posted 03-08- 11:26 AM            

Business are making their usual argument that
they make every time any legislation is
concidered to help workers (OSHA, NLRB,
minimum wage, prevailing wage, etc.), it
costs too much, blah, blah, blah. Their
republican buddies of course are listening
to them.

I myself have had two carpal tunnel operations
which cost my employer 1500 dollars each.
That's 3000 dollars for me. 3000 dollars per
employee would buy an awful lot of
repetitive motion safety.

posted 03-08- 12:25 PM            

This living, breathing corporation disguised as a human being is exactly what business wants....what a shame.

I also love how the Republicans are rushing Dubby's tax bill through the House. Because we all know that budget bills start in the House, the Senate will get it next. Hopefully it will get stalled there.

So much for his 'healing' and 'new age of bi-partisanship' process. Typical Republican...ie..LIAR.

posted 03-08- 01:01 PM               

So let me get this right, it is the company's job to teach the workers how to do their jobs? I am a programmer- I type for a living - and also post way to much in the flame wars forum... if I can't type right and get hurt, that is NOBODY's fault but my own.

Let me see if I understand your view... If someone gets a job driving a bus, and then drive the bus into a wall because they are a bad driver, it is the bus companies fault? Should the employee get driving lessons? This is crazy- it is his job to drive, he gets paid for knowing how to drive. If you type, it is your job. If you suck at it and get hurt, you should just get your ass fired.

Now I am not completely against the idea of OSHA or anything- I do believe that companies should be regulated within reason to make sure the work place is safe. But all occupations have their risks... we just need to make sure that the regulaitons don't put the business under.

What good is this rule if your employer loses his business? The big concern here is about smaller businesses- when they need to comply with such rules they can no longer stay in business at all.

But your view always loses. If you as an employee cost more to keep on than you make the company - then you are a liabilty, not an asset. At that point you are either replaced, or the company is out of business.

So you can continue to assume that corporations are magic machines that generates lots of free money, or you can embrace reality and relize that all businesses have to work very hard to make a profit - and they don't succeed much of the time. You owe both your employment and your standard of living to business.

Once again, this is not a case of us disagreeing - it is a case of how much regulation we think there should be. You think more is needed, I think less is needed. Making this into a moral issue is pathetic. Both of us want success, we just see differnt answers... maybe less regulation will hurt the workers and they will be less productive and less involved in the economy - maybe over regualtion will drive the business out and increase unemployment.

Both argumants are valid, and NO ONE knows the correct answer. We just each have our own conclusions based on our life expoeriences and informaiton we know or don't know.

Bipartisanship does not mean giving into the liberal view on every issue. Bipartisanship means putting the country's needs above partisanship... this is hard, and Bush is succeeding, and will continue to succeed at it. Becuase he is a conservative, his partisanship will favor that side - the trick is in the spirit of the discussion- that there is admission that aurguemnts exist. It is about chosing one's battles. Bush is choosing taxes, money to religious groups, and over-regulation that hurts small-medium sized business. He will let other areas (like social security, healthcare) go much further left - without fighting like all conservatives have up till now. THIS is partisanship, I hate to tell you. Imagine a liberal giving in on anything... well you won't have to imagine soon, Bush will get a great tax plan.

I remember JT mocking me - telling me that Bush would never talk about the tax cut again - that he was just using it to get elected. Oh well, too bad for you, my guy is getting stuff done for me. I hope Clinton did as much for you... I am not suggesting that he did not...

posted 03-08- 01:23 PM            

err..hmm...So, have you ever heard of ON THE JOB TRAINING? ... LOL

"we just need to make sure that the regulaitons don't put the business under."

Carpel Tunnel Syndrome is putting businesses under? What? Please, show me a business that was put under by a simple regulation... You act like simple rules are just killing business...LOL..give me a break.

"all businesses have to work very hard to make a profit - and they don't succeed much of the time. "

WRONG dipshit. The PEOPLE busting their asses are working hard to make that business a profit. The PEOPLE do the work dumbass, not the business. THE PEOPLE get CTS, not the fat fuck executive sitting in his chair pondering how to cut costs. GET that through your THICK skull you fucking idiot. PEOPLE, common people, make the businesses grow and prosper. And they are getting FUCKED because of this twit that is in office.

"Bush is choosing taxes, money to religious groups, and over-regulation that hurts small-medium sized business."

Oh wait a minute...Didn't you just say that regulations hurt big business? And now you say it hurts small-medium business? Make up your mind will you. Does it hurt them all or what? (Refer to Rush Limbaugh - 'See I Told You So' book, pg 235-236) - Money to religious groups...GOD damn that sounds a shit load like WELFARE if you ask me. What a bunch of hypocrites you Rush Limbaughs are...jeeezus. What right to do churches have to recieve federal money? If Suzy the crackhead and her 4 babies can't get free money, why should the Revernend Bob get free money? There goes that whole seperation of church and state our forefathers were so scared off. What's next, the George W. version bible?

"my guy is getting stuff done for me. "

That's the whole problem...

There is no bi-paritisanship for someone like you...it's what YOU can do for ME.

posted 03-08- 01:54 PM               

This is a subject I know something about. I'll try to make it brief but it is a very complex issue. There were several major flaws with the Clinton ergonomic "order".

1. Unlike the legislation which established OSHA this wasn't a bill voted on by Congress, but an Executive Order issued in Clinton's last 4 days in office.

2. The Order covered not only repetitive stress injuries like Carpel Tunnel but any musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) such as a one time strain, so it was very far reaching. It went beyond repetitive stress which does need to be addressed.

2. The Order effectively removed MSD injuries from State Worker's Compensation and State OSHA programs. For example, an emloyee disabled by a back strain caused at work would receive 90% of normal pay vs the normal Worker's Comp. payment determined by the state. This basically is a Federal takeover of what has previously been a State's right.

3. The root cause of repetive stress injuries, like your Carpal Tunnel, is very inexact and medically questionable. Did you know that obese people or those with diabetes are significantly more likely to develop Carpal Tunnel? Also, an employee's outside activities play a major role. Women who sew or knit at home a great deal or men who engage in vigorous sports are also candidates for MSD's. This Order requires the employer to take all the blame for something he may not be entirely responsible.

4. Obviosly, repetitive stress injuries are already covered by Worker's Compensation laws...you are a good example. Yours was covered. So why do we need the heavy handed Feds escalating the issue and taking over? This Order is nothing more than a power grab and a way for liberals to make employers pay more than they are now for something that may not be their fault.

My personal view is that the true causes of repetitive stress injuries need to be medically determined, and if work related they should be eliminated. They are already costing industy billions of dollars and billions have already been invested in automating repetitive stress causing jobs. Unfortunately this often results in a person being replaced by a robot. My own plant has had 3 or 4 in the last 2 years and they cost an average of $10K...so we want to eliminate them. The economic cost plus some reasonable legislation and incentives will do the job. This Order was a punishment, not a cure.

posted 03-08- 02:02 PM               

That's not what I said. Please don't put words in my mouth. In the posting you're talking about, I said quite clearly that Bush has two choices...

1. Ram this big tax cut through and wreck the economy.

2. Renege on his promise and face the wrath of the American people in 2004.

Here is a link to the thread where I made these statements... http://www.fightersquadron.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000126.html

Anyway, looks like he has chosen #1... the mother of all tax cuts. In hindsight, I guess it was pretty obvious that he would... it would be political suicide for him to backpedal the way his father did.

posted 03-08- 02:29 PM               

You have learned from the Clintons... just become a literalist when you need to defend a prior position. I read what you expressed, not the exact words one at a time devoid of meaning.

What is this?

quote:

---

Me too... but I'd also like to see him held accountable for his phony campaign promises

---

I think the only campaign promise we were talking about whas the tax cut. Why are you even trying to deny this? You are not now admitting that G. W. Bush is a man aimed on delivering, are you?

Anyone who read the start of that thread would conclude that you were suggesting that Bush used tax cut promises just to win. I can repect that you want more taxes, but I can't accept your position that Bush wouldn't deliver on his promises.

quote:

---

Bush hasn't even been inaugurated yet and the Republicans are already backpedaling on promises, or at least greasing us up for the big let down.

It's frustrating...Dubya ran on this big tax cut. It was the centerpiece of his campaign and now it's looking more and more like it's not a good idea. And the GOP knows it!

---

I am not putting words in your mouth... you said these things... why do you always say I am putting words in your mouth? Did I misrepresent your view so bad, or are you having a very hard time communicating?

And, once again, why do you feel you need to defend yourself? It sounds like you are backing down... don't you disagree with me - or have you had a change of heart? Or did I misunderstand your posts?

You can't say one thing clearly and then later try and use literalism to get out of it. Depends on what your definition of "is" is I suppose...

posted 03-08- 02:57 PM            

Now we have no incentive for businesses to
improve. Bush has put his anti-labor dept.
on it. They're supposed to come up with a
comprehensive plan to reduce work place
injuries of this type. I bet you it will
take all of Bush's current term to do it too.

Sv,
Jerry at least makes an intellegent argument.
Yours is, as I said, "Can't afford it, blah,
blah, blah." My own experience indicates it
would be cheaper for businesses to do something
about this problem rather than pay for
operations that leave people partially crippled
anyway.

I'll bet you a lot of the businesses making
this argument would not hesitate to buy new
office furnature, redecorate or some other
such foolishness.

posted 03-08- 04:01 PM               

So you are correct, I am not really arguing substance - my main point is that there is no "right" and "wrong" here. Neither of us wants overwhelming regulation, or complete freedom to abuse power.

It seems like your original post of this thread sets our to demonize those who want less regulation... but in the end, aren't we both just trying to find the best balance? Certainly that decision is based subjectively... and when that happens, the majority rules. Why is it evil when the conservatives win, and justice when the liberals win?

What makes you "right" in a moral way?

Some things are polarized - like abortion for example - one can start assigning morals because of the opposing assumptions. But in this case, both sides agree that steps should be taken - it is just the magnitude that is really in question.

Also, how is not being able to afford something not an intelligent argument??? See, this is liberalism! So in your world, why doesn't the government just charge the rich 98% tax and refund this money to the poor? The rich could still live...and justice is done...

So can I assume that you abuse your credit cards... because, after all, what is money?

I would say that almost every issue comes down to affordability... and you call this a weak argument?

What is a strong argument? One based on the spirit of brotherly love? Or cynical nay-saying?

If you do not shoot Ol' Yeller, he will only infect everyone... this is your argument in reverse. You say that we should spend money up front to prevent something (that people should take more individual responsibility for IMO) in order to save money later. Well I can turn that around and say that if you pamper those who can not help themselves, you breed dependency - and that will cost more money in the long run.

See, once again we can use the same argument for both sides of the case. My real argument is more practical... it is my opinion that you grow a strong economy and strong people by fostering personal responsibility. I apply this to school, business, politics, and ergonomics... evenly. This is my ideology, and my guy G. W. has the same over-riding vision. You very well might disagree with it, but to deny that it is not a valid vision is close-minded.

posted 03-08- 04:31 PM               

You're incredibly distortive. It's no wonder you come to such radical conclusions over and over again.

I cannot make it anymore clear for you... I said that Bush has TWO OPTIONS... tax cut or no tax cut.

If I thought for certain that Bush was going to go back on his promise, then why would I say that he has TWO OPTIONS?

What part of "HE HAS TWO OPTIONS" do you not get?

The WHOLE POINT of that post was that I felt that Bush had put himself in a tough spot... either ram a giant and destructive tax cut through or go back on a promise. I never once said that it was certain that Bush was going to go back on his word.

posted 03-08- 04:41 PM               

No idea what you're talking about.

>What is this?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me too... but I'd also like to see him held accountable for his phony campaign promises
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>I think the only campaign promise we were talking about whas the tax cut. Why are you even trying to deny this? You are not now admitting that G. W. Bush is a man aimed on delivering, are you?

Out of context. That statement was a response to Lothar, who said this...

"Bush's whole campaign was based on telling ignorant middle Americans things that they wanted to hear, even if they were stupid or just impossible. This is actually a good sign - now that he is president I'd rather see him act sensibly."

And Lothar was merely responding to my original statement that Bush has two options... tax cut or no tax cut. We were speaking about the possiblity that Bush MIGHT go back on his word.

But, again, no where did I say that Bush WOULD go back on his word.

>Anyone who read the start of that thread would conclude that you were suggesting that Bush used tax cut promises just to win. I can repect that you want more taxes, but I can't accept your position that Bush wouldn't deliver on his promises.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush hasn't even been inaugurated yet and the Republicans are already backpedaling on promises, or at least greasing us up for the big let down.
It's frustrating...Dubya ran on this big tax cut. It was the centerpiece of his campaign and now it's looking more and more like it's not a good idea. And the GOP knows it!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>I am not putting words in your mouth... you said these things... why do you always say I am putting words in your mouth? Did I misrepresent your view so bad, or are you having a very hard time communicating?

Again, in those quotes, where do you think I say that Bush would go back on his word? All I said was that some Republicans were starting to think that maybe the tax cut is not such a good idea.

posted 03-08- 05:00 PM               

Your point-counter point, tit-for-tat, Sv said - JT said, discussion is now totally incomprehensible, except to maybe another lawyer. And of course has nothing to do with Smokey's topic.

posted 03-08- 07:09 PM            

Pickle cunt..not cunt pickling.

A pickle cunt is a sour cunt...one that needs cleansing. Maybe like Hillary or something..who knows.