| |
Main
Date: 08 Nov 2006 11:51:39
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
According to the AP, Rumsfeld has resigned.
Great news! Now lets see what happens...
|
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 10:55:24
From: multi
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 11:51:39 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>According to the AP, Rumsfeld has resigned.
Yet another Bush lie. He was actively searching for Rummy's
replacement at the same time he was telling the country that Rummy
would stay.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 13:06:39
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:55:24 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 11:51:39 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
><lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>According to the AP, Rumsfeld has resigned.
>
>Yet another Bush lie. He was actively searching for Rummy's
>replacement at the same time he was telling the country that Rummy
>would stay.
According to exit polls the Iraqi war was a main reason for deposing
republicans, and Rumsfeld resigned because of that? Then shouldn't
Bush resign?
WAIT.
That would only mean that Cheney would be formally placed in the
position that he's actually been for the last two elections. Never
mind.
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 21:57:17
From: gpsman
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> According to the AP, Rumsfeld has resigned.
>
> Great news! Now lets see what happens...
My fervent wish is to get to hell in time to finish kicking McNamara's
ass so I can get in Rummy's line before the rush.
With my luck he'll probably immediately be booted to management and
immune from the asswhipping I'm saving for him...
<expletives omitted >
-----
- gpsman
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 21:04:04
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> According to the AP, Rumsfeld has resigned.
>
> Great news! Now lets see what happens...
Couldn't they have just let him go hunting with Cheney?
I guess they did it this way to "save face." His.
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 12:29:31
From: Ken Meltzer
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Larry Bud wrote:
> multi wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 11:51:39 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> > <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> > >According to the AP, Rumsfeld has resigned.
> >
> > Yet another Bush lie. He was actively searching for Rummy's
> > replacement at the same time he was telling the country that Rummy
> > would stay.
>
> And if he said 3 weeks ago he was getting rid of Rumsfeld, you'd claim
> it was electioneering.
Sort of like when Clinton tried to bomb bin Laden, and the Republicans
accused him of attempting a "wag the dog" stunt.
Being President is a tough job.
Best,
Ken
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 12:05:06
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
multi wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 11:51:39 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >According to the AP, Rumsfeld has resigned.
>
> Yet another Bush lie. He was actively searching for Rummy's
> replacement at the same time he was telling the country that Rummy
> would stay.
And if he said 3 weeks ago he was getting rid of Rumsfeld, you'd claim
it was electioneering.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 18:37:56
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1163016306.778478.42970@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> multi wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 11:51:39 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
>> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>> >According to the AP, Rumsfeld has resigned.
>>
>> Yet another Bush lie. He was actively searching for Rummy's
>> replacement at the same time he was telling the country that Rummy
>> would stay.
>
> And if he said 3 weeks ago he was getting rid of Rumsfeld, you'd claim
> it was electioneering.
That's true.
But at least it would have been a move in the right (correct) direction that
might have saved a few lives of Americans who died in Iraq while Bush let
his lame duck Defense Secretary continue this failed policy that Americans
rejected coast-to-coast.
Personally, I don't see Bush keeping the news of his firing of Rumsfeld
secret until after the election as "lying." It's like the NFL owner who
gives the dreaded word of approval to his Head Coach, only to fire the poor
bastard at the end of the season. It happens all the time in business.
But what it does say is that Bush politicized the war, trying to hold off
until after the election to break the news. Meanwhile, more American lives
were lost that maybe, just maybe, wouldn't have had to have been sacrificed
if the President had made this move sooner. I sure the parents of those
fallen soldiers who died in October, the bloodiest month in Iraq in over a
year, take comfort in knowing that Bush used their dead kids as pawns in his
little political power play...which ultimately failed miserably.
As has his war plan in Iraq.
I know, I know..."what plan?" Good question.
Randy
"Look who's now out of step with mainstream America."
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 16:27:56
From: multi
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:37:56 -0500, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>Personally, I don't see Bush keeping the news of his firing of Rumsfeld
>secret until after the election as "lying."
It would be lying by omission, but that's moot, since he didn't just
keep it secret --- he also explicitly lied by saying that Rumsfeld
would remain SecDef till the end of his (Bush's) term. If you don't
call that lying, then you are an honorary Republican.
On the other hand, I'm glad Bush lied about it. Saying Rummy was
doing a "fantastic" job after 100+ American soldiers were killed in
October probably motivated some indies to vote for the Dems.
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 07:41:30
From: David Sneddon
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Here's a source:
> http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/docs/memotext.pdf
>
> "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible
> shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush
> wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justifi ed by the
> conjunction of terrorism and WMD.
> BUT THE INTELLIGENCE AND FACTS WERE BEING FIXED AROUND THE POLICY.
> The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for
> publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little
> discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
>
> Busted.
>
You know who 'C' was don't you??
Head of the British SIS. The head of the SIS traditionally is referred
to by that initial, taken from the last initial of the first Director
General of SIS - Admiral Mansfield-Cummings. Now you can guess where
James Bond's boss got his name. :-)
David
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 11:49:38
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:mvSdnf4WgKmn98_YnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Randy
> "Look who's now out of step with mainstream America."
You're just as out of step as Pelosi is.
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 16:43:23
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in
>
> You're just as out of step as Pelosi is.
Pelosi is out of step? With whom?
She has pledged to...
* Increase the minimum wage, for which President Bush will undoubtedly ask
for, and will likely receive, some compromise from Dems on taxes to benefit
small business owners to help defray the expense of the increased minimum
wage, as it would likely hit them the hardest
* Work toward making medical care more accessible and affordable. Who
doesn't want that? As a small business owner who has to pay for his own
medical insurance, I'm all in favor of any move that will help reduce the
cost. And you aren't?
* Work toward making college tuition more within the reach of some families.
And this is bad for America in what way? So we can produce another
generation of dumb-asses who think George W. is "smart?" Puhleeze.
This stuff is not out of step with America. It's exactly what America has
been clammoring for, but the conservative Republicans were more interested
in keeping people from burning flags and keeping gays from getting married.
I guess those two things affected your life more directly? Is that what
your saying?
Do you want to come out of the closet now?
You know, I know a few people who wanted to vote a straight Republican
ticket on Tuesday, but they couldn't find any straight Republicans to vote
for.
Randy
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 06:49:11
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
On 9-Nov-2006, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
> * Increase the minimum wage, for which President Bush will undoubtedly ask
>
> for, and will likely receive, some compromise from Dems on taxes to
> benefit
> small business owners to help defray the expense of the increased minimum
> wage, as it would likely hit them the hardest
This is nothing but paying back the Unions as most of their contracts are
pegged to the Minimum Wage. When it goes up all organized labor gets a
raise. As of 2005 only 2.9% of workers were at or below minimum wage. (US
Dept of Labor, BLS)
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 16:48:22
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:FLqdnXs1b-lDPc7YnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in
>>
>> You're just as out of step as Pelosi is.
>
>
> Pelosi is out of step? With whom?
>
> She has pledged to...
>
> * Increase the minimum wage, for which President Bush will undoubtedly ask
> for, and will likely receive, some compromise from Dems on taxes to
> benefit small business owners to help defray the expense of the increased
> minimum wage, as it would likely hit them the hardest
Increasing the minimum wage will do nothing. Another liberal feel good
talking point that will stagnate the economy and benefit no one.
>
> * Work toward making medical care more accessible and affordable. Who
> doesn't want that? As a small business owner who has to pay for his own
> medical insurance, I'm all in favor of any move that will help reduce the
> cost. And you aren't?
Sure it all looks good on paper but making it reality is another thing. I'm
sure the "rich" will pay for it.
>
> * Work toward making college tuition more within the reach of some
> families. And this is bad for America in what way? So we can produce
> another generation of dumb-asses who think George W. is "smart?"
> Puhleeze.
Again, talk is cheap.
>
> This stuff is not out of step with America. It's exactly what America has
> been clammoring for, but the conservative Republicans were more interested
> in keeping people from burning flags and keeping gays from getting
> married. I guess those two things affected your life more directly? Is
> that what your saying?
>
> Do you want to come out of the closet now?
You sure have a preocupation with this gay thing.
>
> You know, I know a few people who wanted to vote a straight Republican
> ticket on Tuesday, but they couldn't find any straight Republicans to vote
> for.
>
Yes we know, try the veal. Pelosi is a far left winger, just like you.
Hardly mainstream.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 16:58:20
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:4rhphmFrc0q4U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
> news:FLqdnXs1b-lDPc7YnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in
>>>
>>> You're just as out of step as Pelosi is.
>>
>>
>> Pelosi is out of step? With whom?
>>
>> She has pledged to...
>>
>> * Increase the minimum wage, for which President Bush will undoubtedly
>> ask for, and will likely receive, some compromise from Dems on taxes to
>> benefit small business owners to help defray the expense of the increased
>> minimum wage, as it would likely hit them the hardest
>
> Increasing the minimum wage will do nothing. Another liberal feel good
> talking point that will stagnate the economy and benefit no one.
>>
>> * Work toward making medical care more accessible and affordable. Who
>> doesn't want that? As a small business owner who has to pay for his own
>> medical insurance, I'm all in favor of any move that will help reduce the
>> cost. And you aren't?
>
> Sure it all looks good on paper but making it reality is another thing.
> I'm sure the "rich" will pay for it.
>>
>> * Work toward making college tuition more within the reach of some
>> families. And this is bad for America in what way? So we can produce
>> another generation of dumb-asses who think George W. is "smart?"
>> Puhleeze.
>
> Again, talk is cheap.
>>
>> This stuff is not out of step with America. It's exactly what America
>> has been clammoring for, but the conservative Republicans were more
>> interested in keeping people from burning flags and keeping gays from
>> getting married. I guess those two things affected your life more
>> directly? Is that what your saying?
>>
>> Do you want to come out of the closet now?
>
> You sure have a preocupation with this gay thing.
>>
>> You know, I know a few people who wanted to vote a straight Republican
>> ticket on Tuesday, but they couldn't find any straight Republicans to
>> vote for.
>>
> Yes we know, try the veal. Pelosi is a far left winger, just like you.
> Hardly mainstream.
>
Here she is in action already.
"Nancy Pelosi wants total party discipline," a source in the Democratic
Party leadership said. "If you played ball with the Republicans during this
session, then you're not going to be given an important chair in the next
session."
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Pelosi.htm
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 15:25:42
From:
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 16:58:20 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:
>
>"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:4rhphmFrc0q4U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
>> news:FLqdnXs1b-lDPc7YnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in
>>>>
>>>> You're just as out of step as Pelosi is.
>>>
>>>
>>> Pelosi is out of step? With whom?
>>>
>>> She has pledged to...
>>>
>>> * Increase the minimum wage, for which President Bush will undoubtedly
>>> ask for, and will likely receive, some compromise from Dems on taxes to
>>> benefit small business owners to help defray the expense of the increased
>>> minimum wage, as it would likely hit them the hardest
>>
>> Increasing the minimum wage will do nothing. Another liberal feel good
>> talking point that will stagnate the economy and benefit no one.
>>>
>>> * Work toward making medical care more accessible and affordable. Who
>>> doesn't want that? As a small business owner who has to pay for his own
>>> medical insurance, I'm all in favor of any move that will help reduce the
>>> cost. And you aren't?
>>
>> Sure it all looks good on paper but making it reality is another thing.
>> I'm sure the "rich" will pay for it.
>>>
>>> * Work toward making college tuition more within the reach of some
>>> families. And this is bad for America in what way? So we can produce
>>> another generation of dumb-asses who think George W. is "smart?"
>>> Puhleeze.
>>
>> Again, talk is cheap.
>>>
>>> This stuff is not out of step with America. It's exactly what America
>>> has been clammoring for, but the conservative Republicans were more
>>> interested in keeping people from burning flags and keeping gays from
>>> getting married. I guess those two things affected your life more
>>> directly? Is that what your saying?
>>>
>>> Do you want to come out of the closet now?
>>
>> You sure have a preocupation with this gay thing.
>>>
>>> You know, I know a few people who wanted to vote a straight Republican
>>> ticket on Tuesday, but they couldn't find any straight Republicans to
>>> vote for.
>>>
>> Yes we know, try the veal. Pelosi is a far left winger, just like you.
>> Hardly mainstream.
>>
>Here she is in action already.
>
>"Nancy Pelosi wants total party discipline," a source in the Democratic
>Party leadership said. "If you played ball with the Republicans during this
>session, then you're not going to be given an important chair in the next
>session."
>
>
>
>http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Pelosi.htm
>
>
Nancy Pelosi is calling for a "Nude Erection" for our country. That
should make all you repuglicans happy.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 15:59:52
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
In article <FLqdnXs1b-lDPc7YnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@giganews.com >,
"\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in
> >
> > You're just as out of step as Pelosi is.
>
>
> Pelosi is out of step? With whom?
>
> She has pledged to...
>
> * Increase the minimum wage, for which President Bush will undoubtedly ask
> for, and will likely receive, some compromise from Dems on taxes to benefit
> small business owners to help defray the expense of the increased minimum
> wage, as it would likely hit them the hardest
>
> * Work toward making medical care more accessible and affordable. Who
> doesn't want that? As a small business owner who has to pay for his own
> medical insurance, I'm all in favor of any move that will help reduce the
> cost. And you aren't?
>
> * Work toward making college tuition more within the reach of some families.
> And this is bad for America in what way? So we can produce another
> generation of dumb-asses who think George W. is "smart?" Puhleeze.
>
> This stuff is not out of step with America. It's exactly what America has
> been clammoring for, but the conservative Republicans were more interested
> in keeping people from burning flags and keeping gays from getting married.
> I guess those two things affected your life more directly? Is that what
> your saying?
>
> Do you want to come out of the closet now?
>
> You know, I know a few people who wanted to vote a straight Republican
> ticket on Tuesday, but they couldn't find any straight Republicans to vote
> for.
>
> Randy
JUst the minimum wage increase is so very much inline with the public
that 22 states already did it.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 19:31:38
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:4554eb72@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>
> >
> > But OK. You go to the doctor and he discovers you have a diseased left
> > kidney that needs to be removed. You go into surgery and the right kidney
> > is removed by mistake. You now no longer have any good kidney. You will
> > be on dialysis. You will hope to get a transplant. Your life expectancy
> > has now been vastly shortened, your quality of life tremendously reduced,
> > the bills are huge. So - let's say the surgical prep team made a mistake
> > on the paperwork, and the surgeon didn't actually read the patient history
> > (actually only met the patient to introduce himself).
> >
> > Come up with a mechanism that does not involve a trial as a finder of fact
> > and awarding of damages. Set up a system to determine how to do it
> > without a trial. It really hasn't been done yet. Above, the mistake of
> > the prep team was compounded by the neglegence of the Surgeon. Or I
> > suppose you can just say "Life is a risk - deal with it". What if this
> > was the 6th time that the Surgeon had made this "mistake" - he didn't
> > "try" to hurt people - he just isn't very good at what he does.
>
> Why does it have to not involve a trial? Here's a solution, since you
> didn't say it has to be constituitional. Eleminate the as-it-turns-out
> horrible idea of trial by a jury of peers in tort cases at least.
You think trial by jury is a horrible idea?
All tort
> trials will be heard by a panel of jurists (8, 12, whatever) who will no
> longer be elected officials. Do not eliminate punitive damages, but put
> them out of the pockets of plaintiffs and their attorneys (some group of
> charitable organisations unrelated to government entities would do nicely
> for these funds). Do not eliminate the concept of compensation for pain and
> suffering, but now we don't have people as silly as myself deciding what it
> is worth. None of this for the attorney. Whatever the arrangement between
> the attorney and his client, it cannot be contingent on a percentage of pain
> and suffering awards. That's a start, at least. Litigating attorneys will
> really hate my idea, but it wasn't formed with their well-being in mind.
>
> As to your surgeon, since when do tort trials have anything to do with the
> regulation of medical practices? They are designed to make injured parties
> whole. It's enough beyond this that they are allowed to assign punitive
> damages to avoid the cheaper-to-ignore-the-law syndrome. How 'bout the
> agency that issues licenses to practice medicine? Wouldn't it be their job
> to address the negligence of the Surgeon?
>
> Scott
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 04:29:55
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1163302298.897240.151090@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> You think trial by jury is a horrible idea?
Yes, I think it has led to some very nasty problems. It's nothing but
speculation, but I'd guess that a lot of the wrongful convictions for
serious crimes such as capital murder would have come out otherwise if the
verdict required the unanimous consent of twelve professional jurists.
Conversely, I believe a lot of people that were proven guilty in court have
been wrongly acquited by sympathetic juries, and that's not better by much.
Trial by a panel of jurists ain't perfect, but I think it would lead to a
better end result. The real problem with that system is the potential for
it morphing into some kind of statist nightmare. But I think it has been
successful in other places, such as Germany.
Scott
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 10:21:41
From: Dene
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <1163179457.400293.94140@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > First of all, it'll never happen because the corporate health care lobbies
> > > (AMA, insurance, big pharma) are too powerful in Washington. But ideally I
> > > would limit their influence, e.g. prevent them from writing legislation.
> >
> > No....the American people don't want it.
>
> Do you mean the American people want the lobbies the continue with their
> influence?
Another cliche. Lobbies don't vote. People do. Furthermore, America
visited this issue ad-nauseum in '92-'94 and after the debate was done,
the majority were decidedly against Hillary's plan. However, some
needed reforms occurred afterwards.
> Since the #1 issue with the voters, according to the exit polls, was
> corruption, I don't think so.
Where did you read that?
-Greg
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 12:47:32
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
In article <1163182901.158609.243500@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > In article <1163179457.400293.94140@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > First of all, it'll never happen because the corporate health care
> > > lobbies
> > > > (AMA, insurance, big pharma) are too powerful in Washington. But
> > > > ideally I
> > > > would limit their influence, e.g. prevent them from writing
> > > > legislation.
> > >
> > > No....the American people don't want it.
> >
> > Do you mean the American people want the lobbies the continue with their
> > influence?
>
> Another cliche. Lobbies don't vote. People do. Furthermore, America
> visited this issue ad-nauseum in '92-'94 and after the debate was done,
> the majority were decidedly against Hillary's plan. However, some
> needed reforms occurred afterwards.
>
> > Since the #1 issue with the voters, according to the exit polls, was
> > corruption, I don't think so.
>
> Where did you read that?
>
> -Greg
It was on all the usual news sources. CNN, MSNBC, Fox and others.
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 12:51:23
From: Dene
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Carbon wrote:
> Speaking of endemic corruption, it would also be good to clip the wings of
> the Trial Lawyers Association of America, another extremely powerful
> Washington lobby. I would severely limit the awards for pain and
> suffering, especially for mass torts type claims where the lawyers make
> most of the money. These enormous awards perpetuate a corrupt system that
> mainly benefits lawyers.
>
> And it's just killing the doctors. One of my golf buddies is a 50 year old
> retired MD. He was having to pay 200k+/year for malpractice insurance and
> he just got sick of starting every year so far in the hole. He says he
> knows more than a few doctors whose practices were ruined by lawsuits, so
> he used to lie awake at night worrying that he had a typo or missed an
> entry in one of his charts. Now he does financial management. Not as
> exciting, but not as stressful either.
I completely agree! In fact, I think the Republicans have been pushing
for Tort reforms for a long time, to no avail.
-Greg
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 12:49:14
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:37:56 -0500, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
> It's like the NFL owner who
>gives the dreaded word of approval to his Head Coach, only to fire the poor
>bastard at the end of the season.
This is true in most sports. When you see the team owner come out and
say that he supports his Coach/Manager 100%, you know it's the end.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 14:26:39
From: multi
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
On 8 Nov 2006 12:05:06 -0800, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>multi wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 11:51:39 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
>> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>> >According to the AP, Rumsfeld has resigned.
>>
>> Yet another Bush lie. He was actively searching for Rummy's
>> replacement at the same time he was telling the country that Rummy
>> would stay.
>
>And if he said 3 weeks ago he was getting rid of Rumsfeld, you'd claim
>it was electioneering.
Well, it would be. But at least that's better than constantly lying
to the American people. Wasn't this the guy who ran on the premise
that he trusted the people, not the government? And yet he runs the
most secretive, corrupt, lying administration in memory, and tells us
to shut up and trust the government.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 09:24:17
From: Dene
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Carbon wrote:
> >
> > Ok....compare it to the USA system. Better....worse.....????
>
> First of all, it'll never happen because the corporate health care lobbies
> (AMA, insurance, big pharma) are too powerful in Washington. But ideally I
> would limit their influence, e.g. prevent them from writing legislation.
No....the American people don't want it.
> Then I would increase the size of the health care pool as much as
> possible. Everyone pays in. Yes, I understand that this is a tax and the
> various right-wing nutters would all have strokes. But just think, under
> the new plan they'd be covered. And the amount they'd have to pay would be
> lower than the health insurance premiums that people are paying now. And
> that healthy 22-year old who bitches about the dollar a day getting taken
> from his cheque? When he shatters his leg snowboarding, his health care
> would be covered too.
The older ages would pay less. The younger ages would pay more, unless
you discriminated according to age, and the freedom to snowboard
without health insurance would be eliminated, never to return.
> It would be cheaper for everyone. But again it'll never happen. I don't
> think there's anything that can overcome the endemic bi-partisan
> corruption in Washington.
It would not be cheaper for those who are under 35. Also, there would
be competing interests as to mandates the universal plan would have.
Many Americans are comfortable with a basic, high deductible hospital
plan. Universal plans will be full of goodies, like alternative care,
Rx, vision, dental, eliminating more freedoms.
> For the record the Canadian system is not perfect. The major problem is
> the lack of specialists. The primary reason for this is American
> head-hunters who show up and say we can triple that quarter mil you're
> making, get you a country club membership, do all the INS paperwork, etc.
> A similar deal was waved under the nose of my brother-in-law and he's a
> regular MD. But then he's one of those eggheads that doesn't play golf.
> Apparently the headhunter had glossy brochures of the country club and
> everything. Seriously, the real reason is because he has dual-citizenship
> like my wife, he did his internship in the States. He understood what the
> system was like and wanted no part of it.
So in the new system, specialists would take a pay cut.
> Just to head off the inevitable snarky one-liner from Tex, I will answer
> why I am living in America. I met my wife 13 years ago at University in
> Canada, but her family is from Florida. When she graduated she moved to
> Florida to help look after her ailing grandmother. I did the K1 Visa thing
> and arrived about a year later. I now have a Green Card, a similar job to
> what I had in Canada, and comparatively good health care provided by my
> job. And the truth is people are basically the same everywhere. I've met a
> lot of good people here and a few scumbags, just like in Canada. The
> difference is, I haven't seen a snowflake in five years. I can play golf
> year round. I can go out in my back yard and pick oranges. The summers are
> brutal, but in the fall and spring the weather is just perfect here.
Hmmm.....it's ok for you to make the choice where you want to live but
it's not ok for us to choose the type of health insurance we want, if
we want it at all.
> See, it's really all about the golf.
It's about freedom. Don't tell me about golf. My home course has a
new lake on 18th fairway. Grrrrrrr... I'm already sick of winter!!
-Greg
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 12:03:53
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
In article <1163179457.400293.94140@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
> First of all, it'll never happen because the corporate health care lobbies
> > (AMA, insurance, big pharma) are too powerful in Washington. But ideally I
> > would limit their influence, e.g. prevent them from writing legislation.
>
> No....the American people don't want it.
Do you mean the American people want the lobbies the continue with their
influence?
Since the #1 issue with the voters, according to the exit polls, was
corruption, I don't think so.
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 07:21:50
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
damnyankee wrote:
> I'm confused.... First report I read said he resigned, next one I read
> said he was fired. Which was it?
Both.
Now they claim that the decision was already made weeks before the
election, which runs contrary to what was said before the election.
McCain said yesterday that they waited until after the election to
announce it so it wouldn't appear to be a political move.
Well wasn't NOT announcing it a political move?
The facts are that the Repugs continue to use the troops as political
ammunition. If they cared about the troops they'd get them out of
there and they'd have fired Rumsfeld years ago.
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 09:37:10
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Lloyd, it's never off topic when you're discussing asswipes in a golf
forum.
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 06:01:47
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
damnyankee wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > According to the AP, Rumsfeld has resigned.
> >
> > Great news! Now lets see what happens...
>
> I'm confused.... First report I read said he resigned, next one I read
> said he was fired. Which was it?
Presidents never fire people. They ask for their resignations.
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 04:24:40
From: damnyankee
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> According to the AP, Rumsfeld has resigned.
>
> Great news! Now lets see what happens...
I'm confused.... First report I read said he resigned, next one I read
said he was fired. Which was it?
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 08:38:27
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
In article <1163075080.442904.37790@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
"damnyankee" <bryanberguson@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > According to the AP, Rumsfeld has resigned.
> >
> > Great news! Now lets see what happens...
>
> I'm confused.... First report I read said he resigned, next one I read
> said he was fired. Which was it?
In DC it is the same thing...
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 04:15:49
From: Ken Meltzer
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> According to the AP, Rumsfeld has resigned.
>
> Great news! Now lets see what happens...
Saddam gets sentenced on Sunday, Rumsfeld fired on Wednesday.
I'll bet an autographed version of that picture of them shaking hands
would go for quite a bundle on eBay!
Best,
Ken
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 01:47:17
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> According to the AP, Rumsfeld has resigned.
>
> Great news! Now lets see what happens...
A great man of action leaves the scene. It=B4s a day of mourning. But
we=B4ll be back..... F
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 22:09:03
From: Dene
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Carbon wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 20:08:00 -0800, Dene wrote:
> > Carbon wrote:
>
> >> It costs more *per capita* for health care compared to places like
> >> Canada where everyone is covered, even though millions and millions of
> >> Americans have no health care at all. If the system were streamlined
> >> the costs would go down. Even for stingy bastards like you.
> >
> > So you're advocating the Canadian system? Then answer why many of their
> > citizens come to the USA for health care?
>
> How much do you know about the Canadian health care system? The reason I'm
> asking is I'm Canadian by birth, and my brother-in-law is an MD there.
Ok....compare it to the USA system. Better....worse.....????
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 12:31:43
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:09:03 -0800, Dene wrote:
> Carbon wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 20:08:00 -0800, Dene wrote:
>> > Carbon wrote:
>>
>> >> It costs more *per capita* for health care compared to places like
>> >> Canada where everyone is covered, even though millions and millions
>> >> of Americans have no health care at all. If the system were
>> >> streamlined the costs would go down. Even for stingy bastards like
>> >> you.
>> >
>> > So you're advocating the Canadian system? Then answer why many of
>> > their citizens come to the USA for health care?
>>
>> How much do you know about the Canadian health care system? The reason
>> I'm asking is I'm Canadian by birth, and my brother-in-law is an MD
>> there.
>
> Ok....compare it to the USA system. Better....worse.....????
First of all, it'll never happen because the corporate health care lobbies
(AMA, insurance, big pharma) are too powerful in Washington. But ideally I
would limit their influence, e.g. prevent them from writing legislation.
Then I would increase the size of the health care pool as much as
possible. Everyone pays in. Yes, I understand that this is a tax and the
various right-wing nutters would all have strokes. But just think, under
the new plan they'd be covered. And the amount they'd have to pay would be
lower than the health insurance premiums that people are paying now. And
that healthy 22-year old who bitches about the dollar a day getting taken
from his cheque? When he shatters his leg snowboarding, his health care
would be covered too.
It would be cheaper for everyone. But again it'll never happen. I don't
think there's anything that can overcome the endemic bi-partisan
corruption in Washington.
For the record the Canadian system is not perfect. The major problem is
the lack of specialists. The primary reason for this is American
head-hunters who show up and say we can triple that quarter mil you're
making, get you a country club membership, do all the INS paperwork, etc.
A similar deal was waved under the nose of my brother-in-law and he's a
regular MD. But then he's one of those eggheads that doesn't play golf.
Apparently the headhunter had glossy brochures of the country club and
everything. Seriously, the real reason is because he has dual-citizenship
like my wife, he did his internship in the States. He understood what the
system was like and wanted no part of it.
Just to head off the inevitable snarky one-liner from Tex, I will answer
why I am living in America. I met my wife 13 years ago at University in
Canada, but her family is from Florida. When she graduated she moved to
Florida to help look after her ailing grandmother. I did the K1 Visa thing
and arrived about a year later. I now have a Green Card, a similar job to
what I had in Canada, and comparatively good health care provided by my
job. And the truth is people are basically the same everywhere. I've met a
lot of good people here and a few scumbags, just like in Canada. The
difference is, I haven't seen a snowflake in five years. I can play golf
year round. I can go out in my back yard and pick oranges. The summers are
brutal, but in the fall and spring the weather is just perfect here.
See, it's really all about the golf.
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 22:07:58
From: Dene
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <1163128821.604385.261080@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > These are two viable theories. What are yours?
> >
> > I sure hope you don't use the cliche that the health insurance
> > companies are raking in the money. It doesn't take much for them to
> > lose it. My best friend's premature baby cost an Oregon insurer
> > $800,000. Think how much premium and how many policy holders are
> > required to recoop that loss. Two years ago, Blue Cross paid the bulk
> > of my $15,000 kidney stone. Think they made any money off of me that
> > year?
> >
> > -Greg
>
> Anecdotal stories are not indicative of the whole story. Yep, insurance
> companies may lose money on some clients. And you can bet your ass they
> look for every way to not cover them or cancel them as soon as they can.
> And that makes good business sense.
>
> But health coverage shouldn't hinge on business sense, and we can reduce
> the per person cost of health care by requiring coverage for everyone,
> and save money doing it by letting the gov't manage it.
>
> Medicare costs to manage a patient are far lower than private insurance
> in case you didn't know it.
>
> Universal health care will come, sooner or later. It is needed and
> makes sense. Except for the health insurance business, of course.
You cited Medicare as an efficient way to administer universal health
care. Ever hear of Advantage plans? They are offered by private
health insurance companies, under strict Medicare supervision, to
supplement what Medicare doesn't cover. While supplementing, these
plans also administer the main provisions of Medicare, known as part A
and B. Most of these Advantage plans charge low to zero premiums to
their subscribers. Why.....because Medicare pays it on the
subscriber's behalf, over $400/mo. a person. That covers some
hospitalization, Dr. visits, and no Rx. However, the private insurance
company takes that premium and offers more than original medicare.
Why? Because they are more efficient.
Now here is the bottom line. Imagine the effect on people's lives if
they were forced to pay $400/mo. premium per person. Medicare can
afford it because the money has been pre-paid, sorta. Who is going to
pay the premium for all individuals under 65?
Answer.....we are, through taxes, starting with the rich. Overtax the
rich and you eliminate incentive to bust your butt, employing others.
Pretty soon, America has become like Europe. Less freedom (in terms of
having the right to be smart or stupid), enormous taxes, monopolistic,
swollen bureaucracies, high unemployment.
I prefer America as-is.
What's the answer to health care? Implement what Oregon has done. Let
the State administer Medicaid. Supplement insurance premiums for the
working poor. Provide a high risk pool plan to those who cannot
purchase regular insurance, and let the insurance companies compete
fairly for the rest of the market. Guess what happened this year in
Oregon? Individual rates went down 20% this summer. The high risk
pool plan is dropping their rates. More access and coverage is
available through the Oregon's administration of Medicaid than what was
ever available under Federal supervision.
Is everyone in Oregon covered? No. But those who choose to be are.
That's what America is about. Freedom....which includes the right to
be irresponsible.
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 21:07:14
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Carbon wrote:
>
> I know a lot of RSGers have played golf with you and insist you're not a
> bad guy. You must come across better in person than you do in print.
Not really.
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 20:43:48
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Alan Baker wrote:
> > Not that I'm completely in favour of abolishing the minimum wage, but if
> you're going to raise that point, we should also acknowledge that there
> are people out there who are going to be left out of the job market if
> the minimum wage is increased, just as there are already people who
> don't get jobs because there are employers out there who can't afford to
> hire more workers at that wage.
>
That is a myth.
There is no evidence of job loss from the last minimum wage increase.
A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss
associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following
the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage
labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower
unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family
income, decreased poverty rates).
Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as
studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage
increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment.
New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets
help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with
minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be
able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher
productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased
absenteeism, and increased worker morale.
A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages
found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 05:32:54
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
In article <1163133828.778510.278840@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > > Not that I'm completely in favour of abolishing the minimum wage, but if
> > you're going to raise that point, we should also acknowledge that there
> > are people out there who are going to be left out of the job market if
> > the minimum wage is increased, just as there are already people who
> > don't get jobs because there are employers out there who can't afford to
> > hire more workers at that wage.
> >
>
> That is a myth.
No. It is the simplest of logic.
>
> There is no evidence of job loss from the last minimum wage increase.
>
> A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss
> associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following
> the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage
> labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower
> unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family
> income, decreased poverty rates).
> Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as
> studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage
> increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment.
> New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets
> help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with
> minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be
> able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher
> productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased
> absenteeism, and increased worker morale.
> A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages
> found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.
>
> http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts
I suggest that says more about the EPI than about the logic of the
situation.
When the price of something is increased, sales of that thing decrease.
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 20:42:19
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Tex wrote:
> > >
> > * Increase the minimum wage, for which President Bush will undoubtedly ask
> > for, and will likely receive, some compromise from Dems on taxes to benefit
> > small business owners to help defray the expense of the increased minimum
> > wage, as it would likely hit them the hardest
>
> And just what will this do?? And what is it supposed to do?
> Help a "family" to live better? Minimum wage jobs were never intended
> to support a "family".
What you don't know about the minimum wage would fill a book.
Perhaps you should try reading up on it instead of just spouting your
Rush dittos.
Here's a link to get you started as well as some key points from it.
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts
Minimum wage increases benefit working families.
The earnings of minimum wage workers are crucial to their families'
well-being. Evidence from an analysis of the 1996-97 minimum wage
increase shows that the average minimum wage worker brings home more
than half (54%) of his or her family's weekly earnings.
An estimated 1,395,000 single parents with children under 18 would
benefit from a minimum wage increase to $7.25 by 2008. Single parents
would benefit disproportionately from an increase - single parents
are 9% of workers affected by an increase, but they make up only 7% of
the overall workforce. Approximately 3.9 million parents with children
under 18 would benefit.
Adults make up the largest share of workers who would benefit from a
minimum wage increase: 80% of workers whose wages would be raised by a
minimum wage increase to $7.25 by 2008 are adults (age 20 or older).
Over half (54%) of workers who would benefit from a minimum wage
increase work full time and another third (30%) work between 20 and 34
hours per week.
--------------------------
There is no evidence of job loss from the last minimum wage increase.
A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss
associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following
the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage
labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower
unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family
income, decreased poverty rates).
Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as
studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage
increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment.
New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets
help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with
minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be
able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher
productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased
absenteeism, and increased worker morale.
A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages
found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 05:45:05
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
In article <1163133739.169614.185860@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
> Tex wrote:
> > > >
> > > * Increase the minimum wage, for which President Bush will undoubtedly
> > > ask
> > > for, and will likely receive, some compromise from Dems on taxes to
> > > benefit
> > > small business owners to help defray the expense of the increased minimum
> > > wage, as it would likely hit them the hardest
> >
> > And just what will this do?? And what is it supposed to do?
> > Help a "family" to live better? Minimum wage jobs were never intended
> > to support a "family".
>
> What you don't know about the minimum wage would fill a book.
> Perhaps you should try reading up on it instead of just spouting your
> Rush dittos.
> Here's a link to get you started as well as some key points from it.
>
> http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts
>
> Minimum wage increases benefit working families.
>
> The earnings of minimum wage workers are crucial to their families'
> well-being. Evidence from an analysis of the 1996-97 minimum wage
> increase shows that the average minimum wage worker brings home more
> than half (54%) of his or her family's weekly earnings.
> An estimated 1,395,000 single parents with children under 18 would
> benefit from a minimum wage increase to $7.25 by 2008. Single parents
> would benefit disproportionately from an increase - single parents
> are 9% of workers affected by an increase, but they make up only 7% of
> the overall workforce. Approximately 3.9 million parents with children
> under 18 would benefit.
> Adults make up the largest share of workers who would benefit from a
> minimum wage increase: 80% of workers whose wages would be raised by a
> minimum wage increase to $7.25 by 2008 are adults (age 20 or older).
> Over half (54%) of workers who would benefit from a minimum wage
> increase work full time and another third (30%) work between 20 and 34
> hours per week.
> --------------------------
> There is no evidence of job loss from the last minimum wage increase.
>
> A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss
> associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following
> the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage
> labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower
> unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family
> income, decreased poverty rates).
> Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as
> studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage
> increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment.
> New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets
> help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with
> minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be
> able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher
> productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased
> absenteeism, and increased worker morale.
> A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages
> found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.
So then, we must be able to raise the minimum wage to -- oh, let's say
$50 an hour, right?
What? That would cause job losses, you say?
Gee. Then what is the magic level that won't?
And how many jobs is in a "significant" anyway?
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
|
| | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 15:11:17
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163133739.169614.185860@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I'm pretty close to 100% onboard with an increase in the minimum wage. The
studies are pretty clear that the loss of low paying jobs is just a red
herring. As an aside, I think it's also a red herring that enforcement of
immigration laws would cause a lot of low paying jobs to go unfilled for the
same reason. In both cases the wages simply have to go up so that eligible
workers are willing to fill them. Our goal should be living wages (call me
a bigot, but for me that means living wages for Americans). Any American
who is willing to work 40 hours a week in the most successful economy in
recent history (or maybe formerly most successful) should at least be able
to maintain a family with the necessities of life.
The only question in my mind is whether a rise in the minimum wage can
accomplish this. I'd be interested to know if there is any increase in
inflation associated with MW increases. I haven't seen any studies, but I
haven't really looked. I've heard anecdotes about pay raises in mining
towns: at 8 am the workers receive a 5% increase in wages; at 5 pm the
company stores have raised their prices 5%, and rents are up the same. If
that is all that's accomplished by a MW increase, then we have to find a
better way.
Scott
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 20:39:50
From: Tex
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Carbon wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 20:08:00 -0800, Dene wrote:
> > Carbon wrote:
>
> >> It costs more *per capita* for health care compared to places like
> >> Canada where everyone is covered, even though millions and millions of
> >> Americans have no health care at all. If the system were streamlined
> >> the costs would go down. Even for stingy bastards like you.
> >
> > So you're advocating the Canadian system? Then answer why many of their
> > citizens come to the USA for health care?
>
> How much do you know about the Canadian health care system? The reason I'm
> asking is I'm Canadian by birth, and my brother-in-law is an MD there.
Go back, they need your intellect. We certainly don't.
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 09:13:28
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
In article <1163133590.221625.96400@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
> Carbon wrote:
> > On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 20:08:00 -0800, Dene wrote:
> > > Carbon wrote:
> >
> > >> It costs more *per capita* for health care compared to places like
> > >> Canada where everyone is covered, even though millions and millions of
> > >> Americans have no health care at all. If the system were streamlined
> > >> the costs would go down. Even for stingy bastards like you.
> > >
> > > So you're advocating the Canadian system? Then answer why many of their
> > > citizens come to the USA for health care?
> >
> > How much do you know about the Canadian health care system? The reason I'm
> > asking is I'm Canadian by birth, and my brother-in-law is an MD there.
>
> Go back, they need your intellect. We certainly don't.
>
> Tex
No. this country seems to prefer "intellects" like yours.
William Clark
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 20:38:44
From: Tex
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Carbon wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:38:35 -0800, Tex wrote:
> > Carbon wrote:
> >> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:12:20 -0800, Dene wrote:
>
> >> > I'm sorry to hear that. Did he have the opportunity to continue his
> >> > health insurance before leaving his employment? Nowdays, there are
> >> > provisions for this, which leads me to contend that the current
> >> > insurance climate is fair. It provides access to those who plan
> >> > ahead.
> >>
> >> The current insurance climate is a scam whose real beneficiaries are
> >> the large corporations that control the industry. Nearly all
> >> first-world countries have some form of universal health care. Except
> >> America. It's a joke.
> >
> > Yup, blame "big" first. It's the Communist way.
>
> You're a stingy bastard, right? Well let me put it in terms you'll
> understand. A big chunk of the cost of American health care is paperwork
> and bureaucracy, figuring out the insurance, who to let in, who to deny,
> etc. It costs more *per capita* for health care compared to places like
> Canada where everyone is covered, even though millions and millions of
> Americans have no health care at all. If the system were streamlined the
> costs would go down. Even for stingy bastards like you.
Stingy? Hell yeah, I get robbed of more taxes than you are worth.
FTR, anything the Government creates will have a higher paperwork
cost....don't YOU understand that? Fuck, look at SS....biggest
insurance scam ever invented, can't even pay back a decent rate of
return! At least with insurance companies, if you are smart you invest
in them, the pay back is quite nice.
Oh sorry, I forgot, it's hard to invest $1/week that is left over from
your Federal assistance.
Tex
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 20:08:00
From: Dene
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Carbon wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:38:35 -0800, Tex wrote:
> > Carbon wrote:
> >> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:12:20 -0800, Dene wrote:
>
> >> > I'm sorry to hear that. Did he have the opportunity to continue his
> >> > health insurance before leaving his employment? Nowdays, there are
> >> > provisions for this, which leads me to contend that the current
> >> > insurance climate is fair. It provides access to those who plan
> >> > ahead.
> >>
> >> The current insurance climate is a scam whose real beneficiaries are
> >> the large corporations that control the industry. Nearly all
> >> first-world countries have some form of universal health care. Except
> >> America. It's a joke.
> >
> > Yup, blame "big" first. It's the Communist way.
>
> You're a stingy bastard, right? Well let me put it in terms you'll
> understand. A big chunk of the cost of American health care is paperwork
> and bureaucracy, figuring out the insurance, who to let in, who to deny,
> etc.
So creating another government institution to manage health care will
reduce paperwork and bureacracy. Got a word for that concept.
Medicare. Is that what you really want.
It costs more *per capita* for health care compared to places like
> Canada where everyone is covered, even though millions and millions of
> Americans have no health care at all. If the system were streamlined the
> costs would go down. Even for stingy bastards like you.
So you're advocating the Canadian system? Then answer why many of
their citizens come to the USA for health care?
Cliches. Sure hope Pelosa has more to offer than these cliches.
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 22:29:09
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <rqm7l25f0t7hrt2kb7sl9vu03aej3eqbeh@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:20:00 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Yes, but that will make it all more easy for the Democrats to label the
> >GoP as obstructionist, and blocking the path to progress. Hardly a
> >favorable climate for the next GoP Presidential candidate to run in.
> >
> >William Clark
>
>
> It depends on exactly what Bush is obstructing. If it's tax
> increases, it wont hurt him. If it's something that a majority of
> people want, like ESCR, then it could hurt him. You also have to
> remember that Bush isn't running in 2008. It's debatable if what he
> does will rub off on the Republican candidate in 2008.
>
> 2008 is a long way off. Right now I like the Republican chances of
> keeping the WH if the nominate McCain or Rudy. Of course, there is a
> question if either one of them can get the nomination. On the other
> side, if the Democrats put up Hillary, it will be a disaster for them.
> Some of the polls I've seen say that anywhere from 37% to 43% of
> voters would be very unlikely to vote for her. There are even a lot
> of Democrats who don't like her.
McCain doesn't stand a chance, imo. He is too flakey, imo.
Rudy might.
As to Hillary, I don't think she can get the nomination. At least I
hope she can't. Too polarizing.
I've got some others in mind that I like better.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 22:44:40
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:29:09 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>As to Hillary, I don't think she can get the nomination. At least I
>hope she can't. Too polarizing.
With her it isn't about issues. People who like "uppity women" will
like her no matter what she does. People who don't like "uppity
women" will find reasons to dislike her.
Good Old Boys win the presidency.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 17:08:47
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:29:09 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>McCain doesn't stand a chance, imo. He is too flakey, imo.
>
>Rudy might.
>
>As to Hillary, I don't think she can get the nomination. At least I
>hope she can't. Too polarizing.
>
>I've got some others in mind that I like better.
McCain's very popular with the independent voters. You know this when
you hear that Kerry was thinking of having him on the Democratic
ticket in 2004. The issue is, can he get the nomination from the
Republican's who are to his right on many issues.
Hillary will be hard to stop. No matter what you think of the
Clinton's, they are world class campaigners and they have money up the
kazoo. I wouldn't bet against her getting the nomination.
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 16:24:15
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <vqt9l2pk8hj63i73ohup9caljlqt9t85b0@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:29:09 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >McCain doesn't stand a chance, imo. He is too flakey, imo.
> >
> >Rudy might.
> >
> >As to Hillary, I don't think she can get the nomination. At least I
> >hope she can't. Too polarizing.
> >
> >I've got some others in mind that I like better.
>
>
> McCain's very popular with the independent voters. You know this when
> you hear that Kerry was thinking of having him on the Democratic
> ticket in 2004. The issue is, can he get the nomination from the
> Republican's who are to his right on many issues.
>
> Hillary will be hard to stop. No matter what you think of the
> Clinton's, they are world class campaigners and they have money up the
> kazoo. I wouldn't bet against her getting the nomination.
I wouldn't bet either. But then, she won't have ME working for her.
I'm more interested in a different candidate and hope to work on their
campaign should he decide to run.
For McCain, I know he's popular with some. But something about him just
doesn't sit well with me and I can't put my finger on it.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 18:36:01
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
In article <lloydparsons-6D74B6.16241510112006@individual.net >,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
> In article <vqt9l2pk8hj63i73ohup9caljlqt9t85b0@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:29:09 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> > <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > >McCain doesn't stand a chance, imo. He is too flakey, imo.
> > >
> > >Rudy might.
> > >
> > >As to Hillary, I don't think she can get the nomination. At least I
> > >hope she can't. Too polarizing.
> > >
> > >I've got some others in mind that I like better.
> >
> >
> > McCain's very popular with the independent voters. You know this when
> > you hear that Kerry was thinking of having him on the Democratic
> > ticket in 2004. The issue is, can he get the nomination from the
> > Republican's who are to his right on many issues.
> >
> > Hillary will be hard to stop. No matter what you think of the
> > Clinton's, they are world class campaigners and they have money up the
> > kazoo. I wouldn't bet against her getting the nomination.
>
> I wouldn't bet either. But then, she won't have ME working for her.
> I'm more interested in a different candidate and hope to work on their
> campaign should he decide to run.
>
> For McCain, I know he's popular with some. But something about him just
> doesn't sit well with me and I can't put my finger on it.
I agree with you about McCain. I was standing next to him at a function
recently where he spoke, and he looks so much frailer in real life. He
is incredibly pasty-looking, and his presentation was bland in the
extreme. I worry about a guy who can stand against his party on the one
hand on major issues of conscience, but then toddles off to Jerry
Falwell's Liberty U. to make nice with the extreme religious right.
As you say, something just doesn't quite ring true.
William Clark
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 22:34:00
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
On 9 Nov 2006 20:08:00 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
>> Canada where everyone is covered, even though millions and millions of
>> Americans have no health care at all. If the system were streamlined the
>> costs would go down. Even for stingy bastards like you.
>
>So you're advocating the Canadian system? Then answer why many of
>their citizens come to the USA for health care?
With enough money, we get better care in the U.S.
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 19:38:35
From: Tex
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Carbon wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:12:20 -0800, Dene wrote:
> > Howard Brazee wrote:
> >> On 9 Nov 2006 14:14:04 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Most Americans have health insurance, including the poor (ever heard
> >> >of Medicaid). The remaining members of the pool are the young who
> >> >choose not to buy, risk takers, or the irresponsible who wait until
> >> >they are sick, then want to buy.
> >>
> >> My brother was an executive, temporarily between jobs when he developed
> >> a cough. At that time he was one of those who was not part of our
> >> socialized medical system that most Americans are part of. After he got
> >> a job he found out he had cancer but it was too late.
> >
> > I'm sorry to hear that. Did he have the opportunity to continue his
> > health insurance before leaving his employment? Nowdays, there are
> > provisions for this, which leads me to contend that the current
> > insurance climate is fair. It provides access to those who plan ahead.
>
> The current insurance climate is a scam whose real beneficiaries are the
> large corporations that control the industry. Nearly all first-world
> countries have some form of universal health care. Except America. It's a
> joke.
Yup, blame "big" first. It's the Communist way.
Tex
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 19:20:21
From: Dene
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> I guess you haven't been reading your newspaper, or watching the news or
> a plethora of other sources, all talking about how many are not covered,
> even many that are fully employed
>
> Why aren't they covered? COST!
>
Not only do I read my newspaper, I live it. I'm a health insurance
broker. Been one for nearly 20 years. Every week, I get a call from a
pregnant lady wanting health insurance.
Let's presume your cost cliche is the issue, just how do you lower it?
1. Mandate universal health insurance, which will force the
young/healthy to contribute to the pool. Lower claims experience will
lead to lower premiums. Trouble is....cost is already low for the
young and healthy. $100/mo. will buy a fine policy for individuals
under 30. So why aren't they joining? It's because they don't want
to. Many prefer to spend $$ on other things. In America, it's their
right to be foolish. The real question is.....should you and I pay for
their foolishness?
2. Allow insurance companies to underwrite assess risk, i.e. screen
people who have pre-existing conditions. This will lead to lower
costs, particularily in the group market, but it will also lead to
lower access. Is this a fair trade off?
These are two viable theories. What are yours?
I sure hope you don't use the cliche that the health insurance
companies are raking in the money. It doesn't take much for them to
lose it. My best friend's premature baby cost an Oregon insurer
$800,000. Think how much premium and how many policy holders are
required to recoop that loss. Two years ago, Blue Cross paid the bulk
of my $15,000 kidney stone. Think they made any money off of me that
year?
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 22:27:25
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
In article <1163128821.604385.261080@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
> > I guess you haven't been reading your newspaper, or watching the news or
> > a plethora of other sources, all talking about how many are not covered,
> > even many that are fully employed
> >
> > Why aren't they covered? COST!
> >
>
> Not only do I read my newspaper, I live it. I'm a health insurance
> broker. Been one for nearly 20 years. Every week, I get a call from a
> pregnant lady wanting health insurance.
>
> Let's presume your cost cliche is the issue, just how do you lower it?
>
> 1. Mandate universal health insurance, which will force the
> young/healthy to contribute to the pool. Lower claims experience will
> lead to lower premiums. Trouble is....cost is already low for the
> young and healthy. $100/mo. will buy a fine policy for individuals
> under 30. So why aren't they joining? It's because they don't want
> to. Many prefer to spend $$ on other things. In America, it's their
> right to be foolish. The real question is.....should you and I pay for
> their foolishness?
>
> 2. Allow insurance companies to underwrite assess risk, i.e. screen
> people who have pre-existing conditions. This will lead to lower
> costs, particularily in the group market, but it will also lead to
> lower access. Is this a fair trade off?
>
> These are two viable theories. What are yours?
>
> I sure hope you don't use the cliche that the health insurance
> companies are raking in the money. It doesn't take much for them to
> lose it. My best friend's premature baby cost an Oregon insurer
> $800,000. Think how much premium and how many policy holders are
> required to recoop that loss. Two years ago, Blue Cross paid the bulk
> of my $15,000 kidney stone. Think they made any money off of me that
> year?
>
> -Greg
Anecdotal stories are not indicative of the whole story. Yep, insurance
companies may lose money on some clients. And you can bet your ass they
look for every way to not cover them or cancel them as soon as they can.
And that makes good business sense.
But health coverage shouldn't hinge on business sense, and we can reduce
the per person cost of health care by requiring coverage for everyone,
and save money doing it by letting the gov't manage it.
Medicare costs to manage a patient are far lower than private insurance
in case you didn't know it.
Universal health care will come, sooner or later. It is needed and
makes sense. Except for the health insurance business, of course.
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 16:40:30
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
MnMikew wrote:
> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
> news:FLqdnXs1b-lDPc7YnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in
> >>
> >> You're just as out of step as Pelosi is.
> >
> >
> > Pelosi is out of step? With whom?
> >
> > She has pledged to...
> >
> > * Increase the minimum wage, for which President Bush will undoubtedly ask
> > for, and will likely receive, some compromise from Dems on taxes to
> > benefit small business owners to help defray the expense of the increased
> > minimum wage, as it would likely hit them the hardest
>
> Increasing the minimum wage will do nothing. Another liberal feel good
> talking point that will stagnate the economy and benefit no one.
No one except all the people who earn the minimum wage. But who cares
about them?
> >
> > * Work toward making medical care more accessible and affordable. Who
> > doesn't want that? As a small business owner who has to pay for his own
> > medical insurance, I'm all in favor of any move that will help reduce the
> > cost. And you aren't?
>
> Sure it all looks good on paper but making it reality is another thing. I'm
> sure the "rich" will pay for it.
> >
> > * Work toward making college tuition more within the reach of some
> > families. And this is bad for America in what way? So we can produce
> > another generation of dumb-asses who think George W. is "smart?"
> > Puhleeze.
>
> Again, talk is cheap.
> >
> > This stuff is not out of step with America. It's exactly what America has
> > been clammoring for, but the conservative Republicans were more interested
> > in keeping people from burning flags and keeping gays from getting
> > married. I guess those two things affected your life more directly? Is
> > that what your saying?
> >
> > Do you want to come out of the closet now?
>
> You sure have a preocupation with this gay thing.
> >
> > You know, I know a few people who wanted to vote a straight Republican
> > ticket on Tuesday, but they couldn't find any straight Republicans to vote
> > for.
> >
> Yes we know, try the veal. Pelosi is a far left winger, just like you.
> Hardly mainstream.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 00:59:23
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
In article <1163119230.113838.173470@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
> MnMikew wrote:
> > ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
> > news:FLqdnXs1b-lDPc7YnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in
> > >>
> > >> You're just as out of step as Pelosi is.
> > >
> > >
> > > Pelosi is out of step? With whom?
> > >
> > > She has pledged to...
> > >
> > > * Increase the minimum wage, for which President Bush will undoubtedly ask
> > > for, and will likely receive, some compromise from Dems on taxes to
> > > benefit small business owners to help defray the expense of the increased
> > > minimum wage, as it would likely hit them the hardest
> >
> > Increasing the minimum wage will do nothing. Another liberal feel good
> > talking point that will stagnate the economy and benefit no one.
>
> No one except all the people who earn the minimum wage. But who cares
> about them?
Not that I'm completely in favour of abolishing the minimum wage, but if
you're going to raise that point, we should also acknowledge that there
are people out there who are going to be left out of the job market if
the minimum wage is increased, just as there are already people who
don't get jobs because there are employers out there who can't afford to
hire more workers at that wage.
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 16:12:20
From: Dene
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2006 14:14:04 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Most Americans have health insurance, including the poor (ever heard
> >of Medicaid). The remaining members of the pool are the young who
> >choose not to buy, risk takers, or the irresponsible who wait until
> >they are sick, then want to buy.
>
> My brother was an executive, temporarily between jobs when he
> developed a cough. At that time he was one of those who was not part
> of our socialized medical system that most Americans are part of.
> After he got a job he found out he had cancer but it was too late.
I'm sorry to hear that. Did he have the opportunity to continue his
health insurance before leaving his employment? Nowdays, there are
provisions for this, which leads me to contend that the current
insurance climate is fair. It provides access to those who plan ahead.
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 16:41:34
From:
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> The movie _Les Invasions barbares_ was filmed in Quebec. The hero is
> dying and his rich son flies from London and tries to get him to go to
> the U.S. for care. The character says he voted for socialized
> medicine, and would live or die with it. His son did bribe the
> hospital to move him out of a ward into an empty floor of the
> hospital.
Keep in mind, that it's a fictional story. Plus, Canada doesn't have
socialized medicine. It has socialized health insurance. The US
Medicare system is also socialized health insurance.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 02:00:22
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
On 10 Nov 2006 16:41:34 -0800, sgallagher@rogers.com wrote:
>Keep in mind, that it's a fictional story. Plus, Canada doesn't have
>socialized medicine. It has socialized health insurance. The US
>Medicare system is also socialized health insurance.
Insurance is a type of socialized medicine.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 22:32:51
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
On 9 Nov 2006 16:12:20 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
>I'm sorry to hear that. Did he have the opportunity to continue his
>health insurance before leaving his employment? Nowdays, there are
>provisions for this, which leads me to contend that the current
>insurance climate is fair. It provides access to those who plan ahead.
I don't know what his options were.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 14:45:59
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
On 9 Nov 2006 16:12:20 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
> Did he have the opportunity to continue his
>health insurance before leaving his employment?
COBRA entitles most people to continue their health coverage at group
rates when they either quit or are terminated. This usually will cost
more because they have to pick up their employers contribution.
There are some exception like if you work for a company with less than
20 employees or your termination was due to gross misconduct.
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 15:08:20
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Dene wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
> > > Sure....but the devil is in the details. If you want access to health
> > > insurance, then all will pay higher premium, including you. If you
> > > want a better rate, then you have to give the insurance companies to
> > > evaluate risk. You can't have it both ways. I suspect Dems will favor
> > > the former, given that we are "all the same." Be prepared to pay more,
> > > Randy.
> > >
> > BS! The larger the pool, the less the really sick impact it. That is
> > exactly the way it has always worked.
>
> Most Americans have health insurance, including the poor (ever heard
> of Medicaid). The remaining members of the pool are the young who
> choose not to buy, risk takers, or the irresponsible who wait until
> they are sick, then want to buy. So who exactly should be added to
> this pool.....the ones who wait? Think of your homeowner rates if
> people were allow to buy fire insurance while their house was burning
> down? It's the same concept.
Oh, my God, how ignorant can you get? Most of the 40 million Americans
who don't have health insurance work for businesses that don't offer
it. You're spouting the typical Republican horseshit -- people who
don't have health insurance are lazy and irresponsible. This kind of
thinking is why I'm absolutely elated that your people got trounced
yesterday.
>
> > > > * Work toward making college tuition more within the reach of some families.
> > > > And this is bad for America in what way? So we can produce another
> > > > generation of dumb-asses who think George W. is "smart?" Puhleeze.
> > >
> > > Who pays for this?
> > >
> > Uncle Sugar, of course, with our money. But isn't that a better way to
> > spend it than on supporting the contractors that didn't get the job done
> > in Iraq?
>
> Apples and Oranges. I bought most of my college education. My kids
> will buy most of their college education too, even though I have the
> means to pay it all. While in college, I observed the intensity of
> those who worked their way through vs. those who had it handed to them,
> via Mommy and/or free Pell grants. Big difference.
>
> Do you want lower tuition? First insist that the colleges manage their
> resources better. Talk about pork.
>
> -Greg
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 15:03:57
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Dene wrote:
> R&B wrote:
> > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in
> > >
> > > You're just as out of step as Pelosi is.
> >
> >
> > Pelosi is out of step? With whom?
> >
> > She has pledged to...
> >
> > * Increase the minimum wage, for which President Bush will undoubtedly ask
> > for, and will likely receive, some compromise from Dems on taxes to benefit
> > small business owners to help defray the expense of the increased minimum
> > wage, as it would likely hit them the hardest
>
> Many states have already enacted this.
There is a federal minimum wage, as there should be. and it ought to be
raised from time to time. This comes up every few years, the small
business lobby screams bloody murder, the min. wage goes up and life
goes on.
>
> > * Work toward making medical care more accessible and affordable. Who
> > doesn't want that? As a small business owner who has to pay for his own
> > medical insurance, I'm all in favor of any move that will help reduce the
> > cost. And you aren't?
>
> Sure....but the devil is in the details. If you want access to health
> insurance, then all will pay higher premium, including you. If you
> want a better rate, then you have to give the insurance companies to
> evaluate risk. You can't have it both ways. I suspect Dems will favor
> the former, given that we are "all the same." Be prepared to pay more,
> Randy.
>
> > * Work toward making college tuition more within the reach of some families.
> > And this is bad for America in what way? So we can produce another
> > generation of dumb-asses who think George W. is "smart?" Puhleeze.
>
> Who pays for this?
>
> > This stuff is not out of step with America. It's exactly what America has
> > been clammoring for, but the conservative Republicans were more interested
> > in keeping people from burning flags and keeping gays from getting married.
> > I guess those two things affected your life more directly? Is that what
> > your saying?
>
> Republicans have been in favor of a traditional values which honors the
> marriage of men and women, reverence for our country, including the
> flag, etc.
Exactly. And that's why they got their asses kicked yesterday. Rather
than focsuing on anything that matters, they tried to scare people with
this gay marriage shit.
At the same time, Republicans honor choice, in that people
> choose their lot in life and that those who have made better choices
> shouldn't have to pay for those who didn't. Those who have bad credit
> shouldn't get the best rate. Good teacher deserve good pay.
Good teachers as determined by whom? The Dept. of Education?
The list
> goes on.
>
> Anything wrong with these values or would you prefer a classless
> society, like Marxism?
>
> > Do you want to come out of the closet now?
> >
> > You know, I know a few people who wanted to vote a straight Republican
> > ticket on Tuesday, but they couldn't find any straight Republicans to vote
> > for.
>
> Sad you and they are so obtuse.
>
> -Greg
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 14:14:04
From: Dene
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > Sure....but the devil is in the details. If you want access to health
> > insurance, then all will pay higher premium, including you. If you
> > want a better rate, then you have to give the insurance companies to
> > evaluate risk. You can't have it both ways. I suspect Dems will favor
> > the former, given that we are "all the same." Be prepared to pay more,
> > Randy.
> >
> BS! The larger the pool, the less the really sick impact it. That is
> exactly the way it has always worked.
Most Americans have health insurance, including the poor (ever heard
of Medicaid). The remaining members of the pool are the young who
choose not to buy, risk takers, or the irresponsible who wait until
they are sick, then want to buy. So who exactly should be added to
this pool.....the ones who wait? Think of your homeowner rates if
people were allow to buy fire insurance while their house was burning
down? It's the same concept.
> > > * Work toward making college tuition more within the reach of some families.
> > > And this is bad for America in what way? So we can produce another
> > > generation of dumb-asses who think George W. is "smart?" Puhleeze.
> >
> > Who pays for this?
> >
> Uncle Sugar, of course, with our money. But isn't that a better way to
> spend it than on supporting the contractors that didn't get the job done
> in Iraq?
Apples and Oranges. I bought most of my college education. My kids
will buy most of their college education too, even though I have the
means to pay it all. While in college, I observed the intensity of
those who worked their way through vs. those who had it handed to them,
via Mommy and/or free Pell grants. Big difference.
Do you want lower tuition? First insist that the colleges manage their
resources better. Talk about pork.
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 18:50:07
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
In article <1163110444.371697.26100@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
> > > Sure....but the devil is in the details. If you want access to health
> > > insurance, then all will pay higher premium, including you. If you
> > > want a better rate, then you have to give the insurance companies to
> > > evaluate risk. You can't have it both ways. I suspect Dems will favor
> > > the former, given that we are "all the same." Be prepared to pay more,
> > > Randy.
> > >
> > BS! The larger the pool, the less the really sick impact it. That is
> > exactly the way it has always worked.
>
> Most Americans have health insurance, including the poor (ever heard
> of Medicaid). The remaining members of the pool are the young who
> choose not to buy, risk takers, or the irresponsible who wait until
> they are sick, then want to buy. So who exactly should be added to
> this pool.....the ones who wait? Think of your homeowner rates if
> people were allow to buy fire insurance while their house was burning
> down? It's the same concept.
>
I guess you haven't been reading your newspaper, or watching the news or
a plethora of other sources, all talking about how many are not covered,
even many that are fully employed
Why aren't they covered? COST!
> > > > * Work toward making college tuition more within the reach of some
> > > > families.
> > > > And this is bad for America in what way? So we can produce another
> > > > generation of dumb-asses who think George W. is "smart?" Puhleeze.
> > >
> > > Who pays for this?
> > >
> > Uncle Sugar, of course, with our money. But isn't that a better way to
> > spend it than on supporting the contractors that didn't get the job done
> > in Iraq?
>
> Apples and Oranges. I bought most of my college education. My kids
> will buy most of their college education too, even though I have the
> means to pay it all. While in college, I observed the intensity of
> those who worked their way through vs. those who had it handed to them,
> via Mommy and/or free Pell grants. Big difference.
>
> Do you want lower tuition? First insist that the colleges manage their
> resources better. Talk about pork.
>
> -Greg
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 23:53:48
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
On 9 Nov 2006 14:14:04 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
>Most Americans have health insurance, including the poor (ever heard
>of Medicaid). The remaining members of the pool are the young who
>choose not to buy, risk takers, or the irresponsible who wait until
>they are sick, then want to buy.
My brother was an executive, temporarily between jobs when he
developed a cough. At that time he was one of those who was not part
of our socialized medical system that most Americans are part of.
After he got a job he found out he had cancer but it was too late.
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 14:00:19
From: Tex
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
"R&B" wrote:
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in
> >
> > You're just as out of step as Pelosi is.
>
>
> Pelosi is out of step? With whom?
>
> She has pledged to...
>
> * Increase the minimum wage, for which President Bush will undoubtedly ask
> for, and will likely receive, some compromise from Dems on taxes to benefit
> small business owners to help defray the expense of the increased minimum
> wage, as it would likely hit them the hardest
And just what will this do?? And what is it supposed to do?
Help a "family" to live better? Minimum wage jobs were never intended
to support a "family".
Please list *all* the jobs today paying minimum wage (that aren't tied
to tip supported work!).
So we don't increase the productivity of the job, we just force the
company to pay more for it...which you will then follow it with a tax
break (loss of government revenue!). And yet you think "big" business
gets government benefits?
> * Work toward making medical care more accessible and affordable. Who
> doesn't want that? As a small business owner who has to pay for his own
> medical insurance, I'm all in favor of any move that will help reduce the
> cost. And you aren't?
Yet again another fat Government program that will grow at 10+% a year
forever...and yet you want smaller Government?
> * Work toward making college tuition more within the reach of some families.
> And this is bad for America in what way? So we can produce another
> generation of dumb-asses who think George W. is "smart?" Puhleeze.
Fine...cut tuition costs....start by cutting Professor's salaries....as
well as their free Internet Access.
> This stuff is not out of step with America. It's exactly what America has
> been clammoring for, but the conservative Republicans were more interested
> in keeping people from burning flags and keeping gays from getting married.
> I guess those two things affected your life more directly? Is that what
> your saying?
It's what the Far right wing of your party is after.....if you look at
the election results....too close to call it "what America is
clammoring for". Stop trying to tell us "what the people want". If
you won the elections with a 60% majority vote, you might have a
case...some people were elected with less than a 1/2% difference in the
vote.
> Do you want to come out of the closet now?
> You know, I know a few people who wanted to vote a straight Republican
> ticket on Tuesday, but they couldn't find any straight Republicans to vote
> for.
I thought your party was all about "inclusion"....and yet you (and
Brett) can't stop with the Gay Bashing.....perhaps you (both) have
hidden feelings that just need to come out.
Tex
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 13:52:21
From: Dene
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
R&B wrote:
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in
> >
> > You're just as out of step as Pelosi is.
>
>
> Pelosi is out of step? With whom?
>
> She has pledged to...
>
> * Increase the minimum wage, for which President Bush will undoubtedly ask
> for, and will likely receive, some compromise from Dems on taxes to benefit
> small business owners to help defray the expense of the increased minimum
> wage, as it would likely hit them the hardest
Many states have already enacted this.
> * Work toward making medical care more accessible and affordable. Who
> doesn't want that? As a small business owner who has to pay for his own
> medical insurance, I'm all in favor of any move that will help reduce the
> cost. And you aren't?
Sure....but the devil is in the details. If you want access to health
insurance, then all will pay higher premium, including you. If you
want a better rate, then you have to give the insurance companies to
evaluate risk. You can't have it both ways. I suspect Dems will favor
the former, given that we are "all the same." Be prepared to pay more,
Randy.
> * Work toward making college tuition more within the reach of some families.
> And this is bad for America in what way? So we can produce another
> generation of dumb-asses who think George W. is "smart?" Puhleeze.
Who pays for this?
> This stuff is not out of step with America. It's exactly what America has
> been clammoring for, but the conservative Republicans were more interested
> in keeping people from burning flags and keeping gays from getting married.
> I guess those two things affected your life more directly? Is that what
> your saying?
Republicans have been in favor of a traditional values which honors the
marriage of men and women, reverence for our country, including the
flag, etc. At the same time, Republicans honor choice, in that people
choose their lot in life and that those who have made better choices
shouldn't have to pay for those who didn't. Those who have bad credit
shouldn't get the best rate. Good teacher deserve good pay. The list
goes on.
Anything wrong with these values or would you prefer a classless
society, like Marxism?
> Do you want to come out of the closet now?
>
> You know, I know a few people who wanted to vote a straight Republican
> ticket on Tuesday, but they couldn't find any straight Republicans to vote
> for.
Sad you and they are so obtuse.
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 16:01:57
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
In article <1163109141.434992.36530@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
> R&B wrote:
> > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in
> > >
> > > You're just as out of step as Pelosi is.
> >
> >
> > Pelosi is out of step? With whom?
> >
> > She has pledged to...
> >
> > * Increase the minimum wage, for which President Bush will undoubtedly ask
> > for, and will likely receive, some compromise from Dems on taxes to benefit
> > small business owners to help defray the expense of the increased minimum
> > wage, as it would likely hit them the hardest
>
> Many states have already enacted this.
>
> > * Work toward making medical care more accessible and affordable. Who
> > doesn't want that? As a small business owner who has to pay for his own
> > medical insurance, I'm all in favor of any move that will help reduce the
> > cost. And you aren't?
>
> Sure....but the devil is in the details. If you want access to health
> insurance, then all will pay higher premium, including you. If you
> want a better rate, then you have to give the insurance companies to
> evaluate risk. You can't have it both ways. I suspect Dems will favor
> the former, given that we are "all the same." Be prepared to pay more,
> Randy.
>
BS! The larger the pool, the less the really sick impact it. That is
exactly the way it has always worked.
> > * Work toward making college tuition more within the reach of some families.
> > And this is bad for America in what way? So we can produce another
> > generation of dumb-asses who think George W. is "smart?" Puhleeze.
>
> Who pays for this?
>
Uncle Sugar, of course, with our money. But isn't that a better way to
spend it than on supporting the contractors that didn't get the job done
in Iraq?
|
| |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 10:48:02
From:
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Dene wrote:
> Carbon wrote:
> > On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 20:08:00 -0800, Dene wrote:
> > > Carbon wrote:
> >
> > >> It costs more *per capita* for health care compared to places like
> > >> Canada where everyone is covered, even though millions and millions of
> > >> Americans have no health care at all. If the system were streamlined
> > >> the costs would go down. Even for stingy bastards like you.
> > >
> > > So you're advocating the Canadian system? Then answer why many of their
> > > citizens come to the USA for health care?
> >
> > How much do you know about the Canadian health care system? The reason I'm
> > asking is I'm Canadian by birth, and my brother-in-law is an MD there.
>
> Ok....compare it to the USA system. Better....worse.....????
As an American living in Canada, and who has experienced both
countries' systems, my view is that each system has its benefits and
its problems. But, it's hard to say that one country's system is
necessarily better. The things that are better under one system, tend
to be worse under the other system, and each system has its good points
and its problems.
First I will say that the quality of general medical care in Canada, is
comparable to that in the US. When you want to see your family doctor,
access in Canada is the same as it would be for Americans with health
insurance.
In Canada, everyone has medical coverage, in the US they don't. But,
in the US , when you do have coverage, it's usually good coverage.
In the US, there are lots of specialists and waiting times for
specialized procedures are shorter than in Canada. In Canada, wait
times for specialized procedures are usually longer, and are determined
by severity.
In Canada, because the government is the only insurance company,
administrative costs are lower. In the US, administrative costs are
higher because there are more companies to collect from, as well as
having to bill and collect from patients.
In the US, taxes are lower because they don't have to support a
national heatlh insurance system. In Canada, taxes are higher to pay
for the system.
In Canada, people don't worry about losing their coverage if they lose
their job, or worrying about whether they can afford a medical
procedure. In the US, health insurance is unaffordable for many, and
while hospitals cannot refuse to treat a person who requests help, that
person may end up being billed for something he can't afford.
In the US, the majority of people who are covered would not want to
adopt the Canadian system. In Canada, the majority of people would not
want to adopt the US system.
What I've seen is that the opponents of Canada's health system always
point to are the people who end up looking outside of Canada for
medical care. Very often they do this whether it's necessary, or not.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 22:39:05
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
The movie _Les Invasions barbares_ was filmed in Quebec. The hero is
dying and his rich son flies from London and tries to get him to go to
the U.S. for care. The character says he voted for socialized
medicine, and would live or die with it. His son did bribe the
hospital to move him out of a ward into an empty floor of the
hospital.
|
| |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 06:23:48
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <1163133828.778510.278840@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > Not that I'm completely in favour of abolishing the minimum wage, but if
> > > you're going to raise that point, we should also acknowledge that there
> > > are people out there who are going to be left out of the job market if
> > > the minimum wage is increased, just as there are already people who
> > > don't get jobs because there are employers out there who can't afford to
> > > hire more workers at that wage.
> > >
> >
> > That is a myth.
>
> No. It is the simplest of logic.
Not simple. Simplisitic. We've been raising the minimum wage
periodically since there has been a minimum wage. If you can point to
some damage this has caused the economy or to an increase in
unemployment, I'd love to see it.
>
> >
> > There is no evidence of job loss from the last minimum wage increase.
> >
> > A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss
> > associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following
> > the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage
> > labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower
> > unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family
> > income, decreased poverty rates).
> > Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as
> > studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage
> > increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment.
> > New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets
> > help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with
> > minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be
> > able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher
> > productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased
> > absenteeism, and increased worker morale.
> > A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages
> > found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.
> >
> > http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts
>
> I suggest that says more about the EPI than about the logic of the
> situation.
>
> When the price of something is increased, sales of that thing decrease.
>
> --
> 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
> "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
> (Edwin on Mac OS X)
> '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
> 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
> IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
> 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
> on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 22:42:53
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
On 10 Nov 2006 06:23:48 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>Not simple. Simplisitic. We've been raising the minimum wage
>periodically since there has been a minimum wage. If you can point to
>some damage this has caused the economy or to an increase in
>unemployment, I'd love to see it.
Such damage isn't always obvious - it's hard to determine why the
small businesses in the poor area of town went out of business.
I read that The Broadmore Hotel might lay off the people who earn
about $30/hour in tips parking cars - now that they have to pay more a
higher minimum wage to them.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 16:46:16
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
In article <6vv9l21ad8n61qmanqfltd12233h57s0si@4ax.com >,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net > wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2006 06:23:48 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Not simple. Simplisitic. We've been raising the minimum wage
> >periodically since there has been a minimum wage. If you can point to
> >some damage this has caused the economy or to an increase in
> >unemployment, I'd love to see it.
>
> Such damage isn't always obvious - it's hard to determine why the
> small businesses in the poor area of town went out of business.
>
> I read that The Broadmore Hotel might lay off the people who earn
> about $30/hour in tips parking cars - now that they have to pay more a
> higher minimum wage to them.
We always hear about how many will be laid off with an increase in
minimum wage before it passes. Then virtually no jobs get lost....
Kinda like the doctors that are saying they won't do medicare patients
if they get a 5% cut this next year.
It is posturing...
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 19:57:26
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
In article <lloydparsons-2FAFFD.16461610112006@individual.net >,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
> In article <6vv9l21ad8n61qmanqfltd12233h57s0si@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> > On 10 Nov 2006 06:23:48 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Not simple. Simplisitic. We've been raising the minimum wage
> > >periodically since there has been a minimum wage. If you can point to
> > >some damage this has caused the economy or to an increase in
> > >unemployment, I'd love to see it.
> >
> > Such damage isn't always obvious - it's hard to determine why the
> > small businesses in the poor area of town went out of business.
> >
> > I read that The Broadmore Hotel might lay off the people who earn
> > about $30/hour in tips parking cars - now that they have to pay more a
> > higher minimum wage to them.
>
> We always hear about how many will be laid off with an increase in
> minimum wage before it passes. Then virtually no jobs get lost....
How many real human beings in a "virtually", Lloyd?
>
> Kinda like the doctors that are saying they won't do medicare patients
> if they get a 5% cut this next year.
>
> It is posturing...
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 14:14:09
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
In article <alangbaker-FC59A0.11572611112006@news.telus.net >,
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net > wrote:
> In article <lloydparsons-2FAFFD.16461610112006@individual.net>,
> Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <6vv9l21ad8n61qmanqfltd12233h57s0si@4ax.com>,
> > Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On 10 Nov 2006 06:23:48 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Not simple. Simplisitic. We've been raising the minimum wage
> > > >periodically since there has been a minimum wage. If you can point to
> > > >some damage this has caused the economy or to an increase in
> > > >unemployment, I'd love to see it.
> > >
> > > Such damage isn't always obvious - it's hard to determine why the
> > > small businesses in the poor area of town went out of business.
> > >
> > > I read that The Broadmore Hotel might lay off the people who earn
> > > about $30/hour in tips parking cars - now that they have to pay more a
> > > higher minimum wage to them.
> >
> > We always hear about how many will be laid off with an increase in
> > minimum wage before it passes. Then virtually no jobs get lost....
>
> How many real human beings in a "virtually", Lloyd?
>
Almost none, or at least a number so small it makes it insignificant.
Except for the very few who do lose the job.
However, the jobs always come back. It takes a certain amount of people
to man the counters and stoves at Mickey D's you know.
> >
> > Kinda like the doctors that are saying they won't do medicare patients
> > if they get a 5% cut this next year.
> >
> > It is posturing...
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 22:15:56
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
In article <lloydparsons-115BAF.14140911112006@individual.net >,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
> In article <alangbaker-FC59A0.11572611112006@news.telus.net>,
> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <lloydparsons-2FAFFD.16461610112006@individual.net>,
> > Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <6vv9l21ad8n61qmanqfltd12233h57s0si@4ax.com>,
> > > Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 10 Nov 2006 06:23:48 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Not simple. Simplisitic. We've been raising the minimum wage
> > > > >periodically since there has been a minimum wage. If you can point to
> > > > >some damage this has caused the economy or to an increase in
> > > > >unemployment, I'd love to see it.
> > > >
> > > > Such damage isn't always obvious - it's hard to determine why the
> > > > small businesses in the poor area of town went out of business.
> > > >
> > > > I read that The Broadmore Hotel might lay off the people who earn
> > > > about $30/hour in tips parking cars - now that they have to pay more a
> > > > higher minimum wage to them.
> > >
> > > We always hear about how many will be laid off with an increase in
> > > minimum wage before it passes. Then virtually no jobs get lost....
> >
> > How many real human beings in a "virtually", Lloyd?
> >
> Almost none, or at least a number so small it makes it insignificant.
> Except for the very few who do lose the job.
>
> However, the jobs always come back. It takes a certain amount of people
> to man the counters and stoves at Mickey D's you know.
What a lovely glib answer to give to all those who *will* lose jobs and
those who won't find jobs when the minimum wage is raised.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't *be* a minimum wage, but sloughing
off the real negative effects it will have is too easy.
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 16:19:00
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
In article <alangbaker-4E1198.14155611112006@news.telus.net >,
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net > wrote:
> In article <lloydparsons-115BAF.14140911112006@individual.net>,
> Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <alangbaker-FC59A0.11572611112006@news.telus.net>,
> > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <lloydparsons-2FAFFD.16461610112006@individual.net>,
> > > Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <6vv9l21ad8n61qmanqfltd12233h57s0si@4ax.com>,
> > > > Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 10 Nov 2006 06:23:48 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Not simple. Simplisitic. We've been raising the minimum wage
> > > > > >periodically since there has been a minimum wage. If you can point to
> > > > > >some damage this has caused the economy or to an increase in
> > > > > >unemployment, I'd love to see it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Such damage isn't always obvious - it's hard to determine why the
> > > > > small businesses in the poor area of town went out of business.
> > > > >
> > > > > I read that The Broadmore Hotel might lay off the people who earn
> > > > > about $30/hour in tips parking cars - now that they have to pay more a
> > > > > higher minimum wage to them.
> > > >
> > > > We always hear about how many will be laid off with an increase in
> > > > minimum wage before it passes. Then virtually no jobs get lost....
> > >
> > > How many real human beings in a "virtually", Lloyd?
> > >
> > Almost none, or at least a number so small it makes it insignificant.
> > Except for the very few who do lose the job.
> >
> > However, the jobs always come back. It takes a certain amount of people
> > to man the counters and stoves at Mickey D's you know.
>
> What a lovely glib answer to give to all those who *will* lose jobs and
> those who won't find jobs when the minimum wage is raised.
>
> I'm not saying that there shouldn't *be* a minimum wage, but sloughing
> off the real negative effects it will have is too easy.
It isn't a glib answer. Raising the min wage does not end up with lost
jobs. Talking about raising it always raises the furor by those that
swear it will.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 22:23:37
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
In article <lloydparsons-9B00DE.16190011112006@individual.net >,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
> In article <alangbaker-4E1198.14155611112006@news.telus.net>,
> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <lloydparsons-115BAF.14140911112006@individual.net>,
> > Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <alangbaker-FC59A0.11572611112006@news.telus.net>,
> > > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <lloydparsons-2FAFFD.16461610112006@individual.net>,
> > > > Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <6vv9l21ad8n61qmanqfltd12233h57s0si@4ax.com>,
> > > > > Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 10 Nov 2006 06:23:48 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Not simple. Simplisitic. We've been raising the minimum wage
> > > > > > >periodically since there has been a minimum wage. If you can point
> > > > > > >to
> > > > > > >some damage this has caused the economy or to an increase in
> > > > > > >unemployment, I'd love to see it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Such damage isn't always obvious - it's hard to determine why the
> > > > > > small businesses in the poor area of town went out of business.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I read that The Broadmore Hotel might lay off the people who earn
> > > > > > about $30/hour in tips parking cars - now that they have to pay
> > > > > > more a
> > > > > > higher minimum wage to them.
> > > > >
> > > > > We always hear about how many will be laid off with an increase in
> > > > > minimum wage before it passes. Then virtually no jobs get lost....
> > > >
> > > > How many real human beings in a "virtually", Lloyd?
> > > >
> > > Almost none, or at least a number so small it makes it insignificant.
> > > Except for the very few who do lose the job.
> > >
> > > However, the jobs always come back. It takes a certain amount of people
> > > to man the counters and stoves at Mickey D's you know.
> >
> > What a lovely glib answer to give to all those who *will* lose jobs and
> > those who won't find jobs when the minimum wage is raised.
> >
> > I'm not saying that there shouldn't *be* a minimum wage, but sloughing
> > off the real negative effects it will have is too easy.
>
> It isn't a glib answer. Raising the min wage does not end up with lost
> jobs. Talking about raising it always raises the furor by those that
> swear it will.
Sorry, but that doesn't jibe with what you said above.
Which is it: none or insignificant?
And by your argument, we must then be able to raise the minimum wage to
any level, right? If there is no functional relationship between the
cost of labour and the amount that will be consumed, then why not raise
it $10?
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 16:42:33
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
In article <alangbaker-CAAF23.14233711112006@news.telus.net >,
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net > wrote:
> In article <lloydparsons-9B00DE.16190011112006@individual.net>,
> Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <alangbaker-4E1198.14155611112006@news.telus.net>,
> > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <lloydparsons-115BAF.14140911112006@individual.net>,
> > > Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <alangbaker-FC59A0.11572611112006@news.telus.net>,
> > > > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <lloydparsons-2FAFFD.16461610112006@individual.net>,
> > > > > Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article <6vv9l21ad8n61qmanqfltd12233h57s0si@4ax.com>,
> > > > > > Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10 Nov 2006 06:23:48 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Not simple. Simplisitic. We've been raising the minimum wage
> > > > > > > >periodically since there has been a minimum wage. If you can
> > > > > > > >point
> > > > > > > >to
> > > > > > > >some damage this has caused the economy or to an increase in
> > > > > > > >unemployment, I'd love to see it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Such damage isn't always obvious - it's hard to determine why the
> > > > > > > small businesses in the poor area of town went out of business.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I read that The Broadmore Hotel might lay off the people who earn
> > > > > > > about $30/hour in tips parking cars - now that they have to pay
> > > > > > > more a
> > > > > > > higher minimum wage to them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We always hear about how many will be laid off with an increase in
> > > > > > minimum wage before it passes. Then virtually no jobs get lost....
> > > > >
> > > > > How many real human beings in a "virtually", Lloyd?
> > > > >
> > > > Almost none, or at least a number so small it makes it insignificant.
> > > > Except for the very few who do lose the job.
> > > >
> > > > However, the jobs always come back. It takes a certain amount of
> > > > people
> > > > to man the counters and stoves at Mickey D's you know.
> > >
> > > What a lovely glib answer to give to all those who *will* lose jobs and
> > > those who won't find jobs when the minimum wage is raised.
> > >
> > > I'm not saying that there shouldn't *be* a minimum wage, but sloughing
> > > off the real negative effects it will have is too easy.
> >
> > It isn't a glib answer. Raising the min wage does not end up with lost
> > jobs. Talking about raising it always raises the furor by those that
> > swear it will.
>
> Sorry, but that doesn't jibe with what you said above.
>
> Which is it: none or insignificant?
>
> And by your argument, we must then be able to raise the minimum wage to
> any level, right? If there is no functional relationship between the
> cost of labour and the amount that will be consumed, then why not raise
> it $10?
Statistically, none.
And your second point is the other factor that is always raised when
talking about raising the min wage. The answer is that people that talk
about raising it, are talking about what is a reasonable amount. The
politics of it decides just where reasonable falls.
BTW, 22 states have already raised the min wage with no fallout. This
is an issue that the majority of people definitely want to happen.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 22:48:09
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
In article <lloydparsons-C969E1.16423311112006@individual.net >,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
> In article <alangbaker-CAAF23.14233711112006@news.telus.net>,
> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <lloydparsons-9B00DE.16190011112006@individual.net>,
> > Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <alangbaker-4E1198.14155611112006@news.telus.net>,
> > > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <lloydparsons-115BAF.14140911112006@individual.net>,
> > > > Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <alangbaker-FC59A0.11572611112006@news.telus.net>,
> > > > > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article <lloydparsons-2FAFFD.16461610112006@individual.net>,
> > > > > > Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In article <6vv9l21ad8n61qmanqfltd12233h57s0si@4ax.com>,
> > > > > > > Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 10 Nov 2006 06:23:48 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Not simple. Simplisitic. We've been raising the minimum wage
> > > > > > > > >periodically since there has been a minimum wage. If you can
> > > > > > > > >point
> > > > > > > > >to
> > > > > > > > >some damage this has caused the economy or to an increase in
> > > > > > > > >unemployment, I'd love to see it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Such damage isn't always obvious - it's hard to determine why
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > small businesses in the poor area of town went out of business.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I read that The Broadmore Hotel might lay off the people who
> > > > > > > > earn
> > > > > > > > about $30/hour in tips parking cars - now that they have to pay
> > > > > > > > more a
> > > > > > > > higher minimum wage to them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We always hear about how many will be laid off with an increase
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > minimum wage before it passes. Then virtually no jobs get
> > > > > > > lost....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How many real human beings in a "virtually", Lloyd?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Almost none, or at least a number so small it makes it insignificant.
> > > > >
> > > > > Except for the very few who do lose the job.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, the jobs always come back. It takes a certain amount of
> > > > > people
> > > > > to man the counters and stoves at Mickey D's you know.
> > > >
> > > > What a lovely glib answer to give to all those who *will* lose jobs and
> > > > those who won't find jobs when the minimum wage is raised.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not saying that there shouldn't *be* a minimum wage, but sloughing
> > > > off the real negative effects it will have is too easy.
> > >
> > > It isn't a glib answer. Raising the min wage does not end up with lost
> > > jobs. Talking about raising it always raises the furor by those that
> > > swear it will.
> >
> > Sorry, but that doesn't jibe with what you said above.
> >
> > Which is it: none or insignificant?
> >
> > And by your argument, we must then be able to raise the minimum wage to
> > any level, right? If there is no functional relationship between the
> > cost of labour and the amount that will be consumed, then why not raise
> > it $10?
>
> Statistically, none.
I'm sorry, but that is a crock of *shit*.
Statistically, I'd bet the number is in the tens of thousands.
>
> And your second point is the other factor that is always raised when
> talking about raising the min wage. The answer is that people that talk
> about raising it, are talking about what is a reasonable amount. The
> politics of it decides just where reasonable falls.
>
> BTW, 22 states have already raised the min wage with no fallout. This
> is an issue that the majority of people definitely want to happen.
No *political* fallout. There are people in those states, right now, who
had jobs and no longer have them.
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
|
| | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 19:56:43
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: OT: Rummy resigns!
|
In article <1163168628.643193.277940@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <1163133828.778510.278840@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > Not that I'm completely in favour of abolishing the minimum wage, but
> > > > > if
> > > > you're going to raise that point, we should also acknowledge that there
> > > > are people out there who are going to be left out of the job market if
> > > > the minimum wage is increased, just as there are already people who
> > > > don't get jobs because there are employers out there who can't afford
> > > > to
> > > > hire more workers at that wage.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That is a myth.
> >
> > No. It is the simplest of logic.
>
>
> Not simple. Simplisitic. We've been raising the minimum wage
> periodically since there has been a minimum wage. If you can point to
> some damage this has caused the economy or to an increase in
> unemployment, I'd love to see it.
No, simple.
When the price of at thing is raised, people buy less of it. This is
settled economic reality.
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
|
|
