Progressive Paradise?

[timesjoke]

The cornerstone of the Progressive movement is without doubt California. They give away a lot more in social services than anyone else and a great deal of that even goes to illegals so the concept of redistributing wealth is well established and put in place and we can see how well it works just by watching them.

 

 

Well it is known that they have been broke for a very long time now and there is no sign of them ever learning how to set a realistic budget but not only that, their people pay more for everything than most other Americans. Every day goods cost sometimes 50% more in California than it does in nearby States and now a new problem has just hit, remember that healthcare bill the Progressives passed? Remember how it was called the "affordable healthcare act"?

 

 

Well, let's see what is happening in the Progressive Capital of America:

 

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/02/01/californians-bracing-pay-more-health-care

 

----------------------------------

 

It's the perfect storm in California when it comes to rising health care costs, with millions bracing for huge increases in their monthly insurance bill. What's happening? The Golden State is one of many states that doesn't allow for rate regulation. In addition, California is home to most all of the big insurance companies and the largest market of uninsured people. At the same time major insurers are racing to beat a July 1st deadline requiring these companies to publicly justify their rate hikes.

 

So, what the people of California are left with are massive increases in their health insurance premiums, to the tune of nearly 60 percent when it comes to Blue Shield in particular. Just today they caved in to public pressure and agreed to join every other insurance company in California like Aetna, Anthem Blue Cross and Pacificare to wait sixty days to raise their rates, but there's little doubt those rate hikes are still coming later this spring.

 

-----------------------------------

 

 

As I have said all along, there was nothing in that bill to actually reduce the cost of insurance or healchare, it was all smoke and mirrors to give a reward to Insurance companies because they have always supported Progressive canidates.

 

 

 

 

I have an idea, do away with insurance completely. It is the ability to spread the cost accross many that has allowed the costs to increase. If reimbursement was restricted to just what the average person could pay from their pocket, there would be no choice but to reduce costs back to what people could afford. Of course the Government would also have to eliminate all regulations because there would also be no way doctors could pay those massive Government fees without being able to pass those fees onto the insurance companies.....etc.....

 

 

 

 

At the root of all cost increases and loss jobs is Government intrusion and mandates.

[phreakwars]

I have an idea, do away with insurance completely.

 

You mean a public option? So how does that work not having insurance companies at all? And of course, no evil government sticking it's nose in everyone's business.

 

The churches again?

.

.

[jokersarewild]

Sure, TJ. They'll immediately realize the error of their ways and stop billing people so much. I can promise you there are people who would still be paying out the ass for their medical care that would disagree with you.

[hugo]

All most people need is a catostrophic health insurance policy with a $10,000 annual deductible. This would encourage them to shop around for basic healthcare and prevent them from going bankrupt in the event of a stroke, cancer, heart attack, accident, etc.. This is the route I will take when I go back to self-employment. Providing I am not forced to buy a policy I do not want. I went without insurance when I was self-employed and found a doctor who charged me significantly less than her insured patients and gave me free samples for my blood pressure medication. She did not have to pay someone to file the insurance claims; a wim/win situation.

 

The major reason for high medicine costs is third parties pay most of the bills. No one spends other peoples' money as effectively as they spend their own. Obamacare worsens this situation. The solution to lower healthcare costs is les government, not more.

[timesjoke]

 

You mean a public option?

 

I always loved that Progressive twist on words, how exactly is it a "public option" if it is the Government running it? Obviously that would be a "Government option" not a public one.

 

 

 

And to answer the question, no, no insurance at all, hugo pointed out the best way, allow insurance only for major illness and make people pay out of pocket for basic care.

 

 

 

 

 

The churches again?

 

What is this hate you have against churches? Yes, there are churches run by religious people, I am wondering though, can you name a hospital built and run by Atheists?

 

 

 

 

 

Sure, TJ. They'll immediately realize the error of their ways and stop billing people so much. I can promise you there are people who would still be paying out the ass for their medical care that would disagree with you.

 

 

It does not matter what they "want" to bill, without insurance companies to spread the cost along to other people there would be no way to collect $25,000 for a three day stay in the hospital. Cost would have to scale to what a person could reasonably pay. When faced with no other option, the system would be forced to change.

 

"Necessity, who is the mother of invention." ~ Plato

 

 

 

Hugo gave one example, let me give another, a friend of mine was without insurance and broke his collar bone in an accident riding a motorcycle. He worked out a deal to get all his treatments for about $1,000. That included x-rays and the doctor fees. If we truly want to reduce the cost of healthcare, we have to eliminate the ability for the cost to be spread out to other people who are not there being treated.

 

 

 

 

 

Great post hugo.

[phreakwars]

How about NO INSURANCE COMPANIES and just have hospitals bill you outright?

 

You don't need the insurance company for anything if your pulling yourself up by the bootstraps, right?

.

.

[phreakwars]

You mean a public option?

 

I always loved that Progressive twist on words, how exactly is it a "public option" if it is the Government running it? Obviously that would be a "Government option" not a public one.

Community chest, who says the government needs to run it? YOU DO

 

 

And to answer the question, no, no insurance at all, hugo pointed out the best way, allow insurance only for major illness and make people pay out of pocket for basic care.

What about the poor?

 

 

The churches again?

 

What is this hate you have against churches? Yes, there are churches run by religious people, I am wondering though, can you name a hospital built and run by Atheists?

http://www.atheists....eists_Hospitals

 

 

.

.

[timesjoke]

How about NO INSURANCE COMPANIES and just have hospitals bill you outright?

 

You are being a little slow there buddy, hugo and I already said that, you having issues with understanding? If hospitals and medical services had to rely on charging only what a single sick person could pay, that would force the system to change back in line with other goods and services. When I need a new transmission for my car I don't get that work paid for by other people, I figure out how to pay for that repair myself. Medical care should be treated the same way.

 

 

You don't need the insurance company for anything if your pulling yourself up by the bootstraps, right?

Not sure if there is a question in that or just another pointless comment.

 

 

 

 

Community chest, who says the government needs to run it? YOU DO

 

Community chest? So who controls the chest and how do we get money into the chest? Who manages the bills and payments? Who sets the rules for how much someone can get paid for any service? Who figures out if the charges are real or scams?

 

 

Do people only pay into the chest if they want to or does someone have to take money from people by force to put into the chest? Do you have any idea just how much money would have to be involved Phreak?

 

 

If not the Government, who do "YOU" think should run it?

 

 

 

 

 

Either way you still would have healthcare bills being paid by people not getting treatment, just another form of ponzi scheme.

 

 

 

 

What about the poor?

 

What about them? Are you saying someone who is poor should get everything in life for free? How about a free home? Shelter is a basic need right? Free food? Being as you can't buy groceries and stuff unless you get to the store I suppose you Progressives want everyone to get a free car and gas too right? We need to consider mental health as well, staying at home with nothing to do might drive them crazy so free cable television and cellphones are needed for the poor, they need a free night out on the town every now and then too, being forced to stare at the same walls of their home every day is too much to ask so dinner and a movie once a week would be the least the Government should provide.....right?

 

 

Do you Progressives even know what personal responsibility means?

 

 

What about the poor? What about the family of the poor? Why can't their own family help support them and take care of them until they can get back on their feet Phreak? The best part of that system is you know damn well people would not just be lazy if they have to ask for handouts from their own family to survive. Their own family knows if their worthless lazy people or honerable people needing a hand. There is no possible way for the Government to know these things.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.atheists....eists_Hospitals

 

 

And you say I dodge a direct question? Nothing in that link has anthing to do with my question.

 

 

Did I ever say all or most hospitals were founded or run by religious people? That entire rant was running around in circles but you still refuse to answer my direct question.

 

 

Most hospitals are for profit, it costs a lot of money to create a hospital, but there are completely religious hospitals and there are also completely free hospitals run in bad places like Darfur that are only there because of religious people. We know that religious people have come together to help communities in many ways to include some hospitals but I ask you the question again, can you name a single hospital run by atheists?

 

 

Just one example?

[jokersarewild]

How about NO INSURANCE COMPANIES and just have hospitals bill you outright?

 

You are being a little slow there buddy, hugo and I already said that, you having issues with understanding? If hospitals and medical services had to rely on charging only what a single sick person could pay, that would force the system to change back in line with other goods and services. When I need a new transmission for my car I don't get that work paid for by other people, I figure out how to pay for that repair myself. Medical care should be treated the same way.

 

Or the goods and services they provide would drop in quality dramatically as doctors left to higher paying countries.

 

The transmission comparison is faulty as well. If the transmission in your car goes out, you're screwed, sure, but you can walk to work. If you're sick and can't work until you can get to the doctor to get antibiotics, you make no money to afford said doctor in the first place.

 

What about the poor?

 

What about them? Are you saying someone who is poor should get everything in life for free? How about a free home? Shelter is a basic need right? Free food? Being as you can't buy groceries and stuff unless you get to the store I suppose you Progressives want everyone to get a free car and gas too right? We need to consider mental health as well, staying at home with nothing to do might drive them crazy so free cable television and cellphones are needed for the poor, they need a free night out on the town every now and then too, being forced to stare at the same walls of their home every day is too much to ask so dinner and a movie once a week would be the least the Government should provide.....right?

 

 

Do you Progressives even know what personal responsibility means?

 

 

What about the poor? What about the family of the poor? Why can't their own family help support them and take care of them until they can get back on their feet Phreak? The best part of that system is you know damn well people would not just be lazy if they have to ask for handouts from their own family to survive. Their own family knows if their worthless lazy people or honerable people needing a hand. There is no possible way for the Government to know these things.

 

Being poor doesn't mean they should get everything for free. But say somebody like me works for a living but is still poor as all hell, what then? I have insurance because I work at Wal-Mart, but there are many people who aren't that fortunate but ARE that poor. You can live without a cell phone. There are homeless people that live without shelter. Food can be found anywhere (if you're ok with digging through trash). But people cannot live without healthcare.

 

Also, who says their family isn't a bunch of worthless shits anyway? My mom's side of the family is cool, my dad's side is a bunch of backstabbing white trash pricks who fucked their brother (my dad) and his son over the first chance they could. So assuming my mom died (my uncle would be the only one left on my mom's side that I'm aware of), I'd have to be willing to pray that the backstabbers will help me out? Not likely. I'm not sure what world you live in, TJ, but not every family is functional.

 

http://www.atheists....eists_Hospitals

 

 

And you say I dodge a direct question? Nothing in that link has anthing to do with my question.

 

 

Did I ever say all or most hospitals were founded or run by religious people? That entire rant was running around in circles but you still refuse to answer my direct question.

 

 

Most hospitals are for profit, it costs a lot of money to create a hospital, but there are completely religious hospitals and there are also completely free hospitals run in bad places like Darfur that are only there because of religious people. We know that religious people have come together to help communities in many ways to include some hospitals but I ask you the question again, can you name a single hospital run by atheists?

 

 

Just one example?

 

Bellevue is stated in the article.

 

And any hospital in that Godless, Communist Russia back in the day was run by atheists.

 

As it turns out, you don't have to believe in God to believe that we get sick. Who knew?

[timesjoke]

Or the goods and services they provide would drop in quality dramatically as doctors left to higher paying countries.

 

 

What higher paying Country would you be talking about joker? There are no Countries that could absorb large numbers of doctors. Young adults are already choosing the medical profession less and less and if the current trends by administrations like this one stick with sabotaging healtchare systems so they can later have an excuse to force a Govcernment takeover, well you can toss out the current definitions of doctors because everything will change.

 

 

My point is simple, the average person today getting very expensive treatments is artifically maintained on the backs of other people. It is not natural and cannot be maintained in the long run.

 

 

 

The transmission comparison is faulty as well. If the transmission in your car goes out, you're screwed, sure, but you can walk to work. If you're sick and can't work until you can get to the doctor to get antibiotics, you make no money to afford said doctor in the first place.

 

Walk? Please don't be silly. Maybe ride with someone else for awile or rent a car but walking is not a viable alternative to transportation. You missed this point as well, a very expensive care repair is not something people generally plan for. When a large repair needs to be done, people have to figure out how to come up with the money and the same is true for an unexpected medical problem.

 

 

 

 

Being poor doesn't mean they should get everything for free.

 

Well that is a big admission, let's see how you move foward from that concept.....

 

 

 

 

But .....

 

I knew it could not last, there is always someone with a "but" to create excuses why "they" deserve handouts. This is what is wrong with America, too many people making excuses for why they can't take care of their own needs in life, let's look at the excuses you are about to offer and point out why all excuses are unimportant to the concept of responsibility....

 

 

 

say somebody like me works for a living but is still poor as all hell, what then? I have insurance because I work at Wal-Mart, but there are many people who aren't that fortunate but ARE that poor. You can live without a cell phone. There are homeless people that live without shelter. Food can be found anywhere (if you're ok with digging through trash).

 

How is your specific problems my responsibility to fix for you? Why should any other person be punished and have money taken from them by force to take care of you just because you are incapable of taking care of yourself?

 

 

 

But people cannot live without healthcare.

 

They can't? How do you suppose the human race made it this far? The modern expensive medical care is a very new concept to humanity and the majority of American settlement was done without any form of what you would call basic medical care. People took care of themselves and the few doctors we had got very little money in payment for the care they offered. Many times they might get a meal or a chicken or the people would bring him food they grew at a later date.

 

 

 

 

 

Also, who says their family isn't a bunch of worthless shits anyway? My mom's side of the family is cool, my dad's side is a bunch of backstabbing white trash pricks who fucked their brother (my dad) and his son over the first chance they could. So assuming my mom died (my uncle would be the only one left on my mom's side that I'm aware of), I'd have to be willing to pray that the backstabbers will help me out? Not likely. I'm not sure what world you live in, TJ, but not every family is functional.

 

Where did I ever say every family is functional?

 

I don't care what kind of family you have, even the worse family should care enough to help feed you if you fall on hard times and your not just a lazy azz. Here is my own "but"...but, no matter how bad your family is, how is that an excuse for me to become financially responsible for you? How do you figure that it is the taxpayer's fault your family is messed up and would not take care of you? Sounds to me like you should be more motivated to go out and create your own world where you won't need your family or the Government to fix your life for you.

 

 

Answer me one simple question....Who is responsible for you?

 

 

Bellevue is stated in the article.

 

And any hospital in that Godless, Communist Russia back in the day was run by atheists.

 

As it turns out, you don't have to believe in God to believe that we get sick. Who knew?

 

Bellevue is not a atheist built and run hospital, I asked for a single example of Atheists comming together and building a hospital to respond to Phreak's attack on religious people taking care or educating people. If Atheists don't like christian run schools or hospitals, don't go to them and build your own just like the Christians have done. The idea Phreak wants to offer is that without Government, there would not be education or anything else. Atheists do have a god, and their god is big Government.

 

 

My question concerning Atheists building a hospital had a second point in that you don't see Atheists grouping together to do anything selfless. At this point they claim most people in the world do not believe in any form of God so with these massive numbers where are their charity groups? Where are their good works and such around the world in comparison to the much lesser numbers of Christians for example? Soup kitchens, food banks, christian service centers in most communities, all run by religious groups.

 

 

Atheists follow their beliefs of self, nothing is more important than what they see in the mirror and that is why you won't see them delivering meals to the home bound and sick, you won't see them working for free helping people on the street. Sure, they will toss a couple bucks at the existing groups, even to religious run groups, but they will never do the work face to face themselves. You won't see an Atheist dropping everything to travel to Haiti after their disaster, only religious people do that, or people like the army who get ordered to go, lol.

[jokersarewild]

Or the goods and services they provide would drop in quality dramatically as doctors left to higher paying countries.

 

 

What higher paying Country would you be talking about joker? There are no Countries that could absorb large numbers of doctors. Young adults are already choosing the medical profession less and less and if the current trends by administrations like this one stick with sabotaging healtchare systems so they can later have an excuse to force a Govcernment takeover, well you can toss out the current definitions of doctors because everything will change.

 

 

My point is simple, the average person today getting very expensive treatments is artifically maintained on the backs of other people. It is not natural and cannot be maintained in the long run.

 

Anybody who hadn't stopped paying doctors anything close to what they're used to?

 

The transmission comparison is faulty as well. If the transmission in your car goes out, you're screwed, sure, but you can walk to work. If you're sick and can't work until you can get to the doctor to get antibiotics, you make no money to afford said doctor in the first place.

 

Walk? Please don't be silly. Maybe ride with someone else for awile or rent a car but walking is not a viable alternative to transportation. You missed this point as well, a very expensive care repair is not something people generally plan for. When a large repair needs to be done, people have to figure out how to come up with the money and the same is true for an unexpected medical problem.

 

But you can still work if your transmission is broken. Then you have to bum rides for a bit (or get a bike), but you can save up to repair it. If someone can't work while they're sick (or injured), then bills keep piling up and they have no way of paying them until they get back to work and are in massive amounts of debt.

 

Being poor doesn't mean they should get everything for free.

 

Well that is a big admission, let's see how you move foward from that concept.....

 

Watch as TJ thinks he's gonna get one over on me...

 

But .....

 

I knew it could not last, there is always someone with a "but" to create excuses why "they" deserve handouts. This is what is wrong with America, too many people making excuses for why they can't take care of their own needs in life, let's look at the excuses you are about to offer and point out why all excuses are unimportant to the concept of responsibility....

 

In TJ's Utopia, it's everybody's own damn fault if they can't afford something. After all, the business owners who refuse to pay a livable wage to their employees make good money, so go start your own business, you bum.

 

say somebody like me works for a living but is still poor as all hell, what then? I have insurance because I work at Wal-Mart, but there are many people who aren't that fortunate but ARE that poor. You can live without a cell phone. There are homeless people that live without shelter. Food can be found anywhere (if you're ok with digging through trash).

 

How is your specific problems my responsibility to fix for you? Why should any other person be punished and have money taken from them by force to take care of you just because you are incapable of taking care of yourself?

 

Incapable of taking care of myself? As it turns out, TJ, some people are poor. I know, it's a shocker. And as it turns out, some people are too poor to afford health care (since they have to eat and all). I'm sure it's a huge burden to have to pay taxes to take care of people you don't know, but somehow, I think you'll live. Try talking to your fellow business owners and getting them to retool their business plans so they can pay their employees enough to actually live on. As it turns out, those businesses wouldn't survive if they had to actually pay their workers anything near what they're really worth to them.

 

But people cannot live without healthcare.

 

They can't? How do you suppose the human race made it this far? The modern expensive medical care is a very new concept to humanity and the majority of American settlement was done without any form of what you would call basic medical care. People took care of themselves and the few doctors we had got very little money in payment for the care they offered. Many times they might get a meal or a chicken or the people would bring him food they grew at a later date.

 

So people without some form of medical care live until they're 100 without even a checkup being necessary? Damn, I'd better drop my care quick. I could live longer.

 

Notice how we also live longer, healthier lives now because we have modern medical care. The people that had little/no care back in the day, died sooner. Go figure.

[jokersarewild]

Also, who says their family isn't a bunch of worthless shits anyway? My mom's side of the family is cool, my dad's side is a bunch of backstabbing white trash pricks who fucked their brother (my dad) and his son over the first chance they could. So assuming my mom died (my uncle would be the only one left on my mom's side that I'm aware of), I'd have to be willing to pray that the backstabbers will help me out? Not likely. I'm not sure what world you live in, TJ, but not every family is functional.

 

Where did I ever say every family is functional?

 

I don't care what kind of family you have, even the worse family should care enough to help feed you if you fall on hard times and your not just a lazy azz. Here is my own "but"...but, no matter how bad your family is, how is that an excuse for me to become financially responsible for you? How do you figure that it is the taxpayer's fault your family is messed up and would not take care of you? Sounds to me like you should be more motivated to go out and create your own world where you won't need your family or the Government to fix your life for you.

 

 

Answer me one simple question....Who is responsible for you?

 

You're still assuming my family isn't full of assholes. Anyway, the programs you're referencing have a purpose, and were created for those who fell on hard times (see Great Depression). Just because they're misused and abused now doesn't dismiss their helpfulness.

 

Also, there are times that people do need the assistance. I'm sure in TJ-LAND, everybody is independent of the government and has no need for assistance in any way, but in the real world, some people do. As much as I'm sure you want those that are in dire straights to die from starvation, luckily for them, most of us are more civilized than that.

 

Bellevue is stated in the article.

 

And any hospital in that Godless, Communist Russia back in the day was run by atheists.

 

As it turns out, you don't have to believe in God to believe that we get sick. Who knew?

 

Bellevue is not a atheist built and run hospital, I asked for a single example of Atheists comming together and building a hospital to respond to Phreak's attack on religious people taking care or educating people. If Atheists don't like christian run schools or hospitals, don't go to them and build your own just like the Christians have done. The idea Phreak wants to offer is that without Government, there would not be education or anything else. Atheists do have a god, and their god is big Government.

 

 

My question concerning Atheists building a hospital had a second point in that you don't see Atheists grouping together to do anything selfless. At this point they claim most people in the world do not believe in any form of God so with these massive numbers where are their charity groups? Where are their good works and such around the world in comparison to the much lesser numbers of Christians for example? Soup kitchens, food banks, christian service centers in most communities, all run by religious groups.

 

 

Atheists follow their beliefs of self, nothing is more important than what they see in the mirror and that is why you won't see them delivering meals to the home bound and sick, you won't see them working for free helping people on the street. Sure, they will toss a couple bucks at the existing groups, even to religious run groups, but they will never do the work face to face themselves. You won't see an Atheist dropping everything to travel to Haiti after their disaster, only religious people do that, or people like the army who get ordered to go, lol.

 

I think that the people who tend to be selfless also tend to be the ones who identify with some sort of religious beliefs as well. Religion isn't the reason they do what they do (although, I'm sure some do it out of guilt of past sins). It's just who they are. It seems that saying religious people are also generally selfless is probably a little presumptuous, as the Republican party tends to not give a sh t whether the poor live or die (as long as they can work them to death on sh t wages so they can rake in the millions), and they claim religion. Correlation != causation, TJ.

[hugo]

[On ancient Athens]: In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again. – Edward Gibbon

[jokersarewild]

[On ancient Athens]: In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again. – Edward Gibbon

 

Good quote. And that sounds about right.

[phreakwars]

How TJ DOESN'T answer a question:

 

Phreak: So TJ, What About the poor?

 

TJ: Everyone is always looking for a hand out, off topic this, off topic that, no answer on how the poor will get cared for, just a complaint.

 

Phreak: So let me rephrase that TJ. What would YOU do to get the poor the NEEDED medical care coverage to stay healthy?

 

Keep complaining? I'm sure that will be your next response.

.

.

[jokersarewild]

How TJ DOESN'T answer a question:

 

Phreak: So TJ, What About the poor?

 

TJ: Everyone is always looking for a hand out, off topic this, off topic that, no answer on how the poor will get cared for, just a complaint.

 

Phreak: So let me rephrase that TJ. What would YOU do to get the poor the NEEDED medical care coverage to stay healthy?

 

Keep complaining? I'm sure that will be your next response.

.

.

 

It's because TJ is stuck in his conservative mindset that poor people are bad because they didn't make themselves independently wealthy with good business plans and such. Mind you, that "independent wealth" is ALWAYS made by working said poor people like slaves for meager wages so they have more to line their pockets with. But why help them? TJ doesn't feel he should be financially responsible for these people, even though he supports crushing them under his boot to make money. TJ can go on and on about handouts all he wants, but you know why they want these "handouts"? Because the richest 1% of Americans hold like 70% of all of the money in the country, or something like that. When you can have people that run a company making multiple millions in a year, while the people on the bottom make 15,000 a year OR LESS, it's plain fucking unethical. Don't give me some bullshit diatribe about how they "worked for it". f you. There is NO AMOUNT OF WORK THOSE ASSHOLES PUT IN TO EARN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR. Spread that out to the employees so they have livable wages and don't NEED food stamps and SSI. Being the cause of the problem, while calling out the problem and doing nothing to fix it, is bullshit.

 

If companies paid us what we are actually WORTH to them, instead of the lowest amount they can legally get away with, then you would see a lot changing in this country. Instead, the poor get poorly paid to hold the ladder while the rich get ricocheted to the top of it.

 

In short, TJ hates the poor because he thinks he's a better person than they are for having more money than them. You'll never get an answer, Phreak. Besides euthanizing them. He's probably all for that.

[hugo]

How TJ DOESN'T answer a question:

 

Phreak: So TJ, What About the poor?

 

TJ: Everyone is always looking for a hand out, off topic this, off topic that, no answer on how the poor will get cared for, just a complaint.

 

Phreak: So let me rephrase that TJ. What would YOU do to get the poor the NEEDED medical care coverage to stay healthy?

 

Keep complaining? I'm sure that will be your next response.

.

.

 

It's because TJ is stuck in his conservative mindset that poor people are bad because they didn't make themselves independently wealthy with good business plans and such. Mind you, that "independent wealth" is ALWAYS made by working said poor people like slaves for meager wages so they have more to line their pockets with. But why help them? TJ doesn't feel he should be financially responsible for these people, even though he supports crushing them under his boot to make money. TJ can go on and on about handouts all he wants, but you know why they want these "handouts"? Because the richest 1% of Americans hold like 70% of all of the money in the country, or something like that. When you can have people that run a company making multiple millions in a year, while the people on the bottom make 15,000 a year OR LESS, it's plain fucking unethical. Don't give me some bullshit diatribe about how they "worked for it". f you. There is NO AMOUNT OF WORK THOSE ASSHOLES PUT IN TO EARN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR. Spread that out to the employees so they have livable wages and don't NEED food stamps and SSI. Being the cause of the problem, while calling out the problem and doing nothing to fix it, is bullshit.

 

If companies paid us what we are actually WORTH to them, instead of the lowest amount they can legally get away with, then you would see a lot changing in this country. Instead, the poor get poorly paid to hold the ladder while the rich get ricocheted to the top of it.

 

 

You are worth what you can get in this world. There are companies that rake in billions and pay their employees well e,g. oil companies). There are companies that make billions and pay their employees porrly (e.g. fast food franchises). You are paid based on your set of skills and, yes, there is a bit of luck involved but if you work at a poor paying job you need to look at how you can advance from that job. If the CEOs wages were divided among the other employees in almost all cases the renumeration to the other employees would be insignificant. Do not ask what government can do for yourself, ask what you can do for yourself. If all you can do is cook fries you deserve to be poor.

 

I came down to Houston, Texas in the middlle of the last great recession in 1980 with $500. Ain't got rich yet, but ain't never asked nobody for nothing I caint get on my own.

[jokersarewild]

Oil companies and the like pay well because their business plan doesn't involve screwing the little guy to get their cash. I do believe that you shouldn't get paid as much as the people with more skills (there would be no reason to improve and do better otherwise), but the people getting many millions in salaries simply can't be worth what they're getting paid. If you started the company, sure, why not? If you actually built the damn thing from the ground up, you deserve every penny you get (I believe that Sam Walton earned every damn penny he and his offspring will ever receive). But when you look at what certain people actually DO for a company, vs. how much they get paid, you start seeing things not add up properly.

 

Also, anybody who complains about paying taxes because of food stamps or partial unemployment, etc, while believing those in fast food/retail/whatever deserve to be poor AND has the power to change that (i.e. the higher ups of a company) is a moron. I'm not saying the people on the lower end of these companies deserve 100k a year salaries. To be plain honest, they are jobs anybody can do. But these people do need to eat and pay bills, etc. They should be able to afford food/enough gas to get to work/power/heat/etc on what they make. I think that's fair. Companies really run on the little people, and the little people tend to run a better company if they're less stressed about bills and the like.

 

They should have to budget. One of the complaints that Phreak had not too long ago was that the amount of food stamps given where he lives is dramatically more than the family size he quoted needs. That's a huge load of bullshit. Having a small amount of money means you have to budget, not that the government gets to heap on loads more for food than you can healthily eat.

 

It comes down to this: Either pay increased wages, or pay the taxes. It's really that simple. Making people too poor to eat should not be how a business is run.

[Old Salt]

Say there are two companies.... Company A, and Company B. I don't care what they produce/sell, let's say it's something everybody needs.

 

The employees at Company A get a pay raise. Therefore, Company A's costs go up. To maintain their profit margin and lure investors, they have to raise their prices - Company A's employees' ability to purchase the products of their own company remains unchanged, even with the raise.

 

This makes their product/service more expensive and Company B's employees need a pay raise in order to afford to purchase Company A's product/service. They get the raise and the same scenario - increased prices, etc.

 

Now, just to maintain status quo, Company A's employees need another raise. And so it goes. Unfortunately, people on the bottom of the scale have a very hard time getting ahead.

[hugo]

the people getting many millions in salaries simply can't be worth what they're getting paid. If you started the company, sure, why not? If you actually built the damn thing from the ground up, you deserve every penny you get (I believe that Sam Walton earned every damn penny he and his offspring will ever receive). But when you look at what certain people actually DO for a company, vs. how much they get paid, you start seeing things not add up properly.

 

 

Let us take the CEO of McDonald's who made 18 million one year. He has 1.5 million employees under him. Divide his salary by the number of employees and you get 12 dollars. It is quite easy to justify his salary.

[jokersarewild]

the people getting many millions in salaries simply can't be worth what they're getting paid. If you started the company, sure, why not? If you actually built the damn thing from the ground up, you deserve every penny you get (I believe that Sam Walton earned every damn penny he and his offspring will ever receive). But when you look at what certain people actually DO for a company, vs. how much they get paid, you start seeing things not add up properly.

 

 

Let us take the CEO of McDonald's who made 18 million one year. He has 1.5 million employees under him. Divide his salary by the number of employees and you get 12 dollars. It is quite easy to justify his salary.

 

You didn't justify his salary. You gave me a number the CEO doesn't control divided by his income. It was actually probably the most ridiculous "justification" of anything I've ever seen. You did absolutely nothing for your argument.

 

Tell me what he DOES. I'm talking about what he DOES. If he PERSONALLY leads those 1.5 million employees each day, has massive conference calls with the stores each day to give them pep talks, etc, etc, then he deserves his salary. THAT is justification.

 

http://www.steverrobbins.com/articles/ceojob#part1

 

Looking at that, we can see that CEO means you do alot for the company. Or are supposed to. Anyway, looking at what they do, the actual amount of work they put in isn't worth even 18 million. 7 figure salary? Maybe. Higher 6 figure salary? Most definitely. After all, what they do affects the whole company. They deserve to be well paid. But we're joking ourselves if we can say with a straight face 18 million dollars a year is how much they "earn". That's beyond "well paid", and far beyond "comfortable".

 

Now, I looked up your "18 million" assertion. Know what his "base salary" was for that year? 1.4 million dollars. Now THAT number sounds about right. If you run a company (especially a large company like McDonalds), you should get around that for the work you put in. You know what the rest was? "Performance bonuses". So he "earned" about 8 times his "base salary"? I'm glad McDonald's is doing well, but Jesus. That seems a little excessive. And how much in "performance bonuses" did those lower than him get? The trickle-down of these bonuses stops somewhere, probably just shy of the people actually serving the food. But I'm sure if you cut those bonuses down, you could pay those who actually interact with the customers on a personal level a little bit more to work with. An employee who has fewer financial worries is a happier employee!

[hugo]

the people getting many millions in salaries simply can't be worth what they're getting paid. If you started the company, sure, why not? If you actually built the damn thing from the ground up, you deserve every penny you get (I believe that Sam Walton earned every damn penny he and his offspring will ever receive). But when you look at what certain people actually DO for a company, vs. how much they get paid, you start seeing things not add up properly.

 

 

Let us take the CEO of McDonald's who made 18 million one year. He has 1.5 million employees under him. Divide his salary by the number of employees and you get 12 dollars. It is quite easy to justify his salary.

 

You didn't justify his salary. You gave me a number the CEO doesn't control divided by his income. It was actually probably the most ridiculous "justification" of anything I've ever seen. You did absolutely nothing for your argument.

 

 

Let me put it to you quite clearly. People are paid in for what they can do to effect the company bottom line. You work smart, not neccesarrily hard. Would not you be willing to pay someone 19 bucks an hour for just giving you $20 every hour? I would.

 

If ya want bonuses don't be a fry cook. pretty simple.

[jokersarewild]

My point was, Hugo, that if you get 11 million dollars in bonuses, you have 0 right to complain that the people under you get food stamps because they can't afford to eat.

[hugo]

My point was, Hugo, that if you get 11 million dollars in bonuses, you have 0 right to complain that the people under you get food stamps because they can't afford to eat.

 

I guess ya never heard of the 1st Amendment.

[jokersarewild]

My point was, Hugo, that if you get 11 million dollars in bonuses, you have 0 right to complain that the people under you get food stamps because they can't afford to eat.

 

I guess ya never heard of the 1st Amendment.

 

I wasn't speaking legally. He has the right to call them all of bunch of cocksuckers, if he so chose.

 

I was saying his complaints would be asinine because he made many times his salary in bonuses, an amount that is itself asinine. But what can you do, eh?