PDA

View Full Version : May Jobs report



pooltchr
06-06-2011, 07:32 PM
Well, the giverment is telling us that there were 54000 new jobs created last month. That's only about half of what we need to start to make a dent in the unemployment levels.

What kind of jobs were added last month? Remember last month when McDonalds had a national job fair to hire people? Well, it seems that accounts for 30,000 of those jobs.

Oh yeah, Baby! Obama's got us rolling right along now!!!

Steve

Soflasnapper
06-06-2011, 10:10 PM
Well, no, but good try there!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> By Annalyn Censky, staff reporterFirst Published: April 19, 2011: 10:25 AM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- McDonald's hiring spree is underway. The fast-food chain plans to hire 50,000 workers -- or roughly four people per restaurant -- in a one-day jobs blitz that spans all 50 states.</div></div>

That was 50k hires, but in April.

LWW
06-07-2011, 04:55 AM
Tell us again about how UE went down under Bush because fewer jobs were created and how UE rose under Obama because he created more jobs.

That one's a hoot.

Gayle in MD
06-07-2011, 07:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, the giverment is telling us that there were 54000 new jobs created last month. That's only about half of what we need to start to make a dent in the unemployment levels.

What kind of jobs were added last month? Remember last month when McDonalds had a national job fair to hire people? Well, it seems that accounts for 30,000 of those jobs.

Oh yeah, Baby! Obama's got us rolling right along now!!!

Steve </div></div>

Obama has already created more private sector jobs in two and a half years, than Bush did in eight years.

Given we were losing over 700,000 jobs a month, in Bush's last month in office, and continued an additional three to four months, losing hundreds of thousands of jobs, which could only be counted as addititonal BUSH job losses, one would think most people would be smart enough to realize that after defending Bush for eight years, they would look pretty damn stupid, yapping about lower job production, after ignoring a much higher number of jobs created, for all of the other good job creation months, under Obama, that showed far higher numbers, than May.

Jobs loss, to job creation, is an improvement, not a failure.

Additionally, you ignore the impact of Repiglicans creating greater lack of confidence, in the marketplace, with their holding hostage raising the debt level, AND higher OIL PRICES, along with additional impact from a number of natural disasters.

But, in your case, we all know, Republicans good, Democratics bad, regardless of the FACTS.

Whatever you can spin, to avoid the facts, is A-OK with me, as long as you don't accuse others, of doing exactly what you and your fellow spinmeister do everyday on this forum, as you rewrite history, ignore facts, and continue to prove your built in, RW partisan reality filter.

"The Deficits Don't Matter." Steve, while Bush and the Repiglicans were running up deficits.

G.

pooltchr
06-07-2011, 07:35 AM
50k? That would mean almost twice as many as I read.

OK, I'll accept your number. So the Obama administration somehow managed to create 50k jobs at McDonalds, even as they are in full scale attack mode against the evil corporation for serving less than healthy food, and trying to remove toys from happy meals, and Ronald McDonald from their advertising.

Yeah, one oompany that is actually putting people to work, and our giverment is trying to make it more difficult for them to carry out a successful business plan.

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-07-2011, 09:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">50k? That would mean almost twice as many as I read.

OK, I'll accept your number. So the Obama administration somehow managed to create 50k jobs at McDonalds, even as they are in full scale attack mode against the evil corporation for serving less than healthy food, and trying to remove toys from happy meals, and Ronald McDonald from their advertising.

Yeah, one oompany that is actually putting people to work, and our giverment is trying to make it more difficult for them to carry out a successful business plan.

Steve </div></div>

Obesity is the number one cause of higher medical costs.

It is also related to higher diabetes, and canner rates.

It is a good thing, that our First Lady, is addressing better eating habits, for our kids.

McDonalds, should at least offer more nutritional selections on their menu, and the happy meal gifts, should be only for those nutritional meals.

We shouldn't reward our kids for eating more fat, sugar and salt.

G.

pooltchr
06-07-2011, 10:50 AM
But McDonalds hires people, and that makes Obama look good.

Will you ever figure out that government manipulation and trying to control individual, personal choices, just doesn't work, or that the government has absolutely no business attempting to do so?

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-07-2011, 11:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But McDonalds hires people, and that makes Obama look good.

Will you ever figure out that government manipulation and trying to control individual, personal choices, just doesn't work, or that the government has absolutely no business attempting to do so?

Steve </div></div>

You're the last person here, who should be writing THAT!

You think you have a right to dictate what a woman can do with her own body.

That is the ultimate in government government manipulation and trying to control individual, personal choices, not working for everyone, and that the government has absolutely no business attempting to do so?

You are the one who wrote, "When a woman spreads her legs, she loses her defense".

Misogynist.

G.

pooltchr
06-07-2011, 11:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

You think you have a right to dictate what a woman can do with her own body.


G. </div></div>

I think that since it took the actions of two people to create a child, both should have control over it.
And, since our society believes that killing another human being for convenience is wrong, I think it becomes the duty of the state to protect the rights of the innocent unborn child.

Steve

pooltchr
06-07-2011, 11:33 AM
This could prove to be very interesting...

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/jilted-ex-boyfriend-puts-abortion-billboard-194142831.html

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-07-2011, 12:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

You think you have a right to dictate what a woman can do with her own body.


G. </div></div>

I think that since it took the actions of two people to create a child, both should have control over it.
And, since our society believes that killing another human being for convenience is wrong, I think it becomes the duty of the state to protect the rights of the innocent unborn child.

Steve </div></div>

It isn't a child, or another human being, it is a fetus. to call it otherwise, is wrong, and incorrect.

Also, just because a man is involved, that does not give him any right over another EXISTING person's body.

Possession is nine tenths of the law.

BTW, Most pregnant women who are murdered, are murdered by the men who impregnated them.

No person has the right to control another person's body.

Get over it! It's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, WHAT OTHERS DO IN THEIR PRIVATE LIVES!

Abortion has always existed, since the beginning of recorded time, and abortion will ALWAYS exist.


While in your misogynistic dream world, "When a woman spreads her legs, she loses her defense" You have no right to dictate what another living human being, can do with her own body, regardless of anything.


Changing the Constitution, won't even prevent it. There will always be abortions.

You are a male Chauvinist PIG, if ever one existed!

G.

pooltchr
06-07-2011, 01:27 PM
I just believe a father has just as much right to determine what happens to his child as the mother. But, since you do seem to hate men, I understand your feelings. You believe the father should have no responsibility beyond paying the financial price for the child.

It really must suck to be you!


Steve

Gayle in MD
06-07-2011, 01:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just believe a father has just as much right to determine what happens to his child as the mother. But, since you do seem to hate men, I understand your feelings. You believe the father should have no responsibility beyond paying the financial price for the child.

It really must suck to be you!


Steve </div></div>

LMAO!

ALL, not some, but ALL of my very closest friends, are men.

Additionally, the woman takes all of the physical risks, in bringing a FETUS to term, the "Father" takes none.

Just because a man is too reckless to use his own birth control, doesn't give him ANY rights, at all. NONE!

Control over ones own body, is the hallmark of personal rights.

Your, "OPINIONS" on this subject, are extremely unrealistic, and slanted, IMO.

But then, misogynists are all about controlling women, totally, and completely, so it figures that you would fail to understand the limits of a man's rights, in the whole scheme of this issue.

As I have stated, many times, when you can get pregnant, you can judge what women do with their bodies, under the circumstance of facing a pregnancy.

The religous Rw of this country, has done nothing but work to avert women's Constitutional rights.

Another reason, why I would never vote for ANY Repubican.

G.

pooltchr
06-07-2011, 01:47 PM
I don't give a rat's a$$ what a woman does with her body...it's the kid I'm concerned about.

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-07-2011, 01:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't give a rat's a$$ what a woman does with her body...it's the kid I'm concerned about.

Steve </div></div>

It is not a "Kid" it is a FETUS, and it isn't YOUR Fetus, either, just as it isn't YOUR body, holding that FETUS.

You have NO RIGHT, to seek to dictate what women do with their own bodies.

Misogynist!

G.

pooltchr
06-07-2011, 02:52 PM
It's a human life. Call it what you like, but it doesn't change the fact that it is an individual life.

Steve

Soflasnapper
06-07-2011, 05:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">50k? That would mean almost twice as many as I read.

OK, I'll accept your number. So the Obama administration somehow managed to create 50k jobs at McDonalds, even as they are in full scale attack mode against the evil corporation for serving less than healthy food, and trying to remove toys from happy meals, and Ronald McDonald from their advertising.

Yeah, one oompany that is actually putting people to work, and our giverment is trying to make it more difficult for them to carry out a successful business plan.

Steve </div></div>

Actually, I thought I heard 30,000 as well, but when I looked for when it happened, I found this figure cited. Presume it's true, but I'm not sure.

As for making it harder, perhaps they could make their menu items more healthful? In any case, the government is only using persuasion, not coercion here.

Soflasnapper
06-07-2011, 05:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tell us again about how UE went down under Bush because fewer jobs were created and how UE rose under Obama because he created more jobs.

That one's a hoot. </div></div>

Never used a causative framing; that's your problem in thinking showing up there.

Just because you cannot imagine how that could occur doesn't rebut the facts in the record that it is true.

In what respect do you doubt what the WSJ and many, many others have reported are the facts of the job growth under W's administration?

pooltchr
06-07-2011, 09:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As for making it harder, perhaps they could make their menu items more healthful? In any case, the government is only using persuasion, not coercion here. </div></div>

I bet if the demand was for a healthier menu, they would do it on their own....that is how businesses remain profitable. If people stopped buying Big Macs, McDonalds would replace them with tofu burgers. But, like Wal-Mart...it is the consumer who determines what sells.

I also suspect that McDonalds would choose to keep Ronald as long as he is an effective marketing tool. Same for the toys in the happy meals. How is it McDonalds fault that so many happy meals are sold. In all my life, I've never seen a 7 year old pull up to the drive through and order a happy meal...it's usually the parents.

Why do people insist on punishing businesses for providing a product or service that people want and are willing to pay for?

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-08-2011, 03:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's a human life. Call it what you like, but it doesn't change the fact that it is an individual life.

Steve </div></div>

And nothing changes the fact that a woman's body belongs to herself, and to no one else, and it is NONE of YOUR business, what she does with her own body, in her own personal, private life.

Get over it.

LWW
06-08-2011, 05:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">50k? That would mean almost twice as many as I read.

OK, I'll accept your number. So the Obama administration somehow managed to create 50k jobs at McDonalds, even as they are in full scale attack mode against the evil corporation for serving less than healthy food, and trying to remove toys from happy meals, and Ronald McDonald from their advertising.

Yeah, one oompany that is actually putting people to work, and our giverment is trying to make it more difficult for them to carry out a successful business plan.

Steve </div></div>

Actually, I thought I heard 30,000 as well, but when I looked for when it happened, I found this figure cited. Presume it's true, but I'm not sure.

As for making it harder, perhaps they could make their menu items more healthful? In any case, the government is only using persuasion, not coercion here. </div></div>

The majority of people will eat junk food that costs less.

No amount of product labeling has changed that.

The only thing that will change that is education, and since the feds took over education our educational standards have been gutted.

An informed electorate does not vote for big gubmint. A brainwashed and terrified electorate will beg for it.

eg8r
06-08-2011, 07:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for making it harder, perhaps they could make their menu items more healthful? </div></div>My opinion is that this has nothing to do with government. This is where consumers are able to force change. If the regular customers started demanding healthier food and did not see it happening then they could start going elsewhere. McDonalds is not dumb and blind, if they saw their business sustain rapid decreases week in and week out they would make changes to win back their lost customer base. At this point in time this would be much more economical than the government spending a single taxpayers penny on something the taxpayers obviously are against.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-08-2011, 08:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for making it harder, perhaps they could make their menu items more healthful? </div></div>My opinion is that this has nothing to do with government. This is where consumers are able to force change. If the regular customers started demanding healthier food and did not see it happening then they could start going elsewhere. McDonalds is not dumb and blind, if they saw their business sustain rapid decreases week in and week out they would make changes to win back their lost customer base. At this point in time this would be much more economical than the government spending a single taxpayers penny on something the taxpayers obviously are against.

eg8r </div></div>

What are they spending?

I don't think it hurts our society, that government agencies, are calling to our attention, the link between rising health costs, and the poor diet of Americans.

They used to advertise cigarettes, constantly on television, until we finally got past all of the Tobacco Industry LIES, and lobbying, and finally learned all of the costs to our society, in the form of rising cancer rates.

Now, we have evidence that obesity is the cause of most illnesses.

How does it hurt society, to make people aware of health issues.

People who are health conscious, should have the right to go out to dine, and make selections from the menu, with fat levels, and calories, stated on the menu, shouldn't they?

Is that so difficult for restaurants to oblige, when it can help to bring down unsustainable health costs, and lower the disease levels?

What is wrong with educating the public, AND our kids, about the dangers associated with a bad diet?

G.

pooltchr
06-08-2011, 09:54 AM
When did it become the government's responsibility to tell businesses how to operate. If they want to educate the public about eating healthy, fine. But it is not their job to force businesses to do so.

Steve

LWW
06-08-2011, 10:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When did it become the government's responsibility to tell businesses how to operate.

Steve </div></div>

If you believe in our republic, that is a proper question.

OTOH, if you are a leftist espousing a fascist econmoy ... the correct Q would be why wouldn't it be the government's responsibility to tell businesses how to operate?

eg8r
06-08-2011, 10:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What are they spending?

I don't think it hurts our society, that government agencies, are calling to our attention, the link between rising health costs, and the poor diet of Americans.
</div></div>Not sure on what you meant by the "what are they spending" question. I don't mind government calling to our attention the link to rising health care costs and diet. That is fine with me but they should not be wasting taxpayer money to do it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People who are health conscious, should have the right to go out to dine, and make selections from the menu, with fat levels, and calories, stated on the menu, shouldn't they?
</div></div>Absolutely not! Nutritional information is abundantly available online for a ton of restaurants. Consult there but no reason for Government to waste taxpayer money with restaurant menu oversight. That is going way out of bounds.

eg8r &lt;~~~Currently at a net of -333 calories for the day and will be dining on grilled chicken (no bun) at McD's for dinner

LWW
06-08-2011, 10:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just because you cannot imagine how that could occur doesn't rebut the facts in the record that it is true. </div></div>

I can't imagine that it's true because no hard evidence exists that it is true.

You can imagine it's true because you were told it's true.

Therein lies the difference.

LWW
06-08-2011, 10:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As for making it harder, perhaps they could make their menu items more healthful? In any case, the government is only using persuasion, not coercion here. </div></div>

I bet if the demand was for a healthier menu, they would do it on their own....that is how businesses remain profitable. If people stopped buying Big Macs, McDonalds would replace them with tofu burgers. But, like Wal-Mart...it is the consumer who determines what sells.

Steve </div></div>

McD's actually has some very healthy choices on their menu ... but only a small fraction of people actually order them.

One can eat well at McD's 3 times a day and stay under 2,000 calories with a fairly low fat content.

Few do so however.

Soflasnapper
06-08-2011, 01:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As for making it harder, perhaps they could make their menu items more healthful? In any case, the government is only using persuasion, not coercion here. </div></div>

I bet if the demand was for a healthier menu, they would do it on their own....that is how businesses remain profitable. If people stopped buying Big Macs, McDonalds would replace them with tofu burgers. But, like Wal-Mart...it is the consumer who determines what sells.

I also suspect that McDonalds would choose to keep Ronald as long as he is an effective marketing tool. Same for the toys in the happy meals. How is it McDonalds fault that so many happy meals are sold. In all my life, I've never seen a 7 year old pull up to the drive through and order a happy meal...it's usually the parents.

Why do people insist on punishing businesses for providing a product or service that people want and are willing to pay for?

Steve </div></div>

It is well known that the fast food companies market directly to children, creating the demand. Same with the sugar cereals.

Consumers can only make an informed decision when they get the information. It is contrary to the interests of the companies involved to explain why their profit center products are unhealthful, and they do not do so voluntarily or willingly.

Do they want to disclose that you get 5,000 mg. of sodium in a typical combo meal (not intended to be a factual statement, for illustration purposes only, YMMV)? Only governmental action got them to make such disclosures.

Do you object to public paid or subsidized Public Service Announcements detailing the hazards of smoking?

pooltchr
06-08-2011, 01:37 PM
I've already explained my position. Why would you be asking again?

Steve

LWW
06-08-2011, 02:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As for making it harder, perhaps they could make their menu items more healthful? In any case, the government is only using persuasion, not coercion here. </div></div>

I bet if the demand was for a healthier menu, they would do it on their own....that is how businesses remain profitable. If people stopped buying Big Macs, McDonalds would replace them with tofu burgers. But, like Wal-Mart...it is the consumer who determines what sells.

I also suspect that McDonalds would choose to keep Ronald as long as he is an effective marketing tool. Same for the toys in the happy meals. How is it McDonalds fault that so many happy meals are sold. In all my life, I've never seen a 7 year old pull up to the drive through and order a happy meal...it's usually the parents.

Why do people insist on punishing businesses for providing a product or service that people want and are willing to pay for?

Steve </div></div>

It is well known that the fast food companies market directly to children, creating the demand. Same with the sugar cereals.

Consumers can only make an informed decision when they get the information. It is contrary to the interests of the companies involved to explain why their profit center products are unhealthful, and they do not do so voluntarily or willingly.

Do they want to disclose that you get 5,000 mg. of sodium in a typical combo meal (not intended to be a factual statement, for illustration purposes only, YMMV)? Only governmental action got them to make such disclosures.

Do you object to public paid or subsidized Public Service Announcements detailing the hazards of smoking? </div></div>

The nutrition data on fast food is required to be made available at point of sale to all who request it.

The data is also available on their websites.

As far as canned, boxed, and prepared foods ... the nutritional data is provided on the outside of the packaging, and has been since 1995.

I agree that people can only make an informed decision when they get the information, but I also realize that the information IS made available and most all people don't care enough to even give it a cursory review.

You, OTOH, live in statist fantasyland where ... according to your myopic worldview ... companies have this data yet refuse to provide it even though people supposedly clamor for it. Of course, as is typical, you have absolutely zero logical reason to believe this other than your brain is hardwired to <span style='font-size: 11pt'>BIG BUSINESS</span> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>EEEVILLL</span><span style='font-size: 11pt'>, CONSUMER VICTIM ... NO EXCEPTION</span> and that hardwiring stops you from seeing reality the way it actually is.

eg8r
06-08-2011, 02:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is well known that the fast food companies market directly to children, creating the demand. Same with the sugar cereals.

Consumers can only make an informed decision when they get the information.</div></div>It is also equally well known that the nutritional data for McD menu items are readily available on the net.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you object to public paid or subsidized Public Service Announcements detailing the hazards of smoking? </div></div>I don't, however if left there then it would be fine but as we all know it rarely does.

I can see where this is headed though (please excuse the "sky is falling" remark) but what happens in 10 years from now when the Government decides it wants to alter insurance coverage based on where people eat? If we were ever in the position to have a single payer system would think it is OK for the Government to make those decisions?

eg8r

LWW
06-08-2011, 02:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you object to public paid or subsidized Public Service Announcements detailing the hazards of smoking? </div></div>

I don't.

As a good citizen, I would support an advertising campaign along the lines of the anti smoking campaigns of the 1960's and forward.

Educating the people can change behaviors.

More labels won't.

Soflasnapper
06-08-2011, 05:51 PM
The nutrition data on fast food is required to be made available at point of sale to all who request it.

The data is also available on their websites.

As far as canned, boxed, and prepared foods ... the nutritional data is provided on the outside of the packaging, and has been since 1995.

Yes, because the government made it legally mandatory!

This is like Limbaugh saying he didn't see the need for government changing the health care system, because when he was out of work, he used COBRA coverage. But COBRA was only available, again, because of the law whose initials form this acronym.

It's pretty simple. Health care cost increases alone form a huge part of the impending massive debt increase. Obesity alone forms a huge part of the impending health care costs.

Unless the plan is to save a lot of money on the SS side by millions of premature deaths from obesity and its co-morbidities (diabetes, HBP, coronary-artery disease, cancer, etc.), and unless enough is saved there to make up the huge health care costs, the country must address its obesity problem to have a shot at reining in our future incurred spending obligations.

A huge part of the obesity problem is the choices that (perhaps under-informed) citizens make to eat fast food.

Soflasnapper
06-08-2011, 05:53 PM
You, OTOH, live in statist fantasyland where ... according to your myopic worldview ... companies have this data yet refuse to provide it even though people supposedly clamor for it. Of course, as is typical, you have absolutely zero logical reason to believe this other than your brain is hardwired to BIG BUSINESS EEEVILLL, CONSUMER VICTIM ... NO EXCEPTION and that hardwiring stops you from seeing reality the way it actually is.

You need a booster-shot for your mind-reading powers, as they are sorely fading.

Qtec
06-08-2011, 11:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do people insist on punishing businesses for providing a product or service that people want and are willing to pay for?

Steve </div></div>

That's exactly what drug dealers say.

Q

Gayle in MD
06-09-2011, 02:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What are they spending?

I don't think it hurts our society, that government agencies, are calling to our attention, the link between rising health costs, and the poor diet of Americans.
</div></div>Not sure on what you meant by the "what are they spending" question. I don't mind government calling to our attention the link to rising health care costs and diet. That is fine with me but they should not be wasting taxpayer money to do it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People who are health conscious, should have the right to go out to dine, and make selections from the menu, with fat levels, and calories, stated on the menu, shouldn't they?
</div></div>Absolutely not! Nutritional information is abundantly available online for a ton of restaurants. Consult there but no reason for Government to waste taxpayer money with restaurant menu oversight. That is going way out of bounds.

eg8r &lt;~~~Currently at a net of -333 calories for the day and will be dining on grilled chicken (no bun) at McD's for dinner </div></div>

Again, you keep referring to Government, wasting money, and again, I am asking you, what are they spending?

Obesity is the main COST!

Which is one of the reasons why it is so hilarious, for the right, to give sainthood, to a NJ mammoth who is preaching fiscal austerity, while at the same time he has stuffed his face to the point where he has to have a Limo, to ride his fat behind one hundred yards across the field, because he's too damn lazy to walk!

Repiglican absurdity!

G.

LWW
06-09-2011, 04:36 AM
The job Obama is actually qualified for:

V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IyJtZAS2kJY/TK4i0Bqf3LI/AAAAAAAAACc/6JkVovyAv40/s1600/ronaldmcdonald+copy.jpg

pooltchr
06-09-2011, 06:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do people insist on punishing businesses for providing a product or service that people want and are willing to pay for?

Steve </div></div>

That's exactly what drug dealers say.

Q </div></div>

Good point, Q. Why don't you start another thread and we can talk about how the war on drugs has been such a massive failure. Let's talk about how legalizing drugs and maintaining some control over the distribution, rather than having them on every street corner for every kid in the country to get would be a much better option. Let's discuss how the government could actually receive tax revenue from marijuana, rather than allocating incredible amounts of law enforcement resources trying to prevent people from growing and burning plants!

Steve

eg8r
06-09-2011, 08:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, you keep referring to Government, wasting money, and again, I am asking you, what are they spending?
</div></div>They are spending taxpayer money. That is their revenue source.

Obesity is a cost on the individual not the government.

eg8r

pooltchr
06-09-2011, 10:39 AM
Ed,
Not to make this personal on any level, but I know you have been successful recently in dropping a few pounds. Why not share what a great help the government has been in your efforts.

Steve

eg8r
06-09-2011, 11:02 AM
LOL, I sure wish they would find a way to use taxpayer money to ease the negative effects of high impact cardio. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I have lost close to 60lbs in the last 2 years. Last year when I got down to my goal weight I was focused a lot more on strength/power lifting and I had to increase my caloric intake. The other negative to doing so was that I was too tired to keep up my cardio regiment and that started fading. By the end of last year when I stopped the power lifting program I was on I had gained 20lbs. I was discouraged at first but my trainer showed that a small percentage of it was purely a fat increase. The good thing is that even though I had gained the 20lbs I was still wearing the same pant size that I could fit in when I had lost the 60lbs. I took some time off the beginning of this year due to laziness after nursing a shoulder injury (let's just say I will never quit my vitamins and push ups again). I have since started back with a high focus of cardio 6 days a week and resistance training 3 days a week (Power 90 with my wife, the predecessor to P90X). I have now dropped about 11 lbs in less than 2 weeks but I believe the majority of that is due to water weight and not necessarily stricly fat loss. The good thing is that all my clothes are getting loose again and hopefully by later this summer I will be down another pant size or two.

This weekend I am going to start my training for a triathlon later this year. I have running and biking down OK (not competitive but I will finish them at least) but I am very intimidated with the swimming part. I have grown up nearly my entire life in the water but one thing I never did was swim for distance. To be honest I can swim in a pool, but I cannot "swim". I look more like a bull in a china shop just forcing my way through the water instead of looking like a person gliding across the top. I am thinking about picking up a swimming instructor to help me for that phase of the competition.

To answer Steve's question, the Government supports my efforts to an extent but it is quite a stretch to get there but I will try...I work for the a defense contractor (which means there are taxpayer funds involved) that offers a $250 annual gym membership reimbursement. I pay $35/month for the gym so out of pocket expense it costs me right around $170. Not bad and I am certainly not complaining. OK nevermind that is not entirely correct. I get the $250 back on my check BEFORE taxes so the government goes ahead and takes some of the money right back. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif


eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-09-2011, 12:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, you keep referring to Government, wasting money, and again, I am asking you, what are they spending?
</div></div>They are spending taxpayer money. That is their revenue source.

Obesity is a cost on the individual not the government.

eg8r </div></div>

Obesity is a cost on the health care system we all pay for, and on the government's provision of health care through Medicare funding and Medicaid funding.

Unless you think obesity stops costing extra money to someone once a person reaches 65 and receives health care via Medicare reimubursements, a cost to the government and to us all as funders of all government programs.

Actually, as the costs of obesity are accumulative and its effects take their toll over time on other health factors, the older an obese person, the higher their costs will be.

eg8r
06-09-2011, 12:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unless you think obesity stops costing extra money to someone once a person reaches 65 and receives health care via Medicare reimubursements</div></div>The same medicare that this individual has been paying into for the past 50 years? Seems like the person spent 50 years to cover their costs.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-09-2011, 01:20 PM
The tax is 1.45% of earned income. 50 years of payment would be blown through in one extended hospital stay, if the money had been squirreled away from this one person for their future care, which isn't how it works anyway. The Medicare system is not a pay for your own future health care system. The Medicare system is the workers pay for the retirees.

Relatively soon, the Medicare trust fund accounting trick will be formally insolvent, and require either reductions in health care, or ponying up more taxes from the workers (and employers' match), or putting in monies from the general fund (via adding to the deficit spending), or likely some combination of all the above.

eg8r
06-09-2011, 02:18 PM
You can bet your tail it will include increase in taxes. That is all the government knows how to do. They surely don't know how to meet the bottom dollar, they just go back to the well and get more.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-10-2011, 12:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, you keep referring to Government, wasting money, and again, I am asking you, what are they spending?
</div></div>They are spending taxpayer money. That is their revenue source.

Obesity is a cost on the individual not the government.

eg8r </div></div>

Obesity is the single most costly health issue to ALL OF US, and impacts our health costs, more than any other health issue.

You overlook the fact that every trip to the emergency room, by a person without health insurance, raises health costs for all of us, AND for the government, as well.

G.

eg8r
06-10-2011, 08:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You overlook the fact that every trip to the emergency room, by a person without health insurance, raises health costs for all of us, AND for the government, as well.
</div></div>LOL, so I point out that you don't have to have HC insurance in the US to get medical care and you guys all tell me I am wrong. Then in your attempt to explain something else you slip up and prove that I was right all along that anyone in the US can receive medical care without insurance.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-10-2011, 08:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You overlook the fact that every trip to the emergency room, by a person without health insurance, raises health costs for all of us, AND for the government, as well.
</div></div>LOL, so I point out that you don't have to have HC insurance in the US to get medical care and you guys all tell me I am wrong. Then in your attempt to explain something else you slip up and prove that I was right all along that anyone in the US can receive medical care without insurance.

eg8r </div></div>

The POINT is that emergency room medical care, is the most expensive health care.

Additionally, Obesity has been named the single greatest cause of illness and diseasse.

Who do you think pays for all of that emergency room care? They walk out, and leave the bill for all of the rest of us.

It is the unsustainable HEALTH COSTS, and HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS, in our country, that must be the target.

Every time we make an effort, to end the Health Insurance monopolies, the corrupted banking and financial institutions, Corrupted Ratings industry, the polluting energy industry, the unsustainable costs of GREED, in big pharma, etc., etc., Republicans block every effort.

Who said it was unAmerican, to hold BP responsible for their corrupt and irresponsible PROFITS ONLY decisions, that caused the explosion of the deep water wells, that caused the Oil spill, in the Gulf?

IMO, it's far past time, that the right realizes that a Free Market, does not mean a corrupted market, which allows GREED, annd illegal activities, to corrupt the whole system.

We see this sort of irresponsible and greedy corruption, protected, over and over, by the Repiglican Party.

G.

LWW
06-10-2011, 08:55 AM
They do that a lot. With doublethink, they are able to believe opposite "TRUTHS" without issue.

eg8r
06-10-2011, 11:11 AM
I get your point but what I find funny is that it is completely blowing out your previous points (past threads) about medical care in this country and who is covered. I have always stated anyone that says they cannot receive medical care in this country is lying through their teeth.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is the unsustainable HEALTH COSTS, and HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS, in our country, that must be the target.
</div></div>In purely budetary and economical terms it makes most sense to aggressively target those expenditures that cost the absolute most. Medicare is a great place to start since it is part of the top 4.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IMO, it's far past time, that the right realizes that a Free Market, does not mean a corrupted market, which allows GREED, annd illegal activities, to corrupt the whole system.
</div></div>IMO, it's far past time, that the left realizes what the phrase "free market" actually means and understand that it does not mean government can intervene in every manner as they feel like.

eg8r

LWW
06-10-2011, 02:04 PM
The amazing thing is that MEDICARE/MEDICAID is subject to far more fraud and abuse than any private insurer would tolerate.

I have no doubt that if congress set up a plan where insurers were required to insure humans ... with conditions that you take everybody or stay out of the program ... MEDICARE costs would easily drop by one third, probably more, while service was increased.

Gayle in MD
06-10-2011, 11:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I get your point but what I find funny is that it is completely blowing out your previous points (past threads) about medical care in this country and who is covered.

<span style="color: #990000"> No, it doesn't. </span>

I have always stated anyone that says they cannot receive medical care in this country is lying through their teeth.

<span style="color: #990000"> That also isn't true. When people say they cannot get medical care, they are not talking about the kind of health care, one gets in the emergency room.
</span> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is the unsustainable HEALTH COSTS, and HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS, in our country, that must be the target.
</div></div>In purely budetary and economical terms it makes most sense to aggressively target those expenditures that cost the absolute most. Medicare is a great place to start since it is part of the top 4.

<span style="color: #990000"> PEOPLE AND THEIR HEALTH are not PURELY BUDGETARY IISSUES!!! That is exactly what Repiglicans don't understand, since their lame brains never go beyond PROFITS. </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IMO, it's far past time, that the right realizes that a Free Market, does not mean a corrupted market, which allows GREED, annd illegal activities, to corrupt the whole system.
</div></div>IMO, it's far past time, that the left realizes what the phrase "free market" actually means and understand that it does not mean government can intervene in every manner as they feel like.

eg8r </div></div>


<span style="color: #990000"> LOL, oh yes it can, and it will, and furthermore, it always has.

Time for the right to give up on their unrealistic fantasy government, which has never existed, and which never will exist, if we're lucky.

We don't nedd smaller government, we need a tax structure which can easily support the costs of running this country effectively and efficiently, which means, raising taxes on the idle wealthy, and taking in enough money to invest in our country.

The safety of Americans, requires enough revenues. We don't have enough revenues, because of the fascist tax structure, which every Repiglican'fascist is in favor of, and has been, since Ronald Reagan.

Even Reagan had to wake up to the unrealistic fantasies, he had about taxes.

I hope, soon, you will wake up as well.

G. </span>

eg8r
06-12-2011, 04:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In purely budetary and economical terms it makes most sense to aggressively target those expenditures that cost the absolute most. Medicare is a great place to start since it is part of the top 4.
</div></div>Medicare is the number one place to start cutting budget if our Government wants to get serious about the debt.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-13-2011, 12:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In purely budetary and economical terms it makes most sense to aggressively target those expenditures that cost the absolute most. Medicare is a great place to start since it is part of the top 4.
</div></div>Medicare is the number one place to start cutting budget if our Government wants to get serious about the debt.

eg8r </div></div>

This is no time to cut spending.

We don't have a spending problem, at the present, we have a revenue problem, due to the Bujsh Tax Cuts, and the Repiglican drunken sailor spending and borrowing while launching two wars.

This is the time to invest, in cfreating jobs, not cutting jobs, and putting more people on unemployment, which is exactly what Repiglican policies will do.

Infrastructure spending, investing in education, conservation and clean, renewable fuels, will all produce jobs here in our country, limit illnesses, prevent dangerous pollution, and deal with the reality that oil is running out!!!! Insted of subsidizing oil, we should be cutting out all of their subsidies, and taxing them more for their pollution and destruction, including the devastating fracking, and spilling oil, and then getting off completely for the messes they make.

Repiglicans are responsible, by and large, for sucking up to big oil, giving them hand oits, that do absolutely no good for our country....and only spread diseases, illnesses, and pollution that creates more illnesses.

First Repiglicans make us all ill, then they drop our medicare, or protect the heartless insurance corporations, who drop us for coverage.

Repigs get us coming and going. For profit health care creates medical expenditures, which are wasteful, and don't do any good anyway.


We need to fight for the public option, and continue to tweak, the Affordable Health Care Act, which is already in place.

The proof shows we pay much more than other industrial countries, and we are way down on quality. We are living in a time, when ONLY the wealthy, can afford the best care.

Everytime you vote for a Repiglican, your cutting your own throat, but you're too hard headed and stuck in Repiglican Talking Points, and their irrational economic ideology, to realize it.
G.

eg8r
06-13-2011, 02:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We don't have a spending problem, at the present, we have a revenue problem</div></div>LOL, now that was hilarious. When you want to be serious let me know.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-13-2011, 03:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We don't have a spending problem, at the present, we have a revenue problem</div></div>LOL, now that was hilarious. When you want to be serious let me know.

eg8r </div></div>

LOL, I am serious.

G.