I am increasingly stunned by this type of loony response to what the CBO said...Do libs really think that everyone is so independently wealthy that they can just say 'oh, I am going to stop working now because I can buy health insurance'? What about the other bills of life that make up much more of a household budget....Mortgage/Rent, Electric, Gas, FOOD!!!!?????
You libs really think that most people are only working to get Health Insurance? I don't.
The "lost" ballots, that when found were 100% Franken votes didn't help y'alls reputation much, either.
You are still parroting rhetoric and have yet to post the actual report which you profess to believe. Where is the actual REPORT...not the defense of, not the spin, and not the rhetoric. Where is the REPORT that says 2 millions jobs will be lost but thats OK because they are 2 million jobs that will be lost because the employees really just dont want to have to work those hours anyway. Thats all I have asked since the very beginning.
SURELY you have read the report and are not just mindlessly parroting what others have said...right? Why is it that now FIVE of you can parrot the rhetoric but not provide the actual report (which is all I asked from the get go before you all got so chunky and angry)
1950's a long time ago. Get over it.
The whole "women didn't work" thing is a myth anyway. Also, nobody slept in separate twin beds. "Leave it to Beaver" is a sitcom, not a documentary.
The 1950s were a long time ago and a much better place. Most women didn't work and those who did were in a small selection of positions properly suited to them. They knew their place and they stayed in it.
Most men knew their place as well.
Most men knew their place as well.
I've never felt the need to know my place. I'm not looking to argue on this; it's just a thought process I don't understand. People are different enough that having defined roles has to mean someone is going to miscast.
We are defined by our culture.
And I am increasingly stunned by this type of loony response to what the CBO said, do CONs really think both parents out in the job force are making enough to pay for all you mention plus the cost of child care??? What some can say is now that the healthcare issue is handled the wife can quit her job that didn't pay well but did have health insurance and actually save money by no longer needing child care.
Example, the wife works in the school system as a cook, she starts before dawn and on the days she works at the local stop and rob part-time she gets home after dinner. She works these jobs because the school system has a healthcare plan. Her actual take home is shredded by child care costs.
Her hubby has a nice job at a local mechanic shop, but it offers no health insurance. All three kids wear glasses and one for sure has asthma. going without health care insurance isn't a good option.
Now NO ONE said 'most people' so quit the CON game. Since the CON magic family has a wife at home, nurturing the offspring while daddy brings home the bacon in order to have a more perfect family union, why all the lamenting????
I am increasingly stunned by this type of loony response to what the CBO said...Do libs really think that everyone is so independently wealthy that they can just say 'oh, I am going to stop working now because I can buy health insurance'? What about the other bills of life that make up much more of a household budget....Mortgage/Rent, Electric, Gas, FOOD!!!!?????
You libs really think that most people are only working to get Health Insurance? I don't.
When I first heard this argument, my first thought was "I thought people worked to make money to pay bills. I didn't know people, in this economy, were working only to have insurance"
I am glad I am not the only one questioning this.
People work my different reasons. My sister works because she wants to. The wife of a farmer here works for cheaper insurance. Some want to only work part time and can if insurance isn't an issue. You might want to investigate more and suppose less. Just a thought.When I first heard this argument, my first thought was "I thought people worked to make money to pay bills. I didn't know people, in this economy, were working only to have insurance"
I am glad I am not the only one questioning this.
Aw Bull ****! Don't tell me, I went through this gauntlet in our early years...While there is some small ring of truth to the fact that some entry level jobs that provide good health care, have salaries that are taken up in large part by child care, that is by no means, how it has to be.
Education opportunities are out there. And although a tough go in the beginning, pay offs in the future for those that look to be smart about their future can overcome the stagnant mire of entry level jobs rather easily...It is all in what you want and how badly you want it...If you resign yourself to the need to have government supply for you what you need because its easy, then you will always be where you are at.
People work my different reasons. My sister works because she wants to. The wife of a farmer here works for cheaper insurance. Some want to only work part time and can if insurance isn't an issue. You might want to investigate more and suppose less. Just a thought.
I don't suppose anything. I know what reality is.
I am glad you know independently wealthy people that can chose not to work, most people are not like that.
Have you not been watching what is happening to the country?
I don't suppose anything. I know what reality is.
I am glad you know independently wealthy people that can chose not to work, most people are not like that.
Have you not been watching what is happening to the country?
The fact remains the report does not say employers are laying off people due to insurance, and the CBO said when questioned that there is no evidence of this reform causing employers to lay off.
That would be your ancestry, which may differ significantly from your culture. Travel to any foreign country and you'll probably be recognized by most as an American.Perhaps, but to a limited degree. And we have multiple cultures. Is my culture my German side or my Irish side or my English side or my Seminole side? I'm sure there's more in there, but these can be demonstrated on my family tree.That's not an unusual American experience.My wife loves to work on cars. I'm a great cook. I grew up in the projects. More blacks than whites. I tried to date a young Muslim girl in 75. Her dad calmly and politely explained differences in culture to me. I still didn't understand. I just wanted her to go to the movies with me. I suggest that we all mix our culture to some degree, some more than others. But for me, I've developed my own traditions, as well as mixing some of my wife's in with our new ones.
But who really approaches life with: this is the man's role and this is the woman's role? Who really wants that? And why?
Well defined roles can often make a society run more smoothly, and this is reflected in the tribal laws from which all of us sprang. People like to be free but within generally accepted restraints, though the idea of absolute freedom outside the safety of our understood community is a scary thing for many. It's freedom on a leash.
Joe, do you think changing the standard for a full time work week to 30 hours is a good thing?
Joe, do you think changing the standard for a full time work week to 30 hours is a good thing?
That would be your ancestry, which may differ significantly from your culture. Travel to any foreign country and you'll probably be recognized by most as an American. That's not an unusual American experience.
Well defined roles can often make a society run more smoothly, and this is reflected in the tribal laws from which all of us sprang. People like to be free but within generally accepted restraints, though the idea of absolute freedom outside the safety of our understood community is a scary thing for many. It's freedom on a leash.
Oh, I'm arguing it's not usual.
Run more smoothly for some, but create more conflict for others. I'm not arguing against constraints. I'm arguing against roles, specifically gender roles. Though I can't think of any roles that wouldn't create conflict when faced with reality.
I know it wasn't directed at me, but I wish there was another way to define it. No matter how you define it in terms of numbers, employers are going to do what they can to play with the numbers. I think at 30, you'll see a lot of people hired to work for 29 hours and 55 minutes to get around it.
I know it wasn't directed at me, but I wish there was another way to define it. No matter how you define it in terms of numbers, employers are going to do what they can to play with the numbers. I think at 30, you'll see a lot of people hired to work for 29 hours and 55 minutes to get around it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?