On 08/17/2012 11:42 AM, Han wrote:
I don't think that (much as I'd want to) we can overturn the SCOTUS
decision that corporations are people (which I disagree with, as
previously noted, but it is now the law of the land). But it isn't right
that people can freely associate in claok and dagger groups that don't
reveal their identity.

So now you don't think we have a natural right to privacy? I hate to
tell you this, but the cornerstone of any despotic dictatorship is
remove said privacy and thereby force people to either lie or openly
state their opposition to the regime so they can either be "reeducated"
or "removed". Privacy is pretty important. If you don't think so, imagine
being forced to vote where everyone could see your choices ... say like
the pigs in the various unions want...

....
Let the corporations be good citizens, rather than enrichment vehicles
for greedy executives.

This is a leftie talking point and it is wrong. The percentage of any corporation's
(at least any one of size) spends on executive compensation pales by comparison
to their other big line items. Usually, the biggest single line item
is either natural resource extraction/use or bargaining unit labor. I once
worked at an airline where we calculated that if all of us non-union
folks made $0 per year, it would have had NO effect on the profitability
of the company... that's how much more the union labor and fuel costs were
in the scheme of things. Interestingly, that airlines selfish unions
complained just as you have about excessive exec comp, bought the
company by pledging their pension funds as collateral, and promptly
flew the company straight into bankruptcy. The US taxpayer now gets to
make good on a significant chunk of those pensions.

The real problem here is that corporate execs do not own ENOUGH of their own stock.
They don't have enough of their income tied to the performance of the company. Why?
Because the whiny left howled when this was the case. When Jack Welsh left GE with
100+ Million in retirement, the the social justice chimps screamed about excessive
compensation. What they failed to note is that he made this over a period of decades
*by increasing the stock value* of which he was given/bought quite a bit. He had an
incentive to make the company prosper.

But noooooooo, we can't have people actually making lots of money because they
did well, can we now? So ... the accounting rules were changed to force
the recognition of stock options in a way that created a significant disincentive
for companies to make that a big part of executive compensation. In response,
execs started demanding higher and higher salaries ... which, of course, are not
correlated to corporate performance, but are contractual obligations.

In short, the idiot left created the exact environment they are now screaming
about. But that's no surprise. This is what happens when you put the Smelliest
Generation of the 1960s in charge of anything. The only thing they actually know how
to run is their mouths.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 08/17/2012 11:57 AM, Han wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

On 08/17/2012 10:25 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Effort doesn't count. The only thing that count is*results*. Some
work hard as hell and accomplish nothing (or less), other create
wonders with apparently no effort.

That's not actually even quite right. Absent fraud, force, or threat
(either in the private sector - unions, thugs, criminals - or by
government - laws, regulations) the price of labor is set by the
relative supply to the demand.

For example, pretty much any able bodied person can dig a ditch, so
this doesn't pay much ... well, it does now because of the distorting
forceful effects of unions.

OTOH, there is a very small supply of neurologists in the country and
they get paid many, many multiples of what ditch diggers do. (Expect
this supply to further decrease as the We-Know-What's-Good-For-You
crowd tries to implement their insane "social justice" perversions.)

All things (results) being the same, if the situation were suddenly
reversed and there was a shortage of able bodied ditch diggers and a
surplus of neurologists, their incomes would invert.

For anyone reading this thread that is interested in a good grounding
in economics written for the non-specialist, I highly, highly
recommend this book. It is a classic and flattens a lot of the social
justice boobery heard these days even though the book itself is
apolitical:

http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-...nderstand/dp/0
517548232?tag=duckduckgo-lm-20

Not necessarily apolitical. It is (according to Amazon) written by a
disciple of Ron Paul-like philosophies. Since it is thus likely anti-
Keynesian, it is prejudiced in ways opposite my prejudice.




It is not "anti Keyesian" (but Reality is as the past 3 years demonstrate).
It is a primer in economic basics.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 08/17/2012 09:02 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dave writes:

You're taking this too personally Mike. Larry didn't attack people
like you who have been caught in the unemployment crunch. What he said
could easily apply to many other areas of consumerism.

In defense of Larry's statement about people living above their means,
it's evidenced in one respect by people who have outlandish credit
card debt. That segment of people living above their means is rampant.

Although, thanks to the new credit card rules instituted in the last
couple of years, the number of credit card bankruptcies has dropped
precipitously. CC issuers/banks profits have gone up. So, the
regulations that were so bemoaned by the banks and the right have been good for both
sides - the consumer wins (less debt) and the banks win (more profit).



Just one teensy problem with your theory: These laws have caused people to
borrow less and thereby tremendously slow down GDP growth. 2/3 of the
US economy alone is consumer spending. So - as usual - the cure was worse than
the disease. The cure was never needed in the first place. Financial institutions,
auto makers, and the guy next door lying on his mortgage application so he can
get into the home speculation business would all self-correct if they knew there
was no tax money to save them from their own stupidities via bailouts. No regulation
was needed. All that was needed was ... nothing ... allowing economic feedback to do
its job.

But we cannot have that, now, can we? It would have prevented the Hoax And Shame
administration from buying votes ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 8/17/2012 8:56 AM, Dave wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:28:25 -0400, Jack wrote:
It's why minimum wage laws are asinine, unneeded and counter productive.
They, like corporate taxes, are a political hoax, perpetuated on a
dimwitted public.

As usual, you're the dimwit here. You don't have any idea you're
talking about. One reason why many unions proliferated in the first
place was because the average worker was being taken advantage of by
business owners. Admittedly, many unions these days take advantage of
businesses, but they're on the way out. The pendulum has swung in the
opposite direction.

History, especially US employee history, is absolutely rife with
examples of companies taking advantage of their workers. The fact is,
there's any number of people who will take advantage of others if the
option presents itself and businesses are no exception.

Those 'minimum wage laws' that you put down are in place to prevent
taking advantage of workers.


Yeah, you are the exact dimwit I was mentioning.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

Tim Daneliuk writes:
On 08/17/2012 11:42 AM, Han wrote:
I don't think that (much as I'd want to) we can overturn the SCOTUS
decision that corporations are people (which I disagree with, as
previously noted, but it is now the law of the land). But it isn't right
that people can freely associate in claok and dagger groups that don't
reveal their identity.

So now you don't think we have a natural right to privacy? I hate to
tell you this, but the cornerstone of any despotic dictatorship is
remove said privacy and thereby force people to either lie or openly
state their opposition to the regime so they can either be "reeducated"
or "removed". Privacy is pretty important. If you don't think so, imagine
being forced to vote where everyone could see your choices ... say like
the pigs in the various unions want...

Absolutely agreed. Too bad that the Bush administration put into place so
many illegal surveillance programs on americans. Not that the current
administration has eliminated them - which is one of the few things they've
done wrong.

Tim Daneliuk writes:
On 08/17/2012 09:02 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dave writes:

You're taking this too personally Mike. Larry didn't attack people
like you who have been caught in the unemployment crunch. What he said
could easily apply to many other areas of consumerism.

In defense of Larry's statement about people living above their means,
it's evidenced in one respect by people who have outlandish credit
card debt. That segment of people living above their means is rampant.

Although, thanks to the new credit card rules instituted in the last
couple of years, the number of credit card bankruptcies has dropped
precipitously. CC issuers/banks profits have gone up. So, the
regulations that were so bemoaned by the banks and the right have been good for both
sides - the consumer wins (less debt) and the banks win (more profit).



Just one teensy problem with your theory: These laws have caused people to
borrow less and thereby tremendously slow down GDP growth. 2/3 of the
US economy alone is consumer spending.

Those laws had absolutely ZERO to do with the slowdown in GDP growth.

scott

Scott Lurndal wrote:
Tim Daneliuk writes:
On 08/17/2012 11:42 AM, Han wrote:
I don't think that (much as I'd want to) we can overturn the SCOTUS
decision that corporations are people (which I disagree with, as
previously noted, but it is now the law of the land). But it isn't
right that people can freely associate in claok and dagger groups
that don't reveal their identity.

So now you don't think we have a natural right to privacy? I hate to
tell you this, but the cornerstone of any despotic dictatorship is
remove said privacy and thereby force people to either lie or openly
state their opposition to the regime so they can either be
"reeducated"
or "removed". Privacy is pretty important. If you don't think so,
imagine being forced to vote where everyone could see your choices
... say like the pigs in the various unions want...

Absolutely agreed. Too bad that the Bush administration put into
place so many illegal surveillance programs on americans. Not that
the current administration has eliminated them - which is one of the
few things they've done wrong.

Here, here! As republican as I can be at times, that whoe Patriot Act thing
was a legal abomination. Sadly, too many feel good people in this country
fell prey to the impact of 911 and forgot to get up in arms about that
thing.

--

-Mike-

On 8/17/2012 9:48 AM, Dave wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:41:36 -0400, Jack wrote:
How the hell can a minimum wage worker afford
to buy a $3000 saw stop. Don't you think he deserves full protection,
so lets mandate saw stop sell for no more than a Ryobi?

As usual, you take things to the extreme with flights into the
ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is to think government can determine wages or prices
better than the free market.

The average work needs the ability to get to his job. He
does NOT need a SawStop.

So dimwit, you think a minimum wage worker can get by on a Ryobi saw,
and losing a fing-ee means nothing to you, or are you saying if you make
minimum wage, the government should prevent you from buying a dangerous
saw as opposed to mandating equal access to the saw stop?

Let me put it so [hopefully] even a dimwit can understand. If I make
minimum wage $10/hr or $100/hr, Saw Stop will raise the price of their
saw relative to the raise in wages, as everyone wages will rise.
(adding zeros to everyone's freaking money does nothing)

If you want the minimum wage earner to afford an expensive saw, or car,
or anything, you will have to mandate the maximum price of the saw or
car as well. That never ends well and you eventually will be building
walls to keep your ****ing sorry ass citizens IN your country rather
than out.

--
Jack
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery..."
- Winston Churchill

On 8/17/2012 11:12 AM, Han wrote:
Jack wrote in :

On 8/16/2012 3:35 PM, Han wrote:
Also, when
companies pay their CEOs more than they pay in taxes, something is
amiss, I think.

Companies don't pay taxes, people do.

Then companies should not be allowed to make political contributions.

They get their money for political contributions from you when you buy
their products, same place they get their money to pay their taxes. They
are not forced to make contributions on your behalf, they are forced to
pay taxes on your behalf.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 8/17/2012 11:19 AM, Han wrote:
Jack wrote in :

On 8/16/2012 7:57 PM, Han wrote:

We disagree, I think. Minimum wage is not pillaging and thieving but
protecting people from abuse by exploiters.

That's what the politicians tell you.

We have a military to protect the country. We all pay for it, huge
amounts at that.

Yes, a primary purpose of government.

But you'd leave the little man to fight for himself, without the
protection of a minimum wage? I think that is icky, with all due
respect for your opinion.

How would you feel about the government mandating a Chevy Volt or
Chevy pickup cost no more than $2,000 so those getting paid minimum
wage can get to work? How about 20 cents a gal for gas, that would be
great, right? Personally, I don't think any teacher should make more
than 10 cents above minimum wage. How the hell can a minimum wage
worker afford to buy a $3000 saw stop. Don't you think he deserves
full protection, so lets mandate saw stop sell for no more than a
Ryobi?

I take it you don't like competition, or do you think it only works
when *you* like the results?

I never said that, as Dave pointed out.

Dave is an idiot at best.

I think a minimu wage is a good idea to set a floor for wages.

The "floor" is meaningless. Water seeks it's own level, government and
it's subjects thinking they can somehow control it to work better than
the free market just doesn't work, and in fact, does exactly the opposite.

Perhaps that should be $7.50 in Alabama
(just an example - I have almost nothing against Alabama), perhaps $10 or
more in NY & NJ and thereabouts (currently $7.25 in NJ). And no, the
oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give them more, au
contraire.

I think teachers in NY should make 5 cents over minimum wage, and in
Alabama 10 cents. OK wit you?

--
Jack
Socialism: Your Tax Dollars at work for those who don't!
http://jbstein.com

On 8/17/2012 11:25 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Han wrote:

I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same as dog catchers.

No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)

Yes, that would be Larry Blanchard, the guy that quotes GB Shaw, the
Fabian socialist prick that thought the solution to stupid, unproductive
people was to gas the suckers albeit as painlessly as possible.

I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.

Yeah, that's a thought that seems out of sync with the times, if you pay
attention to the lame stream media, the educational system, the
democratic party, and at least a part of the repuglican party.

However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the employee.
It's none of anyone else's damned business.

Amen brother!

--
Jack
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have".
-- Thomas Jefferson

Jack wrote in :

On 8/17/2012 11:19 AM, Han wrote:
Jack wrote in :

On 8/16/2012 7:57 PM, Han wrote:

We disagree, I think. Minimum wage is not pillaging and thieving
but protecting people from abuse by exploiters.

That's what the politicians tell you.

We have a military to protect the country. We all pay for it, huge
amounts at that.

Yes, a primary purpose of government.

But you'd leave the little man to fight for himself, without the
protection of a minimum wage? I think that is icky, with all due
respect for your opinion.

How would you feel about the government mandating a Chevy Volt or
Chevy pickup cost no more than $2,000 so those getting paid minimum
wage can get to work? How about 20 cents a gal for gas, that would
be great, right? Personally, I don't think any teacher should make
more than 10 cents above minimum wage. How the hell can a minimum
wage worker afford to buy a $3000 saw stop. Don't you think he
deserves full protection, so lets mandate saw stop sell for no more
than a Ryobi?

I take it you don't like competition, or do you think it only works
when *you* like the results?

I never said that, as Dave pointed out.

Dave is an idiot at best.

I think a minimu wage is a good idea to set a floor for wages.

The "floor" is meaningless. Water seeks it's own level, government
and it's subjects thinking they can somehow control it to work better
than the free market just doesn't work, and in fact, does exactly the
opposite.

Perhaps that should be $7.50 in Alabama
(just an example - I have almost nothing against Alabama), perhaps
$10 or more in NY & NJ and thereabouts (currently $7.25 in NJ). And
no, the oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give
them more, au contraire.

I think teachers in NY should make 5 cents over minimum wage, and in
Alabama 10 cents. OK wit you?

No

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 8/17/2012 12:49 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Scott Lurndal wrote:
Tim Daneliuk writes:
On 08/17/2012 11:42 AM, Han wrote:
I don't think that (much as I'd want to) we can overturn the SCOTUS
decision that corporations are people (which I disagree with, as
previously noted, but it is now the law of the land). But it isn't
right that people can freely associate in claok and dagger groups
that don't reveal their identity.
So now you don't think we have a natural right to privacy? I hate to
tell you this, but the cornerstone of any despotic dictatorship is
remove said privacy and thereby force people to either lie or openly
state their opposition to the regime so they can either be
"reeducated"
or "removed". Privacy is pretty important. If you don't think so,
imagine being forced to vote where everyone could see your choices
... say like the pigs in the various unions want...
Absolutely agreed. Too bad that the Bush administration put into
place so many illegal surveillance programs on americans. Not that
the current administration has eliminated them - which is one of the
few things they've done wrong.
Here, here! As republican as I can be at times, that whoe Patriot Act thing
was a legal abomination. Sadly, too many feel good people in this country
fell prey to the impact of 911 and forgot to get up in arms about that
thing.

Probably because it had no noticeable impact on most people.

On 8/17/2012 11:46 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 08/17/2012 10:19 AM, Han wrote:
And no, the
oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give them more, au
contraire.

I think you have this wrong. The oil companies pay more in taxes than they
make in profit in a typical year. Here is just one analysis with
supporting citation:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...xes_excee.html

It is the *government* that is subsidized by the oilcos not the other way
around....

Recently heard on TV that oil companies make about 6-8 cents on a gallon
of gas. Government makes 40 to 66 cents on the same gallon. In
Californica the gov makes 66 cents on a gallon.

We, the buyers of gas and related products pay for all of it, the gas,
the profit and the taxes.

I do know bottled water costs more than gas in spite of government
stupidity, so the gas companies are doing better than should be
expected. I also know the commies are really ****ed off that US oil is
making money, regardless of what our screwed up socialist government
throws at them.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 8/17/2012 12:33 PM, Han wrote:

Full disclosu I own 130 shares of Exxon directly, probably more oil
company stock through mutual funds.

Well then, you must be filthy, steenkin rich, one of the 1 per centers,
owning a capitalist pig oil company and all...

I hope you feel damn guilty making all those windfall (8%) profits while
Micky Soft makes 30%, apple 40% and so on an so forth.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 8/17/2012 11:42 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:28:11 -0400, Jack wrote:

Entering the country w/o permission is a misdemeanor (crime) the first
offense, and a felony (crime) thereafter.

AIUI, it's a civil offense the first time (not a misdemeanor).

AIUI, It's a misdemeanor

mis·de·mean·or
noun
1. Law . a criminal offense defined as less serious than a felony.

The reason
being that it doesn't require a trial (by jury) to deport an alien, only an
administrative action. The second offense, after deportation, can result in a
prison sentence, so would naturally require a trial.

The second offense is a felony, both amazingly are ignored by our [fed]
government at this time, to the point of suing states for trying to keep
it real.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/17/2012 12:49 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Scott Lurndal wrote:
Tim Daneliuk writes:
On 08/17/2012 11:42 AM, Han wrote:
I don't think that (much as I'd want to) we can overturn the
SCOTUS decision that corporations are people (which I disagree
with, as previously noted, but it is now the law of the land). But it
isn't right that people can freely associate in claok and
dagger groups that don't reveal their identity.
So now you don't think we have a natural right to privacy? I hate
to tell you this, but the cornerstone of any despotic dictatorship
is remove said privacy and thereby force people to either lie or
openly state their opposition to the regime so they can either be
"reeducated"
or "removed". Privacy is pretty important. If you don't think so,
imagine being forced to vote where everyone could see your choices
... say like the pigs in the various unions want...
Absolutely agreed. Too bad that the Bush administration put into
place so many illegal surveillance programs on americans. Not that
the current administration has eliminated them - which is one of the
few things they've done wrong.
Here, here! As republican as I can be at times, that whoe Patriot
Act thing was a legal abomination. Sadly, too many feel good people
in this country fell prey to the impact of 911 and forgot to get up
in arms about that thing.

Probably because it had no noticeable impact on most people.

Yet...

The worst part about a law is not always what it has done, but what it can
do.

--

-Mike-

On 8/17/2012 12:44 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Tim Daneliuk writes:
On 08/17/2012 10:19 AM, Han wrote:
And no, the
oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give them more, au
contraire.

I think you have this wrong. The oil companies pay more in taxes than they
make in profit in a typical year. Here is just one analysis with
supporting citation:

You should actually _read_ your citations to make sure they support your
assertions before posting.


http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...xes_excee.html

The citation here points out that taxes paid by consumers (e.g. taxes
paid at the pump or when refilling a farm tank),

Hey, a dimwit at large.

when added to the minimal taxes paid by the oil companies,

Also paid by the consumer unless the oil company also has a printing
press in the basement printing out the cash for taxes.

exceeds oil company profits. That's adding
apples and oranges and comparing them to bananas.

In the words of KRW, Idiot.

It surely doesn't support your assertions. Fact is that the oil companies make
profits, very large ones.

8% profit is not so large, particularly when the governments make far
more than that on oil company earnings, and plenty of companies make FAR
greater profits, like MS, Apple and a ton of others (Not government
motors though)

Please refer to the relevent 10K and 10Q reports for the
actual facts, not some silly blog.

Ask Han what his return on investment is on his $11,000 worth of EOM
stock, not counting his pension fund?

--
Jack
You can't Tax your way into Prosperity!
http://jbstein.com

On 17 Aug 2012 16:48:39 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
om:

Bill wrote:

You'd have to convince me of the societal benefit of having an
economy run purely on the basis of supply and demand versus one that
provides a little for those that have a lot less than enough. Are you
willing to watch people go hungry in the streets in order to maintain
the purity of your religion (S & D)?


Of course. Hunger is a great motivator.

I saw this scenario on a blog, which I'll condense and paraphrase.

While working in my front-lawn flower-bed, my very liberal neighbors
passed by with their 9-year old girl. They stopped to admire the
flowers and I asked the girl "What do you want to be when you grow
up?"

"President" she replied.

"Oh," said I, "why?"

"Then I could make sure everybody had food and a home," was her
heartfelt answer.

"You don't have to become president to do that. Tell you what: I'll
give you fifty dollars each week to mow my grass and weed the flower
beds. Then you can take the fifty dollars down to the store and give
it to somebody that's hungry and homeless."

She thought for a moment, then said: "Why doesn't the homeless person
work for the fifty dollars himself?"

"Congratulations," I said. "You've just become a conservative."

Her parents became as close to spontaneous human combustion as I've
personally ever witnessed.

Nice story, and perfectly suited to an able-bodied person of sound mind.
There are others, though. Some homeless are sick, one way or another,
some paid exorbitant rents in house that suddenly blew up. And don't
misunderstand me, I don't think that abovementioned able-bodied person
should be cuddled.

Surely you're not saying that *everyone* taking public assistance is insane?
....or that *none* are able-bodied? Surely not.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On 17 Aug 2012 16:48:39 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Bill wrote:

You'd have to convince me of the societal benefit of having an
economy run purely on the basis of supply and demand versus one that
provides a little for those that have a lot less than enough. Are you
willing to watch people go hungry in the streets in order to maintain
the purity of your religion (S & D)?


Of course. Hunger is a great motivator.

I saw this scenario on a blog, which I'll condense and paraphrase.

While working in my front-lawn flower-bed, my very liberal neighbors
passed by with their 9-year old girl. They stopped to admire the
flowers and I asked the girl "What do you want to be when you grow
up?"

"President" she replied.

"Oh," said I, "why?"

"Then I could make sure everybody had food and a home," was her
heartfelt answer.

"You don't have to become president to do that. Tell you what: I'll
give you fifty dollars each week to mow my grass and weed the flower
beds. Then you can take the fifty dollars down to the store and give
it to somebody that's hungry and homeless."

She thought for a moment, then said: "Why doesn't the homeless person
work for the fifty dollars himself?"

"Congratulations," I said. "You've just become a conservative."

Her parents became as close to spontaneous human combustion as I've
personally ever witnessed.

Nice story, and perfectly suited to an able-bodied person of sound mind.
There are others, though. Some homeless are sick, one way or another,
some paid exorbitant rents in house that suddenly blew up. And don't
misunderstand me, I don't think that abovementioned able-bodied person
should be cuddled.

Surely you're not saying that *everyone* taking public assistance is insane?
...or that *none* are able-bodied? Surely not.


I hope you don't find your hyperbole a compelling argument not to
provide any public assistance?

On 17 Aug 2012 16:49:55 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 17 Aug 2012 15:12:39 GMT, Han wrote:

Jack wrote in :

On 8/16/2012 3:35 PM, Han wrote:
Also, when
companies pay their CEOs more than they pay in taxes, something is
amiss, I think.

Companies don't pay taxes, people do.

Then companies should not be allowed to make political contributions.

Unions are tax exempt. They shouldn't be able to participate in
elections, either.

Not without full disclosure. And expres consent of their members.

OK, so you believe that one group of people should be able to make political
contributions but another should not. How positively discriminating of you.

On 8/17/2012 1:57 PM, Jack wrote:
On 8/17/2012 11:42 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:28:11 -0400, Jack wrote:

Entering the country w/o permission is a misdemeanor (crime) the first
offense, and a felony (crime) thereafter.

AIUI, it's a civil offense the first time (not a misdemeanor).

AIUI, It's a misdemeanor

mis·de·mean·or
noun
1. Law . a criminal offense defined as less serious than a felony.

The reason
being that it doesn't require a trial (by jury) to deport an alien,
only an
administrative action. The second offense, after deportation, can
result in a
prison sentence, so would naturally require a trial.

The second offense is a felony, both amazingly are ignored by our
[fed] government at this time, to the point of suing states for trying
to keep it real.


You can certainly make up definitions. Apparently, you can't quote the
statute that you claim makes illegal entry a misdemeanor or felony.

On 8/17/2012 1:09 PM, Jack wrote:
On 8/17/2012 11:25 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Han wrote:

I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same
as dog catchers.

No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)

Yes, that would be Larry Blanchard, the guy that quotes GB Shaw, the
Fabian socialist prick that thought the solution to stupid,
unproductive people was to gas the suckers albeit as painlessly as
possible.

I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.

Yeah, that's a thought that seems out of sync with the times, if you
pay attention to the lame stream media, the educational system, the
democratic party, and at least a part of the repuglican party.

However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the
employee.
It's none of anyone else's damned business.

Amen brother!


The difficulty comes when two parties to a contract don't have equal
bargaining power. Just try bargaining with an insurance company over
the terms of your automobile liability policy and the premium you will
pay for coverage.

On 8/17/2012 1:56 PM, Jack wrote:

I do know bottled water costs more than gas . . .


I can buy bottled water for under $2/gallon. Tell me where I can buy
gasoline at under $2/gallon.

On 8/17/2012 2:08 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/17/2012 12:49 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Scott Lurndal wrote:
Tim Daneliuk writes:
On 08/17/2012 11:42 AM, Han wrote:
I don't think that (much as I'd want to) we can overturn the
SCOTUS decision that corporations are people (which I disagree
with, as previously noted, but it is now the law of the land). But it
isn't right that people can freely associate in claok and
dagger groups that don't reveal their identity.
So now you don't think we have a natural right to privacy? I hate
to tell you this, but the cornerstone of any despotic dictatorship
is remove said privacy and thereby force people to either lie or
openly state their opposition to the regime so they can either be
"reeducated"
or "removed". Privacy is pretty important. If you don't think so,
imagine being forced to vote where everyone could see your choices
... say like the pigs in the various unions want...
Absolutely agreed. Too bad that the Bush administration put into
place so many illegal surveillance programs on americans. Not that
the current administration has eliminated them - which is one of the
few things they've done wrong.
Here, here! As republican as I can be at times, that whoe Patriot
Act thing was a legal abomination. Sadly, too many feel good people
in this country fell prey to the impact of 911 and forgot to get up
in arms about that thing.

Probably because it had no noticeable impact on most people.
Yet...

The worst part about a law is not always what it has done, but what it can
do.

Which is partly why we need the Second Amendment.

Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/17/2012 1:09 PM, Jack wrote:
On 8/17/2012 11:25 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Han wrote:

I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same
as dog catchers.

No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)

Yes, that would be Larry Blanchard, the guy that quotes GB Shaw, the
Fabian socialist prick that thought the solution to stupid,
unproductive people was to gas the suckers albeit as painlessly as
possible.

I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.

Yeah, that's a thought that seems out of sync with the times, if you
pay attention to the lame stream media, the educational system, the
democratic party, and at least a part of the repuglican party.

However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the
employee.
It's none of anyone else's damned business.

Amen brother!


The difficulty comes when two parties to a contract don't have equal
bargaining power. Just try bargaining with an insurance company over
the terms of your automobile liability policy and the premium you will
pay for coverage.

Different kind of relationship.

--

-Mike-

Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/17/2012 1:09 PM, Jack wrote:
On 8/17/2012 11:25 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Han wrote:

I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same
as dog catchers.

No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)

Yes, that would be Larry Blanchard, the guy that quotes GB Shaw, the
Fabian socialist prick that thought the solution to stupid,
unproductive people was to gas the suckers albeit as painlessly as
possible.

I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.

Yeah, that's a thought that seems out of sync with the times, if you
pay attention to the lame stream media, the educational system, the
democratic party, and at least a part of the repuglican party.

However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the
employee.
It's none of anyone else's damned business.

Amen brother!


The difficulty comes when two parties to a contract don't have equal
bargaining power. Just try bargaining with an insurance company over
the terms of your automobile liability policy and the premium you will
pay for coverage.

Yes. Nice example.

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:41:36 -0400, Jack wrote:
How the hell can a minimum wage worker afford
to buy a $3000 saw stop. Don't you think he deserves full
protection, so lets mandate saw stop sell for no more than a Ryobi?

As usual, you take things to the extreme with flights into the
ridiculous. The average work needs the ability to get to his job. He
does NOT need a SawStop.

Sorry, that's one of the tests of Quality Control Thinking: take an idea to
its logical extreme and see if the idea is still meaningful.

Han wrote:

It is the *government* that is subsidized by the oilcos not the other
way around....

I'm sure this takes into account the subsidies like oil depletion
allowance etc. Takes into account environmental costs, surely!


Let me tell you how this works. Some years ago, I had an opportunity to
invest in a sand pit (a hole in the ground from which sand was mined -
actually scooped out). The promoter explained how things worked.

1. As you sell the sand, you're allowed a "depletion allowance" on your
taxes inasmuch as you are "using up" an asset (the available sand).
2. At some point, you run out of sand and are left with a big honkin' hole
in the ground.
3. You turn around and charge people to dump stuff in your hole. Tree
stumps, broken concrete, that sort of thing.
4. As the hole fills, you get another "depletion allowance" in that you are
"using up" another asset (the hole).
5. When the hole is filled, you scatter some dirt atop the whole site, turn
the acreage into a sub-division, and build low-cost housing.

Han wrote:

A prudent businessman pays his labor force the minimum each is
willing to take. In many cases, if he pays them more, they'll simply
spend it on drugs or buy a motorcycle and adios.

Eventually, even the riobber barons didn't get away with all of it.

Yep. Take the classic case of John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil. Standard
Oil became a monopoly, but what did it accomplish?

It single-handedly drove down the price of Kerosene from $3.00/gallon to
five cents. In only three years. Now just who was hurt by this effort? The
whale-oil suppliers went out of business and candle makers took a hit. But
for millions of others, the night became bearable.

This, of course, was unacceptable. Standard Oil wasn't fair to the whalers
and candle-makers (and to the drillers and shippers and refiners of oil).
Nothing for it but to break up the company.

The ONLY monopolies that screw the general public are the ones sanctioned by
the government (think cable tv). Virtually all other monopolies, and the
really rich folks who run them - the modern day "robber barons", are a boon
to the average person.

On 8/17/2012 3:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/17/2012 1:09 PM, Jack wrote:
On 8/17/2012 11:25 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Han wrote:

I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same
as dog catchers.
No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)
Yes, that would be Larry Blanchard, the guy that quotes GB Shaw, the
Fabian socialist prick that thought the solution to stupid,
unproductive people was to gas the suckers albeit as painlessly as
possible.

I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.
Yeah, that's a thought that seems out of sync with the times, if you
pay attention to the lame stream media, the educational system, the
democratic party, and at least a part of the repuglican party.

However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the
employee.
It's none of anyone else's damned business.
Amen brother!

The difficulty comes when two parties to a contract don't have equal
bargaining power. Just try bargaining with an insurance company over
the terms of your automobile liability policy and the premium you will
pay for coverage.
Different kind of relationship.

But the principle is the same. Unequal bargaining power in hiring
situations leads to employment contracts for an amount different than
what a person's labors are actually worth.

Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/17/2012 3:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:

Different kind of relationship.

But the principle is the same. Unequal bargaining power in hiring
situations leads to employment contracts for an amount different than
what a person's labors are actually worth.

To a point. But - competition keeps things in check somewhat. Pay a wage
that is below the worth of the employee, and if the employee is any good,
someone else will pick him up. Not universally true, I understand, but
wages are reflective of demand. Insurance is different due to its inbread
nature. They all play close enough to each other to prevent much advantage
of playing one against another.

--

-Mike-

On 8/17/2012 5:08 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/17/2012 1:57 PM, Jack wrote:
On 8/17/2012 11:42 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:28:11 -0400, Jack wrote:

Entering the country w/o permission is a misdemeanor (crime) the first
offense, and a felony (crime) thereafter.

AIUI, it's a civil offense the first time (not a misdemeanor).

AIUI, It's a misdemeanor

mis·de·mean·or
noun
1. Law . a criminal offense defined as less serious than a felony.

The reason
being that it doesn't require a trial (by jury) to deport an alien,
only an
administrative action. The second offense, after deportation, can
result in a
prison sentence, so would naturally require a trial.

The second offense is a felony, both amazingly are ignored by our
[fed] government at this time, to the point of suing states for trying
to keep it real.


You can certainly make up definitions.

I cut and pasted them right out of dictionary.com. You are the one
having trouble with words and have produced nothing but hot air with no
substance. You have a problem with the dictionary not agreeing with
you, send them a letter, don't bother me.

Apparently, you can't quote the
statute that you claim makes illegal entry a misdemeanor or felony.

I'm too busy being amused by how goofy it is consider illegal entry not
illegal (a crime).


--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 8/17/2012 5:14 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/17/2012 1:09 PM, Jack wrote:
On 8/17/2012 11:25 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the
employee.
It's none of anyone else's damned business.

Amen brother!

The difficulty comes when two parties to a contract don't have equal
bargaining power. Just try bargaining with an insurance company over
the terms of your automobile liability policy and the premium you will
pay for coverage.

I did that long ago and the poor State Farm guy was unable to bargain
with me for the coverage and premium I wanted, so I switched to Erie.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 8/17/2012 5:16 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/17/2012 1:56 PM, Jack wrote:

I do know bottled water costs more than gas . . .


I can buy bottled water for under $2/gallon. Tell me where I can buy
gasoline at under $2/gallon.

Quick look on the net found PERRIER for just $19/gal. I suggest you buy
all you can for under $2 a gallon and get yourself good and filthy rich.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:54:38 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 08/16/2012 11:51 PM, Bill wrote:
Are you willing to watch people go hungry in the streets in order to maintain the purity of your religion (S & D)?

There is no example of starvation or famine on any scale in free, democratic,
capitalist nations. Starvation is almost always an artifact of either
political collectivism or personal malignancy (like substance abuse and so forth).

In point of fact, there was never starvation on any scale or people dying in
the streets prior to the inception of min wage laws. These laws are nothing
more than transparent vote buying and do nothing to help the plight of
the underclass. If anything, they make said plight worse.

You're misguided, Tim. Do some more research about starvation in the
USA today. It's rampant.

--
All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
-- Anna Quindlen

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:11:44 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 08/17/2012 11:33 AM, Han wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

On 08/17/2012 10:19 AM, Han wrote:
And no, the
oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give them more,
au contraire.

I think you have this wrong. The oil companies pay more in taxes than
they make in profit in a typical year. Here is just one analysis with
supporting citation:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...axes_excee.htm
l

It is the *government* that is subsidized by the oilcos not the other
way around....

I'm sure this takes into account the subsidies like oil depletion
allowance etc. Takes into account environmental costs, surely!

Full disclosu I own 130 shares of Exxon directly, probably more oil
company stock through mutual funds.



I too own a chunk of ExxonMobil and wish them many happy years of high
profits and low taxes.

The problem in the US is not the lack of taxation. It is the complete lack
of fiscal control among the height and breadth of government...

BINGO! Corruption encompasses all branches, beginning with some of
the lowly city gov't folks, worsening in state gov't, and skyrocketing
in the totally corrupt CONgress. That's why it will take the people,
all of us, to bring about REAL change in our country.

--
All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
-- Anna Quindlen

On 17 Aug 2012 15:12:39 GMT, Han wrote:

Jack wrote in :

On 8/16/2012 3:35 PM, Han wrote:
Also, when
companies pay their CEOs more than they pay in taxes, something is
amiss, I think.

Companies don't pay taxes, people do.

The Supremes recently confirmed that Corporations are People. Stuff
that in your pipe and smoke it. I still don't want to believe it.
deep sigh


Then companies should not be allowed to make political contributions.

True. But let's fix it better. Make sure that all contributions go
into a kitty. Each kitty is for a certain office. Each kitty is
divided up equally between all qualifying office seekers. It all must
be spent for the particular election or returned to the kitty for the
next election. NOBODY gets specific contributions, NOBODY gets more
than any other 'contestant', and NOBODY takes home millions just for
trying. It removes the money from the political game. Now _try_ to
get that one through CONgress. Just try. Once we get that into
action, we can start working on the power game in D.C.

--
All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
-- Anna Quindlen

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:16:11 -0700, chaniarts
wrote:

On 8/17/2012 7:25 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On 17 Aug 2012 12:51:01 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:02:38 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


That theory falls apart in places like Iowa, where after raiding a
meat packaging plant (Hormel?), they had *no* problem hiring locals
at the same wage.

That may be true - but that is where each of our own perspectives
can fail us. We see or know about things local to us, or we see or
hear about one-off situations, and then we try to apply them
universally. We're all probably somewhat guilty of that to a
degree. I don't think that the Iowa meat packing plant is all that
representative of the unemployment situation across the country
though.

There are two issues here. Illegals and unemployment. They're
pretty much separate issues, except that in this case a working
illegal is a non-working citizen. It's not unique and shouldn't be
tolerated.

It is easiest for me to come down in agreement on the aspect of being
intollerant of the illegal alien. For me that is an easy decision.
I'm not convinced though, that the non-working citizen would readily
move in to take over those jobs if the illegals were not here.
Perhaps over time, but I just can't see that happening at all quickly.

I agree. I just don't see a 50+ year-old out of work plumber take over
the job of a 25 yo tomatopicker. Although unemployment among the young
there is very high too ...

How many of you have been out of work and starving? Think about that
when you guess about what jobs you'd take to stop it. Although you
might not last long on the farm in the sun, you'd at least try it,
wouldn't you, to keep yourself and your family fed?

i think, unfortunately, you'd find that there is a significant
percentage of people who wouldn't.

Probably true. But I think there is a much larger percentage who
would. I think we'd both be surprised.

--
All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
-- Anna Quindlen

On 17 Aug 2012 15:40:37 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

How many of you have been out of work and starving? Think about that
when you guess about what jobs you'd take to stop it. Although you
might not last long on the farm in the sun, you'd at least try it,
wouldn't you, to keep yourself and your family fed?

I'd probably think of moving to a cheaper area and home first. Nothing too
close to this happened to us except once. My wife had to go and find a
better paying job, while I waited on the returns of my resumes. At the
time we were living in a pretty cheap apartment (Cambridgeport, Cambridge,
MA).

Must have been rough, down to only $60k/year for that time, eh? g

--
All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
-- Anna Quindlen