Who else got an insurance rate hike?
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Jock strap recommendations for low hanging balls?
Next: Media buries story about convictions for massive election rigging
From: William Clark on 8 Apr 2010 08:01 In article <4bbd01a7$0$4955$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:31:11 -0400, BAR wrote: > > > Have you seen the recent numbers for the three major networks > > newscasts? All of them are down double digits in viewer ship. Fox > > News is the only one increasing viewer ship, why is that? > > Unfortunately, spectacle will always win out over substance. > > On the other hand, popularity is a poor measure of quality. Indeed, it's because Fox News is not a news channel, it's an entertainment channel for the hard of thinking. Apples and oranges.
From: BAR on 8 Apr 2010 08:37 In article <clark-F81C4F.08010608042010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > In article <4bbd01a7$0$4955$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:31:11 -0400, BAR wrote: > > > > > Have you seen the recent numbers for the three major networks > > > newscasts? All of them are down double digits in viewer ship. Fox > > > News is the only one increasing viewer ship, why is that? > > > > Unfortunately, spectacle will always win out over substance. > > > > On the other hand, popularity is a poor measure of quality. > > Indeed, it's because Fox News is not a news channel, it's an > entertainment channel for the hard of thinking. Apples and oranges. So the election of Obama was a popularity contents and it is not a measure of his quality.
From: John B. on 8 Apr 2010 09:05 On Apr 8, 6:39 am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <ax8vn.27450$3D3.23...(a)newsfe19.iad>, NoS...(a)NoThanks.net > says... > > > > > > > > > "BAR" <sc...(a)you.com> wrote in message > >news:MPG.2626db0beecff47c989db5(a)news.giganews.com... > > > In article <yP6vn.306035$OX4.117...(a)newsfe25.iad>, NoS...(a)NoThanks.net > > > says... > > >> The nature of the "loophole" doesn't alter the fact that it represents > > >> billions in revenue for the various companies. IT was a reduction in > > >> the expense associated with a specific benefit, whose expressed > > >> purpose was to sustain the benefit. Now that the loophole is gone, the > > >> benefit too will go. > > > >> My understanding is that this particular thing was associated with the > > >> Bush administrations free drugs for seniors program, and this program > > >> saved them money by maintaining a class of seniors who got their drug > > >> money from another source...it was/is apparently cheaper this way than > > >> having the govt directly subsidize the seniors. > > > >> This will pull billions from salary expenses from various businesses > > >> and cannot have any other effect than reducing jobs and/or benefits, > > >> depending on how they want to make up the revenue shortfall. > > > >> === > > >> It was a gift to the large companies that has been closed -- simple as > > >> that -- maybe YOU like handing over $$ & then letting them write it off > > >> as > > >> an expense --- if so - you must be a give it away & borrow type > > > > Tax policy should encourage employment rather than discourage > > > employment. Screwing the big companies only results in screwing the > > > "worker", the guy Obama says he is trying to help. > > > > How many people were hired by the poor today? > > > Let's give AT&T all of your money then. > > Seriously. Why is their a desire and emphasis from the left to screw and > or kill the employers? Employers should be worshiped for their ability > to generate more taxpayers, more revenues for local, state and federal > coffers. You should be out there encouraging full employment to maximize > tax revenue.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yes, I worship my employer every day. I kneel down before him in prayerful reverence.
From: William Clark on 8 Apr 2010 11:18 In article <MPG.26279836e0018611989dc2(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <clark-F81C4F.08010608042010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > > > In article <4bbd01a7$0$4955$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:31:11 -0400, BAR wrote: > > > > > > > Have you seen the recent numbers for the three major networks > > > > newscasts? All of them are down double digits in viewer ship. Fox > > > > News is the only one increasing viewer ship, why is that? > > > > > > Unfortunately, spectacle will always win out over substance. > > > > > > On the other hand, popularity is a poor measure of quality. > > > > Indeed, it's because Fox News is not a news channel, it's an > > entertainment channel for the hard of thinking. Apples and oranges. > > So the election of Obama was a popularity contents and it is not a > measure of his quality. A "popularity contents"? Another crashing non sequitur from our resident expert in them.
From: Kommienezuspadt on 8 Apr 2010 12:56
"BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message news:MPG.26277c7c88830f44989dba(a)news.giganews.com... > In article <ax8vn.27450$3D3.23397(a)newsfe19.iad>, NoSpam(a)NoThanks.net > says... >> >> "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message >> news:MPG.2626db0beecff47c989db5(a)news.giganews.com... >> > In article <yP6vn.306035$OX4.117716(a)newsfe25.iad>, NoSpam(a)NoThanks.net >> > says... >> >> The nature of the "loophole" doesn't alter the fact that it represents >> >> billions in revenue for the various companies. IT was a reduction in >> >> the expense associated with a specific benefit, whose expressed >> >> purpose was to sustain the benefit. Now that the loophole is gone, the >> >> benefit too will go. >> >> >> >> My understanding is that this particular thing was associated with the >> >> Bush administrations free drugs for seniors program, and this program >> >> saved them money by maintaining a class of seniors who got their drug >> >> money from another source...it was/is apparently cheaper this way than >> >> having the govt directly subsidize the seniors. >> >> >> >> This will pull billions from salary expenses from various businesses >> >> and cannot have any other effect than reducing jobs and/or benefits, >> >> depending on how they want to make up the revenue shortfall. >> >> >> >> >> >> === >> >> It was a gift to the large companies that has been closed -- simple as >> >> that -- maybe YOU like handing over $$ & then letting them write it >> >> off >> >> as >> >> an expense --- if so - you must be a give it away & borrow type >> >> >> > >> > Tax policy should encourage employment rather than discourage >> > employment. Screwing the big companies only results in screwing the >> > "worker", the guy Obama says he is trying to help. >> > >> > How many people were hired by the poor today? >> >> Let's give AT&T all of your money then. > > Seriously. Why is their a desire and emphasis from the left to screw and > or kill the employers? Employers should be worshiped for their ability > to generate more taxpayers, more revenues for local, state and federal > coffers. You should be out there encouraging full employment to maximize > tax revenue. How is it screwing them? The crazy law (written by Repubs) gave them a 28% subsidy to buy insurance AND let them write off the total cost of the insurance while keeping your tax money. So -- why not give them all of your money? |