[QUOTE=speechlesstx;3167686]A) Why does one need liability insurance? CYA.
Wait until you get sued for screwing up, and you will be glad your a$$ was covered.

B) I'm not mad. We do ladders, we don't do confined spaces so why should we be compelled to go the expense because of overly complicated, often irrelevant regulations?
I disagree, it depends on the policy, and procedure of the company you want the contract with, and as a financial consideration would you get a vent checker to do the ladder stuff, if it saved a buck? Most companies would, and do. We called it job consolidation, or cross training. It was about reducing cost thru having less people. We got a modest raise out of it, but it cut our maintenace force in half over 3 years. Mostly thru attrition, and retirements.
C) Does that explains why Democrats said there was nothing wrong with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, they have no clue?
I notice this was in 2004, and you can make a great case for what they were doing back then, but in modern times F$F, are little more than holding companies for bad mortgages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac

There was nowhere else to put all of these financial tricks so they could be valued and properly rated. I am going to say that the elected buearcrats have no clue as to how to go about unwinding and liquidating financial gimmicks. D)

We need fire alarm technicians, not vent checkers and leak lookers.
Some jobs require a fire alarm checker, some require more. Purely from an economic stand point one guy to do both, is better than two guy that do one or the other. In modern manufacturing, and many businesses, the elsectrician has to do the pipe fitting and mechanical work all in one, trust me guy, I know first hand what that transition was all about, I was there, I was a millwright that had to learn hydraulics, and then electrical work to keep my job!!


You seem to be under the impression that I'm whining about the need for safety compliance and I'm not.
I know you are not, and I was a safety advocate in my shop at one time, and I don't always agree with the way compliance is done, but their are ways to make modifications, but the process is rather cumbersome.

There should be no need for us to spend thousands to comply with irrelevant regulations - just like oil companies shouldn't have to fight the EPA over not using a non-existent product.
Initial outlays are expensive by nature, but you get no sympathy from me about oil companies being forced to comply because they take short cuts to make profit, and sometimes they screw up and people DIE!!! Remember BP? They had no plan to deal with emergencies. People died! Animals and plants, and fish DIED!! lives were RUINED!!!

Now I know what you mean about the biofuels/switchgas claim, and if you check it out, they are getting they bugs out, and making a product............here in Texas.

http://www.window.state.tx.us/specia...le/ethanol.php

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdiges...lant-in-texas/

http://www.deltanetwork.org/ethanol/
There is a lot going on around the world in this area, and its profitability makes it a great INVESTMENT!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Wait until you get sued for screwing up, and you will be glad your a$$ was covered.

---

So at least you agree I was right.

Quote:

---

I disagree, it depends on the policy, and procedure of the company you want the contract with, and as a financial consideration would you get a vent checker to do the ladder stuff, if it saved a buck? Most companies would, and do. We called it job consolidation, or cross training. It was about reducing cost through having less people. We got a modest raise out of it, but it cut our maintenace force in half over 3 years. Mostly through attrition, and retirements.

---

Dude, most of our techs are cross-trained and/or licensed for more than one area but we don't need any vent checkers.

Quote:

---

notice this was in 2004, and you can make a great case for what they were doing back then, but in modern times F$F, are little more than holding companies for bad mortgages.

---

Yep, back when Democrats could have done something to prevent the meltdown but refused to fix the problem they created.

Quote:

---

Some jobs require a fire alarm checker, some require more. Purely from an economic stand point one guy to do both, is better than two guy that do one or the other.

---

I think we know what we need to run our business.

Quote:

---

I know you are not, and I was a safety advocate in my shop at one time, and I don't always agree with the way compliance is done, but there are ways to make modifications, but the process is rather cumbersome.

---

Next time OSHA comes calling we'll just tell them we made modifications.

Quote:

---

Initial outlays are expensive by nature, but you get no sympathy from me about oil companies being forced to comply because they take short cuts to make profit, and sometimes they screw up and people DIE!! Remember BP? They had no plan to deal with emergencies. People died! Animals and plants, and fish DIED! Lives were RUINED!!

---

How much clearer can I make this? We don't do confined spaces, therefore we should not have to spend thousands of dollars on equipment that we know will never be used.

Quote:

---

There is a lot going on around the world in this area, and its profitability makes it a great INVESTMENT!

---

Then let some guy who sees the profit potential and wants to invest money in it do so instead of compelling corporations to invest in more risky ventures or dish out taxpayer money to try and pick winners and mostly losers.

The FED just announced QE III monopoly money forever!
Fed delays bond tapering, wants to see more data - Yahoo Finance

You just can't get the economy off the teat when you do this sort of thing

We are going to leave a whole generation behind .Bernanke is an avowed Keynesian despite the clear lack of success ;he's committed to this course. But it gets even better ! The leading candidate to replace him at the Fed ,Janet Yellen is a committed lefty who thinks there has not been enough stimulus pump priming .
I agree with the Senate Dems who revolted when Larry Summers was floated as the nominee. He has no business being in a position with the power the Fed possesses. But Yellen is just another Bernanke /Krugman/Keynesian clone.

Romney didn't get enough votes Tom, so what do you expect?

The whole problem is you will not allow things to fail and rebuild, you cling too long to old ideas. You cannot artificially maintain employment unless you want to paint rocks white, in a modern society there just aren't enough jobs to go around and therefore we need to modify the work ethic and reduce working hours, the "forty hour" week has to be consigned to history and we need to become less task oriented. A start would be to regulate a true thirty hour week with no overtime allowed. Yes its costly to a capitalist society I know but it is less costly to have people in employment than to have wholesale unemployment and serious social problems. So more white rocks and urban greening then. Much more fixing roads and less price competition

Quote:

---

The whole problem is you will not allow things to fail and rebuild

---

yup

Quote:

---

A start would be to regulate a true thirty hour week with no overtime allowed.

---

your still in love with the government interfering . How many more times will it take to learn that stimulus spending doesn't work ?

Trickle down economics doesn't either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yup
your still in love with the government interfering . How many more times will it take to learn that stimulus spending doesn't work ?

---

did I suggest stimilus spending? I suggested a change in the dynamic, a move away from the capitalist objective of making slaves of us all. The answer to a just society isn't fewer people doing more and more work but in a genuine sharing of the tasks to give all value so that no one needs to be on welfare, in fact if you do the right thing you can eliminate it by insisting upon input into the society. Can you image why we can have a fair minimum wage and yet low unemployment, flies in the face of your capitalist theories

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

did I suggest stimilus spending? I suggested a change in the dynamic, a move away from the capitalist objective of making slaves of us all. The answer to a just society isn't fewer people doing more and more work but in a genuine sharing of the tasks to give all value so that noone needs to be on welfare, in fact if you do the right thing you can eliminate it by insisting upon input into the society. Can you image why we can have a fair minimum wage and yet low unemployment, flies in the face of your capitalist theories

---

Mirages and myths . You are content with no growth ;an under populated continent and low expectations. Your min wage is particularly a myth.. You are content with high unemployment of your youth .Australia's unemployment rate for age 15 to 19 is 16.5%. 63% of all jobs lost in Australia were jobs for young, unskilled Australians.The poor, disadvantaged people who don't have job opportunities are the ones that min wage laws really hurt. It is no different there than here .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Trickle down economics doesn't either.

---

Yet that's exactly what you espouse, only the alleged trickling down is supposed to come from the government which produces nothing, is extraordinarily wasteful and sucks up greater and greater capital from the private sector that would otherwise be invested in producing a robust economy. Your method is unsustainable, it's not rocket science dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

mirages and myths . You are content with no growth ;an under populated continent and low expectations. Your min wage is particularily a myth .. You are content with high unemployment of your youth .Australia's unemployment rate for age 15 to 19 is 16.5%. 63% of all jobs lost in Australia were jobs for young, unskilled Australians.The poor, disadvantaged people who don't have job opportunities are the ones that min wage laws really hurt. It is no different there than here .

---

Our growth is quite reasonable and far above yours. We are actually a 20% larger economy than before the GFC. Perhaps you should consider that most of our 15 to 19 year olds are in school or university. You are right though unemployment is endemic among the disadvanted such as indigenous who fuel these statistics. Our minimum wage laws don't hurt these people because they live where there are no jobs and why should someone who can get a job live below subsistence level to satisfy your capitalist ethos. This continent is not underpopulated, a large part of it is arid lands or desert devoid of water, the resourse that has allowed your country to grow and support the population it has. If our population doubled we would have real problems

Glad you are satisfied with 2-3% growth. The Dems here tout that as success too. I call it flat line . Unlike your nation ,we have population growth and we need economic growth the keep up just to stay even with the job replacement rate . When the Chinese go into a downturn and stop buying all those mined Aussie minerals what will you do ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Yet that's exactly what you espouse, only the alleged trickling down is supposed to come from the government which produces nothing, is extraordinarily wasteful and sucks up greater and greater capital from the private sector that would otherwise be invested in producing a robust economy. Your method is unsustainable, it's not rocket science dude.

---

Nice spin but fact is the private sector doesn't reinvest in things that promote economic equity it invests in cheap labor overseas for its own bottom line. You have said many times the rich guys aren't in business to create jobs. So that's trickle down stuff never will work and certainly not help the consumer driven economy unless there is more circulation so consumers can actually buy stuff.

What's unsustainable is the business strategy of making more people poor and hollering go get a paycheck when there are so few of them to be had, and the ones to be had are really small. Go ahead keep listening to rich people holler they don't have enough money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Nice spin but fact is the private sector doesn't reinvest in things that promote economic equity it invests in cheap labor overseas for its own bottom line. You have said many times the rich guys aren't in business to create jobs. So that's trickle down stuff never will work and certainly not help the consumer driven economy unless their is more circulation so consumers can actually buy stuff.

What's unsustainable is the business strategy of making more people poor and hollering go get a paycheck when their are so few of them to be had, and the ones to be had are really small. Go ahead keep listening to rich people holler they don't have enough money.

---

I'm not wrong on this, Tal. Instead of looking at the results, listening to the people, examining the data - in essence looking at reality - you libs live in this fairy land of barreling full steam ahead on proven failed policies because you believe, as a religion, it's the moral thing to do.

Sorry, but there is no morality in forcing your religion on us by way of climate change policies, socialist programs, nanny states and feeding the wasteful, inefficient - and now partisan - government beast that got us here in the first place. It isn't working Tal, and doubling down is stupid when you're headed for a cliff.

Poverty Stuck at 15 Percent: Record 46.5 Million

And yet, your side continues laying blame on others for your own failures.

John B. Taylor: The Weak Recovery Explains Rising Inequality, Not Vice Versa
Obama blames tax cuts that began under Reagan for today's slow growth. The data don't back him up.

What works is getting the government out of the way so we can get it done. Obama's policies are PRECISELY why the economy is still stagnant, but even more reports of thousands of workers being laid off PRECISELY because of Obamacare you want to continue with your head in the sand.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

---

you libs live in this fairy land of barreling full steam ahead on proven failed policies because you believe, as a religion, it's the moral thing to do.

---

Failed?? Our economy is booming along. The rich are getting richer. The poor are getting poorer. IF this was a liberal program, doncha think the results would be the poor people getting richer and the rich getting poorer??

If you own stocks, or your pension does, you oughta thank your lucky stars that somebody knows how to stimulate the economy.

Excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:
Failed??? Our economy is booming along. The rich are getting richer. The poor are getting poorer. IF this was a liberal program, doncha think the results would be the poor people getting richer and the rich getting poorer???

If you own stocks, or your pension does, you oughta thank your lucky stars that somebody knows how to stimulate the economy.

excon

---

I have no words, you've gone over the edge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

glad you are satisfied with 2-3% growth. The Dems here tout that as success too. I call it flat line . Unlike your nation ,we have population growth and we need economic growth the keep up just to stay even with the job replacement rate . When the Chinese go into a downturn and stop buying all those mined Aussie minerals what will you do ?

---

Where do you get these statistics from and who are you? We have an annual growth rate of 3% going into a downturn. We are not China, we don't seek to grow at 8% a year, our population grows at a steady 2% a year so having growth higher than population growth demonstrates economic strength and is not to be laughed at. We existed before a mineral boom fueled by China, we have other desirable exports and are a resiliant people who can do well out of education, tourism, agriculture and innovation and of course the odd banana and we have other trading partners. We survived the loss of our markets in Britain and we can survive the loss of our markets in China. India is next

What we need is for the DH in New York to stop playing with our currency with their QE I, QE II, QE III

Quote:

---

What we need is for the DH in New York to stop playing with our currency with their QE I, QE II, QE III

---

I'll go along with that .They are screwing up domestically and internationally they are doing a version of beggar thy neighbor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'll go along with that .They are screwing up domestically and internationally they are doing a version of beggar thy neighbor

---

Exactly my point, right now we seem to think that we have to compete with you on interest rates to stop our currency being too high so it's a race to the bottom

Just for clarity have a look at these stats and tell me where you think you are doing better than we are, just asking because you may not have access to this information
http://theconversation.com/factcheck...-economy-16716