Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Totally off topic - delete if not interested

Expand Messages
  • suesarkis@aol.com
    Folks - You ve heard me complain in the past about our demographics. To maintain a nationality, a family must have 2.5 children per household. This number
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 27, 2011
      Folks -

      You've heard me complain in the past about our demographics. To maintain
      a nationality, a family must have 2.5 children per household. This number
      is the base figure used to offset those that remain childless for a variety
      of reasons.

      Back in the late '60's, early '70's, the liberal part of society started
      screaming and hollering about overpopulation and protesting about too many
      children being born. Behind that false B.S. the younger generations decided
      to come out of the closet rather than marrying and having children along
      with staying in the closet; not get married; or, place their careers ahead
      of having families bearing no children at all.

      American births are down to 1.3 per family. However, the rate is actually
      raised to 1.8 if we include the anchor babies. Well, now that the baby
      boomers are retiring and the Social Security System was raped blind by LBJ
      and his subsequent cohorts, coupled with the very low young working population
      in comparison contributing to the plan, our government is finally
      realizing that the future is not looking very good financially.

      Add that to my many complaints about "outsourcing" and why I've insisted
      that "buy American" is imperative if we plan to survive as a nation, one
      could wonder how much time do we have left as a powerful nation. No nation has
      ever survived as a "service" nation and that manufacturing is imperative.
      Our imports now exceed our exports by 700+ BILLION per year. In the early
      90's the difference was in the millions, not billions. With NAFTA, and
      all of the other benefits provided for foreign imports, we are in serious
      trouble.

      However, there appears to be a slight reprieve on our horizon. That is,
      however, only if the formerly based American manufacturing plants regenerate
      as the below article shows that China has finally realized what our country
      has yet to fully admit. And it is going to COST !!!

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      China's workforce 'dries up'

      The seemingly endless flow of young Chinese workers that helped to create
      the country's economic miracle has now finally "dried up", according to a
      leading economist.

      For decades, China has been able to rely on its vast workforce to
      manufacture a host of goods more cheaply and efficiently than anywhere else in the
      world.

      But now China's leaders are worrying that the country's one-child policy
      has begun to stem the tide of young workers ready to step forward into the
      country's factories.

      "Each year, the number of new workers joining factories is smaller than the
      number of old workers who are retiring," said Zhang Zheng, an economist at
      the elite Guanghua School of Management at Peking University. "The supply
      has dried up," he added.

      Last year, according to his calculations, only 154 million people under 30
      were part of China's enormous 550 million-strong industrial workforce.

      Mr Zhang added that it was not just demographics that was sapping the
      workforce of younger staff, but also the growing ambition of young Chinese to
      pursue further education and then white-collar jobs.

      The shortage of young workers is a headache for Chinese factory bosses, who
      need workers that can put up with long hours and work that demands
      physical strength, precision and good eyesight.

      As a result, wages have shot up by anything from 15 per cent to 40 per cent
      in some areas, making China a more expensive location for foreign
      companies to manufacture their goods.

      "Chinese companies have to accept the fact they have to raise wages," said
      Mr Zhang. "And foreign clients will have to accept that China is not just a
      place to manufacture cheap goods. Without rising prices, fewer Chinese
      companies will be willing to take orders," he added.

      _http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8409513/Chinas-workfor
      ce-dries-up.html_
      (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8409513/Chinas-workforce-dries-up.html)


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Rob O'Neill
      Sue, While I must admit I have only 2 children, I m hoping the ever generous Bill Branscum will carry me for the .5. If memory serves he has some to spare.
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 27, 2011
        Sue,



        While I must admit I have only 2 children, I'm hoping the ever generous Bill
        Branscum will carry me for the .5. If memory serves he has some to spare.





        Rob O'Neill

        Advanced Research Group, Inc.

        (630) 938-4716 Office

        (630) 768-6561 Mobile

        (630) 982-0692 Fax

        rroneill@... Email

        Florida License A2900189

        Illinois License 117.001361

        Indiana License PI20900496

        Wisconsin License 16695-062



        CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
        This e-mail contains confidential information and is intended solely for the
        use of the individual named on this transmission. If you are not the
        intended recipient, you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing
        or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is
        strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail
        please destroy this message immediately.











        From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
        On Behalf Of suesarkis@...
        Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 9:34 PM
        To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [infoguys-list] Totally off topic - delete if not interested






        Folks -

        You've heard me complain in the past about our demographics. To maintain
        a nationality, a family must have 2.5 children per household. This number
        is the base figure used to offset those that remain childless for a variety
        of reasons.

        Back in the late '60's, early '70's, the liberal part of society started
        screaming and hollering about overpopulation and protesting about too many
        children being born. Behind that false B.S. the younger generations decided
        to come out of the closet rather than marrying and having children along
        with staying in the closet; not get married; or, place their careers ahead
        of having families bearing no children at all.

        American births are down to 1.3 per family. However, the rate is actually
        raised to 1.8 if we include the anchor babies. Well, now that the baby
        boomers are retiring and the Social Security System was raped blind by LBJ
        and his subsequent cohorts, coupled with the very low young working
        population
        in comparison contributing to the plan, our government is finally
        realizing that the future is not looking very good financially.

        Add that to my many complaints about "outsourcing" and why I've insisted
        that "buy American" is imperative if we plan to survive as a nation, one
        could wonder how much time do we have left as a powerful nation. No nation
        has
        ever survived as a "service" nation and that manufacturing is imperative.
        Our imports now exceed our exports by 700+ BILLION per year. In the early
        90's the difference was in the millions, not billions. With NAFTA, and
        all of the other benefits provided for foreign imports, we are in serious
        trouble.

        However, there appears to be a slight reprieve on our horizon. That is,
        however, only if the formerly based American manufacturing plants regenerate

        as the below article shows that China has finally realized what our country
        has yet to fully admit. And it is going to COST !!!

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        China's workforce 'dries up'

        The seemingly endless flow of young Chinese workers that helped to create
        the country's economic miracle has now finally "dried up", according to a
        leading economist.

        For decades, China has been able to rely on its vast workforce to
        manufacture a host of goods more cheaply and efficiently than anywhere else
        in the
        world.

        But now China's leaders are worrying that the country's one-child policy
        has begun to stem the tide of young workers ready to step forward into the
        country's factories.

        "Each year, the number of new workers joining factories is smaller than the
        number of old workers who are retiring," said Zhang Zheng, an economist at
        the elite Guanghua School of Management at Peking University. "The supply
        has dried up," he added.

        Last year, according to his calculations, only 154 million people under 30
        were part of China's enormous 550 million-strong industrial workforce.

        Mr Zhang added that it was not just demographics that was sapping the
        workforce of younger staff, but also the growing ambition of young Chinese
        to
        pursue further education and then white-collar jobs.

        The shortage of young workers is a headache for Chinese factory bosses, who
        need workers that can put up with long hours and work that demands
        physical strength, precision and good eyesight.

        As a result, wages have shot up by anything from 15 per cent to 40 per cent
        in some areas, making China a more expensive location for foreign
        companies to manufacture their goods.

        "Chinese companies have to accept the fact they have to raise wages," said
        Mr Zhang. "And foreign clients will have to accept that China is not just a
        place to manufacture cheap goods. Without rising prices, fewer Chinese
        companies will be willing to take orders," he added.

        _http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8409513/Chinas-workfor
        ce-dries-up.html_
        (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8409513/Chinas-workfor
        ce-dries-up.html)

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Bill Branscum
        Yep. I can share one and still have extra! I spent the weekend with the kids canning food. That is such an incredible technology. I catch food on sale and buy
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 27, 2011
          Yep. I can share one and still have extra!

          I spent the weekend with the kids canning food. That is such an
          incredible technology. I catch food on sale and buy a ton of it. It's
          nice to have a few hundred quarts of food put up that requires no
          refrigeration and keeps for years.

          Bill

          Sent from my iPhone

          On Mar 27, 2011, at 10:45 PM, "Rob O'Neill" <rroneill@...> wrote:

          > Sue,
          >
          > While I must admit I have only 2 children, I'm hoping the ever
          > generous Bill
          > Branscum will carry me for the .5. If memory serves he has some to
          > spare.
          >
          > Rob O'Neill
          >
          > Advanced Research Group, Inc.
          >
          > (630) 938-4716 Office
          >
          > (630) 768-6561 Mobile
          >
          > (630) 982-0692 Fax
          >
          > rroneill@... Email
          >
          > Florida License A2900189
          >
          > Illinois License 117.001361
          >
          > Indiana License PI20900496
          >
          > Wisconsin License 16695-062
          >
          > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
          > This e-mail contains confidential information and is intended solely
          > for the
          > use of the individual named on this transmission. If you are not the
          > intended recipient, you are notified that disclosing, copying,
          > distributing
          > or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
          > is
          > strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-
          > mail
          > please destroy this message immediately.
          >
          > From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-
          > list@yahoogroups.com]
          > On Behalf Of suesarkis@...
          > Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 9:34 PM
          > To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [infoguys-list] Totally off topic - delete if not interested
          >
          > Folks -
          >
          > You've heard me complain in the past about our demographics. To
          > maintain
          > a nationality, a family must have 2.5 children per household. This
          > number
          > is the base figure used to offset those that remain childless for a
          > variety
          > of reasons.
          >
          > Back in the late '60's, early '70's, the liberal part of society
          > started
          > screaming and hollering about overpopulation and protesting about
          > too many
          > children being born. Behind that false B.S. the younger generations
          > decided
          > to come out of the closet rather than marrying and having children
          > along
          > with staying in the closet; not get married; or, place their careers
          > ahead
          > of having families bearing no children at all.
          >
          > American births are down to 1.3 per family. However, the rate is
          > actually
          > raised to 1.8 if we include the anchor babies. Well, now that the baby
          > boomers are retiring and the Social Security System was raped blind
          > by LBJ
          > and his subsequent cohorts, coupled with the very low young working
          > population
          > in comparison contributing to the plan, our government is finally
          > realizing that the future is not looking very good financially.
          >
          > Add that to my many complaints about "outsourcing" and why I've
          > insisted
          > that "buy American" is imperative if we plan to survive as a nation,
          > one
          > could wonder how much time do we have left as a powerful nation. No
          > nation
          > has
          > ever survived as a "service" nation and that manufacturing is
          > imperative.
          > Our imports now exceed our exports by 700+ BILLION per year. In the
          > early
          > 90's the difference was in the millions, not billions. With NAFTA, and
          > all of the other benefits provided for foreign imports, we are in
          > serious
          > trouble.
          >
          > However, there appears to be a slight reprieve on our horizon. That
          > is,
          > however, only if the formerly based American manufacturing plants
          > regenerate
          >
          > as the below article shows that China has finally realized what our
          > country
          > has yet to fully admit. And it is going to COST !!!
          >
          > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          > China's workforce 'dries up'
          >
          > The seemingly endless flow of young Chinese workers that helped to
          > create
          > the country's economic miracle has now finally "dried up", according
          > to a
          > leading economist.
          >
          > For decades, China has been able to rely on its vast workforce to
          > manufacture a host of goods more cheaply and efficiently than
          > anywhere else
          > in the
          > world.
          >
          > But now China's leaders are worrying that the country's one-child
          > policy
          > has begun to stem the tide of young workers ready to step forward
          > into the
          > country's factories.
          >
          > "Each year, the number of new workers joining factories is smaller
          > than the
          > number of old workers who are retiring," said Zhang Zheng, an
          > economist at
          > the elite Guanghua School of Management at Peking University. "The
          > supply
          > has dried up," he added.
          >
          > Last year, according to his calculations, only 154 million people
          > under 30
          > were part of China's enormous 550 million-strong industrial workforce.
          >
          > Mr Zhang added that it was not just demographics that was sapping the
          > workforce of younger staff, but also the growing ambition of young
          > Chinese
          > to
          > pursue further education and then white-collar jobs.
          >
          > The shortage of young workers is a headache for Chinese factory
          > bosses, who
          > need workers that can put up with long hours and work that demands
          > physical strength, precision and good eyesight.
          >
          > As a result, wages have shot up by anything from 15 per cent to 40
          > per cent
          > in some areas, making China a more expensive location for foreign
          > companies to manufacture their goods.
          >
          > "Chinese companies have to accept the fact they have to raise
          > wages," said
          > Mr Zhang. "And foreign clients will have to accept that China is not
          > just a
          > place to manufacture cheap goods. Without rising prices, fewer Chinese
          > companies will be willing to take orders," he added.
          >
          > _http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8409513/Chinas-
          > workfor
          > ce-dries-up.html_
          > (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8409513/Chinas-workfor
          > ce-dries-up.html)
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • John David Baroski
          Sue, I just wish that their lead supply would also dry up. But , seriously, as you mentioned about LBJ, for decades since, fiscally responsible people that
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 27, 2011
            Sue,



            I just wish that their lead supply would also dry up. But , seriously, as
            you mentioned about LBJ, for decades since, fiscally responsible people that
            knew they had to pay their way had only the children that they could afford
            to raise. The welfare mothers, paid for each birth, had as many as possible
            to get the most money. The result was less people born into families with a
            work ethic and more born into a belief that the state will support them so
            they don't have to work. This system was a disservice to all involved and
            over time has become another crippling factor for the united States along
            with illegal immigration.



            John,



            Baroski & Associates, Inc.

            Hawk@ Baroski.com





            From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
            On Behalf Of suesarkis@...
            Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 10:34 PM
            To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [infoguys-list] Totally off topic - delete if not interested






            Folks -

            You've heard me complain in the past about our demographics. To maintain
            a nationality, a family must have 2.5 children per household. This number
            is the base figure used to offset those that remain childless for a variety
            of reasons.

            Back in the late '60's, early '70's, the liberal part of society started
            screaming and hollering about overpopulation and protesting about too many
            children being born. Behind that false B.S. the younger generations decided
            to come out of the closet rather than marrying and having children along
            with staying in the closet; not get married; or, place their careers ahead
            of having families bearing no children at all.

            American births are down to 1.3 per family. However, the rate is actually
            raised to 1.8 if we include the anchor babies. Well, now that the baby
            boomers are retiring and the Social Security System was raped blind by LBJ
            and his subsequent cohorts, coupled with the very low young working
            population
            in comparison contributing to the plan, our government is finally
            realizing that the future is not looking very good financially.

            Add that to my many complaints about "outsourcing" and why I've insisted
            that "buy American" is imperative if we plan to survive as a nation, one
            could wonder how much time do we have left as a powerful nation. No nation
            has
            ever survived as a "service" nation and that manufacturing is imperative.
            Our imports now exceed our exports by 700+ BILLION per year. In the early
            90's the difference was in the millions, not billions. With NAFTA, and
            all of the other benefits provided for foreign imports, we are in serious
            trouble.

            However, there appears to be a slight reprieve on our horizon. That is,
            however, only if the formerly based American manufacturing plants regenerate

            as the below article shows that China has finally realized what our country
            has yet to fully admit. And it is going to COST !!!

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            China's workforce 'dries up'

            The seemingly endless flow of young Chinese workers that helped to create
            the country's economic miracle has now finally "dried up", according to a
            leading economist.

            For decades, China has been able to rely on its vast workforce to
            manufacture a host of goods more cheaply and efficiently than anywhere else
            in the
            world.

            But now China's leaders are worrying that the country's one-child policy
            has begun to stem the tide of young workers ready to step forward into the
            country's factories.

            "Each year, the number of new workers joining factories is smaller than the
            number of old workers who are retiring," said Zhang Zheng, an economist at
            the elite Guanghua School of Management at Peking University. "The supply
            has dried up," he added.

            Last year, according to his calculations, only 154 million people under 30
            were part of China's enormous 550 million-strong industrial workforce.

            Mr Zhang added that it was not just demographics that was sapping the
            workforce of younger staff, but also the growing ambition of young Chinese
            to
            pursue further education and then white-collar jobs.

            The shortage of young workers is a headache for Chinese factory bosses, who
            need workers that can put up with long hours and work that demands
            physical strength, precision and good eyesight.

            As a result, wages have shot up by anything from 15 per cent to 40 per cent
            in some areas, making China a more expensive location for foreign
            companies to manufacture their goods.

            "Chinese companies have to accept the fact they have to raise wages," said
            Mr Zhang. "And foreign clients will have to accept that China is not just a
            place to manufacture cheap goods. Without rising prices, fewer Chinese
            companies will be willing to take orders," he added.

            _http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8409513/Chinas-workfor
            ce-dries-up.html_
            (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8409513/Chinas-workfor
            ce-dries-up.html)

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • suesarkis@aol.com
            John - You are quite right. Although I give most of the credit to LBJ for winning over the south regarding the Civil Rights Act, I also fault him for some of
            Message 5 of 6 , Mar 27, 2011
              John -

              You are quite right.

              Although I give most of the credit to LBJ for winning over the south
              regarding the Civil Rights Act, I also fault him for some of the most liberal
              decisions ever made providing for a welfare nation without reasoning.

              LBJ's Immigration Act of 1965 was, in my opinion, a total slap in the face
              of what the Founding Fathers expected of this once great nation. If one
              wonders what went wrong with what was once the wonderful America I grew up
              with, go read that bill. The "Great Society" was destined to be a failure
              from the day he signed the bill and his Elementary and Secondary Education
              Act of 1965 usurped each State's autonomy provided for by the 10th Amendment.
              Our education system has gone so far downhill since that we should all be
              ashamed.

              His escalation of the Viet Nam War was a tragedy as well as a travesty
              since he had NO desire to win. He was a terrible Commander-in-Chief !!!!

              Sue


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Preston Olson
              Groups I have a client who is having a problem with some unknown person posting slander on a web site similar to face book about his business. We have no idea
              Message 6 of 6 , Mar 28, 2011
                Groups

                I have a client who is having a problem with some unknown person posting slander on a web site similar to face book about his business. We have no idea who is doing this at this point. Is there anyway to find out what email address this is coming from without going through an attorney and issuing subpoenas for the information.

                Thank you

                Preston Olson
                Gentry Investigations Inc.


                From: suesarkis@...
                Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 12:52 AM
                To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Totally off topic - delete if not interested




                John -

                You are quite right.

                Although I give most of the credit to LBJ for winning over the south
                regarding the Civil Rights Act, I also fault him for some of the most liberal
                decisions ever made providing for a welfare nation without reasoning.

                LBJ's Immigration Act of 1965 was, in my opinion, a total slap in the face
                of what the Founding Fathers expected of this once great nation. If one
                wonders what went wrong with what was once the wonderful America I grew up
                with, go read that bill. The "Great Society" was destined to be a failure
                from the day he signed the bill and his Elementary and Secondary Education
                Act of 1965 usurped each State's autonomy provided for by the 10th Amendment.
                Our education system has gone so far downhill since that we should all be
                ashamed.

                His escalation of the Viet Nam War was a tragedy as well as a travesty
                since he had NO desire to win. He was a terrible Commander-in-Chief !!!!

                Sue

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.