Over 50% of US babies were born on Medicaid

[Markle]

Logic tells me not to live next door to a HUD property.

True, do you dispute that point?

 

[Markle]

How can you possibly believe that is better for the children and better for society?

How can it not be better for the children? How could it be worse?

 

[Markle]

I give up Markle. If youI don't see why cutting off funds to PP which does abortions is the same as the government refusing to contract with a doctor for Medicaid who does abortions, then I am wasting my time with you.

As you know, or should know, it depends on the state whether or not Medicaid will pay for an abortion.

It's obvious why you want to "quit wasting time with me", I keep making a fool of you. You insist on that. Why?

 

[Markle]

Marker posted charts on poverty rates a few pages back. I noted that poverty steadily declined until 1980. Then Reagan ended the War on Poverty. Said it wasn't working. Under Republicans, poverty increased. When Clinton was elected, once again poverty started declining and then came W and poverty increased. Under Obama it again declined.

The poverty level has remained basically constant from the time the War on Poverty began until today. The latest figure I could find quickly was for March 2016 when the poverty rate was 14.5%.

It appears to me that the poverty level dropped during the term of President Ronald Reagan. How'd that happen?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I give up Markle. If youI don't see why cutting off funds to PP which does abortions is the same as the government refusing to contract with a doctor for Medicaid who does abortions, then I am wasting my time with you.

As you know, or should know, it depends on the state whether or not Medicaid will pay for an abortion.

It's obvious why you want to "quit wasting time with me", I keep making a fool of you. You insist on that. Why?

Markle, I am going to try to walk you through this in simplified terms that even you understand.

PP does abortions, though they don't do them with federal money. But the fact that they do abortions convinces many, including you, that the feds should stop giving them any money.

My daughter's OBGYN occasionally does abortions, and he has contracted with the feds to treat Medicaid people, for which the feds give him money, although, like PP, he does not does not use fed money to do abortions.

If the RW wants to stop all fed money to PP, why would they not also object to the fact that Fed money goes to this doctor?

Now, think this over very carefully, before answering, and make sure that you understand it. I have tried to use short words.

 

[Rustic]

You dopes are the same guys who say people shouldn't be forced to get health insurance . So young people don't get health insurance . Guess who has babies ??? YOUNG HEALTHY PEOLPLE!

Yes, it's true we put a lot of aid into having healthy babies . Why ? Because it's the right thing to do AND it saves the taxpayer in the long run.

Unless you'd rather have sick babies being born ? Penny wise , pound foolish .

Insurance is not healthcare… Shit for brains. quit falling down the well

 

[Markle]

I know what the word means but I would like you to explain what you think it means within the context of PP.
For example:
If PP provides $40K of Medicaid services and is reimbursed $40K or receives a grant for $40K to provide specific services and spends $40K on those services, where is the fungible money?

Really? The Federal Government provided $528 million to PP in 2014.

Doesn't that free up $528 million to be used for abortions? It is $528 million they do not have to raise from other sources to pay their rent or salaries. Fungible, look it up.

 

[Markle]

How does the person who was stoned the previous night represent you differently than the person who had a few cocktails the previous night?

Simple, you should know marijuana stays in your system for up to two or three weeks.

 

[Markle]

Do you think women should have to pay more for their insurance because they can become pregnant?

Yes. Why should I (hypothetically) as a 60-year-old single male have to pay for pregnancy coverage in my health insurance policy? Shouldn't health insurance be tailored to MY needs just as I do with my automobile insurance?

 

[Markle]

Your solutions - find a job, save your money, avoid debt, and invest, may have worked when you and I were growing up and even a "starter" job paid a living wage. It's difficult to save money when your wages don't pay enough to keep a roof over your head or food in your belly.

Just foolish, same as always.

My first "real job" other than a paper route and working on a tropical fish farm at 13, was bagging groceries for a large chain at 16. My pay was $0.85 per hour and was a STARTER JOB. It never ever occurred to me that such a job would pay enough for rent, groceries, a car whatever. I made great tips, which allowed me to pay the insurance on my truck, dates, gas, tires, bowling and the Gant shirts I wanted.

A starter job has never been intended to pay a living wage. By the way, how much is a living wage and why should someone receive that if they are not qualified for that pay level?

 

[Markle]

Are you truly retarded? The only reason why we have a middle class today is because of unions.

I always wonder how you think the CEO of GM getting 8 figures for failing isn't a case of greed, but an Auto Worker getting $28.00 an hour is.

Saying that the only reason we have a middle-class today is that of unions is flat out foolish.

You're way off on the pay package received by an auto worker in Michigan.

[...]

The Associated Press reported that, for example, the average United Auto Workers member makes $29.78 per hour at GM, while Toyota pays its workers (most of whom are non-union) about $30 per hour. However, when total benefits (including pensions and health care for workers, retirees and their spouses) is factored in, GM's total hourly labor costs is about $69, while Toyota's is about $48.

The True Price Of Auto Labor Costs

 

[Dragonlady]

My first "real job" was working as a bank teller for $50.00 a week. It was enough to rent a tiny furnished apartment with 2 friends. I did not own a car, but I was able to save $18.00 a month, which I later used as a down payment on my first house 5 years later. I was still working for the bank, but in a larger branch, supervising the tellers and machine operators.

I worked for the bank for 9 years and was a manager when I left - one of the first female bank managers. I was making $18,500.

A living wage would be one which allows an individual to support themselves in a modest way, without government assistance.

I know of no country other than the US which subsidizes large corporations by providing welfare to full time workers.

And yet the idiot American right wing continues to vilify the workers, and praise the profitability of the corporations screwing them over. It's total insanity.

American conservative right wing voters have to be the most gullible fools on the planet.

 

[Dragonlady]

Companies didn't offshore because of unions or regulations. It was greed, pure and simple. They certainly didn't drop prices for clothing produced in China or Bangladesh Desh.

Wages, as a percentage of costs, are at a level not seen since the Guilded Age. The lowest in history. And that's for companies employing American workers.

Since the 1980's, the price of fuel, real estate, property taxes, utilities, supplies, transportation, taxes and health care have all gone up and employers have absorbed those increases. But suggest that wages go up and they cry they'll be driven out of business, forced to lay off workers. Can't be done. Bullshit!

The glut of workers meant they didn't have to pay higher wages. Successive Republican administrations helped them by raising earned income credits instead of raising the minimum wage, in effect, having middle class tax payers subsidize their wages.

Corporations have been awash in cash since W was President recording record profits and putting the lie to the notion that they were driven offshore by unions and regulations.

It is, was and will continue to be greed and nothing but greed.

One of our customers makes crates that we deliver. They make small crates, big crates, crates the size of tractor-trailers. We delivered those crates to companies that were moving out of state or overseas. When ever the opportunity presented itself, I discussed the move with a supervisor and a couple times the owners of these companies.

None of them wanted to move, but they had no choice. Some of them had meetings with their union workers to explain their problem, but the unions told their workers that the company was FOS. They had no intention of moving. They were just using scare tactics to get the workers to not support increases in wages and benefits.

Surprisingly, even when the company started packing their machines up, the unions still wouldn't budge. They told their members not to worry, the union will always find them another union job.

Companies would love to pay their workers more money, but once one company moves overseas (yes, probably out of greed) they begin to take customers away from other American businesses of the same industry. Then it becomes a domino effect on the other American businesses.

Our problem in the US is not so much the taxes, the unions, the politics, or even the hundreds of regulations against businesses. Our problem is the American consumer. The American consumer will not support high paying monkey jobs. We go out and buy the cheapest product we can. We don't care about the quality, we don't care if it's made in America or not, we don't care if the company uses a lot of automation. We care that we get our stuff cheap, and companies respond to their consumer demands. That's why Walmart is (and has been for some time) number one.

Again I call bullshit.

Corporations are awash in cash. They didn't lower prices when they offshored manufacturing. They increased profits.

GDP increased, wages didn't. Profits increased, wages didn't. Government used tax dollars to sudsidize low income wages, such that every tax paying American subsidized Walmart's profits to the tune of $2,500 whether or not they ever set foot in a Walmart store.

Doesn't it make more sense to pay a 50 cents more for that burger than to send tax dollars to Washington, and have them use the money for food stamps, Section 8 housing, and earned income credits. When the businesses pay their own employees, it's cheaper than paying the government to administer these programs.

Walmart manages to be the biggest retailer in Canada, and most profitable while paying a minimum wage of $12.00 an hour to employees, and paying healthcare taxes for every worker they employ, as well as 25% corporate taxes.

You swallow the Republican talking points whole and without question and keep on voting Republican. And like a good Republican you blame the poor for their situation without questioning who really benefits from the "transfer of wealth" you decry.

The 1% thank you for your gullibility. And keep on listening to RW talk radio to stoke that anger against the poor.

Where do you get this notion that our government is obligated to pay these Walmart workers anything? That decision belongs to whoever is running the government at the time, and I hope our government does cut the goodies out regardless what Walmart or any other place pays.

Let me teach you by example of how American businesses work:

Let's say you ran into a small fortune: a lawsuit, a family member passed away, a lottery..... Now you have $300,000 that you really have nothing to do with. All your bills are paid, you don't need a new car or boat, you are doing just fine. What would you do with that money?

Well more than likely you would invest it. Knowing nothing about investments, you hire an expert in the matter, and tell him or her that you want a good return, little risk, just a somewhat safe place to grow your money.

Your investment agent comes back to you with two companies: Company A has been around for a long time. They have a growth rate of 6.5%. It's a safe company to put your money in.

Company B has also been around a long time. A safe place to put your money, and it will grow at 3.5%.

Which company would you decide to put your money into? Before you answer, there is a bit more information: Company A grosses about 5 million dollars a year. Company B grosses about 800 million a year. Does that change your decision any?

Of course not. You don't care how much money a company has, you care about their growth rate and what it means for your investment.

You would not be alone. Most any smart investor would choose company A just like you did.

It doesn't matter how much money a company has, it matters how well their stocks perform. Good performing stocks attract more investors like you. So if a company is worth 5 billion dollars, and are paying their starting workers minimum wage, they are trying to increase profits to make their stocks more valuable. That's how American (and many other countries) businesses work.

So you think that the government SHOULD subsidize corporate workers wages in order to keep stock prices up and wages down.

Your investment story speaks volumes.

I would never invest in the stock market. Not because I'd don't know how the market works, but because I do know exactly how it works. I worked in banking, insurance and law my entire career.

I watched my best friend collapse in years as W's market crash wiped out 2/3 of her savings just as she was about to retire.

And you still haven't addressed corporate greed, and the subsidization of corporate profits through tax payer funded programs. During the primaries, Jeb Bush said it was time to increase earned income credits to help raise the incomes of the poorest workers.

Why? So you don't have to pay an additional quarter for your hamburger. Talk about picking up the peanuts while being trampled by the elephants.

 

[Dragonlady]

Are you truly retarded? The only reason why we have a middle class today is because of unions.

I always wonder how you think the CEO of GM getting 8 figures for failing isn't a case of greed, but an Auto Worker getting $28.00 an hour is.

Saying that the only reason we have a middle-class today is that of unions is flat out foolish.

You're way off on the pay package received by an auto worker in Michigan.

[...]

The Associated Press reported that, for example, the average United Auto Workers member makes $29.78 per hour at GM, while Toyota pays its workers (most of whom are non-union) about $30 per hour. However, when total benefits (including pensions and health care for workers, retirees and their spouses) is factored in, GM's total hourly labor costs is about $69, while Toyota's is about $48.

The True Price Of Auto Labor Costs

Thats only because Toyota doesn't have many retired North American workers. Their base salary and benefits are essentially the same as GM's, but their "legacy costs" are lower.

As it happens, my father-in-law is a retired GM worker, and my brother-law recently retired from Toyota. By "recently", I mean March 1st of this year.

Toyota has always offered comparable wages and benefits to the big American auto makers but they've only been in North America for about 30 years, and they hired a young work force when they first opened. My BIL started working for them in 1988, when the plant first opened and is among the first wave of retirees.

So Toyota is starting to have legacy costs as well. And GM has returned to profitability despite those costs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Companies didn't offshore because of unions or regulations. It was greed, pure and simple. They certainly didn't drop prices for clothing produced in China or Bangladesh Desh.

Wages, as a percentage of costs, are at a level not seen since the Guilded Age. The lowest in history. And that's for companies employing American workers.

Since the 1980's, the price of fuel, real estate, property taxes, utilities, supplies, transportation, taxes and health care have all gone up and employers have absorbed those increases. But suggest that wages go up and they cry they'll be driven out of business, forced to lay off workers. Can't be done. Bullshit!

The glut of workers meant they didn't have to pay higher wages. Successive Republican administrations helped them by raising earned income credits instead of raising the minimum wage, in effect, having middle class tax payers subsidize their wages.

Corporations have been awash in cash since W was President recording record profits and putting the lie to the notion that they were driven offshore by unions and regulations.

It is, was and will continue to be greed and nothing but greed.

One of our customers makes crates that we deliver. They make small crates, big crates, crates the size of tractor-trailers. We delivered those crates to companies that were moving out of state or overseas. When ever the opportunity presented itself, I discussed the move with a supervisor and a couple times the owners of these companies.

None of them wanted to move, but they had no choice. Some of them had meetings with their union workers to explain their problem, but the unions told their workers that the company was FOS. They had no intention of moving. They were just using scare tactics to get the workers to not support increases in wages and benefits.

Surprisingly, even when the company started packing their machines up, the unions still wouldn't budge. They told their members not to worry, the union will always find them another union job.

Companies would love to pay their workers more money, but once one company moves overseas (yes, probably out of greed) they begin to take customers away from other American businesses of the same industry. Then it becomes a domino effect on the other American businesses.

Our problem in the US is not so much the taxes, the unions, the politics, or even the hundreds of regulations against businesses. Our problem is the American consumer. The American consumer will not support high paying monkey jobs. We go out and buy the cheapest product we can. We don't care about the quality, we don't care if it's made in America or not, we don't care if the company uses a lot of automation. We care that we get our stuff cheap, and companies respond to their consumer demands. That's why Walmart is (and has been for some time) number one.

Again I call bullshit.

Corporations are awash in cash. They didn't lower prices when they offshored manufacturing. They increased profits.

GDP increased, wages didn't. Profits increased, wages didn't. Government used tax dollars to sudsidize low income wages, such that every tax paying American subsidized Walmart's profits to the tune of $2,500 whether or not they ever set foot in a Walmart store.

Doesn't it make more sense to pay a 50 cents more for that burger than to send tax dollars to Washington, and have them use the money for food stamps, Section 8 housing, and earned income credits. When the businesses pay their own employees, it's cheaper than paying the government to administer these programs.

Walmart manages to be the biggest retailer in Canada, and most profitable while paying a minimum wage of $12.00 an hour to employees, and paying healthcare taxes for every worker they employ, as well as 25% corporate taxes.

You swallow the Republican talking points whole and without question and keep on voting Republican. And like a good Republican you blame the poor for their situation without questioning who really benefits from the "transfer of wealth" you decry.

The 1% thank you for your gullibility. And keep on listening to RW talk radio to stoke that anger against the poor.

Where do you get this notion that our government is obligated to pay these Walmart workers anything? That decision belongs to whoever is running the government at the time, and I hope our government does cut the goodies out regardless what Walmart or any other place pays.

Let me teach you by example of how American businesses work:

Let's say you ran into a small fortune: a lawsuit, a family member passed away, a lottery..... Now you have $300,000 that you really have nothing to do with. All your bills are paid, you don't need a new car or boat, you are doing just fine. What would you do with that money?

Well more than likely you would invest it. Knowing nothing about investments, you hire an expert in the matter, and tell him or her that you want a good return, little risk, just a somewhat safe place to grow your money.

Your investment agent comes back to you with two companies: Company A has been around for a long time. They have a growth rate of 6.5%. It's a safe company to put your money in.

Company B has also been around a long time. A safe place to put your money, and it will grow at 3.5%.

Which company would you decide to put your money into? Before you answer, there is a bit more information: Company A grosses about 5 million dollars a year. Company B grosses about 800 million a year. Does that change your decision any?

Of course not. You don't care how much money a company has, you care about their growth rate and what it means for your investment.

You would not be alone. Most any smart investor would choose company A just like you did.

It doesn't matter how much money a company has, it matters how well their stocks perform. Good performing stocks attract more investors like you. So if a company is worth 5 billion dollars, and are paying their starting workers minimum wage, they are trying to increase profits to make their stocks more valuable. That's how American (and many other countries) businesses work.

So you think that the government SHOULD subsidize corporate workers wages in order to keep stock prices up and wages down.

Your investment story speaks volumes.

I would never invest in the stock market. Not because I'd don't know how the market works, but because I do know exactly how it works. I worked in banking, insurance and law my entire career.

I watched my best friend collapse in years as W's market crash wiped out 2/3 of her savings just as she was about to retire.

And you still haven't addressed corporate greed, and the subsidization of corporate profits through tax payer funded programs. During the primaries, Jeb Bush said it was time to increase earned income credits to help raise the incomes of the poorest workers.

Why? So you don't have to pay an additional quarter for your hamburger. Talk about picking up the peanuts while being trampled by the elephants.

The government is not subsidizing corporate workers. Where do you get that from?

Yes, I know what Jeb was all about, and so did everybody else. That's why he lost miserably.

Paying an extra quarter for a hamburger isn't going to help anybody in the long run. It's not going to take anybody out of poverty. So what would happen if our federal government raised the minimum wage? The same thing that happened to this country when unions were strong.

When unions were strong, they kept demanding higher and higher wages. When your union got you an extra dollar an hour plus an extra weeks vacation, it created a domino effect. Since companies had to get that money from somewhere, they increased the price of their goods. Eventually it kept costing me more and more money to buy the same products than five years earlier, so my union demanded higher wages for me. We eventually priced ourselves out of the market which is when companies started to move overseas, and they continue to do so today.

So we raise the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour. Now what happens to a worker that's making $18.00 an hour before the increase? Think he or she is going to stand for making only $3.00 an hour more than minimum wage? Of course not. They are going to want at least $25.00 an hour to stay on the job. Okay, so what about the person in the company that was making $25.00 an hour and finds out his coworker is now making the same wages he is? It's a domino effect.

So let's say it takes lower wage worker (on average) about $1,000 a month to live on. Now he or she gets this big boost in their pay because of the new minimum wage requirements. Like the unions, they will do fine for a short time. They are making an extra $1,000 a month or so. But when the domino effect completes it's cycle, the low wager worker finds that it now takes him $2,000 a month to live on because everything he buys went up in price. Where's the advantage?

Now that it costs industry much more money in labor and taxes, more of them move out of the country, and then there are many fewer jobs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I know of no country other than the US which subsidizes large corporations by providing welfare to full time workers.

And yet the idiot American right wing continues to vilify the workers, and praise the profitability of the corporations screwing them over. It's total insanity.

American conservative right wing voters have to be the most gullible fools on the planet.

You think that government giving workers welfare is a company subsidy, and then call us gullible fools?

 

[JoeB131]

Because contract people are paid differently than hourly wage people. They have talents most of us do not.

If your baseball team signs a star pitcher for 4 million a year, and he doesn't perform very well, he still gets that 4 million a year. If a rock band signs a 10 million dollar recording contract, but they don't sell as many recordings as expected, the band still gets that 10 million dollars.

Industry seeks to find (and are willing to pay) talented people for those jobs. Hourly workers seek the business for work. If you don't want to pay that CEO five million a year, your competitor will, and likely take much of your business away because they hired that CEO.

Those people get paid by past performances, but that doesn't guarantee they will perform excellent all the time. It's a gamble businesses take.

Uh, guy, just because we are dumb enough to put the foxes in charge of the hen house, doesn't mean the foxes are smart.

We need to regulate CEO compensation.

"Look, I just increased profits slightly by firing thousands of people".

That guy doesn't deserve a bonus, he belongs in prison with an oversexed cellmate.

 

[JoeB131]

Saying that the only reason we have a middle-class today is that of unions is flat out foolish.

You're way off on the pay package received by an auto worker in Michigan.

well, no, that number is horseshit because it includes pensions the Auto Companies didn't fund properly like they were supposed to.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because contract people are paid differently than hourly wage people. They have talents most of us do not.

If your baseball team signs a star pitcher for 4 million a year, and he doesn't perform very well, he still gets that 4 million a year. If a rock band signs a 10 million dollar recording contract, but they don't sell as many recordings as expected, the band still gets that 10 million dollars.

Industry seeks to find (and are willing to pay) talented people for those jobs. Hourly workers seek the business for work. If you don't want to pay that CEO five million a year, your competitor will, and likely take much of your business away because they hired that CEO.

Those people get paid by past performances, but that doesn't guarantee they will perform excellent all the time. It's a gamble businesses take.

Uh, guy, just because we are dumb enough to put the foxes in charge of the hen house, doesn't mean the foxes are smart.

We need to regulate CEO compensation.

"Look, I just increased profits slightly by firing thousands of people".

That guy doesn't deserve a bonus, he belongs in prison with an oversexed cellmate.

Well if we are going to go that route, why not have government regulate everybody's wages? Complaining about CEO's...........

A few years ago I bought a new big screen. I'm not usually a television watcher, but of course, I started to be.

So I started to watch older episodes of Big Bang Theory, and after a while, really began to enjoy it. I wanted to learn more about the cast and looked them up.

Those actors made over 1 million dollars for each episode they produced. Plus they got residuals on reruns for the life of the show. Take out the commercials, that's about 20 minutes of work. It doesn't take a college degree, being an actor doesn't involve much financial risk, and these people are making a killing and will for the rest of their lives.

If we are going to cap CEO pay, then let's cap actors pay too. While we're at it, many athletes are multi-millionaires, so are musicians. They make their living doing something they would do as a hobby if they were not making a living at it. Let's cap them all, and the price of the goods I buy will go down in price since advertising would be much cheaper. And what do we have mega lottery games for? No more of this 250 million jackpot garbage. The federal overnment should cap lottery winnings at a million dollars.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Poor babies ???

Why ? Surely progressives have funded an bleeding heart program to take care of all the baby mamas and their litters......