In article ,
thunder wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:39:44 -0700, Joe wrote:



However I can not find any tax breaks
anywhere on the books that pays to move jobs overseas.

Overlook the part about tax deferred foreign profits?

http://www.interesting-people.org/ar.../msg00121.html

Joe overlooks a lot of things.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:00:33 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:39:44 -0700, Joe wrote:



However I can not find any tax breaks
anywhere on the books that pays to move jobs overseas.

Overlook the part about tax deferred foreign profits?

http://www.interesting-people.org/ar.../msg00121.html

What Joe meant to say was that he had not found any thing written on
the subject in Guns & Ammo or Hustler:)

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Unfortunately, you're right about the unemployment line... but it's
getting so long that there's not much point in getting in it.

The current unemployment rate just dropped from 5.5% to 5.4%. The avg.
unemployment rate during the Clinton administration was 5.8%. Doesn't
wash.
People are beginning to tune Kerry out when he talks about the horrendous
unemployment rate. They don't believe him any more.

It's easy to cite facts but not the truth. Yes, the UER just dropped
0.1%. However, it was completely due to people dropping off the
employment rolls not due to job growth. 144K people found jobs. But
the economy needs about 150-200K to break even on job loss/job
creation.

When I was a kid, 3% unemployment was considered "full employment." Some
people simply aren't employable for any number of reasons. I don't know
what the basement unemployment rate is today, but I wouldn't be surprised if
we're very near that figure now.

Max

"Vito" wrote in message


Several friends, union electricians, have
been jobless for over two years! They don't show up in the figures
because,
like 1000s of others, their unemployment benefits have ran out.

Union members waiting to be called up at the hiring halls comprise a
significant percentage of the total of unemployed skilled and semi-skilled
laborers. That's why my son-in-law discarded his union card and went to
work for a private company. Union labor is considered too costly by many
employers.

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

We're all glad to hear it but that has nothing to do with the actual
stats. Many, many people are hurting because of Bush's policies.
And there was no reason for it.

Exactly what policies would those be?

Max

What you said:
He's being
criticized for perhaps being a bit economical with the truth in getting some
of them and then using them to get out of the combat zone.
Now, I take the term: economical with the truth, as meaning he at best with
held the truth, or was an out and out liar at worst. Either case calls into
question how medals were awarded inViet Nam, and I have never known a medal
to be awarded on the word of the recipiant alone. Go here.
"Dave" wrote in message
...
Not responsive to the question.

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:11:29 -0400, "Philip Carroll"
said:

If you do, you question each and every medal given under said process. So
you also call into question the names and sacrifices of those names on
the
wall and in all past wars and conflicts. You have questioned , by proxy,
such awards as Sgt, Yorks medal of honor, Gary Brenemens Purple heart,
and
so on. Not a very patriotic thing to do in my book.
"Dave" wrote in message
...
I don't think that's what I said but feel free to try to demonstrate
otherwise.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:16:52 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote this crap:

When I was a kid, 3% unemployment was considered "full employment." Some
people simply aren't employable for any number of reasons. I don't know
what the basement unemployment rate is today, but I wouldn't be surprised if
we're very near that figure now.


I can't believe you're that old. When I was in High School, full
employment was when unemployment was at 4.5%. Today it's considered
5.5%, which is what we have right now.






Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

I know you wouldn't be suprised. If the election were held today, a lot
of people would be suprised, but a lot of people wouldn't.

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Unfortunately, you're right about the unemployment line... but it's
getting so long that there's not much point in getting in it.

The current unemployment rate just dropped from 5.5% to 5.4%. The avg.
unemployment rate during the Clinton administration was 5.8%. Doesn't
wash.
People are beginning to tune Kerry out when he talks about the
horrendous
unemployment rate. They don't believe him any more.

It's easy to cite facts but not the truth. Yes, the UER just dropped
0.1%. However, it was completely due to people dropping off the
employment rolls not due to job growth. 144K people found jobs. But
the economy needs about 150-200K to break even on job loss/job
creation.

When I was a kid, 3% unemployment was considered "full employment." Some
people simply aren't employable for any number of reasons. I don't know
what the basement unemployment rate is today, but I wouldn't be surprised
if
we're very near that figure now.

Max

When Horass was in High School, he was still racing for fags, I mean flags.

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

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:16:52 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote this crap:

When I was a kid, 3% unemployment was considered "full employment." Some
people simply aren't employable for any number of reasons. I don't know
what the basement unemployment rate is today, but I wouldn't be surprised
if
we're very near that figure now.


I can't believe you're that old. When I was in High School, full
employment was when unemployment was at 4.5%. Today it's considered
5.5%, which is what we have right now.






Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On 18 Sep 2004 12:51:11 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:35:51 -0400, "Philip Carroll"
said:

I have never known a medal
to be awarded on the word of the recipiant alone.

And the basis of your knowledge in this area is??????

Not that anything will influence your "open minded" perspective on the
matter, but feel free to rely on the hearsay of those who were either
not present or are now contradicting their past statements, all of
which you describe as "new evidence".

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_5273.shtml

The Navy's chief investigator concluded Friday that procedures were
followed properly in the approval of Sen. John Kerry's Silver Star,
Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals, according to an internal Navy
memo.
Vice Adm. R.A. Route, the Navy inspector general, conducted the review
of Kerry's Vietnam-ear military service awards at the request of
Judicial Watch, a public interest group. The group has also asked for
the release of additional records documenting the Democratic
presidential candidate's military service.

Judicial Watch had requested in August that the Navy open an
investigation of the matter, but Route said in an internal memo
obtained by The Associated Press that he saw no reason for a
full-scale probe.

"Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the
Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards
approval process was properly followed," Route wrote in the memo sent
Friday to Navy Secretary Gordon England.

"In particular, the senior officers who awarded the medals were
properly delegated authority to do so. In addition, we found that they
correctly followed the procedures in place at the time for approving
these awards."