# Optical Forums > General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum >  A note to all employees

## rbaker

To All My Valued Employees, 

There have been some rumblings around the  office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you  know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges.  However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job.  What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this  country.

However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might  help you decide what is in your best interests. 

First, while it is easy  to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand  that for every business owner there is a Back Story. This back story is often  neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my  Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm  sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about  my life. 

However, what you don't see is the BACK STORY: 

I  started this company 28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot  studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living apartment was converted into an  office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the  way, would eventually employ you. 

My diet consisted of Ramen Pride  noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a  rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date.  Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friend s went out drinking and  partying. In fact, I was married to my business -- hard work, discipline, and  sacrifice. 

Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week  and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove  flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes.  Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was  trolling through the discount store extracting any clothing item that didn't  look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and  lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my  life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be  able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had. 

So, while you  physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and  then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the  office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do  not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe this company every minute of the day.  There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this  business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of  course, only see the fruits of that garden -- the nice house, the Mercedes, the  vacations... you never realize the Back Story and the sacrifices I've made.  

Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right  decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The  people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same  luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for. 

Yes,  business ownership has its benefits but the price I've paid is steep and not  without wounds. 

Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and  employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let  me tell you why: 

I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I  don't pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and  use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes  on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess  what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations  and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct  15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You  know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero.. Nada. Zilch. 

The question I  have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14  people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a  flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her  fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the  latter is the economic stimulus of this country. 

The fact is, if I  deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work  here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of  their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy.  

Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy  you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to  me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that  $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more  employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have  enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better  salaries. But you can forget it now. 

When you have a comatose man on the  verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will  bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is  at the heart of America and always has been. To re start it, you must stimulate  it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the poor of  America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could  be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep.  

So where am I going with all this? 

It's quite simple. 

If  any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and  simple.  I'll fire you.  I'll fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the  government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child's future. Frankly,  it isn't my problem any more. 

Then, I will close this company down, move  to another country, and retire.  You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that  penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work  and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.  

So, if you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it  will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country,  steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If  that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees  to worry about.... 

Signed,  THE BOSS

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *To All My Valued Employees,* 
> 
> *........................If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I'll fire you. I'll fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child's future. Frankly, it isn't my problem any more.* 
> 
> *................................My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship. * 
> 
> *................0If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about....* 
> 
> *Signed, THE BOSS*


 

rbaker.............what you just said in your post is most probably a shot right on target, from the first sentence to the last. 

It mirrors the thinking of an independent business owner.

----------


## cocoisland58

Reminds me of a time long ago at a company I worked for. Yes, the Mercedes was parked outside, yes we had seen the big house at the Christmas party. Employees, amongst themselves (this stuff feeds on itself) had gotten the idea that they were being screwed in favor of a lavish lifestyle (I call this the UAW mentality). I had been working for the company for many years and knew full well the hard work ethics and sacrifice it took to make it happen. I knew what the boss drove before the Merced and I knew what that house looked like before the remodel. This owner was actually rather humble and extremely fair and generous to his employees. So, like your letter, something needed to be done. What was done was an all-employee meeting in which the boss and his wife (co-owner) gave the history of the company and detailed what it took to get it where it was so that there was more than one store and three employees. The wife did most of the talking as the boss was a bit embarrassed and hurt that this even needed to be done. It seemed to do the trick. I hope it does for your office also. Nothing worse than political strife within the workplace. When employees fear they are going to lose their jobs they tend to circle the wagons around themselves and start making insinuations about everything without seeing the bigger picture.

----------


## Bill West

And all the people said, AMEN

----------


## DocInChina

As usual, another bullseye.

----------


## fvc2020

All I can say is 



THANK YOU...YOU ROCK:)


Christina

----------


## For-Life

Just keep something in mind.  When that mother on welfare with four kids gets her stimulus cheque, she comes to your business and spends it.  That means it is more money in your pocket.  You can cut back your taxes like crazy to create jobs, but if you do not have the revenue, it will not do much.

----------


## Fezz

Here is to you RBaker!

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

----------


## obxeyeguy

> Just keep something in mind. When that mother on welfare with four kids gets her stimulus cheque, she comes to your business and spends it. That means it is more money in your pocket. You can cut back your taxes like crazy to create jobs, but if you do not have the revenue, it will not do much.


 Seriously!  She heads to the circuit city liquidation sale to buy a flat screen. :hammer: Her and the kids are covered by the welfare program for eyewear.:bbg:

----------


## For-Life

> Seriously!  She heads to the circuit city liquidation sale to buy a flat screen. :hammer: Her and the kids are covered by the welfare program for eyewear.:bbg:


So those employees who get paid from Circuit City will come to your store and buy eyewear.  You have to see the big picture.  She gets a $500 cheque.  She goes and buys food, goodies and extras.  These companies then receive that money, so they hire more employees, so these employees have money so they go and spend it, thus those companies hire more employees.

Also, I am really starting to get sick of the whole attitude that everyone on welfare is scamming the system.  You know, have you guys seen what really goes on, or are you basing it on a few bad apples.  

I had the privledge of spending some time in the offices for the social housing in my city.  I got to see the true picture of what goes on, how people ACTUALLY spend their money and how little of it that they have, and the success stories from it.  I mean we have to stop judging a person before we walk a mile in their shoes.

----------


## RT

Not sure what this thread even remotely has to do with General Optics and Eyecare, but um.  Gee.  While we're resurrecting the Ronald Reagan era myth of the Welfare Queen, are we going to ignore the $700 billion in Government aid that just went to poor suffering businessmen?  Is there any evidence that if business taxes were cut, that Wall Street would required any less of a bailout?  Maybe if poor Bernard Madoff had received even more tax cuts over the last few years, he wouldn't have stolen billions.

The fact of the matter is that the US spends a smaller percentage of GDP on social welfare programs than in the 80's or 90's.

Here's a news flash.  Your guy lost the election.  Deal with it.

----------


## For-Life

> Not sure what this thread even remotely has to do with General Optics and Eyecare, but um.  Gee.  While we're resurrecting the Ronald Reagan era myth of the Welfare Queen, are we going to ignore the $700 billion in Government aid that just went to poor suffering businessmen?  Is there any evidence that if business taxes were cut, that Wall Street would required any less of a bailout?  Maybe if poor Bernard Madoff had received even more tax cuts over the last few years, he wouldn't have stolen billions.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that the US spends a smaller percentage of GDP on social welfare programs than in the 80's or 90's.
> 
> Here's a news flash.  Your guy lost the election.  Deal with it.


Exactly.  Did Reagan get a response with his tax cuts?  Yes, but he had to cut taxes in half to do it.  That is tremendous and cannot be repeated too often.  Who says the business will hire more staff with a tax cut.  Maybe the owner will take the tax cut for profit, as he feels that after his hard work he is entitled to do so (and probably is).  

Plus, in an economy such as the one we are going through, if a business is not making profits, it is not paying income taxes, therefore, tax cuts will not generate the wealth.

Fact is, if you give the poor the money, they spend it.  Spending creates jobs.

----------


## chip anderson

She gonna be up the creek if she goes to Circet City or gets paid there, they gone!

----------


## rbaker

Where does the $500.00 that you cited _"She gets a $500 cheque"_ come from? It comes from the egregious  taxes paid be those who spend five or more days a week with their noses to the grind stone. It comes from the labor of others. It comes from the confiscatory taxes and fees that businesses are forced to pay. 

No one, especially me, want to see the needy suffer but I do resent being forced to give my hard earned money to the lazy and the loungeabouts. And, I also resent having my hard earned money redistributed to businesses and government programs that failed and put us in the perilous position that we are in today.

What really gets my goat is the youts in the mall with the baggy arsed trousers and the backwards hats - bu thats for another post.

----------


## RT

> And, I also resent having my hard earned money redistributed to businesses and government programs that failed and put us in the perilous position that we are in today.


You mean the hard earned money you made investing in Exxon-Mobil?  Those well known philanthropists?

----------


## For-Life

> Where does the $500.00 that you cited _"She gets a $500 cheque"_ come from? It comes from the egregious  taxes paid be those who spend five or more days a week with their noses to the grind stone. It comes from the labor of others. It comes from the confiscatory taxes and fees that businesses are forced to pay. 
> 
> No one, especially me, want to see the needy suffer but I do resent being forced to give my hard earned money to the lazy and the loungeabouts. And, I also resent having my hard earned money redistributed to businesses and government programs that failed and put us in the perilous position that we are in today.
> 
> What really gets my goat is the youts in the mall with the baggy arsed trousers and the backwards hats - bu thats for another post.


You know what though, this has nothing to do with being upset with how needy the needy are.  It is about being practical.  Practicality dictates that they need this welfare or society will get poorer, and their children and grandchildren will continue to be a strain on society.  In addition, it is more efficient to give them $500 than to give it to you.

And your taxes are not that bad.  If you are paying what you said you are in taxes, then your take home has to be through the roof.  You are paying these taxes, because you benefited from societies opportunities.  If you do not have those taxes in place then less business people will gain those opportunities of benefit.  To be blunt, if those monies are not distributed, your revenues will take a hit and your business will suffer.  

You have to watch the "principle arguments."  Personally, I think there are way too many unfit parents out there.  I would like to see mechanisms that ensured that many of them would not have kids.  But what would be the result of that "principled argument"?  It would be pretty disastrous.

----------


## Jubilee

I see many families that are on welfare where the mom and in some cases, dad work. In fact I would say at least half of the medicaid families I see here are kids from families whose parents work, but at low paying, crappy benefits jobs. 

Another solid 30 % is people who are on some form of disability. 

To say everyone one of them is some sorta chump looking for a freeride is outright wrong.

In a stratified society like ours, there will always be some who have and some who don't. And to some degree this must be ok, and the way we want, cause communism and socialism is bad. So not everyone can be the greatest, and as the cost of goods, medical care, and other things goes up, more people will be left behind. 

Now I am not advocating that we all be socialists. I am just saying that if you want to be rich, you need to be able to make some concessions for the poor to keep the rest of society functioning.. and to keep you rolling in the dough. 

And remember, when you want your 99cent burger, etc.. that those prices are kept low, by paying a pittance, and several of their employees are on social welfare, though they work 40hours a week.

----------


## Johns

I've seen that letter before, although the one I saw said, "You wanted change, well when you lose your job you'll have change."

----------


## Johns

> So those employees who get paid from Circuit City will come to your store and buy eyewear.  You have to see blah, blah, blah, blan....  
> 
> I had the privledge of spending some time in the offices for the social housing in my city.  I got to see the true picture of what goes on, how people blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... we have to stop judging a person blah, blah, blah... shoes.


Rbaker,

Would it be safe to assume that country you're going to won't be Canada?:bbg:

----------


## thep

In response to rBaker...

As lab owners, we too have sacrficed much to start a company and employ 22 people. We also had to make an agonizing decision to lay off 2 people and not replace 3 that left.
I drive a car that is 15 years old and live in a house in need of repair.
My point? I feel priviledged to support 22 families, almost half of which have been with us over 10 years (8 form the day we opened).
 Yes it is a struggle some times and there are days that I would prefer not to have the responsibility. But MOST days I feel honored and blessed to work WITH our staff and can truly say that I love our customers .
 I realize that a company is not one person and thier ideas and sacrifices. It is the people who come in every day whether they mentally check in at 9:00 or noon. Heck I have days that I am simply a physical prescence.
However it IS the people who work in the lab that make us  who we are. Doing thier best to provide our customers with some of the best quality product, and our customers wtih an unparalled degree of customer service. Real people, real problems and a real team effort to provide you with real product.
 I thank God for the oppourtunity to make a difference in at least a few lives, the people we work with and the folks who end up wearing lenses that they produced.
 Through all the tough times, we should still be thankfull for having  a chance in the freest country in the world :bbg:

----------


## For-Life

> Rbaker,
> 
> Would it be safe to assume that country you're going to won't be Canada?:bbg:


lol

Yeah, Canada is definitely not the place for economic libertarians.

----------


## For-Life

> I've seen that letter before, although the one I saw said, "You wanted change, well when you lose your job you'll have change."


that is old fear tactics used by the right wing.  Funny thing, with taxes higher, unemployment was lower during the Clinton years than the Bush ones.

----------


## Johns

> Not sure what this thread even remotely has to do with General Optics and Eyecare, but um.  Gee.


Because for some of us, General Optics and Eyecare are not course subjects at a community college, but the way we make our living.  Since there is no, "Eyecare Business" area, this is the place to post this.

This thread was not political. It was simply the perspective of anyone who's ever run a business, and actually understands the long-term ramifications of trying to tax businesses as a way to get out of a recession (soon to be a depression).  But don't take my word for it, grab an _unrevised_ history book, and read it for yourself. This has all been played out before; just different characters today.

Google "store closings" and see how many of the "too large to fail" companies are gone, done, CLOSED.

I could have easily written that letter, with the exception that I don't have the trappings (cars, homes, etc..) of luxury that that owner has.  Why? because I've been frugal and reinvested in my company, with the hope of simply being able to provide for my family, as well as the families of my employees.

It's amazing (but not surprising) how some try to turn everything into a "us -vs- them" argument.

I'm pretty sure that this letter is fictitious, but don't think for a moment that its' elements are not very real, and conversations like this aren't taking place around our country.  I know of business owners that have paid their dues, fought hard to build wealth through hard work,  and rather than risk losing all or most of it to taxes and forced social programs, and government regulations, are cashing out, and moving out.

----------


## OpticianVlad

Taxes and bailouts suck.

If people who shop at your location are not stimulated to do so, then your business will suffer and your employees will be let go anyway.

What's to say if you get a tax cut you'll spend it on your business and not stuff the money under your mattress?

For example, the bank bail-outs.  Federal government loaned money to banks to help ease the lending freeze, and the banks haven't loaned any of it out.  This is what is turning them away from this approach to a bail-out.  

But I agree that a stimulus is not an answer either.  Anyone who gets a $500 check is probably going to pay off a credit card specially after the holiday season, not buy glasses.

I think they should leave everything alone.  Let the economy self adjust.  It's the capitalist way.

----------


## For-Life

> Because for some of us, General Optics and Eyecare are not course subjects at a community college, but the way we make our living.  Since there is no, "Eyecare Business" area, this is the place to post this.
> 
> This thread was not political. It was simply the perspective of anyone who's ever run a business, and actually understands the long-term ramifications of trying to tax businesses as a way to get out of a recession (soon to be a depression).  But don't take my word for it, grab an _unrevised_ history book, and read it for yourself. This has all been played out before; just different characters today.
> 
> Google "store closings" and see how many of the "too large to fail" companies are gone, done, CLOSED.
> 
> I could have easily written that letter, with the exception that I don't have the trappings (cars, homes, etc..) of luxury that that owner has.  Why? because I've been frugal and reinvested in my company, with the hope of simply being able to provide for my family, as well as the families of my employees.
> 
> It's amazing (but not surprising) how some try to turn everything into a "us -vs- them" argument.
> ...



The question is, without these social programs that have helped improve the US, would these businesses have done as well.  I strongly believe they would not have.  If part of society is left behind, then the leaders in that society will be limited in their potential.

----------


## Johns

> that is old fear tactics used by the right wing.  Funny thing, with taxes higher, unemployment was lower during the Clinton years than the Bush ones.



Yeah, I guess you're right.  

I think I'll go down to the unemployment line on Tuesday and tell all those folks that they're really not unemployed, they're just the victim of scare tactics.:o

I've refrained from mentioning politics because I don't give a horse's **** who's in Washington.  Nobody's going to fix this.  Let me say that again.

*NOBODY'S GOING TO FIX THIS!*

There is no button to push, no magic plan, no formula to work.  Was it an "anti-stimulus" plan that got us into this?  No, it was stupid people (unless you have a better term for them) that bought houses they couldn't afford, using money that shouldn't have been loaned, and now they want the government (the banks and the people) to bail them out.  Yeah, that'll help!  Like it's already been posted, "What happened to the banks bailout money?"  Ok, so let's try it on the people now.

I can't count the number of people that have said that 2009 is going to be a great year, because it can't be worse than 2008.  I'll bet that's the same thing folks said after the first year of the Great Depression.  Don't think it can get worse? Just raise the taxes on the remaining businesses and see  just how bad it WILL get.

Here's some more "fear mongering".  Note that this is not from an e-mail, but from RIS, a retail trade site that many of us follow:

http://www.risnews.com/ME2/dirmod.as...=Publishing&mo

----------


## Johns

> The question is, without these social programs that have helped improve the US, would these businesses have done as well.


For instance?  

Sure, there's a Medicaid Mill OD, down the street that wouldn't be doing as good, but I don't know about most businesses in general.

----------


## For-Life

> Yeah, I guess you're right.  
> 
> I think I'll go down to the unemployment line on Tuesday and tell all those folks that they're really not unemployed, they're just the victim of scare tactics.:o
> 
> I've refrained from mentioning politics because I don't give a horse's **** who's in Washington.  Nobody's going to fix this.  Let me say that again.
> 
> *NOBODY'S GOING TO FIX THIS!*
> 
> There is no button to push, no magic plan, no formula to work.  Was it an "anti-stimulus" plan that got us into this?  No, it was stupid people (unless you have a better term for them) that bought houses they couldn't afford, using money that shouldn't have been loaned, and now they want the government (the banks and the people) to bail them out.  Yeah, that'll help!  Like it's already been posted, "What happened to the banks bailout money?"  Ok, so let's try it on the people now.
> ...



are you trying to tell me that this whole recession is due to high tax rates?  Give me a break.

And don't forget the weak regulations that allowed banks to loan out money that they did not have.  

But what really gets me is people keep saying that taxpayers make the best decisions and therefore the government should put the money in taxpayers hands to make their decisions with it.  Then when the economy takes a hit, everyone blames taxpayers, calls them "idiots" and do not want to help them now.  

This is why tax dollars are used to protect the system so that mistakes are not as damaging.

----------


## For-Life

> For instance?  
> 
> Sure, there's a Medicaid Mill OD, down the street that wouldn't be doing as good, but I don't know about most businesses in general.


John, please look at the big picture.  It is not just about medicaid or one purchase.

Think of it this way.  You have one integrated society with everyone doing relatively the same.  Over time, the smart ones will do better than the lazy or weaker ones.  So now you have a separation of wealth, which is fine.  Then the next generation comes along.  You have the kids with wealthier parents who have the opportunity to get a proper education and live because they have health care dollars.  With the poorer group, a small percentage works really hard and can make it to the top, but it is still a small percentage.

The next generation then comes around.  Since talent and desire is not bought with money, you have some lazy rich people that drop off from the wealthier group.  From the poorer group, the children have no ability to move forward, because all of the part time jobs in the World cannot provide them with enough money for their education.

So as you move forward with every generation, the poor group grows larger and the wealthier group shrinks due to attrition.  The economy becomes a shell of itself and the society shatters.


See, this is the problem with the economic libertarian view.  It does not take into consideration anything but today.  You have to ask yourself "what are the long term effect of these decisions."  I challenge you to think hard and deeply as a devil's advocate of the other side.  What will happen if you remove these programs and how much economic dollars will be removed from the economy.


Yes, your business may not have any poorer or welfare clients.  But that grocery store owner who bought 6 pairs from you last year does.

----------


## Johns

> are you trying to tell me that this whole recession is due to high tax rates?  Give me a break.
> 
> And don't forget the weak regulations that allowed banks to loan out money that they did not have.  
> 
> But what really gets me is people keep saying that taxpayers make the best decisions and therefore the government should put the money in taxpayers hands to make their decisions with it.  Then when the economy takes a hit, everyone blames taxpayers, calls them "idiots" and do not want to help them now.  
> 
> This is why tax dollars are used to protect the system so that mistakes are not as damaging.


No, I didn't say that at all.  Read right below the large print.  I mentioned taxes to say that raising them will only add to the problem.  

It's like a  doctor telling an overweight person that because they are so heavy their heart is being overworked.  So, we're going to take out your heart!:o

And...

The welfare folks mentioned in the original letter are not taxpayers. (Or are they taxing welfare benefits now?) They are not contributing to the country in terms of taxes.  I'm not going to get into a discussion (I guess I already am) as to what contribution they are making to society, but that's for another forum that I no longer frequent.

----------


## rbaker

> Rbaker,
> 
> Would it be safe to assume that country you're going to won't be Canada?:bbg:


You can say that again. My family left Canada in 1908, just as soon as grandfather learned how to read road signs. He brought his new bride the the USA - the land of freedom and opportunity.

----------


## For-Life

> No, I didn't say that at all.  Read right below the large print.  I mentioned taxes to say that raising them will only add to the problem.  
> 
> It's like a  doctor telling an overweight person that because they are so heavy their heart is being overworked.  So, we're going to take out your heart!:o
> 
> And...
> 
> The welfare folks mentioned in the original letter are not taxpayers. (Or are they taxing welfare benefits now?) They are not contributing to the country in terms of taxes.  I'm not going to get into a discussion (I guess I already am) as to what contribution they are making to society, but that's for another forum that I no longer frequent.


Obama has said that he is holding off the tax increase until the recession is over (as people keep talking about him raising taxes, I am sure that is what is being alluded too).

But keep something in mind, the US right now has too much debt.  Now, you can solve part of it through smart cut backs on spending, but at the end of the day, you guys will have to pay more taxes.  There has to be a revenue generator to balance the economy.  It sucks, but it is something that is necessary.  

Now you can argue that cutting welfare will help, but keep in mind that if welfare helps these individuals get jobs, then they will be paying taxes and THUS, it will help bring in that revenue that is needed.  


As for Obama's and the Dem tax plan.  It is not my ideal plan, but it is better than what has been presented by the other side.

----------


## For-Life

> You can say that again. My family left Canada in 1908, just as soon as grandfather learned how to read road signs. He brought his new bride the the USA - the land of freedom and opportunity.


FYI - Canada is also the land of freedom and opportunity ;)

I have done very well for myself and will continue to do so.  I love my country just like you love yours.  :)

----------


## Johns

> John, please look at the big picture.  It is not just about medicaid or one purchase.


You are absolutely correct. It's not.  And I don't think I've read anywhere here, where anyone is advocating stopping these programs.  They are out of control programs that are not going to go away, and we all know it. My biggest beef w/all that is that many of them are potential taxpayers that are not only not contributing, but are bleeding the system.

The problem is, that raising the taxes will put even more of a burden on businesses (not just small, but all), and will eventually result in fewer taxpayers.  How smart is that?

----------


## obxeyeguy

> this is why tax dollars are used to protect the system so that mistakes are not as damaging.


roflmao!

----------


## For-Life

> You are absolutely correct. It's not.  And I don't think I've read anywhere here, where anyone is advocating stopping these programs.  They are out of control programs that are not going to go away, and we all know it. My biggest beef w/all that is that many of them are potential taxpayers that are not only not contributing, but are bleeding the system.
> 
> The problem is, that raising the taxes will put even more of a burden on businesses (not just small, but all), and will eventually result in fewer taxpayers.  How smart is that?


A few years ago I studied labour economics.  We spent two weeks on welfare reform.  What we found is that pretty much every reform attempted has failed.  So while the current system is not perfect, it is probably the best one available at the moment.

----------


## Johns

[quote]this is why tax dollars are used to protect the system so that mistakes are not as damaging.[quote]




> roflmao!




Yeah, I didn't even understand a little of that?  

Tax dollars protect the system?

I'm not even going to try to understand that one...:o:hammer::shiner: :cry:

----------


## For-Life

> roflmao!


You don't like that.  Well then make the decision.  Are individuals best capable at deciding what they should do to provide their own health care, education, and social programs (even though many that fall into this are under 18 and never had time to save up for it) or are individuals making too many bad decisions?

Take health care.  I have heard too many times that these individuals who do not buy insurance are not protecting themselves.  But then I also hear from the same political line that these individuals are best prepared to make their own health care decisions.

So which one is it?

----------


## For-Life

[quote=Johns;280276][quote]this is why tax dollars are used to protect the system so that mistakes are not as damaging.


> Yeah, I didn't even understand a little of that?  
> 
> Tax dollars protect the system?
> 
> I'm not even going to try to understand that one...:o:hammer::shiner:


They protect the system through smart regulation (there is over-regulation and bad regulation too, but there should be an attempt to minimize it).  They protect the system through mechanisms like Employment Insurance, Welfare, Disability, Pension and so forth.  So when someone falls on tough times, they can take the time to get on their feet and then move forward.

----------


## Johns

> To All My Valued Employees, 
> 
> There have been some rumblings around the  office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you  know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges.  However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job.  What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this  country.
> 
> However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might  help you decide what is in your best interests. 
> 
> First, while it is easy  to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand  that for every business owner there is a Back Story. This back story is often  neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my  Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm  sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about  my life. 
> 
> However, what you don't see is the BACK STORY: 
> ...



It is what it is, and I think it echoes the thoughts of most business owners.

----------


## Uilleann

So lower taxes on business owners - then raise minimum wages.

Easy.  More money in the pockets of the people that need to spend it.

----------


## rbaker

> So lower taxers on business owners - then raise minimum wages.
> 
> Easy.  More money in the pockets of the people that need to spend it.


I haven't been around for the past few years but, don't most employees in the optical business earn at a level somewhat above minimum wage?

In the good old days, most small businesses would reinvest any tax savings in their business (hiring new employees and paying higher wages) but with the present socialist mindset that we see on this thread, why bother. Profits are a bad thing.

----------


## Jubilee

The problem is that many owners don't think in the same terms as the ones here on this board.

Employees cost a lot of money. More than what they get paid. Even more true if you have benefits.

So while some people would invest those tax savings into improving their business and hiring more people, many don't. Or they hire people, just at a wage of 8-9 dollars and hour that don't pay enough to be able to afford insurance or a place to live after paying for daycare.

Its called the working poor. 

Then there are the major corporations that aren't being ran by the guys who created the business. They are there collecting fat checks for running businesses into the ground..

Many people I know losing their homes here bought what they thought they could afford. They were told you can do it, the payment was less than 30% of their take home, which is a criteria many financial analysts use to determine affordability. Then they are laid off, company closes, placed on a rotation of "unpaid vacation" .. hours cuts.. and all of sudden their income drops by 25% or more, and then they start hurting and having trouble.

Of course many of these people were talked into ARMs and second mortgages to pay off other debt, and various things to put them closer to that edge..

I still think instead of that money going to the banks, it should have went back to the people. Who in turn could have used it to get caught up, and reintroduced it back into the system.

$500 ain't going to do it.

----------


## chip anderson

How have the social programs helped?  Other than create  large portion of society dependent on them and voting to preserve them?   A society that when it gets too old for medicaid and food assistance turns to crime?

----------


## For-Life

> I haven't been around for the past few years but, don't most employees in the optical business earn at a level somewhat above minimum wage?
> 
> In the good old days, most small businesses would reinvest any tax savings in their business (hiring new employees and paying higher wages) but with the present socialist mindset that we see on this thread, why bother. Profits are a bad thing.


Which old days are that?  I have heard the complete opposite.

----------


## For-Life

> How have the social programs helped?  Other than create  large portion of society dependent on them and voting to preserve them?   A society that when it gets too old for medicaid and food assistance turns to crime?


Actually it has moved a large deal of individuals OFF of dependency.  Go back to my generations post as an example.  

By providing one poor person a lift, you give them a chance to clean up and get a good job.  If they have kids, their kids will be better off and then their grandchildren will be better off.

Is there abuse?  Of course, there is abuse in every system.  But it is nothing even close to what is pushed forth here.  Like I said, a mile in someone's shoe. 


Here is the thing.  Here, on welfare, I would make $8500 a year.  That is a fact.  Yes, it is tax free, but that barely makes a difference.  Yes, it comes with some minimal health things, like glasses, but that is minimal and only applies if I need glasses.  Plus, it is not money, so it is not like I even would be driven to get it.  I do get subsidized housing, but again, it does little to pay the bills.  Once you take care of my heat, telephone, and food, I got nothing left over at the end of the day.  I got no investments, no fun, nothing.

Now, why would I do that when I could go out there and make so much more?  Do I pay quite a bit more on taxes than on welfare?  Of course, but my disposable income is much higher too.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Now, why would I do that when I could go out there and make so much more?*


See the hat and coat check lady at my favorite restaurant.

She is not on the pay roll and takes only tips..............and makes anything between $ 80.00 to 150.00 per evening 5x a week.

Besides that she has been and still is on welfare for over 30 years.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *So lower taxers on business owners - then raise minimum wages.*
> 
> *Easy. More money in the pockets of the people that need to spend it.*


Having had close to 100 employees in my previous business......................each time the government raised the minimum wage, there was a near revolution.

The 2or 3 apprentices on minimum wage got more, then the ones on the next pay scale also wanted more and on and on. 

The raising of the minimum always ended up raising everybody's pay and consequently cost the business a lot more.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship. 
> 
> So, if you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about.... 
> 
> Signed, THE BOSS


It's the ultimatum that gets me,  steamrolled the constitution , the ast 8 years have seen some of the most proposterous strikes at our constitution and no on eblinked an eye.  The reality of the situation is that this administration is running on one premise "HOPE" rather than the last 8 which was "FEAR", I'm all for that some of the poicies will flop for sure and some will succed for sure.  As an american you owe it to your president to give it a chance otherwise we are destined to fail and all you get is a I told you so at teh expense of the country.

Business taxes going up isn't a good idea for the moment, btu if dick bumps like the one in the letter really close down their businesses then someone else can step in their place and that's called opportunity.  It's only gonn aget tougher and I am making my plans for the futuer as if my job were in jepordy, plan for the worst and you shoudl be OK, but I am also optimistic and see opportunities around every corner right now.  I am glad this business owner is ready to giv up it's better fo him to give up then the rest of america, some of these large corporations have cheated payign taxes through every loop hole possible and it has stiffled small businesses to the point where no one can compete.  I see large businesses going out of business more than the small ones RIGHT NOW.  I am sure it will effect the small businesses as well, btu when the dust clears maybe we'll have more small businesses and we'll have more opportunity.  Who knows what the future holds but I'm gonna ride the bull by the horns.

----------


## Johns

> So lower taxers on business owners - then raise minimum wages.
> 
> Easy.  More money in the pockets of the people that need to spend it.


Not that it wouldn't have gone up some anyway, but is it not interesting that unemployment went even higher after the raise (again) in the min. wage? :Confused: 

Just a thought...

----------


## HarryChiling

> Having had close to 100 employees in my previous business......................each time the government raised the minimum wage, there was a near revolution.
> 
> The 2or 3 apprentices on minimum wage got more, then the ones on the next pay scale also wanted more and on and on. 
> 
> The raising of the minimum always ended up raising everybody's pay and consequently cost the business a lot more.


You know my father came to this country and worked for a garment manufacturer large label and then suddenly the companies costs went up and they had to scale back, with fewer employees they weren't able to keep up with the work load that they had and lost a few contracts, and of course business being business they screwed the little guys that weren't buying quantity, my father bought some of the equipment from the manufacturer in their fire sale, took those contracts for those smaller vendors that couldn't purchae in volume and me and all of sudden he was in business for himself.

I watched AZ beat Philly last night and the same thing happened, a team that plays aggressive after gaining a great lead starts to play a little more conservative and try to maintainthat lead, but in doing so they allowed the competitor to catch up a bit, when they needed to they kicked it up a notch and now they are going to the Super Bowl, America is going to have to kick it up a notch on everyone businesses and individuals alike int he coming years and guess what if your not a Super Bowl caliber company then you'll have to scale back and let other get a chance to play the field.  As everyone here keeps mentioning this is the land of FREEDOWM AND OPPORTUNITY, let someone else have a turn at it or bring your A game.

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

> To All My Valued Employees, 
> 
> There have been some rumblings around the  office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you  know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges.  However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job.  What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this  country.
> 
> However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might  help you decide what is in your best interests. 
> 
> First, while it is easy  to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand  that for every business owner there is a Back Story. This back story is often  neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my  Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm  sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about  my life. 
> 
> However, what you don't see is the BACK STORY: 
> ...


So I guess you've had enough of Bush's policies then.

So much for love it or leave it, huh?

----------


## EdgeOptical

> In the good old days, most small businesses would reinvest any tax savings in their business (hiring new employees and paying higher wages)


 
that would be ideal wouldnt it?

but given your regurgitated email, the owner feels he is owed something from his past sacrifice and all his hard work... so why would he reinvest or do anything more to help out his employees that he has sacrificed so much for?

just within that "story" the owner goes from a self sacrificing person willing to do whatever it takes to succeed until he has gotten there... then its no going back. 

yeah, i believe in that example he would be more then happy to give anything back to anyone. 


nope

----------


## Uilleann

> Not that it wouldn't have gone up some anyway, but is it not interesting that unemployment went even higher after the raise (again) in the min. wage?
> 
> Just a thought...


I can only expect that it's because the "raise" was years overdue in the first place, to say nothing of the fact even at it's new level it's still not even in the same universe as the reality of a livable wage.  Unless you're making an hourly of at LEAST the low to mid teens you simply can't afford housing, energy, transportation, food, etc. from week to week.  If you need anything frivolous like childcare or medical/dental/vision benefits - add another 5+ per hour to be viable.

As it stands now, the Fed min wage will skyrocket to a whopping: $7.25  _Next July_.  Although there are several states with lower allowances in the $5 range, and one (Kansas) that is barely above $2.  In fairness, there are also several states with minimums in the $8 range, but that is as high as it gets.  However - NONE of these wages are livable in a realistic setting.

There's been talk for years of course about minimum not keeping pace with basic inflation and cost of living increases nationwide.  And so it goes.  One always hopes that their medical professionals are paid enough that they can live - and most of us have put in enough of our time, effort and determination to warrant a fair amount over and above minimum wage I gather.

Interestingly enough, I have only been offered health benefits twice in my career as part of a compensation package, and both times the plans and carriers chosen were so expensive I would have had to use 20-40% of my monthly income just to pay premiums.  Not really a "benefit" that was useful in any sense.  :(

All that being said, I'm not sure why unemployment is higher now or if there is any direct correlation to the soon to be increase in the federal minimum wage.  Perhaps things will improve on that front, but as it stands now, minimum wage is a policy joke.  It simply isn't viable as a means to survive in our country.

----------


## chip anderson

Note: Raising the minimum wage without a tax cut is raising expense.  Raising wages with a tax cut might actually be an ecconomical move as you can keep more skilled employees.   No advantage to hiring McDonalds castoffs at higher wages, they are still worthless no matter what you pay them.

----------


## tmorse

> ...McDonalds castoffs...,  they are still worthless no matter what you pay them.


No man is completely worthless... he can always serve as a bad example.:bbg:

----------


## LilKim

*Incompetent Staff Feels Underappreciated
*

The employees of Winthrop Media waste another day *****ing about how they're undervalued.

KNOXVILLE, TN—Taking a break from surfing the web, going out for multiple cups of coffee, and missing important work deadlines, employees at Winthrop Media complained once again Monday about being taken for granted. 

"I come in almost every day, bust my hump for like four or five hours, and what do I get? Nothing," said Tom Bertram, one of several chronic underachievers employed by the Knoxville advertising firm. "You'd think management could show us a little appreciation now and again. It's not like I particularly enjoy just sitting around here all day." 

Bertram then returned to his computer's web browser, logged out of Facebook, and hurriedly responded to 14 work e-mails that had accumulated in his in-box.

According to sources, the 36-year-old isn't the only incompetent employee on staff who feels undervalued. Joseph Garten, a production designer, notorious procrastinator, and all-around liability, said that he wished he got more respect around the office. 

"A simple thank-you from the higher-ups would be nice," said Garten, who spends nearly 60 percent of his workweek making personal calls from his desk. "Yesterday I stayed late in order to finish up some work I've been putting off, and nobody even noticed." 

Added Garten, "I don't know how much longer I can keep killing myself like this." 

In addition to receiving praise for their hard work, the inept and often neglectful staff members said they'd like to see a number of new incentives introduced. Among them, a larger and more comfortable break room where employees can go unwind, longer extensions on overdue projects, and the option of working from home on Fridays and possibly also Mondays. 

"This place would fall apart without me," said routinely absent project coordinator Susan McIntyre. "I'm the only one around here who actually knows how to use the popcorn maker, and I almost always remember to wash my mug in the sink after I'm done using it. Plus, I show up to meetings only like a minute or two late." 

"Honestly now," McIntyre continued. "They're lucky I just don't pack up my things and leave." 

Despite feelings of frustration, employees at the design firm have yet to bring their misplaced concerns and unfounded complaints directly to management. Instead, many choose to air their grievances by making passive-aggressive comments beneath their breath, setting aside important assignments in favor of reading gossip columns, and sneaking out several times each week to grab a "much- deserved drink." 

"Our Christmas party this year was the last straw for me," said Deborah Castor, whose early departures to attend a scrapbooking class have resulted in the advertising firm losing two separate clients. "Some crappy Secret Santa thing, a bowl of punch, and a box of Archway cookies and they call it a holiday bash? We're the heart and soul of this company, for Christ's sake."

While no one has come forward as of yet, management at Winthrop Media is reportedly aware of its employees' reticence to work and prepared to take action.

"We've already tried buying everyone lunch and handing out big bonuses, but so far nothing's worked," company president Harvey Dunn said. "I wish I could just fire the entire staff for being so incompetent, but between going on vacation and running around trying to buy a second home, I'm really only in the office a couple of days a year."

----------


## For-Life

They are probably incompetent because the boss takes the approach that they will be incompetent.  People rise to your expectations.  If you expect horrible staff, you will get horrible staff.

----------


## Johns

> Perhaps things will improve on that front, but as it stands now, minimum wage is a policy joke.  It simply isn't viable as a means to survive in our country.


It would be a joke to think that minimum wage is supposed to be a living wage.  I would think that a lower wage would be an incentive to get out of that situation and better themselves.  I always thought that minimum wage jobs were stepping stones to better pay.

I worked minimum wage at Helriegels restaurant in Painesville, Ohio.  I bussed tables and made  $2.90 an hour.  I hated it, and after 3 weeks, told to owner that I would quit unless he trained me to cook and help out the "chefs".  He did, and I got a raise to $3.25.  It was nice, and the job was better, but it was still bad enough to make me realize that I didn't want to do it for the rest of my life. (Was $6,500 supposed to be enough to support a family in 1979?)

I'm a white guy, so I couldn't qualify for the United Negro College Fund, and my parents had 7 kids, so they weren't about to pay for college. I didn't get grades good enough to get a scholarship, so I joined the service, and when I got out (there was no boot-strap program in the 80's) paid cash for my schooling. (Oh and worked a few slightly above min. wage jobs while in school)

Minimum wage a living wage, it never has been, and I hope it never will.  If we pay the very least skilled of the labor pool the same wages as those of skilled workers, what incentive would there be to move up?

----------


## For-Life

> It would be a joke to think that minimum wage is supposed to be a living wage.  I would think that a lower wage would be an incentive to get out of that situation and better themselves.  I always thought that minimum wage jobs were stepping stones to better pay.
> 
> I worked minimum wage at Helriegels restaurant in Painesville, Ohio.  I bussed tables and made  $2.90 an hour.  I hated it, and after 3 weeks, told to owner that I would quit unless he trained me to cook and help out the "chefs".  He did, and I got a raise to $3.25.  It was nice, and the job was better, but it was still bad enough to make me realize that I didn't want to do it for the rest of my life. (Was $6,500 supposed to be enough to support a family in 1979?)
> 
> I'm a white guy, so I couldn't qualify for the United Negro College Fund, and my parents had 7 kids, so they weren't about to pay for college. I didn't get grades good enough to get a scholarship, so I joined the service, and when I got out (there was no boot-strap program in the 80's) paid cash for my schooling. (Oh and worked a few slightly above min. wage jobs while in school)
> 
> Minimum wage a living wage, it never has been, and I hope it never will.  If we pay the very least skilled of the labor pool the same wages as those of skilled workers, what incentive would there be to move up?


Hence, this is why we need social programs.  

Our University here is expensive, but it is compensated enough that someone can work a part time job and work the long hours of school.  They earn a degree and do it through hard work.  

My parents never paid for my Uni and I did not receive many grants.  I earned it.  I worked one to three jobs when doing it, and when I did my masters I spent a legit 90 hours a week either doing school work or at my job.  *But the big thing is it was within my grasp*.  I can say that anyone here, whether rich or poor can find a way to get a University Degree or College Diploma.  This is how you help society succeed.

See where I am coming from now?  It is not about handing it to people.  You hand it to them, they will not appreciate it.  It is about making them earn it, but at the same time, make it realistic that they can do it.  

If it is out of their reach, then that part of society will never improve.

----------


## chip anderson

A Legacy passed down for Generations 
I "DEMANDS" my "RIGHTS".....................Sharon Jasper has been victimized.? Sharon Jasper has been rabidly wronged. She has become a Section 8 care case -- the victim of ever changing public housing policies.Sharon Jasper has spent 57 of her 58 years dedicated to one cause and one cause only, and has nothing to show for her dedicated servitude.? She has lived in Section 8 housing all but 1 of her 58 years.? It was a legacy passed down from her parents who moved into Section 8 housing in 1949 when she was six months ol <<ATT12199573.jpg>> d.? She has passed the legacy down to her children, but fears they may have to get jobs to pay for the utilities and deposits.She laments about her one year hiatus from the comfort of her Section 8 nirvana, ' I tried it for a year -- you know, working and all.? It's not anything I would want to go through again, or wish on anyone in my family, but I am damn proud of that year.'Sharon was moved out of her St. Bernard housing project after hurricane Katrina and into a new, yet albeit, substandard quarterage.? As can be noted from the above photo of her new Section 8 home, it is repugnant and not suitable for someone of Sharon Jasper's seniority status in the system.? 'Don't be fooled by them hardwood floors,' says Sharon. 'They told me they were putting in scraped wood floors cause it was more expensive and elegant, but I am not a fool -- that was just a way to make me take scratched up wood because I am black.? The 60 inch HD TV?? It may look nice but it is not a plasma.? It's not a plasma because I'm black.? Now they want me to pay a deposit and utilities on this dump.' 'Do you know why?'She has held her tongue in silence through the years of abuse by the system, but it came to a head at the New Orleans city council meeting where discussions were under way about the tearing down of the St. Bernard projects.? When a near riotous exchange between groups opposing the tearing down of St. Bernard and groups wanting the dilapidated buildings torn down and newer ones built, Sharon unleashed verbal hell with her once silenced tongue.? The object of her oratory prowess was an acquiescent poor white boy in attendance.? The context of her scathing rebuke was, 'Just because you pay for my house, my car, my big screen and my food, I will not be treated like a slave!' and 'Back up and Shut up!? Shut up, white boy!? Shut up, white boy!'Recapping from the mental log of the city council minutes in her head, Sharon repines, 'Our families have been displaced all over the United States.? They are being forced to commit crimes in cities they are unfamiliar with.? It is a very uncomfortable situation for them.? Bring them back, then let's talk about redevelopment.'?? Sharon directs the reporter's attention across the street to Duncan Plaza where homeless people are living in tents and states that, 'I might do better out there with one of these tents.'? She further lamented her sentiments about her situation, 'I might be poor, but I don't have to live poor.'Any wonder why this country is in the shape it is??????? 

The origional E. Mail I received this in had a number of picuture showing this lady and her new house, and trust me even the most properous amoung us would be quite proud to possess such a house.

----------


## FullCircle

> A Legacy passed down for Generations 
> I "DEMANDS" my "RIGHTS"..................... Sharon Jasper has been victimized.? Sharon Jasper has been rabidly wronged. She has become a Section 8 care case -- the victim of ever changing public housing policies. Sharon Jasper has spent 57 of her 58 years dedicated to one cause and one cause only, and has nothing to show for her dedicated servitude.? She has lived in Section 8 housing all but 1 of her 58 years.? It was a legacy passed down from her parents who moved into Section 8 housing in 1949 when she was six months ol <<ATT12199573.jpg>> d.? She has passed the legacy down to her children, but fears they may have to get jobs to pay for the utilities and deposits. She laments about her one year hiatus from the comfort of her Section 8 nirvana, ' I tried it for a year -- you know, working and all.? It's not anything I would want to go through again, or wish on anyone in my family, but I am damn proud of that year.' Sharon was moved out of her St. Bernard housing project after hurricane Katrina and into a new, yet albeit, substandard quarterage.? As can be noted from the above photo of her new Section 8 home, it is repugnant and not suitable for someone of Sharon Jasper's seniority status in the system.? 'Don't be fooled by them hardwood floors,' says Sharon. 'They told me they were putting in scraped wood floors cause it was more expensive and elegant, but I am not a fool -- that was just a way to make me take scratched up wood because I am black.? The 60 inch HD TV?? It may look nice but it is not a plasma.? It's not a plasma because I'm black.? Now they want me to pay a deposit and utilities on this dump.' 'Do you know why?' She has held her tongue in silence through the years of abuse by the system, but it came to a head at the New Orleans city council meeting where discussions were under way about the tearing down of the St. Bernard projects.? When a near riotous exchange between groups opposing the tearing down of St. Bernard and groups wanting the dilapidated buildings torn down and newer ones built, Sharon unleashed verbal hell with her once silenced tongue.? The object of her oratory prowess was an acquiescent poor white boy in attendance.? The context of her scathing rebuke was, 'Just because you pay for my house, my car, my big screen and my food, I will not be treated like a slave!' and 'Back up and Shut up!? Shut up, white boy!? Shut up, white boy!' Recapping from the mental log of the city council minutes in her head, Sharon repines, 'Our families have been displaced all over the United States.? They are being forced to commit crimes in cities they are unfamiliar with.? It is a very uncomfortable situation for them.? Bring them back, then let's talk about redevelopment.'?? Sharon directs the reporter's attention across the street to Duncan Plaza where homeless people are living in tents and states that, 'I might do better out there with one of these tents.'? She further lamented her sentiments about her situation, 'I might be poor, but I don't have to live poor.'Any wonder why this country is in the shape it is??????? 
> 
> The origional E. Mail I received this in had a number of picuture showing this lady and her new house, and trust me even the most properous amoung us would be quite proud to possess such a house.


 http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/jasper.asp

It was a satirical piece.

----------


## For-Life

It is scary when we judge people based on emails or rumours or gossip or the few bad apples.  

I challenge every single one of you who believe welfare is a joke to spend some time volunteering in social housing.  I think it will open eyes.

----------


## Johns

> It is scary when we judge people based on emails or rumours or gossip or the few bad apples.  
> 
> I challenge every single one of you who believe welfare is a joke to spend some time volunteering in social housing.  I think it will open eyes.


I do. Every other Tuesday morning.  My eyes have been opened, and my stomach has been turned. The more I go there, the more disheartened I get.  I can honestly say that perhaps 30% of those I come in contact with have legitimate needs, and that is the ONLY reason I continue to do it.  


I would really enjoy having you accompany me one day.  I'm offering you a standing invitation. I don't know what things are like in your part of the world, but I can tell you they are nothing like what I see.

----------


## For-Life

> I do. Every other Tuesday morning.  My eyes have been opened, and my stomach has been turned. The more I go there, the more disheartened I get.  I can honestly say that perhaps 30% of those I come in contact with have legitimate needs, and that is the ONLY reason I continue to do it.  
> 
> 
> I would really enjoy having you accompany me one day.  I'm offering you a standing invitation. I don't know what things are like in your part of the world, but I can tell you they are nothing like what I see.


Awesome!!!

I definitely would.  I have done it here.  I spent some time, not a lot, in social housing as part of my previous job.

----------


## FullCircle

> It is scary when we judge people based on emails or rumours or gossip or the few bad apples. 
> 
> I challenge every single one of you who believe welfare is a joke to spend some time volunteering in social housing. I think it will open eyes.


I don't think welfare is a joke. What I find a joke is the number of people that use it as a way to not work. to keep themselves and their families down. Welfare was never meant to be a long term life solution, rather it was to help those that had stumbled.

This abuse of welfare dollars and even things like WIC (money for mothers and children) leaves such a bad taste in the mouths of those working.  I know of women that have abused the system and received free money for their kids simply by giving misinformation. And I have turned people in that I knew had the money and the job to be able to afford their children.  Heck, my husband and I figured out that we could afford to have children if we weren't married, I claimed residence at our neighbor's house, I filed for WIC and if I played my cards right, I'd probably be able to get state funding to go back to college and better myself (not to mention they'd help offset my childcare costs). Of course, that's not how we live our lives and we will not be doing that.

In its current state, it can be argued that welfare and certain social programs are set up to keep people down. Not by overtly pushing them down but by allowing the people to milk the system and thus keeping themselves down.

I am all for giving when and where needed but the social programs need to be reformed so that they are hand ups, not hand outs.

----------


## For-Life

> I don't think welfare is a joke. What I find a joke is the number of people that use it as a way to not work. to keep themselves and their families down. Welfare was never meant to be a long term life solution, rather it was to help those that had stumbled.
> 
> This abuse of welfare dollars and even things like WIC (money for mothers and children) leaves such a bad taste in the mouths of those working.  I know of women that have abused the system and received free money for their kids simply by giving misinformation. And I have turned people in that I knew had the money and the job to be able to afford their children.  Heck, my husband and I figured out that we could afford to have children if we weren't married, I claimed residence at our neighbor's house, I filed for WIC and if I played my cards right, I'd probably be able to get state funding to go back to college and better myself (not to mention they'd help offset my childcare costs). Of course, that's not how we live our lives and we will not be doing that.
> 
> In its current state, it can be argued that welfare and certain social programs are set up to keep people down. Not by overtly pushing them down but by allowing the people to milk the system and thus keeping themselves down.
> 
> I am all for giving when and where needed but the social programs need to be reformed so that they are hand ups, not hand outs.


So what is the solution?

----------


## Johns

> I don't think welfare is a joke. What I find a joke is the number of people that use it as a way to not work. to keep themselves and their families down. Welfare was never meant to be a long term life solution, rather it was to help those that had stumbled.
> 
> This abuse of welfare dollars and even things like WIC (money for mothers and children) leaves such a bad taste in the mouths of those working.  I know of women that have abused the system and received free money for their kids simply by giving misinformation. And I have turned people in that I knew had the money and the job to be able to afford their children.  Heck, my husband and I figured out that we could afford to have children if we weren't married, I claimed residence at our neighbor's house, I filed for WIC and if I played my cards right, I'd probably be able to get state funding to go back to college and better myself (not to mention they'd help offset my childcare costs). Of course, that's not how we live our lives and we will not be doing that.
> 
> In its current state, it can be argued that welfare and certain social programs are set up to keep people down. Not by overtly pushing them down but by allowing the people to milk the system and thus keeping themselves down.
> 
> I am all for giving when and where needed but the social programs need to be reformed so that they are hand ups, not hand outs.


Huh? You mean we agree on something?;)

----------


## Johns

> So what is the solution?


It's definitely not more of the same!

----------


## For-Life

> It's definitely not more of the same!


But like I said earlier, there have been many attempts at welfare reform and pretty much all have failed.  So really, without a proper solution and one that can offer better results, you cannot change it.  

If you just change it, you may have a situation that is far worse.

----------


## FullCircle

ahh if I knew the exact way, I probably wouldn't be sitting on an optical board. LOL

Nah, some things would be to look into a propective recipiant's credit record. They do it now for everything from jobs to apartments, why not this?  

How about a limit? 

How about taking key ideas from other countries? I know at one time, one of the european countires would decrease the amount of aid as you increased the number of children you had. 

how about taking moms that areon welfare and having them babysit the other kids in a group so more of the moms can go out and look for work or go to school?  For the one that stays behind, help her get the tools needed to set up a daycare.  The state (at least here) susidises the cost of daycare for the moms that are working (on a sliding scale)

Overall, get the people motivated to help themselves and those around them.

----------


## For-Life

> ahh if I knew the exact way, I probably wouldn't be sitting on an optical board. LOL
> 
> Nah, some things would be to look into a propective recipiant's credit record. They do it now for everything from jobs to apartments, why not this?  
> 
> How about a limit? 
> 
> How about taking key ideas from other countries? I know at one time, one of the european countires would decrease the amount of aid as you increased the number of children you had. 
> 
> how about taking moms that areon welfare and having them babysit the other kids in a group so more of the moms can go out and look for work or go to school?  For the one that stays behind, help her get the tools needed to set up a daycare.  The state (at least here) susidises the cost of daycare for the moms that are working (on a sliding scale)
> ...


There is a limit.  Five years today.  That is 1825 days (or maybe 1826).  That is not consecutive.  That is total in your lifetime.

Now if you decrease the aid per child, they will be poorer as they have more children and will not be able to provide.  Do we need kids dying of starvation?


Here are the two ideas I push.  More counseling.  Credit, employment, education counseling.  By having this support, you can provide better interaction.  However, it is more costly in the short term.  

The other idea is to diversify social housing.  Too many people live in ghettos.  The fact is, if you live and associate with bad people, you will probably be bad.  If you associate with good people, you will probably be good.  So we need to put the good people in good neighbourhoods and give them a better influence.

----------


## FullCircle

> Now if you decrease the aid per child, they will be poorer as they have more children and will not be able to provide. Do we need kids dying of starvation?


No, but I don't think they would be.  There was a program that the girlfriend of one of my techs was involved in. She had a child at a young age and the program basically gave her schooling as long as she kept it to one child.  By giving her the tools to better herself, she was able to find the love of herself and the respect of herself that she (and everyone really) needed.  On her own she came to realize that self empowerment was better than sitting at home watching tv and that she truly did owe it to her son and any future children to give them the best life she possibly could.

And diversifying housing? You'll have to do better than that. We've got that here in Chicago.  In theory, it's great. In practice, you take gangbangers, spread them over the county or counties and they start up new "satellite offices" of those gangs.  This is only one downside to the diversification.  I'd love for that to work much better than it has.

----------


## For-Life

> No, but I don't think they would be.  There was a program that the girlfriend of one of my techs was involved in. She had a child at a young age and the program basically gave her schooling as long as she kept it to one child.  By giving her the tools to better herself, she was able to find the love of herself and the respect of herself that she (and everyone really) needed.  On her own she came to realize that self empowerment was better than sitting at home watching tv and that she truly did owe it to her son and any future children to give them the best life she possibly could.
> 
> And diversifying housing? You'll have to do better than that. We've got that here in Chicago.  In theory, it's great. In practice, you take gangbangers, spread them over the county or counties and they start up new "satellite offices" of those gangs.  This is only one downside to the diversification.  I'd love for that to work much better than it has.



I am all for people using their brains before having kids, but in reality too many do not, and they will not.  That means that only extreme practices would keep it under control.

For the diversified housing, notice how I said good people in good neighbourhoods.  You would never put a gangbanger in a good neighbourhood.

----------


## FullCircle

Then who decides who's good and who isn't?  The older mom who does great things for the neighborhood kids may have a bad seed of her own. He's going with her because he's a minor.  

And if extreme practices helps, why not have a penalty for choosing to have more kids than you can afford?  

And along those lines, going after deadbeat parents with more of a vengeance would be nice too. Dude wants to make ever woman he comes into contact with a babymama, then he pays to play.  This of course goes back to education, for both men and women. Men so they focus more on how being educated and truly caring for your child(ren) is the manly thing to do and women so they know that going after babydaddy for child support has NOTHING to do with visitation.

----------


## For-Life

> Then who decides who's good and who isn't?  The older mom who does great things for the neighborhood kids may have a bad seed of her own. He's going with her because he's a minor.  
> 
> And if extreme practices helps, why not have a penalty for choosing to have more kids than you can afford?  
> 
> And along those lines, going after deadbeat parents with more of a vengeance would be nice too. Dude wants to make ever woman he comes into contact with a babymama, then he pays to play.  This of course goes back to education, for both men and women. Men so they focus more on how being educated and truly caring for your child(ren) is the manly thing to do and women so they know that going after babydaddy for child support has NOTHING to do with visitation.


they do some of it here.  The counsellors know who is good and bad by the tenants ability to pay bills, not gaining complaints against them, and generally not having problems.  You can also see the attempts made to get back on the feet.  Has worked.

----------


## chip anderson

Go to Snopes.com and see what the prime minister of Australia is proposing.  It's a start.

----------


## Johns

> I am all for people using their brains before having kids, but in reality too many do not, and they will not. 
> 
> So let's all kick in a few bucks and reward them w/a nice place to stay, food stamps, free tuition, and free medical?
> :hammer:
> 
> 
> For the diversified housing, notice how I said good people in good neighbourhoods.  You would never put a gangbanger in a good neighbourhood.


Good people in good neighborhoods?  You mean in the neighborhoods where folks go to work everyday and pay mortgages? Another great reward!!
I forgot...are we rewarding them for having babies, not working, or both? :Confused:

----------


## For-Life

> Good people in good neighborhoods?  You mean in the neighborhoods where folks go to work everyday and pay mortgages? Another great reward!!
> I forgot...are we rewarding them for having babies, not working, or both?


K, let's try this again.

It is not about the parent.  Forget about the parent.  Ok?  

It is about the OFFSPRING.  If that child suffers and follows in the same trend, then you will continue to have the problem generation after generation.  Why should the kid have to starve so that the parent be taught a lesson?

And why would you not want a good family in your neighbourhood, just because they do not make what you make?  I would rather have a good poor family in my neighbourhood than a bad rich one.    

Honestly, if you like the idea of ghettos and big poor neighbourhoods, move to some third world nation, because obviously these ghettos do not work.

----------


## Johns

> And why would you not want a good family in your neighbourhood, just because they do not make what you make?


Because it makes for bad neighborhoods.  Really, how is someone on a $15k, or $0K income going to maintain a $50 - $100K house.  Or are we (taxpayers) supposed to do that also?

----------


## For-Life

> Because it makes for bad neighborhoods.  Really, how is someone on a $15k, or $0K income going to maintain a $50 - $100K house.  Or are we (taxpayers) supposed to do that also?


It is a house that they rent, not own.  I am not advocating for giving them home ownership in the neighbourhood, just living.

And do you honestly believe poor people are bad people?  Because I would think a person being good or bad would cause their actions, not how much money they make.  If you have one poor family in a middle income neighbourhood (and if they are good people) then there will be no problems.  The more income you make does not make you a better person.  The more intelligent you are does not make you a better person.  *Your actions make you what type of person you are*.

We do not have these problems in our neighbourhoods with a mix.  We have problems in ghettos, but not in the diversified.  Actually, you would not even know they were poor just by living on the same block as them.


This is starting to get a little silly.  Right now the options pretty much being presented is to move all of the poor people to the worst part of town and remove welfare from them.  You really think that is going to work?  It certainly has not in the past and it certainly is not working in all of these third world nations (hence, why they are third world nations).

----------


## Johns

> Honestly, if you like the idea of ghettos and big poor neighbourhoods, move to some third world nation, because obviously these ghettos do not work.


I love the ideas of ghettos!  Really!

Go to the library and check out the book "The Delaney Sisters-Having Our Say"

It's the story of two sisters born in the south, in the late 1800s and their lives after moving to the ghetto of NYC.  I think it was Harlem. They tell the story of proud, black professionals who were in control of their futures, their children, and their neighborhoods.  They were among doctors, lawyers, teachers, dentists, and laborers who saw opportunity in living amongst their own people, and not something to be scorned.  They were proud and took care of their own, taking handouts only as the very last resort.  

They lived in a true ghetto, but it had no semblance to slums that our programs have created for them today.

----------


## For-Life

> I love the ideas of ghettos!  Really!
> 
> Go to the library and check out the book "The Delaney Sisters-Having Our Say"
> 
> It's the story of two sisters born in the south, in the late 1800s and their lives after moving to the ghetto of NYC.  I think it was Harlem. They tell the story of proud, black professionals who were in control of their futures, their children, and their neighborhoods.  They were among doctors, lawyers, teachers, dentists, and laborers who saw opportunity in living amongst their own people, and not something to be scorned.  They were proud and took care of their own, taking handouts only as the very last resort.  
> 
> They lived in a true ghetto, but it had no semblance to slums that our programs have created for them today.


one success story.  Review the history of harlem and ghettos.  Go check out the story of Joe Clark, the principal who had to clean up a school in the ghettos.

People will rise to the expectations set around them (how many times do I have to keep saying that, we will see).  When you give them the expectation that they are no good and are losers, that is what they will amount to.

----------


## Johns

> one success story.  Review the history of harlem and ghettos.  Go check out the story of Joe Clark, the principal who had to clean up a school in the ghettos.


No, read the book.  These ladies were surrounding by thousands of success stories. Outside forces and social programs have since made the younger generations dependent on hand-outs, and here we are today.

----------


## Johns

> This is starting to get a little silly.


No, it stopped being silly a long time ago.

It's now downright pathetic.

----------


## Judy Canty

The real solution, in my humble opinion, a good education.

----------


## Jubilee

There are many places that are working on welfare reform.
Several states have inacted policies that limit the amount of time, and the amount of cash you can receive. They also will not increase your cash assistance payment if you have more children than when you signed up.

What we need is a graduated system that doesn't "shock" you when you try to climb out. I have had people request to work FEWER hours, or have some sort of cut back so they can get the assistance. When you go from making minimum wage and getting some cash every month along with daycare, to making just a dollar more an hour and getting NOTHING, it will impact the family. Daycare is not cheap. Not every place has a public transit system, and sometimes these people swallow their pride to do what they can to make sure their children are taken care of. When earning a hundred bucks more a month means you end up fronting $300 more in costs, you are taking steps backwards. 

I know of a family where the 13 yo girl was the victim of a crime committed by the stepfather. The live in a rural area, and 5 children total were in the household. Both parents ran paper routes to help make ends meet, and the stepdad was a stay at home parent otherwise, due to disability issues.

Of course, stepdad is no longer there. There was considerable medical bills as a result of the crime. Not to mention legal fees, etc. The "system" told this family that the bills would be paid for by medicaid, or a victim's assistance fund. Told the mother that she needed to quit her paper route that took her from the home between the hours of midnight and 3am because her 17yo was not considered adequate supervision for the 7,9,13, and 16 year olds that were also in the house. Neither is it for when she leaves at 5:30 am for her factory job.

There is no daycare for children above the age of 12 here. THere is no before and after school programs that will consistantly keep ALL the children till she can get back home about 4:30pm. Those sort of resources aren't in this community, where 3 plants shut down in the past few months.

So this mom is at a crossroads. Because she took advantage of her 401k, she didn't qualify for state assistance at this point. However neither did her daughter. Her medical insurance doesn't cover the type of costs associated. To pay for all the bills, etc associated with this crime, she has taken all she can out of her 401k, and has been left with 15grand worth of stuff the system told her would be paid for but isn't. However, they are still insisting that she gives up this paper route or be found negligent. They had even at one point took the 13 yo from the home and placed her in her father's care because of their daycare concerns.

The guy who committed the crime doesn't have the ability to pay. Heck, he isn't even behind bars. Has gotten several continuances on his trial, and hasn't been forced to pay even on red cent.

What's this mother to do... What would you do?

----------


## Bill West

> There are many places that are working on welfare reform.
> Several states have inacted policies that limit the amount of time, and the amount of cash you can receive. They also will not increase your cash assistance payment if you have more children than when you signed up.
> 
> What we need is a graduated system that doesn't "shock" you when you try to climb out. I have had people request to work FEWER hours, or have some sort of cut back so they can get the assistance. When you go from making minimum wage and getting some cash every month along with daycare, to making just a dollar more an hour and getting NOTHING, it will impact the family. Daycare is not cheap. Not every place has a public transit system, and sometimes these people swallow their pride to do what they can to make sure their children are taken care of. When earning a hundred bucks more a month means you end up fronting $300 more in costs, you are taking steps backwards. 
> 
> I know of a family where the 13 yo girl was the victim of a crime committed by the stepfather. The live in a rural area, and 5 children total were in the household. Both parents ran paper routes to help make ends meet, and the stepdad was a stay at home parent otherwise, due to disability issues.
> 
> Of course, stepdad is no longer there. There was considerable medical bills as a result of the crime. Not to mention legal fees, etc. The "system" told this family that the bills would be paid for by medicaid, or a victim's assistance fund. Told the mother that she needed to quit her paper route that took her from the home between the hours of midnight and 3am because her 17yo was not considered adequate supervision for the 7,9,13, and 16 year olds that were also in the house. Neither is it for when she leaves at 5:30 am for her factory job.
> 
> ...


Having a bunch of kids without the means to provide for them. Totally irresponsible.

----------


## For-Life

> The real solution, in my humble opinion, a good education.


I agree.  Imbalanced schools where one in a richer area is better than one in a poorer area just continues the downward cycle.

----------


## For-Life

> Having a bunch of kids without the means to provide for them. Totally irresponsible.


but what can you do?  Punish the kids?  It is not the kid that is being irresponsible, it is the parent.

----------


## Jubilee

She was freaking married. She was supporting her 5 kids just fine. HOW WAS THAT IRRESPONSIBLE?!?! SHe has spent over 20K from her 401K thus far to pay off her credit cards and van. She just can't draw anymore from there without quitting her job because of the rules surrounding such investment vehicles. Losing about 15k a year in income makes a HUGE difference. 

She made ends meet. Hasn't collected a dime from social services up to this point. It was only after her spouse became a drunk and started doing things that he shouldn't do that she has found herself in this position.

CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE! Illness hits, spouses can be unfaithful or change... divorce happens and not all of it is in your control.

She was married to this guy for almost 10 years. The other three children were a product of her earlier marriage. The father there is 2 months behind in support thanks to plant where he worked at closing. 


The good Lord must have blessed you to have always had things go the way you planned.. and never had to have dealt with the people you loved dissapointing you.

I hope you say thanks every day.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Was it an "anti-stimulus" plan that got us into this? No, it was stupid people (unless you have a better term for them) that bought houses they couldn't afford, using money that shouldn't have been loaned, and now they want the government (the banks and the people) to bail them out.


Right. A handful of street and trailer trash brought down the world's financial community and economy. 




> I'm a white guy, so I couldn't qualify for the United Negro College Fund, and my parents had 7 kids


I'm working on a lens that will filter out these poor people- finally we won't have to see them anymore.

You had parents who taught you well. Luck of the draw. Don't get cocky.

----------


## Jubilee

I was listening to Dave Ramsey and other financial analysts.. the number one reason for foreclosure.... Disability.

People getting sick or injured. 

We all save, put money in IRA's and 401k's.. why.. cause we know medicare can not support us.

----------


## Fezz

> I was listening to Dave Ramsey.


I dig Dave Ramsey!

Rice and beans and beans and rice!


 :D:cheers::cheers::cheers:;)

----------


## EdgeOptical

its good to know the banks had nothing to do with the ****ty laons, they were just looking at the good in people hoping they will repay...


NO

they knew these people were risky, but were able to package and resell these craptastic loans and turn a profit. the banks pushed harder to allow these loans then anyone did, im sure most of the people were surprised to be aproved, and some of them have still been able to amke it work.

----------


## Jubilee

Love the man too! Great books, and sound advice. Even if you may not want to hear it :D

----------


## Jubilee

All this talk about being responsible... What is fiscal responsibility and what kind of income do you need to be a "good and responsible" parent?

Should people just pay CASH for everything, including cars, homes, and schooling?

Should people wanting to be parents have at least 50K in savings, no debt, and proof of some sort that they will never become ill, injured or unemployed.

Should they promise that their children will never be sick or injured so they won't ever have to take time off of work, unpaid leave or be forced to quit to care for said child?

Should they also investigate the potential grandparents.. don't want to have to risk time off to care for them either?

While some people do continue to have children when they are already in dire straits.. many do so when they are on solid ground.. that unfortunately gets hit in the hurricane of life.

How many of us waited till we had 6 months worth of expenses in the bank, enough left over for retirement and college funds, and had everything paid for before even risking getting pregnant?

I have said it once, and I will say it again. I had to be on Medicaid when I was pregnant with my son. I used WIC to get formula and healthy food after he was born. I was finishing my senior year of college and found out my insurance didn't cover pregnancy. Evidently that isn't a major medical expense.

I would like to think my life and existance is worth something. While indeed I did some irresponsible things, never doubt for a moment that I don't love my son and try to do everything in my power to take care of him and shape him into somebody that will do better than me. Some of the things I teach him are compassion, humility and generousity. We are not perfect nor can we expect others to be. However we should all help each other any way we can.

----------


## Johns

> Right. A handful of street and trailer trash brought down the world's financial community and economy. 
> 
> I'm working on a lens that will filter out these poor people- finally we won't have to see them anymore.
> 
> You had parents who taught you well. Luck of the draw. Don't get cocky.


 
If it was only a handful, there would be only a handful of folreclosures, a handful of failed banks, and an easy fix.

I did have parents who taught me, and I consider that one of the biggest blessings of my life.  Where do you get cocky from that?

----------


## Newyorkoptician

> Yeah, I guess you're right.  
> 
> I think I'll go down to the unemployment line on Tuesday and tell all those folks that they're really not unemployed, they're just the victim of scare tactics.:o
> 
> I've refrained from mentioning politics because I don't give a horse's **** who's in Washington.  Nobody's going to fix this.  Let me say that again.
> 
> *NOBODY'S GOING TO FIX THIS!*
> 
> There is no button to push, no magic plan, no formula to work.  Was it an "anti-stimulus" plan that got us into this?  No, it was stupid people (unless you have a better term for them) that bought houses they couldn't afford, using money that shouldn't have been loaned, and now they want the government (the banks and the people) to bail them out.  Yeah, that'll help!  Like it's already been posted, "What happened to the banks bailout money?"  Ok, so let's try it on the people now.
> ...




The one problem and there are many is that when the banks got the money they started hording it and won't loan it out unless your rating is 650 or better. What kind of stimulus is that? How come the banks weren't given guide lines on loaning instead of just a sum of money and they won't loan to anybody. I guess we are a little lucky because so far people around here are still buying but if they stop look out 2009 crash! I heard as you have heard that 2009 was going to be a good year but some where down the line hyper inflation would kick in and it would be a really mess.    :Eek:

----------


## HarryChiling

How about one of you geniuses fix our profession first then we'll work on the country. :hammer:

----------


## Newyorkoptician

> How about one of you geniuses fix our profession first then we'll work on the country. :hammer:



Country is easier. Profession will probable take two lifetimes and I don't have that kind of time.     :Eek:

----------


## HarryChiling

> Country is easier. Profession will probable take two lifetimes and I don't have that kind of time.


Alright so let me get this straight:
Welfare ReformSocial Securitythen OpticianryAt least we're on the agenda right.  I don't know anyone that wants to be on welfare, I know it's needed by some and abused by many, maybe this administration can evaluate this program and make changes or cuts where necessary and make improvements where necessary.

----------


## chip anderson

Why is it that everyone keeps thinking and saying that education breeds integrity, honor, and responsibility? If one is of low character, one just commits larger and more sophisticated crimes.
Look at what our politicians get into (and sometimes out of if they are rich and/or powerfull enough).   Look at what our "most successfull" lawyers (Dickie Scrugs for example) get into.  Look at the doctors committing medicare and medicaid fraud.
Education is not a way to instill good values.  I'm sorry about this but it isn't.  I suppose the theory is that if one has the capablilty of earning a good living he has no need to steal.  Sorry it just isn't so.

Chip

----------


## For-Life

> Why is it that everyone keeps thinking and saying that education breeds integrity, honor, and responsibility? If one is of low character, one just commits larger and more sophisticated crimes.
> Look at what our politicians get into (and sometimes out of if they are rich and/or powerfull enough).   Look at what our "most successfull" lawyers (Dickie Scrugs for example) get into.  Look at the doctors committing medicare and medicaid fraud.
> Education is not a way to instill good values.  I'm sorry about this but it isn't.  I suppose the theory is that if one has the capablilty of earning a good living he has no need to steal.  Sorry it just isn't so.
> 
> Chip


I don't think people are saying that it brings forth integrity and honour.  Maybe responsibility, because if people are taught fiscal responsibility, then they will be more inclined to practice them.  If students are taught sex education, then they will be more likely to avoid "mythical" techniques as forms of birth control.

I think the big thing being argued here is the more educated you are, the more successful you can be.  Not in all cases, but it is positively correlated.  If people are given poor education, then they will have troubles learning things and then have troubles in life.  Keep in mind, good work training IS education.  Many of you older opticians received great education, just not in the academic field.  


Plus, good paying jobs nowadays tend to demand higher education.

----------


## FullCircle

> Education is not a way to instill good values. I'm sorry about this but it isn't. I suppose the theory is that if one has the capablilty of earning a good living he has no need to steal. Sorry it just isn't so.


Edcation is a great way to learn things, including values.  

If you are surrounded by drugs, poverty, etc., odds are you'll grow up thinking this is all there is. That there isn't a world greater and better than the world you're currently in. So why try? Why better yourself? Why support others as they try to better themselves?

Add education to the mix and you've opened up doors to worlds that you may have never thought possible.  You learn. You're encouraged by others that have learned before you.  They see more in you than you've ever dreamed to see in yourself. Afer a while, you realize that you are smart, you are worth it and you can make a difference in your own life and maybe those around you.

Just imagine what more education could do for you, Chip.

----------


## chip anderson

You misunderstand. I am not opposed to education. I just do not believe it is a cure for crime, or general underhandedness. I also do not believe that degrees are needed for some activities and trades. I think that those on optiboards who advocate a four year degree and licensing for dispensing see it as a means of unionization.
I don't think that most crime is typical of that in JeanValjean's story. I think it is due to sheer laziness and greed. Or in some cases sheer ambition and greed. 
I do know that in today's world we even require CEC's for window washers. But for the most after all is said and done, it's a mop a bucket and a squeegee.
Sure I wish I knew as much chemistry as Chris and as much math as Darryl and Chilie Harry.  And yes I know that both would be of a great help in those things I endevor to acomplish and develop.  But to "sell" , present, adjust, or measure for a pair of glasses, surely  you jest.
One need not have a nurse's degree to clean a bed pan or mop the floor and for this reason these duties were removed from them and placed in the hands of those less over qualified.
If we all had Phd.'s in liberal arts we wouldn't be a bit better at dispensing.

Chip

----------


## MarcE

> IFor the diversified housing, notice how I said good people in good neighbourhoods. You would never put a gangbanger in a good neighbourhood.


If you put the good people in good neighborhoods; where do you put the "bad" people. Leave them all together in a project? Oops, that's what we have now. It's just more of the same. It's really not a different option. The "good" people will take the resources given to them and invest, expand and improve themselves and finally leave. That's what you have in the inner-city.

Trying to eliminate poverty - It's chasing your tail. It's like going after a ghost. You can't get rid of it. Some people just don't care about it as much as you do. Those are the impoverished.

We have raised the standard of living in this country to the point that all but the worst off can get immunizations (and yet the US is not even in the top 10 for percent immunized). I don't see people on state aid that are underweight. That's odd to me. Does anyone actually "need" anything in this country that getting off their butts and working for it or even just asking for it won't provide??
I'm not talking about a decent car or wall to wall carpeting or even TV (not cable TV, but rabbit ears). I'm talking food, clothing, shelter, air and water and heat.

You know my grandmother said that the depression wasn't anything to her. They didn't have any money before the depression and it didn't get any worse during the depression. She talks about having to buy coal for a penny. They didn't have a coal stove in her house; for heavens sake they couldn't afford that. But the coal was required to take to school to heat the school. This was a state supported school that had no budget for heat. Walking to school barefoot was not just an exaggerated cliche for her. As my grandmother still says ". . .and I didn't even die".

Even the homeless in this country live excessively compared to some in Calcutta, Africa and other places.

There are worse things than being poor.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I think they should leave everything alone. Let the economy self adjust. It's the capitalist way.*


It will turn out that way anyhow whatever they are going to do.

The optical business has one big advantage...........that in the worst of times people will need help to see properly........................ to continue their search for a better life.

So it boils down to re-adjust the business to attract the ones in need of optical service to your business and not to one of the other guy or corporation ..............or even the new mushrooming on-line industry.

I wonder why the bulk of conversation on this OptoBoard has not turned turned to find solutions to attract the consumers that are in need of visual aids, but just do not have the funds to afford the products that are under constant discussing here. 

Newest and latest technology, translated into higher prices, is not what the cash stricken consumer is looking for. This category consumer is looking for a temporary solution that is inexpensive and is meant as a temporary solution until his fortune will turn to better again. But that could be a long time.

Maybe this is the time when OptiBoard would have again a forum accessible to the consumer with strict rules, just talking about the commercial side and aspects so we can find out which way we should turn to help and sell to these millions of consumers off line and survive doing it.

I believe these and the coming times will need major changes of optical mentality.......not technology..........which is always a way to charge more, but to find out where we can save by doing what and still make some profit. And that can range from different purchasing, to different selling, change of service system and do some operations in house.

Members on OptiBoard should definitely talk more about adjusting to the situation and how to keep the business going than glorifying the latest and most fanciest additions that will cost everybody a lot more.more.

----------


## Jubilee

> Trying to eliminate poverty - It's chasing your tail. It's like going after a ghost. You can't get rid of it. Some people just don't care about it as much as you do. Those are the impoverished.
> 
> I read in one of my text books that a lot of it has to do with the attitudes. To many of the impoverished, money is here today.. gone tomorrow. When someone gets a tidy sum, it is expected to be shared for everyone's good fortune.. and savings are non existant. When you aren't used to having anything.. you feel like you have to use it, before you lose it.
> 
> We have raised the standard of living in this country to the point that all but the worst off can get immunizations (and yet the US is not even in the top 10 for percent immunized). I don't see people on state aid that are underweight. That's odd to me. Does anyone actually "need" anything in this country that getting off their butts and working for it or even just asking for it won't provide??
> I'm not talking about a decent car or wall to wall carpeting or even TV (not cable TV, but rabbit ears). I'm talking food, clothing, shelter, air and water and heat.
> 
> A couple of thoughts here. 
> 
> ...


Amen!

----------


## For-Life

> If you put the good people in good neighborhoods; where do you put the "bad" people. Leave them all together in a project? Oops, that's what we have now. It's just more of the same. It's really not a different option. The "good" people will take the resources given to them and invest, expand and improve themselves and finally leave. That's what you have in the inner-city.
> 
> Trying to eliminate poverty - It's chasing your tail. It's like going after a ghost. You can't get rid of it. Some people just don't care about it as much as you do. Those are the impoverished.
> 
> We have raised the standard of living in this country to the point that all but the worst off can get immunizations (and yet the US is not even in the top 10 for percent immunized). I don't see people on state aid that are underweight. That's odd to me. Does anyone actually "need" anything in this country that getting off their butts and working for it or even just asking for it won't provide??
> I'm not talking about a decent car or wall to wall carpeting or even TV (not cable TV, but rabbit ears). I'm talking food, clothing, shelter, air and water and heat.
> 
> You know my grandmother said that the depression wasn't anything to her. They didn't have any money before the depression and it didn't get any worse during the depression. She talks about having to buy coal for a penny. They didn't have a coal stove in her house; for heavens sake they couldn't afford that. But the coal was required to take to school to heat the school. This was a state supported school that had no budget for heat. Walking to school barefoot was not just an exaggerated cliche for her. As my grandmother still says ". . .and I didn't even die".
> 
> ...


they can get off their butt and go work at McDonalds but they will not be any better off.  Unless there is a mechanism to make post-secondary education affordable, they will never get more than minimum wage.

This is not the economy that many of you guys grew up in.  You need post-secondary training/education today.  I know, it does not make sense, but this is what businesses want.

----------


## MarcE

> This is not the economy that many of you guys grew up in. You need post-secondary training/education today. I know, it does not make sense, but this is what businesses want.


Actually I disagree. Businesses don't want post-secondary training. They want drug-free, clean, non-BO producing, hard working, non cell-phone talking, show-up on time, speaking without profanity, employees that will work 40 hrs/week for $7/hr. That is what employers want. They can't find enough because they aren't out there.  They all went to college.

This is kinda my point.  We can't all go to college.  Then who will clean toilets?  If we all get college degrees, then there won't be enough jobs for all of us and there will be a BA's cleaning toilets at McDonalds.  The pay is the same whether you have a degree or not.  I guess we could import the less fortunate from other countries to do our menial work.  How much should we pay them?  We can't let them live in poverty!  So we should pay them $35K/yr, right?  We can't afford to pay them that much because with the glut of engineers, accountants, marketing execs, etc, the average wage for a degreed "professional" changing oil at the Jiffy Lube is $11/hr (the new minimum wage).

If we gave everyone $100/yr then $90K/yr would be the new poverty level.  The new poverty level will support 30 familes in Mexico.  And we are supposed to feel bad for someone that makes "only" $80K/yr?  That's where we are now, just the numbers are different. 

Poverty is almost non-existent in this country.  When I start seeing kids going barefoot in the summertime or people trading in cell phones for food, then I might think we have poverty.  Our safety-net has worked.  The war on poverty has been won.  Just because someone can't afford the nicer things in life doesn't mean that they are impoverished.

Even in this economy there is more work than workers.  It's just not the type of work that people want.  As I was shovelling the snow from the front of our shop a few weeks ago, I was talking to a 60+ yo guy doing the same next door.  He told me that 25 years ago he never shovelled snow.  A snow day at school meant that a small army of kids with snow shovels would have the entire downtown sidewalks cleared by 9:00.  Each of these kids could make $40 by noon.  I bet now they could make $100+.  In the last 4 years, I have never had anyone offer to shovel my walk except for a lawn-care business.  How about this plan for making education affordable?  GET OUT AND WORK FOR YOUR COLLEGE TUITION.  I did. . . .and I didn't even die.

I'm actually more socially concerned than I sound.  I know many more people need help now than a year ago.  Many of the people that are struggling aren't lazy.  They are doing the best they know how with the tools they have.  I would venture to say the extreme mental illness or drug addiction are behind almost all chronic homelessness.  And many, many people (especially parents) need help coping with daily struggles.  But giving more money is a false solution.

----------


## Johns

> Newest and latest technology, translated into higher prices, is not what the cash stricken consumer is looking for.



Chris,

Who in the world wants to attract cash sticken consumers???:hammer::hammer::hammer:

Don't carry the latest, and that's what you'll attract!

(And please don't try to say that all consumers are cash stricken.  If they are truly "cash stricken", then they are not consumers.)

----------


## Chris Ryser

> Chris,
> 
> *(And please don't try to say that all consumers are cash stricken. If they are truly "cash stricken", then they are not consumers.)*


 
Of course not all are...........................

Actually some of them get rich in tough times, but there are still a few million jobless and another 1.5 million foeclosures to come. And many of them will need glasses, probably they have no more insurance because it might have gone with the job.

Then maybe we should not try to find a solution so they won't go to the on-line trade.

----------


## For-Life

> Actually I disagree. Businesses don't want post-secondary training. They want drug-free, clean, non-BO producing, hard working, non cell-phone talking, show-up on time, speaking without profanity, employees that will work 40 hrs/week for $7/hr. That is what employers want. They can't find enough because they aren't out there.  They all went to college.
> 
> This is kinda my point.  We can't all go to college.  Then who will clean toilets?  If we all get college degrees, then there won't be enough jobs for all of us and there will be a BA's cleaning toilets at McDonalds.  The pay is the same whether you have a degree or not.  I guess we could import the less fortunate from other countries to do our menial work.  How much should we pay them?  We can't let them live in poverty!  So we should pay them $35K/yr, right?  We can't afford to pay them that much because with the glut of engineers, accountants, marketing execs, etc, the average wage for a degreed "professional" changing oil at the Jiffy Lube is $11/hr (the new minimum wage).
> 
> If we gave everyone $100/yr then $90K/yr would be the new poverty level.  The new poverty level will support 30 familes in Mexico.  And we are supposed to feel bad for someone that makes "only" $80K/yr?  That's where we are now, just the numbers are different. 
> 
> Poverty is almost non-existent in this country.  When I start seeing kids going barefoot in the summertime or people trading in cell phones for food, then I might think we have poverty.  Our safety-net has worked.  The war on poverty has been won.  Just because someone can't afford the nicer things in life doesn't mean that they are impoverished.
> 
> Even in this economy there is more work than workers.  It's just not the type of work that people want.  As I was shovelling the snow from the front of our shop a few weeks ago, I was talking to a 60+ yo guy doing the same next door.  He told me that 25 years ago he never shovelled snow.  A snow day at school meant that a small army of kids with snow shovels would have the entire downtown sidewalks cleared by 9:00.  Each of these kids could make $40 by noon.  I bet now they could make $100+.  In the last 4 years, I have never had anyone offer to shovel my walk except for a lawn-care business.  How about this plan for making education affordable?  GET OUT AND WORK FOR YOUR COLLEGE TUITION.  I did. . . .and I didn't even die.
> ...


I never said college, I said post secondary education.  That includes trade schools and apprenticeships.  

Tuition is rising at an unbelievable level.  On real, not nominal dollar level, it has probably increased 25% from when you went.  It is starting to get unaffordable.  So if you make those $7, you will never have the opportunity to do something further in your life.  Or most of all, your kids will not either.  That is not good for the nation.  That is not good for the land of opportunity.


And no, I want people who went through a grueling education, because I want people who are trainable, smart, hardworkers, and critical thinkers.

----------


## Johns

> And no, I want people who went through a grueling education, because I want people who are trainable, smart, hardworkers, and critical thinkers.


Folks won't "get off their butt and go work at McDonalds", but they're going to go "through a grueling education"?

Ok...

----------


## For-Life

> Folks won't "get off their butt and go work at McDonalds", but they're going to go "through a grueling education"?
> 
> Ok...


Would you rather work at McDonalds and know you or going nowhere OR go back and get an education knowing you can develop a real career for yourself?

At 18, if you asked me, I would have rather gave the 60-70 hours a week for school than the 40 hours a week for McDonalds.

----------


## Johns

> Would you rather work at McDonalds and know you or going nowhere OR go back and get an education knowing you can develop a real career for yourself?
> 
> At 18, if you asked me, I would have rather gave the 60-70 hours a week for school than the 40 hours a week for McDonalds.



From aboutmytalk.com:

 *Job Story: True Life: I work at McDonald's...manager* To all of you making noise about McDonalds, you should find something better to do. I am currently employed with McDonald's as a General Manager and I am making a great living while going to Graduate school(yes, a MikeyD's employee with a brain)! McDonalds helped me work and pay my way through college. It continues to help me as I complete my courses to obtain my masters degree. I face many obstacles as a General Manager, but all of them are worth it! Respond with all the comments that your heart desires, but McDonalds teaches you many valuable life experiences. Only the ignorant are blinded by the "bad press".

----------


## chip anderson

Move to Mississippi we could use some McDonald's Managers  or even an employee with a brain.  At least one that hasn't been fried on crack.

The reason fast food places exist, South of Memphis anyway,  is so crack heads can have a job.

----------


## For-Life

> From aboutmytalk.com:
> 
>  *Job Story: True Life: I work at McDonald's...manager* To all of you making noise about McDonalds, you should find something better to do. I am currently employed with McDonald's as a General Manager and I am making a great living while going to Graduate school(yes, a MikeyD's employee with a brain)! McDonalds helped me work and pay my way through college. It continues to help me as I complete my courses to obtain my masters degree. I face many obstacles as a General Manager, but all of them are worth it! Respond with all the comments that your heart desires, but McDonalds teaches you many valuable life experiences. Only the ignorant are blinded by the "bad press".


Now talk to every McDonald's employee you know.  I have known many, because I knew them in high school and Uni.  Why is it that the recent McDonald's employee I know, who just started a job with a township, makes $30k (first year out of Uni), and $5k than her manager at McDonald's?

----------


## Johns

> Why is it that the recent McDonald's employee I know, who just started a job with a township, makes $30k, and $5k than her manager at McDonald's?


Great example.  Sounds like your friend got some good work experience, and worked their way up to a better paying (gov.) job.  Would your friend have gotten the job had they spent the last 5 years sitting on the couch?

----------


## Jubilee

There is a few difference..

My experience was that the corporate owned stores paid better.. and had better benefits than many franchised stores.

McDonald's as a whole does have a lot of scholarships and such available. They once catered to the high school and college kids to staff many of their locations. 

I learned a heck of a lot there. Like how to deal with the public. Multi-tasking.. dealing with irritated people.. cash handling.. inventory, cleaning, along with the whole cooking and serving thing..

It certainly helped paid my way in school..

Location is another. Some fast food managers here earn 40-50k a year.. but in other areas in the state, you are lucky to break 30.. then you have the ones that want college educated managers to begin with.. and still only pay them 30K..

----------


## Johns

> Location is another. Some fast food managers here earn 40-50k a year.. but in other areas in the state, you are lucky to break 30.. then you have the ones that want college educated managers to begin with.. and still only pay them 30K..


Doesn't sound like a job to be looked down upon.(Not that any should)

In fact, it sounds an awful lot like optical.

----------


## For-Life

> Great example.  Sounds like your friend got some good work experience, and worked their way up to a better paying (gov.) job.  Would your friend have gotten the job had they spent the last 5 years sitting on the couch?


Oh she did and I will not take that away from McDonald's.  But the point is, to look at a part-time job going through school versus a career there - it is a big difference.

----------


## chip anderson

Seems that the futha Nawth one goes the higher class McDonald's help is.
Here we have certian groups that are financed by Mickey but not required to make the standards that those above the glacier line do.
Seriously those in Jackson's combined IQ wouldn't get to triple digits.
When Mickey D first came to the are they had some of the brightest clean cut teenagers behind the counter with a smile and most eager to take an order or handle a problem.  If your order took more than a couple minites, it was "promoed" for free or sublimented with something for free. Within five years the entire culture changed and they aren't even clean anymore.

I still see this when I get Nauth of Memphis but South of there it's a whole other business.  Just a bunch of slothfull types jive talking amongst themselves while the customers wait.  The personell changes every third day and on Saturday, Sunday and Monday only half of them show up.  Mickey ain't smart enough to pay on Monday.   If you write in a complaint to main office you get a certifercate telling you how these are "independent franchises" as a  slip good for a free apple pie.

Shoot we complain about Wally's optical but it's so far above Mickey's management and sophistication you wouldn't believe.

Chip

----------


## ilanh

Dick,
Your letter to the employees is a quintessentially American point of view of an employer's responsibilities to his employees.  I've lived in and spent a lot of time in Europe, and have an understanding of their economic system.  I think that it presents an alternative.  For example, in the U.S we have a distinct "us" vs. "them" point of view.  You've slaved away to build your business and are resentful of those shiftless wastrels who simply want to collect benefits.  However, in Europe those wastrels are seen in the same light as the sick, who are covered by their national healthcare system ie: they cannot help being the way the are, just like sick people can't help being sick.  There are people who will always possess superior intelligence, or work ethics, or intestinal fortitude to study and make something of themselves.  And then there are all the others.  Perhaps you were born with genes that predisposed you to success; or perhaps these merits were taught to you by your parents.  Perhaps others do not have either the genes or the parents to help them along their path.  The exact reasoning is unimportant to the Europeans- the bottom line is that you were able to do it and others were not.  Therefore, in a civilized world the fortunate help the less "favored".

The other issue is whether the social umbrella that protects all citizens and workers of Europe is necessary or superfluous.  The umbrella provides free healthcare, schooling, welfare, retirement, nursing home care etc.  The idea is that in a civilized world we can't allow sick people to suffer, allow children of poor parents to receive less of an education, or to not take care of our elderly.  Likewise, in a civilized world we want to remove the anxiety of worrying about all these things so that people can concentrate more on interpersonal issues.  Therefore, "privileged" employers and wealthy people are called upon to contribute large amounts of taxes to provide this type of umbrella to the masses.  In addition to this, Europe also has very skewed labor laws that mandates healthcare, vacations, reasonable working hours and incredible job protection for employees.  Naturally, all these taxes and laws stifle business to some extent The reward is simply not as high for French businessmen as it can be for Americans.  An argument can also be made that these taxes and laws ultimately increase unemployment since people are less prone to start new businesses.  All this is true and no one doubts that the American capitalistic system provides more weath and rewards in the long run.  However, it does this at an enormous expense for the society at large.  And the funny thing is that even though Europe may be a bit behind us in business ethics and innovation, their citizens wouldn't change the system for anything in the world (even the wealthy ones).  The social umbrella has created a more humane, civilized, gentler place to live in with much less emphasis on money, competition and material comforts.  If this sounds downright "anti-American", you're right.  The Europeans regard us a a wild-West, frontier type of mentality in which those that hit the mother-lode are wildly rewarded at the expense of others.  Our system of capitalism is like the baby in the bathtub who is alternatively being scalded by hot water or frozen by cold water ie: we have regularly occurring boom and bust times with very little normalcy in between.

Dick, you claim that you spent many years living frugally and working hard to accumulate the wealth that you have.  Perhaps this is the only thing you could do.  It was in your nature.  I spent many years in school getting my various degrees and ultimately became an ophthalmologist.  Frankly, it was the only thing I could do.  It was easier for me than getting a real job at a construction site.  I am often amazed that society rewards me in such an exaggerated way for a path of life that I chose that was easier for me than any other path.  I;m sure that there are many normal hard-working people who toil from morning till night and make a fraction of what I make.  I can't really convince myself that I absolutely deserve everything that I have, and that they deserve so much less.  By paying higher taxes I will at least assure that they receive free healthcare, schooling and retirement whereas I will own one less mercedes.  I am not entirely averse to the idea.

I know that it's very hard for Americans to think this way since culturally  our mantra, or dogma, is to believe that hard work should result in big rewards.  That healthcare and retirement benefits are not "rights" but privileges that need to be earned.  That lazy or incompetent people are not "sick" but have chosen their own path and should not be rewarded for it.  However, spend some time in Europe and you'll see that there is merit in their system as well.  I am not advocating one way or the other but feel that it's always good to see the other side of the coin.

----------


## chip anderson

Illanh:
Let be guess you always vote a liberal ticket.

Think of it  promoteing the idea that being to lazy to get up off one's duff and support one's self is a social disease.  Any you're saying whole continent of Europe is this deranged?

Damn I'm glad I'm not of your generation.

----------


## Jubilee

Very nice way of summing up the alternative point of view ilanh... beautiful post.

----------


## tmorse

> I never said college, I said post secondary education. That includes trade schools and apprenticeships.


Another factor is that many took the 'bird course' Math in high school, and thus any science-based or trade apprenticeship course is denied to them. 
ie. Math for Personal Finance or 'Alternative' Mathematics.:hammer:

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

> Illanh:
> Let be guess you always vote a liberal ticket.


Most truly smart people do!:bbg:

----------


## Jacqui

> Most truly smart people do!:bbg:



Yes we do :D

----------


## obxeyeguy

> Most truly smart people do!:bbg:





> Yes we do :D


Please don't poke the bear!!

----------


## bob_f_aboc

> Please don't poke the bear!!


 I've heard that somewhere before...

----------


## obxeyeguy

> I've heard that somewhere before...


Thanks to Bob as he is the origional user of said phrase.  :p

----------


## Newyorkoptician

> Dick,
> Your letter to the employees is a quintessentially American point of view of an employer's responsibilities to his employees.  I've lived in and spent a lot of time in Europe, and have an understanding of their economic system.  I think that it presents an alternative.  For example, in the U.S we have a distinct "us" vs. "them" point of view.  You've slaved away to build your business and are resentful of those shiftless wastrels who simply want to collect benefits.  However, in Europe those wastrels are seen in the same light as the sick, who are covered by their national healthcare system ie: they cannot help being the way the are, just like sick people can't help being sick.  There are people who will always possess superior intelligence, or work ethics, or intestinal fortitude to study and make something of themselves.  And then there are all the others.  Perhaps you were born with genes that predisposed you to success; or perhaps these merits were taught to you by your parents.  Perhaps others do not have either the genes or the parents to help them along their path.  The exact reasoning is unimportant to the Europeans- the bottom line is that you were able to do it and others were not.  Therefore, in a civilized world the fortunate help the less "favored".
> 
> The other issue is whether the social umbrella that protects all citizens and workers of Europe is necessary or superfluous.  The umbrella provides free healthcare, schooling, welfare, retirement, nursing home care etc.  The idea is that in a civilized world we can't allow sick people to suffer, allow children of poor parents to receive less of an education, or to not take care of our elderly.  Likewise, in a civilized world we want to remove the anxiety of worrying about all these things so that people can concentrate more on interpersonal issues.  Therefore, "privileged" employers and wealthy people are called upon to contribute large amounts of taxes to provide this type of umbrella to the masses.  In addition to this, Europe also has very skewed labor laws that mandates healthcare, vacations, reasonable working hours and incredible job protection for employees.  Naturally, all these taxes and laws stifle business to some extent The reward is simply not as high for French businessmen as it can be for Americans.  An argument can also be made that these taxes and laws ultimately increase unemployment since people are less prone to start new businesses.  All this is true and no one doubts that the American capitalistic system provides more weath and rewards in the long run.  However, it does this at an enormous expense for the society at large.  And the funny thing is that even though Europe may be a bit behind us in business ethics and innovation, their citizens wouldn't change the system for anything in the world (even the wealthy ones).  The social umbrella has created a more humane, civilized, gentler place to live in with much less emphasis on money, competition and material comforts.  If this sounds downright "anti-American", you're right.  The Europeans regard us a a wild-West, frontier type of mentality in which those that hit the mother-lode are wildly rewarded at the expense of others.  Our system of capitalism is like the baby in the bathtub who is alternatively being scalded by hot water or frozen by cold water ie: we have regularly occurring boom and bust times with very little normalcy in between.
> 
> Dick, you claim that you spent many years living frugally and working hard to accumulate the wealth that you have.  Perhaps this is the only thing you could do.  It was in your nature.  I spent many years in school getting my various degrees and ultimately became an ophthalmologist.  Frankly, it was the only thing I could do.  It was easier for me than getting a real job at a construction site.  I am often amazed that society rewards me in such an exaggerated way for a path of life that I chose that was easier for me than any other path.  I;m sure that there are many normal hard-working people who toil from morning till night and make a fraction of what I make.  I can't really convince myself that I absolutely deserve everything that I have, and that they deserve so much less.  By paying higher taxes I will at least assure that they receive free healthcare, schooling and retirement whereas I will own one less mercedes.  I am not entirely averse to the idea.
> 
> I know that it's very hard for Americans to think this way since culturally  our mantra, or dogma, is to believe that hard work should result in big rewards.  That healthcare and retirement benefits are not "rights" but privileges that need to be earned.  That lazy or incompetent people are not "sick" but have chosen their own path and should not be rewarded for it.  However, spend some time in Europe and you'll see that there is merit in their system as well.  I am not advocating one way or the other but feel that it's always good to see the other side of the coin.





I believe that Dick is reiterating the belief that most civilizations last roughly 200 to 250 years and there power starts to diminish. Your probable asking where are you going? Good point! What I m trying to say is any civilization that taxes itself to death, has it's armies spread all over the world, lets it's senators and congressman into office only for what they get out of it and too have most of it's people on the government "DOLE", and starts an economic stimulus that will bankrupt future generations including this generation that civilization is doomed to diminish or be turned into a third rate nation. If you don't believe that ask yourself this question, who do we owe the most money too? If they folded there hand and asked for there money we would immediately become default and we could not pay what we owe, they would or do own us right now.  :Eek:

----------


## Jacqui

> Please don't poke the bear!!


Chip knows that I'm a Ultra Radical Left Wing Tree Hugging Femi-nazi :D

----------


## For-Life

> I believe that Dick is reiterating the belief that most civilizations last roughly 200 to 250 years and there power starts to diminish. Your probable asking where are you going? Good point! What I m trying to say is any civilization that taxes itself to death, has it's armies spread all over the world, lets it's senators and congressman into office only for what they get out of it and too have most of it's people on the government "DOLE", and starts an economic stimulus that will bankrupt future generations including this generation that civilization is doomed to diminish or be turned into a third rate nation. If you don't believe that ask yourself this question, who do we owe the most money too? If they folded there hand and asked for there money we would immediately become default and we could not pay what we owe, they would or do own us right now.


I agree with parts of that.  The thing is, first, you are not taxed to death.  Your taxes are low compared to many nations.  In addition, to solve many of the fiscal problems, taxes will actually have to increase in the US.  You cannot pay down $10 trillion in debt with $0 dollars.  Of course, expenses will need to be cut too, but that is only half of the job.  

Second, the economy does not some type of package.  It may not be the one in present form, but it needs a stimulus.  If you don't, the problem will just get worse, as more layoffs will lead to less money that will lead to more layoffs.  

I can tell you right now, welfare is not the problem.  The problem is internal spending and inefficiencies, and things like the $1 trillion war.

----------


## chip anderson

No civilization has ever survived for very long when it's taxes exceeded 35% of gross income.  Doesn't matter what the fools in other parts of the world do or did, these are historical facts.

Chip

----------


## For-Life

> No civilization has ever survived for very long when it's taxes exceeded 35% of gross income.  Doesn't matter what the fools in other parts of the world do or did, these are historical facts.
> 
> Chip


Have you done this study?  Have you actually looked at the historical reasons?  Because many nations in the World are doing very well right now being taxes similarly.

And can I ask you, how are the nations of the world without social programs current doing?

----------


## Johns

> Have you done this study?  Have you actually looked at the historical reasons?  Because many nations in the World are doing very well right now being taxes similarly.


Nations such as...?

----------


## For-Life

> Nations such as...?


Canada, UK, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Germany, France, Denmark, Italy, Japan and Australia.

----------


## rbaker

> Dick,
> Your letter to the employees is a quintessentially American point of view of an employer's responsibilities to his employees.  I've lived in and spent a lot of time in Europe, and have an understanding of their economic system.  I think that it presents an alternative.  For example, in the U.S we have a distinct "us" vs. "them" point of view.  You've slaved away to build your business and are resentful of those shiftless wastrels who simply want to collect benefits.  However, in Europe those wastrels are seen in the same light as the sick, who are covered by their national healthcare system ie: they cannot help being the way the are, just like sick people can't help being sick.  There are people who will always possess superior intelligence, or work ethics, or intestinal fortitude to study and make something of themselves.  And then there are all the others.  Perhaps you were born with genes that predisposed you to success; or perhaps these merits were taught to you by your parents.  Perhaps others do not have either the genes or the parents to help them along their path.  The exact reasoning is unimportant to the Europeans- the bottom line is that you were able to do it and others were not.  Therefore, in a civilized world the fortunate help the less "favored".
> 
> The other issue is whether the social umbrella that protects all citizens and workers of Europe is necessary or superfluous.  The umbrella provides free healthcare, schooling, welfare, retirement, nursing home care etc.  The idea is that in a civilized world we can't allow sick people to suffer, allow children of poor parents to receive less of an education, or to not take care of our elderly.  Likewise, in a civilized world we want to remove the anxiety of worrying about all these things so that people can concentrate more on interpersonal issues.  Therefore, "privileged" employers and wealthy people are called upon to contribute large amounts of taxes to provide this type of umbrella to the masses.  In addition to this, Europe also has very skewed labor laws that mandates healthcare, vacations, reasonable working hours and incredible job protection for employees.  Naturally, all these taxes and laws stifle business to some extent The reward is simply not as high for French businessmen as it can be for Americans.  An argument can also be made that these taxes and laws ultimately increase unemployment since people are less prone to start new businesses.  All this is true and no one doubts that the American capitalistic system provides more weath and rewards in the long run.  However, it does this at an enormous expense for the society at large.  And the funny thing is that even though Europe may be a bit behind us in business ethics and innovation, their citizens wouldn't change the system for anything in the world (even the wealthy ones).  The social umbrella has created a more humane, civilized, gentler place to live in with much less emphasis on money, competition and material comforts.  If this sounds downright "anti-American", you're right.  The Europeans regard us a a wild-West, frontier type of mentality in which those that hit the mother-lode are wildly rewarded at the expense of others.  Our system of capitalism is like the baby in the bathtub who is alternatively being scalded by hot water or frozen by cold water ie: we have regularly occurring boom and bust times with very little normalcy in between.
> 
> Dick, you claim that you spent many years living frugally and working hard to accumulate the wealth that you have.  Perhaps this is the only thing you could do.  It was in your nature.  I spent many years in school getting my various degrees and ultimately became an ophthalmologist.  Frankly, it was the only thing I could do.  It was easier for me than getting a real job at a construction site.  I am often amazed that society rewards me in such an exaggerated way for a path of life that I chose that was easier for me than any other path.  I;m sure that there are many normal hard-working people who toil from morning till night and make a fraction of what I make.  I can't really convince myself that I absolutely deserve everything that I have, and that they deserve so much less.  By paying higher taxes I will at least assure that they receive free healthcare, schooling and retirement whereas I will own one less mercedes.  I am not entirely averse to the idea.
> 
> I know that it's very hard for Americans to think this way since culturally  our mantra, or dogma, is to believe that hard work should result in big rewards.  That healthcare and retirement benefits are not "rights" but privileges that need to be earned.  That lazy or incompetent people are not "sick" but have chosen their own path and should not be rewarded for it.  However, spend some time in Europe and you'll see that there is merit in their system as well.  I am not advocating one way or the other but feel that it's always good to see the other side of the coin.


 When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe,
we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense
of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results
from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which
he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson 

*Very Interesting Quote:*

In light of the present financial crisis, it's interesting to read what ThomasJefferson said in1802:

I believe that banking institutions aremore dangerous to our libertiesthan
standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control
the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and
corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all
property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathersconquered.

----------


## tmorse

With all this printed money coming onboard, inflation will soon rise and the value of the US dollar will drop alarmingly. The good news... China will be repaid their owed billions with these new, devalued dollars.;)

----------


## Johns

> Canada, UK, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Germany, France, Denmark, Italy, Japan and Australia.


And they are "doing very well..." in what respect?  _With some exceptions_, I would say that the majority of them do not have as high a standard of living as the US.

Most of the nations listed have a lower per capita income than the US, and since they are taxed higher, means that have even less spending power.

----------


## chip anderson

For Life:
Depending on who you listen to, thier healthcare plans suck.  Unless what you need is on an approved list, you do without.  If you need even vital surgery you may wait months or years for it.
They can't defend themselves, as only the *authoraties* are armed and unless the _authoraties_ when you need help you up the creek.
Broke as we are most of the cited countries borrow or recieve grants or subsidies from the U.S. taxpayer.
So where do we fall behind?

Chip

----------


## Jubilee

See. .here's the point.

Yes, they may make less money than many here in the US. However the stratification is lower as well. 

Doctors earn less in these countries.. however their education is PAID FOR IN FULL by their governments. So they do not have the debt to pay down either once they are out of school.

If you look at the general health of the population and the efficiency (percent of GDP spent on healthcare) all of these countries rank higher than the US. 

They are doing it cheaper and better.

Yes, we have some of those people come to the US because they can get help faster. However we have almost 40% of the US citizenship that can't even pay to go to the doctor.. or at least have no insurance at all.

The amount of money spent in rescue care because things are not treated for in their earliest stages.. in the amount of time lost due to health issues and in the amount of disability we have amongst our citizenship due to preventable causes.. it all adds up to millions.. actually billions of dollars in wasted resources. 

If you treat the respiratory infection when it begins.. and prevent it from turning into pneumonia.. it is a heck of a lot easier to treat, and cheaper too. Most likely the person can keep working while being treated, instead of hospitalized... keeping them in production instead of off from work and cause economic hardship on the family.

We have a great healthcare system.. too bad less than half can afford it.. making us rank among the lowest of the "developed" nations in health per the World Health Organization..

----------


## For-Life

> And they are "doing very well..." in what respect?  _With some exceptions_, I would say that the majority of them do not have as high a standard of living as the US.
> 
> Most of the nations listed have a lower per capita income than the US, and since they are taxed higher, means that have even less spending power.


the difference there is you do not have the Bill Gates or the Warren Buffets, but you do have many people that make really good money.  Just a lot that make exceptionally high.  Standard of living is not just income and is especially not just average income.  You look at those published lists of the best countries to live in, and I can tell you that it is not just the highest GDP per population.

----------


## For-Life

> For Life:
> Depending on who you listen to, thier healthcare plans suck.  Unless what you need is on an approved list, you do without.  If you need even vital surgery you may wait months or years for it.
> They can't defend themselves, as only the *authoraties* are armed and unless the _authoraties_ when you need help you up the creek.
> Broke as we are most of the cited countries borrow or recieve grants or subsidies from the U.S. taxpayer.
> So where do we fall behind?
> 
> Chip


Yes, if you listen to an American politician, their health care sucks.  But if you look at the reports from the WTO, you will see otherwise.  

And you continue to have misconceptions about the health care in those nations.  We have talked about this several times.  You can get optional treatments, and you can buy certain treatments if you want.  Surgeries wait times are getting better and are far more comparable than once believed.  If my Ophthalmologist tells me I need my cataracts taken out, because they are ripe, I can get surgery within 30 days.  If I need them taken out immediately, I can get it immediately (that day).

I think that is better than paying $6k a year for health insurance and then when you need it, your insurance company turns you down.  Or having to pay copayments like crazy.

----------


## Newyorkoptician

> Yes, if you listen to an American politician, their health care sucks.  But if you look at the reports from the WTO, you will see otherwise.  
> 
> And you continue to have misconceptions about the health care in those nations.  We have talked about this several times.  You can get optional treatments, and you can buy certain treatments if you want.  Surgeries wait times are getting better and are far more comparable than once believed.  If my Ophthalmologist tells me I need my cataracts taken out, because they are ripe, I can get surgery within 30 days.  If I need them taken out immediately, I can get it immediately (that day).
> 
> I think that is better than paying $6k a year for health insurance and then when you need it, your insurance company turns you down.  Or having to pay copayments like crazy.





If what you say is true why do Canadians pay out of pocket too come to the US for medical care? And many do! Why? Because of there health care system. If you need surgery for your gall bladder your put on a waiting list unless it's emergency surgery and you have to wait months before your surgery is even authorized.        :Eek:

----------


## Newyorkoptician

> I agree with parts of that.  The thing is, first, you are not taxed to death.  Your taxes are low compared to many nations.  In addition, to solve many of the fiscal problems, taxes will actually have to increase in the US.  You cannot pay down $10 trillion in debt with $0 dollars.  Of course, expenses will need to be cut too, but that is only half of the job.  
> 
> Second, the economy does not some type of package.  It may not be the one in present form, but it needs a stimulus.  If you don't, the problem will just get worse, as more layoffs will lead to less money that will lead to more layoffs.  
> 
> I can tell you right now, welfare is not the problem.  The problem is internal spending and inefficiencies, and things like the $1 trillion war.




Chip is right. Plus as i said before if those nations ( and there are only too big ones we owe trillions too) called to be paid we are in a heap of trouble. 
You can't keep printing money and expect other nations to except it. If you don't believe that go back too 1920 Germany. A barrel full of money for a bag of bread.      :Eek:

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *If you need surgery for your gall bladder your put on a waiting list unless it's emergency surgery and you have to wait months before your surgery is even authorized.*


Elective surgery takes some time. Last year I waited 5 month to get my left cataract doen. This year I waited 1 month for the other eye. Id done in the States medicare reemburses the cost they would have paid in Canada and the rest is out of pocket or by your private or business insurance.

Gallbladders are usually done right away. There are also some private clinics in Canada which medicare does not pay for.

I had a ptosis surgery in Novemeber, waited 1 month and did not have to pay one cent.

The largest problem is in Quebec where doctors incomes are capped. If they see more patients than the set quota by the government they will not be paid for those. So what they doing, they work 2 month and take one month off. So our doctors only work 2/3rds of their available time and therfore there is a heavy shortage of doctors.

----------


## chip anderson

If in other countries the systems are so wonderfull.   How many people are emigrating to these countries from the U.S.   How does this compare to those emigrating (or wishing to emigrate)  to the US from these socially progressive societies?

Nuff said.

Chip

----------


## Johns

> So our doctors only work 2/3rds of their available time and therfore there is a heavy shortage of doctors.


Yep!  That's the system we want.(and it only takes higher taxes?)  

Sign us up!:hammer:

----------


## chip anderson

There is no shortage of doctors, just a shortage of doctors with a good work ethic.  Too many of them think they are entitled to a three day work week for all the "sufferin" they went through getting an education.

Chip

----------


## tmorse

> There is no shortage of doctors, just a shortage of doctors with a good work ethic. Too many of them think they are entitled to a three day work week for all the "sufferin" they went through getting an education. Chip


Hey Chip... don't question their 'sufferin'. They went through many university 'KD' dinners, until aged 30 or so, when they finally qualified as MD specialists. That leaves close to their half (1/2) of their working life left for a payback. As far as I am concerned, they deserve every penny coming to them.:finger:

----------


## Fezz

I have read with much interest how this thread has weaved along. 

The same question keeps coming to me.

What vocal posters are employees, and what vocal posters are employers?

I also wonder how many of the vocal employees would be singing a much different tune if they in fact were the employers?

 :Confused: :cheers::cheers: :cry: :cheers::cheers:;)

----------


## chip anderson

TMorse:  Wasn't thier income I was questioning.  Just wasting half thier working life training then using this training on the golf course.  They used to have just as much training and work a 5  day week, with Wednesday afternoon off for golf if the surgery was finished by noon.   Worked 1/2 day to 2/3 day on Saturdays.   
Now they take off at noon (or all day Friday) and don't work Saturdays at all even if they are ped's..   
In the Winter Saturday used to be our most productive day (more than the entire rest of the week actually) in the optical business.  Now the patient/customers go to the chains in the mall.

Chip

----------


## For-Life

> If what you say is true why do Canadians pay out of pocket too come to the US for medical care? And many do! Why? Because of there health care system. If you need surgery for your gall bladder your put on a waiting list unless it's emergency surgery and you have to wait months before your surgery is even authorized.


Some do.  Most do not.  Keep in mind, you hear about it because it is a big deal when it happens.  So it is in the media.  

If we believe that you need surgery somewhere else, the government will pay for it.

But as for wait times, they are not always true.  We have a big problem here with the wait time reporting for cataracts, because in summer all of golfers do not want the surgery.  So they put it off, but those numbers are still reported in our stats.


Also, keep in mind, the only reason why there are not as long wait times in the US is because many cannot afford the surgery.  So they just do not get it done.  Yes, you getting in there one week earlier is off the backs of those who suffer.

----------


## For-Life

> Chip is right. Plus as i said before if those nations ( and there are only too big ones we owe trillions too) called to be paid we are in a heap of trouble. 
> You can't keep printing money and expect other nations to except it. If you don't believe that go back too 1920 Germany. A barrel full of money for a bag of bread.


the idea that the US is printing tonnes of money to solve the problem is one that is falsely perpetuated by some politicians.  In truth, if that were happening, the US inflation rate would be far higher than 2.25 percent.

----------


## For-Life

> If in other countries the systems are so wonderfull.   How many people are emigrating to these countries from the U.S.   How does this compare to those emigrating (or wishing to emigrate)  to the US from these socially progressive societies?
> 
> Nuff said.
> 
> Chip


Because Ethiopia's health system is not good.

If the US's health care system was so good, why do we have so many Americans emigrating to our nation?

----------


## chip anderson

Think you will find there are more Cannadians wanting to come to the US than US citizens wanting to get into Cannada, at least permanently.  And I have not seen any Medicare citizens waiting for cataract surgery for prolonged periods (not counting the time waiting for the catarct to mature).   
A few that desire the super zoomo latest gimmick implant may be having unwilling to pay out of pocket for the super zoomo, but for routine catract surgery, it's ususally only a few days.  And I see a lot of these people.

Chip.

----------


## For-Life

> Think you will find there are more Cannadians wanting to come to the US than US citizens wanting to get into Cannada, at least permanently.  And I have not seen any Medicare citizens waiting for cataract surgery for prolonged periods (not counting the time waiting for the catarct to mature).   
> A few that desire the super zoomo latest gimmick implant may be having unwilling to pay out of pocket for the super zoomo, but for routine catract surgery, it's ususally only a few days.  And I see a lot of these people.
> 
> Chip.


I can tell you right now, most Canadians are happy being in Canada, just like most Americans are happy with living in the US.  

Also, you will notice that there is a major debate in the US over health care.  Not so much in Canada.  We have a few, but most are extremely happy with our Universal Health Care.

Like I said, in my city, our wait times for Cataracts is 31 days.  I know, because I work in health care.  Oh and that includes the people who decide to put off their cataract surgery.

----------


## obxeyeguy

> the idea that the US is printing tonnes of money to solve the problem is one that is falsely perpetuated by some politicians. In truth, if that were happening, the US inflation rate would be far higher than 2.25 percent.


US dept is over 11 trillion, with China and Japan holding paper on about 40% of it.

----------


## For-Life

> US dept is over 11 trillion, with China and Japan holding paper on about 40% of it.


that is not printing money.  That is borrowing money

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Wasn't thier income I was questioning. Just wasting half thier working life training then using this training on the golf course.*


I believe chip did not fully unserstand the subject........................

Doctors have a capped ceiling of income, so if they work the full year they will only get paid for 2/3 of it. It is the government and elected parlaments that set the rule. If they would remove the caps we would have full time doctors and could reopen many floors in hospitals that have been closed.

----------


## For-Life

> I believe chip did not fully unserstand the subject........................
> 
> Doctors have a capped ceiling of income, so if they work the full year they will only get paid for 2/3 of it. It is the government and elected parlaments that set the rule. If they would remove the caps we would have full time doctors and could reopen many floors in hospitals that have been closed.


and we have actually removed the cap in Ontario.  Thus, we have cut a significant amount down from our wait times.

----------


## Newyorkoptician

> I can tell you right now, most Canadians are happy being in Canada, just like most Americans are happy with living in the US.  
> 
> Also, you will notice that there is a major debate in the US over health care.  Not so much in Canada.  We have a few, but most are extremely happy with our Universal Health Care.
> 
> Like I said, in my city, our wait times for Cataracts is 31 days.  I know, because I work in health care.  Oh and that includes the people who decide to put off their cataract surgery.




Wait time 31 days. If I wanted to have a cataract done now I would have my choice of a number of surgeons and I would be waiting no longer then 1 week or in two cases 2 days. I had shoulder surgery done waited exactly 2 weeks and that was only because the operating rooms were all booked. If they weren't I could a had it done in two days. And we still have people from Canada coming here because the wait time is much shorter and care is better.        :Eek:

----------


## For-Life

> Wait time 31 days. If I wanted to have a cataract done now I would have my choice of a number of surgeons and I would be waiting no longer then 1 week or in two cases 2 days. I had shoulder surgery done waited exactly 2 weeks and that was only because the operating rooms were all booked. If they weren't I could a had it done in two days. And we still have people from Canada coming here because the wait time is much shorter and care is better.


And we had to put photo IDs on our health cards, because we had Americans coming up and using our system.  :Eek: 

31 days is nothing.  Honestly, I would not want it sooner than 31 days, due to the convenience issues.  And, in the end, it is free.  How much would you pay for yours?  Chris Ryser has already given us estimates in the past.

and if your care was better, why is there far more malpractice lawsuits down there?

----------


## chip anderson

This is the idiot mentallity we have now.  Something the *goverment* pays for is *free.* If you are paying taxes for it, it isn't *free.*  There is no government money.  There has never been any government money.  There will never be an government money.  There is only _taxpayer money!_

No government, no politician, no paper entity can *give* you anything!  Taxpayers can pay the bill and it will always be higher than paying it directly out of your own pocket.  And now through the same idiotic thinking you grandchildren, and greatgranchildren and possibly great-great grandchildren and be taxed to pay *your* bills before they ever arrive on earth.

Chip

----------


## Jubilee

I dont' think anyone is stating it is Free health care. It is universal coverage.. meaning everyone has some basic form of insurance to cover the necesseties.

Wait times.. We have surgeons here that we still have to wait weeks to see. The last cataract patient I got scheduled for same day extraction on was a 3-4 week wait. When I was in a wreck and had a flair up with my neuropathy, I couldn't see my neuro for 6 weeks. To get in for an annual exam I had to book 3 months out to get a date that works for my schedule. It may not be acceptable to you, however I am willing to wait to see someone I know, trust, and works with me. 

You are already paying for the people w/o insurance. The government spent billions of dollars in the past years propping up hospitals and trauma centers in areas where a large portion of the population can't pay. You are paying for them to collect disability when they end up with unnecessary amputations and such when diabetes, infections, and other controllable- if not preventable things, cause someone to no longer be able to work. Worst yet, is the money you pay in social security in terms of spousal benefits or dependents for those who die prematurely and whose deaths could have been prevented. 

Health care in this country is rapidly becoming for only the super sick who then utilize mostly ER services (that costs $$$) or the wealthy who can afford it. Having the best care in the world, but only having it available to 30% of the population doesn't make us the best overall by any means. Morbidity is still higher per thousand than most other "developed" nations.

----------


## Jubilee

With all this talk about taxing future generations.. is everyone complaining opening up their pocketbooks and writing Uncle Sam a check to cover this war? 

I am not saying the war is or is not justified. I am just stating that the costs are in the billions to trillions of dollars.. all being applied to our debt.. yet little is being said about it. However shifting around the money already being paid in terms of health care so it can be used more efficiently is a burden on our future generations and is essence robbing them. 

Of course, it might be nice to see a lower infant mortality rate so that more of them become adults who will give a darn.

----------


## chip anderson

Think of cost for the military as "health costs" for you and especially for the poor b****** out there in the field doing your dying for you.

Chip

----------


## Jubilee

Oh please, don't go there.

My husband works for the VA and my father spent over 20 years in.

The thanks my father got was "you make too much money, so you must go to private care.."

So thanks to his exposure to agent orange and the like, he has some health issues that makes his Tricare premiums and deductibles go through the roof.

Its sad when your parents have to move cause they need to be somewhere they can afford the freaking health care at.

My dad shouldn't have to move to Utah in order to afford his cancer treatment.

This is the thanks your military vets are getting...

----------


## Jubilee

Here is a portion of the paper I wrote for my MPH program. I can provide sources when I get home and have the complete paper available:


US health care spending should be more effective. In 2005, health care spending reached $2 trillion, or $6700 per person. This total represents 16% of the gross domestic product of the United States. It was projected that in the next decade, that amount will double to $4 trillion in 2015 and represent 20% of the gross domestic product. The United States spends more money on health care than other nation in the world, and we still have nearly 47 million Americans that are uninsured. Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5% in France according to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. These countries also provide health insurance to ALL of their citizens. 

All of this money has failed to grant the United States top health status. The US ranks 42 in life expectancy, 41 in infant mortality, and rank 37 in terms of overall satisfaction with the health care system. The United States spends more than any other nation in the world, yet the citizenry is receiving less quality care and is more dissatisfied than the populace of any other industrialized nation. 

Thirty four percent of Americans believe that the nations health care system needs to be scrapped and reformed. Most Americans that are insured have the coverage provided by an employer. The average cost of an employer purchased health care plan was $11,500 per family or $4200 for single coverage. Workers contributed over 25% of the costs for the plans. Since the year 2000, employment-based health insurance premiums have gone up 87% compared to cumulative inflation of 18% and wage growth of 20% for the same period. So while the average American is making 20% more than 7 years ago, they are bringing home less money due to the costs of insurance. 

As the costs of insurance continue to rise, the number of uninsured also rises. The large uninsured population not only affects the individuals and their families, but society as a whole. Roughly $35 billion dollars was spent in 2001 for uncompensated care. This figure includes money to hospitals that receive a disproportionate share of uninsured patients, money for public expenditures for grants, and direct service programs, and the value of free or reduced cost care provided physician volunteers. The health of our nations populace is part of the overall nations wealth. The Institute of Medicine uses the following graphic to show how the costs can add up

 ( I can't get my graphic to copy over correctly. It is a pyramid layered with: 
18,000 people die prematurelyUninsured children and adults receive fewer and less timely services8 million uninsured with chronic illnesses receive few services and increased morbidity and worse outcomes41 million uninsured are less likely to receive preventitive and screening services60 million uninsured individuals and their family members will have less financial security and increased life stress (meaning higher disease incidence) due to lack of insurancePeople living in communicites with higher than average uninsured rates are at risk for reduced availability of health care serves and overtaxed public health resourcesCreating a combined cost estimate of $65 to $130 BILLION dollars a year lost in human health capital due to the lack of health insurance.)




The key to increasing the satisfaction of the US health care system is to provide:
Better qualityImproving Access Controlling CostsThe solution is providing universal coverage to all citizens to consistently provide a high quality of care and creating healthy habits from the start. The money is available and already being spent ineffectively.

----------


## chip anderson

Do the "infant deaths" include abortions?

----------


## Newyorkoptician

> And we had to put photo IDs on our health cards, because we had Americans coming up and using our system. 
> 
> 31 days is nothing.  Honestly, I would not want it sooner than 31 days, due to the convenience issues.  And, in the end, it is free.  How much would you pay for yours?  Chris Ryser has already given us estimates in the past.
> 
> and if your care was better, why is there far more malpractice lawsuits down there?




Photo ID's PLEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!     :Eek:

----------


## Newyorkoptician

> This is the idiot mentallity we have now.  Something the *goverment* pays for is *free.* If you are paying taxes for it, it isn't *free.*  There is no government money.  There has never been any government money.  There will never be an government money.  There is only _taxpayer money!_
> 
> No government, no politician, no paper entity can *give* you anything!  Taxpayers can pay the bill and it will always be higher than paying it directly out of your own pocket.  And now through the same idiotic thinking you grandchildren, and greatgranchildren and possibly great-great grandchildren and be taxed to pay *your* bills before they ever arrive on earth.
> 
> Chip




Well said Chip. Mr Forlife does not understand that nothing is free. It gets paid from some where whether it's directly out of pocket or indirectly it all comes down to we pay one way or another. Your system in Canada isn't free your taxed for that so called free system just as Sweden, England and the other socialist countries that run that same system.       :Eek:

----------


## Jubilee

> Do the "infant deaths" include abortions?


No, infant deaths are among those who are actually born. IE.. take their first breath.

----------


## Newyorkoptician

> I dont' think anyone is stating it is Free health care. It is universal coverage.. meaning everyone has some basic form of insurance to cover the necesseties.
> 
> Wait times.. We have surgeons here that we still have to wait weeks to see. The last cataract patient I got scheduled for same day extraction on was a 3-4 week wait. When I was in a wreck and had a flair up with my neuropathy, I couldn't see my neuro for 6 weeks. To get in for an annual exam I had to book 3 months out to get a date that works for my schedule. It may not be acceptable to you, however I am willing to wait to see someone I know, trust, and works with me. 
> 
> You are already paying for the people w/o insurance. The government spent billions of dollars in the past years propping up hospitals and trauma centers in areas where a large portion of the population can't pay. You are paying for them to collect disability when they end up with unnecessary amputations and such when diabetes, infections, and other controllable- if not preventable things, cause someone to no longer be able to work. Worst yet, is the money you pay in social security in terms of spousal benefits or dependents for those who die prematurely and whose deaths could have been prevented. 
> 
> Health care in this country is rapidly becoming for only the super sick who then utilize mostly ER services (that costs $$$) or the wealthy who can afford it. Having the best care in the world, but only having it available to 30% of the population doesn't make us the best overall by any means. Morbidity is still higher per thousand than most other "developed" nations.




A quote from the AFL-CIO union puts the people who have no insurance at 15% which according to there statistics means 85% have insurance. A far cry from your 30% figure. And if America is all that bad why are you all still here? Move to Canada or France or England. Also if you move to France or Italy you better learn there language they have laws that you must speak the language.   :Eek:

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *This is the idiot mentallity we have now. Something the goverment pays for is free. If you are paying taxes for it, it isn't free. There is no government money. There has never been any government money. There will never be an government money. There is only taxpayer money!*


That is correct.............however the taxpayer pays a the same percentage for health care than anybody else, at the moment his taxes get deducted from the paycheck.

When he gets sick, needs surgery or a psychiatrist the government pays the bill from the money everybody contributed to.

The time I was told that I had 5 to 8 month to live and went through chemo, on week per month for 6 month at $ 4000.00 a day..........that is 30 time $ 4000.00 = $ 120,000 it did not cost 1 cent out of my pocket. I actually survived and have been declared fully cured.

The doctors can not be sued in the way they do it in the USA and have to pay for legal insurance through their nose. That  is the largest point in the US that gets medical cost sky high.

I actually appreciate the Canadian health care.

----------


## Newyorkoptician

> That is correct.............however the taxpayer pays a the same percentage for health care than anybody else, at the moment his taxes get deducted from the paycheck.
> 
> When he gets sick, needs surgery or a psychiatrist the government pays the bill from the money everybody contributed to.
> 
> The time I was told that I had 5 to 8 month to live and went through chemo, on week per month for 6 month at $ 4000.00 a day..........that is 30 time $ 4000.00 = $ 120,000 it did not cost 1 cent out of my pocket. I actually survived and have been declared fully cured.
> 
> The doctors can not be sued in the way they do it in the USA and have to pay for legal insurance through their nose. That  is the largest point in the US that gets medical cost sky high.
> 
> I actually appreciate the Canadian health care.





I still agree with Chip but I m glad it worked out for you and you didn't have to pay that bill.    :Eek:

----------


## chip anderson

As to more lawsuits. Too damn many lawyers. More money to sue for.
Too many people would rather have a windfall than earn through honest work.
Has nothing to do with the quality of surgery. Also I suspect that with National Healthcare malpractice suites are much more difficult to pursue.

Chip

----------


## For-Life

> This is the idiot mentallity we have now.  Something the *goverment* pays for is *free.* If you are paying taxes for it, it isn't *free.*  There is no government money.  There has never been any government money.  There will never be an government money.  There is only _taxpayer money!_
> 
> No government, no politician, no paper entity can *give* you anything!  Taxpayers can pay the bill and it will always be higher than paying it directly out of your own pocket.  And now through the same idiotic thinking you grandchildren, and greatgranchildren and possibly great-great grandchildren and be taxed to pay *your* bills before they ever arrive on earth.
> 
> Chip


No, it is not idiotic.  What would be myopic is that people think if they pay the government $6000 to an insurance company is better than paying $3000 to the government for the same service, and do not see that that the $6000 to the insurance company is pretty much just another tax.

----------


## For-Life

> Think of cost for the military as "health costs" for you and especially for the poor b****** out there in the field doing your dying for you.
> 
> Chip


That is silly.  Yes, stopping Hitler would apply to that.  The War on Iraq will probably cause more problems for the US in the long term than it would prevent.  

Look at every major battle in the past 100 years.  They were created by taking sides and other dumb wars.  These conflicts caused more conflicts.

----------


## For-Life

> Do the "infant deaths" include abortions?


No.

----------


## For-Life

> Well said Chip. Mr Forlife does not understand that nothing is free. It gets paid from some where whether it's directly out of pocket or indirectly it all comes down to we pay one way or another. Your system in Canada isn't free your taxed for that so called free system just as Sweden, England and the other socialist countries that run that same system.


Oh I understand it.  Like I said, you spend $6000 to an insurance company or $3000 to the government.  It is a tax either way.  Only difference is the insurance company and politicians fool you into believing that taxes are different than fees.

----------


## For-Life

> As to more lawsuits. Too damn many lawyers. More money to sue for.
> Too many people would rather have a windfall than earn through honest work.
> Has nothing to do with the quality of surgery. Also I suspect that with National Healthcare malpractice suites are much more difficult to pursue.
> 
> Chip


There is a myth out there that I want to correct.  Canada has lawyers too.

----------


## chip anderson

Never has a government especially the US government done anything, especially medical coverage as ecconomicly as it could be done by private enterprise.   As Ronald Regan showed when he was running for president, one could obtain the same coverage medicare provided for a quarter of the cost.

Chip

----------


## For-Life

> Never has a government especially the US government done anything, especially medical coverage as ecconomicly as it could be done by private enterprise.   As Ronald Regan showed when he was running for president, one could obtain the same coverage medicare provided for a quarter of the cost.
> 
> Chip


Look at basic supply and demand competition.  If I have one hospital in one town, where is the competition?  Therefore, prices will be high to users.

----------


## tmorse

> As to more lawsuits. Too damn many lawyers. More money to sue for.
> Too many people would rather have a windfall than earn through honest work.
> Has nothing to do with the quality of surgery. Also I suspect that with National Healthcare malpractice suites are much more difficult to pursue.
> Chip


It's the * juries* that decide on these crazy awards... the lawyers just help make it happen, for a percentage. Every US juror must think he/she will be the next one asking for and making millions from the courts for almost anything, so they tend to keep the awards so very high.

----------


## chip anderson

For-Life:

You statement about hospitals numbers being relative to price has no merrit.  In fact until lately there was appearently no competition for patients amoung hospitals..
In our state sadly we have a board of doctors that must give a "certifercate of need" for a hospital to built or operate.  This is very highly political and has on occasion closed facilities that were  needed and well placed but not in political sync (in this case we are not talking liberal conservative  or republican democrat, just money and medical politics.
Why a hospital has to be "needed" in an area is beyond my comprehension, if they go broke, they should go broke like any other enterprise,  You try you succeed, or you fail.
Somewhere back down the line hospitals were places to care for the sick, for doctors to practice and provide services that were not suitable for the office.  Somewhere we lost this, probably somewhere in  a slot between insurance, politics and medicaid.
Now hospitals are businesses, outpatient clinics are businesses, but somehow subsized and dependent on the municipality or other governemnt entity.
I miss the smell of either when when you went into the front door of the hospital which you probably never even sniffed.

Chip

----------


## Johns

> Oh I understand it.  Like I said, you spend $6000 to an insurance company or $3000 to the government.  It is a tax either way.  Only difference is the insurance company and politicians fool you into believing that taxes are different than fees.


Absolutely NOT!  You are not given a choice in regards to taxation. It is mandated.

Insurance on the other hand, is a choice, and you can get higher or lower quality coverages. Yes, I'd much rather spend $12,000 for insurance (and work 10 hours a week more for it if working harder for something is still legal), and $2,000 more in taxes.

Universal health care will be great to rescue all the people that don't want to make the decision between buying a new iphone, plazma tv, and another diamond stud for their nose and buying health insurance for their family.

I think it's completely ironic (and moronic) that as more developing countries embrace capitalism, the UNITED STATES, which was made strong by it, is racing (or being rappidly dragged) toward socialism.

----------


## Jubilee

Since there seems to be some impressions that the uninsured are lazy, loungeabouts.. I pulled some facts from Kaisers Family Foundation, a non-profit.. bipartisan organization that does research into health policies and issues..




> In 2007, 45 million nonelderly people in the United States lacked health coverage 
> More than eight in ten uninsured people (81%) come from working families 
> About two-thirds of the nonelderly uninsured are from low-income families (income below 200% of poverty, about $42,400 for a family of 4 in 2007) 
> More than one in three people (35%) living in poverty are uninsured, compared with one in twenty people (5%) with family incomes at or above four times the poverty level 
> Adults age 19-54 make up the majority (71%) of the nonelderly uninsured, but nearly 9 million children lacked health coverage in 2007 
> Since 2000 the number of nonelderly uninsured has grown by 8 millionwith the only decline in the number of uninsured occurring in 2007, largely driven by an increase in public coverage 
> Uninsured adults are five times as likely as the privately insured to lack a usual source of care (54% vs. 10%) and four times as likely to postpone care due to cost (26% vs. 6%) 
> Fully half of the uninsured report paying for health care and health insurance is a serious problem 
> 
> ...


How many of the employers offer insurance benefits or an allowance to go towards benefits for their associates? Myself, I could not be in the position I am now, if I weren't married because my employer does not offer health insurance. However the economy is in shambles and do we think it would be wise for those people unable to get insurance through one place, to move positions to allow them that opportunity? What about those who have their benefits cut, so they have large deductibles and huge co-insurance amounts.. which still eats up a large portion of income?

another organization with similar data..
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

----------


## Jubilee

Many of these nations have a blended type of economy. While Capitalism is the main driving force in their economy, they believe that social services are everyone's right.. and something they are willing to pay for.

It isn't a place where everyone makes the same wage, or where no one is rewarded for their merit. It is simply making it so that everyone can be healthy, and increasing the productivity of their nations. Australia has an excellent program that provides basic coverage for all citizens, and then gives tax credits to those who get coverage through private means instead (such as employer). So those not utlizing the system get some tax relief.. and people can buy secondary coverage to cover private rooms, self-referral, and other type services that wouldn't be covered in their basic plan.

----------


## Chris Ryser

In Canada, dentist's, eyeglasses, medications, are not covered by the state. Therefore some employers pay 1/2 of the cost throungh an additional insurance that is either paid in full if they are generous or partial.
Including this extra insurance an employee is fully covered. It becomes part of the revenue.

----------


## chip anderson

If we would all learn to substitute *Taxpayers* for the words: State, Government, Federal, etc.  If we would *require this of politicians by law.* Our governments both here and in Canada would have whole differnt outlook.  Deficits would go away entirely.
*There is no such thing as "The State" paying for anything.  There is only taxpayer and future taxpayer money!*


Chip

----------


## For-Life

> For-Life:
> 
> You statement about hospitals numbers being relative to price has no merrit.  In fact until lately there was appearently no competition for patients amoung hospitals..
> In our state sadly we have a board of doctors that must give a "certifercate of need" for a hospital to built or operate.  This is very highly political and has on occasion closed facilities that were  needed and well placed but not in political sync (in this case we are not talking liberal conservative  or republican democrat, just money and medical politics.
> Why a hospital has to be "needed" in an area is beyond my comprehension, if they go broke, they should go broke like any other enterprise,  You try you succeed, or you fail.
> Somewhere back down the line hospitals were places to care for the sick, for doctors to practice and provide services that were not suitable for the office.  Somewhere we lost this, probably somewhere in  a slot between insurance, politics and medicaid.
> Now hospitals are businesses, outpatient clinics are businesses, but somehow subsized and dependent on the municipality or other governemnt entity.
> I miss the smell of either when when you went into the front door of the hospital which you probably never even sniffed.
> 
> Chip



So Sioux Lookout that is 120 miles from any other community and has 6000 people should not have a hospital is if it not profitable?  

That is the problem, hospitals should not be a business.  Life or death should not be determined by dollar.

----------


## For-Life

> If we would all learn to substitute *Taxpayers* for the words: State, Government, Federal, etc.  If we would *require this of politicians by law.* Our governments both here and in Canada would have whole differnt outlook.  Deficits would go away entirely.
> *There is no such thing as "The State" paying for anything.  There is only taxpayer and future taxpayer money!*
> 
> 
> Chip


This is the first year in 10 that the Canadian government will post a deficit.  The Ontario government has made huge movements toward improving health care and education without going into into deficit.  We have balanced budgets folks.  

And our taxes are not much worse than yours.  Actually, I hear they are now pretty equal.

So smart government can do these things without major taxation or deficits.

----------


## chip anderson

"Smart Government"

Funniest one liner I ever heard.

----------


## For-Life

> "Smart Government"
> 
> Funniest one liner I ever heard.


Well you did vote for Dubbya twice, so I guess it would be funny to you :p

:cheers:

----------


## renee1111

I love ya Chip, but i must disagree with you on several of the points you have made.  But to give you the benefit of the doubt, please provide one piece of evidence that shows that there are Canadians that want to move to emigrate united states that are currently "trapped" in Canada. 
"Think you will find there are more Cannadians wanting to come to the US than US citizens wanting to get into Cannada" (please show some respect and spell our country's name correctly. It's Spelt Canada and we are Canadians)  With the ease that Mexicans with nothing to their name can slip into the United States, I'm pretty sure that any Canadian who wants in the United States is already there.  Up until 2002 there were border crossings in Quebec/Vermont that weren't even manned. 
I would also encourage you to provide us with some statistical data or articles supporting that the United States has the best overall medical system in all of the developed countries.  I googled "usa best health care system in the world" however the first 25-30 results, did not exactly paint your health care system as the best.
An article that I feel would best sum up my opion can be found at the following link

http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1503

I don't feel that the united states health care system is as horrible as some make it sound however i definatly do feel that it favors the "have's" much more then the "have not's".
Futhermore, infant mortality rates provided by the UN, WHO and federal governments DO NOT include abortions  Here is an intresting article on infant mortality in the US

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-..._b_135027.html

----------


## For-Life

the best way to become informed is go to the WHO site and read.  There is a lot there.

----------


## Scrumblydumpus

> the best way to become informed is go to the WHO site and read.  There is a lot there.


Reality has a well established liberal bias, you just cant trust it.

----------


## For-Life

> Reality has a well established liberal bias, you just cant trust it.


lol, I was waiting for someone to claim it has a liberal bias.  Seems like that is the claim anytime someone does not agree with something else.  Even so, without actually reading the site, how can one claim it is bias?

----------


## chip anderson

For-Life:   
I didn't vote for W twice, I voted against his opposition twice.  I also voted against Obummer, but I really had to hold my nose pulling the lever his opposition.  Wouldn't walk next door to have a drink with either of them if they were buying.
Chip

----------


## For-Life

Silly Chip.  I would have a drink with anyone if they were buying.  Especially a young Dubbya.  Apparently he knew how to party.

----------


## offaxis1961

*People on welfare should pick up trash on the side of the road. Instead of staying at home picking their noses.*

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *People on welfare should pick up trash on the side of the road. Instead of staying at home picking their noses.*


The Quebec Government offered the welfare recipients that they could help out picking apples in fall some years ago, without any penalty in taxation, that means they could make some money on the side without being taxed. There was no takers.

----------


## Metronome

> Where does the $500.00 that you cited _"She gets a $500 cheque"_ come from? It comes from the egregious taxes paid be those who spend five or more days a week with their noses to the grind stone. It comes from the labor of others. It comes from the confiscatory taxes and fees that businesses are forced to pay. 
> 
> No one, especially me, want to see the needy suffer but I do resent being forced to give my hard earned money to the lazy and the loungeabouts. And, I also resent having my hard earned money redistributed to businesses and government programs that failed and put us in the perilous position that we are in today.
> 
> What really gets my goat is the youts in the mall with the baggy arsed trousers and the backwards hats - bu thats for another post.


Delete.

----------


## Metronome

> *People on welfare should pick up trash on the side of the road. Instead of staying at home picking their noses.*


Delete.

----------


## Johns

> So Sioux Lookout that is 120 miles from any other community and has 6000 people should not have a hospital is if it not profitable?


If someone decides to live 120 miles from any other community, we should run out there and build them a hospital??:hammer:

----------


## For-Life

> If someone decides to live 120 miles from any other community, we should run out there and build them a hospital??:hammer:


if you knew the value of having that community there, yes :hammer:

----------


## sharpstick777

No sympathy here...  send me hate mail, fill my inbox with threats, and call me all sorts of names but I can't feel very sorry for you.

First off dude, you chose to go into business.  You can still pick up a time card and join the working masses anytime you want.  Sell off to Essilor, like everyone else is and collect a "consulting" fee for 3 years while you pop in every 2 weeks to make sure the building still stands.  I know the Conservatives are always shouting at people to take responsibility for themselves so I won't harp on you.

Second, the US is the best place in the entire world to run a business.  I have done some small business developement overseas.  In Europe the taxes are almost twice as high as here (65% in Denmark for example) and the permitting in some countries will send your head into a tail spin.  You can't just start a business in most countries with just a public notice in the paper and a $35 license, you have to apply for permission!  you have to prove that your business is needed, your qualfied to run it, and that you have the resources to pull it off.  Then you have to wait for some boards approval, which of course comes with conditions.  Of course the board contains some of your competition so approval might take... oh.. years?  Then you have to clear a thousand government agencies before your doors open.

Outside of Europe,  bribery is a huge issue for small business owners.  The police come around to collect their share, then the local crime boss insists you hire his cousin who you never see after the first day (but you are still paying him anyway).  Then the local police want more, and the crime boss has another cousin because the first one likes his new job so much.

The US is the only country in the world where people can deduct the cost of starting up a business from their taxes.  Although you were eating Top Ramen for years your expenses were in part subsidised by Uncle Sam if you filled out your schedule "C" every year.  I have been subsidising the start up of your business!  And this is the thanks I get?  Jk.

Taxes only penalize you if your competition is not paying any.  Just like every business you pass along the costs in the price of the goods and services you provide.

In your defense, I do favor lowering business taxes but too many people used to use their "business" as a tax loophole to avoid paying taxes.  So you can blame all the tax cheats of the 80's who all formed corporations, paid their kids, pets, and mother-in-laws just below the tax threshold, and made a $100K with none of it going to taxes.

The problem is not with the government, or with taxes, its really perspective.  I would if I were you give thanks to God that you have one of the very rare successful small businesses (its quite an accomplishment),  you can make your own choices and set your own destiny, you live in the greatest country on earth (no offense to anyone else), then take pride in what you have done and the customers you have served.

Sharpstick

----------


## rbaker

> So, if you had it to do over again, what would you do differently?



As a start:

Reduce the state and federal personal income tax rate.Reduce the state and federal corporate tax rate.Reinstate the state and federal tax exemption on second home mortgages.Allow the interest on large durable goods purchases (autos, appliances, bass boats, etc.) to be deductible on state and federal taxes.Extend unemployment rates and benefits.Allow a full deduction on state and federal tax returns for all tuition expenses at college, university or vocational school.Reinstate the draft.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Sell off to Essilor, like everyone else is and collect a "consulting" fee for 3 years while you pop in every 2 weeks to make sure the building still stands.*
> 
> *..................................The problem is not with the government, or with taxes, its really perspective. ..............................*
> 
> *I would if I were you give thanks to God that you have one of the very rare successful small businesses (its quite an accomplishment), you can make your own choices and set your own destiny, you live in the greatest country on earth (no offense to anyone else), then take pride in what you have done and the customers you have served.*
> 
> Sharpstick


 
You forgot one thing............................Before you can sell out to Essilor you have to build up a business of you own.

.........and to build up the business it takes years of belt tightening because the banks have never supported startups with loans the first 5 years of commercial survival. So you drive the old used car, purchase used equipment, put any profit you made back into the business.

Then you need to hire employees, which make more money than you do for probably many years. Then any time between five to ten years later you actually are finally ahead and can enjoy a few luxuries. 

And if you are aware of the future, you then have to safeguard that part, by paying off your mortgage or mortgages in double time so that you can survive any possible hard times, which pop up periodically. So by even being successful you are still tightening your belt.

And then you suddenly see the signs of a possible downturn in the economy. Business slows down, your customers, if they still buy do buy, they do buy less, and the ones that paid you promptly for years suddenly pay late. So you have to build a cushion that you will not default that way. 
You will still be there getting your hands dirty years after you started, working more hours than any employee you have, while having been fairly successful.

So when we talk about selling out to Essilor or to some other corporation that obviously wants to dominate the market it is not only that you had a successful business turning over of a big number of dollars, which means a big number of customers and jobs......................but what was left over in net profits.
If you have built a company with your own sweat, you should be entitled to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

Governments have never made it easy for small business, and that is not only taxes we pay or others pay in different countries. 
They start wars they should not have, spend more money than they should have, allow unfair competition and have grown to big. In Canada every 3rd person works for a government of a kind, from city to to provincial and federal.

We just all have to adapt to the new and harder times to survive by catering well to our customers financial  situation by going back a few steps and get our hands dirty again, so that we will survive the tough times..

----------


## ilanh

> Here is a portion of the paper I wrote for my MPH program. I can provide sources when I get home and have the complete paper available:
> 
> 
> US health care spending should be more effective. In 2005, health care spending reached $2 trillion, or $6700 per person. This total represents 16% of the gross domestic product of the United States. It was projected that in the next decade, that amount will double to $4 trillion in 2015 and represent 20% of the gross domestic product. The United States spends more money on health care than other nation in the world, and we still have nearly 47 million Americans that are uninsured. Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5% in France according to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. These countries also provide health insurance to ALL of their citizens. 
> 
> All of this money has failed to grant the United States top health status. The US ranks 42 in life expectancy, 41 in infant mortality, and rank 37 in terms of overall satisfaction with the health care system. The United States spends more than any other nation in the world, yet the citizenry is receiving less quality care and is more dissatisfied than the populace of any other industrialized nation. 
> 
> Thirty four percent of Americans believe that the nations health care system needs to be scrapped and reformed. Most Americans that are insured have the coverage provided by an employer. The average cost of an employer purchased health care plan was $11,500 per family or $4200 for single coverage. Workers contributed over 25% of the costs for the plans. Since the year 2000, employment-based health insurance premiums have gone up 87% compared to cumulative inflation of 18% and wage growth of 20% for the same period. So while the average American is making 20% more than 7 years ago, they are bringing home less money due to the costs of insurance. 
> 
> ...


Jubilee,
I think this pretty much states the entire case.  Our health care system is probably the best in the world if it comes to comparing technologies and the high quality of the doctors and hospitals.  However, if we take cost and access into account we fall far short of being the best.  If you believe that a good "health care system" needs to provide cost-effective care for the largest number of people possible, then Europe wins and we lose.    A recent worldwide survey was conducted to assess how happy individuals are with the healthcare systems of their particular country.  France came out #1 and the U.S was somewhere around #18.  The French liked their system because it was completely free and totally accessible.  The French don't pay a dime for healthcare but the physicians are reimbursed by the govt based on the number of patients that they see.  Therefore, the M.D's are motivated to provide good, efficient care and keep their patient base happy.  They spend much less per capita on healthcare than we do (10% vs. 16%) and yet 100% of their population is covered compared to 80% of ours.  If you do the math you'll see that they are exactly 100% more cost efficient than we are.  And yet, their mortality and morbidity rates are similar.  More importantly (and impossible to measure) the French have eliminated they anxiety, frustration and constant concerns that every U.S citizen feels regarding the costs and/or accessibility of their health care.

----------


## chip anderson

This is not a-typical, in fact I would say that it might be as close as 40% of the _norm._
Friday I had a woman bring her child in to pick up a 2nd pair of glasses after somethng disasterous happened to the first.  Admittedly this child had a few problems.  However the mother told me that she tried to come in the previous Friday and she had little fender bender.  Said she just barely rolled into the car in front of her.  It didn't hurt the car in front of her but she had six thousand dollars damage to hers.  
Kind of supprised at the less than two mph damage, I asked: "What do you drive?"
She replied: " A Cadillac Eldorado ".
As she left, I noticed that it was a *new* Cadillac Eldorado  and she parked the damn thing in our handicaped spot.
Who paid for the glasses?  Why Medicaid (read: Taxpayers) of course.
One must evaluate the number of people that don't have insurance because because they choose to buy new Cadillac Eldorado's or are wealthy enough to pay for most non-catastropic out of pocket but don't because that old sucker the taxpayer says: "*You entitled, you might as well use it or someone else will."*

Chip

----------


## rbaker

*Simple Common Sense*

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the  wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another  person must work for without receiving. 

The government cannot give to  anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.  

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work  because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half  gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get  what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You  cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. 

Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931-2005

----------


## For-Life

Honestly, I just do not get how someone who makes $250k a year gross and $167,500 net can argue that there is no motivation for them to make more money, and that they might as well just do nothing and receive $8500.

----------


## chip anderson

Fo-Life: 

Where the logic comes in is when the person making $167.000.00 finds that he is gonna git $8500.00 so the rest can be divided up in $8500.00 plops to the won't bother to works.
Or when one gets $167,000.00 and knows that no matter how much more productive he becomes his efforts will not be rewarded enough to bother putting forth the effort.

Chip

----------


## For-Life

> Fo-Life: 
> 
> Where the logic comes in is when the person making $167.000.00 finds that he is gonna git $8500.00 so the rest can be divided up in $8500.00 plops to the won't bother to works.
> Or when one gets $167,000.00 and knows that no matter how much more productive he becomes his efforts will not be rewarded enough to bother putting forth the effort.
> 
> Chip


Of course he is rewarded, by getting $167,000.  Believe it or not, $167,000 is a lot more than $8500, and it is his hard work that got him that $167,000.  You are telling me that the almost 2000% increase is not a point of motivation?

----------


## bob_f_aboc

> This is not a-typical, in fact I would say that it might be as close as 40% of the _norm._
> Friday I had a woman bring her child in to pick up a 2nd pair of glasses after somethng disasterous happened to the first. Admittedly this child had a few problems. However the mother told me that she tried to come in the previous Friday and she had little fender bender. Said she just barely rolled into the car in front of her. It didn't hurt the car in front of her but she had six thousand dollars damage to hers. 
> Kind of supprised at the less than two mph damage, I asked: "What do you drive?"
> She replied: " A Cadillac Eldorado ".
> As she left, I noticed that it was a *new* Cadillac Eldorado and she parked the damn thing in our handicaped spot.
> Who paid for the glasses? Why Medicaid (read: Taxpayers) of course.
> One must evaluate the number of people that don't have insurance because because they choose to buy new Cadillac Eldorado's or are wealthy enough to pay for most non-catastropic out of pocket but don't because that old sucker the taxpayer says: "*You entitled, you might as well use it or someone else will."*
> 
> Chip





> Of course he is rewarded, by getting $167,000. Believe it or not, $167,000 is a lot more than $8500, and it is his hard work that got him that $167,000. You are telling me that the almost 2000% increase is not a point of motivation?


I will back Chip up with something that I have posted before. The following are the "benefits" available to a single parent with 3 kids making $26,000/year living in Texas. Keep in mind this is after the tax 'refund' of around $6000 for taxes witheld of around $2000.




> Adding up the other "benefits"
> $500/year Medicaid (assuming 10 visits paid at $50)
> $6000/year Food Stamps (a low estimate for this situation)
> $1350/year free school lunches ($2.50 full cost x 3 kids x 180 school days) 
> $10,000/year daycare assistance (conservative estimate allowing multi child discounts) 
> $7200/year housing assistance ($600/month allowance) 
> $1800/year utility assistance (again conservative $150/month)
> ----------
> $26,850 Total annual assistance.
> ...


I know that the Medicaid total is very conservative. Just figuring 10 office visits, no glasses, no surgery, no ER, no after hours, etc.

I know that For-Life argued that my family making $58,000 for 3 of us has more disposable income than the single parent.  I just filed my taxes for last year and really would like to know where the disposable income is.

----------


## For-Life

> I will back Chip up with something that I have posted before. The following are the "benefits" available to a single parent with 3 kids making $26,000/year living in Texas. Keep in mind this is after the tax 'refund' of around $6000 for taxes witheld of around $2000.
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the Medicaid total is very conservative. Just figuring 10 office visits, no glasses, no surgery, no ER, no after hours, etc.
> 
> I know that For-Life argued that my family making $58,000 for 3 of us has more disposable income than the single parent.  I just filed my taxes for last year and really would like to know where the disposable income is.


And what was the tax refund you received for having a household of 3?  

Also, I would like to see a source here, because I think a few extra things got thrown in there for someone who makes $26k.  

I think many of your estimates are pretty high.  The housing component, here at least, tends to be around $300.  10 visits to the emerge?  That is a lot.  Daycare assistance is so the mother can work and contribute to society.  If she is not working and is one welfare, then she does not receive daycare assistance.


But may I ask you, just like I have asked everyone else and no one has given me an answer, why should the children suffer for the mistakes of the parents?  Where did the children make those decisions?

Edit - I will admit to one thing though.  The people who do get screwed the most from all of this are the ones just over the welfare threshold.  Unfortunately, the government has to stop providing at one point.  Like I have said, I have studied numerous alternatives to the current welfare system, and all of them seem to present the same problems.  It sucks, but sorry guys, until a better, tested solution is done, it is something you might as well just get over.

Plus, it still does not discourage you Bob from making more.  You are at the low end of the threshold.  As you move up, you will have more income.  I know I am far better off than someone on welfare and have far more disposable income.

----------


## bob_f_aboc

My refund is about $2000.  The reason for that is my wife and I both have an additional $20 witheld from our paychecks.  With aging parents on both sides of our family, it is nice to have that extra cushion every spring for flights if necessary.  Plus it will help offset some of the tax liability if we should ever collect a substantial amount from life insurance.

I would like to see you find a 3BR apt for $300/month.

I have worked in offices that accept Medicaid.  Since they don't have to pay for it, every sniffle or sneeze can be a reason to go to the doctor.

Remember, I said single parent making $26,000/year.  That does constitue working.  Therefore will qualify for child care assistance.

I agree, the children are not to blame.  We need to start taking away these benefits based on the length of time they are used.  After 1 year on public assistance, some benefits are cut. After 2 years, still more.  Finally, after 3 years on public assistance with no evidence of bettering oneself, all assistance is stopped.  If the parents cannot take care of their kids, they will become wards of the state (they already are in principle) or they are sent to foster families.  

You cannot work at a job making $26K per year and not get a raise or an offer of better employment unless you specifically avoid it.  Hell, even when I worked at McDonald's, I got 40-50 cents an hour raise each year for showing up to work, more if I did my job well. A 50 cent/hour raise once a year for 3 years will give an increase of $1040/year.  That doesn't include overtime that someone working to better themselves would be more than happy to work.

----------


## For-Life

> My refund is about $2000.  The reason for that is my wife and I both have an additional $20 witheld from our paychecks.  With aging parents on both sides of our family, it is nice to have that extra cushion every spring for flights if necessary.  Plus it will help offset some of the tax liability if we should ever collect a substantial amount from life insurance.
> 
> I would like to see you find a 3BR apt for $300/month.
> 
> I have worked in offices that accept Medicaid.  Since they don't have to pay for it, every sniffle or sneeze can be a reason to go to the doctor.
> 
> Remember, I said single parent making $26,000/year.  That does constitue working.  Therefore will qualify for child care assistance.
> 
> I agree, the children are not to blame.  We need to start taking away these benefits based on the length of time they are used.  After 1 year on public assistance, some benefits are cut. After 2 years, still more.  Finally, after 3 years on public assistance with no evidence of bettering oneself, all assistance is stopped.  If the parents cannot take care of their kids, they will become wards of the state (they already are in principle) or they are sent to foster families.  
> ...


I do not know how it is in Texas, I can only speak on what I see here.  The government will subsidize housing, but does not pay for 100%.  So there would be POTENTIALLY part of the housing paid out of her income and the other subsidized.  That is if she does not make too much to qualify for subsidized housing.  So I would anticipate that at the most, she would get $300 a month.  The electricity tends to be paid out of pocket too.  Food would also be far lower due to her working.  Remember that these numbers are probably based on someone who does not work and thus makes much less.

As for you asking to take benefits away after time, that happens in the US.  Five years, and that is not five consecutive years.  That is a total of 1825 in a lifetime per person.

Finally, keep in mind that it is not like she is making a profit off of this.  The additional income is due to covering each child.  If you have two more children Bob, you may be eligible for it too.  You will not be any better off though.  Probably much worse.

----------


## Jubilee

I just ran it through our states screening process at http://www.in.gov/qualcheck/ControllerServlet.

A single parent, with 3 kids, making 26K a year only qualifies for some Food Stamps and the kids only qualify for medicaid assistance.

Big difference.

Then they will not qualify for the maximum amount since they have income coming in. Most likely it is only about $300-350 in food stamps.

No help with day care.. no insurance for the parent.. no cash assistance... no utility assistance.


They would qualify for reduced..possibly free lunch pricing at school.. They are at the transition mark there.

Welfare varies state to state. Perhaps the standard of living is higher there than here in Indiana, or your state needs to take a look at its list again.

You're right. A 3bd apt here goes for about $800-900 in a not so nice area in town. Most will require you to pay the utilities too. Daycare is at least $150/wk for this family, if not more depending on how many are in school. If even one of them is not of school age, and not in head start or similar program, then you can easily double that figure.

Its not a freebie. You also have to meet with your case workers on a regular basis or they will shut you out. They recertify you every 6 months so that you can't take advantage very long. There is also caps on the amount you can receive and once you are on the rolls, the amount of cash you get if you qualify, does not go up if you have any more kids.

If the other parent is alive, they will go after them for support.. and do everything in their power to make someone else responsible...to get them off the rolls.

While unfortunately there will be people taking advantage anyway, the majority legitimately need this help, and are actively working on getting their education and training to lift themselves out and succeed.

----------


## chip anderson

When it comes to "benfits and _entitlements"  please try to use_ *taxpayers* instead of the word government.   The Taxpayers and God provide.  The Government taketh away.

Chip

----------


## Newyorkoptician

> I just ran it through our states screening process at http://www.in.gov/qualcheck/ControllerServlet.
> 
> A single parent, with 3 kids, making 26K a year only qualifies for some Food Stamps and the kids only qualify for medicaid assistance.
> 
> Big difference.
> 
> Then they will not qualify for the maximum amount since they have income coming in. Most likely it is only about $300-350 in food stamps.
> 
> No help with day care.. no insurance for the parent.. no cash assistance... no utility assistance.
> ...





Were not saying they don't need help but there are whose who just abuse the system and like anything else your paying for the few who ruin it for everyone else. And single family parents they should be going after the other parent and make them pay there fair share. Remember it takes two to tangle! And as the great comedian Bill C. said " you can't run around acting like dogs and running away from your responsibilities" A slight paraphrase.    :Eek:

----------

