|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 11 2013 07:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 06:52 Gorsameth wrote:On December 11 2013 06:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Obama administration has approved Iowa's alternative plan for expanding Medicaid under Obamacare -- but with one important tweak, which state officials will have to sign off on.
The approval was first reported by the Washington Post. A spokesman for Gov. Terry Branstad (R), who proposed the alternative plan, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Branstad had asked the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to allow the state to use Medicaid expansion money to pay for people to purchase private health coverage on HealthCare.gov -- similiar to what Arkansas had already received approval for. That would cover people between 100 and 138 percent of the federal poverty level. People below the poverty level would be covered by a modified version of the state's traditional Medicaid program.
But Iowa also wanted to require those covered by the expansion to contribute money toward their coverage. CMS said Tuesday that Iowa could implement that requirement for people above the poverty line, but not for people below it. Source So in order to get the care you cant afford they want you to pay for it with money you dont have. right... makes total sense... How much money do they have and what level of payment is unaffordable?
The measures were for people below the poverty line so they cant really afford any extra burden.
|
On December 11 2013 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 07:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 11 2013 06:52 Gorsameth wrote:On December 11 2013 06:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Obama administration has approved Iowa's alternative plan for expanding Medicaid under Obamacare -- but with one important tweak, which state officials will have to sign off on.
The approval was first reported by the Washington Post. A spokesman for Gov. Terry Branstad (R), who proposed the alternative plan, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Branstad had asked the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to allow the state to use Medicaid expansion money to pay for people to purchase private health coverage on HealthCare.gov -- similiar to what Arkansas had already received approval for. That would cover people between 100 and 138 percent of the federal poverty level. People below the poverty level would be covered by a modified version of the state's traditional Medicaid program.
But Iowa also wanted to require those covered by the expansion to contribute money toward their coverage. CMS said Tuesday that Iowa could implement that requirement for people above the poverty line, but not for people below it. Source So in order to get the care you cant afford they want you to pay for it with money you dont have. right... makes total sense... How much money do they have and what level of payment is unaffordable? The measures were for people below the poverty line so they cant really afford any extra burden.
The article says the proposal was for above and below with below being rejected. It's also for an expansion to give more low income people more benefits. So it should be an improvement in their livelihood regardless.
|
On December 11 2013 05:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 03:24 KwarK wrote:
American exceptionalism. They're too free to be constrained by facts. Our current president marks a departure from the belief in American exceptionalism. He'll mince words, all right, but the point is clear. Show nested quote +I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.
President Barack Obama I'm not the best guy to sell the principles of liberty and freedom (really, individual sovereignty) to a society increasingly disillusioned with them. I want opportunity for all, but hold the minority view of how to achieve this in this forum. The majority holds that some liberties and some freedoms specifically must be forfeited to an extent with the goal of achieving societal goods. The primary ones coming up here are an improvement in the plight of the poor, the environment, a sense of fairness, and a notion of equality. Simultaneously, big businesses are subject to distrust, and suppose levels of federal government and government bureaucrats to largely have trustworthy aims (subjected to analysis, I have no doubt a reasonable reader will find this to be true. See posts Walmart/Pharmaceutical Company evils followed by others governed by the generalized supposition that bureaucrats are not just throwing money at the problem.) The heralds of American Unexceptionalism have a firm grasp on government right now, if you ask me. Not a very popular government at all, either.
Equality of opportunity is nothing but a fiction in a society with vast wealth inequality.
|
On December 11 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:On December 11 2013 07:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 11 2013 06:52 Gorsameth wrote:On December 11 2013 06:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Obama administration has approved Iowa's alternative plan for expanding Medicaid under Obamacare -- but with one important tweak, which state officials will have to sign off on.
The approval was first reported by the Washington Post. A spokesman for Gov. Terry Branstad (R), who proposed the alternative plan, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Branstad had asked the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to allow the state to use Medicaid expansion money to pay for people to purchase private health coverage on HealthCare.gov -- similiar to what Arkansas had already received approval for. That would cover people between 100 and 138 percent of the federal poverty level. People below the poverty level would be covered by a modified version of the state's traditional Medicaid program.
But Iowa also wanted to require those covered by the expansion to contribute money toward their coverage. CMS said Tuesday that Iowa could implement that requirement for people above the poverty line, but not for people below it. Source So in order to get the care you cant afford they want you to pay for it with money you dont have. right... makes total sense... How much money do they have and what level of payment is unaffordable? The measures were for people below the poverty line so they cant really afford any extra burden. The article says the proposal was for above and below with below being rejected. It's also for an expansion to give more low income people more benefits. So it should be an improvement in their livelihood regardless.
Sorry guess I should have been clearer. The part where Iowa wants people below the poverty line to pay was what i was talking about. Not the changed proposal that was send back.
|
On December 11 2013 07:47 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 11 2013 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:On December 11 2013 07:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 11 2013 06:52 Gorsameth wrote:On December 11 2013 06:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Obama administration has approved Iowa's alternative plan for expanding Medicaid under Obamacare -- but with one important tweak, which state officials will have to sign off on.
The approval was first reported by the Washington Post. A spokesman for Gov. Terry Branstad (R), who proposed the alternative plan, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Branstad had asked the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to allow the state to use Medicaid expansion money to pay for people to purchase private health coverage on HealthCare.gov -- similiar to what Arkansas had already received approval for. That would cover people between 100 and 138 percent of the federal poverty level. People below the poverty level would be covered by a modified version of the state's traditional Medicaid program.
But Iowa also wanted to require those covered by the expansion to contribute money toward their coverage. CMS said Tuesday that Iowa could implement that requirement for people above the poverty line, but not for people below it. Source So in order to get the care you cant afford they want you to pay for it with money you dont have. right... makes total sense... How much money do they have and what level of payment is unaffordable? The measures were for people below the poverty line so they cant really afford any extra burden. The article says the proposal was for above and below with below being rejected. It's also for an expansion to give more low income people more benefits. So it should be an improvement in their livelihood regardless. Sorry guess I should have been clearer. The part where Iowa wants people below the poverty line to pay was what i was talking about. Not the changed proposal that was send back.
Yeah I know, I think I'm just being crabby 
|
|
|
On December 11 2013 07:31 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 05:50 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2013 03:24 KwarK wrote:
American exceptionalism. They're too free to be constrained by facts. Our current president marks a departure from the belief in American exceptionalism. He'll mince words, all right, but the point is clear. I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.
President Barack Obama I'm not the best guy to sell the principles of liberty and freedom (really, individual sovereignty) to a society increasingly disillusioned with them. I want opportunity for all, but hold the minority view of how to achieve this in this forum. The majority holds that some liberties and some freedoms specifically must be forfeited to an extent with the goal of achieving societal goods. The primary ones coming up here are an improvement in the plight of the poor, the environment, a sense of fairness, and a notion of equality. Simultaneously, big businesses are subject to distrust, and suppose levels of federal government and government bureaucrats to largely have trustworthy aims (subjected to analysis, I have no doubt a reasonable reader will find this to be true. See posts Walmart/Pharmaceutical Company evils followed by others governed by the generalized supposition that bureaucrats are not just throwing money at the problem.) The heralds of American Unexceptionalism have a firm grasp on government right now, if you ask me. Not a very popular government at all, either. Equality of opportunity is nothing but a fiction in a society with vast wealth inequality.
Except he didn't say equality of opportunity. What he said was Opportunity for all and that's completely true especially in the US. Everyone has an opportunity to succeed, although the path to success may be different from one another.
|
On December 11 2013 09:58 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 07:31 IgnE wrote:On December 11 2013 05:50 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2013 03:24 KwarK wrote:
American exceptionalism. They're too free to be constrained by facts. Our current president marks a departure from the belief in American exceptionalism. He'll mince words, all right, but the point is clear. I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.
President Barack Obama I'm not the best guy to sell the principles of liberty and freedom (really, individual sovereignty) to a society increasingly disillusioned with them. I want opportunity for all, but hold the minority view of how to achieve this in this forum. The majority holds that some liberties and some freedoms specifically must be forfeited to an extent with the goal of achieving societal goods. The primary ones coming up here are an improvement in the plight of the poor, the environment, a sense of fairness, and a notion of equality. Simultaneously, big businesses are subject to distrust, and suppose levels of federal government and government bureaucrats to largely have trustworthy aims (subjected to analysis, I have no doubt a reasonable reader will find this to be true. See posts Walmart/Pharmaceutical Company evils followed by others governed by the generalized supposition that bureaucrats are not just throwing money at the problem.) The heralds of American Unexceptionalism have a firm grasp on government right now, if you ask me. Not a very popular government at all, either. Equality of opportunity is nothing but a fiction in a society with vast wealth inequality. Except he didn't say equality of opportunity. What he said was Opportunity for all and that's completely true especially in the US. Everyone has an opportunity to succeed, although the path to success may be different from one another.
"Everyone has an opportunity to succeed" is just a very romantic but also very empty phrase. Unless someone shows me the alternate universe where all miserable people live their successful lives that statement is completely useless. Schopenhauers "You can do what you want but you can't want what you want" still holds (unless of course you believe we live in a fairy world where no one is determined by his environment or the simple laws of physics) , and thus society has the responsibility to adequately care for people who didn't succeed.
|
On December 11 2013 09:58 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 07:31 IgnE wrote:On December 11 2013 05:50 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2013 03:24 KwarK wrote:
American exceptionalism. They're too free to be constrained by facts. Our current president marks a departure from the belief in American exceptionalism. He'll mince words, all right, but the point is clear. I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.
President Barack Obama I'm not the best guy to sell the principles of liberty and freedom (really, individual sovereignty) to a society increasingly disillusioned with them. I want opportunity for all, but hold the minority view of how to achieve this in this forum. The majority holds that some liberties and some freedoms specifically must be forfeited to an extent with the goal of achieving societal goods. The primary ones coming up here are an improvement in the plight of the poor, the environment, a sense of fairness, and a notion of equality. Simultaneously, big businesses are subject to distrust, and suppose levels of federal government and government bureaucrats to largely have trustworthy aims (subjected to analysis, I have no doubt a reasonable reader will find this to be true. See posts Walmart/Pharmaceutical Company evils followed by others governed by the generalized supposition that bureaucrats are not just throwing money at the problem.) The heralds of American Unexceptionalism have a firm grasp on government right now, if you ask me. Not a very popular government at all, either. Equality of opportunity is nothing but a fiction in a society with vast wealth inequality. Except he didn't say equality of opportunity. What he said was Opportunity for all and that's completely true especially in the US. Everyone has an opportunity to succeed, although the path to success may be different from one another.
Going by that logic we can include sub-saharan africa in the opportunity for all category too.
|
On December 11 2013 10:38 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 09:58 jellyjello wrote:On December 11 2013 07:31 IgnE wrote:On December 11 2013 05:50 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2013 03:24 KwarK wrote:
American exceptionalism. They're too free to be constrained by facts. Our current president marks a departure from the belief in American exceptionalism. He'll mince words, all right, but the point is clear. I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.
President Barack Obama I'm not the best guy to sell the principles of liberty and freedom (really, individual sovereignty) to a society increasingly disillusioned with them. I want opportunity for all, but hold the minority view of how to achieve this in this forum. The majority holds that some liberties and some freedoms specifically must be forfeited to an extent with the goal of achieving societal goods. The primary ones coming up here are an improvement in the plight of the poor, the environment, a sense of fairness, and a notion of equality. Simultaneously, big businesses are subject to distrust, and suppose levels of federal government and government bureaucrats to largely have trustworthy aims (subjected to analysis, I have no doubt a reasonable reader will find this to be true. See posts Walmart/Pharmaceutical Company evils followed by others governed by the generalized supposition that bureaucrats are not just throwing money at the problem.) The heralds of American Unexceptionalism have a firm grasp on government right now, if you ask me. Not a very popular government at all, either. Equality of opportunity is nothing but a fiction in a society with vast wealth inequality. Except he didn't say equality of opportunity. What he said was Opportunity for all and that's completely true especially in the US. Everyone has an opportunity to succeed, although the path to success may be different from one another. "Everyone has an opportunity to succeed" is just a very romantic but also very empty phrase. Unless someone shows me the alternate universe where all miserable people live their successful lives that statement is completely useless. Schopenhauers "You can do what you want but you can't want what you want" still holds (unless of course you believe we live in a fairy world where no one is determined by his environment or the simple laws of physics) , and thus society has the responsibility to adequately care for people who didn't succeed.
Edit: I here don't address the "freedom" aspect, this is purely about success and failure, which, while closely related to freedom (IMO) is still a distinct thing. Crony Capitalism proves that.
He didn't say "easy success for everyone."
In my interpretation: He said that there would just be an opportunity, and things that stifle that opportunity should not be done.
You are missing the point- to use another phrase it's "Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome." Now, the former is not possible, this is true. Some people will have to work harder at it than others, but the underlying idea is that a big, bloated nanny state is going to A) reduce one's motivation to succeed, and B) that it will adversely affect those who are successful or who want to succeed in the future.
no one denies that the poor will always be with us, but one certainly can argue on how to make as few poor people as possible, and what the trade-off should be (lots of people in the middle ground, or a small yet extremely poor group and a small extremely wealthy group?)
|
On December 11 2013 07:31 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 05:50 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2013 03:24 KwarK wrote:
American exceptionalism. They're too free to be constrained by facts. Our current president marks a departure from the belief in American exceptionalism. He'll mince words, all right, but the point is clear. I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.
President Barack Obama I'm not the best guy to sell the principles of liberty and freedom (really, individual sovereignty) to a society increasingly disillusioned with them. I want opportunity for all, but hold the minority view of how to achieve this in this forum. The majority holds that some liberties and some freedoms specifically must be forfeited to an extent with the goal of achieving societal goods. The primary ones coming up here are an improvement in the plight of the poor, the environment, a sense of fairness, and a notion of equality. Simultaneously, big businesses are subject to distrust, and suppose levels of federal government and government bureaucrats to largely have trustworthy aims (subjected to analysis, I have no doubt a reasonable reader will find this to be true. See posts Walmart/Pharmaceutical Company evils followed by others governed by the generalized supposition that bureaucrats are not just throwing money at the problem.) The heralds of American Unexceptionalism have a firm grasp on government right now, if you ask me. Not a very popular government at all, either. Equality of opportunity is nothing but a fiction in a society with vast wealth inequality.
As I said, forfeit freedoms in pursuit of a notion of equality. Because
On December 09 2013 15:08 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 14:37 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 14:18 HunterX11 wrote:On December 09 2013 14:04 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 12:29 jellyjello wrote:On December 09 2013 07:41 KwarK wrote:On December 09 2013 07:34 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On December 09 2013 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 05:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
[quote]
Cause $300 a week is just living a life of luxury. Yeah, and people can go earn that on their feet working somewhere instead of just collecting it on their couch. ah but there's the rub let's just wave our hands in the air and say that structural unemployment is due to the laziness of individuals and that it would all go away if people would just get up off their couches. that will all make us feel much better the problem is that americans can't compete with southeast asians in special economic zone police state factory compounds. but YOU try to tell americans that they're worth about 1.50/hr and enjoy yr revolution You are missing the point. We are only talking about replacing $300 per week in unemployment benefits. Getting a job that does that is pretty easy. An awful lot of the kind of jobs you're suggesting they get will give irregular part time hours that demand total availability (so if you need to pick kids up from school or whatever daily then you can't just work 8 hour evening shifts after that) and will hire on 16 or so hour contracts and then give extra hours as required. It's not as simple as you're suggesting, the jobs that are easy to pick up for the unskilled tend to take advantage of them because they know they can get away with doing all sorts of bullshit. I know from personal experience how shitty employers can be if they think you're replaceable and that you need the job. Oh FFS, there is always something or some sort of an excuse. If you think you are qualified but can't find a job for two freaking years, then maybe the problem is with you and not the system. Unless you're talking about seriously depressed regions, anyone who is a hard worker can get a job if they want one. Hell, people who are really good at whatever they do professionally will always find work one way or another. And I'm not talking about shit jobs at McDonald's or Walmart, either. Part of my job is to deal with people who have shit happen to them. Without exception, those who are legitimately hard workers and who aren't completely compromised (like some of my brain injured clients) have no problem finding work and getting hired. On the other hand, I also have clients who are lazy, and they, unsurprisingly, have trouble getting employment or staying employed. Things aren't so bad that determined people can't find work. Are you saying then that increases in structural unemployment are caused by a mass increase in laziness? Even if they were, shouldn't we do something about that more than just telling people to get tougher? Who says that there has been an increase in structural unemployment since 2008 when the market turned? This report to Congress says that the current high rate of unemployment is predominantly cyclical. And no, I'm not saying that "laziness" is what resulted in people losing their jobs to begin with. What I am saying is that people who legitimately are good workers (and want to work) seem to have no trouble getting employed when they lose their jobs for reasons outside of their control. How many of you have actually had to hire a new employee or otherwise dealt with these issues from the perspective of the employer? It's a real pain in the ass. There are so many people out there who are just lousy workers. The good ones are really hard to find, because they all have jobs. It's fine for you to say that about professionals with "marketable" skills but when was the last time you were an aging senior who lost his job and pension trying to find some new employment? Or a young recent college grad trying to get experience and develop the expertise you say will find determined individuals a living wage? It's news to me that most people on UI for 90 weeks are established professionals with expertise who are just too lazy to get a new job.
Seniors and
On December 09 2013 15:04 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 12:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 09 2013 12:40 Livelovedie wrote:On December 09 2013 12:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 09 2013 11:51 Livelovedie wrote:On December 09 2013 11:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 09 2013 09:00 Gorsameth wrote:
Gee who would think that the rest of the world doesn't like increased costs, less control of banks and more power to corporations. Its almost like they have a brain...
At the end of the day if they want to sell things to the US they need to be willing to buy things in return, and that means willing to pay for IP as well. If there is no international support then the US is not in any position of power to dictate that that needs to be the case. So if the US wants to buy things from Europe then that means they need to accept they won't get paid for IP. What does Europe have to do with the TPP? Regardless, I don't see how your argument makes sense. We pay countries for the things we buy from them. They don't deserve extras like free IP on top of it. Meant TPP, my apologies. You made it seem like the US has leverage to dictate the agreement, but I don't see how they do. So your ultimatum makes no sense. I don't think we can dictate an agreement, but we do have lots of leverage. We're a great customer, and they have to buy dollar assets anyways. IP is silly. Rent-seeking capitalists trying to propertize ideas.
evil capitalists.
You have a penchant for dismissing things out of hand and quickly too. I suppose you have your own theory about how to preserve a level of opportunity in society, or do you say that none should exist?
|
On December 11 2013 11:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 07:31 IgnE wrote:On December 11 2013 05:50 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2013 03:24 KwarK wrote:
American exceptionalism. They're too free to be constrained by facts. Our current president marks a departure from the belief in American exceptionalism. He'll mince words, all right, but the point is clear. I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.
President Barack Obama I'm not the best guy to sell the principles of liberty and freedom (really, individual sovereignty) to a society increasingly disillusioned with them. I want opportunity for all, but hold the minority view of how to achieve this in this forum. The majority holds that some liberties and some freedoms specifically must be forfeited to an extent with the goal of achieving societal goods. The primary ones coming up here are an improvement in the plight of the poor, the environment, a sense of fairness, and a notion of equality. Simultaneously, big businesses are subject to distrust, and suppose levels of federal government and government bureaucrats to largely have trustworthy aims (subjected to analysis, I have no doubt a reasonable reader will find this to be true. See posts Walmart/Pharmaceutical Company evils followed by others governed by the generalized supposition that bureaucrats are not just throwing money at the problem.) The heralds of American Unexceptionalism have a firm grasp on government right now, if you ask me. Not a very popular government at all, either. Equality of opportunity is nothing but a fiction in a society with vast wealth inequality. As I said, forfeit freedoms in pursuit of a notion of equality. Because Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 15:08 IgnE wrote:On December 09 2013 14:37 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 14:18 HunterX11 wrote:On December 09 2013 14:04 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 12:29 jellyjello wrote:On December 09 2013 07:41 KwarK wrote:On December 09 2013 07:34 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On December 09 2013 07:04 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, and people can go earn that on their feet working somewhere instead of just collecting it on their couch.
ah but there's the rub let's just wave our hands in the air and say that structural unemployment is due to the laziness of individuals and that it would all go away if people would just get up off their couches. that will all make us feel much better the problem is that americans can't compete with southeast asians in special economic zone police state factory compounds. but YOU try to tell americans that they're worth about 1.50/hr and enjoy yr revolution You are missing the point. We are only talking about replacing $300 per week in unemployment benefits. Getting a job that does that is pretty easy. An awful lot of the kind of jobs you're suggesting they get will give irregular part time hours that demand total availability (so if you need to pick kids up from school or whatever daily then you can't just work 8 hour evening shifts after that) and will hire on 16 or so hour contracts and then give extra hours as required. It's not as simple as you're suggesting, the jobs that are easy to pick up for the unskilled tend to take advantage of them because they know they can get away with doing all sorts of bullshit. I know from personal experience how shitty employers can be if they think you're replaceable and that you need the job. Oh FFS, there is always something or some sort of an excuse. If you think you are qualified but can't find a job for two freaking years, then maybe the problem is with you and not the system. Unless you're talking about seriously depressed regions, anyone who is a hard worker can get a job if they want one. Hell, people who are really good at whatever they do professionally will always find work one way or another. And I'm not talking about shit jobs at McDonald's or Walmart, either. Part of my job is to deal with people who have shit happen to them. Without exception, those who are legitimately hard workers and who aren't completely compromised (like some of my brain injured clients) have no problem finding work and getting hired. On the other hand, I also have clients who are lazy, and they, unsurprisingly, have trouble getting employment or staying employed. Things aren't so bad that determined people can't find work. Are you saying then that increases in structural unemployment are caused by a mass increase in laziness? Even if they were, shouldn't we do something about that more than just telling people to get tougher? Who says that there has been an increase in structural unemployment since 2008 when the market turned? This report to Congress says that the current high rate of unemployment is predominantly cyclical. And no, I'm not saying that "laziness" is what resulted in people losing their jobs to begin with. What I am saying is that people who legitimately are good workers (and want to work) seem to have no trouble getting employed when they lose their jobs for reasons outside of their control. How many of you have actually had to hire a new employee or otherwise dealt with these issues from the perspective of the employer? It's a real pain in the ass. There are so many people out there who are just lousy workers. The good ones are really hard to find, because they all have jobs. It's fine for you to say that about professionals with "marketable" skills but when was the last time you were an aging senior who lost his job and pension trying to find some new employment? Or a young recent college grad trying to get experience and develop the expertise you say will find determined individuals a living wage? It's news to me that most people on UI for 90 weeks are established professionals with expertise who are just too lazy to get a new job. Seniors and Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 15:04 IgnE wrote:On December 09 2013 12:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 09 2013 12:40 Livelovedie wrote:On December 09 2013 12:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 09 2013 11:51 Livelovedie wrote:On December 09 2013 11:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 09 2013 09:00 Gorsameth wrote:
Gee who would think that the rest of the world doesn't like increased costs, less control of banks and more power to corporations. Its almost like they have a brain...
At the end of the day if they want to sell things to the US they need to be willing to buy things in return, and that means willing to pay for IP as well. If there is no international support then the US is not in any position of power to dictate that that needs to be the case. So if the US wants to buy things from Europe then that means they need to accept they won't get paid for IP. What does Europe have to do with the TPP? Regardless, I don't see how your argument makes sense. We pay countries for the things we buy from them. They don't deserve extras like free IP on top of it. Meant TPP, my apologies. You made it seem like the US has leverage to dictate the agreement, but I don't see how they do. So your ultimatum makes no sense. I don't think we can dictate an agreement, but we do have lots of leverage. We're a great customer, and they have to buy dollar assets anyways. IP is silly. Rent-seeking capitalists trying to propertize ideas. evil capitalists. You have a penchant for dismissing things out of hand and quickly too. I suppose you have your own theory about how to preserve a level of opportunity in society, or do you say that none should exist?
Mr. Nothing-But-The-'Free'-Market telling other people they have a penchant for dismissing things out of hand? Impressive.
|
On December 11 2013 11:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 07:31 IgnE wrote:On December 11 2013 05:50 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2013 03:24 KwarK wrote:
American exceptionalism. They're too free to be constrained by facts. Our current president marks a departure from the belief in American exceptionalism. He'll mince words, all right, but the point is clear. I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.
President Barack Obama I'm not the best guy to sell the principles of liberty and freedom (really, individual sovereignty) to a society increasingly disillusioned with them. I want opportunity for all, but hold the minority view of how to achieve this in this forum. The majority holds that some liberties and some freedoms specifically must be forfeited to an extent with the goal of achieving societal goods. The primary ones coming up here are an improvement in the plight of the poor, the environment, a sense of fairness, and a notion of equality. Simultaneously, big businesses are subject to distrust, and suppose levels of federal government and government bureaucrats to largely have trustworthy aims (subjected to analysis, I have no doubt a reasonable reader will find this to be true. See posts Walmart/Pharmaceutical Company evils followed by others governed by the generalized supposition that bureaucrats are not just throwing money at the problem.) The heralds of American Unexceptionalism have a firm grasp on government right now, if you ask me. Not a very popular government at all, either. Equality of opportunity is nothing but a fiction in a society with vast wealth inequality. As I said, forfeit freedoms in pursuit of a notion of equality. Because Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 15:08 IgnE wrote:On December 09 2013 14:37 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 14:18 HunterX11 wrote:On December 09 2013 14:04 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 12:29 jellyjello wrote:On December 09 2013 07:41 KwarK wrote:On December 09 2013 07:34 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On December 09 2013 07:04 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, and people can go earn that on their feet working somewhere instead of just collecting it on their couch.
ah but there's the rub let's just wave our hands in the air and say that structural unemployment is due to the laziness of individuals and that it would all go away if people would just get up off their couches. that will all make us feel much better the problem is that americans can't compete with southeast asians in special economic zone police state factory compounds. but YOU try to tell americans that they're worth about 1.50/hr and enjoy yr revolution You are missing the point. We are only talking about replacing $300 per week in unemployment benefits. Getting a job that does that is pretty easy. An awful lot of the kind of jobs you're suggesting they get will give irregular part time hours that demand total availability (so if you need to pick kids up from school or whatever daily then you can't just work 8 hour evening shifts after that) and will hire on 16 or so hour contracts and then give extra hours as required. It's not as simple as you're suggesting, the jobs that are easy to pick up for the unskilled tend to take advantage of them because they know they can get away with doing all sorts of bullshit. I know from personal experience how shitty employers can be if they think you're replaceable and that you need the job. Oh FFS, there is always something or some sort of an excuse. If you think you are qualified but can't find a job for two freaking years, then maybe the problem is with you and not the system. Unless you're talking about seriously depressed regions, anyone who is a hard worker can get a job if they want one. Hell, people who are really good at whatever they do professionally will always find work one way or another. And I'm not talking about shit jobs at McDonald's or Walmart, either. Part of my job is to deal with people who have shit happen to them. Without exception, those who are legitimately hard workers and who aren't completely compromised (like some of my brain injured clients) have no problem finding work and getting hired. On the other hand, I also have clients who are lazy, and they, unsurprisingly, have trouble getting employment or staying employed. Things aren't so bad that determined people can't find work. Are you saying then that increases in structural unemployment are caused by a mass increase in laziness? Even if they were, shouldn't we do something about that more than just telling people to get tougher? Who says that there has been an increase in structural unemployment since 2008 when the market turned? This report to Congress says that the current high rate of unemployment is predominantly cyclical. And no, I'm not saying that "laziness" is what resulted in people losing their jobs to begin with. What I am saying is that people who legitimately are good workers (and want to work) seem to have no trouble getting employed when they lose their jobs for reasons outside of their control. How many of you have actually had to hire a new employee or otherwise dealt with these issues from the perspective of the employer? It's a real pain in the ass. There are so many people out there who are just lousy workers. The good ones are really hard to find, because they all have jobs. It's fine for you to say that about professionals with "marketable" skills but when was the last time you were an aging senior who lost his job and pension trying to find some new employment? Or a young recent college grad trying to get experience and develop the expertise you say will find determined individuals a living wage? It's news to me that most people on UI for 90 weeks are established professionals with expertise who are just too lazy to get a new job. Seniors and Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 15:04 IgnE wrote:On December 09 2013 12:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 09 2013 12:40 Livelovedie wrote:On December 09 2013 12:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 09 2013 11:51 Livelovedie wrote:On December 09 2013 11:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 09 2013 09:00 Gorsameth wrote:
Gee who would think that the rest of the world doesn't like increased costs, less control of banks and more power to corporations. Its almost like they have a brain...
At the end of the day if they want to sell things to the US they need to be willing to buy things in return, and that means willing to pay for IP as well. If there is no international support then the US is not in any position of power to dictate that that needs to be the case. So if the US wants to buy things from Europe then that means they need to accept they won't get paid for IP. What does Europe have to do with the TPP? Regardless, I don't see how your argument makes sense. We pay countries for the things we buy from them. They don't deserve extras like free IP on top of it. Meant TPP, my apologies. You made it seem like the US has leverage to dictate the agreement, but I don't see how they do. So your ultimatum makes no sense. I don't think we can dictate an agreement, but we do have lots of leverage. We're a great customer, and they have to buy dollar assets anyways. IP is silly. Rent-seeking capitalists trying to propertize ideas. evil capitalists. You have a penchant for dismissing things out of hand and quickly too. I suppose you have your own theory about how to preserve a level of opportunity in society, or do you say that none should exist?
Dismissing you quickly has little to do with my own internal critical method does it? Are you saying something I've never heard before? Or do you want me to put words in your mouth and then shoot it down so you can scream "straw man" at me? I'm simply replying to your inane comment that you idolize "freedom" so long as "freedom" is defined as being stuck with whatever random lot you drew in the birth lottery. What an empty yarn you spin. Freedom for those born in poverty is hardly freedom at all. But god forbid everyone be given a base standard of living, because that would harm their delicate "will to succeed" and act as an anchor on "freedom."
|
Let's do a thought experiment:
Let's assume everyone is born and raised with the strong, sensible work ethic of Danglars and xDaunt. Everyone avoids crime, graduates from high school (goes to college? not sure if you guys think everyone has to go to college to succeed or not), works hard, and shows up early to whatever job they can get (McDonalds or equivalent for the bottom 20%).
1) can everyone find full time employment?
2) can everyone find a fulfilling job?
3) can everyone eventually find financial security (how do you want to define this? house? family? debt?)
4) can every single person work their way up from mcdonalds to something like high-level management (i'm not really sure what you two aspire to do with your life or what you think is worthwhile, other than accumulating things and being free from taxes)?
5) will there be less inequality or will the floor of the bottom quintile somehow reach what we would consider "middle class" today?
I get the feeling that you two don't really understand that implicit in your system is the damnation of a large percentage of people to toil, poverty, and unhappiness, and that this is an always already condition of the system. What do you really think would happen if everyone took advantage of the (meagre) opportunities you both assume exist for every single person?
|
On December 11 2013 12:18 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 11:34 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2013 07:31 IgnE wrote:On December 11 2013 05:50 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2013 03:24 KwarK wrote:
American exceptionalism. They're too free to be constrained by facts. Our current president marks a departure from the belief in American exceptionalism. He'll mince words, all right, but the point is clear. I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.
President Barack Obama I'm not the best guy to sell the principles of liberty and freedom (really, individual sovereignty) to a society increasingly disillusioned with them. I want opportunity for all, but hold the minority view of how to achieve this in this forum. The majority holds that some liberties and some freedoms specifically must be forfeited to an extent with the goal of achieving societal goods. The primary ones coming up here are an improvement in the plight of the poor, the environment, a sense of fairness, and a notion of equality. Simultaneously, big businesses are subject to distrust, and suppose levels of federal government and government bureaucrats to largely have trustworthy aims (subjected to analysis, I have no doubt a reasonable reader will find this to be true. See posts Walmart/Pharmaceutical Company evils followed by others governed by the generalized supposition that bureaucrats are not just throwing money at the problem.) The heralds of American Unexceptionalism have a firm grasp on government right now, if you ask me. Not a very popular government at all, either. Equality of opportunity is nothing but a fiction in a society with vast wealth inequality. As I said, forfeit freedoms in pursuit of a notion of equality. Because On December 09 2013 15:08 IgnE wrote:On December 09 2013 14:37 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 14:18 HunterX11 wrote:On December 09 2013 14:04 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 12:29 jellyjello wrote:On December 09 2013 07:41 KwarK wrote:On December 09 2013 07:34 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
ah but there's the rub
let's just wave our hands in the air and say that structural unemployment is due to the laziness of individuals and that it would all go away if people would just get up off their couches. that will all make us feel much better
the problem is that americans can't compete with southeast asians in special economic zone police state factory compounds. but YOU try to tell americans that they're worth about 1.50/hr and enjoy yr revolution You are missing the point. We are only talking about replacing $300 per week in unemployment benefits. Getting a job that does that is pretty easy. An awful lot of the kind of jobs you're suggesting they get will give irregular part time hours that demand total availability (so if you need to pick kids up from school or whatever daily then you can't just work 8 hour evening shifts after that) and will hire on 16 or so hour contracts and then give extra hours as required. It's not as simple as you're suggesting, the jobs that are easy to pick up for the unskilled tend to take advantage of them because they know they can get away with doing all sorts of bullshit. I know from personal experience how shitty employers can be if they think you're replaceable and that you need the job. Oh FFS, there is always something or some sort of an excuse. If you think you are qualified but can't find a job for two freaking years, then maybe the problem is with you and not the system. Unless you're talking about seriously depressed regions, anyone who is a hard worker can get a job if they want one. Hell, people who are really good at whatever they do professionally will always find work one way or another. And I'm not talking about shit jobs at McDonald's or Walmart, either. Part of my job is to deal with people who have shit happen to them. Without exception, those who are legitimately hard workers and who aren't completely compromised (like some of my brain injured clients) have no problem finding work and getting hired. On the other hand, I also have clients who are lazy, and they, unsurprisingly, have trouble getting employment or staying employed. Things aren't so bad that determined people can't find work. Are you saying then that increases in structural unemployment are caused by a mass increase in laziness? Even if they were, shouldn't we do something about that more than just telling people to get tougher? Who says that there has been an increase in structural unemployment since 2008 when the market turned? This report to Congress says that the current high rate of unemployment is predominantly cyclical. And no, I'm not saying that "laziness" is what resulted in people losing their jobs to begin with. What I am saying is that people who legitimately are good workers (and want to work) seem to have no trouble getting employed when they lose their jobs for reasons outside of their control. How many of you have actually had to hire a new employee or otherwise dealt with these issues from the perspective of the employer? It's a real pain in the ass. There are so many people out there who are just lousy workers. The good ones are really hard to find, because they all have jobs. It's fine for you to say that about professionals with "marketable" skills but when was the last time you were an aging senior who lost his job and pension trying to find some new employment? Or a young recent college grad trying to get experience and develop the expertise you say will find determined individuals a living wage? It's news to me that most people on UI for 90 weeks are established professionals with expertise who are just too lazy to get a new job. Seniors and On December 09 2013 15:04 IgnE wrote:On December 09 2013 12:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 09 2013 12:40 Livelovedie wrote:On December 09 2013 12:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 09 2013 11:51 Livelovedie wrote:On December 09 2013 11:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 09 2013 09:00 Gorsameth wrote:
Gee who would think that the rest of the world doesn't like increased costs, less control of banks and more power to corporations. Its almost like they have a brain...
At the end of the day if they want to sell things to the US they need to be willing to buy things in return, and that means willing to pay for IP as well. If there is no international support then the US is not in any position of power to dictate that that needs to be the case. So if the US wants to buy things from Europe then that means they need to accept they won't get paid for IP. What does Europe have to do with the TPP? Regardless, I don't see how your argument makes sense. We pay countries for the things we buy from them. They don't deserve extras like free IP on top of it. Meant TPP, my apologies. You made it seem like the US has leverage to dictate the agreement, but I don't see how they do. So your ultimatum makes no sense. I don't think we can dictate an agreement, but we do have lots of leverage. We're a great customer, and they have to buy dollar assets anyways. IP is silly. Rent-seeking capitalists trying to propertize ideas. evil capitalists. You have a penchant for dismissing things out of hand and quickly too. I suppose you have your own theory about how to preserve a level of opportunity in society, or do you say that none should exist? Dismissing you quickly has little to do with my own internal critical method does it? Are you saying something I've never heard before? Or do you want me to put words in your mouth and then shoot it down so you can scream "straw man" at me? I'm simply replying to your inane comment that you idolize "freedom" so long as "freedom" is defined as being stuck with whatever random lot you drew in the birth lottery. What an empty yarn you spin. Freedom for those born in poverty is hardly freedom at all. But god forbid everyone be given a base standard of living, because that would harm their delicate "will to succeed" and act as an anchor on "freedom."
You have so much criticism for anything and everything about letting individuals pursue their separate interests. I expand on American exceptionalism and the ideas running contrary to it. You retort by embodying every stereotype of the everlasting critic. Who are these angels that will stand up to your ...
but seniors
but evil capitalists
but inequality?
As long as these are governments made up of humans to govern humans, I'll settle for less than utopia. And you'll settle for what, exactly? The days when you can no longer pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
On December 11 2013 12:31 IgnE wrote:
Let's do a thought experiment:
Let's assume everyone is born and raised with the strong, sensible work ethic of Danglars and xDaunt. Everyone avoids crime, graduates from high school (goes to college? not sure if you guys think everyone has to go to college to succeed or not), works hard, and shows up early to whatever job they can get (McDonalds or equivalent for the bottom 20%).
1) can everyone find full time employment?
2) can everyone find a fulfilling job?
3) can everyone eventually find financial security (how do you want to define this? house? family? debt?)
4) can every single person work their way up from mcdonalds to something like high-level management (i'm not really sure what you two aspire to do with your life or what you think is worthwhile, other than accumulating things and being free from taxes)?
5) will there be less inequality or will the floor of the bottom quintile somehow reach what we would consider "middle class" today?
I get the feeling that you two don't really understand that implicit in your system is the damnation of a large percentage of people to toil, poverty, and unhappiness, and that this is an always already condition of the system. What do you really think would happen if everyone took advantage of the (meagre) opportunities you both assume exist for every single person?
The moral of the story is you can't trust the system. I'm sure you have in mind something that outperforms what you deem "meagre opportunities." I mean, even as you ignore that what was middle class luxuries yesterday are reachable by the bottom quintile today.
|
On December 11 2013 12:31 IgnE wrote:
Let's do a thought experiment:
Let's assume everyone is born and raised with the strong, sensible work ethic of Danglars and xDaunt. Everyone avoids crime, graduates from high school (goes to college? not sure if you guys think everyone has to go to college to succeed or not), works hard, and shows up early to whatever job they can get (McDonalds or equivalent for the bottom 20%).
1) can everyone find full time employment?
2) can everyone find a fulfilling job?
3) can everyone eventually find financial security (how do you want to define this? house? family? debt?)
4) can every single person work their way up from mcdonalds to something like high-level management (i'm not really sure what you two aspire to do with your life or what you think is worthwhile, other than accumulating things and being free from taxes)?
5) will there be less inequality or will the floor of the bottom quintile somehow reach what we would consider "middle class" today?
I get the feeling that you two don't really understand that implicit in your system is the damnation of a large percentage of people to toil, poverty, and unhappiness, and that this is an always already condition of the system. What do you really think would happen if everyone took advantage of the (meagre) opportunities you both assume exist for every single person?
You'd fit right in with North Korea. I heard everyone, or almost everyone, over there is always equal in just about everything. The heck with opportunity when everyone comes out equal at the end anyways, right? So, you go on and live your dream life in North Korea where everyone is equal, while I enjoy mine in the "land of opportunity".
|
On December 11 2013 12:31 IgnE wrote:
Let's do a thought experiment:
Let's assume everyone is born and raised with the strong, sensible work ethic of Danglars and xDaunt. Everyone avoids crime, graduates from high school (goes to college? not sure if you guys think everyone has to go to college to succeed or not), works hard, and shows up early to whatever job they can get (McDonalds or equivalent for the bottom 20%).
1) can everyone find full time employment?
2) can everyone find a fulfilling job?
3) can everyone eventually find financial security (how do you want to define this? house? family? debt?)
4) can every single person work their way up from mcdonalds to something like high-level management (i'm not really sure what you two aspire to do with your life or what you think is worthwhile, other than accumulating things and being free from taxes)?
5) will there be less inequality or will the floor of the bottom quintile somehow reach what we would consider "middle class" today?
I get the feeling that you two don't really understand that implicit in your system is the damnation of a large percentage of people to toil, poverty, and unhappiness, and that this is an always already condition of the system.
The whole premise here is retarded. Inequality in outcome doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a "damnation" of a large percentage of people as you describe. Hell, being "poor" in this country certainly is a far cry from whatever you're intending to describe. Where else are poor people fat and have flat screen TVs?
What do you really think would happen if everyone took advantage of the (meagre) opportunities you both assume exist for every single person?
This will never happen because most people lack either the brains or the work ethic to be anything more than peons in the system. That doesn't mean that they won't live happily and be able to provide for themselves and their families.
|
Minor correction - the $85 billion later is in deficit reduction, not just spending cuts so it includes that $5 airline security fee. Not sure if there's any revenue other than that.
Overall sounds pretty benign and reasonable. I'm curious to hear how the Fed reacts.
|
On December 11 2013 13:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Minor correction - the $85 billion later is in deficit reduction, not just spending cuts so it includes that $5 airline security fee. Not sure if there's any revenue other than that. Overall sounds pretty benign and reasonable. I'm curious to hear how the Fed reacts.
"Benign and reasonable" only to the extent that it accomplishes nothing other than the avoidance of another shutdown.
|
On December 11 2013 13:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 13:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Minor correction - the $85 billion later is in deficit reduction, not just spending cuts so it includes that $5 airline security fee. Not sure if there's any revenue other than that. Overall sounds pretty benign and reasonable. I'm curious to hear how the Fed reacts. "Benign and reasonable" only to the extent that it accomplishes nothing other than the avoidance of another shutdown.
True. I'd get out my whip and tell them to get back to work, but security wouldn't let me
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
