Trickle down liberalism
 

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 15:49:13 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:03:56 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


I'll stick my nose in. I think by "investing" Frogwatch was referring
to
the entrepreneurial spirit of creating, building and hopefully succeeding
as
a business.



What about bringing in some Mexicans to do that?
Might work.
They do pretty well with food service, construction, lawn care, etc.
Hustlers.
They can bring in some Indians, Chinamen and Ruskies for the
engineering parts.
Good engineers, don't want much pay, and don't whine all the time.
Hell, I ran a crew at the last big business I worked for.
The policy was to toss Iraq vet resumes in the garbage, and hire
foreigners. Fortune 100, doing domestic business only.
If Froggy gets hungry enough they might hire him on too.
You surely don't think America has a lock on entrepreneurs?

--Vic


I don't think I said or implied that.
Have another beer.

Nah, pretty much no more than one a day anymore.
Whether you directly implied it or not, it has been implied
here that there is a "special class" of Americans that everybody
depends on, and deserve special favors.
Sorry, America is a team.
Much of big business doesn't see it that way.
If the team falls apart, the coaches are out of a job too.
If you think foreign workers are fine, then so are foreign coaches.
That's just how it works, IMO.
Sorry for my patriotism. I know it offends some.
And I'm not criticizing any of your business practices, but your
defense of big business without much qualification about how
globalistic practice damages America.
Here's a capitalist that seems to have his head screwed on straight.
http://www.reuters.com/article/busin...busine ssNews

We all know that business is the engine of the economy.
But the coach needs the team as much as the reverse.
The question is how business and America will work as a team.
We will remain a free market, but as I suggested in another post,
unless business satisfies the people, it will be molded to their will.
That will all work itself out naturally.
Ain't it great?

--Vic

Trickle down liberalism
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 15:49:13 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:03:56 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


I'll stick my nose in. I think by "investing" Frogwatch was referring
to
the entrepreneurial spirit of creating, building and hopefully
succeeding
as
a business.



What about bringing in some Mexicans to do that?
Might work.
They do pretty well with food service, construction, lawn care, etc.
Hustlers.
They can bring in some Indians, Chinamen and Ruskies for the
engineering parts.
Good engineers, don't want much pay, and don't whine all the time.
Hell, I ran a crew at the last big business I worked for.
The policy was to toss Iraq vet resumes in the garbage, and hire
foreigners. Fortune 100, doing domestic business only.
If Froggy gets hungry enough they might hire him on too.
You surely don't think America has a lock on entrepreneurs?

--Vic


I don't think I said or implied that.
Have another beer.

Nah, pretty much no more than one a day anymore.
Whether you directly implied it or not, it has been implied
here that there is a "special class" of Americans that everybody
depends on, and deserve special favors.
Sorry, America is a team.
Much of big business doesn't see it that way.
If the team falls apart, the coaches are out of a job too.
If you think foreign workers are fine, then so are foreign coaches.
That's just how it works, IMO.
Sorry for my patriotism. I know it offends some.
And I'm not criticizing any of your business practices, but your
defense of big business without much qualification about how
globalistic practice damages America.
Here's a capitalist that seems to have his head screwed on straight.
http://www.reuters.com/article/busin...busine ssNews

We all know that business is the engine of the economy.
But the coach needs the team as much as the reverse.
The question is how business and America will work as a team.
We will remain a free market, but as I suggested in another post,
unless business satisfies the people, it will be molded to their will.
That will all work itself out naturally.
Ain't it great?

--Vic


I may be talking out of my hat because I've never worked for a "big
business".
However, I have quite a bit of experience interfacing with many who do.
Most were technical or engineering based companies, so maybe there is a
fault in my opinion, but with very few exceptions, everyone I've dealt with
from lab techs, engineers, middle management and occasionally to top
management were all very satisfied and felt fully employed for their
different backgrounds, educational levels and experience. There was pride
in the company and there was a team atmosphere. The few companies that I
sensed disgruntled employees where the ones most closely linked to the
government via federal (military) contracts and in those with strong unions.

The worst (union wise) was McDonnell Douglas, Federal Systems Division in
St. Louis. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how that division got
anything done.

That seems a bit strange, huh? In my world, companies with big federal
contracts and who were unionized had the worst moral and the most bitching
and complaining.

Eisboch

Trickle down liberalism
 

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

On Jul 3, 3:21*pm, jps wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:20:08 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch



wrote:
On Jul 3, 2:10*pm, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
om...
Frogwatch wrote:
Who woulda thunk it. *The libs think that if they give trillions of
dollars to their rich friends it will eventually trickle down to the
rest of us as a "stimulus". *Guess what, it dont work.
HK thinks we should confiscate income above a certain level. *With
people like him in power right now, do you really think anybody will
invest in anything, they will not. *The economy will not grow as long
as entrepreneurs think they will be punished by people like him.

Invest? You mean, buy stock? You think that is investing?

I'll stick my nose in. * I think by "investing" *Frogwatch was referring
to the entrepreneurial spirit of creating, building and hopefully
succeeding as a business.

Eisboch

That's reasonable.

Thank you Eisboch.

Maybe you should call on Richard as editor before posting?

Who is Richard?
Right now, I am doing some stuff at work that requires tweaking knobs
and then waiting for 20 minutes so I got lots of time.

All the time in the world would not likely eliminate your need for an
editor.

Trickle down liberalism
 

jps wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

On Jul 3, 3:21 pm, jps wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:20:08 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch



wrote:
On Jul 3, 2:10 pm, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
Frogwatch wrote:
Who woulda thunk it. The libs think that if they give trillions of
dollars to their rich friends it will eventually trickle down to the
rest of us as a "stimulus". Guess what, it dont work.
HK thinks we should confiscate income above a certain level. With
people like him in power right now, do you really think anybody will
invest in anything, they will not. The economy will not grow as long
as entrepreneurs think they will be punished by people like him.
Invest? You mean, buy stock? You think that is investing?
I'll stick my nose in. I think by "investing" Frogwatch was referring
to the entrepreneurial spirit of creating, building and hopefully
succeeding as a business.
Eisboch
That's reasonable.
Thank you Eisboch.
Maybe you should call on Richard as editor before posting?
Who is Richard?
Right now, I am doing some stuff at work that requires tweaking knobs
and then waiting for 20 minutes so I got lots of time.

All the time in the world would not likely eliminate your need for an
editor.


I could never wait 20 minutes after tweaking knobs.

Trickle down liberalism
 

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 17:08:07 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:



I may be talking out of my hat because I've never worked for a "big
business".

I have, and mostly on the "finance" side with a white collar.
Insurance mostly, but some others.
Many of my workmates went bye bye due to globalization.
That not only affected them, but those companies are now feeling the
effects, since those workers were also customers.
Customers need jobs. Your ****ing in home waters analogy was apt.
Short-term profits, long-term hurt.
That's where we are.
The blue collar union stuff was with U.S. Steel, IH, Merchant Marine,
and UPS. And some other non-union, good and bad.
All gone except UPS. They make it work.
Don't know if I mentioned my steel frame gazebo collapsed from the
snow load last winter. Bit the bullet and ordered a new one.
I saw online it was out for delivery yesterday from the Northbrook hub
- where I worked while in college - and was wondering if the package
car driver had, or would need a hand truck. The package is 75 lbs.
So the dogs start barking, and I go to help the guy get it in.
I opened the front door and he's already running up the steps with the
package tucked under one arm.
GO UPS TEAMSTERS!!

However, I have quite a bit of experience interfacing with many who do.
Most were technical or engineering based companies, so maybe there is a
fault in my opinion, but with very few exceptions, everyone I've dealt with
from lab techs, engineers, middle management and occasionally to top
management were all very satisfied and felt fully employed for their
different backgrounds, educational levels and experience. There was pride
in the company and there was a team atmosphere. The few companies that I
sensed disgruntled employees where the ones most closely linked to the
government via federal (military) contracts and in those with strong unions.

The worst (union wise) was McDonnell Douglas, Federal Systems Division in
St. Louis. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how that division got
anything done.

That seems a bit strange, huh? In my world, companies with big federal
contracts and who were unionized had the worst moral and the most bitching
and complaining.

Maybe, maybe not. Company culture and employee satisfaction is often
hard to ken unless you're on the inside. Though I was disgusted with
the management policies of the company I retired from, it didn't
affect my work, and few knew it.
Wouldn't be prudent.
And no way an outsider would know.
Unprofessional to bitch about your employer.
Then there are purely selfish interests.
I've got a chunk of retirement money I'll take as a lump sum in a
couple years. Won't knock the company by name until then.
They still got my money.
Besides, things change fast, and maybe some of those happy guys you
talked to are now out of work.
Anyway, the bottom line for a healthy economy is jobs.
It's going to be interesting to see if Obama get's it, and how he goes
about it.
Whatever happens, there will be plenty of squawking.
Nature of that beast that's called politics.
Maybe I should do 2 beers today. Yeah.

--Vic

Trickle down liberalism
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

Whatever happens, there will be plenty of squawking.
Nature of that beast that's called politics.
Maybe I should do 2 beers today. Yeah.

--Vic

Please. It may clear your mind. :-)

Eisboch

Trickle down liberalism
 

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 18:38:45 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .

Whatever happens, there will be plenty of squawking.
Nature of that beast that's called politics.
Maybe I should do 2 beers today. Yeah.

--Vic

Please. It may clear your mind. :-)

Eisboch

In that case you should both have two.

Trickle down liberalism
 

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Frogwatch wrote:
Who woulda thunk it. The libs think that if they give trillions of
dollars to their rich friends it will eventually trickle down to the
rest of us as a "stimulus". Guess what, it dont work.
HK thinks we should confiscate income above a certain level. With
people like him in power right now, do you really think anybody will
invest in anything, they will not. The economy will not grow as long
as entrepreneurs think they will be punished by people like him.


Invest? You mean, buy stock? You think that is investing?

I'll stick my nose in. I think by "investing" Frogwatch was referring
to the entrepreneurial spirit of creating, building and hopefully
succeeding as a business.

Eisboch

WAFA missed the "entrepreneurs" part. I'm sure he has a very hard time
with that.

Trickle down liberalism
 

HK wrote:
jps wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

On Jul 3, 3:21 pm, jps wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:20:08 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch



wrote:
On Jul 3, 2:10 pm, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
Frogwatch wrote:
Who woulda thunk it. The libs think that if they give
trillions of
dollars to their rich friends it will eventually trickle down
to the
rest of us as a "stimulus". Guess what, it dont work.
HK thinks we should confiscate income above a certain level. With
people like him in power right now, do you really think anybody
will
invest in anything, they will not. The economy will not grow
as long
as entrepreneurs think they will be punished by people like him.
Invest? You mean, buy stock? You think that is investing?
I'll stick my nose in. I think by "investing" Frogwatch was
referring
to the entrepreneurial spirit of creating, building and hopefully
succeeding as a business.
Eisboch
That's reasonable.
Thank you Eisboch.
Maybe you should call on Richard as editor before posting?
Who is Richard?
Right now, I am doing some stuff at work that requires tweaking knobs
and then waiting for 20 minutes so I got lots of time.

All the time in the world would not likely eliminate your need for an
editor.


I could never wait 20 minutes after tweaking knobs.

"I could" says a lot. Sucks to be you, WAFA.

Just for you:

http://tinyurl.com/ly5elx

You may already have one or two on retainer.

Trickle down liberalism
 

Eisboch wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 15:49:13 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:03:56 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


I'll stick my nose in. I think by "investing" Frogwatch was
referring
to
the entrepreneurial spirit of creating, building and hopefully
succeeding
as
a business.



What about bringing in some Mexicans to do that?
Might work.
They do pretty well with food service, construction, lawn care, etc.
Hustlers.
They can bring in some Indians, Chinamen and Ruskies for the
engineering parts.
Good engineers, don't want much pay, and don't whine all the time.
Hell, I ran a crew at the last big business I worked for.
The policy was to toss Iraq vet resumes in the garbage, and hire
foreigners. Fortune 100, doing domestic business only.
If Froggy gets hungry enough they might hire him on too.
You surely don't think America has a lock on entrepreneurs?

--Vic


I don't think I said or implied that.
Have another beer.

Nah, pretty much no more than one a day anymore.
Whether you directly implied it or not, it has been implied
here that there is a "special class" of Americans that everybody
depends on, and deserve special favors.
Sorry, America is a team.
Much of big business doesn't see it that way.
If the team falls apart, the coaches are out of a job too.
If you think foreign workers are fine, then so are foreign coaches.
That's just how it works, IMO.
Sorry for my patriotism. I know it offends some.
And I'm not criticizing any of your business practices, but your
defense of big business without much qualification about how
globalistic practice damages America.
Here's a capitalist that seems to have his head screwed on straight.
http://www.reuters.com/article/busin...busine ssNews


We all know that business is the engine of the economy.
But the coach needs the team as much as the reverse.
The question is how business and America will work as a team.
We will remain a free market, but as I suggested in another post,
unless business satisfies the people, it will be molded to their will.
That will all work itself out naturally.
Ain't it great?

--Vic


I may be talking out of my hat because I've never worked for a "big
business".
However, I have quite a bit of experience interfacing with many who do.
Most were technical or engineering based companies, so maybe there is a
fault in my opinion, but with very few exceptions, everyone I've dealt
with from lab techs, engineers, middle management and occasionally to
top management were all very satisfied and felt fully employed for their
different backgrounds, educational levels and experience. There was
pride in the company and there was a team atmosphere. The few
companies that I sensed disgruntled employees where the ones most
closely linked to the government via federal (military) contracts and in
those with strong unions.

The worst (union wise) was McDonnell Douglas, Federal Systems Division
in St. Louis. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how that
division got anything done.

That seems a bit strange, huh? In my world, companies with big federal
contracts and who were unionized had the worst moral and the most
bitching and complaining.

Eisboch



Yeah, it's like when I worked in the Teamsters Union.. Back in the early
80's it made me sick to hear forklift operators and floor sweepers
crying about their lot... Working a clean 40 a week for over $20 bucks
an hour, vacations, full benefits package, retirement gold etc...
Remember these were guys doing a job trained monkeys could do, not the
highly skilled workers WAFA always seems to cater to.

Oh Harry, don't bother responding, I won't see it anyway.. Hopefully
nobody (not filtered) will regurgitate it.. snerk