"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:11:22 -0400, Carter wrote:


"jakdedert" wrote in message
news
Add to that the fact that lack of access to quality health care
is in itself a major cause of poverty. In addition, paying for a
single health issue has caused many formerly solvent individuals
and families to slip below the poverty level.

William Sommerwerck wrote:

A _major_ cause? I don't think so.

Maybe we are just playing semantics with the word "major", but I would
respectfully suggest you look up the number of people in the last 10 to
15 years that have been 'rightsized', 'downsized' or otherwise lost
their job and benefits. It is in the *millions*. Do you think that is
"major"?

You're presuming they don't find another job.

In the 'good ole days' before 'downsizing' 5.25% unemployment was
considered *full* employment but nowadays it's touted as a 'disaster'.


The problem with unemployment figures is that they reflect only those
collecting jobless benefits. They do not cover anyone who has fallen off the
benefits or has never qualified for them. I never qualified for unemployment
until I was at least 30, since I was working small contract jobs or self
employed.

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:11:22 -0400, Carter wrote:

"jakdedert" wrote in message
news
Add to that the fact that lack of access to quality health care
is in itself a major cause of poverty. In addition, paying for a
single health issue has caused many formerly solvent individuals
and families to slip below the poverty level.
William Sommerwerck wrote:

A _major_ cause? I don't think so.

Carter wrote:

Maybe we are just playing semantics with the word "major", but I would
respectfully suggest you look up the number of people in the last 10 to
15 years that have been 'rightsized', 'downsized' or otherwise lost
their job and benefits. It is in the *millions*. Do you think that is
"major"?

flipper wrote:

You're presuming they don't find another job.

Many do, but -generally- speaking, the 'new' jobs pay significantly less
and typically have few or no benefits. I'm sorry to rain on your parade,
but it is a matter of record that a large portion of the good
manufacturing jobs (read 'well-paying') have gone overseas and that the
replacement jobs, if they can be found, are at a much lower salary with
significantly less benefits. Actual government statistics show that the
number of people without health care is sharply up and salaries are
down. I would encourage you to look it up.

In the 'good ole days' before 'downsizing' 5.25% unemployment was
considered *full* employment but nowadays it's touted as a 'disaster'.

An interesting point, but numbers notwithstanding, you seem to be
implying the economy is in fine shape. I sincerely hope you are correct.

Finally, please present your views to the *millions* that have been
'rightsized' and 'downsized' and see how much sympathy you viewpoint
garners (but I'll caution you to watch out for the tar and feathers). :-)

"Carter" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:11:22 -0400, Carter wrote:

"jakdedert" wrote in message
news
Add to that the fact that lack of access to quality health care
is in itself a major cause of poverty. In addition, paying for a
single health issue has caused many formerly solvent individuals
and families to slip below the poverty level.
William Sommerwerck wrote:

A _major_ cause? I don't think so.

Carter wrote:

Maybe we are just playing semantics with the word "major", but I would
respectfully suggest you look up the number of people in the last 10 to
15 years that have been 'rightsized', 'downsized' or otherwise lost
their job and benefits. It is in the *millions*. Do you think that is
"major"?

flipper wrote:

You're presuming they don't find another job.

Many do, but -generally- speaking, the 'new' jobs pay significantly less
and typically have few or no benefits. I'm sorry to rain on your parade,
but it is a matter of record that a large portion of the good
manufacturing jobs (read 'well-paying') have gone overseas and that the
replacement jobs, if they can be found, are at a much lower salary with
significantly less benefits. Actual government statistics show that the
number of people without health care is sharply up and salaries are down.
I would encourage you to look it up.

In the 'good ole days' before 'downsizing' 5.25% unemployment was
considered *full* employment but nowadays it's touted as a 'disaster'.

An interesting point, but numbers notwithstanding, you seem to be implying
the economy is in fine shape. I sincerely hope you are correct.

Finally, please present your views to the *millions* that have been
'rightsized' and 'downsized' and see how much sympathy you viewpoint
garners (but I'll caution you to watch out for the tar and feathers).
:-)


LOL! tar and feathers. Now theres a good old form of retribution.

BH

"Carter" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:11:22 -0400, Carter wrote:

"jakdedert" wrote in message
news
Add to that the fact that lack of access to quality health care
is in itself a major cause of poverty. In addition, paying for a
single health issue has caused many formerly solvent individuals
and families to slip below the poverty level.
William Sommerwerck wrote:

A _major_ cause? I don't think so.

Carter wrote:

Maybe we are just playing semantics with the word "major", but I would
respectfully suggest you look up the number of people in the last 10 to
15 years that have been 'rightsized', 'downsized' or otherwise lost
their job and benefits. It is in the *millions*. Do you think that is
"major"?

flipper wrote:

You're presuming they don't find another job.

Many do, but -generally- speaking, the 'new' jobs pay significantly less
and typically have few or no benefits. I'm sorry to rain on your parade,
but it is a matter of record that a large portion of the good
manufacturing jobs (read 'well-paying') have gone overseas and that the
replacement jobs, if they can be found, are at a much lower salary with
significantly less benefits. Actual government statistics show that the
number of people without health care is sharply up and salaries are down.
I would encourage you to look it up.

In the 'good ole days' before 'downsizing' 5.25% unemployment was
considered *full* employment but nowadays it's touted as a 'disaster'.

An interesting point, but numbers notwithstanding, you seem to be implying
the economy is in fine shape. I sincerely hope you are correct.

It bears noting that even if the percentages were the same, the actual
number of people out of work is significantly higher. Our population has
nearly doubled since 1960. Average of working age people runs around 55% or
so... close enough for a little elementary math, anyway.

1960 - ~99,000,000 working age adults makes ~5,200,000 unemployed @ 5.25%
2006 - ~165,000,000 working age adults makes ~8,700,000 unemployed @ 5.25%

Numbers are rounded.

Please help us here?!

In the Last eight years, Republicans took over the White House, Congress,
and the Supreme Court.

You are telling us now, the current economic situation was something caused
by Democrats?!

According to the 35 Articles of Impeachment for George W. Bush, presented
last week in the House of Representatives, the reason oil is $150 a barrel,
is because of the oil shortage the US occupation of Iraq created!

Please have a little decency, and refrain yourself from regurgitating the
garbage from regressive (reactionary) radio!

There are people here, on this newsgroup suffering severe economic
consequences, because of the policies of the current administration.

Omer

I don't see how felatio performed in the oval office on a past president,
has any relevance with what you just stated!

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:21:56 -0400, Carter wrote:


On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:11:22 -0400, Carter wrote:

"jakdedert" wrote in message
news
Add to that the fact that lack of access to quality health care
is in itself a major cause of poverty. In addition, paying for a
single health issue has caused many formerly solvent individuals
and families to slip below the poverty level.
William Sommerwerck wrote:

A _major_ cause? I don't think so.

Carter wrote:

Maybe we are just playing semantics with the word "major", but I would
respectfully suggest you look up the number of people in the last 10 to
15 years that have been 'rightsized', 'downsized' or otherwise lost
their job and benefits. It is in the *millions*. Do you think that is
"major"?

flipper wrote:

You're presuming they don't find another job.

Many do,

Define "many."

but -generally- speaking,

You mean politically speaking.

the 'new' jobs pay significantly less
and typically have few or no benefits.

That is an accurate repeat of the political argument.

I'm sorry to rain on your parade,
but it is a matter of record that a large portion of the good
manufacturing jobs (read 'well-paying') have gone overseas

Well, I'm sorry to rain on your parade but the percent loss of
manufacturing jobs in the U.S., at 11% from 1995 to 2002, is virtually
identical to the decline in manufacturing jobs world wide. It was even
steeper in China with a 15% decline over the same time frame.

As for 'offshoring', the cute little term for jobs going to other
countries (because "outsourcing" is only outside the parent business
and not necessarily 'another country'), it works both ways and the
number of jobs 'inshored' exceeds the number 'outshored' by over 3 to
1.

and that the
replacement jobs, if they can be found, are at a much lower salary with
significantly less benefits.

Again, that's the 'argument' but the numbers show otherwise and the
3-1 'inshored' jobs are often higher paying.

It doesn't take much to figure that one out because 'cheap labor' is
not usually the 'selling point' for moving a job to the U.S.

Actual government statistics show that the
number of people without health care is sharply up

That's a completely different issue as all companies, small and large,
are trying to deal with high medical costs but it's small business,
which make up the vast majority of jobs, that are hardest hit because
they don't have the size and depth to absorb it.

and salaries are
down. I would encourage you to look it up.

I have looked it up and the claims are unsubstantiated. This exact
same 'debate', with all the same claims, has been going on for over 30
years, now, and all through that period median income has risen, then
fallen, then risen, then fallen, then risen... and on and on. So, at
any cherry picked 'snapshot' in time one can argue 'wages are down'
but the overall trend has been upward, as well as the total number of
employed, through all the so called 'offshoring' that is supposedly
killing the work force.

If, as the argument perpetually goes, "America is losing jobs," and
the 'handful of replacements' are all 'lower paying jobs', how can it
be, then, that there are more people employed with a higher median
income than in either 1982 or 1992?

In the 'good ole days' before 'downsizing' 5.25% unemployment was
considered *full* employment but nowadays it's touted as a 'disaster'.

An interesting point, but numbers notwithstanding, you seem to be
implying the economy is in fine shape. I sincerely hope you are correct.

I implied no such thing. The economy is a hell of a lot more complex
than the Simple Simon slogans folks bandy about and, at the moment,
$150/barrel oil has the potential to screw things up worse than any
other single thing, barring a nuclear holocaust, of the last 70 years,
especially since the Democrats are hell fire dead set on repeating
every colossal mistake they made getting us into this predicament,
along with a few new Duesies.


Finally, please present your views to the *millions* that have been
'rightsized' and 'downsized' and see how much sympathy you viewpoint
garners (but I'll caution you to watch out for the tar and feathers).
:-)

You think they would feel better if near twice as many were unemployed
due to double digit inflation and double digit interest rates, like in
1980?

It's easy to 'point a finger' and fire up a crowd. And since you
brought up tar and feathers, fans of old western movies will recognize
this as the proverbial lynch mob.

Doesn't mean you hung the right dude, caught the real killer, or
'solved the problem'. Just means there was a blow hard good at
demonizing, pointing fingers and manipulating people; what we nowadays
call a 'politician'.

This country is in more trouble than even $150/barrel oil and you're
about to get a good demonstration of why over the next 5 months. Just
watch as the demonizing and finger pointing begins over which of our
own is to be 'hung', all in the name of 'fairness' and 'justice', mind
you, as is usually the case when firing up a lynch mob.

Wow!!!

Nothing was corrected by the regressive politicians the last eight years!

From your "Boners" in the House, to the "Fists" in the Senate, according to
the 35 articles of Impeachment, there have been more extensive prosecutable
white collar crimes committed than ever before.

"Flipper", you are just an extension of the Republican noise making machine,
with all the stench that the Whiner, Heil Hannaty, Flush Limbaugh, and many
others have been emanating from their microphones the last twenty years.

In the last thirty years, Carter was in the White House for four, Clinton
for eight. In those years, mileage standards improved. In the last eight
years, everything was done to reverse any legislation to increase mileage
for vehicles.

"Flipper" please save us bandwidth from reading you regressive propaganda!

Omer


"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:50:53 -0700, "Omer S"
wrote:

Please help us here?!

In the Last eight years, Republicans took over the White House, Congress,
and the Supreme Court.

"In the last 8 years" Democrats 'took over' the Congress.
Specifically, in the 2006 mid terms. The Supreme Court is 5-4
'liberal', as the recent moronic ruling on 'detainees' demonstrates.

Now we finally know all those German, Italian, and Japanese POWs
during WWII were held 'unconstitutionally' without recourse in the
civilian courts to challenge their status as POWs.

Btw, anyone wish to proffer a guess as to what 'crime' one 'charges'
an enemy combatant with? The audacity of firing upon U.S. soldiers on
foreign soil?

It's really a trick question because U.S. Courts have no jurisdiction
on foreign soil. And, while we're at it, neither does the
Constitution.

But back to the SCOTUS. some consider one justice 'moderate' for a
4-1-4 split but in no case, regardless of the 'conservative/liberal'
split, does any political party 'control' the SCOTUS because they are
completely unaccountable to anyone, be it a party, legislature, or the
people.

Republicans gained a majority in the House and Senate during the 1994
mid terms, which puts it well outside "in the Last eight years."

The only thing you got close to right was Bush won the 2000 election.

You are telling us now, the current economic situation was something
caused
by Democrats?!

Yes, because, ever since the 1970's oil embargo, Democrats have made
virtually every practical means of finding and producing additional
domestic energy illegal, be it oil, either on shore, off shore, or in
the most remote desolate wastelands of the frozen north, or coal,
shale oil, or nuclear, and, through filibuster or Presidential veto,
managed to keep those policies in place despite any and all attempts
to reverse them. Not to mention making it virtually impossible to
build new pipelines, refineries, or just about any infrastructure of
use.

As a result, the country has been deliberately locked, for over 30
years, into spending trillions of dollars in research 'wishing' for
fantasy solutions that might work 'some day' but that, even if they
did work, could not possibly, under any plausible scenario, solve the
problem but do manage to create a whole raft of new ones, like the big
'surprise' that burning food (corn ethanol) in your gas tank increases
food costs.

Guess what the nation which "feeds the world' imports now? Corn.
'Energy independence', eh?

Despite the fact that U.S. production can't keep up with current
ethanol demand just this year the Democrats passed an energy bill
mandating draconian increases in ethanol use without having the
slightest clue or plan for where the corn will come from but, what the
hell, maybe Tinkerbell will sprinkle magic dust over the crops.


According to the 35 Articles of Impeachment for George W. Bush, presented
last week in the House of Representatives, the reason oil is $150 a
barrel,
is because of the oil shortage the US occupation of Iraq created!

Kucinich is a certifiable looney tune and if you want proof of it, the
Democrats voted to scuttle his bill from the House floor while
Republicans voted to bring it up for debate.

See? You should vote Republican next time because they supported 'your
boy'.

Please have a little decency, and refrain yourself from regurgitating the
garbage from regressive (reactionary) radio!

I have no idea what 'radio' you're talking about but I not only lived
though the 70's, 80's, and 90's but I paid attention to who did what,
when, and why.


There are people here, on this newsgroup suffering severe economic
consequences, because of the policies of the current administration.

If you like 4 buck gasoline, and wish it cost more, then Obama's your
man. He said so, just would have liked the increase to have been over
a little longer time frame, like boiling a live frog. You turn the
heat up slow so he don't notice.


Omer

I don't see how felatio performed in the oval office on a past president,
has any relevance with what you just stated!

"flipper" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:21:56 -0400, Carter wrote:


On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:11:22 -0400, Carter wrote:

"jakdedert" wrote in message
news
Add to that the fact that lack of access to quality health care
is in itself a major cause of poverty. In addition, paying for a
single health issue has caused many formerly solvent individuals
and families to slip below the poverty level.
William Sommerwerck wrote:

A _major_ cause? I don't think so.

Carter wrote:

Maybe we are just playing semantics with the word "major", but I
would
respectfully suggest you look up the number of people in the last 10
to
15 years that have been 'rightsized', 'downsized' or otherwise lost
their job and benefits. It is in the *millions*. Do you think that is
"major"?

flipper wrote:

You're presuming they don't find another job.

Many do,

Define "many."

but -generally- speaking,

You mean politically speaking.

the 'new' jobs pay significantly less
and typically have few or no benefits.

That is an accurate repeat of the political argument.

I'm sorry to rain on your parade,
but it is a matter of record that a large portion of the good
manufacturing jobs (read 'well-paying') have gone overseas

Well, I'm sorry to rain on your parade but the percent loss of
manufacturing jobs in the U.S., at 11% from 1995 to 2002, is virtually
identical to the decline in manufacturing jobs world wide. It was even
steeper in China with a 15% decline over the same time frame.

As for 'offshoring', the cute little term for jobs going to other
countries (because "outsourcing" is only outside the parent business
and not necessarily 'another country'), it works both ways and the
number of jobs 'inshored' exceeds the number 'outshored' by over 3 to
1.

and that the
replacement jobs, if they can be found, are at a much lower salary with
significantly less benefits.

Again, that's the 'argument' but the numbers show otherwise and the
3-1 'inshored' jobs are often higher paying.

It doesn't take much to figure that one out because 'cheap labor' is
not usually the 'selling point' for moving a job to the U.S.

Actual government statistics show that the
number of people without health care is sharply up

That's a completely different issue as all companies, small and large,
are trying to deal with high medical costs but it's small business,
which make up the vast majority of jobs, that are hardest hit because
they don't have the size and depth to absorb it.

and salaries are
down. I would encourage you to look it up.

I have looked it up and the claims are unsubstantiated. This exact
same 'debate', with all the same claims, has been going on for over 30
years, now, and all through that period median income has risen, then
fallen, then risen, then fallen, then risen... and on and on. So, at
any cherry picked 'snapshot' in time one can argue 'wages are down'
but the overall trend has been upward, as well as the total number of
employed, through all the so called 'offshoring' that is supposedly
killing the work force.

If, as the argument perpetually goes, "America is losing jobs," and
the 'handful of replacements' are all 'lower paying jobs', how can it
be, then, that there are more people employed with a higher median
income than in either 1982 or 1992?

In the 'good ole days' before 'downsizing' 5.25% unemployment was
considered *full* employment but nowadays it's touted as a 'disaster'.

An interesting point, but numbers notwithstanding, you seem to be
implying the economy is in fine shape. I sincerely hope you are correct.

I implied no such thing. The economy is a hell of a lot more complex
than the Simple Simon slogans folks bandy about and, at the moment,
$150/barrel oil has the potential to screw things up worse than any
other single thing, barring a nuclear holocaust, of the last 70 years,
especially since the Democrats are hell fire dead set on repeating
every colossal mistake they made getting us into this predicament,
along with a few new Duesies.


Finally, please present your views to the *millions* that have been
'rightsized' and 'downsized' and see how much sympathy you viewpoint
garners (but I'll caution you to watch out for the tar and feathers).
:-)

You think they would feel better if near twice as many were unemployed
due to double digit inflation and double digit interest rates, like in
1980?

It's easy to 'point a finger' and fire up a crowd. And since you
brought up tar and feathers, fans of old western movies will recognize
this as the proverbial lynch mob.

Doesn't mean you hung the right dude, caught the real killer, or
'solved the problem'. Just means there was a blow hard good at
demonizing, pointing fingers and manipulating people; what we nowadays
call a 'politician'.

This country is in more trouble than even $150/barrel oil and you're
about to get a good demonstration of why over the next 5 months. Just
watch as the demonizing and finger pointing begins over which of our
own is to be 'hung', all in the name of 'fairness' and 'justice', mind
you, as is usually the case when firing up a lynch mob.

Flipper,

O'Reilly is NOT a liberal, but of your ilk, and like the rest of you,
threatens and intimidates people all the time.

I'm not going to allow this to turn in to a flame war, but you, the radical
right have taken this country in to a bible thumping joy ride to hell for
the last eight years!

I want my country back!

Part of the food crisis in the world, can be attributed to the alternate
fuels scam in the Midwest, designed by yours truly from that State of the
Union Speech.

Again, the Dems have nothing to do with the artificial choking of the world
oil supply because of US occupation of Iraq(check out the 35 Articles of
Impeachment).

Omer

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:42:05 -0700, "Omer S"
wrote:

Wow!!!

Nothing was corrected by the regressive politicians the last eight years!

From your "Boners" in the House, to the "Fists" in the Senate, according
to
the 35 articles of Impeachment, there have been more extensive
prosecutable
white collar crimes committed than ever before.

"Flipper", you are just an extension of the Republican noise making
machine,
with all the stench that the Whiner, Heil Hannaty, Flush Limbaugh, and
many
others have been emanating from their microphones the last twenty years.

Thank you for a demonstration of the demonization and finger pointing
trouble worse than $150/barrel oil I mentioned the country was in.


In the last thirty years, Carter was in the White House for four, Clinton
for eight. In those years, mileage standards improved.

At least you found 'something' on issue you think they did that was
'good'.

CAFE was passed in 1975 in response ot the 1973 Arab Oil embargo. The
battle cry was "energy independence" and this was the 'solution' since
god forbid we *produce* any more energy.

CAFE set mileage standards that would increase over 10 years with the
goal being a doubling to 27.5 MPG by 1985. The NHTSA was charged with
administering the program and setting of the actual 'requirement' for
any particular year but, without getting into the half million sub
issues, lets just cut straight to the chase. Did it work?

Oil imports have gone from roughly 33% to over 60%.

Didn't work, did it?

In the last eight
years, everything was done to reverse any legislation to increase mileage
for vehicles.

You are such a partisan propaganda dupe.

*Bush*, in his 2007 State of the Union speech, called for CAFE to be
increased to 35 MPG by 2017 as part of his "10 in 20" Energy Plan (20%
reduction in 10 years). CAFE accounts for 5 percent. The other 15% was
his "Renewable And Alternative Fuels" proposal, which was an extension
of his 2006 State of the Union speech on renewables that, if anyone
remembers, included (among others) "switch grass."

Took 'em 11 months but in December 2007 the Democrats passed a bill
doing it.

"Flipper" please save us bandwidth from reading you regressive propaganda!

This is what liberals call "discussing the issues:" telling people to
shut up.


Omer


"flipper" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:50:53 -0700, "Omer S"
wrote:

Please help us here?!

In the Last eight years, Republicans took over the White House,
Congress,
and the Supreme Court.

"In the last 8 years" Democrats 'took over' the Congress.
Specifically, in the 2006 mid terms. The Supreme Court is 5-4
'liberal', as the recent moronic ruling on 'detainees' demonstrates.

Now we finally know all those German, Italian, and Japanese POWs
during WWII were held 'unconstitutionally' without recourse in the
civilian courts to challenge their status as POWs.

Btw, anyone wish to proffer a guess as to what 'crime' one 'charges'
an enemy combatant with? The audacity of firing upon U.S. soldiers on
foreign soil?

It's really a trick question because U.S. Courts have no jurisdiction
on foreign soil. And, while we're at it, neither does the
Constitution.

But back to the SCOTUS. some consider one justice 'moderate' for a
4-1-4 split but in no case, regardless of the 'conservative/liberal'
split, does any political party 'control' the SCOTUS because they are
completely unaccountable to anyone, be it a party, legislature, or the
people.

Republicans gained a majority in the House and Senate during the 1994
mid terms, which puts it well outside "in the Last eight years."

The only thing you got close to right was Bush won the 2000 election.

You are telling us now, the current economic situation was something
caused
by Democrats?!

Yes, because, ever since the 1970's oil embargo, Democrats have made
virtually every practical means of finding and producing additional
domestic energy illegal, be it oil, either on shore, off shore, or in
the most remote desolate wastelands of the frozen north, or coal,
shale oil, or nuclear, and, through filibuster or Presidential veto,
managed to keep those policies in place despite any and all attempts
to reverse them. Not to mention making it virtually impossible to
build new pipelines, refineries, or just about any infrastructure of
use.

As a result, the country has been deliberately locked, for over 30
years, into spending trillions of dollars in research 'wishing' for
fantasy solutions that might work 'some day' but that, even if they
did work, could not possibly, under any plausible scenario, solve the
problem but do manage to create a whole raft of new ones, like the big
'surprise' that burning food (corn ethanol) in your gas tank increases
food costs.

Guess what the nation which "feeds the world' imports now? Corn.
'Energy independence', eh?

Despite the fact that U.S. production can't keep up with current
ethanol demand just this year the Democrats passed an energy bill
mandating draconian increases in ethanol use without having the
slightest clue or plan for where the corn will come from but, what the
hell, maybe Tinkerbell will sprinkle magic dust over the crops.


According to the 35 Articles of Impeachment for George W. Bush,
presented
last week in the House of Representatives, the reason oil is $150 a
barrel,
is because of the oil shortage the US occupation of Iraq created!

Kucinich is a certifiable looney tune and if you want proof of it, the
Democrats voted to scuttle his bill from the House floor while
Republicans voted to bring it up for debate.

See? You should vote Republican next time because they supported 'your
boy'.

Please have a little decency, and refrain yourself from regurgitating
the
garbage from regressive (reactionary) radio!

I have no idea what 'radio' you're talking about but I not only lived
though the 70's, 80's, and 90's but I paid attention to who did what,
when, and why.


There are people here, on this newsgroup suffering severe economic
consequences, because of the policies of the current administration.

If you like 4 buck gasoline, and wish it cost more, then Obama's your
man. He said so, just would have liked the increase to have been over
a little longer time frame, like boiling a live frog. You turn the
heat up slow so he don't notice.


Omer

I don't see how felatio performed in the oval office on a past
president,
has any relevance with what you just stated!

"flipper" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:21:56 -0400, Carter wrote:


On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:11:22 -0400, Carter
wrote:

"jakdedert" wrote in message
news
Add to that the fact that lack of access to quality health care
is in itself a major cause of poverty. In addition, paying for a
single health issue has caused many formerly solvent individuals
and families to slip below the poverty level.
William Sommerwerck wrote:

A _major_ cause? I don't think so.

Carter wrote:

Maybe we are just playing semantics with the word "major", but I
would
respectfully suggest you look up the number of people in the last
10
to
15 years that have been 'rightsized', 'downsized' or otherwise lost
their job and benefits. It is in the *millions*. Do you think that
is
"major"?

flipper wrote:

You're presuming they don't find another job.

Many do,

Define "many."

but -generally- speaking,

You mean politically speaking.

the 'new' jobs pay significantly less
and typically have few or no benefits.

That is an accurate repeat of the political argument.

I'm sorry to rain on your parade,
but it is a matter of record that a large portion of the good
manufacturing jobs (read 'well-paying') have gone overseas

Well, I'm sorry to rain on your parade but the percent loss of
manufacturing jobs in the U.S., at 11% from 1995 to 2002, is virtually
identical to the decline in manufacturing jobs world wide. It was even
steeper in China with a 15% decline over the same time frame.

As for 'offshoring', the cute little term for jobs going to other
countries (because "outsourcing" is only outside the parent business
and not necessarily 'another country'), it works both ways and the
number of jobs 'inshored' exceeds the number 'outshored' by over 3 to
1.

and that the
replacement jobs, if they can be found, are at a much lower salary
with
significantly less benefits.

Again, that's the 'argument' but the numbers show otherwise and the
3-1 'inshored' jobs are often higher paying.

It doesn't take much to figure that one out because 'cheap labor' is
not usually the 'selling point' for moving a job to the U.S.

Actual government statistics show that the
number of people without health care is sharply up

That's a completely different issue as all companies, small and large,
are trying to deal with high medical costs but it's small business,
which make up the vast majority of jobs, that are hardest hit because
they don't have the size and depth to absorb it.

and salaries are
down. I would encourage you to look it up.

I have looked it up and the claims are unsubstantiated. This exact
same 'debate', with all the same claims, has been going on for over 30
years, now, and all through that period median income has risen, then
fallen, then risen, then fallen, then risen... and on and on. So, at
any cherry picked 'snapshot' in time one can argue 'wages are down'
but the overall trend has been upward, as well as the total number of
employed, through all the so called 'offshoring' that is supposedly
killing the work force.

If, as the argument perpetually goes, "America is losing jobs," and
the 'handful of replacements' are all 'lower paying jobs', how can it
be, then, that there are more people employed with a higher median
income than in either 1982 or 1992?

In the 'good ole days' before 'downsizing' 5.25% unemployment was
considered *full* employment but nowadays it's touted as a
'disaster'.

An interesting point, but numbers notwithstanding, you seem to be
implying the economy is in fine shape. I sincerely hope you are
correct.

I implied no such thing. The economy is a hell of a lot more complex
than the Simple Simon slogans folks bandy about and, at the moment,
$150/barrel oil has the potential to screw things up worse than any
other single thing, barring a nuclear holocaust, of the last 70 years,
especially since the Democrats are hell fire dead set on repeating
every colossal mistake they made getting us into this predicament,
along with a few new Duesies.


Finally, please present your views to the *millions* that have been
'rightsized' and 'downsized' and see how much sympathy you viewpoint
garners (but I'll caution you to watch out for the tar and feathers).
:-)

You think they would feel better if near twice as many were unemployed
due to double digit inflation and double digit interest rates, like in
1980?

It's easy to 'point a finger' and fire up a crowd. And since you
brought up tar and feathers, fans of old western movies will recognize
this as the proverbial lynch mob.

Doesn't mean you hung the right dude, caught the real killer, or
'solved the problem'. Just means there was a blow hard good at
demonizing, pointing fingers and manipulating people; what we nowadays
call a 'politician'.

This country is in more trouble than even $150/barrel oil and you're
about to get a good demonstration of why over the next 5 months. Just
watch as the demonizing and finger pointing begins over which of our
own is to be 'hung', all in the name of 'fairness' and 'justice', mind
you, as is usually the case when firing up a lynch mob.

Brian Hill wrote:

Good luck Michael, I hope they get that figured out for you soon.


I am finally starting to see some improvement. I was able to keep it
open and synced to my left eye for about 30 seconds, while driving. I
still have a lot of jitters in its movement, but it is showing some
improvement.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:

The crazy, and the insane.

The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Brian Hill wrote:

Good luck Michael, I hope they get that figured out for you soon.


I am finally starting to see some improvement. I was able to keep it
open and synced to my left eye for about 30 seconds, while driving. I
still have a lot of jitters in its movement, but it is showing some
improvement.


I'm sure glad to hear that.. and will be praying for your continued
improvement.

Brenda Ann wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Brian Hill wrote:

Good luck Michael, I hope they get that figured out for you soon.


I am finally starting to see some improvement. I was able to keep it
open and synced to my left eye for about 30 seconds, while driving. I
still have a lot of jitters in its movement, but it is showing some
improvement.


I'm sure glad to hear that.. and will be praying for your continued
improvement.


Thank you, my friend.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:

The crazy, and the insane.

The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.