Mar 15 2009
The Insanity Of Liberalism
Only a liberal would assume taxing a benefit will make it cheaper – I kid you not:
The Obama administration is signaling to Congress that the president could support taxing some employee health benefits, as several influential lawmakers and many economists favor, to help pay for overhauling the health care system.
The ‘problem’ with the health system is affordable access. We have the best health care resources in the world. We produce the most new treatments, drugs, therapies and technology. There are pockets of capable science and technology around the world, but none compare in the breadth and depth of medical capabilitiesin the US.
The problem is affordable access. This premier medical care is expensive. It is made more expensive by having to cover uninsured illegal (and non-taxpaying) immigrant workers. It is also made more expensive through wasteful law suites which drain the medical pool of billions of dollars. It is made costly be endless red tape, reporting requirements, insurance paperwork, etc.
And now the liberals in DC plan to make it more expensive by taxing it – pulling more money out of the pool that should be used to provide the best in health care to Americans. And this will make it more affordable to more people and increase access?
Only a liberal could concoct such incoherent nonsense.
There is a rule of thumb where these things are concerned: if you want more of something subsidize it, if you want less, tax it.
I work for a health care agency and I have clients who are on every kind of payer source. One thing I have noticed, when dealing with the government {such as medicaid} the costs providers charge for every day items is just ridiculous. There should be more competition among providers. At the very least.
The fundamental problem is that government feels it is entitled to our money and is obligated to taking care of us. It is obvious that they feel that the people are too stupid to take care of themselves and only the geniuses in big government can solve these problems. And too many people are buying into it. They don’t do anything themselves to better their situation and then look to government to take away the resources of those who have and give it to them because they feel they are “entitled” to it.
If some of these people spent as much time studying and working as they do whining on Facebook and other places, they would improve their own situation.
“Only liberals”?
Wait – wasn’t taxing health care benefits a central tenet of McCain’s campaign?
I agree it’s a bad idea no matter who proposes it – but to ignore the fact that the GOP candidate proposed the same thing is a bit misleading, isn’t it?
I mean, that’s like saying “Only Republicans would give $180 billion to AIG, while failing to write anything in the contract that prevents that company from using $450M of it for bonuses to its own employees.”
GuyF, those contracts were ALREADY in force before the money was given. The money being given to them did not allow AIG (or anyone else) out of contracts that were in force. And that is the entire problem with the bailout money and why banks are trying as hard as they can to get it back, or are refusing to take it. They don’t want government managing their executive compensation because it would mean all the firms taking bailout cash would then lose their staff to bank that don’t.
Who the heck does government think it is to dictate to a company what they should or should not pay their people anyway? Putting expectations on AFTER the fact is dishonest and lessens the chance that companies will accept help even when they need it in the future. Nobody gave AIG restrictions on compensation when they gave them the money, this bashing is coming after the fact.
Quarterly bonuses are standard for that industry. Just because they “seem” high to someone not familiar with that industry doesn’t mean they are out of line with the general market for those jobs. Rather than complaining about the amounts, people should try to strive to get one of those jobs themselves. Rather than pulling other people down, build yourself up.
This plays well emotionally, but there is no basis for it in reality. Congress and the White House should not be running companies. If you want to put restrictions on things, fine, do so at the start. Don’t change the rules after the fact.
“Who the heck does government think it is to dictate to a company what they should or should not pay their people anyway?”
In general, the Right doesn’t seem to have any problem with this concept, if it’s the automakers’ that we are talking about.
Count on DumbFawk to come up with the stupidest possible response possible.
The only reason anyone on the right has an opininon on what the car companies should or should not do is that the GM and Chrysler are lined up begging for multi-billions from the government. Once they do that, they are no longer private companies, are they? They are simply zombie welfare patients. Since when did the left love corporate welfare so much?
Oh, and here’s a hint, dumbfawk: you don’t need to prove to us that liberals are morons – we already know.
A couple of things. What Republicans need is a comprehensive, coordinated strategy that goes from the highest offices in Washington all the way down to the state legislatures and even local councils. A coordinated message that gets across the idea that the people need to put a team into place that will work for them so they can improve their own lot in life and stop relying on government to confiscate the fruits of some people’s labor in order to give it away to others.
Most Americans don’t work for General Motors or Chrysler. Most Americans work for a sandwich shop, a cafe, a beauty parlor, a garage, gas station, or home improvement contractor or other small concern. The vast majority of Americans are employed by businesses that are not traded on any stock exchange. America’s largest employer is herself. 12.3 million Americans were self-employed in 2003. Of those, a million were Latinos, and 700,000 were African Americans (over 5% of the African American labor force is self-employed). No other employer in this country has as many people working for them.
Rules that make it easier for Americans to get into business for themselves and stay in business for themselves benefits more people than any bailout plan for any industry. General motors employs less than 1% of the number of self-employed. Self-employed individuals hire more people than any US corporation. Changes that make it more profitable for small business help every single small town and major city alike in this country.
These are the kinds of messages one should be hearing from the people running for state legislature, town council, Congress, governor, and President. People need to hear a message that there is a team ready to play for them, not against them.
And candidates need to stay “on message” and not allow media to drag them into discussions on abortion, intelligent design and other divisive issues that are outside the scope of what one can do in the office they are running for.
When one hears that speech for a candidate for the Senate, they should echo the same priorities they heard from the person running for their state Senate. And they should hear the same message from a Presidential candidate. It is about making America work. It isn’t about giving you money so you can improve your standard of living, it is about making it possible for you to earn and keep more money to improve your standard of living.
A person who is self-employed, if successful enough, will hire an employee. One who has a couple of employees will hire another. Small businesses exit in every corner of this country. Barber shops, ice cream stores, burger joints, everywhere you look there are small businesses employing only a few people but added together are the largest employer in American.
I don’t hear the Democrats on any rampage to bail out America’s largest employer.
Here is my “tea party”. I need a new car. I am going to buy a non-union made vehicle built in the USA. Toyota.
WWS:
“The only reason anyone on the right has an opininon on what the car companies should or should not do is that the GM and Chrysler are lined up begging for multi-billions from the government.”
And the difference between that and AIG is…?
Your lack of perspective, and simple logic, is rather stunning. AIG gets $180B of taxpayer money, but OF COURSE the government can’t dictacte what they can pay their employees. The automakers are asking for $xB of taxpayer money, so OF COURSE the government can now dictacte what they can pay their employees.
And you don’t see the contradiction there. Wow, are you dumb.
In general, the Right doesn’t seem to have any problem with this concept, if it’s the automakers’ that we are talking about.
Now, now. The US automakers should be able to negotiate an acceptable contract with their workers. If it happens to price them out of the market because Honda, Toyota and VW can get a more favorable contract, well, they can renegotiate the contract, or go into Chapter 11 and have a bankruptcy court oversee the renegotiations.
I wonder if the UAW will ever understand that having some jobs is better than watching your employer go Chapter 7…
I for one have no problems with GM’s executive compensation. I have a problem with unions that have destroyed American competitiveness in manufacturing. And when GM is bailed out after promising to make changes to reduce costs, the UAW announces that they have no plans to renegotiate anything until the scheduled contract negotiations in 2011.
The GM bailout is a UAW bailout. I am going to vote with my wallet. My money is going to go to the company that produces a better product at less cost with workers who actually care about the success of the company.
I am dumping the GM “tea” overboard from my ship of life.
Actually, the UAW “tea”.
crosspatch:
You are stunningly misinformed.
Average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were just $28 per hour as of 2007.
Honda, Toyota, and other foreign manufacturers pay employees in their U.S. factories somewhere between $20 and $26 per hour.
Even if union workers at the American automakers agreed to work for free, it would only shave 5 percent off the cost of their cars.
Please stop trying to demonize UAW, because you have no idea what you are talking about. And it’s really making you look foolish.
There you go again, GuyF, trying to change the subject. I never once mentioned the hourly compensation of “average” workers of either employer. It isn’t about that. It is about things such as shutting down a production line and being forced to continue to keep people on the payroll. It is about “seniority” rules that prevent you from keeping good workers and getting rid of slackers just because the slacker has been there longer.
Non-union workers generally make more than union workers in manufacturing. There are also fewer employees per unit of production. They have more responsibility, they are more knowledgeable in their trade, generally more efficient.
Ford’s contract with the UAW weighs 22 pounds when its 2,215 pages are printed out . That is a complete load of crap that Toyota, Honda, and other manufacturers building cars in the US don’t need to pay a gaggle of lawyers to go through.
The cost of having a UAW contract itself is staggering regardless of the hourly compensation of the employees.
Ask a Nucor Steel employee if they want to be in a union and they will tell you no, it would mean they would lose too much money and they like it the way things are.
I am not seeing mass demonstrations at the non UAW plants either. It seems they are happier with their jobs. UAW simply adds layers of inefficiency onto American automobile manufacturing.
And not only do the unions add inefficiency, they create and nurture an adversarial relationship between the workers and the managers. Every time contract negotiations come around, you have each side issuing threats to the other. It makes for a workplace where the employees are effectively segregated from the success of the company as a whole. The employees are, in effect, working for the union, not for the company. They are guaranteed certain pay, benefits and job security regardless of the performance of the company as a whole, or their plant or department’s productivity. Non-union shops generally have employee compensation DIRECTLY tied to productivity and success of the product which gives people great incentive to be more productive in order to improve their own compensation. Union contracts generally discourage one from working too many hours or being “over productive” should they produce more than the contract requires.
GuyFawkes . . .
What is the value proposition of the UAW for me, the automobile purchaser?
Does the UAW significantly improve the quality of the vehicle? Does the UAW significantly lower the vehicle’s total cost of ownership? Does the UAW significantly lower the purchase price of the vehicle?
No, no, and no.
In short, the customer gets absolutely nothing from the UAW, while being expected to subsidize significant additional direct and indirect costs imposed by the UAW contract. That’s a strategy that’s guaranteed to fail. Eventually, the customer will take his or her custom elsewhere.
Cobalt:
The focus of a union is not the cost of the product. It is the well-being of the employees covered by the union. As such, your question is moot.
To illustrate: every single point you just made also applies to OSHA. Following OSHA guidelines in an auto plant gives absolutely nothing to the consumer.
So, should concern over employee safety be jetisoned also? Hey, who cares if a few assembly line workers die every month, if it’ll save the consumer a couple of bucks, right?
I mean, seriously – are going to side with the people who were responsible for The Triangle Shirtwaist Fire?
GayF
Average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were just $28 per hour as of 2007.
Honda, Toyota, and other foreign manufacturers pay employees in their U.S. factories somewhere between $20 and $26 per hour.
whoops…. I think you’re trying to be a little misleading, deliberatly….
The truth is that the cost to GM for their labor force is $70 per hour vs the foreign manufacturers cost of 20-26. No the present GM laborers aren’t getting all that, but that doesn’t matter to GM because they are still having to pay it.
but to get to what AIG is paying…. First, any company that lost billions and is being bailed out (without the bailout, they would all be without a job) should not be paying anyone a bonus. Once a company gets to the point of being on public welfare they shouldn’t be getting bonus’s. That would be like paying a bonuse to a mom on welfare for having another welfare baby.
Back before I retired, if the company I worked for made money, we got a bonus. If they didn’t, we didn’t. being bailed out by taxpayers equals not making a profit.
RedTeam:
One simple question for you.
Why do you continually address me as “GayF”?
GayF, you’ve temporarily lost focus I think:
the focus of a union is the well being of the employess? would part of that well being be that they work for a competitive company and will continue to do so?
Your second point is the moot point. Both companys are equally covered by OSHA and the cost per automobile would be the same to both company’s so there is no penalty to one company such as the union would be to the one unionized company. Following OSHA guidelines in a plant does LOWER costs, it prevents considerable injuries…..