|
OT---Great article
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn...t-steyn05.html "She's (my daughter) already dating a sex offender. Better that than a republican fundie neocon fascist." FF, (alt.machines.cnc) |
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 03:34:28 GMT, Gunner
calmly ranted: http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn...t-steyn05.html And the question of the day remains: Why would anyone in their right minds vote for -either- Kerrikaze or the Shrub? Gunner, you're voting for Shrub. Please enlighten us on the good he has done for the country in the past 4 years. Also, please point out his weaknesses or bad things he has done to the country. Voters for Kerry are encouraged to post their lists, too. ================================================== ======== CAUTION: Do NOT look directly into laser with remaining eyeball! ================================================== ======== http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design |
I agree, they're both unacceptable. I wish there was a viable option.
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... And the question of the day remains: Why would anyone in their right minds vote for -either- Kerrikaze or the Shrub? |
OK - you want to be enlightened, how about these few bullet points that
relate directly to the economy: a.. The economy has grown 4.8% in the past year, as fast as any year in nearly two decades. a.. Productivity grew at the fastest 3-year rate in more than 50 years. a.. The unemployment rate has fallen from 6.3 to 5.6 percent, below the average of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. a.. This job growth is widespread - employment over the last year was up in 41 of the 50 states, and the unemployment rate was down in 47 of the 50 states. a.. Real after-tax incomes are up by 11 percent since December 2000. a.. Homeownership rates are at record levels - nearly seven out of ten American families own their own home today. a.. Household wealth is near a record high. Similar lists could be compiled for education, social programs, energy and most certainly national security, but I suspect you really don't want to be educated on this stuff anyway. Robert "Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 03:34:28 GMT, Gunner calmly ranted: http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn...t-steyn05.html And the question of the day remains: Why would anyone in their right minds vote for -either- Kerrikaze or the Shrub? Gunner, you're voting for Shrub. Please enlighten us on the good he has done for the country in the past 4 years. Also, please point out his weaknesses or bad things he has done to the country. Voters for Kerry are encouraged to post their lists, too. ================================================== ======== CAUTION: Do NOT look directly into laser with remaining eyeball! ================================================== ======== http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design |
Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 07:26:23 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: Gunner, you're voting for Shrub. Please enlighten us on the good he has done for the country in the past 4 years. Also, please point out his weaknesses or bad things he has done to the country. The below list works for me. And enumerates them better than I could. ..................................... Gunner Perhaps this works for you too, considering your circumstances.. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...on/9585171.htm Tom |
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 19:30:41 GMT, "Siggy"
calmly ranted: OK - you want to be enlightened, how about these few bullet points that relate directly to the economy: a.. The economy has grown 4.8% in the past year, as fast as any year in nearly two decades. -snip- Please include non-war- and Shrub-related info only. ================================================== ======== CAUTION: Do NOT look directly into laser with remaining eyeball! ================================================== ======== http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design |
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 10:07:55 +1200, Tom wrote:
Gunner wrote: On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 07:26:23 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: Gunner, you're voting for Shrub. Please enlighten us on the good he has done for the country in the past 4 years. Also, please point out his weaknesses or bad things he has done to the country. The below list works for me. And enumerates them better than I could. ..................................... Gunner Perhaps this works for you too, considering your circumstances.. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...on/9585171.htm Tom which part? This one? MODERNIZATION CITED In announcing the $11.60-a-month increase, the government said the higher premiums reflect general growth in healthcare costs, higher payments to doctors and Medicare modernization. ''The new premiums reflect an enhanced Medicare that is providing seniors and people with disabilities with strengthened access to physician services and new preventive benefits,'' said Dr. Mark McClellan, administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Advocates for elderly and disabled beneficiaries said the extra costs would burden many of those who rely on the program. ''This is going to make it even harder for a lot of older Americans to make ends meet,'' said Robert M. Hayes, president of the Medicare Rights Center. ``Already, there are a lot of older people who are teetering on the edge of poverty.'' **************************** Indeed. And anyone have a solution for the problem? Gunner "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke |
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 21:41:06 GMT, Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 07:26:23 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: Gunner, you're voting for Shrub. Please enlighten us on the good he has done for the country in the past 4 years. Also, please point out his weaknesses or bad things he has done to the country. The below list works for me. And enumerates them better than I could. http://www.angelfire.com/ok/funwithunclejim/bush.html Abortion & Traditional Values Banned Partial Birth Abortion — by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade. Since set aside by the courts. Reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy. Oh, good, *more* Mexicans to slip over the border. By EO, prohibited federal funds for international family planning groups that provide abortions and related services. Oh, good, *more* 3rd worlders to take our jobs. 400 lines describing other dubious actions deleted Gary |
"Siggy" wrote in message
m... OK - you want to be enlightened, how about these few bullet points that relate directly to the economy: Man, 'you must have gotten caught in the spin cycle of your washing machine. g Most of what you wrote MUST have come from the RNC or their henchmen, eh? Without digging out the numbers, here are a few observations: a.. The economy has grown 4.8% in the past year, as fast as any year in nearly two decades. From the bottom of a deep, dark hole. Percentages of growth are easy when you start out in a dumpster. a.. Productivity grew at the fastest 3-year rate in more than 50 years. Attributed mostly to automation in combination with squeezing more out of a drastically reduced workforce, through a recession. We've never seen anything like it. That's one reason we lost 2.7 million jobs in manufacturing, and then, on the way up, didn't regain more than a handful of them. a.. The unemployment rate has fallen from 6.3 to 5.6 percent, below the average of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. You might want to reconcile this with the fact that the percentage of adults in the workforce is the lowest it's been since the mid-'60s. The obvious fact is that a lot of people have simply stopped looking. a.. This job growth is widespread - employment over the last year was up in 41 of the 50 states, and the unemployment rate was down in 47 of the 50 states. It requires around 150,000 - 170,000 new jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. Job growth is not keeping up with population growth. That's why the percentage of adults in the workforce keeps dropping. When enough bail out, the unemployment rate starts looking pretty good. a.. Real after-tax incomes are up by 11 percent since December 2000. Only at the top. In the middle, they're flat. a.. Homeownership rates are at record levels - nearly seven out of ten American families own their own home today. True. It's 68%. You can argue the factors involved, but the trend is up, for whatever reason. a.. Household wealth is near a record high. Haha! The fact is, most of it is in home equity, either as home value or as lines of credit and other refinancing based on the equity. That's the result of the refinancing boom combined with increases in home values. It has NOTHING to do with earnings or savings. To take two recent years as examples, between 2002 and 2003, total home equity increased by 6.1% ($500 billion). Over that same year, mortgage debt increased by 9.9% ($600 billion). Meantime, refinancing increased in that year by (gulp!) 71.4% ($1 trillion). We're awash in cash and L.O.C.'s that are borrowed against all of that home equity. It's enough to make a Federal Reserve banker sweat bullets. It sure looks like "household wealth," doesn't it? But it would all be wiped out by just a few percentage points of drop in home values. Half the home owners in America would be financed upside-down in a hurry. The "wealth" is based on a small margin of the market value, not on savings. It's all the result of leveraging the increases in market value of our homes. That's a lot like "wealth" in the stock market, on September 30, 1929. . . Similar lists could be compiled for education, social programs, energy and most certainly national security. . . There's a scary thought. g ..., but I suspect you really don't want to be educated on this stuff anyway. Education is fine. Spin-cycling the facts is something we could do without, however, and we would all benefit thereby. Ed Huntress |
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 04:23:48 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Siggy" wrote in message om... OK - you want to be enlightened, how about these few bullet points that relate directly to the economy: Man, 'you must have gotten caught in the spin cycle of your washing machine. g Most of what you wrote MUST have come from the RNC or their henchmen, eh? Without digging out the numbers, here are a few observations: a.. The economy has grown 4.8% in the past year, as fast as any year in nearly two decades. From the bottom of a deep, dark hole. Percentages of growth are easy when you start out in a dumpster. Well, the Clinton recession did put us in a hole, but not really all the way down to the dumpster. GDP was $9.8 trillion the last year of Clinton's reign. It is now $11.82 trillion. See http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDP/18 a.. The unemployment rate has fallen from 6.3 to 5.6 percent, below the average of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. You might want to reconcile this with the fact that the percentage of adults in the workforce is the lowest it's been since the mid-'60s. The obvious fact is that a lot of people have simply stopped looking. Unemployment is now down to 5.4% (July numbers just out). Note that the Baby Boomers are now reaching retirement age, and that's starting to pull workers out of the workforce permanently at a greater rate than we've ever seen before, except during wartime. And we're at war too, which has pulled hundreds of thousands of reservists out of the civilian workforce (they're still employed, of course, by the military). Gary |
In article , Ed Huntress says...
It sure looks like "household wealth," doesn't it? But it would all be wiped out by just a few percentage points of drop in home values. Half the home owners in America would be financed upside-down in a hurry. Apparently this year has seen the largest number of personal bankrupcies ever. The hype looks good but hype doesn't vote. Voters vote, and that means the election is going to be decided by the swing states. Take Ohio for example, where the voters (many of whom used to hold jobs in manufacturing) have been going through some pretty rough times recently. Well you might say that those folks are pretty tough, they might vote for dubya anyhow. That they're used to digging in, in tough times, working overtime and making ends meet - making the mortgage payments no matter what. Except uh-oh. Seems like dubya, in a fit of overconfidence, pushed legislation though to effectively take away their overtime pay. It's going to be real interesting seeing what those swing state voters do since it's become real clear where dubya's sympathy really sits. So the question is, are the out of work voters, who are losing their houses because they've been re-classified as 'managers' and are no longer eligible for time-and-a-half, going to believe the canned pablum video hype from the convention floor, and vote for him anyway? In spite of the fact that he took away their overtime? Oddly enough Dubya doesn't have any brothers, sisters, or fathers who are Ohio governors. So that avenue of approach is right out. It's gonna be an interesting November. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
... On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 04:23:48 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Siggy" wrote in message om... OK - you want to be enlightened, how about these few bullet points that relate directly to the economy: Man, 'you must have gotten caught in the spin cycle of your washing machine. g Most of what you wrote MUST have come from the RNC or their henchmen, eh? Without digging out the numbers, here are a few observations: a.. The economy has grown 4.8% in the past year, as fast as any year in nearly two decades. From the bottom of a deep, dark hole. Percentages of growth are easy when you start out in a dumpster. Well, the Clinton recession did put us in a hole, but not really all the way down to the dumpster. GDP was $9.8 trillion the last year of Clinton's reign. It is now $11.82 trillion. See http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDP/18 First, there was no "Clinton recession." Technically, there was no recession at all, even under Bush. What actually happened is that the economy just staggered around from the third quarter of 2000 through the second quarter of 2003. There were no two sequential quarters of declining GDP, in either current or chained (real) terms. It requires three sequential declining quarters to be a recession. It was more like a great waffling. d8-) Second, your GDP figures are in current dollars, and don't agree with BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis) figures, in any case. The real, inflation-adjusted figures are (based on 2000 to keep it simple) $9.8 trillion and $10.8 trillion for the second quarter of 2004. (The relevant Excel tables from the BEA are available from this site: http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/A-Z/A-ZIndex_h.htm) Per-capita GDP growth sucked throughout that period. That's the dark hole. Even forgetting about per-capita, the total real growth figures for 2001 and 2002 were 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively. That also sucks. Thus, there should be substantial pent-up growth potential in the economy, and we should have seen it by 2003 according to virtually all economists. It's interesting to see what actually happened to real growth: 2002 Q4: 0.7% 2003 Q1: 1.9 2003 Q2: 4.1 2003 Q3: 7.4 2003 Q4: 4.2 2004 Q1: 4.5 2004 Q2: 2.8 It looked for a while like we were going to catch up to the annual, historical per-capita growth under Clinton, but then it went south (no doubt a delayed effect that was Clinton's fault g). Two things are interesting about it. First, the supposed 4.8% growth over the past year was about normal for coming out of a growth-hole like the one we had just been in. That was a lengthy slump. Second, despite all of the conditions that Bush's economists tell us were ripe for real growth in 2003 (if you read the Economic Report of the President over the past few years, you may remember they said it was ripe in 2002, also, but I guess that neocon fruit can be slow to ripen), the catch-up, which is normal and expected after a recession or near-recession, fizzled out. There is no typical business-cycle trend -- unless the cycle is over and we're on the way back down, which still seems unlikely. There was just one anomally in 2003 Q3, which economists pin largely on big consumer purchases that followed the housing refinance boom. Lots of people felt loaded and went out and bought cars and appliances -- for about half a year. So the economy is staggering around again. And there's another big factor that you don't see much about in the general press: the effect of the deficit. GDP includes both government spending and consumer spending, and the government is spending like a drunken sailor. The deficit alone amounts to around 4% of the economy. Economists say that half of that should be showing up as growth -- why it's only half, I don't know. Anyway, that means that around 2% of the "growth" isn't really growth at all. It's just the effect of deficit spending. Take 2% off of 4.8% or whatever, and that's what the economy is really doing now on an annual basis. Last quarter, the total GDP growth was 2.8%. Take 2% off of that, and it's easier to see why employment isn't keeping up with population growth, and why the percentage of working-age adults in the workforce is dropping. This is not data that's easy to dig out of the muck just one week after the GOP convention, but it's there if you look. g a.. The unemployment rate has fallen from 6.3 to 5.6 percent, below the average of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. You might want to reconcile this with the fact that the percentage of adults in the workforce is the lowest it's been since the mid-'60s. The obvious fact is that a lot of people have simply stopped looking. Unemployment is now down to 5.4% (July numbers just out). Note that the Baby Boomers are now reaching retirement age, and that's starting to pull workers out of the workforce permanently at a greater rate than we've ever seen before, except during wartime. Nope, that has nothing to do with the figures I was talking about. The percentage of adults in the workforce is based on adults from age 18 through 65. When they reach age 65, they're no longer counted. And we're at war too, which has pulled hundreds of thousands of reservists out of the civilian workforce (they're still employed, of course, by the military). I'd have to check on this, but I believe the percentage of working-age adults is reduced by the number on active military duty. So they're already subtracted from the gross number. Ed Huntress |
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 22:30:24 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote: On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 21:41:06 GMT, Gunner wrote: On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 07:26:23 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: Gunner, you're voting for Shrub. Please enlighten us on the good he has done for the country in the past 4 years. Also, please point out his weaknesses or bad things he has done to the country. The below list works for me. And enumerates them better than I could. http://www.angelfire.com/ok/funwithunclejim/bush.html Abortion & Traditional Values Banned Partial Birth Abortion — by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade. Since set aside by the courts. Reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy. Oh, good, *more* Mexicans to slip over the border. By EO, prohibited federal funds for international family planning groups that provide abortions and related services. Oh, good, *more* 3rd worlders to take our jobs. 400 lines describing other dubious actions deleted Gary He asked. I provided. btw...its "us" who are hiring turd worlders to take our own jobs away. Not Bush. I did notice he got a reduction in H1B visas though. Gunner "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke |
On 5 Sep 2004 21:58:47 -0700, jim rozen
wrote: Except uh-oh. Seems like dubya, in a fit of overconfidence, pushed legislation though to effectively take away their overtime pay. It's going to be real interesting seeing what those swing state voters do since it's become real clear where dubya's sympathy really sits. The labor laws were way overdue for an overhaul. Its not clear yet that anyone will loose overtime, and it may well be that more employees may be eligible for overtime. This was an issue Ive had more than once by management making me on paper..a "manager" Gunner "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke |
Hey Gunner,
Do you know where can I find more info on this? It would suck if overtime was lost by anyone - there are too many loopholes already. Eide "Gunner" wrote in message ... On 5 Sep 2004 21:58:47 -0700, jim rozen wrote: Except uh-oh. Seems like dubya, in a fit of overconfidence, pushed legislation though to effectively take away their overtime pay. It's going to be real interesting seeing what those swing state voters do since it's become real clear where dubya's sympathy really sits. The labor laws were way overdue for an overhaul. Its not clear yet that anyone will loose overtime, and it may well be that more employees may be eligible for overtime. This was an issue Ive had more than once by management making me on paper..a "manager" |
"Gunner" wrote in message ... "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke I think your sig lines are interesting. How far back would you like to go in you conservatism? Your "conservative" views of today would be very liberal in days gone by. I am, at times, both a liberal and a conservative, and I am speaking to myself here too... Liberals don't seem to be happy with the status quo, conservatives don't want things to change. Liberals can't see the forest for the trees, conservatives seem to be happy with yesterday's liberal views. My real confusion lies in anyone who is so partisan. Dems and GOPs have both said and done many stupid things. And yet they have both said and done wonderful things. Do you not see it that way? Sincerely, Eide |
"Eide" wrote in message
news:5J__c.266214$Oi.24669@fed1read04... "Gunner" wrote in message ... "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke I think your sig lines are interesting. What's interesting about this one is that P.J. O'Rourke was a flaming liberal who wrote for Ramparts. A sniveling brat himself, he got p.o.'d when he didn't get promoted and he then became a right-wing pundit who wrote for the American Spectator. O'Rourke is a clever and witty fellow who is blessed with an endless supply of fodder for his sarcasms and put-downs: Himself. Ed Huntress |
In article , Gunner says...
The labor laws were way overdue for an overhaul. Its not clear yet that anyone will loose overtime, and it may well be that more employees may be eligible for overtime. Business has been pushing for this change for years. I'll leave it to you as an educated individual to decide if they would advocate something that would cost them profit. And what *we* think doesn't really matter, as a) you're self-employed, and b) I've been exempt for years. So the folks who are going to vote their paycheck are the ones who get to decide on this. And trust me, they will. Personally I think this is one of dubya's biggest blunders. It may cost him the election, if folks figure it out soon enough. JIm -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 10:44:24 -0400, "Eide"
wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke I think your sig lines are interesting. How far back would you like to go in you conservatism? Your "conservative" views of today would be very liberal in days gone by. I am, at times, both a liberal and a conservative, and I am speaking to myself here too... Actually my brand of conservatism is what is known as Classical Liberalism. The "ism" of those radical dead old white guys called the Founders. Liberals don't seem to be happy with the status quo, conservatives don't want things to change. Not true. Liberals can't see the forest for the trees, conservatives seem to be happy with yesterday's liberal views. Again, not true. My real confusion lies in anyone who is so partisan. Dems and GOPs have both said and done many stupid things. And yet they have both said and done wonderful things. Do you not see it that way? Nope. As they say..the Devil is in the details. The current political climate is as you say..far to the left of where it was prior to the 60s. Who was it..Goldwater or Reagan that said " I didnt leave the Democratic Party, it left me" ? However... We finally, at long last, are seeing a return to the Right. Politics is like a Focaults Pendulum, with a very long period. It swings slowly to the left and the right. Unfortunately..the beam it is suspended from has shifted to the Left...so even when it swings back to the Right..its still Left of where it started out originally. What we are seeing, and hoping for..is that the public (for many reasons) has about had it with politics as usual and the shift to the Left..and a gathering storm of ****ed off individuals will be jacking the beam back into place. We can only hope and watch and try to ensure that they dont jack it too far to the Right, which can be as bad as that Left tilt. Back to where the Founders put it, is about the correct place for it to be. Respects Gunner Sincerely, Eide "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke |
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 14:53:20 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Eide" wrote in message news:5J__c.266214$Oi.24669@fed1read04... "Gunner" wrote in message ... "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke I think your sig lines are interesting. What's interesting about this one is that P.J. O'Rourke was a flaming liberal who wrote for Ramparts. A sniveling brat himself, he got p.o.'d when he didn't get promoted and he then became a right-wing pundit who wrote for the American Spectator. O'Rourke is a clever and witty fellow who is blessed with an endless supply of fodder for his sarcasms and put-downs: Himself. Ed Huntress Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. You even manage to get it right once in a while. G Gunner "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke |
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 10:27:35 -0400, "Eide"
wrote: Hey Gunner, Do you know where can I find more info on this? It would suck if overtime was lost by anyone - there are too many loopholes already. Eide "Gunner" wrote in message .. . The labor laws were way overdue for an overhaul. Its not clear yet that anyone will loose overtime, and it may well be that more employees may be eligible for overtime. This was an issue Ive had more than once by management making me on paper..a "manager" http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/complian...irpay/main.htm http://www.dol.gov/ From an online forum.... "Am I missing something the government changes work rules and has no Idea what the effect will be or do they?. Who will gain who will lose? Who will benefit the employer or employee? As usual it appears that this administration operates with it's eyes tightly closed. Any opinion?Groups differ on impact of overtime rules Posted: Monday, August 23, 7:50am EDT Paychecks could surge or shrink for a few or for millions of workers across the country starting Monday, when sweeping changes to the nation's overtime pay rules take effect. There is little agreement by the Bush administration, employer groups, labor experts and others on how many workers will gain or lose the right to overtime pay under the new rules in the Fair Labor Standards Act. "To be candid, no one knows," said Jerry Hunter, a labor lawyer at Bryan Cave LLP in St. Louis and former general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board during the first Bush administration. Employers have sought changes for decades, complaining the regulations were ambiguous and out of date, and questioning why highly paid professionals should get overtime pay. Labor unions, however, say the new rules are intended to reduce employers' costs by cutting the number workers who are eligible for overtime pay. Estimates of how many workers will lose their overtime eligibility range from 107,000 to 6 million. Workers who could become newly eligible range from very few to 1.3 million. "Not only is the Labor Department unsure, but a lot of people in a lot of industries are unsure," Hunter said. "This is all very fluid right now." The major overhaul, the first in more than half a century, is aimed at mostly white-collar workers. The Labor Department says manual laborers and other blue-collar workers will not be affected. The new rules are intended to limit workers' multimillion-dollar lawsuits, many of them successful, claiming they were cheated out of overtime pay for working more than 40 hours a week. " "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke |
On 6 Sep 2004 12:26:55 -0700, jim rozen
calmly ranted: In article , Gunner says... The labor laws were way overdue for an overhaul. Its not clear yet that anyone will loose overtime, and it may well be that more employees may be eligible for overtime. Business has been pushing for this change for years. I'll leave it to you as an educated individual to decide if they would advocate something that would cost them profit. And what *we* think doesn't really matter, as a) you're self-employed, and b) I've been exempt for years. So the folks who are going to vote their paycheck are the ones who get to decide on this. And trust me, they will. Personally I think this is one of dubya's biggest blunders. It may cost him the election, if folks figure it out soon enough. Hey, "folks" put Bushes and Clintons in the White House. Those in Florida still have a hard time punching ballots or putting their fingers on the correct area of the touchscreens Do you -really- think they'll figure it out "soon enough", Jim? big sigh ..-. Life is short. Eat dessert first! --- http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development |
Siggy wrote:
OK - you want to be enlightened, how about these few bullet points that relate directly to the economy: a.. The economy has grown 4.8% in the past year, as fast as any year in nearly two decades. The government has little effect on this except when they start a war and un up debt. a.. Productivity grew at the fastest 3-year rate in more than 50 years. the government has little effect on this. If productivity doesn't improve, the company is going broke. a.. The unemployment rate has fallen from 6.3 to 5.6 percent, below the average of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Yep, it has fallen here too. Mainly because they have changed the definition to "if you have one hours work in a week, then you are not unemployed". I now know lots of employed people struggling to survive on 1,2,3 ... hours work per week. a.. This job growth is widespread - employment over the last year was up in 41 of the 50 states, and the unemployment rate was down in 47 of the 50 states. Yep, the definition was changed nationa wide. a.. Real after-tax incomes are up by 11 percent since December 2000. All? Usually a follow on from inflation. a.. Homeownership rates are at record levels - nearly seven out of ten American families own their own home today. It goes with rising population. What is the proportion of household income that is paid to service the home loan? a.. Household wealth is near a record high. All? Average? Similar lists could be compiled for education, social programs, energy and most certainly national security, but I suspect you really don't want to be educated on this stuff anyway. Educated, not ranted. |
In article , Larry Jaques says...
... Do you -really- think they'll figure it out "soon enough", Jim? big sigh Well thanks for that encouraging snapshot of the american public. bigger sigh But then again, there are a few things that folks don't miss - one is gas prices. Another is being forced into bankrupcy. And the contents of one's paycheck is still closely scrutinized, I think. I'm not sure if they can make the connection between 'what's missing' and 'whodunit' but there is a small chance. Granted November is pretty soon. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
Gunner wrote:
(from http://www.angelfire.com/ok/funwithunclejim/bush.html ) Killed Clinton's "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to implement; rules would have shut down every home business in America. Does anyone know where this "factoid" comes from? Other than the one line on the above mentioned angelfire site, I can't find anything. I poked around looking for info on OSHA and ergonomics, and can't find anything related to home business. It also seems that OSHA's ergonomic rules have just gone into effect, rather than being "killed". Thanks, Jon |
"Jon Elson" wrote in message
ervers.com... Gunner wrote: (from http://www.angelfire.com/ok/funwithunclejim/bush.html ) Killed Clinton's "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to implement; rules would have shut down every home business in America. Does anyone know where this "factoid" comes from? Other than the one line on the above mentioned angelfire site, I can't find anything. I poked around looking for info on OSHA and ergonomics, and can't find anything related to home business. It also seems that OSHA's ergonomic rules have just gone into effect, rather than being "killed". Gunner's "cite" is a complete fabrication. The rules, proposed and passed at the end of Clinton's term, were supported by virtually every legitimate source. Those who opposed it included certain corporations that had the highest worker disability rates. The business about it shutting down "home businesses" was a PR distraction intended to deflect attention from the fact that all of the money supporting the opposition was coming from large corporations. If you want to see some decent articles written about it at the time, you can find a collection of links he http://www.ergoweb.com/resources/standards/articles.cfm One or a few pieces at a time, OSHA is re-implementing the standards. The political throw-weight of the corporations that originally opposed it is being drained off by targeting no more than a few industries at a time. With the aid of a little historical insight, you can get the picture at OSHA's site on the subject: http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/ergonomics/ Ed Huntress |
Eide wrote:
I agree, they're both unacceptable. I wish there was a viable option. There is: Vote Libertarian! -jc- |
Seriously, I wish there was a viable option.
"John Chase" wrote in message om... Eide wrote: I agree, they're both unacceptable. I wish there was a viable option. There is: Vote Libertarian! -jc- |
On 6 Sep 2004 20:17:28 -0700, jim rozen
calmly ranted: In article , Larry Jaques says... ... Do you -really- think they'll figure it out "soon enough", Jim? big sigh Well thanks for that encouraging snapshot of the american public. bigger sigh Yeah, it may not be encouraging, but the unfortunate truth is that people don't pay enough attention to the things which could make their lives much easier to enjoy. They're "too busy". Many of those who are too busy are also too busy to vote on election day. I picked up most of my newfound pessimisticity when I started my own business and started teaching people how to use their computers. I'd go over a set of basic instructions with them 6 times before it started to sink in. Finally, I had them start writing down the tips after we had been over them a few times. Being forced to understand it enough to write it down really helped them to retain it. I was amazed at how they could do something very intricate (from their workplace) by rote, never understanding a single thing about what was happening or why. One lady had been using MS Word daily for over 2 years but couldn't figure out how to do something. I went over, explained that I had not used Word but would try to help, and had her up and running in under half an hour. I looked in the program's built-in help section and found what I was after in minutes. If only there were an F1 key for Flowda voters... But then again, there are a few things that folks don't miss - one is gas prices. How can the public miss what the media cram down their throats? (Don't answer that. I don't think I want to know any more about it than I already do.) Another is being forced into bankrupcy. Au contraire. Some people struggle for years while never decreasing the debt they're paying on. They've been forced into bankruptcy without even knowing it. It's only when the bank says "Enough!" that they realize it. And the contents of one's paycheck is still closely scrutinized, I think. I'm not sure if they can make the connection between 'what's missing' and 'whodunit' but there is a small chance. Granted November is pretty soon. I'm not looking forward to it. My candidate doesn't have a chance in hell if said Americans don't wake up. OTOH, he has an extremely good chance if people stop voting by habit ("Dad was a Rep/Dem so I'm voting Rep/Dem." or "I'm voting how my husband/wife votes." or "I'm voting how my union tells me to.") knowwhatImean,Vern? ..-. Life is short. Eat dessert first! --- http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development |
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 04:58:04 GMT, John Chase
calmly ranted: Eide wrote: I agree, they're both unacceptable. I wish there was a viable option. There is: Vote Libertarian! Amen. But they have to extricate their heads first. ..-. Life is short. Eat dessert first! --- http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development |
On 6 Sep 2004 12:26:55 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
||In article , Gunner says... || ||The labor laws were way overdue for an overhaul. Its not clear yet ||that anyone will loose overtime, and it may well be that more ||employees may be eligible for overtime. || ||Business has been pushing for this change for years. I'll ||leave it to you as an educated individual to decide if they ||would advocate something that would cost them profit. Sheesh. As a former employee, and also a salried employee, even a boss who honestly is trying to do right by his people can get screwed under the old guidelines. All it takes is one ex-employee with a grudge and a sleazy lawyer (redundant?) to put a good company out of business, or at least destroy a couple years of profitability. I have read the new rules. They make sense, and they better define who is eligible and who is not, and under what circumstances. I did not see a downside for any group of people. Except the attorneys. Texas Parts Guy |
On 6 Sep 2004 20:17:28 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
||But then again, there are a few things that folks don't ||miss - one is gas prices. Another is being forced into ||bankrupcy. And the contents of one's paycheck is still ||closely scrutinized, I think. Think again. With so many of today's paychecks going straight to direct deposit, people still make mistakes and employees still fail to notice them. It's routine at my wife's company to discover big errors - repeated on every check - a year or more later. Texas Parts Guy |
In article , Rex B says...
I have read the new rules. They make sense, and they better define who is eligible and who is not, and under what circumstances. I did not see a downside for any group of people. Of course. Business Interests all got together and decided to implement a bunch of rules to give their employees more money. How could I have missed this. Time will tell what the upshot of the changes will be. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
On 7 Sep 2004 10:19:30 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
||In article , Rex B says... || || I have read the new rules. They make sense, and they better define who is ||eligible and who is not, and under what circumstances. I did not see a downside ||for any group of people. || ||Of course. Business Interests all got together and decided ||to implement a bunch of rules to give their employees more ||money. How could I have missed this. That's not what I said. More accurately, government bureaucrats who have been arbitrarily interpreting ambiguous compensation laws, have been given better rules to eliminate the creative application of the guidelines. From what I can see here at this place of business (~200 employees) it means that the boss can no longer ask salaried people like myself to work evenings and weekends without additional compensation. I used to have to work some Saturdays whether I needed to or not, just to stay out of the "doghouse". Now it's a non-issue. Similarly, it was not unusual for him to ask long-time hourly people to help with an inventory or a store move "off the clock". Most would oblige to get or stay in his good graces. Or maybe just because it was preferrable to going home. It will be interesting to see how he handles the fall inventory marathons this year. My sister, who is a minimum wage type, worked for a fast food franchise that routinely expected employees to clock out each day and then work another hour or two off the clock. Apparetly this has been a wide-spead practice in some industries, because the existing laws, penalties, and enforcement were weak. This law explicitly bans this practice and makes the penalties harsh enough to make an employer think twice. So from my POV, this law favors the working man and is ****ing employers off all over the country. Texas Parts Guy |
"jim rozen" wrote in message ... In article , Rex B says... I have read the new rules. They make sense, and they better define who is eligible and who is not, and under what circumstances. I did not see a downside for any group of people. Of course. Business Interests all got together and decided to implement a bunch of rules to give their employees more money. How could I have missed this. Time will tell what the upshot of the changes will be. Jim Help us out here Jim. The new guidelines leave unchanged the current rules for overtime for any employee paid hourly or paid as part of a labor contract. It adds any employee making $23,660 or less regardless of whether they are paid hourly or are salaried. To be honest I am rather miffed to find out that other white collar workers were getting overtime pay while I was working Saturday and Sunday for a "Nice job Steve" on Monday. Exactly which clause of this http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/complian...irpay/main.htm is causing you grief. Steve. |
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
wrote back on Mon, 06 Sep 2004 19:57:49 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking : My real confusion lies in anyone who is so partisan. Dems and GOPs have both said and done many stupid things. And yet they have both said and done wonderful things. Do you not see it that way? Nope. As they say..the Devil is in the details. The current political climate is as you say..far to the left of where it was prior to the 60s. Who was it..Goldwater or Reagan that said " I didnt leave the Democratic Party, it left me" ? Goldwater always was a Republican. Reagan, and many other former Democrats, make that statement about the Democrat party. The interesting story I have is of an "ex-hippie" who was at Chicago 68. He's the guy with the long blonde hair, wearing a gas mask with peace signs and the like on it, in the Life magazine coverage (IIRC). So you can imagine his dismay to take a look around a few years ago and discover that he was now considered to be a "Republican." So he started a dot com, sold that and bought a house, an SUV, and a wife. :-) His politics haven't changed, but "Kids these days, haven't got any good drugs, of course, we took them all..." tschus pyotr -- pyotr filipivich Old farts these days - no like when I was a boy. We used to have us Real Geezers in those days. Now, they'll let anybody with a little gray hair be an old fart. |
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
wrote back on Mon, 06 Sep 2004 19:57:49 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking : What we are seeing, and hoping for..is that the public (for many reasons) has about had it with politics as usual and the shift to the Left..and a gathering storm of ****ed off individuals will be jacking the beam back into place. We can only hope and watch and try to ensure that they dont jack it too far to the Right, which can be as bad as that Left tilt. Back to where the Founders put it, is about the correct place for it to be. Keep in mind Gunner, that what is too far one way, is too far the other elsewhere. The Marquis de Lafayette fled France after the revolution because he was considered a dangerous reactionary. On arriving in Austria, he was arrested for being a dangerous revolutionary. (That whole "Study in the Americas" bit with Washington, et al.) Right about now, the whole idea of a limited Federal Government is far too radical for most people. tschus pyotr -- pyotr filipivich We didn't have these sorts of problems when I was a boy, back when snakes wore shoes and dirt was $2 a pound, if you could find it. We had to make our own from rocks! |
In article , pyotr filipivich
says... Right about now, the whole idea of a limited Federal Government is far too radical for most people. And at the head of that list would be the folks who currently inhabit the white house at the moment. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
On 7 Sep 2004 10:19:30 -0700, jim rozen
wrote: In article , Rex B says... I have read the new rules. They make sense, and they better define who is eligible and who is not, and under what circumstances. I did not see a downside for any group of people. Of course. Business Interests all got together and decided to implement a bunch of rules to give their employees more money. How could I have missed this. Time will tell what the upshot of the changes will be. Jim Jim, can you point out the places in the new rules where the business interests got together and took money away from their employees? Gunner "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke |
On 7 Sep 2004 22:04:17 -0700, jim rozen
wrote: In article , pyotr filipivich says... Right about now, the whole idea of a limited Federal Government is far too radical for most people. And at the head of that list would be the folks who currently inhabit the white house at the moment. Jim As he kicked off his run for President this weekend, Texas Governor George W. Bush called for a smaller, more effective government. Bush also called for a stronger military as he made a high-profile appearance in Cedar Rapids, Iowa on Saturday. "Government should do a few things, and do them well. Government should not try to be all things to all people," Bush said. But, he added, "I will rebuild our military power, because a dangerous world still requires a sharp sword." Bush laid out general principles about the role of the federal government, but said "there will come a time" for more specific plans. In general, the leading GOP candidate says he advocates a "limited" government. In Texas, Bush has promoted cooperation between the state government and religious organizations to address social needs. Bush said he would try to make it easier for the federal government and faith-based groups to work together in an "army of compassion" that would attack problems like drugs and poverty. In previous speeches, Bush has also said Texas' "limited" government can provide a model for the federal government. In his state of the state address in January, Bush said: "Here in the nation's second largest state—the world's 11th largest economy—we meet for only 140 days only once every two years. And we get the job done, because limited government works. Limited government brings focus. It requires us to put aside posturing and politics to find common ground." In what has already become a campaign catchphrase, Bush has described his leadership philosophy of cooperation between government, religious institutions and community organizations as "compassionate conservatism." "My guiding principle is government if necessary, but not necessarily government," Bush has said. ********************************** You fellows seem to forget that there is a war going on. WW4 as a matter of fact. Not to mention that we are coming out of a 4 yr recession that appears to have been largely jumpstarted by Bush. Jim, please point out to me, exactly where the increases in the size of the government have been and we can discuss the issue. Gunner "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:52 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter