"Joe" wrote in message . ..
Exactly! What I love is this, I told Joe and Shelikoff that the war in
Iraq cost us 9 billion a day. They can't figure out how that could
possibly be true. So far, I've not told them, waiting to see if they
ever stop and think about that $800 billion. Doesn't take a rocket
scientist!

Enlighten us Kevin.

Clue: How many days did the war last, when Bush officially called the
war over?
Clue: How much money was spent per day directly on the war?
Clue: How much has the war actually cost us for such things as pre-war
readiness, etc.? Current estimates are $200 billion.
Clue: Add to this the $800 billion that the Pentagon seems to have
"misplaced".

Now, are you and Shelikoff even STARTING to get it? Doubtful.

It is a natural thing for businesses to want to increase productivity
while lowering costs.

Read this, it makes sense.

Common Sense: Labor vs. Management

Problem:

1.1. Management wants more productivity for less pay, Labor wants
more pay for less productivity.
2.2. The U.S. productivity, while highest in the world, has been
stagnant in recent years.
3.3. The U.S. is a capital intensive country, and with free trade,
that means that rewards go to the intensive factor (HO
theory), leaving labor, the scarce factor, to fight against a
market that is constantly exerting downward pressure on
wages.
4.4. U.S. industry must abide by the law of one price, or else go
out of business. This forces labor intensive industries to
either get more productivity out of their domestic work force or
transfer production to labor intensive countries.
5.5. The U.S. has lost many manufacturing jobs and industries to
foreign competition.

Solution:
Privatize unions. Organize them like employment agencies. Contracts
could be based on a lump-sum for a given level of
output. For instance, the auto industry could base a pay scale on the
average of the labor cost per auto of three competing
countries like Japan, Germany, and England. Lets say 20% of the cost
of a car is labor. The auto company would then contract
with the union for X# of cars. The labor union would then be given a
lump sum to distribute as it saw fit. If the union could do it
with fewer workers they get a higher average pay. Thus there is an
incentive to be more productive, AND REWARDED
FOR IT. There could also be a quality incentive based on warrantee
claims.

Benefits:
Labor controls their own destiny, they " own " the union in a
financial and voting sense, not just voting. Each member owns
shares in the union, each shares in the profits. The union would have
an incentive to increase the productivity of each member
and remove members that bring down the average output per worker, and
thus everyone's average wage. The union would also
have an incentive to replace the nonproductive with the productive,
creating a highly efficient globally competitive work force.
There is an incentive for productivity by having the worker have a
financial interest in the company for which they work. They
elect officers, choose staffing levels, and control membership. They
can also set their own productivity requirements for
membership. Business would have a fair, globally competitive, average
labor cost per unit of output, based on an international
average. They would also have reduced overhead by eliminating a large
part of their staffing, payroll, labor contract lawyer
fees, and other payroll and staffing expenses. This would result in an
improved competitive position, no strikes, greater
cooperation with labor, and the ability to select their preferred "
employment agency."

This could be taken further and privatize the entire production line
and employee benefits. The union could be given a lump sum
to build and maintain the production line. Once again, the sum would
be based on the average cost of competing countries. If
the union decides for a more ergonomic improvements and unrequired
safety devices, fine, but they now have a financial
interest is that decision. The union gets to choose their desired
level of safety and comfort in the work place. If they choose
more 15min breaks, fine, but they now have a financial interest in it.
The union could also be given a lump sum for their
pensions; no more unfunded pensions. They could invest their pension
money as they see fit. They could also be given a lump
sum to provide their desired employee benefits. In all these cases the
union can either provide the benefits or distribute the
money as it sees fit.

Benefits:

1.1. More union control of their destiny.
2.2. Increased competitiveness and productivity of the U.S. work
force.
3.3. Higher wages for labor.
4.4. Wages are tied to productivity, i.e., variable cost. No more "
sticky wages."
5.5. No strikes.
6.6. No incentive to drive the cost structure on a company up with
unnecessary breaks and excessive safety regulations.
7.7. Labor and Management base their contracts on international
averages, i.e., it is fair, not on bargaining strength or skill
of their lawyers.
8.8. Decreased labor/management strife.
9.9. No more unfunded pensions.
10.10. Increased ability to long term plan due to established values
used in contracting.
11.11. Greater long term survivability of the U.S. industry.
12.12. A great reduction in the companies overhead costs, i.e., the
company becomes more efficient.

Costs:

1.1. Labor must now compete and increase productivity. There is now
an incentive to eliminate the "free rider" who is
sitting-in, rather than, pulling the " wagon ".
2.2. Management must give up control of a large portion of the
production process.

This solution is an attempt to solve the current counter productive
position of labor vs. management that has led to a decrease in
U.S. competitiveness and industrial base. It requires cooperation and
compromise on both sides, labor and management. Each
side must give up a little. The loss to each side, however, is less
than what they gain. There is a net gain by both parties. This is
a market oriented position, because as anyone can see, the current
method of arguing with the market has chased a lot of jobs
across the boarder. This approach is doing little to stop the exodus,
which has only been worsened by the fall in the peso and
the passage of NAFTA.

If you agree with this or any part of this article please forward it
to Newspapers letters to the editors, congressmen, senators,
or anyone else who might also be interested. Help keep America working
and the jobs at home.

Marx was wrong in that he failed to make a connection between " from
each according to their ability " and "to each according
to their need ". Sounds good on paper but where is the incentive to
increase productivity. This is an outline to create a nation of
free-riders. Why work hard when your benefits are fixed and any
increase in your own productivity will only go to provide for
those who are not working as hard?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Spirulina" wrote in message
...

You are a lousy stinkin' Socialist plain & simple. Go try and bull****
somebody else. No amount of spin will change your yellow anti-American
left-wing Socialist color.....

Better than a tax-cheatin' prick who doesn't want to pay his fair share for
the fine treasures this country bestows on you. Bein' a tax cheat and
selfish ******* is far more anti-american than anything I contemplate. I'm
for sharing the riches with more Americans, you're for keeping them in a
lockbox at the very top of the pyramid.

Selfish piece of **** you are.

G'day yourself, asshole.

"Joe" wrote in message . ..
Exactly! What I love is this, I told Joe and Shelikoff that the war in
Iraq cost us 9 billion a day. They can't figure out how that could
possibly be true. So far, I've not told them, waiting to see if they
ever stop and think about that $800 billion. Doesn't take a rocket
scientist!

Enlighten us Kevin.


Just post ANY documentation that the cost of the war is 9 billion a day.

Just tell me you're too stupid to do any meaningful research, and yes,
I will do it for you.

The war lasted approx. 65 days.

Referring to the reasons behind America's attack on Iraq, the
legislator said that "oil is not the main factor." He is convinced
that Washington purses geopolitical objectives and says that the war
in Iraq and its post-war reconstruction will cost the US about $100
billion....

So, that is 100 billion to rebuild what we've smashed, following so
far? See, it's not hard. Now the tricky part (at least for you). The
total estimate is around 491 billion.

Now, the Pentagon is estimating (they have to estimate because bills
are still coming in, and will be for a long time) that misc. awards,
claims, and payouts will reach 30 billion.

Pending contracts........60 billion and rising.

Iraq has international debt that must be paid. World Bank/Bank for
International Settlements puts the figure at $127.7 billion, including
$47 billion for accrued interest. Think oil will pay for this? Wrong,
it will be YEARS before Iraqi oil is once again operating in the blue.

Okay, we have $491 + $60 + $127.7 = $678.7 billion dollars....agree?
Now, we simply divide by the number of days of war, okay? Again, I'm
not quite sure when Bush declared the war over, so I'm saying 65 days.
If that number is incorrect, tell me the number, and I'll revise the
math so that you'll understand. So $168.7 billion / 65 = $10.442
billion dollars. Knowing that these are government estimates, I
rounded down to an even $9 billion. I hope that this clears the
overall scope to you so that you'll understand the TRUE cost of the
war.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Joe" wrote in message
. ..
Exactly! What I love is this, I told Joe and Shelikoff that the
war in
Iraq cost us 9 billion a day. They can't figure out how that could
possibly be true. So far, I've not told them, waiting to see if
they
ever stop and think about that $800 billion. Doesn't take a rocket
scientist!

Enlighten us Kevin.


Just post ANY documentation that the cost of the war is 9 billion a day.

Just tell me you're too stupid to do any meaningful research, and yes,
I will do it for you.

The war lasted approx. 65 days.

Referring to the reasons behind America's attack on Iraq, the
legislator said that "oil is not the main factor." He is convinced
that Washington purses geopolitical objectives and says that the war
in Iraq and its post-war reconstruction will cost the US about $100
billion....

So, that is 100 billion to rebuild what we've smashed, following so
far? See, it's not hard. Now the tricky part (at least for you). The
total estimate is around 491 billion.

Links please

Now, the Pentagon is estimating (they have to estimate because bills
are still coming in, and will be for a long time) that misc. awards,
claims, and payouts will reach 30 billion.

Pending contracts........60 billion and rising.

Iraq has international debt that must be paid. World Bank/Bank for
International Settlements puts the figure at $127.7 billion, including
$47 billion for accrued interest. Think oil will pay for this? Wrong,
it will be YEARS before Iraqi oil is once again operating in the blue.

Okay, we have $491 + $60 + $127.7 = $678.7 billion dollars....agree?
Now, we simply divide by the number of days of war, okay? Again, I'm
not quite sure when Bush declared the war over, so I'm saying 65 days.
If that number is incorrect, tell me the number, and I'll revise the
math so that you'll understand. So $168.7 billion / 65 = $10.442
billion dollars. Knowing that these are government estimates, I
rounded down to an even $9 billion. I hope that this clears the
overall scope to you so that you'll understand the TRUE cost of the
war.


You said:

" True enough. Fact is, the cost of the war is far from over. You must
understand that it's not just the 9 billion a day we are spending
DIRECTLY on the war, but there are many, many peripheral costs
involved"

You are now trying to use very suspect estimates of "peripheral costs" to
try to validate your asinine statement of "9 billion a day spent DIRECTLY on
the war"
Note, DIRECTLY in caps by you, not me.

You're an idiot.

jps wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Tim Tisdale wrote:

It is a natural thing for businesses to want to increase productivity
while lowering costs.

Read this, it makes sense.

Sure it does. But since making sense is often diametrically opposed to
the liberal's sense of emotional satisfaction, they do not accept it.

Listen up Dave. My company once created a simulation for the Federal
Reserve Bank. They wanted a "game" that would show people the relationship
between fiscal and monetary policy.

Everytime I put a Republican in front of the interface, they'd continue to
hit the "Lower Taxes" button until inflation went through the roof and their
constituents threw them out of office.

I'm sure they did it as a gag, since proper planning for government
spending is much more than a single simple act. Besides, this game was
designed to operate around the limited conditions and parameters, of the
person who programmed it. They do not necessarily respond the same as
the unpredicatable variables, and dynamics of reality. If you could
accurately predict economic stimulous and conditions, then you'd be
bigger than Alan Greenspan. Most of this stuff is smoke and mirrors, and
exercises in reflection.


Marx was wrong in that he failed to make a connection between " from
each according to their ability " and "to each according
to their need ". Sounds good on paper but where is the incentive to
increase productivity. This is an outline to create a nation of
free-riders. Why work hard when your benefits are fixed and any
increase in your own productivity will only go to provide for
those who are not working as hard?

Exactly! That has been my biggest flaw with socialism. There is no
incentive to better oneself. The end result is a nation of mediocrity.
Competition is what drives us to be better. it's what placed this nation
at the forefront of technology. Socialism would condemn this nation to
third world status in a generation.

Dave, I hate to break it to you but we are capitalists, not socialists.

Really? Then why do you favor the redistribution of wealth from the
"rich" to cover "the poor" by an unfairly biased progressive tax plan?
Why do you guys on the left want to raise the wages for unskilled
workers, beyond what the free market dictates they should be worth?
That's not capitalism. You can't mix the two. The current healthcase
crisis, is a prime example of what heppens when you try an originally
capitalist enterprise (Healthcare) with socialism (Insurance subsidies).
The result is spiraling costs as the care providers are free to raise
their prices, since the subsidies cover the increases, and the common
citizen does not have to deal with it, therefore there is no market
pressure to put a lid on rising costs. Take away all healthcare
insurance, and how long do you think the free market could support those
high costs?


I don't want to give away everything I've earned.

But you have no problem telling other people how much of their pay they
"need" to contribute to programs which *YOU* feel are beneficial.


I just want to make certain
we're investing in things that have value. Not smart bombs, smart people.
Not smart prisoners, productive taxpayers. Not nation building, consensus
building.

That would make a great democratic sound byte. Full of fluff, but at the
core, really no substance. It makes no effort to explain the casues of
our problems, and indeed, implies that the solution to many of our
social ill's, is just to throw money at it. A typcial democratic
attitude.


Get with it Dave. We're no more in favor of Karl Marx than you are. We're
in favor of doing the right thing and giving everyone an opportunity to
succeed.

Which of course, is subjective, and based upon your particular view of
what's "right".


Your party wants to keep all the money in one place and they use
stupid, beer swillin', poorly educated idiots to gather the votes to do it.

Here's where you really become stereotypical and inconsistant. If "my
party" is the party of the rich, and we want to "horde" all the money,
then why would the beer swilling idiots be a party to it? Those poorly
educated idiots are normally the fodder for democratic votes. Democrats
promise these individuals free money to "help" them, and they vote for
it. If they were in a higher wage earning income bracket, who actually
had to PAY for these programs, they wouldn't be too happy to see more of
their paycheck shrinking.


Get a clue Dave. Leave the dark side and their selfish ways.

There is nothing selfish about wanting to keep what you rightfully EARN.
Everyone else has the same opportunity to make something better of
themselves. So go do it.

Dave

"Joe" wrote in message . ..
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Joe" wrote in message
. ..
Exactly! What I love is this, I told Joe and Shelikoff that the
war in
Iraq cost us 9 billion a day. They can't figure out how that could
possibly be true. So far, I've not told them, waiting to see if
they
ever stop and think about that $800 billion. Doesn't take a rocket
scientist!

Enlighten us Kevin.


Just post ANY documentation that the cost of the war is 9 billion a day.

Just tell me you're too stupid to do any meaningful research, and yes,
I will do it for you.

The war lasted approx. 65 days.

Referring to the reasons behind America's attack on Iraq, the
legislator said that "oil is not the main factor." He is convinced
that Washington purses geopolitical objectives and says that the war
in Iraq and its post-war reconstruction will cost the US about $100
billion....

So, that is 100 billion to rebuild what we've smashed, following so
far? See, it's not hard. Now the tricky part (at least for you). The
total estimate is around 491 billion.

Links please

If you are too stupid to do simple web research, you shouldn't have
stuck your ignorant nose into the subject. I know you didn't get
involved to learn, you're way too closed minded for that to happen.

Now, the Pentagon is estimating (they have to estimate because bills
are still coming in, and will be for a long time) that misc. awards,
claims, and payouts will reach 30 billion.

Pending contracts........60 billion and rising.

Iraq has international debt that must be paid. World Bank/Bank for
International Settlements puts the figure at $127.7 billion, including
$47 billion for accrued interest. Think oil will pay for this? Wrong,
it will be YEARS before Iraqi oil is once again operating in the blue.

Okay, we have $491 + $60 + $127.7 = $678.7 billion dollars....agree?
Now, we simply divide by the number of days of war, okay? Again, I'm
not quite sure when Bush declared the war over, so I'm saying 65 days.
If that number is incorrect, tell me the number, and I'll revise the
math so that you'll understand. So $168.7 billion / 65 = $10.442
billion dollars. Knowing that these are government estimates, I
rounded down to an even $9 billion. I hope that this clears the
overall scope to you so that you'll understand the TRUE cost of the
war.


You said:

" True enough. Fact is, the cost of the war is far from over. You must
understand that it's not just the 9 billion a day we are spending
DIRECTLY on the war, but there are many, many peripheral costs
involved"

You are now trying to use very suspect estimates of "peripheral costs" to
try to validate your asinine statement of "9 billion a day spent DIRECTLY on
the war"
Note, DIRECTLY in caps by you, not me.

You're an idiot.

Heehee! ALL of the above numbers are DIRECT costs of the war. What a
dolt.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Joe" wrote in message
. ..
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Joe" wrote in message
. ..
Exactly! What I love is this, I told Joe and Shelikoff that
the
war in
Iraq cost us 9 billion a day. They can't figure out how that
could
possibly be true. So far, I've not told them, waiting to see
if
they
ever stop and think about that $800 billion. Doesn't take a
rocket
scientist!

Enlighten us Kevin.


Just post ANY documentation that the cost of the war is 9 billion a
day.

Just tell me you're too stupid to do any meaningful research, and yes,
I will do it for you.

The war lasted approx. 65 days.

Referring to the reasons behind America's attack on Iraq, the
legislator said that "oil is not the main factor." He is convinced
that Washington purses geopolitical objectives and says that the war
in Iraq and its post-war reconstruction will cost the US about $100
billion....

So, that is 100 billion to rebuild what we've smashed, following so
far? See, it's not hard. Now the tricky part (at least for you). The
total estimate is around 491 billion.

Links please

If you are too stupid to do simple web research, you shouldn't have
stuck your ignorant nose into the subject. I know you didn't get
involved to learn, you're way too closed minded for that to happen.

Translation:

As usual, I pulled this from my ass


Now, the Pentagon is estimating (they have to estimate because bills
are still coming in, and will be for a long time) that misc. awards,
claims, and payouts will reach 30 billion.

Pending contracts........60 billion and rising.

Iraq has international debt that must be paid. World Bank/Bank for
International Settlements puts the figure at $127.7 billion, including
$47 billion for accrued interest. Think oil will pay for this? Wrong,
it will be YEARS before Iraqi oil is once again operating in the blue.

Okay, we have $491 + $60 + $127.7 = $678.7 billion dollars....agree?
Now, we simply divide by the number of days of war, okay? Again, I'm
not quite sure when Bush declared the war over, so I'm saying 65 days.
If that number is incorrect, tell me the number, and I'll revise the
math so that you'll understand. So $168.7 billion / 65 = $10.442
billion dollars. Knowing that these are government estimates, I
rounded down to an even $9 billion. I hope that this clears the
overall scope to you so that you'll understand the TRUE cost of the
war.


You said:

" True enough. Fact is, the cost of the war is far from over. You must
understand that it's not just the 9 billion a day we are spending
DIRECTLY on the war, but there are many, many peripheral costs
involved"

You are now trying to use very suspect estimates of "peripheral costs"
to
try to validate your asinine statement of "9 billion a day spent
DIRECTLY on
the war"
Note, DIRECTLY in caps by you, not me.

You're an idiot.

Heehee! ALL of the above numbers are DIRECT costs of the war. What a
dolt.


Your a fool.

PS: Where's my history lesson on judicial nominee filibusters?

"Joe" wrote in message news:UEzPa.79753$n%
Just post ANY documentation that the cost of the war is 9 billion a
day.

Just tell me you're too stupid to do any meaningful research, and yes,
I will do it for you.

The war lasted approx. 65 days.

Referring to the reasons behind America's attack on Iraq, the
legislator said that "oil is not the main factor." He is convinced
that Washington purses geopolitical objectives and says that the war
in Iraq and its post-war reconstruction will cost the US about $100
billion....

So, that is 100 billion to rebuild what we've smashed, following so
far? See, it's not hard. Now the tricky part (at least for you). The
total estimate is around 491 billion.

Links please

If you are too stupid to do simple web research, you shouldn't have
stuck your ignorant nose into the subject. I know you didn't get
involved to learn, you're way too closed minded for that to happen.

Translation:

As usual, I pulled this from my ass

Translation:
I too stupid and narrow minded to use the web to do some simple
research.
You said:

" True enough. Fact is, the cost of the war is far from over. You must
understand that it's not just the 9 billion a day we are spending
DIRECTLY on the war, but there are many, many peripheral costs
involved"

You are now trying to use very suspect estimates of "peripheral costs"
to
try to validate your asinine statement of "9 billion a day spent
DIRECTLY on
the war"
Note, DIRECTLY in caps by you, not me.

You're an idiot.

Heehee! ALL of the above numbers are DIRECT costs of the war. What a
dolt.


Your a fool.

Do you disagree that the above costs are DIRECT costs of the war? How?
Please provide reference to refute.

PS: Where's my history lesson on judicial nominee filibusters?
Go back and read it V E R Y slowly, you effing dumb ass, and you just
may comprehend it.

Now, I've given examples, all of which are readily available to ANYONE
with enough intelligence and enough fortitude to get there lazy ass
off of the couch, put out the cigarette, finish there beer, and LOOK.

Translation:

As usual, I pulled this from my ass

Translation:
I too stupid and narrow minded to use the web to do some simple
research.

You are the one who made the claim, not me. You provide the proof.
You cant because your full of ****.

You said:

" True enough. Fact is, the cost of the war is far from over. You
must
understand that it's not just the 9 billion a day we are spending
DIRECTLY on the war, but there are many, many peripheral costs
involved"

You are now trying to use very suspect estimates of "peripheral
costs"
to
try to validate your asinine statement of "9 billion a day spent
DIRECTLY on
the war"
Note, DIRECTLY in caps by you, not me.

You're an idiot.

Heehee! ALL of the above numbers are DIRECT costs of the war. What a
dolt.


Your a fool.

Do you disagree that the above costs are DIRECT costs of the war?

Yes

How? Please provide reference to refute.

Again, you made the claim you provide the proof.


PS: Where's my history lesson on judicial nominee filibusters?
Go back and read it V E R Y slowly, you effing dumb ass, and you just
may comprehend it.

Do you still believe a judicial nominee has ever been filibustered?

Here is your statement (wrong)

Currently, a minority of senators, composed entirely of Democrats, is
blocking the nominations of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia and Texas Supreme Court
Justice Priscilla Owen to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, even
though both nominees have the support of at least 51 senators.
Democrats have also threatened to filibuster the nominations of
Carolyn Kuhn to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Alabama
Attorney General William H. "Bill" Pryor to the 11th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals if their nominations are brought to the floor

And then my post for which you never responded:

In 1968, 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats opposed the elevation of Supreme
Court Justice Abe Fortis to the position of chief justice of the United
States. Fortis' nomination was withdrawn when only 46 senators agreed to
support for the nominee.

He was NOT filibustered.

http://new.crosswalk.com/news/1206583.html

Your wrong again.

Now, I've given examples, all of which are readily available to ANYONE
with enough intelligence and enough fortitude to get there lazy ass
off of the couch, put out the cigarette, finish there beer, and LOOK.

Your full of ****.