On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:33:40 GMT, "Rodan" <Rodan@verizon.NOT> wrote:

> "Mike hunt" wrote:
>
>The fuel economy of American cars the same size as made
>by the Japanese is as good as or better than Japanese
>cars, look at the CAFE lists. GM for example, offers more
>cars that get 30 MPG or more than does ANY import brand.
>_______________________________________________ _
>
>"still just me" wrote:
>
>I didn't mean mpg. I meant QUALITY.
>GM is also the most pig-headed corporation around.

If you're going to quote someone, please do it accurately or at the
very least, try paraphrasing without totally changing the meaning of
what someone posted.

Here's what I actually said:
>>I don't recall mentioning mpg. I think I mentioned QUALITY. Deming
>>taught them to continuously improve quality as a way to long term
>>success. GM concentrates on continuously reducing "costs". Those two
>>approaches are diametrically opposed.

>>GM is also the most pig headed corporation around, but that's another
>>discussion for another da

Mike Hunt brought up MPG in response to my original post. But, I made
no statements concerning MPG in my original post. That was something
he brought up on his own. I don't see how mpg relates to discussions
of quality except very abstractly.

The point remains - the Japanese whooped our butts in the auto
industry by concentrating on continuously improving quality.

>_______________________________________________
>
>That'll put Mike in his place. He can talk of measurable
>things like mpg but he can't deny that you have personal
>opinions about 'quality' and 'pig-headedness'.
>
>Touche.
>
>Rodan.

Again, mpg is not really pertinent to a macro discussion of why he
Japanese kicked our butts. Their cars could have gotten mileage twice
what US built cars did and they still would not have sold very many.
What allowed them to grab market share was concentrating on continuous
improving quality and thereby producing products that over time gained
tremendous loyalty from the public (just as Deming taught them). You
might want to go do some reading on Deming - although I sense that you
don't really want to learn.

As for the pig-headedness, it's a fact: GM has driven every talented
board member who's joined them off the board in just a few years. In
most cases the talent has come in with a large stock stake and been
willing to take a major financial loss just to get out. Why? Because
GM is run by a bunch of pig headed zealots who live in the past and
refuse to listen to anyone but themselves. Again, do some learning.

 

"Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:RaOdnUP7LvGD9NTVnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@ptd.net...
> Where did I say domestic do not import cars? You can pick and choose all
> you want and believe whatever you choose, but what I posted is factual and
> that is the fuel economy of American cars the same size as made by the
> Japanese is as good as or better than Japanese cars, look at the CAFE
> lists. In addition one does not need to settle for an underpowered car,
> like the 4cy Camry, to get decent mileage when the buy a domestic.
> Import brand penchant to spin their engines to higher RPMs so they can
> advertize higher HP figures greatly effects the torque that one needs to
> get the vehicle moving and keep it going up a grade. That basic
> engineering fact reduces ones actual fuel mileage when one drives in hilly
> or mountainous parts of the country.
>
> The US Commerce Department does not agree with the domestic content
> numbers you site, in any event
>
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MH_1k.2502$v%.1415@trndny04...
>> Mike hunt wrote:
>>> What color is the sky in your world? The fuel economy of American cars
>>> the same size as made by the Japanese is as good as or better than
>>> Japanese cars, look at the CAFE lists.
>>
>> Really? For every single catagory of cars (2 seater, Minicompact,
>> Subcompact, Compact, Midisize, Large, small station wagon or midsize
>> station wagon), the vehicle with the best mileage is a foreign car.
>>
>> > GM for example, offers more car that get 30
>>> MPG or more than does ANY import brand.
>>
>> Big whoop! GM has more brands than any import brand.
>>
>> GM cars made in North America that get more than 29 mpg highway:
>>
>> Chevy Cobalt, Malibu, Classic, Pontiac G5, G6, Vibe,
>>
>> The Chevy Aveo (Korea) and Saturn Astra (Belgium) are made in either Asia
>> or Europe.
>>
>> Toyota Cars that 29 mpg (highway):
>>
>> Yaris, Camry, Corolla, Prius, Matrix, Scion xD
>>
>> So Toyota sells as many models that get 30 mpg that are made in the US by
>> GM.
>>
>> And Toyota makes two models that get more than 30 mpg CITY.
>>
>> So, considering that Toyota has 3 brands (toyota, Lexus, Scion) and GM
>> has 7 (GMC, Hummy, Chevy, Pontiac, Caddy, Buick, Saab), Toyota does
>> pretty well.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Domestic do not offer some of the midget cars that the Japanese offer,
>>
>> You mean like the Chevy Aveo? Oh, I see what you mean: Chevy has to
>> import it.
>>
>>> that get better miles when compare to their compact and midsize cars,
>>
>> That's true. In every category of car, an import brand car (often made in
>> the US of mostly US parts), gets better mileage than the American brand
>> in the same size catagory.
>>
>>> but they are ALL imported not assembled in the US like some of their
>>> larger cars
>>
>> Like the Chevy Aveo. However, Toyota, Honda and other foreign car makers
>> do make cars in the US with mostly US parts. Toyotas, on average
>> (including cars that are made in the US and outside the US) have about
>> 42% US content; Hondas just over 50%, according to a group supported by
>> retired Detroit-3 workers (Level Field Institute).
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>
>The Cafe list is misleading. This argument about gas mileage is pointless.
>Because the US isn't getting the cars with fantastic mileage. And doesn't
>even grasp the concept of city cars. Even though it was created in America.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosley Also Americans failed to buy and
>demand such cars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_cars Here's a slew
>of high mileage cars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vw_polo
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Vitz
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Matiz
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Micra
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEAT_Ibiza
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Versa#Engines Since a slew of cars
>get 40-50 miles per gallon. Sometimes 60 . Like the Ford Ka with a
>diesel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Ka
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peugeot_1007
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Panda
The Ka has proved highly profitable for Ford despite its low selling price,
largely due to the lack of spending required in its development. It has been
the best selling car in its class in the United Kingdom for a number of
years and commands around a fifth of the city car market. Canada's hottest
seller for years wasn't accepted here. Because it had controversial looks
and instrument cluster that people hated or loved. With the correct engine
both these cars get over 50-60 mpg.

The Toyota Echo is a model name previously used by the Toyota Motor
Corporation on the export version of two different models.

a.. The Toyota Platz (1999 - 2005) sold as the Toyota Echo in North
America and the Middle East.
b.. The first generation Toyota Vitz Sold in Canada (1999 - 2005) and sold
as the Toyota Echo in Australia and Taiwan, several other Asian markets, and
also in Canada from 2004 to 2005 as the Toyota Echo hatchback. It is now
sold in all those markets as the Yaris. The Yaris is sold in South America
and the Caribbean. Its sold mostly in Aruba and has some illegal chains in
Bolivia. And now the US.
.. Also Cafe statistics are picked in 5mpg increments. You pick cars in 5
miles per gallon increments and you cant see the differences in 1 to 4 miles
per gallon. This argument is pointless. The Scion brand has their mileage
reduced to increase performance. From the drivetrain they were made from.
The first generation Toyota Yaris. And most if not all jap / euro / VW
supermini cars such as the Ford Fiesta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Fiesta , Renault Clio, Vauxhill Corsa.
have smaller engines that get better mileage then shown by Cafe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Ka However the cars aren't here . Or here
with those high mileage engines . The Yaris/ Echo/ Scion, had a 1.0 liter
that isn't here. The US 2006 Yaris get 40 mpg highway and 34 city. People
are getting 60 mpg in Echos in Canada. But my 2005 Echo that gets 41 highway
and 35 city with an auto OD transmission. You can compare all day. But GM
and Ford are political powerhouses. All US sellers of cars are guilty of
limiting the high mileage cars available in the US. I mean cars getting
40-60 mpg are across the Canadian border . GM and Ford are most guilty
because they don't have the high mileage cars to sell. But if you wish to
argue mileage. Compare against the cars that aren't here for political and
monetary reasons. Some by GM and Ford/ Chrysler themselves. Then as you can
see. GM and gas mileage shouldn't be spoken in the same sentence.

 

On 8 Jun 2008 21:37:08 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

>Bush did no such thing.That is just what you read into it.
>You're deluded if you believe Bush "acts like a dictator".
>He did a lot of diplomacy before he decided on action.Talk alone doesn't
>always succeed.

Pulease.

 

On 8 Jun 2008 21:43:31 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

>Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in
>news:utun44tb09e9eu3vntuhsvaabshdbg0obl@4ax.com :
>
>> On 7 Jun 2008 19:11:08 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>>news:votj44deln9pv2oeslqfeo3d7hpkkir17q@4ax.com :
>>>
>>>> On 5 Jun 2008 00:03:02 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>>>>news:dm8e449ihd25pj0mcsq1ch16lh84evmf1d@4ax.c om:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 07:48:29 -0500, Dan C
>>>>>><youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:27:46 -0500, Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It's a fact of life, Junior. Sometimes shareholders lose money.
>>>>>>>>>That's the way the stock market and the free enterprise system
>>>>>>>>>works. As for the CEO making an "insane" amount of money...
>>>>>>>>>well, it's certainly more than other GM employees make, but
>>>>>>>>>that's (also) how things work. Those in charge get paid more.
>>>>>>>>>Simple fact of life. Perhaps if you had more education, you
>>>>>>>>>could make some money, yourself!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is a fact for you. Rick Wagoner, CEO of GM got total
>>>>>>>> compensation last year of over $14 million. That is more than
>>>>>>>> the compensation of the CEO and the 36 board members of Honda
>>>>>>>> Motor Company combined. Honda had record sales last month. How
>>>>>>>> is GM doing? Oh, that's right, the death spiral thing - never
>>>>>>>> mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How much he makes in comparison to other executives (especially
>>>>>>>foreigners) is completely irrelevant. He was paid an amount that
>>>>>>>was decided upon by the board of directors, who are supposed to be
>>>>>>>the direct
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "supposed to" being the operative statement here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>representatives of the shareholders. Blame the board, and the
>>>>>>>shareholders, for paying him too much, if you must blame someone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Blame the Board (aka his golf buddies), sure. The stockholders'
>>>>>> only real vote is to sell. Considering that GM stock is worth no
>>>>>> more now than it was in 1960, I think a lot of them have already
>>>>>> voted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, US executives are paid obscene amounts of money not just
>>>>>>>> in comparison to "other employees," but compared to their
>>>>>>>> foreign counterparts. Hard to see the value here. The truth is
>>>>>>>> that American companies are - more and more - being run for the
>>>>>>>> benefit of the executives rather than the stockholders or, god
>>>>>>>> forbid, the mainstream workers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jesus, did none of you ever study economics and the free
>>>>>>>enterprise system? This isn't a commune trying to the
>>>>>>>wealth amongst everyone equally. This is a ing American
>>>>>>>business, whose goals are (and should be) to make the maximum
>>>>>>>profit possible for the company.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree, that should be the goal. I am telling you that you are
>>>>>> naive. The purpose of the company is to make the top executives
>>>>>> as rich as possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How that company
>>>>>>>decides to compensate it's directors/executives and other workers
>>>>>>>is decided by the company. Rick Wagoner didn't set his own
>>>>>>>salary, the goddam board of directors (and shareholders) did.
>>>>>>>Don't blame the dude for accepting what they offer to pay him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And when he sits on the board of their company, don't blame them
>>>>>> for accepting what Rick Wagoner gives them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We've got enough socialism in the country already. Just look at
>>>>>>>the circus which is the Democrat party if you want to see that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Democracy is so untidy. Let's just make Bush dictator like he
>>>>>> said he wanted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It appears YOU are the one who wants to assign "dictator" powers to
>>>>>the government.
>>>>
>>>> GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that
>>>> there were going to be some times where we don't agree with each
>>>> other. But that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of
>>>> a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
>>>
>>>He's NOT saying he wants a dictatorship.
>>>Evidently you missed where Bush said "IF". Seems he was making a
>>>joke,or an observation about dictators.
>>>(dictatorships are "fine" as long as -you- are the dictator...)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../18/nd.01.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>YOU want the government to dictate to companies how much they can
>>>>>pay for certain jobs.
>>>>
>>>> I have clearly stated otherwise.
>>>
>>>You seem to be inconsistent then,as you complain about the BOD not
>>>being responsive to the shareholders,but you offer no other solution.
>>
>> But I did offer a solution. If we tax all compensation above say $2
>> million at an 80% tax rate, it will greatly diminish the incentive to
>> award yourself a huge pay day.
>
>
>And you thus LIE when you say you don't want to involve government.
>Taxation IS a government function.

Where did I say I didn't want to involve the government? I said that
the government should dictate how much an executive is paid. Obviously
the government has the right to set tax rates.

>AND you want to use taxation punitively.
>Taxation is for raising revenue,not for punishment.

Tell that to the "conservatives" who set punitive tax rates on drugs
which they previously made illegal.

>You WOULD be a "dictator".You want to dictate arbitrary limits on exec
>pay,without any factual basis.

Again, no such thing. They can pay him a billion dollars if they
want. He would clear $200 million after taxes. If that's not enough,
they can pay him more.

>> If you jack up the compensation to
>> compensate for the tax rate, it will be even more unjustifiable in
>> terms of cost to the company and at least the stolen money will go
>> into the Treasury rather than the pockets of these thieves.
>
>Ah,yes,expanding government.

We don't need to expand the government to justify more taxation. We
still have to pay for Dick and George's Excellent Adventure in Iraq.

>Then your socialists can dish it out for pet projects and costly,useless
>social programs that make things worse,long-term,as they have in the past.

You mean like universal health care that every other citizen in every
other country that is not a sinking shithole gets?

 

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:38:54 -0500, Gordon McGrew wrote:

>>Then your socialists can dish it out for pet projects and costly,useless
>>social programs that make things worse,long-term,as they have in the past.

> You mean like universal health care that every other citizen in every
> other country that is not a sinking shithole gets?

Yeah, like that. Yet another useless and costly social program.
that.

If you don't like the USA, why don't you ing leave, dickmunch? Go
find yourself a nice, cozy ing communist/socialist bullshit country,
and enjoy their "free" healthcare. Just right off and die, asswipe.



--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
Now filtering out all posts originating from Google Groups.
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

 

Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:3atr449pseg030fsnip2767sauiu8m35fn@4ax.com:

> On 8 Jun 2008 21:43:31 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>>Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>news:utun44tb09e9eu3vntuhsvaabshdbg0obl@4ax.co m:
>>
>>> On 7 Jun 2008 19:11:08 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>>>news:votj44deln9pv2oeslqfeo3d7hpkkir17q@4ax.co m:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5 Jun 2008 00:03:02 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>>>>>news:dm8e449ihd25pj0mcsq1ch16lh84evmf1d@4ax. com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 07:48:29 -0500, Dan C
>>>>>>><youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:27:46 -0500, Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It's a fact of life, Junior. Sometimes shareholders lose
>>>>>>>>>>money. That's the way the stock market and the free enterprise
>>>>>>>>>>system works. As for the CEO making an "insane" amount of
>>>>>>>>>>money... well, it's certainly more than other GM employees
>>>>>>>>>>make, but that's (also) how things work. Those in charge get
>>>>>>>>>>paid more. Simple fact of life. Perhaps if you had more
>>>>>>>>>>education, you could make some money, yourself!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here is a fact for you. Rick Wagoner, CEO of GM got total
>>>>>>>>> compensation last year of over $14 million. That is more than
>>>>>>>>> the compensation of the CEO and the 36 board members of Honda
>>>>>>>>> Motor Company combined. Honda had record sales last month.
>>>>>>>>> How is GM doing? Oh, that's right, the death spiral thing -
>>>>>>>>> never mind.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How much he makes in comparison to other executives (especially
>>>>>>>>foreigners) is completely irrelevant. He was paid an amount
>>>>>>>>that was decided upon by the board of directors, who are
>>>>>>>>supposed to be the direct
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "supposed to" being the operative statement here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>representatives of the shareholders. Blame the board, and the
>>>>>>>>shareholders, for paying him too much, if you must blame
>>>>>>>>someone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Blame the Board (aka his golf buddies), sure. The stockholders'
>>>>>>> only real vote is to sell. Considering that GM stock is worth
>>>>>>> no more now than it was in 1960, I think a lot of them have
>>>>>>> already voted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyway, US executives are paid obscene amounts of money not
>>>>>>>>> just in comparison to "other employees," but compared to their
>>>>>>>>> foreign counterparts. Hard to see the value here. The truth
>>>>>>>>> is that American companies are - more and more - being run for
>>>>>>>>> the benefit of the executives rather than the stockholders or,
>>>>>>>>> god forbid, the mainstream workers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Jesus, did none of you ever study economics and the free
>>>>>>>>enterprise system? This isn't a commune trying to the
>>>>>>>>wealth amongst everyone equally. This is a ing American
>>>>>>>>business, whose goals are (and should be) to make the maximum
>>>>>>>>profit possible for the company.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree, that should be the goal. I am telling you that you are
>>>>>>> naive. The purpose of the company is to make the top executives
>>>>>>> as rich as possible.

That is just how YOU -feel-.

More accurately,the purpose of the execs was to make themselves as rich as
possible.
The purpose of the company is to make a profit.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How that company
>>>>>>>>decides to compensate it's directors/executives and other
>>>>>>>>workers is decided by the company. Rick Wagoner didn't set his
>>>>>>>>own salary, the goddam board of directors (and shareholders)
>>>>>>>>did. Don't blame the dude for accepting what they offer to pay
>>>>>>>>him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And when he sits on the board of their company, don't blame them
>>>>>>> for accepting what Rick Wagoner gives them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We've got enough socialism in the country already. Just look at
>>>>>>>>the circus which is the Democrat party if you want to see that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Democracy is so untidy. Let's just make Bush dictator like he
>>>>>>> said he wanted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It appears YOU are the one who wants to assign "dictator" powers
>>>>>>to the government.
>>>>>
>>>>> GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that
>>>>> there were going to be some times where we don't agree with each
>>>>> other. But that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck
>>>>> of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
>>>>
>>>>He's NOT saying he wants a dictatorship.
>>>>Evidently you missed where Bush said "IF". Seems he was making a
>>>>joke,or an observation about dictators.
>>>>(dictatorships are "fine" as long as -you- are the dictator...)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../18/nd.01.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>YOU want the government to dictate to companies how much they can
>>>>>>pay for certain jobs.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have clearly stated otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>You seem to be inconsistent then,as you complain about the BOD not
>>>>being responsive to the shareholders,but you offer no other
>>>>solution.
>>>
>>> But I did offer a solution. If we tax all compensation above say $2
>>> million at an 80% tax rate, it will greatly diminish the incentive
>>> to award yourself a huge pay day.
>>
>>
>>And you thus LIE when you say you don't want to involve government.
>>Taxation IS a government function.
>
> Where did I say I didn't want to involve the government? I said that
> the government should dictate how much an executive is paid. Obviously
> the government has the right to set tax rates.

that is NOT what you said earlier;

I said; "YOU want the government to dictate to companies how much they can
pay for certain jobs".
your reply;"I have clearly stated otherwise."

It proves what I said originally; "It appears YOU are the one who wants to
assign "dictator" powers to the government."

What a WEASEL.

>
>>AND you want to use taxation punitively.
>>Taxation is for raising revenue,not for punishment.
>
> Tell that to the "conservatives" who set punitive tax rates on drugs
> which they previously made illegal.
>
>>You WOULD be a "dictator".You want to dictate arbitrary limits on exec
>>pay,without any factual basis.
>
> Again, no such thing. They can pay him a billion dollars if they
> want. He would clear $200 million after taxes. If that's not enough,
> they can pay him more.

A DEFACTO limit.
you set some arbitrary limit;some number you picked out of your ***.
that you FEEL should be the max salary.
That's how socialists/liberals work;they don't work on any factual
basis,they operate on their FEELINGS.
>
>>> If you jack up the compensation to
>>> compensate for the tax rate, it will be even more unjustifiable in
>>> terms of cost to the company and at least the stolen money will go
>>> into the Treasury rather than the pockets of these thieves.
>>
>>Ah,yes,expanding government.
>
> We don't need to expand the government to justify more taxation. We
> still have to pay for Dick and George's Excellent Adventure in Iraq.
>
>>Then your socialists can dish it out for pet projects and
>>costly,useless social programs that make things worse,long-term,as
>>they have in the past.
>
> You mean like universal health care that every other citizen in every
> other country that is not a sinking shithole gets?

if those countries are so great,why don't you move there?
Instead of trying to drag the US down to their level.

you'd fit in well.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

Rodan wrote:
> "Mike hunt" wrote:
>
> The fuel economy of American cars the same size as made
> by the Japanese is as good as or better than Japanese
> cars, look at the CAFE lists. GM for example, offers more
> cars that get 30 MPG or more than does ANY import brand.
> ________________________________________________
>
> "still just me" wrote:
>
> I didn't mean mpg. I meant QUALITY.
> GM is also the most pig-headed corporation around.

I doubt it. Yahoo just turned down a generous take-over offer from
Microsoft.

> _______________________________________________
>
> That'll put Mike in his place. He can talk of measurable
> things like mpg but he can't deny that you have personal
> opinions about 'quality' and 'pig-headedness'.
>
> Touche.
>
> Rodan.
>
>

 

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:55:08 -0500, Dan C
<youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:38:54 -0500, Gordon McGrew wrote:
>
>>>Then your socialists can dish it out for pet projects and costly,useless
>>>social programs that make things worse,long-term,as they have in the past.
>
>> You mean like universal health care that every other citizen in every
>> other country that is not a sinking shithole gets?
>
>Yeah, like that. Yet another useless and costly social program.
>that.

It is interesting that you consider health care useless. I assume
that you have declined any health insurance that is available to you
and intend to wave Medicare coverage.

>If you don't like the USA, why don't you ing leave, dickmunch? Go
>find yourself a nice, cozy ing communist/socialist bullshit country,
>and enjoy their "free" healthcare. Just right off and die, asswipe.

Blow me. America is not defined by the denial of health care. We are
a democratic country and we can vote it in. At that point, *you* can
leave for whatever godforsaken third world country you choose which
lacks universal healthcare. I would ask you to write us and let us
know how it is, but I doubt you will be able to get Internet service
there.

This is the question I have asked many times and no one can answer.
What is the second richest country that doesn't have universal
healthcare?

 

On 10 Jun 2008 12:16:21 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:


>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree, that should be the goal. I am telling you that you are
>>>>>>>> naive. The purpose of the company is to make the top executives
>>>>>>>> as rich as possible.
>
>That is just how YOU -feel-.
>
>More accurately,the purpose of the execs was to make themselves as rich as
>possible.
>The purpose of the company is to make a profit.

And the guys running the company are whom?


>> Where did I say I didn't want to involve the government? I said that
>> the government should dictate how much an executive is paid. Obviously
>> the government has the right to set tax rates.
>
>that is NOT what you said earlier;

Correcting a typo, the above should read: "the government should
*not* dictate how much an executive is paid."

>I said; "YOU want the government to dictate to companies how much they can
>pay for certain jobs".
>your reply;"I have clearly stated otherwise."
>
>It proves what I said originally; "It appears YOU are the one who wants to
>assign "dictator" powers to the government."
>
>What a WEASEL.

Or a sloppy typist. The corrected posting is consist ant with my
previous statement.

>>>AND you want to use taxation punitively.
>>>Taxation is for raising revenue,not for punishment.
>>
>> Tell that to the "conservatives" who set punitive tax rates on drugs
>> which they previously made illegal.
>>
>>>You WOULD be a "dictator".You want to dictate arbitrary limits on exec
>>>pay,without any factual basis.
>>
>> Again, no such thing. They can pay him a billion dollars if they
>> want. He would clear $200 million after taxes. If that's not enough,
>> they can pay him more.
>
>A DEFACTO limit.

Are you ignorant of math? The only limit is the amount of money in
the company's bank account and any line of credit. If they are stupid
enough to pay that much, why shouldn't the government tax it at 80%?
We already have a tax on stupid poor people. It is called the LOTTO.

>you set some arbitrary limit;some number you picked out of your ***.

Aren't all the tax brackets arbitrary? If you want to lobby for a
flat tax, knock yourself out. But don't tell me the government cant
set arbitrary tax brackets.

And speaking of arbitrary, why is there an arbitrary limit (about
$115,000 IIRC) on the maximum amount of salary taxed for Social
Security?

>that you FEEL should be the max salary.

Again, max salary limited only by company coffer.

>That's how socialists/liberals work;they don't work on any factual
>basis,they operate on their FEELINGS.

Beats operating on the basis of what makes your buddies in the oil,
defense, healthcare, etc. industries rich.

But if you like, I have a felling that if the maximum salary available
on the open market were $2 million or so, these brilliant business
minds wouldn't just go home and bake cookies.



>>
>>>> If you jack up the compensation to
>>>> compensate for the tax rate, it will be even more unjustifiable in
>>>> terms of cost to the company and at least the stolen money will go
>>>> into the Treasury rather than the pockets of these thieves.
>>>
>>>Ah,yes,expanding government.
>>
>> We don't need to expand the government to justify more taxation. We
>> still have to pay for Dick and George's Excellent Adventure in Iraq.
>>
>>>Then your socialists can dish it out for pet projects and
>>>costly,useless social programs that make things worse,long-term,as
>>>they have in the past.
>>
>> You mean like universal health care that every other citizen in every
>> other country that is not a sinking shithole gets?
>
>if those countries are so great,why don't you move there?
>Instead of trying to drag the US down to their level.
>
>you'd fit in well.

 

Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:817154dhkmv8u1slrpb29a149fe6qm27ft@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:55:08 -0500, Dan C
><youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:38:54 -0500, Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>

Jim Yanik said;
>>>>Then your socialists can dish it out for pet projects and
>>>>costly,useless social programs that make things worse,long-term,as
>>>>they have in the past.

GMG said;
>>> You mean like universal health care that every other citizen in
>>> every other country that is not a sinking shithole gets?
>>
>>Yeah, like that. Yet another useless and costly social program.
>>that.
>
> It is interesting that you consider health care useless. I assume
> that you have declined any health insurance that is available to you
> and intend to wave Medicare coverage.

Do I get a refund of tax monies of mine that go towards that program?

anytime government gets involved,the costs go wild and there's a huge
amount of waste.Look at the Veterans Hospitals.
Heck,govt couldn't even run the Senate or House cafeterias without losing
huge amounts of money and providing poor service.Dianne Feinstein even
admits it.

and creating such a social program means MORE government employment;another
government bureaucracy wasting money.

Look at what a mess Social Security is.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:53:26 -0500, Gordon McGrew wrote:

>>> You mean like universal health care that every other citizen in every
>>> other country that is not a sinking shithole gets?

>>Yeah, like that. Yet another useless and costly social program.
>>that.

> It is interesting that you consider health care useless.

Nice try, but that isn't what I said. Go back and read it again. Now,
what I actually said was that "the universal health care *social program*
was useless and costly. Not the same thing as what you attempted to twist
my words into.

> I assume that you have declined any health insurance that is available
> to you and intend to wave Medicare coverage.

No, I have good health insurance. The difference is that I pay for it.
What a concept!

>>If you don't like the USA, why don't you ing leave, dickmunch? Go
>>find yourself a nice, cozy ing communist/socialist bullshit country,
>>and enjoy their "free" healthcare. Just right off and die,
>>asswipe.

> Blow me. America is not defined by the denial of health care. We are a
> democratic country and we can vote it in. At that point, *you* can
> leave for whatever godforsaken third world country you choose which
> lacks universal healthcare. I would ask you to write us and let us know
> how it is, but I doubt you will be able to get Internet service there.

Why would I want to leave? I have good health care, and I'm not the one
complaining about how ed up America is. Damn, man, try to stay
focused.

> This is the question I have asked many times and no one can answer. What
> is the second richest country that doesn't have universal healthcare?

Who cares?

Go spew your socialism to idiots that want to hear it. This is America.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
Now filtering out all posts originating from Google Groups.
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

 

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:01:55 GMT, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> GM is also the most pig-headed corporation around.
>
>I doubt it. Yahoo just turned down a generous take-over offer from
>Microsoft.

LOL... GM is pig-headed. Yahoo is just plain stupid :-)

 

still just me wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:01:55 GMT, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> GM is also the most pig-headed corporation around.
>> I doubt it. Yahoo just turned down a generous take-over offer from
>> Microsoft.
>
> LOL... GM is pig-headed. Yahoo is just plain stupid :-)

I disagree. Yahoo is both stupid and pig-headed.

 

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:29:57 GMT, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> LOL... GM is pig-headed. Yahoo is just plain stupid :-)
>
>I disagree. Yahoo is both stupid and pig-headed.

Oh, I dunno. GM has steadfastly refused to recognize marketplace
realities since the 1970's. I think they far exceed the pig-head
count. Just last year Roger what's-his-name was complaining that
raising the CAFE standards wasn't fair because "the Japanese sell more
small cars than we do" "we sell mostly trucks". Later in the same
speech he complained that "truck sales are down". Apparently
connecting those two dots was impossible for him.

GM has also forced any knowledgeable business person who has joined
their board off of it within a couple years simply by refusing to
listen to anything new. They've also been doing that for decades.

Yahoo has a long way to go to reach that kind of attitude.

 

On 12 Jun 2008 04:29:10 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

>Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in
>news:817154dhkmv8u1slrpb29a149fe6qm27ft@4ax.com :
>
>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:55:08 -0500, Dan C
>><youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:38:54 -0500, Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>
>
>Jim Yanik said;
>>>>>Then your socialists can dish it out for pet projects and
>>>>>costly,useless social programs that make things worse,long-term,as
>>>>>they have in the past.
>
>GMG said;
>>>> You mean like universal health care that every other citizen in
>>>> every other country that is not a sinking shithole gets?
>>>
>>>Yeah, like that. Yet another useless and costly social program.
>>>that.
>>
>> It is interesting that you consider health care useless. I assume
>> that you have declined any health insurance that is available to you
>> and intend to wave Medicare coverage.
>
>Do I get a refund of tax monies of mine that go towards that program?

I would gladly grant that, but you have to refuse any care you can't
pay for. The hospitals have enough uninsured patients who can't pay
for their medical care without have to deal with fools who had
coverage available and turned it down.

>anytime government gets involved,the costs go wild and there's a huge
>amount of waste.Look at the Veterans Hospitals.
>Heck,govt couldn't even run the Senate or House cafeterias without losing
>huge amounts of money and providing poor service.Dianne Feinstein even
>admits it.

Medicare is far from perfect but it does provide coverage for everyone
over 65 - obviously the most expensive demographic for healthcare. It
does so for a mere 2% income tax, a rate that is affordable to
everyone. By contrast, if you are younger than 65 and seek private
health insurance outside of employment, you could be paying $500 or
$1000 a month or more or it might not be available at any price. If
you don't have insurance, you pay triple what the insurance companies
pay. If you have a serious illness or accident, you will be amazed
how fast you can run up a half million dollars in medical treatments.
No wonder more than half of the bankruptcies in the US are caused by
medical bills.

The current private healthcare system in the US is in chaos. It is
completely broken and the only people who are not aware of this are
those who have the good fortune to not have been seriously ill.







>
>and creating such a social program means MORE government employment;another
>government bureaucracy wasting money.
>
>Look at what a mess Social Security is.