|
Gas prices .. some good news
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Jim" wrote in message ... Boater wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:42:23 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message t... Tough call. I don't like these bailouts, but can we afford not to? In this country, 1 in 10 jobs are connected to the auto industry. If the auto companies fail, we're talking depression, not recession. All of this, could get real scary, real quick. This may sound harsh, but I am just about convinced that we are beyond any form of healthy avenues for recovery. The reasons are varied and there's plenty of blame to pass around, including the consumer. At this point though, it just doesn't matter. Assigning blame doesn't fix the problems. I think we may just have to bite the bullet, allow Banks, Investment firms, GM, GMAC, Ford, Ford Motor Credit and Chrysler (whoever they are now-a-days) to file Chapter 11 bankrupcy, reorganize and start again. That will unfortunatly cause bankrupcies in many supporting industrys but they are currently structured to support what exists now, not as it should be. Everyone is jumping on the bailout bandwagon. American Express just filed to become a bank, thereby qualifying for some of the bailout money to cover bad accounts. That's too much. Enough. Like a hurricane every 100 years or so, it is going to require cleaning out the deadwood before the forests can grow again. Damn straight. And what is your plan for the millions of workers who will lose their jobs? Oh...I know...let them all die. I would start by firing every member of an automaker's management team, eliminating whatever "equity" the shareholders still have, renegotiating all existing labor and supplier contracts, and hiring innovative management that can begin producing world-class energy efficient cars within two years, even if they have to buy the technology until they can develop their own. Screw the investors? I don't think so. Burn all labor contracts. Fire everybody. Sell the brand an equipment to an automaker who knows how to do business. Hire back employees that can demonstrate needed skills and collect the union cards as they enter the work place. Start fresh and build innovative earth friendly vehicles. As for the employees that don't get rehired, Americans, except for Obama, Don't just let our people die. We'll find work for them even if it means pushing out the illegals. Maybe they could bend and scrape, cleaning your house or picking your crops master. Yup. Someone has to pick the crops and milk the cows. Clean houses for those who desire it. To far beneath an autoworker to do such a job? Who said a lifetime career is guaranteed? We do not all work in government. |
Gas prices .. some good news
"Richard Casady" wrote in message ... On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:03:38 -0600, wrote: Like a hurricane every 100 years or so, it is going to require cleaning out the deadwood before the forests can grow again. In a climax forest the grounded is littered with dead trees. It takes about as long for a tree to rot away as it took to grow it. In the process all the oxygen produced by its growth will be used up, and all the carbon fixed by it will go back into the atmosphere. Please. rec.boats is no place for logic. Eisboch |
Gas prices .. some good news
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:13:00 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote: They are probably smarter than that. They'll move the jobs to Mexico and China. Fifteen years ago I had a Mercury Tracer. A Mazda, made in Mexico. Great little car. Casady |
Gas prices .. some good news
On Nov 13, 12:49*pm, "Don White" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Nov 13, 2:38 am, "Eisboch" wrote: I don't consider UAW members "slobs", but I agree with his overall assesment. I was a bit over the top with that. *I don't really blame the workers, they're *just taking advantage of the high-paying jobs available to them. *The UAW is specifically the one to blame here, by forcing the automakers into paying this kind of money to unskilled workers, ultimately bringing about the death of the entire American auto industry. It's past time to break the unions and come back to reality. *They've outlived their usefulness, and turned into leeches on society as a whole. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*- A couple posts ago you were bragging about how well along you and your wife were in your retirement plans. Not bragging, just stating facts. I'm doing a larger version of what my Dad did, since it's almost certain that SS won't be around when I retire. I'm not depending on anyone, or any goverment, to take care of me. I suppose the unionized force should be happy sitting on a park bench begging for crumbs to eat and a lump of coal to heat their single room dwelling. Not at all. They should just live within their means, and be paid a decent wage for their work. If they want to earn more and have more financial security, they should do what most do and go to school, get more education, and ultimately a better paying job. Twisting a corporation's arm (oops, collective bargaining) for more and more until they put that corporation under only serves them in the short term. Once that company can no longer function with the wages and benefits the union has saddled them with, then no one has a job. Then they *will* be sitting on that park bench begging for crumbs, huh? |
Gas prices .. some good news
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:10:54 -0500, Jim wrote:
Boater wrote: Jim wrote: Boater wrote: Jim wrote: Boater wrote: Jim wrote: wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:38:58 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:12:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "D.Duck" wrote in message ... My hope is that the GM/Ford/Chrysler problems are resolved (if resolvable) in bankruptcy, not throwing more tax payer dollars at them. Duck, I couldn't agree with you more. Chapter 11 isn't permanent. It allows for "reorganization" which is exactly what the auto industry needs to do right now. Revise business plans, products and re-negotiate the union contracts under the watchful eye of a bankruptcy judge. Handing them a pile of taxpayer money, calling it a government "investment" just to keep them in business under their current organizational structures won't do a damn thing. I agree. Tough call. I don't like these bailouts, but can we afford not to? In this country, 1 in 10 jobs are connected to the auto industry. If the auto companies fail, we're talking depression, not recession. All of this, could get real scary, real quick. 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. This from a guy whose career highlight was cleaning the heads aboard a navy ship? We used to send numb-nuts like you all over the ship looking for replacements for burned out headlights. No, you didn't. I wasn't dumb enough to get drafted, or, in lieu of that, join up, so I could kill Asians who were not threatening my country. I don't think there is person reading this news group that isn't aware of your cowardice. Why do you keep bringing it up? Tell me, Jim...what sort of "bravery" is required to go off to a country not threatening ours, and bomb, shoot up and otherwise destroy it? I don't owe you an explanation. I just can't understand you boasting about being a coward. And then repeatedly reposting it. Get over it. Must be something to it. He thought John Kerry was a big hero because he supposedly 'earned' all those medals in Vietnam. But I believe your measure of HK's character is spot on. -- A Harry Krause truism: "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" |
Gas prices .. some good news
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: Boater wrote: Jim wrote: Boater wrote: Jim wrote: wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:38:58 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:12:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "D.Duck" wrote in message ... My hope is that the GM/Ford/Chrysler problems are resolved (if resolvable) in bankruptcy, not throwing more tax payer dollars at them. Duck, I couldn't agree with you more. Chapter 11 isn't permanent. It allows for "reorganization" which is exactly what the auto industry needs to do right now. Revise business plans, products and re-negotiate the union contracts under the watchful eye of a bankruptcy judge. Handing them a pile of taxpayer money, calling it a government "investment" just to keep them in business under their current organizational structures won't do a damn thing. I agree. Tough call. I don't like these bailouts, but can we afford not to? In this country, 1 in 10 jobs are connected to the auto industry. If the auto companies fail, we're talking depression, not recession. All of this, could get real scary, real quick. 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. This from a guy whose career highlight was cleaning the heads aboard a navy ship? We used to send numb-nuts like you all over the ship looking for replacements for burned out headlights. No, you didn't. I wasn't dumb enough to get drafted, or, in lieu of that, join up, so I could kill Asians who were not threatening my country. I don't think there is person reading this news group that isn't aware of your cowardice. Why do you keep bringing it up? Tell me, Jim...what sort of "bravery" is required to go off to a country not threatening ours, and bomb, shoot up and otherwise destroy it? Tell that to some who have served in Viet Nam or Iraq. Or any other ground war. I have some old buddies who were in Vietnam. Their thoughts are the same as mine. |
Gas prices .. some good news
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? |
Gas prices .. some good news
"Boater" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: Boater wrote: Jim wrote: Boater wrote: Jim wrote: wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:38:58 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:12:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "D.Duck" wrote in message ... My hope is that the GM/Ford/Chrysler problems are resolved (if resolvable) in bankruptcy, not throwing more tax payer dollars at them. Duck, I couldn't agree with you more. Chapter 11 isn't permanent. It allows for "reorganization" which is exactly what the auto industry needs to do right now. Revise business plans, products and re-negotiate the union contracts under the watchful eye of a bankruptcy judge. Handing them a pile of taxpayer money, calling it a government "investment" just to keep them in business under their current organizational structures won't do a damn thing. I agree. Tough call. I don't like these bailouts, but can we afford not to? In this country, 1 in 10 jobs are connected to the auto industry. If the auto companies fail, we're talking depression, not recession. All of this, could get real scary, real quick. 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. This from a guy whose career highlight was cleaning the heads aboard a navy ship? We used to send numb-nuts like you all over the ship looking for replacements for burned out headlights. No, you didn't. I wasn't dumb enough to get drafted, or, in lieu of that, join up, so I could kill Asians who were not threatening my country. I don't think there is person reading this news group that isn't aware of your cowardice. Why do you keep bringing it up? Tell me, Jim...what sort of "bravery" is required to go off to a country not threatening ours, and bomb, shoot up and otherwise destroy it? Tell that to some who have served in Viet Nam or Iraq. Or any other ground war. I have some old buddies who were in Vietnam. Their thoughts are the same as mine. Their thoughts are that the troops do/did not exhibit bravery? |
Gas prices .. some good news
DK wrote:
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? What a stench you make, Krueger. Can't you stay in that casket? |
Gas prices .. some good news
"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. |
Gas prices .. some good news
"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. |
Gas prices .. some good news
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 |
Gas prices .. some good news
"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 |
Gas prices .. some good news
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 |
Gas prices .. some good news
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. |
Gas prices .. some good news
"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 |
Gas prices .. some good news
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? |
Gas prices .. some good news
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... :) |
Gas prices .. some good news
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." |
Gas prices .. some good news
"Boater" wrote in message ... 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." Harry, being in my last year as an older, young man (59), I've started looking into health care plans, etc. for Mrs.E. and I for our future as younger, old people. As a start, I looked at my parents to see how they dealt with it. My parents were far from being wealthy. When my father died back in 1999 at age 74, he had a very modest pension from the company he had worked for, plus social security. They had a small amount of money (about 22k) invested in a money market account and a house with an outstanding mortgage of about 40K. My mother, who is still alive, has progressive MS and requires regular health care. When he died, the house was sold and she lived in one of the investment houses that we had purchased until her condition required more care than we could provide. She recently moved into a brand new, very nice assisted living facility in Plymouth. She loves it there and has all kinds of new friends with common interests. She is doing very well under Medicare and an affordable supplimental plan that my father had set up before he died. Her total income is about 2k per month now, but her total health care premium is only about 200 bucks. We help out once in a while to assist with items that insurance won't cover (we recently bought her a new powered wheelchair) BTW ... she pays for the assisted living as well. There is a little known veterans benefit program for vets or surviving spouses that provides an additional $1k per month to help with assisted living or nursing home costs. My point is .... I think they are very representative of lower middle class citizens, but with proper planning and assuming responsibility for your future, it's not impossible to survive, be secure and happy. She is in no danger of her health problems "wiping her out". I suspect a retired UAW employee is probably in much better financial shape than my parents. Eisboch |
Gas prices .. some good news
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 02:42:01 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
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". Of course, health care will never be "free", but it's a question of who will bear the costs. As we have it set up now, it's business. That puts us at quite a competitive disadvantage in the global market place. I'd also point out, many who think they are insured, are, only as long as they are working. Have a long term illness, that puts you out of work, and it's bye, bye, health insurance. 1/2 of personal bankruptcies, are illness/medical bill related. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...tcy_study.html If the costs are placed on the individual, few could survive the economic catastrophe of a major illness. Personally, I look at universal health care as one giant health insurance pool, without the 1/3 waste present in for profit health insurance industry. Of course, it isn't free, but it is cheaper. We spend over 15% GDP on health care. Most countries with universal health care spend @10%. Again, that 5% is a competitive disadvantage on our businesses. |
Gas prices .. some good news
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... 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." Harry, being in my last year as an older, young man (59), I've started looking into health care plans, etc. for Mrs.E. and I for our future as younger, old people. As a start, I looked at my parents to see how they dealt with it. My parents were far from being wealthy. When my father died back in 1999 at age 74, he had a very modest pension from the company he had worked for, plus social security. They had a small amount of money (about 22k) invested in a money market account and a house with an outstanding mortgage of about 40K. My mother, who is still alive, has progressive MS and requires regular health care. When he died, the house was sold and she lived in one of the investment houses that we had purchased until her condition required more care than we could provide. She recently moved into a brand new, very nice assisted living facility in Plymouth. She loves it there and has all kinds of new friends with common interests. She is doing very well under Medicare and an affordable supplimental plan that my father had set up before he died. Her total income is about 2k per month now, but her total health care premium is only about 200 bucks. We help out once in a while to assist with items that insurance won't cover (we recently bought her a new powered wheelchair) BTW ... she pays for the assisted living as well. There is a little known veterans benefit program for vets or surviving spouses that provides an additional $1k per month to help with assisted living or nursing home costs. My point is .... I think they are very representative of lower middle class citizens, but with proper planning and assuming responsibility for your future, it's not impossible to survive, be secure and happy. She is in no danger of her health problems "wiping her out". I suspect a retired UAW employee is probably in much better financial shape than my parents. Eisboch I suspect that GM and Ford and Chrysler are going to wiggle out of their pension obligations. If I recall, they have huge unfunded liabilities. |
Gas prices .. some good news
Boater wrote:
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? Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension? Why wasn't the union looking out for its members? What if the pension he had through his union was very small? Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension that would enable him to continue to live at the same quality of life when he retired? Why wasn't the union looking out for its members? 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. The union screwed up and should take it on the chin and pay for the guys pension out of the unions treasury. The union member relied upon the union management to look out for him and union management failed him. 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? Yes. What other purpose is there in being in a union if it is not going to lookout for the general welfare of its members through their working life and into retirement. The union derived a benefit from having them as a member. But, it appears that when they can't keep tossing money into the union coffers the retired union members get kicked to the curb. Or maybe he did save enough, but he's been nearly wiped out by recent medical bills in his family. Happens to union and non union people all of the time. They have insurance that will cover situations like this. All you have to do is purchase it. I am surprised that the union did not make the member aware of this situation and how the union member could protect themselves. Or, why doesn't the union negotiate for a group policy, they could get great rates for their members. 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. See response above. In many cases, being flatlined by medical expenses when you are retired has very little to do with "personal responsibility." It has a whole lot to do with personal responsibility. |
Gas prices .. some good news
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote: 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? Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension? Why wasn't the union looking out for its members? What if the pension he had through his union was very small? Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension that would enable him to continue to live at the same quality of life when he retired? Why wasn't the union looking out for its members? 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. The union screwed up and should take it on the chin and pay for the guys pension out of the unions treasury. The union member relied upon the union management to look out for him and union management failed him. 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? Yes. What other purpose is there in being in a union if it is not going to lookout for the general welfare of its members through their working life and into retirement. The union derived a benefit from having them as a member. But, it appears that when they can't keep tossing money into the union coffers the retired union members get kicked to the curb. Or maybe he did save enough, but he's been nearly wiped out by recent medical bills in his family. Happens to union and non union people all of the time. They have insurance that will cover situations like this. All you have to do is purchase it. I am surprised that the union did not make the member aware of this situation and how the union member could protect themselves. Or, why doesn't the union negotiate for a group policy, they could get great rates for their members. 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. See response above. In many cases, being flatlined by medical expenses when you are retired has very little to do with "personal responsibility." It has a whole lot to do with personal responsibility. You obviously are not someone to be taken seriously. |
Gas prices .. some good news
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote: Boater wrote: 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? Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension? Why wasn't the union looking out for its members? What if the pension he had through his union was very small? Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension that would enable him to continue to live at the same quality of life when he retired? Why wasn't the union looking out for its members? 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. The union screwed up and should take it on the chin and pay for the guys pension out of the unions treasury. The union member relied upon the union management to look out for him and union management failed him. 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? Yes. What other purpose is there in being in a union if it is not going to lookout for the general welfare of its members through their working life and into retirement. The union derived a benefit from having them as a member. But, it appears that when they can't keep tossing money into the union coffers the retired union members get kicked to the curb. Or maybe he did save enough, but he's been nearly wiped out by recent medical bills in his family. Happens to union and non union people all of the time. They have insurance that will cover situations like this. All you have to do is purchase it. I am surprised that the union did not make the member aware of this situation and how the union member could protect themselves. Or, why doesn't the union negotiate for a group policy, they could get great rates for their members. 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. See response above. In many cases, being flatlined by medical expenses when you are retired has very little to do with "personal responsibility." It has a whole lot to do with personal responsibility. You obviously are not someone to be taken seriously. Why? What does the union do for the dues that the union collects from its members? It seems that the only thing the union is good at doing is collecting dues and make threats about going on strike. |
Gas prices .. some good news
"BAR" wrote in message ... Boater wrote: BAR wrote: Boater wrote: 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? Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension? Why wasn't the union looking out for its members? What if the pension he had through his union was very small? Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension that would enable him to continue to live at the same quality of life when he retired? Why wasn't the union looking out for its members? 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. The union screwed up and should take it on the chin and pay for the guys pension out of the unions treasury. The union member relied upon the union management to look out for him and union management failed him. 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? Yes. What other purpose is there in being in a union if it is not going to lookout for the general welfare of its members through their working life and into retirement. The union derived a benefit from having them as a member. But, it appears that when they can't keep tossing money into the union coffers the retired union members get kicked to the curb. Or maybe he did save enough, but he's been nearly wiped out by recent medical bills in his family. Happens to union and non union people all of the time. They have insurance that will cover situations like this. All you have to do is purchase it. I am surprised that the union did not make the member aware of this situation and how the union member could protect themselves. Or, why doesn't the union negotiate for a group policy, they could get great rates for their members. 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. See response above. In many cases, being flatlined by medical expenses when you are retired has very little to do with "personal responsibility." It has a whole lot to do with personal responsibility. You obviously are not someone to be taken seriously. Why? What does the union do for the dues that the union collects from its members? It seems that the only thing the union is good at doing is collecting dues and make threats about going on strike. Amazes me that someone who knows so little can talk so much about a given subject. |
Gas prices .. some good news
Don White wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message ... Boater wrote: BAR wrote: Boater wrote: 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? Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension? Why wasn't the union looking out for its members? What if the pension he had through his union was very small? Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension that would enable him to continue to live at the same quality of life when he retired? Why wasn't the union looking out for its members? 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. The union screwed up and should take it on the chin and pay for the guys pension out of the unions treasury. The union member relied upon the union management to look out for him and union management failed him. 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? Yes. What other purpose is there in being in a union if it is not going to lookout for the general welfare of its members through their working life and into retirement. The union derived a benefit from having them as a member. But, it appears that when they can't keep tossing money into the union coffers the retired union members get kicked to the curb. Or maybe he did save enough, but he's been nearly wiped out by recent medical bills in his family. Happens to union and non union people all of the time. They have insurance that will cover situations like this. All you have to do is purchase it. I am surprised that the union did not make the member aware of this situation and how the union member could protect themselves. Or, why doesn't the union negotiate for a group policy, they could get great rates for their members. 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. See response above. In many cases, being flatlined by medical expenses when you are retired has very little to do with "personal responsibility." It has a whole lot to do with personal responsibility. You obviously are not someone to be taken seriously. Why? What does the union do for the dues that the union collects from its members? It seems that the only thing the union is good at doing is collecting dues and make threats about going on strike. Amazes me that someone who knows so little can talk so much about a given subject. It amazes me that someone who worked for a union all his life can't say what the union actually did for him for all of the union dues the union pulled out of his paycheck for all of those years? |
Gas prices .. some good news
"BAR" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... Boater wrote: BAR wrote: Boater wrote: 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? Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension? Why wasn't the union looking out for its members? What if the pension he had through his union was very small? Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension that would enable him to continue to live at the same quality of life when he retired? Why wasn't the union looking out for its members? 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. The union screwed up and should take it on the chin and pay for the guys pension out of the unions treasury. The union member relied upon the union management to look out for him and union management failed him. 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? Yes. What other purpose is there in being in a union if it is not going to lookout for the general welfare of its members through their working life and into retirement. The union derived a benefit from having them as a member. But, it appears that when they can't keep tossing money into the union coffers the retired union members get kicked to the curb. Or maybe he did save enough, but he's been nearly wiped out by recent medical bills in his family. Happens to union and non union people all of the time. They have insurance that will cover situations like this. All you have to do is purchase it. I am surprised that the union did not make the member aware of this situation and how the union member could protect themselves. Or, why doesn't the union negotiate for a group policy, they could get great rates for their members. 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. See response above. In many cases, being flatlined by medical expenses when you are retired has very little to do with "personal responsibility." It has a whole lot to do with personal responsibility. You obviously are not someone to be taken seriously. Why? What does the union do for the dues that the union collects from its members? It seems that the only thing the union is good at doing is collecting dues and make threats about going on strike. Amazes me that someone who knows so little can talk so much about a given subject. It amazes me that someone who worked for a union all his life can't say what the union actually did for him for all of the union dues the union pulled out of his paycheck for all of those years? You talkin' to me? I've never worked for a union. I've belonged to one pretty well all my working life and served on the local executive. |
Gas prices .. some good news
Boater wrote:
DK wrote: 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? What a stench you make, Krueger. Can't you stay in that casket? Another lame post as expected. Was the question directed to you or do you speak for all three stooges? |
Gas prices .. some good news
Don White wrote:
"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. The truth hurts. Now you can only look back on your pathetic life and wish you had more education so you could be self sufficient. |
Gas prices .. some good news
Boater wrote:
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. It's a lie. Invite them to post here - even stumpy. I won't hold my breath. |
Gas prices .. some good news
Boater wrote:
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." What if the union leaders blew all of his "pension" on coke in the 80's? |
Gas prices .. some good news
Don White wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... Boater wrote: BAR wrote: Boater wrote: 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? Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension? Why wasn't the union looking out for its members? What if the pension he had through his union was very small? Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension that would enable him to continue to live at the same quality of life when he retired? Why wasn't the union looking out for its members? 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. The union screwed up and should take it on the chin and pay for the guys pension out of the unions treasury. The union member relied upon the union management to look out for him and union management failed him. 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? Yes. What other purpose is there in being in a union if it is not going to lookout for the general welfare of its members through their working life and into retirement. The union derived a benefit from having them as a member. But, it appears that when they can't keep tossing money into the union coffers the retired union members get kicked to the curb. Or maybe he did save enough, but he's been nearly wiped out by recent medical bills in his family. Happens to union and non union people all of the time. They have insurance that will cover situations like this. All you have to do is purchase it. I am surprised that the union did not make the member aware of this situation and how the union member could protect themselves. Or, why doesn't the union negotiate for a group policy, they could get great rates for their members. 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. See response above. In many cases, being flatlined by medical expenses when you are retired has very little to do with "personal responsibility." It has a whole lot to do with personal responsibility. You obviously are not someone to be taken seriously. Why? What does the union do for the dues that the union collects from its members? It seems that the only thing the union is good at doing is collecting dues and make threats about going on strike. Amazes me that someone who knows so little can talk so much about a given subject. It amazes me that someone who worked for a union all his life can't say what the union actually did for him for all of the union dues the union pulled out of his paycheck for all of those years? You talkin' to me? I've never worked for a union. I've belonged to one pretty well all my working life and served on the local executive. Of course he wasn't talking to you. You jumped in, as usual, from nowhere out of pure stupidity. |
Gas prices .. some good news
DK wrote:
Boater wrote: DK wrote: 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? What a stench you make, Krueger. Can't you stay in that casket? Another lame post as expected. Was the question directed to you or do you speak for all three stooges? Phew...what a stench. Back in your casket, Krueger. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com