Country wrote:


Republicans in 2002 thru 2007 "If you criticize a President during war
time you are a traitor."

Republicans in 2008 thru 2011 "It is OK to criticize a President
during war time."

Excellent inventions!

On 11/11/11 04:20 pm, HeyBub wrote:

Boy, you sure don't understand economics. Government spending drives DOWN
the GDP and destroys wealth.

We saw that when Roosevelt implemented all manner of government jobs
programs back in the 30's and we see it now with stimulus and government
subsidy money.

So the construction workers who find themselves employed again -- by
companies that bid successfully on govt. projects -- building and
repairing roads and bridges, etc. don't have "real jobs" -- they would
be better off doing something else?

But that is not to say that the projects might cost less if they were
built by government employees instead of being contracted out.

Perce

HeyBub wrote:

Republicans in 2002 thru 2007 "If you criticize a President during
war time you are a traitor."

Republicans in 2008 thru 2011 "It is OK to criticize a President
during war time."

Excellent inventions!

That atmosphere or sentiment certainly existed in the public media
during those years.

It was really bad during the lead-up to the 2004 presidential election.
It was so bad you got the sense that they didn't want to hold an
election during "war time". You don't change horses half-way through a
race (or some such nonsense).

HeyBub wrote:

We don't criticize God for one little slip-up.

I don't criticize god for anything - because god is a fictional
character that doesn't exist.

Although there have been times I've prayed to god to protect me from
those that believe in him.

Did you know that god redeems sinners for valuable cash prizes?

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 11/11/11 04:20 pm, HeyBub wrote:

Boy, you sure don't understand economics. Government spending drives
DOWN the GDP and destroys wealth.

We saw that when Roosevelt implemented all manner of government jobs
programs back in the 30's and we see it now with stimulus and
government subsidy money.

So the construction workers who find themselves employed again -- by
companies that bid successfully on govt. projects -- building and
repairing roads and bridges, etc. don't have "real jobs" -- they would
be better off doing something else?

But that is not to say that the projects might cost less if they were
built by government employees instead of being contracted out.


I didn't say construction workers didn't have "real" jobs. I said government
spending destroys wealth.

These "real" workers are getting paid by tax money. This tax money was
extracted from citizens (or borrowed) and thereby removed from the GDP. SOME
of it, less a handling charge, graft, waste, redundancy, and lack of
necessity, was, admittedly, put back in to the economy.

Home Guy wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

Republicans in 2002 thru 2007 "If you criticize a President during
war time you are a traitor."

Republicans in 2008 thru 2011 "It is OK to criticize a President
during war time."

Excellent inventions!

That atmosphere or sentiment certainly existed in the public media
during those years.

It was really bad during the lead-up to the 2004 presidential
election. It was so bad you got the sense that they didn't want to
hold an election during "war time". You don't change horses half-way
through a race (or some such nonsense).

I'll play: What Republican expressed either sentiment? Gimme a name (and a
quote). Just one.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Heck, if God had consulted me before designing the gall bladder, I could
have prevent THAT mistake. We don't criticize God for one little slip-up.
God did that on purpose, though. It is well established that the gall
bladder and appendix were God's plan to a floor under the yearly income
of the general surgeon.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


I didn't say construction workers didn't have "real" jobs. I said government
spending destroys wealth.

These "real" workers are getting paid by tax money. This tax money was
extracted from citizens (or borrowed) and thereby removed from the GDP. SOME
of it, less a handling charge, graft, waste, redundancy, and lack of
necessity, was, admittedly, put back in to the economy.
And being paid artificially high rates because of the "prevailing
wage" laws that essentially mean only union contractors can bid.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:16:38 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 11/11/11 04:20 pm, HeyBub wrote:

Boy, you sure don't understand economics. Government spending drives DOWN
the GDP and destroys wealth.

We saw that when Roosevelt implemented all manner of government jobs
programs back in the 30's and we see it now with stimulus and government
subsidy money.

So the construction workers who find themselves employed again -- by
companies that bid successfully on govt. projects -- building and
repairing roads and bridges, etc. don't have "real jobs" -- they would
be better off doing something else?

Look up "The Broken Window fallacy". It'll open your eyes (if you have a
brain).

But that is not to say that the projects might cost less if they were
built by government employees instead of being contracted out.

OTOH...

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:06:35 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Heck, if God had consulted me before designing the gall bladder, I could
have prevent THAT mistake. We don't criticize God for one little slip-up.
God did that on purpose, though. It is well established that the gall
bladder and appendix were God's plan to a floor under the yearly income
of the general surgeon.

Who knew God was a lefty?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

stuff snipped

I didn't say construction workers didn't have "real" jobs. I said
government
spending destroys wealth.

"Transfers wealth." Hurricanes, wars and even time can "destroy" wealth.*
Government jobs for the unemployed "transfers" wealth. It's an important
distinction. The salary paid to that formerly unemployed worker then moves
on into the hands of grocers, landlords, local governments, etc.

--
Bobby G.

*Fruit rots, things go obsolete or out of style. A stash of brand new 20MB
drives has lost most of its "wealth" since 1984. NIB Star Wars toys of that
era have gained as much wealth as 20MB hard drives have lost.

"Frank" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2011 10:28 AM, Bob F wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
Will Perry become the next idiot republican prez, following in Bush's
klownish footsteps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6an4zSj8LhU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSJv-...eature=related

It's hard to believe that someone could be more embarassing that Bush,
but this
guy might be able to pull it off.


Ranks up there with Obama saying there are 57 states.

You have to admit that poor Rick seems to have a lot of "deer in the
headlights" moments. Many more than the Speechifier in Chief who *got* the
job primarily because of his oratorial abilities. It certainly wasn't
because of his years of executive experience.

Now if Rick could somehow wife swap his way to Katy Perry, singer of the
infamous "I Kissed a Girl . . " he might jump back up in the ratings.

http://www.google.com/images?q=katy+...&hl=en&safe=of

What we need is a superhot first lady to "absorb" all the interest of
pseudo-reporters/gossip columnists so that her husband can govern the
country unbothered by the paparazzi press. Maybe he could adopt her as the
superhot first daughter . . . Hey, if Romney, Perry and Cain are all they've
got, the Republicans are in trouble.

(-:

--
Bobby G.

"Robert Green" wrote:
Hey, if Romney, Perry and Cain are all they've
got, the Republicans are in trouble.


Nah-- At this time in 2003 the Ds were trying to decide between Dean,
Clark and Gebhardt. It wasn't until Feb. that Kerry arose to
'save' them. So don't count out grandpa M. . . Ron Paul. At
least it should be entertaining for the next year.

Jim

"Jim Elbrecht" wrote in message
...
"Robert Green" wrote:
Hey, if Romney, Perry and Cain are all they've
got, the Republicans are in trouble.


Nah-- At this time in 2003 the Ds were trying to decide between Dean,
Clark and Gebhardt. It wasn't until Feb. that Kerry arose to
'save' them. So don't count out grandpa M. . . Ron Paul. At
least it should be entertaining for the next year.

Kerry "arose" - an interesting word choice considering he was sunk somewhat
later by the Swiftboat campaign. "Entertaining" might not be what I call it
because the stakes are so damn high. Obama's success or lack thereof should
serve as a reminder that the ship of state is so large that no one man can
really turn it much in four years, especially if the ship's got a huge hole
in it and "not sinking" trumps "being lost." We've got a world that's got
many more simmering "hot spots" than we did before either WWI or WWII and
any one of them could boil over and rewrite history in just a few days.

I saw an interesting program about why the Nazis didn't rise up against
Hitler once their cities began burning from endless night bombing raids. It
fits perfectly with why the Afghans didn't throw out the Taliban. When
people are under constant life-threatening attack they enter the "survival
mode" and their main interests tend to be those of staying alive. In Nazi
Germany, anyone talking about overthrowing Hitler and ending the war after
Hamburg, Dresden and even Berlin were bombed to rubble ended up worse than
dead - along with his family. The Taliban did the same to the Afghanis.

The only time I've really felt that kind of pressure living in America (and
mildly) was when the Beltway Sniper was active in the DC area, shooting
people at shopping malls and gas stations. Even then I couldn't really
conceive of what it must have been like to be an Iraqi, trying to "get by"
and wondering whether the next trip to the market would be the last one.

As for late saviors for the Republican Party, I think the time has come and
gone. Late entrants now won't be able to get their names on many state
ballots so that tends to rule out a real 11th hour attempt from Palin or
anyone else. So we're stuck with the rather large field we have, but I sure
don't see Newt or Ron leapfrogging to the top.

The field for the R's looks just as bleak as it did for the D's in 2003 but
I must agree, the R's have made it "entertaining" to say the least. And
just so Trader can say "race card" I really wonder if Cain isn't an example
of how far affirmative action can bring someone less that 100% competent in
the US corporate world. He's more of what I'd call "oriented strand board"
rather than "presidential timber." Maybe that should be "flake board."

"Order Cain for President today and get a free 32 ounce Pepsi and a coupon
good for 9% off on your next Godfather's Pizza!"

If only Ron Paul had a handler that communicated with him by earphone who
could say "Ix-nay the weird stuff" whenever his locomotive leaves the
tracks. There are a lot of good ideas in among the bizarro ones, but alas,
he comes in a single person package, Twilight Zone economic theories and
all. What I don't get is how the Republicans expect to create more jobs and
reduce unemployment after they fire all the "excess" government workers
they're so fond of dissing.

--
Bobby G.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
Robert Green wrote:

stuff snipped

In other news, Republican overreach around the US got knuckle-slapped
in a number of states. An anti-abortion amendment in Mississippi got
trounced, voting restrictions in Maine got overturned. The seething
southwestern anti-immigration agenda took a hit as Arizonans
recalled the State Senate's president, Russell Pearce and other
elections indicated that the day of the Tea Party may have come and
gone. Now we will have to wait to see if Wisconsin's Gov. Scott
Walker will face a recall vote in the spring. As my very wise
journalism prof. said "the pendulum always swings."

With only Romney and P - p - p - Perry looking like they'll survive
the "Quickening" and Obama undoubtedly having some pre-election trick
up his sleeve comparable to capturing Osama, it's going to be an
interesting year ahead.

You make some good points, especially about Ohio. Although I think the
over-all result is more mixed.

Regarding Ohio, specifically, the unions, I believe, dumped upwards of $34
million in the campaign to revoke the anti-union law. If I was in charge
in
Ohio, I'd pass the bill again, this time exempting cops and firemen, and
encourage the unions to spend another $34 million. Eventually the'd run
out
of money to defeat it.

Maybe, maybe not. When people or organizations feel they are fighting for
their lives, they get some serious motivation. The union business was
"sprung" on people without much discussion. After that much avoided
discussion it turned out that not as many voters were for gutting the unions
as were their representatives - a growing problem in the US.

Remember, too, that unions have access to some pretty large national
fundraising - namely other union workers afraid it will happen to them. I
don't know who would run out of money first, but with Wisconsin in the
miserable financial shape it's in, I'm betting the unions can outlast them,
especially with national support.

As to Wisconsin, local governments are already saving bags of money
because
of the new laws on collective bargaining. For example, in the past, as
part
of the collective bargaining agreements, teachers got their health care
insurance through a wholly-owned subsidary of the state's teacher's union.
Now that insurance is open for bids, the premiums are only ONE-THIRD what
they were under the collective-bargain mandated vendor.

What's always surprised me, particularly in this group, is that most people
know that complicated systems often break down or need periodic maintenance
and adjustments - yet they seem to expect government to run perfectly year
after year. When it does break down, some people now want to just eliminate
it instead of fixing it. Your example shows that we always need to review
existing systems and practices to determine which need improving, which need
eliminating and which new programs need creating.

Sweetheart deals form in almost every corner of the economy and are not just
related to unions or collective bargaining. I noticed the other day that
one of the biggest advocates for not retiring the dollar bill into a dollar
coin is the paper industry and the company that now supplies the paper for
printing US currency. The AfRaq war was/is riddled with non-compete
contracts and sweetheart deals. Government spending needs serious review -
exactly the kind it's NOT going to get from the partisan supercommittee.

If savings like that continue, statutes of the governor will be erected in
every public square.

"Statutes" indeed. More likely, that event will be largely forgotten in
short order, like the capture of OBL. It comes under that great line from
_The Usual Suspects_: "Sure you saved my life LAST week, but what have you
done for me lately?"

Regarding a possible "October Surprise" by the Obama crew, you may be
overestimating them. Chicago politics has never been known for subtlety.
The
"surprise" will be an obviously Photoshopped picture of the GOP nominee
delicately removing a woman's garter belt from a goat, the spouse eating
monkey brains, or him (or her) carrying a big bag with a big "$" on it
away
from the Chinese Embassy.

Obama's surprise could be something as simple as eliminating his health plan
in its present incarnation. I seem to recall a lot of pundits assuring us
that a smooth-talker with no particular executive experience could NEVER win
the Whitehouse. I'm not ruling him out yet, especially against the likes of
Romney, a candidate much unloved by his own party, and Perry, a candidate
much unloved by the press. And then there's Cain.

Perry is in trouble because the press is determined to give him as tough a
time as they feel they gave Bush an easy time - something I read in a
discussion of presidential election reporting by a roundtable of journalists
from the Texas Tribune and other major newspapers. I believe that they're
right (that the press will overscrutinize Perry) because the press has
already spent considerable time and effort analyzing his record looking for
inconsistencies between what he said and what he did. That's a bad thing
for *any* politician. They all say one thing to get elected and do another
to keep the job. It's like having your ex-wife become best friends forever
with your new fiancée. Nothing good can come of it.

No, don't look for any finesse from the current White House crew.

We'll see. They got into the job with a completely unknown newcomer. That
took lots of strategy and/or luck and/or bad actions by McCain. We'll get
more feedback on the ratio after 2012.

As for a mandate, that may be in the eye of the beholder. In 2010, the GOP
picked up six seats in the Senate and sixty-three in the House. Last
Tuesday, the GOP gained control of both houses of the Virginia Assembly to
go along with the governorship.

The 2010 vote was a whiplash vote by people stunned that Obama got elected.
It's a pretty common occurrence and one we've seen in the past. A Dem
state senator, Dave Hansen from Wisconsin, easily survived a recall
election, a clear reaction to a Republican-backed law that stripped most
public workers of their collective bargaining rights.

Hansen collected 66 percent of the vote and was the first of nine state
senators set for recall elections stemming from the bitter fight surrounding
Gov. Scott Walker's (R) collective-bargaining plan gutting. Eight
lawmakers - six Republicans and two Democrats - will face recall elections
next month. If Democrats pick up a net of three seats, they'll retake
control of the state Senate and gain key momentum in their efforts to recall
Walker next year. So it's far from over yet, and as I predicted earlier
this year, "Republican Overreach (tm)" once again could easily result in
negating any short terms gains they may have made across the nation.

As for Virginia, the outcome wasn't really a win for the Republicans since
the Senate is now split evenly between the two. The race was more about gun
laws than any broad indictment of either political party. Obviously,
Tuesday was not exactly the Democrats' night. Their biggest victory, repeal
of government-worker reform in Ohio, stands as a warning to pols like Walker
who believe a small lead equals a mandate.

Elsewhere, I will agree that the Dems barely held their own. But most of
them DID hold and the larger surprise was the absence of any major
Republican trend. The great Republican resurgence of 2009-10 has slowed to a
crawl. The vote against Obama's health plan was, as I'm sure you know,
completely symbolic and will have no effect, legally speaking.

Even Virginia, which has now come to nearly complete Republican control,
isn't the overwhelming win that most Republican strategists hoped for.
Republicans won six House of Delegates seats, giving them an unprecedented
two-thirds majority but they HAD hoped to win outright control of the
Senate. They needed three seats. They won only two and will have to rely on
the tie-breaking lieutenant governor's vote.

Past experience with such situations in the US Congress and the NY State
Assembly shows that when such even distributions exist, legislators switch
parties, turn independent, buck the party line and often hold up their own
legislative leaders for "greenmail" by threatening to break party ranks if
their pet projects go unfunded. Couple that to the typical "Republican
Overreach (tm)" and we might be coming into 2012 with the tables turning.

It's going to be an interesting election. What I find saddest is that this
election, like the last one, will come down to something that happened three
months or less before the November vote. Something related to either the
economy or the five or six really "hot" hot spots around the world. Our
presidential elections are making us look more and more like the ancients of
Great Britain who killed their kings (or not) depending on the year's
harvest or outcomes of battles with neighboring clans.

--
Bobby G.

"Bob F" wrote:
stuff snipped

Regarding Ohio, specifically, the unions, I believe, dumped upwards
of $34 million in the campaign to revoke the anti-union law. If I was
in charge in Ohio, I'd pass the bill again, this time exempting cops
and firemen, and encourage the unions to spend another $34 million.
Eventually the'd run out of money to defeat it.

You and the Koch brothers. Standard repub behavior. Just keep ignoring the
public response to your actions, and throw money at it to kill the results
of
Democracy. Furtunately, the public is rapidly catching on to the reality
that
Repubs don't give a hoot about the workers of the US. All they do is for
the
billionaires and corporations. I think the repubs are seeing the beginning
of
the end.

My favorite slogan: "Republicans only care about people until they are
born." I think, contrary to HeyBub, that the Republicans will come to
realize that Gov. Walker's attack on the Wisconsin unions will be their
undoing, and not their salvation. Especially as more and more US workers
are struggling to make ends meet. While they're still hoping, in many
cases, to get back jobs that have been lost to robotics and the cheap labor
of the third world, many now realize those jobs may be gone forever.

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:

My favorite slogan: "Republicans only care about people until they are
born." I think, contrary to HeyBub, that the Republicans will come to
realize that Gov. Walker's attack on the Wisconsin unions will be
their undoing, and not their salvation. Especially as more and more
US workers are struggling to make ends meet. While they're still
hoping, in many cases, to get back jobs that have been lost to
robotics and the cheap labor of the third world, many now realize
those jobs may be gone forever.

You could very well be right. Still, there are very few - if any - Wisconsin
state employees, union or otherwise, involved in manufacturing.

Robert Green wrote:

You make some good points, especially about Ohio. Although I think
the over-all result is more mixed.

Regarding Ohio, specifically, the unions, I believe, dumped upwards
of $34 million in the campaign to revoke the anti-union law. If I
was in charge in Ohio, I'd pass the bill again, this time exempting
cops and firemen, and encourage the unions to spend another $34
million. Eventually the'd run out of money to defeat it.

Maybe, maybe not. When people or organizations feel they are
fighting for their lives, they get some serious motivation. The
union business was "sprung" on people without much discussion. After
that much avoided discussion it turned out that not as many voters
were for gutting the unions as were their representatives - a growing
problem in the US.

Remember, too, that unions have access to some pretty large national
fundraising - namely other union workers afraid it will happen to
them. I don't know who would run out of money first, but with
Wisconsin in the miserable financial shape it's in, I'm betting the
unions can outlast them, especially with national support.

Not only that, but unions can impose additional mandatory contributions on
their members to fund these ancillary programs.


As to Wisconsin, local governments are already saving bags of money
because of the new laws on collective bargaining. For example, in
the past, as part of the collective bargaining agreements, teachers
got their health care insurance through a wholly-owned subsidary of
the state's teacher's union. Now that insurance is open for bids,
the premiums are only ONE-THIRD what they were under the
collective-bargain mandated vendor.

What's always surprised me, particularly in this group, is that most
people know that complicated systems often break down or need
periodic maintenance and adjustments - yet they seem to expect
government to run perfectly year after year. When it does break
down, some people now want to just eliminate it instead of fixing it.
Your example shows that we always need to review existing systems and
practices to determine which need improving, which need eliminating
and which new programs need creating.

You're right. But once in place, a system, agency, or department is
virtually impossible to dislodge. I think the last major entity to go
bye-bye was the Interstate Commerce Commission which regulated railroads and
trucking. It didn't completely go away, though. It's duties were transferred
to the Surface Transportation Board of the Department of Transportation.


Sweetheart deals form in almost every corner of the economy and are
not just related to unions or collective bargaining. I noticed the
other day that one of the biggest advocates for not retiring the
dollar bill into a dollar coin is the paper industry and the company
that now supplies the paper for printing US currency. The AfRaq war
was/is riddled with non-compete contracts and sweetheart deals.
Government spending needs serious review - exactly the kind it's NOT
going to get from the partisan supercommittee.

Now there's a conflict worth watching. When the Fed prints a dollar bill,
the federal government earns a couple of pennies for doing the printing.
When the U.S. Mint punches out a dollar coin and puts it into circulation,
the federal government makes about ninety-seven cents profit.


Regarding a possible "October Surprise" by the Obama crew, you may be
overestimating them. Chicago politics has never been known for
subtlety. The "surprise" will be an obviously Photoshopped picture
of the GOP nominee delicately removing a woman's garter belt from a
goat, the spouse eating monkey brains, or him (or her) carrying a
big bag with a big "$" on it away from the Chinese Embassy.

Obama's surprise could be something as simple as eliminating his
health plan in its present incarnation. I seem to recall a lot of
pundits assuring us that a smooth-talker with no particular executive
experience could NEVER win the Whitehouse. I'm not ruling him out
yet, especially against the likes of Romney, a candidate much unloved
by his own party, and Perry, a candidate much unloved by the press.
And then there's Cain.

Yep. Wishful thinking on the part of semi-blind GOP partisans. Those of us
with a more pragmatic and less parochial view were saying: "A smooth-talker
with no executive experience SHOULD [not "could"] never win the White
House".


No, don't look for any finesse from the current White House crew.

We'll see. They got into the job with a completely unknown newcomer.
That took lots of strategy and/or luck and/or bad actions by McCain.
We'll get more feedback on the ratio after 2012.

If they have such elan and sophistication, how come they didn't notice that
all four of their Cain accusers came from Chicago?


As for a mandate, that may be in the eye of the beholder. In 2010,
the GOP picked up six seats in the Senate and sixty-three in the
House. Last Tuesday, the GOP gained control of both houses of the
Virginia Assembly to go along with the governorship.

The 2010 vote was a whiplash vote by people stunned that Obama got
elected. It's a pretty common occurrence and one we've seen in the
past. A Dem state senator, Dave Hansen from Wisconsin, easily
survived a recall election, a clear reaction to a Republican-backed
law that stripped most public workers of their collective bargaining
rights.

Uh, we haven't seen a whiplash of this magnitude since 1948 when the
Democrats picked up 75 seats in the House and 9 in the Senate.


As for Virginia, the outcome wasn't really a win for the Republicans
since the Senate is now split evenly between the two. The race was
more about gun laws than any broad indictment of either political
party. Obviously, Tuesday was not exactly the Democrats' night.
Their biggest victory, repeal of government-worker reform in Ohio,
stands as a warning to pols like Walker who believe a small lead
equals a mandate.

It was a win in Virginia. The Lt. Governor, a Republican, will cast the
tie-breaking vote for organization of the Senate. The subsequent
organization will control who sits or chairs what committees and they, in
turn, control which bills come up for a vote. Should a partisan vote
actually take place, the Lt. Governor will again cast the tie-breaking vote.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Robert Green wrote:

My favorite slogan: "Republicans only care about people until they are
born." I think, contrary to HeyBub, that the Republicans will come to
realize that Gov. Walker's attack on the Wisconsin unions will be
their undoing, and not their salvation. Especially as more and more
US workers are struggling to make ends meet. While they're still
hoping, in many cases, to get back jobs that have been lost to
robotics and the cheap labor of the third world, many now realize
those jobs may be gone forever.

You could very well be right. Still, there are very few - if any -
Wisconsin
state employees, union or otherwise, involved in manufacturing.

Well, I *did* shift into discussing US workers, for whom the Wisconsin state
employees are symbolic stand ins. This attack on unions in Wisconsin and
elsewhere was part of a cleverly calculated campaign to weaken and disrupt
union activities waged in Statehouses across the nation, the new political
battlefield. It was where "Republic Overreach (tm)" is most often practiced
as they pit state governments against Democrats and the Federal government.
As such, the union-busting law that got "rolled back" effects workers,
particularly union workers, nationwide.

The other obvious clue that we were no longer talking about just Wisconnies,
aside from state employees not doing much manufacturing, was that few of
their jobs can be performed in the third world. That would have some
interesting implications for getting home inspections.

I'll say three Hail Mary as penance for not being clear enough. "Holy Mary,
Mother of God, great great grandaughter of David and quite a few others that
were born after her, a trick engineered in some nefarious time-traveling
baptismal font manned by powerful neotheologicians funded by Texas oil money
and Scientological apostates attempting to turn religious time in on itself
so that the true God will reveal himself to the world, thrashing the hopes
of all those who worshipped the also ran Gods."

When you think of how many separate gods there are in the world, it's clear
that monotheism may be polytheism after all.

--
Bobby G.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Robert Green wrote:

We can only hope. Unemployment at 4%, DOW-Jones above 12,000, 23
consecutive quarters of economic growth, low interest rates,
virtually no inflation, dead Mohammadens piled up like cordwood.

It was just an illusion, Bub. The magical numbers sprouted from all
of that from the Feds spending trillions on post 9/11 security, wars,
TSA, etc. It's amazing how a little government deficit spending can
falsely goose the economic numbers. Now we're experiencing the crash
of the speculative bubble and runaway defense spending that made
those high-flying numbers possible - but not real. We also destroyed
Iraq, the country that had the most to gain from keeping Iran nuke
free because they'd be one of the first victims of Iranian nuclear
aggression.


Boy, you sure don't understand economics. Government spending drives DOWN
the GDP and destroys wealth.

Oy. So how did all the Bush government spending on the TSA, Homeland
Security, two different wars and the Medicare Drug plan create all those
wonderful numbers you continually crow about? You can't have it both ways,
as much as you seem to want it. Your own previous examples put the lie to
your current contentions.

According to your latest wild theory, those glowing (yet false) numbers you
keep touting should have been impossible. If government spending destroys
wealth, the trillions of dollars we owe or have deficit spent should have
driven us to extinction by now. Only you could posit a theory that
immediately trashes your previous theories. You've gone and HeyBubbed
yourself! (-: In trying to figure out how you can came by the unusual and
"new for you" concepts you have about creating and destroying wealth, I
started out with a simple Google query:

http://www.google.com/search?q=gover...estroys+wealth

That lead to Ron Paul and Rush Limbaugh sites, so I knew I was getting ready
for a visit to the Economic Twilight Zone. At least I know how this bizarre
idea gained enough traction to be adopted by you.

http://logisticsmonster.com/2010/10/...stroys-wealth/

"Maintaining a high level of employment is one of the main objectives of The
Federal Reserve, which is just one reason it is ill conceived at its very
core. "

Cue Twilight Zone theme song. High UN-employment is a good thing, it
seems, according to Paul. No wonder why he's got the "destruction of
wealth" idea as ass-backwards as you do.

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/tag/budget/

Mr. Johnston has quite a bit to say about the issue and debunks the
assertion that you and others (mostly Republicans) make concerning the
"destruction" of wealth. He makes a lot of the same points I have that
don't seem to get through to you, the most important being that you're
calling wealth transfers "wealth destruction" and that's just not correct.

Giving a guy a job to help rebuild a highway or bridge *transfers* the
wealth from money collected from taxes to that person. It's not lost. He
doesn't burn the money. He spends it. At the local grocer. At the gas
pump. On insurance. Car payments. Rent. Spending it "primes the pump" and
helps get stalled economies rolling again. It's remarkably similar to the
Republican "trickle down" theory except that unlike the "trickle down"
theory, this "wealth transfer" actually works and gets money into the
economy.

Explain to me again how this "transfer" destroys wealth? Maybe you can find
someone on the web with a degree or credentials in economics to support your
rather whimsical theory. I certainly couldn't. But maybe I didn't look
hard enough. All I found were politicians like Paul and pundits like
Limbaugh, all with a very obvious political axe to grind.

Johnston says: In general the market does a better job of allocating
capital for investment than government does. But when the market fails, as
with the unregulated insurance and bad loans that destroyed so much value in
the last decade, then the only way to stop the vicious cycle of decline is
for government to temporarily make up the difference through more spending.
Saying otherwise is the economic equivalent of arguing that water and flour
make steak. . .

He furthers his argument with examples of the quite idiotic statements of
our Republican politicians:
"We need to cut spending now in order to create jobs in America" - House
Speaker John Boehner on the floor of the House of Representatives in July
2010. "If government spending would stimulate the economy, we'd be in the
middle of a boom" - Senator Mitch McConnell in March 2011. "Government doesn
't create jobs, you do" - Representative Nan Hayworth, M.D., speaking in
January to business leaders in her New York district.

None of the comments makes sense. The first violates the accounting identity
that spending equals income. The second assumes that the stimulus was big
enough to make up for the fall in private sector jobs, when it was less than
half what accounting identity algebra showed was needed. The third is just
plain nonsense.

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

(Johnston received the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for Beat Reporting "for his
penetrating and enterprising reporting that exposed loopholes and inequities
in the U.S. tax code, which was instrumental in bringing about reforms." He
was a Pulitzer finalist in 2003 "for his stories that displayed exquisite
command of complicated U.S. tax laws and of how corporations and individuals
twist them to their advantage." He was also a finalist in 2000 "for his
lucid coverage of problems resulting from the reorganization of the Internal
Revenue Service.")

We saw that when Roosevelt implemented all manner of government jobs
programs back in the 30's and we see it now with stimulus and government
subsidy money.

Sweet Jesus Monroe! You don't have one ounce of shame, do you, comparing
the GDP of the worst period in American economic history with normal growth
periods? That dog won't hunt. GDP, aside from being an imperfect measure
of the economic health of a nation, always tends to fall during periods of
extreme economic distress. Especially a collapse caused by an imprudent
financial industry, leveraged to the max.

To blame that on FDR's programs is more than dubious, it's dishonest. In
fact, it's the remaining social net programs like the FDIC and Social
Security that kept this last recession from collapsing the economy. Of the
many economists I've read who have commented on that period and the current,
nearly all of them say the same thing.

They believe the problem, then AND now, was that the opposition party was
determined to keep the government stimulus packages well below the level
that would match the damage business had done. They do that primarily, it
seems, to keep the party in power from getting credit for ending the
recession/depression. They're also motivated to starve the stimulus to try
to recapture the leadership position no matter what harm it does to the
citizens.

Bombs destroy wealth. Hurricanes destroy wealth. Fires destroy wealth.
Governments *transfer* wealth.

--
Bobby G.

On Nov 12, 3:25*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

stuff snipped



I didn't say construction workers didn't have "real" jobs. I said
government
spending destroys wealth.

"Transfers wealth." *Hurricanes, wars and even time can "destroy" wealth.*
Government jobs for the unemployed "transfers" wealth. *It's an important
distinction. *The salary paid to that formerly unemployed worker then moves
on into the hands of grocers, landlords, local governments, etc.

--
Bobby G.

*Fruit rots, things go obsolete or out of style. *A stash of brand new 20MB
drives has lost most of its "wealth" since 1984. *NIB Star Wars toys of that
era have gained as much wealth as 20MB hard drives have lost.

How well has your idea of wealth transfer worked in Greece? Or
Italy,
which is close behind? How much better of are the people, the
country?
What they've done is create a country of people that are like spoiled
children. Govt jobs have been paid salaries, vacations, days off,
healthcare benefits, ets that were all far too generous. For the
rest
of the population, socialism provided everything from unemployment,
to healthcare and welfare, whether anyone wanted to work or not.

Now the country is bankrupt from all the wealth that has been
transferred. What Heybub is referring to is that if that wealth had
been left in the private sector, REAL wealth would have been
created.

As for your comment about a hard drive having wealth, perhaps
it's time for that course in economics.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Bob F wrote:
wrote:
Hmmm. I think the best example of that behavior is Obama.
Despite polls showing that the public doesn't like everything
from Obamacare, to his reckless spending, he just keeps
on keeping on.....

Actually, the polls show thay like just about everything about the
new health plan.

Giggle.

Sixty-one percent of Ohio voters on Tuesday voted to outlaw Obamacare. And
that was including a huge union-member turnout.

WAIT, WAIT! Absentee ballots, and those from dead people haven't been
counted yet! There could be a landslide still!

Steve

On Nov 12, 12:11*pm, "Robert Green"
wrote:
"Bob F" wrote:

stuff snipped







Regarding Ohio, specifically, the unions, I believe, dumped upwards
of $34 million in the campaign to revoke the anti-union law. If I was
in charge in Ohio, I'd pass the bill again, this time exempting cops
and firemen, and encourage the unions to spend another $34 million.
Eventually the'd run out of money to defeat it.

You and the Koch brothers. Standard repub behavior. Just keep ignoring the
public response to your actions, and throw money at it to kill the results
of
Democracy. Furtunately, the public is rapidly catching on to the reality
that
Repubs don't give a hoot about the workers of the US. All they do is for
the
billionaires and corporations. I think the repubs are seeing the beginning
of
the end.

My favorite slogan: "Republicans only care about people until they are
born." *I think, contrary to HeyBub, that the Republicans will come to
realize that Gov. Walker's attack on the Wisconsin unions will be their
undoing, and not their salvation. *Especially as more and more US workers
are struggling to make ends meet. *While they're still hoping, in many
cases, to get back jobs that have been lost to robotics and the cheap labor
of the third world, many now realize those jobs may be gone forever.

--
Bobby G

One day in the very near future the unions will wake up and realize
they no longer represent any workers because they have effectively
driven every job out of the country or bankrupted every employer
including the public.

On Nov 13, 2:47*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...





Robert Green wrote:

We can only hope. Unemployment at 4%, DOW-Jones above 12,000, 23
consecutive quarters of economic growth, low interest rates,
virtually no inflation, dead Mohammadens piled up like cordwood.

It was just an illusion, Bub. *The magical numbers sprouted from all
of that from the Feds spending trillions on post 9/11 security, wars,
TSA, etc. It's amazing how a little government deficit spending can
falsely goose the economic numbers. *Now we're experiencing the crash
of the speculative bubble and runaway defense spending that made
those high-flying numbers possible - but not real. *We also destroyed
Iraq, the country that had the most to gain from keeping Iran nuke
free because they'd be one of the first victims of Iranian nuclear
aggression.

Boy, you sure don't understand economics. Government spending drives DOWN
the GDP and destroys wealth.

Oy. *So how did all the Bush government spending on the TSA, Homeland
Security, two different wars and the Medicare Drug plan create all those
wonderful numbers you continually crow about? *You can't have it both ways,
as much as you seem to want it. *Your own previous examples put the lie to
your current contentions.

According to your latest wild theory, those glowing (yet false) numbers you
keep touting should have been impossible. *If government spending destroys
wealth, the trillions of dollars we owe or have deficit spent should have
driven us to extinction by now. *Only you could posit a theory that
immediately trashes your previous theories. *You've gone and HeyBubbed
yourself! *(-: *In trying to figure out how you can came by the unusual and
"new for you" concepts you have about creating and destroying wealth, I
started out with a simple Google query:

http://www.google.com/search?q=gover...estroys+wealth

That lead to Ron Paul and Rush Limbaugh sites, so I knew I was getting ready
for a visit to the Economic Twilight Zone. *At least I know how this bizarre
idea gained enough traction to be adopted by you.

http://logisticsmonster.com/2010/10/...ent-destroys-w...

"Maintaining a high level of employment is one of the main objectives of The
Federal Reserve, which is just one reason it is ill conceived at its very
core. "

Cue Twilight Zone theme song. * High UN-employment is a good thing, it
seems, according to Paul. *No wonder why he's got the "destruction of
wealth" idea as ass-backwards as you do.

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/tag/budget/

Mr. Johnston has quite a bit to say about the issue and debunks the
assertion that you and others (mostly Republicans) make concerning the
"destruction" of wealth. *He makes a lot of the same points I have that
don't seem to get through to you, the most important being that you're
calling wealth transfers "wealth destruction" and that's just not correct..

Giving a guy a job to help rebuild a highway or bridge *transfers* the
wealth from money collected from taxes to that person. *It's not lost. *He
doesn't burn the money. *He spends it. *At the local grocer. *At the gas
pump. *On insurance. *Car payments. *Rent. Spending it "primes the pump" and
helps get stalled economies rolling again. *It's remarkably similar to the
Republican "trickle down" theory except that unlike the "trickle down"
theory, this "wealth transfer" actually works and gets money into the
economy.

Explain to me again how this "transfer" destroys wealth? *Maybe you can find
someone on the web with a degree or credentials in economics to support your
rather whimsical theory. *I certainly couldn't. *But maybe I didn't look
hard enough. *All I found were politicians like Paul and pundits like
Limbaugh, all with a very obvious political axe to grind.

Johnston says: In general the market does a better job of allocating
capital for investment than government does. But when the market fails, as
with the unregulated insurance and bad loans that destroyed so much value in
the last decade, then the only way to stop the vicious cycle of decline is
for government to temporarily make up the difference through more spending.
Saying otherwise is the economic equivalent of arguing that water and flour
make steak. . .

He furthers his argument with examples of the quite idiotic statements of
our Republican politicians:
"We need to cut spending now in order to create jobs in America" - House
Speaker John Boehner on the floor of the House of Representatives in July
2010. "If government spending would stimulate the economy, we'd be in the
middle of a boom" - Senator Mitch McConnell in March 2011. "Government doesn
't create jobs, you do" - Representative Nan Hayworth, M.D., speaking in
January to business leaders in her New York district.

None of the comments makes sense. The first violates the accounting identity
that spending equals income. The second assumes that the stimulus was big
enough to make up for the fall in private sector jobs, when it was less than
half what accounting identity algebra showed was needed. The third is just
plain nonsense.

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

(Johnston received the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for Beat Reporting "for his
penetrating and enterprising reporting that exposed loopholes and inequities
in the U.S. tax code, which was instrumental in bringing about reforms." He
was a Pulitzer finalist in 2003 "for his stories that displayed exquisite
command of complicated U.S. tax laws and of how corporations and individuals
twist them to their advantage." He was also a finalist in 2000 "for his
lucid coverage of problems resulting from the reorganization of the Internal
Revenue Service.")

We saw that when Roosevelt implemented all manner of government jobs
programs back in the 30's and we see it now with stimulus and government
subsidy money.

Sweet Jesus Monroe! *You don't have one ounce of shame, do you, comparing
the GDP of the worst period in American economic history with normal growth
periods? *That dog won't hunt. *GDP, aside from being an imperfect measure
of the economic health of a nation, always tends to fall during periods of
extreme economic distress. *Especially a collapse caused by an imprudent
financial industry, leveraged to the max.

To blame that on FDR's programs is more than dubious, it's dishonest. *In
fact, it's the remaining social net programs like the FDIC and Social
Security that kept this last recession from collapsing the economy. *Of the
many economists I've read who have commented on that period and the current,
nearly all of them say the same thing.

They believe the problem, then AND now, was that the opposition party was
determined to keep the government stimulus packages well below the level
that would match the damage business had done. *They do that primarily, it
seems, to keep the party in power from getting credit for ending the
recession/depression. *They're also motivated to starve the stimulus to try
to recapture the leadership position no matter what harm it does to the
citizens.

Bombs destroy wealth. *Hurricanes destroy wealth. *Fires destroy wealth.
Governments *transfer* wealth.


You are right and wrong at the same time. Right, government transfers
weath but in order to do so must confiscate the wealth from those who
earn it in order to give it to those who do nothing in return. That
process destroys the incentive of those who create wealth and thus
eventually results in the destruction of wealth or at the very least
the removal of the wealth from the governments rule. In any case. the
end result is the destruction of wealth.

--
Bobby G.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BobR wrote:

One day in the very near future the unions will wake up and realize
they no longer represent any workers because they have effectively
driven every job out of the country or bankrupted every employer
including the public.

Except, of course, many that CAN'T leave the country: Teachers, cops,
government clerks, etc. The "public service" union members.

Come to think on it, if McDonalds can take and process your order via an
internet link to India, why can't the local MVD do much of the same? Just
think how much in wages a state could save by putting its 911 operators,
county clerk's office, and the like in Bombay!

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:16:47 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Nov 12, 12:11*pm, "Robert Green"
wrote:
"Bob F" wrote:

stuff snipped







Regarding Ohio, specifically, the unions, I believe, dumped upwards
of $34 million in the campaign to revoke the anti-union law. If I was
in charge in Ohio, I'd pass the bill again, this time exempting cops
and firemen, and encourage the unions to spend another $34 million.
Eventually the'd run out of money to defeat it.

You and the Koch brothers. Standard repub behavior. Just keep ignoring the
public response to your actions, and throw money at it to kill the results
of
Democracy. Furtunately, the public is rapidly catching on to the reality
that
Repubs don't give a hoot about the workers of the US. All they do is for
the
billionaires and corporations. I think the repubs are seeing the beginning
of
the end.

My favorite slogan: "Republicans only care about people until they are
born." *I think, contrary to HeyBub, that the Republicans will come to
realize that Gov. Walker's attack on the Wisconsin unions will be their
undoing, and not their salvation. *Especially as more and more US workers
are struggling to make ends meet. *While they're still hoping, in many
cases, to get back jobs that have been lost to robotics and the cheap labor
of the third world, many now realize those jobs may be gone forever.

--
Bobby G

One day in the very near future the unions will wake up and realize
they no longer represent any workers because they have effectively
driven every job out of the country or bankrupted every employer
including the public.

They don't care. Unions long ago morphed from helping the worker to helping
themselves (and their Democrat handlers).

On Nov 13, 6:37*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
BobR wrote:

One day in the very near future the unions will wake up and realize
they no longer represent any workers because they have effectively
driven every job out of the country or bankrupted every employer
including the public.

Except, of course, many that CAN'T leave the country: Teachers, cops,
government clerks, etc. The "public service" union members.


Those that don't leave the country will be forced in bankruptcy. Many
states, cities and counties are already on the verge and more are on
the way. The unions are never satisfied because the know they must
continue to push for more in order to justify their existance. The
fact that they may ultimately kill the goose that laid the golden egg
will never be considered.

Come to think on it, if McDsonalds can take and process your order via an
internet link to India, why can't the local MVD do much of the same? Just
think how much in wages a state could save by putting its 911 operators,
county clerk's office, and the like in Bombay!

Don't look now but it may not be too far in the future before that
occurs. It's not just about the current cost of the employees but the
long term liabilities that are the issues.

"BobR" wrote in message
...
On Nov 12, 12:11 pm, "Robert Green"
wrote:
"Bob F" wrote:

stuff snipped







Regarding Ohio, specifically, the unions, I believe, dumped upwards
of $34 million in the campaign to revoke the anti-union law. If I was
in charge in Ohio, I'd pass the bill again, this time exempting cops
and firemen, and encourage the unions to spend another $34 million.
Eventually the'd run out of money to defeat it.

You and the Koch brothers. Standard repub behavior. Just keep ignoring
the
public response to your actions, and throw money at it to kill the
results
of
Democracy. Furtunately, the public is rapidly catching on to the reality
that
Repubs don't give a hoot about the workers of the US. All they do is for
the
billionaires and corporations. I think the repubs are seeing the
beginning
of
the end.

My favorite slogan: "Republicans only care about people until they are
born." I think, contrary to HeyBub, that the Republicans will come to
realize that Gov. Walker's attack on the Wisconsin unions will be their
undoing, and not their salvation. Especially as more and more US workers
are struggling to make ends meet. While they're still hoping, in many
cases, to get back jobs that have been lost to robotics and the cheap
labor
of the third world, many now realize those jobs may be gone forever.

--
Bobby G

One day in the very near future the unions will wake up and realize
they no longer represent any workers because they have effectively
driven every job out of the country or bankrupted every employer
including the public.

Actually, economists have predicted (and it seems correctly) that the rise
of unions in CHINA will be returning more and more manufacturing work to the
US. The Chinese workers are catching on to the wealth that they are
creating for their masters but not for themselves. As they demand a greater
share of the economic pie, US wages will not look so out-of-whack.

People who send things to China for manufacture tell me that the good old
days of them doing something in 1/4 the time for 1/4 the price are over.
Now, they change deals in mid-stream, deliver much shoddier goods than they
used to and in a much longer time frame. They're also under attack for
"dumping" solar panels by selling them under the cost of production
specifically to try to bankrupt US competition.

I was a union member for a few years. It got me fair pay for a fair day's
work and triple time when I worked Sundays and holidays, which I did quite
often. I think this "unions have destroyed America" malarkey is just that.
Unions BUILT American, and they, like the Federal government and any other
complex systems need maintenance and adjustment from time to time. Capital
and labor are at somewhat natural odds with each other and so that process
needs refereeing. Unions even the playing field between the two.

It's so sad that so few people seem to remember what working conditions were
like 100 years ago before unions. People were locked into dangerous
workplaces with the exits barred and got burned alive (Triangle Shirtwaist
Fire) when a fire started. Regulations and unions didn't arise in a vacuum,
they arose because of the constant abuses of businessmen who wouldn't think
twice about risking a worker's health to make a dollar. That process is
playing out now in China, and will be happening all across the third world
as people become better educated. The fact that unions arise even in the
midst of socialist dictatorships tells me they are a totally natural
phenomenon, and a largely unstoppable one.

--
Bobby G.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:52:47 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:




I was a union member for a few years. It got me fair pay for a fair day's
work and triple time when I worked Sundays and holidays, which I did quite
often. I think this "unions have destroyed America" malarkey is just that.
Unions BUILT American, and they, like the Federal government and any other
complex systems need maintenance and adjustment from time to time. Capital
and labor are at somewhat natural odds with each other and so that process
needs refereeing. Unions even the playing field between the two.

It's so sad that so few people seem to remember what working conditions were
like 100 years ago before unions. People were locked into dangerous
workplaces with the exits barred and got burned alive (Triangle Shirtwaist
Fire) when a fire started. Regulations and unions didn't arise in a vacuum,
they arose because of the constant abuses of businessmen who wouldn't think
twice about risking a worker's health to make a dollar.

If it was 1930, I'd probably be a union organizer or otherwise a union
official. They did a lot of good for the working man.

In 1970 though, I saw some unions that were taking money from members
and giving them nothing in return. I was part of the negotiating with
one of the unions and it was sad the way they exploited the workers
for dues and health and welfare contributions.

Recently, unions have started to see they have to make drastic
changes. They can't keep on taking and make demands for more. We're
all supposed to be in this together.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:52:47 -0500, "Robert Green"

wrote:
I was a union member for a few years. It got me fair pay for a fair
day's
work and triple time when I worked Sundays and holidays, which I did
quite
often. I think this "unions have destroyed America" malarkey is just
that.
Unions BUILT American, and they, like the Federal government and any
other
complex systems need maintenance and adjustment from time to time.
Capital
and labor are at somewhat natural odds with each other and so that
process
needs refereeing. Unions even the playing field between the two.

It's so sad that so few people seem to remember what working conditions
were
like 100 years ago before unions. People were locked into dangerous
workplaces with the exits barred and got burned alive (Triangle
Shirtwaist
Fire) when a fire started. Regulations and unions didn't arise in a
vacuum,
they arose because of the constant abuses of businessmen who wouldn't
think
twice about risking a worker's health to make a dollar.

If it was 1930, I'd probably be a union organizer or otherwise a union
official. They did a lot of good for the working man.

Agreed. Unions, governments and businesses are all complex systems and as
such, they break down, they go haywire, they become obsolete and need
upgrading, etc. That's *supposed* to be what Congress is about -
maintaining, at least, some level of functionality and purpose in
government.

In 1970 though, I saw some unions that were taking money from members
and giving them nothing in return.

I knew that, but somehow, it's just all crystalized. That's the problem
with *all* of our systems. They are taking money from someone to give to
someone else. (-:

I was part of the negotiating with
one of the unions and it was sad the way they exploited the workers
for dues and health and welfare contributions.

Don't disagree. Power corrupts. It's why politicians take huge chunks of
money in the open that they used to demand under the table. It's why CEOs
can get away with $20M compensation packages (thank you, Kurt - I no longer
write "salary") and why unions ended up being run by guys with diamond
pinkie rings. I did see an interesting item one. It claimed that Teamster
investments never lost a dime until Jimmy Hoffa was booted out. The Federal
Trustees that stepped in basically eviscerated the pension funds with bad
investments.

Recently, unions have started to see they have to make drastic
changes. They can't keep on taking and make demands for more. We're
all supposed to be in this together.

I think there's an important lesson here. Movements like the labor movement
that did a lot of good for a lot of people eventually get crusty like old
galvanized pipes running hard water with slow leaks. Sometimes they are
best rebuilt from the ground up. There's no doubt that too many people were
promised too many benefits without any planning for how they would be paid
for. The focus of that fight will doubtless be the municipal and county
worker unions that secured those concessions without securing financing.

My J-prof, one of the two smartest people I ever met, had two sayings that
are spot on. One is that "the pendulum swings" - no matter how bad things
are looking for one side or the other, all sorts of social mechanisms exist
to pull that pendulum back. Gun control and abortion are examples of how it
swings.

His other favorite saying was to "follow the money." I don't think enough
journalists or even investigators live by that rule. I don't believe there
are many journalists left that can do it in the modern age because finances
are so complex. I'd still like to know who profited most from the real
estate bubble because you can bet they're cooking up another bubble to cash
in on.

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:
"BobR" wrote in message
...
On Nov 12, 12:11 pm, "Robert Green"
wrote:
"Bob F" wrote:

It's so sad that so few people seem to remember what working
conditions were like 100 years ago before unions. People were locked
into dangerous workplaces with the exits barred and got burned alive
(Triangle Shirtwaist Fire) when a fire started. Regulations and
unions didn't arise in a vacuum, they arose because of the constant
abuses of businessmen who wouldn't think twice about risking a
worker's health to make a dollar. That process is playing out now in
China, and will be happening all across the third world as people
become better educated. The fact that unions arise even in the midst
of socialist dictatorships tells me they are a totally natural
phenomenon, and a largely unstoppable one.

But that was a hundred years ago. Much of the things the unions fought for
are now carved in the marble of federal and state law. Giant government
bureaucracies have been constructed to handle the issues unions demanded:
The Department of Labor, OSHA, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and more.

Unions have outlived their usefulness in these areas and should not be
currently continued based solely on their successes of the past.

In article ,
" wrote:

They don't care. Unions long ago morphed from helping the worker to
helping
themselves (and their Democrat handlers).

That is shown by stats. In 2009, the NLRB reported that:
€ Unions faced a total of 6,367 allegations of violating labor law;
€ More than 87% of charges against unions were filed by union
members;
€ 78% of those charges were cases where a union attempted to
³restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed²
by the National Labor Relations Act (Sec.8(b)(1)).
The Teamsters were reported to the NLRB a few years ago by their
employee union, for example. Of course, the Teamsters have been a lost
cause for generations.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On 11/14/11 12:29 am, Robert Green wrote:

His other favorite saying was to "follow the money." I don't think enough
journalists or even investigators live by that rule. I don't believe there
are many journalists left that can do it in the modern age because finances
are so complex. I'd still like to know who profited most from the real
estate bubble because you can bet they're cooking up another bubble to cash
in on.

That's why we have to ban political contributions altogether, whether by
corporations or by unions, and have publicly funded elections.

Perce

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


money in the open that they used to demand under the table. It's why CEOs
can get away with $20M compensation packages (thank you, Kurt - I no longer
write "salary")
You have learned your lessons well, Grasshopper (g).

and why unions ended up being run by guys with diamond
pinkie rings. I did see an interesting item one. It claimed that Teamster
investments never lost a dime until Jimmy Hoffa was booted out. The Federal
Trustees that stepped in basically eviscerated the pension funds with bad
investments.

I got problems with that, from the Vegas experience alone. I think a
lot of that was creative bookkeeping on the part of Hoffa and Pinkie
ring types. (Not that the the Feds did not make it worse).


I think there's an important lesson here. Movements like the labor movement
that did a lot of good for a lot of people eventually get crusty like old
galvanized pipes running hard water with slow leaks. Sometimes they are
best rebuilt from the ground up. There's no doubt that too many people were
promised too many benefits without any planning for how they would be paid
for. The focus of that fight will doubtless be the municipal and county
worker unions that secured those concessions without securing financing.
I really don't put a lot of the blame for that on the unions. GM's
collapse, for example, was largely bad management. But it was also
largely bad management of the interaction with the unions.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:

On 11/14/11 12:29 am, Robert Green wrote:

His other favorite saying was to "follow the money." I don't think enough
journalists or even investigators live by that rule. I don't believe there
are many journalists left that can do it in the modern age because finances
are so complex. I'd still like to know who profited most from the real
estate bubble because you can bet they're cooking up another bubble to cash
in on.

That's why we have to ban political contributions altogether, whether by
corporations or by unions, and have publicly funded elections.

Perce

But multiple Supreme Courts with multiple outlooks have ALL put the
kibosh on such things, due to that pesky first amendment thingy. This is
a string of ruling dating from the immediate post-Nixon era forward. In
fact a lot of the really weird things, such as PACs, were put in place
by what the Supremes let stand and/or shot down.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:52:47 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"BobR" wrote in message
...
On Nov 12, 12:11 pm, "Robert Green"
wrote:
"Bob F" wrote:

stuff snipped







Regarding Ohio, specifically, the unions, I believe, dumped upwards
of $34 million in the campaign to revoke the anti-union law. If I was
in charge in Ohio, I'd pass the bill again, this time exempting cops
and firemen, and encourage the unions to spend another $34 million.
Eventually the'd run out of money to defeat it.

You and the Koch brothers. Standard repub behavior. Just keep ignoring
the
public response to your actions, and throw money at it to kill the
results
of
Democracy. Furtunately, the public is rapidly catching on to the reality
that
Repubs don't give a hoot about the workers of the US. All they do is for
the
billionaires and corporations. I think the repubs are seeing the
beginning
of
the end.

My favorite slogan: "Republicans only care about people until they are
born." I think, contrary to HeyBub, that the Republicans will come to
realize that Gov. Walker's attack on the Wisconsin unions will be their
undoing, and not their salvation. Especially as more and more US workers
are struggling to make ends meet. While they're still hoping, in many
cases, to get back jobs that have been lost to robotics and the cheap
labor
of the third world, many now realize those jobs may be gone forever.

--
Bobby G

One day in the very near future the unions will wake up and realize
they no longer represent any workers because they have effectively
driven every job out of the country or bankrupted every employer
including the public.

Actually, economists have predicted (and it seems correctly) that the rise
of unions in CHINA will be returning more and more manufacturing work to the
US. The Chinese workers are catching on to the wealth that they are
creating for their masters but not for themselves. As they demand a greater
share of the economic pie, US wages will not look so out-of-whack.

They never were. Wages aren't the only reason for "off-shoring".

People who send things to China for manufacture tell me that the good old
days of them doing something in 1/4 the time for 1/4 the price are over.
Now, they change deals in mid-stream, deliver much shoddier goods than they
used to and in a much longer time frame. They're also under attack for
"dumping" solar panels by selling them under the cost of production
specifically to try to bankrupt US competition.

None of that is anything new. In addition, they will copy a design and sell
it as a competitor. They will also change a design without notification.
Without a full-time on-site babysitter dealing with the Chinese is a mess. It
always has been.

I was a union member for a few years. It got me fair pay for a fair day's
work and triple time when I worked Sundays and holidays, which I did quite
often. I think this "unions have destroyed America" malarkey is just that.

Spoken like the socialist you are.

Unions BUILT American, and they, like the Federal government and any other
complex systems need maintenance and adjustment from time to time. Capital
and labor are at somewhat natural odds with each other and so that process
needs refereeing. Unions even the playing field between the two.

They day is over, though the big problem is government unions. They *have* to
be broken or they *will* break the country.

It's so sad that so few people seem to remember what working conditions were
like 100 years ago before unions.

Sad to see that so many think nothing has changed. Sad to see that so many
would rather be unemployed than actually produce something others actually
want to buy.

People were locked into dangerous
workplaces with the exits barred and got burned alive (Triangle Shirtwaist
Fire) when a fire started. Regulations and unions didn't arise in a vacuum,
they arose because of the constant abuses of businessmen who wouldn't think
twice about risking a worker's health to make a dollar. That process is
playing out now in China, and will be happening all across the third world
as people become better educated. The fact that unions arise even in the
midst of socialist dictatorships tells me they are a totally natural
phenomenon, and a largely unstoppable one.

All irrelevant.

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 11/14/11 12:29 am, Robert Green wrote:

His other favorite saying was to "follow the money." I don't think
enough journalists or even investigators live by that rule. I don't
believe there are many journalists left that can do it in the modern
age because finances are so complex. I'd still like to know who
profited most from the real estate bubble because you can bet
they're cooking up another bubble to cash in on.

That's why we have to ban political contributions altogether, whether
by corporations or by unions, and have publicly funded elections.


Take MY tax money to promote a bunch of people with whom I disagree?

I don't think so.

On Nov 13, 8:52*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"BobR" wrote in message

...
On Nov 12, 12:11 pm, "Robert Green"
wrote:





"Bob F" wrote:

stuff snipped

Regarding Ohio, specifically, the unions, I believe, dumped upwards
of $34 million in the campaign to revoke the anti-union law. If I was
in charge in Ohio, I'd pass the bill again, this time exempting cops
and firemen, and encourage the unions to spend another $34 million.
Eventually the'd run out of money to defeat it.

You and the Koch brothers. Standard repub behavior. Just keep ignoring
the
public response to your actions, and throw money at it to kill the
results
of
Democracy. Furtunately, the public is rapidly catching on to the reality
that
Repubs don't give a hoot about the workers of the US. All they do is for
the
billionaires and corporations. I think the repubs are seeing the
beginning
of
the end.

My favorite slogan: "Republicans only care about people until they are
born." I think, contrary to HeyBub, that the Republicans will come to
realize that Gov. Walker's attack on the Wisconsin unions will be their
undoing, and not their salvation. Especially as more and more US workers
are struggling to make ends meet. While they're still hoping, in many
cases, to get back jobs that have been lost to robotics and the cheap
labor
of the third world, many now realize those jobs may be gone forever.

--
Bobby G

One day in the very near future the unions will wake up and realize
they no longer represent any workers because they have effectively
driven every job out of the country or bankrupted every employer
including the public.

Actually, economists have predicted (and it seems correctly) that the rise
of unions in CHINA will be returning more and more manufacturing work to the
US. *The Chinese workers are catching on to the wealth that they are
creating for their masters but not for themselves. *As they demand a greater
share of the economic pie, US wages will not look so out-of-whack.


No real surprise but I doubt that the work will return to the US but
will migrate to other underdeveloped countries.

People who send things to China for manufacture tell me that the good old
days of them doing something in 1/4 the time for 1/4 the price are over.
Now, they change deals in mid-stream, deliver much shoddier goods than they
used to and in a much longer time frame.

Now there is proof that the UNIONS have gotten involved...shoddier
goods and longer production times.

*They're also under attack for
"dumping" solar panels by selling them under the cost of production
specifically to try to bankrupt US competition.


Darn those pesky Chineese, they do learn fast.

I was a union member for a few years. *It got me fair pay for a fair day's
work and triple time when I worked Sundays and holidays, which I did quite
often. *I think this "unions have destroyed America" malarkey is just that.

Funny, never been a member of a Union and never have had any problem
getting fair pay for a fair day's work either.

Unions BUILT American, and they, like the Federal government and any other
complex systems need maintenance and adjustment from time to time. *Capital
and labor are at somewhat natural odds with each other and so that process
needs refereeing. *Unions even the playing field between the two.


Unions have a place in society but they have grossly overplayed their
position and totally forgotten who makes out the paychecks.

It's so sad that so few people seem to remember what working conditions were
like 100 years ago before unions. *People were locked into dangerous
workplaces with the exits barred and got burned alive (Triangle Shirtwaist
Fire) when a fire started. *Regulations and unions didn't arise in a vacuum,
they arose because of the constant abuses of businessmen who wouldn't think
twice about risking a worker's health to make a dollar. *That process is
playing out now in China, and will be happening all across the third world
as people become better educated. *The fact that unions arise even in the
midst of socialist dictatorships tells me they are a totally natural
phenomenon, and a largely unstoppable one.


But like anything in life, a little can be good but too much can be
destructive.

--
Bobby G.

On Nov 14, 6:59*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
*"Robert Green" wrote:

money in the open that they used to demand under the table. *It's why CEOs
can get away with $20M compensation packages (thank you, Kurt - I no longer
write "salary")

* * You have learned your lessons well, Grasshopper (g).

and why unions ended up being run by guys with diamond

pinkie rings. *I did see an interesting item one. *It claimed that Teamster
investments never lost a dime until Jimmy Hoffa was booted out. *The Federal
Trustees that stepped in basically eviscerated the pension funds with bad
investments.

* *I got problems with that, from the Vegas experience alone. I think a
lot of that was creative bookkeeping on the part of Hoffa and Pinkie
ring types. (Not that the the Feds did not make it worse).



I think there's an important lesson here. *Movements like the labor movement
that did a lot of good for a lot of people eventually get crusty like old
galvanized pipes running hard water with slow leaks. *Sometimes they are
best rebuilt from the ground up. *There's no doubt that too many people were
promised too many benefits without any planning for how they would be paid
for. *The focus of that fight will doubtless be the municipal and county
worker unions that secured those concessions without securing financing..

* I really don't put a lot of the blame for that on the unions. GM's
collapse, for example, was largely bad management. But it was also
largely bad management of the interaction with the unions.


That seems to be the issue all over the place. Business caved into
all the union demands during the good times but then all the bills
came due and those demands that seemed reasonable when times were good
could no longer be met and the unions have steadfastly refused to
recognize the difference. The one single element most often missed by
unions is that virtually every company and organization faces
competition from other companies and organizations for their
business. Even states and cities are starting to realize this fact,
everyone except the unions it seems. The day when companies could
freely raise their prices to make up for increased union demands has
ended some time back. The same is occuring on the government front
and people are not going to accept higher taxes to support unions that
are asking for higher and higher pensions with more and more
benefits....all the while giving less and less service.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"BobR" wrote in message
...
On Nov 13, 2:47 am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...





Robert Green wrote:

We can only hope. Unemployment at 4%, DOW-Jones above 12,000, 23
consecutive quarters of economic growth, low interest rates,
virtually no inflation, dead Mohammadens piled up like cordwood.

It was just an illusion, Bub. The magical numbers sprouted from all
of that from the Feds spending trillions on post 9/11 security, wars,
TSA, etc. It's amazing how a little government deficit spending can
falsely goose the economic numbers. Now we're experiencing the crash
of the speculative bubble and runaway defense spending that made
those high-flying numbers possible - but not real. We also destroyed
Iraq, the country that had the most to gain from keeping Iran nuke
free because they'd be one of the first victims of Iranian nuclear
aggression.

Boy, you sure don't understand economics. Government spending drives
DOWN
the GDP and destroys wealth.

Oy. So how did all the Bush government spending on the TSA, Homeland
Security, two different wars and the Medicare Drug plan create all those
wonderful numbers you continually crow about? You can't have it both ways,
as much as you seem to want it. Your own previous examples put the lie to
your current contentions.

According to your latest wild theory, those glowing (yet false) numbers
you
keep touting should have been impossible. If government spending destroys
wealth, the trillions of dollars we owe or have deficit spent should have
driven us to extinction by now. Only you could posit a theory that
immediately trashes your previous theories. You've gone and HeyBubbed
yourself! (-: In trying to figure out how you can came by the unusual and
"new for you" concepts you have about creating and destroying wealth, I
started out with a simple Google query:

http://www.google.com/search?q=gover...estroys+wealth

That lead to Ron Paul and Rush Limbaugh sites, so I knew I was getting
ready
for a visit to the Economic Twilight Zone. At least I know how this
bizarre
idea gained enough traction to be adopted by you.

http://logisticsmonster.com/2010/10/...ent-destroys-w...

"Maintaining a high level of employment is one of the main objectives of
The
Federal Reserve, which is just one reason it is ill conceived at its very
core. "

Cue Twilight Zone theme song. High UN-employment is a good thing, it
seems, according to Paul. No wonder why he's got the "destruction of
wealth" idea as ass-backwards as you do.

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/tag/budget/

Mr. Johnston has quite a bit to say about the issue and debunks the
assertion that you and others (mostly Republicans) make concerning the
"destruction" of wealth. He makes a lot of the same points I have that
don't seem to get through to you, the most important being that you're
calling wealth transfers "wealth destruction" and that's just not correct.

Giving a guy a job to help rebuild a highway or bridge *transfers* the
wealth from money collected from taxes to that person. It's not lost. He
doesn't burn the money. He spends it. At the local grocer. At the gas
pump. On insurance. Car payments. Rent. Spending it "primes the pump" and
helps get stalled economies rolling again. It's remarkably similar to the
Republican "trickle down" theory except that unlike the "trickle down"
theory, this "wealth transfer" actually works and gets money into the
economy.

Explain to me again how this "transfer" destroys wealth? Maybe you can
find
someone on the web with a degree or credentials in economics to support
your
rather whimsical theory. I certainly couldn't. But maybe I didn't look
hard enough. All I found were politicians like Paul and pundits like
Limbaugh, all with a very obvious political axe to grind.

Johnston says: In general the market does a better job of allocating
capital for investment than government does. But when the market fails, as
with the unregulated insurance and bad loans that destroyed so much value
in
the last decade, then the only way to stop the vicious cycle of decline is
for government to temporarily make up the difference through more
spending.
Saying otherwise is the economic equivalent of arguing that water and
flour
make steak. . .

He furthers his argument with examples of the quite idiotic statements of
our Republican politicians:
"We need to cut spending now in order to create jobs in America" - House
Speaker John Boehner on the floor of the House of Representatives in July
2010. "If government spending would stimulate the economy, we'd be in the
middle of a boom" - Senator Mitch McConnell in March 2011. "Government
doesn
't create jobs, you do" - Representative Nan Hayworth, M.D., speaking in
January to business leaders in her New York district.

None of the comments makes sense. The first violates the accounting
identity
that spending equals income. The second assumes that the stimulus was big
enough to make up for the fall in private sector jobs, when it was less
than
half what accounting identity algebra showed was needed. The third is just
plain nonsense.

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

(Johnston received the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for Beat Reporting "for his
penetrating and enterprising reporting that exposed loopholes and
inequities
in the U.S. tax code, which was instrumental in bringing about reforms."
He
was a Pulitzer finalist in 2003 "for his stories that displayed exquisite
command of complicated U.S. tax laws and of how corporations and
individuals
twist them to their advantage." He was also a finalist in 2000 "for his
lucid coverage of problems resulting from the reorganization of the
Internal
Revenue Service.")

We saw that when Roosevelt implemented all manner of government jobs
programs back in the 30's and we see it now with stimulus and government
subsidy money.

Sweet Jesus Monroe! You don't have one ounce of shame, do you, comparing
the GDP of the worst period in American economic history with normal
growth
periods? That dog won't hunt. GDP, aside from being an imperfect measure
of the economic health of a nation, always tends to fall during periods of
extreme economic distress. Especially a collapse caused by an imprudent
financial industry, leveraged to the max.

To blame that on FDR's programs is more than dubious, it's dishonest. In
fact, it's the remaining social net programs like the FDIC and Social
Security that kept this last recession from collapsing the economy. Of the
many economists I've read who have commented on that period and the
current,
nearly all of them say the same thing.

They believe the problem, then AND now, was that the opposition party was
determined to keep the government stimulus packages well below the level
that would match the damage business had done. They do that primarily, it
seems, to keep the party in power from getting credit for ending the
recession/depression. They're also motivated to starve the stimulus to try
to recapture the leadership position no matter what harm it does to the
citizens.

Bombs destroy wealth. Hurricanes destroy wealth. Fires destroy wealth.
Governments *transfer* wealth.


You are right and wrong at the same time. Right, government transfers
weath but in order to do so must confiscate the wealth from those who
earn it in order to give it to those who do nothing in return. That
process destroys the incentive of those who create wealth and thus
eventually results in the destruction of wealth or at the very least
the removal of the wealth from the governments rule. In any case. the
end result is the destruction of wealth.

I don't suggest anyone get a government check for doing nothing. In fact, I
am adamantly opposed to it for practical and moral reasons. Studies clearly
show the longer someone is on unemployment, the less likely they are to ever
return to the workforce. I'll agree there's great "moral hazard" in doing
that at least as bad as bailing out "too big to fail" banks.

But if the jobless are paid for scraping rust off bridges, cleaning up
highways and streets or some other project that has an instrinsic social
value, they can very easily prevent the destruction of wealth. That's a
simple analogy. If you don't maintain something, whether it's a car, a
house, a public bridge, etc. it could very easily end up causing a very
substantial loss of wealth. For example, my friend's foreign-born wife was
driving her car when the oil light went on. After a few weeks, it went out.
A week later he was having a new engine installed in her. All because of
the lack of a few bucks of oil and a driver that didn't understand the
warning signs.

The system we have now pays people to do nothing, and I agree, that has
moral hazards and all sorts of other problems. Still, I have a hard time
following how you get from destroying the "incentive to create wealth" to
the destruction of wealth. They are still two quite different things and
that's why I have been needling HeyBub. His examples, labeled as
"destruction of wealth" have mostly been "transfers of wealth." That's the
main job of governments - take taxes from lots of people to spend in ways
the governments think will add value. I'll agree they get that dead wrong,
as in the money Freddie Mac spent on Newt G's outrageous consulting fees:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-bailout.html

It's probably the case that it was wrong for the Feds to fund such mortgage
programs in the first place.

Destroying wealth means something like taking one of the new bunker buster
bombs and exploding it. You no longer have the bomb. It's been destroyed,
taking with it the millions it cost to make as well as destroying the
enemy's wealth (hopefully). Want another one to light off? That means
finding a few million dollars and the time and facilities to make it.
Making the bomb creates wealth, using it destroys wealth.

The government handing out unemployment merely transfers wealth. When the
people it's tranferred from stop working and paying taxes and go on welfare
themselves, wealth is still being transferred and not destroyed - from the
remaining people who are still working. True, the out-of-work are no longer
creating wealth, but they're not destroying it, either. Not unless they are
rioting, burning down the houses foreclosed out from under them or otherwise
engaging in true wealth destroying activities.

Both parties misuse government money, and have been doing it for a long,
long time. It's gotten so bad that we need a top-down review of all
government spending to help staunch the flow of tax dollars on bridges to
nowhere and Cowboy Poetry festivals.

The country benefits as a whole if instead of just handing out unemployment
checks we require people to attend retraining and skill building courses or
engage in community or public service, even if it's cleaning trash from
highways.

--
Bobby G.