"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
In rec.woodworking
otforme (Charlie Self) wrote:

It is probable that we need to return to the early '70s and the windfall
profit
tax laws. A lot of this price gouging would disappear if there were no
extra
profits made.

Sure, let's kill the industry again. I lived through that ill conceived
idea, right her in Texas buddy. It put hundreds of thousands on the
streets and killed the city of Houston for a decade. Screw that.

While some may have been out of jobs in Houston, I recall Houston in the 70
as being a boom town with it being hard to hold on to good help by 1974. It
very easy to find a job in the 70's in Houston. At least every one I knew
that was looking for a job including engineers were tossing coins to decide
which company to go with.

otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in message
LOTS OF SNIPPAGE
But I'm not exactly sure how a windfall profits tax could have done so much
damage: it taxed only excess profits.
SNIP SOME MORE
Charlie Self

What exactly are "excess profits". More than you get? More than you
think someone should get? 1%, 10%, 500%, 5000% ??? If you sell an
article or book, how do we determine how much of your profits are
"excess" so we can take them all?

Collusion and price fixing are criminal acts and should be prosecuted.
However, like any crime, you should be able to prove it and not punish
someone simply because you are envious or because you covet something
they have and don't want to pay their asking price.

Dave Hall

You're a Democrat, aren't you, Charlie?

I, for one, think we are already over-regulated. Sure, there are cases
where some controls might be appropriate, but in general I feel that in
terms of government "Less is More".

Mike

--

There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
bruce writes:

It is probable that we need to return to the early '70s and the windfall
profit
tax laws. A lot of this price gouging would disappear if there were no
extra
profits made.

Sure, let's kill the industry again. I lived through that ill conceived
idea, right her in Texas buddy. It put hundreds of thousands on the
streets and killed the city of Houston for a decade. Screw that.

You want to talk windfall profits? Take a look at pharamacuticals,
banking, finance and medicine and leave the god damn oil industry alone.

Sure. Let 'em gouge the consumer to keep some others working.

I can't argue at least the pharmaceuticals need controls, but what they
really
need is there is a share-out with other countries for the R&D, so the U.S.
consumer doesn't pay the entire load for the entire world. The medical
industry
is a real case. I don't even begin to know what the solution is.

But I'm not exactly sure how a windfall profits tax could have done so
much
damage: it taxed only excess profits.

Check your info. I think it was the Arabs and their shutting off the oil
taps
that created the Houson problem.

If it wasn't, and the oil industry needs to screw the consumer more than
it
normally does just to stay in business, then it's really time for tighter
regulation.

Charlie Self

"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil
and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson

In article ,
says...
You're a Democrat, aren't you, Charlie?

I, for one, think we are already over-regulated. Sure, there are cases
where some controls might be appropriate, but in general I feel that in
terms of government "Less is More".

This is not directed at you, Mike, but the actual "less is more" crowd
is currently in power and what they mean by "less is more" is more for
them and less for you! ;~)

Kim

Well, I think the events of September 11th and the ensuing war on terrorism
have definitely caused some approaches in financial terms to change
dramatically, but in general I feel that President Bush's fiscal approach
has been economically sound and I agree with it. In point of fact, the
Presidential office has very little to do with actual economic trends and
when people try to make that kind of argument it only shows how little they
understand about economics.

I'm not real thrilled about the high billions of dollars being spent on
Iraq, but that's the situation at this point. I'm not going to pretend to
know what the best way to approach that is.

In general, I agree with most of the Republican platform - smaller
government, stronger military, lower taxes. I felt like puking my guts up
when Clinton downsized military bases and ballooned social programs. But,
thankfully, we live in a free country where differing opinions are welcome.
My Dad and I are the only Republicans in my family (that makes us 2 vs.
about 40, counting aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, etc.), so I learned
long ago that trying to convince a Republican of the virtues of being a
Democrat and vice versa is an exercise in futility.

Mike

--

There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.


"Kim Whitmyre" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
says...
You're a Democrat, aren't you, Charlie?

I, for one, think we are already over-regulated. Sure, there are cases
where some controls might be appropriate, but in general I feel that in
terms of government "Less is More".

This is not directed at you, Mike, but the actual "less is more" crowd
is currently in power and what they mean by "less is more" is more for
them and less for you! ;~)

Kim

"Mike in Mystic"
In general, I agree with most of the Republican platform - smaller
government, stronger military, lower taxes. I felt like puking my guts up
when Clinton downsized military bases and ballooned social programs. But,
thankfully, we live in a free country where differing opinions are
welcome.
My Dad and I are the only Republicans in my family (that makes us 2 vs.
about 40, counting aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, etc.), so I learned
long ago that trying to convince a Republican of the virtues of being a
Democrat and vice versa is an exercise in futility.

Mike


The only problem with the Bush administration is that the smaller government
has grown from nearly 4 million to well over 12 million people. Where has
the Republican smaller government gone to? I realize that "smaller
government" means more about less regulation but this is a lame way to
decrease the unemployment figures. And the lower taxes will soon rise due
to the rebuilding of Iraq (though somehow the Democrats will be blamed).

I personally loathe all politicians but I'm a disgruntled Republican at the
moment. I'm still trying to figure out why our schools have cut out music
programs, shop, teaching for advanced students, have three administrators
for every one teacher, etc., and still want more money. Seems that 89
billion would help more here in the states instead of rebuilding a country
that is supposed to have trillions of dollars in oil reserves.........

Gary

Mike in Mystic asks:

You're a Democrat, aren't you, Charlie?


Actually, independent, with a slight--very slight--conservative tilt, which
does not mean I bend over and grab my ankles every time big business and its
political buddies cranks up another screwing for John Q.

Charlie Self

"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson

The only problem with the Bush administration is that the smaller government
has grown from nearly 4 million to well over 12 million people.

Anyone who believes the Remocrats or the Depublicans are for smaller government
has not been paying attention. The uniparty that the GOP/DNC has become is
always going to expand the government.
They are all at the mercy of the "4th branch of government" the civil service
union.

On 19-Sep-2003, "Mike in Mystic" wrote:

In general, I agree with most of the Republican platform - smaller
government, stronger military, lower taxes. I felt like puking my guts up
when Clinton downsized military bases and ballooned social programs. But,

Interesting _fact_. In the first three years in office, Clinton increased govt
spending by 3.5%. In the first three years of Bush jr's term, he increased
spending by 13.5%.

Start puking.

Mike
PS - your grandchildren will be spitting on your grave when they see the
govt debts they've inherited. Debt-based government is the most immoral
form of theft and fraud. I thas been a fact of life in all western countries,
and all political parties (left, right or centre) for the last 35 years or so.
Tax cuts? yeah, right...

comparing those two spending figures is ridiculous. Different situations
entirely. Clinton was lucky enough to be President during a boom in the
economy (which he had absolutely nothing to do with) and Bush is fighting
wars all over the world. I'll grant you that even as a staunch Republican
I'm a little tired of paying for freedom in far off lands, but you can't
blame spending increases like that solely on the President. After 9/11 you
can't have expected us to sit by and reduce spending.

And as far as my grandchildren being ****ed at me for leaving them debt,
that's the least of my worries. I honestly wonder if we'll make it through
the baby boomers retiring. When the average age of the largest demographic
group becomes older than retirement age, issues become ridiculously skewed.
Old sick people seem to think they deserve medicine for free. They think
everyone is out to get them and that everything costs too much. At least
they'll vacate a lot of the workforce and we shouldn't have a job shortage.
Well, as long as NAFTA get's revoked vbeg hehe.

These arguments are hilarious, neither of us can escape our ultimate doom at
the hands of self-serving political machines. At least we have wood and
tools and hopefully some time to use them to good effect.

Mike


Mike


--

There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.


"Michael Daly" wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
On 19-Sep-2003, "Mike in Mystic" wrote:

In general, I agree with most of the Republican platform - smaller
government, stronger military, lower taxes. I felt like puking my guts
up
when Clinton downsized military bases and ballooned social programs.
But,

Interesting _fact_. In the first three years in office, Clinton increased
govt
spending by 3.5%. In the first three years of Bush jr's term, he
increased
spending by 13.5%.

Start puking.

Mike
PS - your grandchildren will be spitting on your grave when they see the
govt debts they've inherited. Debt-based government is the most immoral
form of theft and fraud. I thas been a fact of life in all western
countries,
and all political parties (left, right or centre) for the last 35 years or
so.
Tax cuts? yeah, right...

Mike in Mystic responds:

comparing those two spending figures is ridiculous. Different situations
entirely. Clinton was lucky enough to be President during a boom in the
economy (which he had absolutely nothing to do with) and Bush is fighting
wars all over the world. I'll grant you that even as a staunch Republican
I'm a little tired of paying for freedom in far off lands, but you can't
blame spending increases like that solely on the President. After 9/11 you
can't have expected us to sit by and reduce spending.


Yeah, you could. He could have spent the money protecting the U.S.

I do love this bit though: Clinton had nothing to do with the good times on his
watch, but all the crap that's falling on Bush is Clinton's fault.

Old sick people seem to think they deserve medicine for free. They think
everyone is out to get them and that everything costs too much. At least
they'll vacate a lot of the workforce and we shouldn't have a job shortage.
Well, as long as NAFTA get's revoked vbeg hehe.

Not all old people are sick. Not all need free medicine. But it would help if
pharmaceutical companies didn't put the screws to consumers. As the boomers
vacate the workforce, something that will happen in a big rush starting very,
very soon, you won't have to worry about NAFTA or anything else taking jobs
away. There will be openings everywhere.

Charlie Self

"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson

Greg Fretwell writes:

Anyone who believes the Remocrats or the Depublicans are for smaller
government
has not been paying attention. The uniparty that the GOP/DNC has become is
always going to expand the government.

Sort of like Mobile/Exxon and Shell/Texaco. But who's in the catbird seat?

Charlie Self

"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson

Dave Hall asks:

(Charlie Self) wrote in message
LOTS OF SNIPPAGE
But I'm not exactly sure how a windfall profits tax could have done so much
damage: it taxed only excess profits.
SNIP SOME MORE
Charlie Self

What exactly are "excess profits". More than you get? More than you
think someone should get? 1%, 10%, 500%, 5000% ??? If you sell an
article or book, how do we determine how much of your profits are
"excess" so we can take them all?

Dave, c'mon. That's nonsense. The windfall profits tax hit profits that
exceeded those in a normal year by something like 1000%. It did stop the kind
of at-the-pump-gouging we're getting now. Maybe it was unfair to
business--pardon me while I choke at the total unfairness to bidness in this
country over the past couple decades.

Collusion and price fixing are criminal acts and should be prosecuted.
However, like any crime, you should be able to prove it and not punish
someone simply because you are envious or because you covet something
they have and don't want to pay their asking price.

I'm not exactly sure how you get covetessness out of a windfall profits tax,
nor do I much care, but it does seem that you might have some form to your
argument other than an insult. Otherwise, your argument doesn't stand up at all
well.

Charlie Self

"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson

"Charlie Self" wrote in message

Yeah, you could. He could have spent the money protecting the U.S.

How? If you have a better plan, call or write your congress critter.

The concept of fighting wars, even broad ones against terrorism, away from
these shores if possible, is a good one. Sure, it cost's money, lots of it,
and lives ... but a damn sight fewer of _our_ women and children are lost
that way. How soon you forget.

I do love this bit though: Clinton had nothing to do with the good times
on his
watch, but all the crap that's falling on Bush is Clinton's fault.

As if the previous administration's inaction on terrorism had no impact
whatsoever on what you are seeing now.

I have tax returns from two businesses, along with a kid's dwindling college
fund, that prove inarguably the economy was faltering months _before_ Bush
took office. Then 9/11.

This is real easy to document for those who shy away from the knee jerk,
blame the other party, reactions to every issue that crops up.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/13/03

On 19-Sep-2003, "Mike in Mystic" wrote:

comparing those two spending figures is ridiculous. Different situations
entirely.

Look into it. Bush has been expanding the cilly service without any reference
to war, terrorism or much of anything else. Iraq is budgeted outside of the
regular budget process. He and his cabinet have been expanding govt and
spending willy nilly to do it. Never give any idiot in govt the benefit of the
doubt.

Mike

Swingman responds:

This is real easy to document for those who shy away from the knee jerk,
blame the other party, reactions to every issue that crops up.

Bush ain't "the other party." He's an opportunistic clown who has bankrupted
every business he ever ran. As someone once said, he "was born on third base
and thinks he hit a triple."

None of that makes him Mr. Republican.

Charlie Self

"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:25:44 GMT, (Bruce) wrote:

Of course an SUV doesn't require expensive annual maintenance by certified
AP mechanics,

$1500 +/-

hanger storage fees

$40 / month for an outside tie down w/ key card access.

Very few "poor" people own planes.

Nor do they own boats, R/V's, race cars, vacation homes, custom
motorcycles, horses, or really nice in ground swimming pools, but many
"average" folks I know do.

I wouldn't even consider it and my salary has 6 digits in it.

You payz your money... G

Barry

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

I do love this bit though: Clinton had nothing to do with the good times
on his
watch, but all the crap that's falling on Bush is Clinton's fault.

That's exactly my point, the good times weren't due to Clinton, but the bad
times aren't due to Bush and vice versa. Economic trends of the magnitude
of the 90's boom and the current downturn are way beyond the influence of
the President, regardless of what brand of idiot they are.


Not all old people are sick. Not all need free medicine. But it would help
if
pharmaceutical companies didn't put the screws to consumers.

Pharmaceutical companies do nothing of the sort, at least not in general and
in actuality not even very often. They spend billions of dollars a year
funding research to find medicines. They don't HAVE to do that, you know.
It's a business, though, which it seems to me that most people forget,
particularly the individuals who think everything should be controlled or
damn near free. Just because John Doe from Somewhereville, USA happens to
have a need for a particular drug that the big bad pharma company makes and
can't afford it doesn't entitle him to get it for free. In the end, any
price controls and other various forms of government intervention will
simply result in fewer drugs being developed, plain and simple. Why would
businesses choose to remain in an industry that won't allow them to grow and
compete? personally, the socialistic approach to health care that several
European nations and Canda utilize is horrid. So, basically, the elderly
"give me my drugs for free" crowd is likely going to have an impact on my
grandchildren maybe having a disease that they have no treatment for.
Thanks a lot.

As the boomers vacate the workforce, something that will happen in a big
rush starting very,
very soon, you won't have to worry about NAFTA or anything else taking
jobs
away. There will be openings everywhere.

That's the only good thing I can think of resulting from the aging of the
over bred generation.


Charlie Self

"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil
and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson

"Opportunistic clown"? ... sounds more fitting for someone who got his
knob polished in the Oval Office.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/13/03


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
Swingman responds:

This is real easy to document for those who shy away from the knee jerk,
blame the other party, reactions to every issue that crops up.

Bush ain't "the other party." He's an opportunistic clown who has
bankrupted
every business he ever ran. As someone once said, he "was born on third
base
and thinks he hit a triple."

None of that makes him Mr. Republican.

Charlie Self

Mike in Mystic warbles:

Pharmaceutical companies do nothing of the sort, at least not in general and
in actuality not even very often. They spend billions of dollars a year
funding research to find medicines. They don't HAVE to do that, you know.

Sure they do. Where do they get their new drugs if they don't?

Just because John Doe from Somewhereville, USA happens to
have a need for a particular drug that the big bad pharma company makes and
can't afford it doesn't entitle him to get it for free.

Ah, but if he's able to drive to Canada he gets it for less than half price.

Why is that? Because our marvelous pharmaceutical companies think the U.S. is
the font of drug research blessings for the entire world, that's why.

In the end, any
price controls and other various forms of government intervention will
simply result in fewer drugs being developed, plain and simple.

Nonsense. Profits may drop if drug prices are stabilized throughout the world,
but the drug companies are NOT about to stop developing their only source of
income.

personally, the socialistic approach to health care that several
European nations and Canda utilize is horrid.

How?

That's the only good thing I can think of resulting from the aging of the
over bred generation.

WTF does that mean? Over-bred? Compared to the whining ninnies of younger
generations, or what? Or are they like German shepherds and we can expect hip
displacia at a young age and in many?


Charlie Self

"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson

Barry Burke responds:

Very few "poor" people own planes.

Nor do they own boats, R/V's, race cars, vacation homes, custom
motorcycles, horses, or really nice in ground swimming pools, but many
"average" folks I know do.

And damned few poor folks own SUVs. Too bad ownership hasn't remained confined
to people will to take them where they belong, off-road.

Charlie Self

"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson

Swingman posits:

"Opportunistic clown"? ... sounds more fitting for someone who got his
knob polished in the Oval Office.

It might, but, then I wasn't describing anyone getting their knob polished
anywhere since it's a total irrelevancy.

Charlie Self

"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Mike in Mystic warbles:

Pharmaceutical companies do nothing of the sort, at least not in general
and
in actuality not even very often. They spend billions of dollars a year
funding research to find medicines. They don't HAVE to do that, you
know.

Sure they do. Where do they get their new drugs if they don't?

They are in business to grow revenues. If the government stops them from
doing that freely, then the attractiveness of the business is greatly
reduced. If you add up all the assets of Pfizer (the company I happen to
work for, so I do have some insight here), it is only about 60% of their
market capitalization. The other 40% is from shareholders opinion of our
growth, our future revenues. If the government limits our ability to grow,
then we become a bad investment.


Just because John Doe from Somewhereville, USA happens to
have a need for a particular drug that the big bad pharma company makes
and
can't afford it doesn't entitle him to get it for free.

Ah, but if he's able to drive to Canada he gets it for less than half
price.

Why is that? Because our marvelous pharmaceutical companies think the U.S.
is
the font of drug research blessings for the entire world, that's why.

This opinon of yours is so misguided and inaccurate it literally made me
laugh out loud. The pharmaceutical companies are in those markets because
there is a potential to make a profit. Sure, the free market of the US
might bear some of the burden in this system, but if a large enough
population starts going to Canada and reduces profits in the US, all the
pharmaceutical companies are going to do is to either stop offering their
drugs in those markets (this is the most likely scenario), or attempt to
negotiate with those markets for different trade practices. Either way,
consumers going to Canada is only ensuring one thing - that they are
compromising their health by increasing the likelihood that they get duped
by some illegitimate third-party schlepping cheap drugs in front of their
faces.

In the end, any
price controls and other various forms of government intervention will
simply result in fewer drugs being developed, plain and simple.

Nonsense. Profits may drop if drug prices are stabilized throughout the
world,
but the drug companies are NOT about to stop developing their only source
of
income.

They might not STOP, but they might have to lay-off hundreds of thousdands
of employees and greatly scale back their research and production
activities. Sort of like the airlines. They didn't stop flying, but they
changed their ways to deal with the situation. I'm sure you're looking
forward to a government controlled airline, too.


personally, the socialistic approach to health care that several
European nations and Canda utilize is horrid.

How?

I only have experience in a limited number of locations personally, but have
been told first-hand from friends that have dealt with these things. A
friend of mine in England, for example, needed surgery that was deemed
"elective". He was in a great deal of pain, but it wasn't life threatening.
So, he waited almost a YEAR!! to get the surgery. He looked up the same
surgery and procedures in the US and found he would have likely had the
surgery within a week in the US. For my own part, I was in Quebec on
vacation and came down with a extremely serious illness and had to go to the
hospital for some blood tests. They had blood analyzers on the receptionist
counter so that the charge nurse (if that's what they're called) could
analyze samples in between answering phones, filling out paperwork, checking
in patients, etc. And, they insisted I pay in cash in full before they
would even let me in the phlebotomy chair. And they charged me up the ass,
thank you very much! But, that's beside the point. My point is that
socialist-run medicine means fewer choices and likely mediocre at best
services. Are you really willing to go that route in the US, just so you
can save some money on prescriptions? I know you'll say "prescriptions are
one thing, the medical system is another", but I beg to differ. The two are
related, and it isn't too hard to see how letting the government control one
aspect will likely lead to them getting their hands on everything.


That's the only good thing I can think of resulting from the aging of the
over bred generation.

WTF does that mean? Over-bred? Compared to the whining ninnies of younger
generations, or what? Or are they like German shepherds and we can expect
hip
displacia at a young age and in many?

I just mean that the burden on our society by the lapsing social security
system, other social systems, un-insured individuals, etc. by the "baby
boomers" scares me to death. I really wonder lately listening to the more
aged of my colleagues and their paranoid, almost terrified, view of their
existences whether our nation will make it through their ability to screw up
the country. Do you really want a bunch of geriatrics having the power to
influence decision making legislation? Last I checked, only a slim minority
of the let's say 70+ crowd really thought too much about the future other
than their own. My grandmother lived to be 89 and the last about 10 years
of her life were spent being terrified of anyone under the age of 35. I
guess "they" will have their chance to get all of us "young'uns" back soon
enough.

Mike




Charlie Self

"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil
and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson

Lying under oath, impeachment and disbarment ... "total irrelevancies". What
a champion for the old cause, eh?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/13/03


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
Swingman posits:

"Opportunistic clown"? ... sounds more fitting for someone who got his
knob polished in the Oval Office.

It might, but, then I wasn't describing anyone getting their knob polished
anywhere since it's a total irrelevancy.

Charlie Self

The only problem with the Bush administration is that the smaller
government
has grown from nearly 4 million to well over 12 million people. Where
has
the Republican smaller government gone to? I realize that "smaller
government" means more about less regulation but this is a lame way to
decrease the unemployment figures. And the lower taxes will soon rise due
to the rebuilding of Iraq (though somehow the Democrats will be blamed).

I personally loathe all politicians but I'm a disgruntled Republican at
the
moment. I'm still trying to figure out why our schools have cut out music
programs, shop, teaching for advanced students, have three administrators
for every one teacher, etc., and still want more money. Seems that 89
billion would help more here in the states instead of rebuilding a country
that is supposed to have trillions of dollars in oil reserves.........

Gary

First, I don't necessarily dispute the figure, but can you back up the 4
million to 12 million number? I'd be shocked to learn than there were only
4 million federal government workers when Bush took office (even excluding
the military). Heck, I'd be suprised if it was only 12 million before or
after.

I don't have an answer where the money goes in the rat hole we call the
public education system. Seems that I just saw a report that says the
United States spends more money per child on education than any other major
country in the world. My children aren't in school yet, so I haven't had an
up-close look at the school system as an adult. Maybe I'd have a better
handle on the problem if I did. And the states are screaming for more
federal money because the feds are mandating testing that the states say
they don't have the money for. I guess if they were doing their job in the
first place, all of this testing wouldn't be necessary.

I'm a mildly disgruntled Republican in that I haven't agreed with everything
this administration has done. I think there have been mistakes, but
unfortunately, there isn't a book that tells you what to do after
terrorist-controlled planes kill a few thousand Americans. My hope for Iraq
is that there is a broader strategy at work that is aimed at containing the
Middle East, but it's the kind of plan you can't publish in the newspaper.
You can't convince me that the whole idea is to get some sweetheart deals
for Haliburton. Laura Bush would not be married to someone who would trade
American lives for Haliburton contracts.

todd

Swingman responds:

Lying under oath, impeachment and disbarment ... "total irrelevancies". What
a champion for the old cause, eh?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/13/03


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
Swingman posits:

"Opportunistic clown"? ... sounds more fitting for someone who got his
knob polished in the Oval Office.

It might, but, then I wasn't describing anyone getting their knob polished
anywhere since it's a total irrelevancy.

Why don't you wait until you catch the ball before you run with it. You get a
lot of drops doing it your way. I didn't mention Clinton to start with. You
mentioned knob polishing. I responded to that comment. You add more about
Clinton.

All of which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with George W. Bush and
his abilities or lack of, something you are having a problem grasping, and
something I'm not interested in pursuing further at this time.

Charlie Self

"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson

Mike in Mystic responds:

Why is that? Because our marvelous pharmaceutical companies think the U.S.
is
the font of drug research blessings for the entire world, that's why.

This opinon of yours is so misguided and inaccurate it literally made me
laugh out loud. The pharmaceutical companies are in those markets because
there is a potential to make a profit. Sure, the free market of the US
might bear some of the burden in this system, but if a large enough
population starts going to Canada and reduces profits in the US, all the
pharmaceutical companies are going to do is to either stop offering their
drugs in those markets (this is the most likely scenario), or attempt to
negotiate with those markets for different trade practices.

Actually, what they're trying to do is force the feds to control the market for
them.

You can laugh, but your opinion is based on inside information that stops at
the walls of your office or lab.

Either way,
consumers going to Canada is only ensuring one thing - that they are
compromising their health by increasing the likelihood that they get duped
by some illegitimate third-party schlepping cheap drugs in front of their
faces.

I've heard this one time and again and seen neither proof nor any kind of
rationale. The cheap drugs being schlepped are the cheap drugs manufactured by
divisions of U.S. companies in other countries. Or they're from non-U.S.
companies where the U.S. division is the overseas unit.


They might not STOP, but they might have to lay-off hundreds of thousdands
of employees and greatly scale back their research and production
activities. Sort of like the airlines. They didn't stop flying, but they
changed their ways to deal with the situation. I'm sure you're looking
forward to a government controlled airline, too.

I'm not looking forward to a government controlled anything, but I'd sure as
hell like to see a medical set up in this country that works for everyone: the
most recent figures I've seen tell me that 41+ million Americans are without
health insurance. From personal experience, I can tell you that can be both
painful and expensive. The expense comes from the medical community having
allowed insurance companies to lock them in in charges for insureds. Thus, if
you're between policies for any reason, and you're not on the dole, you pay
from two to three times the insurance established cost for medical treatment.

My grandmother lived to be 89 and the last about 10 years
of her life were spent being terrified of anyone under the age of 35.

Jesus. I wonder why!

Charlie Self

"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson

I feel for you. My last one is graduates from High School this year.

In the past 20 years I have watched the public school system deteriorate,
while the taxes to pay for it increase to disbelief (I will pay $7000+ in
school taxes alone for 2003 on my only residence ... just got the bill).

From where I sit the biggest impediment to education in this neck of the
woods, as politically incorrect as it may appear, is racial bickering.
Racial issues permeate every single decision in this school district to such
an extent that the educrats, black, brown, or white, are paralyzed into
ineffectualness making sure that someone else doesn't get something they
don't. The only aim they serve is shooting themselves in their collective
foot.

I will say this unequivocally about Bush's education appointment. Rod Paige
is an idiot and a closet bigot. He was one when he was here, and he is a
bigger one in Washington. The man speaks in pleasing platitudes and fully
expects his words alone to take the place of actions. This is not arrogance.
He is, in short, and typical of so many of our educrats, educated beyond his
intelligence. He is simply incapable of any action that is not politically
or racially motivated. Under his administration cheating on standardized
tests was rampant and fraud in almost every aspect of his administration
kept the local TV "investigative journalist" in beans and weenies during his
tenure.

With him at the Federal level, expect things to only get worse for the rest
of you.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/13/03

"todd" wrote in message ...

I don't have an answer where the money goes in the rat hole we call the
public education system. Seems that I just saw a report that says the
United States spends more money per child on education than any other
major
country in the world. My children aren't in school yet, so I haven't had
an
up-close look at the school system as an adult. Maybe I'd have a better
handle on the problem if I did. And the states are screaming for more
federal money because the feds are mandating testing that the states say
they don't have the money for. I guess if they were doing their job in
the
first place, all of this testing wouldn't be necessary.

You didn't mention Clinton? Read your own words: "I do love this bit though:
Clinton had nothing to do with the good times on his
watch, but all the crap that's falling on Bush is Clinton's fault."

Your memory is apparently as short as your reversionary tendencies are long.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/13/03


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Swingman responds:

Lying under oath, impeachment and disbarment ... "total irrelevancies".
What
a champion for the old cause, eh?


Why don't you wait until you catch the ball before you run with it. You
get a
lot of drops doing it your way. I didn't mention Clinton to start with.
You
mentioned knob polishing. I responded to that comment. You add more about
Clinton.

All of which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with George W. Bush
and
his abilities or lack of, something you are having a problem grasping, and
something I'm not interested in pursuing further at this time.

Charlie Self

"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil
and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson

Here I go ... to get the Windex to clean the Jack/water off the monitor. ;)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/13/03

"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." wrote in message
On 19 Sep 2003 22:58:40 GMT, (Charlie Self)
wrote:

Swingman responds:


It might, but, then I wasn't describing anyone getting their knob
polished
anywhere since it's a total irrelevancy.

Why don't you wait until you catch the ball before you run with it. You
get a
lot of drops doing it your way. I didn't mention Clinton to start with.

This is why I read this NG almost every day. Two accomplished
woodworkers, who are nice guys and gentlemen, discussing politics.

I'm just gonna sit back and read.

On 19 Sep 2003 22:58:40 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

Swingman responds:


It might, but, then I wasn't describing anyone getting their knob polished
anywhere since it's a total irrelevancy.

Why don't you wait until you catch the ball before you run with it. You get a
lot of drops doing it your way. I didn't mention Clinton to start with.

This is why I read this NG almost every day. Two accomplished
woodworkers, who are nice guys and gentlemen, discussing politics.

I'm just gonna sit back and read.

Barry

On 19 Sep 2003 18:19:21 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
pixelated:

Mike in Mystic responds:

After 9/11 you can't have expected us to sit by and reduce spending.

Oh, ****! You can NOT be serious, Mike.


Yeah, you could. He could have spent the money protecting the U.S.

(big sigh...)

Very shortly now, we're going to have a death count from the
Little Shrubbery War which is higher than the WTC attack. The
sad fact is that VERY little has been done to actually PROTECT
us because there is no way TO protect a free society. One
person can break into an armory (explosives cache, etc.) and
find enough boom booms to level half a city, then be halfway
across the country before it was found out. One errant soldier
could do even worse damage. What if that tank in LoCal a couple
years ago was fully armed and he wanted to do damage? He could
have leveled several city blocks before a rocket took him out.

Look how long it took to stop a simple sniper last year!

No, we're throwing away billions on false wars and false defenses
and it's making me sick. The terrorist are gettig their way. We
are no longer an entirely free nation and we're tossing more and
more of our freedoms and rights away with each new bill through
congress. As a country, we let fear stop us from living and moving
about. It's absolutely assinine. Wake UP, boys & girls.

I'm voting ANYBODY BUT BUSH at the next election. I hope we have
someone actually -worth- a vote by then, but I'm not holding my
breath.


-----------------------------------------
Jack Kevorkian for Congressional physician!
http://www.diversify.com Wondrous Website Design
=================================================

First, I don't necessarily dispute the figure, but can you back up the 4
million to 12 million number?

That sounds like a big number to me too. We do have to bear in mind the
DEMOCRATS are the ones who insisted on the government running the airport
security. That added about 50,000 employees the first day.

In rec.woodworking
"Leon" wrote:

Sure, let's kill the industry again. I lived through that ill conceived
idea, right her in Texas buddy. It put hundreds of thousands on the
streets and killed the city of Houston for a decade. Screw that.

While some may have been out of jobs in Houston, I recall Houston in the 70
as being a boom town with it being hard to hold on to good help by 1974. It
very easy to find a job in the 70's in Houston. At least every one I knew
that was looking for a job including engineers were tossing coins to decide
which company to go with.

Leon, Houston was indeed booming in the 70s and employing tens of thousands
of displayed auto workers from Michigan and other mid eaetern states. The
Windfall Profits Tax was proposed by Jimmy Carter and was enacted in 1980.
By 1983, Houston was a dustbowl with over 2000 forclosures a month, the VA
and FHA were selling forclosed homes in lots of 100 for about .25 cents on
the 1980 dollar.

While the rest of the US prospered on the low price of energy, we in the
south floundered and even our own legislators and a Texas president could
have cared less. Republican Phil Graham voted against federal money to
retrain displaced oil workers. GWB did nothing to help us either.

Those engineers that were tossing coins to decide where to work? They
didn't have coins to toss. I know guys that were making $5000 a month in
1980 that ended up working for $8 an hour 5 years later. Homes bought for
$150k were forclosed and sold at auction for less than 1/2 that. One
friend put $65,000, his entire life savings, down on a home and later lost
it to forclosure. Even after that much down, he couldn't sell it for less
than he owed.

All you folks despise the "evil" oil companies and forget that real people
with families are working for them, just like you. We're trying to pay our
bills, raise our kids and enjoy our lives too. Gasoline is, by an order of
magnittue, the most inflation proof comodity there is. If the price of
gas appreciated like the price of cars, you'd be paying $15 a gallon for
it. But do you see me whining about the excess profits of GMAC, which are
in fact, HUGE!! Nope because I want folks working in Michigan. It is good
for this country. Ross Perot was right about that huge sucking sound of
jobs going to Mexico and I hate it. I know it isn't good for the country.

Incidentally, I've done my part. I just bought a brand new GMC Yukon,
nearly $40,000, and I did it with OIL money.

Bruce

They spend more on marketing than research of late.

Tell me why an "established', been-around-a while-medicine went from ~
$40 to $200 in about a year?

Renata

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 21:09:17 GMT, "Mike in Mystic"
wrote:


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
--snip--
pharmaceutical companies didn't put the screws to consumers.


Pharmaceutical companies do nothing of the sort, at least not in general and
in actuality not even very often. They spend billions of dollars a year
funding research to find medicines. --snip--
"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil
and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson















(no stain for email)

In rec.woodworking
Renata wrote:

Interesting how he sees that the pharma companies spend billions on
research and yet he doesn't see that the oil companies do the same drilling
dry holes.

They spend more on marketing than research of late.

Tell me why an "established', been-around-a while-medicine went from ~
$40 to $200 in about a year?

Renata

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 21:09:17 GMT, "Mike in Mystic"
wrote:


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
--snip--
pharmaceutical companies didn't put the screws to consumers.


Pharmaceutical companies do nothing of the sort, at least not in general and
in actuality not even very often. They spend billions of dollars a year
funding research to find medicines. --snip--
"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil
and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson















(no stain for email)

"Mike in Mystic" wrote in message
m...

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

I do love this bit though: Clinton had nothing to do with the good times
on his
watch, but all the crap that's falling on Bush is Clinton's fault.

That's exactly my point, the good times weren't due to Clinton, but the
bad
times aren't due to Bush and vice versa. Economic trends of the magnitude
of the 90's boom and the current downturn are way beyond the influence of
the President, regardless of what brand of idiot they are.


Not all old people are sick. Not all need free medicine. But it would
help
if
pharmaceutical companies didn't put the screws to consumers.

Pharmaceutical companies do nothing of the sort, at least not in general
and
in actuality not even very often. They spend billions of dollars a year
funding research to find medicines. They don't HAVE to do that, you know.
It's a business, though, which it seems to me that most people forget,
particularly the individuals who think everything should be controlled or
damn near free. Just because John Doe from Somewhereville, USA happens to
have a need for a particular drug that the big bad pharma company makes
and
can't afford it doesn't entitle him to get it for free. In the end, any
price controls and other various forms of government intervention will
simply result in fewer drugs being developed, plain and simple. Why would
businesses choose to remain in an industry that won't allow them to grow
and
compete? personally, the socialistic approach to health care that several
European nations and Canda utilize is horrid.



I lived most of my life under the Canadian healthcare system, and it worked
very well for me. And I *never* personally knew anyone who was mistreated in
any way. Now that I live in the U.S., I heard lots of horror stories about
people turned away because of inadequate or no insurance. In my opinion, it
is the U.S. system which is horrid.



So, basically, the elderly
"give me my drugs for free" crowd is likely going to have an impact on my
grandchildren maybe having a disease that they have no treatment for.
Thanks a lot.

As the boomers vacate the workforce, something that will happen in a big
rush starting very,
very soon, you won't have to worry about NAFTA or anything else taking
jobs
away. There will be openings everywhere.

That's the only good thing I can think of resulting from the aging of the
over bred generation.


Charlie Self

"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the
tranquil
and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson

"Mike in Mystic" wrote in message
m...

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Mike in Mystic warbles:

Pharmaceutical companies do nothing of the sort, at least not in
general
and
in actuality not even very often. They spend billions of dollars a
year
funding research to find medicines. They don't HAVE to do that, you
know.

Sure they do. Where do they get their new drugs if they don't?

They are in business to grow revenues. If the government stops them from
doing that freely, then the attractiveness of the business is greatly
reduced. If you add up all the assets of Pfizer (the company I happen to
work for, so I do have some insight here), it is only about 60% of their
market capitalization. The other 40% is from shareholders opinion of our
growth, our future revenues. If the government limits our ability to
grow,
then we become a bad investment.


Just because John Doe from Somewhereville, USA happens to
have a need for a particular drug that the big bad pharma company makes
and
can't afford it doesn't entitle him to get it for free.

Ah, but if he's able to drive to Canada he gets it for less than half
price.

Why is that? Because our marvelous pharmaceutical companies think the
U.S.
is
the font of drug research blessings for the entire world, that's why.

This opinon of yours is so misguided and inaccurate it literally made me
laugh out loud. The pharmaceutical companies are in those markets because
there is a potential to make a profit. Sure, the free market of the US
might bear some of the burden in this system, but if a large enough
population starts going to Canada and reduces profits in the US, all the
pharmaceutical companies are going to do is to either stop offering their
drugs in those markets (this is the most likely scenario), or attempt to
negotiate with those markets for different trade practices. Either way,
consumers going to Canada is only ensuring one thing - that they are
compromising their health by increasing the likelihood that they get duped
by some illegitimate third-party schlepping cheap drugs in front of their
faces.


I recall a CBS 60 Minutes episode many years ago about counterfeit drugs
sold by U.S. wholesalers to U.S. pharmacies. Also, do you remember the
cancer medication that was diluted by a pharmacist in the U.S. to increase
his already obscene profit margins?

Several Republican politicians and pharmaceutical companies raise this dire
warning about the potential of counterfeit drugs from Canadian pharmacies,
but, when asked to cite specific cases, they can't. Can you? If not, then
where is it more dangerous to buy drugs?



In the end, any
price controls and other various forms of government intervention will
simply result in fewer drugs being developed, plain and simple.

Nonsense. Profits may drop if drug prices are stabilized throughout the
world,
but the drug companies are NOT about to stop developing their only
source
of
income.

They might not STOP, but they might have to lay-off hundreds of thousdands
of employees and greatly scale back their research and production
activities. Sort of like the airlines. They didn't stop flying, but they
changed their ways to deal with the situation. I'm sure you're looking
forward to a government controlled airline, too.


personally, the socialistic approach to health care that several
European nations and Canda utilize is horrid.

How?

I only have experience in a limited number of locations personally, but
have
been told first-hand from friends that have dealt with these things. A
friend of mine in England, for example, needed surgery that was deemed
"elective". He was in a great deal of pain, but it wasn't life
threatening.
So, he waited almost a YEAR!! to get the surgery. He looked up the same
surgery and procedures in the US and found he would have likely had the
surgery within a week in the US. For my own part, I was in Quebec on
vacation and came down with a extremely serious illness and had to go to
the
hospital for some blood tests. They had blood analyzers on the
receptionist
counter so that the charge nurse (if that's what they're called) could
analyze samples in between answering phones, filling out paperwork,
checking
in patients, etc. And, they insisted I pay in cash in full before they
would even let me in the phlebotomy chair. And they charged me up the
ass,
thank you very much! But, that's beside the point. My point is that
socialist-run medicine means fewer choices and likely mediocre at best
services. Are you really willing to go that route in the US, just so you
can save some money on prescriptions? I know you'll say "prescriptions
are
one thing, the medical system is another", but I beg to differ. The two
are
related, and it isn't too hard to see how letting the government control
one
aspect will likely lead to them getting their hands on everything.


That's the only good thing I can think of resulting from the aging of
the
over bred generation.

WTF does that mean? Over-bred? Compared to the whining ninnies of
younger
generations, or what? Or are they like German shepherds and we can
expect
hip
displacia at a young age and in many?

I just mean that the burden on our society by the lapsing social security
system, other social systems, un-insured individuals, etc. by the "baby
boomers" scares me to death. I really wonder lately listening to the more
aged of my colleagues and their paranoid, almost terrified, view of their
existences whether our nation will make it through their ability to screw
up
the country. Do you really want a bunch of geriatrics having the power to
influence decision making legislation? Last I checked, only a slim
minority
of the let's say 70+ crowd really thought too much about the future other
than their own. My grandmother lived to be 89 and the last about 10 years
of her life were spent being terrified of anyone under the age of 35. I
guess "they" will have their chance to get all of us "young'uns" back soon
enough.

Mike




Charlie Self

"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the
tranquil
and
steady dedication of a lifetime. "
Adlai E. Stevenson

Wood prices in general including softwood lumber, plywood, osb and other
panel products have gone up since the start of the year for many reasons.
One is that the exhange rate with the Canadian dollar has gone from $.60 to
$.73 since the first of the year. This coupled with the counter-vailing
duty has slowed the flow of lumber products into the US from Canada. The
same is true for imported lumber form Europe where the Euro has strengthened
from roughly par with the US dollar to about $1.13. Two, the southeast
timber industry has experienced a very wet spring and summer which has
affected log supply to certain mills. Third, is this summers fire season.
Many mills in the Inland Rocky Mountains on both sides of the border have
been shut out of the woods since mid July. In southern British Columbia
this combination has forced many mills to shut down or curtail. The net
effect is a dip in supply which may continue for some time. Sawmills in the
inland northwest are now able to get back to logging now that we have had
some rain and snow, but they will be playing catch-up in their log decks
between now and breakup next Spring. As far as price fixing in the industry,
I wish it were possible. I work for a sawmill in Northwest Montana. We
sell all of our product to the wholesale market as do most other sawmills
except for those that sell directly to the big box stores (i.e. the Borg).
Our only control over the price of our final product is the ability to tell
the wholesaler "NO" if we feel the price is too low and you can only do that
for so long. There are some large national wholesale companies that try to
influence the market by timing purchases and sales but the idea that the
large "evil corporations" are gouging the markets does not hold water. I
work for a small family owned sawmill so I have no affiliation to the larger
"evil corporations". In fact it has been my experience that most big
company sawmills usually kill any good market by dumping lumber at the end
of every month to keep the cash flow numbers up and the quarterly stock
prices propped up. If there has been any price gouging it has been at the
retail level. The average WWPA framing lumber index (the price that mills
receive for their lumber) has been hovering near 20 year lows for the last
several years, yet I have not seen any such reduction in prices at the local
lumber yards. My two cents worth.

Jeff Clausen

--
To reply you need to dig the sliver out.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 21:55:19 -0600, Jeff Clausen wrote:

Wood prices in general including softwood lumber, plywood, osb and other
panel products have gone up since the start of the year for many reasons.
One is that the exhange rate with the Canadian dollar has gone from $.60 to
$.73 since the first of the year. This coupled with the counter-vailing
duty has slowed the flow of lumber products into the US from Canada. The
same is true for imported lumber form Europe where the Euro has strengthened
from roughly par with the US dollar to about $1.13. Two, the southeast
timber industry has experienced a very wet spring and summer which has
affected log supply to certain mills. Third, is this summers fire season.
Many mills in the Inland Rocky Mountains on both sides of the border have
been shut out of the woods since mid July. In southern British Columbia
this combination has forced many mills to shut down or curtail. The net
effect is a dip in supply which may continue for some time. Sawmills in the
inland northwest are now able to get back to logging now that we have had
some rain and snow, but they will be playing catch-up in their log decks
between now and breakup next Spring. As far as price fixing in the industry,
I wish it were possible. I work for a sawmill in Northwest Montana. We
sell all of our product to the wholesale market as do most other sawmills
except for those that sell directly to the big box stores (i.e. the Borg).
Our only control over the price of our final product is the ability to tell
the wholesaler "NO" if we feel the price is too low and you can only do that
for so long. There are some large national wholesale companies that try to
influence the market by timing purchases and sales but the idea that the
large "evil corporations" are gouging the markets does not hold water. I
work for a small family owned sawmill so I have no affiliation to the larger
"evil corporations". In fact it has been my experience that most big
company sawmills usually kill any good market by dumping lumber at the end
of every month to keep the cash flow numbers up and the quarterly stock
prices propped up. If there has been any price gouging it has been at the
retail level. The average WWPA framing lumber index (the price that mills
receive for their lumber) has been hovering near 20 year lows for the last
several years, yet I have not seen any such reduction in prices at the local
lumber yards. My two cents worth.

Jeff Clausen

It apparently isn't because we don't have any more timber. The first few
pics in this album show some excess on the way to Japan last month:

http://www.winterburn.net/photo/inde...Trip/Harstene/

a few show the wiley presto-log (or is that particle board) in the wild...

-Doug