It's a good thing cell phones were invented when they were. When I was supervising we relied on those old Mororola two-way radios that worked - sometimes - about 20 miles from the yard. Further than that... maybe. So, cut off from civilization and our bosses, we supervised.
Now it seems these "supervisors" are required to call in for any little irregularity. "A horse fly landed on my computer, Boss. Should I get the client to sign a waiver?"
Oy vey....
Of course the times have changed. Supervisors used to be the guys who'd spent 2-5 years operating the equipment on the crews. Now they're the guys (and girls) who've spent four years reading books and writing papers.
Perhaps it's not a bad thing.
Ernie
:)
"You have been gone so long, I completely forgot, thanks for reminding me that only Ron Paul conservatives like you, have the ability to do any critical thinking…"
No problem. Glad to do it.
"How many delegates did he get? Was it 42?"
I don't remember exactly but that sounds about right. Which lends credence to my theory that the dumbing down of America is about 58% complete.
"The election is over the majority elected this president, his vision and politics…."
Like I said.....
"It is easy for you and your party to throw stones if you are not actively engaging on finding solutions to our current problems. "
Sure it is... it was easy enough for you and yours to piss and moan when it was Bush on the hot seat. Now it's your candidate screwing things up and having to take the heat. Get used to it.
I complained about Bush's admin when I thought he was wrong. I'll complain about the current one when I think it's wrong. But don't harbor any concerns about my not offering alternatives. I've done that here and in correspondence with my past Texas and with my now LA representatives. Without a long drawn out explanation, the quick and dirty of ALL of them is for government to sit down and shut up.
Ernie
"Well Ernie how much confidence do you have in a 35 year projection?"
'Bout as much as you have in a 90-year program which is what Waxman-Markey is based on.
I have to agree to some extent, Mike, that we have to put the fires out when they crop up; i.e. throwing $1.5 trillion in economic "stimulus" at a seriously faltering economy. However, I don't agree that we must do so with no thought of the long term effects the current actions will have.
No one can foresee the future but taking action without doing our best to estimate where those actions will lead is a fool's errand and those estimates MUST extend past the end of our collective noses. It seems to me that so much history of past spending excesses is simply being ignored or overlooked.
Obama's own Secretary of the Treasury, Tim "Artful (Tax) Dodger" Geithner has said this course of spending excesses is unsustainable. VP Biden echoes that sentiment and yet not only does this (and yes, past) administrations keep spending at unsustainable rates, the current one is doing so in spades.
Yet we still entertain alternatives, such as cap-and-trade and socialized health care, that add to the deficit, increase costs, drive inflation through the roof, reduce our ability to compete in a global economy and will provide only marginal, if any, benefit.
Ernie
It seems each side "spins" the facts - or in this case, the estimates - to his or her own advantage:
Mike:"Even the right wing conservative Heritage Foundation figure’s the average families’ would only increase by $1500 a year."
But you fail to mention that same study (Heritage) estimated the *direct* cost of cap and trade would be $1500 / year but further estimated that the *indirect* costs could approach as much as an additional $4000/yr through 2035.
oops
Good argument for getting as much information as possible and using a little critical thinking instead of just parroting one's favorite political hack.
I agree that Obama has stated that he favors continuing to allow people the choice to keep their employer-provided health insurance and that he disagrees with the single-payer alternative. But I agree only insofar as that's what I've heard Obama *say.* I believe that the fact of the matter is that the private insurance industry will be pushed out and/or regulated to death so that the inevitable conclusion is the same - a single-payer health industry with the government at the helm.
One has to be a bit more subtle with the socialism when overtaking a society that prides itself on it's independence - even if the majority of them only preach it rather than really want to practice it.
Ernie
"Lobbyists and PACS have a constitutional right to petition the government....Not allowing them to do that is like legislating from the bench...Or is that just for liberals?"
Lobbyists and PACS have a constitutional right to petition the government (and, speaking of TeaParties, so does EVERYONE - whether you agree with them or not.) Lobbyists and PACS should NOT have the right, nor the ability, to buy influence and results from the government and that is just what they do with outrageous contributions.
They have the right to TALK all they want but the practice of contributing anything beyond words should be patently illegal. It isn't.
Ernie
Mike: "Social Security was called "Socialism" by the conservatives when FDR first introduced it....It is now that the conservatives see the popularity of the permanent and federally controlled program that they somehow want to make exceptions..."
This is just so wrong on so many levels.
You're putting your cart before my horse again, Mike. (Or more correctly, putting my horse after your cart but the same principle.) SS was decried by some, not all, conservatives at its inception. But that's an absolute that, like most absolutes is just wrong. It's hardly worth mentioning.
Remember, that's back in a time when most people still believed that they were responsible for themselves; when a man's word was his bond; etc. When those people were being coerced into giving a portion of the earnings they were working for in order to BE responsible for themselves to the government to provide for those who HADN'T provided for themselves, yes, they undoubtedly saw that as a step toward socialism.
Try for a minute to put aside your firm belief that the government is your and everyone's caretaker and perhaps you'll understand where they were coming from.
It would only be foolishness not to see the current "popularity" of the program but let's not confuse acceptance of the ideal with acceptance of what it's become and with the government's dismal record of administering it. (We'll leave the remainder of federal programs the government has FUBARed for another blog.)
If I work and pay 7 1/2% - and actually it's 15% since my employer contributes a like amount so ostensibly I've earned those funds too - of my earnings over the forty plus years I've been doing so, you're damned right I expect to get something from it. If you picture that as "only now seeing the popularity" of a program I have been given ZERO choice about contributing to, you're being... disingenous. (Geeez, I love that word!)
But again, do not confuse my acceptance of something I have no choice but to accept with elation over a system that is mismanaged, cumbersome, inefficient AND socialistic. Yes, socialistic. As you pointed out, many have received benefits well in excess of what they ever contributed but don't ignore the flip side - many have "contributed" much more than they ever have or ever will recover.
Ernie
And now *this* just in....
2009 Budget Deficit Estimated to be $1.8 Trillion
Voices crying in the wilderness and no one in DC is listening, nor apparently cares.
Ernie
Wow.... 'nuff sour grapes around here to fuel a couple of good wineries.
My first thought was, "Where's the rest of it?"
Geez, Gabe, let the man talk...ramble... whatever. He's pretty good at diggin' holes he can't crawl out of.
Ernie
Oh, and take an English class would ya?
Spelling, grammar, punctuation and the like are really fascinating things. Your command of the English language is second only to your complete lack of comprehension.
I do stand in "our shoes". Every day. I'm not a cop and never have been and I generally find that those who hate cops - generically, the way you seem to - are people who think the laws don't apply to them. You believe the laws should protect you from others but feel completely at ease disregarding them at your convenience and are likely to be incensed when called to account for it when others are put at risk by your actions.
At the risk of getting this comment deleted: You, sir, are an idiot.
Good day.
Ernie
Don't call me "bro."
We ain't "bro's". We ain't brothers, we ain't pardners and we ain't friends.
I have my suspicions, sir, about what you actually are but tact, decorum and the prominently posted rules of this venue forbid my stating those suspicions here. Which, as it ironically turns out, was the point of my reply that started this conflagration. You obviously missed the point then and I have no delusions that you'll have the good sense to grasp the point of this one either.
In the words of the late W.C. Fields, "Go away, sonny. Ya bother me."
Newsletter
Similar experiences here, VBB.
It's a good thing cell phones were invented when they were. When I was supervising we relied on those old Mororola two-way radios that worked - sometimes - about 20 miles from the yard. Further than that... maybe. So, cut off from civilization and our bosses, we supervised.
Now it seems these "supervisors" are required to call in for any little irregularity. "A horse fly landed on my computer, Boss. Should I get the client to sign a waiver?"
Oy vey....
Of course the times have changed. Supervisors used to be the guys who'd spent 2-5 years operating the equipment on the crews. Now they're the guys (and girls) who've spent four years reading books and writing papers.
Perhaps it's not a bad thing.
Ernie
:)
"You have been gone so long, I completely forgot, thanks for reminding me that only Ron Paul conservatives like you, have the ability to do any critical thinking…"
No problem. Glad to do it.
"How many delegates did he get? Was it 42?"
I don't remember exactly but that sounds about right. Which lends credence to my theory that the dumbing down of America is about 58% complete.
"The election is over the majority elected this president, his vision and politics…."
Like I said.....
"It is easy for you and your party to throw stones if you are not actively engaging on finding solutions to our current problems. "
Sure it is... it was easy enough for you and yours to piss and moan when it was Bush on the hot seat. Now it's your candidate screwing things up and having to take the heat. Get used to it.
I complained about Bush's admin when I thought he was wrong. I'll complain about the current one when I think it's wrong. But don't harbor any concerns about my not offering alternatives. I've done that here and in correspondence with my past Texas and with my now LA representatives. Without a long drawn out explanation, the quick and dirty of ALL of them is for government to sit down and shut up.
Ernie
"Well Ernie how much confidence do you have in a 35 year projection?"
'Bout as much as you have in a 90-year program which is what Waxman-Markey is based on.
I have to agree to some extent, Mike, that we have to put the fires out when they crop up; i.e. throwing $1.5 trillion in economic "stimulus" at a seriously faltering economy. However, I don't agree that we must do so with no thought of the long term effects the current actions will have.
No one can foresee the future but taking action without doing our best to estimate where those actions will lead is a fool's errand and those estimates MUST extend past the end of our collective noses. It seems to me that so much history of past spending excesses is simply being ignored or overlooked.
Obama's own Secretary of the Treasury, Tim "Artful (Tax) Dodger" Geithner has said this course of spending excesses is unsustainable. VP Biden echoes that sentiment and yet not only does this (and yes, past) administrations keep spending at unsustainable rates, the current one is doing so in spades.
Yet we still entertain alternatives, such as cap-and-trade and socialized health care, that add to the deficit, increase costs, drive inflation through the roof, reduce our ability to compete in a global economy and will provide only marginal, if any, benefit.
Ernie
It seems each side "spins" the facts - or in this case, the estimates - to his or her own advantage:
Mike:"Even the right wing conservative Heritage Foundation figure’s the average families’ would only increase by $1500 a year."
But you fail to mention that same study (Heritage) estimated the *direct* cost of cap and trade would be $1500 / year but further estimated that the *indirect* costs could approach as much as an additional $4000/yr through 2035.
oops
Good argument for getting as much information as possible and using a little critical thinking instead of just parroting one's favorite political hack.
I agree that Obama has stated that he favors continuing to allow people the choice to keep their employer-provided health insurance and that he disagrees with the single-payer alternative. But I agree only insofar as that's what I've heard Obama *say.* I believe that the fact of the matter is that the private insurance industry will be pushed out and/or regulated to death so that the inevitable conclusion is the same - a single-payer health industry with the government at the helm.
One has to be a bit more subtle with the socialism when overtaking a society that prides itself on it's independence - even if the majority of them only preach it rather than really want to practice it.
Ernie
"Lobbyists and PACS have a constitutional right to petition the government....Not allowing them to do that is like legislating from the bench...Or is that just for liberals?"
Lobbyists and PACS have a constitutional right to petition the government (and, speaking of TeaParties, so does EVERYONE - whether you agree with them or not.) Lobbyists and PACS should NOT have the right, nor the ability, to buy influence and results from the government and that is just what they do with outrageous contributions.
They have the right to TALK all they want but the practice of contributing anything beyond words should be patently illegal. It isn't.
Ernie
Mike: "Social Security was called "Socialism" by the conservatives when FDR first introduced it....It is now that the conservatives see the popularity of the permanent and federally controlled program that they somehow want to make exceptions..."
This is just so wrong on so many levels.
You're putting your cart before my horse again, Mike. (Or more correctly, putting my horse after your cart but the same principle.) SS was decried by some, not all, conservatives at its inception. But that's an absolute that, like most absolutes is just wrong. It's hardly worth mentioning.
Remember, that's back in a time when most people still believed that they were responsible for themselves; when a man's word was his bond; etc. When those people were being coerced into giving a portion of the earnings they were working for in order to BE responsible for themselves to the government to provide for those who HADN'T provided for themselves, yes, they undoubtedly saw that as a step toward socialism.
Try for a minute to put aside your firm belief that the government is your and everyone's caretaker and perhaps you'll understand where they were coming from.
It would only be foolishness not to see the current "popularity" of the program but let's not confuse acceptance of the ideal with acceptance of what it's become and with the government's dismal record of administering it. (We'll leave the remainder of federal programs the government has FUBARed for another blog.)
If I work and pay 7 1/2% - and actually it's 15% since my employer contributes a like amount so ostensibly I've earned those funds too - of my earnings over the forty plus years I've been doing so, you're damned right I expect to get something from it. If you picture that as "only now seeing the popularity" of a program I have been given ZERO choice about contributing to, you're being... disingenous. (Geeez, I love that word!)
But again, do not confuse my acceptance of something I have no choice but to accept with elation over a system that is mismanaged, cumbersome, inefficient AND socialistic. Yes, socialistic. As you pointed out, many have received benefits well in excess of what they ever contributed but don't ignore the flip side - many have "contributed" much more than they ever have or ever will recover.
Ernie
And now *this* just in....
2009 Budget Deficit Estimated to be $1.8 Trillion
Voices crying in the wilderness and no one in DC is listening, nor apparently cares.
Ernie
Wow.... 'nuff sour grapes around here to fuel a couple of good wineries.
My first thought was, "Where's the rest of it?"
Geez, Gabe, let the man talk...ramble... whatever. He's pretty good at diggin' holes he can't crawl out of.
Ernie
Oh, and take an English class would ya?
Spelling, grammar, punctuation and the like are really fascinating things. Your command of the English language is second only to your complete lack of comprehension.
I do stand in "our shoes". Every day. I'm not a cop and never have been and I generally find that those who hate cops - generically, the way you seem to - are people who think the laws don't apply to them. You believe the laws should protect you from others but feel completely at ease disregarding them at your convenience and are likely to be incensed when called to account for it when others are put at risk by your actions.
At the risk of getting this comment deleted: You, sir, are an idiot.
Good day.
Ernie
Don't call me "bro."
We ain't "bro's". We ain't brothers, we ain't pardners and we ain't friends.
I have my suspicions, sir, about what you actually are but tact, decorum and the prominently posted rules of this venue forbid my stating those suspicions here. Which, as it ironically turns out, was the point of my reply that started this conflagration. You obviously missed the point then and I have no delusions that you'll have the good sense to grasp the point of this one either.
In the words of the late W.C. Fields, "Go away, sonny. Ya bother me."
Ernie