Some unions are good... some unions are terrible.
Illinois 15 dollar/hr incremental raise
- Thread starter Vern_in_IL
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by billt460
And there was no Medicare, Obama Care, Welfare, Food Stamps, and all the rest of the government dependent nonsense that started in 1965 with the, "Great Society". All of which have improved nothing, except to make people less dependent on themselves, and more on the government that is going bankrupt trying to pay for it all.
Obama Care just allows people to be guaranteed to be able to buy insurance regardless of preexisting conditions, or if they change jobs. It shows a basic respect for the agency of a human being. We should not look someone in the eye and say, well, you lost the genetic lottery, so you're paying a 4-figures-per-month premium for your insurance.
Quote
Kids worked their way through college, instead of taking out loans, only to default on them. All the while screaming how the government, "owes them" a free education, job, house, health care, along with everything else they think they deserve.
College was affordable back then. They are a cartel that needs to be taken down, because they as a group are the authority that blesses new colleges with accreditation. If a student pays $35000 a year for 9 courses, and the adjunct professor teaching them makes $1500 per class per semester, where is the money going? This is crooked AF. I don't think they want the government to pay for it, they want society to make it affordable. Some candidates are looking to solve this, some are not.
Quote
Back then people paid their own way, and those who came here from south of the border did so legally. And they obeyed our laws when they got here.
Statistically, illegals break fewer laws per capita than native-born Americans, because the illegals are hiding from it. The anecdotes that make the news are exceptions drummed up by propagandist, sensationalist sources.
Quote
Today it has all changed into a free for all, that is bankrupting this nation. And none of it is going to be paid for by, "taxing the rich". Who as of last year, the top 1 percent of accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. Yeah, the "decades gone by" were pretty good years alright, because people provided for themselves. Then came liberalism. And look what happened.
The rich benefit from the work of the poor and the protection of our armed services, making the land they work on safe for business, with an infrastructure that supports it.
And there was no Medicare, Obama Care, Welfare, Food Stamps, and all the rest of the government dependent nonsense that started in 1965 with the, "Great Society". All of which have improved nothing, except to make people less dependent on themselves, and more on the government that is going bankrupt trying to pay for it all.
Obama Care just allows people to be guaranteed to be able to buy insurance regardless of preexisting conditions, or if they change jobs. It shows a basic respect for the agency of a human being. We should not look someone in the eye and say, well, you lost the genetic lottery, so you're paying a 4-figures-per-month premium for your insurance.
Quote
Kids worked their way through college, instead of taking out loans, only to default on them. All the while screaming how the government, "owes them" a free education, job, house, health care, along with everything else they think they deserve.
College was affordable back then. They are a cartel that needs to be taken down, because they as a group are the authority that blesses new colleges with accreditation. If a student pays $35000 a year for 9 courses, and the adjunct professor teaching them makes $1500 per class per semester, where is the money going? This is crooked AF. I don't think they want the government to pay for it, they want society to make it affordable. Some candidates are looking to solve this, some are not.
Quote
Back then people paid their own way, and those who came here from south of the border did so legally. And they obeyed our laws when they got here.
Statistically, illegals break fewer laws per capita than native-born Americans, because the illegals are hiding from it. The anecdotes that make the news are exceptions drummed up by propagandist, sensationalist sources.
Quote
Today it has all changed into a free for all, that is bankrupting this nation. And none of it is going to be paid for by, "taxing the rich". Who as of last year, the top 1 percent of accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. Yeah, the "decades gone by" were pretty good years alright, because people provided for themselves. Then came liberalism. And look what happened.
The rich benefit from the work of the poor and the protection of our armed services, making the land they work on safe for business, with an infrastructure that supports it.
Originally Posted by grampi
eljefino...you left out one aspect of Obamacare, it screws 90% of the people so the other 10% can get cheap, or free healthcare...also not true about illegals, they are constantly breaking laws by being here illegally...
I'd like to see those statistics. Total number of people who had healthcare went up after Obamacare kicked in. It's a zero sum game, while it made it better for some, it also made it worse for others. When you design a zero sum game, it's impossible to make everyone a winner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game
Easy to criticize, hard to come up with a better solution that worked and would pass the house/senate. Previous solution wasn't great either which led to the ACA.
eljefino...you left out one aspect of Obamacare, it screws 90% of the people so the other 10% can get cheap, or free healthcare...also not true about illegals, they are constantly breaking laws by being here illegally...
I'd like to see those statistics. Total number of people who had healthcare went up after Obamacare kicked in. It's a zero sum game, while it made it better for some, it also made it worse for others. When you design a zero sum game, it's impossible to make everyone a winner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game
Easy to criticize, hard to come up with a better solution that worked and would pass the house/senate. Previous solution wasn't great either which led to the ACA.
But it also promised the average family would pay $2500 less / year.
When I looked last, on NPR no less, so not some right wing extremist site, the average family's costs were up by $2200/year, not down.
Pre ACA, 85 percent of Americans had coverage. Today, 90% (give or take a percentage point) have coverage. The ACA missed 2/3rds of the target.
I'd hardly call it a success.
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by grampi
eljefino...you left out one aspect of Obamacare, it screws 90% of the people so the other 10% can get cheap, or free healthcare...also not true about illegals, they are constantly breaking laws by being here illegally...
I'd like to see those statistics. Total number of people who had healthcare went up after Obamacare kicked in. It's a zero sum game, while it made it better for some, it also made it worse for others. When you design a zero sum game, it's impossible to make everyone a winner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game
Easy to criticize, hard to come up with a better solution that worked and would pass the house/senate. Previous solution wasn't great either which led to the ACA.
When I looked last, on NPR no less, so not some right wing extremist site, the average family's costs were up by $2200/year, not down.
Pre ACA, 85 percent of Americans had coverage. Today, 90% (give or take a percentage point) have coverage. The ACA missed 2/3rds of the target.
I'd hardly call it a success.
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by grampi
eljefino...you left out one aspect of Obamacare, it screws 90% of the people so the other 10% can get cheap, or free healthcare...also not true about illegals, they are constantly breaking laws by being here illegally...
I'd like to see those statistics. Total number of people who had healthcare went up after Obamacare kicked in. It's a zero sum game, while it made it better for some, it also made it worse for others. When you design a zero sum game, it's impossible to make everyone a winner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game
Easy to criticize, hard to come up with a better solution that worked and would pass the house/senate. Previous solution wasn't great either which led to the ACA.
Originally Posted by javacontour
But it also promised the average family would pay $2500 less / year.
When I looked last, on NPR no less, so not some right wing extremist site, the average family's costs were up by $2200/year, not down.
Pre ACA, 85 percent of Americans had coverage. Today, 90% (give or take a percentage point) have coverage. The ACA missed 2/3rds of the target.
I'd hardly call it a success.
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by grampi
eljefino...you left out one aspect of Obamacare, it screws 90% of the people so the other 10% can get cheap, or free healthcare...also not true about illegals, they are constantly breaking laws by being here illegally...
I'd like to see those statistics. Total number of people who had healthcare went up after Obamacare kicked in. It's a zero sum game, while it made it better for some, it also made it worse for others. When you design a zero sum game, it's impossible to make everyone a winner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game
Easy to criticize, hard to come up with a better solution that worked and would pass the house/senate. Previous solution wasn't great either which led to the ACA.
I think this has been rehashed several times. It only got passed once and there were tweaks they wanted to make to the system and political compromises made. It was that last 10% that didn't end up buying insurance. So their theory was that more would buy insurance which would lower everyone costs. That didn't happen and those that did sign up needed more services than expected. The penalty was watered down. They weren't able to pass any tweaks as they lost control in the senate. Also cost of health care was rising every year anyway, if it worked perfectly then it might have gone down. But it didn't.
But it also promised the average family would pay $2500 less / year.
When I looked last, on NPR no less, so not some right wing extremist site, the average family's costs were up by $2200/year, not down.
Pre ACA, 85 percent of Americans had coverage. Today, 90% (give or take a percentage point) have coverage. The ACA missed 2/3rds of the target.
I'd hardly call it a success.
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by grampi
eljefino...you left out one aspect of Obamacare, it screws 90% of the people so the other 10% can get cheap, or free healthcare...also not true about illegals, they are constantly breaking laws by being here illegally...
I'd like to see those statistics. Total number of people who had healthcare went up after Obamacare kicked in. It's a zero sum game, while it made it better for some, it also made it worse for others. When you design a zero sum game, it's impossible to make everyone a winner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game
Easy to criticize, hard to come up with a better solution that worked and would pass the house/senate. Previous solution wasn't great either which led to the ACA.
I think this has been rehashed several times. It only got passed once and there were tweaks they wanted to make to the system and political compromises made. It was that last 10% that didn't end up buying insurance. So their theory was that more would buy insurance which would lower everyone costs. That didn't happen and those that did sign up needed more services than expected. The penalty was watered down. They weren't able to pass any tweaks as they lost control in the senate. Also cost of health care was rising every year anyway, if it worked perfectly then it might have gone down. But it didn't.
Originally Posted by PimTac
NPR?
No bias there. ...‚...‚🤣🤣...‚
Not saying they don't have bias. No source is free of bias. I suggest people choose multiple sources, including those whose biases are different from yours.
My point was it wasn't a RWE site saying it was failing to meet it's goals. NPR was pretty friendly to the Obama administration and even they were saying that costs went up and only about 1/3rd of the those without coverage ever got coverage after the ACA was passed.
NPR?
No bias there. ...‚...‚🤣🤣...‚
Not saying they don't have bias. No source is free of bias. I suggest people choose multiple sources, including those whose biases are different from yours.
My point was it wasn't a RWE site saying it was failing to meet it's goals. NPR was pretty friendly to the Obama administration and even they were saying that costs went up and only about 1/3rd of the those without coverage ever got coverage after the ACA was passed.
On PBS sometimes I do like like to watch Frontline.
Minimum wage should be $11.50 an hour.
Minimum wage should be $11.50 an hour.
Originally Posted by ZZman
... Some people have no interest in being an owner or a boss. ...
Fair enough. Except that you seem unwilling to live with the choice.
Earlier you posted words to the effect that business owners don't work for their money.
You just don't know what you don't know. The ordinary guy next door lot - the type you deride, possibly envy, as "millionaires" - do.
Be very careful what you wish for - you may get it. Many people stand ready to give it to you right now, and when they do, history teaches it will be good and hard. And you won't be better off when they do. You think we have an Elite class now, just wait until some are more equal than others, to paraphrase Orwell.
... Some people have no interest in being an owner or a boss. ...
Fair enough. Except that you seem unwilling to live with the choice.
Earlier you posted words to the effect that business owners don't work for their money.
You just don't know what you don't know. The ordinary guy next door lot - the type you deride, possibly envy, as "millionaires" - do.
Be very careful what you wish for - you may get it. Many people stand ready to give it to you right now, and when they do, history teaches it will be good and hard. And you won't be better off when they do. You think we have an Elite class now, just wait until some are more equal than others, to paraphrase Orwell.
Originally Posted by Win
Originally Posted by ZZman
... Some people have no interest in being an owner or a boss. ...
Fair enough. Except that you seem unwilling to live with the choice.
Earlier you posted words to the effect that business owners don't work for their money.
You just don't know what you don't know. The ordinary guy next door lot - the type you deride, possibly envy, as "millionaires" - do.
Be very careful what you wish for - you may get it. Many people stand ready to give it to you right now, and when they do, history teaches it will be good and hard. And you won't be better off when they do. You think we have an Elite class now, just wait until some are more equal than others, to paraphrase Orwell.
Who said I am unwillingto live with that choice? I am fortunate compared to many below me financially speaking.
I don't believe I ever said owners don't work fir their money. I said investors don't. Thier money works not them. Owners work as do CEO's. But do they necessarily work harder than their workers? How much harder? 2, 3, 10 times harder ? How doesit relate to compensation.
Originally Posted by ZZman
... Some people have no interest in being an owner or a boss. ...
Fair enough. Except that you seem unwilling to live with the choice.
Earlier you posted words to the effect that business owners don't work for their money.
You just don't know what you don't know. The ordinary guy next door lot - the type you deride, possibly envy, as "millionaires" - do.
Be very careful what you wish for - you may get it. Many people stand ready to give it to you right now, and when they do, history teaches it will be good and hard. And you won't be better off when they do. You think we have an Elite class now, just wait until some are more equal than others, to paraphrase Orwell.
Who said I am unwillingto live with that choice? I am fortunate compared to many below me financially speaking.
I don't believe I ever said owners don't work fir their money. I said investors don't. Thier money works not them. Owners work as do CEO's. But do they necessarily work harder than their workers? How much harder? 2, 3, 10 times harder ? How doesit relate to compensation.
Originally Posted by ZZman
I think more in terms of common good/Quality of life. Others think in terms of individual/family good.
I fail to understand this.
When you want to take someone else's money, and transfer it to you, this is for your individual good, not the common good.
This is akin to rich folks being greedy for wanting to hang on to their own money, but it's not being greedy to ask that it be taken from them and given to you.
I think more in terms of common good/Quality of life. Others think in terms of individual/family good.
I fail to understand this.
When you want to take someone else's money, and transfer it to you, this is for your individual good, not the common good.
This is akin to rich folks being greedy for wanting to hang on to their own money, but it's not being greedy to ask that it be taken from them and given to you.
Originally Posted by Win
Originally Posted by ZZman
I think more in terms of common good/Quality of life. Others think in terms of individual/family good.
I fail to understand this.
When you want to take someone else's money, and transfer it to you, this is for your individual good, not the common good.
This is akin to rich folks being greedy for wanting to hang on to their own money, but it's not being greedy to ask that it be taken from them and given to you.
I didn't ask for a tax cut. In fact I would pay more in taxes if needed without complaint. As I have said I am thinking of the working poor and the middle class that is being eroded. I am past my earning years and semi retired now.
Not all are greedy. Some are. When the poor and middle class is hurt by increasing income/wealth inequality there is a problem.
But you bring up an interesting point. Everybody takes someone elses money. Businesses take customers money, the Government takes tax payers money. Workers take businesses money. Greed would be excessive.
Is it greed to want to have millions or billions more that you don't need and could never spend, or greed to want health insurance or be able to make your housing payment and put food on the table?
Originally Posted by ZZman
I think more in terms of common good/Quality of life. Others think in terms of individual/family good.
I fail to understand this.
When you want to take someone else's money, and transfer it to you, this is for your individual good, not the common good.
This is akin to rich folks being greedy for wanting to hang on to their own money, but it's not being greedy to ask that it be taken from them and given to you.
I didn't ask for a tax cut. In fact I would pay more in taxes if needed without complaint. As I have said I am thinking of the working poor and the middle class that is being eroded. I am past my earning years and semi retired now.
Not all are greedy. Some are. When the poor and middle class is hurt by increasing income/wealth inequality there is a problem.
But you bring up an interesting point. Everybody takes someone elses money. Businesses take customers money, the Government takes tax payers money. Workers take businesses money. Greed would be excessive.
Is it greed to want to have millions or billions more that you don't need and could never spend, or greed to want health insurance or be able to make your housing payment and put food on the table?
Last edited:
"But you bring up an interesting point. Everybody takes someone elses money. Businesses take customers money, the Government takes tax payers money. Workers take businesses money. Greed would be excessive. "
Business voluntarily exchanges products/service for customer cash and employees exchange their labor for compensation, this is not a taking. Government collects taxes and fees, and do provide some services, but this is mandatory, more akin to a "take", and not directly comparable to private economic activity.
Business voluntarily exchanges products/service for customer cash and employees exchange their labor for compensation, this is not a taking. Government collects taxes and fees, and do provide some services, but this is mandatory, more akin to a "take", and not directly comparable to private economic activity.
Originally Posted by PimTac
"Is it greed to want to have millions or billions more that you don't need and could never spend,"
This is called envy, one of the seven deadly sins.
Interesting Greed is one of those as well. Is one worse or are they all equally bad?
"Is it greed to want to have millions or billions more that you don't need and could never spend,"
This is called envy, one of the seven deadly sins.
Interesting Greed is one of those as well. Is one worse or are they all equally bad?
Originally Posted by ZZman
Originally Posted by Win
Originally Posted by ZZman
... Some people have no interest in being an owner or a boss. ...
Fair enough. Except that you seem unwilling to live with the choice.
Earlier you posted words to the effect that business owners don't work for their money.
You just don't know what you don't know. The ordinary guy next door lot - the type you deride, possibly envy, as "millionaires" - do.
Be very careful what you wish for - you may get it. Many people stand ready to give it to you right now, and when they do, history teaches it will be good and hard. And you won't be better off when they do. You think we have an Elite class now, just wait until some are more equal than others, to paraphrase Orwell.
Who said I am unwillingto live with that choice? I am fortunate compared to many below me financially speaking.
I don't believe I ever said owners don't work fir their money. I said investors don't. Thier money works not them. Owners work as do CEO's. But do they necessarily work harder than their workers? How much harder? 2, 3, 10 times harder ? How doesit relate to compensation.
Everyone that I know who invests, EARNED the money they have to invest. Investing is gambling, hopefully educated gambling, but still gambling. There are no guarantees.
Never having started your own business, you have NO IDEA what it's like to take that risk, and struggle to make your business a success. As an employee, when you clock out, you relax and don't worry about work. If you're an owner, you never stop stressing over how to keep the business a viable concern.
No employer could ever legally make me work as hard as I did when trying to make my business a success. I ate antacids like candy, got a duodenal ulcer, worked on little sleep, virtually no time off, but eventually that risk and hard work paid off.
The employees I had? If the business failed they'd get unemployment and go find another job. I would've had to declare bankruptcy.
I know you will never understand this, but there is no comparison in the risk, and stress involved for an employer and employee.
Originally Posted by Win
Originally Posted by ZZman
... Some people have no interest in being an owner or a boss. ...
Fair enough. Except that you seem unwilling to live with the choice.
Earlier you posted words to the effect that business owners don't work for their money.
You just don't know what you don't know. The ordinary guy next door lot - the type you deride, possibly envy, as "millionaires" - do.
Be very careful what you wish for - you may get it. Many people stand ready to give it to you right now, and when they do, history teaches it will be good and hard. And you won't be better off when they do. You think we have an Elite class now, just wait until some are more equal than others, to paraphrase Orwell.
Who said I am unwillingto live with that choice? I am fortunate compared to many below me financially speaking.
I don't believe I ever said owners don't work fir their money. I said investors don't. Thier money works not them. Owners work as do CEO's. But do they necessarily work harder than their workers? How much harder? 2, 3, 10 times harder ? How doesit relate to compensation.
Everyone that I know who invests, EARNED the money they have to invest. Investing is gambling, hopefully educated gambling, but still gambling. There are no guarantees.
Never having started your own business, you have NO IDEA what it's like to take that risk, and struggle to make your business a success. As an employee, when you clock out, you relax and don't worry about work. If you're an owner, you never stop stressing over how to keep the business a viable concern.
No employer could ever legally make me work as hard as I did when trying to make my business a success. I ate antacids like candy, got a duodenal ulcer, worked on little sleep, virtually no time off, but eventually that risk and hard work paid off.
The employees I had? If the business failed they'd get unemployment and go find another job. I would've had to declare bankruptcy.
I know you will never understand this, but there is no comparison in the risk, and stress involved for an employer and employee.
PimTac,
Would you be able to use maybe italics and bold instead of colours? It's hard to read when using the BITOG dark theme some of us use.
Would you be able to use maybe italics and bold instead of colours? It's hard to read when using the BITOG dark theme some of us use.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by StevieC
PimTac,
Would you be able to use maybe italics and bold instead of colours? It's hard to read when using the BITOG dark theme some of us use.
I didn't know about the dark mode. I use mobile exclusively. Good point though.
PimTac,
Would you be able to use maybe italics and bold instead of colours? It's hard to read when using the BITOG dark theme some of us use.
I didn't know about the dark mode. I use mobile exclusively. Good point though.
- Status
