Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 140
  1. #41  
    Here in Maryland the legislature tried to force companies such as Wal-Mart to provide benefits to their employees. Actually- the legislation was worded in such a way that it only applied to one company... SURPRISE- Wal-mart!

    Gov. Bob Ehrlich vetoed the legislation as bad for business, as it threatened a Wal-Mart distribution center that was planned for an area of the state with a real need for any kind of jobs. People in that community can't find any kind of job, so even one without benefits can be helpful. And if they have low wages they can at least afford the low prices there, where without a job they would not be able to afford any prices.

    While it sounds good to provide benefits, it can backfire if they have to raise prices and people can't afford to shop there, so they close and the whole lot lose their jobs.

    Also- "Benefits" stats can be misleading. All the crys about businesses not providing insurance... but only one spouse needs a job with bennys to cover the kids and other spouse. The other spouse doen't need benefits if they are allready covered.

    Also, there are other things than official "insurance". For instance- our company has an accounting department that cuts checks for our pay, for the electric bill, the phone bill, etc. It is just as easy for them to also cut a check for medical reimbursement purposes, without any insurance company middleman, or their agents, or tv commerical ads, or landmark hi-rent buildings in major cities. All that money that would be spent in an insurance company is by-passed. So, in a sense we are "covered" in that we get medical expenses reimbursed, but because it is not called "insurance" our employees could easily be considered "uninsured", and slant the stats.
    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
  2.    #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    EXCUSE ME????????????

    You constantly clutter this board with your "protect the 'few' at ALL costs" propaganda!

    Please take a position and then do the best you can to stick with it.

    At this time, all of us can discredit every single anti-christian argument DaThomas has ever made.
    Protect the individuals rights as stated in the constitution. This does not include excluding the selfish few from paying for society's infrastructure for the whole. I think you're smart enough to know the difference.
  3.    #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Agreed. What was not clearly stated in my post, though, is that the pairs as presented generally represent a choice to be made between the two.

    We need improved education. But the question is do we mandate curricular paths, or allow people to pursue their own interests? If the needs of the many outweigh the few, we must compell people to "study" trades for which ther are "best suited."

    We need improved healthcare. The question is do we have general care available to everyone, or do we have specialty care? If the needs of the many outweigh the few, we must comple some to forgo their continued existence so as not to put too high a strain on the system.

    We need improved job market. The question is, do we pay people high salaries and take a majority of it to feed the national kitty. If the needs of the many outweigh the few, we must compel people to forego personal prefernces and luxuries so that all can have the basics.

    We need affordable goods. The question is do we have the state run the distribution and provide the basics. If the needs of the many outweigh the few, we must compel people to forfeit variety to that prices can be controlled. Accordingly, those who are properly suited for creative occupations become obsolete.

    We need improved social security. The question is do we have the state provide the basic necessities. If the needs of the many outweigh the few, we must comple those who may be able to generate more wealth to forgoe the benefits of their productivity and acquiesce to the "standard" living.

    It is fascinating that in one discussion we demand that the state stay out of our personal lives (sex-ed/abstinence, abortion, marriage, church/state...). yet there is a pining for the state to provide for our necessities. You can not have one without the other. If the state is providing your living, it will most assuredly determine for you what you can and can not do.

    I think the key question that must be asked (as phurth has asserted): Do I cherish liberty or not?

    Sure, there are aspects of communistic and/or socialistic thought that appear beneficial, however given that they are not easily separable from their ideology, one must decide is it really worth it.

    Capitalistic republican (i.e. representative) government allows for charity (and thus the potential for parity). Socialism does not readily allow for individual liberty.
    I believe base human needs and business infrastructure should be provided by the whole. Affordable iPods are not a societal need.
  4.    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Fascinating?
    My first thought was... Typical
    Give me my living and stay out of my life Damnit!
    Sounds just like my 15yr old. Come to think of it, I was also a Dem in my adolecent years....
    Ok, provide your own fire/police dept, sewage, sanitation, roads, healthcare, etc. Honestly, you have to admit there are things society needs that the whole of society must provide.
  5.    #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    The only freedom the left wants and is willing to fight for any longer is freedom from personal (financial, sexual, social, you name it...) responsibility. This seems to be the kernel of modern liberalism - everything else depends upon this.
    Yes, that's it exactly. Sigh.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Ok, provide your own fire/police dept, sewage, sanitation, roads, healthcare, etc. Honestly, you have to admit there are things society needs that the whole of society must provide.
    If the gov. has an obligation to provide health care, do the recipients have an obligation to live healthy lifestyles? If so, or if not, does the government then also have the right to dictate wich lifestyles it will provide health care for. For example, do drug addicts have a right to dip into my benifits? If not what do we do with babies that are born addicts, for that matter do we provide the delivery for addict mothers? I think you realize that there must be some responsibility from the individual. Society does not have an obligation to provide you with basic human needs. Society does however have an obligation (if not only for the purpose of its own survival) to ensure that basic human needs are obtainable thru reasonable efforts from the individual. All of this comes down to the age old saying... "You reap what you sew". It sounds like you have missread it to say..."I reap what you sew"!
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    If the gov. has an obligation to provide health care, do the recipients have an obligation to live healthy lifestyles? If so, or if not, does the government then also have the right to dictate wich lifestyles it will provide health care for. For example, do drug addicts have a right to dip into my benifits? If not what do we do with babies that are born addicts, for that matter do we provide the delivery for addict mothers? I think you realize that there must be some responsibility from the individual. Society does not have an obligation to provide you with basic human needs. Society does however have an obligation (if not only for the purpose of its own survival) to ensure that basic human needs are obtainable thru reasonable efforts from the individual. All of this comes down to the age old saying... "You reap what you sew". It sounds like you have missread it to say..."I reap what you sew"!

    Do we provide free public roads, for the kkk to march, and drunk driver to drive on?
    Build Systems, Not Products
    <center>All Comments © Copyright Clarence C Middleton 2005-2006, All Rights Reserved<br /> <a href="mailto:ClarenceCM3@gmail.com">ClarenceCM3@gmail.com</a><br /><ahref ="http://www.middleton.ath.cx"><a href="http://www.middleton.ath.cx">http://www.middleton.ath.cx</a><br /><a href="http://www.middleton.ath.cx"><img style="width: 124px; height: 54px;"src="http://www.middleton.ath.cx/photos/middletonlogo.gif" /></a></ahref><center />
  8.    #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    If the gov. has an obligation to provide health care, do the recipients have an obligation to live healthy lifestyles? If so, or if not, does the government then also have the right to dictate wich lifestyles it will provide health care for. For example, do drug addicts have a right to dip into my benifits? If not what do we do with babies that are born addicts, for that matter do we provide the delivery for addict mothers? I think you realize that there must be some responsibility from the individual. Society does not have an obligation to provide you with basic human needs. Society does however have an obligation (if not only for the purpose of its own survival) to ensure that basic human needs are obtainable thru reasonable efforts from the individual. All of this comes down to the age old saying... "You reap what you sew". It sounds like you have missread it to say..."I reap what you sew"!
    We're already paying for healthcare of those that you have mentioned. The one's getting screwed are the hard working poor. (See Wal-Mart memo).
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    We're already paying for healthcare of those that you have mentioned. The one's getting screwed are the hard working poor. (See Wal-Mart memo).
    Every hospitol I have been in has a big sign that says... "You are entitled medical care regardless of your ability to pay" I belive those providing the care should also be entitled to make every attempt to collect payment. More often than not, however, the providers will right this off.

    As mentioned earlier, if Wal Mart does not provide your basic needs, then spend your reasonable efforts with another employer. Thats the way compitition works.
  10.    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Every hospitol I have been in has a big sign that says... "You are entitled medical care regardless of your ability to pay" I belive those providing the care should also be entitled to make every attempt to collect payment. More often than not, however, the providers will right this off.

    As mentioned earlier, if Wal Mart does not provide your basic needs, then spend your reasonable efforts with another employer. Thats the way compitition works.
    Exactly, the "off the radar" folks you've mentioned will get healthcare, most often through the ER which is a BIG BILL and yes the hospital will not get paid and will pass the costs on to you through your insurance.

    The working poor that TRY to play the game but don't have insurance wil also present at the ER for something like the flu when symptoms get bad enough, only they give their real names and ID cause they're trying to be honest working folk but they get a bill from the ER which they can never pay and end up with bad credit and are stuck in a cycle of working poor poverty.

    And in case you haven't followed this thread, Wal-Mart is pushing good paying factory jobs overseas. Wake up and smell it.
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Exactly, the "off the radar" folks you've mentioned will get healthcare, most often through the ER which is a BIG BILL and yes the hospital will not get paid and will pass the costs on to you through your insurance.

    The working poor that TRY to play the game but don't have insurance wil also present at the ER for something like the flu when symptoms get bad enough, only they give their real names and ID cause they're trying to be honest working folk but they get a bill from the ER which they can never pay and end up with bad credit and are stuck in a cycle of working poor poverty.

    And in case you haven't followed this thread, Wal-Mart is pushing good paying factory jobs overseas. Wake up and smell it.
    How do you feel about Wal Mart or any other American based company hiring non citizen immigrants?

    The result would be the same on the economy. Yet I remember your arguments about keeping the borders wide open.

    As I have mentioned before DA you are never FOR anything, always AGAINST
  12.    #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    How do you feel about Wal Mart or any other American based company hiring non citizen immigrants?

    The result would be the same on the economy. Yet I remember your arguments about keeping the borders wide open.

    As I have mentioned before DA you are never FOR anything, always AGAINST
    BOLLOCKS!!!!!!

    I am EXACTLY against illegals for the VERY REASON it will knock the American working poor down a rung on the ladder. As well as taking advantage of the illegals. I've simply pointed out that our agri-culture is based on illegals so until those so opposed to illegals are ready to double their produce costs and provide a living wage to those picking their food, they need to shut the fawk up!
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Now, let's look at realistic ways to turn the tide and bring jobs back to the US. As I said before, buy American. When you see an American store selling something made in Mexico, Asia, Europe or wherever ask the manager if they have a similar product made in America. Will one or two people doing this change anything, no, but if we get enough people doing it to get it to the MSM it may catch on. What would it hurt to try? Other suggestions?
    Brilliant idea. You will end up with lots of people making clothing, furniture, and other low-margin stuff in low-pay jobs...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14. #54  
    I believe base human needs and business infrastructure should be provided by the whole. Affordable iPods are not a societal need
    Understood.

    The only dilemma is "the whole" has no means of making such provision. "The whole" is an ideal, not an entity.

    "The whole" is a sum of parts -- in this case, human beings, each with certain inalienable rights. The decision to share resources must be made by the parts. A majority is capable of compelling the masses to share, however our model of government does not support such (some even believe the US Constitution is there to protect such a minority from said majority).

    Incidentally, the Biblical model supports your view. The early "christians" were described as having all things common. We read of accounts where individuals sold their goods and brought the proceeds to the leaders for distribution to those in need.

    The difference, though is that the Biblical model, as it relates to meeting base needs is "self-sufficiency+charity." You are advocating "all-dependency and parity."
  15. #55  
    It occurs to me that some may applaud "all-dependency and parity." While there are desirable aspects, on the whole, such a model does not lend itself to productivity.

    One might point to Finnland to refute this. However a brief examination of the article reveals that when they invested in technology, it was to the detriment of the quality of life to which they were accustomed.

    Conclusion: when you rely on "the state" you will have to make tough choices. For the state's resources to grow it must invest in research and developent. Given a limited amount of resources at any given time, a decision to invest in R&D is a de facto decision to not invest in some aspect of service delivery.

    What is really needed is a society that encourages in charity -- you know...stuff like love thy neighbor.
  16. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yes they are !



    I totally agree. Well said Sir!
    OK, now when these American made products are available understand the cost will be higher (the reason the stores will give is that it is American made so it cost more) and the profits will still go to the big business. We may have more workers in the factories, but the factories will probably not have benefits for the employees. The employees will be those less eductated, and since they are the less educated they will not place a high priority on education for their children. See the cycle. This falls right in line with what happened in this country a couple of hundred years ago when the Northeast focused on education and trades (high tech for the time) and the South focused on farm labor, tobacco and cotton. Now 200 years later the sterotype is still with us, people form the south are country bumpkins, hillbillies and dirt farmers.
  17. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Protect the individuals rights as stated in the constitution. This does not include excluding the selfish few from paying for society's infrastructure for the whole. I think you're smart enough to know the difference.
    Please. We have generational welfare reciepiants for a reason. It is easier to take the state check than to work for a living. Short term state assistance is one thing, but our system rewards those who are too lazy to work. If you don't work you don't eat.
  18. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Ok, provide your own fire/police dept, sewage, sanitation, roads, healthcare, etc. Honestly, you have to admit there are things society needs that the whole of society must provide.
    Society should provide these to the society. Well, we have an awful lot of people who utilize these services that do not provide their share to the system, and have not for generations. You want a welfare check, then spend 2 days a week learning a trade, 2 days a week seeking employment and 2 days a week providing manpower to the state (cleaning the roadside, providing sanitation service, washing state/county/city vehicles, cleaning gov't office buildings whatever). Yes that is 6 days a week, the gov't is providing a check, don't want to spend 6 days a week then you will be motivated to find a job.
  19. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Brilliant idea. You will end up with lots of people making clothing, furniture, and other low-margin stuff in low-pay jobs...
    I was hoping DaT would be the one to realize that.
  20.    #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I was hoping DaT would be the one to realize that.
    Ask the workers of the last American factory that Wal-Mart pushed overseas if they mind their low paying jobs.
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions