As if exempting Nebraska wasn't insulting enough to "equal protection"...

[FlamingMoe]

White House nears deal on health care (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/14/AR2010011404837.html?hpid=topnews)
The agreement, forged in a marathon negotiating session that included White House officials and seven prominent labor leaders, would exempt union members from a proposed surtax on expensive insurance plans until 2018
How can anyone support these clowns anymore? Whether you're anti-union or not, making special tax breaks available only to people who happen to be in unions is an affront to the idea of equality under the law.

[MattusMaximus]

You're right, we should only give tax breaks to the rich :rolleyes:

[corplinx]

Its funny. I thought that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid were in charge. I thought they passed two bills and were in the conference process.

Stopping now to ask the unions if its okay.... who is in charge again?

Beam me up Mr. Speaker.

[WildCat]

You're right, we should only give tax breaks to the rich :rolleyes:
Why should union members get special tax breaks not available to anyone else in the same income range?

[WildCat]

Its funny. I thought that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid were in charge. I thought they passed two bills and were in the conference process.

Stopping now to ask the unions if its okay.... who is in charge again?

Beam me up Mr. Speaker.
This bill is a complete mess, and most Americans oppose it with only 40% favoring it.

They're going to try to ram this stinker through as fast as possible, before the opposition gains even more strength.

[Bob Blaylock]

This bill is a complete mess, and most Americans oppose it with only 40% favoring it.

They're going to try to ram this stinker through as fast as possible, before the opposition gains even more strength.


I think this may have been true pretty much from the beginning, but it is certainly, obviously true now: Those Democrats who are pushing this “health care reform” through are acting, not out of any actual desire to improve the situation, but out of a desire to “do something” just so that they can claim the credit for having done something. They certainly have to know that at this point, what they are trying to shove on us is something that will make the situation much worse, rather than better. They don't care. All they care about is that they can claim credit for having given us “health care reform”.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You're right, we should only give tax breaks to the rich :rolleyes:

They pay most of the taxes. It's only fair that they be first in line when taxes are cut.

[Whiplash]

You're right, we should only give tax breaks to the rich :rolleyes:


That doesn't actually answer the question.

[corplinx]

Yes, its actually a bit of a derail. Worked though, didn't it? Skeptical Teacher?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Or, to rephrase for it everyone ignoring the point:

You *can* in fact give tax breaks to any group you want and it's totally legal. The rich get a few, the poor get a few, the unions get a few (the married get a few)

Your point?

[leftysergeant]

Why should union members get special tax breaks not available to anyone else in the same income range?Because they negotiated those health benefits in lieu of wage increases so that American industry could stay viable.

So what did the industrialists do?

Moved the jobs off-shore where they didn't have to pay health care or living wages.

That's why the union members deserve to have a tax break that the investor class doesn't.

The working class is an asset, the investor class has become a parasite.

[leftysergeant]

They pay most of the taxes. It's only fair that they be first in line when taxes are cut.

They owe most of the taxes for value recieved. They need to stop whining.

[geni]

Why should union members get special tax breaks not available to anyone else in the same income range?

Is there anything that stops anyone from joining or creating a union?

[leftysergeant]

Is there anything that stops anyone from joining or creating a union?

Republicans, if they can find a way.

[Alt+F4]

White House nears deal on health care (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/14/AR2010011404837.html?hpid=topnews)

How can anyone support these clowns anymore? Whether you're anti-union or not, making special tax breaks available only to people who happen to be in unions is an affront to the idea of equality under the law.

How is this any different from say the Earned Income Credit? Why should people with children get a special tax break not available to those without children?

Forget equality under the law. The 14th Amendment is not used in the United States. If it was I would be legally be allowed to travel to Cuba. I'm not, but my neighbor, also a United States citizen, is.

[The Painter]

Because they negotiated those health benefits in lieu of wage increases so that American industry could stay viable.

So what did the industrialists do?

Moved the jobs off-shore where they didn't have to pay health care or living wages.

That's why the union members deserve to have a tax break that the investor class doesn't.

The working class is an asset, the investor class has become a parasite.


BS. It's political payback for swinging the Union vote. Nothing noble about it. It's not change and hope, it's politics as usual.

[leftysergeant]

BS. It's political payback for swinging the Union vote. Nothing noble about it. It's not change and hope, it's politics as usual.

Ther unions earned it. The working people created wealth. The investor class pissed it away in China.

When you want less of something, you tax the bejeebus out of it. You want more of something, you subsidize it.

We need production here, not investment in China. Most of the people pulling in the really big bucks are off-shoring our production.

Hang 'em by the heels and shake vigorously.

[corplinx]

Ther unions earned it. The working people created wealth. The investor class pissed it away in China.

When you want less of something, you tax the bejeebus out of it. You want more of something, you subsidize it.

We need production here, not investment in China. Most of the people pulling in the really big bucks are off-shoring our production.

Hang 'em by the heels and shake vigorously.

non-union auto plants are all over the southeast

the idea that unions still represent labor is outdated and silly

the 50s called and asked for your ideas back

[leftysergeant]

non-union auto plants are all over the southeast

And they are royally screwing up our ecconomy.

[JoeTheJuggler]

If corporate reps are at the negotiations and Roman Catholic bishops are at the negotiations, I think the unions should also be at the negotiations.

[corplinx]

If corporate reps are at the negotiations and Roman Catholic bishops are at the negotiations, I think the unions should also be at the negotiations.

The negotiations are over. The bills were passed. Perhaps you haven't been watching the news.....

This is a special interest group dictating competitive advantages for itself in the conference (where there are new negotiations but nothing on par with the actual process to get the two bills passed to begin with, there should be zero special interests involved with the conference bill, period). Its really sickening. You should be appalled.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The negotiations are over. The bills were passed. Perhaps you haven't been watching the news.....

I suggest you watch this:
mEJL2Uuv-oQ

A bill* has to pass both chambers of Congress to become a law.

*ETA: The same bill, that is. So far, we've got a bill passed by the House and a different bill passed by the Senate. There are currently negotiations going on to merge the two bills, after which there will need to be another vote (at least one) in each chamber for it to pass Congress and be sent to Obama to be signed into law.

[JoeTheJuggler]

where there are new negotiations but nothing on par with the actual process to get the two bills passed to begin with

You're joking, right? One bill has a public option and one doesn't. That was a central sticking point in the "actual process" of negotiations that got the two bills passed through their respective chambers, and it's a big fat issue to be negotiated in conference.

How is that "nothing on par" with the debate on a public option to this point?

In fact, it's the same debate, isn't it?

The merged bill will either have the public option or not.

[corplinx]

it's a big fat issue to be negotiated in conference

Right, as opposed to a closed door meeting between the white house and union reps. Thanks for backing me up on this.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Right, as opposed to a closed door meeting between the white house and union reps. Thanks for backing me up on this.

I already said that if industry reps and the Catholic Church (special interest groups) are involved, then union reps should also be. Did you feel strongly against the involvement of special interest groups in other large legislation was also wrong? (I'm thinking in particular of the Medicare Reform in 2003 and the Energy Bill of 2005.) Or is just when you're against the legislation involved? (Or maybe just when it's the party pushing the legislation?)

But on the point of my recent post, I most definitely disagree. You said the the bill was already passed and negotiations are done (or at least any remaining negotiations are "nothing on par" with what's already happened). Just as a matter of fact, you're wrong.

[Peephole]

The merged bill will either have the public option or not.
It won't, the Senate is opposed.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It won't, the Senate is opposed.

You mean the entire Senate is opposed to the public option? ;)

I think the majority of the House is opposed to a bill without it--exactly why it is still the subject of discussion/debate/negotiation and compromise.

Ditto the abortion language (which shouldn't even be a concern for this bill, and wouldn't but for the influence of "special interest groups").

ETA: While there is a lot of agreement between the two bills, there are some important differences. Here's a pdf of a side-by-side comparison:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/health_care/HScomparison.pdf

[Peephole]

I think the majority of the House is opposed to a bill without it--exactly why it is still the subject of discussion/debate/negotiation and compromise.
No, it's not. Because a public option is simply not going to pass. If there are still House members that are under the illusion that it still might happen, they're delusional and will sooner or later be faced with the decision of a passing a bill without a public option or passing no bill at all.

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, it's not. Because a public option is simply not going to pass. If there are still House members that are under the illusion that it still might happen, they're delusional and will sooner or later be faced with the decision of a passing a bill without a public option or passing no bill at all.

You might be right, but why not look at it that Senate Democrats (including Lieberman) might have to deal with the question of either passing a bill with a public option or passing no bill at all?

From what I hear, there are enough people on both sides of this issue who have said they're not willing to give up their position that the public option is still an issue of negotiation.

[Peephole]

You might be right, but why not look at it that Senate Democrats (including Lieberman) might have to deal with the question of either passing a bill with a public option or passing no bill at all?
That's not Lieberman's problem at all. He is only up for election in 2012 and has lost the Democratic base anyway. For House members however, no health care bill would be a disaster in an already difficult political environment.

That being said, everyone from the House's leadership to the White House have given up on the public option. And I haven't read anything about rank and file House members threatening to vote against the bill. They're well aware that it only takes one Lieberman to torpedo something.
From what I hear, there are enough people on both sides of this issue who have said they're not willing to give up their position that the public option is still an issue of negotiation.
Can you post some links, please?

[Ziggurat]

When you want less of something, you tax the bejeebus out of it. You want more of something, you subsidize it.

Wow, I never thought I'd see you admit this. Now, let's see how that applies in the current context: you want to tax workers who don't belong to unions and exempt workers who do. So logically, you're trying to increase union membership. Not exactly a surprising position for you.

Most of the people pulling in the really big bucks are off-shoring our production.

Hang 'em by the heels and shake vigorously.

And now we get to the reason I didn't think you'd admit the effects of taxes and subsidies. You want fewer rich people, and more poor people.

Your own words, lefty. Your own words.

[The Painter]

The investor class pissed it away in China.

I guess you don't realize that you would be on a "soup line" right now if it weren't for China. Maybe you should bone up on how much of our debt they own.

Anyway, giving the unions a tax break that no one else will get, flies in the face of equality. More back room deals. Is that the transparency you voted for?

[Alt+F4]

Anyway, giving the unions a tax break that no one else will get, flies in the face of equality. More back room deals. Is that the transparency you voted for?

Some Americans can travel to Cuba, others can't.
Some Americans can get the Earned Income Credit, others can't.
Some Americans can marry the person they love, others can't.

How is what's going on with the health care bill any different?

[leftysergeant]

I guess you don't realize that you would be on a "soup line" right now if it weren't for China. Maybe you should bone up on how much of our debt they own.

Theyu hold that debt because some idiot from California became POTUS on the idiotic premise that the best way to stimulate the ecconomy was to castrate the government and let the investor class import a whole bunch of cherap crap from China. and then some brain-damaged alcoholic cut the taxes on the people imoprting that cheap crap so that the government could not access 80% of the wealth that used to be available to solve problems.

Anyway, giving the unions a tax break that no one else will get, flies in the face of equality. More back room deals. Is that the transparency you voted for?

WTF?

[leftysergeant]

And now we get to the reason I didn't think you'd admit the effects of taxes and subsidies. You want fewer rich people, and more poor people.


That's the wierdest conclusion I have seen even you reach. I'm saying that the people who recieve the greatest value owe the largest bill. And, if there is misery to be borne, spread it around.

There is no reason that the poor should suffer while the government figures out how to fix the stuff that the parasitic class broke since 1980.

[Lurker]

BS. It's political payback for swinging the Union vote. Nothing noble about it. It's not change and hope, it's politics as usual.

I'm a liberal and I agree with this. If more info comes to light I may change my opinion but as of now, this stinks!

[FlamingMoe]

Is that the transparency you voted for?
No, but it is the union kickback he voted for.

[leftysergeant]

No, but it is the union kickback he voted for.

The unions built the middle class in this country. The imvestor class is gobbling it up.

The unions gave up something to get that health care, there is no reason to take more from them than they already gave, especially in an age where the investor class can so easily steal the pensions that the union workers were supposed to recieve just by using bankruptcy.

And the investors still get their tax breaks when the companies become solvent again.

Why do you hate working people so much?

[Francesca R]

Most of the people pulling in the really big bucks are off-shoring our production.Sounds like you should want more of it then.

[Beerina]

Why should any insurance plan be taxed? Why should the government climb on people's backs to make it harder to buy crucial things like this?

Why? Follow the money and the power. They want to drive people off it and onto government dependency. Don't listen to the words. Listen to what actually happens.


Union has more votes, they get exempted. It's that simple. It's about votes. Not about caring for people. It is in the political interest of certain parties to get people dependent on government. They look around the world at how in other countries people are now fearful and will vote against anybody who touches the tit of government on which they suckle. They look at our country, and how Social Security is a lightning rod that no politician will touch, and They See It Is Good for maintaining votes.

Clowns? It's clowns all the way down.

[Magyar]

The unions built the middle class in this country. The imvestor class is gobbling it up.

The unions gave up something to get that health care, there is no reason to take more from them than they already gave, especially in an age where the investor class can so easily steal the pensions that the union workers were supposed to receive just by using bankruptcy.

And the investors still get their tax breaks when the companies become solvent again.

Why do you hate working people so much?

lefty,

while I generally agree with you on the scam class - I don't think it's fair that you call them investors because REAL investors were just as much a part of building this country as the working class - but that is NOT what the people in wall street do any more

The unions are just as much at fault. Long story short - I lost contract with a customer I had for nearly 8 years because a GC who was union literally threatened the life of my customer. Yes he did it in front of witnesses and yes we called the police and he was charged, but his replacement informed the customer that if he didn't hire the people of HIS choice to do the work then "people would be getting the flew and simply couldn't get the work done on time" Now before you get all they are protecting all of us from low wages crap - the prevailing wage - that's what yo have to pay for govt jobs in my state for my trade is $46 an hour. The last time I charged that rate to a customer Reagan was president. After the work was done and the client moved in I had to go back in and fix about 60% of the connections because the quality of the work was so poor that it was unusable.

You constantly scream about the investors who steal work and wealth for their own purposes, but the above story is not an isolated incident. It's one that happens ALL the time to me as well as others I talked to in my industry.

Why do you think that this is ANY different from what people on wall st, do?

[Ziggurat]

Why do you think that this is ANY different from what people on wall st, do?

Because unions are leftists. I don't think you really understand leftysergeant yet.

[KingMerv00]

Oh good, another thread about the Constitution that doesn't cite case law in the OP.

[leftysergeant]

Because unions are leftists. I don't think you really understand leftysergeant yet.

It has nothing to do with left or right. It has to do with simple equity. The unions made an agreement that they found mutually beneficial, but gave up something else to get it.

If something needs to be taxed, it should not be done in such a way that it punishes people for acting rationally.

Sunsetting the Shrub's idiot cap-gains tax cuts would take the money from where it should never have gone in the first place.

Taxing the benefits packages of executives of corporations that do not give equally good coverage to production workers would be equitable.

Taxing bonuses paid to executives of bankrupt companies that default on pension or other benefits to production workers at 100% would also be equitable. (We have to pick up part of the tab for those defaulted pensions, so screw the fools who defaulted on them.)

[Ziggurat]

It has nothing to do with left or right. It has to do with simple equity. The unions made an agreement that they found mutually beneficial, but gave up something else to get it.

What, and non-union workers can't have done the exact same thing?

You are incoherent.

[Lurker]

It has nothing to do with left or right. It has to do with simple equity. The unions made an agreement that they found mutually beneficial, but gave up something else to get it.
And no other group or individual made deals like this in their life?

No, I see absolutely no reason union members should be trated differently in this reagrd. And I say this as a fairly strong supporter of unions.

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's not Lieberman's problem at all. He is only up for election in 2012 and has lost the Democratic base anyway. For House members however, no health care bill would be a disaster in an already difficult political environment.

That being said, everyone from the House's leadership to the White House have given up on the public option. And I haven't read anything about rank and file House members threatening to vote against the bill. They're well aware that it only takes one Lieberman to torpedo something.

Can you post some links, please?

As I said, you're probably right on the demise of the public option. However, from a legal point of view, I'm pointing out that it's wrong to say that the bill has passed into law already (because it hasn't) and therefore that negotiations have finished. (And if this thread isn't about making some legal case against the process, why is "equal protection" invoked?)

My comment (see earlier in the thread) is simply that if industry reps and Catholic bishops are and have been part of these negotiations, I have no problem with union reps being part of the negotiations.


At any rate, the most important point is this one:

Oh good, another thread about the Constitution that doesn't cite case law in the OP.

I predict it will continue to be ignored.

[leftysergeant]

What, and non-union workers can't have done the exact same thing?

You are incoherent.

Actually, all non-union workers get is what the boss decides to give them. (Squat, for the most part, unless they are in managerial positions, like the bean counters who sit around trying to figure out ways to screw the peons for fun and profit.)

[FlamingMoe]

Oh good, another thread about the Constitution that doesn't cite case law in the OP.
Don't like it? Don't read it. I am perfectly free to express my belief that giving special perks to union members in the tax code violates equal protection whether or not there's case law to back it up.

You seem unable to distinguish between a legal opinion and a philosophical one. Until you can do this, please just get out.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Don't like it? Don't read it. I am perfectly free to express my belief that giving special perks to union members in the tax code violates equal protection whether or not there's case law to back it up.
Indeed you are, and we're free to scoff at it as a baseless assertion.

You seem unable to distinguish between a legal opinion and a philosophical one.
I know enough about law and philosophy to recognize "equal protection" as a legal phrase and not a philosophical one.

Until you can do this, please just get out.
By what authority do you banish KingMerv? Maybe you should take it up with the moderators if you think you're allowed to do that.

[Ziggurat]

Actually, all non-union workers get is what the boss decides to give them. (Squat, for the most part

Strange, then, that most workers in this country don't belong to unions and earn more than minimum wage.

You still haven't got past incoherent, lefty.

[KingMerv00]

Don't like it? Don't read it. I am perfectly free to express my belief that giving special perks to union members in the tax code violates equal protection whether or not there's case law to back it up.

You seem unable to distinguish between a legal opinion and a philosophical one. Until you can do this, please just get out.

Invoking legal concepts like equal protection without a legal foundation is a meaningless exercise.

If you had said, "The acts of Congress are unfair/immoral." then I wouldn't have said anything.

[Lurker]

Actually, all non-union workers get is what the boss decides to give them. (Squat, for the most part, unless they are in managerial positions, like the bean counters who sit around trying to figure out ways to screw the peons for fun and profit.)

Non-union people take jobs depending on a variety of factors. Some will take higher paying jobs with little to no benefits. Some will take a job at lower pay that has more job security or better benefits. I know people that accepted lesser pay in order to get better benefits and they were not union members.

It is not only union people that make those decisions in life. That is what we are attempting to show you.

Given that this is the case (I hope you agree), why should only union members be exempt from Obama's health care initiatives?

[FlamingMoe]

Indeed you are, and we're free to scoff at it as a baseless assertion.
You're right, there's nothing stopping you from being completely wrong.

I know enough about law and philosophy to recognize "equal protection" as a legal phrase and not a philosophical one.
Really? There's no philosophical foundation to the principle of equality under the law? The legal system has completely co-opted the phrase and made it impossible for it to be used in a more general sense?

Please. :rolleyes:

[quote]By what authority do you banish KingMerv? Maybe you should take it up with the moderators if you think you're allowed to do that.
"Banish"?? :rolleyes: I don't think it's at all out of line to ASK someone to not participate in a thread they obviously are not comprehending. However, I've reported the post and we'll see whether or not I am "allowed" to make that SUGGESTION.

[leftysergeant]

Given that this is the case (I hope you agree), why should only union members be exempt from Obama's health care initiatives?

I am not sure that this is even the case. I keep hearing the word "Cadillac coverage" bandied about. It may simply be that the unions want there to be no mistake that there are reasons that are for the good of the country that they have the coverage they have. It is unlikely that even most other working-class people's insurance will get taxed.

For certain, executive-level benfits that include coverage for Rogaine and lipo should be considered fair game if the working schlub employed by the same company can't get chemo.

[FlamingMoe]

Invoking legal concepts like equal protection without a legal foundation is a meaningless exercise.
Like I just said, there are philosophical underpinnings to many legal concepts. And yes, I do believe it also violates the legal concept of equal protection, but that's my own opinion, based on the fact that I can read the fourteenth amendment. Case law may or may not exist and if it does it may or may not support my opinion. Regardless, it's what I believe, and if precedent disagrees with me, then I think the precedent is wrong. I'm perfectly free to disagree with judges, just like you are.

And if you want to get going on "meaningless exercises" then you should probably direct your tirades toward the existence of most of this forum, since yapping away about Sea Shepherd, Martha Coakley, birthers, truthers, and Israel isn't likely to have any effect on anything. Anywhere. Ever.

[leftysergeant]

"Banish"?? :rolleyes: I don't think it's at all out of line to ASK someone to not participate in a thread they obviously are not comprehending. However, I've reported the post and we'll see whether or not I am "allowed" to make that SUGGESTION.

By that standard, I should see no more of you.

[leftysergeant]

Strange, then, that most workers in this country don't belong to unions and earn more than minimum wage.

You still haven't got past incoherent, lefty.

The unionns had to fight to get minimum wage laws passed. If the unions went away, employers would eventually see no need to pay a rational wage to compete for workers.

Learn some history.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Like I just said, there are philosophical underpinnings to many legal concepts.
No. What you just did was to deny that you are making any legal claim at all, even though you're using legal terminology.

And yes, I do believe it also violates the legal concept of equal protection, but that's my own opinion, based on the fact that I can read the fourteenth amendment. Case law may or may not exist and if it does it may or may not support my opinion. Regardless, it's what I believe, and if precedent disagrees with me, then I think the precedent is wrong. I'm perfectly free to disagree with judges, just like you are.
But it's one thing to disagree with a court ruling but making an argument for why and quite another just to make a baseless assertion, which is admittedly all you're doing here (as you have done on other threads regarding the constitutionality of the healthcare bill).

[FlamingMoe]

I am not sure that this is even the case.
Read the link in the OP. If you're ignorant as to the facts of the situation, it's only by your choice.

It may simply be that the unions want there to be no mistake that there are reasons that are for the good of the country that they have the coverage they have.
Emphasis added, melodrama in original.

[Alt+F4]

Strange, then, that most workers in this country don't belong to unions and earn more than minimum wage.

Very true, but unionized workers are much more likely to get benefits, such as health insurance, than non-union workers are. For people with families the benefits are often more important than a small raise.

My significiant other makes $13.00 an hour which is quite a bit over minimum wage, but gets no health insurance. I pay for it.

[KingMerv00]

Please. :rolleyes:

Ok, PLEASE give me a legal theory to go with your legal conclusion.

If you are going to throw around words with specific constitutional meanings and fail to use them correctly, don't be surprised if you create confusion.

All you have to do is say your opinion is SOLELY a moral one and I'll go away because then this thread won't twang my pet peeve.

"Banish"?? :rolleyes: I don't think it's at all out of line to ASK someone to not participate in a thread they obviously are not comprehending.

If I do misunderstand you, it is your fault, not mine.

[leftysergeant]

Read the link in the OP. If you're ignorant as to the facts of the situation, it's only by your choice.

I did read it. Pay attention. the tax is not on all insurance policies. Stop whining.

[JoeTheJuggler]

"Banish"?? :rolleyes: I don't think it's at all out of line to ASK someone to not participate in a thread they obviously are not comprehending. However, I've reported the post and we'll see whether or not I am "allowed" to make that SUGGESTION.
You most certainly did not ask anything. You made a statement in the imperative mood. You were polite (you said "please"), but it was clearly not a question.

You're allowed to make that order (not a suggestion--again, it was in the imperative), but no one has to obey it because, as I implied, you do not have the authority to banish someone from a thread.

[leftysergeant]

Very true, but unionized workers are much more likely to get benefits, such as health insurance, than non-union workers are. For people with families the benefits are often more important than a small raise.

And those who get coverage but are not union members are getting a free ride because union activists fought, sometimes died, for those benefits for all of us.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Really? There's no philosophical foundation to the principle of equality under the law? The legal system has completely co-opted the phrase and made it impossible for it to be used in a more general sense?

I never claimed there's no philosophical foundation to legal principles. I was just refuting you when you claimed that you were not making a legal assertion in the OP, but only a philosophical one.

You most obviously were making the incidental claim that the healthcare bill violates the 14th Amendment. (I saw it as incidental to your complaint that the unions shouldn't be allowed into these negotiations.)

[Alt+F4]

And those who get coverage but are not union members are getting a free ride because union activists fought, sometimes died, for those benefits for all of us.

As a third generation union member I am grateful for those who struggled and sacrificed for the benefits I have today. However, not "all of us" get the benefits, as the OP points out. The government has decided some Americans are more worthy than others and it goes much further than who is in a union and who isn't.

[Ziggurat]

Very true, but unionized workers are much more likely to get benefits, such as health insurance, than non-union workers are.

Which is completely irrelevant to the fairness of taxing non-union workers and exempting union workers.

[Ziggurat]

The unionns had to fight to get minimum wage laws passed.

Irrelevant to people being paid more than minimum wage.

If the unions went away

Likewise irrelevant. We aren't talking about making unions go away, we're talking about the fairness of taxing non-union workers and exempting union workers.

Learn some history.

Learn some logic.

[The Painter]

I did read it. Pay attention. the tax is not on all insurance policies. Stop whining.

It will be. When taxing the "Cadillac policies" doesn't bring in enough money they will tax the "VW Bug policies". The door is open.

Didn't the government already take over Cadillac? Oh yeah, they were going to save it. How's that going??

[leftysergeant]

It will be. When taxing the "Cadillac policies" doesn't bring in enough money they will tax the "VW Bug policies". The door is open.

Straw man. We still have the stupidly low cap gains tax to readjust. And inherentance tax exemption sunsets next year and it will take a positive motion from the Congress to keep it in place.

Don't count on that, no matter how many seats the right loonies pick up this year.

Didn't the government already take over Cadillac? Oh yeah, they were going to save it. How's that going??

Sometimes, capitalism has to be rescued from itself and the cry baby investor class never forgives the rescuers, like demented little tweaker snots forced into rehab.

[The Painter]

Lefty, you keep talking about the "investor class". Don't you realize that most investments are by the working class? IRA's, 401K's, Pension funds, etc. Where do the unions put the pension funds? Investments? That would make union members the investor class.

[Tricky]

Folks, it's borderline uncivil in here. I'm letting the previous posts ride, but stop personalizing the discussion. You've had your mulligans.

[leftysergeant]

Lefty, you keep talking about the "investor class". Don't you realize that most investments are by the working class? IRA's, 401K's, Pension funds, etc. Where do the unions put the pension funds? Investments? That would make union members the investor class.

Working people do not make their entire living on investments, and count on the pros to invest those funds wisely. And the pros have been driving companies into bankruptcy and walking away with their executive bonuses while the court lets them default on those pension funds.

No. The unions are not investor class. That is just an absurdity that the right wing throws out to try to convince working people that they have something in common with critters like the Walton larvae or the userers at Goldman Sachs.

The financial sector is only useful to society if they are helping to kep the wheels of industry spinning in the countries where their wealth is created. When they try to send those industries off shore, it is time to cut them off. They can start paying their fair share of taxes to fix this mess and stop kvetching about how the unions have not turned over all the gains they made over the last hundred years.

[NoZed Avenger]

Didn't the government already take over Cadillac? Oh yeah, they were going to save it. How's that going??

The company's auto workers will continue to vote for and contribute funds to those who gave them the bailout funds, so I'd say it's going as everyone expected.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ok, PLEASE give me a legal theory to go with your legal conclusion.

If you are going to throw around words with specific constitutional meanings and fail to use them correctly, don't be surprised if you create confusion.

All you have to do is say your opinion is SOLELY a moral one and I'll go away because then this thread won't twang my pet peeve.

Well said, and I predict we will not see a legal theory of why the healthcare bill represents a violation of the 14th Amendment beyond the arm waving we've seen.

[The Painter]

The company's auto workers will continue to vote for and contribute funds to those who gave them the bailout funds, so I'd say it's going as everyone expected.

Does that include the 21,000 who got fired?

GM will also cut more of its U.S. hourly workers. The company said its U.S. blue collar workforce will decline from roughly 61,000 in 2008 to 40,000 in 2010

[Beerina]

I am not sure that this is even the case. I keep hearing the word "Cadillac coverage" bandied about. It may simply be that the unions want there to be no mistake that there are reasons that are for the good of the country that they have the coverage they have. It is unlikely that even most other working-class people's insurance will get taxed.

For certain, executive-level benfits that include coverage for Rogaine and lipo should be considered fair game if the working schlub employed by the same company can't get chemo.

Why such a hateful viewpoint? Someone who works hard to get that coverage now gets penalized because some "working schlub" doesn't?!?

That's nothing but hateful class warfare rhetoric. The honest goal, if you have one, is to lift people up to the best, not tear them down, adding an anchor around their neck to force them to drag along other people, too.

That's what "free country" means -- you're free from government and people who would use it to advance themselves. Let them go do whatever stupid thing they want to -- they are not permitted by the Constitution to force you to do so, as well.

But (sophistry to rationalize things like this that we reeeeaaaallllyyy wanna jam down other peoples' throats) and therefore we can. I know, I know. :rolleyes:

[leftysergeant]

Why such a hateful viewpoint? Someone who works hard to get that coverage now gets penalized because some "working schlub" doesn't?!?

Your meaning is not clear? Do you mean that you see me trying to penalize executive-level employees for "working hard?" Cue laughing dog.

That's nothing but hateful class warfare rhetoric. The honest goal, if you have one, is to lift people up to the best, not tear them down, adding an anchor around their neck to force them to drag along other people, too.

Make up your mind. The investor class is winning that class warfare and it is not pretty. You will, however, not shame me by whining about the resistance. You know why most of the world's great religions consider usury a major sin? It's because the money manipulators use it to enslave the working class.

I say tax the cash procedes of sin to do good works among the working people, like doing the things that Jesus said we should for each other.

That's what "free country" means -- you're free from government and people who would use it to advance themselves.

Admit it. You would rather have government out of the way so that the investor class is more free to oppress the working class for fun and profit. Let them go do whatever stupid thing they want to -- they are not permitted by the Constitution to force you to do so, as well.

The corporations can force us to do what they want by starving us into submission and we cannot remove the boards of directors unless we pay for that right.

Corporations are not moral, by law. Government is supposed to be. The first step towardrestoring moral govertnment is to overturn the idiotic legal fiction of corporate personhood.
But (sophistry to rationalize things like this that we reeeeaaaallllyyy wanna jam down other peoples' throats) and therefore we can. I know, I know. :rolleyes:

Stop being so pompous. The investor class is trying to jam compost down our throats by pretending that they need to be pam,pered if the working class is even to survive.

[FlamingMoe]

No. What you just did was to deny that you are making any legal claim at all, even though you're using legal terminology.
So basically what you're doing is playing the British judge to my Simon Singh -- telling me what I meant and instructing me to defend your interpretation of my own words, despite the fact I'm telling you your interpretation is wrong.

Nice.

But it's one thing to disagree with a court ruling but making an argument for why and quite another just to make a baseless assertion, which is admittedly all you're doing here (as you have done on other threads regarding the constitutionality of the healthcare bill).
At this point I'm quite at a loss to know what it is you want. I can disagree with precedent, but I can't say so because I have no precedent to support my opinion?

[FlamingMoe]

Ok, PLEASE give me a legal theory to go with your legal conclusion.
The fourteenth amendment provides that no one shall be deprived of equal protection of the law. Exempting members of special clubs is not applying the protection of law equally to all individuals.

You want me to make it even simpler? Fine. We can imagine the conversation that led to this horsecrap idea of exempting union members from the tax as having gone something like this:
"Well, it looks like the 'Cadillac plan' tax will hit some union members and the union members won't support the bill if that's the case. We could really use the support of union members on this issue, so my idea is to exempt union members from the tax."

Now, tell me if you think any court in the nation would uphold the law if we replaced "union members" with "white people." There's no difference.

[FlamingMoe]

You most certainly did not ask anything. You made a statement in the imperative mood. You were polite (you said "please"), but it was clearly not a question.
I don't know about your neck of the woods, but where I'm from the addition of "please" to a statement means you're asking someone to do something.

(I saw it as incidental to your complaint that the unions shouldn't be allowed into these negotiations.)
And where did I make such a complaint? Oh, that's right, I didn't.

[bpesta22]

Would this really be a constitutional issue as "union status" is not a protected class, like race or sex?

[KingMerv00]

The fourteenth amendment provides that no one shall be deprived of equal protection of the law. Exempting members of special clubs is not applying the protection of law equally to all individuals.

You want me to make it even simpler? Fine. We can imagine the conversation that led to this horsecrap idea of exempting union members from the tax as having gone something like this:
"Well, it looks like the 'Cadillac plan' tax will hit some union members and the union members won't support the bill if that's the case. We could really use the support of union members on this issue, so my idea is to exempt union members from the tax."

Wait, I thought you originally said you opinion was a moral one, not a legal one? Guess you changed your mind.

Anyway, that's not a terrible start. Now tell me, have you actually read any court cases involving the equal protection clause or are you just trying to look at the Constitution and suss out your opinion? Constitutional law IS precedent. You can't simply ignore it because you have an idea in your head. That means your next step is to read a bunch of cases and tell me how the past affects the present.

Now, tell me if you think any court in the nation would uphold the law if we replaced "union members" with "white people." There's no difference.

It wouldn't because race (along with religion etc) is considered a "protected class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class)" by the Supreme Court. I read it in one of those "court opinion" thingys. It seems you have no idea how constitutional law works.

[KingMerv00]

Would this really be a constitutional issue as "union status" is not a protected class, like race or sex?

Way to ninja me bpesta.

*Looks a timestamp*

OK you ninja'd me be like 4 hours.

[bpesta22]

Woot!

I can even discuss mutable classes and whatnot.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The fourteenth amendment provides that no one shall be deprived of equal protection of the law. Exempting members of special clubs is not applying the protection of law equally to all individuals.

You want me to make it even simpler? Fine. We can imagine the conversation that led to this horsecrap idea of exempting union members from the tax as having gone something like this:
"Well, it looks like the 'Cadillac plan' tax will hit some union members and the union members won't support the bill if that's the case. We could really use the support of union members on this issue, so my idea is to exempt union members from the tax."

Now, tell me if you think any court in the nation would uphold the law if we replaced "union members" with "white people." There's no difference.

And again, my prediction has come true:

Well said, and I predict we will not see a legal theory of why the healthcare bill represents a violation of the 14th Amendment beyond the arm waving we've seen.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't know about your neck of the woods, but where I'm from the addition of "please" to a statement means you're asking someone to do something.
That's not linguistically correct. "Please do not smoke," is not a question. It is a polite command (in the imperative mood).

But please, talk about your legal theory instead of this quibbling over your desire to banish KingMerv from your thread.

Though I am glad you recognize that you've made a legal assertion and have dropped your "request" that KingMerv either consider your assertion to be something else or "get out".

You seem unable to distinguish between a legal opinion and a philosophical one. Until you can do this, please just get out.

[KingMerv00]

That's not linguistically correct. "Please do not smoke," is not a question. It is a polite command (in the imperative mood).

But please, talk about your legal theory instead of this quibbling over your desire to banish KingMerv from your thread.

Though I am glad you recognize that you've made a legal assertion and have dropped your "request" that KingMerv either consider your assertion to be something else or "get out".

FlamingMoe gave one opinion that he claimed was a moral opinion and then gave the exact same opinion in a legal context. It seems he is unable to distinguish moral from legal as well. Perhaps he should "get out"?

[Alt+F4]

You want me to make it even simpler? Fine. We can imagine the conversation that led to this horsecrap idea of exempting union members from the tax as having gone something like this:
"Well, it looks like the 'Cadillac plan' tax will hit some union members and the union members won't support the bill if that's the case. We could really use the support of union members on this issue, so my idea is to exempt union members from the tax."

Now, tell me if you think any court in the nation would uphold the law if we replaced "union members" with "white people." There's no difference.

Again, what you describe has happened time and time again in American history. Why is it ok to give Cuban-Americans, straight people and parents certain rights and/or privileges that all the other Americans have been denied?

I would think the legal argument here would be precedent. The courts have repeatedly ruled that some Americans are entitled to certain rights and/or privileges and others aren't. How is the union issue involving the health care bill any different?