Sometimes stupid loses

PeterN wrote:
On 5/3/2011 1:35 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 5/1/2011 11:25 PM, John A. wrote:
On Sun, 1 May 2011 18:49:21 -0700, "Bill
wrote:

snip
Exactly. The money's there, for the most part. It's just not
flowing.

So the government needs to give small businesses some incentive to
spend more on capital and start hireing again. Maybe a tax break
for taking on more employees?

IIRC they did something like that. On the other side of the
getting-things-moving coin, most of the stimulus costs were in the
form of a tax credit for everyone. The idea was that most of the
money would go to people who couldn't afford to be saving money,
and so were more likely to spend it rather than sock it away.

IIRC in a prior rant our Billy called it something like stealing his
money and giving it away. Even when the Stimulus funds went to
certain banks, auto companies and financial service firms. That
some of this started under Pres. Bush has not stopped Billy from
blaming our current President.

I am against giving my money to anyone, regardless of who does it.
Bush was a half liberal, Obama is a 3/4 liberal. both of them are
adept at spending other peoples money. Its just that Obama (and
company) spends it like three times as fast as Bush did.

Yup! No Democrat authorized the killing of Bin Laden.

That's not true. Both Democrats and Republicans have "authorized" his
killing since 9-11-01.

PeterN wrote:
On 5/3/2011 1:40 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 5/1/2011 11:01 PM, Walter Banks wrote:


Bill Graham wrote:

So the government needs to give small businesses some incentive to
spend more on capital and start hireing again. Maybe a tax break
for taking on more employees?

Tax rates are not the deterring factor for small business to hire
more employees. I have owned businesses in both Canada and the
United States. More employees are hired most frequently in
response to an emerging market.

Most small business would like to earn enough to pay taxes.




I used to represent many small - medium businesses. (Between four
and twenty million gross.) I cannot recall any instance where a
machinery purchase was made because of a tax credit. The credit
might affect the timing of the purchase, but not whether to
purchase.

Well, I am suggesting that a large enough tax credit for hireing
another employee might be the ticket to making a significant
reduction in the unemployment rate. Certainly this would be a better
way to spend my tax dollars than buying a new car for that bum down
the block......

You mean the government paying a business to hire an employee to do
nothing? Something like paying a "farmer" not to grow corn?

No. But an incentive might be not having to pay his FICA, or deductions for
the first couple of years. or something like that.... No accounting or fees,
is a pretty good incentive.....

On 2011-05-03 17:45:24 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:

John A. wrote:
On Mon, 2 May 2011 22:18:33 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

John A. wrote:
On Sun, 1 May 2011 18:52:52 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

John A. wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 18:44:04 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

John A. wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 12:54:43 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 4/29/2011 9:53 PM, Bill Graham wrote:


snip



How about for hunting the foreign invaders who are trying to
take over our country? Shouldn't we be carrying the same
weapons that they are likely to be carrying? Or do you think
we should throw out the first, "well regulated militia" part
of the second amendment?

Huh!
What foreign invaders are you referring to?

Presumably the ones who our military will be unable to stop with
their powerful weapons and intensive training, so the job will
be up to the comparatively untrained and disorganized populace
with their rifles. (Though I'm not sure that rifles are all
such an invading force will be carrying.)

Yes, You can do a lot of hand waving, but I would hate to have to
round up all the occupants of the houses in this country were I
a, "foreign invader". I think I would wait for the 100 years of
air strikes to stop first....:^)

Exactly. For the purposes of repelling invaders, whether the
populace is armed or not is moot. Any force able to get past our
military, and that decides to do so, would be well-able to deal
with any armed public.

I disagree. They would have to literally destroy the infrastructure
completely, so they would gain nothing. I believe our armed public
was an important incentive for the Japanese to not invade us in
1941.

And if their aim is simply to be rid of us?

Well, they attacked Pearl Harbor and sank 1/3 of our fleet. They
must have had some "aim." They must have known that they were
starting a war with us and one of us would have to eventually win
that war. Either they would have to invade and get rid of us, or we
would eventually have to invade and get rid of them.

IIRC, they would have sunk more of it had the carriers not been out to
sea at the time of the attack.

Ys. On a Sunday morning.... I wonder why the carriers were "out to sea"?

Probably to dump garbage. ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

PeterN wrote:
On 5/3/2011 1:57 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-02 22:21:31 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:

snip

Yes. about half of us are wimps today. (all the Democrats)

Don't bet on that.

Well, at least a significant number of republicans keep guns and
ammo in their homes......

The truth comes out at last. Owning a gun sure makes you feel like a
man. Is your gun a substitute for your penis?

And where did you get, "the truth at last" from that? Where did that absurd
conclusion come from?

J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 5/3/2011 12:20 PM, John A. wrote:
On Mon, 2 May 2011 22:18:33 -0700, "Bill
wrote:

John A. wrote:
On Sun, 1 May 2011 18:52:52 -0700, "Bill
wrote:

John A. wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 18:44:04 -0700, "Bill
wrote:

John A. wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 12:54:43 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 4/29/2011 9:53 PM, Bill Graham wrote:


snip



How about for hunting the foreign invaders who are trying to
take over our country? Shouldn't we be carrying the same
weapons that they are likely to be carrying? Or do you
think we should throw out the first, "well regulated
militia" part of the second amendment?

Huh!
What foreign invaders are you referring to?

Presumably the ones who our military will be unable to stop
with their powerful weapons and intensive training, so the
job will be up to the comparatively untrained and
disorganized populace with their rifles. (Though I'm not sure
that rifles are all such an invading force will be carrying.)

Yes, You can do a lot of hand waving, but I would hate to have
to round up all the occupants of the houses in this country
were I a, "foreign invader". I think I would wait for the 100
years of air strikes to stop first....:^)

Exactly. For the purposes of repelling invaders, whether the
populace is armed or not is moot. Any force able to get past our
military, and that decides to do so, would be well-able to deal
with any armed public.

I disagree. They would have to literally destroy the
infrastructure completely, so they would gain nothing. I believe
our armed public was an important incentive for the Japanese to
not invade us in 1941.

And if their aim is simply to be rid of us?

Well, they attacked Pearl Harbor and sank 1/3 of our fleet. They
must have had some "aim." They must have known that they were
starting a war with us and one of us would have to eventually win
that war. Either they would have to invade and get rid of us, or
we would eventually have to invade and get rid of them.

IIRC, they would have sunk more of it had the carriers not been out
to sea at the time of the attack.

I read someplace and am too lazy to look it up, that had the entire
fleet been out to sea the results would have been worse. Those
sailors who were able to swim to safety would not have been and
computer models have suggested a much larger loss of ships.

If the entire fleet had been out to sea the Japanese would have shot
up the fuel dump and the airfields and lit out for home. They would
not have gone hunting for the US fleet--they didn't have the fuel for
it.

But they knew damned well that Kimmel would have been hunting _them_,
fully fueled and fully alerted and with a larger force.

Whether they would have "sunk more" is highly debatable. The Japanese
in the entire course of the war did not sink one single solitary US
battleship that was at sea and free to maneuver.

Yes. US Navy line ships don't go to sea unless they are, "battle ready". Had
the fleet been at sea, the Japanese would have been in a lot of trouble.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2011 12:13:23 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Whisky-dave wrote:
How ? why should a company employ more people to produce the same
quanitity of product.


Don't have much imagination, do you Whiskey-dave?

Why should a company employ more people to produce the same quantity
of product? Unimaginative minds want to know.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Why must they "produce the same quantity of product"? I never said this.
Don't put words in my mouth. The same quantity of product is the result of
your stupidity, and not mine. You can also hire salesmen you know. You can
hire engineers who design a better product, and salesmen to sell it.

On 2011-05-03 17:54:13 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:

PeterN wrote:
On 5/3/2011 1:35 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 5/1/2011 11:25 PM, John A. wrote:
On Sun, 1 May 2011 18:49:21 -0700, "Bill
wrote:

snip
Exactly. The money's there, for the most part. It's just not
flowing.

So the government needs to give small businesses some incentive to
spend more on capital and start hireing again. Maybe a tax break
for taking on more employees?

IIRC they did something like that. On the other side of the
getting-things-moving coin, most of the stimulus costs were in the
form of a tax credit for everyone. The idea was that most of the
money would go to people who couldn't afford to be saving money,
and so were more likely to spend it rather than sock it away.

IIRC in a prior rant our Billy called it something like stealing his
money and giving it away. Even when the Stimulus funds went to
certain banks, auto companies and financial service firms. That
some of this started under Pres. Bush has not stopped Billy from
blaming our current President.

I am against giving my money to anyone, regardless of who does it.
Bush was a half liberal, Obama is a 3/4 liberal. both of them are
adept at spending other peoples money. Its just that Obama (and
company) spends it like three times as fast as Bush did.

Yup! No Democrat authorized the killing of Bin Laden.

That's not true. Both Democrats and Republicans have "authorized" his
killing since 9-11-01.

Actually you have to go back to Bill Clinton, in the aftermath of the
1998 East African, U.S. Embassy bombings in Nairobi, and Dar es Salaam.
At that time Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes against Al Qaida
targets in Sudan and Afghanistan, which included Osama Bin Laden.
Unfortunately the intelligence we had at that time proved to be
unreliable and OBL was long gone.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-03 09:53:20 -0700, John A. said:

On Mon, 2 May 2011 22:46:46 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 17:28:33 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/2/2011 5:10 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 2 May 2011 08:27:58 -0400, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
wrote:

"tony wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 May 2011 11:42:55 -0400, "Neil
wrote:


"Bill wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:


I'm in favor of defending the language. This means I'm
against any law that says now "up" has to mean "left,"
"potato" means "applesauce," etc., etc., etc. You get the
idea.

What kind of "speak" did they call that in Orwells 1984?
Backspeak or something like that. It has already come to
pass, in like 2004.... 20 years later than predicted, but
that's not too bad....

Doublespeak.

Yes -- a good example of doublespeak is the card check law
that many Democrats would like to pass for their pals the
union bosses, which would take away the workers' right to a
secret ballot about union representation, making it easier
for unions to intimidate workers into joining.

And Democrats call that proposed law the "Employee Free Choice
Act." With a straight face, that's what they call it.


And the Republicans in this state passed a bill in the House
that will disallow payroll deductions for union dues. Union
members are still allowed to pay union dues, but they have to
pay the union from their checking account. The bill has not
been voted on in the Senate. That's the Florida House and
Senate, not the one in Washington.

Florida is a "right-to-work" state, so the only unions that
have large memberships by people in the trade involved are the
public service unions: teachers, firefighters, and police.

The Republican backer of the bill said, with a straight face,
"It's a bill that empowers membership of labor unions". Another
excellent example of doublespeak.

Poor choice of words, to say the least, to call it that but
it's a good bill.


Why?

No one in Florida is required to be in a union to hold any job.
Union membership is voluntary. Payroll deduction of union dues
is a convenience to the union member and the union. Why should
the government interfere with a transaction that benefits the
citizenry it represents?

If there was a bill proposed that said that you had to pay your
gun licensing fee in person at a state office, instead of online
or by mail, wouldn't you object to that?

In both cases, the government would be interfering in a
transaction process that was designed for the convenience of the
citizenry. In both cases, the motivation to pass such a bill
would be to make things a bit more difficult for a particular
group to discourage participation in that group.


Did I misunderstand?
Doesn't a law prohibiting payroll deductions make it more
expensive for a union to maintain participation.

Theoretically, no. The dues are still due, the members can mail in
their checks, and there's only some minimal costs incurred by the
union to process the dues.

It is a bill to weaken unions. The Republicans evidently feel that
some members will get behind on dues because the paycheck will be
spent before the dues are paid. The Republicans evidently feel
that some members will not bother paying dues when they don't have
to belong to the union to work.

No. they know thaqt people tend to forget a small amount of money
being subtracted from their paychecks every month. the Republicans
want everyone to know that they are paying union dues whether they
want to or not. IOW, they want people like me to be damned mad at
the union, which I voted against, (and so did the majority) because
they are still taking their dues from us.

Only the union members get their dues deducted.

In California (with State/Government agency Bargaining Units
particularly) if there is at least 50% of any employee classification
has membership in a Bargaining Unit or Union, any employees of the
same classification who opt out of Bargaining Unit or Union
membership, are required to pay "Fair Share fees". This is because
the Bargaining Unit can claim those non-members are benefitting from
the good faith bargaining of the Bargaining Unit, or union.

Would Bill prefer to waive all pay scale, and benefits the Union has
negotiated for his job classification, and negotiate on his own for
the best deal he can come up with? I don't think so.

The "Fair Share" clause basically states that if an employee is going
to benefit from the negotiations of the Union, they owe the Union a
"Fair Share" of the Union dues, not the full dues. This also means
that is there are any work related grievances, or other work related
disputes, he is going to have to deal with management on his own,
without union representation since he is not a member.

Here is some wording from a California State Bargaining Unit,
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or contract regarding this issue. I
Have redacted the Union name with "XXXX" and the Bargaining Unit #
with "X":

3.02 Agency Shop
Since XXXX has certified that it has a XXXX membership of at least 50
percent (50%) of the total number of full-time employees in Unit X,
XXXX is allowed to collect a "fair share" fee from non-XXXX members
who are employees in Bargaining Unit X. Membership in XXXX or payment
of the XXXX fair share fee is not a condition of State employment.

The fair share shall operate in accordance with the following:
a. The State employer agrees to deduct and transmit to XXXX all
deductions authorized on a form provided by XXXX, and pursuant to
Government Code Section 3515.7, to deduct and transmit to XXXX all
fair share fees from State employees in Unit X who do not elect to
become members of XXXX. The State shall deduct and transmit fair
share fees effective with the first pay period following ratification
of this Agreement. Such authorized dues deductions and fair share
fees shall be remitted monthly to XXXX along with an adequate
itemized record of deductions.
XXXX shall pay any reasonable costs incurred by the State Controller.
The State employer shall not be liable in any action brought by a
State employee seeking recovery of, or damages for, improper use or
calculation of fair share fees and XXXX agrees to hold the State
employer harmless for any such action.
b. Any employee may withdraw from XXXX by sending a signed
withdrawal letter to XXXX with a copy to the State Controller.
Employees who withdraw from XXXX shall be subject to paying a XXXX
fair share fee as provided above.
c. The amount of membership dues and fair share fees shall be set
by XXXX and changed by the State upon written notice from XXXX.
XXXX agrees to notice all affected employees any time there is a
change in membership dues or fair share fees.
d. XXXX agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the State harmless
against any claims made of any nature and against any suit instituted
against the State arising from its checkoff for XXXX deductions. Under no
circumstances is membership in XXXX or payment of CCPOA fair
share fees a condition of State employment for employees covered by
this Agreement.

I didn't want any union at all. I voted that way. 35% of the Stanford
employees voted that way. That was over 10% more than voted for any union.
but they (I still can't believe they did this) threw out the winner of the
election and said, "Since 65% of the voters wanted one union or the other,
we are going to throw out the 35% who voted for no union at all, and have
another NLRB election where just the five different unions are on the
ballot, and no union at all will not be an option."

And you guys wonder why I am so anti liberal! I can trace every stupidity
and loss in my entire life to liberalism..... I really hate your whole
philosophy of life. You are socialists, fellow travelers, communists and
idiots of the worst order......

tony cooper wrote:
We can see how knowledgeable you are, Bill. The form 1040 is for
individuals, not corporations.

And why would that matter? You are grasping at straws again. Please address
the point and not some ridiculous side track that has no relevance......
Besides, I don't believe you. Many money earners who work at small
enterprises can file the form 1040. It is one of the few government forms
that I really like, and have filled out many times in my life. It has many
schedules that enable almost everyone to use it to declare their net income
and seperate it from their gross income.

tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 2 May 2011 21:40:20 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 1 May 2011 11:42:55 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:


I'm in favor of defending the language. This means I'm against
any law that says now "up" has to mean "left," "potato" means
"applesauce," etc., etc., etc. You get the idea.

What kind of "speak" did they call that in Orwells 1984? Backspeak
or something like that. It has already come to pass, in like
2004.... 20 years later than predicted, but that's not too bad....

Doublespeak.

Yes -- a good example of doublespeak is the card check law that
many Democrats would like to pass for their pals the union bosses,
which would take away the workers' right to a secret ballot about
union representation, making it easier for unions to intimidate
workers into joining.

And Democrats call that proposed law the "Employee Free Choice
Act." With a straight face, that's what they call it.


And the Republicans in this state passed a bill in the House that
will disallow payroll deductions for union dues. Union members are
still allowed to pay union dues, but they have to pay the union
from their checking account. The bill has not been voted on in the
Senate. That's the Florida House and Senate, not the one in
Washington.

Florida is a "right-to-work" state, so the only unions that have
large memberships by people in the trade involved are the public
service unions: teachers, firefighters, and police.

The Republican backer of the bill said, with a straight face, "It's
a bill that empowers membership of labor unions". Another excellent
example of doublespeak.

Perhaps, but its a bill that insures that people know they are
paying dues to a union, whether they want to or not. In California,
they say, "Union membership is not required in this state.", but
they deduct the union dues from your paycheck, so even though you
don't have to be a member, you have to pay the union their dues
anyway. If that isn't "doublespeak" then I don't know what is.

There is no way that there can be a deduction from a check for union
dues if the person receiving the check has not joined the union. At
some point, anyone with anything deducted from their check has
authorized that deduction.

Well they certainly did just that at Stanford University back in the 70's.
Now, as to "authorization", perhaps we did authorize it, but under the
threat of being let go had we not. I certainly would never have authorized
such a thing unless I had been so threatened.