|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 250 of 536:
| 
Oct 31 19:04 UTC 2003 |
Re #245: Most of the workforce is facing 6%-10% cuts, but salespeople who
aren't meeting their quotas are getting a 50% cut, according to the article
I saw. To me it sounds like a way to reduce workforce size without overtly
laying people off.
|
drew
|
|
response 251 of 536:
|
Oct 31 20:59 UTC 2003 |
Jp2 is *partly* right in #246.
There has never been a truely balanced budget in decades, when you take *all*
government output and input into account; and the economy started tanking as
early as *1997*. What looked like a good economy was dot.com mania and Y2K
hype, neither of which produced anything of value.
However, deficit spending cannot be good for much of anything, as it erodes
the purchasing power of money.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 252 of 536:
|
Oct 31 21:05 UTC 2003 |
re #249:
> Must you ruin my fun?
Must? No, it just turns out that ruining your fun *is* my fun.
|
jp2
|
|
response 253 of 536:
|
Oct 31 21:10 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 254 of 536:
|
Nov 2 05:50 UTC 2003 |
Richard does a fairly good job of providing pretexts all on his
own...
|
russ
|
|
response 255 of 536:
|
Nov 2 21:16 UTC 2003 |
Re #231:
Richard, you're completely wrong about the Clinton deficits.
The deficit was still there, just masked by factors including:
1.) The dot-bomb bubble, and
2.) The hidden "off budget" deficits, like Medicare.
If you add the mounting unfunded liabilities in programs like
Medicare and Social Security, and also add the unfunded mandates
in programs like Medicaid and special-ed which push costs down
to the states, the deficit would have been roaring along during
the entire period 1993-2000.
Right now, it looks to me like Dean *might* be the only candidate
ready to restructure those programs so they don't kill us. We
need something like a statutory limit on the fraction of the
populace which is allowed to be retired, with the retirement age
going up automatically as people live longer. We need similar
measures in other mandates so that costs are contained, and that
includes all costs of things promised but not yet paid for.
(Only a Republican could go to Communist China; it will probably
take a Democrat to fix the errors of the New Deal and Great Society.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 256 of 536:
|
Nov 3 06:59 UTC 2003 |
You cannot raise the retirement age unless you also reduce ageism and
increase health support for the elderly. It should be kept in mind
that *nothing* has been done to stop aging. Only early death and
late illnesses have been reduced. People age as they have since man
evolved.
|
polygon
|
|
response 257 of 536:
|
Nov 3 13:02 UTC 2003 |
Agreed with Russ that the federal budget surplus didn't really exist.
However, it's also true that the deficit, no matter how measured, declined
substantially in 1993-2000.
Richard is also incorrect in saying that Gore got "several million" more
popular votes than GWB. The actual margin was about half a million.
America would be better off if the generally accepted retirement age were
70 instead of 65.
|
gull
|
|
response 258 of 536:
|
Nov 3 14:07 UTC 2003 |
Technology fields are particularly rife with ageism, from what I've
seen. Older people with good skills go unemployed, while the companies
complain about labor shortages and ask the government to allow more visas.
|
polygon
|
|
response 259 of 536:
|
Nov 3 15:05 UTC 2003 |
Re 258. I almost brought that up, but I was in a hurry.
|
klg
|
|
response 260 of 536:
|
Nov 3 17:31 UTC 2003 |
Mr. richard-
You truly are getting tiresome with this "popular vote" obsession.
When presidential candidates run their campaigns they are likely to be
aware of the rules of the game and adjust their strategies
accordingly. You seem to make as much sense as a football fan who
would contend that his team won the game because it accumulated greater
total yardage than the opposition, despite the incidental detail that
it was outscored. The strategy ought to be based on scoring points,
not simply gaining yardage. Despite your constant complaints, yards
don't matter; points do.
klg
We read that Karmanos is taking a 69% pay cut. Is he trying to get rid
of himself?
We wonder how one would keep older employees in physically demanding
occupations in the workforce - as well as those in jobs requiring fine
motor coordination as the effects if aging become apparent. Raise your
hand if you wish to be a passenger on an airplane with a 70 year old
pilot.
|
tod
|
|
response 261 of 536:
|
Nov 3 17:57 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 262 of 536:
|
Nov 3 19:29 UTC 2003 |
Karmanos could take a 200% paycut and do just fine.
I would have no worries about flying with a 70 year old pilot, as long
as he or she has passed all his or her medical and competency tests. While
average aging of humans has not changed, there are long-lived, healthy
and very mentally competent individuals.
While I recognize that GWB did not win the popular vote, and I think he
is almost totally incompetent as president, I support the electoral
college system, which retains some State federalism along with popular
democracy. I think this is a useful "check and balance".
|
klg
|
|
response 263 of 536:
|
Nov 3 20:05 UTC 2003 |
(We see he's got you fooled.)
|
polygon
|
|
response 264 of 536:
|
Nov 3 20:09 UTC 2003 |
I also would oppose abolition of the Electoral College. However, I
would support a small change in the system, that one electoral vote
from each state would be awarded to the winner of the national popular
vote.
That would retain every advantage of the electoral college, while avoiding
the problems that would be created by getting rid of it, and reducing the
risk of an election like 1888 or 2000 when the popular vote winner isn't
elected.
|
klg
|
|
response 265 of 536:
|
Nov 3 20:18 UTC 2003 |
At first blush this proposal may appear to be reasonable; however,
there is at least one readily-apparent unintended consequence. To wit,
in an extremely close election, a la 2000, would not this modification
serve to increase the amount of litigation by the candidates since each
candidate's vote counts, even in those states where the outcome was one-
sided, would be elevated in overall importance? As a result, the
outcome of the election may not be determined for months (if ever).
|
jp2
|
|
response 266 of 536:
|
Nov 3 20:40 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 267 of 536:
|
Nov 3 20:46 UTC 2003 |
Of course there is - just the sums of all votes. It doesn't *count* for
anything, but it exists.
|
keesan
|
|
response 268 of 536:
|
Nov 3 20:54 UTC 2003 |
Why should people in small states get bigger votes per person?
|
gull
|
|
response 269 of 536:
|
Nov 3 21:29 UTC 2003 |
Re #260: I'd happily ride in an airplane with a 70 year old pilot, assuming
he'd passed the required medical exam. Of course, it won't happen because
airline pilots are required to retire at 55 regardless of their medical
condition, a rule that's unlikely to change for political reasons. A side
effect of this rule is that if you want to have a decent career as an
airline pilot, you have to start early -- so a lot of pilots in
lower-seniority positions are very young.
Re #268: Why not turn the question around? Why should small states (or, to
be more accurate, ones with small populations) not get a say in who is
elected?
|
scott
|
|
response 270 of 536:
|
Nov 3 21:33 UTC 2003 |
Re 260: Gosh, I had Republicans all wrong, it appears. I had thought that
they viewed people by their merits, not trying to legislate what jobs people
are allowed to have.
I say if a 70-year-old person wants to perform physical labor, and is capable
of so, who are we to tell him/her otherwise?
|
drew
|
|
response 271 of 536:
|
Nov 3 21:34 UTC 2003 |
The idea of multiple states was originally that each state would for the most
part run its own show, and that there'd be competing systems of government
and sets of laws. People were supposed to be free to, collectively, make
whatever rules they want, and individually, "vote with their feet" for
whatever society they like best. Having "larger votes per person" was to give
some protection to the smaller states from being overrun in the Federal
legislatures by the more populous states. Thus a section of Congress based
on constant number of votes per state as well as one based on individual
representation.
The Electoral College system is an attempt to reflect this compromise in
presidential elections.
|
jp2
|
|
response 272 of 536:
|
Nov 3 21:34 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 273 of 536:
|
Nov 3 21:39 UTC 2003 |
Re #268: they don't - but each *State* gets two additional votes by virtue
of being a member of a federation of states. This is called "State's
Rights", which are protected by the Constitution.
There are many institutions in our nation in which the votes are of the
States, not of the individual citizens. The votes in the Senate are a
prime example. Are you opposed to the existence of the US Senate because
it does not give representational voting in accord with the populations of
each State (as in the House of Representatives)?
|
klg
|
|
response 274 of 536:
|
Nov 4 00:54 UTC 2003 |
Mr. scott-
The question was whether to raise the retirement age, thus forcing those
older workers to continue in their jobs - not to allow them to continue
working; however, allowing 70 year old pilots to continue flying
commercial passenger airplanes is, in a word, risky.
klg
|
