Sometimes stupid loses

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 12:52:40 -0400, John A.
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.

Sounds like someone needs to straighten things out with HR.

Oh, c'mon, this is Bill. It wouldn't be the first time he's blown
smoke here.

If you are implying that I am lying then just say so, Tony so I can kill
file you.

Bill Graham wrote:


Walter is a businessman. I have advised SMBs. All you can do is
bluster about what a Republican says would encourage a small business
to hire. Obviously you were looking in a mirror when you say: :stark
raving mad."

No. The unemployment rate in this country will remain high unless and until
Obama's administration gives the small businesses some real incentive to
hire extra help.

Bill you idea will simply not work. Businesses hire based on need.
$4000 is really about the cost to employ someone but not maintain
their salary. The business decision is the same if the incentive is there
or not.

One of the biggest recent problems from the outside looking in is
most of the incentives have become part of the bottom line of
corporations and have had minimal impact on the increase in
employment.

The biggest way to support small businesses is infrastructure in
various ways. Transportation, high speed internet, well educated
potential employees, industrial land, and office space. The
government isn't responsible for all these things but they can do a
lot to make most of them happen. A more difficult job is creating
a market for a small business, part of this can be as simple as
encouraging investment in home grown key technologies.

w..

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-03 15:13:11 -0700, tony cooper
said:

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.


Well, you think wrong. I voted against the union. I never wanted any union.
It forced Stanford to pay everyone the same, and there were some there who
did nothing and should have been paid nothing. I worked for Stanford for 29
years, and when I left, my boss told me that I produced more than anyone
else in my job category. I could have done just as good a job wherever I
worked, and been well paid without any union. Unions, like socialism, kill
the incentive to accept individual responsibility. Its obvious to me why
liberals like them so much. They are part of the, "spread the wealth around"
philosophy.

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 14:18:02 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/3/2011 1:20 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 23:17:40 -0400, John A.
wrote:

On Sun, 1 May 2011 18:45:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
In article 2011043018143177923-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2011-04-30 17:27:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
said:

Le Snip


I once called my automobile insurance company and said, "Look.
The most dangerous car on the road is a Corvette Sting Ray.
(this was in 1963) Imagine that I am always driving one of
these, and charge me for my liability policy accordingly. Then
whenever I am driving any other car, you will be making
money." And, of course, they said, "I'm sorry sir, but we
can't do that."

I think you might find the car you are referring to is the
"Corvair" not the "Corvette."

You have your old pal Ralph Nader to thank for that. Do you
remember a little essay of his titled, "Unsafe at Any Speed"?

Don't be too sure. Insurance companies aren't stupid and do
have a large body of data to work from--they'd base their rates
on the statistics, not on Ralp Nadir's uninformed opinion.

Dunno why a 'vette would be exceptionally dangerous--even then
they had good suspension and good brakes (by US standards
anyway)--but they could go very fast and some owners tended to
do so with regularity.

Yes. They weren't dangerous. It was the drivers who were
dangerous. That's why liability insurance should be written on
drivers and not cars.

Actuaries aren't stupid. They take all the information about a
driver they can, and correlate it with average payouts for
drivers who fit a particular driver's profile. One such piece of
information is a person's driving record. Another is the kind of
car they drive.

But it doesn't take much more than common sense to figure that
even if someone with a stellar driving record suddenly goes out
and buys a corvette, there's a fair shot his driving habits might
be about to change.

Like a mid-life crisis involving his first sports car, first
hooker, and blow job going 110mph with the top off.

I am still waiting to be convinced that liability insurance
shouldn't be written on the drivers and not the cars.

If you didn't own a car and had a drivers license, you would be
bitching the other way.

I don't think Bill understands what his auto liability insurance is.

For sure, Bill doesn't understand the way a business works. The auto
insurance companies have figured out how much in premiums they have to
charge to cover their payouts in accidents and turn a profit. At the
current time, the premiums are based on the individual automobiles
owned by the insured.

If Bill could magically change things that so they would charge the
owner for liability, regardless of the number of automobiles owned,
the premium would be the same. The insurance company still needs to
bring in amount equal to estimated payout plus profit. (A greatly
simplified formula, but basically sound)

What comfort Bill would get in having one bill for $1,000 (to make up
a number) for individual liability coverage instead of one bill for
two automobiles at $600 for one and $400 for the second is beyond me.
(Using Bill's 80% figure for the second car)

In the above scenario, if Bill sold the second car, his liability
charge would drop to $600, and in the present situation his cost would
drop to $600. Six of one...

Now Bill will come back and ask why no one can explain why the change
isn't made.

How about if you have three or four vehicles? 100% plus 3 x 80% is 340% of a
policy primium. And you are paying this 100% of the time, even though when
you are driving one vehicle, the other three are parked in your garage and
can't be driven anywhere.

PeterN wrote:
On 5/3/2011 3:11 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
Whisky-dave wrote:


Would that really work though, surely giving a company more money is
likely that
money would end up in the pockets of those in charge of it.
if you cut the taxes to a burger chain would they really employ more
burger flippers,
surely you'd only employ more staff if demand went up.

Not if you linked the tax break to the new employees. the IRS caqn do
that easily. Just put it in their form 1040. "If you hired a new
employee between such and such a date and such and such a date, then
subtrack 10% of the amount on line such and such and add it to line
such and such" This kind of thing is typical of the form 1040, and
new instructions like this appear every year.

You obviously have no idea how the IRS works. The forms are designed
to conform to the Revenue Code, which BTW, is enacted by congress.
Not any other entity. The IRS, after publication, notice to the
public and hearings then promulgates regulations that interpret the
Code. No! Billy boy, the IRS does not just put arbitrary boxes on
forms. Indeed about six years ago they made an error in the design of a
form
(6251.) It was a real mess to straighten out.

Of course its "e3nacted by congress". This is the same congress that
authorizes Obama and company to spend trillions and bring us deeply into
debt, is it not? What does that have to do with giving some incentive to
businesses to hire more people? It is a uniquely liberal idea. Why are you
against it? I can't even take credit for it. It is not my idea.

I think you guys are just government schills. anything the government does,
(or at least the democrats do) is A#1 in your book. No matter how stupid it
is.

On 5/3/2011 8:40 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
John A. wrote:
On Mon, 2 May 2011 22:11:12 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

John A. wrote:
On Sun, 1 May 2011 18:45:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
In article 2011043018143177923-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2011-04-30 17:27:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
said:

Le Snip


I once called my automobile insurance company and said, "Look.
The most dangerous car on the road is a Corvette Sting Ray.
(this was in 1963) Imagine that I am always driving one of
these, and charge me for my liability policy accordingly. Then
whenever I am driving any other car, you will be making money."
And, of course, they said, "I'm sorry sir, but we can't do
that."

I think you might find the car you are referring to is the
"Corvair" not the "Corvette."

You have your old pal Ralph Nader to thank for that. Do you
remember a little essay of his titled, "Unsafe at Any Speed"?

Don't be too sure. Insurance companies aren't stupid and do have
a large body of data to work from--they'd base their rates on the
statistics, not on Ralp Nadir's uninformed opinion.

Dunno why a 'vette would be exceptionally dangerous--even then
they had good suspension and good brakes (by US standards
anyway)--but they could go very fast and some owners tended to do
so with regularity.

Yes. They weren't dangerous. It was the drivers who were dangerous.
That's why liability insurance should be written on drivers and not
cars.

Actuaries aren't stupid. They take all the information about a
driver they can, and correlate it with average payouts for drivers
who fit a particular driver's profile. One such piece of
information is a person's driving record. Another is the kind of
car they drive.

But it doesn't take much more than common sense to figure that even
if someone with a stellar driving record suddenly goes out and buys
a corvette, there's a fair shot his driving habits might be about to
change.

I never said that everyone's liability premium had to be the same.
Those with poor driving records would naturally have to pay more for
their liability insurance. This is the case now, and there is no
reason to change it. I am just suggesting that the liability
insurance be written on the driver, and not the vehicle. Drivers
cause accidents, not cars. (People kill people, not the guns.)

Cars aren't all alike either. Some are more expensive to repair. Some
will tend to do more damage to the other car in any given accident.
Some give better or worse visibility. Some tend to be driven by people
who live around people with more-expensive-to-repair cars.

Gee. You sond just like that lobbiest many years ago who convinced some
congressional committee to let (mandate) the insurance companies write
liability policies on cars instead of people. Sorry. I don't buy it. It
makes billions of dollars for the insurance companies every year. From
all us poor slobs who have more cars than drivers in their families.
Just another thing I bitch about that falls on deaf liberal ears........

Your knowledge of insurance company regulations is underwhelming.
Insurance company existence, reserves, rate making and underwriting
practices are set only by the states. I have no idea what this
"lobbyist" was lobbying for, I suspect you don't either, but it
certainly would have absolutely nothing to do with the subject you are
ranting about. For you to call insurance company executives liberals is
almost laughable. Indeed, if you bother to look through the forms filed
on behalf of of publicly held insurance companies you will find that the
vast majority of the upper echelon management is Irish.

--
Peter

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 18:26:38 -0400, John A.
wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 09:35:49 +1200, 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.

They owe someone a favor?

They're being blackmailed?

They subscibe to the Mark Twain school of economics in which he
proposed a town where all the residents makes their living by doing
other residents laundry but, unlike Mark Twain, he doesn't recognise
it as a joke.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Sounds like Keynesian economics to me, and he was a uniquely liberal
economist......

On 5/3/2011 8:52 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
PeterN wrote:

If you didn't own a car and had a drivers license, you would be
bitching the other way.

If I didn't own a car, I would have a DMV ID card, which is not a
drivers license, and requires no test or insurance.

You do not need a drivers license to own a car. You need one to drive a
car. Driving and ownership are two completely different concepts. Both
my younger daughter and my nephew have a valid drivers licenses but do
not own cars.

--
Peter

PeterN wrote:
On 5/3/2011 5:46 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2011 12:11:28 -0700, "Bill
wrote:

Whisky-dave wrote:
On May 3, 6:07 am, "Bill wrote:
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.

w..

Most republicans would disagree with you. I disagree with you.
Obama should give a tax break as an incentive to small businesses
who hire more employees. A big enough break so that they can
realize a profit by hiureing someone else. This would directly
affect the unemployment rate. Instead he took $4000 of my tax
money and gave it to that bum down the block to buy himself a new
car with. You liberals are crazy....Stark raving mad!

Would that really work though, surely giving a company more money
is likely that
money would end up in the pockets of those in charge of it.
if you cut the taxes to a burger chain would they really employ
more burger flippers,
surely you'd only employ more staff if demand went up.

Not if you linked the tax break to the new employees. the IRS caqn
do that easily. Just put it in their form 1040.

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


The vast majority of small to medium-sized businesses are run through
a flow-through entity such as: partnership; LLC; subchapter S
corporation. Unless certain elections are made all tax attributes are
taxed at the individual level. Thus Bill is correct in saying that a
change could be made to form 1040 to implement his proposal. However,
as I said earlier it is not the IRS who makes the change.

The form 1040 is one of the best things the government has. It has taken
over 80 yhears to perfect, by thousands of tax cdourts and their decisions.
That's why I laugh when people want to replace it with a National sales tax
system.. What a boon to the tax lawyers that would be! They can redo all
that courtroom work for another 80 years! And, in the mneantime, the super
rich, like Bill Gates and Opera Winfrey (and those of their ilk) would make
out like bandits. If they were only taxed on what they spend, they would
take over the world in about 5 years.....:^)

On 5/3/2011 8:54 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
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.


Your ability to recognize sarcasm is simply one more of your
underwhelming characteristics.

Do you prefer the above statement to "woosh?"

--
Peter