posted
If they keep this up, it's really going to backfire.
Being obstructionist is one thing. Acting like petulant children who take their ball and go home whenever they lose is on another level.
And you know, beyond the political posturing. That's pathetic. Are Republicans really such sore losers that they refuse to participate in ANY governing just to spite Democrats because they lost on a single issue, regardless of how big it is? I mean come on. They can't be thinking that shutting down the Senate is really going to play well in the press. They gambled that people won't like the Democratic plan. If they don't, then Republicans get back in office, just like they planned. And if people do like it, then this will look even WORSE in hindsight. I don't see what they think this is going to accomplish. And I think it's a gift to Democrats.
But beyond all that, I think this is incredibly immature and irresponsible. They need to grow up.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder: Many companies only hire on a part time basis so they don't have to pay for health insurance benefits. Does anyone have any feeling for whether the new law will make it more or less likely that companies will hire full time employees?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, companies with over 50 employees have to pay a fine now if they don't provide insurance for them. Two part-time employees count as one full-time, so I would guess it would be neutral at best. If I were hiring under those conditions, I think I'd lean toward hiring full-timers because there's no reason not to, and one person is easier to keep track of, to pay, and to hire.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: GOP senators now refusing to work past 2pm in retaliation for healthcare reform...
Hmmmm, so no committees, but what about normal legislation? Wouldn't this be a good opportunity to pass needed legislation behind their backs after 2pm or is there some sort of quorum system going on in your system?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure a quorum is a simple majority. But I'm not sure if this tactic applies only to committee hearings, or to business on the floor in general.
Edit to add: They're debating the reconciliation bill late into the night, so, perhaps not.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt the Republicans will do this for long, they're just thumbing their noses at the Democrats, and unfortunately work that needs to be done is being ignored.
If it goes on for the rest of this week and continues into the next then I'll be worried.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, yeah. Umm, well, for myself, almost. Considering how low my expectations are for the GOP in terms of providing approvable leadership? If they continue to do this for longer than a week, I don't really think I'll be 'worried.' I'll be happy to watch them shoot themselves in the foot again.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also as an aside I totally can't wait for OSC's next article to come out and be a basic demonstration of so much of the self-defeating apoplectic doomsaying that we're already talking about here.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or you know, they may be trying to actually get some of their own fixes in that they feel wasn't taken care of in the original bill. Heaven forbid they try and improve the bill!
Twenty nine amendments were offered by the GOP, and some of them were good ideas. One of the was a ban on government money paying for viagra for repeat sex offenders. One would force members of Congress and the White House to participate int he same exchanges as every other American. One would have gotten rid of the sweetheart deals like the "Cornhusker Kickback." The Democrats shot every single one of them down. They probably didn't even read them. So who are the obstructionists now?
Hint: Both Parties.
Goodness some of you are just so blinded by your hate for the GOP that you don't see anything for what it is. Both sides are being obstructionists, yet you only choose to see the GOP as the ones doing it. You just assume the GOP wants these amendments to hold everything up instead of actually wanting to improve it.
Thing is, 90% of this bill will not go into effect until 2014. Why is there this huge rush right now to just get it all done? Why not get the fixes right, discuss them, vote on them, and do it right?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Twenty nine amendments were offered by the GOP, and some of them were good ideas. One of the was a ban on government money paying for viagra for repeat sex offenders. One would force members of Congress and the White House to participate int he same exchanges as every other American. One would have gotten rid of the sweetheart deals like the "Cornhusker Kickback." The Democrats shot every single one of them down. They probably didn't even read them. So who are the obstructionists now?
Hint: Both Parties.
This doesn't make ANY sense. The act you are describing (dismissing the amendments in order to progress with passing the bill into law) does not fit the description of 'obstructionism.'
At all.
Moreover, this ignores the fact that the amendments were presented at this juncture with the specific intent of obstructionism. One party ignoring an obstructionist measure to proceed with the passage of the bill they want makes for a terrible 'now BOTH parties are obstructionist!' argument.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Thing is, 90% of this bill will not go into effect until 2014. Why is there this huge rush right now to just get it all done? Why not get the fixes right, discuss them, vote on them, and do it right?
Because the democrats tried for months to discuss it with the republicans refusing to do any sort of discussion. The republicans are even worse now, trying to hold up all government proceedings as "revenge" for the health care bill. What makes you think that they will suddenly do a 360 and be willing to engage in discussion?
Posts: 76 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:One of the was a ban on government money paying for viagra for repeat sex offenders.
Is there any research that suggests that sex offenders are more dangerous when treated for erectile dysfunction? What about prescriptions for symptoms other than erectile dysfunction? Show me a non-populist, non-"common-sense" (vs evidence-based) reason for this amendment and I'll stop rolling my eyes.
quote:..force members of Congress and the White House to participate int he same exchanges as every other American
Every American isn't forced to participate in exchanges. That's one avenue for obtaining private insurance, but it's not how most employer-paid plans are provided.
Exchanges are about making it easier for individuals without employer-provided insurance to afford healthcare, not about replacing existing health insurance options. "If it's not good enough for congress..." is another populist outrage generator rather than a rational criticism.
If they are serious about requiring congress to use exchanges then they need to include in the amendment a pay raise to cover the cost of purchasing their insurance since insurance is currently part of their compensation package.
quote:One would have gotten rid of the sweetheart deals like the "Cornhusker Kickback."
Isn't this one of the measures that's eliminated by the reconciliation bill? Why hold up the bill with an amendment to get rid of something the bill is already getting rid of?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me ask you this question Jenos: Why don't you get the facts before listening to what the news media tells you?
How about you go look up the "Patients Choice Act of 2009." Or even better, how about you google HR 3218.
The republicans tried to enter amendments and even their own bill. Harry Reid wouldn't bring them to the floor.
I stand by my earlier statement that both parties have been obstructing the entire process.
SamP: I will admit I did phrase the obstructionist argument poorly in referring to the amendment process. What I don't understand is your blind support of anything "NOT GOP." You ignore the possibility that maybe the republicans actually want to improve the bill because there are things that should not be in there. It almost seems like you have Hatrack open on one tab and DailyKOS open on another.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I stand by my earlier statement that both parties have been obstructing the entire process.
"Obstruct" means to slow/stop. You need to come up with a different term for whatever it is you are accusing Democrats of. Partisanship, perhaps? Unilateralism?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:amP: I will admit I did phrase the obstructionist argument poorly in referring to the amendment process. What I don't understand is your blind support of anything "NOT GOP." You ignore the possibility that maybe the republicans actually want to improve the bill because there are things that should not be in there. It almost seems like you have Hatrack open on one tab and DailyKOS open on another.
So, I point out (correctly) that your argument for obstructive equivalence between the parties makes no sense, and your response implicates me with the baldest of strawmen I've been subject to in ... well, quite some time!
I'm sorry I seem to have touched a nerve that made you want to represent me as a two-dimensional caricature, but acting like that when it's so contrary to my actual stated positions makes you seem blatantly uninterested in constructive dialog.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, the passage of this bill has been pretty complicated so maybe you didn't realize that the bill has already been passed in the Senate. Republicans had lots and lots of time to add amendments then. What is being passed now are the "fixes" that the House asked for in order to pass the Senate bill in the House. If amendments are added now (rather than when they should have been added, before the Senate passed it) it will have to be voted on again in the House. This will hold things up - that is all it will do.
posted
And to add, as you said, there is plenty of time to modify this bill before most of its provisions go into effect. Not adding the amendments at this point (and the Democrats aren't stopping the amendments from being brought up - they're not obstructing the consideration of them - they're just not voting for them) doesn't mean that these issue can not be dealt with. Nearly all of the amendments can be introduced as separate legislation later. If the primary concern of the Republicans introducing these amendments is to get fixes in to the legislation, that seems like it would be the better approach to take.
Do you believe that the issues contained in these amendments will be raised as separate legislation*? I very much doubt that this will be the case. If they are not, would you consider this a good indication that they were less about the contents of the amendments and more about last ditch efforts to "Kill the Bill!"?
---
* Were I part of the Democratic leadership in the Senate (and man, just writing that sentence gave me a chill of self-loathing), I'd have various Democratic members introduce the workable issues from the amendments as pieces of legislation in the coming sessions and let them be debated (assuming that I could get them past the Republican filibuster.)
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you Kmboots for that revelation! I wasn't aware that the bill had actually passed. Oh my! Let me ask you this. What exactly does this hold up? As I stated before, 90% of it doesn't go into effect until 2014.
As far as your statement "If amendments are added now (rather than when they should have been added, before the Senate passed it) it will have to be voted on again in the House." is concerned...Isn't that what the fixes are? Call it what you will, but making a change to a bill is an amendment is it not?
If a positive change is made, why should we look over it just because it would require another vote? What is the problem with that?
Now I WOULD be interested to see if any of these amendments were brought forward during the original debate on the bill. If they were and they were not heard, I can't fault the GOP for trying again. If they however knew exactly what was in the bill during the original debate and didn't bring the amendment forward at that time, then shame on the GOP.
Sam, I do need to apologize for the personal attack. I think sometimes I get worked up in this forum when I shouldn't. Everyone is entitled to their thoughts and opinions, I need to respect those more.
Edit: Mr Squicky, how could the GOP block the bill now? From what I understand, if the fixes need to be voted on and it lacks the votes in the House, the only thing that would happen is that the original bill would be untouched and enter law. Am I misunderstanding this?
The only hope opponents to the bill have is the slim chance that the Supreme Court would find in favor of the states that have filed a lawsuit over the constitutionality. (Now up to 14).
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's difficult to accurately trace the path of this legislation. It was a highly complex and extended process and, contrary to what we were promised, there seemed little effort on the part of the President and the congressional Democrats to handle it in a manner transparent to the American people.
I think it is fair to say that at times the Democrats did not treat with the Republicans in good faith. I think it is also fair to say that, while there may have been a few individuals where this was not true, but it appeared as if the Republicans as a whole never intended to treat with the Democrats in good faith.
I'm not super happy with the resulting bill, although I regard it as a step in the right direction, and I feel like the Democrats handling of this was dishonest, condescending, and inept, but despite all that, the Republicans still come out looking like the major villains.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If a positive change is made, why should we look over it just because it would require another vote? What is the problem with that?
Well, for one thing, the fixes were negotiated between the House and Senate leadership and the house voted for the Senate bill with the understanding that the package of fixes would be supported when they came back to the Senate. That's why they tried to do that whole "deem and pass" thing - to make that intention explicit.
Adding provisions which might be controversial in the house could scuttle the fixes which had already been informally agreed on.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: As I stated before, 90% of it doesn't go into effect until 2014.
Yes, but repeating it doesn't make it true. Several of the most important provisions go into effect in 6 months.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as your statement "If amendments are added now (rather than when they should have been added, before the Senate passed it) it will have to be voted on again in the House." is concerned...Isn't that what the fixes are? Call it what you will, but making a change to a bill is an amendment is it not? ... Edit: Mr Squicky, how could the GOP block the bill now? From what I understand, if the fixes need to be voted on and it lacks the votes in the House, the only thing that would happen is that the original bill would be untouched and enter law. Am I misunderstanding this?
Geraine, Several of the amendments involve the health care bill being sent back to committee. Another is basically repealing it. And a couple of others gut key provisions of the bill.
Agreeing to any of them, however, would send the entire Senate bill of the changes that were contingent on the House vote for reconciliation of the original bill to the House with the amendment attached. If the House refused the amendment, while the Senate upheld it, the House's desired changes would not go into the original bill - resulting in the House Democrats becoming really, really angry with the Senate Democrats.
But, I think you would agree with me that there was absolutely no chance of any of the amendments ever getting to that stage and that, introduced at this time and as amendments, there was no way that they would be approved by either Senate or House. Is that correct?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, perhaps my tone was unclear. I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt, thinking perhaps you were just missing some information instead of deliberately asking questions that should be pretty clear if one understands the suggestions.
As for having to pass things again in the House, perhaps the GOP is hoping that the death threats they are making against House members will be sufficient to change their votes.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Geraine, perhaps my tone was unclear. I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt, thinking perhaps you were just missing some information instead of deliberately asking questions that should be pretty clear if one understands the suggestions.
As for having to pass things again in the House, perhaps the GOP is hoping that the death threats they are making against House members will be sufficient to change their votes.
Right, because there is proof that the GOP is making those threats.
Oh, haven't you heard? The GOP minority whip had a bullet fired through his window this morning. It must be the DNC right? Right?
Looks like both parties are playing the blame game. For either party to blame an individuals actions on party leadership is stupid. If there is some proof the DNC or GOP ordered individuals to make these threats or shoot a gun into Eric Cantor's office, then throw them in jail. Until they have that proof, they need to shut up.
Mr. Squicky and MattP: Thanks for the information. That helps clear it up. I was confused on the issue and the procedures that had to happen. I may not agree with the methods Congress is using, but I see why it is being done the way it is.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
I am glad that no one was hurt. With the kind of rhetoric that has been spewing forth from Republican leaders - both official and not (Beck, Limbaugh) sign with guns (and actual guns), threatening violent revolution, crosshairs on Sarah Palin's site encouraging people to "target" certain Congressmen, and so forth - it is not surprising that we are reaping the whirlwind. And that it doesn't just stay on one side.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, You may have missed it. I think this is a pretty important question to answer that would aid in explaining why I (and I think others) see things the way they do.
quote:But, I think you would agree with me that there was absolutely no chance of any of the amendments ever getting to that stage and that, introduced at this time and as amendments, there was no way that they would be approved by either Senate or House. Is that correct?
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Geraine, You may have missed it. I think this is a pretty important question to answer that would aid in explaining why I (and I think others) see things the way they do.
quote:But, I think you would agree with me that there was absolutely no chance of any of the amendments ever getting to that stage and that, introduced at this time and as amendments, there was no way that they would be approved by either Senate or House. Is that correct?
Yep, I agree with you. I was confused on the issue and the way the procedures worked. I appreciate the explanation
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also as an aside I totally can't wait for OSC's next article to come out and be a basic demonstration of so much of the self-defeating apoplectic doomsaying that we're already talking about here.
Not trying to rub your face in it but I was quite impressed with his response.
I'm sure I'll find additional essays down the road where I completely disagree or even get frustrated with Mr. Card's tone, but he is still quite capable of writing things that are worth reading.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just coming here to post that, BlackBlade. Considering it's OSC, I was actually pleasantly surprised by it Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also as an aside I totally can't wait for OSC's next article to come out and be a basic demonstration of so much of the self-defeating apoplectic doomsaying that we're already talking about here.
Not trying to rub your face in it but I was quite impressed with his response.
I'm sure I'll find additional essays down the road where I completely disagree or even get frustrated with Mr. Card's tone, but he is still quite capable of writing things that are worth reading.
Yeahhuup, that failed to live up to my predictions in most ways.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also as an aside I totally can't wait for OSC's next article to come out and be a basic demonstration of so much of the self-defeating apoplectic doomsaying that we're already talking about here.
Not trying to rub your face in it but I was quite impressed with his response.
I'm sure I'll find additional essays down the road where I completely disagree or even get frustrated with Mr. Card's tone, but he is still quite capable of writing things that are worth reading.
Yeahhuup, that failed to live up to my predictions in most ways.
Just curious, was that a Banjo and Kazooie reference?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senate Gives Approval. But now the reconciliation bill has to go back to the house because of two minor changes regarding pell grants, that should bring it back in line with reconciliation protocol. The stuff that went on in the Senate prior to the vote is so ridiculous, but then again, they don't exactly work all year long.
I would expect the House to revote on the reconciliation bill by this evening, it should be on the president's desk tomorrow.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also as an aside I totally can't wait for OSC's next article to come out and be a basic demonstration of so much of the self-defeating apoplectic doomsaying that we're already talking about here.
Not trying to rub your face in it but I was quite impressed with his response.
I'm sure I'll find additional essays down the road where I completely disagree or even get frustrated with Mr. Card's tone, but he is still quite capable of writing things that are worth reading.
That was extremely well-measured and tame. And also, with a couple minor exceptions, it was objective and well thought out. I wonder who guest wrote the column this week. Kidding!
This is the OSC that I like. The one any only time I ever spoke directly to him was to challenge him over the whole "Leftaliban" thing, and in real-time, off the cuff, out loud, he came across as genuine, nice, and reasonable. That's the OSC that I like. The kooky right-wing caricature that we're often treated to in his columns is NOT the OSC that I like.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Senate Gives Approval. But now the reconciliation bill has to go back to the house because of two minor changes regarding pell grants, that should bring it back in line with reconciliation protocol. The stuff that went on in the Senate prior to the vote is so ridiculous, but then again, they don't exactly work all year long.
I would expect the House to revote on the reconciliation bill by this evening, it should be on the president's desk tomorrow.
Any word on what these Pell grant changes are? I hate it when things like that get dropped into a story but aren't elaborated on. I feel like it's always the rare time when legislation has a direct impact on me. The news is out to get me!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will say, I think that the states suing over this being unconstitutional are right. I think it does violate the 9th and 10th Amendments. I also don't think that this will matter in the court decisions, as we don't seem to take those seriously anymore, and acknowledging the legitimacy of their complaint would lead to many, many challenges of federal power.
I don't know, I feel like I should be upset by this, but I'm pretty meh. We obviously need health care reform and a more socialist system. I'm not super happy with what they came up with, but I'm not sure that other, better systems would be better in not appropriating power from the citizens and states way. And in the current climate, where a large section of the populace and near half of the political landscape are clamoring to contribute to the destruction of our country, I think you've got to take what you can get.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Any word on what these Pell grant changes are? I hate it when things like that get dropped into a story but aren't elaborated on.
They're not really changes, per se, and they are fairly technical.
quote:One provision would have protected Pell Grants from shrinking if their appropriations decrease. The provision would not have affected the grant program until 2013, and Democrats are confident they can address the issue before then.
quote:The other provision would have eliminated obsolete language.
(Which is problematic in a reconciliation bill which should only deal with budgetary, not semantic, concerns.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Senate Gives Approval. But now the reconciliation bill has to go back to the house because of two minor changes regarding pell grants, that should bring it back in line with reconciliation protocol. The stuff that went on in the Senate prior to the vote is so ridiculous, but then again, they don't exactly work all year long.
I would expect the House to revote on the reconciliation bill by this evening, it should be on the president's desk tomorrow.
Any word on what these Pell grant changes are? I hate it when things like that get dropped into a story but aren't elaborated on. I feel like it's always the rare time when legislation has a direct impact on me. The news is out to get me!
Link. It appears one cut was a provision ensuring that students won't see their pell grants decreased even if congress does not appropriate funds, and another was "mundane language." So I hope that was nothing important.
edit: beaten by rivka, I suppose that comes as no surprise. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: No, Mal. Look it's not a matter of opinion what happens because of illegal immigration. Immigrants do not "take" jobs from citizens, they do jobs that citizens will not do, at wages that citizens will not accept. They add tremendous value to the American economy in the places where they are found. The idea that they hurt the economy is totally preposterous. They simply don't.
quote: We could open our borders to all South American immigrants and our population would double or triple in short order yet our nation would collapse under the weight of the uneducated and poor.
It would be helpful if you would be willing to stop playing so fast and loose with virtually any piece of actual data you might be even passingly familiar with. South America has a total population of less than 400 million. That means in order to double our population "in short order" 3/4 of the entire south American population would have to move to the US. You find this likely? Even if you include all of Latin America, including Mexico, central America, and South America, you get a little over double our own population. That means in order to "triple" our population, ALL latin American peoples would have to immigrate to the United States.
So stop, for the upteenth time, spewing mindless garbage out of your mouth hole.
You're right. I only have anecdotal evidence. Like my family. I was the first to finish college. The rest are roofers, carpenters and welders.
My uncle owns a roofing company. It's name is "my last name" roofing. He used to employ my other uncle, a couple of my cousins and at times, me. He had to let the rest of our relatives go or cut their pay. He could no longer bid low enough to compete against the other companies that had one licensed, bonded, legal roofer supplemented by three illegal alien "laborers".
Construction is a skill. Digging a hole, hammering a nail or holding a 4x8 piece of sheet rock up is just another one of those, "jobs Americans aren't willing to do". Unfortunately, 90% of what you might be considered beneath you is an aspect of a skilled trade. Good thing the jobsite is 20% legal to make sure the trained monkeys know how do dig a hole properly. The military had problems with this in Iraq. Soldiers and contractors would pay a TCN (Third Country National) $5 a day (huge wages for them) to do their duty for them.
Building or roofing a house take skill. Once upon a time, a man could be a skilled craftsman and make a good living. Now one skilled craftsman can oversea a crew of illegals doing the work for the laid off Americans who you say, don't want to do the job. Ask them if hammering a nail, laying tile, posting sheetrock and lugging three tab roofing material is beneath them.
It's commonly accepted that fruit picking is another one of those jobs Americans are "unwilling" to do. My dad tells me how the high school was let out during the apple harvest, to harvest the fruit. Of course $1 an hour pseudo-slavery is so much better, especially when the slaves are happy to get pittance wages. Good for us - good for them. The poor suckers don't know they're being screwed...in their country they made $1 a day.
It doesn't take a mechanic to fix a car. Turning a wrench is easy. One ASE certified tech can tell a crew of "laborers" what wrenches to turn.
posted
So you got caught on a lame figure, was called out on it, and then responded by not responding to it but typing out a dense non-sequitur that doesn't really address your bogus numbers. Mmkay.
quote:My uncle owns a roofing company. It's name is "my last name" roofing. He used to employ my other uncle, a couple of my cousins and at times, me. He had to let the rest of our relatives go or cut their pay. He could no longer bid low enough to compete against the other companies that had one licensed, bonded, legal roofer supplemented by three illegal alien "laborers".
Yeah, I went from hanging sheetrock to managing my own subcontracting company, and I never had to oversee a crew of illegal "trained monkeys" in order to bid competitive and make a lot of business and live well on my own dime. And I know at least a hundred contractors who were in the same boat. So if you are talking from purely anecdotal evidence, then, congratulations! I've already defeated you!
(see, this is why its better to not rely on anecdote)
(or call illegal laborers 'trained monkeys' but then again you assure us you aren't racist so)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only difference is, I'm telling the truth. I understand anyone can say anything online.
It's become commonly accepted in our society that a college degree is needed....why? Is there no place for an American citizen who does not wish to pursue higher education? Framers, foofers, etc could make a good living at one time. I guess the most recent generation is too lazy to do that work, or perhaps the value of a home has dropped that much. Homes are cheap. Homes are like vcr's, no one pays to have a vcr repaired anymore.
If you think all illegal aliens are pumping outhouses and picking asparagus, you're stereotyping illegal aliens. I'm sure the dozen illegal aliens standing outside the Home Depot by my house aren't taking jobs from skilled craftsmen.
What they do is give a cheap job for the purchaser or larger profits for the boss.
I'm thinking about building an addition on my house. As a home owner, I can pull permits myself. Maybe I'll do that and hire the crew outside the Home Depot to dig the trench for the footing. What do you suggest I pay them? I know the building codes where I live. As long as I make sure they do as I say, when it's done, the inspector can't tell the nationality of the man who poured the slab. I'll tell them exactly how to do it. Let me see,......? Pay a reputable company $15k or supervise the work and pay $5k. What should I do? I think it would be best to hire a contractor who hires illegals and it'll cost me $8k. I don't want to deal with the permitting and inspections myself.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also as an aside I totally can't wait for OSC's next article to come out and be a basic demonstration of so much of the self-defeating apoplectic doomsaying that we're already talking about here.
Not trying to rub your face in it but I was quite impressed with his response.
I'm sure I'll find additional essays down the road where I completely disagree or even get frustrated with Mr. Card's tone, but he is still quite capable of writing things that are worth reading.
Better then most but still laced with what makes most of us die hard fans wince in pain.
edit: Yeah for every postive thing he says there's 2-3 things that make me wince.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
