Let's get back to being hopeful: Did you read the guest column from last Friday's Trib? The Obama I know.

Affirmation for those of us supporting Obama. Information for those on the fence. Disappointment for those looking to discredit the man. No one is perfect but we need someone like him NOW! (Well, in the election anyway.)

Well Ronkas, the "dirty war" conducted by the Argentine military which cost about 20K lives (as compared to Pinochet's campaign in Chile which casused about 3,000 casualties)was conducted to reign in the far left element of Argentine society. As we know, it was a failure especially after the Falklands fiasco. So to say that the military was working hand in hand with the leftists and the unions is IMO completely untrue. In fact, it was the Peronistas that were overthrown (Isabel) by the military. Unfortunately, the same success story that Chile now has was under the tutelage of Pinochet was not able to be created in Argentina. The unions are just too strong. Many Chileans (I was there too on the same trip) credit Pinochet as modernizing the country and bringing it into the 20th century, based upon free enterprise and low import duties. The Chileans motto is, if we can't build it cheaper, import it and do something else. The value of their currency is the issue now, being too strong due to good productivity, low inflation by S. American standards, and high copper prices. The country has come a long way. Brazil too. Argentina's bad habits continue to haunt them.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gus,

quote:

Originally posted by GEmom2:
[ Overweight kids are even more likely to become overweight adults.

Americans are suffering from a massive lack of discipline, and we will eventually have to pay for it.

I still don't buy the argument that overweight = more cost on us. I mean, most overweight people are going to presumably die of a heart attack at relatively young age. If you figure that the granola and treadmill set are going to wind up in a nursing home, and then die of some long drawn out cancer, who is really "burdening" us more?

Maybe we should factor the "burden" on society of people living longer. Things like social security, publicly funded pensions, etc. I'll bet the scales, if they do in deed tip away from the fat, die young crowd (and I'm not convinced on that), factoring in those costs would tip them back.

quote:

Originally posted by middlein87:

quote:

Originally posted by GEmom2:
[ Overweight kids are even more likely to become overweight adults.

Americans are suffering from a massive lack of discipline, and we will eventually have to pay for it.

I still don't buy the argument that overweight = more cost on us. I mean, most overweight people are going to presumably die of a heart attack at relatively young age. If you figure that the granola and treadmill set are going to wind up in a nursing home, and then die of some long drawn out cancer, who is really "burdening" us more?

Maybe we should factor the "burden" on society of people living longer. Things like social security, publicly funded pensions, etc. I'll bet the scales, if they do in deed tip away from the fat, die young crowd (and I'm not convinced on that), factoring in those costs would tip them back.

Before they die, it's assumed that they will cost more in prescriptions and surgeries (bypasses, knee replacements and what-not) to correct what they've done to themselves. It certainly would be interesting to find someone who could really figure out the cost difference.

Dutch or Danish Study came out earlier this year . Healthy people cost more in Health Care costs than overweight people or smokers. Smokers where the cheapest.
Lung cancer kills pretty quickly and not a lot you can do to stop it. So we should stop taxing smokes and start taxing fruits and veggies.

Not sure how a guilder stacks up against a dollar these days, but -

This was actually a health costs of obesity study, published in Feb. 2008. Findings stated:

Until age 56 years, annual health expenditure was highest for obese people. At older ages, smokers incurred higher costs. Because of differences of life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy living people and lowest for smokers. Obese individuals held an intermediate position.


Nothing like terminal cancer to cut your long-term health expenses.

Somebody needs to put a muzzle on this guy.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348413,00.html

And this guy too....unbelievable.......

April 12, 2008
Recommend (1)

BY ASSOCIATED PRESS

INDIANAPOLIS — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is demanding that company shareholders have a say in how much executives get paid as he pushes his populist message.

Obama said Friday he wants Congress to pass legislation he has sponsored that would require corporations to have a nonbinding vote by shareholders on executive compensation packages.
» Click to enlarge image
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama D-Ill., waves while shaking hands at the Little 500 women's bicycle race at the University of Indiana in Bloomington, Ind., Friday, April 11, 2008.
(AP)



Under Obama’s Senate legislation, shareholders could not veto a compensation package offered to an executive and would not place limits on pay. Rather, they would have a means to publicly express their position.

A similar bill passed the House last year.

The Illinois senator’s comments come as he embarks on the third day of a four day-swing through Indiana, which holds its primary May 6. Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are running even in the state and have both been making economic pitches to voters.

Aren't there a number of companies already embracing this policy? Yes, there are. I think it's a great idea. Quack - Quack....! Oh no, Aflac!

How many of you actually vote the proxy materials that you currently receive? We have had a deluge lately, and I suspect many (most?) don't take the time to vote by mail, phone or online.

This looks like more to ignore for most people, though it looks good on a press release.

BTW - The big Illinois tax increase for those making over $250,000 per household failed to pass on to the Senate.

I think it is a preposterous idea and it has likely caused me to hold my nose and vote for McCain in November. Mr. "Hope" Obama is only apparently talking about "Hope" for the impoverished and those in ghettos. The "Hope" of those who dedicate their life to their craft and to their business and actually succeed...those people should be punished for doing well.

Screw the employees who busted their butt working themselves up the corporate ladder to one day run a company...screw hard work...let their compensation be determined by the masses whose own self-interests will be protected. Oh, and screw the free-market system.

What a joke...while we're at it, let's tax all salaries over 250k...but only let the creme de la creme make 251k.

Obama....you're fired!

quote:

Originally posted by GEmom2:
How many of you actually vote the proxy materials that you currently receive? We have had a deluge lately, and I suspect many (most?) don't take the time to vote by mail, phone or online.

Are those the things in plastic that have been sitting on my desk for the last month?

Yes - Likely labeled "IMPORTANT Shareholder information."

Also this good news inside: As of July 1, 2007 SEC rules permit companies to send you a Notice indicating that their proxy materials are available on the Internet and how you can request a mailed copy.

That will save WAY more trees than saving Ackerman Woods!!

I can't stop thinking about this. How does this philosophy preach "hope" at all?

Should I start teaching my kids now: "Kids, you can be anything. If you work hard enough, study hard, makes personal sacrifices and get the appropriate amount of luck, one day you can run any business in the world.....whereupon all the people you passed along the way and all the people who benefitted from your effort, will vote to reduce your pay to the lowest amount possible. So go get 'em."

That's why Americans are increasingly - and I am really sorry to say this - idiots.

How many years did you attend college and how many long hours have you put in to care and provide financially for your family. I know this sounds elitist, but $250,000 per household, after taxes isn't as much as many people think it is.

The Illinois Democrat-sponsored legislation would have doubled the state tax for the top 2% of taxpaying households to collect an projected $3 billion - one-third of which would have been utilized to reduce the taxes of the other 98%.

If any one company wants to do this on their own, who cares, but legislation? Great! Another terrible idea.