Originally posted by FeceMan
No, the conservative justification is that the system doesn't need to change. Just because some people go without doesn't mean that the system is broken.
The system is broken when people don't need to go without. We aren't talking about a gas guzzling SUV or a $50,000 dollar wedding. We're talking about health care.
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Enough to pay for all those "Spawn" back issues he needs to finish his collection.
I chuckled when I read that, I did! 😆
[quote]The system is broken when people don't need to go without. We aren't talking about a gas guzzling SUV or a $50,000 dollar wedding. We're talking about health care.[quote]
H S A's consumer driven health plans! No doctor copay or perscription drug card relatively low deductible and very low premium🙂
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I thought Jesus said to watch over every sheep, not just a select few....
This scripture passage doesn't necessarily imply the implementation of a welfare state or nationalized health care. Sorry.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The system is very much broken as long as someone suffers.....It is not impossible to provide everyone with proper health care. The United States treasury holds more than enough to supply healthcare and food for EVERY fkn citizen, and even some to spare for the illegals who sneak thier asses in here.....
Wow. "As long as someone suffers..."That's a pretty demanding standard. I guess every system is doomed to failure, then.
The treasury might have enough to provide nationalized care, but at what cost? A big one. You might think of this as being a free government entitlement, but it ain't. We'll all pay for it...out the ass. And there's no guarantee the overall service won't be worse. The current system can certainly be worked on but having the government take it over, doesn't seem promising to me.
Provide food? Lord Urizen, what other service would you like the government to perform for you? Wipe your ass? Refill your Pez dispenser? Your post doesn't exactly express confidence in normal, everyday people's ability to take care of themselves. One might even say it borders on condescension...
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
60% of the United States wealth is possessed by the top 20%......the other 40 percent goes to the rest of us "Americans" who scramble and fight for the share......instead of just supplying each citizen with a fair share of security, a large # of ppl have to suffer and die, so the others can live comfortably......wow.....Conservatism is so positive ! 😱
"Fair share?" What fair share would you be referring to?...the part you didn't earn in the marketplace, or the part you didn't risk any of your own capital to build into a successful enterprise?
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
The lesson to the unskilled laborer should be to acquire a skill to become more valuable to the market, not seek increased subsidization for remaining unskilled.This observation brings up another point. The U.S. needs to create a better trade school infrastructure for itself, one that will allow high school graduates to learn valuable skills without having to matriculate at a university.
eletist horseshit. so a member of society with no college education or trade skill is useless? only thing is someone still has to mop up shit. full time labor of any nature deserves livable wages. you imply punishment and a sort of justice for those who remain in unskilled labor, when those labors are needed. i fine that sort of disgusting.
how can people insist that others dont deserve to make a living, even though they work full time and contribute to society and our economy. really, this mentallity annoys the shit out of me.
Originally posted by PVS
eletist horseshit. so a member of society with no college education or trade skill is useless? only thing is someone still has to mop up shit. full time labor of any nature deserves livable wages. you imply punishment and a sort of justice for those who remain in unskilled labor, when those labors are needed. i fine that sort of disgusting.how can people insist that others dont deserve to make a living, even though they work full time and contribute to society and our economy. really, this mentallity annoys the shit out of me.
I didn't say that. I have lots of respect for people who work hard with their hands and don't necessarily have a college degree. I've worked along side some of these people, doing sweat labor and never thought myself superior in any way. In fact, I would prefer more people to acquire honest trade skills than become just another useless university matriculated f..k, like me.
But the fact remains, even people who can't or don't want to go to college need to acquire skills, whether that's as a plumber, carpenter, roofer, general contractor, etc...These jobs pay good money.
I just don't believe wages or prices can be determined by anything other than market forces, without the law of unintended cause and effect kicking in. Keeping any price or wage artificially high will cause employers in the market to adjust their behavior in other unfavorable ways.
And...believe or not, some unskilled labor is paid very highly, but it's usually tough, sweaty work. Me and my employer do some consulting work for a disaster recovery general contractor. He happens to be set up near New Orleans at the moment. It's amazing to go down there and walk around and talk to people like our client and discover just how many "desparate" people are unwilling to do any type of tough, honest labor...even at high wages.
You wanna talk disgusting. That's disgusting.
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
I didn't say that. I have lots of respect for people who work hard with their hands and don't necessarily have a college degree. I've worked along side some of these people, doing sweat labor and never thought myself superior in any way. In fact, I would prefer more people to acquire honest trade skills than become just another useless university matriculated f..k, like me.
my ideal is simple: everyone who works full time, contributing to society and our economy, should be given the means to pull their own weight. nothing more. im not saying shower them with money. im saying give them the means to pull their weight.
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
But the fact remains, even people who can't or don't want to go to college need to acquire skills, whether that's as a plumber, carpenter, roofer, general contractor, etc...These jobs pay good money.
go to a restaurant.
someone has to wait tables. someone has to wash the dishes. someone has to mop the floor. none of these are skilled labor, yet they are needed. it is unfair to punish those who work full time by offering them sub-livable wages.
and YES, you do suggest that and continue to suggest that. and when your debate is stripped of all the fluff and feigned empathy, that is all that remains:
the mentallity that unskilled laborers dont deserve to earn a living. (not a fortune, just a living) that is, in essence, slavery.
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
I just don't believe wages or prices can be determined by anything other than market forces, without the law of unintended cause and effect kicking in. Keeping any price or wage artificially high will cause employers in the market to adjust their behavior in other unfavorable ways.
have you ever stopped to consider that the minimum wage is artificially low?
as pointed out earlier:
Originally posted by xmarksthespotPictures are prettiful.
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
And...believe or not, some unskilled labor is paid very highly, but it's usually tough, sweaty work. Me and my employer do some consulting work for a disaster recovery general contractor. He happens to be set up near New Orleans at the moment. It's amazing to go down there and walk around and talk to people like our client and discover just how many "desparate" people are unwilling to do any type of tough, honest labor...even at high wages.You wanna talk disgusting. That's disgusting.
yeah, there are plenty of blue collar workers who are lazy, corporate slime who leach off of the market through criminal activity, doctors who refuse to take the time to properly diagnose their patients...its a sad world...lots of assholes out there...and no your point there is irrelevant, unless i'm supposed to believe that people you run into on the street are proof that poor people dont work? yeah, i know, im misunderstanding again. so correct me: what is the relevance of bringing them up?
my ideal is simple: everyone who works full time, contributing to society and our economy, should be given the means to pull their own weight. nothing more. im not saying shower them with money. im saying give them the means to pull their weight.
Whats "their weight" valued at then? How much is this livable income?
17k a year? 20k a year? 24k a year? 28k a year? 32k a year?
Originally posted by Soleran
Whats "their weight" valued at then? How much is this livable income?17k a year? 20k a year? 24k a year? 28k a year? 32k a year?
18-20k imho. the current minimum allows for barely over 10k a year.
imagine working a 40 hour week and getting $200...excluding taxes, so realistically like $160 a week/8,500 a year.
Originally posted by PVS
18-20k imho. the current minimum allows for barely over 10k a year.imagine working a 40 hour week and getting $200...excluding taxes, so realistically like $160 a week/8,500 a year.
You have to create something worth the 18-20 k and some people just can't..why should people pay more for the work than it is worth?
Originally posted by PVS
18-20k imho. the current minimum allows for barely over 10k a year.imagine working a 40 hour week and getting $200...excluding taxes, so realistically like $160 a week/8,500 a year.
I can tell you that I wouldn't be working only 40 hours a week to begin with if I made that little...........................I would also find a way to increase my income rather then whine complain and struggle with where I was at.
But hey, that's me and that's also what I feel others should do in that situation.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You have to create something worth the 18-20 k and some people just can't..why should people pay more for the work than it is worth?
"what its worth" is an intangible and downright imagined figure. 200 years ago, "what its worth" was a few loafs of bread and a barnhouse to sleep in. so then, they try to keep the minimum proportionate with the cost of living, bare minimum...at least that was the ideal. now people find it acceptable to drop them below the cost of living as a means of punishment for not being as skilled as them....or so it seems...or so i cant imagine any other reason why.
proof:
Originally posted by Soleran
I can tell you that I wouldn't be working only 40 hours a week to begin with if I made that little...........................I would also find a way to increase my income rather then whine complain and struggle with where I was at.But hey, that's me and that's also what I feel others should do in that situation.
translation: those who perform needed yet unskilled labors should be denied the basic means for living.
translation: those who perform needed unskilled labors should be denied the basic means for living.
No your translator just sucks, it means that if you are working for minimum wages you might not be able to afford to work "regular" (read 40 hours) a week. You might not be able to live in a place by yourself or eat name brand foods and order out, people have choices to make on what they do and don't do. I'm not here to give warm fuzzies to people that choose "less" but want equal.
Originally posted by PVS
"what its worth" is an intangible and downright imagined figure. 200 years ago, "what its worth" was a few loafs of bread and a barnhouse to sleep in. so they try to keep the minimum proportionate with the cost of living, bare minimum...at least that was the ideal. now people find it acceptable to drop them below the cost of living as a means of punishment for not being as skilled as them....or so it seems...or so i cant imagine any other reason why.proof:
translation: those who perform needed unskilled labors should be denied the basic means for living.
Not really, what it is worth is pretty easy to determine..what are you willing to pay for a certain action...that's what it is worth to you.
Originally posted by Soleran
No your translator just sucks, it means that if you are working for minimum wages you might not be able to afford to work "regular" (read 40 hours) a week. You might not be able to live in a place by yourself or eat name brand foods and order out, people have choices to make on what they do and don't do. I'm not here to give warm fuzzies to people that choose "less" but want equal.
my translator is dead on. you hold contempt for unskilled laborers. your every post STINKS of it. avoiding my points will not alter that. you feel that a houshold of 2 married unskilled laborers should not have the means to raise a family. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.....but not for them....they CHOSE to make less than me so let them eat cake.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really, what it is worth is pretty easy to determine..what are you willing to pay for a certain action...that's what it is worth to you.
So sitting in boring meetings and sipping expensive coffee all day while sitting in a plush office on the 80th floor of some NY skyscrapper is proportionate to moping floors in a dive cafe? One earns over a 100k a year and the other has to work 80 hours a week just keep his home?
Not that all people who sit in the office haven't gotten there through hard work, but what is the guy moping the floor doing? I think we all deserve to at least be able to keep our heads above water. And that's what so many conservatives take issue with: the word "deserve".