100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
Liberal or Conservative?
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Tue 09/15/09 09:25 PM
|
|
the only label that fits me at all is "anarcho-libertarian". 
Though I think you are just a bit further south on the scale than myself lol. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just heard about this today. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9AL630G0.htm The Boeing plant in Charleston, SC voted 199-68 to reject their union for representation. Big victory here for the people. When will everyone else realize how detrimental unions are to the marketplace and in many cases, their own careers? The more unions that fall, the better we'll all be. Yeah. We'll all be SO much better off because no one will be there to make sure that the workplace remains safe, employers will be able to whatever the hell they want, they'll be able to pay next to nothing and if you don't like it...too freaking bad. Great plan. Unions don't need to be disposed of. They need to learn that they can't price themselves out of the market like the UAW did to the auto companies. Unions are necessary. The workers need to demand these things. An organized union is not necessary. If they are such an issue, then the workers will demand them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And 8-tracks made music portable. Do you still have one of those?
Unions also used to be about the worker. The first unions were not some politically-motivated special interest group and were certainly about issues, not just money and benefits. What we have now is greed running amok (sp?). Everything ultimately will outlive its usefulness. The unions hit that point decades ago. As for the earlier post that asks my explanation: 1. Unions price workers out of the market leading to outsourcing. If they cannot compete with foreign manufacturers that import goods, they too move overseas and import goods. 2. Unions prevent the best man and instead, take the most senior. I have seen this over and over. A good friend of mine works in LA at a manufacturing facility (plastics or something) and has a bachelor's degree in business/management. He makes more at this plant currently than he made in any other job involving his career. I took him out for drinks a few weeks ago because he was so pissed he missed out on the recent promotion to a guy with no high school degree - all because he'd been at the plant a few years more. That is crap. It completely destroys the possible efficiency of the system. 3. Unions skew the supply curve severely. By increasing the costs of labor, you increase the costs of any good produced. This makes it proportionately more expensive for any person not in that union. This, again, is a poor allocation of resources and punishes everyone else. 4. Promotion of lax standards. case in point: california teachers. We pay our teachers more than any other state in the nation and likely, most of the world. However, we are 48th in the nation for our input. I have tutored students in various subjects (particularly math and high school science) and it's amazing how these teachers attemtpt to teach kids. I have witnessed first-hand how many teach a lesson plan and almost nothing more. 5. Job protection. You should be accountable for your actions. it's pathetic that once a teacher reaches tenure that you pretty much have to f**k a student in order to get fired. We should all be held accountable for our actions. 6. The misconception by the pro-union that seem to think that their greed is no different than that of the business or corporation they are attempting to "protect" themselves from. It's not. I could go on, but I think I've made my point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Obama extends Cuban embargo
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Tue 09/15/09 05:43 PM
|
|
Barack Obama or G. W. Bush...?. The same crap !. Is this the change the whole world was waiting for ?!!!.  .
You guys aren't even paying attention to what his is doing to know what the hell he is changing and what he isn't.. ah well wait you know what he hasn't changed, that you focus on well. Course that doesn't take much effort. The loud and the miserable are out in droves to be sure of that. Please, enlighten us, what exactly has been "changed"? http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29551986/barack_obama_so_far/2 "Biggest Victory Pulling the economy out of its nose dive. "Back in November, much of the world believed that we were on the precipice of a complete economic collapse," says Elizabeth Warren, the TARP watchdog. "Today, that's not the case." <This is not true. Congress and the FED simply bailed out corporations and used "stimulus" (credit liquidity) to get consumers to go further into debt (thus prolonging the recession). That is not what the economists says so who should we believe? Well, I know several being that I'm going to school for a degree in it and not one that I've spoken to believes that Obama is remotely responsible for bringing us out of this. So let me ask you, what did it: the 80 billion in spending or the promises of change? Ok, so I got this far into the RS "article"... "Biggest Blunder Subsidized failing banks rather than nationalize them." until my beer started running out my nose from laughing so hard. And also this lovely excerpt that completely contradicts your point above: "Warning Signs Few stimulus funds spent to date; only 160,000 homeowners aided by $75 billion program to prevent foreclosures. Plan to rid banks of toxic assets — unveiled to great fanfare — still hasn't gotten off the ground." That was the most poorly written editorial I've ever seen! It contradicts itself more than a politician! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Billionaires for Wealthcare
|
|
You know what's painfully ironic... The fact that government regulation and intervention made some exploits of the system possible when it otherwise wasn't. You will find the same outcome in economics. Why do you think corporations donate so much money to the campaigns of politicians? Why do you think they spend so much on lobbyist? ding ding ding! Show the man what he's won! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just heard about this today.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9AL630G0.htm The Boeing plant in Charleston, SC voted 199-68 to reject their union for representation. Big victory here for the people. When will everyone else realize how detrimental unions are to the marketplace and in many cases, their own careers? The more unions that fall, the better we'll all be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Liberal or Conservative?
|
|
A few months ago someone posted a questionaire you could do to see where you fall in those catagories. I can't find it. yep search would be nice i am <<<<<<<<<-------------- I took that one too... IIRC, I was one up and one left of the bottom right corner. Translation: uber-libertarian/borderline anarchist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ummm I don't remember but I think there is a minimum size to the business Even then, I think the average small business is still only like 5-7 employees or something as many (like 35-40% or something) are simply self-employed or independent contractors. I need to find those statistics. IIRC, that provision was simply to protect the self-employed from paying the business fine for not providing care and the individual fine for not having care at the same time. Just to clear this up, but I got to page 6xx or something before I said f**k it and don't recall reading about it, but hell, it's what 1500 pages by now i'm sure so I could be totally off base on this. I found a comparison on the US.gov website a week ago, unfortunately I can't seem to get much of anything to work right now. Seems to be a big problem out there on the net. At any rate it showed the differences between the bill running through the house the senate and such. All had exclusions and I don't recall anything being as minimal as 5-7 employees but I could be mistaken. No, the 5-7 was the ballpark that I think the average small business is. I don't remember the exact figure. Basically, if the line was at that, then half of all small businesses still had to pay the tax and even businesses with double that many employees still can be struggling. We have 7 plus the owner and barely keep our doors open. if the line was there, I imagine that exempts a large chunk of businesses and places an even larger burden on the rest to fork out the $$ to pay for this. I just cite it as an example to show how I think that even if there was a limit to size, I doubt it'd be more than a few employees or maybe $200k a year. Hell, I know for a fact that my employer's payroll is over $350,000 a year and there's only 8 checks being written. According to the figure cited above, my boss would have to fork out the $$ if he didn't provide insurance (he currently does) and at what our current payroll is (and that the fine is still 8%), that's two tire changers worth of pay in a single tax to pay for some other guy's healthcare. Guess who's getting cut? I can say for sure I'll become the best paid ASE master certified tire changer in the business. oh, and happy birthday james , and yes, we make sure to call her on everything lol.
Believe me I do understand what you are saying as I am an employer myself and had to cut my own insurance to keep my head up. Of course any more my payroll is now low enough I wouldn't be assessed. That I said, I did say before that it would be hard for some, though I don't necessarily think that is your employer who you've said is already paying for insurance. And with that few employees it's cheaper for him to keep the insurance than to pay the fine. Where I could see things getting hurt is some one who employs 15 or 20 minimum wage employees. He's the one not likely currently giving insurance and the cost to him to supply insurance would be a MUCH larger percentage. That is the real trouble spot for reform. well it really depends... minimum wage employers are more than likely just to pay the fine I think. Say there are two firms with 10 employees each: a firm of CPAs and a gardening service. The accountants average a $80,000 salary a year while the gardeners average $20,000. In these cases, it is more beneficial to the accounting firm to provide insurance whereas it is likely more beneficial to the gardening firm to opt out. if there is an 8% of payroll fine, that would be $6,400 an employee per year for the accounting firm and only $1,600 or so for the gardening firm. There is no plan anywhere in the US I've heard of that costs that little so the gardening service owner can increase his bottom line by just paying the fine. It's kind of ironic. The job that pays enough to afford coverage on its own is more likely to get employer-paid coverage whereas the minimum wage earner who cannot afford coverage is more likely to be on their own. This is why the plan sees it as a necessity to provide tax credits and the like beacause they know there will be those businesses that opt out and their workers are more likely to be poor. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Thu 09/10/09 10:10 PM
|
|
ummm I don't remember but I think there is a minimum size to the business Even then, I think the average small business is still only like 5-7 employees or something as many (like 35-40% or something) are simply self-employed or independent contractors. I need to find those statistics. IIRC, that provision was simply to protect the self-employed from paying the business fine for not providing care and the individual fine for not having care at the same time. Just to clear this up, but I got to page 6xx or something before I said f**k it and don't recall reading about it, but hell, it's what 1500 pages by now i'm sure so I could be totally off base on this. I found a comparison on the US.gov website a week ago, unfortunately I can't seem to get much of anything to work right now. Seems to be a big problem out there on the net. At any rate it showed the differences between the bill running through the house the senate and such. All had exclusions and I don't recall anything being as minimal as 5-7 employees but I could be mistaken. No, the 5-7 was the ballpark that I think the average small business is. I don't remember the exact figure. Basically, if the line was at that, then half of all small businesses still had to pay the tax and even businesses with double that many employees still can be struggling. We have 7 plus the owner and barely keep our doors open. if the line was there, I imagine that exempts a large chunk of businesses and places an even larger burden on the rest to fork out the $$ to pay for this. I just cite it as an example to show how I think that even if there was a limit to size, I doubt it'd be more than a few employees or maybe $200k a year. Hell, I know for a fact that my employer's payroll is over $350,000 a year and there's only 8 checks being written. According to the figure cited above, my boss would have to fork out the $$ if he didn't provide insurance (he currently does) and at what our current payroll is (and that the fine is still 8%), that's two tire changers worth of pay in a single tax to pay for some other guy's healthcare. Guess who's getting cut? I can say for sure I'll become the best paid ASE master certified tire changer in the business. oh, and happy birthday james , and yes, we make sure to call her on everything lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Thu 09/10/09 08:20 PM
|
|
please, you know how many illegals around here will work all day for $20 and a 12-pack? You can say "i bought lunch and beer for my crew" and it's a total misc. expense note in the books with no receipt required. the only time this will work remotely is with specialized industries where you can't just pick up some dude on the street to do the job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Thu 09/10/09 08:16 PM
|
|
ummm I don't remember but I think there is a minimum size to the business Even then, I think the average small business is still only like 5-7 employees or something as many (like 35-40% or something) are simply self-employed or independent contractors. I need to find those statistics. IIRC, that provision was simply to protect the self-employed from paying the business fine for not providing care and the individual fine for not having care at the same time. Just to clear this up, but I got to page 6xx or something before I said f**k it and don't recall reading about it, but hell, it's what 1500 pages by now i'm sure so I could be totally off base on this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
UN wants Dollar replaced
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Thu 09/10/09 08:11 PM
|
|
It would trash the economy further in the US. And if the euro was any example, there are countries whose economy was devestated do to joining the convertion... plus would put a lot of banks and accounts and business related jobs out of business eventually. -------------------------------------------------------------------- actually it would take us out of this depression . the rest of the world base there money on ours . that means they have our money in there banks to guaranty there money . so to re-base theres on someones else's money would mean they need to spend there base and of course the only place to spend it is here . which puts us and another 50 million mexicans to work . Far from the truth. Ever hear the concept of a flooded market? How about hyperinflation? Right now, a world currency is the worst thing that can possibly happen to us. If it happens, we're toast. You don't spend investments, you trade them. If the currency changes and all of a sudden people want to get rid of their USD-based investments, you now have an overly saturated market. Overly saturated markets cause hyperinflation and a deterioration of the value of that currency. Our buying power would plummet essentially overnight if they do not set a direct transfer rate (i.e. $100 USD = $100 worldo) that does not change and the remaining USD are removed from circulation. if the market is left to exchange our dollars for the world currency, we will fail. This is why China is pressing for it. They know this and are more than willing to take the $1T hit if it means they will be the top dog in the pack. This is also why they buy more and more of our debt. The more they hold, the more power they have. Once they hold enough, there will be a new world currency and we won't be able to do a damn thing about it. Just an FYI, the USD as the base for world trade does not mean that other banks use our money to guarantee their own, it just means that our money is the standard for world trade in commodities like oil, gold, and gemstones. They do hold our money but that is for investment purposes, not a guarantee of their own monetary systems. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
His speech was general and not specific enough for me. Still too many questions for this viewer. I guess then you will always have questions because I don't know what more he can say to people. How frustrating. oh well. Judging by how many more words there are in the bill in comparison to that speech, I'd say there's a lot more detail he could be giving. That is the main issue, I heard nothing new. It was all his previous speeches combined into one big one. Like the part about illegal immigrants. yes, there is no provision that specifically gives care to them, however, there is also no provision that requires verification of citizenship or even allows for the enforcement by checking up on random cases. It's a lot of half-truths that only tell his side of the story. What about when you are between jobs but make too much to get discounted coverage and eating is more important than insurance? how about the fine paid there? What about the business that cannot afford insurance now and moreso cannot afford the fine so they "can chip in too," as Obama put it? It all sounds nice and pretty when he says it, but being that I'd guess there are at least 10 times the pages in that bill that were in that speech, there's more to be told. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Thu 09/10/09 05:32 PM
|
|
I do have a question about this health care plan. maybe posters can help me with it...I've been outta the loop lately lol what happens to the employer if the don't provide insurance? Last I heard, they pay a tax. 8% of the salary IIRC, unless they've added a new amendment. thank you for answering. Something I thought of....what if it's a small company and they couldn't afford to carry insurance before? Tough S**t. Translation: someone's going to get the big ugly axe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you look for stupid quotes on Faux news, Limbaugh, and Hannity, that's like shooting fish in a barrel! 
That was my first thought lol. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do have a question about this health care plan. maybe posters can help me with it...I've been outta the loop lately lol what happens to the employer if the don't provide insurance? Last I heard, they pay a tax. 8% of the salary IIRC, unless they've added a new amendment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if this will finally start to sink in with our politicians... we spend ourselves into a massive deficit and how do we "right" it? Tax the hell out of the wealthy and businesses of course! I'm tired of paying more for less. Both the UAW and the state are to blame for this. you can't tax businesses into oblivion and expect them to just stand there and take it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The government's fundemental problem is the fact that it severly lack's efficiency. When you introduce this inefficiency to anything that has anything to do with money, you have lots and lots of spending, with little results. I think the largest issue here is a complete, utter lack of faith in the government. They have not proven themselves capable of such a responsibility. Reform needs to happen first in fixing all the problems we currently have. Do that first to prove they are capable, then they can consider being ambitious. As has been stated by dragoness, the government has tried this before and failed miserably. Being that nothing has changed but a more charasmatic spokeshole at the top, nobody should have any more faith in them now. Again, I don't advocate any intervention, but you don't go to a bank expecting to get a loan when you just had your home and car repossessed. You blow off responsibility, you must earn it back a little at a time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And are we that special that there is really no other country we can compare ourselves to? wow. absolutely. It's not arrogance either. Our structure, size, and diversity clearly make us different than the other nations. We operate on a clearly different scale and are far larger innovators than any other nation. It does not make us necessarily better, only different. This has to be taken into account when comparing our system to another for either side of the coin. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Thu 09/10/09 07:33 AM
|
|
I was just watching the Republican response to his speech. Obama needs to stop being nice to the Republicans and use his Democratic advantage and get er done as far as I am concerned. He is trying too damn hard to bring a group in that cannot be brought in. Just do it, man. And they talked of their form of healthcare reform and it is basically nothing new. Nothing at all. They do not want to change it. Their only defense is to put a price on life. They are saying that the cost of saving lives is too much. It is actually less than the war in Iraq and that saved how many lives? Is still saving how many lives? Sheesh, just get it worked out and passed already. He doesn't need the Republicans. He is much too nice in my opinion. I am not a liberal, nor am I democrat, nor am I anything they have listed. So keep your rightwing rhetoric that means absolutely nothing because you wouldn't even know a liberal or socialist if you saw one and it bite you in the ***. I'm sorry, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... I guess people need to reclassify this duck then don't they...lol I am unaffilitated. So I am not even an Independent...lol Do me a favor then: Name one, just one economically conservative principle you agree with. And then explain to me why this healthcare plan will not fail. I actually participated in Welfare Reform which made it impossible to lay around and get welfare, economically fiscally conservative ideal done under Clinton. I believe in regulation on all government run programs that limit the clients who can recieve the benefits. I am never prejudice towards them and call them lazy or blame them for the life situation ( which seems to be a republican/conservative thing to do)that got them on benefits. But I believe in the oversight which is fiscally conservative. I can name more but I will leave it at that. As for the healthcare reform bills and suggestions being addressed now. The projections cannot even be close to accurate so the people doing them are being very pessimistic on the costs and results. This health care reform can be done and should be. We may have to adjust it again in the future since it will be new but it will still work. Look back and see how pessimistically they projected the banking collapse, look back at the housing bubble, look at the pessimism on the stock market projections, look at the Y2K fiasco, etc... and so on. They have been pessimistically projecting crap, and it ends up being crap, for the most part, all my life. I think the only things that were not projected correctly were the gas shortage of the 70s and that damn 9/11, which could have been prevented if they would have only examined it and got really pessimistic over the intel. Hell they did more work trying to make Obama some evil figure than they did protecting us before and on 9/11 
any welfare is a socially liberal stance. reform just makes you slightly less liberal. i know you support welfare in many cases. care to try for another? also, are you actually blaming a democratic administration for 9/11? I just want to make sure I'm reading that right. As for reasons this program will fail: 1. Supply shortage. in short, increase demand while supply remains, you get a price increase. artificially limit the price by government intervention (through a "public option" included) and you create a ceiling. price ceiling = supply shortage. 2. Lack of providers. Right now, doctors are loaded. yes, the uninsured still get care, but only at ERs. We're talking a 15% increase in usage of the preventative care system. I'm pretty sure the number of physicians is not going to increase 15% 3. Taxation. I'm told this program will not increase our debt one single dime. i don't believe it. however, in an attempt to make it happen, taxes will naturally rise. there is no other way to do it. taxing those that receive benefits already will lessen household income. that will have all kinds of fun ripple effects across the economy. so will taxing businesses as that cuts their funds as well. kiss a few jobs goodbye there for the low-level corporate employee. hope his buddies enjoy their care. 4. It's been proven time and time again the government has not been able to sustain any kind of program of this nature, even on a small scale, efficiently. Medicare anyone? Social Security? Medicaid? Every government budget for the last several decades has run into the red, moreso than planned. Remember cash for clunkers recently? it was expected to last 2-3 months and instead lasted 2-3 weeks. Then the additional 2 billion was to last until labor day but still ran out a week and a half early. The government accountants are never right. 5. The government does not have to make a profit. Furthermore, the government can't make a profit by it's nature. That means any public option will have a severe unfair advantage over any public plan that needs to make a profit, and even those that do not have to make a profit like Kaiser Permanente. While I'm told the plan will be self-sustaining, I was also told there were WMDs in Iraq and that if we didn't spend this $787B that the unemployment would rise over 8% and the economy would go into a tailspin. They still haven't dished out 15% of it and we're still here. Also, no WMDs. The government has a bad habit of saying what's pretty and it not being true. 6. A lack of reform. There are problems with the system... duh. any idiot with a third grade education can see that. however, we should not be throwing money at the system without taking care of the symptoms that put us in this place to begin with. start with tort reform. you lose an arm when they save your life. So what? Is that arm really worth 10 million dollars? absolutely not. you may lose out in a a couple million in wages over your lifetime and add another 50% for the inconvenience, but you're still far, far less than what juries have made standard practice. fraud and malpractice insurance has made the costs of the system skyrocket. fix the problems that exist now before wasting all this money on a broken system. The end (coverage for all) does not justify the means (billions and billions wasted) there are my brief summaries of my arguments. if you disagree, please explain holes in my logic and post a little more than "that's not true" or "you're wrong" I am getting tired here so briefly I was blaming our government for not acting properly before 9/11, I don't care who the president was or who the rest of the government was at the time. They were lax and it cost us many lives. As for your list, lots of speculation there and personal agenda. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, it can still be done successfully around and through everything you listed there. We are capable of this feat, it is a doable thing. You obviously have no grasp on business or economics and without it, there is no way I can convince you otherwise. There is no way this plan can succeed in providing the same quality of care the majority of our citizens currently enjoy for anywhere near the same cost. If you can see personal agenda in there, I'd like it to be pointed out. All that is is fact. Also, please tell me what is speculation that is not based on experience with our own government. notice there is no reference to any other nation or system in my post (because we cannot compare ourselves to canada, france, or anyone else for that matter as it's all apples to oranges) And thank you drivin .
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
