Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Uh, what about U.S. taxpayers, who pick up most of the bill for food stamps and medicaid (and medicare).

As for the California taxpayers, shouldn't their ire be directed at shiftless California state employees, who are subsidized at a tune far louder than $86 million.

They are performing work* directly for the taxpayers, rather than working at employers within CA.

I like Wal-Mart's response, which is essentially that people shouldn't be mad because they are free-riding off employers who actually do provide benefits. Funny.

*Yeah, whatever, in theory, state workers are all lazy, blah blah blah. But do you want me to get started on how we are subsidizing those damn soldiers? Who seem to get married really early and produce litters of puppies, who then get medical care courtesy of the gov't?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
They are performing work* directly for the taxpayers, rather than working at employers within CA.

True. Either is better than the shiftless fucks who do nothing and collect an even greater amount of benefits because they're unemployed.

I'm sure someone can come up with a study showing that Wal-Mart (or any other large employer) also consumes a huge amount of "state subsidy" in the form of police and fire protection, too.

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.swiftvets.com/

touch photo- see reality

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
True. Either is better than the shiftless fucks who do nothing and collect an even greater amount of benefits because they're unemployed.

I'm sure someone can come up with a study showing that Wal-Mart (or any other large employer) also consumes a huge amount of "state subsidy" in the form of police and fire protection, too.

I find the pride in free riding off other private employers the most galling.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I find the pride in free riding off other private employers the most galling.

Dimwit, its not pride. Walmart doesn't provide health insurance. Its been accused of costing California X dollars because of this. It merely seeks to show the number is actually lower since many employees don't need health insurance- having it from somewhere else.

This is a chicken or egg question. there are other retailers that provided health insurance. Many of them have gone out of business since shoppers go to the cheapest alternative. By going to the cheapest alternative they cause the store to cut what it can. You can't be the cheapest if you have to pay $15K in health insurance for unskilled jobs. I am not oblivious to the pain such an equation causes, but it's math- cold and hard.

How many of you drive foreign cars?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
This is a chicken or egg question. there are other retailers that provided health insurance. Many of them have gone out of business since shoppers go to the cheapest alternative. By going to the cheapest alternative they cause the store to cut what it can. You can't be the cheapest if you have to pay $15K in health insurance for unskilled jobs. I am not oblivious to the pain such an equation causes, but it's math- cold and hard.

I agree that the problem is that consumers demand the lowest priced goods and the employers can deliver the lowest priced goods when they pay employees less and offer less benefits. This is why we need to make health insurance mandatory just like we make car insurance mandatory.

I wouldn't make it mandatory that an employer pay for it, though, because that creates a market flaw in that the ultimate consumer (the patient) is blinded to the price.

[SlaveNoMore]

".... and then I brought these back from Vietnam!!!!"

"Honey, cloze ze damn vindow already. You are letting out ze air conditoning"

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://www.swiftvets.com/

touch photo- see reality

When are you Republicans going to start talking about all the good stuff that your candidate has accomplished? You know, like RR said, explaining how we're better off now that we were four years ago?

You know what I'm talking about: the way the economy is humming along like a top; his forthright and fiscally prudent management of our federal budget; his record as a steward of the environment; his record as a defender of individual liberties; his shrewd foreign policy; the handling of Afgahnistan and Iraq after the shooting stopped?

Come on guys, this is America! Stand up and take some ownership of your boy and his policies.

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I find the pride in free riding off other private employers the most galling.

All it does for me is call attention to the ridiculous proposition (or assumption) that health insurance should be considered a mandatory benefit offered and paid for by employers.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
All it does for me is call attention to the ridiculous proposition (or assumption) that health insurance should be considered a mandatory benefit offered and paid for by employers.

You would likely have a more nuanced view if you worked in a profession where it wasn't considered a mandatory benefit by your competitors in the labor marketplace.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
When are you Republicans going to start talking about all the good stuff that your candidate has accomplished? You know, like RR said, explaining how we're better off now that we were four years ago?

What is Kerry saying is his good stuff that contrasts with Bush's? The problem for you is that as mediocre as Bush has been, we're still confronted with an evern worse alternative.

And what's the beef with Afghanistan? It had nothing except Taliban and harbored al Qaeda. Now it's got nothing, without the oppresive regime. In fact, it's got better than nothing, it has a bumper opium crop.

Iraq is a mess, but it wasn't heaven before. It's just different people getting killed and with better press coverage of it. What is Kerry's plan to solve it? Answering "shouldn't have gone to war in the first place" doesn't get you anywhere, because (a) we're there and (b) Kerry voted for it. Increasing international cooperation doesn't get it either--are disenchanted iraqis not going to car bomb the french as well?

Granted, the budget is a mess, which is partly Bush's fault and partly laid at the hands of Congress. But I'm not confident than where Bush said cut taxes and spend, Kerry won't say raise taxes and spend some more. In fact, he's already said he'll do both. If we're not going to have fiscal restraint either way, why vote for the new guy?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
When are you Republicans going to start talking about all the good stuff that your candidate has accomplished? You know, like RR said, explaining how we're better off now that we were four years ago?

You know what I'm talking about: the way the economy is humming along like a top; his forthright and fiscally prudent management of our federal budget; his record as a steward of the environment; his record as a defender of individual liberties; his shrewd foreign policy; the handling of Afgahnistan and Iraq after the shooting stopped?

Come on guys, this is America! Stand up and take some ownership of your boy and his policies.

S_A_M

I must say SAM, you use to be so much more moderate back when. What happened to you?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
When are you Republicans going to start talking about all the good stuff that your candidate has accomplished?

When John Kerry starts talking about all he has accomplished. What has he done, BTW? He went to vietnam and then commited war crimes according to his own statements, but other than that, what?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is not a drudge item. He is only reporting on the book written by former "band of brothers"

I'm sure many of the undecided Drudge readers will enjoy the book.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You would likely have a more nuanced view if you worked in a profession where it wasn't considered a mandatory benefit by your competitors in the labor marketplace.

By "nuanced" do you mean "different"? Because I don't see much nuance in this debate: Either health insurance should be tied to employment or not; and, if so, should be paid for by employers or employees. The only possible nuance I see is whether in making a decision that it's mandatory and paid for by employers if really there is such a thing as an "employer-paid" benefit.

Employer-contributed 401(k)s were considered "mandatory" benefits by competitors in my industry. Then someone realized that employees might rather have the cash on the barrelhead. Odd that. Then the principle was extended to health insurance as well, which became not an employer-paid benefit but rather an employee-paid benefit, with a choice of plans. Remarkably, enrollment in the cheaper plan skyrocketed. Odder that.