland?
>
>I was not offered that opportunity in Holland. Maybe I wasn't good
>enough, maybe my buddy and I were the only ones who could get "tricked"
>into going to Boston.
Maybe nothing grew there because they poisoned the soil? ...and you want to
do the same here.
>>>My alternative was compulsory military service (in 1969, there was a
>>>draft in Holland). I got a J-1 visa, later
>>>converted to a green card by reason of me being indispensable for the
>>>lab's work. My wife got an interview with a highly regarded professor
>>>at the Mass General Hospital for a technician's job, so we could live
>>>in Cambridge, Mass, not the cheapest place on earth. I took the
>>>chance because it seemed the way to start a career. I was unemployed
>>>for a 3 months (long story), but found a job in New York that I stayed
>>>with for 34 years. So yes, I did "fail" at some point, but was
>>>lucky/capable enough to get going again. So, one thing led to another,
>>>and as many, but not all in similar positions, I stayed in the US, not
>>>too far from where my grandchildren live. My son-in-law and
>>>daughter-in-law think we might the right choice, did and do the right
>>>things. Now I got pertussis and have to overcome that cough ...
>>
>> I don't need your life's story. OTOH, I don't understand how you can
>> come here because the opportunities are better and turn around and
>> want everything that crushed the opportunities where you're from.
>
>It was an opportunity that I couldn't refuse, as I felt it. I am
>relating my ideas and feelings, because they are different from some of
>the feelings and ideas others here have, and because it is always good to
>discuss those and perhaps open minds to different ways of doing things.
Socialism is *not* a new idea. It's tired; about ready for death.
>No judgement to better or worse, just different. And yes, while Holland
>is doing very well in the EU today and there are many opportunities
>there, at the few times I could have made a switch from here to there,
>the opportunities weren't there. So it was better to try in a country of
>300 million than in a country of 15 million.
"The opportunities weren't there" says it all. Sorry, Han, but you're wishing
for the same here.
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:01:53 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>This is absurd. Unless someone FORCES you to work for them, how
>on earth are they "taking advantage" of you? You are the seller
>(of labor), the employer is the buyer.
As usual, you're here just to raise shit Daneliuk. A family to
support, bills to pay, rent to pay, whatever, you are essentially
forced to work if you have any morals or responsibility at all.
Got a family Daneliuk? Work to support yourself or them? You don't
have to be forced to do anything, you just have to be responsible.
Obviously, you're not.
Look at the job market you twit. Jobs are not there to switch from
week to week if you don't like the one you're in.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:02:06 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> It is easiest for me to come down in agreement on the aspect of being
>> intollerant of the illegal alien. For me that is an easy decision.
>> I'm not convinced though, that the non-working citizen would readily
>> move in to take over those jobs if the illegals were not here.
>> Perhaps over time, but I just can't see that happening at all
>> quickly.
>
> Except that it *DID* happen, and more than once.
In our worst of our worst past - that I would agree with. There is a point
where desparation overwhelms all other considerations. But - that's not
really what we are talking about - is it?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:03:23 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
>>On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:03:04 -0500, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 08/16/2012 01:54 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>>> On 08/16/2012 09:56 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Opinions versus facts. What I say are my opinions. I think I was paid
>>>>>> what I was worth at most if not all points in my career. I know that
>>>>>> others in similar positions and with similar capabilities were paid less
>>>>>> and others more, but that is besides the point. My point is that many
>>>>>> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are paid
>>>>>> insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make everything more
>>>>>> expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion is that more income
>>>>>> equality would benefit our society.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're missing the point. Unless force it brought to bear to MAKE you
>>>>> take a job, you're always "paid what you're worth" because you are
>>>>> "worth" what the market will bear.
>>>>
>>>> So if there are way more people than jobs. Then a person's worth may be close to negligible
>>>
>>>That's right. This is called the law of supply and demand. All min
>>>wage laws do is distort economic feedback and prevent new jobs
>>>from being created.
>>
>>And eliminate entry level jobs so people never learn how to hold one.
>
>In what bizzare world are you living? Every first job is an "entry level job".
What a stupid statement. I know engineers who's first job was as an engineer.
>Your blanket statements are less than compelling.
You're a leftist kook, but I've always known that.
Just Wondering <[email protected]> writes:
>On 8/17/2012 9:34 AM, Han wrote:
>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> And your man Obama's scheme of amnesty for illegals just to get more
>>> votes is undermining the integrity of the Union. His letting in 80,000
>>> Muslim immigrants _ensured_ that there are terrorists in the USA now,
>>> with the full blessing of the President of the United States. That
>>> says more than I ever could.
>> Just in case you hadn't noticed, Larry, there is currently a Congress. . .
>
>And it's Congress, not the President, that makes the laws. It's the
>President's job to enforce the laws that Congress passes. If the
>President doesn't like a particular law, tough for him, he took an oath
>to enforce it anyway.
Of course, every president has used the side letter business to
work around this.
http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm
> The President simply lacks the authority to
>nullify or waive enforcement of a law on the books. Obama has
>repeatedly violated his oath of office by refusing to enforce the law as
>written.
He learned the technique from GWB.
scott
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 16 Aug 2012 19:48:34 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> So you're saying that *NONE* of the children in that school get an
>>> education? I'd say it's time to close it down. Here they have a
>>> thing called "charter schools". Perhaps it's time for a rich
>>> Northern state like New Jersey to learn from the poor South.
>>
>>This is the poor North we are talking about. Where the state has
>>taken some jurisdiction over some school districts.
>
> With your huge taxes, why is it so poor, Han. Could it be because
> they're PAYING TOO MUCH?
Paterson used to be quite rich, but now is trying to dig out from being a
failed ghetto. It is rather poor, and has a miserable population.
>>In Paterson they are called academies. This is what Paterson did, as
>>I understand it. They closed the school. Then they open the
>>"academies" (maybe next to a "regular" school) and select from the
>>fired teachers (I believe just about all were RIF'ed) who will be
>>rehired and get which kind of kids for which subject. Of course all
>>in the same old building, with new signs, probably also more
>>administrators.
>
> That sounds like New Jersey. In with the new school - same as the old
> school. If you find yourself getting in deeper, stop digging!
Yes, it sounds silly to me too, but apparently it is working to a
surprising extent.
>>My SIL did well, some other teachers not so. He seems appreciated by
>>the alumni who took his lessons to heart. I am confident he teaches
>>math, manners and demeanor equally well; he is the kind of guy who can
>>wear a T-shirt declaiming "Sarcasm, just another service we offer".
>
> He probably has no business working in the public sector.
He was making much more money in the financial sector as chief of email.
Got out before the place went belly up spectacularly. While his income
is now a fraction, his pleasure in the work is much, much greater. He
loves teaching. Almost as much as playing bridge.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 16 Aug 2012 19:57:22 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 16 Aug 2012 15:25:11 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>><snip>
>>>>I moved to the US because upon finishing my masters in Holland I got
>>>>offered a job as a technician in a Harvard lab, with the promise
>>>>from my Dutch professor (Laurens van Deenen) that if my work was
>>>>good enough there, I would get a (Dutch) PhD.
>>>
>>> Why couldn't you get the same opportunity in Holland?
>>
>>I was not offered that opportunity in Holland. Maybe I wasn't good
>>enough, maybe my buddy and I were the only ones who could get
>>"tricked" into going to Boston.
>
> Maybe nothing grew there because they poisoned the soil? ...and you
> want to do the same here.
Or maybe I wasn't good enough for them. PhD slots were/are fewer there
than here.
>>>>My alternative was compulsory military service (in 1969, there was a
>>>>draft in Holland). I got a J-1 visa, later
>>>>converted to a green card by reason of me being indispensable for
>>>>the lab's work. My wife got an interview with a highly regarded
>>>>professor at the Mass General Hospital for a technician's job, so we
>>>>could live in Cambridge, Mass, not the cheapest place on earth. I
>>>>took the chance because it seemed the way to start a career. I was
>>>>unemployed for a 3 months (long story), but found a job in New York
>>>>that I stayed with for 34 years. So yes, I did "fail" at some
>>>>point, but was lucky/capable enough to get going again. So, one
>>>>thing led to another, and as many, but not all in similar positions,
>>>>I stayed in the US, not too far from where my grandchildren live.
>>>>My son-in-law and daughter-in-law think we might the right choice,
>>>>did and do the right things. Now I got pertussis and have to
>>>>overcome that cough ...
>>>
>>> I don't need your life's story. OTOH, I don't understand how you
>>> can come here because the opportunities are better and turn around
>>> and want everything that crushed the opportunities where you're
>>> from.
>>
>>It was an opportunity that I couldn't refuse, as I felt it. I am
>>relating my ideas and feelings, because they are different from some
>>of the feelings and ideas others here have, and because it is always
>>good to discuss those and perhaps open minds to different ways of
>>doing things.
>
> Socialism is *not* a new idea. It's tired; about ready for death.
You're misusing the term. Social-democratic ideas are fine. Especially
when combined with fiscal restraint. It's things like the waging of wars
without paying for them that gets us into what we are now, debt.
>>No judgement to better or worse, just different. And yes, while
>>Holland is doing very well in the EU today and there are many
>>opportunities there, at the few times I could have made a switch from
>>here to there, the opportunities weren't there. So it was better to
>>try in a country of 300 million than in a country of 15 million.
>
> "The opportunities weren't there" says it all. Sorry, Han, but you're
> wishing for the same here.
How about a mix of things? A little of this and a little of that. With
fiscal restraint.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 17 Aug 2012 12:32:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Hmm, the original immigration bill, 535, was introduced in 2/2011,
>>> 13 months before. Gambling obviously didn't pay and I don't have
>>> any sympathy whatsoever for the farmers for that self-inflicted
>>> injury.
>>
>>I'm not in favor of illegal immigration, but I do have much more
>>sympathy for the workers that fled the state(s) where these laws were
>>passed than for the farmers.
>
> What the 'ell for, Han? They're unlawfully here! If I were king, I'd
> deport 'em all today. Let them get in line like you and everyone else
> did, eh?
If the farmers hadn't employed them they wouldn't have come. Those
illegals were permitted to enter by all previous administrations, left
and right, and encouraged by the economic and political systems.
Moreover, I am pretty sure the system is still as leaky as anything.
There is no way anyone can check where a visitor is now after he/she has
outstayed their alotted time (even if the visa system would be able to
easily identify people who overstayed). We would need big changes in
law, such as national (unforgable) ID's and the ability of some police
branch or another to stop people willynilly to check ID. Seems out of
touch with previous or current sensibilities, if not unconstitutional
(comments welcome). It is now law in all EU countries, even Holland.
> And your man Obama's scheme of amnesty for illegals just to get more
> votes is undermining the integrity of the Union. His letting in 80,000
> Muslim immigrants _ensured_ that there are terrorists in the USA now,
> with the full blessing of the President of the United States. That
> says more than I ever could.
Just in case you hadn't noticed, Larry, there is currently a Congress
that delights in stopping any and all legislation, left, right, whatever.
These idiots had many opportunities to hammer out a revised, sensible
immigration policy. The DREAM Act wasn't that bad. The current
/temporary/ work permit program just permits people who were brought here
before their 16th birthday /and/ are productive (non)citizens with no
criminal background, to obtain temporary legal status. As for the
terrorists, the sooner we eliminate all domestic terrorists the better.
And I have no objection to the NY police infiltrating/monitoring suspect
organizations.
> I spit on his grandmother's shadow. (Native American curse)
I hadn't thought you capable of senseless hatred. Sorry.
>>I also sympathize with whoever had to pay more for their
>>food as a consequence.
>
> Ditto here.
>
> --
> All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
> good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
> -- Anna Quindlen
Act like the saying you quote.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 17 Aug 2012 15:12:39 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 8/16/2012 3:35 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Also, when
>>>> companies pay their CEOs more than they pay in taxes, something is
>>>> amiss, I think.
>>>
>>> Companies don't pay taxes, people do.
>>
>>Then companies should not be allowed to make political contributions.
>
> Unions are tax exempt. They shouldn't be able to participate in
> elections, either.
Not without full disclosure. And expres consent of their members.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 17 Aug 2012 15:12:39 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/16/2012 3:35 PM, Han wrote:
>> Also, when
>>> companies pay their CEOs more than they pay in taxes, something is
>>> amiss, I think.
>>
>> Companies don't pay taxes, people do.
>
>Then companies should not be allowed to make political contributions.
Unions are tax exempt. They shouldn't be able to participate in elections,
either.
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:02:06 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:02:38 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That theory falls apart in places like Iowa, where after raiding a
>>>> meat packaging plant (Hormel?), they had *no* problem hiring locals
>>>> at the same wage.
>>>
>>> That may be true - but that is where each of our own perspectives
>>> can fail us. We see or know about things local to us, or we see or
>>> hear about one-off situations, and then we try to apply them
>>> universally. We're all probably somewhat guilty of that to a
>>> degree. I don't think that the Iowa meat packing plant is all that
>>> representative of the unemployment situation across the country
>>> though.
>>
>> There are two issues here. Illegals and unemployment. They're
>> pretty much separate issues, except that in this case a working
>> illegal is a non-working citizen. It's not unique and shouldn't be
>> tolerated.
>
>It is easiest for me to come down in agreement on the aspect of being
>intollerant of the illegal alien. For me that is an easy decision. I'm not
>convinced though, that the non-working citizen would readily move in to take
>over those jobs if the illegals were not here. Perhaps over time, but I
>just can't see that happening at all quickly.
Except that it *DID* happen, and more than once.
On 17 Aug 2012 15:12:39 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/16/2012 3:35 PM, Han wrote:
>> Also, when
>>> companies pay their CEOs more than they pay in taxes, something is
>>> amiss, I think.
>>
>> Companies don't pay taxes, people do.
The Supremes recently confirmed that Corporations are People. Stuff
that in your pipe and smoke it. I still don't want to believe it.
<deep sigh>
>Then companies should not be allowed to make political contributions.
True. But let's fix it better. Make sure that all contributions go
into a kitty. Each kitty is for a certain office. Each kitty is
divided up equally between all qualifying office seekers. It all must
be spent for the particular election or returned to the kitty for the
next election. NOBODY gets specific contributions, NOBODY gets more
than any other 'contestant', and NOBODY takes home millions just for
trying. It removes the money from the political game. Now _try_ to
get that one through CONgress. Just try. Once we get that into
action, we can start working on the power game in D.C.
--
All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
-- Anna Quindlen
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:51:55 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:03:04 -0500, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/16/2012 01:54 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>>> On 08/16/2012 09:56 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Opinions versus facts. What I say are my opinions. I think I was paid
>>>>>> what I was worth at most if not all points in my career. I know that
>>>>>> others in similar positions and with similar capabilities were paid less
>>>>>> and others more, but that is besides the point. My point is that many
>>>>>> people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are paid
>>>>>> insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make everything more
>>>>>> expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion is that more income
>>>>>> equality would benefit our society.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're missing the point. Unless force it brought to bear to MAKE you
>>>>> take a job, you're always "paid what you're worth" because you are
>>>>> "worth" what the market will bear.
>>>>
>>>> So if there are way more people than jobs. Then a person's worth may be close to negligible
>>>
>>> That's right. This is called the law of supply and demand. All min
>>> wage laws do is distort economic feedback and prevent new jobs
>>>from being created.
>
>You'd have to convince me of the societal benefit of having an economy
>run purely on the basis of supply and demand versus one that provides a
>little for those that have a lot less than enough. Are you willing to
>watch people go hungry in the streets in order to maintain the purity of
>your religion (S & D)?
Strawman alert! You assume that people actually live on minimum wage jobs.
These are entry-level jobs, usually held by kids living at home. All minimum
wage laws do is make these jobs disappear. Do you really think it's a good
idea to eliminate entry-level jobs?
If they're capable of work, I have no problem seeing bums starve (they won't).
If not, charity works.
>> And eliminate entry level jobs so people never learn how to hold one.
No answer noted.
On 17 Aug 2012 12:32:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Hmm, the original immigration bill, 535, was introduced in 2/2011, 13
>> months before. Gambling obviously didn't pay and I don't have any
>> sympathy whatsoever for the farmers for that self-inflicted injury.
>
>I'm not in favor of illegal immigration, but I do have much more sympathy
>for the workers that fled the state(s) where these laws were passed than
>for the farmers.
What the 'ell for, Han? They're unlawfully here! If I were king, I'd
deport 'em all today. Let them get in line like you and everyone else
did, eh?
And your man Obama's scheme of amnesty for illegals just to get more
votes is undermining the integrity of the Union. His letting in 80,000
Muslim immigrants _ensured_ that there are terrorists in the USA now,
with the full blessing of the President of the United States. That
says more than I ever could.
I spit on his grandmother's shadow. (Native American curse)
>I also sympathize with whoever had to pay more for their
>food as a consequence.
Ditto here.
--
All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
-- Anna Quindlen
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 23:06:39 -0400, "[email protected]"
>>Maybe you wouldn't, but some people take satisfaction out of doing a
>>decent day's work, even if it doesn't pay a decent wage. To many, a
>>job as a Wallyworld greeter is boring and demeaning and underpaying.
>Utter nonsense. Sure, I like my job but I'm not there because it's fun. Even
>though I like my boss a lot, I'd certainly tell him where to stick it if he
>offered me $10/hr. OTOH, I didn't bitch at this week's 58 hours, either.
Not at all surprising at all that it's you posting this reply. You
whine and complain about everything. Just reinforces your status as an
asshole.
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 18:48:20 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 08/10/2012 04:35 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/federal-pay-advantage-narrows/
>>
>> What does this have to do with the Subject line?
>>
>
>Sorry Mike, I had a cut-and-paste malfunction.
I much prefer wardrobe malfunctions on women. <domg>
>How about this one instead:
>
>http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-lacey-act-protectionism-through-criminalization/
Excellent article.
--
We are always the same age inside.
-- Gertrude Stein