The Welfare State: The Future is Now.

[dblack]

Fair enough. It's subjective.

Which means that if the rest of us vote in fair labor laws, regulate executive compensation and put the tax rate on rich assholes back to where it was before that senile old fuck Reagan, problem solved, then.

WOrks for me.

Why in hell should the value of my labor depend on a vote? It's no one's business but me and the person interested in paying me for it. That's what subjective means, it depends on the subjects involved - namely the employer and the employee.

Again, why should it?

Frankly, I think the idea that we all end up being subject to the whims of the rich, especially when they take advantage of recessions they cause, is kind of silly.

It seems to me that when on the first day of work, they hand you a book of "rules" you have to follow, which says explicitely, "This is not a contract", you are agreeing to a whole bunch of strictures and he's agreeing to... nothing.

I'm reminded of the old joke about the fella who goes to the doctor and says "Doc, my arm hurts when I do this." - and the doctor responds, "Don't do that".

If you don't like the conditions of employment offered, don't work for that employer. Is it really to much to ask people to think for themselves?

It isn't socialism you're afraid of, it's democracy.

You can say that again! Democracy is a great way of making decisions where consensus is required (when choosing leaders, for example). In many cases it's impractical, or intolerable, to let everyone "go their own way". In those cases where forced conformity is necessary, taking a vote and going with majority rule makes about as much sense as anything.

But it most cases, forced conformity is not necessary, and when it's not government should protect our freedom rather than forcing obedience for convenience sake. Personal decisions (work, family, health, finances, etc) should never be subject to someone else's idea of what's good for you, majority rule or otherwise.

 

[Care4all]

Why in hell should the value of my labor depend on a vote? It's no one's business but me and the person interested in paying me for it. That's what subjective means, it depends on the subjects involved - namely the employer and the employee.

Again, why should it?

Frankly, I think the idea that we all end up being subject to the whims of the rich, especially when they take advantage of recessions they cause, is kind of silly.

It seems to me that when on the first day of work, they hand you a book of "rules" you have to follow, which says explicitely, "This is not a contract", you are agreeing to a whole bunch of strictures and he's agreeing to... nothing.

I'm reminded of the old joke about the fella who goes to the doctor and says "Doc, my arm hurts when I do this." - and the doctor responds, "Don't do that".

If you don't like the conditions of employment offered, don't work for that employer. Is it really to much to ask people to think for themselves?

It isn't socialism you're afraid of, it's democracy.

You can say that again! Democracy is a great way of making decisions where consensus is required (when choosing leaders, for example). In many cases it's impractical, or intolerable, to let everyone "go their own way". In those cases where forced conformity is necessary, taking a vote and going with majority rule makes about as much sense as anything.

But it most cases, forced conformity is not necessary, and when it's not government should protect our freedom rather than forcing obedience for convenience sake. Personal decisions (work, family, health, finances, etc) should never be subject to someone else's idea of what's good for you, majority rule or otherwise.

But the gvt is tasked with promoting the General Welfare of the people....so if Monopolies hurt us, then there is regulations on monopolizing.... as there should be regulations to promote the "general Welfare" of the nation and it's economic system....at some point, especially if you get rid of all unions which allowed citizens to stand up for themselves, the general welfare of the average Joe worker and citizen of the US is going to need something done by our gvt to protect us against Goliath... Union busting is only going to make the gvt come in to "handle it''.... we were much better off with our own Unions, v gvt having to get involved imho....

 

[dblack]

Again, why should it?

Frankly, I think the idea that we all end up being subject to the whims of the rich, especially when they take advantage of recessions they cause, is kind of silly.

It seems to me that when on the first day of work, they hand you a book of "rules" you have to follow, which says explicitely, "This is not a contract", you are agreeing to a whole bunch of strictures and he's agreeing to... nothing.

I'm reminded of the old joke about the fella who goes to the doctor and says "Doc, my arm hurts when I do this." - and the doctor responds, "Don't do that".

If you don't like the conditions of employment offered, don't work for that employer. Is it really to much to ask people to think for themselves?

It isn't socialism you're afraid of, it's democracy.

You can say that again! Democracy is a great way of making decisions where consensus is required (when choosing leaders, for example). In many cases it's impractical, or intolerable, to let everyone "go their own way". In those cases where forced conformity is necessary, taking a vote and going with majority rule makes about as much sense as anything.

But it most cases, forced conformity is not necessary, and when it's not government should protect our freedom rather than forcing obedience for convenience sake. Personal decisions (work, family, health, finances, etc) should never be subject to someone else's idea of what's good for you, majority rule or otherwise.

But the gvt is tasked with promoting the General Welfare of the people...

No, it's just not. And that misconception, perhaps more than any other, is what's driven us into these intractable contradictions. The general welfare clause was a limitation on the taxation power, the emphasis being on the word 'general', and its intent was to ensure that taxes weren't collected for the benefit of specific classes or individuals. Hamilton's exploit twisted the general welfare clause inside out, creating an all-purpose justification to use the coercive state to do the opposite, to use taxation to benefit some at the expense of others. It essentially turns us in the opposite direction of the egalitarian principles of equal protection, rule of law and individual rights, and points us toward an authoritarian state that assumes to decide what is in our best interest and force it on us against our will.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Probably because somewhere between working for minimum wage for a big corporation at the beginning of your career, and getting screwed over by them towards the end of it, people tend to figure out the 1%ers really are a bunch of greedy pricks.

How, exactly, does someone else making more money injure you?

Because usually, they've made it at my expense.

If you accept the notion that capital is an accounting of labor, as Lincoln wisely said, than 1% of the population did not do 43% of the labor. The other 99% of it did so, but they did not get a fair or equal share of the proceeds.

Case in point. Last job I worked in, I handled 20 million dollars worth of purchases that were sold for a 30% mark up. The share I and the rest of the team that made that happen less than 1%. But the rich people who owned the company even begruged us that.

1. "Because usually, they've made it at my expense."

Utter, envious, jealousy. Nothing more.


2. " The share I and the rest of the team that made that happen less than 1%. "

Wages equal the marginal productivity of labor, meaning that the outcome in terms of income and wealth is a function of what one does. It is also a function of how many people do the same.



3. '....the rich people who owned the company....."

Without savings and investment there can be no modern industrial society. The mechanisms of such a society would be barter and manual labor. Tools? Not even cave-man society, as their clubs would be confiscated to make sure this measure of wealth be equalized….in which case, no one would bother to make clubs…



With no intent to claim that your skill wasn't great, others obviously could do what you did.

In the free market, as productivity and skills increase, workers earn more. Productivity of workers in competitive markets is what determines the earnings of most workers; and it is not an accident that labor earns about 70% of the total output of the American economy, and capital earns about 30%.
Ferarra, "The Bankruptcy Bomb."

 

[Gadawg73]

If one really wants to talk about where the largest pot of government cash is squandered one looks at the fraud ridden blank check Medicare system.
Dad died in 2010, sister last year and Mom 6 weeks ago.
In each instance all doctors and medical providers padded the bill tens of thousands of dollars and no one blinked an eye.
Between the 3 of them $200K in WASTE.
Medicare will be 1 .2 trillion in 8 years or more unchecked.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Then they should stop.



Did you quit? Seems kind of stupid to work a job if you don't feel you are fairly compensates.

I had no problem with what they were paying me if htey kept up their end of the promise.

They couldn't even meet that low standard. The minute I had a medical issue, they were looking for ways to get rid of me.

BUt you miss the point, completely.

Ideal world, every workplace should have a union to negotiate base benefits and pay, and have full access to the books to make sure they aren't being ripped off.

I was in kind of an odd situation because I saw both what we were paying for product and what we were charging the customer for it. (Incidently, the customer eventually fired us because we were gouging him. Imagine that.)

No, I get your point. You're under the delusion that the value of labor can be objectively determined - that having access to "the books" would tell you whether you're being compensated fairly. But the value of labor isn't objective. It's a subjective judgment that depends on how much employers are willing to pay and how much employees are willing to work for.

You can sum it up as "Whatever the company does is right"

 

[dblack]

I had no problem with what they were paying me if htey kept up their end of the promise.

They couldn't even meet that low standard. The minute I had a medical issue, they were looking for ways to get rid of me.

BUt you miss the point, completely.

Ideal world, every workplace should have a union to negotiate base benefits and pay, and have full access to the books to make sure they aren't being ripped off.

I was in kind of an odd situation because I saw both what we were paying for product and what we were charging the customer for it. (Incidently, the customer eventually fired us because we were gouging him. Imagine that.)

No, I get your point. You're under the delusion that the value of labor can be objectively determined - that having access to "the books" would tell you whether you're being compensated fairly. But the value of labor isn't objective. It's a subjective judgment that depends on how much employers are willing to pay and how much employees are willing to work for.

You can sum it up as "Whatever the company does is right"

Why would you sum it up that way? I guess because you think individuals are incapable of to making their own decisions?

 

[ClosedCaption]

No, I get your point. You're under the delusion that the value of labor can be objectively determined - that having access to "the books" would tell you whether you're being compensated fairly. But the value of labor isn't objective. It's a subjective judgment that depends on how much employers are willing to pay and how much employees are willing to work for.

You can sum it up as "Whatever the company does is right"

Why would you sum it up that way? I guess because you think individuals are incapable of to making their own decisions?

Why wouldn't I sum it up that way? You gave no reasons why it wrong which means you agree or forgot to provide your argument why its wrong.

 

[bedowin62]

in the history of the world; who had slaughtered more people; governments or rogue corporations?


libs are loses who lie to themselves

 

[Erand7899]

2. " In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year."

And what is the Federal Budget? How about just the budget of the Defense Department?

You, a proven liar posts...why?

Unlike you sweetcheeks, I don't lie about anything here, I have no need to. And you are worried about the few cents you lost, when you have a dollar in your pocket. It's ideology that drives you, nothing more. The numbers prove that which is why you won't answer the question little liar.

So far in this thread, every liberal poster has attempted to change the subject, and you are no exception. Fraud and bad public policy is fraud and bad public policy regardless of how much it costs the taxpayer. Fraud and bad public policy is not defendable by citing additional fraud and bad public policy in other areas of government.

The simple fact is that this "liberal" government is attempting to use funds borrowed, or obtained from taxpayers, to buy votes for more "liberal" government. The old "vote for us, and we will give you largesse from the public treasury" trick. Otherwise known as the slide into serfdom con game.

 

[dblack]

You can sum it up as "Whatever the company does is right"

Why would you sum it up that way? I guess because you think individuals are incapable of to making their own decisions?

Why wouldn't I sum it up that way? You gave no reasons why it wrong which means you agree or forgot to provide your argument why its wrong.

Well, I have no idea how you arrived at such a ridiculous conclusion. "Whatever the company does is right", has no resemblance to what I posted. I can only guess that you interpreted it that way because you think of employees as powerless idiots who will work for an employer regardless of the wage or conditions offered.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Why would you sum it up that way? I guess because you think individuals are incapable of to making their own decisions?

Why wouldn't I sum it up that way? You gave no reasons why it wrong which means you agree or forgot to provide your argument why its wrong.

Well, I have no idea how you arrived at such a ridiculous conclusion. "Whatever the company does is right", has no resemblance to what I posted. I can only guess that you interpreted it that way because you think of employees as powerless idiots who will work for an employer regardless of the wage or conditions offered.

Sure it doesnt and thats why you just gave that non-rebuttal. Its so wrong that you cant even make a argument why.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Probably because somewhere between working for minimum wage for a big corporation at the beginning of your career, and getting screwed over by them towards the end of it, people tend to figure out the 1%ers really are a bunch of greedy pricks.

How, exactly, does someone else making more money injure you?

Because usually, they've made it at my expense.

If you accept the notion that capital is an accounting of labor, as Lincoln wisely said, than 1% of the population did not do 43% of the labor. The other 99% of it did so, but they did not get a fair or equal share of the proceeds.

Case in point. Last job I worked in, I handled 20 million dollars worth of purchases that were sold for a 30% mark up. The share I and the rest of the team that made that happen less than 1%. But the rich people who owned the company even begruged us that.

Then start your own damn business and you can pay yourself and your employees whatever the hell you want.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Probably because somewhere between working for minimum wage for a big corporation at the beginning of your career, and getting screwed over by them towards the end of it, people tend to figure out the 1%ers really are a bunch of greedy pricks.

A vivid example of my point, right on cue.

Thanks.

.

The wealthy are parasites that have convinced people they are a vital organ.

Soon to go the way of the Bourbons and the Romanovs, we hope.

Does it hurt to be so jealous of the rich?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Probably because somewhere between working for minimum wage for a big corporation at the beginning of your career, and getting screwed over by them towards the end of it, people tend to figure out the 1%ers really are a bunch of greedy pricks.

A vivid example of my point, right on cue.

Thanks.

.

The wealthy are parasites that have convinced people they are a vital organ.

Soon to go the way of the Bourbons and the Romanovs, we hope.

ErroneousJoe......you sound a little nutty, railing against a non-existent entity.....
'


"The top 1 percent,,.... is such an unstable group that it makes no sense to write, as so many progressives do, about what has happened to its income over the past ten year or twenty years, because it does not contain the same group of people from year to year.

... the turnover among the super-rich (the top 400 taxpayers in any given year) is 98 percent over a decade — that is, just 2 percent of that elusive group remain there for ten years in a row.

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that among the allegedly privileged 1 percent, inherited wealth accounts for only 15 percent of household holdings, a smaller share than it does among middle-class families."
National Review Online | Print




There may be medications to help you....

....speak to your doctor to see if they are right for you.

 

[dblack]

Why wouldn't I sum it up that way? You gave no reasons why it wrong which means you agree or forgot to provide your argument why its wrong.

Well, I have no idea how you arrived at such a ridiculous conclusion. "Whatever the company does is right", has no resemblance to what I posted. I can only guess that you interpreted it that way because you think of employees as powerless idiots who will work for an employer regardless of the wage or conditions offered.

Sure it doesnt and thats why you just gave that non-rebuttal. Its so wrong that you cant even make a argument why.

Exactly. Surprised you admitted it, but it is appreciated.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You, a proven liar posts...why?

Unlike you sweetcheeks, I don't lie about anything here, I have no need to. And you are worried about the few cents you lost, when you have a dollar in your pocket. It's ideology that drives you, nothing more. The numbers prove that which is why you won't answer the question little liar.

So far in this thread, every liberal poster has attempted to change the subject, and you are no exception. Fraud and bad public policy is fraud and bad public policy regardless of how much it costs the taxpayer. Fraud and bad public policy is not defendable by citing additional fraud and bad public policy in other areas of government.

The simple fact is that this "liberal" government is attempting to use funds borrowed, or obtained from taxpayers, to buy votes for more "liberal" government. The old "vote for us, and we will give you largesse from the public treasury" trick. Otherwise known as the slide into serfdom con game.

Ah yes....but you are attempting to tell everyone that fraud only happens in govt and thats unacceptable. Fraud happens in every aspect of life yet you have a laser focus on only govt and says it should be shut down and passed to the private sector which also has fraud and bad policies too.

But that fraud and bad policy is ok because...well, because.

 

[Gadawg73]

The subject is the welfare state.
Look no further than MEDICARE.
Dumb asses twist, distort and slant. The old 2 step side swerve step.
Only the illiterate, ignorant dumbasses follow the rhetorc.
Follow the money. Medicare, that is the MASSIVE welfare state. Fraud ridden and doubling every 8 years.

WAKE UP DUMB ASSES