Whooopeee!!!!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:23:34 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:16:10 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:


?? Toyota/Honda/Kia, etc. have the same standards. Where's the beef?

Another Wendy's reference! Chairman Dave must be loving this!

It's from an old political add, but yes, Wendy's also.

Dave loves any mention of Wendy's for obvious reasons.



You brain-dead liberals all manage to have your so-called arguments follow a
pre-ordained, liberal order:

Start out arguing on the basis of your feelings alone ------- When that
fails and logic prevails, as it always does, whine and quickly change the
subject by bringing up some perceived crime of President Bush's --------
When the absurdity and irrelevance of that's pointed out to you, make
prominent mention of "Neocons" and conspiracy -------- From there, be sure
to mention the Tri-lateral commission and secret brotherhoods such as Skull
and Bones------ Then quickly morph into the "illegal" war in Iraq --------
Then bring up "global warming" ------ Then blame that and almost everything
else on "Big Oil" ------- Never forget to mention that Bush and Cheney are
"Oil men" ------- Claim Cheney owns Haliburton ------- Then launch into a
discussion of the "New World Order" -------- Talk about the secret
superhighway being built between Mexico and Canada -------- Reveal the
state secret about the new currency called the "Amero" ------ And, finally,
when you've run out of talking points, "attack the man" with a lame, ad
hominem diatribe.

Wilbur Hubbard

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:32:54 -0500, said:

I haven't visited those plants in SC, Alabama, etc. where the Japanese
companies are beating the pants off Detroit using non-union labor. Is the
above an accurate description of the workforce in those plants?

[Gratuitous nonsense snipped]

Personally, I think it should be a matter of national pride that we
have the best wages, health care, and other services for our citizens
available anywhere in the world. The United States should always be
MORE in all ways. Unfortunately, anti-American miscreants such as Dave
will always want to tear it down and make it less.

What was your answer to the above question again, Not At All? Was Marty's
description of those downtrodden child laborers in the domestic Toyota
plants accurate?

Did you get somebody else to take the Bar exam for you? Given the
reading comprehension, or rather lack thereof that you continue to
exhibit I don't see how it could be otherwise.

Cheers
Martin

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:35:04 -0500, Marty said:

What was your answer to the above question again, Not At All? Was Marty's
description of those downtrodden child laborers in the domestic Toyota
plants accurate?
Did you get somebody else to take the Bar exam for you? Given the
reading comprehension, or rather lack thereof that you continue to
exhibit I don't see how it could be otherwise.

Ah, so you do believe that labor in the Japanese companies' U.S. plants are
"12 year olds working six and half days a week, eighty hours for
barely enough compensation to pay for their own food....?" If not, what is
the message you intended to convey in using that phrase?

I should have thought it quite clear, but since you insist on behaving
in such a disingenuous manner I'll endeavor to edify you.


Try reading the whole sentence again:

"Dave, you clearly feel that it would be better for us all if we still
had 12 year olds working six and half days a week, eighty hours for
barely enough compensation to pay for their own food.... "

It is a statement of what I believe to be your sentiments, not a
reflection of current employment practices of Toyota. In fact if you
remembered my earlier post, I specifically said that Toyota pays it's
employees well, but you chose to ignore that and make up some stuff
about how Ford's benefit plan was killing them, while they were selling
cars for less than Toyota, albeit, with limited success.

Cheers
Martin

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:33:19 -0500, Marty said:

"Dave, you clearly feel that it would be better for us all if we still
had 12 year olds working six and half days a week, eighty hours for
barely enough compensation to pay for their own food.... "

It is a statement of what I believe to be your sentiments, not a
reflection of current employment practices of Toyota.

In other words, it was intended as a gratuitous insult only remotely related
to the topic under discussion, which was whether the taxpayers should bail
out the auto makers and their UAW workers rather than let the auto makers
file Chapter 11. Got it.


Again, you have a penchant for reading things between the lines that
aren't there. But I will take the liberty of doing the same and assume
from your response that you have no problem with the factual gist of my
statement.

Cheers
Martin

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

Dave wrote:


In that case, let me set you straight. I do not believe it would be a good
idea if we still had 12 year olds working six and half days a week, eighty
hours. Even if they were generously paid for their work.

Nor do I beat my wife.


Good, on both counts.

For the record, for the second time, I don't think your government, nor
ours should be bailing these companies out, either through low interest
loans or grants. I remember GM getting just such a bail out 20 or so
years ago; it did no good, plants were still closed people lost their
jobs and now they're in even worse shape. None of the Detroit three
have done much to keep up with the times.

At a recent international auto show the Europeans and Japanese rolled
out a bunch of small fuel efficient cars and trucks, (Volkswagen won
some kind of award for a 4 cylinder diesel Jetta); what did Detroit show?


BIG fuel guzzling expensive cars and SUVs, let 'em die I say, but don't
blame labour.

Cheers
Martin

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:16:13 -0500, Marty said:

"Dave, you clearly feel that it would be better for us all if we still
had 12 year olds working six and half days a week, eighty hours for
barely enough compensation to pay for their own food.... "

It is a statement of what I believe to be your sentiments, not a
reflection of current employment practices of Toyota.

In other words, it was intended as a gratuitous insult only remotely
related
to the topic under discussion, which was whether the taxpayers should
bail
out the auto makers and their UAW workers rather than let the auto
makers
file Chapter 11. Got it.


Again, you have a penchant for reading things between the lines that
aren't there. But I will take the liberty of doing the same and assume
from your response that you have no problem with the factual gist of my
statement.

In that case, let me set you straight. I do not believe it would be a good
idea if we still had 12 year olds working six and half days a week,
eighty
hours. Even if they were generously paid for their work.

Nor do I beat my wife.


As far as we know... LOL


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:16:36 -0500, Marty said:

BIG fuel guzzling expensive cars and SUVs, let 'em die I say, but don't
blame labour.

Perhaps we can agree that management was in substantial part culpable for
caving in to labor demands which, in the long run, they would be unable to
meet?

It isn't as if unfunded liabilities was a new concept. In fact
conceptually
the so-called "jobs bank" was very much like the unfunded pensions before
the Studebaker failure. And it wasn't any news that the health benefits
they
were promising exceeded those borne by competitors.


Holy crap! It's a consensus! LOL

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:16:36 -0500, Marty said:

BIG fuel guzzling expensive cars and SUVs, let 'em die I say, but don't
blame labour.

Perhaps we can agree that management was in substantial part culpable for
caving in to labor demands which, in the long run, they would be unable to
meet?

It isn't as if unfunded liabilities was a new concept. In fact conceptually
the so-called "jobs bank" was very much like the unfunded pensions before
the Studebaker failure. And it wasn't any news that the health benefits they
were promising exceeded those borne by competitors.

Perhaps,


The only part I'd take much exception is the health care issue. Toyota
and Honda have been able to provide a very competitive health care
package for their employees, (isn't that pretty much a legal
requirement?); however they have taken perhaps more creative and
aggressive control of that care to allow them to provide it at about 1/3
the cost that the big three incur . Again, this is something management
has screwed up in Detroit. Further, it doesn't explain why they have
the same problems in Canada, the health care issue is *exactly* the same
for every employer, yet we see the same problems.

Would you agree that the design visionaries in Detroit haven't been to
good at keeping up with consumer desires?

Cheers
Martin

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:16:36 -0500, Marty wrote this
crap:

BIG fuel guzzling expensive cars and SUVs, let 'em die I say, but don't
blame labour.

Detroit sells what people buy. SUVs are very popular.




I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

On 21 Nov 2008 18:51:02 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:16:13 -0500, Marty said:

"Dave, you clearly feel that it would be better for us all if we still
had 12 year olds working six and half days a week, eighty hours for
barely enough compensation to pay for their own food.... "

It is a statement of what I believe to be your sentiments, not a
reflection of current employment practices of Toyota.

In other words, it was intended as a gratuitous insult only remotely related
to the topic under discussion, which was whether the taxpayers should bail
out the auto makers and their UAW workers rather than let the auto makers
file Chapter 11. Got it.


Again, you have a penchant for reading things between the lines that
aren't there. But I will take the liberty of doing the same and assume
from your response that you have no problem with the factual gist of my
statement.

In that case, let me set you straight. I do not believe it would be a good
idea if we still had 12 year olds working six and half days a week, eighty
hours. Even if they were generously paid for their work.

Nor do I beat my wife.

When did you stop beating your wife?

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:33:38 -0500, Marty said:

Toyota
and Honda have been able to provide a very competitive health care
package for their employees, (isn't that pretty much a legal
requirement?)

Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses.
The system of linking health benefits to employment is an outgrowth of
wage
an price controls of WWII. Most do offer them to be competitive in
hiring.


"Most" - yes... down from 69% to 60%.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...UG8OENLE61.DTL

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:33:38 -0500, Marty said:

Toyota
and Honda have been able to provide a very competitive health care
package for their employees, (isn't that pretty much a legal
requirement?)

Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses.
The system of linking health benefits to employment is an outgrowth of wage
an price controls of WWII. Most do offer them to be competitive in hiring.


Ah, so Toyota has no health care plan for its' workers?

Cheers
Martin

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

Dave wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:58:25 -0500, Marty said:

Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses.
The system of linking health benefits to employment is an outgrowth of wage
an price controls of WWII. Most do offer them to be competitive in hiring.

Ah, so Toyota has no health care plan for its' workers?

What is your basis for that conclusion?


The four letter word "Nope" that opens your previous post.

Cheers
Martin

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:55:15 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so
chooses.
The system of linking health benefits to employment is an outgrowth of
wage
an price controls of WWII. Most do offer them to be competitive in
hiring.

Ah, so Toyota has no health care plan for its' workers?

What is your basis for that conclusion?


The four letter word "Nope" that opens your previous post.

Most interesting and quite revealing. It suggests you believe businesses
answer only to government requirements--that market forces such as the
need
to compete with other potential employers in setting wages and benefits,
and
the need to compete with other sellers in product pricing, has no
influence
in those businesses' decisions. That assumption may be true in a command
economy. Maybe that's why command economies fail.


It's one of the answers. Certainly, the "free market" (which isn't free of
course) has a role also. However, left to only the free market, healthcare
costs would go up. This has already happened, so it's not really in dispute.
Private companies have little incentive to lower costs. They're in it for
the shareholders.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:32:25 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

However, left to only the free market, healthcare
costs would go up. This has already happened, so it's not really in
dispute.

Nonsense. A market in which the guvmint throws massive amounts to sellers
via various subsidies is not a free market. In a free market without
massive
guvmint intervention, sellers of medical products and services would have
to
adjust their prices based on what buyers are willing to pay.

Except it's a fact. It's not a buyers' market. People have no choice to pay
or die. This isn't a carwash.

Private companies have little incentive to lower costs. They're in it for
the shareholders.

A very good argument for correcting the error made 65 years ago when we
decided to subsidize employer prepayment of medical expenses.

?? Costs would be even higher. Bush wanted to move everything to the private
sector, even social security in the stock market. That would have been just
great wouldn't it.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:05:23 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

People have no choice to pay
or die. This isn't a carwash.

I suppose that if one is in a delicate condition, every sniffle and sore
throat is potentially life-threatening. For most of us that's not the
case.


Dude... are you really that heartless? Do you think a stomach ache can be an
indication of too much food but not a ruptured appenedix? Get real.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

It's one of the answers. Certainly, the "free market" (which isn't free of
course) has a role also. However, left to only the free market, healthcare
costs would go up. This has already happened, so it's not really in
dispute.

Note the faulty liberal logic, a deceptive trick:

If A then B {A = healthcare left to free market, B = prices will go up}

We have B, so then A is true ===FALLACY

If Gaynz let syphillis go to his brain, he will become crazy. Gaynz is
crazy, so he has syphillis. No dispute!




Private companies have little incentive to lower costs. They're in it for
the shareholders.


Look at the cost of computers. The computer industry is a virtually
unregulated free market and over the years the costs have soared.

Healthcare costs have gone up by extraordinary measure! 50 years ago an MRI
costs $0.00. Today it costs about $1500. 1550/0 = infinite! There's the
free market at work!



Private companies have little incentive to lower costs. They're in it for
the shareholders.


Yet the Fed acts to head off deflation - falling prices!

Why can't these evil private companies take it upon themselves to shore up
prices to keep their greedy shareholders fat and happy?

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

wrote in message
...
On 25 Nov 2008 11:45:01 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:32:25 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

However, left to only the free market, healthcare
costs would go up. This has already happened, so it's not really in
dispute.

Nonsense. A market in which the guvmint throws massive amounts to sellers
via various subsidies is not a free market. In a free market without
massive
guvmint intervention, sellers of medical products and services would have
to
adjust their prices based on what buyers are willing to pay.


Unless, of course, they all get together and collude to jack prices
up, rather than compete against each other. That, of course, could
NEVER happen!


Happens all the time. That's why Unions are exempt from anti-trust laws.

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:32:25 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

However, left to only the free market, healthcare
costs would go up. This has already happened, so it's not really in
dispute.

Nonsense. A market in which the guvmint throws massive amounts to sellers
via various subsidies is not a free market. In a free market without
massive
guvmint intervention, sellers of medical products and services would have
to
adjust their prices based on what buyers are willing to pay.

Except it's a fact. It's not a buyers' market. People have no choice to
pay or die. This isn't a carwash.

People do have a choice to take care of their health, thus lowering the
cost. Obesity, smoking, lack of exercise and drug abuse all contribute
heavily to health care cost.



Private companies have little incentive to lower costs. They're in it for
the shareholders.

A very good argument for correcting the error made 65 years ago when we
decided to subsidize employer prepayment of medical expenses.

?? Costs would be even higher. Bush wanted to move everything to the
private sector, even social security in the stock market. That would have
been just great wouldn't it.

I guess it's better to get healthcare from the same system that runs the
Post Office.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:05:23 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

People have no choice to pay
or die. This isn't a carwash.

I suppose that if one is in a delicate condition, every sniffle and sore
throat is potentially life-threatening. For most of us that's not the
case.


Dude... are you really that heartless? Do you think a stomach ache can be
an indication of too much food but not a ruptured appenedix? Get real.


A ruptured appendix has specific pain in the lower right quadrant. A stomach
ache is central and much higher. Hope this saves you several trips to the
emergency room.

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:43:40 -0700, "Charles Momsen"
said:

Happens all the time. That's why Unions are exempt from anti-trust laws.

You seem really fixated on this discovery of yours.

Labor unions are exempt from the antitrust laws because way back when
someone managed to sell the slogan "labor is not a commodity" to a
gullible
Congress and public, expecting, quite correctly, that no one would be
smart
enough to ask what that wonderful-sounding slogan means.

I'm not fixated, it's just a handy device to mention every now and then.

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:06:16 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I suppose that if one is in a delicate condition, every sniffle and sore
throat is potentially life-threatening. For most of us that's not the
case.


Dude... are you really that heartless? Do you think a stomach ache can be
an
indication of too much food but not a ruptured appenedix? Get real.

Q.E.D.


Thanks for answering. I'm sorry you're so heartless.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

On 25 Nov 2008 14:36:01 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:06:16 -0800, "Capt. JG" said:

I suppose that if one is in a delicate condition, every sniffle and sore
throat is potentially life-threatening. For most of us that's not the
case.


Dude... are you really that heartless? Do you think a stomach ache can be an
indication of too much food but not a ruptured appenedix? Get real.

Q.E.D.

You misspelled Queeg.

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:55:15 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses.
The system of linking health benefits to employment is an outgrowth of wage
an price controls of WWII. Most do offer them to be competitive in hiring.
Ah, so Toyota has no health care plan for its' workers?
What is your basis for that conclusion?

The four letter word "Nope" that opens your previous post.

Most interesting and quite revealing. It suggests you believe businesses
answer only to government requirements--that market forces such as the need
to compete with other potential employers in setting wages and benefits, and
the need to compete with other sellers in product pricing, has no influence
in those businesses' decisions. That assumption may be true in a command
economy. Maybe that's why command economies fail.


It suggests nothing of the kind. I only suggests that you failed to
answer in a clear a cogent manner.

Cheers
Martin

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:08:30 -0500, said:

Unless, of course, they all get together and collude to jack prices
up, rather than compete against each other. That, of course, could
NEVER happen!

They say even paranoids have enemies.

Dave, do you wonder why most democratic countries have some form of anti
trust law?

Cheers
Martin

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:25:12 -0700, "Charles Momsen"
said:

Labor unions are exempt from the antitrust laws because way back when
someone managed to sell the slogan "labor is not a commodity" to a
gullible
Congress and public, expecting, quite correctly, that no one would be
smart
enough to ask what that wonderful-sounding slogan means.

I'm not fixated, it's just a handy device to mention every now and then.

It seems to surprise no one but you.

Sorry, I won't mention it again.

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:10:37 -0500, Marty said:

Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses.
The system of linking health benefits to employment is an outgrowth of wage
an price controls of WWII. Most do offer them to be competitive in hiring.
Ah, so Toyota has no health care plan for its' workers?
What is your basis for that conclusion?
The four letter word "Nope" that opens your previous post.
Most interesting and quite revealing. It suggests you believe businesses
answer only to government requirements--that market forces such as the need
to compete with other potential employers in setting wages and benefits, and
the need to compete with other sellers in product pricing, has no influence
in those businesses' decisions. That assumption may be true in a command
economy. Maybe that's why command economies fail.

It suggests nothing of the kind. I only suggests that you failed to
answer in a clear a cogent manner.

You asked the question: "isn't that pretty much a legal
requirement?"

I answered:

Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses.

What do you find this unclear? What part of "Nope" do you not understand.


And here I thought the question was "Toyota has no health care plan for
it's workers?"

Cheers
Martin
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion
groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ----

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:43:12 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

You asked the question: "isn't that pretty much a legal
requirement?"

I answered:

Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses.
What do you find this unclear? What part of "Nope" do you not understand.

And here I thought the question was "Toyota has no health care plan for
it's workers?"

You need to go back and review the bidding.

That was the question you asked after I told you there is no legal
requirement for an employer to provide for payment of his employee's medical
bills--the answer you seem to have difficulty comprehending.


Now there you go again, you couldn't resist the snide dig, but it
doesn't really matter.

You would agree then that Toyota does in fact participate in a health
care plan for it's workers?

Cheers
Martin

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:02:43 -0500, Martin Baxter
wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:43:12 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

You asked the question: "isn't that pretty much a legal
requirement?"

I answered:

Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses.
What do you find this unclear? What part of "Nope" do you not understand.

And here I thought the question was "Toyota has no health care plan for
it's workers?"

You need to go back and review the bidding.

That was the question you asked after I told you there is no legal
requirement for an employer to provide for payment of his employee's medical
bills--the answer you seem to have difficulty comprehending.


Now there you go again, you couldn't resist the snide dig, but it
doesn't really matter.

You would agree then that Toyota does in fact participate in a health
care plan for it's workers?

Just a little sanity here, which may not be of interest.
Big 3 legacy costs include health care for retirees.
With a 30 and out policy, providing health care for a 50 year old
until he reaches the medicare age of 65 can be expensive.
I don't know the details, but the costs might go beyond age 65.
There are a lot of weeds to wade through before you find real answers.

--Vic

Whooopeee!!!!!
 

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:02:43 -0500, Martin Baxter
wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:43:12 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

You asked the question: "isn't that pretty much a legal
requirement?"

I answered:

Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses.
What do you find this unclear? What part of "Nope" do you not understand.
And here I thought the question was "Toyota has no health care plan for
it's workers?"
You need to go back and review the bidding.

That was the question you asked after I told you there is no legal
requirement for an employer to provide for payment of his employee's medical
bills--the answer you seem to have difficulty comprehending.

Now there you go again, you couldn't resist the snide dig, but it
doesn't really matter.

You would agree then that Toyota does in fact participate in a health
care plan for it's workers?

Just a little sanity here, which may not be of interest.
Big 3 legacy costs include health care for retirees.
With a 30 and out policy, providing health care for a 50 year old
until he reaches the medicare age of 65 can be expensive.
I don't know the details, but the costs might go beyond age 65.
There are a lot of weeds to wade through before you find real answers.

--Vic

Oh damn you! Let's have no talk of sanity... screws up a perfectly
good piece of Usenet fun.... on the other the health care cost issue
probably cost you guys the most recent Toyota plant in North America,
seems the liked the idea of Canada's commy universal health care.

Cheers
Martin