[
I live in a semi-rural area. We recently had a new neighbor call the
local township administrative office to request the removal of the
Deer
Crossing sign on our road.
The reason: "too many deer were being hit by cars" and he didn't want
them to cross there anymore.


My daughter went to a local Taco Bell and ordered a taco.
She asked the person behind the counter for "minimal lettuce."
He said he was sorry, but they only had iceberg.


I was at the airport, checking in at the gate when an airport employee
asked, "Has anyone put anything in your baggage without your
knowledge?"
To which I replied, "If it was without my knowledge, how would I
know?"
He smiled knowingly and nodded, "That's why we ask."


The stoplight on the corner buzzes when it's safe to cross the street.
I was crossing with an intellectually challenged coworker of mine when
she asked if I knew what the buzzer was for.
I explained that it signals blind people when the light is red.
Appalled, she responded, "What on earth are blind people doing
driving?!"


At a good-bye luncheon for an old and dear coworker who was leaving
the
company due to "downsizing," our manager commented cheerfully, "this
is
fun. We should do this more often." Not a word was spoken. We all just
looked at each other with that deer-in-the-headlights stare.


I work with an individual who plugged her power strip back into itself
and
for the life of her couldn't understand why her system would not turn
on.


When my husband and I arrived at an automobile dealership to pick up
our
car, we were told the keys had been locked! in it. We went to the
service department and found a mechanic working feverishly to unlock
the
driver's side door.
As I watched from the passenger side, I instinctively tried the door
handle and discovered that it was unlocked. "Hey," I announced to the
technician, "it's open!"
To which he replied, "I know - I already got that side."

They walk among us..............scary!!
]

I've noticed that . . . . and some of them have PhD's.
Bugs

And you want more of my tax dollars to go to them. . . .

Cliff wrote:
[
I live in a semi-rural area. We recently had a new neighbor call the
local township administrative office to request the removal of the
Deer
Crossing sign on our road.
The reason: "too many deer were being hit by cars" and he didn't want
them to cross there anymore.

Cliff wrote:

[
I live in a semi-rural area. We recently had a new neighbor call the
local township administrative office to request the removal of the
Deer
Crossing sign on our road.
The reason: "too many deer were being hit by cars" and he didn't want
them to cross there anymore.


My daughter went to a local Taco Bell and ordered a taco.
She asked the person behind the counter for "minimal lettuce."
He said he was sorry, but they only had iceberg.


I was at the airport, checking in at the gate when an airport employee
asked, "Has anyone put anything in your baggage without your
knowledge?"
To which I replied, "If it was without my knowledge, how would I
know?"
He smiled knowingly and nodded, "That's why we ask."


The stoplight on the corner buzzes when it's safe to cross the street.
I was crossing with an intellectually challenged coworker of mine when
she asked if I knew what the buzzer was for.
I explained that it signals blind people when the light is red.
Appalled, she responded, "What on earth are blind people doing
driving?!"


At a good-bye luncheon for an old and dear coworker who was leaving
the
company due to "downsizing," our manager commented cheerfully, "this
is
fun. We should do this more often." Not a word was spoken. We all just
looked at each other with that deer-in-the-headlights stare.


I work with an individual who plugged her power strip back into itself
and
for the life of her couldn't understand why her system would not turn
on.


When my husband and I arrived at an automobile dealership to pick up
our
car, we were told the keys had been locked! in it. We went to the
service department and found a mechanic working feverishly to unlock
the
driver's side door.
As I watched from the passenger side, I instinctively tried the door
handle and discovered that it was unlocked. "Hey," I announced to the
technician, "it's open!"
To which he replied, "I know - I already got that side."

They walk among us..............scary!!
]
Just gotta watch the fish from the local river. Where did the water come from.
Bottom feeders pecking on shinny spots of mercury ?

That gives the 'brain dead' 'sickness'.

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:10:58 GMT, Sue wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 06:51:43 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 01:00:04 GMT, Sue wrote:

Real-life Welfare Quotations

I've seen these and have my doubts. Certainly possible but not
probable. I've seen, heard and read some pretty odd and funny real
life things in my job though.

Have any more good ones?

Usually it's the names that give us a chuckle. Recently I saw a birth
certificate for a child of one of my clients that showed the girl's
middle name to be Douche. Honest.

I once heard of a kid who showed up at his first day of school with a name tag
on and the teachers had a bit of a problem with his name. It was spelled
****head, but according to his mother it was pronounced Shuh THEY ed, or
something like that, and meant something in Swahili or some other African
language. Something tells me that kid would be explaining that name a LOT of
times in his life, or getting a nickname(or getting it changed as soon as he
could ).

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:42:53 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:10:58 GMT, Sue wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 06:51:43 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 01:00:04 GMT, Sue wrote:

Real-life Welfare Quotations

I've seen these and have my doubts. Certainly possible but not
probable. I've seen, heard and read some pretty odd and funny real
life things in my job though.

Have any more good ones?

Usually it's the names that give us a chuckle. Recently I saw a birth
certificate for a child of one of my clients that showed the girl's
middle name to be Douche. Honest.

I once heard of a kid who showed up at his first day of school with a name tag
on and the teachers had a bit of a problem with his name. It was spelled
****head, but according to his mother it was pronounced Shuh THEY ed, or
something like that, and meant something in Swahili or some other African
language. Something tells me that kid would be explaining that name a LOT of
times in his life, or getting a nickname(or getting it changed as soon as he
could ).

I don't know that your story is true (and don't know that it isn't),
but it amazes me what some people name their kids. We had another
good one recently, but I can't for the life of me remember what it
was.
Sue

This was posted the other day in a Caribbean travel group:

I have been a Travel Agent for thirty years in Washington, D.C.. Here
are examples why we might just be in BIG trouble!

A senior Senator called and had a question about the documents he needed
in order to fly to China. After a lengthy discussion about passports, I
reminded him that he needed a visa. "Oh, no I don't. I've been to China
many times and never had to have one of those." I double checked and
sure enough, his stay required a visa. When I told him this he said,
"Look, I've been to China four times and every time they have accepted
my American Express!"

I had a New Hampshire Congresswoman ask for an aisle seat, so that her
hair wouldn't get messed up by being near the window.

I got a call from a candidate's staffer, who wanted to go to Capetown. I
started to explain the length of the flight and the passport
information, then she interrupted me with, "I'm not trying to make you
look stupid, but Capetown is in Massachusetts." Without trying to make
her look like the stupid one, I calmly explained, "Cape Cod is in
Massachusetts, Capetown is in Africa." Her response (click).

A senior Vermont Congressman called, furious about a Florida package we
did. I asked what was wrong with his vacation in Orlando. He said he was
expecting an ocean-view room & he didn't have one. I tried to explain
That is not possible, since Orlando is in the middle of the state. He
replied, "Don't lie to me. I looked on the map, and Florida is a very
thin state!"

I got a call from a lawmaker's wife who asked, "Is it possible to see
England from Canada?" I said, "No." She said, "But they look so close on
the map."

An aide for a Bush cabinet member once called and asked if he could rent
a car in Dallas. When I pulled up the reservation, I noticed he had only
a 1-hour layover in Dallas. When I asked him why he wanted to rent a
car, he said, "I heard Dallas was a big airport, and we will need a car
to drive between the gates to save time."

An Illinois Congresswoman called last week. She needed to know how it
was possible that her flight from Detroit left at 8:20 a.m. and got into
Chicago at 8:33 am. I tried to explain that Michigan was an hour ahead
of Illinois, but she could not understand the concept of time zones.
Finally, I told her the plane went very fast, and she bought that!

A New York lawmaker called and asked, "Do airlines put your physical
description on luggage tags? I replied, "No, why do you ask?" She
replied, "Well, when I checked in with the airline, they put a tag on my
luggage that said (FAT), and I am overweight but I think that is very
rude!" After putting her on hold for a minute while I 'looked into it'
(I was actually laughing) I came back and explained the city code for
Fresno, CA is (FAT), and that the airline was just putting a destination
tag on her luggage.

A Senator's aide called to inquire about a trip package to Hawaii. After
going over all the cost info, she asked, "Would it be cheaper to fly to
California and then take the train to Hawaii?"

I just got off the phone with a freshman Congressman who asked, "How do
I know which plane to get on?" I asked him what exactly he meant, to
which he replied, "I was told my flight number is 823, but none of these
darn planes have numbers on them."

A lady Senator called and said, "I need to fly to Pepsi-Cola, FL. Do I
have to get on one of those little computer planes?" I asked if she
meant fly to Pensacola, FL on a commuter plane. She said, "Yeah,
whatever!"

A New Mexico Congresswoman called to make reservations, "I want to go
from Chicago to Rhino, New York." I was at a loss for words Finally, I
said, "Are you sure that's the name of the town?" "Yes, what flights do
you have?" replied the lady. After some searching, I came back with,
"I'm sorry, ma'am, I've looked up every airport code in the country and
can't find a Rhino anywhere." The lady retorted, "Oh, don't be silly!
Everyone knows where it is. Check your map!" I scoured a map of the
state of New York and finally offered, "You don't mean Buffalo, do you?"
"That's it! I knew it was a big animal," she replied.



--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
[
I live in a semi-rural area. We recently had a new neighbor call the
local township administrative office to request the removal of the
Deer
Crossing sign on our road.
The reason: "too many deer were being hit by cars" and he didn't want
them to cross there anymore.


My daughter went to a local Taco Bell and ordered a taco.
She asked the person behind the counter for "minimal lettuce."
He said he was sorry, but they only had iceberg.


I was at the airport, checking in at the gate when an airport employee
asked, "Has anyone put anything in your baggage without your
knowledge?"
To which I replied, "If it was without my knowledge, how would I
know?"
He smiled knowingly and nodded, "That's why we ask."


The stoplight on the corner buzzes when it's safe to cross the street.
I was crossing with an intellectually challenged coworker of mine when
she asked if I knew what the buzzer was for.
I explained that it signals blind people when the light is red.
Appalled, she responded, "What on earth are blind people doing
driving?!"


At a good-bye luncheon for an old and dear coworker who was leaving
the
company due to "downsizing," our manager commented cheerfully, "this
is
fun. We should do this more often." Not a word was spoken. We all just
looked at each other with that deer-in-the-headlights stare.


I work with an individual who plugged her power strip back into itself
and
for the life of her couldn't understand why her system would not turn
on.


When my husband and I arrived at an automobile dealership to pick up
our
car, we were told the keys had been locked! in it. We went to the
service department and found a mechanic working feverishly to unlock
the
driver's side door.
As I watched from the passenger side, I instinctively tried the door
handle and discovered that it was unlocked. "Hey," I announced to the
technician, "it's open!"
To which he replied, "I know - I already got that side."

They walk among us..............scary!!
]

Sue wrote:


I don't know that your story is true (and don't know that it isn't),
but it amazes me what some people name their kids. We had another
good one recently, but I can't for the life of me remember what it
was.

Someone I once knew called King used to threaten to call his first
daughter Kiki and any sons either Joe or Smoe.

Anyways:
http://www.amiright.com/names/siblings/index.shtml

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:27:30 +0100, Guido wrote:

Sue wrote:


I don't know that your story is true (and don't know that it isn't),
but it amazes me what some people name their kids. We had another
good one recently, but I can't for the life of me remember what it
was.

Someone I once knew called King used to threaten to call his first
daughter Kiki and any sons either Joe or Smoe.

I assume he didn't follow through. I would imagine that there are
lots of Joe Kings.


Anyways:
http://www.amiright.com/names/siblings/index.shtml

Off the name business, but yesterday in the fruit and vegetable
department of the grocery store I overheard 3 teenagers talking. One
of the boys asked his companions what arugula is. The girl replied,
"You know. That's the place where that girl was killed."
Sue

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:58:03 GMT, Sue wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:27:30 +0100, Guido wrote:

Sue wrote:


I don't know that your story is true (and don't know that it isn't),
but it amazes me what some people name their kids. We had another
good one recently, but I can't for the life of me remember what it
was.

Someone I once knew called King used to threaten to call his first
daughter Kiki and any sons either Joe or Smoe.

I assume he didn't follow through. I would imagine that there are
lots of Joe Kings.


Anyways:
http://www.amiright.com/names/siblings/index.shtml

Off the name business, but yesterday in the fruit and vegetable
department of the grocery store I overheard 3 teenagers talking. One
of the boys asked his companions what arugula is. The girl replied,
"You know. That's the place where that girl was killed."
Sue

A co worker was named Harold Charles Ball.

Of course he went through life being called Harry.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

I used to work with a fellow whose family name was "Coxhead". He
changed his to "Crager". Can't imagine why.

dennis
in nca

On Aug 21 Sue said:
I don't know that your story is true (and don't know that it isn't),
but it amazes me what some people name their kids. We had another
good one recently, but I can't for the life of me remember what it
was.
Sue

On 22 Aug 2005 08:51:14 -0700, "rigger" wrote:

I used to work with a fellow whose family name was "Coxhead". He
changed his to "Crager". Can't imagine why.

dennis
in nca

On Aug 21 Sue said:
I don't know that your story is true (and don't know that it isn't),
but it amazes me what some people name their kids. We had another
good one recently, but I can't for the life of me remember what it
was.
Sue

Which brings to mind the exchange between the Sherrif of Nottingham
and Maid Marions handmaiden Latrine.

Sherriff...interesting name..Latrine
HM...oh yes, Father changed the original family name
Sherriff...He actually changed the name to Latrine??????
HM...yes, and he was quite proud of the change
Sherriff...what in Gods name was it before???
Hm... ****house.



Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Let the record show that Gunner Asch wrote back on
Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:22:44 GMT in misc.survivalism :
On 22 Aug 2005 08:51:14 -0700, "rigger" wrote:

I used to work with a fellow whose family name was "Coxhead". He
changed his to "Crager". Can't imagine why.

dennis
in nca

On Aug 21 Sue said:
I don't know that your story is true (and don't know that it isn't),
but it amazes me what some people name their kids. We had another
good one recently, but I can't for the life of me remember what it
was.
Sue

Which brings to mind the exchange between the Sherrif of Nottingham
and Maid Marions handmaiden Latrine.

Sherriff...interesting name..Latrine
HM...oh yes, Father changed the original family name
Sherriff...He actually changed the name to Latrine??????
HM...yes, and he was quite proud of the change
Sherriff...what in Gods name was it before???
Hm... ****house.

Old geezer about the young snotnose:

"La Fontaine, La Fontaine, his father changed it from Spritzwasser.
But I knew his grandfather - Mort the ****er."

--
pyotr filipivich
"MTV may talk about lighting fires and killing children,
but Janet Reno actually does something about it." --Spy Magazine

In article , Gunner says...

Come on Dan, you've got to give Bush some credit here. He has managed to
spend 300 billion plus dollars and 16,000 combat casualties to establish an
Islamic Republic in Iraq ...

You mean its not all about the oil?

It was and bushco screwed up. He's failed. There's gonna
be five dollar a gallon gas shortly, and lines at the gas
stations next summer I bet. I'm gonna vote republican next
time because I'm having so much fun.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 24 Aug 2005 09:12:26 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Come on Dan, you've got to give Bush some credit here. He has managed to
spend 300 billion plus dollars and 16,000 combat casualties to establish an
Islamic Republic in Iraq ...

You mean its not all about the oil?

It was and bushco screwed up. He's failed. There's gonna
be five dollar a gallon gas shortly, and lines at the gas
stations next summer I bet. I'm gonna vote republican next
time because I'm having so much fun.

Jim

So because the price of oil has been raised by those willing to bid it
up..its the fault of Bush?

Please explain. Use as much white space as you need.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

In article , Gunner says...

So because the price of oil has been raised by those willing to bid it
up..its the fault of Bush?

So, folks had to wait in line to buy gas, on even/odd days?

Was that Carter's fault?

Electorate said, "yep."

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote in
:

In article , Gunner says...

So because the price of oil has been raised by those willing to bid it
up..its the fault of Bush?

So, folks had to wait in line to buy gas, on even/odd days?

Was that Carter's fault?

Electorate said, "yep."


People have short memories. Oil was higher under Carter than it is today.
In todays (2005) dollars oil was 86 dollars per barrel in 1980. In the 70's
oil rose the equivelant of 71 (2005) dollars per barrel. Not even close to
the piddly couple of bucks that oil has gone up recently.

People spend less of their income on energy today than they did then as
well. Even with the recent increases taken into account.

GWB won't be running for re-election anyhow.


--

Dan

On 24 Aug 2005 21:57:36 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

So because the price of oil has been raised by those willing to bid it
up..its the fault of Bush?

So, folks had to wait in line to buy gas, on even/odd days?

Was that Carter's fault?

Electorate said, "yep."

Jim

Do you always deflect the hard questions and go off on tangents? Is
this some manifestation of a mental health issue on your part?

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
jim rozen wrote in
:

In article , Gunner says...

So because the price of oil has been raised by those willing to bid it
up..its the fault of Bush?

So, folks had to wait in line to buy gas, on even/odd days?

Was that Carter's fault?

Electorate said, "yep."


People have short memories. Oil was higher under Carter than it is today.
In todays (2005) dollars oil was 86 dollars per barrel in 1980. In the
70's
oil rose the equivelant of 71 (2005) dollars per barrel. Not even close to
the piddly couple of bucks that oil has gone up recently.

People spend less of their income on energy today than they did then as
well. Even with the recent increases taken into account.

GWB won't be running for re-election anyhow.

Dan,
I would like you to consider this, It's worth a moment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/op...26krugman.html
For the last few months there has been a running debate about the U.S.
economy, more or less like this:

American families: "We're not doing very well."

Washington officials: "You're wrong - you're doing great. Here, look at
these statistics!"

The administration and some political commentators seem genuinely puzzled by
polls showing that Americans are unhappy about the economy. After all, they
point out, numbers like the growth rate of G.D.P. look pretty good. So why
aren't people cheering?

Some blame the negative halo effect of the Iraq debacle. Others complain
that the news media aren't properly reporting good economic news. But when
your numbers tell you that people should be feeling good, but they aren't,
that means you're looking at the wrong numbers.

American families don't care about G.D.P. They care about whether jobs are
available, how much those jobs pay and how that pay compares with the cost
of living. And recent G.D.P. growth has failed to produce exceptional gains
in employment, while wages for most workers haven't kept up with inflation.

About employment: it's true that the economy finally started adding jobs two
years ago. But although many people say "four million jobs in the last two
years" reverently, as if it were an amazing achievement, it's actually a
rise of about 3 percent, not much faster than the growth of the working-age
population over the same period. And recent job growth would have been
considered subpar in the past: employment grew more slowly during the best
two years of the Bush administration than in any two years during the
Clinton administration.

It's also true that the unemployment rate looks fairly low by historical
standards. But other measures of the job situation, like the average of
weekly hours worked (which remains low), and the average duration of
unemployment (which remains high), suggest that the demand for labor is
still weak compared with the supply.

Employers certainly aren't having trouble finding workers. When Wal-Mart
announced that it was hiring at a new store in Northern California, where
the unemployment rate is close to the national average, about 11,000 people
showed up to apply for 400 jobs.

Because employers don't have to raise wages to get workers, wages are
lagging behind the cost of living. According to Labor Department statistics,
the purchasing power of an average nonsupervisory worker's wage has fallen
about 1.5 percent since the summer of 2003. And this may understate the
pressure on many families: the cost of living has risen sharply for those
whose work or family situation requires buying a lot of gasoline.

Some commentators dismiss concerns about gasoline prices, because those
prices are still below previous peaks when you adjust for inflation. But
that misses the point: Americans bought cars and made decisions about where
to live when gas was $1.50 or less per gallon, and now suddenly find
themselves paying $2.60 or more. That's a rude shock, which I estimate
raises the typical family's expenses by more than $900 a year.

You may ask where economic growth is going, if it isn't showing up in wages.
That's easy to answer: it's going to corporate profits, to rising health
care costs and to a surge in the salaries and other compensation of
executives. (Forbes reports that the combined compensation of the chief
executives of America's 500 largest companies rose 54 percent last year.)

The bottom line, then, is that most Americans have good reason to feel
unhappy about the economy, whatever Washington's favorite statistics may
say. This is an economic expansion that hasn't trickled down; many people
are worse off than they were a year ago. And it will take more than a
revamped administration sales pitch to make people feel better.


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

Dan,
I would like you to consider this, It's worth a moment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/op...26krugman.html
For the last few months there has been a running debate about the U.S.
economy, more or less like this:

American families: "We're not doing very well."

Washington officials: "You're wrong - you're doing great. Here, look at
these statistics!"

The administration and some political commentators seem genuinely puzzled
by
polls showing that Americans are unhappy about the economy. After all,
they
point out, numbers like the growth rate of G.D.P. look pretty good. So why
aren't people cheering?

Some blame the negative halo effect of the Iraq debacle. Others complain
that the news media aren't properly reporting good economic news. But when
your numbers tell you that people should be feeling good, but they aren't,
that means you're looking at the wrong numbers.

American families don't care about G.D.P. They care about whether jobs are
available, how much those jobs pay and how that pay compares with the cost
of living. And recent G.D.P. growth has failed to produce exceptional
gains
in employment, while wages for most workers haven't kept up with
inflation.

About employment: it's true that the economy finally started adding jobs
two
years ago. But although many people say "four million jobs in the last two
years" reverently, as if it were an amazing achievement, it's actually a
rise of about 3 percent, not much faster than the growth of the
working-age
population over the same period. And recent job growth would have been
considered subpar in the past: employment grew more slowly during the best
two years of the Bush administration than in any two years during the
Clinton administration.

It's also true that the unemployment rate looks fairly low by historical
standards. But other measures of the job situation, like the average of
weekly hours worked (which remains low), and the average duration of
unemployment (which remains high), suggest that the demand for labor is
still weak compared with the supply.

Employers certainly aren't having trouble finding workers. When Wal-Mart
announced that it was hiring at a new store in Northern California, where
the unemployment rate is close to the national average, about 11,000
people
showed up to apply for 400 jobs.

Because employers don't have to raise wages to get workers, wages are
lagging behind the cost of living. According to Labor Department
statistics,
the purchasing power of an average nonsupervisory worker's wage has fallen
about 1.5 percent since the summer of 2003. And this may understate the
pressure on many families: the cost of living has risen sharply for those
whose work or family situation requires buying a lot of gasoline.

Some commentators dismiss concerns about gasoline prices, because those
prices are still below previous peaks when you adjust for inflation. But
that misses the point: Americans bought cars and made decisions about
where
to live when gas was $1.50 or less per gallon, and now suddenly find
themselves paying $2.60 or more. That's a rude shock, which I estimate
raises the typical family's expenses by more than $900 a year.

You may ask where economic growth is going, if it isn't showing up in
wages.
That's easy to answer: it's going to corporate profits, to rising health
care costs and to a surge in the salaries and other compensation of
executives. (Forbes reports that the combined compensation of the chief
executives of America's 500 largest companies rose 54 percent last year.)

The bottom line, then, is that most Americans have good reason to feel
unhappy about the economy, whatever Washington's favorite statistics may
say. This is an economic expansion that hasn't trickled down; many people
are worse off than they were a year ago. And it will take more than a
revamped administration sales pitch to make people feel better.


After reading the things said above, which basically say that even though
the statistics on the economy are good, it's really saying that the average
American is not doing very well economically. Most Americans are either
barely holding on or are losing ground. The fact that the average credit
card debt is over $13,000.00 tells you that people are making up the
difference between what they make and what they spend by borrowing.
Normally, after posting information that is negative about the financial
status of most Americans some knucklehead conservative chimes in and says
that he's doing well and has seen his income increase very nicely over the
last few years. Which is like what the people in George McGovern's home
state said after he lost the presidential election against Nixon 49 states
to one, everyone I know voted for McGovern. The point being it's meaningless
for individuals to say how they are doing when the statistics say the
opposite. The facts are that since Bush has been president the lot of most
Americans has declined. Conversely, the top 10% of wealth holders have
dramatically increased their positions. That's not a surprise because that
is exactly what the Bush policies were intended to do. Help the top and let
the rest of the folks fend for themselves. It's the same discredited trickle
down theory we've heard before, and we all know that none of the wealth ever
trickles down. It goes to the top and it stops there.

On the subject of jobs, it takes about 150,000 new jobs to be created every
month just to keep up with population growth, so the economy has to produce
about 1.8 million jobs a year or it's losing ground. Even though there has
been some job growth in the last couple of years it's barely keeping pace
with population growth, the jobs are not high paying, and nearly half of
them have gone to illegal aliens. To compare it to a period of very good job
growth you only need to look at Clinton's record of producing 22 million
jobs in 8 years. Compared to that Bush's first five years stinks.
Unfortunately, the only area where Bush has produced greater economic
numbers than Clinton is in the area of deficits, and we all know that Bush
took a surplus of billions and has turned that into a deficit of many
billions. I know that those are only facts and that Republicans don't like
facts unless they make them look good but those are the facts anyway.

As far as people waiting in lines and paying $5.00 a gallon for gas, that's
not going to happen. If gas ever gets to $5.00 a gallon there won't be any
lines because so few people will be able to afford gas that nobody will be
waiting in line. Most people will be walking or riding bikes. And anyone
that doesn't think that the policies of different administrations doesn't
make any difference is just plain ignorant. If Gore or Kerry had become
president does anyone think things wouldn't be different, very different
from what they are now? Obviously, the differences would have been dramatic.
Would gas be almost $3.00 a gallon? Maybe, but at least we would not have
spent almost half a trillion on a war and the oil companies wouldn't be
getting 9 billion in subsidies when they are making record profits. It only
costs four dollars to produce a barrel of oil. Without the turmoil that Bush
has created in the Mid East is it a far fetched idea to think oil would not
be selling for $67.00 a barrel? So, the answer to the question is yes, it is
Bush's fault that gas prices are so high. His policies are to blame for a
large measure of the price increases. Not all of it but a large chunk of it
is Bush's fault.

Hawke

"John R. Carroll" wrote in
m:


"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
jim rozen wrote in
:

In article , Gunner
says...

So because the price of oil has been raised by those willing to bid
it up..its the fault of Bush?

So, folks had to wait in line to buy gas, on even/odd days?

Was that Carter's fault?

Electorate said, "yep."


People have short memories. Oil was higher under Carter than it is
today. In todays (2005) dollars oil was 86 dollars per barrel in
1980. In the
70's
oil rose the equivelant of 71 (2005) dollars per barrel. Not even
close to the piddly couple of bucks that oil has gone up recently.

People spend less of their income on energy today than they did then
as well. Even with the recent increases taken into account.

GWB won't be running for re-election anyhow.

Dan,
I would like you to consider this, It's worth a moment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/op...26krugman.html
snip the op ed piece

Far more interesting IMO is the national poll and studies the New York
Times did earlier this year. It covers everything that was in that
editorial and so much more. Start he

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/class/index.html?
excamp=GGGNaverageincome

Mouse over the box on top of the page an click on the "American Attitudes"
one. This nationwide poll doesn't really support the editorial position.

People that work in manufacturing are probably a little more prone to
feeling left behind. Because they are.

After WWII all of the major industrialized nations were left in ruins
except for the U.S. We enjoyed a couple of decades of being the worlds
largest supplier of just about everything with almost no competition. As
the other mnations rebuilt they needed us less and less, and eventually
reached a point in the 1970's where they could hold their own competing
with us. Since then, third world countries have become a factor as they
have abundant, cheap labor.

Look at this:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515
_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_02.html

Pick "production" from the pull down menu and you can see that there is not
a lot of money to be made working in a factory. If you compare that to
"installation, maintenance and repair" you can see that you're probably
better off installing CNC machines than you are running them.

A person can make more money programming computers than they can
programming CNC's. The skill set required is about the same.

In any case education is the best path to higher income. One of the great
things about living here is that you can go to school at night, no matter
your age.


--

Dan

"Hawke" wrote in
:

After reading the things said above, which basically say that even
though the statistics on the economy are good, it's really saying that
the average American is not doing very well economically. Most
Americans are either barely holding on or are losing ground. The fact
that the average credit card debt is over $13,000.00 tells you that
people are making up the difference between what they make and what
they spend by borrowing. Normally, after posting information that is
negative about the financial status of most Americans some knucklehead
conservative chimes in and says that he's doing well and has seen his
income increase very nicely over the last few years.

snip

The savings rate went negative in 1998. The assertion that most Americans
are barely holding on, based on credit card debt, is just silly. Look
around you. Who is buying all of the houses being built? What about all of
the cars and SUV's?

The fact of the matter is that society has changed for better or worse.
While median incomes for males have stagnated, women have joined the
workforce in droves and have seen their incomes climb. Working married
couples have become the norm, and they are enjoying a much higher standard
of living than any previous generation.


--

Dan

"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
m:


"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
jim rozen wrote in
:

In article , Gunner
says...

So because the price of oil has been raised by those willing to bid
it up..its the fault of Bush?

So, folks had to wait in line to buy gas, on even/odd days?

Was that Carter's fault?

Electorate said, "yep."


People have short memories. Oil was higher under Carter than it is
today. In todays (2005) dollars oil was 86 dollars per barrel in
1980. In the
70's
oil rose the equivelant of 71 (2005) dollars per barrel. Not even
close to the piddly couple of bucks that oil has gone up recently.

People spend less of their income on energy today than they did then
as well. Even with the recent increases taken into account.

GWB won't be running for re-election anyhow.

Dan,
I would like you to consider this, It's worth a moment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/op...26krugman.html
snip the op ed piece

Far more interesting IMO is the national poll and studies the New York
Times did earlier this year. It covers everything that was in that
editorial and so much more. Start he

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/class/index.html?
excamp=GGGNaverageincome

Mouse over the box on top of the page an click on the "American Attitudes"
one. This nationwide poll doesn't really support the editorial position.

People that work in manufacturing are probably a little more prone to
feeling left behind. Because they are.

After WWII all of the major industrialized nations were left in ruins
except for the U.S. We enjoyed a couple of decades of being the worlds
largest supplier of just about everything with almost no competition. As
the other mnations rebuilt they needed us less and less, and eventually
reached a point in the 1970's where they could hold their own competing
with us. Since then, third world countries have become a factor as they
have abundant, cheap labor.

Look at this:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515
_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_02.html

Pick "production" from the pull down menu and you can see that there is
not
a lot of money to be made working in a factory. If you compare that to
"installation, maintenance and repair" you can see that you're probably
better off installing CNC machines than you are running them.

A person can make more money programming computers than they can
programming CNC's. The skill set required is about the same.

In any case education is the best path to higher income. One of the great
things about living here is that you can go to school at night, no matter
your age.



Good links Dan, and I have seen that material but thanks. I am going to save
them.
I thought Krugman's piece was more of a spot check than a real analysis. The
polling data he uses is very current and the real in depth studies you
pointed out were comprehensive and therefore somewhat dated. They would have
to be by their very nature.

Krugman's stuff is what I call pulse taking. The big studies are autopsies.
As such they tend to be good reference works but I prefer my patient's
alive. This introduces a measure of the erratic and unreliable but that's OK
by me. I enjoy reading tea leaves and am ignored in any event. Nobody dies
and few listen.

I watched an interview last week with one of Cross's new hires ( 6 months I
think) and it was interesting. Anecdotal stuff, but significant as far as I
am concerned. It certainly wouldn't pass the smell test as research.
Cross is hiring programmers and system analysts from large metropolitan
areas at half their former rate and moving them to small communities in the
middle of nowhere to telecommute. Before they hire in they are familiarized
with the significantly lower cost of living and home ownership, shown what
they will save by not commuting, you know - a sales pitch about how much
better their lives will be and the cut in pay will be offset by reduced
costs. You know - blah, blah, blah - and largely true as far as it goes. How
far it actually goes is the key of course.

Several things caught my attention. The guy was definitely not very buoyant
or exuberant. OK, he's nervous, although he didn't appear to be. To me he
looked a little shell shocked but regaining his footing. He made scant
mention of the joy of living in a community of 2500 and had a lot to say
about things they used to do in the evenings that they couldn't do in their
new community. He also pointed out, right at that end of the interview, that
he had been out of work for the three previous years. My impression overall
was that it's his feeling that nearly anything was a blessing after what he
had been through but his current situation was something less than an
unalloyed delight. Life's a bitch but it could be ( and had been in his
case ) much worse.

Then they interviewed the project manager at Cross. He talked about the
investment the company was making to get this system lashed together and
working properly and the benefit to stock holders. More blah blah and blah.
I am sure you have heard this before as well. He's right as far as I know. I
noticed that he was pretty steely eyed and his whole posture was pretty
aggressive.

His answer to the last question - "Are you concerned that having made this
investment these new people will move on once the settle in" - caused my jaw
to drop, literally drop, and then I laughed off and on for the rest of the
evening. He was absolutely spot on but I couldn't believe he was stupid
enough to say what he did on national television. His entire answer was that
he wasn't concerned in the least - "where are they going to go" he said "
the nearest place of employment of any type is over 250 miles away". The
smug, self satisfied look on his face said a lot.

I don't know how alike or different you and I are Dan but when we discuss
the well being and health of our country we are talking about two entirely
different things from very different perspectives.
You argue, intelligently as a rule, that all is well and while the economy
could be better it's doing pretty good. Dislocation is both normal and
inevitable. The current positive trends will continue and over the long haul
we'll do just fine. Politics is politics and don't really make much of a
difference as politicians are all alike regardless of party affiliation. If
that isn't about right please correct me.

This is a sliver of my thinking.
None of what you point out as important or revealing telltales matter much
in the long run. They are all symptoms if you will.
The economy of the United States is successful and has been competitive
because of the financial, legal, transportation, energy and commercial
underpinnings from which it flows. It is also not successful due to some
special and uniquely American quality commonly known as the "can do spirit"
of Americans. There is plenty of "can do spirit" all over the world. What we
have in this country is a system, let me repeat that - it's important - WE
HAVE A SYSTEM, that turns "can do" into "been there done that". That's the
huge difference.

You are looking at symptoms and ignoring the underlying condition. An
analogy that you will be able to relate to is making a sale to an
unqualified customer. I do not necessarily mean financially unqualified
although there are those as well. I mean the one sale in 50 ( or less
really) that you make by bulldogging a sale to a guy that isn't really a
customer. It's an old school sales philosophy that I am positive you have
seen close up. You may even employ it yourself.
These types of deals are the crack cocaine of sales in any industry. They
keep you tied up chasing marginal deals because of the rare sale that
closes. You are always chasing that high. You also forgo 5 qualified deals
that you didn't have the time to follow up on because you won't let any
prospect go. Know what I mean? It's not a personal slam by any means. Don't
take it as such - I don't know either you or your work and absent such
knowledge wouldn't draw any inferences at all. I am trying to make a point.

The United States of America has been on a 30 year quest to close every
single unqualified customer we can find. In the process we have, and
continue too, neglect the underlying fundaments that really did make things
go. I can provide you with any number of instances where this is the case.
Really, name a number if you can't think of a million or so examples on your
own.

Let's take gun control legislation just for the hell of it.

Start with the premise that some rules are necessary and good. I do not know
a single person that would argue that the truly insane should be able to own
or even possess firearms. These unfortunates are a danger to themselves and
society even without a gun.

OK, now let's see what we have done legislatively.

What we have now is the looniest collection of municipal, city, state and
federal laws and regulation imaginable.Thousands of statutes, fully 80
percent of which are either not enforced or are practically unenforceable
for one reason or another. All of this and the number of laws is only
increasing. This especially happens when one or two nut cases misbehaves and
kills people. Suddenly we have more laws.
Since we agreed that rules are necessary, what should we do? How about this.
Have a group sit down and write a statute. There will be _fill in the blank
with a SMALL number_ of articles and conditions and these will be clear and
concise. When it's finished the states vote it up or down. Eventually
something will pass. When it does, throw out every single frigging gun law
in the country and REALLY ENFORCE the new set. This, or something like it,
needs to be accomplished across the board with both civil and criminal
statutes. I would start with the civil stuff because the situation is
desperate and the survival of this country in the long run depends to a much
larger extent on a good clean and understandable civil code that can be
STRICTLY adhered to and EVENLY applied.

Rinse and repeat for the tax code, infrastructure legislation/planning
apparatus and so on.
We also need to resurrect the classless citizen model. In the eyes of the
law all citizens need equality, justice must be blind. The USA Patriot act
has created two classes of American citizens. We now have the class with
constitutionally protected rights as well as a class whose rights can be
pretty capriciously ignored at the convenience or whim of the Federal
government. Not only did I not think I would live to see such a thing, I
didn't think any American would. These are the freedoms Americans have
fought and died for since before there was an America. Some of them were
friends of mine.
Some were probably your friends, neighbors or family members as well. I can
hardly believe it Dan but I am glad my father, a man who fought in two wars
for this country, died before he could see this. I mourned his passing and I
miss him so saying that means a great deal but it is no less true for that.


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

"John R. Carroll" wrote in
m:

"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
m:


"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
jim rozen wrote in
:

In article , Gunner
says...

So because the price of oil has been raised by those willing to
bid it up..its the fault of Bush?

So, folks had to wait in line to buy gas, on even/odd days?

Was that Carter's fault?

Electorate said, "yep."


People have short memories. Oil was higher under Carter than it is
today. In todays (2005) dollars oil was 86 dollars per barrel in
1980. In the
70's
oil rose the equivelant of 71 (2005) dollars per barrel. Not even
close to the piddly couple of bucks that oil has gone up recently.

People spend less of their income on energy today than they did
then as well. Even with the recent increases taken into account.

GWB won't be running for re-election anyhow.

Dan,
I would like you to consider this, It's worth a moment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/op...26krugman.html
snip the op ed piece

Far more interesting IMO is the national poll and studies the New
York Times did earlier this year. It covers everything that was in
that editorial and so much more. Start he

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/class/index.html?
excamp=GGGNaverageincome

Mouse over the box on top of the page an click on the "American
Attitudes" one. This nationwide poll doesn't really support the
editorial position.

People that work in manufacturing are probably a little more prone to
feeling left behind. Because they are.

After WWII all of the major industrialized nations were left in ruins
except for the U.S. We enjoyed a couple of decades of being the
worlds largest supplier of just about everything with almost no
competition. As the other mnations rebuilt they needed us less and
less, and eventually reached a point in the 1970's where they could
hold their own competing with us. Since then, third world countries
have become a factor as they have abundant, cheap labor.

Look at this:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515
_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_02.html

Pick "production" from the pull down menu and you can see that there
is
not
a lot of money to be made working in a factory. If you compare that
to "installation, maintenance and repair" you can see that you're
probably better off installing CNC machines than you are running
them.

A person can make more money programming computers than they can
programming CNC's. The skill set required is about the same.

In any case education is the best path to higher income. One of the
great things about living here is that you can go to school at night,
no matter your age.



Good links Dan, and I have seen that material but thanks. I am going
to save them.
I thought Krugman's piece was more of a spot check than a real
analysis. The polling data he uses is very current and the real in
depth studies you pointed out were comprehensive and therefore
somewhat dated. They would have to be by their very nature.

The poll portion of the work was conducted in March so it's not all that
old. But I'll concede that if you were living on the edge finacially, the
rise in fuel prices since then would would be a tough pill to swallow and
would certainly taint your outlook. But overall the majority of the
respondents were optimistic.


Krugman's stuff is what I call pulse taking. The big studies are
autopsies. As such they tend to be good reference works but I prefer
my patient's alive. This introduces a measure of the erratic and
unreliable but that's OK by me. I enjoy reading tea leaves and am
ignored in any event. Nobody dies and few listen.

I watched an interview last week with one of Cross's new hires ( 6
months I think) and it was interesting.

snip


Then they interviewed the project manager at Cross. He talked about
the investment the company was making to get this system lashed
together and working properly and the benefit to stock holders. More
blah blah and blah. I am sure you have heard this before as well. He's
right as far as I know. I noticed that he was pretty steely eyed and
his whole posture was pretty aggressive.

His answer to the last question - "Are you concerned that having made
this investment these new people will move on once the settle in" -
caused my jaw to drop, literally drop, and then I laughed off and on
for the rest of the evening. He was absolutely spot on but I couldn't
believe he was stupid enough to say what he did on national
television. His entire answer was that he wasn't concerned in the
least - "where are they going to go" he said " the nearest place of
employment of any type is over 250 miles away". The smug, self
satisfied look on his face said a lot.

My experience has been that people that are that confident in their plan
are doomed to have their asses handed to them. The guy sitting in podunk
will have plenty of time to plan his escape and revenge.


I don't know how alike or different you and I are Dan but when we
discuss the well being and health of our country we are talking about
two entirely different things from very different perspectives.
You argue, intelligently as a rule, that all is well and while the
economy could be better it's doing pretty good. Dislocation is both
normal and inevitable. The current positive trends will continue and
over the long haul we'll do just fine. Politics is politics and don't
really make much of a difference as politicians are all alike
regardless of party affiliation. If that isn't about right please
correct me.

That's about right. Certainly the government and politicians can affect
the economy, particularly on a local level.


This is a sliver of my thinking.
None of what you point out as important or revealing telltales matter
much in the long run. They are all symptoms if you will.
The economy of the United States is successful and has been
competitive because of the financial, legal, transportation, energy
and commercial underpinnings from which it flows. It is also not
successful due to some special and uniquely American quality commonly
known as the "can do spirit" of Americans. There is plenty of "can do
spirit" all over the world. What we have in this country is a system,
let me repeat that - it's important - WE HAVE A SYSTEM, that turns
"can do" into "been there done that". That's the huge difference.

I agree with that. In addition to the "underpinnings" you can't
underestimate the importance of the massive amount of capital and assets
that this country posesses.


You are looking at symptoms and ignoring the underlying condition. An
analogy that you will be able to relate to is making a sale to an
unqualified customer. I do not necessarily mean financially
unqualified although there are those as well. I mean the one sale in
50 ( or less really) that you make by bulldogging a sale to a guy that
isn't really a customer. It's an old school sales philosophy that I am
positive you have seen close up. You may even employ it yourself.
These types of deals are the crack cocaine of sales in any industry.
They keep you tied up chasing marginal deals because of the rare sale
that closes. You are always chasing that high. You also forgo 5
qualified deals that you didn't have the time to follow up on because
you won't let any prospect go. Know what I mean? It's not a personal
slam by any means. Don't take it as such - I don't know either you or
your work and absent such knowledge wouldn't draw any inferences at
all. I am trying to make a point.

The United States of America has been on a 30 year quest to close
every single unqualified customer we can find. In the process we have,
and continue too, neglect the underlying fundaments that really did
make things go. I can provide you with any number of instances where
this is the case. Really, name a number if you can't think of a
million or so examples on your own.

Let's take gun control legislation just for the hell of it.

Start with the premise that some rules are necessary and good. I do
not know a single person that would argue that the truly insane should
be able to own or even possess firearms. These unfortunates are a
danger to themselves and society even without a gun.

OK, now let's see what we have done legislatively.

What we have now is the looniest collection of municipal, city, state
and federal laws and regulation imaginable.Thousands of statutes,
fully 80 percent of which are either not enforced or are practically
unenforceable for one reason or another. All of this and the number of
laws is only increasing. This especially happens when one or two nut
cases misbehaves and kills people. Suddenly we have more laws.
Since we agreed that rules are necessary, what should we do? How about
this. Have a group sit down and write a statute. There will be _fill
in the blank with a SMALL number_ of articles and conditions and these
will be clear and concise. When it's finished the states vote it up or
down. Eventually something will pass. When it does, throw out every
single frigging gun law in the country and REALLY ENFORCE the new set.
This, or something like it, needs to be accomplished across the board
with both civil and criminal statutes. I would start with the civil
stuff because the situation is desperate and the survival of this
country in the long run depends to a much larger extent on a good
clean and understandable civil code that can be STRICTLY adhered to
and EVENLY applied.

Rinse and repeat for the tax code, infrastructure legislation/planning
apparatus and so on.

The huge problem here is a culture of special interests and an us against
them attitude. Top that off with a populace of deeply conservative people
who are adverse to wholesale change, and complex unfair legislation is
what you get.

If you don't believe that "liberal" Americans are at heart deeply
conservative, talk to them about reforming the tax code, Social Security,
etc..

We also need to resurrect the classless citizen model. In the eyes of
the law all citizens need equality, justice must be blind. The USA
Patriot act has created two classes of American citizens. We now have
the class with constitutionally protected rights as well as a class
whose rights can be pretty capriciously ignored at the convenience or
whim of the Federal government. Not only did I not think I would live
to see such a thing, I didn't think any American would. These are the
freedoms Americans have fought and died for since before there was an
America. Some of them were friends of mine.
Some were probably your friends, neighbors or family members as well.
I can hardly believe it Dan but I am glad my father, a man who fought
in two wars for this country, died before he could see this. I mourned
his passing and I miss him so saying that means a great deal but it is
no less true for that.

Unfortunately as much as people like to think that we have a long
tradition of respecting civil rights, that simply is not the case. John
Adams, Lincoln, FDR and many others have trampled on civil rights in far
worse ways than the Patriot Act does. We do have a tradition of restoring
those rights soon after the crisis at hand is over. I'm confident the
Patriot Act won't be permanent.


--

Dan

"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
m:

"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
m:
"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
jim rozen wrote in
:

In article , Gunner
says...



My experience has been that people that are that confident in their plan
are doomed to have their asses handed to them. The guy sitting in podunk
will have plenty of time to plan his escape and revenge.

I think he is as likely to just give up and accept what will become his lot
in life. He had that look and fel about him. Three years without income is
not something you forget quickly and the guy has a family to provide for. A
great deal will also depend on what comes next. This guy might be one of the
lucky few in ten years.




I don't know how alike or different you and I are Dan but when we
discuss the well being and health of our country we are talking about
two entirely different things from very different perspectives.
You argue, intelligently as a rule, that all is well and while the
economy could be better it's doing pretty good. Dislocation is both
normal and inevitable. The current positive trends will continue and
over the long haul we'll do just fine. Politics is politics and don't
really make much of a difference as politicians are all alike
regardless of party affiliation. If that isn't about right please
correct me.

That's about right. Certainly the government and politicians can affect
the economy, particularly on a local level.

I just didn't want to politicize this exchange. I reserve that for Gunner
and a couple of others. It's not that you couldn't fight the good fight,
It's that I put more value on what you say and wouldn't waste your time.



This is a sliver of my thinking.
None of what you point out as important or revealing telltales matter
much in the long run. They are all symptoms if you will.
The economy of the United States is successful and has been
competitive because of the financial, legal, transportation, energy
and commercial underpinnings from which it flows. It is also not
successful due to some special and uniquely American quality commonly
known as the "can do spirit" of Americans. There is plenty of "can do
spirit" all over the world. What we have in this country is a system,
let me repeat that - it's important - WE HAVE A SYSTEM, that turns
"can do" into "been there done that". That's the huge difference.

I agree with that. In addition to the "underpinnings" you can't
underestimate the importance of the massive amount of capital and assets
that this country posesses.

You are quite right and we have gone a long way to maximize the value of
that capital and those assets with established rules.
Even with the unintended consequences, the system has worked admirably.
Foriegn nationals fearlessly put capital to work here for the same reason
that an illegal imigrant now owns a ranch in Arizona ( I think). They both
recieve equal treatment under the law.




Rinse and repeat for the tax code, infrastructure legislation/planning
apparatus and so on.

The huge problem here is a culture of special interests and an us against
them attitude. Top that off with a populace of deeply conservative people
who are adverse to wholesale change, and complex unfair legislation is
what you get.

At some point the general welfare of the public interest becomes it's own
super special interest.
As for being conservative, that isn't political. Human beings hate change
and resist it even against their own best interests.
A crisis is generally required to effect change. That and real leadership.
There are risks in that too.


If you don't believe that "liberal" Americans are at heart deeply
conservative, talk to them about reforming the tax code, Social Security,
etc..

See above. I agree completely.



We also need to resurrect the classless citizen model. In the eyes of
the law all citizens need equality, justice must be blind. The USA
Patriot act has created two classes of American citizens. We now have
the class with constitutionally protected rights as well as a class
whose rights can be pretty capriciously ignored at the convenience or


Unfortunately as much as people like to think that we have a long
tradition of respecting civil rights, that simply is not the case.

We do, with a very few notable exceptions, in the law. Those exceptions were
amended long ago.
Tradition or no, it's the only philosophy I want any part of.

Adams, Lincoln, FDR and many others have trampled on civil rights in far
worse ways than the Patriot Act does. We do have a tradition of restoring
those rights soon after the crisis at hand is over. I'm confident the
Patriot Act won't be permanent.

Unless I am mistaken Dan the Senate passed the conferenced version just
before the break.
Until it's repealed it is the law.

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:


"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
m:

"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
m:
"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
jim rozen wrote in
:

In article ,
Gunner says...



My experience has been that people that are that confident in their
plan are doomed to have their asses handed to them. The guy sitting
in podunk will have plenty of time to plan his escape and revenge.

I think he is as likely to just give up and accept what will become
his lot in life. He had that look and fel about him. Three years
without income is not something you forget quickly and the guy has a
family to provide for. A great deal will also depend on what comes
next. This guy might be one of the lucky few in ten years.


Too bad if that is the case. Bigger companies throw away loads of good
business opportunities. Enterprising employees often take the discarded
ideas and run with them.

I don't get why some people give up and are resigned to accepting their
lot in life. Another thing, why is working two jobs no longer an option
for people? I did that for a while, it got my wife and I on our feet when
we were young and very poor. Most weeks I worked 90 hours. Did it suck?
You bet. Then I quit the second job and went to school at night. That
sucked too. But it payed off in the long run.

snip


Adams, Lincoln, FDR and many others have trampled on civil rights in
far worse ways than the Patriot Act does. We do have a tradition of
restoring those rights soon after the crisis at hand is over. I'm
confident the Patriot Act won't be permanent.

Unless I am mistaken Dan the Senate passed the conferenced version
just before the break.
Until it's repealed it is the law.


Here is an update on it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/08/27/AR2005082700943.html

No matter which version wins out, it's a reauthorization, not a permanent
change. Otherwise it wouldn't stand up to the constitutional sniff test.


--

Dan

"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:


"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
m:

"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
m:
"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
jim rozen wrote in
:

In article ,
Gunner says...




Too bad if that is the case. Bigger companies throw away loads of good
business opportunities. Enterprising employees often take the discarded
ideas and run with them.

Time will tell and this is the country to begin again if you must.


I don't get why some people give up and are resigned to accepting their
lot in life. Another thing, why is working two jobs no longer an option
for people? I did that for a while, it got my wife and I on our feet when
we were young and very poor. Most weeks I worked 90 hours. Did it suck?
You bet. Then I quit the second job and went to school at night. That
sucked too. But it payed off in the long run.

One of my most repeated sayings is that if it was easy everybody would be
doing it.
I did a real tool and die apprenticeship and then went on to the University
of Michigan.
I worked ten hour night shifts running a big Droop and Rein through my
entire time in Ann Arbor and I doubled in Engineering and Math.
I then collected a wife. Shrewd move that was. She was a good woman but I
had too many unresolved issues. The past is frequently difficult to
reconcile. She only had to startle awake me once and that memory is still
something I inwardly cringe at.
Living in Rochester Michigan and working 12 hour shifts at Joy road and
Telegraph was bad enough but like yourself, I took a second job from 1 in
the afternoon to 6. The wife was the Beverage Manager for the Harris Machus
chain. We had a lot of money but not much of a marriage and it didn't last.
I blame myself. What newly wed couple needed 120K per year in 1978. The
really funny thing was that I went to work building big injection molds and
not taking an engineering job. It would have meant a 50 percent pay cut so I
said to hell with that!


Here is an update on it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/08/27/AR2005082700943.html

No matter which version wins out, it's a reauthorization, not a permanent
change. Otherwise it wouldn't stand up to the constitutional sniff test.

This thing is toxic Dan and most of it is going to be permanent. Only what
are refered to as "the most controversial provisions" sunset and that is a
ways out. God help us all if the House version is reflected in the
conferenced ones. This entire area of the law and the collection of
departments it supports need to be scrapped and rebuilt. I won't hold my
breath and I'll bet real money that the courts aren't going to be interested
in striking any of it for a while at best.


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

D Murphy wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in
:


After reading the things said above, which basically say that even
though the statistics on the economy are good, it's really saying that
the average American is not doing very well economically. Most
Americans are either barely holding on or are losing ground. The fact
that the average credit card debt is over $13,000.00 tells you that
people are making up the difference between what they make and what
they spend by borrowing. Normally, after posting information that is
negative about the financial status of most Americans some knucklehead
conservative chimes in and says that he's doing well and has seen his
income increase very nicely over the last few years.


snip

The savings rate went negative in 1998. The assertion that most Americans
are barely holding on, based on credit card debt, is just silly. Look
around you. Who is buying all of the houses being built? What about all of
the cars and SUV's?

The fact of the matter is that society has changed for better or worse.
While median incomes for males have stagnated, women have joined the
workforce in droves and have seen their incomes climb. Working married
couples have become the norm, and they are enjoying a much higher standard
of living than any previous generation.

I'm living that. My income stopped rising in 2001, as my employer
realized he did not have to give raises to keep longtime employees.
OTOH, my wife has received annual raises and bonuses until she now makes
more than I do.
Of course, she's also smarter and better looking than I

In article , D Murphy says...

The savings rate went negative in 1998. The assertion that most Americans
are barely holding on, based on credit card debt, is just silly. Look
around you. Who is buying all of the houses being built? What about all of
the cars and SUV's?

You *could* have said the same thing in september of 1929.

"Look at all the folks making money and participating in a
booming stock market. The complaint that they're just doing
it all on margin is just silly."

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Rex B" wrote in message
...
D Murphy wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in
:
After reading the things said above, which basically say that even
though the statistics on the economy are good, it's really saying that
the average American is not doing very well economically. Most
Americans are either barely holding on or are losing ground. The fact
that the average credit card debt is over $13,000.00 tells you that
people are making up the difference between what they make and what
they spend by borrowing. Normally, after posting information that is
negative about the financial status of most Americans some knucklehead
conservative chimes in and says that he's doing well and has seen his
income increase very nicely over the last few years.


snip

The savings rate went negative in 1998. The assertion that most Americans
are barely holding on, based on credit card debt, is just silly. Look
around you. Who is buying all of the houses being built? What about all
of the cars and SUV's? The fact of the matter is that society has changed
for better or worse. While median incomes for males have stagnated, women
have joined the workforce in droves and have seen their incomes climb.
Working married couples have become the norm, and they are enjoying a
much higher standard of living than any previous generation.

I'm living that. My income stopped rising in 2001, as my employer realized
he did not have to give raises to keep longtime employees. OTOH, my wife
has received annual raises and bonuses until she now makes more than I do.
Of course, she's also smarter and better looking than I

And there you've stated a factor that's not been considered when comparing
the present time with that of the 1950s: back then, most households relied
upon a _single_ income which meant that, even with today's larger
population, there would be a severe shortage of workers.

The "Big Change" came about with the massive (ie. "double-digit") inflation
of the late 1960s and early 1970s when, driven by preposterous demands by
the Unions to "keep ahead of Inflation" and fuelled by the devaluation of
the Dollar, more and more women _had_ to go to work in order for a family to
even attempt to live a "middle class" lifestyle.

In article , John R. Carroll
says...

You may ask where economic growth is going, if it isn't showing up in wages.
That's easy to answer: it's going to corporate profits, to rising health
care costs and to a surge in the salaries and other compensation of
executives.

And I wonder who's bearing the brunt of those 'rising health care
costs?' All those corporations are shutting down their pension and
medical plans too.

Basically the US population is being told "it's raining" while
they're getting their pockets ****ed into.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , John R.
Carroll
says...

You may ask where economic growth is going, if it isn't showing up in
wages.
That's easy to answer: it's going to corporate profits, to rising health
care costs and to a surge in the salaries and other compensation of
executives.

And I wonder who's bearing the brunt of those 'rising health care
costs?' All those corporations are shutting down their pension and
medical plans too.

Basically the US population is being told "it's raining" while
they're getting their pockets ****ed into.

Jim



That isn't it Jim, or at least that isn't what was meant.
Let's say I'm in California today ( I am ) and you are in Louisiana (
pretend ). You call me for an update on the weather and I tell you that it's
a little warm but all in all it's pretty terrific, especially considering
last winters torrential rains and the fires that preceded them. Be Happy!
The problem of course is that you aren't in California. Your weather isn't
so good and you sure aren't happy but the forecast I faxed you is indeed
both accurate ( as far as it goes ) and pretty rosy. "This can't be" you say
" I'm calling that retard back, he must have made a mistake".
You call we chat and I send you a very detailed and comprehensive fax that
does indeed support my position that it's beautiful. I also include a snarky
note on the cover sheet that says your problem isn't the climate - you just
need to spend more time outside, a lot more. You are a whiner and you won't
make the extra effort required to get out and enjoy this excellent weather.
It's not in the note but I am hoping you will infer that I mean you are just
lazy and not a good American.

I am also laughing a little with my buddies Jim. I know what you don't - I'm
in California and the game has finally been rigged to the point where even
if you are out of doors 24/7 you haven't a prayer of tanning. In fact if you
do, you will shrivel up and die but not before us guys in California can
extract the last bit of value from you as you keep exerting yourself to
spend increasing amounts of time in the open.

The financial equivalent is that every time you complain that it's getting
tougher to make a go of it for you and your family I look at MY balance
sheet and Income statement and tell you things are fantastic and if you
weren't such a lazy commie ******* they would be the same for you. That's
what Bush and his crew are doing. They either don't get it or don't care,
and anyway, YOU getting a good tan is your problem not theirs so please STFU
and get out more will ya'.

You see, it's pretty simple.



--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com