Safety Net Gone, Older Workers Keep Working

[ECW]

The so-called wisdom of the 401k is shown to be bogus as older workers have to keep working just to stay even with their standard of living. The fact that corporate America has gotten away with not paying pensions to their workers is at the bottom of this crisis.

To the long list of reasons American companies aren’t hiring — business losses, tight credit, consumer retrenchment — add the fact that many of their older workers are unable, or afraid, to retire.

In other parts of the developed world, people are retiring as planned, because of relatively flush state and corporate pensions that await them. But here in the United States, financial security in old age rests increasingly on private savings, which have taken a beating in the last year. Prospective retirees are clinging to their jobs despite some cherished life plans.

As a result, companies are not only reluctant to create new jobs, but have fewer job openings to fill from attrition. For the 14 million Americans looking for work — a number expected to rise in Friday’s jobs report for August — this lack of turnover has made a tough job market even tougher.

Consider Barbara Petrucci, a dialysis nurse who had expected to stop working soon, or at least scale back to part time. Now that her family savings have been depleted by market declines, she expects to stay on the job for a long, long time.

“Retirement is kind of an elusive dream at this point,” says Ms. Petrucci, 58, who works at an Atlanta hospital while her retired husband, Ned, 61, interviews for jobs (unsuccessfully, so far). “We tease at work about someday having to go around at the hospital with our walkers.”

The diverted life plans of families like the Petruccis are an unintended economic consequence of the nation’s sprawling 401(k) plans. These private retirement savings vehicles, designed 30 years ago as a supplement to traditional corporate pensions, have somewhat haphazardly replaced the old system, like an innocuous weed that somehow overgrew the garden.

As is apparent in this downturn, the economic effects of such an ad hoc system can be perverse. In boom times, when companies need more workers, the most experienced employees may decide to retire, taking comfort in their bloated 401(k)s, whose values typically fluctuate with the financial markets.

Today, the reverse is happening in the first deep recession since the new accounts became so pervasive. A Pew Research survey scheduled for Thursday release found that nearly four in 10 workers over age 62 say they have delayed their retirement because of the recession. (Though the data omits some people who have retired and includes some who are still working, the Social Security Administration said that about 2.3 million people that age started collecting benefits last year.)

“One unappreciated side effect of the 401(k) system is that it’s a sort of reverse automatic stabilizer,” says Teresa Ghilarducci, an economics professor at the New School.

The recent retirement losses have prompted policy makers to discuss whether Americans need a stronger social safety net, not just in health care and unemployment benefits, but in retirement as well.

more... (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/business/03retire.html?hp)

[Scribbler1]

Just gotta love that ol' American dream, eh?

[ECW]

Yeah. No wonder it's defined by the saying 'the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.'

[Scribbler1]

That's why I devoted a segment of my blog to Andrew Carnegie. As hyper-rich guys go, he makes Bill Gates look like Ebenezer Scrooge when it came to giving away his riches. Nowadays, there is no such thing as "too much money". They use it to keep score, nothing else and don't give a sweet shit about who it affects.n June, 1889, the North American Review published an article by Carnegie on what he called the "Gospel of Wealth". In the article Carnegie argued that it was the duty of rich men and women to use their wealth to benefit the welfare of the community. He wrote that a "man who dies rich dies disgraced".

Carnegie's net worth at the height of his wealth was $298.3 billion in 2007 dollars, according to Wealthy historical figures 2008, based on information from Forbes - February 2008.

[Professor]

Pensions, 401Ks, ect should be something companies are required to pay.

[Boots]

Pensions, 401Ks, ect should be something companies are required to pay.

Interesting. Required by whom? And how much of the "living wage" are workers willing to sacrifice for this requirement? How much are you willing to pay extra for your next loaf of bread to ensure that the cashier gets a 401 k and a pension, and full health insurance with no deductibles?

[Jojo]

It's the Enronization of America. Enron was a small scale fraud compared to what came after. Years of loyalty rewarded with getting screwed.

[LadyLawyer]

That's why I devoted a segment of my blog to Andrew Carnegie. As hyper-rich guys go, he makes Bill Gates look like Ebenezer Scrooge when it came to giving away his riches. Nowadays, there is no such thing as "too much money". They use it to keep score, nothing else and don't give a sweet shit about who it affects.

That is truly fascinating. Although I think Bill Gates gives back too. I feel really badly for the folks in my sister's range making about 125,000 by working terribly hard, could make a lot more if she went out on her own but stays with faculty; those guys just don't get a lot of breaks.

I don't complain because when I worked I was in business and so much was filtered through the business.

[penmyst]

What the hell does this story have to do with the "wisdom" of the 401k?

It's a garbage economy right now. When times are like that, people cling to whatever money or jobs they have. Even old people.

How about not twisting a story about the bad economy to fit an agenda against personal responsibility / for nanny state?

[Scribbler1]

That is truly fascinating. Although I think Bill Gates gives back too.He certainly does, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does a LOT of work with the poor around the world. My comparison was for perspective mostly. Gates is, or was, worth about $5 Billion compared to Carnegie's much larger comparative wealth. I feel really badly for the folks in my sister's range making about 125,000 by working terribly hard, could make a lot more if she went out on her own but stays with faculty; those guys just don't get a lot of breaks. I would say she feels the amount she makes now is adequate and she doesn't NEED any more.
But it sounds like she made a conscious decision not to move into the more lucrative field, which doesn't sound much like a denial of "breaks".
And a whole LOT of hard working people don't make nearly 125k anyway. And that is the focus of the thread.

[Shanty]

Pensions, 401Ks, ect should be something companies are required to pay.
401(k) plans should never be more than a secondary saving plan in conjunction with a defined benefit pension and SS. Unfortunately, companies have screwed people over so often on pensions, or just don;t offer them at all anymore, that 401(k) plans are now the norm for retirement plans.

[Shanty]

Interesting. Required by whom? And how much of the "living wage" are workers willing to sacrifice for this requirement? How much are you willing to pay extra for your next loaf of bread to ensure that the cashier gets a 401 k and a pension, and full health insurance with no deductibles?
For most businesses, wages and benefits make up a small part of the costs of doing business.

The auto companies, airlines and a lot of other industries screwed up when it came to pensions. Just based on what has happened, the average corporate boardroom and high level executives are pretty poor at handling money. A lot of them could have administered the pension programs and made a profit from it, but instead they squandered them away and screwed every employee who lost out. Personally, I think congress should reverse the court ruling where United Airlines walked away from their pension obligations when they filed for bankruptcy. They effed up and squandered the money, and they should not have been allowed to walk away from their obligations.

[Berggeist]

"Retirement" is a post-WWII illusion which is now showing itself to be an illusion. Just like the forty-hour week, the weekend and minimum wage. No one owes me a job, benefits or a retirement. The "American Dream" itself betrays its nature in its name, "a dream"! It is all a gnostic nostrum which attempts to immanentize the echaton, the summum bonum which awaits those who have earned or found it at death.

[Shanty]

That is truly fascinating. Although I think Bill Gates gives back too. I feel really badly for the folks in my sister's range making about 125,000 by working terribly hard, could make a lot more if she went out on her own but stays with faculty; those guys just don't get a lot of breaks.

I don't complain because when I worked I was in business and so much was filtered through the business. Gates gives back some, but it's nowhere near the giving back Carnegie did when he died.

Of course, Carnegie didn't give back like Gates has done when Carnegie was alive. He waited to die before giving any of it away.

And there are other criticisms of the Gates Foundation...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Criticism

[Shanty]

"Retirement" is a post-WWII illusion which is now showing itself to be an illusion. Just like the forty-hour week, the weekend and minimum wage. No one owes me a job, benefits or a retirement. The "American Dream" itself betrays its nature in its name, "a dream"! It is all a gnostic nostrum which attempts to immanentize the echaton, the summum bonum which awaits those who have earned or found it at death.

You pine for the days of a third world economy coming to america, don't you?

[Berggeist]

For most businesses, wages and benefits make up a small part of the costs of doing business.

The auto companies, airlines and a lot of other industries screwed up when it came to pensions. Just based on what has happened, the average corporate boardroom and high level executives are pretty poor at handling money. A lot of them could have administered the pension programs and made a profit from it, but instead they squandered them away and screwed every employee who lost out. Personally, I think congress should reverse the court ruling where United Airlines walked away from their pension obligations when they filed for bankruptcy. They effed up and squandered the money, and they should not have been allowed to walk away from their obligations.

I would like to see the source of your data. I have worked for numerous businesses. Salary and benefits have in those cases consumed most of the business budgets. In addition, since most employees, even today, stay around longer than one business cycle, one is locked into to those obligations, save a bankruptcy, for the duration of a business. Whereas, if I contract a widget for some purpose, I am locked into that cost for X number of days.

[Berggeist]

You pine for the days of a third world economy coming to america, don't you?

Quite the opposite, its is quite demonstrably the socialist mindset which makes a third-world economy out of a vibrant economy.

[ptif219]

I don't know about anyone else but my 401K is doing just fine. People need to learn how to balance the radical investments with the conservative ones.

[Gracie]

I would like to see the source of your data. I have worked for numerous businesses. Salary and benefits have in those cases consumed most of the business budgets. In addition, since most employees, even today, stay around longer than one business cycle, one is locked into to those obligations, save a bankruptcy, for the duration of a business. Whereas, if I contract a widget for some purpose, I am locked into that cost for X number of days.

Yes, I second that motion.

[Scribbler1]

Of course, Carnegie didn't give back like Gates has done when Carnegie was alive. He waited to die before giving any of it away. Not according to my research. By the time he died, in 1919, he had already given away 350 Mil. with another 125 Mil to fund the Carnegie Corporation.

Remember the saying he apparently believed in, "The man who dies rich dies disgraced".

[NIOSA]

Pensions, 401Ks, ect should be something companies are required to pay.

Why should they be required?

[ECW]

In the days when there was no Social Security or 401k plans, where did most working people wind up when they could not work anymore?

[Scribbler1]

In the days when there was no Social Security or 401k plans, where did most working people wind up when they could not work anymore?

Ice floes?

I love the far right. While they whine and cry and wring their hands over so-called "giveaways" to people they also take every opportunity to claim this is a Christian country. But they seem to forget the Christian principle of charity, especially to their fellow Americans.

Now, while I'm not really a fan of giveaways, I also think that we need something else to rely on when private charities can't do the job, particularly now when the charities are unable to help.
Of course, having government handling these things is a bad idea, considering how corrupt and inefficient it is, but when that is the ONLY answer, we have to roll with it. And I haven't heard ANY alternate solutions from the far right, fair weather Christians, only opposition.

I think the hypocrisy of these people is nauseating, especially when it comes from older right wingers who take their Social Security and their Medicare handouts while crying about the same things for anyone else.

[ECW]

Ice floes... funny. Almost but not quite.

Poor houses. County run and meagerly funded poor houses full of people who had no family and no support went there for a bed and three pitiful meals. Social security closed most of those places down and all the Christian Charity in the country before SS was enacted could not change the fact that old people were being thrown away when they were no longer useful to an employer. Requiring employers to contribute to a unified pension fund that is in a secure government funded bond program would ease the Social Security crunch that is coming but it is not something that rightwingers give a shit about. It's everyone for themselves with that crowd.

And I haven't heard ANY alternate solutions from the far right, fair weather Christians, only opposition.

I think the hypocrisy of these people is nauseating, especially when it comes from older right wingers who take their Social Security and their Medicare handouts while crying about the same things for anyone else.

Truer words, my friend...

[penmyst]

What part of ME forcibly removing YOUR money to give to another is Christian?

Christian giving exists in free choice. That's why God tells his followers (Christians that is) to give. He doesn't MAKE them give. He doesn't hinge their entrance into heaven upon how MUCH they give. They don't have to give at all, or they can spend their life giving and in service to others. It is their choice.

And that's the important part. It's an individual choice.

What I find appalling is that there are people who think they have a right to tell me what to do with MY time, money, or life.


As far as people dying poor and being thrown away when nobody wants their work anymore- boo-frikkin-hoo.

That's why your family, church, and community USED to be important. To teach you wisdom, responsibility, and maturity so you weren't a GD fool that couldn't take care of yourself let alone your responsibilities that often would include your elderly parents or relatives.

Government is NOT the answer. It is NEVER the answer. The less some bureaucratic knucklehead interferes in your life the better. Individuals are more than capable of handling their own lives, and if they do exceedingly well and wish to help others it's a truer and more pure help that actually benefits the recipient instead of turning them into a vegetable dependent on the gubmint farmers to keep them watered and fed.

[ECW]

Too bad that your POV is not reflected in your elected representatives. Then you could have your Nirvana. Taxation is legal whether you like it or not. The current philosophy of government is that it does for the people what they cannot do for themselves. That means helping the poor lift themselves up. That means health care for seniors. That means job assistance for those left behind because of the economy.

The Social Darwinism you advocate is NOT what our current government follows. Too bad.

[BoogyMan]

I love the far right. While they whine and cry and wring their hands over so-called "giveaways" to people they also take every opportunity to claim this is a Christian country. But they seem to forget the Christian principle of charity, especially to their fellow Americans.

I have to take issue with this Scrib. The government and Christianity have NOTHING to do with one another. I know that you would say pretty much the same thing and yet here you are tying the two together. You have me confused.


Now, while I'm not really a fan of giveaways, I also think that we need something else to rely on when private charities can't do the job, particularly now when the charities are unable to help.
Of course, having government handling these things is a bad idea, considering how corrupt and inefficient it is, but when that is the ONLY answer, we have to roll with it. And I haven't heard ANY alternate solutions from the far right, fair weather Christians, only opposition.

What are you calling a "fair weather Christian" here, Scrib? Those who do their own giving and are opposed to extending the governments extraction of funds and thereby limiting their ability to do good? Seems you need to clarify these comments.


I think the hypocrisy of these people is nauseating, especially when it comes from older right wingers who take their Social Security and their Medicare handouts while crying about the same things for anyone else.

Once again, what is hypocritical about Christians who are opposed to heavy increases in taxation? Most that I know do much giving on their own without the hand of government choking their funds out of them.

[Scribbler1]

What part of ME forcibly removing YOUR money to give to another is Christian?If you're talking about my post, I was talking about the old hypocrites who were already getting Medicare and opposing the same benefit for anybody else. And that mindset is decidedly unchristian to me.Christian giving exists in free choice. That's why God tells his followers (Christians that is) to give. He doesn't MAKE them give. Generally speaking, when God suggests something it carries a little more weight than most. And my point was predicated on the inability of private charities to carry the burden. As far as people dying poor and being thrown away when nobody wants their work anymore- boo-frikkin-hoo.A good solid Christian attitude there.Government is NOT the answer. It is NEVER the answer. The less some bureaucratic knucklehead interferes in your life the better.In all the time I've been here, I have never said differently. But sometimes the government MUST be the backup plan. Unlike you, I believe it's important to help out the people who, though NO fault of their own are down on their luck, even after a lifetime of work.

And I find the cavalier attitude about people being "thrown away" when they can no longer work to be contemptible. I doubt that sentiment is shared by others on this forum, right or left.

[Gracie]

If you're talking about my post, I was talking about the old hypocrites who were already getting Medicare and opposing the same benefit for anybody else. And that mindset is decidedly unchristian to me.Generally speaking, when God suggests something it carries a little more weight than most. And my point was predicated on the inability of private charities to carry the burden.A good solid Christian attitude there.In all the time I've been here, I have never said differently. But sometimes the government MUST be the backup plan. Unlike you, I believe it's important to help out the people who, though NO fault of their own are down on their luck, even after a lifetime of work.

And I find the cavalier attitude about people being "thrown away" when they can no longer work to be contemptible. I doubt that sentiment is shared by others on this forum, right or left.

Again, I wish you could present your POV about the functions of government without preaching your own peculiar brand of theology, in which you are most mistaken, BTW. However, cling to your own theology if you like but quit trying to push it off on the rest of us.

[Scribbler1]

I have to take issue with this Scrib. The government and Christianity have NOTHING to do with one another. I know that you would say pretty much the same thing and yet here you are tying the two together. You have me confused.Don't be confused. I explained what I meant in the post above this one. Charity, Christian or otherwise is always the preferable way to go, but what do you do when the charities run out of money?
Would you agree that the Christian way of thinking would be to take care of your fellow man? The other guy seems to think that if the charitable money runs out for these people then just say "fuck 'em". I couldn't live with myself if I thought like that. Sometimes the government HAS to act as the backup plan.
It's not a conservative way or a liberal way, it's the RIGHT way to think.What are you calling a "fair weather Christian" here, Scrib? Those who do their own giving and are opposed to extending the governments extraction of funds and thereby limiting their ability to do good? Seems you need to clarify these comments.I just did, but again, if private charities charities run out of money and there is nothing else, these people whining about government support for those people is extremely unchristian to me. Especially when these poor people USED to work but lost those jobs through no fault of their own. It's a piss poor mindset that concludes that all the people out of work WANT to be that way.

Also, when I hear people bitch about this kind of comparatively minor expenditure when so many of them had no issue with corporate welfare, brighes to nowhere and misplacing cargo planeloads of cash, I have to question their motives.Once again, what is hypocritical about Christians who are opposed to heavy increases in taxation? Most that I know do much giving on their own without the hand of government choking their funds out of them.That's a strawman, Boogy. I'm only talking about ONE area of government funding where you are using a much bigger brush. NOBODY is for massive increases in tax. I'm wondering how many unemployed people would be helped by all the missing cash that was in those planes that went to Iraq. Or the money those unneeded and unWANTED planes Congress appropriated for them because the manufacturers were located in the home states of powerful politicians.

I don't hear much righteous indignation about THOSE wasteful expenses.

[Scribbler1]

Again, I wish you could present your POV about the functions of government without preaching your own peculiar brand of theology, in which you are most mistaken, BTW. However, cling to your own theology if you like but quit trying to push it off on the rest of us.Am I "pushing" anything on you? Is stating an opinion "pushing"?

I've presented my POV on the functions of government dozens of times on this forum alone. I'm not about to repeat it all just because you somehow think it's relevant.
But, if you want my perspective on THIS particular issue, it can be found on the two posts before this one.

And my particular theology is not only irrelevant, it's none of your business, just as yours is none of mine.

[Gracie]

Am I "pushing" anything on you? Is stating an opinion "pushing"?

I've presented my POV on the functions of government dozens of times on this forum alone. I'm not about to repeat it all just because you somehow think it's relevant.
But, if you want my perspective on THIS particular issue, it can be found on the two posts before this one.

And my particular theology is not only irrelevant, it's none of your business, just as yours is none of mine.

Right on both counts. Your theology is irrelevant and none of my business. So stop telling Christians what your theology believes their political point of view should be.

[Zander]

What part of ME forcibly removing YOUR money to give to another is Christian?

Christian giving exists in free choice. That's why God tells his followers (Christians that is) to give. He doesn't MAKE them give. He doesn't hinge their entrance into heaven upon how MUCH they give. They don't have to give at all, or they can spend their life giving and in service to others. It is their choice.

And that's the important part. It's an individual choice.

What I find appalling is that there are people who think they have a right to tell me what to do with MY time, money, or life.


As far as people dying poor and being thrown away when nobody wants their work anymore- boo-frikkin-hoo.

That's why your family, church, and community USED to be important. To teach you wisdom, responsibility, and maturity so you weren't a GD fool that couldn't take care of yourself let alone your responsibilities that often would include your elderly parents or relatives.

Government is NOT the answer. It is NEVER the answer. The less some bureaucratic knucklehead interferes in your life the better. Individuals are more than capable of handling their own lives, and if they do exceedingly well and wish to help others it's a truer and more pure help that actually benefits the recipient instead of turning them into a vegetable dependent on the gubmint farmers to keep them watered and fed.Awesome post! :thumbsup:

[Zander]

Here is my message to the old losers who didn't properly plan for their senior years: TOO BAD. YOU MADE THE WRONG CALL. Continue to work, and stock up on dog food. You fucked up.

[Scribbler1]

Right on both counts. Your theology is irrelevant and none of my business. So stop telling Christians what your theology believes their political point of view should be.Kind of like you pushing your opinions on the liberals, who clearly don't want your opinion? Cheesy double standard there.

And, just FYI, until a moderator tells me to stop I'll say what I want, when I want and to WHOMEVER I want, and I don't need your "guidance" thank you very much.

[Gracie]

Kind of like you pushing your opinions on the liberals, who clearly don't want your opinion? Cheesy double standard there.

And, just FYI, until a moderator tells me to stop I'll say what I want, when I want and to WHOMEVER I want, and I don't need your "guidance" thank you very much.

I am trying to point out to you that your position is illogical, UNLESS you advocate a Christian theocracy in the U.S. Do you?

[Scribbler1]

Here is my message to the old losers who didn't properly plan for their senior years: TOO BAD. YOU MADE THE WRONG CALL. Continue to work, and stock up on dog food. You fucked up.You mean when they made the wrong call by buying Enron stock, or investing with Bernie Madoff, or seeing their 401Ks disappear?

[Scribbler1]

I am trying to point out to you that your position is illogical, UNLESS you advocate a Christian theocracy in the U.S. Do you?A Christian theocracy in the U.S.??? Where in the hell did you get THAT from any of my posts on this subject?

[Gracie]

A Christian theocracy in the U.S.??? Where in the hell did you get THAT from any of my posts on this subject?

Because you are arguing from the position that we ought to support a government welfare state because it is the Christian thing to do.

[Scribbler1]

Because you are arguing from the position that we ought to support a government welfare state because it is the Christian thing to do.I never said "welfare state" and you know it. ONE avenue of assistance for the unemployed does NOT make for a welfare state, especially when there are precedents already in existence.

And government funded unemployment was as a BACKUP, Gracie. To be used when all else fails. I said that quite clearly and more than once. I'm just not big on telling my own countrymen to go to hell when the charity money dries up. And I'm not empowered to tell the difference between the hard working American who got screwed out of a job and the welfare cheat. And I happen to think looking out for those in need IS a Christian value, and if the government is the last remaining avenue for that charity, I have no problem with it.

Does that finally explain my position?

[ECW]

Here is my message to the old losers who didn't properly plan for their senior years: TOO BAD. YOU MADE THE WRONG CALL. Continue to work, and stock up on dog food. You fucked up.

... he says to Enron workers whose old age pensions were tied up in Enron stock. :thumbsup:

[Gracie]

I never said "welfare state" and you know it. ONE avenue of assistance for the unemployed does NOT make for a welfare state, especially when there are precedents already in existence.

And government funded unemployment was as a BACKUP, Gracie. To be used when all else fails. I said that quite clearly and more than once. I'm just not big on telling my own countrymen to go to hell when the charity money dries up. And I'm not empowered to tell the difference between the hard working American who got screwed out of a job and the welfare cheat. And I happen to think looking out for those in need IS a Christian value, and if the government is the last remaining avenue for that charity, I have no problem with it.

Does that finally explain my position?

As to "welfare state", I use the term as a catch-all for any government entitlement that falls into that general catagory. It really doesn't matter as the principle would be the same no matter what the issue is.

The principle is, why are you talking about what is or what is not a Christian value unless you are trying to persuade someone in matters of Christian theology? And should a matter of Christian theology have anything to do with the appropriateness of a government program? That is my point.

If I advocated a law or government program, and I quoted you a Bible scripture of a bit of theology as my argument for my POV, you would be quite likely to reject that as valid.

There may be good reasons for unemployment insurance, the fund is paid into by employers so is there for that purpose, but I don't believe that Christian charity is one of the reasons.

[Si modo]

I have a possible solution to this impasse between the two of you. How about both Scrib and Gracie tossing out reference to Christian things, and maybe agree that what Scrib said is a human decency thing? If Scrib agrees, that is.

[Gracie]

I have a possible solution to this impasse between the two of you. How about both Scrib and Gracie tossing out reference to Christian things, and maybe agree that what Scrib said is a human decency thing? If Scrib agrees, that is.

If that is what he means.

My objection is the many posters, and usually posters who are NOT Christians, trying to tell Christians what their politics should be according to someone else's idea of Christian theology. I am on a mission to stamp out this type of argument.

[Si modo]

If that is what he means.

My objection is the many posters, and usually posters who are NOT Christians, trying to tell Christians what their politics should be according to someone else's idea of Christian theology. I am on a mission to stamp out this type of argument.And I think that is a reasonable mission. As there are so many interpretations to what Christian values are and have been for years since those heretic protestants started their whining centuries ago against The (real) Church (*tongue firmly planted in cheek*), appealing to another's faith doesn't seem like a great plan regardless of which of the Big Three Abrahamics are discussed. Faith is too personal and we cannot possibly understand all aspects of such a personal thing in another. Thus, we set up for a guaranteed failure of the tactic. We end up getting too caught up in the details of personal faith rather than the bigger picture of the original point made.

[Zander]

... he says to Enron workers whose old age pensions were tied up in Enron stock. :thumbsup:

The Enron employees fucked up too. They trusted their employer to take care of them. Life is hard. Get tough or get shit on. Don't count on the government or your employer to take care of you. Take care of yourself. Lesson learned??

[Zander]

You mean when they made the wrong call by buying Enron stock, or investing with Bernie Madoff, or seeing their 401Ks disappear?

Yep. They should have known Madoff was a scam. He was paying much higher rates of return on a supposedly "safer" investment than anyone else. He stunk to high heaven! They fucked up and now they'll have to pay for it. TOO BAD. Enron employees should have sold their shares as they were obtained and diversified themeselves. If they didn't they screwed up. TOO BAD. My retirement investments are in my own control and doing quite well. I lost quite a bit when the downturn hit, but I made it back over the last few months and now I am sitting in short term treasuries waiting for the other shoe to fall. If I am wrong it is my problem - TOO BAD FOR ME. I don't expect you or anyone else to ever bail me out. I am a man who takes responsibility for my life and my actions.

[ECW]

The Enron employees fucked up too. They trusted their employer to take care of them. Life is hard. Get tough or get shit on. Don't count on the government or your employer to take care of you. Take care of yourself. Lesson learned??

Sorry, but Enron employees had no choice in their pension matters. They also worked there counting on management to do the right thing, not illegal accounting tricks and inflated numbers that lied about the health of the company. They didn't fuck up. Enron management did.

I guess the lesson really is don't trust management in large companies. Appropriate lesson for Labor Day. Thanks.

[Pookie]

Interesting. Required by whom? And how much of the "living wage" are workers willing to sacrifice for this requirement? How much are you willing to pay extra for your next loaf of bread to ensure that the cashier gets a 401 k and a pension, and full health insurance with no deductibles?

And why shouldn't cashiers get these benefits? They serve you, don't they?
Caste system here?
Just asking.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Zander]

Sorry, but Enron employees had no choice in their pension matters. They also worked there counting on management to do the right thing, not illegal accounting tricks and inflated numbers that lied about the health of the company. They didn't fuck up. Enron management did.

I guess the lesson really is don't trust management in large companies. Appropriate lesson for Labor Day. Thanks.

Too bad. They made a choice. It didn't work out. I hope they all learned a valuable lesson. I don't allow anyone to control my destiny. If you have an IRA or 401K or SEP or whatever, get the hell out of it. The government can change the rules any time they want. Control your own destiny or suffer the consequences.

[Pookie]

Too bad. They made a choice. It didn't work out. I hope they all learned a valuable lesson. I don't allow anyone to control my destiny. If you have an IRA or 401K or SEP or whatever, get the hell out of it. The government can change the rules any time they want. Control your own destiny or suffer the consequences.

So, what do you do with your money? Why don't you tell us what you do?
Sorry, seems a bit vague to me.
And would somebody answer my previous question please?
Purrs,
Pookie

[Zander]

So, what do you do with your money? Why don't you tell us what you do?
Sorry, seems a bit vague to me.
And would somebody answer my previous question please?
Purrs,
Pookie

Read this (http://www.democracyforums.com/showpost.php?p=512962&postcount=2)

[Si modo]

Interesting. Required by whom? And how much of the "living wage" are workers willing to sacrifice for this requirement? How much are you willing to pay extra for your next loaf of bread to ensure that the cashier gets a 401 k and a pension, and full health insurance with no deductibles?And why shouldn't cashiers get these benefits? They serve you, don't they?
Caste system here?
Just asking.
Purrs,
PookieBenefits are part of compensation. Compensation levels are determined by supply and demand of a skill (along with how much the performance of that skill contibutes to profit). Being a cashier is a dime-a-dozen skill. Funny, the meaning of that commonly used idiom is based exactly on supply and demand.

Although the use of 'caste' is a great example of an appeal to emotion, it ignores the fact that smarts follows a Gaussian distribution. Some facts of life may seem harsh, but life is no bowl of cherries.

[Pookie]

YOW! Treasury? No, I don't think so. Back in 1979 there was a little tiny company called Microsoft...and I invested. I kept investing.
Now I watch computer stuff like AMD, Intel, etc., and have always gotten a profit. I sock away the extra in a CD through my bank, where I can move my assets around with no penalties or fees.
The rest goes into my checking account where I earn interest too, and a savings.
It's pretty easy doing this, and I've made my investments grow.
I still want someone to tell me why the cashier can't have these benefits.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Scribbler1]

As to "welfare state", I use the term as a catch-all for any government entitlement that falls into that general catagory. It really doesn't matter as the principle would be the same no matter what the issue is.And I use the term much more broadly, as the definition of "welfare state" is :"A social system whereby the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, as in matters of health care, education, employment, and social security."
That can mean either some or all, and either way, I mean ONE thing. And since the rise in unemployment, for one example, was a long-time-coming situation caused primarily by government inaction, and as the people are responsible for their government trough THEIR inaction, there is a measure of responsibility borne BY the people for the one and only thing I was arguing about.The principle is, why are you talking about what is or what is not a Christian value unless you are trying to persuade someone in matters of Christian theology? And should a matter of Christian theology have anything to do with the appropriateness of a government program? That is my point.And your point is based on misunderstanding MY point. "Christian values" is different from Christian THEOLOGY as being "my brother's keeper" is shared by many religions and I am not connecting my argument to any religion's actual theology.
Christianity is this country's major religion so it made sense to use it here.If I advocated a law or government program, and I quoted you a Bible scripture of a bit of theology as my argument for my POV, you would be quite likely to reject that as valid.Did I quote any scripture here? What I did was opine about the lack of compassion in people who otherwise claim to be Christians as regards this single topic.

But, in the end you of course can believe what you like. I'm done here.

[ECW]

I still want someone to tell me why the cashier can't have these benefits.
Purrs,
Pookie

They are not going to tell you that the cashier is on the bottom rung of the employment scale and does not deserve any benefits. Only the elite, educated, high-profile employees should get those benefits. Cashiers, working hand-to-mouth, week-to-week do not qualify. They have no status in their eyes. Simple as that.

[potter]

I still want someone to tell me why the cashier can't have these benefits.
Purrs,
Pookie


Because cashiers, burger flippers, gardeners and laborers are less than human. They are lazy uneducated scum of the earth and they deserve nothing but our scorn, and to die penniless and riddled with disease.

I certainly won't help them.....it pisses me off that I had to help fund their miserable public education to begin with...now I'm helping fund the roads they drive and food stamps no doubt. Enough is enough.

[Si modo]

They are not going to tell you that the cashier is on the bottom rung of the employment scale and does not deserve any benefits. Only the elite, educated, high-profile employees should get those benefits. Cashiers, working hand-to-mouth, week-to-week do not qualify. They have no status in their eyes. Simple as that.You're right. That is not what 'they' are going to tell her.

'They' will tell her that benefits are part of compensation. Compensation levels are determined by supply and demand of a skill (along with how much the performance of that skill contibutes to profit). Being a cashier is a dime-a-dozen skill. Funny, the meaning of that commonly used idiom is based exactly on supply and demand.

[MonsterMan]

They are not going to tell you that the cashier is on the bottom rung of the employment scale and does not deserve any benefits. Only the elite, educated, high-profile employees should get those benefits. Cashiers, working hand-to-mouth, week-to-week do not qualify. They have no status in their eyes. Simple as that.

So, what do you pay your cashiers and what benefits do you provide to them in additon to that pay?

[MonsterMan]

YOW! Treasury? No, I don't think so. Back in 1979 there was a little tiny company called Microsoft...and I invested. I kept investing.
Now I watch computer stuff like AMD, Intel, etc., and have always gotten a profit. I sock away the extra in a CD through my bank, where I can move my assets around with no penalties or fees.
The rest goes into my checking account where I earn interest too, and a savings.
It's pretty easy doing this, and I've made my investments grow.
I still want someone to tell me why the cashier can't have these benefits.
Purrs,
Pookie

What? Investing?

Last I checked, they could just as easily use their money to do exactly what you just described.

[MonsterMan]

Like people will not need them. Next time you buy groceries, think about that. Use the self-checkout instead. That will free up some cashiers. Don't need them? Don't use them.

No, we will just shop somewhere else that has them.


Have a faulty product? Don't bother a customer service manager. You bought it, too bad for you. You have the money to get something else, so go do that and shut up about it.

We will and your business will fail and the one that cares will not.


And maybe folks should do their own gardening, landscaping, and plumbing, to name a few. Then we can all collect unemployment and go on welfare and we won't have to put up with those who are so "entitled."

No, we will just find someone else to do those things for us who isn't going to gripe about it.

Toilet overflowing? Dumbass. You should have checked the plumbing before you bought the place. Too bad for you.

Nope, just get another plumber.

Yard looks crappy? Get out there and fix it up yourself.

Nope, there are plenty of highschool kids who would like to make an extra buck for the weekend.

Pool needs cleaning? Idiot. You should have known that would happen before you put it in.

Nope, there are plenty of pool cleaners.

Car needs fixing? Get a Chilton's and some tools and fix it yourself.

Why? There are tons of places I can go to get it fixed.


Pet needs grooming? Get a brush.


Why? I know several good grooming places.

You're old and in a nursing home, unable to care for yourself? Get someone in your family to take care of you.


Why? I will have my retirement and savings to do that.

People would really be surprised about how dependent they are on people like me. I'm a customer service manager at Walmart and I see this dependency every day.

I am not dependent on you at all.

And one more thing. At Walmart, load your own mulch or heavy furniture into your car and shut up.
Purrs,
Pookie

If that is how you treat your customers, I don't see your future at Walmart lasting that long.

[Pookie]

See how dependent you are? Can't do anything without us. The stock guys that help you load mulch and heavy furniture are paid minimum wage.
The problem here is that people are just lazy.
Purrs,
Pookie

[MonsterMan]

See how dependent you are? Can't do anything without us. The stock guys that help you load mulch and heavy furniture are paid minimum wage.
The problem here is that people are just lazy.
Purrs,
Pookie

Who is this us?

Are you part of some Borg collective I am unaware of?

[Pookie]

That wasn't necessary. I'm saying many folks can't do without us. You seemed to have proved it. Very simple, because people are lazy and want everything done for them.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Professor]

Interesting. Required by whom? And how much of the "living wage" are workers willing to sacrifice for this requirement? How much are you willing to pay extra for your next loaf of bread to ensure that the cashier gets a 401 k and a pension, and full health insurance with no deductibles?

Yes, I would be willing to pay a little more. As it is if I think a company is acting unfairly I won't buy from them.

[MonsterMan]

That wasn't necessary. I'm saying many folks can't do without us.

There you go again with this "us?"


You seemed to have proved it. Very simple, because people are lazy and want everything done for them.
Purrs,
Pookie

It is a matter of cost and return. Simple economics. Not so much to do with being lazy at all.

I take my truck to the mechanic to have my power steering replaced, not because I am lazy, but because it would take me half a day or more to do it and I don't have a lift, a shop, or most of the tools involved.

So it is far cheaper and saves me time to have the mechanic do it in 2 hours.

[Pookie]

Yes, I would be willing to pay a little more. As it is if I think a company is acting unfairly I won't buy from them.

Me too, Professor. That cashier works very hard and has to put up with people who are much less than nice.
And I refuse to buy anything from J Crew.
Purrs,
Pookie

[MonsterMan]

Yes, I would be willing to pay a little more. As it is if I think a company is acting unfairly I won't buy from them.

Alright then.

Lets put this to the test.

Feel free to create your own company or business and pay your workers well and give them all those benefits.

Then try to compete in the market by telling your customers that you are chraging twice as much as the other guy, but they will have the satisfaction of knowing the employees are getting wonderful benefits.

I would like to know all about your success.

[Professor]

I think I would do well. Enough people have gotten screwed over that they would be okay with it.

[MonsterMan]

I think I would do well. Enough people have gotten screwed over that they would be okay with it.

It is simply amazing that such a good idea hasn't been tried yet.

Good luck...

[Pookie]

Actually, J Crew does that. They're successful.
Purrs,
Pookie

[MonsterMan]

Wait a minute, I think I forgot something:


:sarcasm:

[Pookie]

LOL! It's all good.
Purrs,
Pookie

[MonsterMan]

Actually, J Crew does that. They're successful.
Purrs,
Pookie

That is wonderful.

If only we could all afford to buy 100 dollar shirts and jeans to shop there now.

:rolleyes:

[Zander]

Me too, Professor. That cashier works very hard and has to put up with people who are much less than nice.
And I refuse to buy anything from J Crew.
Purrs,
Pookie Actually, J Crew does that. They're successful.
Purrs,
Pookie
Today 05:27 PM

WTF?? :lmao:

[MonsterMan]

WTF?? :lmao:

Yeah, I was about to comment on that myself... :lmao:

[Pookie]

Yeah, you got that right! That would be nice.
Talk about overpriced...but people buy the stuff just for the name.
Woooo, I'll stick with Goodwill and Walmart and Target. Bleah on names!
Purrs,
Pookie

[MonsterMan]

Yeah, you got that right! That would be nice.
Talk about overpriced...but people buy the stuff just for the name.
Woooo, I'll stick with Goodwill and Walmart and Target. Bleah on names!
Purrs,
Pookie

So much for supporting those benefits you are complaining about, huh?

[Pookie]

I used to work for J Crew in Loss Prevention. That's how I know some stuff about them. I just wouldn't buy anything from J Crew.
Made in Honduras, and I can get that elsewhere.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Pookie]

So much for supporting those benefits you are complaining about, huh?

Not at all. Companies can afford to give better benefits. They choose not to.
Purrs,
Pookie

[MonsterMan]

I used to work for J Crew in Loss Prevention. That's how I know some stuff about them. I just wouldn't buy anything from J Crew.
Made in Honduras, and I can get that elsewhere.
Purrs,
Pookie

MADE IN HONDURAS????

I guess they are able to give those good benefits to their workers on the backs of those worthless Hondurans?

OMFG!

This entire thread is too much for me.... I am laughing so hard I am going to pee...

:madlaugh::madlaugh::madlaugh::madlaugh::madlaugh:

[Pookie]

Yeah, I was about to comment on that myself... :lmao:

Need to read, folks, need to read.
Purrs,
Pookie

[MonsterMan]

Not at all. Companies can afford to give better benefits. They choose not to.
Purrs,
Pookie

So, if every company "chose" to charge 100 dollars for their shirts and jeans, how would anyone be able to afford to buy a pair?

Your comments show little understanding of how the market works at all.

[Pookie]

MADE IN HONDURAS????

I guess they are able to give those good benefits to their workers on the backs of those worthless Hondurans?

OMFG!

This entire thread is too much for me.... I am laughing so hard I am going to pee...

:madlaugh::madlaugh::madlaugh::madlaugh::madlaugh:

Laugh all you will, but you asked for a company that pays well and has great benefits, and I gave you J Crew. From experience.
And I can get clothes from anywhere, I just won't get them from J Crew.
Keep laughing.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Zander]

MADE IN HONDURAS????

I guess they are able to give those good benefits to their workers on the backs of those worthless Hondurans?

OMFG!

This entire thread is too much for me.... I am laughing so hard I am going to pee...

:madlaugh::madlaugh::madlaugh::madlaugh::madlaugh:
Saying the obvious would violate the forum rules, so suffice it to say: Pookie is priceless!!! :madlaugh::madlaugh:

[ECW]

They are not going to tell you that the cashier is on the bottom rung of the employment scale and does not deserve any benefits. Only the elite, educated, high-profile employees should get those benefits. Cashiers, working hand-to-mouth, week-to-week do not qualify. They have no status in their eyes. Simple as that.So, what do you pay your cashiers and what benefits do you provide to them in additon to that pay?

Not providing benefits to some your employees because of their particular job or that they are unskilled labor is wrong. What I would pay them is pretty much irrelevant because if they don't have benefits and they should suddenly need something that is covered for other employees and not themselves, you face a situation where they go broke trying to duplicate that benefit. Health care is the perfect example.

Either go libertarian/Social Darwinist and cover no one or cover everyone. Why did you hire an employee that you do not value in the first place? Is the need for a business owner to exploit their lower paid workers that great that they refuse to cover them? Are people that expendable now?

Obviously yes.

[ECW]

Alright then.

Lets put this to the test.

Feel free to create your own company or business and pay your workers well and give them all those benefits.

Then try to compete in the market by telling your customers that you are chraging twice as much as the other guy, but they will have the satisfaction of knowing the employees are getting wonderful benefits.

I would like to know all about your success.

There is one pretty prominent one. Let me give you a clue.

http://www.textually.org/textually/archives/images/set3/apple-logo-dec07.jpg

I could probably dig up more but you get the idea.

[Sublimating]

I grew up loving Capitalism. Lately as I see things like WWII vets working at McDonald's and Giant corporations being propped up with welfare dollars, I'm starting to really hate the American version of all of the (ism's) including capitalism. It seems we do capitalism, conservatism, liberalism and every
other "ism wrong. The only "ism we seem to have mastered is racism.

My personal least favorite result of capitalism.

After doing everything right to qualify for the opportunity to purchase a basic necessity (a home) you spend 10-20,000 making a down payment for your piece of "The American Dream" and strap in for Thirty Years (1/3 of your life)worth of payments during which at any time should prove unable to pay for your "American Dream" for a period of 90 days, regardless to if you have been paying regular and on time for twenty years you forfeit everything. I don't understand why a home should, on average, take 1/3 of your life to pay for and you certainly should not be able to loose something in a few months that you've been faithful in paying for for 15-20 years.

[Sublimating]

There is one pretty prominent one. Let me give you a clue.

http://www.textually.org/textually/archives/images/set3/apple-logo-dec07.jpg

I could probably dig up more but you get the idea.
Nicely done:thumbsup:

[ECW]

Nicely done :thumbsup:

Thank you, sir. Pays to be a stockholder sometimes.

[Scribbler1]

Your comments show little understanding of how the market works at all.I suppose I don't know the free market much either. Doesn't the free market also dictate that all those banks and brokerages that were bailed out under Bush and Obama supposed to be allowed to fail? I didn't hear much similar outrage about that.

[penmyst]

I suppose I don't know the free market much either. Doesn't the free market also dictate that all those banks and brokerages that were bailed out under Bush and Obama supposed to be allowed to fail? I didn't hear much similar outrage about that.

You too busy listening to public radio, aren't ya? Here's a clue-- tune on over to the super successful conservative talk radio station in your town (every town has one, with Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, etc). You would have heard PLENTY of outrage at the government bailout and cover-up (of THEIR role in causing the entire banking crisis).

------

What's up with the socialism run amok in my society? Having gubmint do for you what you can't do for yourself? Paying employees more (their "price" includes benefits packages) than their work is worth? Trying to use other peoples' money (via extortion thru taxation) to insulate every single person from any misfortune that they (or life) puts them through? Pretending that private charities can't take care of society's needs, but the gubmint can? .................Good god people CAN'T be this foolish. They simply can't . This sh-t doesn't work. It has not EVER worked.

Liberty works. Every time it's tried. Does the average socialist on the street understand that power is chained to responsibilities? You cannot separate the two. So when you hand over the responsibility for you and your life to gubmint house, you also acquiesce your power? Is freedom (which includes the freedom to fail) that frightening to you?

Socialism ain't the answer. Witness the tens of millions that have died (and at the hands of their own elitists) because of it.

[Scribbler1]

You too busy listening to public radio, aren't ya? Here's a clue-- tune on over to the super successful conservative talk radio station in your town (every town has one, with Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, etc). You would have heard PLENTY of outrage at the government bailout and cover-up (of THEIR role in causing the entire banking crisis). Not that I have to explain anything to you, but I don't listen to public radio, and I rarely listen to the right wingers on the radio much either.
Maybe you need it, but I don't require the OPINIONS of mass market ideology salesmen to form my own opinions.
And I also know where the radio stations are, and the most talk radio I listen to nowadays is a local conservative talk show host. BTW, he's a REAL conservative and not some bloviating huckster who's just in it for the money.

But at least I get a clear picture of what you listen to.

[Jojo]

Because it makes someone money. We, here at the bottom of the pool, are not only expendable, we're raw material to be chewed up and thrown out.

Ken Lay proved you could do it and get away with it - now it's the fashion. Screw your own employees - then blame them when they complain. If you don't have the money to buy a congress critter - you are worthless anyway.

I grew up loving Capitalism. Lately as I see things like WWII vets working at McDonald's and Giant corporations being propped up with welfare dollars, I'm starting to really hate the American version of all of the (ism's) including capitalism. It seems we do capitalism, conservatism, liberalism and every
other "ism wrong. The only "ism we seem to have mastered is racism.

My personal least favorite result of capitalism.

After doing everything right to qualify for the opportunity to purchase a basic necessity (a home) you spend 10-20,000 making a down payment for your piece of "The American Dream" and strap in for Thirty Years (1/3 of your life)worth of payments during which at any time should prove unable to pay for your "American Dream" for a period of 90 days, regardless to if you have been paying regular and on time for twenty years you forfeit everything. I don't understand why a home should, on average, take 1/3 of your life to pay for and you certainly should not be able to loose something in a few months that you've been faithful in paying for for 15-20 years.

[Pookie]

I plan on working as long as I can. It gives me something to do, keeps me from being bored, and it gives me something to bitch about here!
LOL!
Purrs,
Pookie

[Jojo]

Because cashiers, burger flippers, gardeners and laborers are less than human. They are lazy uneducated scum of the earth and they deserve nothing but our scorn, and to die penniless and riddled with disease.

I certainly won't help them.....it pisses me off that I had to help fund their miserable public education to begin with...now I'm helping fund the roads they drive and food stamps no doubt. Enough is enough.

Ah, the sweet music of pure capitalism.:jammin:

[Gracie]

Jojo wrote:
Ken Lay proved you could do it and get away with it

No, he did not actually get away with it.

But don't let me break up your pity party. Carry on.

[Shanty]

In the days when there was no Social Security or 401k plans, where did most working people wind up when they could not work anymore?

Ice floes?

I love the far right. While they whine and cry and wring their hands over so-called "giveaways" to people they also take every opportunity to claim this is a Christian country. But they seem to forget the Christian principle of charity, especially to their fellow Americans.

Now, while I'm not really a fan of giveaways, I also think that we need something else to rely on when private charities can't do the job, particularly now when the charities are unable to help.
Of course, having government handling these things is a bad idea, considering how corrupt and inefficient it is, but when that is the ONLY answer, we have to roll with it. And I haven't heard ANY alternate solutions from the far right, fair weather Christians, only opposition.

I think the hypocrisy of these people is nauseating, especially when it comes from older right wingers who take their Social Security and their Medicare handouts while crying about the same things for anyone else.

Ice floes... funny. Almost but not quite.

Poor houses. County run and meagerly funded poor houses full of people who had no family and no support went there for a bed and three pitiful meals. Social security closed most of those places down and all the Christian Charity in the country before SS was enacted could not change the fact that old people were being thrown away when they were no longer useful to an employer. Requiring employers to contribute to a unified pension fund that is in a secure government funded bond program would ease the Social Security crunch that is coming but it is not something that rightwingers give a shit about. It's everyone for themselves with that crowd.



Truer words, my friend... Great post, E.

[Shanty]

Am I "pushing" anything on you? Is stating an opinion "pushing"? No. it's not. Gracie has the means to ignore the post. she chooses to read it and falsely accuse you of "pushing" religion on others.

I've presented my POV on the functions of government dozens of times on this forum alone. I'm not about to repeat it all just because you somehow think it's relevant.
But, if you want my perspective on THIS particular issue, it can be found on the two posts before this one.

And my particular theology is not only irrelevant, it's none of your business, just as yours is none of mine.
Well, I don't know what your theology is, but generally, your posts about when government should step in is pretty much in line with my own thinking. Thanks for posting it in a more succinct way than I would have.

[Shanty]

... he says to Enron workers whose old age pensions were tied up in Enron stock. :thumbsup:
Funny how Newt Gingrich's tenure as Speaker led him to block legislation that would have made companies not put all of the retirement eggs in one basket, unless they had the OK of the employee.

[Shanty]

The Enron employees fucked up too. They trusted their employer to take care of them. Life is hard. Get tough or get shit on. Don't count on the government or your employer to take care of you. Take care of yourself. Lesson learned??
Lesson learned is watching the kids live with malnutrition and some bastid like Ken Lay living fat on the misery of other people.

Yeah, I saw his nasty wife crying on TV, upset because they were going to have to sell the Aspen house in order to keep the place in the Bahamas... .

[ECW]

The Enron employees fucked up too. They trusted their employer to take care of them. Life is hard. Get tough or get shit on. Don't count on the government or your employer to take care of you. Take care of yourself. Lesson learned??Lesson learned is watching the kids live with malnutrition and some bastid like Ken Lay living fat on the misery of other people.

Yeah, I saw his nasty wife crying on TV, upset because they were going to have to sell the Aspen house in order to keep the place in the Bahamas... .

I'll be thinking of Zander's comment the next time I see an old guy who can hardly walk stocking shelves at Wal-Mart or some old lady carrying a bus bucket cleaning off tables at the local Golden Corral. Yeah. They fucked up. Right.

[Gracie]

Lesson learned is watching the kids live with malnutrition and some bastid like Ken Lay living fat on the misery of other people.

If you know of any kids living with malnutrition, I suggest that you do something about it. Probably the best thing to do is to have their parents arrested for neglect.

[potter]

If you know of any kids living with malnutrition, I suggest that you do something about it. Probably the best thing to do is to have their parents arrested for neglect.


Yea..that's the best thing to do. Get the parents fired so in addition to no food they have to live on the street.

[ECW]

Lesson learned is watching the kids live with malnutrition and some bastid like Ken Lay living fat on the misery of other people.If you know of any kids living with malnutrition, I suggest that you do something about it. Probably the best thing to do is to have their parents arrested for neglect.

Black hearted sarcasm always cut to the core of the problem.

[Jojo]

No, he did not actually get away with it.

But don't let me break up your pity party. Carry on.

How many years did he live in his mansion before his trial - long enough to make sure he didn't implicate his good buddy George Bush. If he had broken a window and stolen a toaster, he would have been in prison within a month. Instead he lied and stole millions from his own employees......and then spent his last years peacefully enjoying the fruits of his crime.

Kinda makes me wonder how hard it is to fake a sudden fatal heart attack and move to Dubai.

[Gracie]

Black hearted sarcasm always cut to the core of the problem.

BS. Any malnourished kid is the fault of the parents. I believe I can state that unequivically.

[Gracie]

How many years did he live in his mansion before his trial - long enough to make sure he didn't implicate his good buddy George Bush. If he had broken a window and stolen a toaster, he would have been in prison within a month. Instead he lied and stole millions from his own employees......and then spent his last years peacefully enjoying the fruits of his crime.

Kinda makes me wonder how hard it is to fake a sudden fatal heart attack and move to Dubai.

Yeah, I know. Another conspiracy theory. And with total irrationality you smear Bush. I guess it makes you feel better.

[ECW]

BS. Any malnourished kid is the fault of the parents. I believe I can state that unequivically.

Sorry, but when it comes to children, I'm more interested in finding solutions than casting blame or locking people up. That may work for you but when I see rightwingers care as much for born children as they do for unborn children, I may begin to listen a little more to what they have to say when it comes to their health and welfare.

Pretty much the same goes for old people. "You fucked up" seems to be mantra for old people that are in trouble of any kind. That pretty much says it all. In a nutshell.

[penmyst]

Sorry, but when it comes to children, I'm more interested in finding solutions than casting blame or locking people up.

Erm.... the best solution to most problems is finding it's cause. That means "casting blame", guy. And sometimes if they are so egregiously to blame, you lock them up to protect their current victims and prevent future victims. Do I really have to spell this stuff out?

That may work for you but when I see rightwingers care as much for born children as they do for unborn children, I may begin to listen a little more to what they have to say when it comes to their health and welfare.

Obviously your definition of "care" is different than those nasty rightwingers you are pontificating about.

I "care" a lot. But I respect YOU enough not to "care" with YOUR money. I "care" with my own money and firmly believe that each individual American (due to his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) should be left free to "care" for others as they see fit.

We can't all be leftists believing that compassion is even remotely defined by how much of your fellow citizens' money can be spent without their approval for our personal charity/social micromanaging.

Pretty much the same goes for old people. "You fucked up" seems to be mantra for old people that are in trouble of any kind. That pretty much says it all. In a nutshell.

You have your whole life to plan for your golden years. If you do stupid, you pay the stupid tax. That's what we call "reality" and "consequences".

Sometimes, people legitimately are victims of tough luck. And there are plenty of other people out there able and willing to help. Gubmint theft of citizens' money to pay for others is morally wrong. And what's even worse is that it actually makes the citizenry MORE callous in regards to charity and compassion because they feel that "gubmint will take care of those losers" and that they have already "paid their fair share" and won't spend another dime to help.

I'm sure as heck not going to feel sorry for old people (or any fool) that wasted their lifetime opportunities and prepared poorly for their future. I feel sorry for retards,innocent babies, or animals. They don't have the wherewithal or comprehension to prepare or protect for their lives. The rest of us? Responsible for our own lives. It's scary, I no. But u can do it.

[Boots]

Sorry, but when it comes to children, I'm more interested in finding solutions than casting blame or locking people up. That may work for you but when I see rightwingers care as much for born children as they do for unborn children, I may begin to listen a little more to what they have to say when it comes to their health and welfare.

Pretty much the same goes for old people. "You fucked up" seems to be mantra for old people that are in trouble of any kind. That pretty much says it all. In a nutshell.

So what is your solution when we discover malnourished kids in America?

[potter]

I "care" a lot. But I respect YOU enough not to "care" with YOUR money. I "care" with my own money and firmly believe that each individual American (due to his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) should be left free to "care" for others as they see fit.


So your entire philosophy regarding compassion rests on how much it will cost......

Don't ever have kids.......

[ECW]

So what is your solution when we discover malnourished kids in America?There are dozens of reasons that children are malnourished in America. One program could not possibly address all the causes but I will tell you that locking up parents and dumping kids into an overburdened foster care program certainly is NOT the answer.

Community groups, church groups, and some grass roots level government agencies can all be part of the answer to dealing with this problem. You have to educate parents as to good food choices and after their kids are diagnosed with malnutrition is the best time to place them is a program that teaches them what the best foods are to eat. Schools are leaning more and more towards healthy eating and if the kids are school aged the school the child attends can be brought into the mix as well.

But if any of those are too difficult to manage, then by all means, lock the parents up. It's not like we don't do enough of that in this country already.

While we're at it, we should just lock up all the old people who are malnourished as well. Toss them into prison with the rest of the miscreants.

[Gracie]

Sorry, but when it comes to children, I'm more interested in finding solutions than casting blame or locking people up. That may work for you but when I see rightwingers care as much for born children as they do for unborn children, I may begin to listen a little more to what they have to say when it comes to their health and welfare.

And You are content to keep your head in the sand and ignore a real problem that is right before your eyes. There is absolutely no excuse for malnourished children in the USA or in most developed countries. Help is available for anyone who needs it. Therefore, the parents are either ill, or feckless and criminal if their children are malnourished. If they are ill they can be give help otherwise they should be brought before the law and the children should be cared for elsewhere.

[Shanty]

Sorry, but when it comes to children, I'm more interested in finding solutions than casting blame or locking people up. That may work for you but when I see rightwingers care as much for born children as they do for unborn children, I may begin to listen a little more to what they have to say when it comes to their health and welfare.

Pretty much the same goes for old people. "You fucked up" seems to be mantra for old people that are in trouble of any kind. That pretty much says it all. In a nutshell.
I remember a liberal polemicist saying on the radio about five years ago about how the right "loves the fetus, hates the child".

[Gracie]

There are dozens of reasons that children are malnourished in America. One program could not possibly address all the causes but I will tell you that locking up parents and dumping kids into an overburdened foster care program certainly is NOT the answer.

Community groups, church groups, and some grass roots level government agencies can all be part of the answer to dealing with this problem. You have to educate parents as to good food choices and after their kids are diagnosed with malnutrition is the best time to place them is a program that teaches them what the best foods are to eat. Schools are leaning more and more towards healthy eating and if the kids are school aged the school the child attends can be brought into the mix as well.

But if any of those are too difficult to manage, then by all means, lock the parents up. It's not like we don't do enough of that in this country already.

While we're at it, we should just lock up all the old people who are malnourished as well. Toss them into prison with the rest of the miscreants.

It is not that the parents do not know. It is because they are too feckless or lazy, or drugged out or hung over to give a damn about properly feeding their kids.

[Shanty]

And You are content to keep your head in the sand and ignore a real problem that is right before your eyes. There is absolutely no excuse for malnourished children in the USA or in most developed countries. Help is available for anyone who needs it. Therefore, the parents are either ill, or feckless and criminal if their children are malnourished. If they are ill they can be give help otherwise they should be brought before the law and the children should be cared for elsewhere.
Thanks for the note of approval of our taxpayer funded social safety net.

I knew you couldn't be all hyperbole, all the time.

[Gracie]

I remember a liberal polemicist saying on the radio about five years ago about how the right "loves the fetus, hates the child".

Yes, I have noticed that you think in cliches.

[Shanty]

It is not that the parents do not know. It is because they are too feckless or lazy, or drugged out or hung over to give a damn about properly feeding their kids. Or conservative.

Just think of all the admonishions from Limbaugh and Glenn Beck that it's evil to use taxpayer's money when you're in need. It's possible that some people eschewing help when they really need it is because of ideals, too.

[Shanty]

Yes, I have noticed that you think in cliches.

No cliche can cover everything.

But they can be correct generally, sometimes.

Besides, sometimes we have to talk in cliches, otherwise our opponents on the other side of the aisle, politically, might not be able to keep up with their limited understanding of reality.

[Gracie]

Thanks for the note of approval of our taxpayer funded social safety net.

I knew you couldn't be all hyperbole, all the time.

There are not only taxpayer funded safety nets but there are local voluntarily supported food banks and local churches that do the same.

[Shanty]

There are not only taxpayer funded safety nets but there are local voluntarily supported food banks and local churches that do the same. Funny how they run short. And especially in this recession. Not completely unlike how they ran short in the 1930s.

[Gracie]

Funny how they run short. And especially in this recession. Not completely unlike how they ran short in the 1930s.

If they are running short people respond by giving more. I can see that you know nothing about this subject. Go back to your cliches.

[Shanty]

If they are running short people respond by giving more. I can see that you know nothing about this subject. Go back to your cliches. And when they don't get any more? I can see you know less, but claim to know something.

Go back to bed and keep dreaming up a Utopia that has never existed.

[Gracie]

And when they don't get any more? I can see you know less, but claim to know something.

Go back to bed and keep dreaming up a Utopia that has never existed.

We get it in our town because people donate. Everyone knows about the food bank and they would never let it run out. One hint in the newspaper or on the radio would be all it would take, although a simple phone call to a few churches would be faster. I know exactly where it is since I have been there to donate, although I usually donate through my church. We are a small town and we know what is going on.

For some reason you love to believe that people have to be miserable and that nothing can be done about it unless we remake our government into a communist workers paradise. You will always see everything in the worst possible light.

[Shanty]

We get it in our town because people donate. Everyone knows about the food bank and they would never let it run out. One hint in the newspaper or on the radio would be all it would take, although a simple phone call to a few churches would be faster. I know exactly where it is since I have been there to donate, although I usually donate through my church. We are a small town and we know what is going on.

For some reason you love to believe that people have to be miserable and that nothing can be done about it unless we remake our government into a communist workers paradise. You will always see everything in the worst possible light. Well, the difference between you and I is that I know the history of this country, where you seem to know a lot of revisionist stories from the right. The fact is that the private help, while being commendable, was insufficient during the Depression. There came a point when the needed supplies weren't being replenished by the local communities because they didn't have the means to give more. I know from my own church that it happens now.

And BTW, if you're going to lie about me, try not to associate me with communists or any such silliness. I'm not a cheap labor conservative with a penchant for turning to the Chinese to use their brand of pressure to keep the workers obedient and subservient. In fact, I'm the opposite of a cheap labor conservative and a Communist (and I guess the opposite of you, too) because I endorse the proactive approach of regular people to stand up and fight for their rights.

[Gracie]

Well, the difference between you and I is that I know the history of this country, where you seem to know a lot of revisionist stories from the right. The fact is that the private help, while being commendable, was insufficient during the Depression. There came a point when the needed supplies weren't being replenished by the local communities because they didn't have the means to give more. I know from my own church that it happens now.

If you know from your own church that it is happening now, then I hope you know that you had best be doing something about it. And don't tell me that local communities don't have the resources. Of course they do, and I do not mean the local government, but rather the people of the community.

One gets different pictures from the times of the 1930's just as the different picture of what is happening now between what I see and what you see. I see people coming forward to help more than usual and you see barren shelves in the food banks and people going hungry.

Interestingly, my mother told me that they did not suffer during the depression and that daddy always had work. They lived in Michigan. My mother in law said that times were very bad. They lived in Oklahoma. As to "official" history, it depends on whose book you read. I have learned to take many horendous stories from history with a grain of salt, since I have had decades of experience of seeing first hand how propaganda is made.

[ECW]

And BTW, if you're going to lie about me, try not to associate me with communists or any such silliness. I'm not a cheap labor conservative with a penchant for turning to the Chinese to use their brand of pressure to keep the workers obedient and subservient. In fact, I'm the opposite of a cheap labor conservative and a Communist (and I guess the opposite of you, too) because I endorse the proactive approach of regular people to stand up and fight for their rights.

A good portion of the reason that older workers have to go back to work is the dominance of cheap labor conservatives in business. They force wages down by employing illegals. They force wages down by hiring non union labor. They force wages down by out sourcing stuff once done proudly by American workers over to China where they can pay slave labor wages and get away with it.

The result is fewer jobs for older workers who can no longer compete with younger workers who get paid less due to their lack of experience. The cheap labor conservatives then complain to their republican allies in Congress who then allow foreign workers to come into the United States and further erode the labor market.

This means a reduced social security payout because of the reduced wages older workers are forced to accept just to stay employed. It all too often isn't enough to live on and the circle continues.

Interestingly, my mother told me that they did not suffer during the depression and that daddy always had work. They lived in Michigan. My mother in law said that times were very bad. They lived in Oklahoma. As to "official" history, it depends on whose book you read. I have learned to take many horendous stories from history with a grain of salt, since I have had decades of experience of seeing first hand how propaganda is made.

I had family in Michigan and they all told the same story: life was real tough then. Not enough to eat, no jobs, and even the folks in the poor house moved away because they were slowly starving to death.

I still have family there and they tell me that neighborhoods are disappearing with foreclosures and job losses. The recession we are in thanks to the previous administration's bungling of the economy may not be as bad as the Hoover Depression but it certainly ain't no picnic.

[Gracie]

A good portion of the reason that older workers have to go back to work is the dominance of cheap labor conservatives in business. They force wages down by employing illegals. They force wages down by hiring non union labor. They force wages down by out sourcing stuff once done proudly by American workers over to China where they can pay slave labor wages and get away with it.

The result is fewer jobs for older workers who can no longer compete with younger workers who get paid less due to their lack of experience. The cheap labor conservatives then complain to their republican allies in Congress who then allow foreign workers to come into the United States and further erode the labor market.

This means a reduced social security payout because of the reduced wages older workers are forced to accept just to stay employed. It all too often isn't enough to live on and the circle continues.

As far as foreign workers go, we have BOTH parties to blame for that and you saw what the conservatives did this last time when Bush and McCain, fully supported and aided by Kennedy and the Democrats tried to shove amnesty down our throats. In fact, I believe that limited success is what has persuaded conservative Americans to assert themselves now.

Foreign workers and excess immigration have hurt the American labor market, and this again has been the work of Democrats as much as Republicans. We have Ted Kennedy to thank for the beginning of this excess immigration and he continued to push it until his dying day.

This is one issue where it is the people against both of their parties. A little honesty, please, about the record of the Democratic Party in support of cheap labor. They speak with forked tongue.



I had family in Michigan and they all told the same story: life was real tough then. Not enough to eat, no jobs, and even the folks in the poor house moved away because they were slowly starving to death.

I still have family there and they tell me that neighborhoods are disappearing with foreclosures and job losses. The recession we are in thanks to the previous administration's bungling of the economy may not be as bad as the Hoover Depression but it certainly ain't no picnic.

I can assure you that the recession in Michigan is due to the idiocy of both management and the labor unions in the auto industry. This has been a long time coming and has nothing to do with the previous administration. They both deserve to be punished for their economic sins but instead we bailed them out. We are now subsidizing inneficiency and waste. Madness.

[Shanty]

If you know from your own church that it is happening now, then I hope you know that you had best be doing something about it. And don't tell me that local communities don't have the resources. Of course they do, and I do not mean the local government, but rather the people of the community. A0 what makes you think you know what I'm doing about it?
and...
B) what makes you think you know what resources are available?
and...
C) What makes you think that even if the resources are available, that they are going to make it to the private charities?

One gets different pictures from the times of the 1930's just as the different picture of what is happening now between what I see and what you see. I see people coming forward to help more than usual and you see barren shelves in the food banks and people going hungry. I see people coming forward and giving what they can. But what they can give can also have limits. And when a food bank doesn;t have enough for all that need it, what then?

Interestingly, my mother told me that they did not suffer during the depression and that daddy always had work. They lived in Michigan. My mother in law said that times were very bad. They lived in Oklahoma. As to "official" history, it depends on whose book you read. I have learned to take many horendous stories from history with a grain of salt, since I have had decades of experience of seeing first hand how propaganda is made. I'm sure you do have experience in repeating or propagating propaganda. But, I know from my own family's history that my (paternal) grandfather was out for some time from regular work that could put bread on the table. I know from my (maternal) grandparent's time back then that their marriage suffered horrendously from the time apart when my grandfather went to try to find work out of town. I know that unemployment was over 35% in Philadelphia at times during the Depression. I know that malnutrition was a regular thing for many families during that time, too.

That said, looking past our own familys' times back then, even the employed were suffering from lower wages because they had to take work from unscrupulous companies, which meant less ability to feed, clothe and shelter their families.

[ECW]

As far as foreign workers go, we have BOTH parties to blame for that and you saw what the conservatives did this last time when Bush and McCain, fully supported and aided by Kennedy and the Democrats tried to shove amnesty down our throats. In fact, I believe that limited success is what has persuaded conservative Americans to assert themselves now.

Foreign workers and excess immigration have hurt the American labor market, and this again has been the work of Democrats as much as Republicans. We have Ted Kennedy to thank for the beginning of this excess immigration and he continued to push it until his dying day.

This is one issue where it is the people against both of their parties. A little honesty, please, about the record of the Democratic Party in support of cheap labor. They speak with forked tongue.

The foreign workers I'm talking about are these. (http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=5687) Even before the recession, cheap market conservatives were using this device to import workers so they could pay them less than what an American worker would get but a small fortune for their home land. A few years of working here and they are set for life back home while a skilled American worker fills out a Target or Wal-Mart application.

I can assure you that the recession in Michigan is due to the idiocy of both management and the labor unions in the auto industry. This has been a long time coming and has nothing to do with the previous administration. They both deserve to be punished for their economic sins but instead we bailed them out. We are now subsidizing inneficiency and waste. Madness.

I can assure you that Detroit had something to do with it but then so did the mortgage industry that sold shit to consumers for years before the bottom fell out. Only Vegas is seeing more foreclosures than Michigan.