We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Obamacare
Replies
-
I lack time and energy to continue this point by point (less),,, but this one I just got to respond to:
""The production is in Canada anyway so the environmental impact wouldnt affect us, if that is a huge concern of yours."" Really? Are you not kidding?Keystone XL would send oil directly to China, make a couple of key Conservative campaign contributors trillions, dump a jillion tons of C02 in the air, and affect the domestic price of oil not a whit. You do understand that you have to burn 2 gallons of oil to extract 3 from tar sands, right? So 2/3rds of the production goes straight up the stack right at the wellhead. If your next door neighbor did it you'd call the cops.
4. Agreed, the oil wouldnt stay in this country which is a problem that needs to be dealt with, however, in the short run who cares. We need jobs, DESPERATELY. The production is in Canada anyway so the environmental impact wouldnt affect us, if that is a huge concern of yours. The oil is already being extracted in Canada so either we cash in or someone else does. Again, we need jobs, DESPERATELY.
A - yes, I'm an air breathing mammal, so this a concern.
B - "The production is in Canada anyway so the environmental impact wouldnt affect us" - ever heard of this wierd phenomena called "Wind"? Does your pool have a urinating area? (He's pissing in the deep end, we're Ok over here - :huh: ).
I guess there lies the fundamental difference between us. Your alleged "environmental" concern trumps individuals ability to earn a wage and provide for their family. I guess its no coincidence we have more people on Welfare than ever before with this administration similar views. Consider yourself extremely lucky you live in the times that you do. Handouts have never before been so easy to attain.0 -
Yes, this administration discussed raising the top marginal tax rate from 36% to 39.5%. Clearly this is the reason companies are not hiring. If I make a million dollars next year, I don't know if my after-tax profit will be $640,000 or if it will be a mere $605,000. Clearly the only prudent thing to do is stuff my capital in a mattress and support myself as an assistant manager at Sizzler 'til there's more "certainty". That makes total sense. :huh:
1.)Unfortunately, your assistant manager at Sizzler's isn't a small business owner so he doesn't have to make payroll or worry about cash flow issues. This example is irrelevant to the discussion.
Most people out there aren't business owners - and the point isn't irrelevant. I don't know anyone who doesn't worry about cashflow issues, and anyone who own's a penny's worth of stock is a business owner.
Businesses are not hiring 'cause demand for their products is soft, and because they (we) have again learned how to do more with less people. If Ford Motor can sell 25,000 mustangs a month, they need maybe 1,000 people to build them. If they make tons of money, they might have the cash on hand to put on a second shift and make 50,000 mustangs a month. BUT they're not going to do that because they can't sell the cars. "Job creation" isn't stalled because of uncertainty,,, it's stalled because demand is soft because unemployment is high. A lot of people are un/under-employed, and have no money, and a lot more are scared they might soon be un/under-employed, so they're not going to spend any money.
2.)Demand being soft has nothing to do with (we) having learned to do more with less people. It is soft because of the policies put in place by this administration.
Seriously? Demand is soft, Mr. Economics, when people don't buy things. People don't buy things when they don't have money, or are worried that they won't have money in the future. People are worried that they won't have money in the future, because they do not have, or are concerned that they will lose, a job. When companies learn to do more with fewer people, people lose their jobs. That has nothing to do with this administration's policies.
Can you name a single policy and law that has led to less employment? Just one? And back it up with something even close to a fact?Ronald Reagan inherited, arguably, a worse situation than Obama did yet by his 3 year in office, the economy had added over 3 million jobs in 1983 alone with the same amount being added in 1984. In 1984 the economy grew 7.3% and all of this was done with no goverment stimulus. It was done through the cutting of taxes, deregulation(shrinking government) cutting government spending(budgetary spending) and control of the monetary supply to strengthen the dollar. The unemployment rate was 7.2%, by the end of his first term, from a high of 10.8% and dropping. Reagan left office with a 5.3% unemployment rate and had added over 15 MILLION jobs in his 8 years in office. The blueprint already existed. Obama is doing the exact opposite. He is growing government when shrinking government is what is needed and what has worked in the past.
Reagan spent his way out of the recesstion, and it was in no way worse that what President Obama inherited. Are you kidding?Something/somebody has got to get off of the swing and push. That's what stimulus (1/2 tax cuts BTW) did, and didn' do enough of. Doing something smarter with health care so small businesses can be more 'certain' they won't lose half their staff to an epidemic of untreated hangnails would be a plus also. Part of the plan maybe?
3.)Someone/somebody(government) has got to get out of the way. It has already been proven to work. Stimulus didnt work and will never work with the current administrations policies in place. If the small business could afford private healthcare more power to him/her, but who is the government to dictate what he/she must do with his/her own business.
You know, you repeat yourself a lot. It makes others have to repeat themselves a lot. It's pretty tedious. I believe the stimulus has helped. I think that, without it, unemployment would be a lot worse."Where does the constitution....?" General clause.
4.)No where does it state Healthcare in the general clause.
Again, the 'general Welfare' part - it's the job of the government to take care of its people. And industries that are predatory need to be controlled (abolished would be even better, tho)Corporations are not immoral, they are amoral. Big difference. I too have worked for them all my life and know and understand them well. Great tool for what they do (make money, create wealth, drive industry), lousy for what they don't (give a damn about human beings). We need a strong private segment AND a strong public segment. The dragon analogy is dead on.
5.)I'm not sure how long you've been around but the disloyalty goes both ways. Loyalty can and has been bought for many years. Employees leave to the highest bidder as well so it goes both ways. I'm not saying thats a bad thing since it means people are being justly compensated for their skillset. Capitalism at its best. As long as a strong public segment means lean and not unionized, I'm all for it.
People run companies, and people are either ethical or unethical (use 'moral' vs 'immoral' if you like). Yes, companies are amoral, and it was my orginal point that we shouldn't expect them to act in any other capacity. That's why we have a government - to keep amoral companies from doing too much damage in their quest for profit. They are single minded in this regard, and there needs to be a balancing factor to keep them in check.0 -
3. You fail to mention one key point. The top marginal rate was dropped from 70% to 28%. Yes, he did raise taxes, yet even with the tax increases it was a net decrease, overall. When Obama drops the top rate to 28% we can talk.
Thinking 1981 and 2009 were about the same is just delusional. Ciao,,,
I'm all for bumping it back up there - and I'm pretty close to that tax bracket myself.4. Obama has run trillion dollar budget deficits on what? He has spent trillions of dollars on stimulus and has absolutely nothing to show for it.
Question(seriously): Would you consider Obama's first term a success? If so, how so?
I consider it a success, but not an unbridled success... Healthcare reform was a start, but it's not perfect. Also financial reform is a start, but didn't go far enough. He's also done an excellent job with national security. So yea, I give him a solid 8.0 -
I lack time and energy to continue this point by point (less),,, but this one I just got to respond to:
""The production is in Canada anyway so the environmental impact wouldnt affect us, if that is a huge concern of yours."" Really? Are you not kidding?Keystone XL would send oil directly to China, make a couple of key Conservative campaign contributors trillions, dump a jillion tons of C02 in the air, and affect the domestic price of oil not a whit. You do understand that you have to burn 2 gallons of oil to extract 3 from tar sands, right? So 2/3rds of the production goes straight up the stack right at the wellhead. If your next door neighbor did it you'd call the cops.
4. Agreed, the oil wouldnt stay in this country which is a problem that needs to be dealt with, however, in the short run who cares. We need jobs, DESPERATELY. The production is in Canada anyway so the environmental impact wouldnt affect us, if that is a huge concern of yours. The oil is already being extracted in Canada so either we cash in or someone else does. Again, we need jobs, DESPERATELY.
A - yes, I'm an air breathing mammal, so this a concern.
B - "The production is in Canada anyway so the environmental impact wouldnt affect us" - ever heard of this wierd phenomena called "Wind"? Does your pool have a urinating area? (He's pissing in the deep end, we're Ok over here - :huh: ).
I guess there lies the fundamental difference between us. Your alleged "environmental" concern trumps individuals ability to earn a wage and provide for their family. I guess its no coincidence we have more people on Welfare than ever before with this administration similar views. Consider yourself extremely lucky you live in the times that you do. Handouts have never before been so easy to attain.
I do consider myself very lucky - there's never been a better time to be alive, especially now that we have a healthcare reform law in place.0 -
Btw, I officially give up on this thread - it's taking me half an hour just to keep the quotes within quotes straight, and I don't have time for it. I think everyone has posted their position, and geee, big surprise, we're all right back where we started.
Take care, and I hope everyone had a nice 4th of July!0 -
Someone wrote: "Corporations are not immoral, they are amoral. "
Whoever truly believes this gave away their power and personal sovereignty long ago. That is a crock of lie and gives credence to the idea that people need to give away their power to the corporations because without corporations who would get paid? How would we live? How would the global system function? Grovel grovel grovel. This is not just my opinion but the Supreme Courts - Citizens United vs. the FEC January 2010 Supreme Court ruling gave individual rights to corporations in the way they can contribute to candidates and elections.
The Health Market (to stay on topic) is a market and is run by corporations. For them to disqualifiy millions because they have preexisting conditions and because they were laid off by their former employer(s) who outsourced their jobs is IMMORAL on both counts.
True, we all have to survive and work in "the system" whether we like it or not but we do NOT have to be led willingly to be sacraficed on the altar of the "corporate culture" which is just a cover for Wall Street, the bankers, and the Market. Let's start calling the current pre-Affordable Care Act period of healthcare by it's true name: Health Market, care be damned.
-Debra0 -
...
The Health Market (to stay on topic) is a market and is run by corporations. For them to disqualifiy millions because they have preexisting conditions and because they were laid off by their former employer(s) who outsourced their jobs is IMMORAL on both counts.
True, we all have to survive and work in "the system" whether we like it or not but we do NOT have to be led willingly to be sacraficed on the altar of the "corporate culture" which is just a cover for Wall Street, the bankers, and the Market. Let's start calling the current pre-Affordable Care Act period of healthcare by it's true name: Health Market, care be damned.
-Debra
I completely agree.
Adding to this, the all too common practice of 'recision' - basically, accepting premiums for years and years, and then, when the policy holder tries to make a claim, inventing a reason to boot the person off the policy and leave them stranded - without, of course, returning all the premiums that have been paid - is straight up, hands down EVIL. Several insurance companies have entire departments staffed by people who do nothing other than go find ways to turn down a legit policy claim - the person's file goes to this group when they make a claim, for the express purpose of finding an administrative justification to deny them.
That's about as evil as it gets. And do I want the government stepping in to stop that crap? Hell yeah.
Ok, now I'm done. Really. I mean it. Really.0 -
Lol, 'in theory I'm right"? Dude, no, I'm just plain right, and my point is not moot simply because you say it is - you trying out for a Fox Entertainment anchor spot?
LOL Yea because you said so right.
Yes, there are people-instensive industries, like hospitality, of course. But that old line about 'most businesses are small businesses and they need to hire people' is crap, because small businesses are the *last* to hire people, and they are certainly the last to hire people and give them benefits - and hospitality and food service, btw, is famous for this. This simply contributes to under-employment, and people are still treated like ****. So, laws like the healthcare law because even *more* important.
Could it be the skillset required to say clean a room is quite common therefore the companies hiring the housekeeping do not need to "compete" too aggressively for potential employees by offering say bonus and stock options because there are millions of people capable of doing this job? This is Microeconomics 101. If you don't understand this, I cant help that.
Also, nowhere did I advocate that the government should hire everybody. But what I would like is regulation to make sure that the people who are hired aren't screwed left, sideways, and center by the companies that hire them - things like minimum wage and a solution to healthcare problems is a step in the right direction.
You think healthcare is a right. and I don't. I'll agree to disagree.
Seriously, keep your silly head-in-the-clouds convervative, arrogant armchair economic platitudes to yourself. You sound like you don't have a clue how the world actually works.
I love to get liberals worked up. They never stick to the debate and always revert to personal attacks. I guess its typical when your arguments are baseless.
[
Where to begin? Ok, first, about the Constitution, since you went there... did you miss, oh, the *FIRST SENTENCE*, where it says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
1. insure domestic Tranquility
2. promote the general Welfare
1. I missed where it said Healthcare. Can you point me to that part?
2. Was Wealth Redistribution what they meant by Welfare?
Sometimes, growth needs hindering if the path to growth has a negative overall impact on the 'general Welfare,' and the people it is built upon. That's why unions came into existence (not saying unions are perfect, or that the union system doesn't need its own reform). But yes, like I said, it is the job of business to make a profit, not take care of the people who work for it. Again, that's where the government comes in, to make sure business, in its pursuit for profit, doesn't destroy the world in the process.
Really, growth needs hindering? Wow!
LOL Please don't get me started on unions. The need for unions has come and gone. They were first created to enhance working conditions and safety. It quickly evolved to extortion. They have been responsible for the collapse of too many companies.
Than why do companies offer benefits not required by government such as Healthcare, 401k, tuition reimbursement, etc, etc., if they are merely in business to make a profit?
4. I am a raging capitalist. I am a consultant who has worked across almost every industry sector, all over the world. I'm paid pretty well to do it, and I work the system to my own benefit. But that doesn't mean it's a good system.
Just curious, if capitalism isn't a good system, what is?0 -
Just to address one point you made, Alpha2Omega:
Just because it's easy to find someone for the position you're trying to fill doesn't give you the right to pay them less than a living wage that will allow them to have healthcare, a decent place to live, food for themselves and their kids, enough to save a little for the future, and a few comforts.
There is a minimum wage under which we should not allow corporations in society to go, and it is not the minimum wage we currently have. There are people who bust their butts full time and still need foodstamps because their pay is so low. Who pays for those foodstamps? The taxpayers. Why should corporations be allowed to use people's labor and not pay them enough to sustain themselves and their families?0 -
I said the Immoral/Amoral line and I think it's accurate. I didn't "corporations should be..." or "I wish corporations were..." - I said Corporations are:Someone wrote: "Corporations are not immoral, they are amoral. "
Whoever truly believes this gave away their power and personal sovereignty long ago. That is a crock of lie and gives credence to the idea that people need to give away their power to the corporations because without corporations who would get paid? How would we live? How would the global system function? Grovel grovel grovel. This is not just my opinion but the Supreme Courts - Citizens United vs. the FEC January 2010 Supreme Court ruling gave individual rights to corporations in the way they can contribute to candidates and elections.
The Health Market (to stay on topic) is a market and is run by corporations. For them to disqualifiy millions because they have preexisting conditions and because they were laid off by their former employer(s) who outsourced their jobs is IMMORAL on both counts.
True, we all have to survive and work in "the system" whether we like it or not but we do NOT have to be led willingly to be sacraficed on the altar of the "corporate culture" which is just a cover for Wall Street, the bankers, and the Market. Let's start calling the current pre-Affordable Care Act period of healthcare by it's true name: Health Market, care be damned.
-Debra
a·mor·al
adjective
1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.
2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.
NOT:
im·mor·al
adjective
1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
2. licentious or lascivious.
Corporations are legal entities founded and operated to generate profit for their shareholders. That's what they are. They are required to operate within the law - but they are not required to operate within any "moral" framework.
Example: Years ago the Ford plant my Bro-in-law works at had a couple dozen folks who mounted the tires on the rims for the new cars. The wheels come from the wheel plant - the tires come from Firestone - and somebody has to mount them and get them ready to go on the cars. 70 Tauruses an hour means 280 tires an hour, and that kept a lot of folks busy.
Not that long ago, some propellerhead invented the "Automatic tire mounting machine". This thing is amazing - you load tires and wheels in one end and they come out the other end all mounted and balanced and ready to go on a car. Awesome... No sick days, no smoke breaks, no strikes.
And there went 24 jobs. Poof - gone. Is replacing those jobs with a machine morally right? I'dunno, probably. It's certainly worth discussing. But is it legal? Of course it is. So Ford Motor Co. did it, and they had every right to. There was no question of 'morality' - cause corporations are amoral. The new machine makes the Co. more profitable, and that's their goal.
Do I wish it were otherwise? Sometimes,,, Do I wish those 24 people still had jobs? Of course I do.
It is what it is. If we wish to understand how to manage corporations and influence and deal with them we have to understand how they operate - and this is how they operate. If you wish to change it you need to write your congressman,,, but I'll remind you that legislating morality is not something we're big on.0 -
Just to address one point you made, Alpha2Omega:
Just because it's easy to find someone for the position you're trying to fill doesn't give you the right to pay them less than a living wage that will allow them to have healthcare, a decent place to live, food for themselves and their kids, enough to save a little for the future, and a few comforts.
There is a minimum wage under which we should not allow corporations in society to go, and it is not the minimum wage we currently have. There are people who bust their butts full time and still need foodstamps because their pay is so low. Who pays for those foodstamps? The taxpayers. Why should corporations be allowed to use people's labor and not pay them enough to sustain themselves and their families?
Maria,
That is a great point and question, however,( and you may not agree) the reason the "market" should dictate wages and not government is because every single person in the country has the ability to further their skillset through training or further education. Yes a person cleaning rooms will not be able to support a family on that income, however, if that same person went to school to become, lets say, a dental hygenist that person would have an average salary of over $60K/ year. This training can be accomplished in less than two years. Low income individuals would qualify for grants and or loans so their is no reason it can not be done. This country provides endless possibilities for those who want to better their lives. Unfortunately, it requires work to be put in by that individual, something that has been continually undermined by the left. The answer is not government. The answer is personal responsibility. Just so you don't think that I am just repeating what I've read, my mother had a high school education when I was born. She had no help and was raising me by herself. She struggled and continued her education and eventually became a registered nurse after years of part time schooling. It was very difficult for her, however, all her hard work has paid off. Our experiences definitely shape our perspectives.0 -
Could it be the skillset required to say clean a room is quite common therefore the companies hiring the housekeeping do not need to "compete" too aggressively for potential employees by offering say bonus and stock options because there are millions of people capable of doing this job? This is Microeconomics 101. If you don't understand this, I cant help that.
No, this really isn't microeconomics. You say things like you know what they mean, but you don't.0 -
You think healthcare is a right. and I don't. I'll agree to disagree.
I never said it's a right - there are no 'rights' at all. There is only what your government decides to let you do, and what it does. There is no such thing as a human 'right.' At all. Period.0 -
And if only everyone was as smart and hardworking as A2O, we'd all have MS's and BA's and PhD's, and nobody would make minimum wage - we'd all be orthodontists and everyone would be successful.
{{snark /off}}
The fact that anybody can make it if they work hard does not necessarily mean that everyone can make it. Somebody has to make the sandwiches. Mathematically, somebody will always be in the bottom 10% - that's just how percentages work. The question is, how miserable shall we allow laissez-faire capitalism to make those people on the bottom? Can we do anything about it? Should we?
ETA - I too went back to school. I was 24, had a wife and 2 kids. I got it done, gained a solid skillset and have a great career. I did it with a little help, pell grants, fed guaranteed student loan, and a good -efficient - cheap state school. I didn't do it on my own, and I'm not delusional enough to think I did. Now that I've climbed out of the gutter I refuse to pull that ladder up behind me - as some others might.0 -
this Constitution for the United States of America."
1. insure domestic Tranquility
2. promote the general Welfare
1. I missed where it said Healthcare. Can you point me to that part?
2. Was Wealth Redistribution what they meant by Welfare?
This is a lame counter argument, even by the standards you've previously set for yourself. "General Welfare."LOL Please don't get me started on unions. The need for unions has come and gone. They were first created to enhance working conditions and safety. It quickly evolved to extortion. They have been responsible for the collapse of too many companies.
Than why do companies offer benefits not required by government such as Healthcare, 401k, tuition reimbursement, etc, etc., if they are merely in business to make a profit?
Regrettably, you seem to need very little starting...
The need for unions is gone until the unions are gone. Then the need will be back, bigger than before. The union *system* needs to be reformed (no easy task, I admit), but the idea of unions is still a good one.
Regarding companies that offer benefits - yes, some companies do that, and it's great that they try to attract top talent that way. But this discussion - and the healthcare law - aren't about the people those companies are competing for. It's about the people who fall through the cracks, the ones that don't have all the opportunities.4. I am a raging capitalist. I am a consultant who has worked across almost every industry sector, all over the world. I'm paid pretty well to do it, and I work the system to my own benefit. But that doesn't mean it's a good system.
Just curious, if capitalism isn't a good system, what is?
A capitalistic system that is channeled and moderated by a government that seeks to keep its people safe - much like the one we currently have in place.0 -
:flowerforyou:
A capitalistic system that is channeled and moderated by a government that seeks to keep its people safe - much like the one we currently have in place.{{snip}}Just curious, if capitalism isn't a good system, what is?0 -
Just to address one point you made, Alpha2Omega:
Just because it's easy to find someone for the position you're trying to fill doesn't give you the right to pay them less than a living wage that will allow them to have healthcare, a decent place to live, food for themselves and their kids, enough to save a little for the future, and a few comforts.
There is a minimum wage under which we should not allow corporations in society to go, and it is not the minimum wage we currently have. There are people who bust their butts full time and still need foodstamps because their pay is so low. Who pays for those foodstamps? The taxpayers. Why should corporations be allowed to use people's labor and not pay them enough to sustain themselves and their families?
Maria,
That is a great point and question, however,( and you may not agree) the reason the "market" should dictate wages and not government is because every single person in the country has the ability to further their skillset through training or further education. Yes a person cleaning rooms will not be able to support a family on that income, however, if that same person went to school to become, lets say, a dental hygenist that person would have an average salary of over $60K/ year. This training can be accomplished in less than two years. Low income individuals would qualify for grants and or loans so their is no reason it can not be done. This country provides endless possibilities for those who want to better their lives. Unfortunately, it requires work to be put in by that individual, something that has been continually undermined by the left. The answer is not government. The answer is personal responsibility. Just so you don't think that I am just repeating what I've read, my mother had a high school education when I was born. She had no help and was raising me by herself. She struggled and continued her education and eventually became a registered nurse after years of part time schooling. It was very difficult for her, however, all her hard work has paid off. Our experiences definitely shape our perspectives.
You really do live in a fantasy land... you think that every person out there cleaning rooms for minimum wage is able to go to school for 2 years and come out with a $60k income? Seriously? And how are they supposed to afford a 2 year training program when they can't even keep a roof over their head?
There are people out there working five times harder than you or I ever will, employed at 2 or more jobs, who only get 4 hours of sleep each night because they work 20 hours a day and still manage to keep their kids in school and off drugs. I don't think there's anything you have to teach them about personal responsibility.0 -
0 -
Just to address one point you made, Alpha2Omega:
Just because it's easy to find someone for the position you're trying to fill doesn't give you the right to pay them less than a living wage that will allow them to have healthcare, a decent place to live, food for themselves and their kids, enough to save a little for the future, and a few comforts.
There is a minimum wage under which we should not allow corporations in society to go, and it is not the minimum wage we currently have. There are people who bust their butts full time and still need foodstamps because their pay is so low. Who pays for those foodstamps? The taxpayers. Why should corporations be allowed to use people's labor and not pay them enough to sustain themselves and their families?
Maria,
That is a great point and question, however,( and you may not agree) the reason the "market" should dictate wages and not government is because every single person in the country has the ability to further their skillset through training or further education. Yes a person cleaning rooms will not be able to support a family on that income, however, if that same person went to school to become, lets say, a dental hygenist that person would have an average salary of over $60K/ year. This training can be accomplished in less than two years. Low income individuals would qualify for grants and or loans so their is no reason it can not be done. This country provides endless possibilities for those who want to better their lives. Unfortunately, it requires work to be put in by that individual, something that has been continually undermined by the left. The answer is not government. The answer is personal responsibility. Just so you don't think that I am just repeating what I've read, my mother had a high school education when I was born. She had no help and was raising me by herself. She struggled and continued her education and eventually became a registered nurse after years of part time schooling. It was very difficult for her, however, all her hard work has paid off. Our experiences definitely shape our perspectives.
And since we're trading sob stories: I was brought up in a housing project, single mom, youngest of 4. My mother managed to get a Master's degree, which she needed to get a job, while we were on public assistance (welfare). She then managed to buy a house and get us out of the projects. Currently, of the 4 kids, 3 of us have Master's degrees (the fourth opted to make a killing in finance). After my Master's, I was accepted into a fully paid PhD program at a first tier school. I left to go make a killing in consulting.
Yes, our experiences shape our perspectives. And if my family hadn't had welfare - also not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution - to fall back on, who knows how differently things would have worked out. The government was there to support us when we needed it, and I will always be grateful. And I would not presume to take it away from others. I would also like those people to have healthcare, even if they can't afford to pay for it themselves. I'm just kooky that way.
Add to its being stupidly expensive, the health insurance industry has a habit of shirking its half of the contract, and refuses to accept the risk that its whole purpose is to underwrite. So yes, it needs to be regulated. (Well, I think earlier I said it needs to be abolished, which would be better. But I'll take what I can get.)0 -
This right here...0 -
Could it be the skillset required to say clean a room is quite common therefore the companies hiring the housekeeping do not need to "compete" too aggressively for potential employees by offering say bonus and stock options because there are millions of people capable of doing this job? This is Microeconomics 101. If you don't understand this, I cant help that.
No, this really isn't microeconomics. You say things like you know what they mean, but you don't.
Microeconomics - The branch of economics that analyzes the market behavior of individual consumers, firms, or industries. In particular microeconomics focuses on patterns of supply and demand and the determination of price and output in individual markets. In my example it was the factors in determining price of labor. Simply, supply and demand.0 -
And if only everyone was as smart and hardworking as A2O, we'd all have MS's and BA's and PhD's, and nobody would make minimum wage - we'd all be orthodontists and everyone would be successful.
{{snark /off}}
The fact that anybody can make it if they work hard does not necessarily mean that everyone can make it. Somebody has to make the sandwiches. Mathematically, somebody will always be in the bottom 10% - that's just how percentages work. The question is, how miserable shall we allow laissez-faire capitalism to make those people on the bottom? Can we do anything about it? Should we?
ETA - I too went back to school. I was 24, had a wife and 2 kids. I got it done, gained a solid skillset and have a great career. I did it with a little help, pell grants, fed guaranteed student loan, and a good -efficient - cheap state school. I didn't do it on my own, and I'm not delusional enough to think I did. Now that I've climbed out of the gutter I refuse to pull that ladder up behind me - as some others might.
Good for you. Just reinforces my point.0 -
And if only everyone was as smart and hardworking as A2O, we'd all have MS's and BA's and PhD's, and nobody would make minimum wage - we'd all be orthodontists and everyone would be successful.
{{snark /off}}
The fact that anybody can make it if they work hard does not necessarily mean that everyone can make it. Somebody has to make the sandwiches. Mathematically, somebody will always be in the bottom 10% - that's just how percentages work. The question is, how miserable shall we allow laissez-faire capitalism to make those people on the bottom? Can we do anything about it? Should we?
ETA - I too went back to school. I was 24, had a wife and 2 kids. I got it done, gained a solid skillset and have a great career. I did it with a little help, pell grants, fed guaranteed student loan, and a good -efficient - cheap state school. I didn't do it on my own, and I'm not delusional enough to think I did. Now that I've climbed out of the gutter I refuse to pull that ladder up behind me - as some others might.
Good for you. Just reinforces my point.
(not really...)0 -
It does if you skip the 1st 2 paragraphs.0
-
Just to address one point you made, Alpha2Omega:
Just because it's easy to find someone for the position you're trying to fill doesn't give you the right to pay them less than a living wage that will allow them to have healthcare, a decent place to live, food for themselves and their kids, enough to save a little for the future, and a few comforts.
There is a minimum wage under which we should not allow corporations in society to go, and it is not the minimum wage we currently have. There are people who bust their butts full time and still need foodstamps because their pay is so low. Who pays for those foodstamps? The taxpayers. Why should corporations be allowed to use people's labor and not pay them enough to sustain themselves and their families?
Maria,
That is a great point and question, however,( and you may not agree) the reason the "market" should dictate wages and not government is because every single person in the country has the ability to further their skillset through training or further education. Yes a person cleaning rooms will not be able to support a family on that income, however, if that same person went to school to become, lets say, a dental hygenist that person would have an average salary of over $60K/ year. This training can be accomplished in less than two years. Low income individuals would qualify for grants and or loans so their is no reason it can not be done. This country provides endless possibilities for those who want to better their lives. Unfortunately, it requires work to be put in by that individual, something that has been continually undermined by the left. The answer is not government. The answer is personal responsibility. Just so you don't think that I am just repeating what I've read, my mother had a high school education when I was born. She had no help and was raising me by herself. She struggled and continued her education and eventually became a registered nurse after years of part time schooling. It was very difficult for her, however, all her hard work has paid off. Our experiences definitely shape our perspectives.
You really do live in a fantasy land... you think that every person out there cleaning rooms for minimum wage is able to go to school for 2 years and come out with a $60k income? Seriously? And how are they supposed to afford a 2 year training program when they can't even keep a roof over their head?
There are people out there working five times harder than you or I ever will, employed at 2 or more jobs, who only get 4 hours of sleep each night because they work 20 hours a day and still manage to keep their kids in school and off drugs. I don't think there's anything you have to teach them about personal responsibility.
It was just an example. There are many more well paying jobs that do not require a 4 year degree. If you would have read my post you would have seen where I said people with low incomes would qualify for grants and student loans. Man, your quick to jump the gun..
Just because you have no faith in them doesnt mean they aren't capable of it. Thats the problem with liberals. They think they have to solve everyones problems. People are much more resilient than you give them credit for.
I merely speak from experience.0 -
So what about this?{{snip}}
The fact that anybody can make it if they work hard does not necessarily mean that everyone can make it. Somebody has to make the sandwiches. Mathematically, somebody will always be in the bottom 10% - that's just how percentages work. The question is, how miserable shall we allow laissez-faire capitalism to make those people on the bottom? Can we do anything about it? Should we?
{{snip}}0 -
So if everyone was hardworking and educated - there would be no poverty or unemployment. People who are suffering economically are suffering because of their own laziness and stupidity. The constant demand for Neurosurgeons proves it... :huh:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Just because you have no faith in them doesnt mean they aren't capable of it. Thats the problem with liberals. They think they have to solve everyones problems. People are much more resilient than you give them credit for.
I merely speak from experience.0 -
Out of all the things my tax money goes toward, giving the poor access to minimal healthcare isn't something I mind. That's how I look at it.0
-
So what about this?{{snip}}
The fact that anybody can make it if they work hard does not necessarily mean that everyone can make it. Somebody has to make the sandwiches. Mathematically, somebody will always be in the bottom 10% - that's just how percentages work. The question is, how miserable shall we allow laissez-faire capitalism to make those people on the bottom? Can we do anything about it? Should we?
{{snip}}
Yes, you are right. Someone will always be in the bottom 10%, however, the expectation(hope) would be that those individuals would take the opportunities this country provides everyone to better their situation and rise from that situation. This country does have many programs in place that cater to the poor such as food stamps, section 8 housing, medicaid(free healthcare) and many others. Of course there are individuals who genuinely need these service and for that reason I believe it is right that the services exist, however, I have personally witnessed the abuse of these services by a significant population. Poverty rates have not significantly dropped in over 40 years. Is that because welfare has created a "culture of proverty"? Income taxes are only paid by the top 50% of the population so to increasingly burden those same tax payers when the bottom 50% have no skin in the game and when there has been no appreciable decline in proverty rates over the last 40 years, to me, is unjust.
Gotta go. I'll need to continue the fun another day. Have a good one.0 -
Just to address one point you made, Alpha2Omega:
Just because it's easy to find someone for the position you're trying to fill doesn't give you the right to pay them less than a living wage that will allow them to have healthcare, a decent place to live, food for themselves and their kids, enough to save a little for the future, and a few comforts.
There is a minimum wage under which we should not allow corporations in society to go, and it is not the minimum wage we currently have. There are people who bust their butts full time and still need foodstamps because their pay is so low. Who pays for those foodstamps? The taxpayers. Why should corporations be allowed to use people's labor and not pay them enough to sustain themselves and their families?
Maria,
That is a great point and question, however,( and you may not agree) the reason the "market" should dictate wages and not government is because every single person in the country has the ability to further their skillset through training or further education. Yes a person cleaning rooms will not be able to support a family on that income, however, if that same person went to school to become, lets say, a dental hygenist that person would have an average salary of over $60K/ year. This training can be accomplished in less than two years. Low income individuals would qualify for grants and or loans so their is no reason it can not be done. This country provides endless possibilities for those who want to better their lives. Unfortunately, it requires work to be put in by that individual, something that has been continually undermined by the left. The answer is not government. The answer is personal responsibility. Just so you don't think that I am just repeating what I've read, my mother had a high school education when I was born. She had no help and was raising me by herself. She struggled and continued her education and eventually became a registered nurse after years of part time schooling. It was very difficult for her, however, all her hard work has paid off. Our experiences definitely shape our perspectives.
Even if that were true and personality and intelligence didn't factor in, unless we all want to scrub every public toilet and mop every bathroom floor before we use it, as well as put in time at the sewage treatment plant, on garbage disposal duty, and all those other jobs, we need people to work them. Therefore, to not pay them a decent wage is basically to enslave them, to use them as things and not treat them as human beings.0
This discussion has been closed.