Thread: Craigslist notice??.

Tweet

Originally Posted by Evolvo

Seems it's a two way street. I won't convince you and you won't convince me. You turn to those in the media who support your view and I do the same to have my beliefs validated.

In the interest of maintaining (hopefully) the civility that Bill has so far tollerated I'm not going to destroy each of the mistatements you've attempted to attribute to me. I'll just give some background and "suggestions" that might be of interest to the more open minded.

I don't seek media validation of my views, but I might suggest that links like you put up earlier to a Comedy Central clown aren't that encourageing for you. My views on what we've been discussing are based on personal experience over the past 50 years. I've actually been a union member, learned first hand how they can hamper a highly motivated employee, and how negotiated "benefits" can undermine productivity, however unintentional it may or may not be. (and yes, management shares blame by agreeing to some of the contract provisions that ultimately harm the business)

I've worked for employers large and small, each experience benefited me in some way, including basic jobs as a pre-teen and teenager that instilled a work ethic foundation. We didn't consider ourselves poor, we weren't trained to be victims, but I began work early out of necessity. (BTW, you undermine your credibility by saying Gingrich proposed not paying the youngsters, he in fact did encourage a wage, but the larger message in his proposal that is clear to an open mind is the concept of teaching work ethic, not enslaving kids. I recognize the objective from your side is to destroy him, but just be patient, he'll do that for you). What I learned by doing is that minimum wage jobs are a foundation building experience, not the end objective.

I've started my own business from practically nothing and built it into an entity that served it's customers wants/needs and as a result it was pretty profitable. I didn't need a media or political minder to direct me how to do it, in fact as "management" it was my job to figure out how to do what we did of value for our customers IN SPITE of over regulation, again, intended or not, that impeded reasonable performance. It was also my job to employ folks who could help achieve the goals of the business. Yes, I couldn't have done it alone, but they were well compensated for their contribution. And the reason they worked for me was that they recognized that the structure I assembled allowed them greater return on their efforts than they could accomplish for themselves. It was a win win, as it is for the vast majority of business be they corporations, partnerships, or individually owned. A labor union wouldn't have benefitted my employees, in fact it would have cost the higher producers income because they would have had to carry the weaker producers. In our environment the weaker producers didn't last long because they were bad for morale, which would have ended up cheating our customers as well as the other employees.

The notion proffered that those who don't support endless imposition of regulation means desiring NO regulation is a false premise. A couple examples. At a basic level, I'm very much in favor of regulating traffic flow at intersections with stop signs or traffic signals. I'm all in favor of regulating the behavior of murderers and rapists. Practical regulation is necessary to assist cooperation in societies. BTW, assist is the operative word there. Again, a concept for the open minded within the context of some of the recent talking points. It seems perfectly natural for most to accept the right of a union worker (or any worker for that matter) to go on strike when they feel that working conditions have become too onerous. If not on strike, then resignation. However, some of the folks who readily recognize that as reasonable, demonize the business owner/manager who reacts the same way. In the final analysis, actual business owners who survive (more fail than succeed) understand that it's the customers of their enterprise who determine how much profit the company makes. Sure, it's up to the business managers to marshall the resources to control that profit (or loss sometimes), but without the customer exchanging value for value in the first place there is not opportunity for profit. (not going to address the false exchange forced by politicians in league with so called crony capitalists here) If government makes it too onerous to operate in one environment the owners go on a form of strike, if they don't resign. They will seek a more favorable operating climate to support the profit their customers allow. If they don't make the changes necessary, they run the risk of becoming non-competitive and losing market share to the point where they can no longer survive. Politicians of course don't want to take the blame for creating the negative operating environment, so gin up notions about greed. Again, appeal to emotion rather than rational evaluation. Examples of this within our own borders are the city of Detroit, and the State of California. Detroit is way further down the path that California, and California could turn it around if they have the will, but time will have to reveal that.

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

The State of the Nation speech was all about re-election, just as everyone expected it to be....But---the one thing President Obama said that really made sense was in regards to shipping jobs overseas, don't have the exact quote but it was to the effect that given a level playing field, US businesses can produce a higher quality product and sell it on the world market at a competitive price.

Now, if some REAL leaders would step forward and pass some legislation to level out that playing field, this country would outproduce and outperform any other country in the world, the workers would have a decent wage, the company would make a respectable profit, and unemployment would go down to an acceptable level..... If those people would step forward with a workable plan to get us there, they'd sure as heck get my vote come November!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by 34_40

The only part of this statement above that I can agree with is the last sentence. I'll contend there is no right or wrong! It's all opinion or belief on which path to take, or, only a "road" to a hopefully better place of existance.
Roger, I loved the Winston Churchill quote! As you can see!

Churchill definitely had a way with words, and a very good grasp on the realities of world economy after bring thrust into the turmoil of a world war and trying to rebuild a country bit by bit. On "...leveling the playing field" and bringing jobs back to the US I fear that this is simply more political rhetoric which we hear from all parties, and which tends to become more and more prevalent in election years. It would have been different, for me, had he said, "...and my plan for leveling the playing field is ______", and filled in the blanks with meaningful, locical steps that could be implemented and be effective in the short term. When emerging countries have wage rates that are pennies/hour and people who are willing to exploit that difference it is hard to "level the playing field", but it sure does sound nice to say. I have another favorite quote from even farther back, in the 600BC range by a fellow named Aesop who wrote a bunch of fables, "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office."

Originally Posted by rspears

I have another favorite quote from even farther back, in the 600BC range by a fellow named Aesop who wrote a bunch of fables, "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office."

I remember something of Aesop from my childhood! On the Rocky & Bullwinkle show, they were the "Fractured Fairy Tales" part of the show! Somehow it's quite fitting right about now!

I for one like to hear feel good stuff, really fed up with the doom and gloom bs..... But you're right, it will never happen the way Congress works. A democratic President could never propose anything that would be acceptable to a Republican controlled house. The art of compromise is gone in politics.

I guess it's up to the voters to decide if they want things to continue on this downhill tumble, or if they want to vote some individuals in to Congress who will actually do something for the entire country without worrying about what the lobbyists want done!!!!! Nobody gets my vote this year who promises to 'back the party 100%, don't care what party it is. If this country is to be saved from a total collapse it's going to take people in Congress with a whole different mind-set then the "sold to the highest bidder" bunch we have in there now!!!!!!

I'd say the election in 2012 is the voters last chance to start getting things turned around!!!!!! The status quo and business as usual just isn't going to get anything fixed!!!!!!

Originally Posted by rspears

And thankfully this is not a forum of one opinion being oppressive to the whole, and we generally show respect in what we post. We likely have some members (or guests) who either 1) don't open this thread and don't care to read the dialog, or perhaps expand their understanding of whichever side they take; or 2) open the thread, scan the latest entry shaking their heads in dismay. Uncle Bob mentioned earlier that a lot of people had probably quit reading part way through his dialog, and in another place mentioned "Roger gets it" (thank you, Bob). For me, Bob very definitely "gets it", and he is very talented in his expression of his viewpoint. I read every word of every post on this thread, and I look forward to Bob's latest insights. I find that as I read Bob's posts, my head is generally nodding vertically, even for those places where I have to go back and re-read parts to understanding the reasoning. For some others my head tends to shake side to side as I wonder at the inequity of the statements, but I still read every word.

Neither side is perfect (it is not a perfect world), but as we look back at history there have been many, many of the highest respected leaders who have addressed similar situations. Today, in this election year rhetoric, we seem to have shifted from "Let's lift up the poor." to "Let's pound down the rich." Winston Churchill once said, "I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." Another popular target, which I tire of hearing about, is "...the 1%" and the need for them to "...pay their share", to be "redistributed" to the lower/middle income classes. I heard it said on a national commentary that if our collective leaders were truly concerned this would be a world view, as we are indeed in a shrinking world of technology, and they would assess that we are the richest major country in the world, and if you compare average household incomes on a world basis then the "1%" cuts deep into the US population, down to those who are bringing home incomes well below the national median of ~$28,000. Are we all ready to accept a, say 30% reduction in our taxable income in order to "share the wealth"? I believe this falls into the "Be careful what you ask for" category.

Those "Five Great Sentences" pretty much boil down to a simple mathmatical fact - Sharing of the wealth means that in each successive round of sharing there will be less to share, until there is eventually nothing left to share. I've been exposed to some of the writings of C.S. Lewis recently, and I note a quote that he made long ago, which to me shows that history tends to repeat, or perhaps that we humans seem to have a hard time learning from our mistakes.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” — C. S. Lewis

Now you ticked me off on a perfectly good day.Not one opinion???. Right,just yours,Dave's and Bob's.And if it's Dave's you follow along like a puppy dog.

How did this thread get from wanting I guess some simple info about a law about the internet to for god's sake Churchill???.Sure seems to me your guys need some direction.

MY NAME is not what I want associated to threads the likes of this.And I'll be dammed if people will tell me where or when it gets used.Not up for a vote or opinion.Period.

You guys want to vent(face it all this is nothing more than venting leading to well nothing),go start your own thread and stop running me down with this horse hockey.Respect huh???.

Before I forget.Stop talking to me like I am some sort of a newbie.Cause that just ant so.

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

I for one like to hear feel good stuff, really fed up with the doom and gloom bs..... But you're right, it will never happen the way Congress works. A democratic President could never propose anything that would be acceptable to a Republican controlled house. The art of compromise is gone in politics.

I guess it's up to the voters to decide if they want things to continue on this downhill tumble, or if they want to vote some individuals in to Congress who will actually do something for the entire country without worrying about what the lobbyists want done!!!!! Nobody gets my vote this year who promises to 'back the party 100%, don't care what party it is. If this country is to be saved from a total collapse it's going to take people in Congress with a whole different mind-set then the "sold to the highest bidder" bunch we have in there now!!!!!!

I'd say the election in 2012 is the voters last chance to start getting things turned around!!!!!! The status quo and business as usual just isn't going to get anything fixed!!!!!!

Not sure if it was your intention or not, but the way that you've worded that the definition of compromise is doing what the President wants, right or wrong. I realize that's the way a majority of the media frames it, but is that what citizens want/believe? Are we to ignore that a President elected in 2008 with a super majority in the Senate, and an immense majority in the house, who got everything his own party would approve through in his first two years, and who was then repudiated by the voters in 2010 who took away that huge house majority, and almost took away his Senate majority? If that's what you meant I'd love to hear why the Pres deserves to be given a pile of blank checks.

Originally Posted by Bob Parmenter

Not sure if it was your intention or not, but the way that you've worded that the definition of compromise is doing what the President wants, right or wrong. I realize that's the way a majority of the media frames it, but is that what citizens want/believe? Are we to ignore that a President elected in 2008 with a super majority in the Senate, and an immense majority in the house, who got everything his own party would approve through in his first two years, and who was then repudiated by the voters in 2010 who took away that huge house majority, and almost took away his Senate majority? If that's what you meant I'd love to hear why the Pres deserves to be given a pile of blank checks.

Brent/Bill-do you see the problem/complaint I have here??.I asked them to start another thread because I don't want to be associated with this mistakenly started thread and they just continue on totally ignoring me.No respect at all.I should not have to be run over like this.

Gee Gary, I thought you were being pretty crafty trying to provoke Bill into closing the thread by your personal attack on Roger. Perhaps a better solution would be that you just not open the thread at your end again. I seriously doubt anyone "blames" you for the content beyond what you actually type.

Originally Posted by Bob Parmenter

Gee Gary, I thought you were being pretty crafty trying to provoke Bill into closing the thread by your personal attack on Roger. Perhaps a better solution would be that you just not open the thread at your end again. I seriously doubt anyone "blames" you for the content beyond what you actually type.

Anywhere on the net the O/P does have a say in the direction a thread they started goes in.That is SOP anywhere on the net.It is a means of showing respect for everyone.This site and you guys is home base for me.But I do need to take a stand for myself...........

Um, your original post was on a political matter, both a House and Senate bill........................there's no gaurantee on the net that all responders will say things on the original subject that will be agreeable to the OP. Just sayin'............but any further commentary on this aspect will stop for me here.

Originally Posted by Bob Parmenter

Um, your original post was on a political matter, both a House and Senate bill........................there's no gaurantee on the net that all responders will say things on the original subject that will be agreeable to the OP. Just sayin'............but any further commentary on this aspect will stop for me here.

I'm Just a Bill - YouTube

You totally right.I made a mistake starting it and didn't know it.

Bob I am going to give you a example.If I read advise on a topic from a member that has a long stream of good info that is complete and right on the money,I respect that member's input and stay out of it in respect of that member.He's handling it and even through I might have something to add to it,it's his.And in the same hand if a O/P asks me to stop,well I do in most cases.

Well here I go. I have worked since I was old enough to push a broom at a construction site. I have been in several unions. I don't believe they (unions) are helping the WORKING man anymore. I believe the working man wants a job wants to work and wants a fair wage. I was in management for over 30 years (after being in the unions) neither side is better than the other Greed drives most. The unions protect the ones that should have there a__ kicked to get them started. and thats wrong but because they pay dues they get a check and the others do the work. As far a wages go its a dog chasing its tail Rasie the price of goods, then you get a raise to buy the goods. You get a raise then the company raises the price to pay you more wage. I can't see how the pres. or anyone else is going to level any thing that greed drives. When you have people in power that put them selves above (way above) the people they serve thats wrong.. When I owned my bus. I worked right along side my crew most of the time harder than them, plus I had to go out and get the jobs. Dealing with anyone when it comes to them spending THERE money you got to do it right or there won't be a next job. Bet your all tired of reading this... I am. Have a good day guys I'm heading back to my shop.

Originally Posted by cffisher

Well here I go. I have worked since I was old enough to push a broom at a construction site. I have been in several unions. I don't believe they (unions) are helping the WORKING man anymore. I believe the working man wants a job wants to work and wants a fair wage. I was in management for over 30 years (after being in the unions) neither side is better than the other Greed drives most. The unions protect the ones that should have there a__ kicked to get them started. and thats wrong but because they pay dues they get a check and the others do the work. As far a wages go its a dog chasing its tail Rasie the price of goods, then you get a raise to buy the goods. You get a raise then the company raises the price to pay you more wage. I can't see how the pres. or anyone else is going to level any thing that greed drives. When you have people in power that put them selves above (way above) the people they serve thats wrong.. When I owned my bus. I worked right along side my crew most of the time harder than them, plus I had to go out and get the jobs. Dealing with anyone when it comes to them spending THERE money you got to do it right or there won't be a next job. Bet your all tired of reading this... I am. Have a good day guys I'm heading back to my shop.

And still just another case of being trample on.How can any member be allowed to be disrespected like this??.

1gary... I'm not sure if you relize this or not but when you push Enter on your computer Its no longer yours ..its out there never to return, you have no control over it. Just sit back and relax.