Text 8347, 96 rader
Skriven 2005-02-01 10:29:02 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
   Kommentar till text 8336 av RICHARD JOHNSON (1:10/345)
Ärende: Re: Proud Democrat
==========================
01 Feb 05 02:48, RICHARD JOHNSON wrote to ED CONNELL:

 RJ> On 2/1/05 2:36 AM, ED CONNELL wrote to RICHARD JOHNSON:

 ->> If the meaning of your comment was the obvious, 

 RJ> If the "big bidness" we are discussing is of the WAL-MART variety 
 RJ> then I oppose vehemently Mr. Connell.  The WAL-MARTs of the nation elect 
 RJ> not to pay their employees a livable wage and in doing so make them 
 RJ> dependent on state and local services such as food stamps, rental 
 RJ> assistance, etc. and that means that every taxpaying citizen is 
 RJ> subsidizing WAL-MARTs low cost of unemployment.

You're really somethin', you know that?  We can always be sure that if we need
someone to sing the liberal litany on any subject, you will be there to step up
and warble like a summer songbird.

There are a few things that you always forget to include, however.  Whenever
you liberals crank up the money machine to give people a higher minimum wage -
aka "a living wage" - you forget that it ratchets up the cost of everything
right on up the line.  When that happens, the small business owner gets it
right in the shorts every time. (You remember him?  He's the one who hires 80%
of the workers in this country.)  HE is the one who has to pay all the extra
FICA and other payroll taxes, and HE is the one who has to bump up the pay of
everybody already working for him, and HE is the one who can no longer hire
trainees.  Raising the minimum wage effectively eliminates entry level jobs
from the market place.  There is a secondary consequence I *know* you haven't
thought of - when entry level jobs are too costly to hire somebody for,
employers will hire illegals who will work for well below the minimum, and that
just enables the trade in illegal aliens to continue.  There are other
consequences to *that*, but that is another discussion.

 RJ> If by "big bidness" we are discussing those corporations that 
 RJ> elect to reduce benefits while "downsizing" staff and then expecting 
 RJ> remaining staff to take up the slack without due compensation then I 
 RJ> oppose vehemently, Mr. Connell.

And just why is that, hmmm?  Could it be because between the cost of unions and
benefits and artificially high wages, employers can't afford to hire as many
people as they would have 20 years ago?  Let's also take advances in technology
into account as well.  Doesn't matter what area you're in, computers will
impact it sooner or later, and you'll get downsized.  That's life.  I'm sure
those who built buggy whips felt like they were getting screwed too, when
automobiles ended the use of the horse and buggy.  The smart ones got into some
other area, and used their skills there.  The rest sat around whining about how
unfair it was, and demanded their "due compensation" as you put it.

 RJ> If by "big bidness" we are discussing those corporations that 
 RJ> reduce pay and benefits of the worker on the floor while simultaneously 
 RJ> increasing tremendously the compansation in the executive suite, then I 
 RJ> oppose vehenmently, Mr. Connell.

Who you going to get to run interference for the company, to make the deals
necessary for any business to grow and make a profit?  Who you going to get to
take care of business and then take the heat when something goes tits up?  You
won't get anybody worth a damn to do it for peanuts which is what you imply. 
Making decisions that effect the health of a large company, and impact its
products and viability in the marketplace takes a lot of hard work, is very
stressful, and not something every Tom, Dick, or Ernest can do.  The ones who
can, and are good at it, demand and get high dollar compensation.

 RJ> If by "big bidness" we are discussing corporations which utilize 
 RJ> incestuous boards of directors, engage in questionable business tactics 
 RJ> and work to give as little back to the communities of which they are a 
 RJ> part, or even the country for that matter Mr. Connell, then I am 
 RJ> vehemently opposed.

Yeah, and for every company like Enron, there are a hundred others who do it
the right way, and are a positive influence in their communities.  You guys
never seem to want to talk about them, though, do you?

 ->> By the way, how did you like the election in Iraq? 

 RJ> It was a good start but then I am reminded of the good start the 
 RJ> elections in Vietnam were hailed as back in 1972 or so, remember those Mr.
 RJ> Connell.  Search out newspaper reports of that election and you will find 
 RJ> much the same glowing phrases and predictions as are in the media today 
 RJ> regarding Iraq.

 RJ> You do remember how Vietnam turned out, eh Mr. Connell?


Of course he does, and so do the rest of us who were there.  Too bad Iraq is
nothing at all like Vietnam.  I would point out, however, that in Vietnam when
we left, the ARVN forces were in complete control of the country, and remained
in control until the Democrat Party in the United States Congress voted to
eliminate the aid that enabled them to buy replacement parts, weapons, and
ammunition to keep fighting.  That's when they got overrun by the NVA.   

John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin:   (1:379/1.99)