OT: (US) Corporations are powerful entities

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:23:40 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 23:01:03 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:44:15 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a motorcycle that gets 50mpg on gas with alcohol, 60mpg
>>>>>> without. So it's 60 miles on one gallon without, 50 miles on 9/10
>>>>>> of a gallon with. That's assuming 10% alcohol. So I'm actually
>>>>>> burning more gasoline with the "cleaner" gas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup - just about everyone has experienced at least a 10% hit in
>>>>> fuel economy since the "cleaner" gas went mainstream. And... it's
>>>>> a total net energy loss right from the refinery process. But...
>>>>> the feelgooders at least have something to fool themselves with.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> But some farmers and politicians are making out so that makes
>>>>>> everything OK.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't forget the people who don't think beyond what makes them feel
>>>>> good. They're pretty happy too.
>>>>
>>>> In my experience, they're never happy, rather like a junkie.
>>>
>>> Au contraire - they're always happy since they never really think
>>> anything through. They just react to what makes them feel good.
>>
>> Disgree. There's always another piece of the sky falling, for them.
>
>Yeahbut, dontchya getit? That's what they love. Then they get to come up
>with feel good things

They enjoy being depressed? The only day they've ever been happy was the day
Michelle was proud of America.

On 22 Oct 2012 20:10:10 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:



>I realize that unions may have the same abilities, but they are supposed
>to follow their members desires, while with corporations this is not the
>case.

In 1940 the unions did follow their member's desires. In 2012, not so
much. It was probably the late 60's when unions went to the dark side
and no longer cared about the members. The purpose of most unions at
present is to collect dues and pay big salaries to the leaders.
AFL-CIO Pres makes $293,000. UMW $175,000. Postal Workers, $241,000.
You see the poor sob's picketing in the rain while the union bosses
pull up in their Caddy to see if they are still on the line. I've
been at the table for negotiations. I can tell lots of stories about
them, none good for the worker.

Bill wrote:

>
> All of your thoughts are well-taken. This one meets in an interesting
> way with my post. It rather divides the people in the country.
> Maybe corporations can become "too (big and) powerful"?

Perhaps - in one way or another.

>
> The concept is something like "too big to fail". The corporations do
> not need to consider that more than its profits are at stake--and
> from a national perspective, that is not good for the nation or it's
> citizens, despite the fact that it may be very good for those
> entities that are shareholders of the corporation, domestic or
> foreign.

Sorry Bill - but that statement does not make a bit of sense, and I read it
several times to try to understand what you are trying to say. Try it
again...

>
> I am also aware that trying to run a closed system (like the Soviet
> Union and Communist China did) has not historically been a big
> success. I'm just thinking...(we need solutions).
>

Closed system? Not sure how you are applying that term.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 18:51:15 -0700, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 17:15:48 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 07:58:47 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, well, they once said that about turning corn into auto fuel.
>>
>>And the obvious side effect of that is to raise the price of corn, lower
>>world grain supplies, and reduce gas mileage.
>>
>>I have a motorcycle that gets 50mpg on gas with alcohol, 60mpg without.
>>So it's 60 miles on one gallon without, 50 miles on 9/10 of a gallon
>>with. That's assuming 10% alcohol. So I'm actually burning more
>>gasoline with the "cleaner" gas.
>
>My Tundra lost 15% in mileage when they moved to oxygenated (10%
>ethanol) fuel. That means the gov't just got an extra 15% tax raise,
>which they're throwing away to the folks growing corn for ethanol.
>It's one of the few 100% Lose/Lose/Lose situations.
>
>
>>But some farmers and politicians are making out so that makes everything
>>OK.
>
>Yeahright.

And Monsanto and Cargill probably posted record profits.

Mike M

Just Wondering <[email protected]> writes:
>On 10/23/2012 5:27 AM, Han wrote:
>> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>>
>>> BTW, what has Romney actually said that constitutes "retro-neanderthal
>>> antiwomen pronouncements"?
>>
>> Oh, you weren't there when Romney said women should leave it to the
>> higher ups in the catholic hierarchy to decide whether or not they can
>> control their own bodies.
>
>As I recall, Romney was actually saying that it is unconstitutional for
>the federal government to pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of
>religion.
>

You mean like laws against polygamy?

How about peyote?

What about the more extreme interpretations of islamic law?

"Leon" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...



Hog wash. The government will continue to spend and debt will continue
to grow. surely you don't think the government will right it's wrong
spending and go in the black. Add to that the population will continue
to get less for its dollar.

The Clinton administration managed to.


Yeah I got a bit out on a limb there. That said the government should
not think that it is responsible for providing jobs.

No, it isn't. But the federal government pays a SHITLOAD of people's
salaries and wages in the form of contractors who build/perform public
projects. Just think how many of your tax dollars got poured into all those
no-bid Iraq war contractors like Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater. Why aren't
we going to the moon again? Might be because of federal budget cuts to
NASA?
So, in a very real sense the government DOES create those jobs. Without
that money those jobs and those businesses either never exist or they go
away. And all those unemployed will now go on public assistance and then
you'll scream yet again about all the wasted welfare dollars. Isn't that
the real reason why the congress is screaming bloody murder about the
defense spending cuts? Most of those congressmen probably have defense
department contractors in their districts that will lose federal money and
jobs along with it. Or road/bridge/public schools construction. Which is
also why state and local government has been shedding jobs even while the
private sector has been adding them. Federal dollars to those state and
local entities have shrunk. Which is also why congress won't pass the
president's jobs bill. That way unemployment remains a couple of percentage
points higher and THAT can be blamed on Obama. And that, in the end, is the
real goal isn't it?

And, so it goes . . .

Dave in Texas

On 10/20/2012 10:25 PM, Bill wrote:
>
> I just want to share a recent thought I had.
>
> As my subject line suggested, Corporations are powerful entities.
> Perhaps too powerful?
>

I used to do business as a self-employed individual. I decided to form
a corporation for various legal and personal reasons. The corporation
has one shareholder - me. It has exactly one director, one officer, and
one employee - all me. It has the same income that I had before
incorporating. Since "Corporations are powerful entities," do I now,
through my corporation, wield more power than I did before? Am I now
"perhaps too powerful"?

On 10/22/2012 10:31 AM, Han wrote:
> As the majority here knows, I favor another Obama stint.
> The secret policies of Romney/Ryan
> can and will change on a dime, 180° at a time.They are to be avoided as
> much as possible, since Romney/Ryan WILL push the country into another
> depression.
>
What secret policies are those? Oh, you can't tell us, because they're
secret? Or, if you can tell us, how did you become privy to those
secrets? What exactly do you think Romney would do that would push the
country into a depression? What exactly do you think would happen under
another 4 years of Obama that would leave us better off than replacing
him would?

On 10/22/2012 2:10 PM, Han wrote:
> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 10/20/2012 10:25 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> I just want to share a recent thought I had.
>>>
>>> As my subject line suggested, Corporations are powerful entities.
>>> Perhaps too powerful?
>>>
>>
>> I used to do business as a self-employed individual. I decided to
>> form a corporation for various legal and personal reasons. The
>> corporation has one shareholder - me. It has exactly one director,
>> one officer, and one employee - all me. It has the same income that I
>> had before incorporating. Since "Corporations are powerful entities,"
>> do I now, through my corporation, wield more power than I did before?
>> Am I now "perhaps too powerful"?
>
> You are an admirable individual, as a self-employed person.


But I'm not self-employed. I'm an employee of a corporation.


> The corporations that are supposed to be powerful are others, where the CEO
> and perhaps a few other high officers can use the profits that the whole
> corporation has generated (perhaps hundreds of individuals or even more
> worked to achieve those profits) for whatever they deem necessary.


You're back-pedaling. Your original claim was that "corporations are
powerful entities." Now you're saying that only SOME corporations are
powerful entities. Well, but so what? Some individuals are powerful,
others are not. Some government entities are powerful, others not so
much. Some unions are powerful, others are ineffectual. Some
partnerships are powerful, others are not. The same is true of any form
of organization you may care to name. Any time that power is
concentrated in the hands of a few, there is a potential for misuse of
that power. So, why single out corporations, now limited to only some
corporations?


> It appears to me that some use the profits to promote their individual
> agendas.


As is true for individuals as well as any other form of organization.


> The SCOTUS has sanctioned this in a way (they didn't ask my
> advice).


If one person has first amendment free speech rights, two people also
have the same right. If those two people act as a corporation, they
still have the same right. If the corporation has a thousand
shareholders, they still have the same right. Isn't that that the
Supremes really said?


> Now if all the workers and all the stockholders had agreed to
> the approach of this fictional CEO,


Why do you think non-shareholder employees control a corporation?


> that would be one thing, but at the moment there seems to be only a reckoning due AFTER the fact, if any.


That's true of any organization that is governed by representatives of
its members, rather than by its members directly. So again, why single
out corporations?


> I realize that unions may have the same abilities, but they are supposed
> to follow their members desires, while with corporations this is not the
> case.


Nonsense. Corporations are ultimately accountable to their
shareholders. If the shareholders are dissatisfied with the acts of
their agents, they can replace them. A majority of dissatisfied
shareholders could call a special meeting at any time, remove and
replace directors and officers, change the articles of incorporation and
bylaws, pass corporate resolutions, etc. etc. If they don't, it's
because a majority of shareholders are well enough satisfied with the
job their representatives are doing.

From news accounts I have read, I would conclude that union leaders are
often even less responsive to the wants of their rank and file than
corporate officers are to their shareholders.

On 10/22/2012 1:53 PM, Han wrote:
> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 10/22/2012 10:31 AM, Han wrote:
>>> As the majority here knows, I favor another Obama stint.
>>> The secret policies of Romney/Ryan
>>> can and will change on a dime, 180° at a time.They are to be avoided
>>> as much as possible, since Romney/Ryan WILL push the country into
>>> another depression.
>>>
>> What secret policies are those? Oh, you can't tell us, because
>> they're secret? Or, if you can tell us, how did you become privy to
>> those secrets? What exactly do you think Romney would do that would
>> push the country into a depression? What exactly do you think would
>> happen under another 4 years of Obama that would leave us better off
>> than replacing him would?
>
> They must be secret, because no one, least of Romney or Ryan are giving
> details. Anyone looking at them at face value says, they can't work as
> stated ...


In other words, there MUST be secret policies, because you don't know of
ANY secret policies. Nobody can argue with THAT logic ...


> Like the tax returns Mitty is afraid to release because they
> would be fodder for the opposition.

Like Obama's college records.


>
> Parenthetically, I really don't understand the Republicans. With a
> sitting president this vulnerable, they chose a moderate centrist, who
> disguised himself as Tea Party activist during the primaries, then did a
> 180 just a couple of weeks ago, and now continues to piss off people who
> are half the electorate with his retro-neanderthal antiwomen
> pronouncements.

Oh, that must explain reports like this:

"Romney 50%, Obama 46% Among Likely Voters"
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158048/romney-obama-among-likely-voters.aspx

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows
Mitt Romney attracting support from 49% of voters nationwide, while
President Obama earns the vote from 47%."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Somehow the Republicans managed to choose a candidate that holds himself
pretty well against an incumbent opponent. Whatever percentage of the
electorate Romney pisses off, Obama apparently pisses off even greater
numbers.

Look, about 40% of the country is going to vote for the Democrat
candidate, and about 40% will vote for the Republican candidate, no
matter who that candidate is. It's the remaining 20% who decide the
presidential election. And not all of them are moderates or centrists.
The winning strategy is to choose a candidate who will appeal to the
greatest part of that 20%. So far, Romney is doing OK on that score.

BTW, what has Romney actually said that constitutes "retro-neanderthal
antiwomen pronouncements"?

On 10/22/2012 09:31 AM, Han wrote:
> Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:12:17 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>
>>> There have been three Presidents that when they entered office, the
>>> stock market decrease.
>>
>> One of these days, both liberals and conservatives will have to admit
>> that it makes very little difference to the economy whatever the
>> president, or any other part of the government, does.
>>
>> Boom and bust are with us always. Presidents claim the booms and
>> blame the busts on someone else.
>>
>> Of course they make noises about what they're doing to "fix the
>> problems" because the voters expect it.
>
> Yes, but sometimes presidents can set the tone and sometimes they can
> even stimulate Congress to do the right thing. As the majority here
> knows, I favor another Obama stint. The secret policies of Romney/Ryan
> can and will change on a dime, 180° at a time. They are to be avoided as
> much as possible, since Romney/Ryan WILL push the country into another
> depression.
>
http://www.americadeathwatch.com/obama-inherited-the-economy.php



--
"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 10/22/2012 2:41 PM, Han wrote:
> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 22 Oct 2012 16:31:23 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:12:17 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There have been three Presidents that when they entered office, the
>>>>> stock market decrease.
>>>>
>>>> One of these days, both liberals and conservatives will have to
>>>> admit that it makes very little difference to the economy whatever
>>>> the president, or any other part of the government, does.
>>>>
>>>> Boom and bust are with us always. Presidents claim the booms and
>>>> blame the busts on someone else.
>>>>
>>>> Of course they make noises about what they're doing to "fix the
>>>> problems" because the voters expect it.
>>>
>>> Yes, but sometimes presidents can set the tone and sometimes they can
>>> even stimulate Congress to do the right thing. As the majority here
>>> knows, I favor another Obama stint. The secret policies of
>>> Romney/Ryan can and will change on a dime, 180° at a time. They are
>>> to be avoided as much as possible, since Romney/Ryan WILL push the
>>> country into another depression.
>>
>> So, what has the glorious Obamassiah done to deserve your belief,
>> praise, and respect, Han? Please be specific.
>
> Obama has at least helped to steer the economy out of the Bush-era
> financial crash and unemployment mess. Ever since about the middle of
> 2009, both private employment and the stock market have gone up. Less
> than hoped for, sure, but up.


The question 1jaques asked was, not what is the current state of the
economy, but rather, What has Obama done? I too would like that
question answered. You have referred generally to unemployment figures
and the stock market. What has Obama actually done that has resulted in
the economy being better than it would have been under a McCain
administration (as that would have been the alternative)?

And yeah, the raw numbers of employed have increased, but the raw
numbers of unemployed have increased even more. In other words, the
total employment situation both in actual numbers and as a percentage of
employable people is worse, not better, than it was four years ago.


> The deficit is going in the right direction,

Now I see the disconnect. You are living in an alternate universe.

>
> We have now Obamacare, which even Mitt says is good,

Please provide a reference where Romney said Obamacare is good. I think
this is another proof that you're in an alternate universel

> but should be left to the states.

That's exactly what the U.S. Constitution says should be done.

> I disagree with that, but then I consider this a single country, not a haphazardly cobbled together and internally fighting
> alliance of jealous individual nations.

The states are not individual nations, but each state is indeed a
sovereign government, with its own rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

> I don't buy the States' rights stuff that would allow differeing treatments of
> individuals and corporations in different states.

Then your knowledge of U.S. history and the Constitution is sorely lacking.

On 10/22/2012 04:01 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:54:56 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:
>
>>> I don't buy the States' rights stuff that would allow differeing
>>> treatments of individuals and corporations in different states.
>>
>> Then your knowledge of U.S. history and the Constitution is sorely
>> lacking.
>
> I don't know about his knowledge re the above, but he has a firm grip on
> historical reality. Most of the rights of the states disappeared as a
> result of the Civil War. As someone said, it turned "these united
> States" into "this United States". And the Constitution is either quoted
> or ignored as suits the politicians at the time.
>
> It's been said since ancient times that most folks see things as they
> wish them to be, not as they are. That's never more true than in
> politics and religion.
>

Individual rights are a more recent casualty.



--
"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 10/22/2012 04:44 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:09:19 -0700, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/22/2012 04:01 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:54:56 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I don't buy the States' rights stuff that would allow differeing
>>>>> treatments of individuals and corporations in different states.
>>>>
>>>> Then your knowledge of U.S. history and the Constitution is sorely
>>>> lacking.
>>>
>>> I don't know about his knowledge re the above, but he has a firm grip on
>>> historical reality. Most of the rights of the states disappeared as a
>>> result of the Civil War. As someone said, it turned "these united
>>> States" into "this United States". And the Constitution is either quoted
>>> or ignored as suits the politicians at the time.
>>>
>>> It's been said since ancient times that most folks see things as they
>>> wish them to be, not as they are. That's never more true than in
>>> politics and religion.
>>>
>>
>> Individual rights are a more recent casualty.
>
> You both say this like it's a good thing and should be expanded infinitely.
>

Hardly a good thing! Individual rights started being ignored by FDR and
the latest assault by BHO has really picked up the pace. Of course, BHO
believes in the collective rather than the individual.


--
"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 10/22/2012 3:51 PM, Richard wrote:
> On 10/22/2012 2:26 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 10/20/2012 10:25 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> I just want to share a recent thought I had.
>>>
>>> As my subject line suggested, Corporations are powerful entities.
>>> Perhaps too powerful?
>>>
>>
>> I used to do business as a self-employed individual. I decided to form a
>> corporation for various legal and personal reasons. The corporation has
>> one shareholder - me. It has exactly one director, one officer, and one
>> employee - all me. It has the same income that I had before
>> incorporating. Since "Corporations are powerful entities," do I now,
>> through my corporation, wield more power than I did before? Am I now
>> "perhaps too powerful"?
>
>
> Depends.
>
> Is this a union shop?

Not possible. I'm both the only management and the only rank-and file,
and management can't join a union. But what does that have to do with
whether my corporation is powerful, "perhaps too powerful"?

On 10/23/2012 5:27 AM, Han wrote:
> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>
>> BTW, what has Romney actually said that constitutes "retro-neanderthal
>> antiwomen pronouncements"?
>
> Oh, you weren't there when Romney said women should leave it to the
> higher ups in the catholic hierarchy to decide whether or not they can
> control their own bodies.

As I recall, Romney was actually saying that it is unconstitutional for
the federal government to pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of
religion.

> Or when He said he would repeal Obamacare and
> replace it with Romneycare, and leave it to the states to set healthcare
> policies.

Which is as it should be, nothing neanderthal or anti-woman about that.

On 10/23/2012 5:46 AM, Han wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:54:56 -0600, Just Wondering
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/22/2012 2:41 PM, Han wrote:
>>>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 22 Oct 2012 16:31:23 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:12:17 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There have been three Presidents that when they entered office,
>>>>>>>> the stock market decrease.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of these days, both liberals and conservatives will have to
>>>>>>> admit that it makes very little difference to the economy
>>>>>>> whatever the president, or any other part of the government,
>>>>>>> does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Boom and bust are with us always. Presidents claim the booms and
>>>>>>> blame the busts on someone else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course they make noises about what they're doing to "fix the
>>>>>>> problems" because the voters expect it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but sometimes presidents can set the tone and sometimes they
>>>>>> can even stimulate Congress to do the right thing. As the majority
>>>>>> here knows, I favor another Obama stint. The secret policies of
>>>>>> Romney/Ryan can and will change on a dime, 180° at a time. They
>>>>>> are to be avoided as much as possible, since Romney/Ryan WILL push
>>>>>> the country into another depression.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, what has the glorious Obamassiah done to deserve your belief,
>>>>> praise, and respect, Han? Please be specific.
>>>>
>>>> Obama has at least helped to steer the economy out of the Bush-era
>>>> financial crash and unemployment mess. Ever since about the middle
>>>> of 2009, both private employment and the stock market have gone up.
>>>> Less than hoped for, sure, but up.
>>>
>>>
>>> The question 1jaques asked was, not what is the current state of the
>>> economy, but rather, What has Obama done? I too would like that
>>> question answered. You have referred generally to unemployment figures
>>> and the stock market. What has Obama actually done that has resulted
>>> in the economy being better than it would have been under a McCain
>>> administration (as that would have been the alternative)?
>>>
>>> And yeah, the raw numbers of employed have increased, but the raw
>>> numbers of unemployed have increased even more. In other words, the
>>> total employment situation both in actual numbers and as a percentage
>>> of employable people is worse, not better, than it was four years ago.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The deficit is going in the right direction,
>>>
>>> Now I see the disconnect. You are living in an alternate universe.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We have now Obamacare, which even Mitt says is good,
>>>
>>> Please provide a reference where Romney said Obamacare is good. I
>>> think this is another proof that you're in an alternate universel
>>>
>>>> but should be left to the states.
>>>
>>> That's exactly what the U.S. Constitution says should be done.
>>>
>>>> I disagree with that, but then I consider this a single country, not
>>>> a haphazardly cobbled together and internally fighting alliance of
>>>> jealous individual nations.
>>>
>>> The states are not individual nations, but each state is indeed a
>>> sovereign government, with its own rights guaranteed by the
>>> Constitution.
>>>
>>>> I don't buy the States' rights stuff that would allow differeing
>>>> treatments of individuals and corporations in different states.
>>>
>>> Then your knowledge of U.S. history and the Constitution is sorely
>>> lacking.
>>
>> Han doesn't believe in the Constitution. Rather, he believes it says
>> what he thinks it should say, no more. No less. (IOW, it doesn't
>> exist) That's the Progressive way.
>
> Keith, I signed up for a course on the Constitution. Unfortunately, it
> was canceled for lack of interest. I'm waiting to get back the tuition I
> paid. I will try to look up some of the books you guys recommended.
> It's OK to mention them again. I like the Constitution for what it says,
> such as that the SCOTUS has the last word, pending legislation by
> Congress that doesn't infringe.


You obviously need that course. The Constitution does not say that.
The Supremes said that in an early court case - Marbury v. Madison.
There's absolutely nothing in the Constitution itself that spells out
who has the last word.


> Where we disagree is whether the
> Constitution (with the Amendments of course) should be taken absolutely
> literal without taking into account that was impossible to predict
> technological advances since then, as well as a different environment
> socially.
>

Your opinions on the subject are irrelevant.

On 10/23/2012 8:14 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
> "Leon" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> Hog wash. The government will continue to spend and debt will continue
>> to grow. surely you don't think the government will right it's wrong
>> spending and go in the black. Add to that the population will continue
>> to get less for its dollar.
>
> The Clinton administration managed to.
>

You're perpetuating a myth. Government spending did not go in the black
during the Clinton administration.

http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2012/01/09/did-bill-clinton-run-a-surplus-plus-our-titanic-moment/?singlepage=true

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/craigsteiner/2011/08/22/the_clinton_surplus_myth/page/full/

On 10/23/2012 6:25 PM, Han wrote:
> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 10/23/2012 5:27 AM, Han wrote:
>>> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>
>>>> BTW, what has Romney actually said that constitutes
>>>> "retro-neanderthal antiwomen pronouncements"?
>>>
>>> Oh, you weren't there when Romney said women should leave it to the
>>> higher ups in the catholic hierarchy to decide whether or not they
>>> can control their own bodies.
>>
>> As I recall, Romney was actually saying that it is unconstitutional
>> for the federal government to pass a law prohibiting the free exercise
>> of religion.
>
> Of course it is unconstitutional to prohibit free exercise of religion.
> But that doesn't mean the catholic church can prohibit me or anyone else
> from using birth control.


But that doesn't mean the federal government can force the Catholic
church to pay for your birth control. The Catholic church would not be
controlling a woman's body if it refused to pay for that woman's birth
condoms or anti-fertility pills. She remains free to get them on her
own nickle.


>>> Or when He said he would repeal Obamacare and
>>> replace it with Romneycare, and leave it to the states to set
>>> healthcare policies.
>>
>> Which is as it should be, nothing neanderthal or anti-woman about
>> that.
>
> SCOTUS disagrees - the feds can institute that "tax".
>

The question isn't the constitutionality of the law, it's the wisdom of
it. You're the one saying it would be neanderthal for the states rather
than the federal government to set healthcare policies. You're the one
saying it would be anti-woman for the states rather than the federal
government to set healthcare policies. I'm just calling you on your BS.

Bill wrote:

>
> Not completely. I realize that the value of stocks would go down--and
> that's why I said I had more to lose than to gain. But "47% paying no
> taxes (and many collect various forms of welfare or unemployment)" is
> not good either. The other thing I said is that maybe corporations are
> too powerful (i.e. influential). I get the strong impression some
> wouldn't hesitate to "buy elections". I don't like for social policy
> (environmental and other laws, etc.) being up for sale. I don't claim
> 100% vision..and that's one of the reasons why I consulted the group.

Bill - it might help to not post while imbibing... you are not make a bit
of sense.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Bill wrote:

>
> Sorry Mike, Here is another try:
>
> A large corporation does not need to consider anything beyond its
> potential profit, in dollars, in making decisions (to out-source
> abroad for instance). From a national perspective, that is not ideal
> for the nation or it's citizens (except those that are shareholders
> of the corporation). The "extra" profit to the corporation comes at
> a societal cost (in unemployment, for instance), and I don't think it
> is outweighed by higher dividends, since the people who need the
> money the most won't get any.
>

Unfortunately - true. That horse is out of the barn now, and I'm not sure
it can be lead back in. I am in favor though, of a new set of tarriffs on
goods and services coming (back) into this country.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 23:01:03 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:44:15 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a motorcycle that gets 50mpg on gas with alcohol, 60mpg
>>>>> without. So it's 60 miles on one gallon without, 50 miles on 9/10
>>>>> of a gallon with. That's assuming 10% alcohol. So I'm actually
>>>>> burning more gasoline with the "cleaner" gas.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yup - just about everyone has experienced at least a 10% hit in
>>>> fuel economy since the "cleaner" gas went mainstream. And... it's
>>>> a total net energy loss right from the refinery process. But...
>>>> the feelgooders at least have something to fool themselves with.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But some farmers and politicians are making out so that makes
>>>>> everything OK.
>>>>
>>>> Don't forget the people who don't think beyond what makes them feel
>>>> good. They're pretty happy too.
>>>
>>> In my experience, they're never happy, rather like a junkie.
>>
>> Au contraire - they're always happy since they never really think
>> anything through. They just react to what makes them feel good.
>
> Disgree. There's always another piece of the sky falling, for them.

Yeahbut, dontchya getit? That's what they love. Then they get to come up
with feel good things

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Not completely. I realize that the value of stocks would go
>>> down--and that's why I said I had more to lose than to gain. But
>>> "47% paying no taxes (and many collect various forms of welfare or
>>> unemployment)" is not good either. The other thing I said is that
>>> maybe corporations are too powerful (i.e. influential). I get the
>>> strong impression some wouldn't hesitate to "buy elections". I
>>> don't like for social policy (environmental and other laws, etc.)
>>> being up for sale. I don't claim 100% vision..and that's one of
>>> the reasons why I consulted the group.
>>
>> Bill - it might help to not post while imbibing... you are not make
>> a bit of sense.
>>
>
> Sorry, it's an election year and I'm trying to drown by sorrows.

Perfectly understandable.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 22 Oct 2012 20:41:14 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 22 Oct 2012 16:31:23 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:12:17 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There have been three Presidents that when they entered office, the
>>>>> stock market decrease.
>>>>
>>>> One of these days, both liberals and conservatives will have to
>>>> admit that it makes very little difference to the economy whatever
>>>> the president, or any other part of the government, does.
>>>>
>>>> Boom and bust are with us always. Presidents claim the booms and
>>>> blame the busts on someone else.
>>>>
>>>> Of course they make noises about what they're doing to "fix the
>>>> problems" because the voters expect it.
>>>
>>>Yes, but sometimes presidents can set the tone and sometimes they can
>>>even stimulate Congress to do the right thing. As the majority here
>>>knows, I favor another Obama stint. The secret policies of
>>>Romney/Ryan can and will change on a dime, 180° at a time. They are
>>>to be avoided as much as possible, since Romney/Ryan WILL push the
>>>country into another depression.
>>
>> So, what has the glorious Obamassiah done to deserve your belief,
>> praise, and respect, Han? Please be specific.
>
>Obama has at least helped to steer the economy out of the Bush-era
>financial crash and unemployment mess. Ever since about the middle of
>2009, both private employment and the stock market have gone up. Less
>than hoped for, sure, but up. The deficit is going in the right
>direction, again, not fast ebough by far, but we still have tax policies
>to correct, and expenditures for wars to cut even more.

So nothing in the business world ever rebounds without political help,
is that it? Seriously, are you that deluded and/or spellbound by this
guy? My opinion is that the economy would have rebounded far more
quickly if the gov't had gotten the hell out of the way and LET IT.


>We have now Obamacare, which even Mitt says is good, but should be left
>to the states. I disagree with that, but then I consider this a single
>country, not a haphazardly cobbled together and internally fighting
>alliance of jealous individual nations. Sorry, just my opinion, I don't
>buy the States' rights stuff that would allow differeing treatments of
>individuals and corporations in different states.

I think the fed might guide the states (if that's possible) in an
outline for minimum coverage, then leave it up to the states to get it
done. As Patton said, "Don't tell people how to do things. Tell them
what to do and let them surprise you with their results."

And TPINO is "Tea Party In Name Only".

--
They must find it difficult,
those who have taken authority as truth,
rather than truth as authority.
-- Gerald Massey, Egyptologist

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:14:54 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

>On 10/21/2012 9:27 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2012 11:25 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I just want to share a recent thought I had.
>>>>
>>>> As my subject line suggested, Corporations are powerful entities.
>>>> Perhaps too powerful?
>>>>
>>>> Corporations have no conscience. Would it be too much to demand to ask
>>>> that they not sell-out their American laborers at the cost of giving up
>>>> some of their profit?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know the numbers, but maybe slightly less profitable
>>>> corporations and more employment would make for a happier nation, as a
>>>> whole, with more tax payers.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I think I have more to lose than to gain by such a change.
>>>> But I'm willing to put the idea out there for discussion. I don't have
>>>> alot of time to spend defending it. And it's just a thought. So maybe,
>>>> if you are inclined, explain why you think it's a bad idea.
>>>>
>>>> Signed,
>>>> Disturbed by current socio-economic trends
>>>
>>> Your can have that today! Relocate to China, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba,
>>> pick the communist country of your choice. Or Vote for Obama again.
>>>
>>> How about allowing the government to tell you how to spend your money.
>>> Better yet, weekley go to your local pan handler and give him 10% of
>>> your income. Do you have a conscience? You see your suggestion sounds
>>> good to you because it would be the corporation giving up profits, not
>>> you. So guess what, when corporations give up profits they spend less,
>>> on employees. If you have a maid and you give the pan handler 10% of
>>> your income would you hire more staff to clean your house? Perhaps you
>>> make too much money. Perhaps if the government took more of your money
>>> and you had less to spend you would be happier.
>>>
>>> Can you see what you are suggesting yet?
>>
>> I'd rather take a 50% cut in my average stock market returns than see
>> our currency disintegrated by hyper-inflation (as a result of a
>> *ridiculous* national debt). I'm "all ears". What do ya'll propose?
>
>Get a grip. Inflation is basically essential to a healthy economy. The
>government MUST print more money the for the economy to grow. It is
>those that "get it" that invest and direct their time and energy to
>capture those extra dollars.

That's fixed pie (i.e. leftist) thinking. Growth <> inflation.

>If the is only you and I in the population and there is only $10 for
>both of us to earn and spend what happens if another person is brought
>into the population, or you work twice as hard as I? You do not get any
>more money because there is no extra money to be used.

Again, the pie isn't a fixed size. If that were true, we'd still be in the
dark ages.

>Your described hyper inflation goes towards paying those that the
>government promised to pay. For example every one getting government
>benefits including SS. If corporations are over taxed, read that as
>every one that works for that corporation, the workers get less pay and
>fewer, if any, are hired. And then defending our country and
>maintaining our infrastructure costs a fortune. Really and truly those
>two items are the only thing that the government should be spending
>money on.

If it's not in the Constitution, the government shouldn't be doing it.

>The government SHOULD NOT be involved in seeing that every one get
>treated equally monetarily.

Equal outcomes aren't in there, no.

On 10/22/2012 3:01 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:04:34 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:30:33 -0500, Leon wrote:
>>
>>> Realize that you have no control over an election. Hearing the click of
>>> the voting machine makes you feel like you are accomplishing something
>>> much like a child heating the squeak on his squeak toy when he pushes
>>> the bright red button.
>>
>> "If voting really made a difference, it would be illegal." Will Rogers?
>
> Oh, Crom. Think about it. That is so true, isn't it?
>
> The Rep and Dem parties are so totally corrupted, anyone they send up
> is going to be doing the SSDD foxtrot on all of us.
>
> --


Welcome to the 21st century.

On 10/22/2012 3:15 PM, dadiOH wrote:
> Han wrote:
>
>> I completely agree. Crash of 1929: It took until WWII, 12 years
>> later, before the economy was humming again, and that was then due to
>> enorous deficit spending to get geared up for war. One has to
>> realize that the current recovery is from an economic debacle
>> (financial collapse) on an almost same level as the 1929 crash. It
>> wasn't "just" a housing bubble. And your numbers are right (14100 vs
>> 13600). I believe though tht the longer term trend is up. It will
>> really get up if and when the fiscal cliff has been avoided, people
>> with moderate incomes will have spending money again,
>
>> and taxes will more nearly cover outlays.
>
> Not a chance. Not unless taxes are increased a whole bunch and/or
> entitlements are cut another bunch. Downsizing the military would help too
> (do we really, really, need the Pax Americana?).
>
> The feds are busy borrowing close to 40% of what they spend. Is that what
> you want? If so, a vote for Obama will assure that it continues. Me, I
> prefer someone who at least pays lip service to reduction.
>
> You - and others - might want to view this...
> http://www.therightplanet.com/2012/05/reality-check-federal-budget-can-not-be-balanced-must-see-video/
>


If true, then it's going to be a bumpy ride.

On 10/22/2012 2:26 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 10/20/2012 10:25 PM, Bill wrote:
>>
>> I just want to share a recent thought I had.
>>
>> As my subject line suggested, Corporations are powerful entities.
>> Perhaps too powerful?
>>
>
> I used to do business as a self-employed individual. I decided to form a
> corporation for various legal and personal reasons. The corporation has
> one shareholder - me. It has exactly one director, one officer, and one
> employee - all me. It has the same income that I had before
> incorporating. Since "Corporations are powerful entities," do I now,
> through my corporation, wield more power than I did before? Am I now
> "perhaps too powerful"?


Depends.

Is this a union shop?

Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> writes:
>On 10/23/2012 3:40 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> What we really need is to rip down the existing medical care
>> infrastructure and start over. Doctors in the system are all on
>> salary: no $35,000 per hour fees for surgery allowed. Hospitals lose
>> the $40M lobby remodels and that money instead goes into paying
>> salaries, making people well, etc. This in turn reduces the costs for
>> insurance companies and our rates drop dramatically. Healthcare is now
>> affordable, as it is in other countries.
>

>Personally I could justify the 34,000 per hour charge. If the X ray
>machine cost 136000 and I only used it 4 times per year, I would have to
>charge 34000 per use. (An extremely simplified example.)

A meaningless example. For one, the X-ray machine has a useful life of well
over a decade. Secondly, you don't account for depreciation.

>
>

On 10/22/2012 4:44 PM, Richard wrote:
> On 10/22/2012 3:01 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:04:34 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:30:33 -0500, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Realize that you have no control over an election. Hearing the
>>>> click of
>>>> the voting machine makes you feel like you are accomplishing something
>>>> much like a child heating the squeak on his squeak toy when he pushes
>>>> the bright red button.
>>>
>>> "If voting really made a difference, it would be illegal." Will Rogers?
>>
>> Oh, Crom. Think about it. That is so true, isn't it?
>>
>> The Rep and Dem parties are so totally corrupted, anyone they send up
>> is going to be doing the SSDD foxtrot on all of us.
>>
>> --
>
>
> Welcome to the 21st century.


Actually, welcome to politics and government, the century does not matter.

On 10/21/2012 9:27 PM, Bill wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 10/20/2012 11:25 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> I just want to share a recent thought I had.
>>>
>>> As my subject line suggested, Corporations are powerful entities.
>>> Perhaps too powerful?
>>>
>>> Corporations have no conscience. Would it be too much to demand to ask
>>> that they not sell-out their American laborers at the cost of giving up
>>> some of their profit?
>>>
>>> I don't know the numbers, but maybe slightly less profitable
>>> corporations and more employment would make for a happier nation, as a
>>> whole, with more tax payers.
>>>
>>> Personally, I think I have more to lose than to gain by such a change.
>>> But I'm willing to put the idea out there for discussion. I don't have
>>> alot of time to spend defending it. And it's just a thought. So maybe,
>>> if you are inclined, explain why you think it's a bad idea.
>>>
>>> Signed,
>>> Disturbed by current socio-economic trends
>>
>> Your can have that today! Relocate to China, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba,
>> pick the communist country of your choice. Or Vote for Obama again.
>>
>> How about allowing the government to tell you how to spend your money.
>> Better yet, weekley go to your local pan handler and give him 10% of
>> your income. Do you have a conscience? You see your suggestion sounds
>> good to you because it would be the corporation giving up profits, not
>> you. So guess what, when corporations give up profits they spend less,
>> on employees. If you have a maid and you give the pan handler 10% of
>> your income would you hire more staff to clean your house? Perhaps you
>> make too much money. Perhaps if the government took more of your money
>> and you had less to spend you would be happier.
>>
>> Can you see what you are suggesting yet?
>
> I'd rather take a 50% cut in my average stock market returns than see
> our currency disintegrated by hyper-inflation (as a result of a
> *ridiculous* national debt). I'm "all ears". What do ya'll propose?

Get a grip. Inflation is basically essential to a healthy economy. The
government MUST print more money the for the economy to grow. It is
those that "get it" that invest and direct their time and energy to
capture those extra dollars.

If the is only you and I in the population and there is only $10 for
both of us to earn and spend what happens if another person is brought
into the population, or you work twice as hard as I? You do not get any
more money because there is no extra money to be used.

Your described hyper inflation goes towards paying those that the
government promised to pay. For example every one getting government
benefits including SS. If corporations are over taxed, read that as
every one that works for that corporation, the workers get less pay and
fewer, if any, are hired. And then defending our country and
maintaining our infrastructure costs a fortune. Really and truly those
two items are the only thing that the government should be spending
money on.
The government SHOULD NOT be involved in seeing that every one get
treated equally monetarily.

Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Just Wondering <[email protected]> writes:
>> On 10/23/2012 5:27 AM, Han wrote:
>>> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>
>>>> BTW, what has Romney actually said that constitutes
>>>> "retro-neanderthal antiwomen pronouncements"?
>>>
>>> Oh, you weren't there when Romney said women should leave it to the
>>> higher ups in the catholic hierarchy to decide whether or not they
>>> can control their own bodies.
>>
>> As I recall, Romney was actually saying that it is unconstitutional
>> for the federal government to pass a law prohibiting the free
>> exercise of religion.
>>
>
> You mean like laws against polygamy?
>
> How about peyote?
>
> What about the more extreme interpretations of islamic law?

Fact check:
1. Polygamy is not necessarily against the law. Bigamy is. You can have more
than one wife (polygamy), you just can't MARRY (bigamy) more than one woman.
What's the diff? If you come to this country with two wives, you are not
violating any law. If you marry more than one woman while here, you are.

2. Peyote IS legal among certain Indian tribes.

3. Can't speak to your blanket statement of extreme Islamic laws. Perhaps a
specific example?

On 10/21/2012 10:25 PM, Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Not completely. I realize that the value of stocks would go down--and
>>> that's why I said I had more to lose than to gain. But "47% paying no
>>> taxes (and many collect various forms of welfare or unemployment)" is
>>> not good either. The other thing I said is that maybe corporations are
>>> too powerful (i.e. influential). I get the strong impression some
>>> wouldn't hesitate to "buy elections". I don't like for social policy
>>> (environmental and other laws, etc.) being up for sale. I don't claim
>>> 100% vision..and that's one of the reasons why I consulted the group.
>>
>> Bill - it might help to not post while imbibing... you are not make a
>> bit
>> of sense.
>>
>
> Sorry, it's an election year and I'm trying to drown by sorrows.


Realize that you have no control over an election. Hearing the click of
the voting machine makes you feel like you are accomplishing something
much like a child heating the squeak on his squeak toy when he pushes
the bright red button.
Don't get sucked up in it all, live your life as best as you can despite
what is going on around you.

Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in news:k63nog$q6k$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

> There have been three Presidents that when they entered office, the
> stock market decrease. Every one knows the obama's effects on the
> market, 2000 point drop (25%) in three months.

Seems there was something like a depression in early 2009. Since then the
DJ has clawed back to its 2007 high, despite the terrible policies of
Obama, or thanks to his good shepherding of the economy.
<http://www.the-privateer.com/chart/dow-long.html#top>
This latest Bush-caused depression (my take) is so severe because it was a
financial depression, see
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/opinion/krugman-the-secret-of-our-non-
success.html>

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:12:17 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>
>> There have been three Presidents that when they entered office, the
>> stock market decrease.
>
> One of these days, both liberals and conservatives will have to admit
> that it makes very little difference to the economy whatever the
> president, or any other part of the government, does.
>
> Boom and bust are with us always. Presidents claim the booms and
> blame the busts on someone else.
>
> Of course they make noises about what they're doing to "fix the
> problems" because the voters expect it.

Yes, but sometimes presidents can set the tone and sometimes they can
even stimulate Congress to do the right thing. As the majority here
knows, I favor another Obama stint. The secret policies of Romney/Ryan
can and will change on a dime, 180° at a time. They are to be avoided as
much as possible, since Romney/Ryan WILL push the country into another
depression.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 10/22/2012 12:27 PM, Han wrote:
>> Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in news:k63nog$q6k$1
>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>
>>> There have been three Presidents that when they entered office, the
>>> stock market decrease. Every one knows the obama's effects on the
>>> market, 2000 point drop (25%) in three months.
>>
>> Seems there was something like a depression in early 2009. Since
>> then the DJ has clawed back to its 2007 high, despite the terrible
>> policies of Obama, or thanks to his good shepherding of the economy.
>> <http://www.the-privateer.com/chart/dow-long.html#top>
>> This latest Bush-caused depression (my take) is so severe because it
>> was a financial depression, see
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/opinion/krugman-the-secret-of-our-n
>> on- success.html>
>>
> The economy's high in 2007 was 14066, Today the market is struggling
> to maintain 13600. If you look at the 35 year trend line the market
> should be about 19000, vs what it is today 13600. There are very few
> measures of the economy that indicate a recovery. Most indicators show
> there is no recovery, as such.
>
> Ref:
> http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX:.DJI&ei=WYCFUKDlPJyElgPN5gE
>
> (Recovery means back to where it should be. If you fall into a hole
> recovery means getting out of the hole, and walking away from it; not
> laying on the edge of the hole wondering if you can get up. )

I completely agree. Crash of 1929: It took until WWII, 12 years later,
before the economy was humming again, and that was then due to enorous
deficit spending to get geared up for war. One has to realize that the
current recovery is from an economic debacle (financial collapse) on an
almost same level as the 1929 crash. It wasn't "just" a housing bubble.
And your numbers are right (14100 vs 13600). I believe though tht the
longer term trend is up. It will really get up if and when the fiscal
cliff has been avoided, people with moderate incomes will have spending
money again, and taxes will more nearly cover outlays.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 10/22/2012 10:31 AM, Han wrote:
>> As the majority here knows, I favor another Obama stint.
> > The secret policies of Romney/Ryan
>> can and will change on a dime, 180° at a time.They are to be avoided
>> as much as possible, since Romney/Ryan WILL push the country into
>> another depression.
>>
> What secret policies are those? Oh, you can't tell us, because
> they're secret? Or, if you can tell us, how did you become privy to
> those secrets? What exactly do you think Romney would do that would
> push the country into a depression? What exactly do you think would
> happen under another 4 years of Obama that would leave us better off
> than replacing him would?

They must be secret, because no one, least of Romney or Ryan are giving
details. Anyone looking at them at face value says, they can't work as
stated ... Like the tax returns Mitty is afraid to release because they
would be fodder for the opposition.

Parenthetically, I really don't understand the Republicans. With a
sitting president this vulnerable, they chose a moderate centrist, who
disguised himself as Tea Party activist during the primaries, then did a
180 just a couple of weeks ago, and now continues to piss off people who
are half the electorate with his retro-neanderthal antiwomen
pronouncements. In the mean time he - well, I better stop here. There
are sensible things in the Republican approach, things they can whip
Bernie Sanders and his friends with so easily, but they get drowned out
by the TP people.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 10/22/2012 2:12 PM, Han wrote:
>> Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 10/22/2012 12:27 PM, Han wrote:
>>>> Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:k63nog$q6k$1 @speranza.aioe.org:
>>>>
>>>>> There have been three Presidents that when they entered office,
>>>>> the stock market decrease. Every one knows the obama's effects on
>>>>> the market, 2000 point drop (25%) in three months.
>>>>
>>>> Seems there was something like a depression in early 2009. Since
>>>> then the DJ has clawed back to its 2007 high, despite the terrible
>>>> policies of Obama, or thanks to his good shepherding of the
>>>> economy. <http://www.the-privateer.com/chart/dow-long.html#top>
>>>> This latest Bush-caused depression (my take) is so severe because
>>>> it was a financial depression, see
>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/opinion/krugman-the-secret-of-our
>>>> -n on- success.html>
>>>>
>>> The economy's high in 2007 was 14066, Today the market is struggling
>>> to maintain 13600. If you look at the 35 year trend line the
>>> market should be about 19000, vs what it is today 13600. There are
>>> very few measures of the economy that indicate a recovery. Most
>>> indicators show there is no recovery, as such.
>>>
>>> Ref:
>>> http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX:.DJI&ei=WYCFUKDlPJyElgPN5gE
>>>
>>> (Recovery means back to where it should be. If you fall into a hole
>>> recovery means getting out of the hole, and walking away from it;
>>> not laying on the edge of the hole wondering if you can get up. )
>>
>> I completely agree. Crash of 1929: It took until WWII, 12 years
>> later, before the economy was humming again, and that was then due to
>> enorous deficit spending to get geared up for war. One has to
>> realize that the current recovery is from an economic debacle
>> (financial collapse) on an almost same level as the 1929 crash. It
>> wasn't "just" a housing bubble. And your numbers are right (14100 vs
>> 13600). I believe though tht the longer term trend is up. It will
>> really get up if and when the fiscal cliff has been avoided, people
>> with moderate incomes will have spending money again, and taxes will
>> more nearly cover outlays.
>>
>
> While I think that the economy will return to the 35 year trend line,
> (It nearly has) we will never recover the 35% lost of our capital that
> occurred in the weeks following pelosi's renege on the home loans and
> the first three months of the obama administration. the Dow dropped
> nearly 45%
>
> Back in the 1980? when International Harvester disappeared. They had a
> huge facility in Fort Wayne Indiana that was complete shut down.
> Thousands of people were left with out jobs. The housing market
> collapsed, as people fled the city for jobs, or could not make the
> payment on their mortgages. At nearly the same time Freuhauf Trailer
> also disappeared from the city.
>
> After all of these years, the city has not recovered the loss of those
> years. Even today after all of these years the price of houses in
> Fort Wayne are less than comparable houses in other parts of the
> country. Existing home sales are the same.
>
> At that time the Inter nation Truck and Freuhauf Trailer were nearly
> standard for the trucking industry. When was the last time you saw
> either.

Yes, I wonder too. But I do see Fruehauf (sp?) and Volvo trucks on the
highways now. As far as those other brands, you don't see DeSoto anymore
either, but Fiat came back ... I really liked y second hand Fiat 1100
...

So while we may have lost some things forever, others have come back to
replace them. I do feel sorry for the people who lost their jobs (and
perhaps their pensions). I also know people who worked for Lehman and
left before Lehman went belly up. One cashed in his vested stock in
time, another one didn't. Both were lucky and now have fulfilling jobs -
adapting in the American way ... Many other people still need new jobs
and/or skills.

That leaves another group with big disadvantages - our returning
soldiers. They have difficulties finding jobs and (more importantly)
difficulties getting used to civilian life. I think we owe them more
than just gratitude.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 10/20/2012 10:25 PM, Bill wrote:
>>
>> I just want to share a recent thought I had.
>>
>> As my subject line suggested, Corporations are powerful entities.
>> Perhaps too powerful?
>>
>
> I used to do business as a self-employed individual. I decided to
> form a corporation for various legal and personal reasons. The
> corporation has one shareholder - me. It has exactly one director,
> one officer, and one employee - all me. It has the same income that I
> had before incorporating. Since "Corporations are powerful entities,"
> do I now, through my corporation, wield more power than I did before?
> Am I now "perhaps too powerful"?

You are an admirable individual, as a self-employed person. The
corporations that are supposed to be powerful are others, where the CEO
and perhaps a few other high officers can use the profits that the whole
corporation has generated (perhaps hundreds of individuals or even more
worked to achieve those profits) for whatever they deem necessary. It
appears to me that some use the profits to promote their individual
agendas. The SCOTUS has sanctioned this in a way (they didn't ask my
advice). Now if all the workers and all the stockholders had agreed to
the approach of this fictional CEO, that would be one thing, but at the
moment there seems to be only a reckoning due AFTER the fact, if any.

I realize that unions may have the same abilities, but they are supposed
to follow their members desires, while with corporations this is not the
case.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 22 Oct 2012 16:31:23 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:12:17 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>
>>>> There have been three Presidents that when they entered office, the
>>>> stock market decrease.
>>>
>>> One of these days, both liberals and conservatives will have to
>>> admit that it makes very little difference to the economy whatever
>>> the president, or any other part of the government, does.
>>>
>>> Boom and bust are with us always. Presidents claim the booms and
>>> blame the busts on someone else.
>>>
>>> Of course they make noises about what they're doing to "fix the
>>> problems" because the voters expect it.
>>
>>Yes, but sometimes presidents can set the tone and sometimes they can
>>even stimulate Congress to do the right thing. As the majority here
>>knows, I favor another Obama stint. The secret policies of
>>Romney/Ryan can and will change on a dime, 180° at a time. They are
>>to be avoided as much as possible, since Romney/Ryan WILL push the
>>country into another depression.
>
> So, what has the glorious Obamassiah done to deserve your belief,
> praise, and respect, Han? Please be specific.

Obama has at least helped to steer the economy out of the Bush-era
financial crash and unemployment mess. Ever since about the middle of
2009, both private employment and the stock market have gone up. Less
than hoped for, sure, but up. The deficit is going in the right
direction, again, not fast ebough by far, but we still have tax policies
to correct, and expenditures for wars to cut even more.

We have now Obamacare, which even Mitt says is good, but should be left
to the states. I disagree with that, but then I consider this a single
country, not a haphazardly cobbled together and internally fighting
alliance of jealous individual nations. Sorry, just my opinion, I don't
buy the States' rights stuff that would allow differeing treatments of
individuals and corporations in different states.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> The folks on TV are TP-INO. They don't represent the will or wishes of
> the rest of the party members to the slightest of degrees.

TP-INO??? What kind of toilet paper is that? To me it was clear that the
primaries were guided by the Tea Party idiots. And the Republican platform
has a few beauties in it too.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>
>> I completely agree. Crash of 1929: It took until WWII, 12 years
>> later, before the economy was humming again, and that was then due to
>> enorous deficit spending to get geared up for war. One has to
>> realize that the current recovery is from an economic debacle
>> (financial collapse) on an almost same level as the 1929 crash. It
>> wasn't "just" a housing bubble. And your numbers are right (14100 vs
>> 13600). I believe though tht the longer term trend is up. It will
>> really get up if and when the fiscal cliff has been avoided, people
>> with moderate incomes will have spending money again,
>
>> and taxes will more nearly cover outlays.
>
> Not a chance. Not unless taxes are increased a whole bunch and/or
> entitlements are cut another bunch. Downsizing the military would
> help too (do we really, really, need the Pax Americana?).

I'm all for downsizing the military because a Pax Americana should come
from vision not from drones.

> The feds are busy borrowing close to 40% of what they spend. Is that
> what you want? If so, a vote for Obama will assure that it continues.
> Me, I prefer someone who at least pays lip service to reduction.

It is easy to demand frugality and austerity. I'd be all for it inan
economy that is perking along. At the moment we don't need strangling of
the economy by cutting almost indiscriminately. And we do need enhancing
of the revenues. The Bush years have again proven that cutting taxes
does NOT increase jobs, and does NOT promote a helathy economy. Still,
we are better off than Europe (which isnt saying much) ...

> You - and others - might want to view this...
> http://www.therightplanet.com/2012/05/reality-check-federal-budget-can-
> not-be-balanced-must-see-video/

Sorry, I didn't look at the video, but I agree with the premise in the
first text paragraph(s). I do know that cutting a few loopholes in the
tax laws isn't going to free up enough money, and the same for increasing
taxes on the wealthy. Together something could work, at least a bit, but
I am not betting on Congress to do much to either of these 2. The end is
that we will have inflation at some point (my prediction in about 3 years
from now). The housing market will start heating up. There will
eventually be successful demands by unions and others for wage increases.
I suggest judicious investing in the stock markets or in inflation
protected federal bonds to keep abreast of the coming inflation.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 10/22/2012 1:53 PM, Han wrote:
>> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 10/22/2012 10:31 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> As the majority here knows, I favor another Obama stint.
>>>> The secret policies of Romney/Ryan
>>>> can and will change on a dime, 180° at a time.They are to be
>>>> avoided as much as possible, since Romney/Ryan WILL push the
>>>> country into another depression.
>>>>
>>> What secret policies are those? Oh, you can't tell us, because
>>> they're secret? Or, if you can tell us, how did you become privy to
>>> those secrets? What exactly do you think Romney would do that would
>>> push the country into a depression? What exactly do you think would
>>> happen under another 4 years of Obama that would leave us better off
>>> than replacing him would?
>>
>> They must be secret, because no one, least of Romney or Ryan are
>> giving details. Anyone looking at them at face value says, they
>> can't work as stated ...
>
> In other words, there MUST be secret policies, because you don't know
> of ANY secret policies. Nobody can argue with THAT logic ...

I was trying to be nice by implying there must be some specific ideas
Mitt has, but you're probably right, other than figments of imagination
Mitt has NO idea, exept perhaps to say that Obama's policies are the
right ones.

>> Like the tax returns Mitty is afraid to release because they
>> would be fodder for the opposition.
>
> Like Obama's college records.

Right. Obama's college records would demonstrate how he got rich, I
suppose. Romney's tax records would show whether or not he followed ALL
the rules of tax laws to letter AND spirit.

>> Parenthetically, I really don't understand the Republicans. With a
>> sitting president this vulnerable, they chose a moderate centrist,
>> who disguised himself as Tea Party activist during the primaries,
>> then did a 180 just a couple of weeks ago, and now continues to piss
>> off people who are half the electorate with his retro-neanderthal
>> antiwomen pronouncements.
>
> Oh, that must explain reports like this:
>
> "Romney 50%, Obama 46% Among Likely Voters"
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/158048/romney-obama-among-likely-voters.aspx
>
> "The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday
> shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 49% of voters nationwide,
> while President Obama earns the vote from 47%."
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administr
> ation/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

That's 1 1/2 poll. No one, I repeat no one, understands why Gallup is
this different from other polls. Rasmussen isn't really the best poll,
and shows a tie, right?

> Somehow the Republicans managed to choose a candidate that holds
> himself pretty well against an incumbent opponent. Whatever
> percentage of the electorate Romney pisses off, Obama apparently
> pisses off even greater numbers.

A sitting president with Obama's records, and Etch-A-Sketch Romney can't
make a real dent?

> Look, about 40% of the country is going to vote for the Democrat
> candidate, and about 40% will vote for the Republican candidate, no
> matter who that candidate is. It's the remaining 20% who decide the
> presidential election. And not all of them are moderates or
> centrists. The winning strategy is to choose a candidate who will
> appeal to the greatest part of that 20%. So far, Romney is doing OK on
> that score.

There are aspects of the Republican promises that are attractive, even to
me. How come that the total picture is so repulsive?

> BTW, what has Romney actually said that constitutes "retro-neanderthal
> antiwomen pronouncements"?

Oh, you weren't there when Romney said women should leave it to the
higher ups in the catholic hierarchy to decide whether or not they can
control their own bodies. Or when He said he would repeal Obamacare and
replace it with Romneycare, and leave it to the states to set healthcare
policies. Btw, Romneycare in Mass was so effective in part because of
the compulsory aspects, which exactly what the idiots who are against
Obamacare want to repeal.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:54:56 -0600, Just Wondering
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 10/22/2012 2:41 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 22 Oct 2012 16:31:23 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:12:17 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There have been three Presidents that when they entered office,
>>>>>>> the stock market decrease.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of these days, both liberals and conservatives will have to
>>>>>> admit that it makes very little difference to the economy
>>>>>> whatever the president, or any other part of the government,
>>>>>> does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Boom and bust are with us always. Presidents claim the booms and
>>>>>> blame the busts on someone else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course they make noises about what they're doing to "fix the
>>>>>> problems" because the voters expect it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but sometimes presidents can set the tone and sometimes they
>>>>> can even stimulate Congress to do the right thing. As the majority
>>>>> here knows, I favor another Obama stint. The secret policies of
>>>>> Romney/Ryan can and will change on a dime, 180° at a time. They
>>>>> are to be avoided as much as possible, since Romney/Ryan WILL push
>>>>> the country into another depression.
>>>>
>>>> So, what has the glorious Obamassiah done to deserve your belief,
>>>> praise, and respect, Han? Please be specific.
>>>
>>> Obama has at least helped to steer the economy out of the Bush-era
>>> financial crash and unemployment mess. Ever since about the middle
>>> of 2009, both private employment and the stock market have gone up.
>>> Less than hoped for, sure, but up.
>>
>>
>>The question 1jaques asked was, not what is the current state of the
>>economy, but rather, What has Obama done? I too would like that
>>question answered. You have referred generally to unemployment figures
>>and the stock market. What has Obama actually done that has resulted
>>in the economy being better than it would have been under a McCain
>>administration (as that would have been the alternative)?
>>
>>And yeah, the raw numbers of employed have increased, but the raw
>>numbers of unemployed have increased even more. In other words, the
>>total employment situation both in actual numbers and as a percentage
>>of employable people is worse, not better, than it was four years ago.
>>
>>
>>> The deficit is going in the right direction,
>>
>>Now I see the disconnect. You are living in an alternate universe.
>>
>>>
>>> We have now Obamacare, which even Mitt says is good,
>>
>>Please provide a reference where Romney said Obamacare is good. I
>>think this is another proof that you're in an alternate universel
>>
>>> but should be left to the states.
>>
>>That's exactly what the U.S. Constitution says should be done.
>>
>>> I disagree with that, but then I consider this a single country, not
>>> a haphazardly cobbled together and internally fighting alliance of
>>> jealous individual nations.
>>
>>The states are not individual nations, but each state is indeed a
>>sovereign government, with its own rights guaranteed by the
>>Constitution.
>>
>>> I don't buy the States' rights stuff that would allow differeing
>>> treatments of individuals and corporations in different states.
>>
>>Then your knowledge of U.S. history and the Constitution is sorely
>>lacking.
>
> Han doesn't believe in the Constitution. Rather, he believes it says
> what he thinks it should say, no more. No less. (IOW, it doesn't
> exist) That's the Progressive way.

Keith, I signed up for a course on the Constitution. Unfortunately, it
was canceled for lack of interest. I'm waiting to get back the tuition I
paid. I will try to look up some of the books you guys recommended.
It's OK to mention them again. I like the Constitution for what it says,
such as that the SCOTUS has the last word, pending legislation by
Congress that doesn't infringe. Where we disagree is whether the
Constitution (with the Amendments of course) should be taken absolutely
literal without taking into account that was impossible to predict
technological advances since then, as well as a different environment
socially.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 22 Oct 2012 20:41:14 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 22 Oct 2012 16:31:23 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:12:17 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There have been three Presidents that when they entered office,
>>>>>> the stock market decrease.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of these days, both liberals and conservatives will have to
>>>>> admit that it makes very little difference to the economy whatever
>>>>> the president, or any other part of the government, does.
>>>>>
>>>>> Boom and bust are with us always. Presidents claim the booms and
>>>>> blame the busts on someone else.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course they make noises about what they're doing to "fix the
>>>>> problems" because the voters expect it.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but sometimes presidents can set the tone and sometimes they
>>>>can even stimulate Congress to do the right thing. As the majority
>>>>here knows, I favor another Obama stint. The secret policies of
>>>>Romney/Ryan can and will change on a dime, 180° at a time. They are
>>>>to be avoided as much as possible, since Romney/Ryan WILL push the
>>>>country into another depression.
>>>
>>> So, what has the glorious Obamassiah done to deserve your belief,
>>> praise, and respect, Han? Please be specific.
>>
>>Obama has at least helped to steer the economy out of the Bush-era
>>financial crash and unemployment mess. Ever since about the middle of
>>2009, both private employment and the stock market have gone up. Less
>>than hoped for, sure, but up. The deficit is going in the right
>>direction, again, not fast ebough by far, but we still have tax
>>policies to correct, and expenditures for wars to cut even more.
>
> So nothing in the business world ever rebounds without political help,
> is that it? Seriously, are you that deluded and/or spellbound by this
> guy? My opinion is that the economy would have rebounded far more
> quickly if the gov't had gotten the hell out of the way and LET IT.

Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. I don't think that the last
word has been written about the causes of the financial collapse of 2008.
It has been argued that this type of crash has far longer-lasting effects
than say a savings and loan debacle. I would have been afraid that
simply letting the bankers fix the system would have led us to a far
worse economic collapse than what has happened now.

>>We have now Obamacare, which even Mitt says is good, but should be
>>left to the states. I disagree with that, but then I consider this a
>>single country, not a haphazardly cobbled together and internally
>>fighting alliance of jealous individual nations. Sorry, just my
>>opinion, I don't buy the States' rights stuff that would allow
>>differeing treatments of individuals and corporations in different
>>states.
>
> I think the fed might guide the states (if that's possible) in an
> outline for minimum coverage, then leave it up to the states to get it
> done. As Patton said, "Don't tell people how to do things. Tell them
> what to do and let them surprise you with their results."

YES!!! I would have been for a minimum coverage system as well, and let
individuals purchase their own "collision" on top of the statutory
coverage. But then you would need to make sure that the individual will
indeed pay for needed healthcare over and above covered conditions. That
isn't easy if for instance a kidney transplant or dialysis isn't part of
statutory coverage, and Joe Shmoe finds he needs dialysis or a kidney.
What to do if he can't pay? Let him die? Whether he is 95 or 35?

> And TPINO is "Tea Party In Name Only".

Now you got me, what's that?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in news:5085b93d$0$1040$862e30e2
@ngroups.net:

> From news accounts I have read, I would conclude that union leaders are
> often even less responsive to the wants of their rank and file than
> corporate officers are to their shareholders.

I agree that it often goes both ways. I gather that you agree with me that
"less responsive" is NOT a good thing.

Btw, there have been experiments where union (representative)s had
positions on the boards of corporations. Very often that led to better
understanding and better long-term profits. The principled antagonistic
stances of board of directors and executives of corporations versus workers
is often counter-productive. As in politics, too often rhetoric then
supercedes reason. Currently I see the American Airlines situation as such
a lose-lose proposition.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 22 Oct 2012 20:10:10 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I realize that unions may have the same abilities, but they are
>>supposed to follow their members desires, while with corporations this
>>is not the case.
>
> In 1940 the unions did follow their member's desires. In 2012, not so
> much. It was probably the late 60's when unions went to the dark side
> and no longer cared about the members. The purpose of most unions at
> present is to collect dues and pay big salaries to the leaders.
> AFL-CIO Pres makes $293,000. UMW $175,000. Postal Workers, $241,000.
> You see the poor sob's picketing in the rain while the union bosses
> pull up in their Caddy to see if they are still on the line. I've
> been at the table for negotiations. I can tell lots of stories about
> them, none good for the worker.

You make the point. I agree. Unions (IMO, certainly for the "bigger"
corporations) should have a seat on the board AND be responsible for the
prosperity of both company and workers. I believe it is now working for
the benefit of big, very aggressive union workers as the metalworkers
union in Germany. Just an example where it could be.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 10/23/2012 5:27 AM, Han wrote:
>> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>>
>>> BTW, what has Romney actually said that constitutes
>>> "retro-neanderthal antiwomen pronouncements"?
>>
>> Oh, you weren't there when Romney said women should leave it to the
>> higher ups in the catholic hierarchy to decide whether or not they
>> can control their own bodies.
>
> As I recall, Romney was actually saying that it is unconstitutional
> for the federal government to pass a law prohibiting the free exercise
> of religion.

Of course it is unconstitutional to prohibit free exercise of religion.
But that doesn't mean the catholic church can prohibit me or anyone else
from using birth control.

>> Or when He said he would repeal Obamacare and
>> replace it with Romneycare, and leave it to the states to set
>> healthcare policies.
>
> Which is as it should be, nothing neanderthal or anti-woman about
> that.

SCOTUS disagrees - the feds can institute that "tax".

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 10/23/2012 5:46 AM, Han wrote:
>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:54:56 -0600, Just Wondering
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/22/2012 2:41 PM, Han wrote:
>>>>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22 Oct 2012 16:31:23 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:12:17 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There have been three Presidents that when they entered
>>>>>>>>> office, the stock market decrease.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One of these days, both liberals and conservatives will have to
>>>>>>>> admit that it makes very little difference to the economy
>>>>>>>> whatever the president, or any other part of the government,
>>>>>>>> does.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Boom and bust are with us always. Presidents claim the booms
>>>>>>>> and blame the busts on someone else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course they make noises about what they're doing to "fix the
>>>>>>>> problems" because the voters expect it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, but sometimes presidents can set the tone and sometimes
>>>>>>> they can even stimulate Congress to do the right thing. As the
>>>>>>> majority here knows, I favor another Obama stint. The secret
>>>>>>> policies of Romney/Ryan can and will change on a dime, 180° at a
>>>>>>> time. They are to be avoided as much as possible, since
>>>>>>> Romney/Ryan WILL push the country into another depression.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, what has the glorious Obamassiah done to deserve your belief,
>>>>>> praise, and respect, Han? Please be specific.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obama has at least helped to steer the economy out of the Bush-era
>>>>> financial crash and unemployment mess. Ever since about the
>>>>> middle of 2009, both private employment and the stock market have
>>>>> gone up. Less than hoped for, sure, but up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The question 1jaques asked was, not what is the current state of
>>>> the economy, but rather, What has Obama done? I too would like
>>>> that question answered. You have referred generally to unemployment
>>>> figures and the stock market. What has Obama actually done that
>>>> has resulted in the economy being better than it would have been
>>>> under a McCain administration (as that would have been the
>>>> alternative)?
>>>>
>>>> And yeah, the raw numbers of employed have increased, but the raw
>>>> numbers of unemployed have increased even more. In other words, the
>>>> total employment situation both in actual numbers and as a
>>>> percentage of employable people is worse, not better, than it was
>>>> four years ago.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The deficit is going in the right direction,
>>>>
>>>> Now I see the disconnect. You are living in an alternate universe.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We have now Obamacare, which even Mitt says is good,
>>>>
>>>> Please provide a reference where Romney said Obamacare is good. I
>>>> think this is another proof that you're in an alternate universel
>>>>
>>>>> but should be left to the states.
>>>>
>>>> That's exactly what the U.S. Constitution says should be done.
>>>>
>>>>> I disagree with that, but then I consider this a single country,
>>>>> not a haphazardly cobbled together and internally fighting
>>>>> alliance of jealous individual nations.
>>>>
>>>> The states are not individual nations, but each state is indeed a
>>>> sovereign government, with its own rights guaranteed by the
>>>> Constitution.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't buy the States' rights stuff that would allow differeing
>>>>> treatments of individuals and corporations in different states.
>>>>
>>>> Then your knowledge of U.S. history and the Constitution is sorely
>>>> lacking.
>>>
>>> Han doesn't believe in the Constitution. Rather, he believes it
>>> says what he thinks it should say, no more. No less. (IOW, it
>>> doesn't exist) That's the Progressive way.
>>
>> Keith, I signed up for a course on the Constitution. Unfortunately,
>> it was canceled for lack of interest. I'm waiting to get back the
>> tuition I paid. I will try to look up some of the books you guys
>> recommended. It's OK to mention them again. I like the Constitution
>> for what it says, such as that the SCOTUS has the last word, pending
>> legislation by Congress that doesn't infringe.
>
> You obviously need that course. The Constitution does not say that.
> The Supremes said that in an early court case - Marbury v. Madison.
> There's absolutely nothing in the Constitution itself that spells out
> who has the last word.

Since it is part of the interpretation of the Constitution, and hasn't
been challenged for quite a while, it is as much gospel as the first
article of the Constitution. Moreover, it can become almost a vicious
circle (there have been many cases where Congress passed a law to
"redress" an opinion of the SCOTUS - signed by a president - which then
later was again ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS). Therefore it is
likely a good thing that it wasn't specifically specified in the
Constitution.

>> Where we disagree is whether the Constitution (with the Amendments of
>> course) should be taken absolutely literal without taking into account
>> that was impossible to predict technological advances since then, as
>> well as a different environment socially.
>
> Your opinions on the subject are irrelevant.

I disagree (obviously), and the fact you react means there is at least
some relevance.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 23 Oct 2012 11:55:25 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 22 Oct 2012 20:41:14 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 22 Oct 2012 16:31:23 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:12:17 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There have been three Presidents that when they entered office,
>>>>>>>> the stock market decrease.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of these days, both liberals and conservatives will have to
>>>>>>> admit that it makes very little difference to the economy
>>>>>>> whatever the president, or any other part of the government,
>>>>>>> does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Boom and bust are with us always. Presidents claim the booms
>>>>>>> and blame the busts on someone else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course they make noises about what they're doing to "fix the
>>>>>>> problems" because the voters expect it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, but sometimes presidents can set the tone and sometimes they
>>>>>>can even stimulate Congress to do the right thing. As the majority
>>>>>>here knows, I favor another Obama stint. The secret policies of
>>>>>>Romney/Ryan can and will change on a dime, 180° at a time. They
>>>>>>are to be avoided as much as possible, since Romney/Ryan WILL push
>>>>>>the country into another depression.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, what has the glorious Obamassiah done to deserve your belief,
>>>>> praise, and respect, Han? Please be specific.
>>>>
>>>>Obama has at least helped to steer the economy out of the Bush-era
>>>>financial crash and unemployment mess. Ever since about the middle
>>>>of 2009, both private employment and the stock market have gone up.
>>>>Less than hoped for, sure, but up. The deficit is going in the
>>>>right direction, again, not fast ebough by far, but we still have
>>>>tax policies to correct, and expenditures for wars to cut even more.
>>>
>>> So nothing in the business world ever rebounds without political
>>> help, is that it? Seriously, are you that deluded and/or spellbound
>>> by this guy? My opinion is that the economy would have rebounded
>>> far more quickly if the gov't had gotten the hell out of the way and
>>> LET IT.
>>
>>Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. I don't think that the
>>last word has been written about the causes of the financial collapse
>>of 2008.
>
> Nope, prolly not.
>
>>It has been argued that this type of crash has far longer-lasting
>>effects than say a savings and loan debacle. I would have been afraid
>>that simply letting the bankers fix the system would have led us to a
>>far worse economic collapse than what has happened now.
>
> As it was, the bankers were asking "What do we do with this money
> you're throwing at us?" and they gave their CEOs gigantic bonuses
> using TAXPAYER MONEY.

That of course should have been illegal, and be clawed back. I hope your
statement isn't really true, but I don't know.

>>>>We have now Obamacare, which even Mitt says is good, but should be
>>>>left to the states. I disagree with that, but then I consider this
>>>>a single country, not a haphazardly cobbled together and internally
>>>>fighting alliance of jealous individual nations. Sorry, just my
>>>>opinion, I don't buy the States' rights stuff that would allow
>>>>differeing treatments of individuals and corporations in different
>>>>states.
>
> Guidelines are necessary, but States can usually do things better than
> the Feds, and for a lot less money.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Overall, Medicare has been relatively successfull
in keeping costs low and still give quality care.

>>> I think the fed might guide the states (if that's possible) in an
>>> outline for minimum coverage, then leave it up to the states to get
>>> it done. As Patton said, "Don't tell people how to do things. Tell
>>> them what to do and let them surprise you with their results."
>>
>>YES!!! I would have been for a minimum coverage system as well, and
>>let individuals purchase their own "collision" on top of the statutory
>>coverage. But then you would need to make sure that the individual
>>will indeed pay for needed healthcare over and above covered
>>conditions. That isn't easy if for instance a kidney transplant or
>>dialysis isn't part of statutory coverage, and Joe Shmoe finds he
>>needs dialysis or a kidney. What to do if he can't pay? Let him die?
>> Whether he is 95 or 35?
>
> What we really need is to rip down the existing medical care
> infrastructure and start over. Doctors in the system are all on
> salary: no $35,000 per hour fees for surgery allowed. Hospitals lose
> the $40M lobby remodels and that money instead goes into paying
> salaries, making people well, etc. This in turn reduces the costs for
> insurance companies and our rates drop dramatically. Healthcare is now
> affordable, as it is in other countries.

As it works in Holland, as I found out when I needed trauma surgery on my
broken leg.

>>> And TPINO is "Tea Party In Name Only".
>>
>>Now you got me, what's that?
>
> It means that anyone can say "I'm a member of the Tea Party" but then
> act like a bloomin' Democrat instead. ;) Watch what they do, not what
> they say. Remember, these are CONgresscritters we're talking about.
> They lie through their teeth.
>
> --
> They must find it difficult,
> those who have taken authority as truth,
> rather than truth as authority.
> -- Gerald Massey, Egyptologist

I like that quote ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>>
>> Obama has at least helped to steer the economy out of the Bush-era
>> financial crash and unemployment mess.
>
> During the first six years of the Bush administration, we got out of a
> recession, saw unemployment drop below five percent, almost zero
> inflation, 28 consecutive quarters of economic growth, and had the
> DJIA climb above 12,000. All this in spite of two wars, 9-11, and
> Katrina.
>
> Then the Democrats took over Congress and almost everything went to
> hell.

That sounds like the guy who had jumped out of the 17th floor window of
the Manhattan VA. Passing by the canteen on the second floor he was
heard to say "so far so good". Then they put some controls on the
windows so the "looneys" on the 17th floor (or anywhere else) couldn't
jump anymore.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I just want to share a recent thought I had.
>
> As my subject line suggested, Corporations are powerful entities.
> Perhaps too powerful?
>
> Corporations have no conscience. Would it be too much to demand to ask
> that they not sell-out their American laborers at the cost of giving up
> some of their profit?
>
> I don't know the numbers, but maybe slightly less profitable corporations
> and more employment would make for a happier nation, as a whole, with more
> tax payers.
>
> Personally, I think I have more to lose than to gain by such a change.
> But I'm willing to put the idea out there for discussion. I don't have
> alot of time to spend defending it. And it's just a thought. So maybe, if
> you are inclined, explain why you think it's a bad idea.
>
> Signed,
> Disturbed by current socio-economic trends

Some corps are not so bad, others ruthless. Current CEO wants to make his
reign good so he skips long term results in favor of today. Boards of
Directors applaud, stockholders rejoice. Flaw though, many of us with a 401k
are the stockholders that want to see the big returns. We should be
complaining to the boards and watching CEO compensation that had risen too
much over the past 15 to 20 years.

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 05:00:18 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

<snip>

> Stock tip: Buy stock from manufacturers of Quick Lime and disposable
> Body Bags today!

Quick lime is amazing stuff, 20 Lbs. will completely eliminate the stench
of a 200 pound carcass decomposing. But you knew this. :)

basilisk



--
A wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse

Han wrote:
>
> Obama has at least helped to steer the economy out of the Bush-era
> financial crash and unemployment mess.

During the first six years of the Bush administration, we got out of a
recession, saw unemployment drop below five percent, almost zero inflation,
28 consecutive quarters of economic growth, and had the DJIA climb above
12,000. All this in spite of two wars, 9-11, and Katrina.

Then the Democrats took over Congress and almost everything went to hell.

On 10/23/2012 4:32 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> For one, the X-ray machine has a useful life of well
> over a decade. Secondly, you don't account for depreciation.

Section 179 ... "depreciation" may not be necessary if a capital
equipment expenditure that did not exceed the statutory amount and/or
the business had a net operating loss for the year. ;)

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:44:15 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I have a motorcycle that gets 50mpg on gas with alcohol, 60mpg
>>> without. So it's 60 miles on one gallon without, 50 miles on 9/10 of
>>> a gallon with. That's assuming 10% alcohol. So I'm actually
>>> burning more gasoline with the "cleaner" gas.
>>>
>>
>> Yup - just about everyone has experienced at least a 10% hit in fuel
>> economy since the "cleaner" gas went mainstream. And... it's a
>> total net energy loss right from the refinery process. But... the
>> feelgooders at least have something to fool themselves with.
>>
>>
>>> But some farmers and politicians are making out so that makes
>>> everything OK.
>>
>> Don't forget the people who don't think beyond what makes them feel
>> good. They're pretty happy too.
>
> In my experience, they're never happy, rather like a junkie.

Au contraire - they're always happy since they never really think anything
through. They just react to what makes them feel good.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:09:13 GMT, basilisk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 05:00:18 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Stock tip: Buy stock from manufacturers of Quick Lime and disposable
>> Body Bags today!
>
>Quick lime is amazing stuff, 20 Lbs. will completely eliminate the stench
>of a 200 pound carcass decomposing. But you knew this. :)

So will 3,000# of hogs, or so I've read. <burp>

--
EAT RIGHT, KEEP FIT, DIE ANYWAY.
--anon

Aw, Hell. Gimme CHOCOLATE!
--LJ

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 23:01:03 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:44:15 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have a motorcycle that gets 50mpg on gas with alcohol, 60mpg
>>>> without. So it's 60 miles on one gallon without, 50 miles on 9/10 of
>>>> a gallon with. That's assuming 10% alcohol. So I'm actually
>>>> burning more gasoline with the "cleaner" gas.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yup - just about everyone has experienced at least a 10% hit in fuel
>>> economy since the "cleaner" gas went mainstream. And... it's a
>>> total net energy loss right from the refinery process. But... the
>>> feelgooders at least have something to fool themselves with.
>>>
>>>
>>>> But some farmers and politicians are making out so that makes
>>>> everything OK.
>>>
>>> Don't forget the people who don't think beyond what makes them feel
>>> good. They're pretty happy too.
>>
>> In my experience, they're never happy, rather like a junkie.
>
>Au contraire - they're always happy since they never really think anything
>through. They just react to what makes them feel good.

Disgree. There's always another piece of the sky falling, for them.

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:56:00 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

>On 10/22/2012 8:38 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>>>> I'd rather take a 50% cut in my average stock market returns than see
>>>> our currency disintegrated by hyper-inflation (as a result of a
>>>> *ridiculous* national debt). I'm "all ears". What do ya'll propose?
>>>
>>> Get a grip. Inflation is basically essential to a healthy economy. The
>>> government MUST print more money the for the economy to grow.
>>
>> That is absolutely Not True. Although I'll admit it may be a little like
>> using lighter fluid to help get a fire going. But it you don't have
>> seasoned logs, the fire may be short-lived.
>
>Actually absolutely true for reasons I explained below. What I did not
>point out because I thought you might realize this is that the
>government does not get it right mot of the time. But if you want the
>exonomy to grow you have to increase the currency. Too much the dollar
>buys less too little , no growth.

More currency <> inflation. Inflation is too much money chasing too little
goods.

>>>> It is
>>> those that "get it" that invest and direct their time and energy to
>>> capture those extra dollars.
>>
>> I could argue that hurling inflation at people is not fair to those that
>> are try to save, and provide for themselves. Inflation treats government
>> and others who are financially irresponsible better (it's easier to pay
>> off fixed debt with lesser-valued dollars down the road).
>
>Hog wash. The government will continue to spend and debt will continue
>to grow. surely you don't think the government will right it's wrong
>spending and go in the black. Add to that the population will continue
>to get less for its dollar.

That's certainly the goal. Like many goals (world peace or, um, losing
weight), it may not be achievable but that doesn't make it a less worthy goal.

>>>
>>> If the is only you and I in the population and there is only $10 for
>>> both of us to earn and spend what happens if another person is brought
>>> into the population, or you work twice as hard as I? You do not get any
>>> more money because there is no extra money to be used.
>>
>> The size of a population is not directly related to pricing.
>> Theoreticaly, pricing is based upon the supply of money and the amount
>> of goods and services available.
>
>Not talking about pricing at allllll. You missed the point.
>
But "inflation" is *ALL* about prices.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Your described hyper inflation goes towards paying those that the
>>> government promised to pay.
>>
>> I didn't bring "borrowing for entitlement programs" into the picture.
>> That is, to me, a completely unrelated issue. I support paying for
>> benefits that were promised--preferably with cash in hand!
>>
>>
>> For example every one getting government
>>> benefits including SS. If corporations are over taxed, read that as
>>> every one that works for that corporation, the workers get less pay and
>>> fewer, if any, are hired. And then defending our country and
>>> maintaining our infrastructure costs a fortune. Really and truly those
>>> two items are the only thing that the government should be spending
>>> money on.
>>> The government SHOULD NOT be involved in seeing that every one get
>>> treated equally monetarily.
>>
>> That sentence contains ambiguous, and the topic is deep enough for a
>> book. I have free-market roots. But I can see areas where the
>> free-market may need a little help. "Insider-trading" ought to be
>> curtailed for instance, even though it is illegal. Perhaps politicians
>> shouldn't be allowed to line their pockets from the responsiblities that
>> we entrust to them. Holding people in jail also seems to becoming a
>> profitable industry for some. We have a higher percentage of our
>> population in jail than any other country in the world. Maybe some of
>> the inmates are frustrated that they couldn't find a job?
>
>Yeah I got a bit out on a limb there. That said the government should
>not think that it is responsible for providing jobs.

Amen! It should be worrying about a stable value of the currency.

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 00:25:28 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>I just want to share a recent thought I had.
>
>As my subject line suggested, Corporations are powerful entities.
>Perhaps too powerful?
>
>Corporations have no conscience. Would it be too much to demand to ask
>that they not sell-out their American laborers at the cost of giving up
>some of their profit?

Haven't you heard? SCOTUS deemed corporations "people" last June.
<thud>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood


>I don't know the numbers, but maybe slightly less profitable
>corporations and more employment would make for a happier nation, as a
>whole, with more tax payers.

Agreed.


>Personally, I think I have more to lose than to gain by such a change.
>But I'm willing to put the idea out there for discussion. I don't have
>alot of time to spend defending it. And it's just a thought. So maybe,
>if you are inclined, explain why you think it's a bad idea.
>
>Signed,
>Disturbed by current socio-economic trends

Talk to:

A) The American public, who chose the less expensive product, giving
the lawyers (aka: Speaking Weasels, or SWs) the idea.

B) The corporate stockholders who demanded -much- higher profits.

C) The fine, altruistic and patriotic SWs who made all this possible.


A smaller government wouldn't have taken so many taxes, leaving the
People more money to spend on US products. Call your CONgresscritters
and demand a smaller gov't today! Or just wait for Gunner's cull.

Stock tip: Buy stock from manufacturers of Quick Lime and disposable
Body Bags today!

--
EAT RIGHT, KEEP FIT, DIE ANYWAY.
--anon

Aw, Hell. Gimme CHOCOLATE!
--LJ

Larry Blanchard wrote:

>
> I have a motorcycle that gets 50mpg on gas with alcohol, 60mpg
> without. So it's 60 miles on one gallon without, 50 miles on 9/10 of
> a gallon with. That's assuming 10% alcohol. So I'm actually burning
> more gasoline with the "cleaner" gas.
>

Yup - just about everyone has experienced at least a 10% hit in fuel economy
since the "cleaner" gas went mainstream. And... it's a total net energy
loss right from the refinery process. But... the feelgooders at least have
something to fool themselves with.


> But some farmers and politicians are making out so that makes
> everything OK.

Don't forget the people who don't think beyond what makes them feel good.
They're pretty happy too.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 17:15:48 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 07:58:47 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
>
>> Yeah, well, they once said that about turning corn into auto fuel.
>
>And the obvious side effect of that is to raise the price of corn, lower
>world grain supplies, and reduce gas mileage.
>
>I have a motorcycle that gets 50mpg on gas with alcohol, 60mpg without.
>So it's 60 miles on one gallon without, 50 miles on 9/10 of a gallon
>with. That's assuming 10% alcohol. So I'm actually burning more
>gasoline with the "cleaner" gas.

My Tundra lost 15% in mileage when they moved to oxygenated (10%
ethanol) fuel. That means the gov't just got an extra 15% tax raise,
which they're throwing away to the folks growing corn for ethanol.
It's one of the few 100% Lose/Lose/Lose situations.


>But some farmers and politicians are making out so that makes everything
>OK.

Yeahright.

--
EAT RIGHT, KEEP FIT, DIE ANYWAY.
--anon

Aw, Hell. Gimme CHOCOLATE!
--LJ

Han wrote:

>
> Of course it is unconstitutional to prohibit free exercise of
> religion. But that doesn't mean the catholic church can prohibit me
> or anyone else from using birth control.
>

Holy Cow - is this one still alive? Come on Han - they are not telling you
any such thing. Simply because they will not assist you in that endeavor
does not mean they are telling you that you can't do it. Come on Han - you
know you are being extreme in statements like that.


>>> Or when He said he would repeal Obamacare and
>>> replace it with Romneycare, and leave it to the states to set
>>> healthcare policies.
>>
>> Which is as it should be, nothing neanderthal or anti-woman about
>> that.
>
> SCOTUS disagrees - the feds can institute that "tax".

Out of left field with that reply Han. Give it another try...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 22 Oct 2012 16:31:23 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:12:17 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>
>>> There have been three Presidents that when they entered office, the
>>> stock market decrease.
>>
>> One of these days, both liberals and conservatives will have to admit
>> that it makes very little difference to the economy whatever the
>> president, or any other part of the government, does.
>>
>> Boom and bust are with us always. Presidents claim the booms and
>> blame the busts on someone else.
>>
>> Of course they make noises about what they're doing to "fix the
>> problems" because the voters expect it.
>
>Yes, but sometimes presidents can set the tone and sometimes they can
>even stimulate Congress to do the right thing. As the majority here
>knows, I favor another Obama stint. The secret policies of Romney/Ryan
>can and will change on a dime, 180° at a time. They are to be avoided as
>much as possible, since Romney/Ryan WILL push the country into another
>depression.

So, what has the glorious Obamassiah done to deserve your belief,
praise, and respect, Han? Please be specific.

--
They must find it difficult,
those who have taken authority as truth,
rather than truth as authority.
-- Gerald Massey, Egyptologist

On 10/20/2012 11:25 PM, Bill wrote:
>
> I just want to share a recent thought I had.
>
> As my subject line suggested, Corporations are powerful entities.
> Perhaps too powerful?
>
> Corporations have no conscience. Would it be too much to demand to ask
> that they not sell-out their American laborers at the cost of giving up
> some of their profit?
>
> I don't know the numbers, but maybe slightly less profitable
> corporations and more employment would make for a happier nation, as a
> whole, with more tax payers.
>
> Personally, I think I have more to lose than to gain by such a change.
> But I'm willing to put the idea out there for discussion. I don't have
> alot of time to spend defending it. And it's just a thought. So maybe,
> if you are inclined, explain why you think it's a bad idea.
>
> Signed,
> Disturbed by current socio-economic trends

Your can have that today! Relocate to China, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba,
pick the communist country of your choice. Or Vote for Obama again.

How about allowing the government to tell you how to spend your money.
Better yet, weekley go to your local pan handler and give him 10% of
your income. Do you have a conscience? You see your suggestion sounds
good to you because it would be the corporation giving up profits, not
you. So guess what, when corporations give up profits they spend less,
on employees. If you have a maid and you give the pan handler 10% of
your income would you hire more staff to clean your house? Perhaps you
make too much money. Perhaps if the government took more of your money
and you had less to spend you would be happier.

Can you see what you are suggesting yet?