| |
Main
Date: 14 Dec 2006 14:06:32
From: Wayne
Subject: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
One Last Lie for the Road
by Robert Scheer
What the heck, I'll pop over to Iraq one last time for a
meet-and-greet with the kids I've sent to war. Thank goodness I'm not
going
to have to do this again, though; I was born an upbeat guy, but it does
get
to you knowing that the thing is such a bloody mess and yet more of
them are
going to be sacrificed.
Did I write a secret memo saying that I don't believe in this
thing
anymore? You bet! But you can't let the public in on that and just
cut-and-run. Jeez, how would that look for the Rummy Legacy? First I go
over
there back in 1984 and kiss Saddam Hussein's derriere in order to get
him to
take on the ayatollahs in Iran, and now I leave Iraq in the hands of
those
Iraqi Shiites who were trained in a decade of exile in Iran. Those are
the
insurgents I'm worried about, not those Sunni guys who used to be with
us.
Should I have tried to convince young Bush that Hussein could be
brought
over to our side? Probably.
Yeah, sure, the guy's a killer but he could have been our
killer-again. Did I know about his killing those Shiite villagers back
in
1982? Hey, I was fully in the loop, but that was then and this is now,
so
let him hang. Only, why did they have to limit his trial to crimes that
I
knew all about before we shook hands? Some darn columnist will dig up
that
photo and point out that if Hussein is guilty of war crimes, then maybe
I've
got blood on my hands. Phooey.
I'm not going down that negative road that finished off old Bob
McNamara's legacy. What a disappointment-this is a guy who could sell
us the
Vietnam War and then blows it by suddenly getting all squishy about the
truth when he's long retired. Jeez Louise, he was once my role model.
No
secretary of defense ever sold a losing war better. They think I've got
a
frozen smile, just look at those old pictures of Mac flying into Saigon
and
giving an upbeat assessment in the midst of carnage. Talk about
whistling
past the graveyard. And he stayed on the "We're about to turn the
corner"
message right to the end when LBJ fired him, just like Georgie Porgie
did
me.
But then he made his fatal mistake. Am I talking about being
silent on
Nam for the next 20 years while he hid out as head of the World Bank
like
Paul Wolfowitz? Heck no. It's smart to focus on saving the entire world
when
you've messed up just a part of it. No, where Mac went wrong was after
he
left the bank and wrote that memoir and did that "Fog of War"
documentary,
babbling on about how he was involved with getting over 58,000
Americans and
3=2E4 million Indochinese killed and how maybe he could be judged a war
criminal. Sheesh! Never, never, use those words when you're talking
about an
American statesman, for God's sake!-it's downright unpatriotic. Worse,
when
you're talking about yourself as a possible war criminal and you happen
to
be one of the most famous Americans. Well, you are just subverting the
dreams of ambitious young Americans for generations to come. You have
no
right to let down kids that way. They need heroes, and for better or
worse
we are all they've got.
Who else are they going to look up to? Malcontents? Like the
mothers
of kids who've died and are now questioning what it was all about?
Crimony!
Take the medals and shut up! I'm not going to let those kids down, so I
put
that brave smile back on and go back to Iraq and pretend once again
this is
all about preventing another 9/11. Hey, I'm a pro and I know what they
need
to hear: "We feel great urgency to protect the American people from
another
9/11 or a 9/11 times two or three." Does it make any sense when we
always
knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Or when bin Laden is still
on
the loose and his protectors in the Taliban are on the rise in
Afghanistan?
Heck no. Do I believe it? Who cares? That's what I learned from working
for
young George and what his old man's Iraq Study Group doesn't get: Never
let
the facts get in the way of a good "war on terror" story.
Copyright =A9 2006 Truthdig, L.L.C.
|
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 16:24:59
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
MnMikew wrote:
> "Wayne" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1166133992.354941.319270@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> One Last Lie for the Road
> by Robert Scheer
>
> Robert Scheer, the male Arianna Huffington. LOL.
Just like a good little Repug ..... ALWAYS blame the messenger!
I'll bet Rush is so proud of you.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 09:05:19
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1166142299.383755.164590@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> MnMikew wrote:
>> "Wayne" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1166133992.354941.319270@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>> One Last Lie for the Road
>> by Robert Scheer
>>
>> Robert Scheer, the male Arianna Huffington. LOL.
>
> Just like a good little Repug ..... ALWAYS blame the messenger!
> I'll bet Rush is so proud of you.
>
There was some message in his ramblings? I must have missed it. I'd rather
read your babble all day then listen to Rush.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 18:13:07
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
On 14 Dec 2006 14:06:32 -0800, "Wayne" <waynetv50@yahoo.com > wrote:
> One Last Lie for the Road
> by Robert Scheer
>
Golf content? Nope.
**plonk-o-rama**
--
jvdp
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 18:47:49
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
You are going to need an infinite supply of plonks.
"John van der Pflum" <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > wrote in message
news:2jm3o2haqft9vfe2o9gd3dut6i2f2a1mnq@4ax.com...
> On 14 Dec 2006 14:06:32 -0800, "Wayne" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> One Last Lie for the Road
>> by Robert Scheer
>>
>
> Golf content? Nope.
>
> **plonk-o-rama**
> --
>
> jvdp
> http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 15:58:34
From: larry
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:47:49 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:
>You are going to need an infinite supply of plonks.
People post about politics and other topics here because there are no
or few real golfers. Those who were serious about their golf
game--and knew something interesting to decent golfers-- got sick of
the regulars here and bailed out. They are gone.
Now this forum is mildly entertaining to those who want to discuss
current events, politics, etc.
The reason the good golfers left is the predictible daily personal
attacks from BK, Glfnaz, Baker, and half a dozen others. Blame those
morons; they think they own this forum--and now they do. They have it
all to themselves. Enjoy!
Larry
>
>"John van der Pflum" <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org> wrote in message
>news:2jm3o2haqft9vfe2o9gd3dut6i2f2a1mnq@4ax.com...
>> On 14 Dec 2006 14:06:32 -0800, "Wayne" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> One Last Lie for the Road
>>> by Robert Scheer
>>>
>>
>> Golf content? Nope.
>>
>> **plonk-o-rama**
>> --
>>
>> jvdp
>> http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 02:24:53
From: Sparky
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
On 14-Dec-2006, larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:
> The reason the good golfers left is the predictible daily personal
> attacks from BK, Glfnaz, Baker, and half a dozen others.
Just about all of whom could whip your sorry golfin ass on the course....
me
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 01:14:54
From: Nobody's Business
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
In article <nto3o25aittttthh2u96e52p0v1l1pdvcg@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:47:49 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
> >You are going to need an infinite supply of plonks.
>
> People post about politics and other topics here because there are no
> or few real golfers. Those who were serious about their golf
> game--and knew something interesting to decent golfers-- got sick of
> the regulars here and bailed out. They are gone.
>
> Now this forum is mildly entertaining to those who want to discuss
> current events, politics, etc.
>
> The reason the good golfers left is the predictible daily personal
> attacks from BK, Glfnaz, Baker, and half a dozen others. Blame those
> morons; they think they own this forum--and now they do. They have it
> all to themselves. Enjoy!
Please, Larry: post some examples of the "personal attacks" I've posted
here...
Alan
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 18:08:24
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:58:34 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:47:49 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>You are going to need an infinite supply of plonks.
>
>People post about politics and other topics here because there are no
>or few real golfers. Those who were serious about their golf
>game--and knew something interesting to decent golfers-- got sick of
>the regulars here and bailed out. They are gone.
>
>Now this forum is mildly entertaining to those who want to discuss
>current events, politics, etc.
>
>The reason the good golfers left is the predictible daily personal
>attacks from BK, Glfnaz, Baker, and half a dozen others. Blame those
>morons; they think they own this forum--and now they do. They have it
>all to themselves. Enjoy!
>
>Larry
Hoping that this means you're leaving...but then where else could your
teen-aged mind get such attention?
bk
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 14:53:01
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
Julien D. wrote:
> So where's the Tennis, Soccer, Arsenal, Golf or weights news in that?
>
> Do you so little to think about that you have to pollute every newsgroup
> with your own personal hate obsession?
who said this was a hate obsession and why are you so obsessed with
gilmore girls?
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 15:02:16
From: Knowledge
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
Why should we sit back and allow you to be happy when it is your
actions in this country that stop me from being happy?
Ignorance, hated, and WS should be stood up to wherever it rears it's
Satanic head. :-0
On 14 Dec 2006 14:53:01 -0800, "Wayne" <waynetv50@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>Julien D. wrote:
>> So where's the Tennis, Soccer, Arsenal, Golf or weights news in that?
>>
>> Do you so little to think about that you have to pollute every newsgroup
>> with your own personal hate obsession?
>
>who said this was a hate obsession and why are you so obsessed with
>gilmore girls?
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 17:51:36
From: Julien D.
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
So where's the Tennis, Soccer, Arsenal, Golf or weights news in that?
Do you so little to think about that you have to pollute every newsgroup
with your own personal hate obsession?
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 23:08:14
From: Mad Dog anti EU
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
"Julien D." <juliend05@yahoo.ca > wrote in message
news:4581a339$1_3@newsfeed.slurp.net
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 00:33:56
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: Wayne - One last lie for the road
|
Mad Dog anti EU wrote:
> "Julien D." <juliend05@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:4581a339$1_3@newsfeed.slurp.net
>
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 00:13:27
From: batezee
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
"Mad Dog anti EU" <anthonybaldone@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:yPkgh.13278$kM2.6608@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
> "Julien D." <juliend05@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:4581a339$1_3@newsfeed.slurp.net
>
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 16:32:35
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
"Wayne" <waynetv50@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1166133992.354941.319270@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
One Last Lie for the Road
by Robert Scheer
Robert Scheer, the male Arianna Huffington. LOL.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 17:58:15
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:4ue1o3F17ng2vU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Wayne" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1166133992.354941.319270@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> One Last Lie for the Road
> by Robert Scheer
>
> Robert Scheer, the male Arianna Huffington. LOL.
>
Don't you wonder how much money was spent to send him over there?
Don't you wonder what was going to be accomplished by his visit?
Don't you wonder how many lives were put at extra risk because of his visit?
Do you ever wonder?
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 09:02:35
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
"A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com > wrote in message
news:4581a413$1_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:4ue1o3F17ng2vU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Wayne" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1166133992.354941.319270@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>> One Last Lie for the Road
>> by Robert Scheer
>>
>> Robert Scheer, the male Arianna Huffington. LOL.
>>
>
> Don't you wonder how much money was spent to send him over there?
> Don't you wonder what was going to be accomplished by his visit?
> Don't you wonder how many lives were put at extra risk because of his
> visit?
> Do you ever wonder?
The Sec. of Def. visiting a war zone? Gasp! Probably costs more to send
Geraldo over there.
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 17:41:28
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:4ufrocF17eu64U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
> news:4581a413$1_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>
>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:4ue1o3F17ng2vU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Wayne" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1166133992.354941.319270@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>>> One Last Lie for the Road
>>> by Robert Scheer
>>>
>>> Robert Scheer, the male Arianna Huffington. LOL.
>>>
>>
>> Don't you wonder how much money was spent to send him over there?
>> Don't you wonder what was going to be accomplished by his visit?
>> Don't you wonder how many lives were put at extra risk because of his
>> visit?
>> Do you ever wonder?
> The Sec. of Def. visiting a war zone? Gasp! Probably costs more to send
> Geraldo over there.
>
Haven't you heard that he is leaving the post in a matter of days? No wonder
you are a neo-con.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 09:00:42
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
"A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com > wrote in message
news:4582f21c$1_1@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:4ufrocF17eu64U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
>> news:4581a413$1_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>>
>>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4ue1o3F17ng2vU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Wayne" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1166133992.354941.319270@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>>>> One Last Lie for the Road
>>>> by Robert Scheer
>>>>
>>>> Robert Scheer, the male Arianna Huffington. LOL.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Don't you wonder how much money was spent to send him over there?
>>> Don't you wonder what was going to be accomplished by his visit?
>>> Don't you wonder how many lives were put at extra risk because of his
>>> visit?
>>> Do you ever wonder?
>> The Sec. of Def. visiting a war zone? Gasp! Probably costs more to send
>> Geraldo over there.
>>
>
> Haven't you heard that he is leaving the post in a matter of days? No
> wonder you are a neo-con.
You just wake up or what?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 19:18:45
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:4unoorF18o4ejU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
> news:4582f21c$1_1@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>
>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:4ufrocF17eu64U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4581a413$1_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>>>
>>>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4ue1o3F17ng2vU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Wayne" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1166133992.354941.319270@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> One Last Lie for the Road
>>>>> by Robert Scheer
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert Scheer, the male Arianna Huffington. LOL.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't you wonder how much money was spent to send him over there?
>>>> Don't you wonder what was going to be accomplished by his visit?
>>>> Don't you wonder how many lives were put at extra risk because of his
>>>> visit?
>>>> Do you ever wonder?
>>> The Sec. of Def. visiting a war zone? Gasp! Probably costs more to send
>>> Geraldo over there.
>>>
>>
>> Haven't you heard that he is leaving the post in a matter of days? No
>> wonder you are a neo-con.
> You just wake up or what?
>
Are we to pretend you are smart & that you posted an intelligent answer?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 08:55:47
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
"A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com > wrote in message
news:4586fd13$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:4unoorF18o4ejU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
>> news:4582f21c$1_1@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>>
>>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4ufrocF17eu64U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4581a413$1_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4ue1o3F17ng2vU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Wayne" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:1166133992.354941.319270@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> One Last Lie for the Road
>>>>>> by Robert Scheer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Robert Scheer, the male Arianna Huffington. LOL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't you wonder how much money was spent to send him over there?
>>>>> Don't you wonder what was going to be accomplished by his visit?
>>>>> Don't you wonder how many lives were put at extra risk because of his
>>>>> visit?
>>>>> Do you ever wonder?
>>>> The Sec. of Def. visiting a war zone? Gasp! Probably costs more to send
>>>> Geraldo over there.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Haven't you heard that he is leaving the post in a matter of days? No
>>> wonder you are a neo-con.
>> You just wake up or what?
>>
>
> Are we to pretend you are smart & that you posted an intelligent answer?
You mean like yours? Yaaaa.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 11:24:27
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:4uqcrjF1939jiU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
> news:4586fd13$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>
>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:4unoorF18o4ejU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4582f21c$1_1@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>>>
>>>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4ufrocF17eu64U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4581a413$1_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4ue1o3F17ng2vU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Wayne" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:1166133992.354941.319270@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> One Last Lie for the Road
>>>>>>> by Robert Scheer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Robert Scheer, the male Arianna Huffington. LOL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't you wonder how much money was spent to send him over there?
>>>>>> Don't you wonder what was going to be accomplished by his visit?
>>>>>> Don't you wonder how many lives were put at extra risk because of his
>>>>>> visit?
>>>>>> Do you ever wonder?
>>>>> The Sec. of Def. visiting a war zone? Gasp! Probably costs more to
>>>>> send Geraldo over there.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Haven't you heard that he is leaving the post in a matter of days? No
>>>> wonder you are a neo-con.
>>> You just wake up or what?
>>>
>>
>> Are we to pretend you are smart & that you posted an intelligent answer?
> You mean like yours? Yaaaa.
>
Sorry -- I should have known from reading your posts in the past that asking
you questions was a fruitless exercise --- my bad.
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 06:41:23
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
larry wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:47:49 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
> >You are going to need an infinite supply of plonks.
>
> People post about politics and other topics here because there are no
> or few real golfers. Those who were serious about their golf
> game--and knew something interesting to decent golfers-- got sick of
> the regulars here and bailed out. They are gone.
>
> Now this forum is mildly entertaining to those who want to discuss
> current events, politics, etc.
>
> The reason the good golfers left is the predictible daily personal
> attacks from BK, Glfnaz, Baker, and half a dozen others. Blame those
> morons; they think they own this forum--and now they do. They have it
> all to themselves. Enjoy!
>
> Larry
> >
But, Larry, you said you were "the King of RSG."
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 23:48:08
From:
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
Dear Wayne =A1G
Good day for you. That is a nice Christmas around the world this year.
I will to hold a Christmas party in Taiwan 101 skyscraper.
The Christmas party to hold by SUNRIDER company distributors.
We send this good news for you.
The SUNRIDER can give everyone health and make a lot of mony in the
world,
in other words you can choose your life now.
If you join my SUNRIDER Group.
You can do it, that dream (Cars, Houses, Travel round the world).
If you are going to join us. Please contact internet as follows.
https://business.sunrider.com/CustService/Join.asp
My SUNRIDER's distributor number is TW000228878.
Thank you very much.
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 18:17:06
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
Wayne wrote:
> One Last Lie for the Road
> by Robert Scheer
>
> What the heck, I'll pop over to Iraq one last time for a
> meet-and-greet with the kids I've sent to war. Thank goodness I'm not
> going
> to have to do this again, though; I was born an upbeat guy, but it does
> get
> to you knowing that the thing is such a bloody mess and yet more of
> them are
> going to be sacrificed.
>
> Did I write a secret memo saying that I don't believe in this
> thing
> anymore? You bet! But you can't let the public in on that and just
> cut-and-run. Jeez, how would that look for the Rummy Legacy? First I go
> over
> there back in 1984 and kiss Saddam Hussein's derriere in order to get
> him to
> take on the ayatollahs in Iran, and now I leave Iraq in the hands of
> those
> Iraqi Shiites who were trained in a decade of exile in Iran. Those are
> the
> insurgents I'm worried about, not those Sunni guys who used to be with
> us.
> Should I have tried to convince young Bush that Hussein could be
> brought
> over to our side? Probably.
>
> Yeah, sure, the guy's a killer but he could have been our
> killer-again. Did I know about his killing those Shiite villagers back
> in
> 1982? Hey, I was fully in the loop, but that was then and this is now,
> so
> let him hang. Only, why did they have to limit his trial to crimes that
> I
> knew all about before we shook hands? Some darn columnist will dig up
> that
> photo and point out that if Hussein is guilty of war crimes, then maybe
> I've
> got blood on my hands. Phooey.
>
> I'm not going down that negative road that finished off old Bob
> McNamara's legacy. What a disappointment-this is a guy who could sell
> us the
> Vietnam War and then blows it by suddenly getting all squishy about the
> truth when he's long retired. Jeez Louise, he was once my role model.
> No
> secretary of defense ever sold a losing war better. They think I've got
> a
> frozen smile, just look at those old pictures of Mac flying into Saigon
> and
> giving an upbeat assessment in the midst of carnage. Talk about
> whistling
> past the graveyard. And he stayed on the "We're about to turn the
> corner"
> message right to the end when LBJ fired him, just like Georgie Porgie
> did
> me.
>
> But then he made his fatal mistake. Am I talking about being
> silent on
> Nam for the next 20 years while he hid out as head of the World Bank
> like
> Paul Wolfowitz? Heck no. It's smart to focus on saving the entire world
> when
> you've messed up just a part of it. No, where Mac went wrong was after
> he
> left the bank and wrote that memoir and did that "Fog of War"
> documentary,
> babbling on about how he was involved with getting over 58,000
> Americans and
> 3.4 million Indochinese killed and how maybe he could be judged a war
> criminal. Sheesh! Never, never, use those words when you're talking
> about an
> American statesman, for God's sake!-it's downright unpatriotic. Worse,
> when
> you're talking about yourself as a possible war criminal and you happen
> to
> be one of the most famous Americans. Well, you are just subverting the
> dreams of ambitious young Americans for generations to come. You have
> no
> right to let down kids that way. They need heroes, and for better or
> worse
> we are all they've got.
>
> Who else are they going to look up to? Malcontents? Like the
> mothers
> of kids who've died and are now questioning what it was all about?
> Crimony!
> Take the medals and shut up! I'm not going to let those kids down, so I
> put
> that brave smile back on and go back to Iraq and pretend once again
> this is
> all about preventing another 9/11. Hey, I'm a pro and I know what they
> need
> to hear: "We feel great urgency to protect the American people from
> another
> 9/11 or a 9/11 times two or three." Does it make any sense when we
> always
> knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Or when bin Laden is still
> on
> the loose and his protectors in the Taliban are on the rise in
> Afghanistan?
> Heck no. Do I believe it? Who cares? That's what I learned from working
> for
> young George and what his old man's Iraq Study Group doesn't get: Never
> let
> the facts get in the way of a good "war on terror" story.
>
> Copyright =A9 2006 Truthdig, L.L.C.
Remember when Rummy said, "the insurgency is in its last throes"? Dig
this:
Violence in Iraq Reaches New High, Report Says
By DAVID S. CLOUD and MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: December 18, 2006
WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 - There were an average of 959 insurgent and
sectarian attacks against American and Iraqi targets every week in Iraq
over the last three months, the highest level ever recorded, according
to a Pentagon report on security trends in Iraq issued today.
For the rest of the story, go to nytimes.com.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 03:08:47
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
John B. wrote:
> Remember when Rummy said, "the insurgency is in its last throes"? Dig
> this:
>
> Violence in Iraq Reaches New High, Report Says
>
> By DAVID S. CLOUD and MICHAEL R. GORDON
> Published: December 18, 2006
> WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 - There were an average of 959 insurgent and
> sectarian attacks against American and Iraqi targets every week in Iraq
> over the last three months, the highest level ever recorded, according
> to a Pentagon report on security trends in Iraq issued today.
>
> For the rest of the story, go to nytimes.com.
And now for a little balance
"In what might be called the mother of all surprises, Iraq's economy is
growing strong, even booming in places."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek/
Iraq's Economy is Booming - Newsweek: International Editions - MSNBC.com
So which is it?
Depending on how one chooses to see the world and what your own personal
ideology is, there is always a respected media outlet to support your
view.
Maybe you ought to take a little trip and find out for yourself what is
going on in the middle east. Up close and personal. IF you make it
back, file a report here.
Joe
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 23:50:01
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
"Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote in message
news:3JIhh.57977$Fw5.9442@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
>
> John B. wrote:
>
>> Remember when Rummy said, "the insurgency is in its last throes"? Dig
>> this:
>>
>> Violence in Iraq Reaches New High, Report Says
>>
>> By DAVID S. CLOUD and MICHAEL R. GORDON
>> Published: December 18, 2006
>> WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 - There were an average of 959 insurgent and
>> sectarian attacks against American and Iraqi targets every week in Iraq
>> over the last three months, the highest level ever recorded, according
>> to a Pentagon report on security trends in Iraq issued today.
>>
>> For the rest of the story, go to nytimes.com.
>
>
> And now for a little balance
>
> "In what might be called the mother of all surprises, Iraq's economy is
> growing strong, even booming in places."
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek/
> Iraq's Economy is Booming - Newsweek: International Editions - MSNBC.com
>
> So which is it?
>
It seems there IS a thriving market for all the weapons we've either lost or
never protected from looting --
BTW -- the WH is saying the same thing about the US economy -- even though
median wages are down......
> Depending on how one chooses to see the world and what your own personal
> ideology is, there is always a respected media outlet to support your
> view.
>
> Maybe you ought to take a little trip and find out for yourself what is
> going on in the middle east. Up close and personal. IF you make it back,
> file a report here.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 06:05:29
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
A Brick in the Wall wrote:
> "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
> news:3JIhh.57977$Fw5.9442@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
SNIP
>
> BTW -- the WH is saying the same thing about the US economy -- even though
> median wages are down......
>
SNIP
Don't be careless with the stats. What period / year are you comparing?
Median wages should be declining when you consider the aging of the
population with people leaving the workforce to "retire" and the influx
of immigrant populations that move into the low wage sector.
Median wage doesn't really tell you what you want to think it does.
Joe
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 08:24:01
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
"Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote in message
news:JiLhh.32644$tb6.5830@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
>
> A Brick in the Wall wrote:
>
>> "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
>> news:3JIhh.57977$Fw5.9442@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>
> SNIP
>>
>> BTW -- the WH is saying the same thing about the US economy -- even
>> though median wages are down......
>>
> SNIP
>
> Don't be careless with the stats. What period / year are you comparing?
>
> Median wages should be declining when you consider the aging of the
> population with people leaving the workforce to "retire" and the influx of
> immigrant populations that move into the low wage sector.
>
> Median wage doesn't really tell you what you want to think it does.
>
> Joe
>
Here is some reading for from that left-wing rag --- US News & World Report.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/061217/25edit_2.htm
America's High Anxiety
By Mortimer B. Zuckerman
Posted Sunday, December 17, 2006
Our nation's core bargain with the middle class is disintegrating. We are
into the fifth year of a relatively robust expansion, but millions are worse
off. Exposed to greater risks in job security, they feel abandoned, left to
fund their own health and retirement programs out of static or falling real
incomes.
Resentment and envy are not normal characteristics of our society; we
usually don't care how much the other guy makes as long as we feel we're
getting a fair shake. Today, however, the middle class is not. Most of our
economic gains have gone to people at the very top of the income ladder.
Median income for a household of people of working age, by contrast, has
fallen five years in a row. What's more, in a rapidly changing economy,
Americans are losing their jobs, and while they often find new ones, the
average pay is 17 percent below what they were earning before.
Even college graduates have been hard hit, their wages having failed to keep
pace with inflation over the past five years-and this at a time when the
profits per share for the companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 index have
been increasing at double-digit rates while corporate profits are at the
highest level in two generations. Wages and salaries, meanwhile, account for
the lowest share of our GDP since the government began recording the data,
in 1947. As former Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers put it: "If the
anxious middle's concerns about fairness are this serious when the
unemployment rate is 4.4 percent, there will be far greater concerns
whenever the economy next turns down."
Risk. The economy is going great guns-thanks to globalization, continued
technology advancements, and improved productivity-but the middle class and
working families just don't feel they are getting ahead, despite the fact
that they're working very hard. Indeed, many ordinary Americans say they are
either falling behind or just barely keeping up.
Philosophers and politicians-from Plato to Disraeli to John Edwards-are fond
of the "two nations" concept (slave/free; rich/poor; black/white). Today, we
can add another: secure/anxious. Risk, even more than the level of incomes,
is the main issue. As family incomes have become more stable, loss aversion
has become increasingly important. By a margin of 2 to 1,
Americans-traditionally, eager entrepreneurs-consider it more important to
protect current sources of income than to take an opportunity to take a
chance on something new and make more money.
Tens of millions of Americans live in fear that a major health problem can
reduce them to bankruptcy. They realize their families are one health crisis
away from family hardship, which is a key reason for the pervasive feeling
of personal and permanent insecurity.
This particularly affects American families. Marriage has always been a
vital economic and social institution. Yet married people with kids are
twice as likely to file for bankruptcy as single adults or childless
couples, and they're more likely to lose their homes than married couples
without children or single adults. Why hasn't the two-earner family
protected more Americans from the risk of financial disaster? Well, to most
families, a second income is not a luxury but a necessity, as wages for men
basically flattened out as women entered the workforce. The job market has
become more uncertain, with roughly as large a share of workers
involuntarily losing their jobs every three years as during the steep
economic decline of the early 1980s. The cost of housing, education,
healthcare, and child care, meanwhile, has gone through the roof.
Think about what happens when a woman leaves the workforce to have a child.
Think about the possibility of a child who becomes chronically ill.
Think about what happens when one of two parents loses his or her job, and
what happens afterward when families break apart.
Think about the fact that raising a child to the age of 18 will cost over
$200,000 for a middle-income family-and that doesn't even account for
college tuition, now a required ticket for admission into the middle class.
Perhaps that's why for the first time, according to the Census Bureau,
households headed by single people outnumber those headed by married ones.
If there is one single source of risk our policymakers must tackle, it is
health insurance. We must not muddle on, a band-aid here and a band-aid
there. We must find some way to provide universal health insurance,
especially to cover all children. This is one of the critical reasons that
Americans are nervous and no longer believe that the next generation will be
better off.
The deep disquiet in this newly anxious American nation was evident in last
month's midterm elections. Whichever party better focuses on healthcare will
do a world of good for itself and the country.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 06:39:24
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
"Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote in message
news:JiLhh.32644$tb6.5830@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
>
> A Brick in the Wall wrote:
>
>> "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
>> news:3JIhh.57977$Fw5.9442@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>
> SNIP
>>
>> BTW -- the WH is saying the same thing about the US economy -- even
>> though median wages are down......
>>
> SNIP
>
> Don't be careless with the stats. What period / year are you comparing?
>
> Median wages should be declining when you consider the aging of the
> population with people leaving the workforce to "retire" and the influx of
> immigrant populations that move into the low wage sector.
>
> Median wage doesn't really tell you what you want to think it does.
>
> Joe
>
1. If you've retired -- you would not have wages -- so that's B.S. you
posted So who is being careless now?
2. What kind of cherry picker are you using now? --- anyway --- workers are
workers are workers --
but you seem to forget that thing called inflation -- though modest -- it
has further eroded spending power.
Or maybe it tells you what you don't want to know -- since real wages are
down also.
Here's some tidbits -- from http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-06pov.htm
Overall median household income rose modestly in 2005 - but significantly
less than normal for a year during an economic recovery - while the poverty
rate remained unchanged, also an unusual development for a recovery year.
For the first time on record, poverty was higher in the fourth year of an
economic recovery, and median income no better, than when the last recession
hit bottom and the recovery began.
In addition, the 1.1 percent increase in median income that occurred in 2005
was driven by a rise in income among elderly households.[1] Median income
for non-elderly households (those headed by someone under 65) fell again in
2005, declining by $275, or 0.5 percent. Median income for non-elderly
households declined for the fifth consecutive year and was $2,000 (or 3.7
percent) lower in 2005 than in the recession year of 2001.
Furthermore, the poverty rate, at 12.6 percent, remained well above its 11.7
percent rate in 2001, while overall median household income was $243 lower
in 2005 than in 2001 (not a statistically significant difference).
In a related development, the median earnings of both male and female
full-time workers declined in 2005. Median earnings for men working full
time throughout the year fell for the second straight year, dropping by
$774, or 1.8 percent, after adjusting for inflation. The median earnings of
full-time year-round female workers fell for the third straight year,
declining by $427, or 1.3 percent.
Health insurance also deteriorated. The number of uninsured people climbed
by 1.3 million in 2005 to 46.6 million, a record high. The percentage of
people without insurance rose from 15.6 percent of the population to 15.9
percent. Both figures were substantially above the figures for the 2001
recession year, when 41.2 million people - 14.6 percent of Americans - were
uninsured.
Even the number of children who are uninsured rose, increasing for the first
time since 1998, and climbing by 360,000 to 8.3 million. Some 11.2 percent
of children were uninsured in 2005, up from 10.8 percent in 2004.
Or this from USATODAY.
Average family incomes fell in the USA from 2001 to 2004, pulled down by a
sluggish recovery from the downturn and the sharp stock market drop, the
Federal Reserve said Thursday. The decline - the first since 1989-92 - was
accompanied by the smallest increase in net worth in that period.
In its comprehensive Survey of Consumer Finances, released every three
years, the Fed said the median net worth of the bottom 40% of families
declined, while those at the top saw gains. The percentage of families
investing in stocks fell 3.3 percentage points to 48.6% from 2001 to 2004, a
level last reached some time between the 1995 and 1998 surveys.
This from the NY Times targets your idea of immigrents causing the
decline --
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?ex=1166677200&en=e6cc5f23f68d53b1&ei=5070
The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since
2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable,
economists say, because productivity - the amount that an average worker
produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation's living
standards - has risen steadily over the same period.
As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation's
gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in
1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the
1960's. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the current period as
"the golden era of profitability."
Until the last year, stagnating wages were somewhat offset by the rising
value of benefits, especially health insurance, which caused overall
compensation for most Americans to continue increasing. Since last summer,
however, the value of workers' benefits has also failed to keep pace with
inflation, according to government data.
At the very top of the income spectrum, many workers have continued to
receive raises that outpace inflation, and the gains have been large enough
to keep average income and consumer spending rising.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 14:59:23
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
A Brick in the Wall wrote:
> "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
> news:JiLhh.32644$tb6.5830@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
>>
>>A Brick in the Wall wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
>>>news:3JIhh.57977$Fw5.9442@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>>
>>
>>SNIP
>>
>>>BTW -- the WH is saying the same thing about the US economy -- even
>>>though median wages are down......
>>>
>>
>>SNIP
>>
>>Don't be careless with the stats. What period / year are you comparing?
>>
>>Median wages should be declining when you consider the aging of the
>>population with people leaving the workforce to "retire" and the influx of
>>immigrant populations that move into the low wage sector.
>>
>>Median wage doesn't really tell you what you want to think it does.
>>
>>Joe
>>
>
>
> 1. If you've retired -- you would not have wages -- so that's B.S. you
> posted So who is being careless now?
That was exactly the point. Do you know how that particular number is
arrived at?
>
> 2. What kind of cherry picker are you using now? --- anyway --- workers are
> workers are workers --
> but you seem to forget that thing called inflation -- though modest -- it
> has further eroded spending power.
Spending power is entirely different matter. You were inferring too
much from one very simple stat.
>
> Or maybe it tells you what you don't want to know -- since real wages are
> down also.
Again, what is your base period? If it was 1999 or 2000 the Dot Com
boom was in full swing.
Just for the record, I was not objecting to your inferred argument just
the choice of material to support it. I, like you, think that there are
serious issues with the economy and the prosperity of the typical family.
The real problems are not apparent until you dig down into the
statistics and look at NAICS codes, county level data and fine cuts on age.
SNIP
> This from the NY Times targets your idea of immigrents causing the
> decline --
For the record, I did not say, "immigrents causing the decline", I did
imply that they were creating negative wage pressure at the lower end of
the spectrum.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?ex=1166677200&en=e6cc5f23f68d53b1&ei=5070
>
> The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since
> 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable,
> economists say, because productivity - the amount that an average worker
> produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation's living
> standards - has risen steadily over the same period.
>
> As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation's
> gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in
> 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the
> 1960's. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the current period as
> "the golden era of profitability."
>
> Until the last year, stagnating wages were somewhat offset by the rising
> value of benefits, especially health insurance, which caused overall
> compensation for most Americans to continue increasing. Since last summer,
> however, the value of workers' benefits has also failed to keep pace with
> inflation, according to government data.
>
> At the very top of the income spectrum, many workers have continued to
> receive raises that outpace inflation, and the gains have been large enough
> to keep average income and consumer spending rising.
There is nothing to really argue about in this article but I don't see
the connection that you are making with immigration.
Joe
Joe
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 11:31:27
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
"Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote in message
news:f7Thh.58000$Fw5.39949@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
>
> A Brick in the Wall wrote:
>
>> "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
>> news:JiLhh.32644$tb6.5830@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>
>>>
>>>A Brick in the Wall wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:3JIhh.57977$Fw5.9442@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>>>
>>>
>>>SNIP
>>>
>>>>BTW -- the WH is saying the same thing about the US economy -- even
>>>>though median wages are down......
>>>>
>>>
>>>SNIP
>>>
>>>Don't be careless with the stats. What period / year are you comparing?
>>>
>>>Median wages should be declining when you consider the aging of the
>>>population with people leaving the workforce to "retire" and the influx
>>>of immigrant populations that move into the low wage sector.
>>>
>>>Median wage doesn't really tell you what you want to think it does.
>>>
>>>Joe
>>>
>>
>>
>> 1. If you've retired -- you would not have wages -- so that's B.S. you
>> posted So who is being careless now?
>
> That was exactly the point. Do you know how that particular number is
> arrived at?
Somehow I doubt they include people NOT earning wages --- you prove me wrong
though --- put it here --- >
>>
>> 2. What kind of cherry picker are you using now? --- anyway --- workers
>> are workers are workers --
>> but you seem to forget that thing called inflation -- though modest -- it
>> has further eroded spending power.
>
> Spending power is entirely different matter. You were inferring too much
> from one very simple stat.
>
I said further ---- you are the one inferring something that was not there.
>>
>> Or maybe it tells you what you don't want to know -- since real wages are
>> down also.
>
> Again, what is your base period? If it was 1999 or 2000 the Dot Com boom
> was in full swing.
>
The last 5 years --- that's what I've been reading about lately --- or about
all of Bush's disasterous term.
> Just for the record, I was not objecting to your inferred argument just
> the choice of material to support it. I, like you, think that there are
> serious issues with the economy and the prosperity of the typical family.
>
Yup -- read my post from Zuckerman. It a bad deal getting worse -- I own my
own company & health care for my employees is killing me.
> The real problems are not apparent until you dig down into the statistics
> and look at NAICS codes, county level data and fine cuts on age.
>
>
> SNIP
>
>
>> This from the NY Times targets your idea of immigrents causing the
>> decline --
>
> For the record, I did not say, "immigrents causing the decline", I did
> imply that they were creating negative wage pressure at the lower end of
> the spectrum.
>
You did post this though --- which looks like a finger point to me.
Median wages should be declining when you consider the aging of the
population with people leaving the workforce to "retire" and the influx of
immigrant populations that move into the low wage sector.
>
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?ex=1166677200&en=e6cc5f23f68d53b1&ei=5070
>>
>> The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since
>> 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable,
>> economists say, because productivity - the amount that an average worker
>> produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation's living
>> standards - has risen steadily over the same period.
>>
>> As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the
>> nation's gross domestic product since the government began recording the
>> data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share
>> since the 1960's. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the
>> current period as "the golden era of profitability."
>>
>> Until the last year, stagnating wages were somewhat offset by the rising
>> value of benefits, especially health insurance, which caused overall
>> compensation for most Americans to continue increasing. Since last
>> summer, however, the value of workers' benefits has also failed to keep
>> pace with inflation, according to government data.
>>
>> At the very top of the income spectrum, many workers have continued to
>> receive raises that outpace inflation, and the gains have been large
>> enough to keep average income and consumer spending rising.
>
> There is nothing to really argue about in this article but I don't see the
> connection that you are making with immigration.
>
> Joe
>
> Joe
>
I have no argument about that -- it was you that posted about immigration.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 17:54:43
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
A Brick in the Wall wrote:
> "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
> news:f7Thh.58000$Fw5.39949@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
>>
>>A Brick in the Wall wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
>>>news:JiLhh.32644$tb6.5830@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>A Brick in the Wall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
>>>>>news:3JIhh.57977$Fw5.9442@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>SNIP
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>BTW -- the WH is saying the same thing about the US economy -- even
>>>>>though median wages are down......
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>SNIP
>>>>
>>>>Don't be careless with the stats. What period / year are you comparing?
>>>>
>>>>Median wages should be declining when you consider the aging of the
>>>>population with people leaving the workforce to "retire" and the influx
>>>>of immigrant populations that move into the low wage sector.
>>>>
>>>>Median wage doesn't really tell you what you want to think it does.
>>>>
>>>>Joe
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>1. If you've retired -- you would not have wages -- so that's B.S. you
>>>posted So who is being careless now?
>>
>>That was exactly the point. Do you know how that particular number is
>>arrived at?
>
>
> Somehow I doubt they include people NOT earning wages --- you prove me wrong
> though --- put it here --->
First off "retired" does not mean not having any wages in many cases.
Part time employment is counted in this data set. In fact there are all
kinds of exceptions related crap in the numbers, for example;
From the BLS :The OES survey covers all full-and part-time wage and
salary workers in nonfarm industries. The survey does not include the
self-employed owners and partners in unincorporated firms, household
workers, or unpaid family workers."
Definition of wages:Wages and salaries
Hourly straight-time wage rate or, for workers not paid on an
hourly basis, straight-time earnings divided by the corresponding hours.
Straight-time wage and salary rates are total earnings before payroll
deductions, excluding premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends
and holidays, shift differentials, and nonproduction bonuses such as
lump-sum payments provided in lieu of wage increases. (See Earnings.)
Earnings
Remuneration (pay, wages) of a worker or group of workers for
services performed during a specific period of time. The term usually
carries a defining word or phrase, such as straight-time average hourly
earnings. Because a statistical concept is usually involved in the term
and its variations, the producers and users of earnings data should
define them clearly. In the absence of such definitions, the following
may serve as rough guidelines:
* Hourly, daily, weekly, annual: period of time to which
earnings figures, as stated or computed, relate. The context in which
annual earnings (sometimes weekly earnings) are used may indicate
whether the reference includes earnings from one employer only or from
all employment plus other sources of income.
* Average: usually refers to the arithmetic mean; that is,
total earnings (as defined) of a group of workers (as identified)
divided by the number of workers in the group.
* Gross: usually refers to total earnings, before any
deductions (such as tax withholding) including, where applicable,
overtime payments, shift differentials, production bonuses,
cost-of-living allowances, commissions, etc.
* Straight-time: usually refers to gross earnings excluding
overtime payments and (with variations at this point) shift
differentials and other monetary payments. (Also see
>
>
>>>2. What kind of cherry picker are you using now? --- anyway --- workers
>>>are workers are workers --
>>>but you seem to forget that thing called inflation -- though modest -- it
>>>has further eroded spending power.
>>
>>Spending power is entirely different matter. You were inferring too much
>>from one very simple stat.
>>
>
>
> I said further ---- you are the one inferring something that was not there.
>
>
>>>Or maybe it tells you what you don't want to know -- since real wages are
>>>down also.
>>
>>Again, what is your base period? If it was 1999 or 2000 the Dot Com boom
>>was in full swing.
>>
>
>
> The last 5 years --- that's what I've been reading about lately --- or about
> all of Bush's disasterous term.
>
>
>>Just for the record, I was not objecting to your inferred argument just
>>the choice of material to support it. I, like you, think that there are
>>serious issues with the economy and the prosperity of the typical family.
>>
>
>
> Yup -- read my post from Zuckerman. It a bad deal getting worse -- I own my
> own company & health care for my employees is killing me.
My wife and I have two companies, she does management consulting around
the issues of hiring and workforce improvement, not recruiting, and I
have a tech startup. In both cases we are finding some strange things
in the labor force. I would like to hear some of your thoughts but
off-line via email if you would consider it.
As an example, employers here are having a hard time finding qualified
people, both semi-skilled and skilled across a wide range of positions.
At the same time, many of those target workers are commuting to New
York City, an hour and a half each way, for the same jobs. Why? NYC
pays 25% to 40% more. The employers are flatly refusing to adjust to
the new wage pressure. But many of them are not implementing
productivity enhancements like lean manufacturing, IT infrastructure or
management training. Consequently their operating costs don't allow
for wage increases. Is this a local problem or more pervasive? That is
the kind of discussion I would look to have.
>
>>The real problems are not apparent until you dig down into the statistics
>>and look at NAICS codes, county level data and fine cuts on age.
>>
>>
>>SNIP
>>
>>
>>
>>>This from the NY Times targets your idea of immigrents causing the
>>>decline --
>>
>>For the record, I did not say, "immigrents causing the decline", I did
>>imply that they were creating negative wage pressure at the lower end of
>>the spectrum.
>>
>
>
> You did post this though --- which looks like a finger point to me.
>
> Median wages should be declining when you consider the aging of the
> population with people leaving the workforce to "retire" and the influx of
> immigrant populations that move into the low wage sector.
Immigration is effecting the numbers as is the Boomers moving out of the
higher end of the work force. The problem is that the problem is not as
simplistic as one very high level statistic would make it seem. Two
other factors, of many, for example, there has been a change in the
nature of work done in the US, manufacturing declines, service sector
grows (not all growth is flipping burgers here. I simply selected two
factors to make the case for complexity.
>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?ex=1166677200&en=e6cc5f23f68d53b1&ei=5070
>>>
>>>The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since
>>>2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable,
>>>economists say, because productivity - the amount that an average worker
>>>produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation's living
>>>standards - has risen steadily over the same period.
>>>
>>>As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the
>>>nation's gross domestic product since the government began recording the
>>>data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share
>>>since the 1960's. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the
>>>current period as "the golden era of profitability."
>>>
>>>Until the last year, stagnating wages were somewhat offset by the rising
>>>value of benefits, especially health insurance, which caused overall
>>>compensation for most Americans to continue increasing. Since last
>>>summer, however, the value of workers' benefits has also failed to keep
>>>pace with inflation, according to government data.
>>>
>>>At the very top of the income spectrum, many workers have continued to
>>>receive raises that outpace inflation, and the gains have been large
>>>enough to keep average income and consumer spending rising.
>>
>>There is nothing to really argue about in this article but I don't see the
>>connection that you are making with immigration.
>>
>>Joe
>>
>>Joe
>>
>
>
> I have no argument about that -- it was you that posted about immigration.
Are you saying that immigration is NOT an issue in the median wage data?
I am saying that is just one factor.
Joe
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 22:55:47
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:54:43 GMT, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org >
wrote:
>First off "retired" does not mean not having any wages in many cases.
>Part time employment is counted in this data set. In fact there are all
>kinds of exceptions related crap in the numbers, for example;
Nope. But there are opportunities for retired people to work part
time to buy toys as they live on their retirement. Of course, their
wages are usually a lot lower than before retirement.
My golf course pays its marshals.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Dec 2006 08:04:55
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
"Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote in message
news:DHVhh.58006$Fw5.33386@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
>
> A Brick in the Wall wrote:
>
>> "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
>> news:f7Thh.58000$Fw5.39949@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>
>>>
>>>A Brick in the Wall wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:JiLhh.32644$tb6.5830@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>A Brick in the Wall wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:3JIhh.57977$Fw5.9442@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>SNIP
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>BTW -- the WH is saying the same thing about the US economy -- even
>>>>>>though median wages are down......
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>SNIP
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't be careless with the stats. What period / year are you
>>>>>comparing?
>>>>>
>>>>>Median wages should be declining when you consider the aging of the
>>>>>population with people leaving the workforce to "retire" and the influx
>>>>>of immigrant populations that move into the low wage sector.
>>>>>
>>>>>Median wage doesn't really tell you what you want to think it does.
>>>>>
>>>>>Joe
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>1. If you've retired -- you would not have wages -- so that's B.S. you
>>>>posted So who is being careless now?
>>>
>>>That was exactly the point. Do you know how that particular number is
>>>arrived at?
>>
>>
>> Somehow I doubt they include people NOT earning wages --- you prove me
>> wrong though --- put it here --->
> First off "retired" does not mean not having any wages in many cases. Part
> time employment is counted in this data set. In fact there are all kinds
> of exceptions related crap in the numbers, for example;
>
> From the BLS :The OES survey covers all full-and part-time wage and salary
> workers in nonfarm industries. The survey does not include the
> self-employed owners and partners in unincorporated firms, household
> workers, or unpaid family workers."
>
> Definition of wages:Wages and salaries
> Hourly straight-time wage rate or, for workers not paid on an hourly
> basis, straight-time earnings divided by the corresponding hours.
> Straight-time wage and salary rates are total earnings before payroll
> deductions, excluding premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends
> and holidays, shift differentials, and nonproduction bonuses such as
> lump-sum payments provided in lieu of wage increases. (See Earnings.)
> Earnings
> Remuneration (pay, wages) of a worker or group of workers for services
> performed during a specific period of time. The term usually carries a
> defining word or phrase, such as straight-time average hourly earnings.
> Because a statistical concept is usually involved in the term and its
> variations, the producers and users of earnings data should define them
> clearly. In the absence of such definitions, the following may serve as
> rough guidelines:
>
> * Hourly, daily, weekly, annual: period of time to which earnings
> figures, as stated or computed, relate. The context in which annual
> earnings (sometimes weekly earnings) are used may indicate whether the
> reference includes earnings from one employer only or from all employment
> plus other sources of income.
> * Average: usually refers to the arithmetic mean; that is, total
> earnings (as defined) of a group of workers (as identified) divided by the
> number of workers in the group.
> * Gross: usually refers to total earnings, before any deductions
> (such as tax withholding) including, where applicable, overtime payments,
> shift differentials, production bonuses, cost-of-living allowances,
> commissions, etc.
> * Straight-time: usually refers to gross earnings excluding
> overtime payments and (with variations at this point) shift differentials
> and other monetary payments. (Also see
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>2. What kind of cherry picker are you using now? --- anyway --- workers
>>>>are workers are workers --
>>>>but you seem to forget that thing called inflation -- though modest --
>>>>it has further eroded spending power.
>>>
>>>Spending power is entirely different matter. You were inferring too much
>>>from one very simple stat.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I said further ---- you are the one inferring something that was not
>> there.
>>
>>
>>>>Or maybe it tells you what you don't want to know -- since real wages
>>>>are down also.
>>>
>>>Again, what is your base period? If it was 1999 or 2000 the Dot Com boom
>>>was in full swing.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The last 5 years --- that's what I've been reading about lately --- or
>> about all of Bush's disasterous term.
>>
>>
>>>Just for the record, I was not objecting to your inferred argument just
>>>the choice of material to support it. I, like you, think that there are
>>>serious issues with the economy and the prosperity of the typical family.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yup -- read my post from Zuckerman. It a bad deal getting worse -- I own
>> my own company & health care for my employees is killing me.
>
> My wife and I have two companies, she does management consulting around
> the issues of hiring and workforce improvement, not recruiting, and I have
> a tech startup. In both cases we are finding some strange things in the
> labor force. I would like to hear some of your thoughts but off-line via
> email if you would consider it.
>
> As an example, employers here are having a hard time finding qualified
> people, both semi-skilled and skilled across a wide range of positions. At
> the same time, many of those target workers are commuting to New York
> City, an hour and a half each way, for the same jobs. Why? NYC pays 25%
> to 40% more. The employers are flatly refusing to adjust to the new wage
> pressure. But many of them are not implementing productivity enhancements
> like lean manufacturing, IT infrastructure or management training.
> Consequently their operating costs don't allow for wage increases. Is
> this a local problem or more pervasive? That is the kind of discussion I
> would look to have.
>
We have a somewhat different set of issues in our area.
We've started this business 28 years ago & we've owned 7 businesses in the
last 35 years.
We are low tech -- retail/wholesale/furniture building.
We pay better than the going rate for the retail/wholesale/finishing jobs &
our builders use their own facilities to produce & are contracted -
Our local problem is that we are in a rural area in Indiana and the trained
& skilled worker leaves the area.
I am a member of our county zoning board and a member of our highway
transportation committee + being very active with the local elected people
but there just seems to be no way to get tech of any kind to look at our
area when they see the worker pool (20% no H.S. diploma & aging workers).
We have an ethanol plant trying (but I think failing) to locate here & the
local leaders think this will be a huge boon to county -- I don't think it
will bring what they want -- but that is still the best bet for this time...
Much of our manufacturing base is already gone from here -- what's left pays
poorly & is always looking for new help.
Basically -- if it was a good union job -- it's now gone from here.
Of course if you look at our local labor #'s -- it says we have low
unemployment -- but it masks that many are now either underemployed, have
left the area, or have quit looking.
Our local Economic Development guy found that the people that have lost
their jobs in our area have been able to find new ones -- at an average 17%
pay + very reduced benefits. But they are employed by all numbers recorded!
Your mileage may vary....
>
>>
>>>The real problems are not apparent until you dig down into the statistics
>>>and look at NAICS codes, county level data and fine cuts on age.
>>>
>>>
>>>SNIP
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>This from the NY Times targets your idea of immigrents causing the
>>>>decline --
>>>
>>>For the record, I did not say, "immigrents causing the decline", I did
>>>imply that they were creating negative wage pressure at the lower end of
>>>the spectrum.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You did post this though --- which looks like a finger point to me.
>>
>> Median wages should be declining when you consider the aging of the
>> population with people leaving the workforce to "retire" and the influx
>> of immigrant populations that move into the low wage sector.
>
> Immigration is effecting the numbers as is the Boomers moving out of the
> higher end of the work force. The problem is that the problem is not as
> simplistic as one very high level statistic would make it seem. Two other
> factors, of many, for example, there has been a change in the nature of
> work done in the US, manufacturing declines, service sector grows (not all
> growth is flipping burgers here. I simply selected two factors to make
> the case for complexity.
>
>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?ex=1166677200&en=e6cc5f23f68d53b1&ei=5070
>>>>
>>>>The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since
>>>>2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially
>>>>notable, economists say, because productivity - the amount that an
>>>>average worker produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a
>>>>nation's living standards - has risen steadily over the same period.
>>>>
>>>>As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the
>>>>nation's gross domestic product since the government began recording the
>>>>data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest
>>>>share since the 1960's. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the
>>>>current period as "the golden era of profitability."
>>>>
>>>>Until the last year, stagnating wages were somewhat offset by the rising
>>>>value of benefits, especially health insurance, which caused overall
>>>>compensation for most Americans to continue increasing. Since last
>>>>summer, however, the value of workers' benefits has also failed to keep
>>>>pace with inflation, according to government data.
>>>>
>>>>At the very top of the income spectrum, many workers have continued to
>>>>receive raises that outpace inflation, and the gains have been large
>>>>enough to keep average income and consumer spending rising.
>>>
>>>There is nothing to really argue about in this article but I don't see
>>>the connection that you are making with immigration.
>>>
>>>Joe
>>>
>>>Joe
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have no argument about that -- it was you that posted about
>> immigration.
>
>
> Are you saying that immigration is NOT an issue in the median wage data? I
> am saying that is just one factor.
>
> Joe
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Dec 2006 22:41:13
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
A Brick in the Wall wrote:
> "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
> news:DHVhh.58006$Fw5.33386@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
>SNIP
I'll get back to you tomorrow. It's too late and I have been busy all
day and at a Xmas party this evening.
Your situation and ours seems pretty much the same though.
Joe
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 05:30:39
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
Joe wrote:
> John B. wrote:
>
> > Remember when Rummy said, "the insurgency is in its last throes"? Dig
> > this:
> >
> > Violence in Iraq Reaches New High, Report Says
> >
> > By DAVID S. CLOUD and MICHAEL R. GORDON
> > Published: December 18, 2006
> > WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 - There were an average of 959 insurgent and
> > sectarian attacks against American and Iraqi targets every week in Iraq
> > over the last three months, the highest level ever recorded, according
> > to a Pentagon report on security trends in Iraq issued today.
> >
> > For the rest of the story, go to nytimes.com.
>
>
> And now for a little balance
>
> "In what might be called the mother of all surprises, Iraq's economy is
> growing strong, even booming in places."
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek/
> Iraq's Economy is Booming - Newsweek: International Editions - MSNBC.com
>
> So which is it?
>
> Depending on how one chooses to see the world and what your own personal
> ideology is, there is always a respected media outlet to support your
> view.
>
> Maybe you ought to take a little trip and find out for yourself what is
> going on in the middle east. Up close and personal. IF you make it
> back, file a report here.
>
> Joe
I don't get it. Are you suggesting that one story cancels out the other
one? Or that a positive story on a completely different subect proves a
negative story wrong?
|
| | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 14:02:06
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
John B. wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>
>>John B. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Remember when Rummy said, "the insurgency is in its last throes"? Dig
>>>this:
>>>
>>>Violence in Iraq Reaches New High, Report Says
>>>
>>>By DAVID S. CLOUD and MICHAEL R. GORDON
>>>Published: December 18, 2006
>>>WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 - There were an average of 959 insurgent and
>>>sectarian attacks against American and Iraqi targets every week in Iraq
>>>over the last three months, the highest level ever recorded, according
>>>to a Pentagon report on security trends in Iraq issued today.
>>>
>>>For the rest of the story, go to nytimes.com.
>>
>>
>>And now for a little balance
>>
>>"In what might be called the mother of all surprises, Iraq's economy is
>>growing strong, even booming in places."
>>
>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek/
>>Iraq's Economy is Booming - Newsweek: International Editions - MSNBC.com
>>
>>So which is it?
>>
>>Depending on how one chooses to see the world and what your own personal
>>ideology is, there is always a respected media outlet to support your
>>view.
>>
>>Maybe you ought to take a little trip and find out for yourself what is
>>going on in the middle east. Up close and personal. IF you make it
>>back, file a report here.
>>
>>Joe
>
>
> I don't get it. Are you suggesting that one story cancels out the other
> one? Or that a positive story on a completely different subect proves a
> negative story wrong?
>
Merely pointing out that you can always find a "media bit" to support a
point of view. Good/Bad, Left/right.
Joe
|
| |
Date: 20 Dec 2006 17:45:42
From: marika
Subject: Re: Rumsfeld - One last lie for the road
|
A Brick in the Wall wrote:
> We have a somewhat different set of issues in our area.
I'm in a similar place
>
> We've started this business 28 years ago & we've owned 7 businesses in the
> last 35 years.
>
> We are low tech -- retail/wholesale/furniture building.
>
> We pay better than the going rate for the retail/wholesale/finishing jobs &
> our builders use their own facilities to produce & are contracted -
>
> Our local problem is that we are in a rural area in Indiana and the trained
> & skilled worker leaves the area.
but it seems to me that often, it's the professionals that give me the
most grief because they think they have figured out a loophole
I think you will get a kick out of this one.
a supervisor put an employee who was alleging she was retiring on AWOL
The employee didn't even bother sneaking back in at
5 pm the way she usually does, alleging it was an accident she thought
she was
going to be back before lunchtime was over and then everything went
kablloey. The timekeeper had to put through time at about 4, due to
the holiday
thing.
Magically, I was on the phone with hq when the supervisor came in to
tell me
her plans, and hq said, sic her. hq wanted the retirement not to be a
hoax SO BAD. That is why she was calling in the first place
mk5000
no seriously
|
|
