| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
New Discoveries?
http://space.newscientist.com/articl...ine-news_rss20
I thought the global warming models accounted for all of this. Lloyd |
New Discoveries?
|
New Discoveries?
"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message ... Even kids know better: http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?id=15357 I guess that means even kids are smarter than Al Gore. And to think, that fat elitist fool was a heartbeat from the Presidency. Scary very scary! Wilbur Hubbard |
New Discoveries?
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message ... "Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message ... Even kids know better: http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?id=15357 I guess that means even kids are smarter than Al Gore. And to think, that fat elitist fool was a heartbeat from the Presidency. Scary very scary! Even scarier is the thought that he could have been *elected* President. I don't even want to imagine what this country would be like with him at the helm. Max |
New Discoveries?
"Maxprop" wrote in message
rthlink.net... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message ... "Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message ... Even kids know better: http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?id=15357 I guess that means even kids are smarter than Al Gore. And to think, that fat elitist fool was a heartbeat from the Presidency. Scary very scary! Even scarier is the thought that he could have been *elected* President. I don't even want to imagine what this country would be like with him at the helm. Max Yeah, not fighting in a civil war, Afganistan in good shape, perhaps no 9/11 at all, prosperity, etc. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
New Discoveries?
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message rthlink.net... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message ... "Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message ... Even kids know better: http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?id=15357 I guess that means even kids are smarter than Al Gore. And to think, that fat elitist fool was a heartbeat from the Presidency. Scary very scary! Even scarier is the thought that he could have been *elected* President. I don't even want to imagine what this country would be like with him at the helm. Max Yeah, not fighting in a civil war, Afganistan in good shape, perhaps no 9/11 at all, prosperity, etc. Right. Dream on, Bay Area boy. Max |
New Discoveries?
"Maxprop" wrote in message
thlink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message rthlink.net... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message ... "Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message ... Even kids know better: http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?id=15357 I guess that means even kids are smarter than Al Gore. And to think, that fat elitist fool was a heartbeat from the Presidency. Scary very scary! Even scarier is the thought that he could have been *elected* President. I don't even want to imagine what this country would be like with him at the helm. Max Yeah, not fighting in a civil war, Afganistan in good shape, perhaps no 9/11 at all, prosperity, etc. Right. Dream on, Bay Area boy. Max I notice that you don't dispute any of it. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
New Discoveries?
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message thlink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message rthlink.net... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message ... "Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message ... Even kids know better: http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?id=15357 I guess that means even kids are smarter than Al Gore. And to think, that fat elitist fool was a heartbeat from the Presidency. Scary very scary! Even scarier is the thought that he could have been *elected* President. I don't even want to imagine what this country would be like with him at the helm. Max Yeah, not fighting in a civil war, Afganistan in good shape, perhaps no 9/11 at all, prosperity, etc. Right. Dream on, Bay Area boy. Max I notice that you don't dispute any of it. I'm disputing all of it. First: Al Gore, if President, would have been forced to take some sort of action after 9/11 (despite the totally wacko version of that day circulating among the reaaaaaaallly far-left currently--which I won't even address, it's so ludicrous). He'd likely have followed the intel the spooks were putting forth, meaning he'd probably have retaliated by doing the same thing in Afghanistan that Bush did. If you recall, Congress was solidly behind that. As for Iraq, things with that country were coming to a head sooner or later. Al probably would have given the UN inspectors more time. Maybe not. We'll never know, but I think Saddam would have been emboldened by bamboozling the UN for so long, and he'd likely have made overtures to al Qaeda or some other jihadist group, forcing us (primarily) along with a loose coalition to do something about him. Of course we'll never know about that either, but that's what some of the most outspoken university political scientists have been saying for a while: taking Saddam out was inevitable. As for prosperity, I'm sorry if you're suffering. Everyone I know is flourishing. You Democrats can spin our economy into the toilet all day, Jon, but you can't make it believable. The economy is fine, real estate is doing well--better than the doomspeakers have been predicting--and the stock market is reaching all-time highs again, if fluctuating a bit, which is what it typically did before the craziness of the dot.com era anyway. Al Gore is, like his President, a flag blowing in the wind of public opinion. No morality, no backbone, few core beliefs, no real identity beyond what his handlers created for him. The only firm stance he's taken on any front is his global warming position, for which many believe him to be an alarmist and a liar, fabricating "facts" that go well beyond what scientists are saying or predicting. And lately he's one big fat momma, leading to the conclusion that he's depressed. Not exactly presidential material. Bush is no prize, but Gore would have been a disaster. I shudder to think ... . Max |
New Discoveries?
"Maxprop" wrote in message
thlink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message thlink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message rthlink.net... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message ... "Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message ... Even kids know better: http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?id=15357 I guess that means even kids are smarter than Al Gore. And to think, that fat elitist fool was a heartbeat from the Presidency. Scary very scary! Even scarier is the thought that he could have been *elected* President. I don't even want to imagine what this country would be like with him at the helm. Max Yeah, not fighting in a civil war, Afganistan in good shape, perhaps no 9/11 at all, prosperity, etc. Right. Dream on, Bay Area boy. Max I notice that you don't dispute any of it. I'm disputing all of it. First: Al Gore, if President, would have been forced to take some sort of action after 9/11 (despite the totally wacko This assumes there would have been a 9/11, which is not a good assumption since the handoff from one administration to the next would have actually worked. And, if there had been he wouldn't have been looking stupid reading My Pet Goat. version of that day circulating among the reaaaaaaallly far-left currently--which I won't even address, it's so ludicrous). He'd likely have followed the intel the spooks were putting forth, meaning he'd probably have retaliated by doing the same thing in Afghanistan that Bush did. If you In Afganistan, yes, EXCEPT, he would have actually used enough military to get the job done UNLIKE Bush who was really just interested in Saddam... which is a documented fact. recall, Congress was solidly behind that. As for Iraq, things with that country were coming to a head sooner or later. Al probably would have given the UN inspectors more time. Maybe not. We'll never know, but I think Sooner or later? You have a wonderful crystal ball. He would not have rushed to war, a war of choice. Saddam would have been emboldened by bamboozling the UN for so long, and he'd likely have made overtures to al Qaeda or some other jihadist group, forcing us (primarily) along with a loose coalition to do something about him. Of course we'll never know about that either, but that's what some of the most outspoken university political scientists have been saying for a while: taking Saddam out was inevitable. As for prosperity, I'm sorry if you're suffering. Everyone I know is flourishing. You Democrats can spin You really don't know much about the economy do you. It's lagging, the housing market is failing... many more poor and malnourished in the country. our economy into the toilet all day, Jon, but you can't make it believable. The economy is fine, real estate is doing well--better than the doomspeakers have been predicting--and the stock market is reaching all-time highs again, if fluctuating a bit, which is what it typically did before the craziness of the dot.com era anyway. So, you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Get all your news from the Drudge report? Al Gore is, like his President, a flag blowing in the wind of public opinion. No morality, no backbone, few core beliefs, no real identity Compared to who? Bush??? Haha... sure. beyond what his handlers created for him. The only firm stance he's taken on any front is his global warming position, for which many believe him to be an alarmist and a liar, fabricating "facts" that go well beyond what scientists are saying or predicting. And lately he's one big fat momma, leading to the conclusion that he's depressed. Not exactly presidential material. Compared to Bush, he's perfect, but that's not saying much. Bush is no prize.... You get the prize for the understatement of the decade. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
New Discoveries?
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... You really don't know much about the economy do you. It's lagging, the housing market is failing... many more poor and malnourished in the country. This is the only response you've made that I have any interest to take issue with. Fact: the housing market in the Bay Area has tanked, but it was artificially high to begin with. Here new home starts are up over last year by double digits. Existing home sales are slighly off, but no moreso than the normal fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Home prices have stayed the same or increased slightly, while your Bay Area prices have fallen by 15% to 30%, depending upon whose reference you read. As for the poor and malnourished, that's Dem spin. Unemployment is around 5% nationally, which is essentially full employment. I know more about the economy than you, primarily because I listen to economists, not Democrat doomsayers who will say anything to make Bush look bad. I really don't know why they try so hard--he makes himself look bad without their spin. They should sit back and relax. So, you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Get all your news from the Drudge report? Nope. I just don't listen to the left-leaning Big Three, CBS, NBS, and ABS. Max |
New Discoveries?
In article .net,
Maxprop wrote: It's the only response you're willing to address, because it's the only one that's not totally obvious. "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... You really don't know much about the economy do you. It's lagging, the housing market is failing... many more poor and malnourished in the country. This is the only response you've made that I have any interest to take issue with. Fact: the housing market in the Bay Area has tanked, but it was artificially high to begin with. Here new home starts are up over last year by double digits. Existing home sales are slighly off, but no moreso than Firstly, I never said anything about the SF bayarea. Secondly, just about every economist and/or realtor (if they're being honest, which I know can be a stretch for some) recognizes that the housing market is depressed and will continue to be so until 2009. the normal fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Home prices have stayed the same or increased slightly, while your Bay Area prices have fallen by 15% to 30%, depending upon whose reference you read. As for the poor and malnourished, that's Dem spin. Unemployment is around 5% nationally, which According to you, but not according to all the statistics available. We have many more people at or below the poverty line, and the situation is getting worse. Feel free to blame the Dems, but the Republicans have been in charge for 7 years. is essentially full employment. I know more about the economy than you, primarily because I listen to economists, not Democrat doomsayers who will say anything to make Bush look bad. I really don't know why they try so hard--he makes himself look bad without their spin. They should sit back and relax. They don't really have to say or do much to make him look bad. He's quite capable of doing that himself. Maybe he should use McGovern's famous line about being 1000 percent behind the AG. He lied about being behind Rumsfeld even though he knew the resignation was in the works. So, you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Get all your news from the Drudge report? Nope. I just don't listen to the left-leaning Big Three, CBS, NBS, and ABS. Oops. They're all huge US corps, controlled by right-wing loyalists. They must be just unpatriotic! -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
New Discoveries?
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article .net, Maxprop wrote: It's the only response you're willing to address, because it's the only one that's not totally obvious. "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... You really don't know much about the economy do you. It's lagging, the housing market is failing... many more poor and malnourished in the country. This is the only response you've made that I have any interest to take issue with. Fact: the housing market in the Bay Area has tanked, but it was artificially high to begin with. Here new home starts are up over last year by double digits. Existing home sales are slighly off, but no moreso than Firstly, I never said anything about the SF bayarea. Secondly, just about every economist and/or realtor (if they're being honest, which I know can be a stretch for some) recognizes that the housing market is depressed and will continue to be so until 2009. the normal fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Home prices have stayed the same or increased slightly, while your Bay Area prices have fallen by 15% to 30%, depending upon whose reference you read. As for the poor and malnourished, that's Dem spin. Unemployment is around 5% nationally, which According to you, but not according to all the statistics available. We have many more people at or below the poverty line, and the situation is getting worse. Feel free to blame the Dems, but the Republicans have been in charge for 7 years. is essentially full employment. I know more about the economy than you, primarily because I listen to economists, not Democrat doomsayers who will say anything to make Bush look bad. I really don't know why they try so hard--he makes himself look bad without their spin. They should sit back and relax. They don't really have to say or do much to make him look bad. He's quite capable of doing that himself. Maybe he should use McGovern's famous line about being 1000 percent behind the AG. He lied about being behind Rumsfeld even though he knew the resignation was in the works. So, you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Get all your news from the Drudge report? Nope. I just don't listen to the left-leaning Big Three, CBS, NBS, and ABS. Oops. They're all huge US corps, controlled by right-wing loyalists. They must be just unpatriotic! http://www.frbsf.org/publications/ec...ews/index.html Yeah..there's an imminent Depression starting up in San Francisco...right... |
New Discoveries?
In article ,
katy wrote: http://www.frbsf.org/publications/ec...ews/index.html Yeah..there's an imminent Depression starting up in San Francisco...right... Never used the word depression.... interesting that you did. g Interesting article. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
New Discoveries?
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article , katy wrote: http://www.frbsf.org/publications/ec...ews/index.html Yeah..there's an imminent Depression starting up in San Francisco...right... Never used the word depression.... interesting that you did. g Interesting article. Yeah..it mostly refutes what you were saying...or seriously diminishes what you were saying... |
New Discoveries?
In article ,
katy wrote: Jonathan Ganz wrote: In article , katy wrote: http://www.frbsf.org/publications/ec...ews/index.html Yeah..there's an imminent Depression starting up in San Francisco...right... Never used the word depression.... interesting that you did. g Interesting article. Yeah..it mostly refutes what you were saying...or seriously diminishes what you were saying... I was thinking it actually supports it. I think you need to read it again. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
New Discoveries?
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article , katy wrote: Jonathan Ganz wrote: In article , katy wrote: http://www.frbsf.org/publications/ec...ews/index.html Yeah..there's an imminent Depression starting up in San Francisco...right... Never used the word depression.... interesting that you did. g Interesting article. Yeah..it mostly refutes what you were saying...or seriously diminishes what you were saying... I was thinking it actually supports it. I think you need to read it again. From memory didn't it say unemployment was less than 5% and that although sloppy, the housing market was pretty much stable? And that durable goods were doing fine? A less than 5% unemployment rate means the employable are employed...people buying durable goods means they have the money to do so or the credit, and the hosuing market has been so overinflated nationwide that it was due to take a decline just to even itself out..speculation building has been going on for quite some time and now new real estate isn't the commodity it was... |
New Discoveries?
In article ,
katy wrote: From memory didn't it say unemployment was less than 5% and that although sloppy, the housing market was pretty much stable? And that durable goods were doing fine? A less than 5% unemployment rate means the employable are employed...people buying durable goods means they have the money to do so or the credit, and the hosuing market has been so overinflated nationwide that it was due to take a decline just to even itself out..speculation building has been going on for quite some time and now new real estate isn't the commodity it was... No, it didn't say that. You should probably read it again. That's why I found it interesting. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
New Discoveries?
In article ,
Dave wrote: On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:55:06 -0400, katy said: From memory didn't it say unemployment was less than 5% and that although sloppy, the housing market was pretty much stable? And that durable goods were doing fine? Jon's hilarious. He's been claiming the economy is in the crapper constantly since at least 2002. Inflation is heading up, unless you don't believe the Fed any more. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
New Discoveries?
Dave wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:55:06 -0400, katy said: From memory didn't it say unemployment was less than 5% and that although sloppy, the housing market was pretty much stable? And that durable goods were doing fine? Jon's hilarious. He's been claiming the economy is in the crapper constantly since at least 2002. He obviously interpreted the article the same way some people interpret the Bible... |
New Discoveries?
In article ,
katy wrote: Dave wrote: On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:55:06 -0400, katy said: From memory didn't it say unemployment was less than 5% and that although sloppy, the housing market was pretty much stable? And that durable goods were doing fine? Jon's hilarious. He's been claiming the economy is in the crapper constantly since at least 2002. He obviously interpreted the article the same way some people interpret the Bible... So, you refuse to read it again.... ok. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
New Discoveries?
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article , katy wrote: Dave wrote: On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:55:06 -0400, katy said: From memory didn't it say unemployment was less than 5% and that although sloppy, the housing market was pretty much stable? And that durable goods were doing fine? Jon's hilarious. He's been claiming the economy is in the crapper constantly since at least 2002. He obviously interpreted the article the same way some people interpret the Bible... So, you refuse to read it again.... ok. I read it again...and it refuted what you said was happening...you have an unemployment rate lower than 5% and although January was a bit sketchy, you made up for it in February...the real estate market is soft but not terribly...gonna start calling you Chicken Little... |
New Discoveries?
In article ,
katy wrote: I read it again...and it refuted what you said was happening...you have an unemployment rate lower than 5% and although January was a bit sketchy, you made up for it in February...the real estate market is soft but not terribly...gonna start calling you Chicken Little... Call me whatever you want. Here's what it says: As expected, real GDP growth for the fourth quarter of 2006 was revised down substantially from the advance release. GDP grew 2.2 percent in the fourth quarter of last year, well off the 3.5 percent pace reported in the advance estimate. GDP growth was restrained by declines in motor vehicle production and residential construction. Turning to data for January, the news has been mixed but generally consistent with weaker momentum in the short term. On the negative side, orders for durable goods posted large and broad-based declines in January. Manufacturing and industrial production also weakened and manufacturing capacity utilization fell. Sure, there are always positive things to say, but you can't claim the above is good news. Numbers revised downward. Mixed but consistent with weaker momentum. Orders down big time. On the positive side, consumer spending outside of autos and homes remains quite strong; real personal consumption expenditures rose a healthy 0.3 percent in January. Real disposable income growth also increased, suggesting that the consumer sector remains very healthy. Spend, spend, spend, probably mostly on credit cards that they can't afford and can't ever pay back what is owed. Recent readings on the housing market data have been mixed but, on balance, provide some tentative signs of a prospective stabilization. Sales of existing homes were up sharply in January. On the other hand, sales of new homes were weak. Housing starts were down and the value of overall construction put in place declined in January relative to December, but data on housing permits appear to have leveled off in recent months. Mixed bag, but not exactly good news no matter how you slice it. Although the measured unemployment rate is quite low, some would argue that it does not fully capture the population available for work. Relative to the late 1990s, the labor force participation rate (LFP) and the employment-to-population ratio remain low, suggesting that there is some room for the total workforce to expand. On the other hand, the aging of the baby boom makes the return to past peaks in LFP or the employment-to-population ratio less than certain. And, on and on. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
New Discoveries?
Good grief Jon...it was revised down but they had overpredicted in the
first place and still made a gain! Brack brack...the sky is falling in California everyone...run for cover! |
New Discoveries?
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... In article .net, Maxprop wrote: It's the only response you're willing to address, because it's the only one that's not totally obvious. "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... You really don't know much about the economy do you. It's lagging, the housing market is failing... many more poor and malnourished in the country. This is the only response you've made that I have any interest to take issue with. Fact: the housing market in the Bay Area has tanked, but it was artificially high to begin with. Here new home starts are up over last year by double digits. Existing home sales are slighly off, but no moreso than Firstly, I never said anything about the SF bayarea. Secondly, just about every economist and/or realtor (if they're being honest, which I know can be a stretch for some) recognizes that the housing market is depressed and will continue to be so until 2009. Is this comment similar to your remark of something like "every scientist worth his salt agrees that global warming is an immediate threat."? the normal fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Home prices have stayed the same or increased slightly, while your Bay Area prices have fallen by 15% to 30%, depending upon whose reference you read. As for the poor and malnourished, that's Dem spin. Unemployment is around 5% nationally, which According to you, but not according to all the statistics available. We have many more people at or below the poverty line, and the situation is getting worse. Feel free to blame the Dems, but the Republicans have been in charge for 7 years. There will always be lots of people at or below the poverty level. And there will always be little or nothing that can be done about it. Some people choose not to work. Others choose to follow a lifestyle that leads to poverty and ruin, rather than one that leads to prosperity. And still others are simply victims of circumstance. Saying that "we have many more people at or below the poverty line" is essentially moot. We have far more people who are living decent lives than we did just two years ago. is essentially full employment. I know more about the economy than you, primarily because I listen to economists, not Democrat doomsayers who will say anything to make Bush look bad. I really don't know why they try so hard--he makes himself look bad without their spin. They should sit back and relax. They don't really have to say or do much to make him look bad. He's quite capable of doing that himself. Maybe he should use McGovern's famous line about being 1000 percent behind the AG. He lied about being behind Rumsfeld even though he knew the resignation was in the works. So, you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Get all your news from the Drudge report? Nope. I just don't listen to the left-leaning Big Three, CBS, NBS, and ABS. Oops. They're all huge US corps, controlled by right-wing loyalists. They must be just unpatriotic! LOL. They all admit to a left-leaning bias. If they are really owned by right-wingers, the employees should be fired. :-) Max |
New Discoveries?
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... In article , katy wrote: From memory didn't it say unemployment was less than 5% and that although sloppy, the housing market was pretty much stable? And that durable goods were doing fine? A less than 5% unemployment rate means the employable are employed...people buying durable goods means they have the money to do so or the credit, and the hosuing market has been so overinflated nationwide that it was due to take a decline just to even itself out..speculation building has been going on for quite some time and now new real estate isn't the commodity it was... No, it didn't say that. You should probably read it again. That's why I found it interesting. Actually she gave a reasonable synopsis of the report, Jon. You'd better read it again, because her numbers are basically on. But don't let facts dissuade you from your Democrat spin. Max |
New Discoveries?
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:55:06 -0400, katy said: From memory didn't it say unemployment was less than 5% and that although sloppy, the housing market was pretty much stable? And that durable goods were doing fine? Jon's hilarious. He's been claiming the economy is in the crapper constantly since at least 2002. I can't wait until we have a (by the Democrat definition) 'recovery.' My business is immensely prosperous now--it should be off the charts then. Max |
New Discoveries?
In article ,
katy wrote: Good grief Jon...it was revised down but they had overpredicted in the first place and still made a gain! Brack brack...the sky is falling in California everyone...run for cover! Bzzzt... hate to tell you, but the Cal economy is one of the better ones. Try again. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
New Discoveries?
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote: Is this comment similar to your remark of something like "every scientist worth his salt agrees that global warming is an immediate threat."? I never said anything close to this. Feel free to show me the post where I said it was an immediate threat. There will always be lots of people at or below the poverty level. And there will always be little or nothing that can be done about it. Some Sounds sort of defeatist to me. Are you cutting and running from your responsibility? Actually, it just sounds like you don't care. people choose not to work. Others choose to follow a lifestyle that leads to poverty and ruin, rather than one that leads to prosperity. And still others are simply victims of circumstance. Saying that "we have many more people at or below the poverty line" is essentially moot. We have far more people who are living decent lives than we did just two years ago. There you go. Blame the poor for being poor. Oops. They're all huge US corps, controlled by right-wing loyalists. They must be just unpatriotic! LOL. They all admit to a left-leaning bias. If they are really owned by right-wingers, the employees should be fired. :-) Disney is a left-leaning corporation? Don't they have shareholders? -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
New Discoveries?
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote: Actually she gave a reasonable synopsis of the report, Jon. You'd better read it again, because her numbers are basically on. But don't let facts dissuade you from your Democrat spin. No she didn't. Read it again. A couple of times more and you'll get it. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
New Discoveries?
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote: "Dave" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:55:06 -0400, katy said: From memory didn't it say unemployment was less than 5% and that although sloppy, the housing market was pretty much stable? And that durable goods were doing fine? Jon's hilarious. He's been claiming the economy is in the crapper constantly since at least 2002. I can't wait until we have a (by the Democrat definition) 'recovery.' My business is immensely prosperous now--it should be off the charts then. Your business somehow means the rest of the world. Well, ok. How many years did you go to school? Would have thought you'd learn something. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
New Discoveries?
Maxprop wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:55:06 -0400, katy said: From memory didn't it say unemployment was less than 5% and that although sloppy, the housing market was pretty much stable? And that durable goods were doing fine? Jon's hilarious. He's been claiming the economy is in the crapper constantly since at least 2002. I can't wait until we have a (by the Democrat definition) 'recovery.' My business is immensely prosperous now--it should be off the charts then. Max No..ythere will be socialized medicine and you will retire and remember the good old days... |
New Discoveries?
|
New Discoveries?
In article ,
katy wrote: Maxprop wrote: "Dave" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:55:06 -0400, katy said: From memory didn't it say unemployment was less than 5% and that although sloppy, the housing market was pretty much stable? And that durable goods were doing fine? Jon's hilarious. He's been claiming the economy is in the crapper constantly since at least 2002. I can't wait until we have a (by the Democrat definition) 'recovery.' My business is immensely prosperous now--it should be off the charts then. Max No..ythere will be socialized medicine and you will retire and remember the good old days... Not interested in socialized medicine, but what do you think should be done about the 47 millions currently without healthcare ins and the millions more without adequate ins? -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
New Discoveries?
In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote: Curious Jon, have you ever been in a position where you've had to hire a lot of individuals at the entry level, but well over minumum. It would help me to understand whether you are just blathering or actually can comment from the experience. I've never hired anyone and paid them just the minimum wage. I've hired dozens, perhaps approaching 100 in the good old days (pre-Bush g). We always paid more. It's expensive but you tend to get better workers. In fact, I can't think of a boss who told me to hire entry level people and pay them at the minimum. Much of the cost of having employees these days is the other costs... ins, workers comp, etc. But, yes, I'm just blathering of course. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
New Discoveries?
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article , katy wrote: Maxprop wrote: "Dave" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:55:06 -0400, katy said: From memory didn't it say unemployment was less than 5% and that although sloppy, the housing market was pretty much stable? And that durable goods were doing fine? Jon's hilarious. He's been claiming the economy is in the crapper constantly since at least 2002. I can't wait until we have a (by the Democrat definition) 'recovery.' My business is immensely prosperous now--it should be off the charts then. Max No..ythere will be socialized medicine and you will retire and remember the good old days... Not interested in socialized medicine, but what do you think should be done about the 47 millions currently without healthcare ins and the millions more without adequate ins? Contained within those numbers are the thousands upon thousands who receive Medicaid and who also are never refused treatment at hospitals emergency rooms...yes...there is a problem with health care in this country...and it is not limited to just the poor...my solution? We should get rid of health care insurance entirely and go back to paying doctors out odf pocket...that way the industry would correct itslef..there would always be charities, as before health insurance, to pick up for those that cna't pay...I know the amounts that are spent on our BCBS policy...we pay half out of pocket plus deductibles etc. There is no way in current history that we spend that amount on "real" actual health care...instead of paying out 9-12 K/annumto an insurance company it couldgo into a specialized medical account..one NOT set up by insurance companies like is currently ptacticed...the price of health care would level out to where it is reasonable, litigation would stop driving the prices higher and higher, doctors would no longer have to order unnecessary tests for fear of litigation...arbitration would take on a real and active role rather than using the jury system... |
New Discoveries?
|
New Discoveries?
In article ,
katy wrote: Contained within those numbers are the thousands upon thousands who receive Medicaid and who also are never refused treatment at hospitals emergency rooms...yes...there is a problem with health care in this While most, but not all, are given treatment, there are fewer and fewer hospitals equiped to deal with emergency care... care that wouldn't have be emergencies if they had access to preventative treatment. ER is very, very expensive, and if the person can't pay, we pay. Since people don't have ins, they tend to wait until the situation is dire, which complicates treatment and recovery. country...and it is not limited to just the poor...my solution? We should get rid of health care insurance entirely and go back to paying doctors out odf pocket...that way the industry would correct How do you expect people who are maybe getting minimum wage or have 3/4 kids to pay out of pocket? It might "correct" itself, but between now and then, many people would die as a result. itslef..there would always be charities, as before health insurance, to pick up for those that cna't pay...I know the amounts that are spent on our BCBS policy...we pay half out of pocket plus deductibles etc. There is no way in current history that we spend that amount on "real" actual health care...instead of paying out 9-12 K/annumto an insurance company it couldgo into a specialized medical account..one NOT set up by insurance companies like is currently ptacticed...the price of health care would level out to where it is reasonable, litigation would stop driving the prices higher and higher, doctors would no longer have to order unnecessary tests for fear of litigation...arbitration would take on a real and active role rather than using the jury system... We need some sort of single-payer option for people... not mandatory, but available. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
New Discoveries?
In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote: On 27 Mar 2007 09:30:47 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) wrote: I've never hired anyone and paid them just the minimum wage. I've hired dozens, perhaps approaching 100 in the good old days (pre-Bush g). We always paid more. It's expensive but you tend to get better workers. In fact, I can't think of a boss who told me to hire entry level people and pay them at the minimum. Much of the cost of having employees these days is the other costs... ins, workers comp, etc. But, yes, I'm just blathering of course. That's what I said, entry level but well over minimum wage. I've hired lots of people who were both entry level and who would otherwise be paid minimum wage. We never did the latter. And bosses don't tell you to hire at a minimum unless the job is a minimum wage job. If it is not you wouldn't get anyone anyway. Because the economy is good and they don't have to work for minimum. Yes, they do. Bosses tell you the pay range. Lots of places say pay the minimum. I've never worked nor would I work for such a company. Those individuals are not considered "poor" as your response indicated. Yet as one who had to try to hire people, approximately 50-100 per year over a multi-year period to staff my business, I found your comment on the post ridiculous blathering. There are people who choose not to work. There are people who choose not to become educated, even with basic skills. There are people who, when hired, refuse to be trained to do a job. There are homeless people who choose to be homeless. Sorry, but a lot of them are considered poor. Paying more than the minimum required doesn't ensure they're above the poverty line. Why should I care whether or not you like my comment. Sure, there are people who choose not to work or refuse to be trained or whatver, but most people want to work. That argument is as old as the hills but continues to be simplistic and inaccurate. Fortunately, those people are a small percentage, but they make up the core unemployable. They will always exist. Government can do nothing about them, unless you are of the mindset that their "choice" should be supported by tax dollars. Significant phrase... small percentage... and yes, it's better just to support them as dead weight than to let them die. It's the right thing to do... not everything is required to be beholdin to the bottom line. You'll have a hard time talking bad economy around here. We just bagged a Toyota plant. 2000 new direct jobs and another 2000 supporting. Those bad ole Republicans, Senator, House Representive, and particularly, Governer had a lot to do with it. Yeah, were ready to throw them out and change to the Dems. Don't know where "around here" is, but in general, the US economy isn't doing very well... certainly not as well as it could do. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
New Discoveries?
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article , katy wrote: Contained within those numbers are the thousands upon thousands who receive Medicaid and who also are never refused treatment at hospitals emergency rooms...yes...there is a problem with health care in this While most, but not all, are given treatment, there are fewer and fewer hospitals equiped to deal with emergency care... care that wouldn't have be emergencies if they had access to preventative treatment. ER is very, very expensive, and if the person can't pay, we pay. Since people don't have ins, they tend to wait until the situation is dire, which complicates treatment and recovery. Sometimes I wonder what world you live in. I worled in the ehalth care system on and off all my life. I can tell you that the emergency room is the most abused medical facility that exists. I don't have the actual statistics but I can guess that 1 out of every 10 patients is an emergency. That is one of the major reasons insurance companies will now no longer pay for the actual ER fee if there is not a procedure done or an admission...as far as the "we pay" part, we will pay no matter what for that particular segment of society that can't afford it. We pay through taxes or through chartible contributions. What does it matter what form it takes? country...and it is not limited to just the poor...my solution? We should get rid of health care insurance entirely and go back to paying doctors out odf pocket...that way the industry would correct How do you expect people who are maybe getting minimum wage or have 3/4 kids to pay out of pocket? It might "correct" itself, but between now and then, many people would die as a result. The problem is not that there isn't health care, it's that people don;t know where to go to look for it...there are all sorts of prtograms that are underused...when I was in HR I had a list of health services that were available at either a gratis rate or fee based on pay...clinics run by the county and some run by local churches...yet our employees, for the most part young black women between 20-30 with 2-3 children (paid BTW, over $10/hr) would still go to the ER when their kids had colds. ANd we offered excellent inexpensive HMO insurance which the majority opted to not buy into...many of the pharmaceutical companies have need based programs now and I know that there are physicians out there that will do necessary surgery for those who are desperately in need and can't pay...Some will die, you say...well, this is going to flame you...not enough people are dying in this country..the lengths we go to to keep people alive is ridiculous...when people have to start paying for 350K heart surgeries at the age of 80 then maybe there will be a wake up call...you would think the whole country believes its going to Hell when you look at our fear of dying...Dying is the inevitable end that is supposed to happen, sooner for some than for others... |
New Discoveries?
In article ,
katy wrote: While most, but not all, are given treatment, there are fewer and fewer hospitals equiped to deal with emergency care... care that wouldn't have be emergencies if they had access to preventative treatment. ER is very, very expensive, and if the person can't pay, we pay. Since people don't have ins, they tend to wait until the situation is dire, which complicates treatment and recovery. Sometimes I wonder what world you live in. I worled in the ehalth care system on and off all my life. I can tell you that the emergency room is the most abused medical facility that exists. I don't have the actual I live in the real world... Didn't I just say that in other words? It is highly abused for a couple of reasons. Certainly, people cheat, but the vast majority of abuse is because people can't pay for a regular doc. statistics but I can guess that 1 out of every 10 patients is an emergency. That is one of the major reasons insurance companies will now no longer pay for the actual ER fee if there is not a procedure done or Well, sure... I can't imagine them paying for a checkup, but I'm not talking about that kind of visit. I'm talking about the heart attacks, pneumonia cases, serious stuff, that are preventable with decent healthcare on a regular basis. an admission...as far as the "we pay" part, we will pay no matter what for that particular segment of society that can't afford it. We pay through taxes or through chartible contributions. What does it matter what form it takes? It matter quite a bit... we pay far more for ER care that shouldn't be necessary if those people were covered by ins. country...and it is not limited to just the poor...my solution? We should get rid of health care insurance entirely and go back to paying doctors out odf pocket...that way the industry would correct How do you expect people who are maybe getting minimum wage or have 3/4 kids to pay out of pocket? It might "correct" itself, but between now and then, many people would die as a result. The problem is not that there isn't health care, it's that people don;t know where to go to look for it...there are all sorts of prtograms that NO. It's that people can't AFFORD IT! Costs continue to skyrocket with no end in sight. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:09 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com