|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 2, 2015 17:51:56 GMT
It is not the "numbers" per se that are likely to be spun. Rather, it is their meaning. Are you claiming that there is no expense attendant to "recruiting" efforts? (And, in any case, why couldn't a well-qualified person apply to the company in question, whether or not he or she was recruited?) Johnathan Gruber--the chief architect of ObamaCare--himself declared, on January 18, 2012 (at the Noblis Innovation and Colaboration Center) that "if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits." And that should settle the matter, as regarding the law's intent--notwithstanding his subsequent attempts to claim otherwise.
I agree with you completely. It's not the numbers that are likely to be spun but instead the meaning. That's why looking at the numbers is of primary importance and questioning the opinions about the meanings.
For example we know that blacks score lower on IQ tests in their teenage years than whites and racist groups like Stormfront have put the "spin" on this that it shows that blacks are less intelligent than whites. The problem is that IQ tests only measure a limited number of attributes of intelligence for a specific purpose, were never intended to measure general intelligence, and the results are highly effected by numerous factors other than intelligence that more than account for the differences in the test scores.
Employers often spend a lot of money on recruitment but perhaps the least expense is related to adverstising the job opening. A person will apply for the job if they know it exists but with the exception of a few very large corporations few people know of the company or the job opening. We're even aware of many cases where jobs are virtually always based upon nepotism related to the current employees so if you have an all white work force you will only hire white people because all of the relatives of the current employees are white. Other companies rely on employee referrals and once again if the employee is white the odds are that anyone they refer will also be white.
Affirmative Action merely requires the enterprise to reach outside of it's traditional employment recruitment practices if those recruitment practices result racial or gender discrimination. There are no quotas and no enterprise is expected to spend a lot of extra money doing this.
It isn't what the "author" believes the text means but instead what those that adopted the text as law believe that matters. What did Congress believe the text of the ACA authorized matters because they're the ones responsible for adopting it into law and not Johnathan Gruber. Of course the Supreme Court will ultimately decide.
Of real interest to me is what will the GOP do if the Supreme Court rules on behalf of the plaintiffs and strikes down the subsidies for those covered under the federal exchange? The majority of Americans want Congress to fix the problem and restore the subsidies if this happens so will the GOP do that? Will the GOP fix the law to reinstate the subsidies is very questionable at best.
I'm seeing this as similar to the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder where the Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that rendered Section 5, the enforcement of the law, moot. The Court in it's decision stated that the provisions of Section 4(b) were out of date and needed Congress to redifine them (you and I agreed with this previously) but the GOP controlled House fundamentally prevented any legislation to redefine the provions of Section 4(b) so the Voting Rights Act is unenforceable today.
The failure of Congress to redefine Section 4(b) is a huge step backwards when it comes to enforcement of the 14th and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution and the Right to Vote for Americans. If we conducted a poll on whether Americans have a "right to vote" regardless of race I'd assume the vast majority would say yes but the one real law we had to specifically ensure that right effectively no longer exists. No state was harmed by the Voting Rights Act and it needs to be amended so that it is once again effective but I don't see the GOP supporting any amendment to it. We're basically back to the pre-1965, pre-civil rights era, where discriminatory laws that effectively deny the right to vote for minorities are not prevented under the Voting Rights Act.
Will the GOP act on behalf of the people of the United States is highly questionable based upon the recent past.
I would hope that the GOP--if the SCOTUS does, indeed, rule on behalf of the plaintiffs in this important case--would go with the repeal-and-replace efforts that it has previously advertised, rather than simply trying to "fix" ObamaCare. (As I mentioned on another forum, to try to "improve" ObamaCare is essentially like trying to improve a turd by pouring some ketchup on it.) In the 1960s, black Americans clearly needed civil-rights legislation to correct past (and then-current) wrongs. But black Americans should not be considered a permanent underclass in America. In 2015--a full half-century after the landmark civil-rights legislation of the 1960s--things are very different in America. (Even you admit that "the vast majority" of Americans are not racist. At least, I think that is what you meant.) To treat black Americans as lesser beings, in need of special protection--some 50 years later--is really condescending! I really cannot believe that you seriously think that it is irrelevant just what the author the bill meant by its words. According to your logic (?), Congress can claim that it thought that a bill meant exactly the opposite of what it really says; and that is all that really matters! Your concession that employers "often spend a lot of money on recruitment" cannot be vitiated (or even attenuated) by other, subsequent words. The point is this: It makes much more sense for that money--"a lot" of money--to be concentrated where it is likely to produce the best results. (In any case, I will gladly leave it to the companies in question to spend their money in the ways that they consider wisest. I really have not the slightest desire to promote social engineering, of any sort whatsoever.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 3, 2015 22:57:48 GMT
I would hope that the GOP--if the SCOTUS does, indeed, rule on behalf of the plaintiffs in this important case--would go with the repeal-and-replace efforts that it has previously advertised, rather than simply trying to "fix" ObamaCare. (As I mentioned on another forum, to try to "improve" ObamaCare is essentially like trying to improve a turd by pouring some ketchup on it.) In the 1960s, black Americans clearly needed civil-rights legislation to correct past (and then-current) wrongs. But black Americans should not be considered a permanent underclass in America. In 2015--a full half-century after the landmark civil-rights legislation of the 1960s--things are very different in America. (Even you admit that "the vast majority" of Americans are not racist. At least, I think that is what you meant.) To treat black Americans as lesser beings, in need of special protection--some 50 years later--is really condescending! I really cannot believe that you seriously think that it is irrelevant just what the author the bill meant by its words. According to your logic (?), Congress can claim that it thought that a bill meant exactly the opposite of what it really says; and that is all that really matters! Your concession that employers "often spend a lot of money on recruitment" cannot be vitiated (or even attenuated) by other, subsequent words. The point is this: It makes much more sense for that money--"a lot" of money--to be concentrated where it is likely to produce the best results. (In any case, I will gladly leave it to the companies in question to spend their money in the ways that they consider wisest. I really have not the slightest desire to promote social engineering, of any sort whatsoever.)
Only one serious problem with your proposition that the GOP should "repeal and replace" is the fact that the GOP has never offered any possible solution to the lack of health insurance for the tens of millions of Americans that can't afford it. In point of fact, as we know, not even Obamacare will provide that. The only "proposal" that would so far is the single-payer system proposal by the House Democrats in 2009 that was rejected in favor of Obamacare. I happen to oppose the single-payer system and have other ideas but so far the Republicans have offered absolute no proposals that would provide health care services that need to be funded with some form of insurance for those that can't afford it.
Bottom line: When it comes to "repeal and replace" whatever the Republicans come up with must be superior and not inferior to Obamacare and they're not even close to anything like that.
While I will state that most Americans are not overt racists the majority of Americans express explicit anti-black racial prejudice.
Yes, we had civil rights legislation in the 1960's but just because there's a law doesn't imply people comply with it. There must be an enforcement mechanism but over the last 50 years we know that the enforcement mechanism has proven inadequate. Studies that provide "results" all indicate that fact. That is where we need to look to make improvements. We need a more effective enforcement mechanism because what we have doesn't work.
When we look at a law thousands of page long that no one read before voting on it what the author might have said in one sentence becomes somewhat irrelevant. The Congress voted on what they believed the law would do more so than every single sentence in it. Would you disagree with that? The Supreme Court review must, by necessity, place the "Will of the Congress" above other considerations.
If an employer is not advertising in all areas where the best possible candidate could be found then they're not doing a very good job of employment recruitment. Of course federal Affirmative Action affects so few employers, and they're compensated for compliance, that it really isn't much of an issue anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 6, 2015 18:04:39 GMT
I would hope that the GOP--if the SCOTUS does, indeed, rule on behalf of the plaintiffs in this important case--would go with the repeal-and-replace efforts that it has previously advertised, rather than simply trying to "fix" ObamaCare. (As I mentioned on another forum, to try to "improve" ObamaCare is essentially like trying to improve a turd by pouring some ketchup on it.) In the 1960s, black Americans clearly needed civil-rights legislation to correct past (and then-current) wrongs. But black Americans should not be considered a permanent underclass in America. In 2015--a full half-century after the landmark civil-rights legislation of the 1960s--things are very different in America. (Even you admit that "the vast majority" of Americans are not racist. At least, I think that is what you meant.) To treat black Americans as lesser beings, in need of special protection--some 50 years later--is really condescending! I really cannot believe that you seriously think that it is irrelevant just what the author the bill meant by its words. According to your logic (?), Congress can claim that it thought that a bill meant exactly the opposite of what it really says; and that is all that really matters! Your concession that employers "often spend a lot of money on recruitment" cannot be vitiated (or even attenuated) by other, subsequent words. The point is this: It makes much more sense for that money--"a lot" of money--to be concentrated where it is likely to produce the best results. (In any case, I will gladly leave it to the companies in question to spend their money in the ways that they consider wisest. I really have not the slightest desire to promote social engineering, of any sort whatsoever.)
Only one serious problem with your proposition that the GOP should "repeal and replace" is the fact that the GOP has never offered any possible solution to the lack of health insurance for the tens of millions of Americans that can't afford it. In point of fact, as we know, not even Obamacare will provide that. The only "proposal" that would so far is the single-payer system proposal by the House Democrats in 2009 that was rejected in favor of Obamacare. I happen to oppose the single-payer system and have other ideas but so far the Republicans have offered absolute no proposals that would provide health care services that need to be funded with some form of insurance for those that can't afford it.
Bottom line: When it comes to "repeal and replace" whatever the Republicans come up with must be superior and not inferior to Obamacare and they're not even close to anything like that.
While I will state that most Americans are not overt racists the majority of Americans express explicit anti-black racial prejudice.
Yes, we had civil rights legislation in the 1960's but just because there's a law doesn't imply people comply with it. There must be an enforcement mechanism but over the last 50 years we know that the enforcement mechanism has proven inadequate. Studies that provide "results" all indicate that fact. That is where we need to look to make improvements. We need a more effective enforcement mechanism because what we have doesn't work.
When we look at a law thousands of page long that no one read before voting on it what the author might have said in one sentence becomes somewhat irrelevant. The Congress voted on what they believed the law would do more so than every single sentence in it. Would you disagree with that? The Supreme Court review must, by necessity, place the "Will of the Congress" above other considerations.
If an employer is not advertising in all areas where the best possible candidate could be found then they're not doing a very good job of employment recruitment. Of course federal Affirmative Action affects so few employers, and they're compensated for compliance, that it really isn't much of an issue anyway.
Since anyone is free to apply for employment, whether or not he (or she) has been "recruited," it really should not matter whether potential employers are doing "a very good job of recruiting" or not. I, too, oppose single -payer healthcare insurance; although I really think it would be better than ObamaCare. However, your apparent fetish for universal healthcare of some sort--making healthcare insurance (not healthcare per se, but healthcare insurance) available to "the tens of millions of Americans that can't afford it"--is a goal that I simply do not share. In fact, it seems like a big step in the direction of democratic socialism (such as so much of Europe now has). How anyone who characterizes himself as a "libertarian" (regardless of the modifier) could be in favor of that, I simply do not know! What is your evidence that "the majority of Americans express explicit anti-black racial prejudice"? (Please note that expressing a severe distaste for certain forms of black culture (such as the "gangsta" culture) is not automatically tantamount to expressing "anti-black racial prejudice.") If too many black Americans remain trapped in a state of dependency upon government--if they have, in other words, not yet achieved parity with white Americans, on average--I would submit that this is the fault of the post-Great Society welfare state, rather than because of the (supposed) "inadequa[cy]" of the civil-rights laws passed in the 1960s. That "one sentence" from the bill's author pretty well explains the intentions of the bill itself. For Congress to claim that it just did not understand that plain language does seem quite disingenuous, to say the least... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 7, 2015 12:09:13 GMT
Since anyone is free to apply for employment, whether or not he (or she) has been "recruited," it really should not matter whether potential employers are doing "a very good job of recruiting" or not. I, too, oppose single -payer healthcare insurance; although I really think it would be better than ObamaCare. However, your apparent fetish for universal healthcare of some sort--making healthcare insurance (not healthcare per se, but healthcare insurance) available to "the tens of millions of Americans that can't afford it"--is a goal that I simply do not share. In fact, it seems like a big step in the direction of democratic socialism (such as so much of Europe now has). How anyone who characterizes himself as a "libertarian" (regardless of the modifier) could be in favor of that, I simply do not know! What is your evidence that "the majority of Americans express explicit anti-black racial prejudice"? (Please note that expressing a severe distaste for certain forms of black culture (such as the "gangsta" culture) is not automatically tantamount to expressing "anti-black racial prejudice.") If too many black Americans remain trapped in a state of dependency upon government--if they have, in other words, not yet achieved parity with white Americans, on average--I would submit that this is the fault of the post-Great Society welfare state, rather than because of the (supposed) "inadequa[cy]" of the civil-rights laws passed in the 1960s. That "one sentence" from the bill's author pretty well explains the intentions of the bill itself. For Congress to claim that it just did not understand that plain language does seem quite disingenuous, to say the least...
In thinking back over my entire career where I've worked for many companies there were only two jobs that were unrelated to employer recruitment and I obtained those jobs because of nepotism. An employer does not diversify their workforce through nepotism nor does employment typically result from "cold-call" applications. I'd actually state that "cold-call" applications are a huge waste of a person's time because I've tried it and it never resulted in employment.
I actually oppose socialized medicine (i.e. government control of medical service providers) and advocate maximizing insurance provided for by the private sector with a government safety net that would ensure that everyone has access to quality health care services. I would strive to achieve this by maximizing employer provided group health insurance to the workers to limit the size and cost of the government safety net.
Several peer reviewed and undisputed studies conducted between 2008-2012 established that the majority of Americans express both implicit and explicit anti-black racial prejudice. As we're agree to ignore any opinion and just read the numbers in the story provided.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/27/poll-black-prejudice-america/1662067/
Welfare assistance, while mitigating the effects of poverty, does nothing to reduce the poverty. Welfare assistance was never designed to reduce poverty but merely to mitigate the effects of the poverty.
I've read something of interest that perhaps you haven't. All other factors being equal economic advantage or disadvantage of a household continues for an average of fifteen generations. If we could eliminate all denial of equality of economic opportunity today that would mean that the current average "white" household wealth of $144,000 and average "black" household wealth of $11,000 would reach parity in the year 2465. If denial of equality of economic opportunity had been achieved in 1965 at the height of the civil rights movement we'd only be about 1/10th of the way to reducing the inequities between the races.
That's a fundamental problem with the argument that we should just live in a "color-blind" society because addressing the historical racism that created the economic disparity by just ensuring that "all factors were equal" (and they're not) would require 450 years before economic parity would result between the races.
The poverty today in the black communities is the residual effect of historican racism that created the poverty (economic disparity) to begin with and we haven't created a color-blind society so "all factors are not equal" and we can't even expect the poverty to be completely eliminated in 450 years based upon normal economic factors.
Pragmatically to shorten that 450 years before ecomonic parity would be reached based upon normal economic factors where "all factors are equal" we would need to provide an "advantage" so that all factors are not equal.
Once again we'll just have to wait to see what the Supreme Court decides in King v Burwell. As I've noted if the Supreme Court decides in favor of the plaintiff's it will be very interesting to see what the GOP does because, based upon the polls, the majority of Americans want the subsidies re-instated if the Supreme Court strikes them down. If the GOP was to ignore the "will of the American people" and didn't restore the subsidies it could have serious implications in the 2016 presidential elections. That was why I thought it would have been a good idea for the GOP to offer a one sentence amendment to the ACA to revise the sentence rendering the King v Burwell case moot. The GOP is going to be between a rock and a hard place if the Supreme Court decides in favor of the plaintiff.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 9, 2015 6:16:37 GMT
Since anyone is free to apply for employment, whether or not he (or she) has been "recruited," it really should not matter whether potential employers are doing "a very good job of recruiting" or not. I, too, oppose single -payer healthcare insurance; although I really think it would be better than ObamaCare. However, your apparent fetish for universal healthcare of some sort--making healthcare insurance (not healthcare per se, but healthcare insurance) available to "the tens of millions of Americans that can't afford it"--is a goal that I simply do not share. In fact, it seems like a big step in the direction of democratic socialism (such as so much of Europe now has). How anyone who characterizes himself as a "libertarian" (regardless of the modifier) could be in favor of that, I simply do not know! What is your evidence that "the majority of Americans express explicit anti-black racial prejudice"? (Please note that expressing a severe distaste for certain forms of black culture (such as the "gangsta" culture) is not automatically tantamount to expressing "anti-black racial prejudice.") If too many black Americans remain trapped in a state of dependency upon government--if they have, in other words, not yet achieved parity with white Americans, on average--I would submit that this is the fault of the post-Great Society welfare state, rather than because of the (supposed) "inadequa[cy]" of the civil-rights laws passed in the 1960s. That "one sentence" from the bill's author pretty well explains the intentions of the bill itself. For Congress to claim that it just did not understand that plain language does seem quite disingenuous, to say the least...
In thinking back over my entire career where I've worked for many companies there were only two jobs that were unrelated to employer recruitment and I obtained those jobs because of nepotism. An employer does not diversify their workforce through nepotism nor does employment typically result from "cold-call" applications. I'd actually state that "cold-call" applications are a huge waste of a person's time because I've tried it and it never resulted in employment.
I actually oppose socialized medicine (i.e. government control of medical service providers) and advocate maximizing insurance provided for by the private sector with a government safety net that would ensure that everyone has access to quality health care services. I would strive to achieve this by maximizing employer provided group health insurance to the workers to limit the size and cost of the government safety net.
Several peer reviewed and undisputed studies conducted between 2008-2012 established that the majority of Americans express both implicit and explicit anti-black racial prejudice. As we're agree to ignore any opinion and just read the numbers in the story provided.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/27/poll-black-prejudice-america/1662067/
Welfare assistance, while mitigating the effects of poverty, does nothing to reduce the poverty. Welfare assistance was never designed to reduce poverty but merely to mitigate the effects of the poverty.
I've read something of interest that perhaps you haven't. All other factors being equal economic advantage or disadvantage of a household continues for an average of fifteen generations. If we could eliminate all denial of equality of economic opportunity today that would mean that the current average "white" household wealth of $144,000 and average "black" household wealth of $11,000 would reach parity in the year 2465. If denial of equality of economic opportunity had been achieved in 1965 at the height of the civil rights movement we'd only be about 1/10th of the way to reducing the inequities between the races.
That's a fundamental problem with the argument that we should just live in a "color-blind" society because addressing the historical racism that created the economic disparity by just ensuring that "all factors were equal" (and they're not) would require 450 years before economic parity would result between the races.
The poverty today in the black communities is the residual effect of historican racism that created the poverty (economic disparity) to begin with and we haven't created a color-blind society so "all factors are not equal" and we can't even expect the poverty to be completely eliminated in 450 years based upon normal economic factors.
Pragmatically to shorten that 450 years before ecomonic parity would be reached based upon normal economic factors where "all factors are equal" we would need to provide an "advantage" so that all factors are not equal.
Once again we'll just have to wait to see what the Supreme Court decides in King v Burwell. As I've noted if the Supreme Court decides in favor of the plaintiff's it will be very interesting to see what the GOP does because, based upon the polls, the majority of Americans want the subsidies re-instated if the Supreme Court strikes them down. If the GOP was to ignore the "will of the American people" and didn't restore the subsidies it could have serious implications in the 2016 presidential elections. That was why I thought it would have been a good idea for the GOP to offer a one sentence amendment to the ACA to revise the sentence rendering the King v Burwell case moot. The GOP is going to be between a rock and a hard place if the Supreme Court decides in favor of the plaintiff.
Actually, according to the polls that I have seen, the majority of Americans oppose ObamaCare per se--not just some of its more egregious aspects. (In any case, I am much more concerned with the principle involved, than I am with the political implications for the GOP.) You seem to be implying that we should give black Americans an economic "advantage" of some sort, to try to shorten the time required for economic equality to result. Is that correct? Every job I ever had (prior to my retirement) was obtained through a "cold call." (I had heard that the company was hiring; and that was enough for me.) You seem to fetishize "peer reviewed...studies," to the exclusion of everyday experience. And I simply do not see, on a day-to-day basis, this "implicit and explicit anti-black race prejudice" of which you speak. (Yes, there is a bias--quite reasonably, I think--against the so-called "gangsta culture" that represents a portion of black America--but certainly not the majority of it.) Exactly how would you go about "maximizing employer proveded group health insurance," anyway? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 10, 2015 12:42:44 GMT
Actually, according to the polls that I have seen, the majority of Americans oppose ObamaCare per se--not just some of its more egregious aspects. (In any case, I am much more concerned with the principle involved, than I am with the political implications for the GOP.) You seem to be implying that we should give black Americans an economic "advantage" of some sort, to try to shorten the time required for economic equality to result. Is that correct? Every job I ever had (prior to my retirement) was obtained through a "cold call." (I had heard that the company was hiring; and that was enough for me.) You seem to fetishize "peer reviewed...studies," to the exclusion of everyday experience. And I simply do not see, on a day-to-day basis, this "implicit and explicit anti-black race prejudice" of which you speak. (Yes, there is a bias--quite reasonably, I think--against the so-called "gangsta culture" that represents a portion of black America--but certainly not the majority of it.) Exactly how would you go about "maximizing employer proveded group health insurance," anyway?
I would assume that most Americans are opposed to War per se but are supportive of certain military operations that are acts of war specifically. I oppose Obamacare per se but I support the fact that it provides more Americans with quality healthcare.
Before addressing any economic advantage I'd be more focused on reducing/eliminating the current denial of equality of economic opportunity for blacks in America. Once that is achieved then we can address possible means of providing an "advantage"at that doesn't disadvantage others so that natural parity results over a shorter time period. Always remember that the "economic pie" is not a constant so an advantage can be provided to some that doesn't disadvantage someone else.
Knowing that a job opening exists is not a "cold call" and ironically you opposed employers expanding their job search by even such a simply means as posting a hiring notice in a newpaper in a predominately black community under Affirmative Action where they would learn that job openings exist. If an employer only recruits in white communities by only posting job openings in those communities they're not likely to get black applicants. If their recruitement method is solely to rely on current employee referrals and all of the employees are white they're not likely to get a black applicant. Programs like Affirmative Action for federal contractors is about expanding the recruitement process so that more blacks know about the job opening but you're opposed to it. It's about removing "racial discrimination" in employment and not about imposing racial discrimination in employment but you're opposed to it.
I'm an advocate of science and the scientific method because it works. Often triggered by anecdotal evidence or sometimes by pure curiosity science will identify something, quantify it based upon emprical evidence, and search for the cause once again relying on emperical evidence as a foundation for conclusions. It goes beyond the anecdotal, beyond what simple human perceptions might tell us, to actually research and understand it. Science isn't always 100% correct initially but it is self-correcting over time. You tend to rely on the anecdotal as opposed to the emperical and that is a fundamental mistake that science doesn't make.
As for employer provided health care benefits (which goes beyond a simple mandate for group health insurance) I'd recommend something similar to my privatization plan for Social Security (which, by the way, I need to amend based upon this discussion). It would be a joint employee-employer proposal where the ultimate benefit is achieved and I believe I've mentioned it before. Under the law I would create a "condition of operating a business" where the employer either provides group health insurance, with premium co-pays and deductables by the employee, or that the employer contribute to an "insurance pool" that would subsidize the employee purchasing individual health insurance. Unlike Social Security the cost of health insurance is unrelated to "wages" so the financial obligations of the employer and employee would be based upon hours worked and not wages. Except for minimal regulation and a much, much smaller safety net this predominately gets the government out of being involved in the "health insurance" game for working Americans (i.e. it's a small government solution)
One thing I'd remind you of is that both the enterprise and the employee benefit financially from the employee having health insurance which is why the proposal is based upon a joint employer-employee financial responsibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 13, 2015 2:22:42 GMT
Actually, according to the polls that I have seen, the majority of Americans oppose ObamaCare per se--not just some of its more egregious aspects. (In any case, I am much more concerned with the principle involved, than I am with the political implications for the GOP.) You seem to be implying that we should give black Americans an economic "advantage" of some sort, to try to shorten the time required for economic equality to result. Is that correct? Every job I ever had (prior to my retirement) was obtained through a "cold call." (I had heard that the company was hiring; and that was enough for me.) You seem to fetishize "peer reviewed...studies," to the exclusion of everyday experience. And I simply do not see, on a day-to-day basis, this "implicit and explicit anti-black race prejudice" of which you speak. (Yes, there is a bias--quite reasonably, I think--against the so-called "gangsta culture" that represents a portion of black America--but certainly not the majority of it.) Exactly how would you go about "maximizing employer proveded group health insurance," anyway?
I would assume that most Americans are opposed to War per se but are supportive of certain military operations that are acts of war specifically. I oppose Obamacare per se but I support the fact that it provides more Americans with quality healthcare.
Before addressing any economic advantage I'd be more focused on reducing/eliminating the current denial of equality of economic opportunity for blacks in America. Once that is achieved then we can address possible means of providing an "advantage"at that doesn't disadvantage others so that natural parity results over a shorter time period. Always remember that the "economic pie" is not a constant so an advantage can be provided to some that doesn't disadvantage someone else.
Knowing that a job opening exists is not a "cold call" and ironically you opposed employers expanding their job search by even such a simply means as posting a hiring notice in a newpaper in a predominately black community under Affirmative Action where they would learn that job openings exist. If an employer only recruits in white communities by only posting job openings in those communities they're not likely to get black applicants. If their recruitement method is solely to rely on current employee referrals and all of the employees are white they're not likely to get a black applicant. Programs like Affirmative Action for federal contractors is about expanding the recruitement process so that more blacks know about the job opening but you're opposed to it. It's about removing "racial discrimination" in employment and not about imposing racial discrimination in employment but you're opposed to it.
I'm an advocate of science and the scientific method because it works. Often triggered by anecdotal evidence or sometimes by pure curiosity science will identify something, quantify it based upon emprical evidence, and search for the cause once again relying on emperical evidence as a foundation for conclusions. It goes beyond the anecdotal, beyond what simple human perceptions might tell us, to actually research and understand it. Science isn't always 100% correct initially but it is self-correcting over time. You tend to rely on the anecdotal as opposed to the emperical and that is a fundamental mistake that science doesn't make.
As for employer provided health care benefits (which goes beyond a simple mandate for group health insurance) I'd recommend something similar to my privatization plan for Social Security (which, by the way, I need to amend based upon this discussion). It would be a joint employee-employer proposal where the ultimate benefit is achieved and I believe I've mentioned it before. Under the law I would create a "condition of operating a business" where the employer either provides group health insurance, with premium co-pays and deductables by the employee, or that the employer contribute to an "insurance pool" that would subsidize the employee purchasing individual health insurance. Unlike Social Security the cost of health insurance is unrelated to "wages" so the financial obligations of the employer and employee would be based upon hours worked and not wages. Except for minimal regulation and a much, much smaller safety net this predominately gets the government out of being involved in the "health insurance" game for working Americans (i.e. it's a small government solution)
One thing I'd remind you of is that both the enterprise and the employee benefit financially from the employee having health insurance which is why the proposal is based upon a joint employer-employee financial responsibility.
No, I do not rely upon mere "anecdotal" evidence (which, as you rightly point out, may be deeply flawed), but upon empirical evidence. I consider this more compelling than mere "studies." Most Americans are not necessarily "opposed" to war, philosophically; most would simply rather reserve it for a last resort--and not as something to be taken lightly. Your "solution" for healthcare insurance is just another mandate from Washington. (By the way, if employers truly believe that they will "benefit financially" from their employees' having healthcare insurance, they will surely provide that insurance voluntarily. If they do not provide it voluntarily, then that is evidence that they have not concluded that this is in their best interest.) Your idea of posting an advertisement in a newspaper "in a predominantly black community" begs the question: Is this "newspaper" something other than the city's main newspaper (or, if the city has two newspapers, is it other than one of these two)? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 13, 2015 12:42:03 GMT
No, I do not rely upon mere "anecdotal" evidence (which, as you rightly point out, may be deeply flawed), but upon empirical evidence. I consider this more compelling than mere "studies." Most Americans are not necessarily "opposed" to war, philosophically; most would simply rather reserve it for a last resort--and not as something to be taken lightly. Your "solution" for healthcare insurance is just another mandate from Washington. (By the way, if employers truly believe that they will "benefit financially" from their employees' having healthcare insurance, they will surely provide that insurance voluntarily. If they do not provide it voluntarily, then that is evidence that they have not concluded that this is in their best interest.) Your idea of posting an advertisement in a newspaper "in a predominantly black community" begs the question: Is this "newspaper" something other than the city's main newspaper (or, if the city has two newspapers, is it other than one of these two)?
I'm reminded of the "creationists" that say the "Theory of Evolution" (actually the Theory of Natural Selection) it "Just a theory like the Theory of Creation" ignoring two important facts. The "Theory of Evolution" is a scientific theory and there isn't a scientific "Theory of Creation" to compare it to. The "mere studies" you refer to are the "scientific studies" that provide the emperical evidence.
Yes, my proposal to address the health care needs for working Americans is an "Employer Mandate" (that would also include Medicaid expansion for safety net) but it could logically be written on a single page, perhaps in only two paragraphs, as opposed to the thousands of pages for the ACA. Your proposal is apparently no mandate so let's compare the three.
No Mandate = No Government = Estimated 18% (about 45 million) of Americans not receiving necessary health care (insurance) One Page Mandate = Limited Goverment = 100% of Americans receiving necessary health care (insurance) Thousand(s) Page Mandate = Very Large Government = 90% of Americans receiving necessary health care (insurance)
So yes, it is a government mandate but there are many government mandates related to enterprise in America. Mine just happens to be the most minimal government mandate imaginable to address a compelling problem that can't simply be ignored by government. As a Libertarian I don't support "no government" but instead support "minimalistic government" and that is what my proposal offers to address the problem.
Whether the owners of an enterprise "believe" they will benefit financially and provide group health insurance for them employees is about as relevant as the individual believing they will benefit from investing 10% of income for retirement. Everyone knows the individual will benefit from contributing 10% of their income to retirement investment but most people, even those that do have retirement accounts, don't typically contribute 10% of their income to their retirement accounts. Just because the business owner knows that something will benefit the enterprise financially doesn't imply they will act on that knowledge especially if it costs them money.
Every employer knows that their employees being able to see a doctor because they have health insurance financially benefits the enterprise but they just want someone else to pay for the insurance. The employers also know the enterprise benefits financially if the employee has enough food to eat but many enterprises rely on the government to povide that food through the SNAP program. Social conservatives like to point out that we've created a "welfare dependent society" but seem to miss the fact that it's the employers that are dependent upon the government welfare assistance.
Yes, often the "local" newspaper is different than the major metropolitan newspapers. For example where I live there is the Everett Herald, the Seattle Times, and the Seattle Post Intelligencer but the Marysville Globe is the local newspaper. The Globe is also free while the others require paid subscriptions. Even in Everett the Everett Herald is "local" while the PI and Times are not really local newspapers.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 15, 2015 5:52:39 GMT
No, I do not rely upon mere "anecdotal" evidence (which, as you rightly point out, may be deeply flawed), but upon empirical evidence. I consider this more compelling than mere "studies." Most Americans are not necessarily "opposed" to war, philosophically; most would simply rather reserve it for a last resort--and not as something to be taken lightly. Your "solution" for healthcare insurance is just another mandate from Washington. (By the way, if employers truly believe that they will "benefit financially" from their employees' having healthcare insurance, they will surely provide that insurance voluntarily. If they do not provide it voluntarily, then that is evidence that they have not concluded that this is in their best interest.) Your idea of posting an advertisement in a newspaper "in a predominantly black community" begs the question: Is this "newspaper" something other than the city's main newspaper (or, if the city has two newspapers, is it other than one of these two)?
I'm reminded of the "creationists" that say the "Theory of Evolution" (actually the Theory of Natural Selection) it "Just a theory like the Theory of Creation" ignoring two important facts. The "Theory of Evolution" is a scientific theory and there isn't a scientific "Theory of Creation" to compare it to. The "mere studies" you refer to are the "scientific studies" that provide the emperical evidence.
Yes, my proposal to address the health care needs for working Americans is an "Employer Mandate" (that would also include Medicaid expansion for safety net) but it could logically be written on a single page, perhaps in only two paragraphs, as opposed to the thousands of pages for the ACA. Your proposal is apparently no mandate so let's compare the three.
No Mandate = No Government = Estimated 18% (about 45 million) of Americans not receiving necessary health care (insurance) One Page Mandate = Limited Goverment = 100% of Americans receiving necessary health care (insurance) Thousand(s) Page Mandate = Very Large Government = 90% of Americans receiving necessary health care (insurance)
So yes, it is a government mandate but there are many government mandates related to enterprise in America. Mine just happens to be the most minimal government mandate imaginable to address a compelling problem that can't simply be ignored by government. As a Libertarian I don't support "no government" but instead support "minimalistic government" and that is what my proposal offers to address the problem.
Whether the owners of an enterprise "believe" they will benefit financially and provide group health insurance for them employees is about as relevant as the individual believing they will benefit from investing 10% of income for retirement. Everyone knows the individual will benefit from contributing 10% of their income to retirement investment but most people, even those that do have retirement accounts, don't typically contribute 10% of their income to their retirement accounts. Just because the business owner knows that something will benefit the enterprise financially doesn't imply they will act on that knowledge especially if it costs them money.
Every employer knows that their employees being able to see a doctor because they have health insurance financially benefits the enterprise but they just want someone else to pay for the insurance. The employers also know the enterprise benefits financially if the employee has enough food to eat but many enterprises rely on the government to povide that food through the SNAP program. Social conservatives like to point out that we've created a "welfare dependent society" but seem to miss the fact that it's the employers that are dependent upon the government welfare assistance.
Yes, often the "local" newspaper is different than the major metropolitan newspapers. For example where I live there is the Everett Herald, the Seattle Times, and the Seattle Post Intelligencer but the Marysville Globe is the local newspaper. The Globe is also free while the others require paid subscriptions. Even in Everett the Everett Herald is "local" while the PI and Times are not really local newspapers.
Are you suggesting, then, that employers should advertise in small newspapers that are not "the major metropolitan newspapers"? And do you not think that this is something that those employers should decide for themselves? Your belief that business owners will not do that which they "know the enterprise benefits financially from" is certainly a most condescending view, on your part: Why, you know what is in their best interest, and would act upon it; but they know what is in their best interest, yet are not intelligent enough to act upon it. (By the way, for the record, for quite a few years, prior to my retirement, I contributed 26 percent of my gross pay--not just 10 percent--to the company 401k. And that is in addition to maxing out my IRA.) There are essentially two sources of knowledge (if one does not include divine revelation in the mix): They are (1) rational evidence; and (2) empirical evidence. "Studies" clearly fall into the former category; whereas I favor the latter. Your easy equation of healthcare with healthcare insurance is typical of the American left: Why, if a person does not have healthcare insurance, then he (or she) must not be receiving any actual healthcare... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 16, 2015 10:40:17 GMT
Are you suggesting, then, that employers should advertise in small newspapers that are not "the major metropolitan newspapers"? And do you not think that this is something that those employers should decide for themselves? Your belief that business owners will not do that which they "know the enterprise benefits financially from" is certainly a most condescending view, on your part: Why, you know what is in their best interest, and would act upon it; but they know what is in their best interest, yet are not intelligent enough to act upon it. (By the way, for the record, for quite a few years, prior to my retirement, I contributed 26 percent of my gross pay--not just 10 percent--to the company 401k. And that is in addition to maxing out my IRA.) There are essentially two sources of knowledge (if one does not include divine revelation in the mix): They are (1) rational evidence; and (2) empirical evidence. "Studies" clearly fall into the former category; whereas I favor the latter. Your easy equation of healthcare with healthcare insurance is typical of the American left: Why, if a person does not have healthcare insurance, then he (or she) must not be receiving any actual healthcare...
I would remind you that federal Affirmative Action is voluntary on the part of an enterprise. The enterprise is not under any obligation to accept a contract to work on federal projects that require Affirmative Action. If they want the contract then they voluntarily agree to comply with the Affirmative Action guidelines that are a condition of the contract. It should also be pointed out that even deciding to own an enterprise is voluntary and in deciding to operated an enterprise the person voluntarily agrees to comply with the laws and regulations that govern operating an enterprise.
Owners of enterprise are not super-knowledgeable people. They're a wide mix and many aren't all that smart. For example you managed to save 26% of income, financial experts recommend at least 10%, but how many people save 0% for numerous reasons. If you sat down with them and explained how important it was to save at least 10% towards retirement they would agree with you but most probably wouldn't change and actually start investing at least 10% for retirement. They'd often rationalize their non-investment for their retirement (e.g. Paying the rent is more important this month).
Rational evidence is the broadest (lowest) form of evidence while scientific studies provide emperical evidence. The scientific studies, such as those on racial discrimination, rely on repeatability without significant variation and without contradiction. They are based upon the laws of probability because they use a sample as opposed to a measurement of the whole. A sample of sea water can provide the breakdown of elements and their probable their percentage of occurance in all of the sea water but it could be off based upon a single sample especially related to trace elements. If we have numerous samples sea water from around the world we get a far more accurate measurement of the elements and their percentage in all of the sea water. This is all based upon the laws of statistics that are mathmatical and the scientific method that is based upon testing to provide emperical evidence.
This is why I always challenge anyone that questions scientific studies, such as those on racism, to provide another study that reflects a significant variation or that provides a contradiction in accordance with the scientific method. When we look at the 2012 study that identifed that 32% of Democrats expressed explicit anti-black racial prejudice it was not a "stand alone" study because it was one in a series that all reflected roughly the same percentage albeit also with slight variation based upon "time" where a trend could be shown. Tests that establish repeatability is a primary tenet in establishing emperical, as opposed to rational, evidence. Rational evidence accepts contradiction but emperical evidence does not. In addressing racism and racial discrimination there are literally thousands of studies that mutually validate each other.
Three Facts: Health Insurance =/= Health Care Health Insurance = Funding (in whole or in part) for Health Care Health Care Is Not Free
My proposal does not directly provide health care but it does provide and ensures a funding method for 100% of the people so that their health care is paid for. What is your proposal that would provide and ensure a funding method for 100% of the people so their necessary health care is paid for? (We know that charity, that relies on historically inadequate voluntary contributions, never has so you can toss that idea in the trash.)
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 19, 2015 23:28:03 GMT
Are you suggesting, then, that employers should advertise in small newspapers that are not "the major metropolitan newspapers"? And do you not think that this is something that those employers should decide for themselves? Your belief that business owners will not do that which they "know the enterprise benefits financially from" is certainly a most condescending view, on your part: Why, you know what is in their best interest, and would act upon it; but they know what is in their best interest, yet are not intelligent enough to act upon it. (By the way, for the record, for quite a few years, prior to my retirement, I contributed 26 percent of my gross pay--not just 10 percent--to the company 401k. And that is in addition to maxing out my IRA.) There are essentially two sources of knowledge (if one does not include divine revelation in the mix): They are (1) rational evidence; and (2) empirical evidence. "Studies" clearly fall into the former category; whereas I favor the latter. Your easy equation of healthcare with healthcare insurance is typical of the American left: Why, if a person does not have healthcare insurance, then he (or she) must not be receiving any actual healthcare...
I would remind you that federal Affirmative Action is voluntary on the part of an enterprise. The enterprise is not under any obligation to accept a contract to work on federal projects that require Affirmative Action. If they want the contract then they voluntarily agree to comply with the Affirmative Action guidelines that are a condition of the contract. It should also be pointed out that even deciding to own an enterprise is voluntary and in deciding to operated an enterprise the person voluntarily agrees to comply with the laws and regulations that govern operating an enterprise.
Owners of enterprise are not super-knowledgeable people. They're a wide mix and many aren't all that smart. For example you managed to save 26% of income, financial experts recommend at least 10%, but how many people save 0% for numerous reasons. If you sat down with them and explained how important it was to save at least 10% towards retirement they would agree with you but most probably wouldn't change and actually start investing at least 10% for retirement. They'd often rationalize their non-investment for their retirement (e.g. Paying the rent is more important this month).
Rational evidence is the broadest (lowest) form of evidence while scientific studies provide emperical evidence. The scientific studies, such as those on racial discrimination, rely on repeatability without significant variation and without contradiction. They are based upon the laws of probability because they use a sample as opposed to a measurement of the whole. A sample of sea water can provide the breakdown of elements and their probable their percentage of occurance in all of the sea water but it could be off based upon a single sample especially related to trace elements. If we have numerous samples sea water from around the world we get a far more accurate measurement of the elements and their percentage in all of the sea water. This is all based upon the laws of statistics that are mathmatical and the scientific method that is based upon testing to provide emperical evidence.
This is why I always challenge anyone that questions scientific studies, such as those on racism, to provide another study that reflects a significant variation or that provides a contradiction in accordance with the scientific method. When we look at the 2012 study that identifed that 32% of Democrats expressed explicit anti-black racial prejudice it was not a "stand alone" study because it was one in a series that all reflected roughly the same percentage albeit also with slight variation based upon "time" where a trend could be shown. Tests that establish repeatability is a primary tenet in establishing emperical, as opposed to rational, evidence. Rational evidence accepts contradiction but emperical evidence does not. In addressing racism and racial discrimination there are literally thousands of studies that mutually validate each other.
Three Facts: Health Insurance =/= Health Care Health Insurance = Funding (in whole or in part) for Health Care Health Care Is Not Free
My proposal does not directly provide health care but it does provide and ensures a funding method for 100% of the people so that their health care is paid for. What is your proposal that would provide and ensure a funding method for 100% of the people so their necessary health care is paid for? (We know that charity, that relies on historically inadequate voluntary contributions, never has so you can toss that idea in the trash.)
Well, I would simply not "voluntarily agree to comply" with affirmative-action mandates; or with any other mandates that are not requisite. Actually, it is not quite true that I invested only 26 percent toward retirement. That is the portion of my check that went into the company 401k. But I also invested $2,000 per year into my IRA (which was then the maximum amount allowable), as my late wife did also, as regarding her IRA. Yes, I would agree that business owners constitute "a wide mix" on the sectrum of intelligence. But it is you who claimed that business owners know that something that they would decline to do is really a "win-win" situation. My preference for the empirical over the rational is really fairly simple: Using rational criteria, a bumblebee simply cannot fly, as its wingspan is just too small, when compared to its body weight. Yet bumblebees actually do fly--innumerable numbers of them, everyday--so I would much prefer the empirical over the rational. By the way, I would be very interested in learning the exact questions that led to a conclusion of "explicit anti-black racial prejudice." And I have no desire whatsoever--not even a very slight desire--for government (meaning, the taxpayers) to pay for the healthcare services consumed by Americans. That was not considered a fundamental "right" by the Founders (who, presumably, were subject to even more diseases in the late eighteenth century than we are today). And I do not consider myslef to be wiser than the Founders. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 20, 2015 11:35:06 GMT
Well, I would simply not "voluntarily agree to comply" with affirmative-action mandates; or with any other mandates that are not requisite. Actually, it is not quite true that I invested only 26 percent toward retirement. That is the portion of my check that went into the company 401k. But I also invested $2,000 per year into my IRA (which was then the maximum amount allowable), as my late wife did also, as regarding her IRA. Yes, I would agree that business owners constitute "a wide mix" on the sectrum of intelligence. But it is you who claimed that business owners know that something that they would decline to do is really a "win-win" situation. My preference for the empirical over the rational is really fairly simple: Using rational criteria, a bumblebee simply cannot fly, as its wingspan is just too small, when compared to its body weight. Yet bumblebees actually do fly--innumerable numbers of them, everyday--so I would much prefer the empirical over the rational. By the way, I would be very interested in learning the exact questions that led to a conclusion of "explicit anti-black racial prejudice." And I have no desire whatsoever--not even a very slight desire--for government (meaning, the taxpayers) to pay for the healthcare services consumed by Americans. That was not considered a fundamental "right" by the Founders (who, presumably, were subject to even more diseases in the late eighteenth century than we are today). And I do not consider myslef to be wiser than the Founders.
So you wouldn't do something just because it's the right thing to do? Affirmative Action merely requires employers to ensure that their employment practices are non-discriminatory and arguably that's the right thing for any employer to do.
Scientific studies do provide emperical evidence because there's based upon repeatable tests that, combined, validate each other. There is absolutely no difference between the studies on discrimination and prejudice than there is on the studies of salt content in the oceans as both provide emperical evidence based upon multiple tests being conducted over time.
The first public (government funded) hospital in the United States was the Bellevue Hospital in New York founded on March 31, 1736 and it provided health care services regardless of the ability of the person to pay. The founders of America arguably supported government funded health care for those incapable of paying for health care because government funded hospitals existed when the nation was founded.
As a Libertarian I accept the need for some essential government services over a wide range from national defense to providing food and health care to the poor but would seek to minumize the dependency upon the government provided services.
I would limit national defense exclusively to the express defense of the nation from invasiona and attack.
I would advocate legislation that reduces poverty such as repealing the laws that gutted the power of organized labor so that compensation is negotiated between employers and the workers establishing voluntary contracts as opposed to compensation being dictated by the the "market" where negotiations do not take place and the employment contract is involuntary. (Libertarians believe in contract law where negotiations lead to voluntary contracts establishing win-win situations between the parties to the contract)
I would support an "employer mandate" for health insurance so that health care for workers would be privately funded as opposed to government funded. The employers are profiting from the labor of their workers and it only makes sense that the employers should fund the health care needs of the workers with a small part of those profits. Increasing the "private funding" of health care reduces the "government funding" of health care.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 22, 2015 18:17:23 GMT
Well, I would simply not "voluntarily agree to comply" with affirmative-action mandates; or with any other mandates that are not requisite. Actually, it is not quite true that I invested only 26 percent toward retirement. That is the portion of my check that went into the company 401k. But I also invested $2,000 per year into my IRA (which was then the maximum amount allowable), as my late wife did also, as regarding her IRA. Yes, I would agree that business owners constitute "a wide mix" on the sectrum of intelligence. But it is you who claimed that business owners know that something that they would decline to do is really a "win-win" situation. My preference for the empirical over the rational is really fairly simple: Using rational criteria, a bumblebee simply cannot fly, as its wingspan is just too small, when compared to its body weight. Yet bumblebees actually do fly--innumerable numbers of them, everyday--so I would much prefer the empirical over the rational. By the way, I would be very interested in learning the exact questions that led to a conclusion of "explicit anti-black racial prejudice." And I have no desire whatsoever--not even a very slight desire--for government (meaning, the taxpayers) to pay for the healthcare services consumed by Americans. That was not considered a fundamental "right" by the Founders (who, presumably, were subject to even more diseases in the late eighteenth century than we are today). And I do not consider myslef to be wiser than the Founders.
So you wouldn't do something just because it's the right thing to do? Affirmative Action merely requires employers to ensure that their employment practices are non-discriminatory and arguably that's the right thing for any employer to do.
Scientific studies do provide emperical evidence because there's based upon repeatable tests that, combined, validate each other. There is absolutely no difference between the studies on discrimination and prejudice than there is on the studies of salt content in the oceans as both provide emperical evidence based upon multiple tests being conducted over time.
The first public (government funded) hospital in the United States was the Bellevue Hospital in New York founded on March 31, 1736 and it provided health care services regardless of the ability of the person to pay. The founders of America arguably supported government funded health care for those incapable of paying for health care because government funded hospitals existed when the nation was founded.
As a Libertarian I accept the need for some essential government services over a wide range from national defense to providing food and health care to the poor but would seek to minumize the dependency upon the government provided services.
I would limit national defense exclusively to the express defense of the nation from invasiona and attack.
I would advocate legislation that reduces poverty such as repealing the laws that gutted the power of organized labor so that compensation is negotiated between employers and the workers establishing voluntary contracts as opposed to compensation being dictated by the the "market" where negotiations do not take place and the employment contract is involuntary. (Libertarians believe in contract law where negotiations lead to voluntary contracts establishing win-win situations between the parties to the contract)
I would support an "employer mandate" for health insurance so that health care for workers would be privately funded as opposed to government funded. The employers are profiting from the labor of their workers and it only makes sense that the employers should fund the health care needs of the workers with a small part of those profits. Increasing the "private funding" of health care reduces the "government funding" of health care.
If I were an employer, I would certainly not discriminate, based upon race or ethnicity--not discriminating is "the right thing to do"--but I would not acquiesce to a government mandate. We have too many of those already. I ask, again: What were the specific questions asked in those "scientific studies" that (supposedly) established an anti-black prejudice? If the Founders "arguably supported government funded health care," it seems passing strange that the US Constitution does not mandate it. Providing for the national defense is a fundamental governmental duty; "providing food and health care to the poor" is not. Your "solution" seems to be for more statism: Why, let us just have the federal government mandating that employers must provide a certain benefit to their employees. By the way, an agreement to work for a particular company is never "involuntary." Just by definition, both the prospective employee and the prospective employer must agree to that employment, or it will not take place. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 22, 2015 22:30:21 GMT
If I were an employer, I would certainly not discriminate, based upon race or ethnicity--not discriminating is "the right thing to do"--but I would not acquiesce to a government mandate. We have too many of those already. I ask, again: What were the specific questions asked in those "scientific studies" that (supposedly) established an anti-black prejudice? If the Founders "arguably supported government funded health care," it seems passing strange that the US Constitution does not mandate it. Providing for the national defense is a fundamental governmental duty; "providing food and health care to the poor" is not. Your "solution" seems to be for more statism: Why, let us just have the federal government mandating that employers must provide a certain benefit to their employees. By the way, an agreement to work for a particular company is never "involuntary." Just by definition, both the prospective employee and the prospective employer must agree to that employment, or it will not take place.
Affirmative Action is NOT mandated by the federal government. No enterprise is require to provide products or services to the federal government either directly or indirectly. If they want to work on federal contracts then they have to voluntarily agree to Affirmative Action guidelines but no one forces them to.
I've only read one of the actual questionaires for one of these studies but because of the very design of these studies on prejudice/discrimination (so that the respondent doesn't know what's being evaluated) most of the questions are really bogus having nothing to do with what the study is actually about. As I believe I've mentioned we received an overview of how complex it is to create one of these studies when I was in college and they're not simply to design because you don't want to tip off the person taking the test because it effects their responses. There is an important factor that must be considered though. Experts on these studies peer review them and if they were bogus that would show up under peer review. None of these studies are being disputed by the expert.
Providing for the welfare of the people was considered to be a state and local government responsibility when the nation was founded. Unfortunately the states and local communities have been a complete failure in doing this in many instances. Arguably many current federally funded "welfare" programs are actually state programs because they're administered by the state and not the federal government. Medicaid and SNAP come instantly to mind because these are federally funded state programs.
You are correct though because the Constitution doesn't even enumerate a responsibility to the federal government to spend money to fund state welfare programs but then again the Constitution doesn't enumerate any responsibility for the federal government to spend money to control immigration either.
Of course for the working poor we know how to end the welfare assistance. They need to earn enough income from their labor so that they don't require the assistance. The only way to reduce government welfare assistance is to reduce poverty.
The federal government already has mandates for enterprise and it has those mandates because enterprise is grossly irresponsible without the mandates.
When the choice is "work or starve to death" it's not really voluntary employment for the prospective employee.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 27, 2015 0:38:56 GMT
If I were an employer, I would certainly not discriminate, based upon race or ethnicity--not discriminating is "the right thing to do"--but I would not acquiesce to a government mandate. We have too many of those already. I ask, again: What were the specific questions asked in those "scientific studies" that (supposedly) established an anti-black prejudice? If the Founders "arguably supported government funded health care," it seems passing strange that the US Constitution does not mandate it. Providing for the national defense is a fundamental governmental duty; "providing food and health care to the poor" is not. Your "solution" seems to be for more statism: Why, let us just have the federal government mandating that employers must provide a certain benefit to their employees. By the way, an agreement to work for a particular company is never "involuntary." Just by definition, both the prospective employee and the prospective employer must agree to that employment, or it will not take place.
Affirmative Action is NOT mandated by the federal government. No enterprise is require to provide products or services to the federal government either directly or indirectly. If they want to work on federal contracts then they have to voluntarily agree to Affirmative Action guidelines but no one forces them to.
I've only read one of the actual questionaires for one of these studies but because of the very design of these studies on prejudice/discrimination (so that the respondent doesn't know what's being evaluated) most of the questions are really bogus having nothing to do with what the study is actually about. As I believe I've mentioned we received an overview of how complex it is to create one of these studies when I was in college and they're not simply to design because you don't want to tip off the person taking the test because it effects their responses. There is an important factor that must be considered though. Experts on these studies peer review them and if they were bogus that would show up under peer review. None of these studies are being disputed by the expert.
Providing for the welfare of the people was considered to be a state and local government responsibility when the nation was founded. Unfortunately the states and local communities have been a complete failure in doing this in many instances. Arguably many current federally funded "welfare" programs are actually state programs because they're administered by the state and not the federal government. Medicaid and SNAP come instantly to mind because these are federally funded state programs.
You are correct though because the Constitution doesn't even enumerate a responsibility to the federal government to spend money to fund state welfare programs but then again the Constitution doesn't enumerate any responsibility for the federal government to spend money to control immigration either.
Of course for the working poor we know how to end the welfare assistance. They need to earn enough income from their labor so that they don't require the assistance. The only way to reduce government welfare assistance is to reduce poverty.
The federal government already has mandates for enterprise and it has those mandates because enterprise is grossly irresponsible without the mandates.
When the choice is "work or starve to death" it's not really voluntary employment for the prospective employee.
"[W]ork or starve to death" is a fallacy commonly known as the false alternative. The real alternative is work for Company X; work for Company Y; work for Company Z; or work for some other company, entirely. To say that companies get federal contracts only if they agree to participate in affirmative-action programs, yet it is entirely "voluntary," is a bit like claiming that it is purely "voluntary" to do as the Mafia instructs, lest one's kneecaps might be broken. Your response, as concerning the exact wording on those studies, seems to boil down to this, essentially: You have no idea just what that wording was (with a single exception); but it is all just too "complex," anyway, to be understood by anyone but "the expert " who have peer-reviewed it.
As usual, you have far more faith in the federal government than I do. In fact, you view state and local programs as "a complete failure," and the federal government as our national savior.
Illegal immigration was not a problem in the latter part of the eighteenth century, when the nation was founded--in fact, we actually needed more immigration--so, of course it was not included in our Constitution. But this is not a thread about illegal immigration. So please do not make an attempt at deflection.
No, "[t]he only way to reduce welfare assistance" is to eliminate the dole. Entirely.
|
|
