On 28 Jul 2004 05:46:10 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

You're putting me on here, right?

Nope.

Boeing wasn't really "going" anywhere.
The question was "where will we put together the few parts of the 7E7 that will
be built in the US"

I guess they decided it will be here, since we forgave $1.5mm in taxes for
every middle class job they restored. Woo hoo.

You would be surprised to know that a lot of the opposition to the Boeing
shakedown came from *very* conservative interests here.

That's not surprising, if you think about it. Conservatives do not
like welfare in any form. But sometimes you have to weight the
costs/benefits, and take a gamble.


Boeing: We're leaving unless you make radical improvements to the roads and
other infrastructure in the state, especially those we haul parts over. We're
leaving unless you do something to establish workable public transportation in
the Puget Sound coridor so that our employees are not spending so many hours
every day stuck in traffic. We're leaving unless you upgrade the quality of
your education system so that we can hire a greater number of literate and
qualified trainees."

"Oh, by the way, if you expect *us* to participate in paying for any of our
demands, we're leaving anyway."

Yeah? Don't let the door hit you on the stabilizer.

Well, you can't fault Boeing. They're the ones in a position to
bargain. They can pull up stakes and move, if it's in their best
interests to do so. If their current home is up to their standards
then they have some incentive to stay.

You can make the case just how "unfair" this line of reasoning is, but
it's a fact of life in the business world. My company right now is
jumping through hoops as our largest customer keeps getting larger and
larger and continues to pile on their seemingly increasing demands on
our products and schedules. Many of us question why we bend over so
much for them, but the answer is obvious to anyone who wants to stay
in business.

He who holds the most gold, makes the rules.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:


That's not surprising, if you think about it. Conservatives do not
like welfare in any form.

They certainly like corporate welfare and fixed, "no bid" contracts,
which are nothing more than corporate welfare.



--
We have nothing to fear..
....but four more years of George W. Bush.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:


That's not surprising, if you think about it. Conservatives do not
like welfare in any form.

They certainly like corporate welfare and fixed, "no bid" contracts,
which are nothing more than corporate welfare.


Sort of like the no bid contracts awarded to Halliburton during the Clinton
Presidency?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
You're putting me on here, right?

Nope.

Boeing wasn't really "going" anywhere.

And you know that how? In today's day and age, Corporations aren't usually
bluffing when they say they're going to move a plant.

As long as it's legal for a states to selectively offer tax incentives
(aka--bribes) to certain businesses, the practice will continue. It would
take legislation from the Federal level to prohibit the act...and they'll
never get involved in a state's right to conduct business and commerce
within the state (as they shouldn't).

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Since politicians are always to
blame, any one who has to raise taxes might as well say good-bye to
his office.

I guess the answer is to eliminate all taxes on businesses. If every
community in this country imposed zero taxes (at the local level) on
businesses, then the playing field would be even, and businesses couldn't be
bribed to move.

She was paid the wages dictated by the free market,

Ah yes. The prinicple that compassionate conservatives substitute for a moral
conscience.

I love to watch liberals spin. If your officials had told Boeing to
take some Heinz ketchup, and "shove it" instead, and Boeing then left
the area, you would be here right now bemoaning the loss of jobs, and
as an added touch, would probably blame it on Bush!

Dave


Boeing employs a steadily decreasing percentage of workers in this region.
Every time they cut back, there's a short term pain but the economy recovers.
When they go on hiring binges, tens of thousands of new families move here,
stress our physical and social infrastructure, and three years later they're
all on the dole or tryng to figure out how to earn a living clerking at Home
Depot for $10 an hour.

In the long run, we'd be better off with an orderly, progressive withdrawl
(which we continue to see, anyway) than riding the boom and bust "company town"
cycle.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I love to watch liberals spin. If your officials had told Boeing to
take some Heinz ketchup, and "shove it" instead, and Boeing then left
the area, you would be here right now bemoaning the loss of jobs, and
as an added touch, would probably blame it on Bush!

Dave


Boeing employs a steadily decreasing percentage of workers in this region.
Every time they cut back, there's a short term pain but the economy
recovers.
When they go on hiring binges, tens of thousands of new families move
here,
stress our physical and social infrastructure, and three years later
they're
all on the dole or tryng to figure out how to earn a living clerking at
Home Depot for $10 an hour.

All of them? I thought you were one of the smarter "stupid liberals" here.
;-)

My brother worked for Boeing for a year and then was laid off. As appealing
as that Home Depot job for $10/hr. was to him, he moved to Brownsville,
Texas...and has worked in a manufacturing facility as an engineer for the
past 5 years.

In the long run, we'd be better off with an orderly, progressive withdrawl
(which we continue to see, anyway) than riding the boom and bust "company
town"
cycle.

I agree.

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

Sorry, Doug, but something that happened 30 years ago is not
news...it's
history.




In that case, it matters nothing to you that Clinton chose not to get
his
head blown off in a maniac's war.

No, it really doesn't. What bothers me more is someone like Kerry who, 35
years later, tries to exploit the fact that he spent approximately 4 more
months in Vietnam than George W. Bush. Are we supposed to believe that we
can learn more about the man from the 4 months he spent in Vietnam than
from
the 20+ years he spent in Congress voting against military, defense, and
intelligence spending?

Puh-leeeeze!




1) You learn that Kerry made a committment and followed through with it, as
opposed to Bush, who apparently has something to hide about his service
records. Otherwise, he'd explain the lapse in paychecks for 3 months.

2) Kerry voted against WHICH spending? Please provide specific bill numbers,
and let us know which Republicans voted against them, too. Some legislation
deserves to be killed. You know that.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news

"Tamaroak" wrote in message
...
Bush is a deserter. The new records indicate he wasn't paid for three
months in 1972. After 30 days you are "dropped from the rolls" as a
deserter, unless your daddy is George H.W. Bush, that is. (Mine
wasn't,
so I had to show up every morning.)

Those of us who wore a uniform know this.

Kerry had the balls to show up in Viet Nam when he probably could have
used his connections and wealth to get out of it like Bush, Rumsfeld,
Cheney, Wolfowitz and all the rsdt of those cheickenhawks did. Bush
didn't, and has never done anything in his life I've heard of showing
any real courage.

Capt. Jeff


In the reserves, if you were out more than 30 days changing units, you
got
a
notice to go to meetings, and if you were out longer than 90 days, you
got
activated for the duration of what it takes to make 2 years active duty.
So
he was out maybe less than 120 days, and he may have had 2 years active
duty
in. Flight training would take at least a year of active duty.
Bill


President Bush was an F-102 pilot. The F-102 was being phased out. So the
Air Guard, and the Air Force, weren't really interested in retraining him
to
fly other aircraft when he was getting out in less than a year. Most
likely
hes was told to make himself scarce.



Most likely. But nobody wants to get past "most likely" and actually explain
it.