The Political Environment: Do You Really Want A President With A Swiss Bank Account?

Monday, November 5, 2012

Do You Really Want A President With A Swiss Bank Account?

If so, Romney's your guy.

15 comments:

zombie rotten mcdonald said...: I'd be willing to allow it, if we could also have the social safety net and health care of the Swiss.; November 5, 2012 at 1:51 PM
Reagan's Disciple said...: Yes, let's follow them into bankruptcy. That sounds like a brilliant plan for our government.

I guess you just can't have enough of the "more free stuff" mentality for the libs.

How about getting a job and paying for it yourself? Time to grab your Obama poster and put on your big boy pants. Your parents want you out of their basement.; November 5, 2012 at 4:26 PM
zombie rotten mcdonald said...: yeah, contrary to your assertion, Switzerland is doing quite well, especially compared to other countries. No bankruptcy in sight. http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/Switzerland_remains_most_competitive_economy.html?cid=33452322

How about getting a job and paying for it yourself? Time to grab your Obama poster and put on your big boy pants. Your parents want you out of their basement.

LOL. I guess you must entertain Rowen, you constantly refuse to engage with any arguments but just blurt out ad hominem attacks like this, normally he just never approves those comments.

In any case, your assumptions about me are as wrong as your knowledge of European countries.

Perhaps I believe that the health care and safety net should be provided for OTHER Americans? That perhaps citizens, including you, should not have bankruptcy and homelessness and death forced upon them because of Insurance Industry Death Panels decreeing their illness a 'pre-existing condition"?; November 5, 2012 at 9:48 PM
Boxer said...: Rayguns, as per usual, tries to have it both ways and ends up winning the argument no ways.

In the same post ol' Rayguns says healthcare is 'more [of the] free stuff [mentality]' and also that it requires 'getting a job and paying for it yourself'. Huh? Even his contradictions contradict themselves.

Rayguns, don't you know that your employer pays more into the system of benefits (incl Soc Sec) than you do? What should we call that--employment welfare?

What ZRM was referring to, and what the debate has been about is making health insurance AFFORDABLE so that people who don't have employer-provided insurance can AFFORD to buy it, and therefore access "the best healthcare in the world," as you conservabots are fond of saying.

I'm afraid we're going to have to add one more subject area--healthcare--to the growing list of subjects upon which you are grossly uninformed: your assumptions about ZRM, your knowledge of European countries, and now healthcare. What next? We'll have to wait for your next comment . . . or read backwards to discover gems of ignorance embedded within.

PS: Just because Mitt Romney, former presidential candidate, keeps his money in Swiss bank accounts, doesn't mean that particular national economy is booming . . . or busting. It just means they have a super secret banking system where Mormons, drug cartels and Nazis can squirrel away their gold nuggets.; November 6, 2012 at 1:12 AM
Reagan's Disciple said...: Here are some articles that refute your claims on Switzerland.
3 years ago they were on the verge of bankruptcy.

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/02/switzerland-threatened-with-bankruptcy.html

http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/uk-and-switzerland-could-soon-follow-iceland-bankruptcy

It is also ironic that a liberal such as yourself cites an article that touts in this article the swiss "sophisticated business sector" as a primary reason for this success.

However, to your point, we are talking about a social net, NOT a business sector. Your claim that they are doing "quite well especially compared to other countries" is absurd and shows your lack of ability to understand economic issues at hand.

Of course, any country would look "quite well" when compared to other EU countries and their failing welfare states and insolvency.

If you are $25,000 in CC debt, you also look "quite well" compared to the guy who is $150,000 in CC debt. It certainly doesn't mean that you know how or have an ability to manage your own finances.

Thanks for helping me make my point.; November 6, 2012 at 8:48 AM
zombie rotten mcdonald said...: However, to your point, we are talking about a social net, NOT a business sector. Your claim that they are doing "quite well especially compared to other countries" is absurd and shows your lack of ability to understand economic issues at hand.

Wow. YOU were the one that brought up bankruptcy.

But the social safety net and universal health care are part of the operating costs of the country, which the business sector takes advantage of. All of it is inter related; the idea that a business is some kind of stand alone Galtian individual enterprise is a recent Randian-inspired fantasy from the right.

Thanks for helping me make my point.

That part cracked me up.

Enjoy Election Day!; November 6, 2012 at 12:33 PM
Reagan's Disciple said...: Boxer,

Let me translate it for you simpleton.

Zombie can't get enough of the "Free Stuff." I said, get a job and pay for it yourself instead of looking for handouts.

Second, why do you assume that I am an employee anywhere and that a company pays my share of anything?

Seems kind of shortsighted...; November 6, 2012 at 3:53 PM
Boxer said...: Stay classy, Rayguns, (self proclaimed Voice of Reason on This Blog,), as you frequently remind us Dems. Don't take your losing anger out on the world.

Let me translate it for you, Person of Inability To Understand Complex Ideas:

What I said was that if ZRM got a job, he most likely wouldn't be paying the full amount of his health insurance premiums, that those premiums would be subsidized some percent by his employer. So it is contradictory for you to claim that ZRM is looking for 'free stuff' and 'handouts' while proposing that the solution is to get a job and pay for things himself, when employers usually pay the bigger portion. What don't you get?

Second, I thought you had a job because you told ZRM to get one--as if that were the solution to all healthcare issues. As if that was what you'd recommend. As if you had one. As if you wouldn't tell anyone to do something you yourself hadn't already tried and found excellent.

So, your peevish reply aside, DO you pay the full amount of your healthcare premiums? Or are the premiums subsidized by your employer . . . or your wife's teachers' healthcare? Tell us, we're dying to know.

If a Shortsighted Simpleton needs to explain everything to you, what does that make you?; November 7, 2012 at 12:56 AM
Reagan's Disciple said...: DO you pay the full amount of your healthcare premiums?

Yes I pay the full amount. I do have a job, and MY employer does not subsidize anything. Figure it out, it isn't that difficult.

To your point, your thought process is seriously flawed. An employer does not subsidize an employees healthcare. An employees wages, benefits and taxes are all considered costs by an employer. A partial payment of healthcare is certainly not a subsidy, it is a wage and benefit expense. It is considered no different than wages.

As happens in most businesses, it is an full employee cost that is taken into account.

I could pay one employee $20/hour and pay their health insurance. I could pay another $25/hour (higher wage because no insurance benefits) and pay no health insurance.

The guy making $20/hour is not getting "subsidized" health care cost. He is paying for it in the form of lower wages.

Seriously, have you ever taken a business or econ class? It is really not that difficult to understand. I'm not sure, but my guess is you are just trying to play ignorant to try and make your point?

And again to answer your question,
Yes I pay the full amount. I do have a job, and MY employer does not subsidize anything. Figure it out, it isn't that difficult.; November 7, 2012 at 10:51 AM
Boxer said...: Geez Rayguns, you really are cranky--even for you--this morning. What's up?

Whether you call it a subsidy or a benefit doesn't matter. How the employer accounts for it doesn't matter. The point you were trying to make is that instead of seeking "free stuff", ZRM should get a job and pay for healthcare insurance himself. The point I made is that you were advising him to take an action under which his employer would be likely to pay for some of his health insurance as a subsidy--benefit, whatever--thereby seeking an employer-paid 'freebie', under your argument that if someone gets something he doesn't pay for--or pay the full amount for--that something is "free stuff."

I'm sorry you don't have that employee benefit--subsidy, whatever. I had no idea the McGruber Institute was so cheap with its employees. I have a hard time believing that under those circumstances you wouldn't go on your wife's school insurance. Unless of course your wife isn't really a school teacher, or you really don't pay the full boat for your insurance. We have only your word on the matter . . . sometimes unreliable.

I find your argument REALLY INTERESTING, however, that "The guy making $20/hour is not getting "subsidized" health care cost. He is paying for it in the form of lower wages."

This is EXACTLY what happened to Wisconsin teachers: they "purchased" continued low-deductible and fully employer-paid health insurance by foregoing or limiting wage increases. We have records of this occurring all over Wisconsin as these were decisions bargained over--remember the days of collective bargaining?--by school districts and teachers' unions as contracts came up for renewal. The agreements reached were actually sound financial ones for districts AND teachers, as districts were capped at 3.8% increases/year, and it didn't matter to the district whether that was paid out in benefits or wages. It was advantageous to teachers as the small increase in wages would buy less insurance/benefits if they bought it individually, rather than using their collective purchasing power. Then, when the Walker administration sought through Act 10 to eliminate collective bargaining, cut wages, and force teachers to pay more for benefits, they sold the idea to the public by vilifying teachers for "paying NOTHING toward their health insurance". If I recall, you participated in that vilification in your lust for Act 10.

So for you to now defend your weak argument for "getting a job and paying for it yourself" in those terms is a delicious contradiction for those of us who've been paying attention.

You intend to insult me by calling me a Shortsighted Simpleton, telling me to figure it out, and that it's not difficult to understand and asking if I've ever taken a business or econ class.

Au contraire, mon frere. (Translation: To the contrary, my brother.) It is you with the limited understanding, logic-challenged, and contradictory argument. My intellect and reasoning ability is happily intact.

BTW: I've been in the workforce enough decades to remember back in the day when most all employers paid the full insurance premiums for their employees as a benefit, because it was less expensive to purchase the insurance than to pay
the employee a higher wage.; November 7, 2012 at 12:18 PM
Boxer said...: One more thing, Rayguns:
"The guy making $20/hour is not getting "subsidized" health care cost. He is paying for it in the form of lower wages."

So please explain the guy/gal making minimum wage, with no benefits. Is s/he subsidizing employer profits or management** employees' health insurance with their minimum wages? Seems so, if you follow your logic.

**Even in low-wage, part-time work companies--large retailers such as Walmart and Target--management has health insurance and other benefits while minimum wage earners go without.; November 7, 2012 at 1:36 PM
zombie rotten mcdonald said...: Yes I pay the full amount. I do have a job, and MY employer does not subsidize anything. Figure it out, it isn't that difficult.

You're right; it's not difficult. Your employer is an asshole.

To your point, your thought process is seriously flawed. An employer does not subsidize an employees healthcare. An employees wages, benefits and taxes are all considered costs by an employer. A partial payment of healthcare is certainly not a subsidy, it is a wage and benefit expense. It is considered no different than wages.

They certainly ARE considered differently than wages. They are not taxed as wages, and employers get tax breaks for providing them.

Also, employers get much better group rates than individuals do. Your employer is ripping you off and calling it freedom.; November 7, 2012 at 1:56 PM
Boxer said...: @ZRM: Hey! What're you doing here? Aren't you supposed to be out looking for a job? (either with or without benefits, we never got a clear answer.) Make sure it's a low-wage one: you wouldn't want to stress those job creators overmuch.; November 7, 2012 at 3:24 PM
zombie rotten mcdonald said...: @ZRM: Hey! What're you doing here? Aren't you supposed to be out looking for a job?

Well, since I am twelve and live in my parent's basement, I am not eligible for a job. /sarcasm

Unless Walker has changed the child labor laws.; November 8, 2012 at 8:52 AM
Boxer said...: You could get a job as a school janitor, providing there will still be such things as schools in Wisconsin in the next few years. A school janitor position would teach you some responsibility at your tender age. However, janitor jobs don't typically include health coverage, so you'll need to take your tin cup to the streets. Christmas is right around the corner--people are bound to feel generous.

Good luck, young man! Don't take any "free stuff" because that would make you dependent on it.
If you manage to survive, it will be God's will. If you don't survive, well, that's also God's will, I guess. Whatever.; November 8, 2012 at 2:01 PM