|
This is one of the problem with both entitlements and an aging population. It is very expensive to hire someone for invalid/eldercare through an agency ($25 to $50/hr here...and they usually only get minimum wage or so), so it is mutually beneficial all the way around to exploit the system and pay someone $10-$15 under the table. SEIU taking their cut from entitlements is just one more element.
|
|
|
|
|
This story has a lot of legs in the news. Unfortunately, like most of the reporting on the Hobby Lobby decision, it completely misses the point.
|
|
|
|
Ms. Harris was contracted by her son to be his caregiver...and yes, it is perfectly legal under Medicaid and in fact encouraged. What better situation than for the mother to be the caregiver for such a low wage...it isn't likely to attract the best quality workers. Ops point about this "not covering his expenses" is true in that sense...the REAL cost of caring for his kid is not covered by this but rather offset somewhat by paying his mom.
Essentially SEIU was profiteering off poor folks and tax payer dollars, to put money into the pockets of Dems in their endless circle jerk, as per usual.
Also, for the record, this set up is ripe for fraud at all levels. One could, for example, become a caregiver for an aging parent on SS at night during the sleeping hours, and still work as a caregiver for someone else during the day under the table. This would also make the caregiver eligible for Obamacare through Medicare subsidies. |
|
|
|
|
Well, let's assume that you're right and the Medicare check covered her 'wages' for taking care of her son. That's a round the clock, 7 days per week job. If she get's 'paid' $1210.00 a month ($90 is taken out for SEIU!), that's less than $3 per hour. Is that the SEIU union scale? If not, where's her fucking SEIU union wages? If she paid dues to SEIU (and she did!), why didn't they demand she be paid union scale?
And since when do union members also have to foot the bill for all the other patient needs, like housing, food, medicine, clothes, etc.?
The Supreme Court obviously ruled correctly. Just admit it and move on.
|
|
|
|
|
I find it interesting that the Press is upset about this supposed trampling of Free Speech and the protection of the Press by the Constitution. They have no problem in writing about the evil NRA, GOAL, or any other group that supports the rights guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment and how laws should be passed to modify it. I am not saying the Court is right in forcing the reporter to name the source, but it is amusing how when it is their area under attack they get really upset.
|
|
|
|
The understatement of the year. This isn't even about corporations and wages blah blah blah. This is a PUBLIC SECTOR union sucking money from Medicaid checks.
I swear, these sheeple must enjoy being screwed by their sacred cows.
And not just any public sector union! This is Obama's own SEIU, the same one that he represented as a lawyer, and the same one that his buddy Wade Rathke (creator of Obama's ACORN) founded! This is the same criminal union that beat up the black guy who was handing out 'Don't tread on Me" flags in St Louis during Obama's first campaign. This is the sort of low class, unskilled thug union (like the Teamsters) that gives a bad name to the skilled union trades like carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc. |
|
|
|
|
My family has suffered for generations with chalky tooth enamel - lots of cavities resulted. Since fluoride has been added to our water 30years ago, there have been no cavities, and we all have beautiful strong teeth .
|
|
|
|
What I say is that these workers will be singing a different tune down the road when they discover REAL thuggery in the form of corporate abuse of workers and an inability for them to get fair salaries and working conditions even though they have distinct skills. The pendulum has swung too far back. Unions were created because American industrialists treated workers like shit, and they banded together. Eventually, the Unions became the same kind of monster they started out to fight - full of corruption and greed, and there was a backlash. Now we're starting to swing back toward the conditions that existed when they got started. Unions will be back. Unions will be back. Bet on it.
Now do any of you still think the Court made a bad call after reading the real story? Should an unpaid mom taking care of her very ill son in her own home have to join a fucking thug union like SEIU and pay them dues? Since it was such an obvious union abuse of power, the mainstream media either said nothing about it at all or omitted the real reasons for the suit. That's what people get for relying on the liberal media...half-truths and cover-ups. |
|
|
|
|
This was a mother who was taking care of her own son in her own home and was not being 'paid' at all. The money involved was a $1,300 monthly Medicaid check that didn't even cover his expenses, much less 'pay' his mother a salary! But the SEIU (yeah, the same thug union that backed Obama and was created by the same asshole who created ACORN!) was making her pay $90 a month in union dues, due to a state law passed by union-loving Democrat assholes! And of course, this was in Obama's Illinois, home of crooked Chicago politics.
|
|
|
|
|
I only hope that vehicle is parked. ;-)
Seriously, having spent the past 35 years or so in a house that included my wife, her mother, two daughters, and now three female dogs (2 beagles and 1 cocker spaneiel), I gave up any hope of winning a war on women years ago. Just relaxed, laid back and enjoyed the positives of the arrangement.
|
|
|
|
the murderous terrorists strike again.... Bodies of three kidnapped Israeli teens found, government confirms
Israel's nearly three-week vigil for three teens kidnapped in the West Bank — including one with U.S. citizenship — ended grimly Monday, with the discovery of their bodies just north of Hebron.
The search for Eyal Yifrach, 19; Gilad Shaar, 16; and Naftali Frenkel, also 16, who were snatched while hitchhiking, ended even as Israeli forces were conducting raids in the West Bank, where Hamas operates. Frenkel holds dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship.
Israeli forces were massing Monday in the West Bank village of Halhul, just north of Hebron. Sources said the bodies were found in a shallow grave in an open field. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was expected to speak on the discovery later Monday.
"The entire nation is bowing its head with unbearable sorrow this evening," President Shimon Peres said in a statement. "Over the past 18 days the nation prayed as one that the fate of our wonderful teenagers would be that they are found alive and well. Now that the bitter news has come, the entire Israeli nation mourns the premature death of our finest youth … Alongside deep sorrow, we will remain resolute to punish the atrocious terrorists. Our war on terrorism will only intensify and will not waver so that this murderous terrorism won't dare to rear its head."
"Our war on terrorism will only intensify and will not waver so that this murderous terrorism won't dare to rear its head."
- Israeli President Shimon Peres http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/01/israeli-teens-found-dead/ |
|
|
|
|
Believe whatever you like, the results are in. The only thing left is to take action that might extend our existence on this planet. But keep on barking up that tree, see how it works for ya. good luck........
|
|
|
|
I have eyes, ears and a mind. I am also a natural skeptic, I do my due diligence before making up my mind on things, particularly as important as this is. I am hardly an alarmist, more pragmatic really. So, best you calm down and do some critical thinking about this climate denial you are so fond of. Not sure why.....obsession it seems. In the mean time the truth marches on, remember the earth is NOT flat either. |
|
|
|
I cannot imagine how the DOJ could produce a legal opinion without the information submitted from the IRS, can you? They were searching for something, anything, with which to punish these conservative groups at the request of a dem senator. The IRS obliged, going so far as sending confidential information illegally. No, a US senator queried the IRS to identify if some applications were making false claims, and following that, would those false claims be legally actionable. The DOJ could not make that assessment without seeing the submissions. This is how in the US we seek out fraud and act to end it. Not different than identifying suppliers for Medicare that lie and cheat the system. Those are also referred to the DOJ. What you are attempting to claim as a conspiracy is an investigation of fraud. Now, having said that I still support a special prosecutor to be certain no violations of law occurred. |
|
|
|
I cannot imagine how the DOJ could produce a legal opinion without the information submitted from the IRS, can you? |
|
|
|
"Lerner later acknowledged pursuing prosecutions of these groups would not fit well with the law."
Your point? If Lerner raised the issue with DOJ, as she should have, and later found the law permitted perimeters she thought to be beyond the law, then her conclusion would be as you provided. So what? No, she didn't raise the issue with the DOJ. She was contacted by the DOJ after a dem (Whitehouse) asked if they could prosecute conservative groups. You really should at least have a grasp on the basic facts. LERNER: I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s –saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS…
FLAX: I think we should do it – also need to include CI [Criminal Investigation Division], which we can help coordinate. Also, we need to reach out to FEC. Does it make sense to consider including them in this or keep it separate?
Lerner referred to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who was pushing for prosecutions of tax-exempt groups found to have misrepresented their political activities. Judicial Watch quotes a March 2013 email from Lerner to IRS staff, describing hearings to be held by Whitehouse in April:
As I mentioned yesterday — there are several groups of folks from the FEC world that are pushing tax fraud prosecution for c4s who report they are not conducting political activity when they are (or these folks think they are).One is my ex-boss Larry Noble (former General Counsel at the FEC), who is now president of Americans for Campaign Reform. This is their latest push to shut these down. One IRS prosecution would make an impact and they wouldn’t feel so comfortable doing the stuff.
So, don’t be fooled about how this is being articulated – it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.
But then a few minutes later, Lerner sent out a follow-up email in which she said prosecution was “not realistic under current law.” Lerner added, “Everyone is looking for a magic bullet or scapegoat – there isn’t one. The law in this area is just hard.”
http://www.humanevents.com/2014/04/16/irs-documents-show-lois-lerner-wanted-to-sic-the-justice-department-on-targeted-conservative-groups/Well thanks again, but I am not sure what you find wrong with these exchanges. In my opinion many of these claims for exemptions were based upon totally false representations and the Senator was correct is seeking to stop their acceptance in violation of the law. Learned appears here to argue that the law does not cover the prosecution that Whitehouse would find responsible. Hers would of course not be a legal opinion. Your problem here is that none of this is unreasonable given the volume of submissions and the laughable claims of social benefits by the organizations. All of these exchanges are reasonabkle actions to stop false tax exemption status. I am interested in the facts here. |
|
|
|
"Lerner later acknowledged pursuing prosecutions of these groups would not fit well with the law."
Your point? If Lerner raised the issue with DOJ, as she should have, and later found the law permitted perimeters she thought to be beyond the law, then her conclusion would be as you provided. So what? |
|
|
|
I think it is interesting that the emails we do have show that the DOJ was in contact with Lerner trying to figure out a way to criminally prosecute these cases. Nobody on the left seems to want to speak to that. And if the White House didn't want to cast further suspicion the president really shouldn't have gotten on tv and declared that there wasn't a smidgen of corruption.
These may have been Bush appointees but that apparently has no bearing on whose water they were carrying.
I am curious...if a group had illegally claimed tex exempt status would not that be a matter for Justice to pursue? Problem was, that it wasn't illegal. See here This was not a lapse in judgment or a series of unfortunate events. This was an organized campaign to use IRS resources — including its ability to launch criminal prosecutions — for political purposes. We know from other Lerner e-mails that have been released that the IRS was, at the suggestion of Rhode Island Democratic senator Sheldon Whitehouse, looking for a way to “piece together” a criminal case against the groups it was targeting. Lerner and lawyers at the Justice Department discussed coordinating with the Federal Election Commission in this crusade. It is worth noting that the “crime” with which Lerner et al. wanted to charge those conservative nonprofits was failing to adequately disclose what political activities they would be engaged in — even though under the law they are explicitly permitted to engage in political activity. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380717/lois-lerners-vanishing-e-mails-editors here: Issa argues that the email shows that the DOJ was considering prosecuting these groups for actions that are legal for 501(c)(4) nonprofits under federal tax law – “that is, engaging in political speech.” http://washingtonexaminer.com/issa-seeks-answers-about-dojs-role-in-irs-targeting/article/2547651and here : Lerner later acknowledged pursuing prosecutions of these groups would not fit well with the law. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/04/16/breaking-new-emails-show-lois-lerner-contacted-doj-about-prosecuting-tax-exempt-groups-n1825292Well thanks for the information, I appreciate it. However, for the most part I think it may be a subjective analysis of what is for 501 c4's legal and what is prohibited. As I recall, to qualify, a majority of the efforts of such organizations must be non-political, and groups like Karl Rove's might make such an argument but it would frankly just be a lie. As I recall Rove's group did seek, and may have obtained, this tax exempt status. But to argue that Crossroads America is not a purely political organization is laughable. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to consider legal action against those who knowingly submitted fraudulent information to receive a tax exempt status. We have to be careful not to ignore political motives in both the charges against the IRS and those making the charges. So when you argue that their activities were clearly legal, I am not so easily convinced that that claim is factually true, and that is where Republican politics come into play. I want the facts and I would not trust Darrell Issa to seek the facts, nor is the National review slanting toward objectivity. |
|
|
|
|
I must have missed the part about religion being necessary for the best self-actualization results. Religion can certainly fit the bill for some people to move from one rung of the hierarchy of needs to another, but it is not required. Religion may boost love, belonging, self esteem in people and help them fulfill self actualization, but so too can many things.
|
|
|
|
Well Zolace....you are really fixating on a lot of presumptions and this "love" analogy is getting really tedious. May I remind you that I am the one who has known both worlds and you are the one who has known only one. I was a Christian and am now an atheist. You.... I presume..... have never been an atheist so how can you make such sweeping wrong statements about atheism and atheists motives? How can you know that which is harder to be [ Christian or atheist] when you have never been an atheist? Atheism is the fastest growing bracket concerning peoples religious beliefs or lack of them in America { so says the last census}. I have no interest in debating if philosophers are smarter than scientists or in claiming atheists are necessarily smarter than theists. That's of no importance to me. I really think your disgust toward atheism, non believers in general or just me perhaps has clouded your judgement. You claim no one can understand love if they have never been in love and yet you claim with your statements that you seem to know what atheism is all about. Spend 20 years or so as a Christian and 20 years or so as a atheist and get back to me.
I didn't get disgust at all from zolace's thoughts towards non-believers, rather more the proposition they perhaps can't know what they're missing. It's not a new thought - Kierkegaard, the Danish theologian/philosopher proposed that it was only through a 'leap of faith' that the religious perspective could be apprehended and known. That is, without faith, humans are more or less stranded in their own limited universe, their every experience processed from that viewpoint. On your spiritual evolution account - I'm wondering if the experience of a default faith (the childhood variety) meaningfully compares to that of adult who has reached (or sustained, enriched) theirs through contemplation, testing and trial from a more informed viewpoint. I would agree completely with you that it rejecting one's childhood faith in favor of atheism isn't the same as "experiencing" both...real faith requires a certain maturity of mind that children don't have. I think it's because they've only processed the words of say the Bible AS stories that, when they become adults, they reject them and turn to atheism--they've never really given themselves the opportunity to examine faith with all the tools of their intellect because they've rejected it before all those tools were at their disposition. You CAN'T, honestly, make a decision about faith at 10 or 15 years old, I would even doubt that 20 were a decent age to make that decision. Sadly, too many people, having made the decision when they were young, now are set in their ways and refuse to reexamine it to see if they jumped to conclusions too quickly. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
