Believe it or not. Today, believe it

Just know that there are a great many self loathing whites who somehow feel guilty for doing absolutely nothing in and of themselves.  Also know that for every one of them there is probably 10 or more people that would want to take everything they have to offer and more.  I also guarantee you that 99% of those who actually demand or want reparations are as RACIST as any KKK member ever was.  All you have to do is to listen to these people talk and you can sense the hatred that is in their heart.

There is no amount of reparations that can ease or solve that hatred for they, themselves, in most cases have had things given to them all their lives or they have taken from people and not attempted to achieve anything on their own to make their lives successful and worthwhile.  The only thing that can solve that hatred is a changed heart/mind through finding the Love of Christ for only the Love of God can alter and change a decrepid heart instantly.

Yes, we are supposed to feel guilty and give them a few more BILLIONS of dollars "in support". Those weaves, designer jeans and s*** ain't cheap. What's yun suyoung doing in the mix? And, shouldn't the black folks take a turn in the yoke and chains so they will know wth it feels like?

I'd be the never one to feel guilty about that BS. It's all white
liberal contrived for the power gain they see out of it.
 
If blacks hate white so much, why do they buy caucasian
hair to wear over their own.?  Why do they want to live side
by side with white people.? Why do black women hate black
guys who marry white women when they don't want to marry
them either.? Most black women would marry white guys.
I could go on and on with this but it's tiring and I only like
about 10% of blacks anyway. Maybe 15% of whites, all
others on a, one on one basic. Forget ragheads altogether.   
A white liberal should feel guilty for the pain and suffering
they cause normal Americans that are having to go through
for the sake of non productive socialist agenda's that enslave
nappy ignorant people.
 
If there's a hellery voter out there that can justify their vote for
her, do so. I'd like to hear you make sense of the reason for it...

 

You mean something good for the unions, don't you?

Want to know what the Dems did for the blue collar worker the past 8 years?  Ask a coal miner.

We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business,” Clinton said Sunday night while boasting about her clean energy program — and with a big smile on her face.

In fact, this is standard Democratic policy: President Obama’s been throwing coal miners out of work for seven years now, aiming to deliver on his 2008 pledge to “bankrupt” the coal industry.

http://nypost.com/2016/03/14/h...democratic-betrayal/

All I did was, without any bias whatsoever, googled  "Democrats blue collar workers" and look what I found:

https://www.google.com/webhp?h...+blue+collar+workers

Googling "Republicans blue collar workers" it would appear they have the edge.

https://www.google.com/webhp?h...+blue+collar+workers

Times change, JT.  Turn out the lights.  Party's over.

 

Can any of you name anything that the republicans have ever done to help the blue collar middle class? Notice that I said "if either party" does something to help the working class, it will be democrats. I hope the republicans will prove me wrong.

I have said that Hillary needs to spend more time on the blue collar middle class and less (not abandon) time on the LGBT class. 

direstraits posted:

Read the Democrat platform.  The blue collar workers are off the platform and a hole dug for their final resting place.

Yep. Demoslops are responsible for the ruin of the middle class and blue collar workers, and now the gimmethats claim they are all in this together, get on board, stick out your hand, the gravy will flow, rob the rich, except the clintons and other rich demoslops and enjoy the land of milk and honey.

My biggest reason for supporting Hillary is her stand on SS. She says raise it, Trumps campaign manager said, at a big money meeting,  they would possibly entertain adjustments to it. 

The cap is gonna have to be raised. The government needs to pay back what they "borrowed" from it.

Yep. Demoslops are responsible for the ruin of the middle class and blue collar workers, and now the gimmethats claim they are all in this together, get on board, stick out your hand, the gravy will flow, rob the rich, except the clintons and other rich demoslops and enjoy the land of milk and honey.

Best, do you ever think you can learn some new words. 

jtdavis posted:

My biggest reason for supporting Hillary is her stand on SS. She says raise it, Trumps campaign manager said, at a big money meeting,  they would possibly entertain adjustments to it. 

The cap is gonna have to be raised. The government needs to pay back what they "borrowed" from it.

Her stand on SS? To try and rob it like bill did? And adjustments is exactly what it needs. That doesn't mean rob it or what I wish they would do, do away with it.

=============================================

 

Clinton’s lock-box plan is nothing more than a scheme to use more than $3 trillion in Social Security surpluses to buy down federal debt. In exchange, the Social Security trust fund gets another $3 trillion worth of IOUs. To be sure, most Americans would rather pay down the debt than use Social Security’s surpluses to fund pork barrel projects. But make no mistake, once that money is spent – to buy down debt or fund new programs – it will not be there to cover Social Security’s long-term liabilities.

How Monica Lewinsky Saved Social Security

 

jtdavis posted:

Yep. Demoslops are responsible for the ruin of the middle class and blue collar workers, and now the gimmethats claim they are all in this together, get on board, stick out your hand, the gravy will flow, rob the rich, except the clintons and other rich demoslops and enjoy the land of milk and honey.

Best, do you ever think you can learn some new words. 

New words? Such as? That's funny coming from a practically illiterate little pipsqueak that can't search, and is amazed that others can. Like those words?

JTDavis,  at one time you may have been correct but this batch of Democrats are not those that have anything remotely helping to the middle class.  Here is what you, and other long term Democrats, should think solely about this coming election.  Which candidate is going to best represent your views with regards to the Supreme court?  If what is important is issues like LGBT, anti-gun, anti-religion, things like that then Hillary is your girl. 

The next president WILL swing the Supreme Court either in a political direction or a interpretative one and that goes for Trump also.  If Hillary wins then the Supreme Court will be politically liberal as a rubber stamp on liberal issues which today are gun control and LBGT issues.  If you are alright losing the 2nd amendment freedoms then Hillary is your Girl.

Both Democrats and Republicans are a group of RICH people with more money than they can spend themselves.  As for Trump he's made more jobs for middle class people than Hillary has thought about.  Not legislated but actually made and created and you don't see lawsuits against Trump through the years for being unfair or biased.  That's because Trump's history is not one of bias and being unfair or sexist.  That's current DNC hype and talking points and lies.

If you are alright with Someone who lies to and then lies about relatives of those killed in service to our country then Hillary is your Girl cause that's exactly what she did to the relatives of those killed at Benghazi.  She called them liars for daring to tell what she told them as to why their relatives were killed.  Who benefits the middle class and blue collar workers is who can create and bring back jobs.   Hillary has taken so many donations from foreign entities that she never will bring back jobs.  Trump is against the trade deals that are proven to be so unfair to blue collar workers and Americans but Hillary only changed her opinion when it became politically damaging so ask yourself is it possible Hillary is lying? 

Don't let history blind you.  The DNC has been hijacked and is no longer what you dream and hope it is.  Until someone takes it back it never will be.  Look whos been in office that last 24 years and ask yourself why hasn't the lot for the blue collar worker improved?  Your dreaming and drinking the kool aid if you think Democrats are going to make it better.  

Last just look and consider Obamacare or better termed Democratic Healthcare.  What was you paying for insurance before that?  What are you paying now?  What was your deductible before and what is your deductible now?  That's money out of your and most middle class people's pockets and money pulled out by Democrats, not one Republican.  Look at how Republicans are slammed for being Racist but it's all words, read and study the facts.  The KKK was solely Democrats,  powered and supported by Democratic politicians.  The Civil Rights acts giving minorities their Civil rights was opposed by most Democrats in the 60's but only passed because of Republicans support.  Yes Johnson was president but his own party, the Democrats were against him and only did he get it passed because Republicans were for him and for Civil Rights but who gets credit and who is called racist?  It's all hype and distortion.  Minorities are supporting and overwhelmingly supporting a party that historically did support them being in chains and was racist in nature.  FACTS and History PROVE THAT!

 

"What was you paying for insurance before that?  What are you paying now?  What was your deductible before and what is your deductible now?  That's money out of your and most middle class people's pockets and money pulled out by Democrats, not one Republican." 

======================

And why can't jt's "blue collar" workers afford to buy that "affordable health care"?

jtdavis posted:

My biggest reason for supporting Hillary is her stand on SS. She says raise it, Trumps campaign manager said, at a big money meeting,  they would possibly entertain adjustments to it. 

The cap is gonna have to be raised. The government needs to pay back what they "borrowed" from it.

The government is us, get out your checkbook.

GBRK, you are spending too much time in a dark, soundproof room.

Best, Obama care didn't affect my health insurance coverage or price. I have had better insurance with lower deductibles than Obama care called for and paid less for it than Obama's price.

jtdavis posted:

GBRK, you are spending too much time in a dark, soundproof room.

Best, Obama care didn't affect my health insurance coverage or price. I have had better insurance with lower deductibles than Obama care called for and paid less for it than Obama's price.

I didn't ask about YOUR coverage. GBRK did. I ask you why your fellow blue collar workers could not afford obama's "affordable" insurance.

Bestworking posted:
jtdavis posted:

GBRK, you are spending too much time in a dark, soundproof room.

Best, Obama care didn't affect my health insurance coverage or price. I have had better insurance with lower deductibles than Obama care called for and paid less for it than Obama's price.

I didn't ask about YOUR coverage. GBRK did. I ask you why your fellow blue collar workers could not afford obama's "affordable" insurance.

You're lucky to have an advanced type policy jt, don't leave
home without it. Maybe you shouldn't leave home.
jtdavis posted:

I didn't ask about YOUR coverage. GBRK did. I ask you why your fellow blue collar workers could not afford obama's "affordable" insurance.

My fellow blue collar workers are in the same boat as me.  The premium was held out of each check.

So the ones that say they can't afford obamacare and have no insurance are lying?

jtdavis posted:

So the ones that say they can't afford obamacare and have no insurance are lying?

If you will bother reading my post, I said "my fellow blue collar workers" We were in a union and our insurance premium was held out of each check. 

I read it. If you could understand anything you'd know "fellow blue collar workers" meant ALL blue collar workers. After all, it was you that brought up the blue collar working class. So, why can't the blue collar workers/working class that don't have the union, aka mob, backing, afford obamacare if it's so affordable?


 

And why can't jt's "blue collar" workers afford to buy that "affordable health care"?                                                                                                                                              I didn't ask about YOUR coverage. GBRK did. I ask you why your fellow blue collar workers could not afford obama's "affordable" insurance.

Those are your posts, my post read "my fellow blue collar workers". You are trying to put a lot of people into my fellow blue collar workers that I didn't claim. Are your employees among the people who can't afford health coverage?

 

My fellow blue collar workers are in the same boat as me.  The premium was held out of each check. ~ JT.

Let me ask a different way.  JT, your fellow blue collar workers, the ones you knew, the ones in the same boat as you . . . they were all union members.  The guy who works on your car . . . you don't know his situation.

And you basing your assumption of what you know of blue collar workers solely on union membership.  You know nothing of blue collar workers outside a union membership.  You know your union benefits but without them, nothing.

Would that be a fair assessment?  I think it would be because I've been a non-union blue collar worker and there is no comparison between the two.  I was an independent blue collar worker.  You were a dependent union man.

But hey, that's life.  You go your way, I'll go mine.

But here's where you're messin up with this Democrat brother blue collar thing.

Your DBBC buddies, union or non-union [doesn't specify] are crossing over to Trump in droves.

What is it, JT, they know and you don't?  We on the other side are in full recognition of this, and some, me included when I should not, take advantage of a situation we all know you cannot possible defend.

I'm not trying to paint you into a corner.  I want to give you an out simply because you've paid your dues and I hate to see anyone stripped of what he's worked for to be given to the lazy *******s.  To me it seems like you've got a lot more in common with those who are seeing the light than those staying on the Democratic Plantation waiting for another handout.

At least consider it JT.  You've not nothing in common with "those" folks and when they say "we" they ain't talking about you.  I believe you know that.  As an old time Southern Democrat [think Strom Thurmond era] change is slow but change is strong.

 

jtdavis posted:

And why can't jt's "blue collar" workers afford to buy that "affordable health care"?                                                                                                                                              I didn't ask about YOUR coverage. GBRK did. I ask you why your fellow blue collar workers could not afford obama's "affordable" insurance.

Those are your posts, my post read "my fellow blue collar workers". You are trying to put a lot of people into my fellow blue collar workers that I didn't claim. Are your employees among the people who can't afford health coverage?

So again, you claim blue collar workers only IF they worked with you, or in your union? Your fuzzy thinking is one reason we can't afford to have another demoslop in office. Bud tried to explain it to you and you will either-pretend he explained it just right and claim now you get it, or-you will go right along saying you didn't mean those other blue collar workers-or drop it all together and not answer.

Another flaw in your and other demoslops thinking, are that people who don't belong to unions are somehow not compensated and compensated well for what they do unless companies are forced. With MILLIONS of businesses in this country it would be ridiculous to claim that. Businesses are completely capable of paying good wages and benefits, and do, without union involvement. I'm not talking about a little mom and pop operation, or companies with jobs intended for students, part-time workers, or for retirees to earn a few bucks. Sadly that's the "new jobs" most have since the demoslops have ruined the economy. Dems "fix" for a bad economy? Is it new, better paying jobs? No, their fix is to force small businesses to pay exorbitant wages to uneducated folks that couldn't be bothered to stay in school and learn and do better. Rewarding unproductive folks is the demoslop way.

And no jt, our employees are not the ones without insurance. We take care of all their pay and benefits without the mob telling us to do it. You're in that mindset that you are owed something for just existing, and you think everybody else feels entitled like you do. You don't give a flip about what you call blue collar workers. That much is clear by the way you dance around questions. Unlike bud, I do think that all you care about is what they will give YOU.

The clintons know their voter base, and that is why they pander to the greedy, lazy ones that don't give a rip about what they are doing to the country as long as there is a chance they will get a few more handouts. Another question you always avoid, the clintons are worth over 126 MILLION dollars, yet you have no problem with them or other rich demoslops. Why is that?

Best, companies and businesses have taken a hit and are under attack by the Democrats and their lousy economy. What they were once able to do for workers has been curtailed by Democrats and blamed on Republicans. I would love to find an honest Democrat that would actually answer a question.

giftedamateur posted:

Best, companies and businesses have taken a hit and are under attack by the Democrats and their lousy economy. What they were once able to do for workers has been curtailed by Democrats and blamed on Republicans. I would love to find an honest Democrat that would actually answer a question.

You and me both. Ask them a question and they go 10 miles out of their way to avoid answering, or, answer with another question, or answer in a way that has nothing to do with the subject.

Bestworking posted:
giftedamateur posted:

Best, companies and businesses have taken a hit and are under attack by the Democrats and their lousy economy. What they were once able to do for workers has been curtailed by Democrats and blamed on Republicans. I would love to find an honest Democrat that would actually answer a question.

You and me both. Ask them a question and they go 10 miles out of their way to avoid answering, or, answer with another question, or answer in a way that has nothing to do with the subject.

The very nature of solidly (stolidly?) Democrats may not let them answer in what we would consider a truthful nature.  Progressives/leftists base their beliefs on theory, experienced out come. Feelings and the idea that one is doing "the correct thing" is the all that is necessary.  That the end resembles Venezuela is of no matter.  They did the right things for the right reasons. Progressive academics, go a slightly different route.  When shown the abject failures of past experiments, they state, the reason for the failure is that they weren't the ones running it. From the ancient Greeks to Shakespeare, literature warns of such hubris.

Experience, logic, facts and miserable outcome are minor things of no consideration.

Dire, I'm going to disagree, surprise, that they think they are doing the right thing. I honestly believe they don't care about the right thing. They only care about what they think is going to benefit them, and to **** with the rest of the country and what's right. Add to that they are incredibly ignorant and there you have it. They honestly believe "the rich" should be made to support them and have no rights to their own money. That's why I'd ask them why they have no problem with the demoslops being filthy rich and doing less to get that money than the CEOs they b**** about.

Bestworking posted:

Dire, I'm going to disagree, surprise, that they think they are doing the right thing. I honestly believe they don't care about the right thing. They only care about what they think is going to benefit them, and to **** with the rest of the country and what's right. Add to that they are incredibly ignorant and there you have it. They honestly believe "the rich" should be made to support them and have no rights to their own money. That's why I'd ask them why they have no problem with the demoslops being filthy rich and doing less to get that money than the CEOs they b**** about.

Best, of course, they wish to feather their own nests. After all, they are the best and the brightest aren't they.  The upper tier of the Soviet apparat lived well.  Field Marshals lived like millionaires, with small harems.  Hugo Chavez's daughter is one of the richest in Venezuela.  That's part of the mentality.  They've done the right thing -- too bad the results are what their doctrine predicted.  Meanwhile, they need to live in comfort, while they make big plans about how to improve the lives of the serfs poor downtrodden.

Let me ask a different way.  JT, your fellow blue collar workers, the ones you knew, the ones in the same boat as you . . . they were all union members.  The guy who works on your car . . . you don't know his situation.

Bud, I worked with and around union members. Our situation was the same. In the small town I live in, if you go to a garage, the rate is $50 per hour. How much of that does the mechanic get?

From talking with them, they aren't crossing over to Trump in droves. On the start, several was, but they came back.

The democrat party is gonna have to reassess the amount of support going to blue collar middle class. When the republicans introduce and pass a law beneficial to the working class, I'll reconsider my support.

That's why I'd ask them why they have no problem with the demoslops being filthy rich and doing less to get that money than the CEOs they b**** about.

Best, those are your words, I have no problem with someone being honest filthy rich. As for CEOs, a good CEO is a valuable thing and should be well paid. Justify the CEO of Yahoo. She's been CEO for four years, I think. Revenue went from 4 billion per year to losing 4 billion per year. Her compensation stayed at the 50 million range and she's gonna get a 50 million buy out when they fire her. Can you justify this?  In the small town I live in, if you take a car to a garage, the labor charge is $50 per hour. Sometimes it is actual time, sometimes it is the book rate for hours. The mechanic is in the owners building, sometimes the owner furnishes tools, sometimes the mechanic furnishes them. How much of that $50 per hour should the mechanic get? You got some kind of business, you should be able to answer. What's a fair percentage?

jtdavis posted:

That's why I'd ask them why they have no problem with the demoslops being filthy rich and doing less to get that money than the CEOs they b**** about.

Best, those are your words, I have no problem with someone being honest filthy rich. As for CEOs, a good CEO is a valuable thing and should be well paid. Justify the CEO of Yahoo. She's been CEO for four years, I think. Revenue went from 4 billion per year to losing 4 billion per year. Her compensation stayed at the 50 million range and she's gonna get a 50 million buy out when they fire her. Can you justify this?  In the small town I live in, if you take a car to a garage, the labor charge is $50 per hour. Sometimes it is actual time, sometimes it is the book rate for hours. The mechanic is in the owners building, sometimes the owner furnishes tools, sometimes the mechanic furnishes them. How much of that $50 per hour should the mechanic get? You got some kind of business, you should be able to answer. What's a fair percentage?

 You have no idea what it costs to run and maintain a business and you don't care. It's useless to talk to you about a "fair share" because you have no understanding of fair and right and wrong. You've got that greed mentality that says owners shouldn't profit anymore than workers, even though it's the owners money and a**** on the line, and they usually work as hard or harder, and longer hours, than their employees.

JT,

I thought you were retired and if you are that is the only reason your insurance has not gone up.  Also, if you are working under a contract then your insurance will not go up until your contract is up for renewal but it will go up.   Yes as a union member my insurance premiums did not initially go up but we had many increases in our new contract due to Obamacare such as the Cadillac tax etc.

jtdavis posted:

You have no idea what it costs to run and maintain a business and you don't care. It's useless to talk to you about a "fair share" 

Does that mean you won't answer it or you can't answer it?

Yes I can answer, but as I said in my post above, you don't know or care what's "fair", and have NO idea of how a business runs and you don't care. First of all, an employee is entitled to their paycheck for hours worked, and benefits IF a company offers them. What a mechanic, or any other workers gets, is the salary the owner thinks the job and the mechanic is worth and what the owner offers to pay, and the worker, he or she, agrees to work for. That's their "share". They are not entitled to an equal "share" as you call it. If they want an equal "share" let them put their money, time, hard work, long hours, health and welfare, and take on all the liabilities in their own business. No one in their right mind would do all it takes to start up a business and then "share" half their income. And jt, when do you think they should share? After all the bills are paid? When? When do you think an owner should peel off a "share"? What if that "share" is a lot less than what the mechanic would make an hour not "sharing"?  The better they are, the more they will be paid. If they think they are worth more, they can go further. Usually all companies offering the same services, also have the same pay rates and benefits.

Bestworking posted:

BTW jt, when will YOU answer? Why can't blue collar workers afford insurance? What happened to that "everyone will have affordable insurance" bull crap the demslops spouted? Sounds to me you are saying you got yours and you don't care about the rest.

I believe jt believes in the Democratic party of 50 years ago and hasn't noticed that while most of the people who supported Dems haven't changed their beliefs and left the party, the party changed its beliefs and left them.

As a Teen Cashier Seeing Food Stamp Use, I Changed My Mind About the Democrat Party

http://dailysignal.com/2016/07...Qkw2SG5JaVNncEhFPSJ9

I also learned how people gamed the welfare system. They’d buy two dozen packs of soda with food stamps and then sell them at a discount for cash. They’d ring up their orders separately, buying food with food stamps, and beer, wine, and cigarettes with cash. They’d regularly go through the checkout line speaking on their cell phones. I could never understand why our lives felt like a struggle while those living off of government largesse enjoyed trinkets that I only dreamed about.

Mamaw listened intently to my experiences at Dillman’s. We began to view much of our fellow working class with mistrust. Most of us were struggling to get by, but we made do, worked hard, and hoped for a better life. But a large minority was content to live off the dole.

Every two weeks, I’d get a small paycheck and notice the line where federal and state income taxes were deducted from my wages. At least as often, our drug-addict neighbor would buy T-bone steaks, which I was too poor to buy for myself but was forced by Uncle Sam to buy for someone else. This was my mindset when I was seventeen, and though I’m far less angry today than I was then, it was my first indication that the policies of Mamaw’s “party of the working man”—the Democrats—weren’t all they were cracked up to be.

Political scientists have spent millions of words trying to explain how Appalachia and the South went from staunchly Democratic to staunchly Republican in less than a generation.

 

I believe jt believes in the Democratic party of 50 years ago and hasn't noticed that while most of the people who supported Dems haven't changed their beliefs and left the party, the party changed its beliefs and left them.

The Dems of 50 years ago that left the party probably did it because of the civil rights act that LBJ got passed. If most of the Dems left the party, the presidential elections would prove that to be true. During the last 24 years, the Dems have been in office 16 years and the Repubs in 8 years. That is in elections that gerrymandering is not a factor.

Jt, most folks that I know didn't switch after the civil rights act was passed because a greater percentage of Republicans in congress voted for passage of that bill:  http://www.theblaze.com/storie...he-civil-rights-act/

Most working people that I know had experiences like me where people wearing finer clothes and lots of bling than I could afford arrived at the grocery store in a newer classier car and bought groceries that I could not afford with food stamps. No one likes being treated like a fool and a patsy.

jtdavis posted:

Does that mean you won't answer it or you can't answer it?

The owner has a building and business expense. After that is paid, what is a fair split of the remainder of the hourly wage?

Yes, an owner has a building and business expenses. Expenses, plural. Try to keep up. There is no "split". There is an hourly WAGE.

jtdavis posted:

BTW jt, when will YOU answer? Why can't blue collar workers afford insurance?

I haven't talked to blue collar workers who can't afford insurance. If you have, tell us where they work and how much they are paid.

Then you need to shut up about what you think is best for blue collar workers because you don't know squat about them.

Bestworking posted:
jtdavis posted:

Does that mean you won't answer it or you can't answer it?

The owner has a building and business expense. After that is paid, what is a fair split of the remainder of the hourly wage?

Yes, an owner has a building and business expenses. Expenses, plural. Try to keep up. There is no "split". There is an hourly WAGE.

Unless they agree to a comission type pay, and they'd still have to agree to what each felt was fair, and doubtful any owner would agree to an even split.

Unless they agree to a comission type pay, and they'd still have to agree to what each felt was fair, and doubtful any owner would agree to an even split.

One guy I know uses the book rate, if the book says a job will take 3 hours and the mechanic gets done in one hour, he gets 3 hours pay. If it takes 6 hours, it's still 3 hours pay.

jtdavis posted:

Yes, an owner has a building and business expenses. Expenses, plural. Try to keep up. There is no "split". There is an hourly WAGE.

That's what I've been asking you for, what should the hourly wage be

And I have said, whatever the owner offers and the mechanic agrees to take. If he doesn't like the offer he can move on. I can't set a mechanic's wage, that is up to someone that uses mechanics and decides what they are worth to THEM. In our business they would be useless. Useless meaning I personally have no reason to hire mechanics. You can't set it either because you don't know the business and what YOU think they should be paid would most likely be unrealistic.

jtdavis posted:

Unless they agree to a comission type pay, and they'd still have to agree to what each felt was fair, and doubtful any owner would agree to an even split.

One guy I know uses the book rate, if the book says a job will take 3 hours and the mechanic gets done in one hour, he gets 3 hours pay. If it takes 6 hours, it's still 3 hours pay.

Don't think I will be using your mechanic.. I Don't know who made or determined the Rule of "Book Rate". Seems like an Archaic way to doing business... After diagnosis of issue, we determine the cost to fix.. We agree or not to agree... part as friends either way... If  the mechanic is of any worth, then its a mute point pertaining to book rate.

River Runner posted:
jtdavis posted:

Unless they agree to a comission type pay, and they'd still have to agree to what each felt was fair, and doubtful any owner would agree to an even split.

One guy I know uses the book rate, if the book says a job will take 3 hours and the mechanic gets done in one hour, he gets 3 hours pay. If it takes 6 hours, it's still 3 hours pay.

Don't think I will be using your mechanic.. I Don't know who made or determined the Rule of "Book Rate". Seems like an Archaic way to doing business... After diagnosis of issue, we determine the cost to fix.. We agree or not to agree... part as friends either way... If  the mechanic is of any worth, then its a mute point pertaining to book rate.

Most of the auto dealerships use book rates.

direstraits posted:
River Runner posted:
jtdavis posted:

Unless they agree to a comission type pay, and they'd still have to agree to what each felt was fair, and doubtful any owner would agree to an even split.

One guy I know uses the book rate, if the book says a job will take 3 hours and the mechanic gets done in one hour, he gets 3 hours pay. If it takes 6 hours, it's still 3 hours pay.

Don't think I will be using your mechanic.. I Don't know who made or determined the Rule of "Book Rate". Seems like an Archaic way to doing business... After diagnosis of issue, we determine the cost to fix.. We agree or not to agree... part as friends either way... If  the mechanic is of any worth, then its a mute point pertaining to book rate.

Most of the auto dealerships use book rates.

Thanks for setting me straight on Dealership labor rates. That must be the reason I haven't taken a vehicle in to a Dealership for general repairs outside of Warranty work. I'll stick with the fellow who has a Shop/garage behind his house as his business. He may had quoted me a book rate, but if I think it's too high, I shop around for someone else.. Last repair was my old 1998 knock-around truck needed new clutch. I bought the parts & he installed clutch & fluids for 150 bucks... vs Dealer wanted 600 bucks, 5 years ago. 

River Runner posted:
direstraits posted:
River Runner posted:
jtdavis posted:

Unless they agree to a comission type pay, and they'd still have to agree to what each felt was fair, and doubtful any owner would agree to an even split.

One guy I know uses the book rate, if the book says a job will take 3 hours and the mechanic gets done in one hour, he gets 3 hours pay. If it takes 6 hours, it's still 3 hours pay.

Don't think I will be using your mechanic.. I Don't know who made or determined the Rule of "Book Rate". Seems like an Archaic way to doing business... After diagnosis of issue, we determine the cost to fix.. We agree or not to agree... part as friends either way... If  the mechanic is of any worth, then its a mute point pertaining to book rate.

Most of the auto dealerships use book rates.

Thanks for setting me straight on Dealership labor rates. That must be the reason I haven't taken a vehicle in to a Dealership for general repairs outside of Warranty work. I'll stick with the fellow who has a Shop/garage behind his house as his business. He may had quoted me a book rate, but if I think it's too high, I shop around for someone else.. Last repair was my old 1998 knock-around truck needed new clutch. I bought the parts & he installed clutch & fluids for 150 bucks... vs Dealer wanted 600 bucks, 5 years ago. 

There are to many places to have your car repaired to take it to a dealership and let them soak you, and I would bet anything jt, even with all his talk, would be the first to avoid paying more.

River Runner posted:
direstraits posted:
River Runner posted:
jtdavis posted:

Unless they agree to a comission type pay, and they'd still have to agree to what each felt was fair, and doubtful any owner would agree to an even split.

One guy I know uses the book rate, if the book says a job will take 3 hours and the mechanic gets done in one hour, he gets 3 hours pay. If it takes 6 hours, it's still 3 hours pay.

Don't think I will be using your mechanic.. I Don't know who made or determined the Rule of "Book Rate". Seems like an Archaic way to doing business... After diagnosis of issue, we determine the cost to fix.. We agree or not to agree... part as friends either way... If  the mechanic is of any worth, then its a mute point pertaining to book rate.

Most of the auto dealerships use book rates.

Thanks for setting me straight on Dealership labor rates. That must be the reason I haven't taken a vehicle in to a Dealership for general repairs outside of Warranty work. I'll stick with the fellow who has a Shop/garage behind his house as his business. He may had quoted me a book rate, but if I think it's too high, I shop around for someone else.. Last repair was my old 1998 knock-around truck needed new clutch. I bought the parts & he installed clutch & fluids for 150 bucks... vs Dealer wanted 600 bucks, 5 years ago. 

The similarity between union and non-union blue collar workers ends with their skills.

 

There are to many places to have your car repaired to take it to a dealership and let them soak you, and I would bet anything jt, even with all his talk, would be the first to avoid paying more.

After all the business expense is deducted from that $50, what's a fair wage for the one doing the work? You have a business, you should be able to answer.

jtdavis posted:

There are to many places to have your car repaired to take it to a dealership and let them soak you, and I would bet anything jt, even with all his talk, would be the first to avoid paying more.

After all the business expense is deducted from that $50, what's a fair wage for the one doing the work? You have a business, you should be able to answer.

Jt, my business is nothing like a business that has mechanics, and I have NO idea what part of that $50 has to be earmarked for expenses. Are you that dense/stupid? I have answered, numerous times. What is FAIR is what the owner offers and the mechanic agrees to take. Fair is NOT splitting it 50/50. They couldn't tell you about my finances, how would I know theirs? How in the world you managed to hold a job is a mystery to me. If a person has surgery, how much of the cost of that surgery  is "fair" for the doctor to take? Come on, you've had surgery, tell us.

jtdavis posted:

Then why the need to curry political favors?

?????

I'm asking you, JT.  Should be an elementary question for a union insider such as yourself.  Kinda surprised you feigned ignorance rather than rise in defense.  Union men I know would not have hesitated.  So lets have another go at it. 

Why is it a group, with the skill set you claim is no comparison to your brother non-union blue collar workers, feels the need to curry political favor?  What advantage, protection, or favoritism are they seeking?

Or do you deny that is the case ?????

Well jt, what have they done for you? You were kinda "crying poor" a few months ago when you talked about what you had made and the car you drove. So just what did the union and demoslops do for you since it seems others were doing better then you until obama slithered onto the scene and screwed the economy?

So just what did the union and demoslops do for you since it seems others were doing better then you until obama slithered onto the scene and screwed the economy?

Best, I looked up some numbers.                                                                                          unemployment    Jan. 2009=7.8%      June 2016= 4.9%                                                       stock market        2009=  7,000          2016=   18,000                                                          Deficit 2001= 172 plus,    2009=  1,578 billion deficit,  2015=  438 billion deficit

Would you mind telling me what part of the economy Obama screwed up. It appears that he saved the economy.

jtdavis posted:

So just what did the union and demoslops do for you since it seems others were doing better then you until obama slithered onto the scene and screwed the economy?

Best, I looked up some numbers.                                                                                          unemployment    Jan. 2009=7.8%      June 2016= 4.9%                                                       stock market        2009=  7,000          2016=   18,000                                                          Deficit 2001= 172 plus,    2009=  1,578 billion deficit,  2015=  438 billion deficit

Would you mind telling me what part of the economy Obama screwed up. It appears that he saved the economy.

Good example of leftists playing with numbers which they no more understand than phlogiston theory of combustion.  National debt 2008 – about $10 trillion.  National debt 2016 -- $19.4 trillion. By the end of 2016, the administration will have added as much as every other administration in history.  Average GDP growth for the last 7.5 years – 1.3 percent.  That is the worst in over 100 years. Probably the worst in history.  The extreme increase in the value of the stock market is the equivalent of the increased cost of housing by 2008.  For 150 years, homes were depreciating assets.  By government injecting $1 trillion thru Freddie/Fannie, homes rose in value, rather than depreciating.  Now, the Fed caused interest rates to drop to almost zero for small and middle savers – savings accounts, money market accounts, CDs, etc.  Even federal treasury bond yields are at a historic low.  Companies that must invest funds to produce revenue for fortune expenses are forced into the stock markets.  Investors are bidding up the stock values well above the actual value, similar to 1929.  BTW, such companies include companies responsible for insurance companies and pensions.  Obama has set up the nation for another recession, with the government stuck with an inability to borrow when interests rates increase.

Dire, you keep bringing up those gloom and doom numbers about Obama's time in office, why don't you bring up some numbers to show what Bush did to a robust economy? After all, Obama inherited a train wreck and faced republican opposition at every twist and turn.

jtdavis posted:

Dire, you keep bringing up those gloom and doom numbers about Obama's time in office, why don't you bring up some numbers to show what Bush did to a robust economy? After all, Obama inherited a train wreck and faced republican opposition at every twist and turn.

Bush had a robust economy. Obama ruined it.

Bestworking posted:
jtdavis posted:

Dire, you keep bringing up those gloom and doom numbers about Obama's time in office, why don't you bring up some numbers to show what Bush did to a robust economy? After all, Obama inherited a train wreck and faced republican opposition at every twist and turn.

Bush had a robust economy. Obama ruined it.

Bush inherited a time bomb from Clinton. If it wasn't for the money from the rest of the world flowing in to fund an overheated housing market, the next president would have had to contend with the problem. 

jtdavis posted:

Bush had a robust economy. Obama ruined it.

You win the dumbest post award. 

No jt, you still win those hands down or the dumb post award. That one is yours permanantly. Just what did obama do for the country besides destroy jobs, open the borders to all sorts of dangerous illegals, drag in terrorists with plans to drag in more. How about that "affordable insurance" of his that no one can afford? How about pushing the race war? He did do a good job of dividing the country on race and income. Of course you whine constantly about "the rich", all except the rich demoslops, so you don't mind that war.

giftedamateur posted:
jtdavis posted:

Bush had a robust economy. Obama ruined it.

You win the dumbest post award. 

Debunk the claim with facts if you can. Remember, you can't use that imaginary surplus that didn't exist. I see Obama just made Iran's economy better to the tune of 400 million.

Wonder how much of that $400 mil they will give to hilliary? Or will she take her cut off the top?

jtdavis posted:

Dire, you keep bringing up those gloom and doom numbers about Obama's time in office, why don't you bring up some numbers to show what Bush did to a robust economy? After all, Obama inherited a train wreck and faced republican opposition at every twist and turn.

Clinton left a bomb with a long lit fuse for Bush.  True, Freddie and Fannie added gasoline to the fire, which wasn’t Bill’s fault.  Obama had complete control of the congress during his first two years and only made it worse.  The resulting congress could only practice damage control.   Obama has left a massive job hard for even Coolidge to salvage.  Trump, at least, has some idea how. Hillary would throw in dynamite.

direstraits posted:
jtdavis posted:

Dire, you keep bringing up those gloom and doom numbers about Obama's time in office, why don't you bring up some numbers to show what Bush did to a robust economy? After all, Obama inherited a train wreck and faced republican opposition at every twist and turn.

Clinton left a bomb with a long lit fuse for Bush.  True, Freddie and Fannie added gasoline to the fire, which wasn’t Bill’s fault.  Obama had complete control of the congress during his first two years and only made it worse.  The resulting congress could only practice damage control.   Obama has left a massive job hard for even Coolidge to salvage.  Trump, at least, has some idea how. Hillary would throw in dynamite.

http://townhall.com/columnists...-done-wrong-n1876744

jtdavis posted:

Did any of you read the numbers I posted? Doubtful. Do I need to post them again? You still would ignore them and post anti democrat stuff. It don't matter if its all lies, just so its anti democrat.

I gave you the reason for the stock market boom, which is mimicking the panic of 1929.  I also gave the average GDP growth for the last 7.5 years -- 1.3 percent, the worst in at least 100 years.  Without the massive spending in 2001, it would average 0.6 percent for the last 6.5 years.  Without GDP growth, the economy can't grow.   

I also gave the average GDP growth for the last 7.5 years -- 1.3 percent, the worst in at least 100 years.  

was this worse than the GDP growth under Bush?  BTW, wasn't there a 2 term republican president before the great depression and a 2 term republican president before this latest great recession?

jtdavis posted:

Did any of you read the numbers I posted? Doubtful. Do I need to post them again? You still would ignore them and post anti democrat stuff. It don't matter if its all lies, just so its anti democrat.

What anti-demoslop lies? I post anti-demoslop items all the time, but never a lie about the scum buckets. They're so scummy and low down there is no reason to post a lie about them, the truth is bad enough. Are you OK with them giving iran 400 MILLION dollars when legal citizens right here in the US can't find decent jobs?

Jack Flash posted:
Bestworking posted:

Jt says-"In the skilled building trades, there is no comparison between union and non union tradesmen".

???????????

OK that makes it official, jt isn't a real person .......  never was..

I just wonder what he means. Surely he isn't saying union workers are better and more skilled. I see to much to convince me that just isn't true. So jt, what does that mean?

jtdavis posted:

I also gave the average GDP growth for the last 7.5 years -- 1.3 percent, the worst in at least 100 years.  

was this worse than the GDP growth under Bush?  BTW, wasn't there a 2 term republican president before the great depression and a 2 term republican president before this latest great recession?

The Bush average GDP was 2.3 percent. The average Reagan GDP was 7.9 percent. 

I just wonder what he means. Surely he isn't saying union workers are better and more skilled. I see to much to convince me that just isn't true. So jt, what does that mean?

That is exactly what I'm saying about the building trades. There is no comparison between the average union craftsman and the average non union craftsman. I'm not familiar with all unions, only building trades.

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×