Artful Dodger: LOL

Artful Dodger:

> Yeah, like the unions in Detroit that fought for a fair wage and managed to unemploy all the workers when the factories shut down. Bleeding the complain dry. That's the ticket.

Was it the unions? No offense but that is a very dim view of what happened. I wonder if it was because the companies were greedy and decided to move manufacturing to countries where they pay workers a pittance. I wonder how many jobs went to China and the like. Here is one easy way to get around paying the minimum wage. Let's move all the factories to Third World countries. Over there workers get paid peanuts. The average American worker in the auto industry is getting paid $38 per hour. In China they pay $0.17 per hour. It takes no genius to see why Detroit went bust. Not only did they get around the union complaints, they also got around the minimum wage, fired a lot of qualified workers, and made more money by manufacturing cheaper. But then, I am sure you knew that.

Artful Dodger: Support as in making up the wages to a liveable wage because the companies will not pay enough. Which is why low income families need support from the government via food stamps and tax credits. You may object to the word "support" but that is what the government is having to do.

... I've explained this several times, it is not hard to understand. It's why the UK gov introduced a minimum wage to stop companies exploiting workers just to maximise profits and dividends to stock holders. Not just 'blue collar' but as I've experienced, 'white collar' as well. Because of minimum wage law.. the amount of people needing support just so they can afford to live why working has decreased.

"It's not the job of the government to make up the difference."

Then companies need to pay a fair wage that can be lived on then. And not as experienced here do everything they can to not pay a living wage. If not, then you just end up with one of your pet hates... illegal immigrants doing the work.

Now... Dan.. can you stay on these points?

Übergeek 바둑이: You always take the side against big companies regardless of facts. The big auto companies were losing billions and there was little they could do to cut costs. So your idea that they were greedy is, no offense, dim. What do you think they are in business for? Here's a news flash for ya: They want to make money and lots of it.

But they were losing money. The unions were demanding more money so to compensate, the autos they produced were of lesser quality. Enter the Japanese autos, better and costing less, you had the recipie for disaster.

And labor costs are huge. When you add in all the benefits and when you consider the pay given out to all the retired workers and their spouses, it adds up big time. When you're a company that is losing money, you don't have many options. Big labor refuses to budge and big management has no vision for the future. The quality of foreign auto surpasses the quality if made in the USA so what would you do?

Meanwhile you have a great example of union thuggery in the CWA (where I was once an assistant VP). While on strike, they resort to destroying company property and disrupting service to its customers. You have union thugs threatening the lives of those who would dare cross the picket lines and one moron even went so far as to use his young daughter and place her in front of a truck that was delivering supplies to the company.

When a company makes money, it's their money to do with as they see fit. You can negotiate with them for a fair wage but in the end, walk away and find another job if you don't like what they have to offer. I worked for the phone company and they paid plenty. Then benefits were excellent and I made a very decent wage. They even paid for my schooling when I started college. They allowed me to work nights so I could go to school during the day. And they paid for all my college costs while I worked for them.

And I was just an average joe worker in the repair department answering the phone for business customers with phone problems. I dispatched repair workers. There were thousands like me across the country. And each one could have up to 2500 a year for college and night school expenses.

Not bad for a greedy big company.

(V): " Support as in making up the wages to a livable wage because the companies will not pay enough. Which is why low income families need support from the government via food stamps and tax credits. You may object to the word "support" but that is what the government is having to do."

If a company doesn't pay enough, don't work for them. I have tons of friends working for companies and they all own homes and cars and boats and are doing more than well. Yes there are some companies that don't pay well. But that's life. Get a second job. Many people complain about not having a livable wage but the reality is that they are irresponsible with money. I don't make a ton of money but my house is paid for. I have friends making the same amount of money as I make and they still how the banks (and credit cards) thousands. What's up with that? Live within your means. Most people don't. So what you mean by livable wage some mean earning a wage that supports their chosen lifestyle. A company isn't obligated to support your indulgences.

"... I've explained this several times, it is not hard to understand. It's why the UK gov introduced a minimum wage to stop companies exploiting workers just to maximize profits and dividends to stock holders. Not just 'blue collar' but as I've experienced, 'white collar' as well. Because of minimum wage law.. the amount of people needing support just so they can afford to live why working has decreased."

So what exactly do you do for a living Jules? Who do you work for?

"Then companies need to pay a fair wage that can be lived on then. And not as experienced here do everything they can to not pay a living wage. If not, then you just end up with one of your pet hates... illegal immigrants doing the work."

As I said, there are plenty of companies that pay excellent wages. Don't work for those that don't. And if you can't get a better job because you sat on your lazy butt and didn't better yourself with proper schooling, it's your own fault.


"Now... Dan.. can you stay on these points?"

Everyone knows who has a penchant for rabbit trails and word twisting. News Flash, it's a he and he lives at your address. But I must say, nice job this time. Your post is a perfect example (snipes aside) of how to hold a discussion. You stated your point without twisting mine. There's hope for you yet.

I remember years ago a prog about American car companies.. The cars were just not upto the standard that other countries insisted on regarding quality and safety. This caused them to have to spend extra time and money off the domestic market production lines making the cars exportable rather than make them exportable straight away.

Artful Dodger: You've not answered the point.. If everyone is paying crap wages then what? Businesses are not going to hike prices re wage increases unless it is all at once. While wages are low everywhere then what. Yes.. change jobs... but then what about the jobs that people do that are essential?

Now.. who I work for is my private life.. I mean.. are you going to advertise who you work for on the board??

"And if you can't get a better job because you sat on your lazy butt and didn't better yourself with proper schooling, it's your own fault. "

That, I find a very limited interpretation of why someone might not have a good ed. I saw a story of lady who was made prisoner by 'daddy' over many years. People who've been undiagnosed with the likes of dyslexia, etc.

Now stop trying to get personal, I can have fun just posting political snips.

(V): "You've not answered the point.. If everyone is paying crap wages then what?"

Not everyone is paying "crap" wages. I've already pointed this fact out.

"While wages are low everywhere then what."

They aren't low everywhere.


"Now.. who I work for is my private life.. I mean.. are you going to advertise who you work for on the board??"

Unemployed then? Didn't ask for details. Just what line of work.

"That, I find a very limited interpretation of why someone might not have a good ed. I saw a story of lady who was made prisoner by 'daddy' over many years. People who've been undiagnosed with the likes of dyslexia, etc."

A small number. There are always exceptions. But exceptions are not the rule.

you asked who I work for.... please stop getting personal. I will not post confidential info on this board.

N' no.. as I told Bernice I'm not unemployed. Read back

(V): you talk like an unemployed guy

Artful Dodger: So... all the people getting $5 an hour are supposed to pay for more ed.. more training, etc.. two (or 3 jobs) and run a home while on a tight budget especially now while it is an employers market job wise?

"A small number. There are always exceptions. But exceptions are not the rule."

A small number... when did Jesus come back and change everything?

Artful Dodger: What do you do and who for?

(V): Most people make more than 5 dollars an hour.

BTW, minimum wage is 8.67 as of next year.

(V): You know what I do for a living. I'm a model and drive a cab.

Artful Dodger: The UK minimum wage this October is $10.02 dollars at current exchange rates.

(V): If that's the case, why be dishonest and post $5???

Artful Dodger: but we all know that is not true.

(V): Then why did you ask?

Artful Dodger: It was not dishonesty.. can't you tell the difference? I was just making a point of low wages.

(V): It was dishonest. You linked it to minimum wage. It's NOT at $5.

Libyan rebels are battling troops loyal to Col Muammar Gaddafi for control of Tripoli, after they launched an assault on the capital from several directions.

Rebel commanders say they have taken control of about 80% of the capital, including the headquarters of state TV.

But fighting is still raging in parts of the city, and the rebels have not managed to find the Libyan leader.

World leaders have urged Col Gaddafi to step down. US President Obama said his 42-year rule "was coming to an end".

The rebels were met by jubilant crowds in central Green Square, which was previously the scene of nightly pro-Gaddafi demonstrations.


....A former British ambassador to Libya, Sir Richard Dalton, has told the BBC he trusts the rebel council to manage a transition: "I believe that the constitutional principles laid down by the Transitional National Council will be their guide, and that they will make their very, very best endeavours to realise all of them.".......

United States Vice-President Joe Biden, who is visiting China, has said the US would never default on its debt.

In a speech on the last day of his visit, he reiterated that China's large holdings of dollar assets were safe.

His trip comes amid mounting tension between the two over America's debt.

Chinese officials have criticised the political row in the US over raising its borrowing ceiling, and expressed concern over the recent downgrade of the country's credit rating.

"You're safe," Mr Biden told university students in the south-western town of Chengdua, in answer to a question about Washington's ability to repay its debt.

(V): Yeah, Biden also promised everyone free college education during the campaign. What a loser.

Artful Dodger: Australias minimum hourly rate is $13.74....I would NEVER work for that little amount of money. as for being unemployed, have never been unemployed and will never be unemployed. If there was ever a time of difficulty (I can't remember one but..if..) I would work for myself, and in fact the last 20 years that is just what I have done :)

I personally believe that the kids will be like the parents....you will have generation after generation of "unemployables"

Artful Dodger: I saw a show on Freegan's about 6 months ago...no it was a WIFE SWAP show, and one family lived as freegans.....living out of rubbish containers. They used to wait until the supermarkets had closed for the day and then rob the bins of any discards.....it was sickening and disgusting what they made the kids do and eat....also it was against the law ( well that is what was said in the show)....now I think it was an English show but can't be sure.:(

Unfortunately for Freegan's, small independent shops have started to eradicate the food waste that the chains have created. After top chef's have lived and seen the waste that too much packaging has created they are shocked how much perfectly good food is thrown away. One top TV chef commentated how it was stupid to through away a dozen eggs if only one was broken, fruit and veg through one out of 'six' being bruised... so the whole punnet has to be chucked. Meat... that somehow (as the chef's laughed) goes off at midnight... like Cinderella dress turning back... the big shops have brainwashed us into throwing food away and that is a disgrace.

Yet the smaller shops are bringing back the principles of buying loose. No longer packaged, the fruit is loose and not bound by the condition of it's neighbour. That mother nature does not say a cucumber is 25.56mm x 320.149mm.

Bernice: It could be, but it is also an American show, and it sounds like an episode I saw.

**That mother nature does not say a cucumber is 25.56mm x 320.149mm.**

HUH?

rod03801: as i said I wasn't sure.

"Best before" date labels could be scrapped in an attempt to cut the £680 worth of food thrown away by the average UK household each year.

New government guidance to shops aims to put more focus on "use by" dates on items such as prawns and yoghurt which have a definite shelf life.

The initiative follows consultation with manufacturers and retailers. It will also target "sell by" and "display until" labels which it is thought add to consumers' confusion. These labels are generally used by shops for stock control.

The changes will be brought in over the next month and will not involve new legislation.

According to the advisory body Waste and Resources Action Programme, households can end up binning up to a quarter of their weekly food and drink purchases.

A spokesperson for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: "By law, pre-packed food must show a 'best before' date - even though many foods are still safe to eat after that date.

"This is very different from the 'use by' date that shows when food is no longer safe and should be thrown away. Being clear on the difference between the two could help us all to reduce our food waste."

Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said: "I am dismayed so much food goes to waste and if the date labels are part of the problem, it's one thing we should be able to improve."


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment.....>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

147.
spitfirestudent
18th April 2011 - 12:29

Aw does that mean I can't get perfectly good discounted food at 7pm in my local shop anymore? How will a student survive!? I don't like that so much good food gets wasted or that most people don't understand that's what a freezer is for. I see use by dates as a good way to save money. I just bought fresh yoghurt yesterday for 19p! Bargain.

Bernice: Yes, the cycle of poverty. Difficult to break with so many entitlements making it attractive to be lazy (for some).

Rebels have breached Col Muammar Gaddafi's compound in Tripoli, one of the few areas still under the Libyan leader's control, witnesses say.

Heavily-armed fighters had earlier streamed into the capital in dozens of pick-up trucks to attack the compound.

TV footage showed smoke rising from buildings across the city, and the sound of shelling could be heard.

Col Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam appeared in Tripoli overnight, hours after rebels said he had been captured.

A rebel leader said his appearance was embarrassing, but would not stop their advance.

(V): Uploaded by AssociatedPress on Oct 16, 2008

It's a bit dated. What's your point?

..But the bunny trail was cold, and unused for nearly three years. Undaunted, our hero soon re-emerged and scampered away in search of the clever and elusive Easter Bunny killer bunny.. boing?!

First of all, isn't socialism just a nicer form of communism? The expressed ideals and proposed outcome seem pretty much the same. But, if at least in theory, it's supposed to be about even distribution of resources, wouldn't that necessarily imply a two class system? A working class and ruling class. And within those two classes there would be many levels (clases) of power and responsibility. So what's the difference between what would have to work out be some sort of corporate monarchy ruling over everyone else, to insure even distribution of resources, and any other kind of monarchy, dictatorship, etc. Aside from the high ideals I'm accustomed to hearing about, what real motivation is there to avoid despots and wanna be despots from taking over? I've never understood why anyone would believe a 'perfect' system of governing is even possible, or desirable. In a perfect universe, all matter and energy would be evenly distributed. Never mind that nothing could live in that kind of universe, only the fact that it would be perfect is relevant..

???

(V):

> Rebels have breached Col Muammar Gaddafi's compound in Tripoli,

There is nothing worse in this world than lies and propaganda. Looking at what has happened in Lybia makes me wonder whether our western governments are abject morons who act without thinking, or whether they are callous fascists who act only for wealth and power.

I say this because our mass media is incapable of digging at the truth of anything. I think everyone should read this article that was published as far back as March:

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

Some 5000 posta go I said that Al Qaeda had infiltrated the Lybian rebel movement and what our governments were doing was feeding Al Qaeda. Consider some snippets from the article:

"Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime. "

"Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries"."

"Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan". He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008."

"Earlier this month, al-Qaeda issued a call for supporters to back the Libyan rebellion, which it said would lead to the imposition of "the stage of Islam" in the country."

Maybe I am really dim, but why are our governments providing money, weapons, training and air force support to a rebel movement that wants to bring Al Qaeda's values to Lybia? If al-Hasidi was captured in Afghanistan, the USA knew that he was an Al Qaeda operative. They also knew that his fighters were in Iraq fighting against and killing Coalition soldiers.

Western governments are really naive if they think that Lybia will magically become a democracy. Nato has planted the seeds of another sectarian violence quagmire by allowing Al Qaeda and its veterans from Iraq into Lybia.

"Mustafa Gheriani, a businessman and rebel spokesman, acknowledged the ragtag inefficiencies of the revolutionary councils but urged me not to believe Qaddafi’s charges of extremism. “The people here are looking to the West, not to some kind of socialist or other extreme system—that’s what we had here before,” he said. “But, if they become disappointed with the West, they may become easy prey for extremists.”
(From the New Yorker)

The West already destroyed Iraq for its oil. Now they are doing to Lybia too. Either our governments are absolute morons, or callous fascists. Either way, all I see is nothing but propaganda and lies.

Übergeek 바둑이: ok....

"Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya". "

Personally, I would expect some al-Qaeda supporters to be involved. There is no strong indication at the moment that al-Qaeda is running the rebellion, just they are taking part.. which considering the region and politics is nothing strange.

Does that mean al-Qaeda will fill the power vacuum? I don't think so.

"Western governments are really naive if they think that Lybia will magically become a democracy."

I don't think they are that naive... And as it was the people doing the ground fighting rather than westerners it's going to be harder for al-Qaeda to 'recruit'. This is a popular revolution/civil war, not an invasion.

77% of Democrats (and Ron Paul) Voted Against Rules Of Engagement That Protect Our Troops
Andrew G. Bostom




Florida Republican Congressman John Mica offered the following morally clear Amendment (5/25/2011-H.AMDT.318 (A018) Amends H.R.1540):


Amendment requires that the rules of engagement [ROE] allow any military service personnel assigned to duty in a designated hostile fire area to have rules of engagement that fully protect their right to proactively defend themselves from hostile actions.

The results? (tallied here):

143 out of 185 Democrats present -- 77% -- voted against this amendment; 217 out of 235 Republicans present -- 92% -- voted for it.

As for the two Republicans in Congress running who are Presidential candidates, Michele Bachmann voted for the amendment; Ron Paul against it.

U.S. Jews warn Israel not to get too cozy with Glenn Beck
Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President of the Union for Reform Judaism, says Beck is very extreme and controversial even among right-wing groups in the United States.


NEW YORK – The warm welcome extreme right-wing media personality Glenn Beck has receiving in Israel has led to criticism of the American pundit by Jewish leaders in New York.

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President of the Union for Reform Judaism, told Haaretz he believed that Beck was very extreme and controversial even among right-wing groups in the United States. Yoffie pointed to the Fox News television network, which had canceled Beck’s show and distanced itself from him.

Yoffie said that Beck had mocked the distress of hundreds of thousands of protesters in Israel, referring to the right-wing pundit’s comments about the tent protests in Israel earlier this month when he compared protesters’ calls for increased social benefits to those of the former Soviet Union.

According to Yoffie, Beck’s comments on the protest in Israel are a slap in the face to hundreds of thousands of protesters, and expressed dismay that such a man is holding events in Israel with the participation of cheering masses. Yoffie, who said he prefered not to speak about Beck and lend him undue prominence, said the pundit had expressed himself hatefully and rudely against President Obama, who is Israel’s important and faithful ally.

Seymour Reich, former chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations and a leading New York attorney, said Tuesday that he believed Beck was taking rude advantage of Israel in order to rehabilitate his television career and reputation.

Reich said he believed Israeli and Jews everywhere should be careful about embracing an extreme right-winger like Beck, who shows sympathy for Israel in order to hide his extreme-right ideology.

(V): It's well known that many liberal American Jews will side with whatever liberal cause is before them, even if it concerns Israel. It's because of their liberal bent that many of them have little regard for the safety and status of Israel itself, so it should come as no surprise that most of that criticism of Beck would would come from them. However, your point is well taken by anyone ignorant of this.

Iamon lyme: You're right. And for any public figure, you can always find an article or two that is critical of them. So it comes as no surprise that there are some Jews that are critical of Beck. But more appreciate him than those that do not. So it's really a minor point that Jules brings up. It's like posting that camels fart. Yes they do. But it's not significant.

Artful Dodger: It's like posting that camels fart. Yes they do. But it's not significant. ...but...but...it would be significant if you was standing "behind" them.

Bernice: good point!

Myth: The deficit was caused by Bush’s tax cuts.

Fact: For over four decades, 1960 through 2000, federal revenues averaged 18.2% of Gross Domestic Product and the trend was virtually flat. The final Bush tax rates became effective in 2003. In 2006 and 2007, well after the new tax rates were in effect, federal revenues were 18.2% and 18.5% of GDP, above historical levels. The federal government collected over half a trillion dollars more in 2007 than it did in 2000.

Myth: Republicans spent like drunken sailors.

Fact: Federal spending from 1960 through 2000 averaged 20.3% of GDP, with a slightly upward trend. The average over all Bush years, 2001 through 2008, was 19.6% of GDP – below the historical average. The 2001-2008 average deficit was also below the 1960-2000 average.

Myth: Republicans exploded the federal debt.

Fact: Per the US Constitution, "all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." Democrats controlled the House from 1955 through 1994, leaving the federal debt held by the public at 49.2% of GDP. Republicans then controlled the House from 1995 through 2006 and left it at 36.5% of GDP — below the level left by Democrat Congresses.

At the end of Bush’s presidency the debt was 40.2% of GDP. Now, two years post-Bush and four years of a Democrat Congress, the debt is 64% of GDP, the highest it’s been since Harry Truman was paying off World War II.

Myth: The deficit is due to the Iraq War.

Fact: The Congressional Budget Office calculated that the Iraq War cost $709 billion from 2003 through 2010. Total federal deficits over those eight years added up to $4.944 trillion, with the bulk of that ($2.968 trillion) added in just the last two years, after Bush was out of office.

By contrast, federal spending on education over 2003-2010 was $792 billion, and Obama’s stimulus will cost $814 billion. How often do you hear that our deficit problem was caused by education spending?

Myth: The Reagan and Bush tax cuts only benefited the rich.

Fact: According to the CBO, "The lowest three income quintiles have seen declines in their average tax rates since the early 1980s .¤.¤. The average tax rate on the top quintile has fluctuated more, with periods of increases and decreases, and was somewhat lower in 2007 than in 1979."

In fact, the top quintile (top 20% of taxpayers) paid about 25% of its income in federal taxes in 2007, about the same as it did in 1982. By contrast, the middle and bottom quintiles paid less than 15% and 5%, respectively, both lower than at any time since 1979. The bottom two quintiles had negative average income taxes – they received more in tax credits than they paid in income taxes. Per the CBO, "In 2007, about 35 percent of households did not owe any federal income taxes."

Myth: The deficit is due to military spending.

Fact: If federal military spending had been eliminated in its entirety in 2009, the deficit would still have been $776 billion, a historical high. Defense spending is less than one fifth of the federal budget and less than 5% of GDP. When the economy was doing quite well in the 1960s, defense spending was twice as high in those terms. In fact, President Bush presided over smaller defense budgets (as a fraction of GDP) than all presidents from 1941 through 1993.

Myth: "The last eight years," "the last ten years," "the last decade," "the lost decade."

Fact: From 2000 through 2007 real GDP grew 2.4% annually and real disposable personal income grew 2.8% annually. The economy added 5.5 million net new jobs in those years. The unemployment rate stood at 4.4% in May 2007, just before the newly elected, Democrat-controlled Congress raised the minimum wage.

From August 2003 through December 2007, over eight million net new jobs were created.

Fiscal year 2007 was the last one under a federal budget written by a Republican-controlled Congress, and marked the peak in real GDP, jobs, and the stock market. The bad economy of the "last ten years" was all in the last three years – under federal budgets written by a Democrat-controlled Congress.

Myth: Bush deregulated banks, causing the financial crisis. Fact: President Bush did not deregulate banks, or much of anything else. He increased staffing and spending on economic regulation more than President Clinton did. The number of pages in the Federal Register averaged more in Bush’s first term than at any prior time in US history. He signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the most sweeping regulation of business since the New Deal.

The New York Times, no cheerleader for President Bush, said in 2003, "The Bush administration is rightly pushing for the Treasury Department to regulate the two giants [Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae], along with the network of federal home loan banks." It was Barney Frank and other Democrats who helped kill such regulation. Frank said, "These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis."

Not a Myth: The above facts are matters of historical record. The sources of many myths are computer models rather than results from the real world. Remember the economic model that said the unemployment rate would not go above 8% if Obama’s stimulus was passed? The stimulus was passed, yet the unemployment rate went above 10% and has been above 9% for the last 19 months.

The models that say extending today’s tax rates would add to the deficit assume that tax rates have no effect on taxpayer behavior. That is an assumption virtually all economists, and most non-economists, know is false. Yet Congress requires the CBO to base its predictions on that bogus assumption.

The reality is that government spending is the problem. It is absurdly above historical levels right now and is unsustainable. It is driven by payments for individuals (64% of 2010 federal outlays) and entitlements, especially health care spending. ObamaCare did not bend the health-care cost curve down, either; it bent it up.