E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-06-2014, 08:02 PM   #41
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 904
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
What precisely IS the reason they had them in the first place?
The reason why someone works a low paying job is due to the fact that they lack the skill/value to perform a more complex job (that pays more.) I don't see too many Lehman Bros. employees working at Mcdonalds. There is nothing wrong with working a low paying job, but stop pretending like they are nuclear physicists that are down in the dumps. People that work low paying jobs should learn, get promoted, learn again, and do whatever they need to acquire the skills necessary to get a good job.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2014, 08:02 PM   #42
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
finally we can come closer to guaranteed leisure time, FDR would be proud
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2014, 08:15 PM   #43
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 904
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
finally we can come closer to guaranteed leisure time, FDR would be proud
Its the adult version of recess.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2014, 08:34 PM   #44
325seeeye
Core Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Rocket City
Posts: 1,163
My Ride: 325Ci, e36 325is
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
If these are people who are voluntarily leaving the work force or reducing their hours because they no longer need to work a full time job just to get some healthcare, their take home pay must be sufficient, and their jobs or hours will be made up by people who want to work. Their take home pay rises, savings rises, investing rises, hiring increases and the economy improves. Voila.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
Workers now having more freedom and latitude as to where and how much/long to work rather than being effectively shackled to a single job, i.e., "Job Lock," simply for the sake of health benefits. I thought conservatives were all about "freedom," thus they ought to be applauding this expansion of job freedom. Or, are they more concerned about employers having the unwritten leverage of control of health care benefits to maintain more control over workers and their wages? Personally I think health care ought to be completely severed from employment.

Yes, workers may well freely opt to leave schitty, low paying jobs for better ones and thus, employers may have to make said jobs actually more appealing in and of themselves to those employees. It's been an "employer's market," if you will, for the past 20-30 years or so, as evidenced by stagnant real low-middle class wages and soaring upper class wages/wealth, perhaps time to rebalance this equation a bit more in favor of employees rather than devolving into some quasi-feudal society as is the current trajectory.
They are more "free" to leave their job because someone else is subsidizing their heathcare costs. Why are you guys so happy about this?

If anything, give them the subsidies and keep them working more.

FYI, I don't blame anyone for doing an analysis and determining it is more advantageous to work less and get more freebies. That is logical. But I am opposed to the policy that encourages it. I think it is breeding generations of freeloaders. Again, social nets should be temporary assistance. Not a life choice.
__________________
325seeeye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2014, 01:25 AM   #45
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 103
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
The reason why someone works a low paying job is due to the fact that they lack the skill/value to perform a more complex job (that pays more.) I don't see too many Lehman Bros. employees working at Mcdonalds. There is nothing wrong with working a low paying job, but stop pretending like they are nuclear physicists that are down in the dumps. People that work low paying jobs should learn, get promoted, learn again, and do whatever they need to acquire the skills necessary to get a good job.
Didn't have to dangle that worm very long for a bite.

So, in the spirit of Romney's 47%ers and the right/GOP/TP's general disdain for a majority of Americans, all those beneath some elevated net worth are simply lazy, shiftless, and/or stupid. Never mind that there are have been some 3-5+ people for every job opening, that most wages and benefits have been pared to the bone (at least for most workers), that so many jobs have been downsized and off-shored, that health costs and housing costs have exploded while real earnings and wealth for most have stagnated or fallen.

Of course there is a subset of truly lazy, shiftless and stupid people, but I wouldn't broadly tar such a vast swath of Americans as being such. There's certainly a subset of venal, narcissistic and greedy people two. Unfortunately, I think it's the latter, by dint of dollar and ensuing power, that have had an inordinate influence on our country's political and policies to the detriment of most. I don't believe a political plutocracy is what our founders intended nor what is best for our country's long term viability.

Perhaps if the right/GOP/TP actually started truly addressing most American's economic problems and concerns rather than disparaging the many and pandering to the rich few on some (well refuted) hope and wish that some pittance will somehow eventually tinkle down to the great unwashed, then perhaps they might have a political future outside of manipulating the electoral system every which way to Friday.

So yes, perhaps ACA will lend striving Americans a greater degree of freedom and latitude to actually do things you prescribe: take the time to learn new skills for tomorrow rather than working two jobs simply to survive today, seek new and better jobs in new locations, get promoted, earn more and spend more and contribute more to their families, communities and country.

Rather than looking at most Americans as a bunch of lazy takers, I see them as shackled strivers needing and deserving, both for themselves and our society at large, greater opportunity to achieve the results they yearn and work so hard for. These aren't Mercedes and diamond rings being handed out but rather, a basic level of health security that will far better allow so many people to better pursue and achieve what they are fully capable of and to, in the end, contribute far more back into our society and economy in the end.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2014, 01:42 AM   #46
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 103
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
They are more "free" to leave their job because someone else is subsidizing their heathcare costs. Why are you guys so happy about this?
Guess what sparky, you're already subsidizing their health costs but in a grossly inefficient, costly and, in aggregate, ineffective way. Perhaps the ACA better rationalizes the reality that already is and will lead to lower, rather than higher, overall health care expenditures and results. I wouldn't necessarily describe a reasonable level of health care security as some sort of gratuitous "freebie" as is so implied by many on the right but rather, a more basic underpinning of our society and its people that will far better allow them to pursue far more productive endeavors -- economically, educationally and else-wise -- than they are able to do so now. To somehow equate more affordable, accessible and available healthcare with, say, free flat screen TVs, is both insulting and disingenuous. Trying desperately to avoid going into Chapter 11 to pay for your child's cancer treatment is not the same as wanting to flop on a couch, crack a beer and watch soap operas in your bunny slippers all day.

PS, pop quiz: what is the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the U.S.? That's right, slick, illness and health care costs. So perhaps a desire by most for a greater modicum of health care security is not driven by simple lassitude but rather, by a heartfelt desire for their own and their family's basic well being.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2014, 07:43 AM   #47
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 4,891
My Ride: Phoenix Yellow M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
Guess what sparky, you're already subsidizing their health costs but in a grossly inefficient, costly and, in aggregate, ineffective way. Perhaps the ACA better rationalizes the reality that already is and will lead to lower, rather than higher, overall health care expenditures and results. I wouldn't necessarily describe a reasonable level of health care security as some sort of gratuitous "freebie" as is so implied by many on the right but rather, a more basic underpinning of our society and its people that will far better allow them to pursue far more productive endeavors -- economically, educationally and else-wise -- than they are able to do so now. To somehow equate more affordable, accessible and available healthcare with, say, free flat screen TVs, is both insulting and disingenuous. Trying desperately to avoid going into Chapter 11 to pay for your child's cancer treatment is not the same as wanting to flop on a couch, crack a beer and watch soap operas in your bunny slippers all day.

PS, pop quiz: what is the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the U.S.? That's right, slick, illness and health care costs. So perhaps a desire by most for a greater modicum of health care security is not driven by simple lassitude but rather, by a heartfelt desire for their own and their family's basic well being.
How much do you actually know about the ACA? Have you read bill? Are you just skimming the surface going off of what the 'man' says or do you understand the inner workings of the ACA? Just curious.
__________________
Quote:
The whole business of politics has been effectively subcontracted out to a band of professionals. Money people, outreach people, message people, research people. The rest of us are meant to feel like amateurs. In the sense of suckers. We become demotivated to learn more about how things work. We begin to opt out.
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2014, 08:09 AM   #48
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
PS, pop quiz: what is the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the U.S.? That's right, slick, illness and health care costs. So perhaps a desire by most for a greater modicum of health care security is not driven by simple lassitude but rather, by a heartfelt desire for their own and their family's basic well being.
That's as big of a lie as the 77 cents on the dollar women lie.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...dical-bankrup/

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/2/w74.long
Quote:
A reexamination of their data suggests that medical bills are a contributing factor in just 17 percent of personal bankruptcies
paper
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/...th_vs_fact.pdf

Already went over this, please stop spreading falsehoods. If you can't win the point you are arguing without lying, perhaps it is time to re-think your position.
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin

Last edited by Act of God; 02-07-2014 at 08:11 AM.
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2014, 08:58 AM   #49
Stickbuilder
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nashville TN/Central FL.
Posts: 1,393
My Ride: Touring, and others
At a local place of business, part time employees hours were cut from 25 hours per week to 10. More part time employees were added to be able to accommodate the patrons. The lower number of hours offered meant that no benefits are now offered to the part time help. Before, they were offered medical benefits where none exist now. This happened in November 2013. Before, full time employees worked about 36 hours per week to be considered full time. Now 30 hours constitutes full time. What else would you blame this change on? ACA is the only logical reason. The bottom line cannot change for a business to remain viable. The owners will protect the profitability. We stockholders demand it.


Sent from BimmerApp mobile app
__________________
[/SIGPIC]I'm fluent in 3 languages:

English
Sarcasm
Profanity

Last edited by Stickbuilder; 02-07-2014 at 08:59 AM.
Stickbuilder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2014, 09:01 AM   #50
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 904
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickbuilder View Post
At a local place of business, part time employees hours were cut from 25 hours per week to 10. More part time employees were added to be able to accommodate the patrons. The lower number of hours offered meant that no benefits are now offered to the part time help. Before, they were offered medical benefits where none exist now. This happened in November 2013. Before, full time employees worked about 36 hours per week to be considered full time. Now 30 hours constitutes full time. What else would you blame this change on? ACA is the only logical reason. The bottom line cannot change for a business to remain viable. The owners will protect the profitability. We stockholders demand it.


Sent from BimmerApp mobile app
Thats a good point, but that's from the employer's end (strategy) and has been happening for quite some time with very large employers. We were talking about people voluntarily cutting their own hours.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2014, 09:13 AM   #51
Lair
Modded ///Member
 
Lair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sea level
Posts: 321
My Ride: e90, cheap Boxster
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
Thats a good point, but that's from the employer's end (strategy) and has been happening for quite some time with very large employers. We were talking about people voluntarily cutting their own hours.
True. Employers have been fvcking their employees for decades.
__________________

Quote:
It's the best years of your life they want to steal.
Congratulations.
Lair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2014, 12:37 PM   #52
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 103
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Some pertinent quotes from www.salon.com/2014/02/07/paul_krugman_no_millions_of_americans_won%e2%80%99t_lose_the ir_jobs_because_of_obamacare/:

Quote:
"The budget office has now increased its estimate of the size of these effects," he continues. "It believes that health reform will reduce the number of hours worked in the economy by between 1.5 percent and 2 percent, which it unhelpfully noted 'represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million.'"

Cantor seized on the data about voluntary job reduction - retirement, parents opting to work part-time, etc. - and twisted it into a data point about involuntary job loss. "Under Obamacare, millions of hardworking Americans will lose their jobs and those who keep them will see their hours and wages reduced," Cantor tweeted about the budget report.

This simply isn't true, and Cantor should know that, as Krugman explains:
The budget office report didn't say that people will lose their jobs It declared explicitly that the predicted fall in hours worked will come "almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor" (emphasis added). And as we've already seen, Mr. Elmendorf did his best the next day to explain that voluntary reductions in work hours are nothing like involuntary job loss. Oh, and because labor supply will be reduced, wages will go up, not down.

We should add that the budget office believes that health reform will actually reduce unemployment over the next few years. [...]
People having the freedom to choose of their own volition how much they work, higher wages, lower overall unemployment ... sounds good to me.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2014, 12:38 PM   #53
Gatriel
Grüß Di'
 
Gatriel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frankfurt am Main
Posts: 437
My Ride: KL38444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
Some pertinent quotes from www.salon.com/2014/02/07/paul_krugman_no_millions_of_americans_won%e2%80%99t_lose_their_jobs_beca use_of_obamacare/:



People having the freedom to choose of their own volition how much they work, higher wages, lower overall unemployment ... sounds good to me.

Last edited by Gatriel; 02-07-2014 at 12:39 PM.
Gatriel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2014, 04:11 PM   #54
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 904
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
I was under the impression that in the US workers were always free to choose how much they wanted to work? Are you also suggesting that taking a full time job, slicing it in half and then fill it with 2 part time employees is a benefit to the economy?
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2014, 06:02 PM   #55
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 103
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
I was under the impression that in the US workers were always free to choose how much they wanted to work? Are you also suggesting that taking a full time job, slicing it in half and then fill it with 2 part time employees is a benefit to the economy?
In the abstract, yes, in a more practical reality, no.

I think a meta level, this whole discussion illustrates the odd and distorting effect of lashing healthcare so intimately with employment, for both sided of the equation.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2014, 06:23 PM   #56
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
In the abstract, yes, in a more practical reality, no.

I think a meta level, this whole discussion illustrates the odd and distorting effect of lashing healthcare so intimately with employment, for both sided of the equation.
Man, how do the self employed survive without health insurance...since, you know, you apparently can't get health insurance without being someone's employee.
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2014, 08:20 PM   #57
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 103
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
Man, how do the self employed survive without health insurance...since, you know, you apparently can't get health insurance without being someone's employee.
Simple, by paying out immense amounts of money to insurance companies, or, as is all too often the case, either going without insurance or having bare bones insurance that covers little even after immense deductibles. I would suspect the self employed to be the most discontented with what had been our current system.

Indeed, I would imagine health care/cost considerations to be an immense disincentive to self employment and personal entrepreneurship, much to the detriment to our society and vitality of our economy.

Last edited by Rhumb; 02-07-2014 at 08:24 PM.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2014, 08:23 PM   #58
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
Simple, by paying out immense amounts of money to insurance companies, or, as is all too often the case, either going without insurance or having bare bones insurance that covers little even after immense deductibles. I would suspect the self employed to be the most discontented with what had been our current system.
That's funny, most people are reporting higher premiums under obamacare
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2014, 08:26 PM   #59
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 103
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
That's funny, most people are reporting higher premiums under obamacare
Please cite statistic backing up this assertion, I'd be interested in that.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2014, 08:43 PM   #60
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewh...for-the-young/
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...avent-gone-do/
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/pre...2/09/id/540772
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-...gher-premiums/
http://washingtonexaminer.com/euphor...rticle/2540444
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/insure...223100251.html
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use