• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Charity

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser36572

Ii
So much misinformation.

I didn't say they were required by law. What I was saying was that employers advertise themselves as providing benefits to full time employees (which they are not mandated by law to do) and then use a loophole in their own internal policies to avoid actually paying those benefits to most of their employees. This is not conjecture on my part, it is a widely known fact. As I said before, Walmart/Sam's Club is a prime example, and I know several current and former employees who can attest to this fact.

Wrong again. Employee benefits came into being due to the labor movement's organizing efforts and collective bargaining. Nobody who is familiar with American business practices is going to believe that a movement of corporations eager to give money to employees went out of their way to find "alternative methods" to do so. What you're probably thinking about is the rarer benefits that companies dole out to a few "top level" employees, not things like healthcare and vacation time for the entire workforce. Those things came about because of unions, not because of corporations.

I read what you said, and trying to crawfish again won’t change anything. Corporations are required by law to provide benefits for full-time employees.

There is no need to argue, I even gave an example regarding the ACA. Also, to have a loophole, there has to be a regulatory statute that requires one. A corporation cannot be trying to escape a requirement if the requirement doesn’t exist in the first place.

I never suggested that some corporations don’t lie, cheat and rob their consumers and employees of benefits, quality and value. You just lack the ability to read what is written and apply critical thinking to your own ideas.

There are two ways a person can change the behaviors of a corporation, from the outside or the inside. If you try to do it from the outside, you just create requirements that lead to loopholes. If you try to change it from the inside, you have fight a long battle and prove your ideas provide for better profits, conditions for employees, and quality/value to the consumer.

Otherwise ... You are just pissing in the wind and creating more requirements with more loopholes. To fix a failure, you have to capture the failure and address the problem with Corrective Actions. And you cannot capture the problem and address the problem just because you are pissed someone in the corner office is making a pantload of money ... Envious little Unicorn Hunter.




Simply put ... If the labor movement or the government actually has/had the power to change things you like to pretend it does/did ... Then there is no reason to keep pissing and whining about the stuff they have both done a seriously piss poor job of providing you with in better results.

You’re like a guy trying to fix a leak in a water hose with toilet paper, jumping up and down screaming you need more toilet paper ... And lack the wherewithal to understand everyone would be better served if you could convince the person with the money to buy a new water hose, save yourself a crapload of frustration and continued failure, and quit wasting toilet paper.

If you seriously think you are significant to a corporation outside of what you can provide for in production or profit, then you are sadly mistaken. Stop trying to impose your will in a non-productive manner. Get smarter, earn your way with better ideas and options you can prove improve conditions for production, profit, employees and the consumer.

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
What you are referring to as “benefits” is simply a company providing some form of “affordable” healthcare which wasn’t mandated until ACA. Besides that, the only government regulated “benefit” is overtime pay, and there are ways around even that. For example, a salaried person is ineligible for overtime pay but are not entitled to a strictly 40 hour work week. Some companies compensate for some things such as extra pay when working holidays because they know if they don’t, their work won’t be completed.

Strikes are a thing. Labor unions are a thing. If the people that work for you are pissed off enough to altogether stop, you lose. When they realized this in the late 1800s, the people began winning. Employees and Employers realize this. Doesn’t change the pockets of “the elite fat cats”. They will fight so that they are still the winners. Load the pockets of senators so they can still get their way. Make people think they have it the best they could when in reality things could be so much better. Industries in the southern states are far less unionized than the north and propaganda against unions spreads rampantly to keep it that way.

The fact of the matter is improving conditions is not cost effective. Losing money is not something companies strive to do whether short term or long term. It takes people realizing they could make their employees happy at the expense of their company’s growth. Small businesses are better for that, but the larger you go, the worse it gets.
 

Praetorius

Well-Known Member
Strikes are a thing. Labor unions are a thing. If the people that work for you are pissed off enough to altogether stop, you lose. When they realized this in the late 1800s, the people began winning. Employees and Employers realize this. Doesn’t change the pockets of “the elite fat cats”. They will fight so that they are still the winners. Load the pockets of senators so they can still get their way. Make people think they have it the best they could when in reality things could be so much better. Industries in the southern states are far less unionized than the north and propaganda against unions spreads rampantly to keep it that way.
Case in point from Amazon:
The fact of the matter is improving conditions is not cost effective. Losing money is not something companies strive to do whether short term or long term. It takes people realizing they could make their employees happy at the expense of their company’s growth. Small businesses are better for that, but the larger you go, the worse it gets.
For a very long time, corporatists have done everything in their power to squeeze as much blood out of their workers as possible. And everything people enjoy today at work, such as paid vacation, sick days, or overtime pay; all of these things are results of left-wing pro-worker union advocates pushing hard against corporations until they caved. And they way they were able to do so is through unions.

For well over 100 years and likely before that; always has the big business man said, "We could stop employing children and paying them a pittance but how are we supposed to survive? We could pay people overtime for more than 40 hours of work but our business can't stand up to that kind of regulation. We could make sure all of our facilities are installed with a basic minimum level of fire safety to prevent scores of workers from dying in a factory fire but who can afford that expense?" This has been, unironically, for well over a century the corporatists just calling anything that improves the lives of workers 'bad for business.' And in spite of that union-workers have pushed forward in solidarity to give everyone- all workers, not just those in unions- better rights, better working conditions, and better pay.
 
Last edited:

Praetorius

Well-Known Member
And since this thread is about charity and good feels:
"Using charity as a band-aid to cover our broken healthcare system doesn't work."
-Cody Johnston, Some More News Guy
 
Last edited:

Graviton

Well-Known Member
Perhaps unions had a hand in establishing baseline wages and other perks, the fact is that fewer Americans are in unions today than ever before (below 10% of the private sector workforce) and yet somehow all the evil people running these corporations are still offering benefits. That has exactly zero to do with unions. Benefits are now a competitive factor in attracting workers, just like salaries. Most corporations aren't interested in hiring the lowest common denominator; they want quality employees.

But of course, there's a big difference between hiring McDonald's employees and hiring doctors. That's why blanket statements about "all" corporations (or "all" anything) tend to do nothing but display the ignorance of those who use them.

Private sector unions are essentially toothless when it comes to influencing the overall economy and have been for decades. They may be partially responsible for gains in working conditions and compensation during the early- to mid-20th Century but they've had pretty much nothing to do with it for years, except to continue to lobby for higher minimum wages so they can base their own salary negotiations on it. Not exactly altruistic.

It always strikes me as humorous that people will demonize and stereotype all corporations, but fail to do the same thing with other massive organizations like unions despite the embarrassing history of unions being convenient fronts for organized crime; that bit of union history is conveniently ignored. These same people tend to also display a deep, blind faith in government. Somehow massive bureaucracies except private companies are upright and virtuous. :rolleyes:


And since this thread is about charity and good feels:
"Using charity as a band-aid to cover our broken system doesn't work."
-Cody Johnston, Some More News Guy

That quote is kind of backwards, but okay. I'll chime in: "Charity" does not include lobbying for somebody else to pay for it. Charity is donating voluntarily, not advocating that others be forced to pay. Government programs are not, and cannot be called, charity, and those who believe they're doing their part simply by voting for government programs are very, very wrong.

My wifi is spotty right now so I wasn't able to watch that video, but I'm interested in exactly what "system" he thinks is broken. I'm not saying we have no economic issues but I'm not going to just agree with buzzwords like "the system is broken" without knowing exactly which "system" we're talking about.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser36572

My wifi is spotty right now so I wasn't able to watch that video, but I'm interested in exactly what "system" he thinks is broken. I'm not saying we have no economic issues but I'm not going to just agree with buzzwords like "the system is broken" without knowing exactly which "system" we're talking about.

The video was hilarious.

Point in case:
One of the cases stated was a teacher whose fellow teachers donated 100 sick days so he could visit his cancer stricken daughter. The commentator expressed that this was a bad thing, because the system is broken and the teachers shouldn’t have to be charitable and donate their sick days in the first place.

Obvious Oversight:
Someone is paying the teacher for the sick days used one way or another. It doesn’t matter if the teachers donate their sick days, or the government forces Johnny to donate the money it would take to pay the teacher for the days used in taxes.

The only real difference is that the teachers actually donated something they had willfully, instead of pretending that spending someone else’s money to accomplish the same thing is simply a better idea and better societal system.

Pretending it is okay to pass the debt on to someone else, because they are part of the nameless and faceless masses, and just because they can afford it ... Is totalitarian socialism that creates an imaginary pot of gold.

Edit:
And for people who don’t understand the “isms”, most are borne of Marxism. This includes capitalism, because even Marx understood someone has to earn/acquire the money and/or resources before you can steal it.

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

display the ignorance of those who use them.
Private sector unions...
...may be partially responsible for gains in working conditions and compensation during the early- to mid-20th Century
How ironic that you follow up the first statement immediately with one that displays your own ignorance of our country's history. Unions and the labor movement in general were the major force in addressing working conditions and employee compensation from the late 19th through the mid-20th centuries. And the second force in that arena was the free press. It is very telling that both are constantly attacked by politicians who are in the pockets of large corporate entities and industry groups.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
One of the cases stated was a teacher whose fellow teachers donated 100 sick days so he could visit his cancer stricken daughter. The commentator expressed that this was a bad thing, because the system is broken and the teachers shouldn’t have to be charitable and donate their sick days in the first place.
So, it’s a good thing that this person (or several people if you watched) has to depend on the welfare and charity of others to see his sick daughter? It’s reasonable that the school system doesn’t have a contingency for an emergency and would rather fire a parent for caring for his sick child than literally anything else?

Someone is paying the teacher for the sick days used one way or another. It doesn’t matter if the teachers donate their sick days, or the government forces Johnny to donate the money it would take to pay the teacher for the days used in taxes.
So, you wouldn’t be willing to help that person if you could? If your tax dollars went to families who need it, you wouldn’t be okay with that? You only like your tax dollars being spent on the military and keeping kids in cages?

The only real difference is that the teachers actually donated something they had willfully, instead of pretending that spending someone else’s money to accomplish the same thing is simply a better idea and better societal system.
Or maybe it’s because they know there’s no other way for that person to get the thing they need because there isn’t a system for it.

Pretending it is okay to pass the debt on to someone else, because they are part of the nameless and faceless masses, and just because they can afford it ... Is totalitarian socialism that creates an imaginary pot of gold.
If the nameless and faceless masses are still paying for it, then what does it matter? You just don’t want your money going to that cause. Taxes have always been “theft” if you want to look at it that way. But it’s the only way to keep a government running. Even for capitalism.

And for people who don’t understand the “isms”, most are borne of Marxism. This includes capitalism, because even Marx understood someone has to earn/acquire the money and/or resources before you can steal it.
The capitalistic scholars agree that regulation from the government is needed otherwise the money stays at the top. Trickle down economics was/is a failure.
 

DeletedUser36572

So, it’s a good thing that this person (or several people if you watched) has to depend on the welfare and charity of others to see his sick daughter? It’s reasonable that the school system doesn’t have a contingency for an emergency and would rather fire a parent for caring for his sick child than literally anything else?

So, you wouldn’t be willing to help that person if you could? If your tax dollars went to families who need it, you wouldn’t be okay with that? You only like your tax dollars being spent on the military and keeping kids in cages?

Or maybe it’s because they know there’s no other way for that person to get the thing they need because there isn’t a system for it.

If the nameless and faceless masses are still paying for it, then what does it matter? You just don’t want your money going to that cause. Taxes have always been “theft” if you want to look at it that way. But it’s the only way to keep a government running. Even for capitalism.


The capitalistic scholars agree that regulation from the government is needed otherwise the money stays at the top. Trickle down economics was/is a failure.

You cannot parse what I post and make it mean what you want it to.

If you want a summary ... I posted that it was a good thing the teachers were caring, compassionate and charitable in their donations of sick days ... Where it is none of those things to pretend that passing the debt on to the nameless, faceless masses for the express purpose of pretending you live in a better society.

Twist and turn to your pleasure, but that will not change.
It has nothing to do with what I want as far as you are concerned. because when I want to help someone, I can be caring, compassionate and charitable without requiring you to do anything.

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
You cannot parse what I post and make it mean what you want it to.

If you want a summary ... I posted that it was a good thing the teachers were caring, compassionate and charitable in their donations of sick days ... Where it is none of those things to pretend that passing the debt on to the nameless, faceless masses for the express purpose of pretending you live in a better society.

Twist and turn to your pleasure, but that will not change.
It has nothing to do with what I wanted far as you are concerned. because when I want to help someone, I can be caring, compassionate and charitable without requiring you to do anything.
You can pretend you didn’t say those things, but the writing is right there in your post. I twisted nothing. All taxes are just “legal thefts” from your perspective. It doesn’t matter where it comes from or if some people pay more than others. It’s theft to you because you don’t want the things most liberals want who advocate for higher taxes.
 

DeletedUser36572

You can pretend you didn’t say those things, but the writing is right there in your post. I twisted nothing. All taxes are just “legal thefts” from your perspective. It doesn’t matter where it comes from or if some people pay more than others. It’s theft to you because you don’t want the things most liberals want who advocate for higher taxes.

I didn’t say that taxes are legal theft ... Stop making stuff up.

Taxes are an enumerated power granted to the government in the Constitution. There are many specific enumerated powers the Federal government is granted the authority to levy taxes in order to afford. Now, the desire to use taxes to afford powers not granted to the Federal Government is theft.

If you think making up stuff, and granting the Federal Government powers not enumerated in the Constituion, somehow makes you a Liberal ... Stop with your foolishness, because Liberals, much like our Founding Fathers, are identified by their stance and passion for Liberty ... Not Federal Control.

You are a Proggressive at best, and a loon at the worst.

.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
I didn’t say that taxes are legal theft ... Stop making stuff up.

Taxes are an enumerated power granted to the government in the Constitution. There are many specific enumerated powers the Federal government is granted the authority to levy taxes in order to afford. Now, the desire to use taxes to afford powers not granted to the Federal Government is theft.

If you think making up stuff, and granting the Federal Government powers not enumerated in the Constituion, somehow makes you a Liberal ... Stop with your foolishness, because Liberals, much like our Founding Fathers, are identified by their stance and passion for Liberty ... Not Federal Control.

You are a Proggressive at best, and a loon at the worst.

.
So the government is not granted the authority to protect our inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or they are? Which is it? You haven’t explicitly said otherwise of being “for” taxes, regardless of whom is taxes and have only been calling those advocating for it “thieves”. We are all taxed, and we can all contribute fairly.

I’ll answer it for you. It is in the constitution and even the Declaration of Independence that we the people are afforded the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies are allowed to overcharge for life-saving medicine “because they can”. Insurance companies are allowed to set the bill for healthcare “because they can”. And the government has no authority to intervene? News flash, this wasn’t a problem in the 18th century, but the framers specifically wrote the constitution such that it could be adopted to modern day requirements. Right now, modern day requires some form of regulation to keep prices low such that everyone born in these borders is afforded the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser36572

So the government is not granted the authority to protect our inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or they are? Which is it? You haven’t explicitly said otherwise of being “for” taxes, regardless of whom is taxes and have only been calling those advocating for it “thieves”. We are all taxed, and we can all contribute fairly.

I’ll answer it for you. It is in the constitution and even the Declaration of Independence that we the people are afforded the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies are allowed to overcharge for life-saving medicine “because they can”. Insurance companies are allowed to set the bill for healthcare “because they can”. And the government has no authority to intervene? News flash, this wasn’t a problem in the 18th century, but the framers specifically wrote the constitution such that it could be adopted to modern day requirements. Right now, modern day requires some form of regulation to keep prices low such that everyone born in these borders is afforded the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Stop making stuff up trying to suggest that what I post means anything other than what it states ... You lack the wherewithal to change the actual meaning.

I understand you are a Progressive/Statist, and you don’t need to keep expressing that. The pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness for you, may very well reside in your desire to envy what others have, and your desire to spend someone else’s money ... But that was not, and never will be, the intention of the powers granted to the Federal Government in the Constituion.

If you truly want to make the country or the world a better place ... It would serve everyone better if you stop pissing and whining with more of your desires for failing statist concerns about what anyone else should do ... Roll up your own fricken sleeves and get to work.

It’s a bit more productive and rewarding when you actually do something instead of sitting there and dreaming up ways you could do something with what isn’t yours.

.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
So the government is not granted the authority to protect our inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or they are? Which is it? You haven’t explicitly said otherwise of being “for” taxes, regardless of whom is taxes and have only been calling those advocating for it “thieves”. We are all taxed, and we can all contribute fairly.

I’ll answer it for you. It is in the constitution and even the Declaration of Independence that we the people are afforded the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies are allowed to overcharge for life-saving medicine “because they can”. Insurance companies are allowed to set the bill for healthcare “because they can”. And the government has no authority to intervene? News flash, this wasn’t a problem in the 18th century, but the framers specifically wrote the constitution such that it could be adopted to modern day requirements. Right now, modern day requires some form of regulation to keep prices low such that everyone born in these borders is afforded the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Think of all the actual good that could have been done had the money spent on your college indoctrination been given to charity. Instead, we end up with another dolt who can't think beyond a talking point. One great reason I don't support free college. Piss your own money away becoming a useless idiot, just keep your hand the hell out of my pocket in doing so.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
Stop making stuff up trying to suggest that what I post means anything other than what it states
...
The pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness for you, may very well reside in your desire to envy what others have, and your desire to spend someone else’s money
So, you can make stuff up from the things I post and make them mean anything other than what they state? Got it, you just don’t like it when I do it.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
Think of all the actual good that could have been done had the money spent on your college indoctrination been given to charity. Instead, we end up with another dolt who can't think beyond a talking point. One great reason I don't support free college. Piss your own money away becoming a useless idiot, just keep your hand the hell out of my pocket in doing so.
Over a century ago people thought the same thing about high school.
 

DeletedUser36572

So, you can make stuff up from the things I post and make them mean anything other than what they state? Got it, you just don’t like it when I do it.

You can post that ... But as usual, lack the wherewithal to indicate how what I posted didn’t reflect what you were expressing.

An utterly sophomoric response at best.
You express your desires plainly, and they most certain contain the desire to spend money that is not yours with the assistance of the Federal Government.

.
 

DeletedUser36572

Over a century ago people thought the same thing about high school.

Won’t be long, and like high school, college will be just four more years of public education ... Thanks for hitting the nail on the head with that one.

I bet you lack the wherewithal necessary to understand how much your comment actually supported what Razorback was getting at.

Now ... Tell us how horrible it is so many young people with a college degree are working minimum wage jobs ... Like there is some kind of question as to why that is the case ... Although I am sure you are programmed to the point it is the fault/responsibility of some fat cat in a corner office, and not some nit-wit pulling down a nice salary feeding kids like you a bunch of BS ... Crap, with any luck they’ll convince you the cost of college is so high, their salary should be subsidized by the Federal Government with free college tuition for all.

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Over a century ago people thought the same thing about high school.
I feel the same about public school in general. I'm fine with the government requiring a basic education through high school, and using taxes to ensure every child has access to a basic education. However, I believe all K-12 schools should be privatized and de-unionized to both lower costs and increase quality through competition.

As such, I believe every child should get a portable voucher able to be used to cover the tuition cost of whatever private school (they'll all be private) the parent and child decide. I also believe if parents choose to home school, the voucher money should go to the family, to facilitate the teaching parent staying home to teach their children themselves.

Yes, there should be standards and minimum requirements set with proper oversight to ensure they're being met. You, the budding young, progressive, socialist should be all the proof anyone needs to see why the government and teacher's unions should never be given control over what is taught to our children, how it's taught, or by whom.
 

DeletedUser

However, I believe all K-12 schools should be privatized and de-unionized to both lower costs and increase quality through competition.
Yeah, it don't work that way. Costs go up with private institutions, not down. Just price a private university versus a public one. And the only thing de-unionizing will do is drive teacher pay down even further than it already is. Nice try, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top