|
1 Nerd-It
 
RE: Impact of Obama
|
The ShowcaseNerd-Its Nerd Trends Last Ten
What is OmniNerd?
Voting Booth
26 votes,
1 comment
|
|
1 Nerd-It
RE: Impact of Obama
|
The ShowcaseNerd-Its Nerd Trends Last Ten
What is OmniNerd?
Voting Booth
26 votes,
1 comment
|
a
comment
by 
RE: Impact of Obama by ldsudduth :: NR6 :: Show
Not so. Dr George Tiller was murdered by a religious anti-abortion zealot just this past May.
I’ll stand corrected on that—I did an internet search and came up with ‘1993’ as the last time a Doctor was murdered by an anti-abortion protestor.
But you somehow think it’s ok for GM to “rape” its US workers by stopping benefits to which they were promised as part of their employment offer. That’s a rather bizarre contradiction.
We’ll have to agree to disagree here..I don’t see that a ‘Union Contract’ (which I consider to be a level of extortion) to be an ‘Employment Offer’. An offer is something I can make a counter offer to. With Union Contracts, you can’t; neither side can vary from the ‘contract’. And they can’t stop or change the costs to benefits for those under ‘Contract’ without renegotiating said contract.
By the same token, the Union can ‘rape’ GM for a combined salary (wages + benefits) for their union workers that averages around $73 per hour; while an accountant or network administrator or (pick a worker here) gets a combined salary that is substantially less in combined salary and benefits. That hardly seems fair does it? But GM needs to do that so they can offset what the Union has extorted from them in some manner.
Companies don’t have consciences, and their directors are legally required to put the company’s financial best interest at the center of their decision-making—even when that runs counter to their own conscience (so long as it’s not illegal).
Exactly my point—during tough economic times, actions need to be take to preserve the company—and try to preserve jobs as well. To do anything else is not acting in the best interests of all—employees OR investors.
If the company unilaterally decides to drop benefits, or change them to be paid for by the employee, it’s no different than simply deciding unilaterally to reduce your salary. Now, as a conservative, especially one with the weird anti-labor ideas that so many “libertarian” conservatives have, you might think it’s ok for the company to do that.
The company should be able to take whatever actions are necessary to preserve jobs.
When Insurance company X increases it’s rates to a company by a factor of 5 (as they did in my case—
from 8K per year total cost to almost 48K per year) I certainly can’t expect my employer to pick up that tab. Since I’m a contractor, it would have effectively erased much of the profit they make for my position. You can certainly bet they can’t go back to the employer and increase their hourly rate by a factor of 5. Oddly enough, when I sought insurance on my own, I actually found it for about the same cost ($15 more per month) than I was paying before. That becomes a Tax Deduction for me next year, so it’s a ‘net gain’ on my salary anyway.
. The government is the people. It’s not some separate aristocracy that decides on rules for the plebes with a different rule for the elite.
Wait a minute Scott—I believe you took the position in a posting some time ago (and I don’t have time to search for it right now) that my position that an elected official should be doing ‘the will of the people’—meaning the will of the majority of their constituents was an incorrect position; that (parapphrasing your point) our Elected ones need to be doing what is best for the people regardless of how the people feel about it. How do you now say that the government is the people?
Now, it’s easy to lose control of the government. But the government is still the proper place for that function.
The people lost control of the Government years and years ago. However, are you saying the government should set wages across the board for everyone? Yourself included? We probably agree on one point—these multi-millon dollar salaries (and Parachutes) for most of the senior ‘executive’ types are probably not only undeserved, but unearned as well, and the government should have taken action to quash that.
And btw.. not all Libertarians are ‘Anti Government’, minarchists are just against governments so large (like ours is becoming) that is sucks up all of the income people and businesses earn just to keep itself moving. Government role is the protection of life, liberty, and property of the individual. Anything else is neither warranted or necessary.
RE: Impact of Obama by ldsudduth :: NR6 :: Show
The place to achieve those goals is not the marketplace. We achieve those goals when we act as people, not as businesses. And the primary mechanism by which a society acts as a society is its government.
You’re correct when you say that ‘we acheive those goals when we act as people’, but you are incorrect in saying that we do so by being government. It is neither the duty nor the repsonsibility of government to take care of my needs—beyond protecting my life, liberty, and my property.
The problem is the governement doesn’t do anything like that well. Recent examples—how about the New Jersey Nets new stadium; a case which falls right on the heels of Kelo vs New London. Is government protecting property here? (in the latter—Pfizer is actually pulling OUT of New London now; but keeping the building). How, in either case, are the properties of the people being protected?
But, I digress. My point here is that it is not the responsibility of the government to feed or shelter me; that is my responsibility—unless, of course, I am completely unable to do so. Then, it is the responsibility of society to take care of me. Society doesn’t do that best as ‘government’, as you claim. Rather. society does that best by acting as Community—by pulling together and acting as one.