Posts by wearyrider26

So, it’s not Ford Motor Company, or Chrysler, or Chevrolet, or even General Motors... it’s actually Ford? I guess you have to wonder if Americans will ever actually get a decent deal on a car made right here in the States.

Here is the list of Ford's manufacturing plants

http://www.bmwgroup.com/e/0_0_www_bm...tandorte.shtml

Looking at this, it seems like the factories are mostly set up
1. in the wealthiest
2. or the poorest countries.

Something tells me America doesn't really fall into that first group. I suppose some people just stay stuck where they are. ☕

I heard he might have had some friction with certain Canadian human rights groups too. But honestly, looking at the big picture, why would that even matter? I mean, the guy can travel wherever he needs to go within the United States. He’s already seen pretty much the rest of the world during his time as President, so I guess those legal technicalities probably won't keep him up at night much.

vividraven26 said:Honestly, if they aren't doing anything useful, why even have them? Just scrap the whole thing. People who actually want to work are already finding jobs through online listings anyway.

Well, the Department of Labor itself employs a ton of people. So, if you just shut it down, I guess that doesn't actually fix the underlying issue... it might just make the total unemployment numbers look even worse, which seems counterproductive. It feels more like there isn't a clear vision or a real plan for what happens to all those employees once they are handed their termination notices.🤷

nimblemarlin6 said:Look, everyone thinks sheep ranching is this idyllic, peaceful little dream—just sitting out in the pasture under a big sky. It’s not. Not even close. In reality, it's a gritty, demanding job that requires you to be a jack-of-all-trades—you need a massive spectrum of knowledge just to keep things running smoothly.
You really have to keep a tight leash on those sheepdogs—seriously, if you don't know exactly how to handle them, they’ll take your hand off without a second thought.
Look, you also have to know how to actually fix things when they go south—like if a sheep breaks its leg, you need to know how to treat that injury. You’ve got to be able to assist with a difficult birth when a lamb is struggling. And then there's the whole issue of keeping the wolves and jackals at bay—which means, yeah, knowing your way around a firearm is pretty much a requirement. On top of all that, you need to be able to calm down agitated livestock; if things get really bad, you might even need to provide them with some semblance of psychological support.
You’ve got to herd the sheep. You have to wrangle them, shake things up, yell a bit, and keep everyone on their toes—all just so you can eventually stand there and flip the lamb on the spit for the rest of the ranch hands.

That's pretty much it. But I suppose some people think ranching is just sitting in the shade under a tree, listening to music while reading the USA Today.

vividraven26 said:Look, I wasn't talking about people who are actually sick. It’s totally obvious you can't offer certain jobs to someone in that condition, and honestly, the real question is whether they can even find *any* work at all. What I meant was the healthy crowd—the ones turning down every single opening because it doesn't massage their ego enough. How many of them have degrees? Honestly, you can't count them. Even old folks will tell you, "Oh, my son/daughter went to a top university," but let's be real, with that specific degree, you aren't finding a job in America for the next 500 years because nobody needs what they learned, yet they still refuse to take up a regular blue-collar gig. Or you've got the former white-collar types who just can't stomach being laborers. Or the "handymen" working under the table, refusing to register and turning down legitimate work. I know the whole lot of them; I see them wandering around, sipping their lattes, acting like they're too good for the real world.

What I'm talking about are the people at the Department of Labor and how they go about looking for work. When an offer is put on the table, they reject everything. Sure, there's a mismatch in the market, that's true, but there are still people offering jobs, people accepting them, and then there are the ones rejecting them. Those are the ones I'm interested in, and frankly, I'm against them. They're the grateful voters because they get perks just by sitting around at the agency. If someone is at the Department of Labor and absolutely no one is offering them anything, fine, let them stay there—they probably have nowhere else to go with all those benefits and rights they're clinging to.

The Department of Labor is mostly there to handle the statistics on labor supply and demand in the market—they don't really hunt for jobs or hand them out themselves, I suppose.

If you want to find the privileged classes, you should probably look toward the public sector and those early retirement categories involving people who are technically still in the workforce (but maybe without the right education or experience to actually be competitive in the real world).

The Department of Labor, much like the Census Bureau, definitely has its purpose, but I don't think we need to give that agency more weight or importance than it actually deserves.

vividraven26 said:Everyone has a right to life. Period. But the right to medical treatment? That belongs to those who contributed—retirees, those currently contributing through employment, the vulnerable over 65, children, and everyone else once they start paying their way.

If Bill Gates wants to build his own private oncology clinic just for himself, he can go right ahead. What are you even talking about?

And yeah, we'll still treat people injured in fires and all that.

But we shouldn't be footing the bill for people who refuse to work or are working under the table while enjoying free healthcare paid for by everyone else. That’s the real issue here.

Well, I guess it just comes down to constitutional law. Like, the right to access primary healthcare shouldn't really depend on whether you're employed or not. I mean, sure, maybe some other specific benefits might be tied to your job status, but basic medical care? That should be separate. It’s just how the system is supposed to work here in the US, I suppose.

Well, I mean, that's how it looks on paper, I guess... but in actual practice? Not really. Maybe it works that way in theory, but you know how things actually go out in the real world. It's just different. ☕

I guess it’s pretty obvious what kind of "free" treatment we're actually talking about here. It’s that specific type of care that even the wealthiest person in America probably couldn't afford to pay for out-of-pocket if they went private... you know, everything from specialized surgeons to oncologists. Maybe that's just how it goes, I suppose.

I guess cosmetic procedures and stuff like that fall under voluntary insurance, so they’re usually handled through private agreements. Maybe? It just seems like that's how it works over here in the States.

I guess we shouldn't really get into the whole topic of unemployment. It feels a bit out of place here in the States, where there's such a massive gap between what jobs are available and who's looking for them. Maybe it's just not the right time to dive into that, I suppose.
I guess we shouldn't really mix up our terms or assume that being unemployed automatically means someone isn't working, you know? There’s this other kind of inefficiency that actually costs the government a massive amount of money, and I don't mean the benefits paid out to people looking for jobs. It’s more about certain specific salaries and pensions. It feels like those are basically used to buy votes during election season, maybe. And when you look at those high salaries and pensions, it's really what ends up driving up the US national debt. Just my two cents, I suppose.

I mean, I guess I'll go ahead and agree that working under the table is bad for everyone... but honestly, it just feels like proof that the administrative inspectors—the ones who are actually supposed to be enforcing the laws (and getting paid to do it, obviously!)—just aren't doing their jobs. Maybe they are? I don't know, it just seems that way to me.

vividraven26 said:You only get access to primary healthcare if you’re actually chipping in the same way every other worker does. You don't want to work? Then you don't get the coverage. Period. There's always going to be someone foolish enough to grind away for 40 years, paying into a system that supports people who won't even bother to get out of bed in the morning. It's pure socialism. That's exactly why those systems fail, and it leaves the hardworking people broke. Sure, everyone will probably get their vaccinations for free when an epidemic hits, but for anything else, they can just forget about it. This is exactly why the healthcare system is such a mess—we have tiny amounts of revenue coming in and massive expenses going out.

On my end, I'm putting money aside for my own retirement, not to fund the pensions of slackers and freeloaders. People should get out exactly what they put in.

I feel bad, but following that logic, I guess the right to life should only belong to those who create things—you know, people who directly produce new value—because everyone else is just a drain on the budget.

(It reminds me of that old farm story where a horse and a dog are arguing about who's more important. The sheepdog says, "I protect the farm, so I'm worth more than you." And the horse just replies, "Well, honey, if I wasn't out here plowing, you wouldn't have a farm to protect!" )

Basic healthcare is really a hallmark of civilization. Honestly, the costs for cancer treatment are so high that even Bill Gates might struggle to cover the full amount.

And then there are accidents involving serious injuries, or things like floods, fires, violence...

I think this is mostly about pure pragmatism. Public health is in everyone's interest. Those arguments about "workers vs. non-workers" were probably okay to sell back during the socialist era when the government was the biggest employer. But things aren't really like that anymore, and nowadays, the government acts more like a service provider for the group of people that makes up its voting base. That includes the whole administrative system and institutions like the Department of Labor. But, "luckily," those agencies don't exactly operate based on performance.

In America, primary health insurance isn't just some social handout—it’s actually treated as a matter of public interest. I mean, if you look at how big epidemics or poor living conditions can spread things around, public health is really there to help lower mortality rates rather than make them worse.

Though, I guess it is technically possible here for something like that to be scrapped entirely, which would leave us all in a pretty grim spot, sort of like facing a cholera outbreak without any backup.

Honestly, talking about getting rid of free primary healthcare feels pretty reckless to me. It’s almost making me think of those old T4 scenarios, which is a heavy thought.

I mean, I guess mosques are better than banks. It’s just nice having places where people actually connect without everything being about money...