Support NeoGAF

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

The NRA?

No, keep trying.

 

[Deku]

I realize that "Everyone is accepted but racist" views of the movement, but these guys probably walked up to the OWS group and said, "Hey we're a local militia, mind if we protect you symbolically?" and after the Oakland debacle, they thought "Great!" and let them in not knowing they were neonazis and it is going to unfairly bite they group there in the ass. I should have realized something was up when they guy started talking about the silver and gold standard. They OWS people there probably aren't even aware that they're neonazis yet.

Or maybe they actually support the idea of going back to a gold standard? That outlook is shared by a variety of groups, though it guarantees certain economic disaster if implemented.

 

[Fenderputty]

The company I work for is private and has grown that way for years. The company is now among the top electrical distributors in the country.

The founder would shut the doors tomorrow if the company was ever to unionize.

Ooo yeah ... your bosses got your interests in mind alright. HAHAH.

 

[Something Wicked]

FYI less than 10% of the private sector is unionized. Look elsewhere for your scapegoat.

It has not so much been private sector unions being the problem, but public unions. Nearly, all of the "blue states'" fiscal problems are primarily caused by public union pensions, to a lesser degree, healthcare benefits, and to an even lesser degree, wages.

Look at the books of states like Illinois, Michigan, Rhode Island, and New Jersey- they are all god-awful, thanks to their public unions. The union heads and senior members even screw over their younger members all of the time.

The following situation has come up in many states over the last couple years:

newly elected state official: "You guys need to either contribute just 3% more to your pension/healthcare benefits, or we'll have to lay-off potentially up to tens of thousands of state employees."

union leaders: "No! No! Nooo! You cannot suppress the rights of the hard working-class Americans! We absolutely reject your proposal."

state official: "We simply do not have the money. Unfortunately, we do not have the choice at this time, and we think an extra 3% is quite reasonable [which it's more than reasonable, as the percentage should be much higher than even the state's offer]."

union leaders: "Nooo! Rot in hell! We will never accept your tyranny! rabble rabble rabble..."

And so the state has to lay-off the workers- most of them younger, yet less expensive employees, who are expendable in the mind of the union leaders.

 

[Vicetrailia]

It has not so much been private sector unions being the problem, but public unions. Nearly, all of the "blue states'" fiscal problems are primarily caused by public union pensions, to a lesser degree, healthcare benefits, and to an even lesser degree, wages.

Look at the books of states like Illinois, Michigan, Rhode Island, and New Jersey- they are all god-awful, thanks to their public unions. The union heads and senior members even screw over their younger members all of the time.

The following situation has come up in many states over the last couple years:

newly elected state official: "You guys need to either contribute just 3% more to your pension/healthcare benefits, or we'll have to lay-off potentially up to tens of thousands of state employees."

union leaders: "No! No! Nooo! You cannot suppress the rights of the hard working-class Americans! We absolutely reject your proposal."

state official: "We simply do not have the money. Unfortunately, we do not have the choice at this time, and we think an extra 3% is quite reasonable [which it's more than reasonable, as the percentage should be much higher than even the state's offer]."

union leaders: "Nooo! Rot in hell! We will never accept your tyranny! rabble rabble rabble..."

And so the state has to lay-off the workers- most of them younger, yet less expensive employees, who are expendable in the mind of the union leaders.

...Yeah okay.

 

[Deku]

And so the state has to lay-off the workers- most of them younger, yet less expensive employees, who are expendable in the mind of the union leaders.

This is fairly common, and is part of my generational rant and is fairly systemic of boomers exploiting their position for short term gain.

Younger workers in unions are completely exposed to the politics between the employer and the union and within the union.

As for the rest of the stuff, I can't comment. Unions have their place in the economy and I think the world would be less equal without them, but that's not to say they're structurally perfect, most aren't. The weighting of seniority over everything else is a critical and possibly fatal flaw in the modern union movement.

 

[Dude Abides]

It has not so much been private sector unions being the problem, but public unions. Nearly, all of the "blue states'" fiscal problems are primarily caused by public union pensions, to a lesser degree, healthcare benefits, and to an even lesser degree, wages.

Look at the books of states like Illinois, Michigan, Rhode Island, and New Jersey- they are all god-awful, thanks to their public unions. The union heads and senior members even screw over their younger members all of the time.

The following situation has come up in many states over the last couple years:

newly elected state official: "You guys need to either contribute just 3% more to your pension/healthcare benefits, or we'll have to lay-off potentially up to tens of thousands of state employees."

union leaders: "No! No! Nooo! You cannot suppress the rights of the hard working-class Americans! We absolutely reject your proposal."

state official: "We simply do not have the money. Unfortunately, we do not have the choice at this time, and we think an extra 3% is quite reasonable [which it's more than reasonable, as the percentage should be much higher than even the state's offer]."

union leaders: "Nooo! Rot in hell! We will never accept your tyranny! rabble rabble rabble..."

And so the state has to lay-off the workers- most of them younger, yet less expensive employees, who are expendable in the mind of the union leaders.

This is (1) non-responsive to the point at issue, which was whether unions are responsible for high unemployment throughout the country; (2) false, since most public-employee unions have already accepted or are negotiating give-backs given the current fiscal situation in state and municipal governments. The reason pension benefits are relatively high is because state employers previously wanted to kick the can down the road, and offered more generous pension/healthcare benefits whose costs would escalate later rather than increased wages now. State bureaucrats tend to be "I'll be gone, you'll be gone" types. The unions accepted those deals and now the states are trying to undo them.

 

[minus_273]

The American Neo Nazis have supported OWS for a while now.
Something something Jewish bankers that controls wall street.

p.s.
Personally, I don't think that "who has more racist supporters" is a game that conservatives would want to play.
But it's a stupid game anyway.


For what it's worth, I saw "everyone is accepted but racists" sings in all the occupy rallies I went to.
And seriously, I think it's going to be an uphill battle to try and paint a bunch of dirty hippies as Nazis.

No, but the OWS movement and the National Socialists do have a common economic agenda of promoting socialism.

 

[empty vessel]

It has not so much been private sector unions being the problem, but public unions. Nearly, all of the "blue states'" fiscal problems are primarily caused by public union pensions, to a lesser degree, healthcare benefits, and to an even lesser degree, wages.

First, this is false. Nearly all of the "blue states" fiscal problems--just like all of the "red states" fiscal problems--are caused by the financial crisis that created a deep recession which in turn drastically reduced tax revenue. So your premise is wrong, and all that we are left with is an attack on the standard of living of people who work.

All of this boils down to how we distribute society's resources. Public union workers are not overpaid. If anything, they are underpaid for the work they do. As all of us who work for a living are, at least those of us in the bottom 95%. That is what the upward redistribution of income has accomplished over the last three decades.

And the problem with costs of health care lies not with unions--it lies directly at the feet of the for-profit health care industry, and it is our collective responsibility to reform that system by making the government the sole insurer. Again, this is not remotely a problem caused by public sector workers.

No, but the OWS movement and the National Socialists do have a common economic agenda of promoting socialism.

Nazis, neo or otherwise, aren't socialists, doofus.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

F

And the problem with costs of health care lies not with unions--it lies directly at the feet of the for-profit health care industry, and it is our collective responsibility to reform that system by making the government the sole insurer
.

No, it isn't.

Though how much unemployment will occur when you gut the Private Healthcare Industry?

 

[Deku]

No, it isn't.

Though how much unemployment will occur when you gut the Private Healthcare Industry?

Retraining to handle the public system of course

One of the biggest myths about UHC is there is no private insurance. Due to the dance of budgets and how much a state want to cover, there will always be stuff not covered. So private insurers here sell extended health and dental plans.

In Canada, Dental is completely private.

 

[alstein]

No, it isn't.

Though how much unemployment will occur when you gut the Private Healthcare Industry?

A net gain in employment, as private industry becomes more able to hire folks due to not having to deal with healthcare costs, which will also make our exports more competitive.

As for the shithead Neo-Nazis, even shitheads can occasionally support good causes- it doesn't make the shitheads not shitheads or the good cause bad.

Iran supported our war on the Taliban.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

A net gain in employment, as private industry becomes more able to hire folks due to not having to deal with healthcare costs, which will also make our exports more competitive.

Couldn't you also say the same thing about lowering minimum wages?

Retraining to handle the public system of course

One of the biggest myths about UHC is there is no private insurance. Due to the dance of budgets and how much a state want to cover, there will always be stuff not covered. So private insurers here sell extended health and dental plans.

In Canada, Dental is completely private.

So in short it's more of the same thing just titling the scale a little.

 

[badcrumble]

Couldn't you also say the same thing about lowering minimum wages?

except that would lower the standard of living instead of raising it, which Actually Matters You Fucking Fuck

 

[alstein]

Couldn't you also say the same thing about lowering minimum wages?



So in short it's more of the same thing just titling the scale a little.

You could. That said, the point of increasing employment is to improve the net benefit for society. Lowering the minimum wage does more harm then good.

In the case of healthcare, single-payer healthcare is a huge competitive advantage for countries that have it. In fact, Vermont used it as justification to pass their healthcare law, and they're claiming it has brought industry to the state. (don't know if this is factual, but it's logical)

The real problem with the healthcare industry is that it's a failed market full of perverse incentives. If it was a properly functioning free market we'd have less cry for healthcare reform.

 

[dave is ok]

Couldn't you also say the same thing about lowering minimum wages?

How do you sleep?

 

[empty vessel]

No, it isn't.

Though how much unemployment will occur when you gut the Private Healthcare Industry?

I don't know, why don't you ask all the other countries in the world that use their governments as sole insurers. My guess is none, since almost all the work still has to be done. Its just the costs that fall by wiping out billions in profits going to health insurance and health care provider shareholders, by streamlining administration, and by gains in consumer bargaining power (monopsony power). The loss in jobs (e.g., certain admin and accounting jobs in doctors offices) will be a necessary evil to make the system more efficient. Those jobs only exist now because the system is inefficient. In fact, as somebody previously mentioned, the savings to businesses would offset, and probably then some, any job losses in the health care industry itself.

Couldn't you also say the same thing about lowering minimum wages?

Well, yes, but we're trying to do things that are good for people. Increasing the efficiency of health care = good for society. Lowering the living standards of everybody in society = bad for society.

 

[ezrarh]

In regards to universal healthcare, I believe we'd have to make it much cheaper for students to become doctors, particular general practitioners. In the end, we'd probably save money since more preventative care means less people in emergency rooms. I'm not particularly sure on how you would deal with the salaries of healthcare professionals if they had to go into 200k+ in debt to become a doctor since I assume with UHC, there will be few incentives for doctors to profit from running unneeded tests and whatnot.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I don't know, why don't you ask all the other countries in the world that use their governments as sole insurers. My guess is none, since almost all the work still has to be done.

So you are saying when you outlaw private health care, that no one will lose their job a these places....

Its just the costs that fall by wiping out billions in profits going to health insurance and health care provider shareholders and streamlining administration. The loss in jobs (e.g., certain admin and accounting jobs in doctors offices) will be a necessary evil to make the system more efficient. [/quote]
Okay, so yes there will be lost jobs So we're going to wipe out tons of jobs, so are you going to do anything to help them get new work or protect them and their families or are they just chaff? Can you 1:1 convert them to the public sector at the same or better pay than before in their original locations?

Those jobs only exist now because the system is inefficient. In fact, as somebody previously mentioned, the savings to businesses would offset, and probably then some, any job losses in the health care industry itself.

How are you any different the corporations you endlessly complain about when you want get rid of inefficient members? Those jobs are held mostly by normal lower or middle class American's, so basically you're going to be squeezing the most squeezed segment of the population even more.

Well, yes.

Thank you. It's a claim with no actual facts to back it up, just like the lowering wages claim. You can say one is for good and the other is for bad, but you can't say you have any proof that your outcome would be likely.

 

[AiTM]

Oh cool. Court-martialed flunky neo-Nazis with AR-15s.

What a fucking movement!

Im confused I thought the tea party was the racist movement

 

[Enron]

Oh cool. Court-martialed flunky neo-Nazis with AR-15s.

What a fucking movement!

hah, backfire. Secretly I hope these guys try to fuck with the cops. World could use a few less racists.

 

[Deku]

you don't need to and indeed most UHC systems do not outlaw private health insurance.

And you can indeed still have private health clinics/labs contracting with the UHC system to provided services.

The biggest issue I see would be compensation for services rendered for GPs. They will likely get less per consultation but will see more patients. And it's one of the issues our system is having to deal with. Overworked GPs, just rushing through, waiting 2 hours even with an appointment because the GP is always overbooked, especially around the flu seasons.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

hah, backfire. Secretly I hope these guys try to fuck with the cops. World could use a few less racists.

Oh yeah. Guy can't even seem to pick a style from douchey biker, sleazy car salesman, to ghetto version of that Oprea Singing Killer in the Running Man (Dynamo?).

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Why do idiots insist on wearing American flag clothes.

Tacky as hell.

 

[empty vessel]

So you are saying when you outlaw private health care, that no one will lose their job a these places....

I didn't say we should outlaw private health care (although I would indeed support something like the NHS). I said we should make the government the sole insurer for basic health care. That only partially wipes out the private health insurance industry, which could still offer insurance coverage for things other than basic care. But even those jobs don't go away entirely (although some of them do because of the inefficiencies in the current system). Many of the jobs simply become public jobs (processing claims for payment).

Okay, so yes there will be lost jobs So we're going to wipe out tons of jobs, so are you going to do anything to help them get new work or protect them and their families or are they just chaff? Can you 1:1 convert them to the public sector at the same or better pay than before in their original locations?

Do you always wring your hands like this whenever, say, a Free Trade agreement is passed? The answer is: no. People who work for private health insurance companies and get laid off (or clerical positions in doctor's offices that get laid off) will have to find new work. Look at the bright side: at least they'll have health care.

How are you any different the corporations you endlessly complain about when you want get rid of inefficient members? Those jobs are held mostly by normal lower or middle class American's, so basically you're going to be squeezing the most squeezed segment of the population even more.

Because providing health care efficiently and universally like every other industrialized country is overwhelming in everybody's interest. I am not proposing that people lose their jobs so that a relative few individuals can make more profit or increase their executive compensation packages.

Thank you. It's a claim with no actual facts to back it up, just like the lowering wages claim. You can say one is for good and the other is for bad, but you can't say you have any proof that your outcome would be likely.

What are you talking about, neither are claims without actual facts to back them up. I specifically agreed with your premise that lowering wages would create a net gain in employment. I just said that it's a stupid idea, because while increasing employment is a valuable goal, it is not necessarily the most valuable goal. For example, we could employ everybody in the world, if we all agreed to work for $.01 an hour (leaving the rest to various shareholders). Why would that be a good thing? Your argument, taken to its absurd end, is that slavery is good because everybody is employed. So, yes, employment rate is important. But it is a means to an end: maximizing the standard of living for most people.

 

[demon]

Im confused I thought the tea party was the racist movement

You're not confused, you were right.

 

[Something Wicked]

This is (1) non-responsive to the point at issue, which was whether unions are responsible for high unemployment throughout the country; (2) false, since most public-employee unions have already accepted or are negotiating give-backs given the current fiscal situation in state and municipal governments. The reason pension benefits are relatively high is because state employers previously wanted to kick the can down the road, and offered more generous pension/healthcare benefits whose costs would escalate later rather than increased wages now. State bureaucrats tend to be "I'll be gone, you'll be gone" types. The unions accepted those deals and now the states are trying to undo them

I agree that it's been the massive moral hazard of government officials giving public union members increased benefits, and in return, the union members would vote for such officials. This charade has gone on for decades and finally some states are realizing that current public pension systems are completely unsustainable. The recent negotiated "give-backs" of many public unions have been extremely minuscule compared to the overall burden they put on and will put on current and future taxpayers. States are not going to be bailed out every few years after their "stimulus funds" from the federal government keep running out.

 

[milkyjay20]

i can't believe how global this movement has become. even my buddy in new zealand was right near one.

i'm just shocked that there was not a single molotov cocktail

 

[Dude Abides]

I agree that it's been the massive moral hazard of government officials giving public union members increased benefits, and in return, the union members would vote for such officials. This charade has gone on for decades and finally some states are realizing that current public pension systems are completely unsustainable. The recent negotiated "give-backs" of many public unions have been extremely minuscule compared to the overall burden they put on and will put on current and future taxpayers. States are not going to be bailed out every few years after their "stimulus funds" from the federal government keep running out.

That's not the problem and it's not a moral hazard. The problem is management likes to propose deferred costs because they won't affect the current budget. In any event, the give-backs aren't miniscule and there won't be any real budget problems if the recession ends.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Why do idiots insist on wearing American flag clothes.

Tacky as hell.

Seriously, that stuff should be reserved for pro wrestlers or possibly when at the beach. That said much like flags of other countries on shirts it can be done nicely...though more often it's not! Lapel pin (can) be nice though.

I didn't say we should outlaw private health care (although I would indeed support something like the NHS). I said we should make the government the sole insurer for basic health care.

You initially said sole insurer with no qualification.

Do you always wring your hands like this whenever, say, a Free Trade agreement is passed? The answer is: no.

So in a sense you're saying you have the same outlook and view as me?

People who work for private health insurance companies and get laid off (or clerical positions in doctor's offices that get laid off) will have to find new work. Look at the bright side: at least they'll have health care.

Health care doesn't pay the bills or give you food.

Because providing health care efficiently and universally like every other industrialized country is overwhelming in everybody's interest. I am not proposing that people lose their jobs so that a relative few individuals can make more profit or increase their executive compensation packages.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

What are you talking about, neither are claims without actual facts to back them up. I specifically agreed with your premise that lowering wages would create a net gain in employment. I just said that it's a stupid idea, because while increasing employment is a valuable goal, it is not necessarily the most valuable goal. For example, we could employ everybody in the world, if we all agreed to work for $.01 an hour (leaving the rest to various shareholders). Why would that be a good thing? Your argument, taken to its absurd end, is that slavery is good because everybody is employed. So, yes, employment rate is important. But it is a means to an end: maximizing the standard of living for most people.

No, my point was both were random statements saying oh this will lead to more jobs without any proof. I am saying without any evidence I do not believe either claim. Cutting minimum wage just means you can pay all the employees you current have less and barring a need for more growth, not need to add any more jobs.

You're not confused, you were right.

Some are, and some are not. Just like the leftist movement.

 

[Dude Abides]

The road to Clichetown is paved with platitudes.

 

[Deku]

i can't believe how global this movement has become. even my buddy in new zealand was right near one.

i'm just shocked that there was not a single molotov cocktail

What are they occupying against. the Koala's?

You initially said sole insurer with no qualification.

Yep which is why I posted that it's not so black and white and either or type deal. He sounded like he want to nationalize the entire healthcare industry.

On the same token, more expansive publicly funded basic care is IMHO good because your ERs are pretty much your public option atm.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

The road to Clichetown is paved with platitudes.

3.5/10

 

[badcrumble]

Through the magic of meaningless aphorisms, any attempt to do good is actually bad! And this is my substitute for actual logical discourse!

 

[slidewinder]

What are they occupying against. the Koala's?

The lack of them.

 

[Evlar]

You can carry water uphill, but it'll run back down on its own.

 

[Deku]

The lack of them.

 

[badcrumble]

You can carry water uphill, but it'll run back down on its own.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Through the magic of meaningless aphorisms, any attempt to do good is actually bad! And this is my substitute for actual logical discourse!

Not, doing that bad yourself either!

 

[Dude Abides]

3.5/10

It's at least a 7 by virtue of the alliteration alone.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him occupy it.

 

[Queeg]

A couple of days ago I'd run out of podcasts to listen to so I started listening to some speeches I had on my PSP and came across this one that was made during Bush Jnr. first term that seemed very relevant today. Especially with this 99% slogan, and the news of decreasing VA healthcare, removal of sick pay etc.

The Corporate War Against Democracy

 

[Chichikov]

No, but the OWS movement and the National Socialists do have a common economic agenda of promoting socialism.

Neither OWS or the Nazis promoted socialism, so I guess they do have that in common.
But your assertion is even more hilarious, as we're talking about American Neo Nazis.
Do you know what's their official name?
Free Enterprise National Socialist Party.

Yeah, fuck those commie free enterprise aryans!

Seriously dude, you're getting hung on semantics.
The Nazi party is a fascist party.
This term define them perfectly.
You can't really paint them as socialist (or free market advocates, as some liberals try to do), no matter how much it will help you score political points.

 

[demon]

Some are, and some are not. Just like the leftist movement.

You keep telling yourself that.

 

[Something Wicked]

That's not the problem and it's not a moral hazard. The problem is management likes to propose deferred costs because they won't affect the current budget. In any event, the give-backs aren't miniscule and there won't be any real budget problems if the recession ends.

The recession will not just magically end, since it's driven by very real structural problems. Companies are not going to hire en masse when there is so much uncertainty in future tax rates, due to the high state and federal deficits. Much of such deficits are caused by the public union pension funds. Therefore, until public union pension funds become more sustainable, the recession- either as a technical one or more general economic stagnation- will continue to occur. The pensions and the recession are... dun dun dun- interrelated.

The road to Clichetown is paved with platitudes.

The road to social collectivism is paved with unintended consequences.

Yep which is why I posted that it's not so black and white and either or type deal. He sounded like he want to nationalize the entire healthcare industry.

On the same token, more expansive publicly funded basic care is IMHO good because your ERs are pretty much your public option atm.

Free and highly-subsidized clinics exist all throughout the US. Now, receiving basic surgeries is where the lower economic classes in other countries benefit from the national healthcare services over the US. For complex surgeries and serious diseases, though, I'll take a US private insurer over any NHS/UHC provider.

 

[NullPointer]

The road to Clichetown is paved with platitudes.

And the express elevator to hell is powered by single-minded profit motive.

 

[Menelaus]

Why do idiots insist on wearing American flag clothes.

Tacky as hell.

Because they're trying to present their racism as patriotism.

 

[slidewinder]

The recession will not just magically end, since it's driven by very real structural problems. Companies are not going to hire en masse when there is so much uncertainty in future tax rates, due to the high state and federal deficits. Much of such deficits are caused by the public union pension funds. Therefore, until public union pension funds become more sustainable, the recession- either as a technical one or more general economic stagnation- will continue to occur. The pensions and the recession are... dun dun dun- interrelated.

Ahahaha. You're channeling you some BigSicily, kiddo!

 

[minus_273]

First, this is false. Nearly all of the "blue states" fiscal problems--just like all of the "red states" fiscal problems--are caused by the financial crisis that created a deep recession which in turn drastically reduced tax revenue. So your premise is wrong, and all that we are left with is an attack on the standard of living of people who work.

All of this boils down to how we distribute society's resources. Public union workers are not overpaid. If anything, they are underpaid for the work they do. As all of us who work for a living are, at least those of us in the bottom 95%. That is what the upward redistribution of income has accomplished over the last three decades.

And the problem with costs of health care lies not with unions--it lies directly at the feet of the for-profit health care industry, and it is our collective responsibility to reform that system by making the government the sole insurer. Again, this is not remotely a problem caused by public sector workers.



Nazis, neo or otherwise, aren't socialists, doofus.

are you seriously saying that the National SOCIALIST party is not socialist? why on earth would it be in their name and would they promote socialism if they were not?
let me introduce you to a concept you don't seem to be familiar with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_socialism

" their support for social solidarity and paternalism as opposed to what they see as anti-social individualism, commercialism, and laissez faire economics"

"Bismarckism and later fascism and Nazism have been considered examples of right-wing socialism.[4]"

im sorry if the facts bother you, maybe you ought to learn more.

sounds a lot like your group doesnt it?

 

[slidewinder]

are you seriously saying that the National SOCIALIST party is not socialist? why on earth would it be in their name and would they promote socialism if they were not?

Good point.

 

[Azih]

Now, receiving any sort of care is where everyone not in the very high economic classes in other countries benefit from the national healthcare services over the US.

Fixed your first statement for you.