The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='Clak']I was actually going to say about the same, nothing to really hold anyone to a particular company anymore. My grandfather retired as a machinist after working for the same company for almost 30 years, I can't imagine doing that today. It'd have to be a fucking dream job.[/QUOTE]

That's assuming that a company would even want to keep someone for that long these days.
 
[quote name='dohdough']That's assuming that a company would even want to keep someone for that long these days.[/QUOTE]
That's true, in some cases they'd rather fire the old timers and bring in cheaper, younger labor. Look at the situation at a lot of auto plants, the old guys actually had a sweeter deal then the new hires because the unions were forced to cave in.

I wonder sometimes though, with the cost of training new people and all, just how much they really save.
 
[quote name='Clak']That's true, in some cases they'd rather fire the old timers and bring in cheaper, younger labor. Look at the situation at a lot of auto plants, the old guys actually had a sweeter deal then the new hires because the unions were forced to cave in.

I wonder sometimes though, with the cost of training new people and all, just how much they really save.[/QUOTE]
The savings are probably negligible, but there are intangible benefits to the organization in regards to keeping labor in check by reinforcing the message that the cogs are replaceable.
 
depends. This company sold last week and I'm unemployed come 1/11/13. I've applied to 100 jobs that are either slightly under, right at or slightly above my current job in the last 14 days. I've had 3 call backs. Hard to say I'm unloyal when my job no longer exists.

But I'm lazy since I'll end up with at least 3 months of unemployment and I'm not going to go to Burger King. Why? Because I need the time to comb job sites, get in touch with my network, post resumes, go to job fairs, head out to every tall building within 20 miles to copy down the companies within and then go back home and look up each one and check out their career sections. Oh yeah, watch TV too. I simply can't do all of this and work the 27 hours per day necessary at $8hr to equal half a day of pay at my job.
 
[quote name='nasum']depends. This company sold last week and I'm unemployed come 1/11/13. I've applied to 100 jobs that are either slightly under, right at or slightly above my current job in the last 14 days. I've had 3 call backs. Hard to say I'm unloyal when my job no longer exists.

But I'm lazy since I'll end up with at least 3 months of unemployment and I'm not going to go to Burger King. Why? Because I need the time to comb job sites, get in touch with my network, post resumes, go to job fairs, head out to every tall building within 20 miles to copy down the companies within and then go back home and look up each one and check out their career sections. Oh yeah, watch TV too. I simply can't do all of this and work the 27 hours per day necessary at $8hr to equal half a day of pay at my job.[/QUOTE]
Sorry to hear that, dude. On the brightside, you have a nice ergonomic chair to do your job hunt on.:D Good luck!
 
tax prep will fill the gap but that's about 20% of what I make. I suppose I could take on a bunch more clients but I'm too late in the advertising game and I'm not about to pimp my skills on craigslist and get god only knows what for clients.
There's a startup mortgage lender in the stripmall that is a 5 minute walk from my house that's looking for a JR underwriter. I don't have the necessary licenses but could probably get them within 90-120 days depending on the registration backlog. In the meantime I could help with credit analysis and such. I sold myself on being able to do their books too until the business grows to the point where my services are needed there more than in underwriting. They liked that.
 
[quote name='nasum']depends. This company sold last week and I'm unemployed come 1/11/13. I've applied to 100 jobs that are either slightly under, right at or slightly above my current job in the last 14 days. I've had 3 call backs. Hard to say I'm unloyal when my job no longer exists.

But I'm lazy since I'll end up with at least 3 months of unemployment and I'm not going to go to Burger King. Why? Because I need the time to comb job sites, get in touch with my network, post resumes, go to job fairs, head out to every tall building within 20 miles to copy down the companies within and then go back home and look up each one and check out their career sections. Oh yeah, watch TV too. I simply can't do all of this and work the 27 hours per day necessary at $8hr to equal half a day of pay at my job.[/QUOTE]

How can you assume you'll be out of work for at least 3 months?

And for someone that allegedly makes $100K a year (i.e. 27hrs x $8 = 1/2 day of old rate x 2 = full day rate at old job x 5 work days a week = $2,160/wk x 52 weeks = $100K+) I'm sure you have savings right?
 
Savings yes. I finished my refi a week before finding out. With that reduction in monthly costs I'm solvent for nearly 10 months. Toss in UI at 33% of my current pay and I'm good for another 8 before the budget gets tight. Once Wells Fargo gets off their bums and mails me my escrow from the last mortgage I'll have another 2.5 months paid off there.
You're confusing wage with compensation. I'm including VERY good insurance and a 6% 401k match. It's impolite to talk about such things here, even more so to inquire. Also, the lack of insurance at BK would require me to pick up COBRA which is an enormous cost.
 
[quote name='egofed']sigh...maybe I am out of touch. I would prefer the guy who demonstrated his work ethic and can do attitude by taking what job he could get at the time and providing for his family versus sucking at the gov't teat. If your right about working in any capacity "tarnishing" your image, then we are screwed as a country. Actually, someone told me that an inmate was given a sex change with tax payer money....we are dooooomed.;-)[/QUOTE]

Settle down, we are not screwed. It's just how the white collar jobs market works.

[quote name='dohdough']I don't think it was directed at you. Or at least, it wouldn't make sense since you're arguing the same thing albeit less sarcasticly.


Funny thing that people forget about that time was that social programs were created to not only lessen the effects of poverty, but also to keep people from being desperate enough to not storm the mansions and start lining people up against the wall. Those programs were a compromise between labor and capital to keep capitalism alive. FDR should be capitalism's greatest hero.[/QUOTE]

Oh yeah it was a different time and different circumstances to be sure, from what I understand they ditched the make-work projects pretty early on and had folks work on more long-term, beneficial projects ranging from bridge work and water infrastructure to public works of art. I respect what FDR did given the circumstances of the times, but IMHO it's a little too close to centralized planning to be considered as anything but an emergency back-of-the-shelf option to alleviate an extreme economic depression.

Ironic that two of the most self-professed fans of capitalism would advocate such an extreme socialist position.
 
[quote name='nasum']Savings yes. I finished my refi a week before finding out. With that reduction in monthly costs I'm solvent for nearly 10 months. Toss in UI at 33% of my current pay and I'm good for another 8 before the budget gets tight. Once Wells Fargo gets off their bums and mails me my escrow from the last mortgage I'll have another 2.5 months paid off there.
You're confusing wage with compensation. I'm including VERY good insurance and a 6% 401k match. It's impolite to talk about such things here, even more so to inquire. Also, the lack of insurance at BK would require me to pick up COBRA which is an enormous cost.[/QUOTE]

Well it appears you have things thought out. Kudos and good luck in your job search.
 
[quote name='egofed']I would prefer the guy who demonstrated his work ethic and can do attitude by taking what job he could get at the time and providing for his family versus sucking at the gov't teat.[/QUOTE]

How many job applications have you viewed in your life? How many hiring panels have you sat in on in your life? How many people have you hired in your life?

These are important questions - all of this ignores the absurdity that gap in employment = "sucking at the gov't teat," or unemployed = lazy, etc. The idea that someone is responsible for being employed is full of enormous logical gaps.

(It's why *searching* for a job might be a condition of probation, but *getting* a job is not.)
 
I'd swear egofed was straight out of the 50s if I didn't know any better. Keep in mind that when you read this, it isn't a compliment.
 
[quote name='Clak']Keep in mind that when you read this, it isn't a compliment.[/QUOTE]

Anyone who reads the VS forum would already know this. You're a dumb man's myke, most of your posts are sarcastic and unnecessary. Keep in mind when you read this, that isn't a compliment. Myke's posts are, however, some of my favorite to read in this sub-forum.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Anyone who reads the VS forum would already know this. You're a dumb man's myke, most of your posts are sarcastic and unnecessary. Keep in mind when you read this, that isn't a compliment. Myke's posts are, however, some of my favorite to read in this sub-forum.[/QUOTE]
Are you saying that he's taken my corner???
 
A few months back, I asked readers to nominate their boyfriends in desperate need of a Dude-Over. http://www.northfacejacketswholesalese.com They are hoping to open up a debate on their 'Future Ways of Living' and position design as a critical and vital stage and voice in the formation and realisation of these concepts.. burberry It is one of the most important travel gears that we must possess. the north face Before leaving the venue, Holmes stopped to talk to Smash star Katharine McPhee, telling the starlet, look gorgeous. cheap ghd straighteners It a great idea to create a blog.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Anyone who reads the VS forum would already know this. You're a dumb man's myke, most of your posts are sarcastic and unnecessary. Keep in mind when you read this, that isn't a compliment. Myke's posts are, however, some of my favorite to read in this sub-forum.[/QUOTE]

pre-or-post jerkiness? (I don't know if anyone has noticed that I've been trying to be less of a shithead the past few months. This includes just not engaging posters who are dreadful trolls.)
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Anyone who reads the VS forum would already know this. You're a dumb man's myke, most of your posts are sarcastic and unnecessary. Keep in mind when you read this, that isn't a compliment. Myke's posts are, however, some of my favorite to read in this sub-forum.[/QUOTE]

Honestly, was your sarcastic commentary necessary?
 
[quote name='nasum']false equivalence. Why not thank your employer for limiting your work?[/QUOTE]

From a pure business standpoint, why would any employer pay an employee 1.5x the standard rate when they can just get a second employe and pay them 1x the standard rate?
 
Well of course Obama can stay classy, running the country into the ground and gets off scot-free by the gray hairs on his head. While the MSM is giving him head.
 
[quote name='cfootball1']well of course obama can stay classy, running the country into the ground and gets off scot-free by the gray hairs on his head. While the msm is giving him head.[/quote]
You're going to be lots of fun here. I can already tell.:rofl:
 
[quote name='egofed']sigh...maybe I am out of touch. I would prefer the guy who demonstrated his work ethic and can do attitude by taking what job he could get at the time and providing for his family versus sucking at the gov't teat. If your right about working in any capacity "tarnishing" your image, then we are screwed as a country. Actually, someone told me that an inmate was given a sex change with tax payer money....we are dooooomed.;-)[/QUOTE]
Welcome to Obama's America. Free birth control and free sex changes. That guy was convicted of murdering his wife. But of course we must be sensible to his feelings. There was a time when common sense dictated and the simple answer was to say no to a murderer. Don't remember that personally.
 
Are you saying that he's taken my corner???
Click to expand...
Your posts have never been that bad imo.
pre-or-post jerkiness? (I don't know if anyone has noticed that I've been trying to be less of a shithead the past few months. This includes just not engaging posters who are dreadful trolls.)
Click to expand...
Post jerkiness has been a bit of a change, but your posts have always been ones I'd make sure to read. I do like it now that you are a little more straight forward and less snarky, but regardless they have always been informative.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']From a pure business standpoint, why would any employer pay an employee 1.5x the standard rate when they can just get a second employe and pay them 1x the standard rate?[/QUOTE]

Because 4 hours of 1.5x is significantly cheaper than 2 employees both making 1x (thus twice the labor cost) for 40hrs?
 
[quote name='camoor']Was this meant to be a bad thing?[/QUOTE]


"A Letter from Hobby Lobby Stores CEO
By David Green, the founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we
were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames. Our first retail store wasn't much bigger than most people's living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God's word. From there,Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation's largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.

We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I've always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God's laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that's what we've tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week's biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by God's grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We've not only added jobs in a weak economy, we've raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.

But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government health care mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in government fines.

Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy. Our government threatens to fine a company that's raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It's not right. I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it's the same for everybody. But that's not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won't exempt them for reasons of religious belief.

So, Hobby Lobby and my family are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don't like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.

My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the government is going to make that much more difficult. The government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law. I say that's a choice no American and no American business should have to make.
The government cannot force you to follow laws that go against your fundamental religious belief. They have exempted thousands of companies but will not except Christian organizations including the Catholic church.

Since you will not see this covered in any of the liberal media, pass this on to all your contacts.
Sincerely,
David Green, CEO and Founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc."

I think its insane for the government to be able to mandate this. Shall we give every right, opinion, principle, and freedom over to a government with a Kill List and astronomical debt?
 
And that's why, in select cases, as I initially stated, I was able to get overtime. My favorite was the two-week period I worked 80/week. Damn, that was a sweet paycheck.

However, I would have gladly worked 50+ hour work weeks on a regular basis while I was putting myself through college (without a dime of student loans, mind you). Instead, we would have to hire a second employee to work. Why pay me for 15 hours of labor and only get ten when you can hire a second employee and get 15 hours of labor for 15 hours of pay?
 
If your reply was a game of darts, you would have just the outer ring of the board 8ft to the side of the one we're playing on.
 
[quote name='egofed']I think its insane for the government to be able to mandate this.[/QUOTE]

That's the cost of doing business. Don't like it, don't get into business. Individuals are entitled to their religious beliefs, but they are not entitled to impose them on others. Crafting an exemption for a religious organization goes against fundamental Constitutional principles of separation.

To speak of any contraception as "abortion causing" shows that Green is a religious extremist with no interest in the science of reproduction, to speak of the "liberal media" is juvenile (particularly since I saw this story covered on at least 5 different occasions by CNN alone).

I think it would be insane for the government to get in bed with religion and allow them to participate on a different level than other businesses. You show your fickle endorsement of "free market" principles if you allow one business to provide a different quality of health care coverage than another; you're endorsing giving one group a government-rooted market advantage over competing businesses. Try explaining your position to the fine people at AC Moore.

Lastly, this is government regulating *business*. Green seems to think the government is walking into a house of worship to tell people of faith how they might pray. Government is, instead, going into a place of business and telling them how they must cover their employees. Hobby Lobby is a house of balsa wood and knitting needles, not a holy domain.
 
[quote name='nasum']If your reply was a game of darts, you would have just the outer ring of the board 8ft to the side of the one we're playing on.[/QUOTE]

Nice non-reply. Thanks.

[quote name='mykevermin'][...]you allow one business to provide a different quality of health care coverage than another[...][/QUOTE]

Why not?

We allow businesses to pick and choose rates of pay, hours, schedules, retirement benefits, vacations, etc., etc. Why not allow a private business to determine what level of health insurance they wish to provide and let the potential employees use that as part of the process to determine who they wish to work for?

Perhaps the government should set *all* aspects of employment at a single, universal level? Every employee at every business will make exactly $10.75/hour. No more, no less. Every employee will work exactly 40 hours. No more, no less. Every employee will get two weeks of paid vacation, no more, no less. Every employee will be entitled to 5 "personal days" off without pay. No more, no less.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That's the cost of doing business. Don't like it, don't get into business. Individuals are entitled to their religious beliefs, but they are not entitled to impose them on others. Crafting an exemption for a religious organization goes against fundamental Constitutional principles of separation.

To speak of any contraception as "abortion causing" shows that Green is a religious extremist with no interest in the science of reproduction, to speak of the "liberal media" is juvenile (particularly since I saw this story covered on at least 5 different occasions by CNN alone).

I think it would be insane for the government to get in bed with religion and allow them to participate on a different level than other businesses. You show your fickle endorsement of "free market" principles if you allow one business to provide a different quality of health care coverage than another; you're endorsing giving one group a government-rooted market advantage over competing businesses. Try explaining your position to the fine people at AC Moore.

Lastly, this is government regulating *business*. Green seems to think the government is walking into a house of worship to tell people of faith how they might pray. Government is, instead, going into a place of business and telling them how they must cover their employees. Hobby Lobby is a house of balsa wood and knitting needles, not a holy domain.[/QUOTE]



"Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs."

"Definition of ABORTION

1
: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus"

Sounds like Green is right on the money calling any drug taken after the fertilization of an egg as abortion.

" I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it's the same for everybody. But that's not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won't exempt them for reasons of religious belief."

Ok, then you say "You show your fickle endorsement of "free market" principles if you allow one business to provide a different quality of health care coverage than another; you're endorsing giving one group a government-rooted market advantage over competing businesses. Try explaining your position to the fine people at AC Moore."

Sounds like the gov't already gives advantages, no? And why should I not be able to offer what benefits I want to my employees? Like em, work for me. Don't like em, work for somebody else.
 
More in depth:
a person making $10 an hour doesn't cost $10 an hour. Payroll taxes, benefits, payroll processing cost, training cost, etc...
Simply paying another person to pick up what can't be done by another after 40 hours isn't a cost savings by any stretch of the imagination. OT under 10hrs would be a significant savings compared to hiring another person to give 15hrs of labor based on your illustration.
 
[quote name='nasum']More in depth:
a person making $10 an hour doesn't cost $10 an hour. Payroll taxes, benefits, payroll processing cost, training cost, etc...
Simply paying another person to pick up what can't be done by another after 40 hours isn't a cost savings by any stretch of the imagination. OT under 10hrs would be a significant savings compared to hiring another person to give 15hrs of labor based on your illustration.[/QUOTE]

To an extent - yes. However, you're excluding other advantages that you'd have by hiring a second employee - the ability to work both at the same time during high-traffic periods, the ability to give the second employee even more hours (heck, we could both work a total of 80 hours a week easily, where as one person could not sustain that over an extended period of time). Also, easier to cover one guy's vacation if he works 40 hours than if he works 50.

The deck is already stacked against a singular employee with more hours vs. a second employee and splitting the hours. I don't need a third party to create additional artificial barriers to my ability to compete in the marketplace.
 
I just want the libs here to try and defend the atrocity caused by the teacher's union as detailed in "Waiting for Superman".
 
[quote name='egofed']Sounds like the gov't already gives advantages, no? And why should I not be able to offer what benefits I want to my employees? Like em, work for me. Don't like em, work for somebody else.[/QUOTE]

Big words for a probe who enjoys all the benefits and protections of being a state employee.
 
[quote name='egofed']Sounds like Green is right on the money[/quote]

Perhaps; I confused this with other birth control fights, so I didn't realize that this did not include traditional birth control pills. My mistake.

However, when you realize that Green admits that Hobby Lobby's health insurance *did* include the very specific drugs they're now trying to sue to avoid including up until the PPACA passed, Green's motives become more suspect. That is, they did provide drugs for employees up until "Obamacare" passed, and now they're throwing a temper tantrum about it. I hope that's as suspicious to you as it is to me.

Sounds like the gov't already gives advantages, no? And why should I not be able to offer what benefits I want to my employees? Like em, work for me. Don't like em, work for somebody else.
Click to expand...

Green argued that exemptions exist, not me. Find a few examples of what those exemptions are and get back to me on how those exemptions should be stretched to include religion.
 
Thanks for the mistake acknowledgement, I'll put out there that I didn't know they were covering these things pre-Obamacare. It is suspicious. I'll post if I get more info. I fail to see how offering the benefits that you want to an employee who actively pursued a job with you is "imposing" your religion on them, though. And camoor, you still have not responded to my request to share any info about yourself, yet you love to sling personal attacks my way for being a firefighter. I fail to see how pursuing a career helping people precludes me from calling out abuses in welfare programs and the like. The city offered me a set position with defined salary/benefits for determined work. What's the problem? I'm not demanding any free entitlements. I just hope they live up to the contract that we both entered into freely.
 
[quote name='egofed']I just want the libs here to try and defend the atrocity caused by the teacher's union as detailed in "Waiting for Superman".[/QUOTE]
We will as soon as you start talking about how charter schools pad their numbers by removing "under-performing" students...especially the private ones.
 
[quote name='egofed']I fail to see how offering the benefits that you want to an employee who actively pursued a job with you is "imposing" your religion on them, though. And camoor, you still have not responded to my request to share any info about yourself, yet you love to sling personal attacks my way for being a firefighter. I fail to see how pursuing a career helping people precludes me from calling out abuses in welfare programs and the like. The city offered me a set position with defined salary/benefits for determined work. What's the problem? I'm not demanding any free entitlements. I just hope they live up to the contract that we both entered into freely.[/QUOTE]

No problem - I think working Americans should get a salary and health benefits. Your job contract with the state, which includes mandated health benefits for you (plus I would assume a cozy arrangement for your significant other and/or offspring) is the way job contracts should work.

Just sadly ironic that we are getting lectured about how free enterprise should be deregulated from a state employee who has hit it out of the park when it comes to guaranteed benefits and job protection.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']To an extent - yes. However, you're excluding other advantages that you'd have by hiring a second employee - the ability to work both at the same time during high-traffic periods, the ability to give the second employee even more hours (heck, we could both work a total of 80 hours a week easily, where as one person could not sustain that over an extended period of time). Also, easier to cover one guy's vacation if he works 40 hours than if he works 50.

The deck is already stacked against a singular employee with more hours vs. a second employee and splitting the hours. I don't need a third party to create additional artificial barriers to my ability to compete in the marketplace.[/QUOTE]

Wow.

If it only requires the one employee 40hrs and 5hrs of OT, obviously there is no necessity to have 80hrs of work done in the week. There is only 45hrs of work to be done. A very simple cost/benefit analysis there. A temp at the same $10 wage would cost nearly $22.50 per hour. Still cheaper to pay $15 for 5hrs. Keep in mind, you're the same guy that has argued against higher wages as it is a cost to consumers.
 
[quote name='dohdough']We will as soon as you start talking about how charter schools pad their numbers by removing "under-performing" students...especially the private ones.[/QUOTE]


Besides the fact that I never defended charter schools, I asked you first.:bouncy:
 
[quote name='camoor']No problem - I think working Americans should get a salary and health benefits. Your job contract with the state, which includes mandated health benefits for you (plus I would assume a cozy arrangement for your significant other and/or offspring) is the way job contracts should work.

Just sadly ironic that we are getting lectured about how free enterprise should be deregulated from a state employee who has hit it out of the park when it comes to guaranteed benefits and job protection.[/QUOTE]

I think Scarlett Johansen should come blow me every night, but it's not in the Constitution that founded our country. The federal gov't was given strict, expressed things that it could do and not do. Forcing employers to pay for condoms is definitely not in there and I'm pretty sure would be viewed as tyrannical. You want religion out of your gov't, I want gov't out of my healthcare. That's why states rights is the way to go. Don't like the ones in your state, move to one more in line with your beliefs.
 
[quote name='egofed']I think Scarlett Johansen should come blow me every night, but it's not in the Constitution that founded our country. The federal gov't was given strict, expressed things that it could do and not do. Forcing employers to pay for condoms is definitely not in there and I'm pretty sure would be viewed as tyrannical. You want religion out of your gov't, I want gov't out of my healthcare. That's why states rights is the way to go. Don't like the ones in your state, move to one more in line with your beliefs.[/QUOTE]

Founding fathers were alot more progressive then you give them credit for. They absolutely did recognize the need for social welfare programs.

For evidence I turn to that trusty commie rag, Forbes :lol:

In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.

And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind.
...
The law was not only the first time the United States created a socialized medical program (The Marine Hospital Service) but was also the first to mandate that privately employed citizens be legally required to make payments to pay for health care services. Upon passage of the law, ships were no longer permitted to sail in and out of our ports if the health care tax had not been collected by the ship owners and paid over to the government – thus the creation of the first payroll tax in our nation’s history.
Click to expand...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...dicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/
 
ahh the classic "move to another state" cannard. Because that's SOOOOOOOOO easy to do...

Government isn't involved in your healthcare. With the current law, they are just barely involved in most people's insurance and in your case DIRECTLY involved in your insurance since they pay the employer portion of the insurance premium. You want government out of what you perceive to be your healthcare? Get a private sector job.
 
[quote name='camoor']Founding fathers were alot more progressive then you give them credit for. They absolutely did recognize the need for social welfare programs.

For evidence I turn to that trusty commie rag, Forbes :lol:



http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...dicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/[/QUOTE]

This is very interesting to me, camoor. Thanks for posting. The comments are a great debate to read also.


"With all dues respect Mr Ungar, you are overlooking the fact that my position is not based on the Merchant Marine being a a quasi-military service; an assertion I stand by, by the way, if you wish to argue the point off-line.
My position is based on the incontrovertible fact that the act addressed a very small subset of people engaged in a very specific activity; not “The People” as a uniform whole.
Those sailors affected by the act were NOT compelled by any act of law to take on the specific job that would cause the law to apply to them.
As a result, the sailors had to make a very specific and entirely voluntary choice to engage in a very specific activity and voluntary activity before the law could be applied to them.
This is analogous to Automobile Insurance, which only affects those withing to drive upon public thoroughfares and NOT those people who through no choice or action on their own part would be compelled to buy something they did not want.
If you would care to respond on point, I would happy to read your argument."


This matches up with my thoughts on it.

"The important difference is that the 1798 law was a TAX. The money was collected by the government. That is clearly within the Constitution’s Section Eight grant of authority to Congress to tax and spend for the general welfare, as would be “Medicare for All.” Forcing people to purchase something from a private vendor is not a tax. It’s a police power. The states could unquestionably require such a purchase, but under our system of federalism, Congress cannot."

Heehheheheehe..reminds me of how Obama repeats several times on video that it's not a tax, then has his lawyers win in the Supreme Court by arguing it is.
 
[quote name='egofed']This is very interesting to me, camoor. Thanks for posting. The comments are a great debate to read also.


"With all dues respect Mr Ungar, you are overlooking the fact that my position is not based on the Merchant Marine being a a quasi-military service; an assertion I stand by, by the way, if you wish to argue the point off-line.
My position is based on the incontrovertible fact that the act addressed a very small subset of people engaged in a very specific activity; not “The People” as a uniform whole.
Those sailors affected by the act were NOT compelled by any act of law to take on the specific job that would cause the law to apply to them.
As a result, the sailors had to make a very specific and entirely voluntary choice to engage in a very specific activity and voluntary activity before the law could be applied to them.
This is analogous to Automobile Insurance, which only affects those withing to drive upon public thoroughfares and NOT those people who through no choice or action on their own part would be compelled to buy something they did not want.
If you would care to respond on point, I would happy to read your argument."


This matches up with my thoughts on it.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure.

It's a cute legal/logical argument but I don't think it's the reasoning that the founding fathers had for undertaking this policy. They were advocates for progressive taxation, social welfare, and other programs that tended to benefit the 99%.

They saw a case of cost displacement wherein government was losing big money and sailors were put into human misery, all so that shipping companies could earn a little extra profit. So they took steps to correct it.
 
[quote name='egofed']I think Scarlett Johansen should come blow me every night, but it's not in the Constitution that founded our country. The federal gov't was given strict, expressed things that it could do and not do. Forcing employers to pay for condoms is definitely not in there and I'm pretty sure would be viewed as tyrannical. You want religion out of your gov't, I want gov't out of my healthcare. That's why states rights is the way to go. Don't like the ones in your state, move to one more in line with your beliefs.[/QUOTE]

Countries that have universal healthcare spend less than we do to cover every body.

The current law makes it harder to for insurance companies to kill people for money.
 
[quote name='egofed']"Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs."

"Definition of ABORTION

1
: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus"

Sounds like Green is right on the money calling any drug taken after the fertilization of an egg as abortion.[/QUOTE]

There has been a lot of research done in recent years that that is not how Plan B actually works. Rather than preventing the implantation of fertilized eggs, it "stall an egg’s release until sperm can no longer fertilize it". In other words, it delays ovulation. In fact, there has been research done that has shown that in women who take Plan B after they have started to ovulate become pregnant at the same rate as if they hadn't taken the pill at all:

None who took the drug before ovulation became pregnant, underscoring how Plan B delays ovulation. Women who had ovulated became pregnant at the same rate as if they had taken no drug at all. In those cases, there were no difficulties with implantation, said one of the researchers, Gabriela Noé, at the Instituto Chileno de Medicina Reproductiva in Santiago. Dr. Blithe of the N.I.H., said, “No one can say that it works to inhibit implantation based on these data.”
Click to expand...

The New York Times had an article earlier in the year about the research that's been done.
 
A lot more Constitutionally knowledgeable people than I argue with this article's intent in its comments section. Check it out. I do think that the "Founding Fathers" were very, very wary of a large, all powerful government. A lot of their writings confirm it.

Here's a few of ol Tommy J's quotes that match VS current topics:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.



No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.


To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.


I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. (Back then!)

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.



Most bad government has grown out of too much government.



Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.



A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.


Smart guy? I think he was majorly against organized religion also. Here's my favorite:

In matters of style, swim with the current;
In matters of principle, stand like a rock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top