"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...

"JR North" wrote in message
...
Gas your pigs up while you can. Not gonna tow Cruis'n Rulz! to the pump.
Gonna just get 5 gal at a time and fill her up at home. Don't expect the
prices will hold till next spring. If you wait, you might just find it
back to $4
JR

You are likely right. Any market recovery and oil will go right past
$100/barrel in light speed due to anticipation of demand. If China kicks
in it will be sooner than we think.

Too bad gasoline does not keep and if I had a 5000 gallon tank to hold
it.

Switch to diesel power. Diesel fuel will store for a very long time,
properly conditioned.

Eisboch

Diesel engines in the back country where I go is whey overkill.

But will keep that in mind for the generator.

"DK" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
I am going to keep my F150 thank you. Nice ride and pulls a boat and
has 4x4 for the winter. Try that with a pint sized electric car up a
long hill.

Harry had a F-150 not too long ago and often reported in this NG what a
great truck it was.

That's before he sharpened his political correctness.

Now a US made truck is crap because he owns a Japanese model.


Eisboch
I haven't owned an F150 for nearly 10 years. It was a good truck. The
Toyota truck that replaced it was better. I doubt I ever stated the
US-made truck was "crap." I have heard those sorts of allegations,
however, from SW Tom and I believe from you.


Speaking of F-150s...saw an ad in the local paper saying 2008 base trucks
could be had for a few pennies under $14K CDN.
Man...I brought it up but the wife squashed that right away. She's
rather pay twice as much for a Forester or RAV4.

"She's rather"? You really should proofread your posts before you attack
others for their typos.

Do you wear *any* pants in your family, Donnie?

Why are you interested in my pants?
Control yourself.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:12:13 -0500, Jim wrote:


Busting the unions should be a requisite part of any bailout plan.
Otherwise they will be back again in a few years looking for another
handout. It's time we earn from our mistakes and stop repeating them.

Busting unions is a waste of time. Total labor cost of a new vehicle is
less that 10% of the price of that vehicle. If you are looking for cost
cutting, I would suggest you look elsewhere.

http://www.uaw.org/barg/07fact/fact02.php

I'd also point out, that in the last contract, the UAW made considerable
concessions, including assuming health care costs via a trust, setting up
a two-tiered wage scale, and a freeze on wages.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...-uaw-wed_N.htm

"Boater" wrote in message
...



I have some old buddies who were in Vietnam. Their thoughts are the same
as mine.


Heh. Harry, this little quip of yours goes in the "Harry's Classic Lines"
file.

I have to admit, you make me laugh sometimes, even when you don't intend to
be funny.

Eisboch

wrote in message
t...
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:12:13 -0500, Jim wrote:


Busting the unions should be a requisite part of any bailout plan.
Otherwise they will be back again in a few years looking for another
handout. It's time we earn from our mistakes and stop repeating them.

Busting unions is a waste of time. Total labor cost of a new vehicle is
less that 10% of the price of that vehicle. If you are looking for cost
cutting, I would suggest you look elsewhere.

http://www.uaw.org/barg/07fact/fact02.php

I'd also point out, that in the last contract, the UAW made considerable
concessions, including assuming health care costs via a trust, setting up
a two-tiered wage scale, and a freeze on wages.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...-uaw-wed_N.htm


I read the first link several times, but could not determine if the 10%
"labor cost" figure includes funding retired members health plans.

The second link gives a clue. I don't think it does. The negotiated trust
fund at GM requires GM to put up an initial 20 something billion dollars in
the trust, plus make up to 20 additional payments of 160 million each to
keep it solvent.

Also, look at the distribution of people getting benefits. Retired
employees make up the bulk of the costs, by far.

The auto industry has identified retired health plan benefits payments as a
major, singular reason for the current financial problems.

I have a little bit of a problem understanding the concept that "everyone is
entitled to free healthcare". Please note the word "free" in that
statement. I believe everyone should be entitled and have access to health
care at a cost that is affordable for them. Health care is a basic human
need, just like food and housing, but it's not a freebie that one gets
simply because they exist. I have no problem paying more for my health plan
if I can afford to in order to give access to health care for someone else
who can't afford it, but I don't think making it "free" for everybody will
work. There is no such thing as "free".

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...


I have some old buddies who were in Vietnam. Their thoughts are the same
as mine.


Heh. Harry, this little quip of yours goes in the "Harry's Classic Lines"
file.

I have to admit, you make me laugh sometimes, even when you don't intend to
be funny.

Eisboch




There are a lot of guys who served in Vietnam who think our activities
there were the height of stupidity. I know a couple of them. You think
that is funny or my remarking on it is funny? One of them left a leg
there. Hardy har har.

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...


I have some old buddies who were in Vietnam. Their thoughts are the same
as mine.


Heh. Harry, this little quip of yours goes in the "Harry's Classic
Lines" file.

I have to admit, you make me laugh sometimes, even when you don't intend
to be funny.

Eisboch


There are a lot of guys who served in Vietnam who think our activities
there were the height of stupidity. I know a couple of them. You think
that is funny or my remarking on it is funny? One of them left a leg
there. Hardy har har.

What's the word ...... "Whoooose"?

I shouldn't have snipped the comments made before your cute little quip I
guess.
By itself, it loses it's meaning.

Eisboch

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:38:41 -0500, Boater
wrote:

One more time: most retirees on fixed incomes cannot afford to lay out
$2300 for necessary surgery. You're a rich retiree. Your perspective is
not relevant to retirees who are trying to decide whether to buy food or
medicine because they cannot afford both.

It's called personal responsibility - something that is sorely lacking
in post-modern society.

However, let's take your posit and extend it a little bit. Why should
the working union man who retires have to rely on the public dole for
health care? Why can't he rely on his Union to help him - he was a
Union man his entire life, made a good living, maybe lived to his
economic ability without saving for future rainy days - he lived the
good life with the Union, why not rely on the Union to help him
continue that life?

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:55:20 -0500, Jim wrote:

tin cup wrote:
Jim wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 13, 8:38 am, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
I'll give you an example. My back operation cost $14,356 in total
which was cheap considering that the main surgeon and assistant were
freebies. That includes room, operating room, drugs, anesthesia,
yada, yada, yada.
My copay for that was $2,300. A UAW retiree, the guy who put four
screws in the afore mentioned dashboard for his career, for that
same
operation, which would have included surgeon and assistant fees
totaling about $21,000, would have been $4.
A pre-packaged Chapter1 bankruptcy would allow for restructuring the
health care provisions to something a little more reasonable.
"Restructurings" usually are much harder on the working stiffs
than the
management pukes. And why should a retiree on a fixed income have
to fork
over $2300 for necessary surgery?
It's called a deductable Harry, something anyone should be prepared
for and
also reduces health care premiums somewhat. I'll bet the overall
savings
in premium payments by having a reasonable deductable more than
covers the
$2,300 over the longer term. In major, long term illnesses, the
deductable
is usually capped on a yearly basis, last time I checked.
One more time: most retirees on fixed incomes cannot afford to lay out
$2300 for necessary surgery. You're a rich retiree. Your perspective is
not relevant to retirees who are trying to decide whether to buy
food or
medicine because they cannot afford both.

BS. My Dad is a retired non-union blue collar worker who is living on
a fixed income. He's had two surgeries in the last five years that
have cost him, out of pocket, more than $2300. He could afford it
because he lived within his means and socked away money while he was
working. He knew he'd have to take care of himself, and didn't expect
anyone else to do it for him.

My wife and I are doing the same, with a retirement goal set and we're
well on our way. Obama better not lay a finger on my retirement
accounts.

In this day and age, self sufficiency is looked upon as a social
disease. Notice the glares you get from liberals, if you mention it
What does self sufficiency have to do with ducks in the pond.
The Worker got the job and bargained for his pay. He's surviving.
Evidently he is struggling sufficiently to suit you.

I don't have the foggiest Idea what you just said. Are you agreeing with
me or not?

Troll Troll Troll you post.

Gently down the bit stream... :)

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:38:41 -0500, Boater
wrote:

One more time: most retirees on fixed incomes cannot afford to lay out
$2300 for necessary surgery. You're a rich retiree. Your perspective is
not relevant to retirees who are trying to decide whether to buy food or
medicine because they cannot afford both.

It's called personal responsibility - something that is sorely lacking
in post-modern society.

However, let's take your posit and extend it a little bit. Why should
the working union man who retires have to rely on the public dole for
health care? Why can't he rely on his Union to help him - he was a
Union man his entire life, made a good living, maybe lived to his
economic ability without saving for future rainy days - he lived the
good life with the Union, why not rely on the Union to help him
continue that life?


What if he didn't have a pension through the union?

What if the pension he had through his union was very small?

What if the employer with whom his union negotiated a pension
completely or partially welched on the pension and he's only getting
part of what was agreed to, and only because of the pension guarantee
agency? That happens frequently.

Or are you saying retired union members without pensions should be able
to have their health care paid through the general fund of the union?

Or maybe he did save enough, but he's been nearly wiped out by recent
medical bills in his family.

Most middle income retirees are not that "Fixed" well enough to be able
to handle the costs of serious surgery or an extended hospital stay.

In many cases, being flatlined by medical expenses when you are retired
has very little to do with "personal responsibility."