On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:10:48 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 6/9/2012 1:59 AM, Bill wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>> On 06/08/2012 03:00 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>> On 6/8/2012 12:17 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Having taken a lot of economics courses in college I have
>>>>>> voted "R" more times than not, but I have had to slacken my devotion.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are more devoted to whom, the socialists that believe government
>>>>> control is the simple answer to everything?
>>>>
>>>> No. But I would have a difficult time seeing people go hungry. John
>>>> Boener comes across to me as pretty cool (cold). I might be inclined to
>>>> vote for the party that didn't seem like they had to have everything
>>>> their way (remember I used the term "selfish" to describe the language I
>>>> have heard from both parties).
>>>>
>>>> On related ground, are you proud of the skyrocketing costs of medical
>>>> care? Medicare might be a lifesaver.
>>>
>>> Except the O defunded it by a half trillion bucks for his affordable
>>> health care thing.
>>>
>>> In fact, he defunded SS and medicare by 50% for the last year with his
>>> big break on payroll taxes on the individual - not the employers.
>>>
>>> And now, I have several of my health care providers telling me they may
>>> not be able to keep myself and my wife as patients as the cuts to
>>> medicare won't allow them to stay in business as the cuts put them below
>>> the break even line.
>>
>> Let me know when he goes out of business. Seriously. Something may
>> just need to be adjusted to move the break even line (I would suggest
>> that alot of things could probably be adjusted with health care). Health
>> care costs are part of the problem--somewhat explainable by inelastic
>> demand, meaning if you are hurting enough you'll receive services and
>> ask questions later...a recipe for a high bill. Hey and that's pretty
>> much the way hospital billing works, isn't it?
>
>There are two things currently wrong with healthcare in this country:
>
>INSURANCE,
>
>and INSURANCE.
<g> <sigh>
Without insurance, one walks into the doctor's office and pays full
boat. A friend is being billed $22k+ for a 4 hour hospital visit (not
even overnight!) to have her appendix removed. That works out to
nearly six grand an hour. Tell me -that's- insurance's fault.
An oral surgeon charged me $915 for a 14 minute procedure. That's
$3,921.43 per hour. Tell me that's right, and that it's fair.
When I'm king, we'll overhaul the gov't (-75%), the legal system, the
medical system, the penal system, the welfare system, and a few other
things, starting from scratch.
--
A sound mind in a sound body is a short but full description
of a happy state in this world.
-- John Locke
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 18:51:46 -0700, Matt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 6/3/2012 3:23 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And so much alike in another respect. I too will have a hard time
>>> deciding who to vote for, but for me, it's because I just don't see
>>> any real difference between any one of them.
>> -------------------------------------
>> Interesting comment.
>>
>> IMHO, the two parties couldn't be farther apart in their respective
>> ideas.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>>
>Correct - communism on the Left, capitalism on the Right.
Idealistically, they're miles apart.
In practice, though, they're nearly lockstep. They both -say- what you
want to hear then -do- nothing to make any of it happen. (this isn't
always a bad thing) Neither appears to give a damn about our country
or its people.
To start with, we need less government, a line item veto, and a
balanced budget (zero deficit, & start dropping the debt NOW!) without
any unnecessary wars [like the 2 (or is it 4?) we're now in.] And we
need to fix what's wrong with _our_ people and _our_ country before
sending ANY money overseas.
--
Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
-- Thomas Jefferson
On 5/29/2012 11:22 AM, Leon wrote:
> Simply don't vote for anyone you don't like. If you vote for the sake of
> voting, that is part of the problem.
>
> Which would you rather vote for? On these merits only.
>
> A. A Democrat candidate that lies to win and does not do what he said he
> was going to do to improve the country.
>
> Or
>
> B. A Republican candidate that lies to win and does not do what he said
> he was going to do to improve the country.
>
>
> You know that whom ever you vote for will likely fit either description
> above. Voting for either tells the powers that be you are OK with that.
Either that, or vote early, and often ...
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
Bill wrote:
>
> I think the cleverness in the "contest" is that it illustrates a
> willingness to connect with (ordinary) folks.
Your opinion is noted and respected as that - your opinion. Mine - no more
valid, is that he's a politician. Nothing as noble in what you suggest
exists within the being of a politician. My opinion is that he's playing a
sucker card on a sucker public.
>
> IMO, the two parties are so far apart that I will probably have a
> difficult time deciding who to vote for.
And so much alike in another respect. I too will have a hard time deciding
who to vote for, but for me, it's because I just don't see any real
difference between any one of them.
Somebody else said it well - throw out the whole lot of them. Synicism may
be creeping in on me...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 5/29/2012 10:38 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
Snip
>
> Obama's hatred for this county.
>
> Obama's concern for his job over that of millions of those he put out
> of work.
>
> Obama's divisive tactics that have so deeply divided this country.
>
> Obama's total lack of leadership on virtually all issues.
>
> Obama's paybacks to his campaign contributors at taxpayer expense.
>
> Obama's desire to increase all fuel costs to give his green policies
> the slightest chance of being financially competitive especially when
> huge government subsidies (tax dollars) factored in.
>
> Obama's campaign that only points out negatives of his opponent rather
> than pointing out his successes. He could campaign positively about
> his... Nobel Prize and his vacation prowess.
>
> Obama's... Well, I think you get the picture.
Obama has accomplished everything that he has set out to do, as has 99%
of all the other elected officials, past and present.
They got elected and now they are set for life.
Mission Accomplished!
HeyBub wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>>
>> Which would you rather vote for? On these merits only.
>>
>> A. A Democrat candidate that lies to win and does not do what he
>> said he was going to do to improve the country.
>>
>> Or
>>
>> B. A Republican candidate that lies to win and does not do what he
>> said he was going to do to improve the country.
>>
>>
>
> Seemingly, the governor of Wisconsin did, as governor, what he said
> he was going to do. A large number of the voters are really upset
> with a politician that does things like that.
No kidding! Isn't it amazing how many people want to see spending brought
under control, the deficit reduced, and government shrunk, and then you hear
the pissing and moaning start when the programs are cut that either did, or
would have benefitted them! I'm all for those concepts, but with them,
comes the reality that the things people had gotten used to are going to go
away. People are not generally happy about that - even though it's the
mandate they voted in.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think the cleverness in the "contest" is that it illustrates a
>>> willingness to connect with (ordinary) folks.
>>
>> Your opinion is noted and respected as that - your opinion. Mine -
>> no more valid, is that he's a politician. Nothing as noble in what
>> you suggest exists within the being of a politician. My opinion is
>> that he's playing a sucker card on a sucker public.
>
> I'm not sure we're not on the same page. Yes, it is "marketing" or
> politics, whatever you want to call it. I did not mean to imply
> "noble-ness". I used the work "cleverness". I also used the word
> "illustrates", maybe I should have used "suggests" in its place.
>
You did indeed. Sometimes the occurance of a word creates one connotation,
where another intent was intended. Not that we ever see that here...
> Well, good luck with that! ; ) I haven't heard anything from the
> "Wall Street protestors" in a few months... I don't belive they are
> "gone".
For sure - it would take more than a measure of good luck. But - it feels
good to say it once in a while.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Steve Turner wrote:
> On 6/4/2012 9:36 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> To start with, we need less government, a line item veto, and a
>> balanced budget (zero deficit,& start dropping the debt NOW!) without
>> any unnecessary wars [like the 2 (or is it 4?) we're now in.] And we
>> need to fix what's wrong with _our_ people and _our_ country before
>> sending ANY money overseas.
>
> Why anyone of ANY party affiliation would have any problem implementing
> and enforcing the policies you just mentioned is beyond me.
>
That reminds me of something an old colleague used to say: "When
you're up to your ass in alligators its hard to remember that your
original intention was to drain the swamp!"
RE: Subject:
The following is a "Letter to the Editor" that appeared in the local
paper where I grew up.
Don't have a clue who this woman is but it is a sad commentary.
Lew
--------------------------------------
Letters to the editor
Published: May 29, 2012 4:00AM
Can't back party of negativity
Editor:
I cannot bring myself to support a party whose primary goal has been,
since November 2008, the negative goal of making President Obama a
one-term president.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sen-mcconnell-making-obama-a-one-term-president-is-my-single-most-important-political-goal/
The party has forgotten the "jobs and economy" platform, the keystone
in their campaigns. Their most important goal forces obstruction and
opposition, eliminating progress by their refusal to bring proposed
legislation to a vote or by filibustering. They tend to their own
agenda, another abortion bill, the attempt to repeal President Bush's
light bulb bill, and an all-male discussion of contraception. As they
back the elimination of the EPA, they promote an
environment-threatening Canadian pipeline that will be of little or no
benefit this country.
www.roundtree7.com/.../pipeline-jobs-dangers-and-threats-from-big-oil
Strides made by this administration in improving the jobless rate,
economic growth, and weeding out government duplication and waste are
called "baby steps". Yet, immersed in the goal and the "no tax
increase" pledge to Grover Norquist, the oath of office and the
representation of their own constituents are dismissed, and there is
not even enough timely cooperation to avoid numerous threats of
government shutdown.
www.thinkprogress.org/progress-report/the-gops-oath-to-the-one-percent
Back home, bridges and roads need repair, seniors have grave concerns
about survival, schools are closed, teachers laid off, and students
face the threat of unavailable student loans. Raiding the Social
Security fund was easy enough. Facing the debt that thievery created
is a challenge. Deteriorating bridges, frightened seniors, and
under-educated children do not make a strong country. One might wonder
if reducing revenue while funding two wars was the best fiscal policy.
The party supports further tax breaks for "job creators" who failed
for a decade to create jobs with their increased wealth, with the
decreased revenue paid by drastic cuts to vital support to the
neediest Americans and protections that benefit all citizens. The
Catholic Church cares enough about the inequity in this plan to rise
up against it. Will other churches care enough to do the same?
www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/opinion/a-cruel-republican-budget.html
It hurts me to the core that these additional budget cuts would
finance another raise in income to those who need it least. "For unto
whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required." (Luke
12:48b)
Carol Botkin
Orrville
On 06/01/2012 05:28 PM, ChairMan wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 20:37:45 -0500, ChairMan wrote:
>>
>>>> Can everything you say be true? If so, our problems were not actually
>>>> Bush's fault ! We've been lied to !
>>>>
>>>> Makes one want to weep, it surely does.
>>>
>>> if a politicians lips are moving, you're being lied to. some was
>>> definately Bushes fault, but not near the extent people(Bammy) blame him
>>> for
>>
>> His successors will have to go a long way to top Bush's lie that Saddam
>> Hussein was responsible for 9/11. And that Saddam had WMD.
>>
>> Remember Cheney's "mobile biological weapons labs"? Not only were they
>> actually helium (or hydrogen) generators for weather balloons made by a
>> company in Great Britain.
>>
>> I know I won't convince the Obama haters, so I'll quit here.
>>
>> "When Clinton lied, no one died."
>
> tell that to the people that died in the asprin factory clinton bombed
>
>
or the soldiers who died in Somalia (Blackhawk Down) because support
wasn't there.
--
"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
"Mike Marlow" wrote:
> And so much alike in another respect. I too will have a hard time
> deciding who to vote for, but for me, it's because I just don't see
> any real difference between any one of them.
-------------------------------------
Interesting comment.
IMHO, the two parties couldn't be farther apart in their respective
ideas.
Lew
On 6/3/2012 3:23 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>
>
>> And so much alike in another respect. I too will have a hard time
>> deciding who to vote for, but for me, it's because I just don't see
>> any real difference between any one of them.
> -------------------------------------
> Interesting comment.
>
> IMHO, the two parties couldn't be farther apart in their respective
> ideas.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
Correct - communism on the Left, capitalism on the Right.
On 6/3/2012 12:30 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Edward A. Falk wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> ChairMan<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I find this to be very sad on many levels
>> I know, it's totally apalling. Only rich campaign donors should have
>> a chance to sit down with the president, not a bunch of nobody contest
>> winners.
>>
>> And by "apalling", I mean "awesome". Why do you feel there's
>> something wrong with the president coming up with a novel way to
>> let ordinary people get perks normally reserved for the very rich?
> Because it diminishes the incentives to BE rich!
>
Why should anyone think it some great honor to sit down with a
president, any president?
On 6/3/2012 6:20 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> IMO, the two parties are so far apart that I will probably have a
>>> difficult time deciding who to vote for.
>> And so much alike in another respect. I too will have a hard time
>> deciding who to vote for, but for me, it's because I just don't see
>> any real difference between any one of them.
>>
> I, too, regret that my favorite person for the office of president is not
> running. I refer, of course, to myself.
>
> So, I'll go with the closest.
>
> See if this little observation helps you:
>
> Democrats tend to PROVIDE for the general welfare through the TREASURY;
> Republicans tend to PROMOTE the general welfare through the ECONOMY.
>
>
Perhaps the best criteria for choosing a President is to look at who's
in Congress, consider what legislation the Congress is likely to pass,
then decide whether you want a President who will sign that legislation
or veto it.
On 06/04/2012 01:57 AM, Bill wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>
>> Why should anyone think it some great honor to sit down with a
>> president, any president?
>
> Just curious, who would get your great honor as a dinner guest (name
> more than one if you like)? This could be fun (for all).
Albert Einstein (when he was still warm).
Tom Jefferson (in his plotting days)
Chuck Yeager
Ben Franklin (chick magnet)
Any or all of the Apollo 8 astronauts (balls the size of the moon)
--
"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 6/4/2012 2:57 AM, Bill wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>
>> Why should anyone think it some great honor to sit down with a
>> president, any president?
>
> Just curious, who would get your great honor as a dinner guest (name
> more than one if you like)? This could be fun (for all).
The Dalai Lama would certainly be near the top of my list.
On 6/4/2012 3:01 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
> On 6/4/2012 9:36 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> To start with, we need less government, a line item veto, and a
>> balanced budget (zero deficit,& start dropping the debt NOW!) without
>> any unnecessary wars [like the 2 (or is it 4?) we're now in.] And we
>> need to fix what's wrong with _our_ people and _our_ country before
>> sending ANY money overseas.
>
> Why anyone of ANY party affiliation would have any problem
> implementing and enforcing the policies you just mentioned is beyond me.
>
That's obvious. It's about personal power. To accomplish those goals
would require cutting back on entitlement programs. The people who lost
money on the deal would vote against you next election.
Jack wrote:
> You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
> Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and
> free
> enterprise, the Republican party.
----------------------------------------
It's really rather straight forward.
If your taxable income is $250K or more, the Republicans are your
friends.
If your taxable income is less than $250K, the Republicans are not
your friends.
If you are a woman then the Republicans are definitely not your
friends.
Lew
On 06/07/2012 09:34 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>
>> You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
>> Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and
>> free
>> enterprise, the Republican party.
> ----------------------------------------
> It's really rather straight forward.
>
> If your taxable income is $250K or more, the Republicans are your
> friends.
>
> If your taxable income is less than $250K, the Republicans are not
> your friends.
>
> If you are a woman then the Republicans are definitely not your
> friends.
If you are an unborn woman, Dems are definitely not your friend:
http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/delivering-the-male
--
"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 06/08/2012 03:00 PM, Bill wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>> On 6/8/2012 12:17 AM, Bill wrote:
>
>> Having taken a lot of economics courses in college I have
>>> voted "R" more times than not, but I have had to slacken my devotion.
>>
>> So you are more devoted to whom, the socialists that believe government
>> control is the simple answer to everything?
>
> No. But I would have a difficult time seeing people go hungry. John
> Boener comes across to me as pretty cool (cold). I might be inclined to
> vote for the party that didn't seem like they had to have everything
> their way (remember I used the term "selfish" to describe the language I
> have heard from both parties).
>
> On related ground, are you proud of the skyrocketing costs of medical
> care? Medicare might be a lifesaver.
Except the O defunded it by a half trillion bucks for his affordable
health care thing.
In fact, he defunded SS and medicare by 50% for the last year with his
big break on payroll taxes on the individual - not the employers.
And now, I have several of my health care providers telling me they may
not be able to keep myself and my wife as patients as the cuts to
medicare won't allow them to stay in business as the cuts put them below
the break even line.
--
"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 6/9/2012 12:36 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 6/8/2012 1:52 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 6/8/2012 7:08 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> -- Silence is more musical than any song. -- Christina Rossetti
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdD52DAaFRs
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyj2qL-bQ4E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfResyFrqlM
"Larry Jaques" wrote:
> Without insurance, one walks into the doctor's office and pays full
> boat. A friend is being billed $22k+ for a 4 hour hospital visit
> (not
> even overnight!) to have her appendix removed. That works out to
> nearly six grand an hour. Tell me -that's- insurance's fault.
>
> An oral surgeon charged me $915 for a 14 minute procedure. That's
> $3,921.43 per hour. Tell me that's right, and that it's fair.
---------------------------------
Single payer?
Lew
Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>> Single payer?
------------------------------
"Larry Blanchard"
>
> Shhhhh! Lew, you know that's entirely too logical for this group
> :-).
--------------------------------
Especially since EVERYBODY is covered, even including those so called
"free loading" minorities.
Lew
> --
> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On 6/7/2012 11:34 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>
>> You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
>> Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and
>> free
>> enterprise, the Republican party.
> ----------------------------------------
> It's really rather straight forward.
>
> If your taxable income is $250K or more, the Republicans are your
> friends.
>
> If your taxable income is less than $250K, the Republicans are not
> your friends.
>
> If you are a woman then the Republicans are definitely not your
> friends.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
NOBODY in government is your friend!
On 6/8/2012 7:27 AM, Jack wrote:
> On 6/8/2012 12:34 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Jack wrote:
>>
>>> You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
>>> Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and
>>> free
>>> enterprise, the Republican party.
>> ----------------------------------------
>> It's really rather straight forward.
>>
>> If your taxable income is $250K or more, the Republicans are your
>> friends.
>>
>> If your taxable income is less than $250K, the Republicans are not
>> your friends.
>>
>> If you are a woman then the Republicans are definitely not your
>> friends.
>
> Wow, talk about drinking the kool-aid, you are swimming in it!
>
The California brainwashing experiment is going well. ;~)
Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> I'll be writing-in the man I -want- in that office, Ross Perot. I know
> he won't win, but I want to voice my true opinion, so that's it. Some
> people call that "wasting my vote", but I consider not voting at all
> or voting for the lesser of two evils is the only way to waste a vote.
> I'd be truly happy with a Perot/Paul ticket. Actual changes for the
> good would start happening in this country if that happened.
>
My conceptual side can warm to this line of thinking. My other side
struggles with it. Neither of those two sides in any way critiques your
thoughts. I keep finding myself thinking that the whole thing is just such
a farce. Elect a president and what have you done? Well, for sure you've
affected some policy because appointees will have an affect on your life.
Effect bigger things? I'm not sure. Washington is so full of good old boys
that it just does not seem possible to really change things there short of a
total swipe. I could almost agree to a wholesale replacement. No one there
remains - all new. Not practical of course, but it sure does have an appeal
to me.
> I hope all of you join me in this, come November.
Are you kidding? That would be collusion...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:56:05 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Most would do well to remember one thing. If you think you've got a
>simple solution to a complicated problem, the odds are overwhelming that
>you're wrong :-).
The fact is there are simple solutions to our complicated problems.
The issue is those solutions require actions that are unpopular with a
portion of the voting public. If getting re-elected was not a
concern, politicians could make these simple solutions without fear of
losing the next election. Problem solved.
Here's another simple solution; if an elected official does not do
what he says he will do while campaigning he/she should be fined
and/or imprisoned for fraud. Problem solved.
Another simple solution; anyone receiving government assistance such
as, welfare, food stamps, housing assistance or any other hand out
that they haven't contributed to would be ineligible to vote due to a
conflict of interest. Problem solved.
I'm sure there are many other simple solutions, but that would be a
good start.
On 6/2/2012 9:44 AM, Steve Turner wrote:
> On 6/1/2012 11:42 PM, CW wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Larry Blanchard" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 20:37:45 -0500, ChairMan wrote:
>>
>>>> Can everything you say be true? If so, our problems were not actually
>>>> Bush's fault ! We've been lied to !
>>>>
>>>> Makes one want to weep, it surely does.
>>>
>>> if a politicians lips are moving, you're being lied to. some was
>>> definately Bushes fault, but not near the extent people(Bammy) blame him
>>> for
>>
>> His successors will have to go a long way to top Bush's lie that Saddam
>> Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
>> ===================================================================
>> He never said that.
>>
>>
>> Remember Cheney's "mobile biological weapons labs"? Not only were they
>> actually helium (or hydrogen) generators for weather balloons made by a
>> company in Great Britain.
>>
>> I know I won't convince the Obama haters, so I'll quit here.
>> ===============================================================================
>>
>> I don't like Coca cola. By your logic, if I don't like Coke, I must
>> love Pepsi.
>> Guess what, I don't like either one. Yes, Obama should be thrown out like
>> yesterdays trash. Bush is (thankfully) yesterdays trash, no longer
>> relevant.
>> This is one of politics biggest problems. People taking sides and blindly
>> cheering for their side like it was a football game. Even the
>> politicians are
>> starting to say "yes, I'm slime but he's worse". That's what you are
>> saying
>> here. People need to stop cheerleading and look at the problem at
>> hand. Look at
>> the issues. The majority of people are not hardcore one way or the
>> other. The
>> politicians and the public both need to realize that.
>
> +1
+1
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 6/9/2012 10:26 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:10:48 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> There are two things currently wrong with healthcare in this country:
>>
>> INSURANCE,
>>
>> and INSURANCE.
>
> <g> <sigh>
>
<g> (fuck your sighing, C-Less>
> Without insurance, one walks into the doctor's office and pays full
> boat. A friend is being billed $22k+ for a 4 hour hospital visit (not
> even overnight!) to have her appendix removed. That works out to
> nearly six grand an hour. Tell me -that's- insurance's fault.
It is indeed ... the insurance company will pay the doctors and
hospitals 30% of what you pay if you're not insured, and they will lie
down and take it. BTDT.
My daughter's recent surgery to wit: with insurance coverage, the
original hospital bill was estimated at $12k, Promissory Note signed by
her upfront; but when the hospital found out the outcome might fall
under a "pre-existing condition" clause in the insurance policy, they
took advantage of her desperation and demanded another $25K on the day
before admittance. She was just out of college, losing an eye, and was
desperate. It was either cough it up, or delay the eye saving surgery
for the third time ... I coughed it up.
When it was proven, after six months of unbelievable bullshit in
fighting both the hospital the insurance company, that is was not
"pre-existing" and I that was intent on going to go to court and not
going to back down, I got the $25k back ... and the hospital was
ultimately paid a total of $9600 by the insurance company for the
surgery that they tried to charge her $37k.
(During the post opt fight, I had also negotiated the price of the
surgeon's bill down to $1600 based on what the insurance company was
going to pay him, and the insurance company ended up paying him only
$1400 ... he should have known better, and he admitted it.)
Back in the days when doctors and hospitals were paid by the
individuals, and most folks were NOT covered by health insurance, that
kind of bullshit would not have happened.
I'll say it again: THE HIGH COST OF HEALTHCARE IS DRIVEN BY BIG INSURANCE:
http://covertrationingblog.com/open-wide-and-say-moo-the-good-citizens-guide-to-right-thinking-and-right-actions/chapter-1-run-for-the-hills-as-we-are-all-doomed
"This new era was begun during World War II, when companies began
offering health insurance to their employees in order to attract workers
during the wage controls then in effect. Health insurance proved so
popular that Congress changed the tax laws to make the insurance
premiums paid by employers tax-deductible so as to encourage the
practice, and before very long virtually every company provided health
insurance to their employees as a matter of course.
The tax-deductibility of employer-provided health insurance was the
game-changer. Healthcare costs suddenly were no longer borne entirely by
individuals, or by individual businesses who paid the insurance
premiums. Instead, they were distributed among the American taxpayers,
whose taxes had to make up for the insurance deductions taken by
businesses. So-called private health insurance became publicly subsidized.
The public funding of healthcare advanced by a giant step with the
institution of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, which amounted to direct
public funding of healthcare for a large proportion of the population.
So, by 1970, most of American healthcare was paid for by the taxpayer
either directly, or indirectly through subsidized private insurance. We
had largely collectivized the financing of our healthcare."
I happened to have been raised at the tail end of that time period and
can guarantee that it is indeed a fucking FACT.
AAMOF, I can still walk into my dentist and optometrists' office and get
a better deal by paying cash than using insurance, and I do it four
times a year.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On Thu, 31 May 2012 09:01:25 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> His logic; we are going to lower the
> cost by adding taxes and regulation that will increase cost.
As opposed to lowering costs by denying claims and refusing to insure?
Your position reminds me of the old saw that banks will loan money to
anyone who doesn't need it :-).
Not that I'm happy with Obamacare - I consider it a free gift to the
insurance companies. They get a new influx of customers who might not
have insured themselves otherwise and they get a new excuse to raise
rates.
Like the ethanol subsidies and mandatory 5-10% ethanol addition to
gasoline stocks was a gift to the big grain producers and ethanol refiners.
Like the [unpaid] prescription drug benefit was a gift to big pharma.
What corporate welfare?
Dave in Texas
On 5/30/2012 12:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> Since Romney has no clue about creating jobs,running a government,or
> even managing is own campaign.
He should fit in just fine.
I would guess that I would have to vote
> for one of the most effective presidents in the last 100 years(just look
> at the legislative record, he has been able to get more passed in
> Congress than the last dozen presidents ).
Yes very effective and might I also add that he had, more than any
president in the last 100 years, increased the government debt.
But that probably does not bother you since you provably get more from
the government than you give.
he has not in any way
> "destroyed America" but has saved it from the incompetent and stupid
> last administration.And I voted for McCain!
>
You are only one of many sheep.
ChairMan wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Since Romney has no clue about creating jobs,running a government,or
>> even managing is own campaign.I would guess that I would have to
>> vote for one of the most effective presidents in the last 100
>> years(just look at the legislative record, he has been able to get
>> more passed in Congress than the last dozen presidents ). he has not
>> in any way "destroyed America" but has saved it from the incompetent
>> and stupid last administration.And I voted for McCain!
>>
>> "knuttle" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>
> The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was
> actually January 3rd, 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House
> of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th
> Congress.
> The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the
> first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
>
> For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy
> that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
>
> January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and
> the Congress.
>
> At the time:
>
> The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
>
> The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
>
> The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
>
> George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of
> JOB GROWTH
>
> Remember the day...
>
> January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House
> Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate
> Banking Committee.
>
>
>
> The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part
> of the economy?
>
> BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
>
> Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping
> 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie
> Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
>
> Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in
> 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.
>
> And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie
> Mac?
> OBAMA
>
> And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
>
> OBAMA and the Democrat Congress
>
> So when someone tries to blame Bush,
>
> REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
>
> Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and
> the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat
> Party.
> Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 &
> 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
>
> In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which
> caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly
> got tough on spending increases.
>
>
>
>
> For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush
> entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running
> until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a
> massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.
>
> And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that
> very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he
> signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.
>
> If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the
> last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five
> years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After
> that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that
> includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
>
>
>
> If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a
> nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted
> for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January
> 20th.
Oh. My. From your lips to God's ear!
Can everything you say be true? If so, our problems were not actually Bush's
fault ! We've been lied to !
Makes one want to weep, it surely does.
Since Romney has no clue about creating jobs,running a government,or even
managing is own campaign.I would guess that I would have to vote for one of
the most effective presidents in the last 100 years(just look at the
legislative record, he has been able to get more passed in Congress than the
last dozen presidents ). he has not in any way "destroyed America" but has
saved it from the incompetent and stupid last administration.And I voted for
McCain!
"knuttle" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 5/29/2012 1:52 AM, ChairMan wrote:
> I find this to be very sad on many levels
> http://www.barackobama.com/om-dinner-with-barack-june-signon?source=om2012_lb_NYT_disptest_0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250&utm_medium=om2012&utm_source=NYT&utm_campaign=lb_disptest&utm_content=0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250
>
>
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/6s8uc2g
>
> <shakes head>
>
>
That is what you get when you watch that channel with the Ginsu Knife
commercials and like commercials. But wait for just the same price we
will throw in Joe Biden.
"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 6/9/2012 10:26 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:10:48 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> There are two things currently wrong with healthcare in this
>>> country:
>>>
>>> INSURANCE,
>>>
>>> and INSURANCE.
>>
>> <g> <sigh>
>>
>
> <g> (fuck your sighing, C-Less>
>
>
>> Without insurance, one walks into the doctor's office and pays full
>> boat. A friend is being billed $22k+ for a 4 hour hospital visit (not
>> even overnight!) to have her appendix removed. That works out to
>> nearly six grand an hour. Tell me -that's- insurance's fault.
>
> It is indeed ... the insurance company will pay the doctors and
> hospitals 30% of what you pay if you're not insured, and they will lie
> down and take it. BTDT.
>
> My daughter's recent surgery to wit: with insurance coverage, the
> original hospital bill was estimated at $12k, Promissory Note signed
> by her upfront; but when the hospital found out the outcome might fall
> under a "pre-existing condition" clause in the insurance policy, they
> took advantage of her desperation and demanded another $25K on the day
> before admittance. She was just out of college, losing an eye, and was
> desperate. It was either cough it up, or delay the eye saving surgery
> for the third time ... I coughed it up.
>
> When it was proven, after six months of unbelievable bullshit in
> fighting both the hospital the insurance company, that is was not
> "pre-existing" and I that was intent on going to go to court and not
> going to back down, I got the $25k back ... and the hospital was
> ultimately paid a total of $9600 by the insurance company for the
> surgery that they tried to charge her $37k.
>
> (During the post opt fight, I had also negotiated the price of the
> surgeon's bill down to $1600 based on what the insurance company was
> going to pay him, and the insurance company ended up paying him only
> $1400 ... he should have known better, and he admitted it.)
>
> Back in the days when doctors and hospitals were paid by the
> individuals, and most folks were NOT covered by health insurance, that
> kind of bullshit would not have happened.
>
> I'll say it again: THE HIGH COST OF HEALTHCARE IS DRIVEN BY BIG
> INSURANCE:
>
> http://covertrationingblog.com/open-wide-and-say-moo-the-good-citizens-
> guide-to-right-thinking-and-right-actions/chapter-1-run-for-the-hills-a
> s-we-are-all-doomed
>
> "This new era was begun during World War II, when companies began
> offering health insurance to their employees in order to attract
> workers during the wage controls then in effect. Health insurance
> proved so popular that Congress changed the tax laws to make the
> insurance premiums paid by employers tax-deductible so as to encourage
> the practice, and before very long virtually every company provided
> health insurance to their employees as a matter of course.
>
> The tax-deductibility of employer-provided health insurance was the
> game-changer. Healthcare costs suddenly were no longer borne entirely
> by individuals, or by individual businesses who paid the insurance
> premiums. Instead, they were distributed among the American taxpayers,
> whose taxes had to make up for the insurance deductions taken by
> businesses. So-called âprivateâ health insurance became publicly
> subsidized.
>
> The public funding of healthcare advanced by a giant step with the
> institution of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, which amounted to direct
> public funding of healthcare for a large proportion of the population.
> So, by 1970, most of American healthcare was paid for by the taxpayer
> either directly, or indirectly through subsidized private insurance.
> We had largely collectivized the financing of our healthcare."
>
> I happened to have been raised at the tail end of that time period and
> can guarantee that it is indeed a fucking FACT.
>
> AAMOF, I can still walk into my dentist and optometrists' office and
> get a better deal by paying cash than using insurance, and I do it
> four times a year.
Amen.
To add to the rant - the administrative staffs at doctors, hospitals and
insurance companies need to be paid for. The staff makes themselves
irreplaceable by refusing the first insurance request, asking for more
documentation, making errors in procedures etc, etc. Another case in
point: I just got $200 off by walking into Lenscrafters with a very old
pair of glasses, and a new eyeglass prescription (DO exam was discounted
from $85 to $42 because I'm retired). Final price of frame + lenses
$300. Now why do they have to advertise the $200 off? Why can't they
just charge discounted prices for everyone and then say no additional
discounts? Would save the staff AND the client a lot of time not having
to go through that rigamarole.
===========================================================================
Standard way of doing business these days. Mark the price way up so you can
run sales and make the public think they are getting a deal.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 07:17:53 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> > What I want to know is: When are we going to see a checkbox with NONE OF
> > THE ABOVE on the ticket?
>
> Amen, brother! But I still say draw names at random and let them
> campaign on only public funds for no more than six weeks.
I want two check boxes--"None of the above" and "Hang them all."
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> ChairMan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I find this to be very sad on many levels
>
> I know, it's totally apalling. Only rich campaign donors should have
> a chance to sit down with the president, not a bunch of nobody contest
> winners.
>
> And by "apalling", I mean "awesome". Why do you feel there's
> something wrong with the president coming up with a novel way to
> let ordinary people get perks normally reserved for the very rich?
It's not just the "very rich". I remember the daughter of the owner of
the local pizza place tearing into him for turning down an invitation to
a White House dinner. While they're well off, they're hardly "the very
rich". I asked him about it and he told me that he'd donated a thousand
bucks.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:28:46 -0500, Gordon Shumway wrote:
>
>> What do you mean "it's the best Obama could get through a Congress
>> that's bought and paid for?" The 111th congress that passed that
>> unconstitutional legislation was the most left leaning congress this
>> country's recent history has ever seen.
>
> Did I mention left or right? They're all beholden to their big
> campaign contributors. And insurance companies shovel cash both left
> and right.
>
> You seem to think they let ideology get in the way of a fast buck.
> With rare, if any, exceptions you're wrong.
I formerly worked on the staff of a U.S. Senator - it doesn't work that way.
Contributors don't "buy" votes, they "reward" votes. A member of congress
can vote any way he wants and he'll be able to find someone who is grateful.
Of course that's not always true; some members are corrupt and sell their
vote. But in the main, it's the other way 'round. Here's one way you can
tell:
If a politician takes a contribution and the public subsequently discovers
the contributor is a scalawag, the test begins. If the politician returns
the contribution, chances are he's pretty righteous. If, on the other hand,
the politician KEEPS the contribution, proclaiming some excuse or other,
then the pol is deserving of contempt.
On 5/31/2012 8:10 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 5/31/2012 8:01 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>
>> They have not noticed the there is significant unreported inflation in
>> the cost of food, energy, and the cost of both used and new cars.
>
> The fact that food and fuel are not indexed in the inflation numbers is
> indicative of just how easy it is to con the current crop of American
> voters.
>
Classic case on pissing on your shoe and telling you it is raining.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ChairMan wrote:
>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Since Romney has no clue about creating jobs,running a government,or
>>> even managing is own campaign.I would guess that I would have to
>>> vote for one of the most effective presidents in the last 100
>>> years(just look at the legislative record, he has been able to get
>>> more passed in Congress than the last dozen presidents ). he has not
>>> in any way "destroyed America" but has saved it from the incompetent
>>> and stupid last administration.And I voted for McCain!
>>>
>>> "knuttle" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was
>> actually January 3rd, 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House
>> of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th
>> Congress.
>> The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the
>> first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
>>
>> For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy
>> that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
>>
>> January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and
>> the Congress.
>>
>> At the time:
>>
>> The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
>>
>> The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
>>
>> The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
>>
>> George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of
>> JOB GROWTH
>>
>> Remember the day...
>>
>> January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House
>> Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate
>> Banking Committee.
>>
>>
>>
>> The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part
>> of the economy?
>>
>> BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
>>
>> Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping
>> 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie
>> Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
>>
>> Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in
>> 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.
>>
>> And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie
>> Mac?
>> OBAMA
>>
>> And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
>>
>> OBAMA and the Democrat Congress
>>
>> So when someone tries to blame Bush,
>>
>> REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
>>
>> Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and
>> the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat
>> Party.
>> Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 &
>> 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
>>
>> In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which
>> caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly
>> got tough on spending increases.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush
>> entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running
>> until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a
>> massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.
>>
>> And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that
>> very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he
>> signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.
>>
>> If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the
>> last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five
>> years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After
>> that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that
>> includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
>>
>>
>>
>> If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a
>> nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted
>> for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January
>> 20th.
>
> Oh. My. From your lips to God's ear!
>
> Can everything you say be true? If so, our problems were not actually
> Bush's fault ! We've been lied to !
>
> Makes one want to weep, it surely does.
if a politicians lips are moving, you're being lied to.
some was definately Bushes fault, but not near the extent people(Bammy)
blame him for
Edward A. Falk wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> ChairMan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I find this to be very sad on many levels
>
> I know, it's totally apalling. Only rich campaign donors should have
> a chance to sit down with the president, not a bunch of nobody contest
> winners.
>
> And by "apalling", I mean "awesome". Why do you feel there's
> something wrong with the president coming up with a novel way to
> let ordinary people get perks normally reserved for the very rich?
Because it diminishes the incentives to BE rich!
"Gordon Shumway" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 02:49:54 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Wrong! Describing ones ideals is not making a promise. It is what
>> you said it is. But, if a politician makes a promise he can't deliver
>> because of "absence of complete information" then he has not only
>> perpetrated a fraud, he has proven himself to be an Idiot.
>
>As I've already mentioned he or she has not perpetrated a fraud.
>Evidently, the voter has some responsibility in choosing his or her
>candidate too, like a jury weighing evidence. If a politician told you
>he or she could do what you knew was impossible, you wouldn't hold them
>to it, would you?
The simple answer to your question is yes.
However, I would never have voted for the liar. Secondly, if the liar
was elected and then proven to be what he is, a liar, then he has
committed a fraud and that should be dealt with in the judicial
system.
Once again I ask, who in D.C. does that remind you of? I'll give you
a hint. He resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
=====================================================================================
Some years ago, a state (don't remember which one) passed a law saying that
politicians could not lie. It, of course, made it to the supreme court who
said that politicians have a constitutional right to lie.
Bill wrote:
> ChairMan wrote:
>> I find this to be very sad on many levels
>> http://www.barackobama.com/om-dinner-with-barack-june-signon?source=om2012_lb_NYT_disptest_0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250&utm_medium=om2012&utm_source=NYT&utm_campaign=lb_disptest&utm_content=0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250
>>
>>
>> or
>> http://tinyurl.com/6s8uc2g
>>
>> <shakes head>
>>
>>
>
>
> Both sides are, understandably, very serious about the next election.
>
> Is it worse than writing a song like "TippecanCanoe and Tyler Too"?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tippecanoe_and_Tyler_too
>
But campaign songs can become classics:
Now you citizens of Boston,
Don't you think it's a scandal
That the people have to pay and pay
Vote for Walter A. O'Brien
Fight the fare increase!
And fight the fare increase
Vote for George O'Brien!
Get poor Charlie off the MTA.
Aside:
The issue of campaign songs came up in the office with one of my employees
admitting he had never heard one.
I went down to my local music store and searched everywhere. Finally, I
approached the clerk with the least amount of metal in his face and asked:
"I'm looking for "The MTA" by the Kingston Trio."
"No problem, dude, follow me."
He ambled over to the CD rack, put out his hand, and discovered the exact
thing I wanted.
You'll never imagine in what section that CD was filed...
Classics.
And here I always thought that classics were, you know, Frank Sinatra and
Bing Crosby.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Since Romney has no clue about creating jobs,running a government,or even
> managing is own campaign.I would guess that I would have to vote for one
> of the most effective presidents in the last 100 years(just look at the
> legislative record, he has been able to get more passed in Congress than
> the last dozen presidents ). he has not in any way "destroyed America" but
> has saved it from the incompetent and stupid last administration.And I
> voted for McCain!
>
> "knuttle" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually
January 3rd, 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of
Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.
The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time
since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that
everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the
Congress.
At the time:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB
GROWTH
Remember the day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House
Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking
Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the
economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6
TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001
because it was financially risky for the US economy.
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac?
OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress
So when someone tries to blame Bush,
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the
party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as
well as 2010 & 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them
to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on
spending increases.
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely,
passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama
could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill
to complete the 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very
Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the
omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of
the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the
fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in
Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted
for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell,
what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I
voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 20:37:45 -0500, ChairMan wrote:
>
>>> Can everything you say be true? If so, our problems were not actually
>>> Bush's fault ! We've been lied to !
>>>
>>> Makes one want to weep, it surely does.
>>
>> if a politicians lips are moving, you're being lied to. some was
>> definately Bushes fault, but not near the extent people(Bammy) blame him
>> for
>
> His successors will have to go a long way to top Bush's lie that Saddam
> Hussein was responsible for 9/11. And that Saddam had WMD.
>
> Remember Cheney's "mobile biological weapons labs"? Not only were they
> actually helium (or hydrogen) generators for weather balloons made by a
> company in Great Britain.
>
> I know I won't convince the Obama haters, so I'll quit here.
>
> "When Clinton lied, no one died."
tell that to the people that died in the asprin factory clinton bombed
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 6/9/2012 10:26 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:10:48 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> There are two things currently wrong with healthcare in this
>>> country:
>>>
>>> INSURANCE,
>>>
>>> and INSURANCE.
>>
>> <g> <sigh>
>>
>
> <g> (fuck your sighing, C-Less>
>
>
>> Without insurance, one walks into the doctor's office and pays full
>> boat. A friend is being billed $22k+ for a 4 hour hospital visit (not
>> even overnight!) to have her appendix removed. That works out to
>> nearly six grand an hour. Tell me -that's- insurance's fault.
>
> It is indeed ... the insurance company will pay the doctors and
> hospitals 30% of what you pay if you're not insured, and they will lie
> down and take it. BTDT.
>
> My daughter's recent surgery to wit: with insurance coverage, the
> original hospital bill was estimated at $12k, Promissory Note signed
> by her upfront; but when the hospital found out the outcome might fall
> under a "pre-existing condition" clause in the insurance policy, they
> took advantage of her desperation and demanded another $25K on the day
> before admittance. She was just out of college, losing an eye, and was
> desperate. It was either cough it up, or delay the eye saving surgery
> for the third time ... I coughed it up.
>
> When it was proven, after six months of unbelievable bullshit in
> fighting both the hospital the insurance company, that is was not
> "pre-existing" and I that was intent on going to go to court and not
> going to back down, I got the $25k back ... and the hospital was
> ultimately paid a total of $9600 by the insurance company for the
> surgery that they tried to charge her $37k.
>
> (During the post opt fight, I had also negotiated the price of the
> surgeon's bill down to $1600 based on what the insurance company was
> going to pay him, and the insurance company ended up paying him only
> $1400 ... he should have known better, and he admitted it.)
>
> Back in the days when doctors and hospitals were paid by the
> individuals, and most folks were NOT covered by health insurance, that
> kind of bullshit would not have happened.
>
> I'll say it again: THE HIGH COST OF HEALTHCARE IS DRIVEN BY BIG
> INSURANCE:
>
> http://covertrationingblog.com/open-wide-and-say-moo-the-good-citizens-
> guide-to-right-thinking-and-right-actions/chapter-1-run-for-the-hills-a
> s-we-are-all-doomed
>
> "This new era was begun during World War II, when companies began
> offering health insurance to their employees in order to attract
> workers during the wage controls then in effect. Health insurance
> proved so popular that Congress changed the tax laws to make the
> insurance premiums paid by employers tax-deductible so as to encourage
> the practice, and before very long virtually every company provided
> health insurance to their employees as a matter of course.
>
> The tax-deductibility of employer-provided health insurance was the
> game-changer. Healthcare costs suddenly were no longer borne entirely
> by individuals, or by individual businesses who paid the insurance
> premiums. Instead, they were distributed among the American taxpayers,
> whose taxes had to make up for the insurance deductions taken by
> businesses. So-called private health insurance became publicly
> subsidized.
>
> The public funding of healthcare advanced by a giant step with the
> institution of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, which amounted to direct
> public funding of healthcare for a large proportion of the population.
> So, by 1970, most of American healthcare was paid for by the taxpayer
> either directly, or indirectly through subsidized private insurance.
> We had largely collectivized the financing of our healthcare."
>
> I happened to have been raised at the tail end of that time period and
> can guarantee that it is indeed a fucking FACT.
>
> AAMOF, I can still walk into my dentist and optometrists' office and
> get a better deal by paying cash than using insurance, and I do it
> four times a year.
Amen.
To add to the rant - the administrative staffs at doctors, hospitals and
insurance companies need to be paid for. The staff makes themselves
irreplaceable by refusing the first insurance request, asking for more
documentation, making errors in procedures etc, etc. Another case in
point: I just got $200 off by walking into Lenscrafters with a very old
pair of glasses, and a new eyeglass prescription (DO exam was discounted
from $85 to $42 because I'm retired). Final price of frame + lenses
$300. Now why do they have to advertise the $200 off? Why can't they
just charge discounted prices for everyone and then say no additional
discounts? Would save the staff AND the client a lot of time not having
to go through that rigamarole.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>> IMO, the two parties are so far apart that I will probably have a
>> difficult time deciding who to vote for.
>
> And so much alike in another respect. I too will have a hard time
> deciding who to vote for, but for me, it's because I just don't see
> any real difference between any one of them.
>
I, too, regret that my favorite person for the office of president is not
running. I refer, of course, to myself.
So, I'll go with the closest.
See if this little observation helps you:
Democrats tend to PROVIDE for the general welfare through the TREASURY;
Republicans tend to PROMOTE the general welfare through the ECONOMY.
On Tue, 29 May 2012 09:15:41 -0400, knuttle
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 5/29/2012 1:52 AM, ChairMan wrote:
>> I find this to be very sad on many levels
>> http://www.barackobama.com/om-dinner-with-barack-june-signon?source=om2012_lb_NYT_disptest_0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250&utm_medium=om2012&utm_source=NYT&utm_campaign=lb_disptest&utm_content=0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250
>>
>>
>> or
>> http://tinyurl.com/6s8uc2g
>>
>> <shakes head>
>>
>>
>That is what you get when you watch that channel with the Ginsu Knife
>commercials and like commercials. But wait for just the same price we
>will throw in Joe Biden.
That's similar to the contest where the first place winner received a
1 week, all expenses paid, vacation in Cleveland, Ohio.
The second place winner received a 2 week, all expenses paid, vacation
in Cleveland, Ohio.
Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> Without insurance, one walks into the doctor's office and pays full
> boat. A friend is being billed $22k+ for a 4 hour hospital visit (not
> even overnight!) to have her appendix removed. That works out to
> nearly six grand an hour. Tell me -that's- insurance's fault.
>
Not always Larry. I had to have oral surgery. Had no insurance. Called
and explained this to the Oral Surgeon's office. Was cut off
mid-explanation. As soon as I said I had no insurance, I was told they
would consult with the Surgeon, and get back to me. I had a figure in mind
that I wanted them to agree to which was roughly 50% of the price - but was
willing to pay more. When they called back, they quoted me a price below my
low ball price. Like thing happened with some lab work. You do have to
ask. It actually works the other way - the insured rate is set to cover the
losses for uninsured, or skips. It's usually the higher rate.
> An oral surgeon charged me $915 for a 14 minute procedure. That's
> $3,921.43 per hour. Tell me that's right, and that it's fair.
Nope - can't tell you that. Can tell you that it might well have cost more
if you had insurance. Of course, you might not have paid the most of it
yourself, but that's a different aspect of this matter.
>
>
> When I'm king, we'll overhaul the gov't (-75%), the legal system, the
> medical system, the penal system, the welfare system, and a few other
> things, starting from scratch.
When I'm king the first thing I'm going to do is ban the damned bra!
Vote for me for king!
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Tue, 29 May 2012 07:37:05 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 5/29/2012 12:52 AM, ChairMan wrote:
>> I find this to be very sad on many levels
>> http://www.barackobama.com/om-dinner-with-barack-june-signon?source=om2012_lb_NYT_disptest_0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250&utm_medium=om2012&utm_source=NYT&utm_campaign=lb_disptest&utm_content=0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250
>>
>>
>> or
>> http://tinyurl.com/6s8uc2g
>>
>> <shakes head>
>
>Political theater to take your mind off the screwing you're getting. Too
>bad that's not the saddest thing about the "divide and pander" tactics
>on both sides.
What I want to know is: When are we going to see a checkbox with NONE
OF THE ABOVE on the ticket?
--
When a quiet man is moved to passion, it seems the very earth will shake.
-- Stephanie Barron
(Something for the Powers That Be to remember, eh?)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>
>
>> And so much alike in another respect. I too will have a hard time
>> deciding who to vote for, but for me, it's because I just don't see
>> any real difference between any one of them.
> -------------------------------------
> Interesting comment.
>
> IMHO, the two parties couldn't be farther apart in their respective
> ideas.
>
I agree in that their rhetoric is very separate, but once they're in, I find
little difference between either party. I'm a fairly conservative person,
both politically and financially, yet I was as upset with Bush the Younger
as any left wing radical. Just more of the political ambition - lie, cheat,
and steal to get what I want. The details may vary, but the fundamentals
are the same across party lines.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 6/9/2012 10:26 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:10:48 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 6/9/2012 1:59 AM, Bill wrote:
>>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>> On 06/08/2012 03:00 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/8/2012 12:17 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Having taken a lot of economics courses in college I have
>>>>>>> voted "R" more times than not, but I have had to slacken my devotion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you are more devoted to whom, the socialists that believe government
>>>>>> control is the simple answer to everything?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. But I would have a difficult time seeing people go hungry. John
>>>>> Boener comes across to me as pretty cool (cold). I might be inclined to
>>>>> vote for the party that didn't seem like they had to have everything
>>>>> their way (remember I used the term "selfish" to describe the language I
>>>>> have heard from both parties).
>>>>>
>>>>> On related ground, are you proud of the skyrocketing costs of medical
>>>>> care? Medicare might be a lifesaver.
>>>>
>>>> Except the O defunded it by a half trillion bucks for his affordable
>>>> health care thing.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, he defunded SS and medicare by 50% for the last year with his
>>>> big break on payroll taxes on the individual - not the employers.
>>>>
>>>> And now, I have several of my health care providers telling me they may
>>>> not be able to keep myself and my wife as patients as the cuts to
>>>> medicare won't allow them to stay in business as the cuts put them below
>>>> the break even line.
>>>
>>> Let me know when he goes out of business. Seriously. Something may
>>> just need to be adjusted to move the break even line (I would suggest
>>> that alot of things could probably be adjusted with health care). Health
>>> care costs are part of the problem--somewhat explainable by inelastic
>>> demand, meaning if you are hurting enough you'll receive services and
>>> ask questions later...a recipe for a high bill. Hey and that's pretty
>>> much the way hospital billing works, isn't it?
>>
>> There are two things currently wrong with healthcare in this country:
>>
>> INSURANCE,
>>
>> and INSURANCE.
>
> <g> <sigh>
>
>
> Without insurance, one walks into the doctor's office and pays full
> boat. A friend is being billed $22k+ for a 4 hour hospital visit (not
> even overnight!) to have her appendix removed. That works out to
> nearly six grand an hour. Tell me -that's- insurance's fault.
With out insurance dictating prices and being an unnecessary middle man
medical costs would go down, down to whta individuals could afford to
pay. Not to mention the medical industry would not have to hire people
to collect from insurance companies and absorb loss when they did not
dot their i's when submitting a claim to the insurance company. The
insurance industry is only around to make money for themselves. WE pay
for that, and we pay for that out the nose.
>
> An oral surgeon charged me $915 for a 14 minute procedure. That's
> $3,921.43 per hour. Tell me that's right, and that it's fair.
There are medical groups that are common that will not accept insurance
at all, you have to join and be a member of their group and typically a
family annual premium to be a member is a very reasonable price. Then
you pay cash for all survices. IIRC those services including surgeries,
hospital stays and medication are about 10~20% of what they would charge
an insurance company.
Take a look here
http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2008/07/09/doctors-who-don%E2%80%99t-take-insurance-what-does-it-mean-for-patients/
On 5/31/2012 8:01 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> They have not noticed the there is significant unreported inflation in
> the cost of food, energy, and the cost of both used and new cars.
The fact that food and fuel are not indexed in the inflation numbers is
indicative of just how easy it is to con the current crop of American
voters.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>>
>> On Tue, 29 May 2012 07:17:53 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> What I want to know is: When are we going to see a checkbox with
>>> NONE OF THE ABOVE on the ticket?
>>
>> Amen, brother! But I still say draw names at random and let them
>> campaign on only public funds for no more than six weeks.
>
> I want two check boxes--"None of the above" and "Hang them all."
Save ink - only print the second statement.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Leon" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 5/29/2012 9:17 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 07:37:05 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 5/29/2012 12:52 AM, ChairMan wrote:
>>> I find this to be very sad on many levels
>>> http://www.barackobama.com/om-dinner-with-barack-june-signon?source=om2012_lb_NYT_disptest_0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250&utm_medium=om2012&utm_source=NYT&utm_campaign=lb_disptest&utm_content=0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250
>>>
>>>
>>> or
>>> http://tinyurl.com/6s8uc2g
>>>
>>> <shakes head>
>>
>> Political theater to take your mind off the screwing you're getting. Too
>> bad that's not the saddest thing about the "divide and pander" tactics
>> on both sides.
>
> What I want to know is: When are we going to see a checkbox with NONE
> OF THE ABOVE on the ticket?
Simply don't vote for anyone you don't like. If you vote for the sake
of voting, that is part of the problem.
Which would you rather vote for? On these merits only.
A. A Democrat candidate that lies to win and does not do what he said
he was going to do to improve the country.
Or
B. A Republican candidate that lies to win and does not do what he said
he was going to do to improve the country.
You know that whom ever you vote for will likely fit either description
above. Voting for either tells the powers that be you are OK with that.
================================================================
Voting for neither just says "do what you want, I don't care". The
politicians would just love to not have any of those annoying voters getting
in their way.
On 6/9/2012 1:59 AM, Bill wrote:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> On 06/08/2012 03:00 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Jack wrote:
>>>> On 6/8/2012 12:17 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> Having taken a lot of economics courses in college I have
>>>>> voted "R" more times than not, but I have had to slacken my devotion.
>>>>
>>>> So you are more devoted to whom, the socialists that believe government
>>>> control is the simple answer to everything?
>>>
>>> No. But I would have a difficult time seeing people go hungry. John
>>> Boener comes across to me as pretty cool (cold). I might be inclined to
>>> vote for the party that didn't seem like they had to have everything
>>> their way (remember I used the term "selfish" to describe the language I
>>> have heard from both parties).
>>>
>>> On related ground, are you proud of the skyrocketing costs of medical
>>> care? Medicare might be a lifesaver.
>>
>> Except the O defunded it by a half trillion bucks for his affordable
>> health care thing.
>>
>> In fact, he defunded SS and medicare by 50% for the last year with his
>> big break on payroll taxes on the individual - not the employers.
>>
>> And now, I have several of my health care providers telling me they may
>> not be able to keep myself and my wife as patients as the cuts to
>> medicare won't allow them to stay in business as the cuts put them below
>> the break even line.
>
> Let me know when he goes out of business. Seriously. Something may
> just need to be adjusted to move the break even line (I would suggest
> that alot of things could probably be adjusted with health care). Health
> care costs are part of the problem--somewhat explainable by inelastic
> demand, meaning if you are hurting enough you'll receive services and
> ask questions later...a recipe for a high bill. Hey and that's pretty
> much the way hospital billing works, isn't it?
There are two things currently wrong with healthcare in this country:
INSURANCE,
and INSURANCE.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On Thu, 31 May 2012 23:24:41 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:28:46 -0500, Gordon Shumway wrote:
>
>> What do you mean "it's the best Obama could get through a Congress
>> that's bought and paid for?" The 111th congress that passed that
>> unconstitutional legislation was the most left leaning congress this
>> country's recent history has ever seen.
>
>Did I mention left or right? They're all beholden to their big campaign
>contributors. And insurance companies shovel cash both left and right.
>
>You seem to think they let ideology get in the way of a fast buck. With
>rare, if any, exceptions you're wrong.
No, you didn't mention left or right, I did. Obummer is about as left
as you can get and Nancy and Harry were both fighting to see how far
the could get their noses up his ass. So "it's the best Obama could
get through a Congress that's bought and paid for" was your point I
was contesting. Both houses with control by the left was the ideal
situation for the anointed one.
As far as the left v right and the fast buck is concerned, I hope one
day we can get a majority of our elected officials (on both sides) to
be honest, ethical and moral. I'm not going to hold my breath.
On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 02:49:54 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Wrong! Describing ones ideals is not making a promise. It is what
>> you said it is. But, if a politician makes a promise he can't deliver
>> because of "absence of complete information" then he has not only
>> perpetrated a fraud, he has proven himself to be an Idiot.
>
>As I've already mentioned he or she has not perpetrated a fraud.
>Evidently, the voter has some responsibility in choosing his or her
>candidate too, like a jury weighing evidence. If a politician told you
>he or she could do what you knew was impossible, you wouldn't hold them
>to it, would you?
The simple answer to your question is yes.
However, I would never have voted for the liar. Secondly, if the liar
was elected and then proven to be what he is, a liar, then he has
committed a fraud and that should be dealt with in the judicial
system.
Once again I ask, who in D.C. does that remind you of? I'll give you
a hint. He resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
ChairMan wrote:
> I find this to be very sad on many levels
> http://www.barackobama.com/om-dinner-with-barack-june-signon?source=om2012_lb_NYT_disptest_0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250&utm_medium=om2012&utm_source=NYT&utm_campaign=lb_disptest&utm_content=0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250
>
>
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/6s8uc2g
>
> <shakes head>
>
>
Both sides are, understandably, very serious about the next election.
Is it worse than writing a song like "TippecanCanoe and Tyler Too"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tippecanoe_and_Tyler_too
I'm sure both sides will try their best to win the election.
I don't have to think too long to recall news that I find sadder, but I
grant you that the mere existence of the contest is interesting to
consider. I think that the longer one thinks about it, the less
offensive it seems. I've already thought about it for maybe 30 minutes,
and it doesn't bother me as much as it did at first.
Bill
On 5/29/2012 1:52 AM, ChairMan wrote:
> I find this to be very sad on many levels
> http://www.barackobama.com/om-dinner-with-barack-june-signon?source=om2012_lb_NYT_disptest_0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250&utm_medium=om2012&utm_source=NYT&utm_campaign=lb_disptest&utm_content=0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250
>
>
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/6s8uc2g
>
> <shakes head>
>
>
That is what you get when you watch that channel with the Ginsu Knife
commercials and like commercials. But wait for just the same price we
will throw in Joe Biden.
On Tue, 29 May 2012 07:17:53 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
> What I want to know is: When are we going to see a checkbox with NONE OF
> THE ABOVE on the ticket?
Amen, brother! But I still say draw names at random and let them
campaign on only public funds for no more than six weeks.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On 5/29/2012 6:56 PM, CW wrote:
>
>
> "Leon" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> On 5/29/2012 9:17 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 May 2012 07:37:05 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/29/2012 12:52 AM, ChairMan wrote:
>>>> I find this to be very sad on many levels
>>>> http://www.barackobama.com/om-dinner-with-barack-june-signon?source=om2012_lb_NYT_disptest_0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250&utm_medium=om2012&utm_source=NYT&utm_campaign=lb_disptest&utm_content=0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/6s8uc2g
>>>>
>>>> <shakes head>
>>>
>>> Political theater to take your mind off the screwing you're getting. Too
>>> bad that's not the saddest thing about the "divide and pander" tactics
>>> on both sides.
>>
>> What I want to know is: When are we going to see a checkbox with NONE
>> OF THE ABOVE on the ticket?
>
> Simply don't vote for anyone you don't like. If you vote for the sake
> of voting, that is part of the problem.
>
> Which would you rather vote for? On these merits only.
>
> A. A Democrat candidate that lies to win and does not do what he said
> he was going to do to improve the country.
>
> Or
>
> B. A Republican candidate that lies to win and does not do what he said
> he was going to do to improve the country.
>
>
> You know that whom ever you vote for will likely fit either description
> above. Voting for either tells the powers that be you are OK with that.
> ================================================================
> Voting for neither just says "do what you want, I don't care". The
> politicians would just love to not have any of those annoying voters
> getting in their way.
OR
Do you want to vote for an incumbent who is incapable of seeing anything
but the intercity and has no idea of how the real world operates
OR do you want to vote for the person who know how the world operates,
having worked with many struggling companies and brought them back from
the brink. (Yes he lost a few, but a few is better that all if he had
not succeeded. )
Do you want to vote for a president who said that he would reduce the
deficit and now has national debt that is twice what it was when he took
office. Do you want to vote for a president who heads a party that has
not passed a budget in the past six years?
Or do a person you want to vote for a person who understands the
importance of budget and realizes you can not run a multi trillion
dollar operation with out it.
Do you want to vote for a president that was taught that the way to
socialize a country was to put it so far into debt that it would be easy
to pass the necessary socialist legislation.
Do you want to vote for a president that has tried to institute every
failed policy for the last 150 years.
If you don't like Romney and don't vote, you are voting for the person
currently in the White house.
On 5/31/2012 8:08 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 5/30/2012 12:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> Since Romney has no clue about creating jobs,running a government,or
>> even managing is own campaign.
>
> He should fit in just fine.
>
>
> I would guess that I would have to vote
>> for one of the most effective presidents in the last 100 years(just look
>> at the legislative record, he has been able to get more passed in
>> Congress than the last dozen presidents ).
>
> Yes very effective and might I also add that he had, more than any
> president in the last 100 years, increased the government debt.
>
> But that probably does not bother you since you provably get more from
> the government than you give.
>
>
> he has not in any way
>> "destroyed America" but has saved it from the incompetent and stupid
>> last administration.And I voted for McCain!
>>
>
> You are only one of many sheep.
The posters favoring the person in the White House obviously have not
seen their Health Insurance going up as companies struggle to comply
with the Person in the White House's "successes" called the Health Care
"Reform" or the take over of the health industry. His logic; we are
going to lower the cost by adding taxes and regulation that will
increase cost.
They have not noticed the there is significant unreported inflation in
the cost of food, energy, and the cost of both used and new cars. They
have not noticed all of the foreclosure signs on their street.
They have not noticed how the person in the White House has completely
destabilized the stock markets both here and abroad, as markets are
fluctuating over 1% per day and continue to fall. (Yes I blame the
person in the White House because, to get him elected, pelosi reigning
on the home loans that caused collapse and contraction of equity that
caused the collapse of countries and companies.)
The markets have not changed in the last four years and are have never
reached the levels before pelosi. In fact they have been declining for
the last 90 days. Thanks to the person in the White House the Markets
are over 30% off of their when calculated on the 40 year market trend line.
They have not noticed how the person in the White House sides with the
black professor and blames the white cop. This scenario has been
repeated many times in the years he has been in the White House.
There is an old song that his supports should here called "Where are All
of the Flowers Gone" with this line repeated over and over.
"When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn."
On Thu, 31 May 2012 09:01:25 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> His logic; we are going to lower the
> cost by adding taxes and regulation that will increase cost.
As opposed to lowering costs by denying claims and refusing to insure?
Your position reminds me of the old saw that banks will loan money to
anyone who doesn't need it :-).
Not that I'm happy with Obamacare - I consider it a free gift to the
insurance companies. They get a new influx of customers who might not
have insured themselves otherwise and they get a new excuse to raise
rates. But it's the best Obama could get through a Congress that's
bought and paid for.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:28:46 -0500, Gordon Shumway wrote:
> What do you mean "it's the best Obama could get through a Congress
> that's bought and paid for?" The 111th congress that passed that
> unconstitutional legislation was the most left leaning congress this
> country's recent history has ever seen.
Did I mention left or right? They're all beholden to their big campaign
contributors. And insurance companies shovel cash both left and right.
You seem to think they let ideology get in the way of a fast buck. With
rare, if any, exceptions you're wrong.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Thu, 31 May 2012 20:37:45 -0500, ChairMan wrote:
>> Can everything you say be true? If so, our problems were not actually
>> Bush's fault ! We've been lied to !
>>
>> Makes one want to weep, it surely does.
>
> if a politicians lips are moving, you're being lied to. some was
> definately Bushes fault, but not near the extent people(Bammy) blame him
> for
His successors will have to go a long way to top Bush's lie that Saddam
Hussein was responsible for 9/11. And that Saddam had WMD.
Remember Cheney's "mobile biological weapons labs"? Not only were they
actually helium (or hydrogen) generators for weather balloons made by a
company in Great Britain.
I know I won't convince the Obama haters, so I'll quit here.
"When Clinton lied, no one died."
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
In article <[email protected]>,
ChairMan <[email protected]> wrote:
>I find this to be very sad on many levels
I know, it's totally apalling. Only rich campaign donors should have
a chance to sit down with the president, not a bunch of nobody contest
winners.
And by "apalling", I mean "awesome". Why do you feel there's
something wrong with the president coming up with a novel way to
let ordinary people get perks normally reserved for the very rich?
--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
On 6/1/2012 11:42 PM, CW wrote:
>
>
> "Larry Blanchard" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 20:37:45 -0500, ChairMan wrote:
>
>>> Can everything you say be true? If so, our problems were not actually
>>> Bush's fault ! We've been lied to !
>>>
>>> Makes one want to weep, it surely does.
>>
>> if a politicians lips are moving, you're being lied to. some was
>> definately Bushes fault, but not near the extent people(Bammy) blame him
>> for
>
> His successors will have to go a long way to top Bush's lie that Saddam
> Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
> ===================================================================
> He never said that.
>
>
> Remember Cheney's "mobile biological weapons labs"? Not only were they
> actually helium (or hydrogen) generators for weather balloons made by a
> company in Great Britain.
>
> I know I won't convince the Obama haters, so I'll quit here.
> ===============================================================================
> I don't like Coca cola. By your logic, if I don't like Coke, I must love Pepsi.
> Guess what, I don't like either one. Yes, Obama should be thrown out like
> yesterdays trash. Bush is (thankfully) yesterdays trash, no longer relevant.
> This is one of politics biggest problems. People taking sides and blindly
> cheering for their side like it was a football game. Even the politicians are
> starting to say "yes, I'm slime but he's worse". That's what you are saying
> here. People need to stop cheerleading and look at the problem at hand. Look at
> the issues. The majority of people are not hardcore one way or the other. The
> politicians and the public both need to realize that.
+1
--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:42:21 -0700, CW wrote:
> That's what you are saying here. People need to stop cheerleading and
> look at the problem at hand.
I don't disagree with you. I was not cheerleading, I was responding to a
cheerleader and showing that "his side" wasn't blameless either.
It's not the voters nor the politicians. The system is broken. A lot of
good suggestions have been made on how to fix it, or at least improve
it. None of the have a snowballs chance in hell because they'd hurt too
many of the rich and powerful.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
HeyBub wrote:
> Edward A. Falk wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> ChairMan<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I find this to be very sad on many levels
>>
>> I know, it's totally apalling. Only rich campaign donors should have
>> a chance to sit down with the president, not a bunch of nobody contest
>> winners.
>>
>> And by "apalling", I mean "awesome". Why do you feel there's
>> something wrong with the president coming up with a novel way to
>> let ordinary people get perks normally reserved for the very rich?
>
> Because it diminishes the incentives to BE rich!
I think the cleverness in the "contest" is that it illustrates a
willingness to connect with (ordinary) folks.
IMO, the two parties are so far apart that I will probably have a
difficult time deciding who to vote for.
Bill wrote:
>
> Awareness is a good defense. Some are more aware than others. Some are
> more aware about some things than other things. Those may get taken
> advantage of on the other things. Fine societal norms we cultivate,
> caveat empor! : )
>
> I'm convinced car dealers find it profitable to assume every person
> who steps into their lots is an idiot. If they are right, they make
> more money.
This whole topic of discounted prices is a real hot spot for me. After
spending a career selling software (and hardware back in the day...), it
really became an annoyance for me. Everything had a "list price", but of
course, nobody ever sold at list price. It made the whole topic of pricing
more than just a joke. But - it's all around us and it's just the way it
is. Foolish, but the way it is. I felt it was insulting to the sales
process and to the customer. "How much is this" was really answered by "as
much as I can get out of you and still get the deal". Oh well - just my
grumblings.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Awareness is a good defense. Some are more aware than others. Some
>>> are more aware about some things than other things. Those may get
>>> taken advantage of on the other things. Fine societal norms we
>>> cultivate, caveat empor! : )
>>>
>>> I'm convinced car dealers find it profitable to assume every person
>>> who steps into their lots is an idiot. If they are right, they make
>>> more money.
>>
>> This whole topic of discounted prices is a real hot spot for me. After
>> spending a career selling software (and hardware back in the
>> day...), it really became an annoyance for me. Everything had a
>> "list price", but of course, nobody ever sold at list price. It
>> made the whole topic of pricing more than just a joke. But - it's
>> all around us and it's just the way it is. Foolish, but the way it
>> is. I felt it was insulting to the sales process and to the
>> customer. "How much is this" was really answered by "as much as I
>> can get out of you and still get the deal". Oh well - just my
>> grumblings.
>
> Interesting grumbings anyway. : )
Here's another intersting grumbling... As a VP of Sales, I only got
involved in the biggest deals, and those were mine all the way. I wasn't
just trying to help close a deal for a regular sales guy. My interactions
were all with VP's and C-Level executives, where the discussions are much
different than the rote sales level. When the topic of list price, or price
came up - and of course it always did at some point, I stated that I have no
list price. Only people who think they are important like to talk about
discounts from list - people who are important consider an entirely
different type of cost. We started from no established pricing points, but
we did consider value, market conditions (competition's pricing, etc.),
partnership values, etc. Lots of individualized considerations.
Negotiations from that point forward were much more straight-forward and
based on real needs and values of the customer and my company. It is much
easier to negotiate a deal that is good for both parties that way, build
long term relationships, and provide real value.
Too much has grown out of the "Show Me The Money" mentality. Too much
hero-ism has been assigned to high margins. Too little respect and
recognition left in this world for the value of delivering at a fair price
without trying to position the company for sale with every deal. The 80's
had many bad effects on our society and this is one of them.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 6/10/2012 8:31 AM, Bruce wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 21:59:03 -0600, Ed Pawlowski wrote
> (in article<[email protected]>):
>
>> On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 13:57:24 -0700, "CW"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Standard way of doing business these days. Mark the price way up so you can
>>> run sales and make the public think they are getting a deal.
>>
>> A few weeks ago we took a trip down to Savannah. Stopped in a store
>> and they touted 50% off of everything. I saw an item for $40, but it
>> would be half that with the sale discount. Seemed like a scam. Next
>> day, another store had the same item for $15 regular price.
>
> JC Penny recently tried to change all that by not having sales and marking
> everything at a good price. Basically a no pricing BS policy.
> Their sales plummeted....
>
>
> -BR
>
Uhh yeah, when you mark down your entire inventory and sell it for a
much reduced price you sales will plummet. You are selling for less.
What JCP is in the middle of doing is changing their business
strategy/plan. A business that reduces its prices across the board will
also have to reduce its operating costs across the board and I am sure
they are in that process right now. While reducing prices to the
customer naturally decreases sales it typically increases volume. with
greater volume you have more opportunity to make more profit even if
your prices are lower. They are basically in an adjustment period, they
have realized that they are paying too much for all services including
wages and cost of merchandise. They have probably realized they don't
offer a product that enough people are willing to pay higher prices for.
As time goes by and they get control of their costs and expenses the
higher volume and lower prices should work out well for them.
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 6/10/2012 8:31 AM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 21:59:03 -0600, Ed Pawlowski wrote
>
>>> A few weeks ago we took a trip down to Savannah. Stopped in a store
>>> and they touted 50% off of everything. I saw an item for $40, but it
>>> would be half that with the sale discount. Seemed like a scam. Next
>>> day, another store had the same item for $15 regular price.
>>
>> JC Penny recently tried to change all that by not having sales and
>> marking everything at a good price. Basically a no pricing BS policy.
>> Their sales plummeted....
>
> Sam's, CostCo and CarMax seem to do a good job with that business
> model.
I bought my 2005 second hand Caravan from Enterprise because (among other
hings) they didn't haggle. Car is still going fine ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 13:57:24 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Standard way of doing business these days. Mark the price way up so
>> you can run sales and make the public think they are getting a deal.
>
> A few weeks ago we took a trip down to Savannah. Stopped in a store
> and they touted 50% off of everything. I saw an item for $40, but it
> would be half that with the sale discount. Seemed like a scam. Next
> day, another store had the same item for $15 regular price.
Ok - but who in this world today is not used to the "List Price" vs "Your
Price" syndrome thing today? For god's sake - it's everywhere around you.
Are we really spending a lot of time talking about this? Just look
everywhere around you.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 13:57:24 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Standard way of doing business these days. Mark the price way up so
>>> you can run sales and make the public think they are getting a deal.
>>
>> A few weeks ago we took a trip down to Savannah. Stopped in a store
>> and they touted 50% off of everything. I saw an item for $40, but it
>> would be half that with the sale discount. Seemed like a scam. Next
>> day, another store had the same item for $15 regular price.
>
> Ok - but who in this world today is not used to the "List Price" vs "Your
> Price" syndrome thing today? For god's sake - it's everywhere around you.
> Are we really spending a lot of time talking about this? Just look
> everywhere around you.
Awareness is a good defense. Some are more aware than others. Some are
more aware about some things than other things. Those may get taken
advantage of on the other things. Fine societal norms we cultivate,
caveat empor! : )
I'm convinced car dealers find it profitable to assume every person who
steps into their lots is an idiot. If they are right, they make more money.
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>>
>> Awareness is a good defense. Some are more aware than others. Some are
>> more aware about some things than other things. Those may get taken
>> advantage of on the other things. Fine societal norms we cultivate,
>> caveat empor! : )
>>
>> I'm convinced car dealers find it profitable to assume every person
>> who steps into their lots is an idiot. If they are right, they make
>> more money.
>
> This whole topic of discounted prices is a real hot spot for me. After
> spending a career selling software (and hardware back in the day...), it
> really became an annoyance for me. Everything had a "list price", but of
> course, nobody ever sold at list price. It made the whole topic of pricing
> more than just a joke. But - it's all around us and it's just the way it
> is. Foolish, but the way it is. I felt it was insulting to the sales
> process and to the customer. "How much is this" was really answered by "as
> much as I can get out of you and still get the deal". Oh well - just my
> grumblings.
>
Interesting grumbings anyway. : )
On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 13:57:24 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Standard way of doing business these days. Mark the price way up so you can
>run sales and make the public think they are getting a deal.
A few weeks ago we took a trip down to Savannah. Stopped in a store
and they touted 50% off of everything. I saw an item for $40, but it
would be half that with the sale discount. Seemed like a scam. Next
day, another store had the same item for $15 regular price.
On 6/10/2012 8:31 AM, Bruce wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 21:59:03 -0600, Ed Pawlowski wrote
>> A few weeks ago we took a trip down to Savannah. Stopped in a store
>> and they touted 50% off of everything. I saw an item for $40, but it
>> would be half that with the sale discount. Seemed like a scam. Next
>> day, another store had the same item for $15 regular price.
>
> JC Penny recently tried to change all that by not having sales and marking
> everything at a good price. Basically a no pricing BS policy.
> Their sales plummeted....
Sam's, CostCo and CarMax seem to do a good job with that business model.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 21:59:03 -0600, Ed Pawlowski wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 13:57:24 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Standard way of doing business these days. Mark the price way up so you can
>> run sales and make the public think they are getting a deal.
>
> A few weeks ago we took a trip down to Savannah. Stopped in a store
> and they touted 50% off of everything. I saw an item for $40, but it
> would be half that with the sale discount. Seemed like a scam. Next
> day, another store had the same item for $15 regular price.
JC Penny recently tried to change all that by not having sales and marking
everything at a good price. Basically a no pricing BS policy.
Their sales plummeted....
-BR
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>>
>> I think the cleverness in the "contest" is that it illustrates a
>> willingness to connect with (ordinary) folks.
>
> Your opinion is noted and respected as that - your opinion. Mine - no more
> valid, is that he's a politician. Nothing as noble in what you suggest
> exists within the being of a politician. My opinion is that he's playing a
> sucker card on a sucker public.
I'm not sure we're not on the same page. Yes, it is "marketing" or
politics, whatever you want to call it. I did not mean to imply
"noble-ness". I used the work "cleverness". I also used the word
"illustrates", maybe I should have used "suggests" in its place.
>
>>
>> IMO, the two parties are so far apart that I will probably have a
>> difficult time deciding who to vote for.
>
> And so much alike in another respect. I too will have a hard time deciding
> who to vote for, but for me, it's because I just don't see any real
> difference between any one of them.
>
> Somebody else said it well - throw out the whole lot of them.
Well, good luck with that! ; ) I haven't heard anything from the "Wall
Street protestors" in a few months... I don't belive they are "gone".
Synicism may
> be creeping in on me...
>
HeyBub wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>
>>> IMO, the two parties are so far apart that I will probably have a
>>> difficult time deciding who to vote for.
>>
>> And so much alike in another respect. I too will have a hard time
>> deciding who to vote for, but for me, it's because I just don't see
>> any real difference between any one of them.
>>
>
> I, too, regret that my favorite person for the office of president is not
> running. I refer, of course, to myself.
>
> So, I'll go with the closest.
>
> See if this little observation helps you:
>
> Democrats tend to PROVIDE for the general welfare through the TREASURY;
> Republicans tend to PROMOTE the general welfare through the ECONOMY.
I doubt you could get the parties to agree on what you mean by "general
welfare", even if you gave them 4 years. : )
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And so much alike in another respect. I too will have a hard time
>>> deciding who to vote for, but for me, it's because I just don't see
>>> any real difference between any one of them.
>> -------------------------------------
>> Interesting comment.
>>
>> IMHO, the two parties couldn't be farther apart in their respective
>> ideas.
>>
>
> I agree in that their rhetoric is very separate, but once they're in, I find
> little difference between either party. I'm a fairly conservative person,
> both politically and financially, yet I was as upset with Bush the Younger
> as any left wing radical. Just more of the political ambition - lie, cheat,
> and steal to get what I want.
I think you meant to type: Just more of the political ambition - lie,
cheat, and steal to get what *they* want.
Okay, even if you have this point of view, the actions of the
politicians are going to affect a lot of people. And I surely expect
these results will differ significantly, depending on which party is in
control.
The details may vary, but the fundamentals
> are the same across party lines.
>
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 19:20:07 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
> Democrats tend to PROVIDE for the general welfare through the TREASURY;
> Republicans tend to PROMOTE the general welfare through the ECONOMY.
After nodding my head in agreement to your post about the difference
between politicians and businessmen, you had to ruin it by posting the
above drivel?
I prefer to quote (approx.) Will Rogers:
"The Democrats want to take my money and give it to the poor.
The Republicans want to take my money and give it to the rich.
If I can't keep it myself I'd rather it went to the poor."
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 04:57:30 -0400, Bill wrote:
> Just curious, who would get your great honor as a dinner guest (name
> more than one if you like)? This could be fun (for all).
Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Plato, Aristotle, Hawking, Pratchett.
Preferably all at once so I could just sit back and listen to the
discussion :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On 6/4/2012 9:36 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> To start with, we need less government, a line item veto, and a
> balanced budget (zero deficit,& start dropping the debt NOW!) without
> any unnecessary wars [like the 2 (or is it 4?) we're now in.] And we
> need to fix what's wrong with _our_ people and _our_ country before
> sending ANY money overseas.
Why anyone of ANY party affiliation would have any problem implementing and
enforcing the policies you just mentioned is beyond me.
--
Any given amount of traffic flow, no matter how
sparse, will expand to fill all available lanes.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
Steve Turner wrote:
> On 6/4/2012 9:36 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> To start with, we need less government, a line item veto, and a
>> balanced budget (zero deficit,& start dropping the debt NOW!) without
>> any unnecessary wars [like the 2 (or is it 4?) we're now in.] And we
>> need to fix what's wrong with _our_ people and _our_ country before
>> sending ANY money overseas.
>
> Why anyone of ANY party affiliation would have any problem implementing
> and enforcing the policies you just mentioned is beyond me.
>
That reminds me of something an old colleague used to say: "When
you're up to your ass in alligators its hard to remember that your
original intention was to drain the swamp!"
On 6/4/2012 5:50 PM, Bill wrote:
> Steve Turner wrote:
>> On 6/4/2012 9:36 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> To start with, we need less government, a line item veto, and a
>>> balanced budget (zero deficit,& start dropping the debt NOW!) without
>>> any unnecessary wars [like the 2 (or is it 4?) we're now in.] And we
>>> need to fix what's wrong with _our_ people and _our_ country before
>>> sending ANY money overseas.
>>
>> Why anyone of ANY party affiliation would have any problem implementing
>> and enforcing the policies you just mentioned is beyond me.
>>
>
> That reminds me of something an old colleague used to say: "When you're
> up to your ass in alligators its hard to remember that your original
> intention was to drain the swamp!"
Many years ago when I worked on the coast of southeastern North Carolina
we came to work one morning and found we were literally up to ankles in
alligator. A seven foot ale gator decided the warm bricks of the wall
of the office was a great place to take a nap. When we came in he was
against the wall right outside of my office. That was between the
office and the walk to the production facility. None of my technicians
would go out to the production facility to get samples until the ale
gator left in the late afternoon.
The experience gave a whole new twist to that expression.
Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 6/4/2012 5:50 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Steve Turner wrote:
>>> On 6/4/2012 9:36 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> To start with, we need less government, a line item veto, and a
>>>> balanced budget (zero deficit,& start dropping the debt NOW!) without
>>>> any unnecessary wars [like the 2 (or is it 4?) we're now in.] And we
>>>> need to fix what's wrong with _our_ people and _our_ country before
>>>> sending ANY money overseas.
>>>
>>> Why anyone of ANY party affiliation would have any problem implementing
>>> and enforcing the policies you just mentioned is beyond me.
>>>
>>
>> That reminds me of something an old colleague used to say: "When you're
>> up to your ass in alligators its hard to remember that your original
>> intention was to drain the swamp!"
>
> Many years ago when I worked on the coast of southeastern North Carolina
> we came to work one morning and found we were literally up to ankles in
> alligator. A seven foot ale gator decided the warm bricks of the wall of
> the office was a great place to take a nap. When we came in he was
> against the wall right outside of my office. That was between the office
> and the walk to the production facility. None of my technicians would go
> out to the production facility to get samples until the ale gator left
> in the late afternoon.
I guess they didn't know when "lunch time" was for the alligator! :)
>
> The experience gave a whole new twist to that expression.
On 6/3/2012 5:46 PM, Bill wrote:
> IMO, the two parties are so far apart that I will probably have a
> difficult time deciding who to vote for.
You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and free
enterprise, the Republican party.
I know many Republicans, like Bush and McCain are seemingly so damned
liberal they look much like the Marxists Dems, but the party in general
still has plenty of those that support the individual rather than the
collective, and it is getting better by the day.
If you can't see who to vote for, you are not looking, regardless if a
communist or patriot, the choice is clear as a bell.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:36 -0400, Jack wrote:
> I know many Republicans, like Bush and McCain are seemingly so damned
> liberal they look much like the Marxists Dems, but the party in general
> still has plenty of those that support the individual rather than the
> collective, and it is getting better by the day.
Is there something about woodworking that generates this kind of
thinking? Perhaps the sawdust drifts in through the ears and displaces
brain tissue?
There are reasonable conservatives in this group. Myself, I tend to be
liberal on some issues and conservative on others. I haven't seen any
avowed socialists or communists, although there may be a few. But we
sure seem to attract a plethora of the far right wing.
Most would do well to remember one thing. If you think you've got a
simple solution to a complicated problem, the odds are overwhelming that
you're wrong :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Jack wrote:
> On 6/3/2012 5:46 PM, Bill wrote:
>
>> IMO, the two parties are so far apart that I will probably have a
>> difficult time deciding who to vote for.
>
> You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
> Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and free
> enterprise, the Republican party.
>
> I know many Republicans, like Bush and McCain are seemingly so damned
> liberal they look much like the Marxists Dems, but the party in general
> still has plenty of those that support the individual rather than the
> collective, and it is getting better by the day.
>
> If you can't see who to vote for, you are not looking, regardless if a
> communist or patriot, the choice is clear as a bell.
>
Both parties appear to me to be "SELFISH"!
I'd be more inclined toward what you characterize as "the constitution,
the individual and free enterprise" if it were not for corruption--e.g.
dishonesty/deception in food labeling ("pink slime" is just the tip of
an iceberg).
When I listen to John Boener (R), speaker of the house, he reminds me of
what I don't care for in the republican party. Last summer's "stalemate"
was the worst. Having taken a lot of economics courses in college I
have voted "R" more times than not, but I have had to slacken my devotion.
Gordon Shumway wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:56:05 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Most would do well to remember one thing. If you think you've got a
>> simple solution to a complicated problem, the odds are overwhelming that
>> you're wrong :-).
>
> The fact is there are simple solutions to our complicated problems.
> The issue is those solutions require actions that are unpopular with a
> portion of the voting public. If getting re-elected was not a
> concern, politicians could make these simple solutions without fear of
> losing the next election. Problem solved.
>
> Here's another simple solution; if an elected official does not do
> what he says he will do while campaigning he/she should be fined
> and/or imprisoned for fraud. Problem solved.
I agree with you in spirit, however, politicians make "promises" (or
"describe their ideals") in the absense of complete information--and the
voters are basically aware of this, so I don't think you don't have a
basis for "fraud".
>
> Another simple solution; anyone receiving government assistance such
> as, welfare, food stamps, housing assistance or any other hand out
> that they haven't contributed to would be ineligible to vote due to a
> conflict of interest. Problem solved.
It worked something like that before the Civil War, no? And woman
didn't get the right to vote or run for office until the early 20th
century. Do you wish to undo these transitions?
What surprises me, a bit, is that we allow "anyone" to have as many
children (or turn out as many voters) as they wish to--even if they
cannot provide for them. Certain organizations use to preach
procreation, having a political agenda in mind.
>
> I'm sure there are many other simple solutions, but that would be a
> good start.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>
>> You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
>> Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and
>> free
>> enterprise, the Republican party.
> ----------------------------------------
> It's really rather straight forward.
>
> If your taxable income is $250K or more, the Republicans are your
> friends.
>
> If your taxable income is less than $250K, the Republicans are not
> your friends.
>
> If you are a woman then the Republicans are definitely not your
> friends.
It is "clever" that the republican party made this (abortion) a
political issue, securing votes that "shouldn't belong to them"--by
making people choose between their pocketbooks and their religion.
That seems wrong to me. 'Course, you may be able to tell from my
calculations that I'm something of an idealist. And no, I am not
claiming that being an idealist is ideal. Economics suggests we follow
our strengths.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
On 6/7/2012 12:56 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:36 -0400, Jack wrote:
>
>> I know many Republicans, like Bush and McCain are seemingly so damned
>> liberal they look much like the Marxists Dems, but the party in general
>> still has plenty of those that support the individual rather than the
>> collective, and it is getting better by the day.
Meaningless personal attack deleted.
> There are reasonable conservatives in this group.
Meaningless drivel left in.
Myself, I tend to be
> liberal on some issues and conservative on others.
Says the guy whose favorite quote is from Fabien socialist G.W Shaw
whose solution for anyone not pulling their weight was to gas them.
> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
> Most would do well to remember one thing. If you think you've got a
> simple solution to a complicated problem, the odds are overwhelming that
> you're wrong :-).
Yeah, gas the fuckers, that was a simple solution.
--
Jack
If Obama's the Answer, How Stupid was the Question?
http://jbstein.com
On 6/8/2012 12:17 AM, Bill wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>> If you can't see who to vote for, you are not looking, regardless if a
>> communist or patriot, the choice is clear as a bell.
> Both parties appear to me to be "SELFISH"!
If you mean take money from those that do and give it to those that
don't, even if they enslave entire groups of people doing it, yeah,
perhaps.
> I'd be more inclined toward what you characterize as "the constitution,
> the individual and free enterprise" if it were not for corruption--e.g.
> dishonesty/deception in food labeling ("pink slime" is just the tip of
> an iceberg).
Yeah, we need more laws against "pink slime" salt, sugar, meat, smoking,
table saws... ooops, not table saws...
> When I listen to John Boener (R), speaker of the house, he reminds me of
> what I don't care for in the republican party. Last summer's "stalemate"
> was the worst.
Yeah, I have the same problem. The republicans were elected to stop
spending more than they have, instead, they went along with the
socialist party and raised the debt limit to hurry along the death of
the US.
Having taken a lot of economics courses in college I have
> voted "R" more times than not, but I have had to slacken my devotion.
So you are more devoted to whom, the socialists that believe government
control is the simple answer to everything?
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 07:31:06 -0600, Bruce <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 21:59:03 -0600, Ed Pawlowski wrote
>(in article <[email protected]>):
>
>> On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 13:57:24 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Standard way of doing business these days. Mark the price way up so you can
>>> run sales and make the public think they are getting a deal.
>>
>> A few weeks ago we took a trip down to Savannah. Stopped in a store
>> and they touted 50% off of everything. I saw an item for $40, but it
>> would be half that with the sale discount. Seemed like a scam. Next
>> day, another store had the same item for $15 regular price.
>
>JC Penny recently tried to change all that by not having sales and marking
>everything at a good price. Basically a no pricing BS policy.
>Their sales plummeted....
Truly sad, isn't it? And "they" aren't done dumbing down the average
American yet. The movie "Idiocracy" is coming true with the help of
our own gov't.
--
Doctors prescribe medicine of which they know little,
to cure diseases of which they know less,
in human beings of which they know nothing.
--Francois-Marie Arouet Voltaire, about 250 years ago
On 6/8/2012 12:34 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>
>> You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
>> Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and
>> free
>> enterprise, the Republican party.
> ----------------------------------------
> It's really rather straight forward.
>
> If your taxable income is $250K or more, the Republicans are your
> friends.
>
> If your taxable income is less than $250K, the Republicans are not
> your friends.
>
> If you are a woman then the Republicans are definitely not your
> friends.
Wow, talk about drinking the kool-aid, you are swimming in it!
--
Jack
If Ignorance is Bliss, You must be One Happy Liberal!
http://jbstein.com
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:39:02 -0400, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Gordon Shumway wrote:
>>> Here's another simple solution; if an elected official does not do
>>> what he says he will do while campaigning he/she should be fined
>>> and/or imprisoned for fraud. Problem solved.
>>
>> I agree with you in spirit, however, politicians make "promises" (or
>> "describe their ideals") in the absense of complete information--and the
>> voters are basically aware of this, so I don't think you don't have a
>> basis for "fraud".
>
> You're standing up for the complete shit pols hand us? Why?
I am most certainly Not. I just pointed out where Shumway's simple
solution breaks down. That only means that the work on the simple
solution is not finished. Better to realize that now, than to find out
in the courts. I am all for "better politics".
People sometimes describe me as having some sort of aversion to
politics. I frequently just say what I think. I am also not saying
that's the best way to be. The world doesn't like the truth so much.
Bill
Jack wrote:
> On 6/8/2012 12:17 AM, Bill wrote:
> Having taken a lot of economics courses in college I have
>> voted "R" more times than not, but I have had to slacken my devotion.
>
> So you are more devoted to whom, the socialists that believe government
> control is the simple answer to everything?
No. But I would have a difficult time seeing people go hungry. John
Boener comes across to me as pretty cool (cold). I might be inclined to
vote for the party that didn't seem like they had to have everything
their way (remember I used the term "selfish" to describe the language I
have heard from both parties).
On related ground, are you proud of the skyrocketing costs of medical
care? Medicare might be a lifesaver.
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> IMO, the real problem is JCP. That type of store is just an old
> department store model that began to unravel a decade or two ago. Most
> of us can name a dozen stores that just went away and were replaced by
> Wal Mart, Kohls, etc. They probably should just turn out the lights
> and go home.
No! I like the clothing at JCP...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 6/10/2012 10:08 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:19:32 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> Uhh yeah, when you mark down your entire inventory and sell it for a
>> much reduced price you sales will plummet. You are selling for less.
>
> I think they figured the dollars would be about the same as there are
> no radical sale reductions, just everyday low prices.
>
>>
>> What JCP is in the middle of doing is changing their business
>> strategy/plan.
> snip
>>
>> As time goes by and they get control of their costs and expenses the
>> higher volume and lower prices should work out well for them.
>
> IMO, the real problem is JCP. That type of store is just an old
> department store model that began to unravel a decade or two ago. Most
> of us can name a dozen stores that just went away and were replaced by
> Wal Mart, Kohls, etc. They probably should just turn out the lights
> and go home.
No reason to shut down, they can change and they appear to be changing.
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:19:32 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>
>Uhh yeah, when you mark down your entire inventory and sell it for a
>much reduced price you sales will plummet. You are selling for less.
I think they figured the dollars would be about the same as there are
no radical sale reductions, just everyday low prices.
>
>What JCP is in the middle of doing is changing their business
>strategy/plan.
snip
>
>As time goes by and they get control of their costs and expenses the
>higher volume and lower prices should work out well for them.
IMO, the real problem is JCP. That type of store is just an old
department store model that began to unravel a decade or two ago. Most
of us can name a dozen stores that just went away and were replaced by
Wal Mart, Kohls, etc. They probably should just turn out the lights
and go home.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:45:26 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> They probably should just turn out the lights
>>> and go home.
>>
>> No! I like the clothing at JCP...
>
> Hey! We agree on something :-).
Must be God workin' on ya brother... :-) (and I never use smileys...)
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:45:26 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
> They probably should just turn out the lights
>> and go home.
>
> No! I like the clothing at JCP...
Hey! We agree on something :-).
==================================================================
Three of us so far.
Gordon Shumway wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:43:38 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:39:02 -0400, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gordon Shumway wrote:
>>
>>>>> Here's another simple solution; if an elected official does not do
>>>>> what he says he will do while campaigning he/she should be fined
>>>>> and/or imprisoned for fraud. Problem solved.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you in spirit, however, politicians make "promises" (or
>>>> "describe their ideals") in the absense of complete information--and the
>>>> voters are basically aware of this, so I don't think you don't have a
>>>> basis for "fraud".
>>>
>>> You're standing up for the complete shit pols hand us? Why?
>>
>> I am most certainly Not. I just pointed out where Shumway's simple
>> solution breaks down. That only means that the work on the simple
>> solution is not finished. Better to realize that now, than to find out
>> in the courts. I am all for "better politics".
>>
>> People sometimes describe me as having some sort of aversion to
>> politics. I frequently just say what I think. I am also not saying
>> that's the best way to be. The world doesn't like the truth so much.
>>
>> Bill
>
> Wrong! Describing ones ideals is not making a promise. It is what
> you said it is. But, if a politician makes a promise he can't deliver
> because of "absence of complete information" then he has not only
> perpetrated a fraud, he has proven himself to be an Idiot.
As I've already mentioned he or she has not perpetrated a fraud.
Evidently, the voter has some responsibility in choosing his or her
candidate too, like a jury weighing evidence. If a politician told you
he or she could do what you knew was impossible, you wouldn't hold them
to it, would you?
ho, in
> D.C. does that remind you of?
>
Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 06/08/2012 03:00 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Jack wrote:
>>> On 6/8/2012 12:17 AM, Bill wrote:
>>
>>> Having taken a lot of economics courses in college I have
>>>> voted "R" more times than not, but I have had to slacken my devotion.
>>>
>>> So you are more devoted to whom, the socialists that believe government
>>> control is the simple answer to everything?
>>
>> No. But I would have a difficult time seeing people go hungry. John
>> Boener comes across to me as pretty cool (cold). I might be inclined to
>> vote for the party that didn't seem like they had to have everything
>> their way (remember I used the term "selfish" to describe the language I
>> have heard from both parties).
>>
>> On related ground, are you proud of the skyrocketing costs of medical
>> care? Medicare might be a lifesaver.
>
> Except the O defunded it by a half trillion bucks for his affordable
> health care thing.
>
> In fact, he defunded SS and medicare by 50% for the last year with his
> big break on payroll taxes on the individual - not the employers.
>
> And now, I have several of my health care providers telling me they may
> not be able to keep myself and my wife as patients as the cuts to
> medicare won't allow them to stay in business as the cuts put them below
> the break even line.
Let me know when he goes out of business. Seriously. Something may
just need to be adjusted to move the break even line (I would suggest
that alot of things could probably be adjusted with health care). Health
care costs are part of the problem--somewhat explainable by inelastic
demand, meaning if you are hurting enough you'll receive services and
ask questions later...a recipe for a high bill. Hey and that's pretty
much the way hospital billing works, isn't it?
>
>
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 11:01:00 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>>
>> IMO, the real problem is JCP. That type of store is just an old
>> department store model that began to unravel a decade or two ago. Most
>> of us can name a dozen stores that just went away and were replaced by
>> Wal Mart, Kohls, etc. They probably should just turn out the lights
>> and go home.
>
>No reason to shut down, they can change and they appear to be changing.
That will be decided by the customers. or the lack thereof. Gimbals,
Wanamakers, Strawbridge & Clothier, Lit Bros. and a bunch of others
did not make it. Some of them opened discount stores and they closed
too. The Sears Essentials in our town just reverted back to a K Mart.
Time will tell.
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:22:06 -0700, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> You accept gov't services, you just don't want to pay for them.
Lew, I was going to ask "Jack" about SS, Medicare, etc.. but I've come to
the conclusion that he's just trolling with his outrageous posts so I'm
ignoring him.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On Thu, 31 May 2012 20:37:45 -0500, ChairMan wrote:
>> Can everything you say be true? If so, our problems were not actually
>> Bush's fault ! We've been lied to !
>>
>> Makes one want to weep, it surely does.
>
> if a politicians lips are moving, you're being lied to. some was
> definately Bushes fault, but not near the extent people(Bammy) blame him
> for
His successors will have to go a long way to top Bush's lie that Saddam
Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
===================================================================
He never said that.
Remember Cheney's "mobile biological weapons labs"? Not only were they
actually helium (or hydrogen) generators for weather balloons made by a
company in Great Britain.
I know I won't convince the Obama haters, so I'll quit here.
===============================================================================
I don't like Coca cola. By your logic, if I don't like Coke, I must love
Pepsi. Guess what, I don't like either one. Yes, Obama should be thrown out
like yesterdays trash. Bush is (thankfully) yesterdays trash, no longer
relevant. This is one of politics biggest problems. People taking sides and
blindly cheering for their side like it was a football game. Even the
politicians are starting to say "yes, I'm slime but he's worse". That's what
you are saying here. People need to stop cheerleading and look at the
problem at hand. Look at the issues. The majority of people are not hardcore
one way or the other. The politicians and the public both need to realize
that.
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 21:34:55 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Jack wrote:
>
>> You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
>> Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and
>> free
>> enterprise, the Republican party.
>----------------------------------------
>It's really rather straight forward.
>
>If your taxable income is $250K or more, the Republicans are your
>friends.
>
>If your taxable income is less than $250K, the Republicans are not
>your friends.
>
>If you are a woman then the Republicans are definitely not your
>friends.
>
>Lew
>
>
You are a perfect example of why birth control should be retroactive!
On 5/29/2012 12:47 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 5/29/2012 11:22 AM, Leon wrote:
>
>> Simply don't vote for anyone you don't like. If you vote for the sake of
>> voting, that is part of the problem.
>>
>> Which would you rather vote for? On these merits only.
>>
>> A. A Democrat candidate that lies to win and does not do what he said he
>> was going to do to improve the country.
>>
>> Or
>>
>> B. A Republican candidate that lies to win and does not do what he said
>> he was going to do to improve the country.
>>
>>
>> You know that whom ever you vote for will likely fit either description
>> above. Voting for either tells the powers that be you are OK with that.
>
>
> Either that, or vote early, and often ...
>
>
Yeah!
Candidates should be chosen like jurors. Then elected.
Leon wrote:
>
> Which would you rather vote for? On these merits only.
>
> A. A Democrat candidate that lies to win and does not do what he said
> he was going to do to improve the country.
>
> Or
>
> B. A Republican candidate that lies to win and does not do what he
> said he was going to do to improve the country.
>
>
Seemingly, the governor of Wisconsin did, as governor, what he said he was
going to do. A large number of the voters are really upset with a politician
that does things like that.
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 17:36:02 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:42:21 -0700, CW wrote:
>
>> That's what you are saying here. People need to stop cheerleading and
>> look at the problem at hand.
>
>I don't disagree with you. I was not cheerleading, I was responding to a
>cheerleader and showing that "his side" wasn't blameless either.
>
>It's not the voters nor the politicians. The system is broken.
I consider this to be the understatement of the year so far.
>A lot of
>good suggestions have been made on how to fix it, or at least improve
>it. None of the have a snowballs chance in hell because they'd hurt too
>many of the rich and powerful.
Downsizing the US Gov't (my preference is 50-75%) is going to hurt
like hell, primarily in the middle class, but it's a necessary "evil".
Putting everyone and their brother on the welfare/SS/foodstamp roles,
including every stray who illegally crosses the border, political
asylum seekers, etc, is also an extremely bad idea which should never
have passed any of the levels of scrutiny, but nobody seems to be
doing a GO/NOGO test for anything nowadays. Go figure!
--
Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
-- Thomas Jefferson
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:39:02 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Gordon Shumway wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:56:05 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Most would do well to remember one thing. If you think you've got a
>>> simple solution to a complicated problem, the odds are overwhelming that
>>> you're wrong :-).
>>
>> The fact is there are simple solutions to our complicated problems.
>> The issue is those solutions require actions that are unpopular with a
>> portion of the voting public. If getting re-elected was not a
>> concern, politicians could make these simple solutions without fear of
>> losing the next election. Problem solved.
>>
>> Here's another simple solution; if an elected official does not do
>> what he says he will do while campaigning he/she should be fined
>> and/or imprisoned for fraud. Problem solved.
>
> I agree with you in spirit, however, politicians make "promises" (or
>"describe their ideals") in the absense of complete information--and the
>voters are basically aware of this, so I don't think you don't have a
>basis for "fraud".
You're standing up for the complete shit pols hand us? Why?
>> Another simple solution; anyone receiving government assistance such
>> as, welfare, food stamps, housing assistance or any other hand out
>> that they haven't contributed to would be ineligible to vote due to a
>> conflict of interest. Problem solved.
>
> It worked something like that before the Civil War, no? And woman
>didn't get the right to vote or run for office until the early 20th
>century. Do you wish to undo these transitions?
Did he -say- anything about women or slaves not voting? No.
> What surprises me, a bit, is that we allow "anyone" to have as many
>children (or turn out as many voters) as they wish to--even if they
>cannot provide for them. Certain organizations use to preach
>procreation, having a political agenda in mind.
When I'm king, parties seeking welfare would undergo voluntary
sterilization (both parties.) My step-niece, once removed, is a
welfare queen and I can't stand to talk to her. Seven kids, 6 fathers,
one of which raped their 4 year old daughter and was doing something
to the 5 y/o boy.
>> I'm sure there are many other simple solutions, but that would be a
>> good start.
I'm with Gordon.
--
Silence is more musical than any song.
-- Christina Rossetti
On Tue, 29 May 2012 11:22:11 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 5/29/2012 9:17 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 May 2012 07:37:05 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/29/2012 12:52 AM, ChairMan wrote:
>>>> I find this to be very sad on many levels
>>>> http://www.barackobama.com/om-dinner-with-barack-june-signon?source=om2012_lb_NYT_disptest_0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250&utm_medium=om2012&utm_source=NYT&utm_campaign=lb_disptest&utm_content=0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/6s8uc2g
>>>>
>>>> <shakes head>
>>>
>>> Political theater to take your mind off the screwing you're getting. Too
>>> bad that's not the saddest thing about the "divide and pander" tactics
>>> on both sides.
>>
>> What I want to know is: When are we going to see a checkbox with NONE
>> OF THE ABOVE on the ticket?
>
>Simply don't vote for anyone you don't like. If you vote for the sake
>of voting, that is part of the problem.
>
>Which would you rather vote for? On these merits only.
>
>A. A Democrat candidate that lies to win and does not do what he said
>he was going to do to improve the country.
>
>Or
>
>B. A Republican candidate that lies to win and does not do what he said
>he was going to do to improve the country.
C. None of the above.
>You know that whom ever you vote for will likely fit either description
>above. Voting for either tells the powers that be you are OK with that.
I'll be writing-in the man I -want- in that office, Ross Perot. I know
he won't win, but I want to voice my true opinion, so that's it. Some
people call that "wasting my vote", but I consider not voting at all
or voting for the lesser of two evils is the only way to waste a vote.
I'd be truly happy with a Perot/Paul ticket. Actual changes for the
good would start happening in this country if that happened.
I hope all of you join me in this, come November.
--
When a quiet man is moved to passion, it seems the very earth will shake.
-- Stephanie Barron
(Something for the Powers That Be to remember, eh?)
On Tue, 29 May 2012 22:20:01 -0400, knuttle
<[email protected]> wrote:
>OR
>Do you want to vote for an incumbent who is incapable of seeing anything
>but the intercity and has no idea of how the real world operates
>
>OR do you want to vote for the person who know how the world operates,
>having worked with many struggling companies and brought them back from
>the brink. (Yes he lost a few, but a few is better that all if he had
>not succeeded. )
>
>Do you want to vote for a president who said that he would reduce the
>deficit and now has national debt that is twice what it was when he took
>office. Do you want to vote for a president who heads a party that has
>not passed a budget in the past six years?
>
>Or do a person you want to vote for a person who understands the
>importance of budget and realizes you can not run a multi trillion
>dollar operation with out it.
>
>Do you want to vote for a president that was taught that the way to
>socialize a country was to put it so far into debt that it would be easy
>to pass the necessary socialist legislation.
>
>Do you want to vote for a president that has tried to institute every
>failed policy for the last 150 years.
>
>If you don't like Romney and don't vote, you are voting for the person
>currently in the White house.
That is a fair assessment of what the candidates offer. However,
there are one or two tiny things you didn't mention...
Obama's hatred for this county.
Obama's concern for his job over that of millions of those he put out
of work.
Obama's divisive tactics that have so deeply divided this country.
Obama's total lack of leadership on virtually all issues.
Obama's paybacks to his campaign contributors at taxpayer expense.
Obama's desire to increase all fuel costs to give his green policies
the slightest chance of being financially competitive especially when
huge government subsidies (tax dollars) factored in.
Obama's campaign that only points out negatives of his opponent rather
than pointing out his successes. He could campaign positively about
his... Nobel Prize and his vacation prowess.
Obama's... Well, I think you get the picture.
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:43:38 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:39:02 -0400, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Gordon Shumway wrote:
>
>>>> Here's another simple solution; if an elected official does not do
>>>> what he says he will do while campaigning he/she should be fined
>>>> and/or imprisoned for fraud. Problem solved.
>>>
>>> I agree with you in spirit, however, politicians make "promises" (or
>>> "describe their ideals") in the absense of complete information--and the
>>> voters are basically aware of this, so I don't think you don't have a
>>> basis for "fraud".
>>
>> You're standing up for the complete shit pols hand us? Why?
>
>I am most certainly Not. I just pointed out where Shumway's simple
>solution breaks down. That only means that the work on the simple
>solution is not finished. Better to realize that now, than to find out
>in the courts. I am all for "better politics".
>
>People sometimes describe me as having some sort of aversion to
>politics. I frequently just say what I think. I am also not saying
>that's the best way to be. The world doesn't like the truth so much.
>
>Bill
Wrong! Describing ones ideals is not making a promise. It is what
you said it is. But, if a politician makes a promise he can't deliver
because of "absence of complete information" then he has not only
perpetrated a fraud, he has proven himself to be an Idiot. Who, in
D.C. does that remind you of?
On 5/31/2012 3:06 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Swingman" wrote:
>
>> The fact that food and fuel are not indexed in the inflation numbers
>> is indicative of just how easy it is to con the current crop of
>> American voters.
> -------------------------------------
> Romney's handlers are betting on it.
That's right ... just keep right on playing into "Divide and Pander"
politics ... just what the country needs, yessiree!
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> I agree in that their rhetoric is very separate, but once they're in,
> I find little difference between either party. I'm a fairly
> conservative person, both politically and financially, yet I was as
> upset with Bush the Younger as any left wing radical. Just more of
> the political ambition - lie, cheat, and steal to get what I want. The
> details may vary, but the fundamentals are the same across party
> lines.
So you look hard at the morals of the office holder and their moral fiber
ranks right up there with their political positions.
That's a meritorious way to view things... but:
The guardian mentality (an office holder, a king) MUST often deceive for the
sake of the task. He simply cannot be totally honest with his adversaries -
the future of his country depends on generating a certain mindset amongst
his potential enemies and often that mindset cannot come into being without
a skewing - or downright fabrication - of the facts.
I commend for your consideration a book entitled "Systems of Survival" by
Jane Jacobs. The protaganist walks into his NYC bank, gives the teller a
check from a German publishing company drawn on a Swiss bank and leaves with
cash!
It occurred to him that there is an awful lot of trust built into the
commercial system...
The rest of the book delves into the differences between the "Guardian"
mindset and the "Commercial" belief system. They are wildly different - and
incompatible. Here's one example:
Once upon a time, the patrons of the New York City subway system complained
so bitterly about aggressive panhandlers and public urination in the subway,
that the transit authorities looked for a solution. They settled on a
technique often found in the commercial world: bonuses.
The police department started giving cash bonuses to the transit cops for
every arrest.
You can imagine how spectaularly that failed!
Bottom line on this example of the differences: A candidate whose only
experience is in business, should NOT be elected to a major office. The
techniques he learned in business cannot be successfully applied to
government. Likewise, an ex-office holder is usually a disaster in private
enterprise (except, perhaps, as a lobbyist or board member).
The book really is an eye-opener.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
> It's not the voters nor the politicians. The system is broken. A
> lot of good suggestions have been made on how to fix it, or at least
> improve it. None of the have a snowballs chance in hell because
> they'd hurt too many of the rich and powerful.
That's what was said about the unions in Wisconsin.
On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:29:26 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Not that I'm happy with Obamacare - I consider it a free gift to the
>insurance companies. They get a new influx of customers who might not
>have insured themselves otherwise and they get a new excuse to raise
>rates. But it's the best Obama could get through a Congress that's
>bought and paid for.
What do you mean "it's the best Obama could get through a Congress
that's bought and paid for?" The 111th congress that passed that
unconstitutional legislation was the most left leaning congress this
country's recent history has ever seen. Consider that Harry and Nancy
were the majority leaders in the Senate and the House should be
evidence of that. They did exactly what our idiot-in-chief wanted.
Don't forget queen Nancy's quote "We have to pass the bill so you can
find out what is in it." Clearly another one of her displays of great
wisdom.
On 5/29/2012 9:17 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 07:37:05 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 5/29/2012 12:52 AM, ChairMan wrote:
>>> I find this to be very sad on many levels
>>> http://www.barackobama.com/om-dinner-with-barack-june-signon?source=om2012_lb_NYT_disptest_0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250&utm_medium=om2012&utm_source=NYT&utm_campaign=lb_disptest&utm_content=0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250
>>>
>>>
>>> or
>>> http://tinyurl.com/6s8uc2g
>>>
>>> <shakes head>
>>
>> Political theater to take your mind off the screwing you're getting. Too
>> bad that's not the saddest thing about the "divide and pander" tactics
>> on both sides.
>
> What I want to know is: When are we going to see a checkbox with NONE
> OF THE ABOVE on the ticket?
Simply don't vote for anyone you don't like. If you vote for the sake
of voting, that is part of the problem.
Which would you rather vote for? On these merits only.
A. A Democrat candidate that lies to win and does not do what he said
he was going to do to improve the country.
Or
B. A Republican candidate that lies to win and does not do what he said
he was going to do to improve the country.
You know that whom ever you vote for will likely fit either description
above. Voting for either tells the powers that be you are OK with that.
On 5/29/2012 5:56 PM, CW wrote:
>
>
> "Leon" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> On 5/29/2012 9:17 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 May 2012 07:37:05 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/29/2012 12:52 AM, ChairMan wrote:
>>>> I find this to be very sad on many levels
>>>> http://www.barackobama.com/om-dinner-with-barack-june-signon?source=om2012_lb_NYT_disptest_0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250&utm_medium=om2012&utm_source=NYT&utm_campaign=lb_disptest&utm_content=0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/6s8uc2g
>>>>
>>>> <shakes head>
>>>
>>> Political theater to take your mind off the screwing you're getting. Too
>>> bad that's not the saddest thing about the "divide and pander" tactics
>>> on both sides.
>>
>> What I want to know is: When are we going to see a checkbox with NONE
>> OF THE ABOVE on the ticket?
>
> Simply don't vote for anyone you don't like. If you vote for the sake
> of voting, that is part of the problem.
>
> Which would you rather vote for? On these merits only.
>
> A. A Democrat candidate that lies to win and does not do what he said
> he was going to do to improve the country.
>
> Or
>
> B. A Republican candidate that lies to win and does not do what he said
> he was going to do to improve the country.
>
>
> You know that whom ever you vote for will likely fit either description
> above. Voting for either tells the powers that be you are OK with that.
> ================================================================
> Voting for neither just says "do what you want, I don't care". The
> politicians would just love to not have any of those annoying voters
> getting in their way.
It will not be long before the button/lever/box you check will emit a
squeak much like that red button on the steering wheel of a child's car
seat. That will be our reward.
On 5/29/2012 12:52 AM, ChairMan wrote:
> I find this to be very sad on many levels
> http://www.barackobama.com/om-dinner-with-barack-june-signon?source=om2012_lb_NYT_disptest_0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250&utm_medium=om2012&utm_source=NYT&utm_campaign=lb_disptest&utm_content=0412dwb-signup-air3_300x250
>
>
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/6s8uc2g
>
> <shakes head>
Political theater to take your mind off the screwing you're getting. Too
bad that's not the saddest thing about the "divide and pander" tactics
on both sides.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop