Page 9 of 27 FirstFirst ... 456789101112131419 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 536
  1. #161  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    That sounds more like the difference between Utilitarianism and Anarchism.

    The difference in Conservatism and Liberalism is that Conservatives want to slow, prevent, or even reverse social changes. Liberals want to promote both equality and personal freedoms. The idea of liberalism isn't to put society before the individual but to try to balance the two. The idea for conservatism is to try to prevent change regardless of if that change is beneficial or detrimental.

    The balance between society and the individual is a spectrum and different people can hold different views on what is an acceptable balance on what can be a very large spectrum. On the other hand the desire to slow or prevent changes in society is a pretty limited spectrum since the whole concept is to keep things close to the status quo. Those tendencies are a big reason why Republicans are able to present a united front while Democrats always seem divided because of more individuality. If the Democrats truly placed society over the individual then there would have been a LOT of changes made in the first few months of 2009 that fear-mongers from the right have claimed would happen but haven't come close to happening.


    Should the mother of 5 sitting around all day being lazy have health insurance provided to her? No, maybe the kids need to be taken care of (possibly taken away) but not the mother.
    My question to you would be should a mother of 5 working hard every day have her health benefits to her and her family cut so that the company can increase their accumulated profits? And when we talk about accumulated we're talking about things being sat on rather than reinvested into the company to make the company better.
    It sounds absolutely nothing like the difference between Utilitarianism and Anarchism. And I'd have to disagree with your obviously biased and slanted definition of Conservatism and Liberalism.
    I don't understand the purpose of the line, I don't need to drink to have fun. Great, no one does. But why start a fire with flint and sticks when they've invented the lighter?

    Let's all give thanks to the app that started it all.
    http://forums.precentral.net/homebre...ebrew-app.html
  2. #162  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    I still think, and I am sure someone here is gonna tell me I am wrong, that there is no difference between a unionized or a nonuion employee. lets face it, in a free market situation unions are falling right in line with the free market system.

    now let me explain, heheheh... i am business A, I supply a service to a given segment of the population. Be it computer repair, window washing or whatever, I charge what the market will stand.

    is this any different then a union? no it is not. A union offers a service, if the person contracting that service decides the price is too high then he/she/it can negotiate a new contract. ONCE the old one has run out. This is no different then an individual offering similar or the same service to the company in question.

    If a skill set is being offered up by union or nonunion people, its the highest bidder who will get the skill set. Just like your free market system that you like to crow about.
    Oh wait, you dont like it when workers walk off the job. Well is that any different then say micael deciding that he is under paid, and walking away? NO.

    The biggest complaint i see over and over again is that the unions have driven up the costs of everything. Due to high wages, etc etc.. but, there is always a but..this is no different than a single company driving up its prices without union employees. They price themselves out of the market. Just like union employees who make outrageous demands.

    Remember, it takes two to agree on a union contract. Both the managers and the union, just like a single employee and a manager. there is no difference. none.
    you just dont like to see the labor pool out with signs demanding a living wage. All the while they are stopping a company from producing profits. How dare they demand higher wages, how dare they demand safe working conditions, how dare they etc etc..
    If it wasnt for unions, American working stiffs would still be vastly under paid, (not saying they arent now) and working in 19th century conditions.
    Actually, with the american perchant of fighting back, most of the execs would probably have been burned at the stake.. that is just my two canadian cents worth..
    Well stated xForsaken. I don't agree with some of what you said, but I do agree that unions are not the sole cause of the current economic situation. Thanks for the comparison of unions to the free market. There are obviously many differences, but it makes for an excellent illustration of what unions are meant to be.
    I don't understand the purpose of the line, I don't need to drink to have fun. Great, no one does. But why start a fire with flint and sticks when they've invented the lighter?

    Let's all give thanks to the app that started it all.
    http://forums.precentral.net/homebre...ebrew-app.html
  3. #163  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    If something was 10....and it is reduced by 5....but then raised by 1....are you still lower?
    10-5+1= 6 I understand..

    so he lowered some, raised some, and the end amount was lower than it was previously? That plus sign... That means he added to something right? So even reagan signed bills that raised SOME taxes? Her statement was more correct than yours imho of course.
  4. #164  
    Quote Originally Posted by morrison0880 View Post
    Well stated xForsaken. I don't agree with some of what you said, but I do agree that unions are not the sole cause of the current economic situation. Thanks for the comparison of unions to the free market. There are obviously many differences, but it makes for an excellent illustration of what unions are meant to be.
    Back in the early 80's I was a union business agent, i bargined with management during contract time. I walked away from them in the mid 80's due to what i saw as irrational demands by the union rank and file. most of the demands came down from the international. They decided what the members wanted and were willing to put people on the street for long periods to get those demands.

    In 1989 my employer, hired me as one of his managers. Along with that came, bargining with the same unions i had represented a few years prior. The president of the company had two simple rules, 1) He liked unions, really he really did. 2) He insisted that his people, he called them his family, made a good living wage.
    I sat across the table with my one time partners, and we bargined on new collective agreements. I did this for about 15 years. The company grew, to the point it had over 900 employees across the province. Most fulltime union people, and about 100 parttime employees, which were, at my employers insistance unionized.
    Yes, there were economic downturns, yes people got laid off, but with just one exception, the longest strike in the "older" properties was one day in one location.
    On the other hand, one of the larger of the "new bases" decided that they were entitled to a 58 percent increase in wages and benefits. To give some perspective on that, they had full dental, full medical, short term disability, long term disability, 3 weeks annual paid vacation to start, sick days which could be accumulated to use as additional holiday time, oh and a base rate of 21.69 per hour, which jumped to about 25.00 per hour in one year.
    The same people I use to bargin with were now sitting across the table from me, figuring I would cave in to their demands.
    After 1 year 11 months, and 14 days, we came to an agreement. They got a signing bonus, and 2 percent per year for 3 years. Plus some other little things. In that time, of the 125 employees, over 50 percent lost their homes, cars and so on. The union at the start acutally paid them more in strike pay then they were earning working. They thought the strike would be a short one.
    My employer also wrote personal checks to save several of the employees homes, not loans, gifts.
    Over all, after about 25 years in that business, I took my retirement package and got the heck out of Dodge so to speak.
    This was an example of a union that went wild, I can also give you an example of a company gone wild.

    Imagine, this, an employer lining up all his employees, going down the line and asking how much each made, I might add most were paid far below what was the industry standard at the time, and firing on the spot anyone who was making over a certain dollar figure.
    My employer purchased this company about two weeks after this happened for about the 5th time in as many years. Things changed drasticly after that.

    as to conservative vs liberals, ulitmately, its is ones point of view that counts. Conservatives like to control what they percieve as theirs, liberals, like to control everything else.

    Be honest, here, and this goes to both sides of the spectrum, Have you ever done something that in fact flies in the face of your stated postion in the political spectrum. I know I have.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  5. #165  
    Quote Originally Posted by morrison0880 View Post
    1) Yes, that does sound familiar. I don't think I included those who are legitimately unemployed and working to find a job. But I guess you can paint me as believing that all the unemployed are lazy slobs if it helps you show that I'm wrong.
    I just responded to what you wrote yourself. You may think that I was trying to "paint" as something, but you gave me the brushes and the canvas...

    2) Yes, I did get unemployment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but unemployment is paid from the Social Security fund, which I have paid into my entire working life. If I'm forced to partake in that program and pay part of every paycheck towards that fund, why am I a hypocrite for using it? It would make SS a sort of forced unemployment insurance and my payments are my premium. Makes sense to me. You?
    Actually unemployment in not a part of social security, but it is an "insurance" that your employer, and at a smaller percentage, you have to pay into. I personally have no problem with it. What could be seen as hypocritical about it is that you are taking money paid into a fund paid for by you employer, and NOT just you.

    3) Didn't strike a nerve. I just like having intellectual discussions, even when they get heated. There's a difference between attacking an argument and attacking an opponent as a strategy to win the argument, or appear like the winner in others' eyes. If you would like to argue your point, by all means, take lessons from grappler on how to so with facts or educated opinions and not empty personal attacks. Until then, I'm done with you.
    How is this: "You are sadly under the assumption that all of those who are unemployed are nothing but lazy deadbeats..." such a vicious personal attack, like you are trying to portray it to be? NO PART OF THAT IS IN ANY WAY AN ATTACK ON YOU PERSONALLY!
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  6. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #166  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    After many years of working with the homeless and uninsured, as well as working with the occasional corporation, my guess is the number of crooks and ethically challenged individuals are similar in both groups. They exist, but they are not nearly the predominant population.
    Wait.... did you just say that corporations aren't predominantly populated with crooks and ethically challenged individuals?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  7. rjwerth's Avatar
    Posts
    16 Posts
    Global Posts
    23 Global Posts
    #167  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    I still think, and I am sure someone here is gonna tell me I am wrong, that there is no difference between a unionized or a nonuion employee. lets face it, in a free market situation unions are falling right in line with the free market system.

    now let me explain, heheheh... i am business A, I supply a service to a given segment of the population. Be it computer repair, window washing or whatever, I charge what the market will stand.

    is this any different then a union? no it is not. A union offers a service, if the person contracting that service decides the price is too high then he/she/it can negotiate a new contract. ONCE the old one has run out. This is no different then an individual offering similar or the same service to the company in question.

    If a skill set is being offered up by union or nonunion people, its the highest bidder who will get the skill set. Just like your free market system that you like to crow about.

    ----------
    The biggest complaint i see over and over again is that the unions have driven up the costs of everything. Due to high wages, etc etc.. but, there is always a but..this is no different than a single company driving up its prices without union employees. They price themselves out of the market. Just like union employees who make outrageous demands.

    Remember, it takes two to agree on a union contract. Both the managers and the union, just like a single employee and a manager. there is no difference. none.
    This theory works well in Right to Work states...not so well in states like Michigan. Here, you can always tell if a contractor is unionized or not-the quote is ALWAYS higher. How do they stay in business? Because companies (and government) are often REQUIRED to use union labor. This setup really messes up the free market.

    Oh wait, you dont like it when workers walk off the job. Well is that any different then say micael deciding that he is under paid, and walking away? NO.
    Mmmm, there is a really really big difference between 1 or 2 guys quitting and your entire workforce walking out on you, wouldn't you say? If there wasn't, there wouldn't be much of a point to a "UNION."

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    I was not referring to "spreading the wealth" but rather stimulating the economy. Cutting taxes to create jobs DOES NOT WORK and does nothing but increase our deficit. The taxes for the extreme rich and large corps has never been lower in this country than they have been for the last 20 or so years and look at where we are now. Where are all of the jobs that were to come of all of this?
    Any sizable cut in taxes always stimulates the economy. You are correct that it may not directly create jobs, but you can't help but create jobs if the economy is properly stimulated. {Sounds dangerously close to something naughty, doesn't it?} Also, any tax cut stimulus can only be track for a few years after the cut has been enacted, again, depending on how big the cut was.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Have you ever been on a sports team or in the armed forces? If you have, you would know that you are only as good as your weakest person. The same holds true for our country as I see it. Like the old saying, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." If you don't grease that wheel, it slows down the whole cart...
    You examples assume that everyone on the team or army PULL THEIR OWN WEIGHT. Imagine having to pay everyone who never made the team.

    As far as the squeaky wheel, if you oil it, and it still squeaks, sooner or later you are going to be looking for a whole new wheel.

    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    Not disagreeing with you, but as I pointed out above, the "mother of 5" is a straw man, er, woman. Half of families receiving government assistance are one parent/one child, and 75% have one or two children. The statistics on *how long* such families receive government assistance also shatter the prevailing stereotypes.
    Don't get all hung up on the quantity of people used in the example. Insert any number you'd like and then respond to the example. What are the statistics for the length of time any given family receiving assistance over the course of their life?
  8. #168  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Have you ever been on a sports team or in the armed forces? If you have, you would know that you are only as good as your weakest person. The same holds true for our country as I see it. Like the old saying, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." If you don't grease that wheel, it slows down the whole cart...
    =) So how slow does the cart move when a bunch of people are dragging behind it?
    I don't understand the purpose of the line, I don't need to drink to have fun. Great, no one does. But why start a fire with flint and sticks when they've invented the lighter?

    Let's all give thanks to the app that started it all.
    http://forums.precentral.net/homebre...ebrew-app.html
  9. #169  
    Quote Originally Posted by morrison0880 View Post
    =) So how slow does the cart move when a bunch of people are dragging behind it?
    Probably quicker than when someone decides to try pulling in the opposite direction.
  10. #170  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    Probably quicker than when someone decides to try pulling in the opposite direction.
    not if they push it backwrds so far and fast that it ends up further along the same path as it would have had it continued to go straight at the same pace...
    Wait, what the hell were we talking about again?
    I don't understand the purpose of the line, I don't need to drink to have fun. Great, no one does. But why start a fire with flint and sticks when they've invented the lighter?

    Let's all give thanks to the app that started it all.
    http://forums.precentral.net/homebre...ebrew-app.html
  11. #171  
    Quote Originally Posted by morrison0880 View Post
    not if they push it backwrds so far and fast that it ends up further along the same path as it would have had it continued to go straight at the same pace...
    Wait, what the hell were we talking about again?
    Circumnavigating?
  12. #172  
    Quote Originally Posted by morrison0880 View Post
    =) So how slow does the cart move when a bunch of people are dragging behind it?
    Well, seeing as how unemployment is @ 9.5%....

    So if there are 100 people around the cart and only 9 of them are not pulling, I think the cart would be moving just fine...
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  13. #173  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Well, seeing as how unemployment is @ 9.5%....

    So if there are 100 people around the cart and only 9 of them are not pulling, I think the cart would be moving just fine...
    Wow, I have no response.
    I don't understand the purpose of the line, I don't need to drink to have fun. Great, no one does. But why start a fire with flint and sticks when they've invented the lighter?

    Let's all give thanks to the app that started it all.
    http://forums.precentral.net/homebre...ebrew-app.html
  14. #174  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrloserpunk View Post
    10-5+1= 6 I understand..

    so he lowered some, raised some, and the end amount was lower than it was previously? That plus sign... That means he added to something right? So even reagan signed bills that raised SOME taxes? Her statement was more correct than yours imho of course.
    In and effort to reach across the aisle, something obama doesn't understand, I'll accept your premise. I interpretted her comment as overall tax burden being increased while you seem to think she meant there were more tax increases than tax decreases. But I respect your interpretation.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  15. #175  
    Quote Originally Posted by morrison0880 View Post
    Wow, I have no response.
    Was I to assume that more than the 9.5% would be "dragging" behind the cart? Sorry I ruined your hyperbole...
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  16. #176  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I never said businesses shouldn't make a profit; by all means, show me exactly where I said any such thing. I said they shouldn't make a profit by firing American workers, then outsourcing jobs to third world countries. Your example is ludicrous. How many garden nurseries outsource to India? I'm not talking about small businesses; they are getting screwed by the republicans enough without including them in the discussion. And don't give me the crap about how the highest 2% include so many small businesses....it doesn't. That is total republitard lying points (PolitiFact | Most small businesses won't be subject to Obama's tax increases)

    I'm talking about corporations. They deserve to be regulated if they are continuing to contribute to the destruction of the middle class. But as I said, you don't seem to care about them at all.
    Here was your quote: "The fair tax will do nothing to limit the ability of the private sector to continue their profit grabbing behaviors by sending jobs to third world countries and taking jobs away from Americans." Therefore, it stands to reason that you would rather the private sector do something that either raises the costs of services and products or paying higher wages here and either make no profit or go bankrupt, thus causing everyone in the company to lose their job. I don't like the fact that jobs have left this country, but business owners/corporate executives must make decisions that are best for their business/shareholders. Not sure why you don't understand that basic business principal. As I said in an earlier example, if a company has 125 employees and the same job can be done with 100 ee's because of either reduced demand and/or improved efficiencies, you don't keep the 25 ee's on hand. What would end up happening is the business would go under and therefore everyone loses their job rather than just 25.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  17. #177  
    Quote Originally Posted by morrison0880 View Post
    I have discovered the core difference between Liberals and Conservatives. It comes down to this: Conservatives feel that an individual should be responsible for himself/herself first and foremost. Liberals believe that an individual should be responsible to the society first and foremost. A fundamental difference in thinking that, when you look at pretty much left vs right argument, you can apply to each person involved in that argument and, based on their answer, see which side they land on. Go ahead, check it out. Look at the posts from each person on this thread. It's amazing how well it works.
    I'll take responsibility for myself, thank you. If you want to take care of everyone else, that's your choice. But keep it a choice and don't force me to take care of the mother of 5 across the street without a job and yet able to talk on her cell phone while eating McDonald's in front of her cable tv, yet for some reason can't afford healthcare.
    Wow....what a great post. Can't add much more to that, good job.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  18. #178  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    In and effort to reach across the aisle, something obama doesn't understand, I'll accept your premise.
    Indeed. He seems to have trouble understanding that the other side of the aisle doesn't want to be friendly or at all interested in drawing up compromises between differing view points.


    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Here was your quote: "The fair tax will do nothing to limit the ability of the private sector to continue their profit grabbing behaviors by sending jobs to third world countries and taking jobs away from Americans." Therefore, it stands to reason that you would rather the private sector do something that either raises the costs of services and products or paying higher wages here and either make no profit or go bankrupt, thus causing everyone in the company to lose their job. I don't like the fact that jobs have left this country, but business owners/corporate executives must make decisions that are best for their business/shareholders. Not sure why you don't understand that basic business principal. As I said in an earlier example, if a company has 125 employees and the same job can be done with 100 ee's because of either reduced demand and/or improved efficiencies, you don't keep the 25 ee's on hand. What would end up happening is the business would go under and therefore everyone loses their job rather than just 25.
    You seem to be confusing a few things. Those companies aren't moving jobs to other countries because they are struggling or trying to improve efficiencies. They are moving them because they can increase their profit margins without having to treat those workers as well as they are being required to do here. I guess you could consider a low-paid, easily replaceable, disposable worker an increase in efficiency over having to pay a worker a respectable wage so they remain productive their entire life but that's really if you look at things with $$$ only.

    There are a lot of things in this country that contribute to the problems, it's not just one thing but a whole cascade of things. But still each part contributes to the greater problem and worker exploitation for profit is certainly a part of that greater problem.
  19. #179  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    You seem to be confusing a few things. Those companies aren't moving jobs to other countries because they are struggling or trying to improve efficiencies. They are moving them because they can increase their profit margins without having to treat those workers as well as they are being required to do here. I guess you could consider a low-paid, easily replaceable, disposable worker an increase in efficiency over having to pay a worker a respectable wage so they remain productive their entire life but that's really if you look at things with $$$ only.

    There are a lot of things in this country that contribute to the problems, it's not just one thing but a whole cascade of things. But still each part contributes to the greater problem and worker exploitation for profit is certainly a part of that greater problem.
    No I get it.....no confusion here....I completely understand a company doing what it takes to improve profits. It's government that doesn't understand the profit concept because most of what they do does not require the need to be profitable.

    Case in point.....HHS Sec Sebelius getting on insurance companies a couple of weeks ago for increasing premiums because of the requirement to 1) require 100% coverage with no co-pay for preventive services, 2) require all "children" under the age of 26 to be covered on their parent's group plan, and 3) getting rid of lifetime "caps". You see, a government person doesn't understand the concept that to increase benefits, there is an increase in costs. Obama and Sebelius just assume you require someone to increase benefits and the business eats the expense of said benefit. That's how the government works.....increase benefits without paying for it. So, you liberals think along the same lines and don't understand that a business/corporation is going to do what increases profits (or at least maintains profits)....if....they are in business to make proftis.

    By the way....I wanted to reach into my TV the other day at obama's Town Hall and shake him because I am sick of this lie he keeps saying. He said once again that one of his great achievements is how insurance companies can no longer exclude pre-existing conditions on children. This would be true except for one important point.....insurance companies are stopping the issuance of policies on children. That's right, in SC BC/BS on Monday put a stop on writing policies on children (all children) until they can determine if it is feasible to follow the new directive. Other companies have said they will not write stand alone policies on children, but would only write a policy if the parent also applies. So....who does this help? No one. The healthy children are now penalized and rates from the companies that decide to still write policies on children will have to be raised thus likely pricing even MORE people out of this market. Obama is an *****. Until he gets people around him that have legitimate business experience, this stupidity will continue.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  20. #180  
    And you've just made the point of why he shouldn't have tried to compromise with the other side of the aisle for an entire year and instead just driven for a single payer system, especially after the first several months of the other side simply trying to deride him and slap away any attempt he tried to make to reach across to them. Mandatory types of insurance (those that you pretty much need to be able to afford services) shouldn't be left in the hands of the private sector. They should be handled by the government because the government doesn't need to squeeze out extra profits for shareholders. Auto insurance is another one that really shouldn't be handled by private companies. I'm not saying that the federal government needs to handle them but at least the State governments should, especially for auto insurance.
Page 9 of 27 FirstFirst ... 456789101112131419 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions