Kentucky takes another step towards being a laughing stock

[Conservative65]

Why can't a skilled worker get a job without being forced to contribute a portion of his salary to a criminal enterprise once run by Jimmy Hoffa? It's bad enough that rich criminals who pretend to represent union worker extort money from the workers and the corporations but rich union officials get golden retirement packages by forcing middle class municipalities into bankruptcy with do nothing state and local jobs. Way to go Kentucky.

You really do need to take a course in US History, especially on the history of labor from Reconstruction to today.

You really need to take a course in Economics if you think the ideology you follow is worth more than the shit I took this morning.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Even for you CF ... well, the answer, if this ^^^ was intended to be a question, is quite simple. The CEO does two things:

1. He feather's his bed (job #1)
2. He puts profits before people

A. Mazing.

Simply Amazing

Progs have only the Little Red Book to guide them so they're often wrong out in the trillions column

Your idiot-gram being a non sequitur fails as a rebuttal! Your idiot-gram is an example of the genre of the fools.

The evidence is quite clear: Salaries of CEO's have geometrically grown, as the salary and hourly wage of the worker bees has stagnated.

There's a solution. Strive to be better and make more.

Sure, easy to say, but not to do, especially alone; not everyone can be Norma Rae. And when greed and envy become the dominant value of voters, opportunities become few and limit the ability of even the most ambitious. And of course Norma Rae would today be called a Communist and worse.

It's easy to do. Not every effort will be successful but putting forth an effort isn't hard to do. If those that constantly makes excuses put half the effort toward bettering themselves as they do looking for ways to blame someone else for their failures, this conversation wouldn't take place.

It's not greedy to have more or want to have more. It's only considered greed by you pieces of shit that think having more automatically means someone that doesn't have as much should get what they didn't earn funded by the one that did earn it.

It's true, it is not greedy to have more, I'm not greedy and I have more - likely more than you.

 

[Conservative65]

A. Mazing.

Simply Amazing

Progs have only the Little Red Book to guide them so they're often wrong out in the trillions column

Your idiot-gram being a non sequitur fails as a rebuttal! Your idiot-gram is an example of the genre of the fools.

The evidence is quite clear: Salaries of CEO's have geometrically grown, as the salary and hourly wage of the worker bees has stagnated.

There's a solution. Strive to be better and make more.

Sure, easy to say, but not to do, especially alone; not everyone can be Norma Rae. And when greed and envy become the dominant value of voters, opportunities become few and limit the ability of even the most ambitious. And of course Norma Rae would today be called a Communist and worse.

It's easy to do. Not every effort will be successful but putting forth an effort isn't hard to do. If those that constantly makes excuses put half the effort toward bettering themselves as they do looking for ways to blame someone else for their failures, this conversation wouldn't take place.

It's not greedy to have more or want to have more. It's only considered greed by you pieces of shit that think having more automatically means someone that doesn't have as much should get what they didn't earn funded by the one that did earn it.

It's true, it is not greedy to have more, I'm not greedy and I have more - likely more than you.

Are you going to be one that proves what he claims or are you going to be yet another Liberal liar that expects people to believe because you said it?

Prove it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why can't a skilled worker get a job without being forced to contribute a portion of his salary to a criminal enterprise once run by Jimmy Hoffa? It's bad enough that rich criminals who pretend to represent union worker extort money from the workers and the corporations but rich union officials get golden retirement packages by forcing middle class municipalities into bankruptcy with do nothing state and local jobs. Way to go Kentucky.

You really do need to take a course in US History, especially on the history of labor from Reconstruction to today.

You really need to take a course in Economics if you think the ideology you follow is worth more than the shit I took this morning.

My ideology can be expressed in three words: The Golden Rule. I have taken Econ, and The Economic HIstory of the US, along with the History of Labor; my double major was history and poli sci.

 

[Dragonlady]

dimocrap scum are losing the battle for America.

Let Freedom Ring

And then you vote for Trump because US workers need decent paying jobs.

Idiots.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Conservative65]

Why can't a skilled worker get a job without being forced to contribute a portion of his salary to a criminal enterprise once run by Jimmy Hoffa? It's bad enough that rich criminals who pretend to represent union worker extort money from the workers and the corporations but rich union officials get golden retirement packages by forcing middle class municipalities into bankruptcy with do nothing state and local jobs. Way to go Kentucky.

You really do need to take a course in US History, especially on the history of labor from Reconstruction to today.

You really need to take a course in Economics if you think the ideology you follow is worth more than the shit I took this morning.

My ideology can be expressed in three words: The Golden Rule. I have taken Econ, and The Economic HIstory of the US, along with the History of Labor; my double major was history and poli sci.

Your ideology is socialism. You believe someone that doesn't have what you think they should have should have it handed to them even if it means the government forcing someone you think has too much to pay for it.

You may have taken them but you've proven you didn't learn a damn thing.

Hey, dickhead, I'm still waiting on you to prove your claim that you have more than me.

 

[Conservative65]

dimocrap scum are losing the battle for America.

Let Freedom Ring

And then you vote for Trump because US workers need decent paying jobs.

Idiots.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I've explained how people can get a decent paying job. Provide decent skills. For too many it's easy to stand around demanding someone give it to you than work for it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Your idiot-gram being a non sequitur fails as a rebuttal! Your idiot-gram is an example of the genre of the fools.

The evidence is quite clear: Salaries of CEO's have geometrically grown, as the salary and hourly wage of the worker bees has stagnated.

There's a solution. Strive to be better and make more.

Sure, easy to say, but not to do, especially alone; not everyone can be Norma Rae. And when greed and envy become the dominant value of voters, opportunities become few and limit the ability of even the most ambitious. And of course Norma Rae would today be called a Communist and worse.

It's easy to do. Not every effort will be successful but putting forth an effort isn't hard to do. If those that constantly makes excuses put half the effort toward bettering themselves as they do looking for ways to blame someone else for their failures, this conversation wouldn't take place.

It's not greedy to have more or want to have more. It's only considered greed by you pieces of shit that think having more automatically means someone that doesn't have as much should get what they didn't earn funded by the one that did earn it.

It's true, it is not greedy to have more, I'm not greedy and I have more - likely more than you.

Are you going to be one that proves what he claims or are you going to be yet another Liberal liar that expects people to believe because you said it?

Prove it.

Why?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Kentucky Republicans Pass Right-To-Work, Dropping The Hammer On Unions | The Huffington Post

Hey what the hell its not like Appalachia was poor enough lets drive down wages even more! Everything for the rich CEO nothing for the poor worker trying to feed their family. What needs changed is US Labor law. If you aren't PAYING to belong to a union then you should get NONE of the benefits of being in the union.

The wage agreed to between you and your employer is none of the government's business.

 

[Conservative65]

There's a solution. Strive to be better and make more.

Sure, easy to say, but not to do, especially alone; not everyone can be Norma Rae. And when greed and envy become the dominant value of voters, opportunities become few and limit the ability of even the most ambitious. And of course Norma Rae would today be called a Communist and worse.

It's easy to do. Not every effort will be successful but putting forth an effort isn't hard to do. If those that constantly makes excuses put half the effort toward bettering themselves as they do looking for ways to blame someone else for their failures, this conversation wouldn't take place.

It's not greedy to have more or want to have more. It's only considered greed by you pieces of shit that think having more automatically means someone that doesn't have as much should get what they didn't earn funded by the one that did earn it.

It's true, it is not greedy to have more, I'm not greedy and I have more - likely more than you.

Are you going to be one that proves what he claims or are you going to be yet another Liberal liar that expects people to believe because you said it?

Prove it.

Why?

Otherwise you'll be the latter, ANOTHER fucking Liberal liar that makes claims he can't back up.

 

[Conservative65]

Kentucky Republicans Pass Right-To-Work, Dropping The Hammer On Unions | The Huffington Post

Hey what the hell its not like Appalachia was poor enough lets drive down wages even more! Everything for the rich CEO nothing for the poor worker trying to feed their family. What needs changed is US Labor law. If you aren't PAYING to belong to a union then you should get NONE of the benefits of being in the union.

The wage agreed to between you and your employer is none of the government's business.

Those that clamor about employers being greedy make it out as if the employee didn't know what the wage was until he/she showed up the first day.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

QUESTION--------> The left wants to not allow Americans to work unless they join a union, by force if need be.....but...........it is ok for illegals to take American jobs while lowering wages?!?!?!

Logic anyone!

Seems like the reason illegals are given (not taken away from Americans, but given to illegals by employers) American jobs is so that corporations CAN lower wages. Whosure, another conundrum is...is it a good deal that Carrier saved a few, but not all, Carrier jobs and all it cost the State is $700 mil less in taxpayer revenue. Who do you figure will cover that? Will that make Indiana more beholden to the Fed for a couple of necessities? And if so, does that mean it will cost me too, since I live in a State that even now gives more than it receives? Will the rest of us have to pitch in thru our 'exorbitant' union wages to cover Indiana's shortfalls while Trump crows about 'saving jobs'?

you are only looking at 105.00 per resident in indiana to save those jobs and to generate the revenue that those jobs bring through payroll tax.
If you can honestly say its acceptable for someone that works to pay thousands more per year for their health insurance, just so someone else can get it for free, then I really have a hard time understanding how you can be upset with someone being asked to spend 100 bucks a year, Less than 2.50 per week to save those jobs. Remember, those jobs are going to bring with it more people to give their money away to insure the worthless scum of the earth. You should be ecstatic.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Derp. Just more deflection because republicans don't like their bullshit called out. Its obvious republicans have ZERO issues with corporations getting welfare but not PEOPLE who actually need it. ANYONE can be fired even union members you just can't do it for frivolous reasons like bringing in some cheaper labor etc...I know you conservatards hate labor and workers rights laws....its obvious.

been asking others but so far nobody can come up with anything. What exactly is corporate welfare? how does it work? can you link to some examples that show in detail any company that is getting this corporate welfare?
Since every time its mentioned it has the basic premise that we dont care about corporate welfare but we have a problem with an individual receiving welfare, I can only assume that both are the same.
hopefully you are the one with the intelligence to be able to explain how this works.

 

[bullwinkle]

QUESTION--------> The left wants to not allow Americans to work unless they join a union, by force if need be.....but...........it is ok for illegals to take American jobs while lowering wages?!?!?!

Logic anyone!

Seems like the reason illegals are given (not taken away from Americans, but given to illegals by employers) American jobs is so that corporations CAN lower wages. Whosure, another conundrum is...is it a good deal that Carrier saved a few, but not all, Carrier jobs and all it cost the State is $700 mil less in taxpayer revenue. Who do you figure will cover that? Will that make Indiana more beholden to the Fed for a couple of necessities? And if so, does that mean it will cost me too, since I live in a State that even now gives more than it receives? Will the rest of us have to pitch in thru our 'exorbitant' union wages to cover Indiana's shortfalls while Trump crows about 'saving jobs'?

you are only looking at 105.00 per resident in indiana to save those jobs and to generate the revenue that those jobs bring through payroll tax.
If you can honestly say its acceptable for someone that works to pay thousands more per year for their health insurance, just so someone else can get it for free, then I really have a hard time understanding how you can be upset with someone being asked to spend 100 bucks a year, Less than 2.50 per week to save those jobs. Remember, those jobs are going to bring with it more people to give their money away to insure the worthless scum of the earth. You should be ecstatic.

Can I ask the reverse of you? If it is unacceptable for someone that works and pays thousands more per year for their health care so someone can get it free, why is it acceptable to pay for jobs so Carrier's profits can maintain high.

BTW, who ARE these people who are paying 'thousands' more? I don't know any who pay thousands more. I don't pay thousands more, do you? I do pay about just under $400 per month. My COB has gone up every year, about $7.50 per month except this year where it stays flat. Maybe that's because I didn't have the cheap coverage that the ACA eliminated when they made coverage limits and denials illegal.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

QUESTION--------> The left wants to not allow Americans to work unless they join a union, by force if need be.....but...........it is ok for illegals to take American jobs while lowering wages?!?!?!

Logic anyone!

Seems like the reason illegals are given (not taken away from Americans, but given to illegals by employers) American jobs is so that corporations CAN lower wages. Whosure, another conundrum is...is it a good deal that Carrier saved a few, but not all, Carrier jobs and all it cost the State is $700 mil less in taxpayer revenue. Who do you figure will cover that? Will that make Indiana more beholden to the Fed for a couple of necessities? And if so, does that mean it will cost me too, since I live in a State that even now gives more than it receives? Will the rest of us have to pitch in thru our 'exorbitant' union wages to cover Indiana's shortfalls while Trump crows about 'saving jobs'?

you are only looking at 105.00 per resident in indiana to save those jobs and to generate the revenue that those jobs bring through payroll tax.
If you can honestly say its acceptable for someone that works to pay thousands more per year for their health insurance, just so someone else can get it for free, then I really have a hard time understanding how you can be upset with someone being asked to spend 100 bucks a year, Less than 2.50 per week to save those jobs. Remember, those jobs are going to bring with it more people to give their money away to insure the worthless scum of the earth. You should be ecstatic.

Can I ask the reverse of you? If it is unacceptable for someone that works and pays thousands more per year for their health care so someone can get it free, why is it acceptable to pay for jobs so Carrier's profits can maintain high.

BTW, who ARE these people who are paying 'thousands' more? I don't know any who pay thousands more. I don't pay thousands more, do you? I do pay about just under $400 per month. My COB has gone up every year, about $7.50 per month except this year where it stays flat. Maybe that's because I didn't have the cheap coverage that the ACA eliminated when they made coverage limits and denials illegal.

I would hardly consider my current insurance cheap, as a matter of fact its one of the best policies Ive seen. no co-pay, no out of pocket 10 dollar Dr visits, 10 dollar ER visit, unless Im admitted then its no cost, everything covered at 100%.
But, I did look at the Maryland exchange and if I were to lose what I have and had to go through the UACA my premium cost would go up about 2000 a year and I would have an out of pocket of 12,000 per year.
Im not the only one.
Now, why is it better to pay a few dollars to keep 700 (or whatever the real number is) jobs? Well, first off that company will be paying taxes, even if they are reduced through some deal, they will be paying taxes, each of those 700 people will be paying federal and state taxes, (thats revenue and its a really good thing) those people will also be shopping locally, paying their mortgage or rent, eating out etc.. or in other words, helping the local economy. They will hopefully be saving money that builds the cash on hand that the banks have to loan money to others for cars, mortgages, boats, whatever.
The amount of return that comes from those saved jobs far out weighs the cost of saving them.
Same goes with the insurance, what return on investment does the person with no subsidy see by paying thousands more to make sure someone else can get it for free. None, there is no benefit to me if someone else gets cheap coverage.
Of course its possible that Im missing something here, if so, please feel free to school me on it. Im always open to changing my personal opinion if the facts indicate such things.

 

[bullwinkle]

QUESTION--------> The left wants to not allow Americans to work unless they join a union, by force if need be.....but...........it is ok for illegals to take American jobs while lowering wages?!?!?!

Logic anyone!

Seems like the reason illegals are given (not taken away from Americans, but given to illegals by employers) American jobs is so that corporations CAN lower wages. Whosure, another conundrum is...is it a good deal that Carrier saved a few, but not all, Carrier jobs and all it cost the State is $700 mil less in taxpayer revenue. Who do you figure will cover that? Will that make Indiana more beholden to the Fed for a couple of necessities? And if so, does that mean it will cost me too, since I live in a State that even now gives more than it receives? Will the rest of us have to pitch in thru our 'exorbitant' union wages to cover Indiana's shortfalls while Trump crows about 'saving jobs'?

you are only looking at 105.00 per resident in indiana to save those jobs and to generate the revenue that those jobs bring through payroll tax.
If you can honestly say its acceptable for someone that works to pay thousands more per year for their health insurance, just so someone else can get it for free, then I really have a hard time understanding how you can be upset with someone being asked to spend 100 bucks a year, Less than 2.50 per week to save those jobs. Remember, those jobs are going to bring with it more people to give their money away to insure the worthless scum of the earth. You should be ecstatic.

Can I ask the reverse of you? If it is unacceptable for someone that works and pays thousands more per year for their health care so someone can get it free, why is it acceptable to pay for jobs so Carrier's profits can maintain high.

BTW, who ARE these people who are paying 'thousands' more? I don't know any who pay thousands more. I don't pay thousands more, do you? I do pay about just under $400 per month. My COB has gone up every year, about $7.50 per month except this year where it stays flat. Maybe that's because I didn't have the cheap coverage that the ACA eliminated when they made coverage limits and denials illegal.

I would hardly consider my current insurance cheap, as a matter of fact its one of the best policies Ive seen. no co-pay, no out of pocket 10 dollar Dr visits, 10 dollar ER visit, unless Im admitted then its no cost, everything covered at 100%.
But, I did look at the Maryland exchange and if I were to lose what I have and had to go through the UACA my premium cost would go up about 2000 a year and I would have an out of pocket of 12,000 per year.
Im not the only one.
Now, why is it better to pay a few dollars to keep 700 (or whatever the real number is) jobs? Well, first off that company will be paying taxes, even if they are reduced through some deal, they will be paying taxes, each of those 700 people will be paying federal and state taxes, (thats revenue and its a really good thing) those people will also be shopping locally, paying their mortgage or rent, eating out etc.. or in other words, helping the local economy. They will hopefully be saving money that builds the cash on hand that the banks have to loan money to others for cars, mortgages, boats, whatever.
The amount of return that comes from those saved jobs far out weighs the cost of saving them.
Same goes with the insurance, what return on investment does the person with no subsidy see by paying thousands more to make sure someone else can get it for free. None, there is no benefit to me if someone else gets cheap coverage.
Of course its possible that Im missing something here, if so, please feel free to school me on it. Im always open to changing my personal opinion if the facts indicate such things.

You haven't missed anything I can think of. It is always better to provide work than not, and your argument is very convincing. And your presentation is far better than mine, since I was posting from a sort of grudge POV, being a fan of the ACA. I know it needs tweaks, but I am also not affected by it. However you are arguing for beyond the personal and to the point of saved jobs and it's effect on the local economies. You are right. It wont save Gary or Flint, but it is a small victory even if only half and we should celebrate that.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

QUESTION--------> The left wants to not allow Americans to work unless they join a union, by force if need be.....but...........it is ok for illegals to take American jobs while lowering wages?!?!?!

Logic anyone!

Seems like the reason illegals are given (not taken away from Americans, but given to illegals by employers) American jobs is so that corporations CAN lower wages. Whosure, another conundrum is...is it a good deal that Carrier saved a few, but not all, Carrier jobs and all it cost the State is $700 mil less in taxpayer revenue. Who do you figure will cover that? Will that make Indiana more beholden to the Fed for a couple of necessities? And if so, does that mean it will cost me too, since I live in a State that even now gives more than it receives? Will the rest of us have to pitch in thru our 'exorbitant' union wages to cover Indiana's shortfalls while Trump crows about 'saving jobs'?

you are only looking at 105.00 per resident in indiana to save those jobs and to generate the revenue that those jobs bring through payroll tax.
If you can honestly say its acceptable for someone that works to pay thousands more per year for their health insurance, just so someone else can get it for free, then I really have a hard time understanding how you can be upset with someone being asked to spend 100 bucks a year, Less than 2.50 per week to save those jobs. Remember, those jobs are going to bring with it more people to give their money away to insure the worthless scum of the earth. You should be ecstatic.

Can I ask the reverse of you? If it is unacceptable for someone that works and pays thousands more per year for their health care so someone can get it free, why is it acceptable to pay for jobs so Carrier's profits can maintain high.

BTW, who ARE these people who are paying 'thousands' more? I don't know any who pay thousands more. I don't pay thousands more, do you? I do pay about just under $400 per month. My COB has gone up every year, about $7.50 per month except this year where it stays flat. Maybe that's because I didn't have the cheap coverage that the ACA eliminated when they made coverage limits and denials illegal.

I would hardly consider my current insurance cheap, as a matter of fact its one of the best policies Ive seen. no co-pay, no out of pocket 10 dollar Dr visits, 10 dollar ER visit, unless Im admitted then its no cost, everything covered at 100%.
But, I did look at the Maryland exchange and if I were to lose what I have and had to go through the UACA my premium cost would go up about 2000 a year and I would have an out of pocket of 12,000 per year.
Im not the only one.
Now, why is it better to pay a few dollars to keep 700 (or whatever the real number is) jobs? Well, first off that company will be paying taxes, even if they are reduced through some deal, they will be paying taxes, each of those 700 people will be paying federal and state taxes, (thats revenue and its a really good thing) those people will also be shopping locally, paying their mortgage or rent, eating out etc.. or in other words, helping the local economy. They will hopefully be saving money that builds the cash on hand that the banks have to loan money to others for cars, mortgages, boats, whatever.
The amount of return that comes from those saved jobs far out weighs the cost of saving them.
Same goes with the insurance, what return on investment does the person with no subsidy see by paying thousands more to make sure someone else can get it for free. None, there is no benefit to me if someone else gets cheap coverage.
Of course its possible that Im missing something here, if so, please feel free to school me on it. Im always open to changing my personal opinion if the facts indicate such things.

You haven't missed anything I can think of. It is always better to provide work than not, and your argument is very convincing. And your presentation is far better than mine, since I was posting from a sort of grudge POV, being a fan of the ACA. I know it needs tweaks, but I am also not affected by it. However you are arguing for beyond the personal and to the point of saved jobs and it's effect on the local economies. You are right. It wont save Gary or Flint, but it is a small victory even if only half and we should celebrate that.

and in the same light, if some social health care plan can be constructed that actually saves me money, or at minimum keeps my costs where they are, and my coverage equal to what it is comes along, then I would have no argument at all against it.
When it comes to paying more so someone can eat, fine, but it seems that over the last 20 years every time we turn around some new thing has to be added to the already extensive list of free things that we have to supply to people. sooner or later the line of being affordable to the taxpayer was going to be crossed, the ACA did just that, it crossed the line, for those without any subsidy at all, things have to be changed in the way they live. major changes, because most people live right at their means, thats obvious when you look at the statistics for peoples savings accounts now. There is no extra money in the average persons budget, let alone 14,000 a year extra. Those that get subsidies are going to be fine if a major health issue comes up. they will be covered and they wont lose anything. Those that have no subsidy will most likely lose their homes or go without the care because the money is not there for the out of pocket. Sure, you can say X number of people now have insurance, but thats a bit dishonest when half of those people now covered can not afford to use the insurance they are forced by law to carry.
it just seems that those that dont work are getting better care than those that do. Its not exactly a fair deal, and this is why there is such resistance to the ACA. It seriously hurts many people.

 

[Preacher]

dimocrap scum are losing the battle for America.

Let Freedom Ring

And then you vote for Trump because US workers need decent paying jobs.

Idiots.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Yep. Because PART of the reason companies can pay shit wages is because they can drag in some illegal and pay them shit wages OR bring in some temp workers they don't have to pay the same wages nor offer the same benefits normal workers have. Cut the pool in which the employer has to choose from and wages rise because then there are MORE jobs and naturally people will take the better job with better pay and benefits.Building the wall will put a screeching halt to that shit.

 

[TNHarley]

Good move!

 

[Unkotare]

Since the money that is being paid is being paid by the EMPLOYERS, the employers are the only ones that should have a say in what gets paid. Don't like it, tough shit. I don't anyone that didn't know what they were going to make BEFORE they started. It's after they agree to the wage and being work they suddenly have a problem with it.

If you need a job that pays well to take care of your family, offer skills were paying for that do that. I do.

Because the one doing the paying using his/her money doesn't pay what the one working wants doesn't make the payer greedy. It makes the one complaining greedy.

Fair? Typical lefty word meaning you're not doing what I want so you have to do more for me.

Want a decent wage. Offer a decent skill. Plenty do it every day and have no complaints whatsoever.

AKA system is rigged so we need unions to make it less rigged against the worker.

Since the one doing the paying is the one that should be determining wages, your claim of a rigged system is false. If I pay you and it's my money doing the paying, I set the amount, the time you get there, the time you leave, and what you do between those two.

Actually the government has a say so in a lot of that. Which is why we need a minimum wage law because greedy CEO's/Companies want as much slave labor for free as possible. Thank god for government!

Again, someone isn't greedy because they don't pay what YOU think they should pay with THEIR money.

You should be thankful. It's the only way you'd ever make the current $7.25 minimum.

They want their crap made and sold and transported so yeah they are being greedy and really stupid at the same time,which is why we NEED government to keep this greedy assholes in check.

Time for another diaper change?