|
|
Post by Ian on Feb 28, 2005 15:28:43 GMT -5
Hmmm, sounds like communism.
So long as Bush doesn't stick my head in a cage full of flesh-eating rats, I don't really care.
Yeah, so did mine. If you could put down 1984 for awhile and read what you are responding to, you would see that TNR didn't say that people shouldn't be paid overtime, he said that the system that is in place discourages overtime pay. And hell, I'm not even a neo-con!
|
|
|
|
Post by GregoryA on Feb 28, 2005 16:46:11 GMT -5
Crash: I don't know your definition of young, however I am 45 years old. Not only have I read 1984, but I have taught it. And yes I know how facts can be manipulated and controlled, which is one of the reasons I am a conservative. I believe liberals need, yes actually need to control what others think and how others act, while I want the freedom to run my own life within the cutural framework of our nation.
Here are some facts that I am certain of from my own family history:My parents were the children of immigrants who came to the U.S. not to get a hand out but to work toward a better life.
My parents both quit school to work during the great depression to help support their families.
My father proudly served during the Second World War to defend his nation from tyranny.
My parents never, I mean never, took any handouts from the government.
My parents worked hard to get their two children through college without any government aid or loans.
That is their legacy to me. To work hard, to be honest, to expect nothing I did not earn.
Roosevelt, Eisenhower or no one else gave that to them.
|
|
Crash
German Shepard
Posts: 18
|
Post by Crash on Feb 28, 2005 21:33:48 GMT -5
GregoryA;
oops, I thought that since you were talking about your parents that you were younger. Sorry.
I totally disagree with your assumption that liberals are control freaks. Look at Bush for example. A citizen of the U.S. can't attend any of his functions without signing a loyalty oath and then he puts a stooge in the press corps to ask prearranged questions? Talk about controlling what people think!!! Give me a break, most liberals dont give a rats a$$ what others think.
The only thing Roosevelt and liberal/progressives gave your parents and mine was the opportunity to work themselves out of poverty. He was labor-friendly and he helped to put tight controls on the same corporate mentality that is in the White House today. All Eisenhower did was to warn us about the corporations that make money from war. Neither gave our families anything but better opportunities and a level playing field. Back then a union job in a steel mill would put kids thru college. Was it a redistribution of wealth? I think so, but capitalism didnt collapse it actually got stronger and the new middle class made this country the wealthiest and strongest in the world. That's the wealth that Bush and his corporate backers have their greedy little eyes on.
The manipulation of the press, the constant propaganda, relaxation of environmental standards, tax breaks for the wealthy who create lots of job...in India, Social Security privitization, the unAmerican corporate welfare policies, the open borders policies and on and on, all have one purpose, the real neo-con Republican adjenda, which is to suck the wealth out of this country by any means possible, that includes war.
If you sit around and wait for your dividend check to come in then I can see why you would want to back this corporatist govt. But if you work for a living I can't see why you would vote for anybody who wants to lower your standard of living and strap your grandkids with debt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Feb 28, 2005 22:22:41 GMT -5
A citizen of the U.S. can't attend any of his functions without signing a loyalty oath and then he puts a stooge in the press corps to ask prearranged questions? Talk about controlling what people think!!! What the hell are you talking about? Bush isn't controlling what people think by forcing loyalty oaths, I'm sure you haven't changed your mind. Wrong again! The neo-cons like Bill Crystal and Paul Wolfowitz's agenda is to preserve the state of Israel, which is the crux of our problem with those of the Islamic faith. |
|
|
|
Post by GregoryA on Mar 1, 2005 16:44:45 GMT -5
Crash:
Concerning George W., I may get into some troulbe here, but I must speak my mind...George, in my assessment is not a conservative and not a constitutionalist. So using him as an example of a "conservative control freak" is a bit off base in my mind. I would agree that loyalty oaths and prearranged press questions is not only a dangerous concept, but also make this president appear quite silly.
Concerning FDR and Ike we could go back and forth on the climate they created for labor, but I know it was my daddy, not the nanny state that but food on our dinner table.
I would also agree with Ian and others such as Pat Buchanan that our unquestioning support for Isreal sponsored by the neo-cons has gotten us into the mess we are now experiencing in the Middle East. I find their policies abhorrent because they place greater emphasis on the well being of a foriegn nation, allie though it may be, than that of the United States.
Call me an American Firster and you wouldn't be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Mar 1, 2005 18:27:34 GMT -5
Crash,
If you re-read my post, you'll see that I favor the abolition of overtime laws because in the end they hurt the WORKERS. Before you go off half cocked calling me a corporate fascist, perhaps you should dive a little deeper into the economics of this issue instead of seeing it through party lines.
I'll explain further. Lets look a little closer at the economics of it. If the market value of your labor is worth $10 per hour to your employer, he will take into account the amount of overtime he expects he'll need from you when he offers you a job. If he expects you'll work 45 hours a week, he'll pay you less in base pay so that he can afford the mandatory time and a half overtime he has to pay you for those extra five hours. He'll constuct your contract so that in the end, overtime included, your salary evens out as closely as possible to $10 per hour. Does that make sense?
To make it simple, lets say your boss expects he'll need you to work, on average, 45 hours per week and your labor is worth $10 per hour. That means he'll set your base pay not at $10 per hour, but rather $9.47 an hour. That way if you work 45 hours a week (as he has predicted), your average wage ends up being $10 per hour after you factor in the 5 hours at time and a half. If you're not fllowing my math, grab a calculator and punch this in:
(40 x 9.47) plus (5 x 9.47 x 1.5).
It comes out to $450, or the same as $10 per hour for 45 hours. See how it works?
In the end you lose money. If you work a 40-hour week with no overtime, at $9.47 per hour you'll make $370.80 instead of $400. You have been payed below your market value. This is what happens when government interferes with the private market. You lose.
I'm not a business owner. I work for a wage myself, and I see how mandatory overtime laws screw me. I began researching this when my boss kept sending me home after 40 hours even though we had more work than we could get done in 50 hours. He explained to me that the loss in production was more economical than paying me time and a half to get the job done. At first I was pissed at him, but when I started looking at it through the numbers it made perfect sense.
I'll reiterate, I'm not saying you shouldn't receive overtime pay, but that should be between you and your employer, not the government. This is a PRIVATE economy in which we operate.
|
|
