Prolonged shutdown could leave millions without food stamps and hit small businesses

Those who budget and save. You have every opportunity to find a place to live and cover necessities based off your income. And keeping that budget as you keep getting promotions and pay raises makes it easier to save. Just cause you get $500 pay raise a year, doesn't mean you have to go spend it all. Your work will keep paying you even if you have money left over from the previous paycheck. And working for the government isn't a place in which you are making chump change. Youre ridiculous if you think people couldn't save 9 months, if not 3 months of salary since Obama last closed down the government for Obamacare funding.

 

I answered your question (see above) by pointing out how they are almost certainly going to extract more money from the employer by restricting the supply of labor. Econ 100.

Whoa! I said they should have the right to unionize, not that they should. I think there are advantages that forming a union, or even threatening to form one, provides employees in many situations

They make it against the law for employees to quit (ie. strike) en masse. Why shouldn't you be able to quit your job?

Penalized by whom? By the government? Yes. If I can be fired on the spot and escorted from the building, I should be able to quit.

They can.

What do you mean by "unemployment charges?" By whom?

What about the damage caused to the employee by firing him or her on the spot?

I'm sorry, but this flies in the face of the laws of supply and demand. Employees gain leverage by forming unions.

Then workers won't form them. There's no need to effectively outlaw them with right-to-work laws.

 

Yes, SOME were denied insurance because they waited to get insurance till after they had an illness. Like waiting to get car insurance till after you get into an accident. Young people chose not to have insurance because typically young people don't feel they need it and chose to spend that cost on any number of other assorted stuff.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/...lion-People-Still-Don-t-Have-Health-Insurance

So you cant distinguish that me saying "(income) taxes are theft" as me specifically pointing out only "income taxes"? Sorry that your reading skills aren't that proficient.

Covering repairs for sure. Building new bridges is subjective cause that can be an ever growing expense depending on how many people want to build. This link says the FHWA requested $45 bill for repairs.
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/FHWA-FY2015-Budget-Estimates.pdf
At least $65 billion is collected in local, state and federal gas taxes each year. Not to mention another $12 billion from toll roads on public roads.

Straw man.

 

Extract, by extortion. Extract: VERB 1. remove or take out, especially by effort or force.

Now that we have clarified what extortion, or using your word 'extract' actually means, your position becomes clearer.

Striking is not 'quitting'. There is no law against employees quitting 'en masse', it's happen a time or two that I am personally aware of. There is no law against quitting you job.... but if you quit your job in a right to work state, the employer is not held responsible unless it was for provable work related reasons. I'll repeat myself - if an employer terminates employment for other than provable work related reasons, then they employer is held responsible to pay unemployment charges. You do understand how unemployment payments and charges work, correct?

Why do they have to permit unions? You haven't provided one valid reason for them that isn't addressed otherwise, yet you claim they should be permitted. Other than extortion, what purpose do they serve?

1. 
   

 

Edited to address this point.

Do you understand the difference between 'payment at time of service' which is the individual actually received healthCARE, and paying for insurance, which is NOT actual healthCARE, but a front loaded payment mechanism?

And what do you call providing insurance to people with pre-existing conditions who previously did not have insurance, at no additional charge? That is 'sponging' at it's utmost, and still paid for by other people who took responsibility for themselves and had insurance in place prior to major illnesses.

Note: I am against the necessity of insurance - feeding money to a third party provider is like throwing it in the wind.[/QUOTE]

 

Yes, and some others had their coverage cancelled, or they changed jobs, or they were fired by employers who wanted to get rid of employees or their family members with serious physical problems.

Yes, and get free major medical coverage from the rest of us.

When you put "income" in quotes, you left the generalization about taxes being theft in place. If you had meant "income taxes" only, you wouldn't have said "(income) taxes."

Apparently, you don't know what a "straw man" is.

 

Almost every measure to apply pressure becomes extortion by that definition. No, we haven't clarified that employees opting to quit if they don't get what they want is "extortion."

You should read right-to-work laws.

The employer? What are you talking about?

They aren't called "unemployment charges" and that's why I asked. The problem is between the government and the employer. Don't blame the fired employee.

It's called freedom of association. I reject your claim employees who threaten to quit if they don't get what they want in terms of pay or working conditions are extorting their employer. We could turn that on the employer ... if you won't work on Sunday or accept fewer hours, then that's extortion by your definition.

 

I sold life insurance at one point, ran a business, and taught business subjects. Yeah, I understand the difference between insurance and paying for health care out-of-pocket.

While I might agree that the preexisting conditions business is a form of "sponging," I reject your rationale about people taking responsibility because there are people with employer insurance who get fired precisely because they or their family members develop health problems.

It's all close to moot as a discussion because the prohibition of charging more for preexisting conditions is so popular that pols won't dare get rid of it.

 

The numbers of people who are on some kind of safety net doesn't make our economy look wonderful. What globalism has wrought upon our middle class, that kind of economy might be a better economy than others, but obviously there is a relative nature to this. Once upon a time the stock market was a reflection of main street and how our middle class and working class was fairing, but that is no longer the case. Instead it reflects how well the globalists are doing, and not average americans.

Being retired I watch a couple old game shows, like Let's Make a Deal. When you hear what kind of jobs people have they are all low wage sector service sector jobs. Seems like there are lots of folks in Ca. serving up fancy coffees in coffee shops. The kind of job that in the past, school kids would be doing.

About the only sector that earns decent wages are those construction workers who work disaster areas. But the wages would be better if not for the illegal aliens. Yeah, my son in law just got home from working down there for a month, repairing hurricane damaged homes.

 

The Fed is not a private banking cartel.
Read a book!

 

Who is blaming the employee? Shadows, apparently you see them where none exist.

One more time - employees have the right to quit at any time. Employers have the right to terminate at any time. The key point is if the employee attempts to claim unemployment, if they will receive it or not. The government doesn't have money of it's own to pay unemployment, where do you think it comes from? What 'harm' has the ex-employee endured if they are receiving unemployment benefits?

Apparently you really don't know anything about unemployment charges, benefits, and who is held responsible for them. Interesting that you try and have a discussion on the subject of employment, and don't know this.

The difference, since it is apparently out of your range, is that employees OF THEIR OWN VOLITION, can quit whenever they want. Under Unions, it is used as leverage to force, EXTORT, the employer. The company cannot hire anyone for those positions other than Union, unless it is clearly specified that they can, but then the Union wouldn't be in that shop if it were so.

Are you having a moment of clarity yet?

 

Please provide proof of people being specifically fired because their family was having health problems. They would have a serious lawsuit in the making if they could prove that.

 

How would you describe the Federal Reserve?

 

A big reduction in the number of federal employees would reduce the suffering - a lot.

 

How much do you think Fed workers get paid?

 

That appears to be the case. Researches from both ends of the spectrum have agreed on that much.

“Getting Rich has become the great bipartisan ideal: “No Democrats and Republicans in Washington anymore, only millionaires”, goes the maxim. The ultimate Green party. You still hear the term “public service” thrown around, but often with irony and full knowledge that “self-service” is now the real insider play.” Mark Leibovich, This Town, Penguin Books, 2013, p. 9.

“The system is functioning precisely how they want it to function. Gridlock, complex laws, highly technical bills, and regulations that target specific groups have a commercial purpose for the Permanent Political Class.” EXTORTION, "How Politicians Extract Your money, Buy Votes, And Line Their Own Pockets, Peter Schweizer, HMO, NY, NY, 2013, p. 8.

 

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/42921
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20170518/105983/HHRG-115-GO00-Wstate-BiggsA-20170518.pdf

 

Drunk ATM (Yay day off!) but I'll look at that link later aba get back to you.

 

If employees were free to quit as they saw fit, they could band together and quit if the employer kept anyone on who refused to join the union. Right-to-work laws would be meaningless.

The employer pays premiums to cover unemployment. They don't directly pay the employee.

Try not to make obnoxious statements.

Refusing employment under conditions not to your liking is freedom, not extortion. You have every moral right, though not legal under the law, to refuse to work for me if I don't hire only union workers.

My "moment of clarity" is to tell you to read about right-to-work legislation that precludes collective bargaining agreements requiring employees to join the union. Even a tacit agreement that allows workers to quit en masse violates right-to-work laws.

 

So everything you are trying to tote as being 'only' allowed with Unions, isn't. Under Right To Work Laws, an employee can quit, at any time for any reason. An employer can terminate employment, at any time for any reason*. If non-Union employees all decide they want to quit at the same time, there is nothing illegal for them to do so. Not so with Union shops.... so, once again, exactly what is the benefit to Unions?
*Subject to all discrimination laws

The difference between what you are now declaring, versus accepting the employment as presented, and then threatening to strike under Unionization, is extortion. If you accept the terms of employment initially, and the employer changes those terms, that is something to negotiate. If the employee decides the change the terms of employment, that is something to negotiate. The Union serves no purpose. Right To Work is exactly what it sounds like. If someone doesn't want to join the Union, but still has to pay the dues, what is the 'right' in that?

I repeat, Unions serve no purpose in modern day employment environments.

 

I'm having difficulty parsing parts of your paragraph.

Right-to-work laws prohibit collective agreements including provisions requiring employees to join a union. Unions aren't going to get away with striking (quitting en masse) if the employer has nonunion staff working in the business and coming back to work if the nonunion employees are let go.

I can accept employment today, join a union tomorrow and declare I won't work unless I get a better deal. It isn't extortion because you can fire me on the spot. Now, if we have an employment contract, we can both be held to the provisions.

It's a condition of employment. No one is forcing you to work there. Whether it is morally right or not is another matter.

That's for employees to decide, not you.

 

They almost all walk away multimillionaires if they're around for very long. The path from public office to lobbying is well traveled.

Graft is going on at every level. My mother was mayor of a city of about 5,000 people in the 1960s and she was offered $10,000 (real money in them thar days) if she would deliver the garbage contract. My mother hung up the phone on them. Developers were constantly around trying to do what developers do--buy property and break it into smaller lots.

 

I'm not particularly concerned if you can parse my post or not. That actually isn't the proper way to respond, but have at it.

You've combined two activities... the Union workers striking (which an employer cannot 'just fire') are normally (though questionably, IMO) necessary employees. It does not matter if the non-Union employees are let go, if the Union employees decide they don't want to strike anymore, as a matter of arbitration, then normally return to their jobs.

Once you are Union, without a employment contract, no, an employer cannot 'fire you on the spot'. I'm not exactly sure where you get that from, there must be 'just cause'. The Union exists to prevent that, necessary to follow set procedures for Union employees.

Once you have a Union in house, the employment environment changes.... no employer should be required to deal with a Union unless they voluntarily do so. You believe it is for the benefit of the employees... and I believe it is to the detriment of the employer.

And ne'er the twain shall meet.

 

Government is necessary and inherently corrupt. Getting some good out of government while limiting the harm and corruption is the ultimate challenge for humanity.

 

Yep, don't rely on other people to take care of you and your own. As for having their coverage cancelled, I would like to know how many people that actually happened to who didn't cause it themselves. I would like to see a story of people having their coverage dropped just because they got a major surgery or became ill and their insurance just dropped them.

And its still paid by us for the younger generation because they fall into the "poor" category getting Obamacare.