Of course it is still BUSH'S FAULT!

[hcap]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-economy-its-still-bushs-fault/2012/01/17/gIQAE7Dy6P_blog.html

The economy? It’s still Bush’s fault

A majority of Americans believe that former President George W. Bush is more responsible than President Obama for the current economic problems in the country, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Fifty-four percent of respondents said that Bush was more to blame while 29 percent put the blame on Obama; 9 percent said both men deserved blame while 6 percent said neither did. Among registered voters, the numbers are almost identical; 54 percent blame Bush, while 30 percent blame Obama.

http://www.newsspoofs.com/inside-pages/large-images/george.jpg

[Tom]

Post/ABC....enough said.

BUT, if you buy this, do you then buy that the economy getting better and the improved unemployment picture is Bush's doing as well?

[hcap]

Post/ABC....enough said.

BUT, if you buy this, do you then buy that the economy getting better and the improved unemployment picture is Bush's doing as well?
As the job numbers get better between now and 2012, the continuing hijack and splitting of the repug party by it's far right contingent, and now THIS-Bush's continuing distasteful legacy, will give Obama a second term.

It did look like it was the repugs turn in 2012.
But 2010 appears to be over and done with. The TP'ers are missing in action. Their noisy 10 minutes of fame only showed the voters just how extreme they really are.

Republicans snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

[badcompany]

How about this, government intervention is an epic fail regardless of whether the politician has a (D) or an (R) next to his/her name?

[Robert Goren]

The thing all the Obama haters love to forget the last quarter of the GWB rule was a disaster after 8 years. -6% GDP and headed futher south. Obama has got it back to +3%. It hasn't been easy since republican have fought them every step of the way and were wrong in their predictions about the country's future growth. There a universal chrous last year among republicans last year at this time that there would be double dip ressession. They were 100% wrong as they always are when it comes to ecomonic matters. The republicans have this neat little theory about how the ecomony works. It doesn't matter that it hasn't worked since the first term of Reagan, over 25 years ago. and that you have to back to Coolidge to find a time when it again.

[Marshall Bennett]

The closer we get to the election, the more of this bullshit we're going to hear. Job numbers is a prime example. There aren't any more jobs as the media keeps reporting, more people have simply given up looking and dropped out of the system. Of course this is basically what won Obama the white house in 2008, and likely will again this year.
Stay tuned for more garbage and bullshit like hcap and the msm reports. In all reality, Bush had little to do with it. Bad consumer credit conduct, a collapse
in the housing market, and economic turmoil abroad was the culprit. Obama came along and made a horrible mess by attempting to right the ship, wasted trillions of dollars and basically has nothing to show for it. That's the mark of a loser that failed miserably, and had Mr. Bush done the same, he'd probably be hiding abroad in a cave in fear of his life.

[bigmack]

I see this from the poll.

Just 15 percent of respondents in the Post-ABC poll said they were better off now than at the start of the Obama presidency.

Order your complimentary sign now:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_orkXxp0bhEA/SnuLMj2se6I/AAAAAAAAUvk/oT5anDWyebg/s400/090806-o-one-term3.jpg

[JustRalph]

red meat from hcap.....it's official.......the election season has begun

[hcap]

red meat from hcap.....it's official.......the election season has begun
Red meat started way before I did. And I do mean RED!

All you gentlemen started a year ago with an assumed Obama demise and a grand new epoch of a glorious return to the 1890's complete with robber barons, non-unionized updated sweat shops and bloody slaughter houses, and 18 hour child labor days.

No we don't miss Bush. But we do remember the financial sector screwing us under Bush. And the wonderful never-may-care fantasy island Galtian 1890's world quite well.

[bigmack]

Is that what happened to your brain? You were forced to make plexiglass tables 18 hours/day?

Has 'The Man' been keepin' you down, Bunky? :D

Are you EVER happy?

[Robert Goren]

The closer we get to the election, the more of this bullshit we're going to hear. Job numbers is a prime example. There aren't any more jobs as the media keeps reporting, more people have simply given up looking and dropped out of the system. Of course this is basically what won Obama the white house in 2008, and likely will again this year.
Stay tuned for more garbage and bullshit like hcap and the msm reports. In all reality, Bush had little to do with it. Bad consumer credit conduct, a collapse
in the housing market, and economic turmoil abroad was the culprit. Obama came along and made a horrible mess by attempting to right the ship, wasted trillions of dollars and basically has nothing to show for it. That's the mark of a loser that failed miserably, and had Mr. Bush done the same, he'd probably be hiding abroad in a cave in fear of his life.Thats is simply not true although that's what republicans would like you to believe. It was the leveraging of unregulated securities by large banks and the issuing of credit default swaps on those securities by AIG that did not the capital to back them up. At least some the banks knew about AIG's problem but used them anyway to cover up potential losses on the books, The Bush administration, like most republicans do not believe in government regulations, allowed this happen. Only a fool would thinks the bank officers would not do this again if they are allowed to because they handsomely rewarded when they are showing a profit but have no financial responsibility when the whole thing goes up in smoke.

[lamboguy]

even if the economy was bush's fault this guy has done nothing that great to make it better. if this election is about the economy obama has no chance, but unfortunately i don't think it will be by the time november rolls around, i think its going to be about a war, and its usually pretty tough to beat the guy sitting in the office when that happens no matter how bad he is.

[Robert Goren]

Blaming this mess on Obama is like saying a horse finished last because of a fast pace when in fact the horse snapped a leg while on the lead.

[elysiantraveller]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-economy-its-still-bushs-fault/2012/01/17/gIQAE7Dy6P_blog.html

The economy? It’s still Bush’s fault

A majority of Americans believe that former President George W. Bush is more responsible than President Obama for the current economic problems in the country, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Fifty-four percent of respondents said that Bush was more to blame while 29 percent put the blame on Obama; 9 percent said both men deserved blame while 6 percent said neither did. Among registered voters, the numbers are almost identical; 54 percent blame Bush, while 30 percent blame Obama.

http://www.newsspoofs.com/inside-pages/large-images/george.jpg

From your own article:

"(Interestingly, just 15 percent of respondents in the Post-ABC poll said they were better off now than at the start of the Obama presidency, while 30 percent said they were not as well off and 54 percent said they were in about the same shape. So while Bush may have started it, people by and large think it has gotten worse under Obama.)"

So after another year or 5 when we are further leveraged and unable to afford growth can we blame Obama?

Just wondering when thats okay...

[hcap]

Is that what happened to your brain? You were forced to make plexiglass tables 18 hours/day?

Has 'The Man' been keepin' you down, Bunky? :D

Are you EVER happy?I ran the shop. It wasn't a union shop. But if I hired children and put them to work 18 hours a day, it would have been a union shop in no time and I would have been thrown into jail rightfully.

Have you ever worked with hazardous chemicals?
Done downright dangerous industrial processes?
Ask anyone in manufacturing about accidents on the job. Or debilitating long term materials used everyday for production. (asbestos is the most well known)

Used to be a hell of a lot worse.
I have seen industry firsthand from both sides......... management and labor.

Yes, some workers are stupid and lazy. Most will not be employed for long and get the boot. But some businesses take chances with lives and limbs for the sake of the bottom line. Who should fire them?

As much as OSHA is a real pain, thousands more of industrial workers would be dead or injured without it. Government is necessary to reign in abuses. There always needs to be a balancing point between greed and initiative.

[Valuist]

By rejecting the Keystone pipeline, Obama has further demonstrated he doesn't want to improve the jobs outlook and doesn't want to wean us off Mideastern oil.

[hcap]

From your own article:

"(Interestingly, just 15 percent of respondents in the Post-ABC poll said they were better off now than at the start of the Obama presidency, while 30 percent said they were not as well off and 54 percent said they were in about the same shape. So while Bush may have started it, people by and large think it has gotten worse under Obama.)"

So after another year or 5 when we are further leveraged and unable to afford growth can we blame Obama?

Just wondering when thats okay...

No one is very happy with the economy. Except the 1 percent that are oinking happily like pigs at the trough. But apparently the culprit(s) are well known to most, and it ain't Obama et al.

[LottaKash]

How about this, government intervention is an epic fail regardless of whether the politician has a (D) or an (R) next to his/her name?

Thass rite bro.....Theyallsuck....Nothing but Gangsters in power now...

best,

[elysiantraveller]

No one is very happy with the economy. Except the 1 percent that are oinking happily like pigs at the trough. But apparently the culprit(s) are well known to most, and it ain't Obama et al.

Thats great but you didn't answer my question...

If Bush is to blame for the economic collapse thats fine. This president, however, has thrown record setting amounts of dollars at the problem with little to no success all the while leveraging this country to the hilt.

That gets a pass though right?

You keep wanting to point fingers which, quite frankly, most don't give a shot about... How long do you want to keep blaming Bush? When is it long enough? How long do the mistakes of a previous president absolve the ones our current CIC is making?...

Just let me know when its okay to start blaming the failed policies and double-talk of our current administration okay?

[fast4522]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-economy-its-still-bushs-fault/2012/01/17/gIQAE7Dy6P_blog.html

The economy? It’s still Bush’s fault

A majority of Americans believe that former President George W. Bush is more responsible than President Obama for the current economic problems in the country, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Fifty-four percent of respondents said that Bush was more to blame while 29 percent put the blame on Obama; 9 percent said both men deserved blame while 6 percent said neither did. Among registered voters, the numbers are almost identical; 54 percent blame Bush, while 30 percent blame Obama.

http://www.newsspoofs.com/inside-pages/large-images/george.jpg


You wish you had George Bush to run against again, fact is most of the left wing believe Bush was responsible. Truth is most of the right leaning Americans feel Barney F. setup Freddy & Fanny to implode. Guess what, the fix for Greece is coming for you here in the US and we will get to blame Obama for twenty years. Hope you do in fact like it red, raw is on the way.

[badcompany]

Red meat started way before I did. And I do mean RED!

All you gentlemen started a year ago with an assumed Obama demise and a grand new epoch of a glorious return to the 1890's complete with robber barons, non-unionized updated sweat shops and bloody slaughter houses, and 18 hour child labor days.

No we don't miss Bush. But we do remember the financial sector screwing us under Bush. And the wonderful never-may-care fantasy island Galtian 1890's world quite well.

Classic pinko propaganda, that without unions, there would be children working in factories.

The reason kids worked in factories back then is because they would've starved otherwise. Eventually there was enough wealth so that kids didn't have to do this.

Lefties use a similar argument for minimum wage, that, without it, employers would pay their employees pennies per hour. Of course, they ignore the fact that only a small percentage of the population 5-6% actually works for minimum wage.

Leftists point to the Industrial Revolution has some horrible, oppressive time, when, in fact, populations and standard of living increased dramatically and infant mortality decreased dramatically.

It's marginal (above cost) productivity per capita that increased wealth for ALL, not bloated union bosses.

[delayjf]

The economy? It’s still Bush’s fault

As hard as the economy has been on some people. George Bush's greatest achievement may have been to had Obama an economy that prevented the implementation of Obama's leftist agenda.

Poor liberals - outsmarted by a rutabaga. :lol:

[cj's dad]

I ran the shop. It wasn't a union shop. But if I hired children and put them to work 18 hours a day, it would have been a union shop in no time and I would have been thrown into jail rightfully.

Have you ever worked with hazardous chemicals?
Done downright dangerous industrial processes?
Ask anyone in manufacturing about accidents on the job. Or debilitating long term materials used everyday for production. (asbestos is the most well known)

Used to be a hell of a lot worse.
I have seen industry firsthand from both sides......... management and labor.

Yes, some workers are stupid and lazy. Most will not be employed for long and get the boot. But some businesses take chances with lives and limbs for the sake of the bottom line. Who should fire them?

As much as OSHA is a real pain, thousands more of industrial workers would be dead or injured without it. Government is necessary to reign in abuses. There always needs to be a balancing point between greed and initiative.

Have you ever worked with hazardous chemicals-YES AT A CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING PLANT FROM 1991-1996 - Herbicide& Pesticides.

Have you ever worked with hazardous chemicals

You cant work in industry without coming into contact with chemicals that will cause lasting deleterious effects.

Or debilitating long term materials used everyday for production. (asbestos is the most well known)

20 years in a shipyards has given me this gift !

[mostpost]

The closer we get to the election, the more of this bullshit we're going to hear. Job numbers is a prime example. There aren't any more jobs as the media keeps reporting, more people have simply given up looking and dropped out of the system. Of course this is basically what won Obama the white house in 2008, and likely will again this year.
Stay tuned for more garbage and bullshit like hcap and the msm reports. In all reality, Bush had little to do with it. Bad consumer credit conduct, a collapse
in the housing market, and economic turmoil abroad was the culprit. Obama came along and made a horrible mess by attempting to right the ship, wasted trillions of dollars and basically has nothing to show for it. That's the mark of a loser that failed miserably, and had Mr. Bush done the same, he'd probably be hiding abroad in a cave in fear of his life.

There are more jobs.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Look at the figures for employed in table B-the fourth line down.
The December 2010 figure is 139,220,000
The December 2011 figure is 140,790,000
That is an additional one million five hundred and seventy thousand jobs.
That is people who are now working that were not working a year ago.
Furthermore, contrary to what you believe, the government does keep track of the people who have given up on finding a job.
There is a U-3 rate and a U-6 rate. The U-3 rate is the rate we get when they announce the unemployment rate-currently 8.5%. The U-6 rate is the U-3 rate plus those who have given up plus those working part time who want to work full time plus a few other factors I don't recall.
The U-6 rate is currently 15.2%. A year ago it was 16.3% Both rates are going down. Jobs are being added. Your theory is false and unsubstantiated.

[JustRalph]

Remember when Bush had an increase......they were "McJobs" and not worth anything....... Obama takes credit for Xmas temps and he is once again the great savior :bang:

[bigmack]

BO's, ÜberWaterboy, is here to let people know everything is okie dokie. Jobs are sproutin' like weeds all throughout the land and we have BO to thank for it. :lol:

Thank you, BO. You da Man. :D

[Valuist]

I'm still waiting for the libs to comment about Keystone. Absolutely idiotic decision by Obama.

[mostpost]

Classic pinko propaganda, that without unions, there would be children working in factories.

The reason kids worked in factories back then is because they would've starved otherwise. Eventually there was enough wealth so that kids didn't have to do this.

Lefties use a similar argument for minimum wage, that, without it, employers would pay their employees pennies per hour. Of course, they ignore the fact that only a small percentage of the population 5-6% actually works for minimum wage.

Leftists point to the Industrial Revolution has some horrible, oppressive time, when, in fact, populations and standard of living increased dramatically and infant mortality decreased dramatically.

It's marginal (above cost) productivity per capita that increased wealth for ALL, not bloated union bosses.

You figured out that kids worked in factories because they would have starved otherwise, but you are clueless as to why this was. It was because the factory owners would not pay their fathers enough money to support the worker's family. The reason children no longer work in factories is because we have laws prohibiting that. The reason workers now get paid close to what they are worth is because we have laws that ensure that and we have workers organizations that fight for fair wages.

Standards of living and working conditions only improved after laws were passed forcing factory owners to improve those conditions. Factory owners fought those reforms by every means possible; legal or otherwise.

Have you ever read a history Book?

[Tom]

By rejecting the Keystone pipeline, Obama has further demonstrated he doesn't want to improve the jobs outlook and doesn't want to wean us off Mideastern oil.

20,000 direct jobs lost and 118,000 indirect jobs lost.
No graphs needed.

[mostpost]

Remember when Bush had an increase......they were "McJobs" and not worth anything....... Obama takes credit for Xmas temps and he is once again the great savior :bang:

Look across the whole line. Increases in 10 of the 12 months. The fact that
the U-6 rate is down in tandem with the U-3 rate indicates that many of those jobs were not part time.
Also since we are comparing December to December means the Xmas job factor cancels out.

[Tom]

Look across the whole line. Increases in 10 of the 12 months. The fact that
the U-6 rate is down in tandem with the U-3 rate indicates that many of those jobs were not part time.
Also since we are comparing December to December means the Xmas job factor cancels out.

You posted recently that the economy is driven by the previous administration's policies....so you should be thanking Bush for all this!

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Valuist
By rejecting the Keystone pipeline, Obama has further demonstrated he doesn't want to improve the jobs outlook and doesn't want to wean us off Mideastern oil.


20,000 direct jobs lost and 118,000 indirect jobs lost.
No graphs needed

I'm still waiting for the libs to comment about Keystone. Absolutely idiotic decision by Obama.

1. Tom's numbers are wildly inflated. We may not need graphs; we do need an unbiased source.
2. Obama urged the Canadians to resubmit their request. If he is really against the pipeline, why would he do that.
3. Republicans forced Obama to make a decision faster than was feasible. He had no choice but to reject the pipeline. You can always build a pipeline. You can't unbuild one.

[newtothegame]

Originally Posted by Valuist
By rejecting the Keystone pipeline, Obama has further demonstrated he doesn't want to improve the jobs outlook and doesn't want to wean us off Mideastern oil.






1. Tom's numbers are wildly inflated. We may not need graphs; we do need an unbiased source.
2. Obama urged the Canadians to resubmit their request. If he is really against the pipeline, why would he do that.
3. Republicans forced Obama to make a decision faster than was feasible. He had no choice but to reject the pipeline. You can always build a pipeline. You can't unbuild one.
To hold onto in an election year!!
Then you talk about a decision that was "faster then feasible"??? WTF???
But healthcare in the middle of the night, with Pelosi saying we "neecd to pass it to find out what's in it" isn't faster then feasible???
You guys on the left are a riot to say the least...lol

[NJ Stinks]

Classic pinko propaganda, that without unions, there would be children working in factories.

The reason kids worked in factories back then is because they would've starved otherwise. Eventually there was enough wealth so that kids didn't have to do this.

Lefties use a similar argument for minimum wage, that, without it, employers would pay their employees pennies per hour. Of course, they ignore the fact that only a small percentage of the population 5-6% actually works for minimum wage.

Leftists point to the Industrial Revolution has some horrible, oppressive time, when, in fact, populations and standard of living increased dramatically and infant mortality decreased dramatically.

It's marginal (above cost) productivity per capita that increased wealth for ALL, not bloated union bosses.

One of us is delusional.

[bigmack]

One of us is delusional.
Tell me how I could put a boatload on you being the loon?

[Robert Goren]

By rejecting the Keystone pipeline, Obama has further demonstrated he doesn't want to improve the jobs outlook and doesn't want to wean us off Mideastern oil.He hasn't rejected the Keystone pipeline yet, He says he delaying it until an environmental impact study is done. None of these jobs will come until after he leaves office in 2017 anyway. In Nebraska, a lot of the land owners are going to court to stop the government from taking their land for the pipeline. They probably will eventual lose, but it delays things. I would have thought every one of the "small government" conservatives would oppose this because the government has no business forcing a property owner to sell, but I was wrong. For some reason property rights seem to go out the door on this issue . I really don't understand how they can oppose the forcing a person to buy health insurance in one breathe and want to force a land owner to sell his property in another. Perhaps one of you could explain that logic.
For the record I actually support building the pipeline.

[Tom]

3. Republicans forced Obama to make a decision faster than was feasible. He had no choice but to reject the pipeline. You can always build a pipeline. You can't unbuild one.
Not true.

[newtothegame]

He hasn't rejected the Keystone pipeline yet, He says he delaying it until an environmental impact study is done. None of these jobs will come until after he leaves office in 2017 anyway. In Nebraska, a lot of the land owners are going to court to stop the government from taking their land for the pipeline. They probably will eventual lose, but it delays things. I would have thought every one of the "small government" conservatives would oppose this because the government has no business forcing a property owner to sell, but I was wrong. For some reason property rights seem to go out the door on this issue . I really don't understand how they can oppose the forcing a person to buy health insurance in one breathe and want to force a land owner to sell his property in another. Perhaps one of you could explain that logic.
For the record I actually support building the pipeline.
Environmental impact study my AZZ. How many current oil pipelines run through the area of concern? How many possible disaster COULD happen??
P.S still waiting for your answers in the other thread...or are ya ready to admit you lied?

[rastajenk]

We just had a natural gas pipeline installed through our area a couple summers ago. Miles of green pipe laid out end to end, it was quite a sight as it was happening. I think it was a Colorado to West Virginia route. My point is, some cornfields were scarred for just one summer; but now you would never know it's there. The government didn't steal a bunch of land; I would be pretty sure the property owners directly affected were compensated.

The environmental fascists just make up this stuff to make sure we pay as much for gas as their Euro friends do; and their fellow travelers in idiocy will then get to complain that the income disparity that (they say) threatens the nation is getting larger. No shit. And only the rich will be able to afford to capandtrade when rationing is imposed. A bleak future for all if the eco-brownshirts get their way.

[badcompany]

You figured out that kids worked in factories because they would have starved otherwise, but you are clueless as to why this was. It was because the factory owners would not pay their fathers enough money to support the worker's family.

And I'm sure that in your Socialist paradise, the central planners will know exactly how much to pay everyone.

BTW, why didn't the father go work somewhere else? Could it be that the factory owner offered the father the best available option? Of course, the father could've started a business like the factory owner did.

The reason children no longer work in factories is because we have laws prohibiting that. The reason workers now get paid close to what they are worth is because we have laws that ensure that and we have workers organizations that fight for fair wages.

C'mon, you know that only 7% of the private sector workforce is unionized and I pointed out that only 6% works for minimum wage. Pray tell, how does the overwhelming majority of the population manage to get paid so well?

Standards of living and working conditions only improved after laws were passed forcing factory owners to improve those conditions.

Yeah, it couldn't have been because of the goods that those factories were producing, or do you think that only the top 1% consume what Apple, Toyota, Amazon et al produce?


Have you ever read a history Book?

Yeah, but I try to avoid the ones written by bitter, old, smelly Marxist Professors. It's not easy.

[lamboguy]

natural gas is now at 2.42, down from over $4 a year ago, and down from $10 10 years ago. that is pretty cheap energy in today's world, and there is plenty of the stuff right here where you don't have to go to the middle east and bring it back and refine it.

its cleaner than oil, and its better to cook with than electric in my opinion.

[Spiderman]

Quote:
3. Republicans forced Obama to make a decision faster than was feasible. He had no choice but to reject the pipeline. You can always build a pipeline. You can't unbuild one.


Not true.


The Repugnuts used the pipeline as a bargaining chip when they had nothing else to compromise the financial bill. The estimates for job creation are exaggerated - see Washington Post Fact Checker - the best estimate is 20,000 jobs over a two-year span.

[rastajenk]

That's just construction and maintenance, probably, and the attendant HR, logistics, and management type stuff.

How about all the jobs lost or not saved by rising energy costs. I doubt if the WaPo fact checkers are capable of determining that.

[Tom]

Quote:
3. Republicans forced Obama to make a decision faster than was feasible. He had no choice but to reject the pipeline. You can always build a pipeline. You can't unbuild one.





The Repugnuts used the pipeline as a bargaining chip when they had nothing else to compromise the financial bill. The estimates for job creation are exaggerated - see Washington Post Fact Checker - the best estimate is 20,000 jobs over a two-year span.

Don't forget all the indirect jobs it will create. Jobs for American people out of work today. A pipeline that WILL be built and used by China if we don't grab it. The repubs had to go for this - Obama is not trying to create jobs or reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

[maddog42]

There are more jobs.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Look at the figures for employed in table B-the fourth line down.
The December 2010 figure is 139,220,000
The December 2011 figure is 140,790,000
That is an additional one million five hundred and seventy thousand jobs.
That is people who are now working that were not working a year ago.
Furthermore, contrary to what you believe, the government does keep track of the people who have given up on finding a job.
There is a U-3 rate and a U-6 rate. The U-3 rate is the rate we get when they announce the unemployment rate-currently 8.5%. The U-6 rate is the U-3 rate plus those who have given up plus those working part time who want to work full time plus a few other factors I don't recall.
The U-6 rate is currently 15.2%. A year ago it was 16.3% Both rates are going down. Jobs are being added. Your theory is false and unsubstantiated.

Good post Mostie. If the Obama haters on this board are going to use these stats to crucify him, then why can't we use them to defend him?

[Robert Goren]

Environmental impact study my AZZ. How many current oil pipelines run through the area of concern? How many possible disaster COULD happen??
P.S still waiting for your answers in the other thread...or are ya ready to admit you lied?I stated I favor the pipeline because of that. The opposition to pipeline is huge though here in Nebraska. There are environmental concerns here yes, but the big issue here is having the government taking your land. The Ag secter is big on that issue.

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by Valuist
By rejecting the Keystone pipeline, Obama has further demonstrated he doesn't want to improve the jobs outlook and doesn't want to wean us off Mideastern oil.






1. Tom's numbers are wildly inflated. We may not need graphs; we do need an unbiased source.
2. Obama urged the Canadians to resubmit their request. If he is really against the pipeline, why would he do that.
3. Republicans forced Obama to make a decision faster than was feasible. He had no choice but to reject the pipeline. You can always build a pipeline. You can't unbuild one.


Time is of the essence. We need the jobs now. We need to cut our heavy reliance on Mideastern oil as soon as we can.

[Robert Goren]

Environmental impact study my AZZ. How many current oil pipelines run through the area of concern? How many possible disaster COULD happen??
P.S still waiting for your answers in the other thread...or are ya ready to admit you lied? What thread are you talking about? I never lie, but on "rare" occasions I am wrong and unlike some people I admit to it when I am. I am not perfect as my long list of reloads for the last year at twinspires will attest.

[Robert Goren]

Time is of the essence. We need the jobs now. We need to cut our heavy reliance on Mideastern oil as soon as we can. The best way to get off of mid eastern oil is start using things like Natural Gas. Natural Gas is cheap and the USA has plenty of it. Obama has done a poor job of try to get the country to replace oil with it. The amazing since the republicans criticize Obama on everything else that they are so quiet on this issue.

[Spiderman]

That's just construction and maintenance, probably, and the attendant HR, logistics, and management type stuff.

How about all the jobs lost or not saved by rising energy costs. I doubt if the WaPo fact checkers are capable of determining that.

Heard something on Bloomberg radio, where an analyst posited that the cost of oil is the largest deterrent to the rise of GDP. Absolute that we need to get away from dependence on mid-east products.

The WaPo FC did include ancillary job creation - restaurants, hairdressers and more. The 20,000 figure over two-years seems reasonable.

[hcap]

even if the economy was bush's fault this guy has done nothing that great to make it better. if this election is about the economy obama has no chance, but unfortunately i don't think it will be by the time november rolls around, i think its going to be about a war, and its usually pretty tough to beat the guy sitting in the office when that happens no matter how bad he is.We are paying for the financial crisis engineered by clever gonifs who gimmicked the system to walk away with the public's money. The main causes of the economic downturn were

1- The inevitable bubble bursting

2-All the over leveraged expectations getting bailed out by us

3-The Bush tax cuts,

4-2 wars

Since Obama got handed the mess, here is what happened.

[mostpost]

To hold onto in an election year!!
Then you talk about a decision that was "faster then feasible"??? WTF???
But healthcare in the middle of the night, with Pelosi saying we "neecd to pass it to find out what's in it" isn't faster then feasible???
You guys on the left are a riot to say the least...lol

The first health care bill was introduced in the house on Oct. 29, 2009. The final bill was signed by President Obama on June 25, 2010. That is eight months later.
Eight months is plenty of time to read and discuss any bill.

[hcap]

The debt increased dramatically under Bush particularly during his second term when the shit hit the fan. Under Obama there is some good news

[mostpost]

One of us is delusional.
It ain't you.

[Robert Goren]

Heard something on Bloomberg radio, where an analyst posited that the cost of oil is the largest deterrent to the rise of GDP. Absolute that we need to get away from dependence on mid-east products.

The WaPo FC did include ancillary job creation - restaurants, hairdressers and more. The 20,000 figure over two-years seems reasonable. I haven't heard any body say that getting off of mid east oil will lower the price of crude oil for Americans. Not that we should do it, but I don't expect American oil producers to give the US consumers a discount. Right the price of is reflective of how the economy of China is doing not how the American economy is doing. We need to get off of oil period if we want to rid of being held hostage to the price of oil. Of course that is easier said than done, But it would help if our politicians were not so beholding to oil money. We need to develop everything not just things like solar and wind power, but things like nuclear and natural gas. Anything that the Arabs don't much of. As long as Europe is tied to Mid East oil. so are we. I wish that wasn't the case, but wishing isn't going change that.

[johnhannibalsmith]

The first health care bill was introduced in the house on Oct. 29, 2009. The final bill was signed by President Obama on June 25, 2010. That is eight months later.
Eight months is plenty of time to read and discuss any bill.

Huh?

You come up with eight months by subtracting the day one bill was signed relative to the inception of a different bill?

I'm not taking sides here, but how about using the amount of time from the day the final bill was delivered to members to the day it was signed?

[hcap]

http://www.newsspoofs.com/inside-pages/large-images/george.jpg

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
..... Abraham Lincoln,

Or if you guys prefer....

/v/eKgPY1adc0A?version=3&

[LottaKash]

http://www.newsspoofs.com/inside-pages/large-images/george.jpg

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
..... Abraham Lincoln,

Or if you guys prefer....

/v/eKgPY1adc0A?version=3&

Stale bunk, bunky....very :ThmbDown:

You have been fooled, but you just don't know it....

[HUSKER55]

mostpost,

if the original health bill came in october then why did the dems want the revised verson passed without reading it? I remember something about that on TV at the time.

[mostpost]

And I'm sure that in your Socialist paradise, the central planners will know exactly how much to pay everyone.
You know, I get really tired of this "Socialist" crap. Especially from someone who sees a(n imaginary) Socialist behind every tree. I have repeatedly stated my support for a capitalist economy on this board. But I understand that capitalism does not work if it is not monitored and controlled to some degree. Business will always take the most expedient path and sometimes that path does not benefit society as a whole. Keeping business on the straight and narrow is a function of government.

BTW, why didn't the father go work somewhere else? Could it be that the factory owner offered the father the best available option? Of course, the father could've started a business like the factory owner did.
Nobody paid good wages in those days. Jobs were not available. If every factory worked its employees fourteen to sixteen hours a day, six or seven days a week and most factories hired children, how many jobs were available for men who were heads of household. And don't forget women did not work then except maybe in the garment industry. You remember the garment industry, where managers would chain women to their work bench and hundreds died in a fire when the manager fled without unlocking the chains.
NJ Stinks thinks you are delusional. He's wrong, you're a freakin' moron.


C'mon, you know that only 7% of the private sector workforce is unionized and I pointed out that only 6% works for minimum wage. Pray tell, how does the overwhelming majority of the population manage to get paid so well?
We have good wages and working conditions now because we had strong unions at one time and many of the reforms they initiated have been codified into law. Laws that the Republicans have as yet been unable to repeal.
Even so, since the war against the unions commenced in the eighties, we have seen a decline in the rights and prosperity of workers.

As to the minimum wage; the purpose of the minimum wage is to provide the poorest in our society the opportunity to live at a reasonable standard. It is to keep them close to what others are earning. If prices are based on what the average worker is earning and if their were no minimum wage, those people would not be able to afford to live.



Yeah, it couldn't have been because of the goods that those factories were producing, or do you think that only the top 1% consume what Apple, Toyota, Amazon et al produce?
Factories producing goods does nothing to improve the standard of living unless there are consumers with the wherewithal to buy those goods. How can you possibly not understand that? Henry Ford understood it. He said, "I will have to pay my workers enough so they can afford to buy my cars"



Yeah, but I try to avoid the ones written by bitter, old, smelly Marxist Professors. It's not easy.
Personally, I never had a professor who was smelly, but I am sure you think you did.

[Greyfox]

Environmental impact study my AZZ. How many current oil pipelines run through the area of concern? How many possible disaster COULD happen??


51 pipelines already run through Nebraska.

Obama's delay suits:
1. his love affair with his ecologist base
2. his apparent determination to weaken America's military might and homeland security

[boxcar]

What thread are you talking about? I never lie, but on "rare" occasions I am wrong and unlike some people I admit to it when I am. I am not perfect as my long list of reloads for the last year at twinspires will attest.

You just did. Its on very rare occasions when you are right about something. :D

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Huh?

You come up with eight months by subtracting the day one bill was signed relative to the inception of a different bill?

I'm not taking sides here, but how about using the amount of time from the day the final bill was delivered to members to the day it was signed?

Because the final bill was a result of the original bill with some changes and compromises. Anybody with the will to do so could have followed along with those changes. Maybe the official printed version was presented to members shortly before being passed, but anyone who was paying attention knew what was in the bill.

[boxcar]

51 pipelines already run through Nebraska.

Obama's delay suits:
1. his love affair with his ecologist base
2. his apparent determination to weaken America's military might and homeland security

His decision also helps all his oil-producing Muslim buddies. Let's not forget this. He not only wants to make Americans dependent on the government for the necessities of life, but to keep us dependent on the Muslim world for a good chunk of our oil supply.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

You posted recently that the economy is driven by the previous administration's policies....so you should be thanking Bush for all this!
I did not say that. I said that Bush's policies were responsible for the decline in the economy and that the decline carried over into the Obama administration until Obama had the opportunity to reverse them. Just like Clinton's policies caused the good economy of the 90s which carried over into Bush's term until Bush reversed them.
But you knew all that. You're just being silly. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

but anyone who was paying attention knew what was in the bill. __________________

NO, wrong.
Remember Pelosi - you have to pass it to know what's in it?
Remember the speed reader on Fox Cavuto showing trying to read it all in the time allowed and never came close?

How do you get it so wrong so often? :lol:

[boxcar]

The first health care bill was introduced in the house on Oct. 29, 2009. The final bill was signed by President Obama on June 25, 2010. That is eight months later.
Eight months is plenty of time to read and discuss any bill.

Then how come even Pelosi didn't know what was in this 2000+ page bill -- and told the world that the only way to really digest it all is to pass it, then read it!? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[badcompany]

It ain't you.

Self-awareness is not your thing.

[mostpost]

Don't forget all the indirect jobs it will create. Jobs for American people out of work today. A pipeline that WILL be built and used by China if we don't grab it. The repubs had to go for this - Obama is not trying to create jobs or reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
I'm confused. Are you saying that if we don't build a pipeline across Nebraska etc. the Chinese will build a pipeline across Nebraska etc. I guess that would be proof Obama is a socialist, wouldn't it? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Maybe you think China is going to build a pipeline from Canada to China. Hint: There is an ocean in there somewhere. :bang:

[Robert Goren]

51 pipelines already run through Nebraska.

Obama's delay suits:
1. his love affair with his ecologist base
2. his apparent determination to weaken America's military might and homeland security I don't know for sure but I believe that 51 is a low number. I do know this most were laid before 1970. It is hard to do anything these days here. If the fifties they even moved a small town to build a dam. There is no way that something like that would happen today. It is not going to be easy to get the farmers or ranchers to allow a new pipe line to cross their land.

[Greyfox]

I'm confused. Are you saying that if we don't build a pipeline across Nebraska etc. the Chinese will build a pipeline across Nebraska etc. I guess that would be proof Obama is a socialist, wouldn't it? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Maybe you think China is going to build a pipeline from Canada to China. Hint: There is an ocean in there somewhere. :bang:

Mostie, normally you offer cogent arguments.
Have you been sniffing glue?

Prime Minister Harper of Canada has said that the Keystone Pipeline should have been a "no brainer" in view of the American economy and jobs.
Now he has told the pipeline companies to more vigorously pursue a pipeline between Athabasca oil sands and Port Kitimat in British Columbia where it will be shipped by tanker to China.
Also, the Chinese have recently been allowed to buy a stake in part of the Athabasca Oil sands for their own development purposes.

[badcompany]

You know, I get really tired of this "Socialist" crap. Especially from someone who sees a(n imaginary) Socialist behind every tree. I have repeatedly stated my support for a capitalist economy on this board. But I understand that capitalism does not work if it is not monitored and controlled to some degree. Business will always take the most expedient path and sometimes that path does not benefit society as a whole. Keeping business on the straight and narrow is a function of government.


You want to have your cake and eat too. You say you're for capitalism then you go on and on about employers stealing from the workers by not paying them enough, but, you never explain how you get those employers to pay more.

The only answer is goverment mandated pay rates. That's not capitalism when the government dictates to an entreprenuer how to run his business.

[mostpost]

Remember Pelosi - you have to pass it to know what's in it?
Then how come even Pelosi didn't know what was in this 2000+ page bill -- and told the world that the only way to really digest it all is to pass it, then read it!?
This is another example of Republicans misrepresenting something someone said and the Lemmings following along right off the cliff.
Here is the headline from the Breitbart article.
WE NEED TO PASS HEALTH CARE BILL TO FIND OUT WHAT’S IN IT
Here is the actual quote by Pelosi which is found in the article itself.

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
They are not the same. The headline implies that Pelosi (and Congress) did not know what was in the bill they passed. Pelosi did not say we )Meaning Congress) have to pass the bill so that we (again meaning congress) know what is in it.
She said: "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." The public could find out, not the members of Congress. They knew, if they wanted to know. The public at large did not know because of the conflicting claims and the constant changes and the misinformation, but once the bill was passed it would be there in black and white for everyone to see.

[Tom]

Mostie, normally you offer cogent arguments.
Have you been sniffing glue?

Prime Minister Harper of Canada has said that the Keystone Pipeline should have been a "no brainer" in view of the American economy and jobs.
Now he has told the pipeline companies to more vigorously pursue a pipeline between Athabasca oil sands and Port Kitimat in British Columbia where it will be shipped by tanker to China.
Also, the Chinese have recently been allowed to buy a stake in part of the Athabasca Oil sands for their own development purposes.

Canada to US: Ah so, you Ahsos!

[NJ Stinks]

You want to have your cake and eat too. You say you're for capitalism then you go on and on about employers stealing from the workers by not paying them enough, but, you never explain how you get those employers to pay more.

The only answer is goverment mandated pay rates. That's not capitalism when the government dictates to an entreprenuer how to run his business.

The answer is unions. That's not the answer you want to hear, of course.

[Robert Goren]

You want to have your cake and eat too. You say you're for capitalism then you go on and on about employers stealing from the workers by not paying them enough, but, you never explain how you get those employers to pay more.

The only answer is goverment mandated pay rates. That's not capitalism when the government dictates to an entreprenuer how to run his business.Does that include farmers? Should the government tell them how to use their land? Or does not allowing the government dictate to an entreprenurer only apply to oil companies?

[badcompany]

The answer is unions. That's not the answer you want to hear, of course.

Unions are a form of wage price controls, and, like any market intervention it has a side effect, in this case, increased unemployment. When you artificially increase the amount an employer has to pay his employees, you decrease the number of employees he can hire. In the case of a marginally profitable business, this usually means going belly up, which also increases unemployment.

Also, the decreased profits, whether it be because of wage controls or high taxation makes it harder for a business to accumulate capital, and therefore can't expand the way it would in an unhampered market. This especially affects small businesses who are trying to grow.

Liberals are always going on about how there's no jobs, but at the same time are always looking for new ways to kneecap businesses.

Of course, that's not the answer you want to hear.:lol:

[NJ Stinks]

Liberals are always going on about how there's no jobs, but at the same time are always looking for new ways to kneecap businesses.

Of course, that's not the answer you want to hear.:lol:

So you do have a sense of humor! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[mostpost]

The answer is unions. That's not the answer you want to hear, of course.
Exactly right! The only way to ensure fair wages is by negotiation among the parties involved. The only was for the negotiation to be just is for both parties to have equal standing. In some cases an individual employee can have equal standing with his employer. In most cases he needs the power of a union.

Badcompany thinks that we are in favor of Government dictating wages. That is not the case. I am in favor of minimal standards (a minimum wage) for reasons I stated previously. I am in favor of government making sure the negotiation process is fair and legal. I think government can aid in arbitration. I don't think government should tell GM that it has to pay a welder $xx per hour.

We both worked for the government. Well, technically you worked for the government. I worked for an independent quasi government agency. We both belonged to unions. Our unions negotiated our salaries and benefits. We were not permitted to strike, but somehow having a union to negotiate for us helped us.

I'm not sure how it worked with IRS, but if our negotiations reached an impasse we went to binding arbitration. An arbitrator selected by both parties heard the arguments and issued a ruling which was binding on both parties.

[Tom]

Yes, and those "fair wages" drove GM to bankruptcy.

[hcap]

Unions are a form of wage price controls, and, like any market intervention it has a side effect, in this case, increased unemployment. When you artificially increase the amount an employer has to pay his employees, you decrease the number of employees he can hire. In the case of a marginally profitable business, this usually means going belly up, which also increases unemployment.

Also, the decreased profits, whether it be because of wage controls or high taxation makes it harder for a business to accumulate capital, and therefore can't expand the way it would in an unhampered market. This especially affects small businesses who are trying to grow.

Liberals are always going on about how there's no jobs, but at the same time are always looking for new ways to kneecap businesses.

Of course, that's not the answer you want to hear.:lol:A very simplistic Laissez-faire argument that should have been retired about 150 years ago

As of June 29, 2011

There are about 4.4 million Americans earning the current minimum wage of $7.25 per hour or less, which is about 3.4 percent of the workforce. That's almost as many as two years ago, when the minimum wage was only $5.85 per hour.


If you increase the minimum wage you would not necessarily decrease employment. More than half the people at this lowest end of the labor market are women over age 25, and a quarter of them never completed high school. So it's not about middle class teenage after school jobs, It's more about workers whose family depend on their earnings

Raising the minimum wage adds jobs to the overall economy because it shifts money from a sector that hoards cash (corporate profits) to a sector that spends it (low-wage workers). Therefore the buying power of low-wage workers would stimulate the creation of according to some economists about 50,000 non-minimum wage jobs for every dollar per hour wage increase.

Btw, while economists are divided about the overall effects of raising the minimum wage, the general population tends to overwhelmingly support it. Just over two thirds of Americans polled favored or strongly favored increasing the minimum wage to $10 per hour in a poll conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute in September 2010. It's popular because rewarding work is a strong value even among you rethugs.

[badcompany]

Yes, and those "fair wages" drove GM to bankruptcy.

Of course, Libs will blame this on the machinations of greedy capitalists, or in the case of hcap, call valid arguments "simplistic," but, in reality, it is simple.

Union membership in the private sector has steadily declined over time because unions make businesses uncompetitive.

[cj's dad]

How about instead of having a union negotiate one's wages, the individual has a marketable skill ?

Plumbers, electricians, millwrights, etc... in non union shops typically make as much as those in the organized shops.

Now, if you pissed around half your life and end up at a car wash, maybe you just ain't so much in demand.

Isn't a bitch when the chickens come home to roost ?

[badcompany]

Just over two thirds of Americans polled favored or strongly favored increasing the minimum wage to $10 per hour in a poll conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute in September 2010. It's popular because rewarding work is a strong value even among you rethugs.

It's popular because most people don't study economics and don't realize that some ideas that sound good at face value have very serious side effects.

Those who support a $10 minimum wage will the same ones bitching when more jobs head overseas.
______________________

That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen

by Frederic Bastiat, 1850

In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause - it is seen. The others unfold in succession - they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference - the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, - at the risk of a small present evil.

[mostpost]

Unions are a form of wage price controls, and, like any market intervention it has a side effect, in this case, increased unemployment. When you artificially increase the amount an employer has to pay his employees, you decrease the number of employees he can hire. In the case of a marginally profitable business, this usually means going belly up, which also increases unemployment.

Also, the decreased profits, whether it be because of wage controls or high taxation makes it harder for a business to accumulate capital, and therefore can't expand the way it would in an unhampered market. This especially affects small businesses who are trying to grow.

Liberals are always going on about how there's no jobs, but at the same time are always looking for new ways to kneecap businesses.

Of course, that's not the answer you want to hear.:lol:

Statistics do not back you up.
From 1950 to 1960 the median income in this country increased by 58.75%.
During that same decade we had only five months with unemployment higher than 7%. The highest being 7.5%.

From 1960 t0 1970 the median income increased by 63.48%
During that decade we had only three months in which the unemployment wage was over 7%. In that case the highest rate was 7.15

Fast forward to the nineties. Between 1990 and 2000 the median income increased 35.46%, well below the previous years. we had 21 months with unemployment above 7%. High was 7.8%

Finally the oughts.
From 2000 to 2007 (the last year I found data for) median income increased 9.75% It is doubtful that figure improved over the following three years.
Unemployment? 13 months over 7% 3 months over 8%. seven months over 9% and one month over 10%.

Raising wages does not hurt business, it helps business. People with more money buy more things. When people buy more things business prospers.

Two caveats: Every business will not prosper every time. Some businesses are not well run. Some are not positioned to take advantage of increased demand. But overall the economy will be strengthened.

And you can not raise wages indiscriminately. So how do you determine the proper amount to raise them to achieve a balance between workers and owners. I have said it a thousand times and I will say it again. (with absolutely no hope that you will get it. :bang: :bang: ) Through negotiation among equal negotiating partners.

[mostpost]

Yes, and those "fair wages" drove GM to bankruptcy.
Is this the same GM that just recently became the Number one auto company in the world. By recently I mean in news from today.

[Greyfox]

Raising wages does not hurt business, it helps business.

Total Bull Drivel.
I've owned businesses. I doubt that you have and that comment reflects your lack of employing others on your own dime.

[boxcar]

A very simplistic Laissez-faire argument that should have been retired about 150 years ago

As of June 29, 2011

There are about 4.4 million Americans earning the current minimum wage of $7.25 per hour or less, which is about 3.4 percent of the workforce. That's almost as many as two years ago, when the minimum wage was only $5.85 per hour.


If you increase the minimum wage you would not necessarily decrease employment. More than half the people at this lowest end of the labor market are women over age 25, and a quarter of them never completed high school. So it's not about middle class teenage after school jobs, It's more about workers whose family depend on their earnings

Raising the minimum wage adds jobs to the overall economy because it shifts money from a sector that hoards cash (corporate profits) to a sector that spends it (low-wage workers). Therefore the buying power of low-wage workers would stimulate the creation of according to some economists about 50,000 non-minimum wage jobs for every dollar per hour wage increase.

Btw, while economists are divided about the overall effects of raising the minimum wage, the general population tends to overwhelmingly support it. Just over two thirds of Americans polled favored or strongly favored increasing the minimum wage to $10 per hour in a poll conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute in September 2010. It's popular because rewarding work is a strong value even among you rethugs.

Min. wage was never designed to support families. Shame on anyone who thinks that that was what the minimum is designed to do. If someone isn't happy earning the minimum, they should look for ways to improving the quality of their lifestyle -- but not at my expense.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Raising wages does not hurt business, it helps business. People with more money buy more things. When people buy more things business prospers.

If this is true, why aren't businesses banging down the doors to the halls of Congress and the White House to raise the minimum to at least $50. hr.? Explain, please.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, - at the risk of a small present evil.
....by Frederic Bastiat, 1850

1850 ?
Figures :bang: :bang:

Something a bit more current perhaps?

http://www.workforce.com/article/20120113/NEWS02/120119977/data-bank-focus-paying-well

January 13, 2012

...San Francisco's new minimum wage of $10.24 an hour, the highest in the country, went into effect Jan. 1. It exceeds the federal government's minimum wage of $7.25 by almost $3. Oregon and Washington state also raised their minimum wage for 2012 to $8.80 and $9.04, respectively.

The expected outcry from employers is that the increases will force them to lay off staff. But how does minimum wage really affect unemployment for an area?

A number of states and a few cities have set a minimum wage that exceeds the federal government's. A look at 12 of the states and areas with the highest minimum wage shows that eight out of 12 have an unemployment rate lower than the national rate. A number of factors affect unemployment; a high minimum wage does not appear to have a major impact.

http://www.workforce.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/storyimage/WF/20120113/NEWS02/120119977/V2/0/V2-120119977.jpg&MaxW=635&q=100

Studies going back a ways indicate the same thing
Studies that take into account recessions and economic downturns

"A number of factors affect unemployment; a high minimum wage does not appear to have a major impact."

[mostpost]

How about instead of having a union negotiate one's wages, the individual has a marketable skill ?

Plumbers, electricians, millwrights, etc... in non union shops typically make as much as those in the organized shops.

Now, if you pissed around half your life and end up at a car wash, maybe you just ain't so much in demand.

Isn't a bitch when the chickens come home to roost ?

you're typically wrong.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030623ar01p1.htm
In all three groups, approximately three-fifths of electricians were unionized. In private industry, unionized electricians earned an average of $21.05 per hour, compared with $15.11 for nonunion electricians. In the public sector, these figures were $18.07 and $13.51, respectively. The wage differential was greater in private industry ($5.94) than in the public sector
($4.56).

Union workers earn about 25% more, but there is another factor involved here. Non union shops pay as close to union wages as they do because they have to compete for workers. If there were no union shops, wages would be much lower than even the non union rate right now.

[mostpost]

Total Bull Drivel.
I've owned businesses. I doubt that you have and that comment reflects your lack of employing others on your own dime.
If your business went bad every time you gave your employees a legitimate raise, you were not running your business right.

[mostpost]

If this is true, why aren't businesses banging down the doors to the halls of Congress and the White House to raise the minimum to at least $50. hr.? Explain, please.

Boxcar
Go back, read my post. Read my two caveats. You can not be this dumb.

[Greyfox]

If your business went bad every time you gave your employees a legitimate raise, you were not running your business right.

You've never ran a business that wasn't sponsored by myself and other tax payers. Your comments re: private business are profoundly ignorant.
You've never mortgaged your house to go to a business that you have purchased. You've never worried about rent, lighting, heat, wages, and compensation, supplies etc. because we the tax payers took care of all that for you.

[mostpost]

I can't keep up. The idiocy in this thread is overwhelming. The refusal to see the obvious is frightening. The reliance on dogma is appalling.

[bigmack]

I can't keep up. The idiocy in this thread is overwhelming. The refusal to see the obvious is frightening. The reliance on dogma is appalling.
It's idiotic because a postman is trying to tell others how to run a business and hasn't a clue beyond tying his shoelaces.

You are stunningly stupid.

[hcap]

Min. wage was never designed to support families. Shame on anyone who thinks that that was what the minimum is designed to do. If someone isn't happy earning the minimum, they should look for ways to improving the quality of their lifestyle -- but not at my expense.

WHAT ABOUT TURN OF THE CENTURY HORRENDOUS WORKING CONDITIONS?

Maybe those kids working 12 hours a day, and workers who lost limbs in the glorious meat packing industry, maybe they could build a few shoeshine boxes, pack 'em with rags, whisk brooms and polishes, and work after their factory shifts, shinning shoes of their wonderful capitalist bosses as they leave their offices on way to country clubs and soirees? They could also stop at a church on the way to their second job and learn all about how God loves those poor waifs and broken workers who help themselves?

Hey box think about it as "alms for the poor". In actuality your share of payment for increasing minimum wage would probably amount to less than your second cup of java. Too much?

Ok to get your money's worth we could require that in addition to stopping along the way at a church for the good word they must insert a "short handled broom" in their rear ends and do some community service and sweep the streets by wiggling-thus saving citizens on overly oppressive taxes and runaway spending on those lucky municipal servants that have managed to acquire a bit more than the shoe-shinning, ass-sweeping meat packers-earn per hour.

Have another cup of java why don'tcha? Relax and rerun the old Alistair Sims "A Christmas Carol", cackle a few times, and practice shoving a few short handled brooms up Tiny Tim's butt. Good for building character as the Boxcarian bible teaches

Whatever you do don't watch A Christmas Carol to it's conclusion!

[badcompany]

You've never ran a business that wasn't sponsored by myself and other tax payers. Your comments re: private business are profoundly ignorant.
You've never mortgaged your house to go to a business that you have purchased. You've never worried about rent, lighting, heat, wages, and compensation, supplies etc. because we the tax payers took care of all that for you.

Well said, Sir.

His world is completely divorced from reality.

If his post office buddies want a raise, just raise the price of stamps. If the public doesn't like it, eff'm. It's not like they can mail letters another way, as the Post Office is a state-backed monopoly.

Fortunately, technological innovations tend to make state backed monopolies obsolete. Because of email, on-line bill payment, and social sites like this one, the services of Mostpost and his buddies are no longer required.

[badcompany]

1850 ?
Figures :bang: :bang:

Something a bit more current perhaps?



Yeah, because everything written that long ago or longer is useless, today.

Shakespeare, Plato, Newton, Adam Smith etc. all without value.

I see why you argue with stats and charts, and not logic and reason. You suck at the latter.

[NJ Stinks]

Fortunately, technological innovations tend to make state backed monopolies obsolete. Because of email, on-line bill payment, and social sites like this one, the services of Mostpost and his buddies are no longer required.

Yep. Nothing will help this country and it's economy more than losing the second biggest civilian employer in the U.S.

You conservatives got it all figured. :rolleyes:

[badcompany]

Yep. Nothing will help this country and it's economy more than losing the second biggest civilian employer in the U.S.

You conservatives got it all figured. :rolleyes:

If those jobs are unproductive, and they are, then they're making the economic pie smaller not bigger, and the so-called the demand they increase is artifical and will therefore artifically raise prices and lower the real wages of productive workers.

You'll probably ask where these people will go. They'll go to the same place that the guys who delivered ice to homes went after the refridgerator became widely available: to the productive parts of the economy.

[Tom]

WHAT ABOUT TURN OF THE CENTURY HORRENDOUS WORKING CONDITIONS?

Oh wow! I can't believe you think this is relevant to anything? :lol: :lol: :lol:
You really are out of ammo!

[NJ Stinks]

If those jobs are unproductive, and they are, then they're making the economic pie smaller not bigger, and the so-called the demand they increase is artifical and will therefore artifically raise prices and lower the real wages of productive workers.

You'll probably ask where these people will go. They'll go to the same place that the guys who delivered ice to homes went after the refridgerator became widely available: to the productive parts of the economy.

I don't think these jobs are unproductive. Period.

But this has been discussed a lot here of late. So no use arguing about it again now.

[Tom]

Kodak just filed for bankruptcy today - technology passed them by.
Ditto the USPS......their usefullness is waning.

[elysiantraveller]

If your business went bad every time you gave your employees a legitimate raise, you were not running your business right.

Are you this unbelievably stupid?

Businesses operate on margins. The market determines the cost of the service/product they provide. All expenses a business has are done in DIRECT reflection of the cost of their product.

Here is a business that goes bad if you give your employees a raise.

THE STAFFING INDUSTRY.

Businesses don't determine "legitimate" raises the market does.

I can't believe you are this dumb....

[rastajenk]

You can't? :eek: The evidence is clearly evident.

[boxcar]

WHAT ABOUT TURN OF THE CENTURY HORRENDOUS WORKING CONDITIONS?

I thought we were talking minimum wage? Now, you want to morph that into child labor, unskilled labor, poverty-stricken kids, etc.?

If anyone believes for a split second that the minimum wage is designed to support a family of one, let alone four :rolleyes: that person is delusional.
And people who waste their time complaining about what miserable lives they are living earning such a mere pittance might want to consider spending their time more constructively thinking about how to improve their lot in life. How to improve themselves. How to take charge of their life. How to play an aggressive and proactive role in their pursuit of their own happiness. When their "neighbors" about them witness this kind of virtuous behavior, they will not only laud their efforts but be more likely to lend a helping hand where needed.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Fortunately, technological innovations tend to make state backed monopolies obsolete. Because of email, on-line bill payment, and social sites like this one, the services of Mostpost and his buddies are no longer required.

Oh, no! Does this mean MostyPosty is obsolete, too? :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[cj's dad]

you're typically wrong.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030623ar01p1.htm


Union workers earn about 25% more, but there is another factor involved here. Non union shops pay as close to union wages as they do because they have to compete for workers. If there were no union shops, wages would be much lower than even the non union rate right now.

Hey Mostie- F--K you big time. I am not typically wrong. You are a bigoted lib living in a world which dictates that everything that requires a person to be accountable for their actions is somehow wrong. I'm sorry for you that you have lived off of the Govmn'ts tit for all of your life. Try making it in the free market. By the way- F--k you again, you condescending ba--ard!

[Tom]

Are you this unbelievably stupid?



Let me check my Magic 8 Ball on this..........

[Tom]

I thought we were talking minimum wage? Now, you want to morph that into child labor, unskilled labor, poverty-stricken kids, etc.?

Never mind the fact that we have labor laws in place today, therefore, unions are no longer needed. But when you are as short-changed by your boys in DC as he is, you grab at straws! :lol:

[delayjf]

Just like Clinton's policies caused the good economy of the 90s which carried over into Bush's term until Bush reversed them. But you knew all that. You're just being silly.

Bush inherited Clinton's recession lowered taxes and pulled us out of it. Can you give me an example of when raising taxes in a bad economy pulled us out of a recession?

The Unions have served their purpose - now all they are doing is bankrupting cities and states - no finer example than here in California.

[badcompany]

Hey Mostie- F--K you big time. I am not typically wrong. You are a bigoted lib living in a world which dictates that everything that requires a person to be accountable for their actions is somehow wrong. I'm sorry for you that you have lived off of the Govmn'ts tit for all of your life. Try making it in the free market. By the way- F--k you again, you condescending ba--ard!

Of course you're not wrong. When unions artificially raise the price of labor, they reduce the demand for it. Economics 101.

So, their pay raises come at the expense of those who become unemployed as a result of the reduced demand.

[badcompany]

Oh, no! Does this mean MostyPosty is obsolete, too? :lol: :lol:

Boxcar


Actually, no. The word "obsolete" infers there was a time when he was useful.:D

[badcompany]

I don't think these jobs are unproductive. Period.

But this has been discussed a lot here of late. So no use arguing about it again now.

If I had to defend the position that sending someone a letter via snailmail is more efficient than email, I'd wanna end the discussion, too.:lol:

[mostpost]

Are you this unbelievably stupid?

Businesses operate on margins. The market determines the cost of the service/product they provide. All expenses a business has are done in DIRECT reflection of the cost of their product.

Here is a business that goes bad if you give your employees a raise.

THE STAFFING INDUSTRY.

Businesses don't determine "legitimate" raises the market does.

I can't believe you are this dumb....
yes I am. If looking at the historical record and discerning that the periods of fastest wage increase do not correspond with the periods of highest unemployment is dumb then I am dumb. If it is dumb to point out that tax cuts do not improve the economy, then I am an idiot. If it is dumb to realize that people with more money can afford to buy more things, then I am a moron. If it is dumb to know that supply side economics did not work, does not work and will not work, then I am that proverbial box of rocks.

Am I smart? Apparently not, because I think the Post Office is productive and I think the productivity of a lot of businesses depends on the services provided by the Post Office. I am not smart because I think the success of a business depends on its workers and not just on its owners. I am not smart because I can't see that all the hard won gains of labor over the past century; minimum wage, forty hour work week.; vacations; safe working conditions etc, were given to us willingly and will continue to be a gift from our generous employers. :rolleyes:

Dumb? Hell no. Smart? Hell yes!

[mostpost]

Hey Mostie- F--K you big time. I am not typically wrong. You are a bigoted lib living in a world which dictates that everything that requires a person to be accountable for their actions is somehow wrong. I'm sorry for you that you have lived off of the Govmn'ts tit for all of your life. Try making it in the free market. By the way- F--k you again, you condescending ba--ard!

You have anger issues. A lot of conservatives do.

[PaceAdvantage]

I was going to delete this, but since mosty saw it before I could delete it,I guess I have to let it stay...but it was definitely uncalled for in terms of the language used.

Hey Mostie- F--K you big time. I am not typically wrong. You are a bigoted lib living in a world which dictates that everything that requires a person to be accountable for their actions is somehow wrong. I'm sorry for you that you have lived off of the Govmn'ts tit for all of your life. Try making it in the free market. By the way- F--k you again, you condescending ba--ard!

[mostpost]

If I had to defend the position that sending someone a letter via snailmail is more efficient than email, I'd wanna end the discussion, too.:lol:
It is a lot more efficient if the person doesn't have e-mail. It is also not always possible to pay bills by mail. State Farm only started accepting on line payments a year or so ago. I pay my rent by check sent through the mail. I don't even know if the landlady has a computer.
I order my medication on line, but it arrives in my mail box and very quickly too.
If I order a book from Amazon it doesn't pop out of my computer screen.
A Christmas Card that appears on my computer is appreciated, but one that I take out of my mailbox gets a place of honor among my Christmas decorations.

[badcompany]

It is a lot more efficient if the person doesn't have e-mail. It is also not always possible to pay bills by mail. State Farm only started accepting on line payments a year or so ago. I pay my rent by check sent through the mail. I don't even know if the landlady has a computer.

I understand that not everyone is computer literate and therefore still needs the post office, but, the reality is that technology has rendered most of its services obsolete and most of its infrastructure unnecessary. It's called progress.


If I order a book from Amazon it doesn't pop out of my computer screen.


Buy a Kindle and it will.

[elysiantraveller]

yes I am. If looking at the historical record and discerning that the periods of fastest wage increase do not correspond with the periods of highest unemployment is dumb then I am dumb. If it is dumb to point out that tax cuts do not improve the economy, then I am an idiot. If it is dumb to realize that people with more money can afford to buy more things, then I am a moron. If it is dumb to know that supply side economics did not work, does not work and will not work, then I am that proverbial box of rocks.

Am I smart? Apparently not, because I think the Post Office is productive and I think the productivity of a lot of businesses depends on the services provided by the Post Office. I am not smart because I think the success of a business depends on its workers and not just on its owners. I am not smart because I can't see that all the hard won gains of labor over the past century; minimum wage, forty hour work week.; vacations; safe working conditions etc, were given to us willingly and will continue to be a gift from our generous employers. :rolleyes:

Dumb? Hell no. Smart? Hell yes!

Thats great but it has nothing to do with this statement you made:

"If your business went bad every time you gave your employees a legitimate raise, you were not running your business right."

You are the king of trying to deflect when you get called out on your sh-t.

Here I will give you an example that will kill two birds with one stone...

In another thread I mentioned that I have a family member that owns a staffing company employing over 2000 people and that if HCR passes it will most likely close it down. HCR is tantamount to a raise because it raises the cost per employee and the employee is also the product or good. If this company does not offer a health plan the employee becomes $2000 more expensive per year. If they do offer a plan and someone receives a subsidy they pay a $3000 penalty. Either way the employees get drastically more expensive.

Now lets assume the margin is $1.50 per hour. (Very Fair to Workers)

2080*1.50 = $3120 (Gross Profit Per Employee)

Thats a $6,240,000 Gross Top-Line.

If they go with the predictable path they don't offer a plan. (The $2000 HCR "raise" we'll call it. :) )

$6,240,000-(2000*$2000)=

$2,240,000 is their new gross topline before ANY other EXPENSE.

Before doing anything they have taken a 75% cut in operating funds by given their people a paltry $2000 more a year.

But hey thats how the real business world works not in USPS land.

Scamper along now... thanks for playing...

[lsbets]

You have to know mosty's response will be that your family member has no right to own a business because they were not doing the "responsible" thing and providing healthcare to the employees. Instead they were getting rich off their labor without fairly compensating them.

That is the way people who take no risks and assume no challenges or responsibility look at the world. And sadly they get to vote.

[badcompany]

You have to know mosty's response will be that your family member has no right to own a business because they were not doing the "responsible" thing and providing healthcare to the employees. Instead they were getting rich off their labor without fairly compensating them.

That is the way people who take no risks and assume no challenges or responsibility look at the world. And sadly they get to vote.

Not to mention that those 2000 people have no idea that they'd be much better off without those jobs. They'd have no money, but, at least they wouldn't be subject to such brutal exploitation.

[elysiantraveller]

You have to know mosty's response will be that your family member has no right to own a business because they were not doing the "responsible" thing and providing healthcare to the employees. Instead they were getting rich off their labor without fairly compensating them.

That is the way people who take no risks and assume no challenges or responsibility look at the world. And sadly they get to vote.

Thats the real kicker of the whole thing. They currently DO offer a plan but if they continue to do so after HCR they can't project costs.

If anyone doesn't enroll in their insurance plan they pay a $3000 penalty.
"Okay... "

If they take their spouses plan they pay a penalty.
"Well... Okay..."

If they receive a subsidy they pay a penalty.
"Bummer..."

If their plan is above the median rate on the available exchange they pay a penalty.
"D@mn... do I need to hire someone to keep track of this?..."

That changes monthly.
"... I guess I do..."

We aren't sure what those penalties are.
"...well.. eff it..."

[mostpost]

"If your business went bad every time you gave your employees a legitimate raise, you were not running your business right."

1. My am I smart/ am I dumb post was not intended to defend the above.
2. I will respond to your remarks about your family members business tomorrrow.
3. I stand by the statement above, because I said a legitimate raise; not a tiny raise, not an unreasonably large raise. If Greyfox is not a good enough businessman to know how much of a raise he can give his workers, then he should not be in business.

I know you think that workers are just out to bleed the businessman dry, but I do not think that is the case. They do not want to be taken advantage of, but they are always willing to meet half way. This was certainly true in the post office I worked at.
There are rules that supervisors were not allowed to do bargaining unit work.
If someone was absent, they were supposed to call someone in from their off days or give someone overtime. But if the amount of work was light, we did not object to a supervisor pitching in. Of course they were not nearly as good.

A businessman should know how much of a raise he can afford. He should be smart enough to convince his employees of this fact. The problem comes when someone tries to pull the wool over the employees eyes.

In Wisconsin the problem came when Walker said, "not only are we going to take away your benefits, but we are going to make sure you never again have a say in the matter. We are the Master and you are our ------"

[Greyfox]

. This was certainly true in the post office I worked at.
------"

I rest my case.
There are probably a lot of things true at the post office you worked at that bear no resemblance to the reality of running a small successful business.
Unfortunately you have no idea about running a small private business.
I enjoy your comments on politics and Government. But when it comes to private enterprise you have absolutely zero credibility.
Nothing here for you. Move along.

(I have no idea where you got the notion that I wasn't a good businessman.
I disagreed with your idea that raising wages is good for business that was stated in Post 85 of this thread.:rolleyes: )

[hcap]

You posted recently that the economy is driven by the previous administration's policies....so you should be thanking Bush for all this!There are sharp indicators that Obama took Bush's mess and changed the downward slide. That will become more evident as the election approaches.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/jobless_claims_reach_a_fouryea034847.php

"The general trend on initial unemployment claims over the last two months has been largely encouraging, though there have been setbacks. Last week, for example, was a step in the wrong direction.

This week’s report, however, was a very pleasant surprise. Initial claims not only dropped sharply, they fell to a level unseen in nearly four years.

The number of Americans who filed requests for jobless benefits sank by 52,000 last week to 352,000, the lowest level since April 2008, the U.S. Labor Department said Thursday. Claims from two weeks ago were revised up to 402,000 from 399,000. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had projected claims would fall to a seasonally adjusted 375,000 in the week ended Jan. 14. The average of new claims over the past four weeks, meanwhile, dropped by a much smaller 3,500 to 379,000.

In terms of metrics, keep in mind, when these jobless claims fall below the 400,000 threshold, it’s considered evidence of an improving jobs landscape. When the number drops below 370,000, it suggests jobs are actually being created rather quickly.

And with that, here’s the new homemade chart, showing weekly, initial unemployment claims going back to the beginning of 2007. (Remember, unlike the monthly jobs chart, a lower number is good news.) For context, I’ve added an arrow to show the point at which President Obama’s Recovery Act began spending money"

http://www.wamo-img.com/pa/120119_jobs.jpg

http://www.newsspoofs.com/inside-pages/large-images/george.jpg

[Tom]

What about the people who are not OFF unemployment?
And if the employment picture is so good, why are we now paying 99 weeks?
As Newt pointed out, that is an Associate's Degree.

[mostpost]

In another thread I mentioned that I have a family member that owns a staffing company employing over 2000 people and that if HCR passes it will most likely close it down. HCR is tantamount to a raise because it raises the cost per employee and the employee is also the product or good. If this company does not offer a health plan the employee becomes $2000 more expensive per year. If they do offer a plan and someone receives a subsidy they pay a $3000 penalty. Either way the employees get drastically more expensive.

Now lets assume the margin is $1.50 per hour. (Very Fair to Workers)

2080*1.50 = $3120 (Gross Profit Per Employee)

Thats a $6,240,000 Gross Top-Line.

If they go with the predictable path they don't offer a plan. (The $2000 HCR "raise" we'll call it. )

$6,240,000-(2000*$2000)=

$2,240,000 is their new gross topline before ANY other EXPENSE.

Before doing anything they have taken a 75% cut in operating funds by given their people a paltry $2000 more a year.


You don't actually say that this company is not currently offering healthcare to its employees, but you do say "If they go with the predictable path they don't offer a plan." That leads me to believe they do not. Since they are apparently not going to offer healthcare under the new plan, they face a fine of $2,000 for each employee. So far we agree.

But you categorize this as a raise for the employee. How? It's a fine paid to the government. Maybe it eventually gets back to some of the employees as a subsidy on their privately purchased insurance plans, but only if they qualify financially. So it is not a raise. It is an increase in the cost of doing business.

We have to ask why is this provision in the bill. The answer is very simple. Previously individuals were not required to carry health insurance. Those who had it usually got it through their employer. The new law contains a coverage mandate. But the authors of the law said to themselves, "We have this mandate for individuals, what is to prevent companies which now provide coverage from saying why should we provide Health Insurance when our employees have to get it anyway on their own. To prevent companies which had HI plans from dropping them and to encourage other companies to adopt them, the system of fines was established.

I do not know how much a private company typically spends per year on an employees health care. So I do not know how it compares to the $2000 fine.
However, it seems to me that if the purpose of the fine is to encourage companies to keep or initiate coverage, the amount of the fine should be equal to or greater than the cost of doing those things. So, why not provide coverage and be done with it.

I have a few qualms about your example.
You say: Now lets assume the margin is $1.50 per hour.
Why should I assume that. Contrary to opinion, I did not just work for the Post Office. I also worked for a millwork house. When we bid a job, we charged $40 an hour for labor. Our employees (non Union) worked for less than $20. On average. Plus benefits. At the very least we were profiting $10 an hour on labor.

I understand there were also materials involved but there was a separate mark up on that.

I think your $1.50 is very low.

You said:
If this company does not offer a health plan the employee becomes $2000 more expensive per year. If they do offer a plan and someone receives a subsidy they pay a $3000 penalty.

You should have included for each employee receiving a subsidy at the end. Otherwise it seems as if they are paying $3000 for every employee they have.
Also you should have pointed out that the fee does not kick in until after 30 employees have received a subsidy.

In order to give credence to your argument I have to accept that your $1.50 figure is accurate and you yourself say it is an assumption; I have to accept that a large number of the firms employees will require a subsidy, and I have to believe that your relative will shut down a firm that is making a minimum Gross Top line of $6,240,000. To do what? Work at Walmart? Start another company that will be subject to the same rules?
If he doesn't want to do it, someone else will. Businesses will always need staff.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Nice try.

I hope you are still posting here in a decade when you are the only one that hasn't distanced themselves entirely from this political hackjob legislation that not even the president himself wants to take credit for anymore unless he's in a room full of bootlickers like yourself.

[lsbets]

You say: Now lets assume the margin is $1.50 per hour.
Why should I assume that. Contrary to opinion, I did not just work for the Post Office. I also worked for a millwork house. When we bid a job, we charged $40 an hour for labor. Our employees (non Union) worked for less than $20. On average. Plus benefits. At the very least we were profiting $10 an hour on labor.

I understand there were also materials involved but there was a separate mark up on that.

I think your $1.50 is very low.


So how does that mean you know anything about the staffing business? Do you think companies pay them $40 an hour for staff?

I know you were very insistent on having us believe you were smart in one of your other posts. I don't think you are dumb, but you are definitely ignorant.

[elysiantraveller]

The point of this whole thing is that you can't afford to just arbitrarily afford to pay employees owners. I chose HCR because it is essentially the same thing and also shows you how HCR is terrible for small business.

You don't actually say that this company is not currently offering healthcare to its employees, but you do say "If they go with the predictable path they don't offer a plan." That leads me to believe they do not. Since they are apparently not going to offer healthcare under the new plan, they face a fine of $2,000 for each employee. So far we agree.

They do offer a plan.

But you categorize this as a raise for the employee. How? It's a fine paid to the government. Maybe it eventually gets back to some of the employees as a subsidy on their privately purchased insurance plans, but only if they qualify financially. So it is not a raise. It is an increase in the cost of doing business.

It would be no different than paying each one $2000 more AND it lets me point out how HCR is bad for business.

We have to ask why is this provision in the bill. The answer is very simple. Previously individuals were not required to carry health insurance. Those who had it usually got it through their employer. The new law contains a coverage mandate. But the authors of the law said to themselves, "We have this mandate for individuals, what is to prevent companies which now provide coverage from saying why should we provide Health Insurance when our employees have to get it anyway on their own. To prevent companies which had HI plans from dropping them and to encourage other companies to adopt them, the system of fines was established.

And I'm showing you the system of fines is terrible for the small staffing company... enough to put them out of business.

I do not know how much a private company typically spends per year on an employees health care. So I do not know how it compares to the $2000 fine.
However, it seems to me that if the purpose of the fine is to encourage companies to keep or initiate coverage, the amount of the fine should be equal to or greater than the cost of doing those things. So, why not provide coverage and be done with it.

The cost is less and is tax-deductible. The problem is the second post where I highlight the problems of offering a plan that people don't take. You can at least budget the $2000 you can't the other.


I have a few qualms about your example.
You say: Now lets assume the margin is $1.50 per hour.
Why should I assume that. Contrary to opinion, I did not just work for the Post Office. I also worked for a millwork house. When we bid a job, we charged $40 an hour for labor. Our employees (non Union) worked for less than $20. On average. Plus benefits. At the very least we were profiting $10 an hour on labor.

I understand there were also materials involved but there was a separate mark up on that.

I think your $1.50 is very low.

Then you would be wrong. $1.50 is the average. These aren't skilled positions or Union negotiated these are jobs that pay $10-15 an hour.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

You said:
If this company does not offer a health plan the employee becomes $2000 more expensive per year. If they do offer a plan and someone receives a subsidy they pay a $3000 penalty.

You should have included for each employee receiving a subsidy at the end. Otherwise it seems as if they are paying $3000 for every employee they have.
Also you should have pointed out that the fee does not kick in until after 30 employees have received a subsidy.

In order to give credence to your argument I have to accept that your $1.50 figure is accurate and you yourself say it is an assumption; I have to accept that a large number of the firms employees will require a subsidy, and I have to believe that your relative will shut down a firm that is making a minimum Gross Top line of $6,240,000. To do what? Work at Walmart? Start another company that will be subject to the same rules?
If he doesn't want to do it, someone else will. Businesses will always need staff.

You quips at being clever aren't really sitting all that well with me.

Do the math:

30/2000= 1.5%

If 1.5% of their workforce doesn't enroll they pay penalty.

Here is a little info for you as well bub with your condescending Wal-Mart quip. A company cannot survive when employees or the government take away 75% of their profits. They simply can't do it.

Secondly, this relative of mine in 2008 went the whole year without taking a paycheck all the while leveraging their house, life insurance, and investments to give the company the capital to stay afloat during the down time.

Thats 2000+ jobs they saved... how many have you?!?

They saved them... not Obama, not the federal government, they did it...

Please stop talking... you are embarrassing yourself.

[elysiantraveller]

I forgot to mention these penalties are not tax deductible.

HCR is awful for small business.

[lsbets]

Here is a little info for you as well bub with your condescending Wal-Mart quip. A company cannot survive when employees or the government take away 75% of their profits. They simply can't do it.

Secondly, this relative of mine in 2008 went the whole year without taking a paycheck all the while leveraging their house, life insurance, and investments to give the company the capital to stay afloat during the down time.

Thats 2000+ jobs they saved... how many have you?!?

They saved them... not Obama, not the federal government, they did it...

Please stop talking... you are embarrassing yourself.

Those profits are theirs and rightfully belong to them. Mosty seems to believe that business owners were born rich and are in only in business to exploit their workers.

I remember back in 08 when the price of gas went through the roof starting in winter. By spring we took a major hit on our revenue, and I was looking at not being able to make payroll. I put my truck on craigslist and sold it (for less than what it was worth), so I could get everyone paid on Friday. Didn't tell anyone what I did or why, but did what I needed to so we could get things stabilized and turned around.

Whatever profits I earned were mine - no one else took the risk of total ruin if I failed, and no one else was entitled to take my profits in the name of "fairness".

[boxcar]

Whatever profits I earned were mine - no one else took the risk of total ruin if I failed, and no one else was entitled to take my profits in the name of "fairness".

And anyone who believes employees are entitled to the risk-taker's profits is in his heart of hearts a Marxist, whether that person wants to admit to this or not.

Boxcar

[badcompany]

And anyone who believes employees are entitled to the risk-taker's profits is in his heart of hearts a Marxist, whether that person wants to admit to this or not.

Boxcar

I don't call him a Marxist for kicks, but because he continually expouses Marxist ideology: the labor theory of value, capitalists as exploiters, government telling business what to pay their employees.

All of his "recommendations" to make capitalism work better are really a self-fulfilling prophecy for the premise that capitalism doesn't work.

When you want a business owner to give all the profits to the help, you prevent that business from reinvesting, growing and hiring more workers.

Of course, the socialist retort is that if workers have more money they'll spend more. However, if there's no growth, there's nothing to spend the money on.

[mostpost]

Thats the real kicker of the whole thing. They currently DO offer a plan but if they continue to do so after HCR they can't project costs.
I don't see why not. Some of the assumptions in bold below don't seem to hold water.

If anyone doesn't enroll in their insurance plan they pay a $3000 penalty.
"Okay... "
Show me where it says this in the law. Chapter and verse.
Sec. 1511 says.
‘‘In accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary,
an employer to which this Act applies that has more than 200
full-time employees and that offers employees enrollment in 1 or
more health benefits plans shall automatically enroll new fulltime
employees in one of the plans offered (subject to any waiting
period authorized by law) and to continue the enrollment of current
employees in a health benefits plan offered through the employer.
Any automatic enrollment program shall include adequate notice
and the opportunity for an employee to opt out of any coverage
the individual or employee were automatically enrolled in
So if the employee has the option to opt out of a plan, how can you fine
the employer? Offering the plan is the key. Offering a plan that meets the criteria.
If they take their spouses plan they pay a penalty.
"Well... Okay..."
So you are trying to tell me that if your company offers a qualifying health care plan and one of your employees decides not to participate because a spouses plan is better you will be fined. Why would you be fined when an employee has the right under section 1511 to opt out for no reason and here there is a good reason. The purpose of the fines is to get as close as possible to universal coverage. In this case the person is covered. Why would it make any difference where. Again show where this is stated in the bill.

If they receive a subsidy they pay a penalty.
"Bummer..."
They do pay a penalty. The question is how do they determine who receives a subsidy and would any of your employees be eligible. I have no idea of the answer. But I can't see why a human resources department would not have someone who could figure it out.

If their plan is above the median rate on the available exchange they pay a penalty.
"D@mn... do I need to hire someone to keep track of this?..."
If you are going to hire some one just to keep track of this, I think you are overspecializing. At its most complicated it would seem to require taking the various rates on the exchange, determining the median and seeing how your rates compare. Am I wrong that a spreadsheet could do that.

That changes monthly.
"... I guess I do..."
No you don't

We aren't sure what those penalties are.
"...well.. eff it..."

You're not sure because you have not tried to find out and you still have two years to do so.

[elysiantraveller]

You're not sure because you have not tried to find out and you still have two years to do so.

What you posted has nothing to do with penalties just tells people they can opt out.

"So if the employee has the option to opt out of a plan, how can you fine
the employer? Offering the plan is the key. Offering a plan that meets the criteria."

That is where you are wrong and why its bad legislation. They are penalized for people opting out and the penalties are not tax deductible.

Employee Penalties (http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benefits/Documents/EmployerPenalties.pdf)

See scenario D.

You really have no idea how this legislation works do you?

Mosty you are so far in over your head here its hilarious. Please stop being so ignorant as to think you can easily solve a problem that thousands of businesses are dealing with.

Also you completely ignored the orginial point of my post that if your just arbitrarily give employees raises it in fact can drive you out of business. I showed you how a small $2000 a year raise per employee could in fact shut a successful business down overnight.

[lsbets]

mosty owned by elysian

[fast4522]

Shit getting deep here!

[newtothegame]

What thread are you talking about? I never lie, but on "rare" occasions I am wrong and unlike some people I admit to it when I am. I am not perfect as my long list of reloads for the last year at twinspires will attest.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1216999&postcount=176

[mostpost]

If anyone doesn't enroll in their insurance plan they pay a $3000 penalty.
From your link on the CRS.
As previously mentioned, employers who do offer health coverage will not be treated as meeting
the employer requirements if at least one full-time employee obtains a premium credit in an
exchange plan because, in addition to meeting the other eligibility criteria for credits, the
employee’s required contribution for self-only coverage exceeds 9.5% of the employee’s
household income or if the plan offered by the employer pays for less than 60% of covered
expenses. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), about 1 million individuals per
year will enroll in an exchange plan and receive a credit because their employer’s plan was unaffordable

Merely having an employee opt out and obtain coverage elsewhere does not trigger the penalty. Either the employee has to pay more than 9.5% of his income for the new insurance, or the plan offered by the employer has to pay for less than 60% of covered expenses,

I'm not going to look it up, but my memory tells me that good insurance pays 80% plus on almost everything. So 60% is not a high bar to clear. The purpose of the penalty is to prevent the employer from offering crap insurance to satisfy the rules on providing insurance to employees. All you have to do is offer a minimally decent plan and be sure the employee premium does not exceed 9.5% of his household income.

The above applies to employers who are offering coverage. If you are not going to offer coverage, pay the fine.

We are never going to agree on this because you are focused on the cost to the companies, while I am concerned about the benefits to the workers and the availability of health insurance.

[badcompany]

From your link on the CRS.


Merely having an employee opt out and obtain coverage elsewhere does not trigger the penalty. Either the employee has to pay more than 9.5% of his income for the new insurance, or the plan offered by the employer has to pay for less than 60% of covered expenses,

I'm not going to look it up, but my memory tells me that good insurance pays 80% plus on almost everything. So 60% is not a high bar to clear. The purpose of the penalty is to prevent the employer from offering crap insurance to satisfy the rules on providing insurance to employees. All you have to do is offer a minimally decent plan and be sure the employee premium does not exceed 9.5% of his household income.

The above applies to employers who are offering coverage. If you are not going to offer coverage, pay the fine.

We are never going to agree on this because you are focused on the cost to the companies, while I am concerned about the benefits to the workers and the availability of health insurance.

QiZdY9rw-uo

[mostpost]

Miscellaneous comments.
Tom: We have the labor laws we do because people fought for them. Any law can be repealed and we could be right back to child labor and sweat shops. They are already trying to take away rights won in the Civil Rights battles.

lsbets: I don't think that all business owners are born rich nor that they exist to exploit their workers. I think the bigger a business is the more likely it will treat its workers unfairly. I think it is the natural tendency of an employer to think he can't afford something when he actually can. I have seen too many times where an employer has said he cannot give a raise or provide a benefit. Then after a long struggle he does and continues in business as good or better than before.

ET: You insist on calling a fine paid to the government, a raise for an employee. It is not!!

ET or maybe Greyfox: I say legitimate raise and you say arbitrary raise and think it is the same thing. It's not. It's the opposite and changes completely the meaning of what I was saying.

Badcompany: Labor has value. Labor changes the value of the things it works on. I think Marx said labor provided all the value to an item. If you think I subscribe to that you are goofy.
Capitalism does exploit workers. History shows that, but you turn a blind eye. Communism exploits workers and you see that all too clearly. Workers will always be exploited unless they are strong, They can only be strong thru unity.
Wages should not be dictated by government. Wages should not be dictated by business. Wages should not be dictated by labor. Wages should be determined by negotiation between labor and business with government ensuring a level playing field.

[newtothegame]

Miscellaneous comments.
Tom: We have the labor laws we do because people fought for them. Any law can be repealed and we could be right back to child labor and sweat shops. They are already trying to take away rights won in the Civil Rights battles.

lsbets: I don't think that all business owners are born rich nor that they exist to exploit their workers. I think the bigger a business is the more likely it will treat its workers unfairly. I think it is the natural tendency of an employer to think he can't afford something when he actually can. I have seen too many times where an employer has said he cannot give a raise or provide a benefit. Then after a long struggle he does and continues in business as good or better than before.

ET: You insist on calling a fine paid to the government, a raise for an employee. It is not!!

ET or maybe Greyfox: I say legitimate raise and you say arbitrary raise and think it is the same thing. It's not. It's the opposite and changes completely the meaning of what I was saying.

Badcompany: Labor has value. Labor changes the value of the things it works on. I think Marx said labor provided all the value to an item. If you think I subscribe to that you are goofy.
Capitalism does exploit workers. History shows that, but you turn a blind eye. Communism exploits workers and you see that all too clearly. Workers will always be exploited unless they are strong, They can only be strong thru unity.
Wages should not be dictated by government. Wages should not be dictated by business. Wages should not be dictated by labor. Wages should be determined by negotiation between labor and business with government ensuring a level playing field.

Mosty....what do you think happens in a job interview setting during a job offer? Do you think somehow that we all sit around and sing kumbaya (sp) with the porspective employee?
It is a negotiation between labor (the prospective employee) and the business (management).
See the problem is you don't like that setting...you would rather have several hundred or thousands outside the offices picketing and chanting for your negotiating end of the bargain.
Let me tell you why I feel big labor is a problem...first off not all people work and put out from a productive standpoint the same. Would you agree that all workers are NOT the same? If so, why should all of them be paid the same?
Do you not see that the more productive workers get screwed in that setting and the less productive reap the benefits?

Next, for me personally, I have never gotten with the whole seniority program. In the Unions I have had dealing with (both in and out), seniority was EVERYTHING. We would have younger employees (like myself) who always got the sh!t jobs becauase some "old head" would come along, use his seniority and bump us off of a job mere hours before we were to report to work. Sometimes with only two hours notice (as that was the minimum time allowed) and we could not place ourselves on another job in time. Yeah that was real comradere there ...stand united right!! :bang:

Then, the absolute sickening rules that were in place to protect the WORTHLESS P.O.S that were out there are sickening. There is no "fair" practices when it comes to unions (or at least the ones I have had experiences with. It would up in a lot of caes where those of us who busted our azzes wound up carrying the load of those who didn't. Sure we could of all "laid down" on the job, but ultimately we would all be taken to disciplinary action. So what's the point? Now I know you will come back and say "that's not all workers"...and I say B.S. It is a majority!
We have posted video after video exposing the corruption and poor performance of union workers time after time. From GM to the USPS, the the RR's..to the air traffic controllers....you name it, they are all there!
Why do unions continue to protect those lazy sob's?
Here, I will tell you why in ONE word! DUES!
It's all about the money with unions. If unions weren't so anti-business, I really could see an environment where business and organized labor could get along. Problem is unions for the most part are out to get EVERY penny from business as it is "owed to labor".
It is unions who are forcing the hands of these states who are moving to take away collective bargaining. When states are so strapped for cash and running huge deficits, do you not realize NOBODY wins??
Amazing how you are staying away from the other thread where fireman and cops are losing there jobs left and right...BUT ITS OK UNIONS won their fight right???
You will never get it...you don't want to see reality.:bang:

[badcompany]

Badcompany: Labor has value. Labor changes the value of the things it works on.


Labor CAN have value, but there's nothing inherent in labor that gives anything value. Many have busted their arses on things that have turned out to be worthless.


Capitalism does exploit workers. History shows that, but you turn a blind eye. Communism exploits workers and you see that all too clearly. Workers will always be exploited unless they are strong, They can only be strong thru unity.


A worker's greatest strength is his ability to go somewhere else, to tell his boss to take his job and shove it. That comes from developing marketable skills. Artificially high wages will just result in less demand. There's a reason unions tend to drive businesses into the ground.


Wages should not be dictated by government. Wages should not be dictated by business. Wages should not be dictated by labor. Wages should be determined by negotiation between labor and business with government ensuring a level playing field.

Wages are determined by marginal productivity (productivity above cost), the higher it is, the higher the wages. There's a reason a guy with a snow blower can make more than a guy with a snow shovel, regardless of how much the guy with the snow shovel negotiates..

[newtothegame]

Just in case youre curious, here is the other thread mosty.....(as I am sure you would say you couldnt find it...) lol
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1220572&postcount=153

[hcap]

http://news.yahoo.com/existing-home-sales-hit-11-month-high-december-150459429.html

Home sales hit an 11-month high in December and the number of properties on the market was the fewest in nearly seven years, pointing to a nascent recovery in the housing sector.

http://www.newsspoofs.com/inside-pages/large-images/george.jpg

[elysiantraveller]

We are never going to agree on this because you are focused on the cost to the companies, while I am concerned about the benefits to the workers and the availability of health insurance.

:bang:

Okay let me explain this to you real succintly.

1) The employees already have health insurance available to them.

2) Wages at staffing companies are low... many jobs are trial hire for manufacturers and unions but they start low work for 6 months to a year and get hired, virtually all will receive a credit.

3) HCR would result in all those 2000 people not having a job.

Having your ideals is great but the numbers simply don't support your agenda. It can't be done.

Hence why its bad legislation. I am giving you a PROOF POSITIVE example of how HCR puts people out of work.

[Tom]

Tom: We have the labor laws we do because people fought for them. Any law can be repealed and we could be right back to child labor and sweat shops. They are already trying to take away rights won in the Civil Rights battles.

Who are "they?"
Your boy Obama and your democratic senate? :lol:
You think a union will stop what you describe? :lol:

This thread is one of the best ever, thanks to YOU!
Colbert, move over........heeeeeeeeer's MOSTIE!

[elysiantraveller]

ET: You insist on calling a fine paid to the government, a raise for an employee. It is not!!

Its actually the exact same thing if it raises the the amount of money the employee costs the business. They get more expensive.

ET or maybe Greyfox: I say legitimate raise and you say arbitrary raise and think it is the same thing. It's not. It's the opposite and changes completely the meaning of what I was saying.

The problem is the employer not the employee is the one to determine a legitimate raise.

Like I said earlier if a small to mid-size staffing company in a manufacturing area gave each employee a $2000 raise to boost their already low wage of $10-15 an hour they couldn't survive.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Its actually the exact same thing if it raises the the amount of money the employee costs the business. They get more expensive.
...

This is what I never get about those going out of their way to triumph this bill as some great savior for the little guy. Effectively, the bill has one of two inevitable consequences - lowering employment or lowering average wage - two things that guys like Mostpost use as the lynchpin to their diatribes about evil, greedy business.

In their world, you can not only pay more per employee for health care, but pay them the same wage/salary, or ideally, raise that wage/salary and if it ruins the business, it's either a poorly run business or it's so what for the business.

If it becomes a lower wage/salary to maintain a margin that allows the business to continue, then you have effectively taken "stimulating money" from what Mosite considers the "spending class" in this country (since the wealthy simply horde cash and don't spend). If you want to pretend that you know what is best for someone to do with their money or their life, then I guess it's just no problem for you.

You should have health insurance (not health care) first and foremost, and then when having that external mandate negatively affects the rest of your quality of life and limits your choices in life, then we'll find a scapegoat for that unintended consequence and legislate a new "solution".

I really can't begin to fathom how this idiocy gets defended unless you just like to naively pretend that the "good intent" behind the concept of universal coverage somehow counterbalances the total insanity behind the actual implementation.

[cj's dad]

I was going to delete this, but since mosty saw it before I could delete it,I guess I have to let it stay...but it was definitely uncalled for in terms of the language used.

Oh my ! How dare I insult the most tolerant poster here. You know, the one who constantly insults and belittles folks. I am deeply sorry and apologize for my adolescent behavior.

[badcompany]

Oh my ! How dare I insult the most tolerant poster here. You know, the one who constantly insults and belittles folks. I am deeply sorry and apologize for my adolescent behavior.

This might give you a better understand of the "Legend in his own mind" that is Mostpost.

gku_xU2BXBs

[badcompany]

If it becomes a lower wage/salary to maintain a margin that allows the business to continue, then you have effectively taken "stimulating money" from what Mosite considers the "spending class" in this country (since the wealthy simply horde cash and don't spend).

You have to wonder how "big business" got big in the first place, if they don't spend.

I guess the Mosties don't count spending on capital goods, you know, trucks, factories, equipment, the kind of things that allow businesses to expand and hire more people.

The reality is that the Mosties and the Elizabeth Warren's of the world hate business, and consciously or subconsciously want to kill it.

[mostpost]

[/b]

Mosty....what do you think happens in a job interview setting during a job offer? Do you think somehow that we all sit around and sing kumbaya (sp) with the porspective employee?
It is a negotiation between labor (the prospective employee) and the business (management).
In an interview for an upper level position (supervisor, manager Etc.) the prospective employee has leverage in negotiating for the position. In an interview for an entry level job or near entry level job, it is pretty much take it or leave it.
See the problem is you don't like that setting...you would rather have several hundred or thousands outside the offices picketing and chanting for your negotiating end of the bargain.
Unions negotiate with management from a position of strength, but management also has strength. If a prospective employee has strengths that he thinks are not compensated for, then he is probably seeking the wrong job.
He should be setting his sights higher.
Let me tell you why I feel big labor is a problem...first off not all people work and put out from a productive standpoint the same. Would you agree that all workers are NOT the same? If so, why should all of them be paid the same?
Do you not see that the more productive workers get screwed in that setting and the less productive reap the benefits?
In an assembly line setting, doing your particular job better or faster does not benefit the company. It just gives you more down time. Of course one would hope this would be noticed and lead to a better job with higher pay. That is where your reward would come.

Next, for me personally, I have never gotten with the whole seniority program. In the Unions I have had dealing with (both in and out), seniority was EVERYTHING. We would have younger employees (like myself) who always got the sh!t jobs becauase some "old head" would come along, use his seniority and bump us off of a job mere hours before we were to report to work. Sometimes with only two hours notice (as that was the minimum time allowed) and we could not place ourselves on another job in time. Yeah that was real comradere there ...stand united right!! :bang:
Seniority is a company's reward to an employee for what he has done for them in the past. Young workers never like seniority until they become senior themselves.
As for your personal experience; If a senior worker is assigned to a job or project and that job or project is postponed for whatever reason, their status entitles them to bump you from your job.

Then, the absolute sickening rules that were in place to protect the WORTHLESS P.O.S that were out there are sickening. There is no "fair" practices when it comes to unions (or at least the ones I have had experiences with. It would up in a lot of caes where those of us who busted our azzes wound up carrying the load of those who didn't. Sure we could of all "laid down" on the job, but ultimately we would all be taken to disciplinary action. So what's the point? Now I know you will come back and say "that's not all workers"...and I say B.S. It is a majority!
So you are saying that if you laid down on the job you would be punished, but if others did it they would not. Is this because in the latter case you would compensate for the slackers by working extra hard and no one in management realized that the slackers were slackers.
You say that the union let them get away with it. We had slackers at the PO too. We complained about them, but management rarely did anything. Why? Because the work was getting done by the rest of us and as long as the work was getting done, they did not care who did it. Had nothing to do with the union protecting them.
We have posted video after video exposing the corruption and poor performance of union workers time after time. From GM to the USPS, the the RR's..to the air traffic controllers....you name it, they are all there!
Why do unions continue to protect those lazy sob's?
I don't have time now but later I will post studies that prove that union workers are more efficient than non union workers. Not isolated videos, but long term studies.
Here, I will tell you why in ONE word! DUES!
Typically your average statewide union official makes high five or low six figures. National officials as high as $750,000. There are thousands of private business executives who make $1M up to $100M. Any union official could do much better as a business executive.
It's all about the money with unions. If unions weren't so anti-business, I really could see an environment where business and organized labor could get along. Problem is unions for the most part are out to get EVERY penny from business as it is "owed to labor".
It is unions who are forcing the hands of these states who are moving to take away collective bargaining. When states are so strapped for cash and running huge deficits, do you not realize NOBODY wins??
Amazing how you are staying away from the other thread where fireman and cops are losing there jobs left and right...BUT ITS OK UNIONS won their fight right???
You will never get it...you don't want to see reality.:bang:
Unions have given many concessions in negotiations with cities and states. No matter how many concessions they give they are expected to give more.
At the local high school last year there was a referendum asking for an increase in the property tax rate. It would have cost a homeowner about $50 per $100,000 assessed valuation. Typical home in the area is probably in the $250K to $400K ranges.

The teachers at Riverside Brookfield (all union) said "If you pass the referendum, we will forego our raises in the current contract. (Two more years, maybe three." )

The referendum failed 75-25.
The teachers said "We will forego our raises anyway, because we know the district is in bad shape"
Damn those self centered, inconsiderate unions. :rolleyes:

[HUSKER55]

I watched 60 Minutes a while back and I believe it was GE who is now building locomotives in Venzuela and shipping them back to the USA. You got your union and Venzuela got the jobs.

[Robert Goren]

I watched 60 Minutes a while back and I believe it was GE who is now building locomotives in Venzuela and shipping them back to the USA. You got your union and Venzuela got the jobs. Why in the world would a company like GE risk doing business with Hugo Chavez? If they are that dumb then they deserve to have their factory nationalized, which he, undoubtedly, will do.

[Tom]

Chavez has more integrity than Obama - better to deal with reputable thugs than loose cannons.

[HUSKER55]

Robert, they made their decision and I am sure your point was taken into consideration. At least I would like to think they considered the political stability when they made that move.

The key is that no big business has to build their products in the USA to do business in the USA.

Remember awhile back when the military awarded a contract to France for an air tanker instead of Boeing? (few years back)

All you are going to hear is a giant sucking sound as jobs leave the USA.

Unions don't understand they have to compete globably.

Remember back to the mid '70's early '80's when Dayco had plants in Colorado and Nebraska. The unions came in and the plants were bulldozed down and the work was shipped to another plant?

That also happened in the meat packing industry. If memory serves the plant was in your neck of the woods.

Like I said, You got your unions and somebody else has your jobs.

[Robert Goren]

Robert, they made their decision and I am sure your point was taken into consideration. At least I would like to think they considered the political stability when they made that move.

The key is that no big business has to build their products in the USA to do business in the USA.

Remember awhile back when the military awarded a contract to France for an air tanker instead of Boeing? (few years back)

All you are going to hear is a giant sucking sound as jobs leave the USA.

Unions don't understand they have to compete globably.

Remember back to the mid '70's early '80's when Dayco had plants in Colorado and Nebraska. The unions came in and the plants were bulldozed down and the work was shipped to another plant?

That also happened in the meat packing industry. If memory serves the plant was in your neck of the woods.

Like I said, You got your unions and somebody else has your jobs.The Meat packers busted their unions and now hire immigrants (some of which are illegal). The result is a lot less safe product. E.Coli in meat products was unheard of when there were unions at the packing plants. Now days hardly a month doesn't go by that there isn't a recall somewhere. They have become so common that don't even make the national news anymore.
As for the plant in my neck of woods. It is still open although it has gone through several different owners since its then owners decide to bust the union. I want to personal thank them for bringing in all the illegal immigrants (and their crime) that work there now to replace the honest hard working people who use to work there. We have had to build two new jails since that the union was replaced with its current work force. That is the thing that the union busters don't want to talk about. The riff raff that comes to take the place of the union workers and the costs to local government that have deal with them, every thing from larger jails to special classes in the schools to deal with kids whose parents don't speak a word of English in their homes to the added medical costs of people who don't have insurance. As if this country doesn't have enough problems, we bring in a bunch more just to save 50 cents off the price of a pound of hambuger.

[PaceAdvantage]

Oh my ! How dare I insult the most tolerant poster here. You know, the one who constantly insults and belittles folks. I am deeply sorry and apologize for my adolescent behavior.Mosty constantly insults and belittles folks? Funny, I don't get that...

In fact, I dare say he is insulted and belittled way more than he himself insults or belittles.

I really don't recall him ever insulting or belittling someone PERSONALLY. He may insult large GROUPS (like conservatives for instance), but I don't recall him singling someone out and trashing their former occupation, like many here have done to him about his former job in the USPS...

Just sayin'...fair is fair, and I have to call them as I see them.

If I am gravely mistaken (and I just may very well be), please feel free to link to a post where he insults and belittles a member of this board completely unprovoked.

[lamboguy]

there is no way a person can assume that tomorrow is going to be the same as today.

kids today go to college and don't have jobs. so what the government has done is create jobs that means that the government is taking money away from one group and giving it to another. that simply doesn't work. this is what has been happening now with 2 presidents.

this has already lead to protests, riots and street demonstrations throughout the world. this is the first sign of big problems to come. these people are blaming the rich for their problems.

this is due to lack of stability in our economy these days. i know i sound like a broken record, but when bush took office one ounce of gold bought you $250 of united states currency. by the time he left office it was $1250, now its $1650. this instability tells the whole story

i have no idea how this will all play out going forward, what i never liked about bush was that he had choices to make and he chose to bail out the banks and destroy our currency and neglect the needs of the people that he governed.

going forward, this country needs a leader that will govern from the bottom up instead of the top down which our last 2 presidents have done. what i am positive about is that you are not going to achieve a different direction from obama because he has proven already to be the same as the last leader. therefore you need someone new and more forthright and understanding of the challenges in front of him

[HUSKER55]

Good point Lamboguy, but what will it take to make people wake up? Sarah tried and got crucified and stabbed in the back by McCain.

I am not sure anymore if it makes a big difference who is elected. One snake is starting to look just like another snake. It seems like everytime I vote it is a question of which snake do I want to bite me in the ass.

America is not going to make it if we keep electing people from the same pit.

So,..who do we vote for to start? Considering the current pool I don't see alot of difference.

[lamboguy]

when you belong to the human race you are prone to make more bad decisions than good ones. the ones that tend to make the good decisions should be the ones that lead us. these days there still are real good ones, but they have chosen to make their impact in this world through other directions like high tech guru's, or science's, or great business manager's. the politics have become so rough that the one that are capable of making great decision's have been scared away from the politics.

you really never know how great the soldier is until the live ammunition starts firing. this is what we have in politics, there are no practice rounds, and when they step in they get fired at from all directions.

[delayjf]

As for the plant in my neck of woods. It is still open although it has gone through several different owners since its then owners decide to bust the union. I want to personal thank them for bringing in all the illegal immigrants (and their crime)

Simple solution - enforce immigration laws and fine the hell out of violating employers and the BS will stop.

[Robert Goren]

Simple solution - enforce immigration laws and fine the hell out of violating employers and the BS will stop.You are not going to get argument from on that. Although I think some jail time is needed for those employers. They will just consider fines a business expense. No president has enforced our immigrations laws in very long time. Hell, Reagan even gave them amnesty while saying that it solve our immigration problem. Of course, he couldn't been more wrong, it only encouraged more of them to come.

[badcompany]

I really don't recall him ever insulting or belittling someone PERSONALLY. He may insult large GROUPS (like conservatives for instance), but I don't recall him singling someone out and trashing their former occupation, like many here have done to him about his former job in the USPS...


It's not his former job. It's that he continually professes to know how much a business should pay its employees (more) and how many benefits they should offer (more), when he, himself, worked for a government monopoly that doesn't have to adhere to economic law, as evidenced by the fact that the Post Office is once again raising the price of stamps even though demand for this product is steadily decreasing. Under these conditions, a normal business would have a sale.

Why is it out of line to ask a guy who's such a business expert why he didn't start one, himself, and show us all how it's done?

[windoor]

Good point Lamboguy, but what will it take to make people wake up? Sarah tried and got crucified and stabbed in the back by McCain.

I am not sure anymore if it makes a big difference who is elected. One snake is starting to look just like another snake. It seems like everytime I vote it is a question of which snake do I want to bite me in the ass.

America is not going to make it if we keep electing people from the same pit.

So,..who do we vote for to start? Considering the current pool I don't see alot of difference.


Look closer. Look at voting records.

Can you not find one that defends the constitution?

I have, but sadly it will probably not come to pass.

Too many sheep, too much hate between parties, too much greed and corruption.

Windoor

[chickenhead]

On health insurance we need to eliminate the employer provided insurance tax deduction and move it over to the employee side. It has no business being on the employer side, its a weird side effect left over from when we had wage controls that prevented raises from taking place during WWII. It's a strange little piece of legacy that makes no sense, that causes people with insurance to overpay for overinsurance, that punishes self employed people, punishes people when they change jobs, punishes people who are temporarily unemployed -- and really has no rational justification as to why its a good idea.

I differ from a lot of people here in that I have no real problem with a mandate of some sort, I understand all the concerns but I don't really care, with one caveat -- that the mandate cannot mandate *overinsurance*. But a mandate for at minimum some very basic low cost high deductable insurance? It would have desirable consequences.

[PaceAdvantage]

Why is it out of line to ask a guy who's such a business expert why he didn't start one, himself, and show us all how it's done?Who said THAT was out of line? Did you even read the exchange? It sounds like you didn't...obviously, my comments weren't about asking mostie why he didn't start a business... :rolleyes: Hey Mostie- F--K you big time. I am not typically wrong. You are a bigoted lib living in a world which dictates that everything that requires a person to be accountable for their actions is somehow wrong. I'm sorry for you that you have lived off of the Govmn'ts tit for all of your life. Try making it in the free market. By the way- F--k you again, you condescending ba--ard!Telling someone to "F**K YOU" twice just because they say you are typically wrong? That's way out of line. That's what I was talking about...then insulting his job once again...has mostie ever insulted cj's dad's job? I don't think so...

[mostpost]

Who said THAT was out of line? Did you even read the exchange? It sounds like you didn't...obviously, my comments weren't about asking mostie why he didn't start a business... :rolleyes: Telling someone to "F**K YOU" twice just because they say you are typically wrong? That's way out of line. That's what I was talking about...then insulting his job once again...has mostie ever insulted cj's dad's job? I don't think so...

I used the phrase "Typically wrong" because he said non union shops "Typically" paid the same as union. I often use words of the OP to frame my replies.

I may sometimes say something like, "You can't be that dumb," I think of that as defending the person from someone who might think the person is dumb.......Don't you? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Robert Goren]

On health insurance we need to eliminate the employer provided insurance tax deduction and move it over to the employee side. It has no business being on the employer side, its a weird side effect left over from when we had wage controls that prevented raises from taking place during WWII. It's a strange little piece of legacy that makes no sense, that causes people with insurance to overpay for overinsurance, that punishes self employed people, punishes people when they change jobs, punishes people who are temporarily unemployed -- and really has no rational justification as to why its a good idea.

I differ from a lot of people here in that I have no real problem with a mandate of some sort, I understand all the concerns but I don't really care, with one caveat -- that the mandate cannot mandate *overinsurance*. But a mandate for at minimum some very basic low cost high deductable insurance? It would have desirable consequences.Their is no such animal as "over insurance". There is lot of under insurance out there and there over priced insurance. Then there is insurance which give a card that say you have insurance even though it doesn't pay for anything. If your insurance can't handle a week in the hospital and related doctor and tests without eating away at be portion of retirement or forcing you into bankruptcy then you are under insured. Somebody else is going to end up eating your medical bills because you are too cheap to get good insurance. That assumes that the insurance company will actual pay what the policy says they will. As I found out the hard way that is not always the case.
Exactly how high a deductable do you think is reasonable? Remember that during the time that you are using the insurance you probably are go to have little or no income. 2 months take home pay? A months? 2weeks? Not very many people can afford missing 2 weeks of work and having to pay an insurance deductable for the same amount. Also remember you are going to have drug costs too that aren't going paid for fully or maybe not at all. missing a month of work combined with a month's take home pays of medical bills plus some drug costs is going to send most people into bankruptcy. Something like a heart attack will break most people without very good insurance.
I first came down with Crohn's, the doctor wanted to put me on Remicade. They checked my insurance and told me I would have to pay for the first 3 months of treatment and the insurance would pick up the rest each year. That S10k in job that paid $26k before taxes. So went a steriod with a ton of side effects and didn't work all that well anyway. As long as I was able to work I was in that boat. When my health got so bad I could no longer work, I was able to get it for nothing from company until I got on SS disablity. As long as I was working It was either pay the 10k which I could not evern close to affording or go without. How screwed up is that? I blame the steriod for a lot of whats wrong with me now. I might still be working if I could have got the Remicade from the start.

[mostpost]

It's not his former job. It's that he continually professes to know how much a business should pay its employees (more) and how many benefits they should offer (more), when he, himself, worked for a government monopoly that doesn't have to adhere to economic law, as evidenced by the fact that the Post Office is once again raising the price of stamps even though demand for this product is steadily decreasing. Under these conditions, a normal business would have a sale.

Why is it out of line to ask a guy who's such a business expert why he didn't start one, himself, and show us all how it's done?

Several inaccuracies here. I do not know what a business should pay its employees. I think that decision should not be the exclusive decision of the business. The employee has a stake and his input should be considered. Otherwise, what is to prevent the employer from paying whatever he likes? Not the free market; the free market only applies when there are sufficient jobs available for that position in that market.

As for the Post Office, even at 45 cents a US stamp is one of the best bargains in the world. The problems of the post office are partly self inflicted, partly the result of uncontrollable technology changes and a lot the result of a concerted effort to destroy it.

And I did not start a business of my own, because I had no desire to start a business. That neither makes me better nor worse than anyone else. And your decision does not make you better.

[PaceAdvantage]

Several inaccuracies here. I do not know what a business should pay its employees. I think that decision should not be the exclusive decision of the business. The employee has a stake and his input should be considered. Otherwise, what is to prevent the employer from paying whatever he likes? Not the free market; the free market only applies when there are sufficient jobs available for that position in that market.The free market ALWAYS prevents the employer from paying whatever they'd like. ALWAYS.

There are ALWAYS alternatives that exist out there for the employee to seek out if he or she feels they can do better someplace else. THAT is what prevents the employer from paying whatever they'd like.

[chickenhead]

Their is no such animal as "over insurance".

of course there is.

Exactly how high a deductable do you think is reasonable? Remember that during the time that you are using the insurance you probably are go to have little or no income.

My deductible is around $3K or something. That is not a terribly high number, it's 3x what my auto insurance deductible is. I cost a lot more to fix than my car. And I want really *GOOD* insurance. Really *GOOD* insurance for the big stuff, the stuff that costs real money, not $3K. Having a high deductible makes that good insurance affordable. I kind of bristle that $3K is even considered *high* deductible....for what we are talking about, a cadre of doctors and equipment you get to use, $3,000 is not 'high'. It just isn't.

2 months take home pay? A months? 2weeks? Not very many people can afford missing 2 weeks of work and having to pay an insurance deductable for the same amount.

Not many people have a positive net worth whatsoever? Any money in the bank or in savings? If that is true (I'm not stipulating it is, but lets run with it) --

A. Those people realisitcally can't pay for health care anyway. But:

B. These are the people that can LEAST afford to overpay on their premium every month of their lives in order to have a $20 copay and $200 deductible when they do go in. Don't you understand that? $20 copay and low deductible is an EXTRAORDINARY luxury, it is a very EXPENSIVE luxury. If you opt for that route -- and you don't have much money, you are going to end up with extraordinarily CRAPPY insurance that screws you over on the high end, on the expensive stuff. Otherwise there is no way in hell they (or their employer) could afford the premium.

People that are broke cannot afford it, and should not want it. They can afford, and should want, a higher deductible. It allows them at least the possibility of saving that money, and it gives them some small measure of financial flexibility by not chronically overpaying every single month of their lives. And it allows them to actually buy GOOD insurance, one that doesn't try to f*ck them over for the stuff they actually need insurance for, the big stuff.


Also remember you are going to have drug costs too that aren't going paid for fully or maybe not at all. missing a month of work combined with a month's take home pays of medical bills plus some drug costs is going to send most people into bankruptcy. Something like a heart attack will break most people without very good insurance.

Again, high deductible doesn't mean bad insurance. High deductible will actually allow you to buy GOOD insurance. That pays for the expensive stuff, like insurance is supposed to.

For your own personal situation -- I don't know what your insurance was, but I can guarentee that if you were making $26K a year, and you had a $20 copay and $200 deductible that you had the absolute crappiest service offering around. With a higher deductible, you could have afforded a better plan for the same premium. Would it have solved your problem? I don't know. But it would have been a better plan on the high end. People use up all their insurance premium in getting their copay and deductible low, and end up with very little insurance.

[chickenhead]

by the by it's the same thing you should do with your car insurance. Insurance is insurance.

$1K is a higher deductible than most people run with, why I have no idea, but it allows me to buy a shit-ton of liability for the same cost. I am buying insurance against something that is going to cost me a lot of money -- liability. So that is what I pay the insurance company for. If I get unlucky and rear end a Porsche, I'm ok. That's good. Insurance.

For health insurance it is the same thing, people need to quit thinking of it as a way to pay for all health care, and think about it for what it is, insurance. I want insurance against the stuff the costs a lot of money, and really good coverage for that. And that's it. I'll pay full boat if I get the flu, or cut my finger, happily. Insurance isn't for that.

Don't insure against oil changes for your car, and don't insure against getting the flu or cutting your finger.

[PaceAdvantage]

For health insurance it is the same thing, people need to quit thinking of it as a way to pay for all health care, and think about it for what it is, insurance. I want insurance against the stuff the costs a lot of money, and really good coverage for that. And that's it. I'll pay full boat if I get the flu, or cut my finger, happily. Insurance isn't for that.

Don't insure against oil changes for your car, and don't insure against getting the flu or cutting your finger.These are some of the most rational thoughts I've read about this topic on here in quite a while. I agree 100%

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
Several inaccuracies here. I do not know what a business should pay its employees. I think that decision should not be the exclusive decision of the business. The employee has a stake and his input should be considered. Otherwise, what is to prevent the employer from paying whatever he likes? Not the free market; the free market only applies when there are sufficient jobs available for that position in that market.

Hogwash. If you don't like the HC you get, it is YOUR right to find other employment. Until you assume a part of the risk of ownership, you are entitled to NO SAY in how the business is run.

[elysiantraveller]

by the by it's the same thing you should do with your car insurance. Insurance is insurance.

$1K is a higher deductible than most people run with, why I have no idea, but it allows me to buy a shit-ton of liability for the same cost. I am buying insurance against something that is going to cost me a lot of money -- liability. So that is what I pay the insurance company for. If I get unlucky and rear end a Porsche, I'm ok. That's good. Insurance.

For health insurance it is the same thing, people need to quit thinking of it as a way to pay for all health care, and think about it for what it is, insurance. I want insurance against the stuff the costs a lot of money, and really good coverage for that. And that's it. I'll pay full boat if I get the flu, or cut my finger, happily. Insurance isn't for that.

Don't insure against oil changes for your car, and don't insure against getting the flu or cutting your finger.

I have a REALLY good dental/vision/hearing plan I show a lot of my clients. Everytime I show it to people they go "it doesn't pay for teeth cleanings!?!? I'll pass..."
:bang:

[badcompany]

Several inaccuracies here. I do not know what a business should pay its employees. I think that decision should not be the exclusive decision of the business. The employee has a stake and his input should be considered. Otherwise, what is to prevent the employer from paying whatever he likes? Not the free market; the free market only applies when there are sufficient jobs available for that position in that market.


Didn't I already crush this argument by pointing out that only 5-6% work for minimum wage?

Also, if an employer is dramatically underpaying his workers, it creates the opportunity for a competitor to pay higher and lure those underpaid employees. Now, the underpaying employer has to train new workers, and, as I'm sure you know, training people costs money, too.



As for the Post Office, even at 45 cents a US stamp is one of the best bargains in the world.


In this is truly the case, why is a government monopoly necessary to prevent the price from being undercut?



And I did not start a business of my own, because I had no desire to start a business. That neither makes me better nor worse than anyone else. And your decision does not make you better.

You didn't start a business because you didn't want to take on the risks or responsibilities of being a business owner. That's fine, but, maybe if you had tried, you might understand how difficult it is to succeed and how you can't just pay people what they think is fair even if you wanted to.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I have a REALLY good dental/vision/hearing plan I show a lot of my clients. Everytime I show it to people they go "it doesn't pay for teeth cleanings!?!? I'll pass..."
:bang:

I'll take it... I've got a Thursday date to start what will amount to nearly a summer's worth of paychecks cleaning, errr fixing, errr replacing my mess.

I make less than probably everyone here and spend almost everything I make repairing my corpse and somehow I'm always howling mad about my free Obamacare. :D

[badcompany]

Dental floss might give the most bang for the buck of any product on the market.:ThmbUp:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Dental floss might give the most bang for the buck of any product on the market.:ThmbUp:

I just wish the gauge I need came in mint flavor.



http://www-pnp.physics.ox.ac.uk/~boddy/files/chain%20link%20worn.jpg

[bigmack]

I'll take it... I've got a Thursday date to start what will amount to nearly a summer's worth of paychecks cleaning, errr fixing, errr replacing my mess.
Bright bulb like you knew it was comin'. Get that insurance before said replacing takes place.

I call it, "Lamboguy's Pre-Procedural Insurance Program." Don't forgit to cancel the policy after said replacing.

Everything in life is à la carte, as it should be.

[Greyfox]

You didn't start a business because you didn't want to take on the risks or responsibilities of being a business owner. That's fine, but, maybe if you had tried, you might understand how difficult it is to succeed and how you can't just pay people what they think is fair even if you wanted to.

:ThmbUp: Exactly.
God bless small business owners. Theirs is not an easy row to hoe.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Bright bulb like you knew it was comin'. Get that insurance before said replacing takes place.

I call it, "Lamboguy's Pre-Procedural Insurance Program." Don't forgit to cancel the policy after said replacing.

Everything in life is à la carte, as it should be.

Just not my style. I'm not too bright a bulb when it comes to gaming a system that I get infuriated about because it is so easily gamed. I'd probably get stuck in the end anyway as it's in large part a consequence of a surgery I had to dig some crap out of my jaw and head and stuff. Plus I kind of get a charge out of doing some things the stubborn, idiotic way just so I have a platform to rant at someone from. :D

[elysiantraveller]

I'll take it... I've got a Thursday date to start what will amount to nearly a summer's worth of paychecks cleaning, errr fixing, errr replacing my mess.

I make less than probably everyone here and spend almost everything I make repairing my corpse and somehow I'm always howling mad about my free Obamacare. :D

Its from Medico.

Their DVH plan is strong but like any dental there are elimination periods. I don't know what state you are in but you can check it out at:

Medico (http://www.gomedico.com/)

If its available I would take a good long hard look at it.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Its from Medico.

...
If its available I would take a good long hard look at it.

Thanks - gave it a glance and will look further at coverage. I have access to a decent program through the HBPA in my state, but it's always a nightmare between having to choose among providers that I either don't like or are impractical due to location. Not to mention, I'm an idiot and tend to let things get so far out of hand that by the time I go to fix something, they want to do an overhaul and insurance isn't keen on it. :D

:ThmbUp:

[maddog42]

Mosty constantly insults and belittles folks? Funny, I don't get that...

In fact, I dare say he is insulted and belittled way more than he himself insults or belittles.

I really don't recall him ever insulting or belittling someone PERSONALLY. He may insult large GROUPS (like conservatives for instance), but I don't recall him singling someone out and trashing their former occupation, like many here have done to him about his former job in the USPS...

Just sayin'...fair is fair, and I have to call them as I see them.

If I am gravely mistaken (and I just may very well be), please feel free to link to a post where he insults and belittles a member of this board completely unprovoked.

My respect for you has increased quite a bit with this post.You do stand for fair play.

[badcompany]

Ok, Mike, here's your example. How is the "moron" comment called for?

Not that CJ's Dad needs me to speak for him, and, he might've overreacted a bit, but he's exactly right about the condescending attitude.



Originally Posted by badcompany
And I'm sure that in your Socialist paradise, the central planners will know exactly how much to pay everyone.
You know, I get really tired of this "Socialist" crap. Especially from someone who sees a(n imaginary) Socialist behind every tree. I have repeatedly stated my support for a capitalist economy on this board. But I understand that capitalism does not work if it is not monitored and controlled to some degree. Business will always take the most expedient path and sometimes that path does not benefit society as a whole. Keeping business on the straight and narrow is a function of government.

BTW, why didn't the father go work somewhere else? Could it be that the factory owner offered the father the best available option? Of course, the father could've started a business like the factory owner did.
Nobody paid good wages in those days. Jobs were not available. If every factory worked its employees fourteen to sixteen hours a day, six or seven days a week and most factories hired children, how many jobs were available for men who were heads of household. And don't forget women did not work then except maybe in the garment industry. You remember the garment industry, where managers would chain women to their work bench and hundreds died in a fire when the manager fled without unlocking the chains.
NJ Stinks thinks you are delusional. He's wrong, you're a freakin' moron.


You see, what Mostpost doesn't understand is the concept of productivity. He's used to just showing up and getting paid.

In the real world, you're paid what you're worth. You're also allowed to start your business. Factories don't fall out of the sky. They started out as small businesses that grew.

[cj's dad]

Ok, Mike, here's your example. How is the "moron" comment called for?

Not that CJ's Dad needs me to speak for him, and, he might've overreacted a bit, but he's exactly right about the condescending attitude.


[/i]

You see, what Mostpost doesn't understand is the concept of productivity. He's used to just showing up and getting paid.

In the real world, you're paid what you're worth. You're also allowed to start your business. Factories don't fall out of the sky. They started out as small businesses that grew.

You know BC, I wasn't going to reply to the "challenge" from Mike to post some of Mostie's "I'm smarter than you are comments" but after your post I went back and in 15 minutes came up with the following from the archives of Mosty remarks:


Attack the messenger(s) because you do not have the intellect to attack the message. SOP for bigmack

What you say is obvious to anyone with the ability to tie their shoes. Which of courseleaves out all of those posting in this thread except yourself, Robert Goren and "youknowwho"

What part of he's TAKING THEIR FU**ING HOMES THROUGH SUBTERFUGE AND LEGAL SHENANIGANS do you not understand.

You are here because your parents failed to do the responsible thing and practice birth control. God had nothing to do with it.

If you had taken ten minutes to check these "Facts" which you got from some e-mail or some right wing blog, we would not now be thinking that you are stupid. Sorry to say that, but no other term...

[NJ Stinks]

You see, what Mostpost doesn't understand is the concept of productivity. He's used to just showing up and getting paid.

In the real world, you're paid what you're worth....

Once again, one of us is delusional.

[bigmack]

Once again, one of us is delusional.
Don't be so light on yourself. Your delusions have moved into a full-blown psychosis.

Child labor & 18 hour work days. Thank heaven for unions or we'd be living in Medieval times 'cause as you & mosty know, business owners are barbaric bruts. :eek:

[mostpost]

You see, what Mostpost doesn't understand is the concept of productivity. He's used to just showing up and getting paid.
Yep. That's what we postal workers do. We just show up and get paid, and it is really annoying that we have to show up. Can't they just mail us our money? What do we have a Post Office for anyway?

Those 660 million pieces of mail the Post Office handles every day? They just deliver themselves. The trucks that pick them up from the collection box on your corner, take them to the local office and then to the sectional center and to the airport and from the airport and to the other sectional center and to your local office, all those trucks drive themselves. That mail sorts itself, leaping from the containers it comes in to magically land in the right slot for delivery. Then, like a flock of geese it flies out of the post office, finds your house and puts itself in your mailbox.

And those people (two hundred a day in my small office) who come in to buy stamps, mail packages, and purchase money orders among other things? Why heck, we just put those things out on a counter and use the honor system. People take the stamps they need, weigh their packages, and just leave the money in a big bucket on the floor.

This is to say nothing of the tasks involved in running the Post Office that you don't even know about.

NJ was much too kind. :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

Once again, one of us is delusional.

Reference my post #195 above. When someone came in to self audit their taxes did they disturb your sleep by rustling the papers too much? :lol:

[Tom]

Hey mostie, question for you.
You are all for the employee sharing in the furits of the owner's labors....what about the USPS now that it is billions in the hole?

Does their right to share the profits now make it ok for them to share the losses by taking pay cuts?

[hcap]

Child labor & 18 hour work days. Thank heaven for unions or we'd be living in Medieval times 'cause as you & mosty know, business owners are barbaric bruts.

Finally, you got one thing spot on!

Btw, sweat shops have not disappeared.
Labor laws, unions and public sentiment have minimized the problem, but yes "Medieval times" are alive and well where guys like Jack Abramoff and T.Delay had their druthers. Two republican free market gonifs. Point being owners of sweatshops don't care that much about their employees and are willing to pay off whomever. And although most business owners are decent some are willing to do the bidding of the bottom line. Without unions and labor laws , "medieval times" happen......



"Abramoff’s special relationship with the South Pacific island of Saipan and how it connects to his ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Saipan is an American territory in the South Pacific also known as the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. In the mid-1990s Abramoff was on the payroll of Saipan officials aiming to stop legislation that would crack down on sweat shop conditions, which run rampant on the island. In 1997, Abramoff arranged a lavish trip to the island of Saipan for Delay.

[bigmack]

Those 660 million pieces of mail the Post Office handles every day? Try and keep up. It's down to 460 million/day and dropping fast.

Finally, you got one thing spot on!
jack Abramoff :lol: Here's your main Mothership, Democratic Underground, selling T-shirts from sweat shops.
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2010/11/17/update-democratic-undergound-still-selling-sweatshop-shirts/

[mostpost]

Hey mostie, question for you.
You are all for the employee sharing in the furits of the owner's labors....what about the USPS now that it is billions in the hole?

Does their right to share the profits now make it ok for them to share the losses by taking pay cuts?

Addressing the issue of the Post Office specifically, most of their financial problems stem from two obligations imposed on them by a Republican President and Republican Congress. Obligations imposed upon no other government departments.

To the extent that the financial problems are the result of a downturn in business and not the obligation to overfund health and pension plans, I would be willing to take a pay freeze or a pay cut.

If I worked in a private business, I would take a pay cut if it meant saving jobs-especially mine. Of course what you want is for me to take a pay cut so the owner can maintain the same profit margin. I take a pay cut; he cuts his profit margin to just where the business can survive until his financial fortunes improve.

Scenario: Business is booming. I'm getting $10 and hour. Recession; business drops 20%. My pay is cut to $8 an hour. Recovery; business improves back to pre-recession levels then climbs 20% more. Should my salary now be:
A. $8 an hour.
B. $10 an hour.
C. $12 an hour

[mostpost]

Try and keep up. It's down to 460 million/day and dropping fast.


jack Abramoff :lol: Here's your main Mothership, Democratic Underground, selling T-shirts from sweat shops.
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2010/11/17/update-democratic-undergound-still-selling-sweatshop-shirts/

The 660 million figure was from 2006. Since I was working then I feel justified in using that figure in response to an accusation that was aimed at me. In any case whether the figure is 440M or 660M the point still stands. Mail does not deliver itself.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Should my salary now be:
A. $8 an hour.
B. $10 an hour.
C. $12 an hour

D) $5.85 an hour so you can have your "free" mandated healthcare.

[bigmack]

The 660 million figure was from 2006. Since I was working then I feel justified in using that figure in response to an accusation that was aimed at me. In any case whether the figure is 440M or 660M the point still stands. Mail does not deliver itself.
Junk mail is 52% - up from 38% in 1990.

89 percent of consumers say in polls that they'd prefer not to receive direct-marketing mail; 44 percent of it is never opened.

That's a lot of waste.

"Neither rain, nor snow, nor sleet, nor hail shall keep the postmen from their appointed rounds of delivering unwanted, unread junk mail."

[cj's dad]

4:02 and counting !!

[PaceAdvantage]

You know BC, I wasn't going to reply to the "challenge" from Mike to post some of Mostie's "I'm smarter than you are comments" but after your post I went back and in 15 minutes came up with the following from the archives of Mosty remarks:


Attack the messenger(s) because you do not have the intellect to attack the message. SOP for bigmack

What you say is obvious to anyone with the ability to tie their shoes. Which of courseleaves out all of those posting in this thread except yourself, Robert Goren and "youknowwho"

What part of he's TAKING THEIR FU**ING HOMES THROUGH SUBTERFUGE AND LEGAL SHENANIGANS do you not understand.

You are here because your parents failed to do the responsible thing and practice birth control. God had nothing to do with it.

If you had taken ten minutes to check these "Facts" which you got from some e-mail or some right wing blog, we would not now be thinking that you are stupid. Sorry to say that, but no other term... Are you sure those comments were unprovoked? This question goes to both you and badcompany. Many of the examples you present as "gotchas" were directed at folks who have been brutal towards mosty in the past and you know this.

[JustRalph]

Are you sure those comments were unprovoked? This question goes to both you and badcompany. Many of the examples you present as "gotchas" were directed at folks who have been brutal towards mosty in the past and you know this.

Interesting. I have to tell you, I find the above mosty quotes truly walking the line.

[badcompany]

The 660 million figure was from 2006. Since I was working then I feel justified in using that figure in response to an accusation that was aimed at me. In any case whether the figure is 440M or 660M the point still stands. Mail does not deliver itself.

Yeah, you first have to hit the "send" button.:lol:

[hcap]

Did the public believe Of course it was BUSH'S FAULT?

The wayback machine says:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-D-LkmylJlUk/T0fBtUQgNII/AAAAAAAADOU/6NxlYNFMd-c/s1600/Approval_27267_image001.png



We all know however that Bush was not a "Real Conservative" and that is why he screwed up.

Had nothing at all to do whit failed republican and conservative policies. Being a true believer is NEVER the problem.

Remember, conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.

[PaceAdvantage]

If the economy continues improving, even ever so slightly, Obama has a decent chance...not a good chance...but decent...and I say only "decent" because his approval ratings suck so badly right now...

When compared to other "re-elected" and "not re-elected" presidents, you can see how precarious Obama's position really is...he's behind even Clinton and Reagan at this point in time, and those two had crappy approval numbers like Obama...but Obama has fallen behind them markedly in the "12th quarter."

But, if the economy even stumbles a little bit, and improvement stops or we start to decline again, he has absolutely NO CHANCE. There is such a long time until election day, and anyone who thinks Obama is a lock at this point, with this economy, is only fooling themselves.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/_li5u6in40oqk451-g2txg.gif

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152486/Election-Stands.aspx

[Marshall Bennett]

Obama may not be a lock, but it would certainly take more than a moderate tilt with the economy to defeat him. The Republicans simply do not have the quality candidates to counter with. That's a huge advantage for Obama.
As much as I dislike the thought of 4 more years, it's awfully hard clinging to wishful thinking and seeing it any other way.

[PaceAdvantage]

The Republicans simply do not have the quality candidates to counter with.In comparison to what? The current occupiers of the White House? :lol:

Seriously?

[Valuist]

I believe we could very well be back in recession right now. The jobs number was bad. Anecdotal evidence doesn't look good. Can see that in secondary ticket markets; for both sports and concerts. Many of us felt that the stimulus and QE programs were nothing more than short term fixes.

Of course the economists will tell us in January 2013 that we were in recession in June 2012. Always reactive. Never proactive.

[boxcar]

In comparison to what? The current occupiers of the White House? :lol:

Seriously?

I suppose one could consider a cerebral aneurysm to be much preferable to a full blown heart attack. Seriously.

Boxcar

[Marshall Bennett]

If Romney can carry Ohio & Florida he wins. The jobs situation should help with Ohio. Florida may be the key to success.

[Saratoga_Mike]

If Romney can carry Ohio & Florida he wins. The jobs situation should help with Ohio. Florida may be the key to success.

The unemployment rate in Ohio is lower than the national avg. Florida's unemployment is higher, though.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Scenario: Business is booming. I'm getting $10 and hour. Recession; business drops 20%. My pay is cut to $8 an hour. Recovery; business improves back to pre-recession levels then climbs 20% more. Should my salary now be:
A. $8 an hour.
B. $10 an hour.
C. $12 an hour

Is this in isolation (i.e., a closed system)? If so, I'd assume your wages would exceed $10/hour. If not, then it would depend on the overall unemployment rate, the value of your skills and your productivity. I assume you think the answer should be C?

[Robert Goren]

The numbers at this time are almost identical to those during the same time frame in 2008. We all know that ended up. The question is " Is there a 'big' bank ready to implode like Lehman did in Sept of 2008 and send the economy plummeting?" Most people don't think so, but nobody though there would be a major bank go under in June of 2008 either.
The numbers are bad enough right now that the re-election Obama is in doubt. Hopefully they will improve. I believe if Romney is elected and he does what he says he going to do, things will get so bad that he will be last republican president elected in my lifetime. While that thought is appealing, I do not want the country to go though the havoc he will bring. The only saving grace is that no president has ever done all the things he says he will do during the campaign.

[JustRalph]

The numbers at this time are almost identical to those during the same time frame in 2008. We all know that ended up. The question is " Is there a 'big' bank ready to implode like Lehman did in Sept of 2008 and send the economy plummeting?" Most people don't think so, but nobody though there would be a major bank go under in June of 2008 either.
The numbers are bad enough right now that the re-election Obama is in doubt. Hopefully they will improve. I believe if Romney is elected and he does what he says he going to do, things will get so bad that he will be last republican president elected in my lifetime. While that thought is appealing, I do not want the country to go though the havoc he will bring. The only saving grace is that no president has ever done all the things he says he will do during the campaign.

You're a funny guy

So you admit that we have wasted 3.5 years.......and 5 trillion bucks

[PaceAdvantage]

I believe if Romney is elected and he does what he says he going to do, things will get so bad that he will be last republican president elected in my lifetime. Didn't they say the same thing about Bush after Obama was elected? He would be the last Republican President...Republican Part is dead and buried... :lol:

I guess technically that prophecy still hasn't been broken until Romney is elected... :lol:

Your above statement is going right up there with the "100 years of Democrats" we heard after the 2008 election, when Democrats finally controlled both houses of Congress and the White House...how long did that last by the way? :lol:

[Valuist]

The numbers at this time are almost identical to those during the same time frame in 2008. We all know that ended up. The question is " Is there a 'big' bank ready to implode like Lehman did in Sept of 2008 and send the economy plummeting?" Most people don't think so, but nobody though there would be a major bank go under in June of 2008 either.


Rumors were rampant back in 2007 about both Bear Stearns and Lehman being in huge trouble. I remember Karen Finerman on Fast Money talking about it a number of times. Needless to say, the rumors were right.

[PaceAdvantage]

You know what the simple answer in all this is?

There is no FAITH in the Obama Administration. Not even his most ardent supporters believe in him to guide the United States of America back towards prosperity.

At this point, I think a great majority of folks are willing to give someone else a chance at the helm.

That's the bottom line. And that's why he will lose in November.

[ArlJim78]

yesterday amidst the market tumble, the jobs numbers collapse, the realization that after an additional $5 trillion dollars of debt in only 3.5 years we're entering recession territory once again, Obama took time for six fundraisers, and announced a bold new economic plan.


DmiDvAoCF68 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmiDvAoCF68&feature=player_embedded

what a grasp of econonics this guy has, he's going to get you $3,000 then you can buy some stuff for your family and a thingamajig for your furnance, and this will stimulate the economy. of course he's stuttering and laughing as he says it, as is the audience.

oh man, this guy is a barrel of laughs. well at least he'll have some good material for his next career doing standup comedy.

[Tom]

Seriously, you have to pretty dense to have any hope that this moron will ever solve anything. It is obvious that nothing he has done has worked and he has no clue what to do next.

It is time to get serious about this economy, and that exclude all democrats, the party of nothing.

They lose the senate and the WH in November.

[fast4522]

Seriously, you have to pretty dense to have any hope that this moron will ever solve anything. It is obvious that nothing he has done has worked and he has no clue what to do next.

It is time to get serious about this economy, and that exclude all democrats, the party of nothing.

They lose the senate and the WH in November.

Perhaps to not always agree is how perspective is attained.
Here I feel the President is doing exactly what the Bilderburg Group wants him to do, destroy our capitalist system from within. To share the pain with Europe, a failed socialist direction. In my heart of hearts, the United States Senator and United States Marine had it right to go after communists and socialists inside our country.

[NJ Stinks]

What a bunch of bluster by the weeping conservatives here. :rolleyes:

Obama is 1-2 for a reason. Just like Camelot was 8-13 today for a reason. Sure Camelot could have got beat but - well, let's just say I hope you saw the race.