2010 Midterm Elections Thread

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Wait, you're talking about someone who made poor decisions (that being having kids while making minimum wage). If you make poor decisions, then I'm not sure I feel sorry that you're making 18,720 while making aforementioned poor decisions. Even if you have a high paying job and then was fired, while having two kids you took a calculated risk/gamble and failed. Still don't feel sorry.


I wonder why.

And you're an asshole. Thanks for calling, bye.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

This is true, but they're not doing it because living off public aid is so awesome and you can buy Cadillacs and Air Jordans on food stamps. Different than what I'm talking about. I'm addressing people who think that life being poor is so totally easysauce.


Ha! Is gay marriage legal in Sweden? Tell her I'd take a husband or a wife >.>

It has been legal for quite sometime, under different terminology, but it is now called marriage and not civil union, domestic partnership, or a registered partnership, and marriage has been made gender neutral. Even the Church of Sweden supported the change, though they are no longer the official government sanctioned church, and there has been an increase in more Evangelical, Charismatic, and Pentecostal congregations in Scandinavia who oppose a lot of the moves toward equality. Gay couples can adopt kids no problem, serve in the military which is no longer mandatory for men, medical procedures for those who are transgendered and lesbians who want to be inseminated are covered by the government, men who have had sex with men (and women who have been with men who have been with men) can donate blood with some conditions, and I'm really happy there is a progressive place like this.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

No, my point was directed to EW who was stating that unions' purposes were X when in reality X was a side effect and their purpose was Y. It was a poor argument and one that is not conducive to claiming a logical discussion.

Now as for your point, not necessarily. Unions protect their workers and ensure that their workers get hired even at high wages. You may disagree with the goal or the results, but the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As long as they're actually getting hired and 'the little guy' can join the union then it does work in 'the little guy's' best interest.
Or, for the sake of logical grounds, the important part is that it can work in his best interest. And then it's up to data to determine if it does. Anecdotes about 98 dollars an hour and drinking beer are as useful as "welfare queens" buying lobsters and driving brand new SUVs.

Though I know it was a move to prevent unionizing my former place of employment, our benefits were amazing. Even before the spectre of a union came in we were allowed full benefits for 80 hours in a month at the same cost as full time employees, bereavement pay, jury duty pay covered the same as an hourly wage, extra pay for working Sunday, a full 8 hour of personal time as an anniversary of hire date and our birthday (even if you were part time) and if one exhausted their medical leave for an illness or surgery of their own or covered by FMLA relationships there was not just a bank people could donate to, but also pay would be arranged when everything was exhausted. I miss paying $3.28 a week for full medical, dental, vision, pharmacy, and extra things like Aflac, where my deductible was maybe $25 dollars but may have increased to still be under $100. We also had 401K, stock options, money for college if related to your job, and real paths to moving up that came from internal hires.

I miss that company so much I would still work there part time just for the benefits, sadly I live about 100 miles away from the nearest location.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

And you're an asshole. Thanks for calling, bye.

How am I an "asshole" for expecting responsibility?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

It has been legal for quite sometime, under different terminology, but it is now called marriage and not civil union, domestic partnership, or a registered partnership, and marriage has been made gender neutral. Even the Church of Sweden supported the change, though they are no longer the official government sanctioned church, and there has been an increase in more Evangelical, Charismatic, and Pentecostal congregations in Scandinavia who oppose a lot of the moves toward equality. Gay couples can adopt kids no problem, serve in the military which is no longer mandatory for men, medical procedures for those who are transgendered and lesbians who want to be inseminated are covered by the government, men who have had sex with men (and women who have been with men who have been with men) can donate blood with some conditions, and I'm really happy there is a progressive place like this.

The blood donation rule is probably among the most ridiculous things that we have in place here.

Though I know it was a move to prevent unionizing my former place of employment, our benefits were amazing. Even before the spectre of a union came in we were allowed full benefits for 80 hours in a month at the same cost as full time employees, bereavement pay, jury duty pay covered the same as an hourly wage, extra pay for working Sunday, a full 8 hour of personal time as an anniversary of hire date and our birthday (even if you were part time) and if one exhausted their medical leave for an illness or surgery of their own or covered by FMLA relationships there was not just a bank people could donate to, but also pay would be arranged when everything was exhausted. I miss paying $3.28 a week for full medical, dental, vision, pharmacy, and extra things like Aflac, where my deductible was maybe $25 dollars but may have increased to still be under $100. We also had 401K, stock options, money for college if related to your job, and real paths to moving up that came from internal hires.

I miss that company so much I would still work there part time just for the benefits, sadly I live about 100 miles away from the nearest location.

Sounds like a place that is worth while. I'm still figuring out the new job and how the benefits work. I get real health insurance in Dec.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

How am I an "asshole" for expecting responsibility?

While I wouldn't call you that personally, I would say that you are completely out of touch with reality if you think that everybody who faces a life challenge does so because they are irresponsible. I would also say that you are heartless, incapable of empathy or compassion. People like you scare me because you're one step away from wanting to just put people to death because they have had a life challenge that devastated them financially. It happens to people in all walks of life. It happens to those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, to those who are well educated, to those who have worked and made a good income for longer than you've been alive, to those who bust their butts to contribute to our society, and to those who have never done anything irresponsible in their lives. It happens. It is life. As humans, we have a moral obligation to take care of each other for the betterment of society as a whole. People like you scare me because I think that, without compassion, evil prevails.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by AGDee

While I wouldn't call you that personally, I would say that you are completely out of touch with reality if you think that everybody who faces a life challenge does so because they are irresponsible. I would also say that you are heartless, incapable of empathy or compassion. People like you scare me because you're one step away from wanting to just put people to death because they have had a life challenge that devastated them financially. It happens to people in all walks of life. It happens to those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, to those who are well educated, to those who have worked and made a good income for longer than you've been alive, to those who bust their butts to contribute to our society, and to those who have never done anything irresponsible in their lives. It happens. It is life. As humans, we have a moral obligation to take care of each other for the betterment of society as a whole. People like you scare me because I think that, without compassion, evil prevails.

Woah woah woah...

Where did I say anything about compassion? I am very compassionate. I give heavily to several charities as well as volunteer often.

I care for the poor, which is where my economic ideologies come from. Unabated capitalism empowers and enriches the poor's life, giving them the greatest mobility possible and the best life possible. My economic considerations are far more beneficial to the poor than a statists.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Without kids, sure. You did leave out the part about taxes..which makes it harder. (that includes food taxes, building taxes, etc)

I lived on less an hour myself. Not too difficult. My parents don't coddle. My friends had no help either living on their own. Shoot, the people next door to me right now live on less and are doing fine.


Wait, you're talking about someone who made poor decisions (that being having kids while making minimum wage). If you make poor decisions, then I'm not sure I feel sorry that you're making 18,720 while making aforementioned poor decisions. Even if you have a high paying job and then was fired, while having two kids you took a calculated risk/gamble and failed. Still don't feel sorry.


I wonder why.

I don't think you know why, so let me tell you. We have changed the types and numbers of plans offered in the past few years, with a huge push to a high deductible HSA plan and two PPO plans in the last offering. There was a lot of propaganda to put people on the high deductible plan and a lot of people didn't do their own research for their own health costs and ran with the numbers HR provided. I was on a plan I paid more for, but I used it and enjoyed my lower deductible and being covered at 90% with a $15 copay. So many people were blinded by paying less without realizing the true cost that my plan had less people and has been discontinued. The same midrange plan with twice the deductible, 80% coverage, and a $25 copay is still the being offered, and the only other option other than the high deductible, so those are my choices. Single people have never had a financial advantage on the high deductible plan, and most families lost out too if one person had a lot of care as the deductible was for the family and couldn't be met by one individual.

I did the math for what it cost me per pay check and what I would have to pay out of pocket for each plan and in one case it was obvious to go with the most expensive plan, and the other it was making an active choice that I rather would pay more for insurance and be covered than have some situation that would have cost more later. Insurance is something you buy and hope you don't have to use and often don't use in the case of my auto and home policies, but without fail I've had some medical issue that would have hurt me financially if I chose to pay $50 or so less a month. That $600 savings on the difference between 80% and 90% coverage, the $175 with the deductible being lower, and the $10 for every office visit ended up not being an issue and I made the right choice. I say it is FUBAR because I am going to potentially have less savings if something comes up, and the amount saved a month isn't going to cover it. The one thing that is nice is that adults now have orthodontia care, as I was really irritated I was paying the same amount to cover someone's kids and not allowed that same benefit. It was the one area where people paid the same and were not getting the same benefit and many people had issues with it and it finally changed. My teeth are visually straight but are slightly out of alignment jaw wise and with my sinus and allergy issues it causes a lot of pain so I'd like to get it fixed. I never had work done as a kid but I'm wisdom tooth free so there's some space to work with.

I wish people wouldn't have kids without planning and realizing everything that comes with being a parent, but unfortunately that isn't going to change because people are dumb.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The blood donation rule is probably among the most ridiculous things that we have in place here.




Sounds like a place that is worth while. I'm still figuring out the new job and how the benefits work. I get real health insurance in Dec.

I would like blood donation to screen based on risky behavior of all people, and not because a dude is with another dude, one time, or regularly. A woman in what she believes is a monogamous relationship can be at risk from her partner and two men who have only been with each other for a long time and aren't IV drug users are not really a problem. I bet a lot of people have anonymous risky sex (say anal without a condom) and don't admit it when they donate blood and this is why blood is tested, people lie.

That job was surprisingly in retail of all things, and I think they realized retail brings out the shitty in customers and used generous benefits to compensate for douchebaggery.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

I would like blood donation to screen based on risky behavior of all people, and not because a dude is with another dude, one time, or regularly. A woman in what she believes is a monogamous relationship can be at risk from her partner and two men who have only been with each other for a long time and aren't IV drug users are not really a problem. I bet a lot of people have anonymous risky sex (say anal without a condom) and don't admit it when they donate blood and this is why blood is tested, people lie.

That job was surprisingly in retail of all things, and I think they realized retail brings out the shitty in customers and used generous benefits to compensate for douchebaggery.

Either the test works or it doesn't and banning all gay men, all men who've had sexual encounter's with men and all women who've had... etc. Really, the way STDs work you've eliminated anyone who's had sex with someone who's also had sex with someone else. Ever. Or you test and you let everyone except people who know they're positive give.

I'm impressed that retail turned out so well, most just compensate by hiring new people when the old ones burn out.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Either the test works or it doesn't and banning all gay men, all men who've had sexual encounter's with men and all women who've had... etc. Really, the way STDs work you've eliminated anyone who's had sex with someone who's also had sex with someone else. Ever. Or you test and you let everyone except people who know they're positive give.

I'm impressed that retail turned out so well, most just compensate by hiring new people when the old ones burn out.

They were kind of funny in a couple ways with the health insurance. Birth control was only covered with medical documentation, but that was because Viagra was also. I don't know any woman who was denied birth control with a letter from a doctor and this might have changed to no restrictions. It was quite common on a lot of health plans and I know of some that cover only certain pills and not others and those people go to Planned Parenthood and get what they need. I think the cost of bc monthly is a far better cost than a pregnancy and another dependent for an insurance plan, but like I said, no one was denied with their doctor saying it was medically needed. They also offered Plan B in our pharmacies (when it was still prescription only) and the health insurance covered it which is funny because they didn't cover birth control pills.

[knight_shadow]

Still waiting on that budget that shows $18,000 being "comfortable" for someone who's not in high school or college.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Now as for your point, not necessarily. Unions protect their workers and ensure that their workers get hired even at high wages. You may disagree with the goal or the results, but the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As long as they're actually getting hired and 'the little guy' can join the union then it does work in 'the little guy's' best interest.

This basically assumes an infinite number of jobs (or so large that union membership can easily expand indefinitely), right?

That's the exact reason I used "unions" in general and in a global sense, and not any one specific union (or any specific subset of workers). Unions attempt to (and often do) serve their own membership admirably, but that's the whole point: they likely have a negative effect on the whole to benefit the few.

So, in a holistic/global sense, the statements are indeed mutually exclusive.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Still waiting on that budget that shows $18,000 being "comfortable" for someone who's not in high scool or college.

Why would high school or college matter?

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Why would high school or college matter?

*sigh*

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This basically assumes an infinite number of jobs (or so large that union membership can easily expand indefinitely), right?

That's the exact reason I used "unions" in general and in a global sense, and not any one specific union (or any specific subset of workers). Unions attempt to (and often do) serve their own membership admirably, but that's the whole point: they likely have a negative effect on the whole to benefit the few.

So, in a holistic/global sense, the statements are indeed mutually exclusive.

It doesn't assume an infinite number, but it does kind of assume that the union could expand to provide all jobs in that sector, or provide the influence to raise wages and benefits for non-union members in the same sector. I don't believe that assumption is actually necessary though. An alternative assumption is that without the high union wage more people would have jobs rather than the same number of people having jobs at a lower wage. But that too is simply an assumption.

As long as it is possible for the two statements to co-exist there's not a logical problem with the argument, it just comes down to the data to back up the assertion. I don't really have a horse in the race when it comes to the answer, just the argument.

And srmom did miss the point of my post entirely which was that you can't claim to only care about the logic while making large logical errors. Or rather, you can, but you're being ridiculous. (As is using unionization in apartheid South Africa as an honest reflection of unionization in the US, that just doesn't work.)