5
Churchill 5 points ago +5 / -0

Asheville is NC’s San Francisco. Full of panhandlers with guitars.

2
Churchill 2 points ago +2 / -0

Are No and So Carolina (and probably several other southern states), I was referring to state employees, not federal workers. They earn much less than their unionized counterparts in northern states.

Federal unions through their lobbying, donations and endorsements surely have very significant influence on the pay that is proposed to Congress and then approved. If they don’t then I don’t know what purpose they would serve.

1
Churchill 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sorry, I don’t follow your point. Are you saying that federal unions have no influence over the wage and salary scales or other benefits?

17
Churchill 17 points ago +17 / -0

Needs a collar with a biden sticker

24
Churchill 24 points ago +25 / -1

Federal workers were not allowed to unionize until Kennedy allowed it via executive order. It locked those unions to the Dem party and the federal labor budgets blew out.

Some states do not allow their workers to unionize. In No and So Carolina, teachers (and I think all govt workers) are not allowed to unionize and salaries are much lower.

Unions don’t make a whole lot of sense on the government side since government workers are not generally abused. They work for the politicians who have a vested interest in keeping them relatively happy. They’re easy and generous bosses. Unions arose out of gross abuses in the private sector — think of the coal mine conflicts between miners and mining companies, who hired private security companies to intimidate workers and killed many. That was never a problem for government workers. A kickback system is a fair description. The politicians reward their unions with rich pay and the unions kick a portion back and endorse the politicians.

6
Churchill 6 points ago +6 / -0

I don’t think any public workers, including police and firefighters, should be able to collect their pensions prior to age 65. They can vest earlier, but if they want to retire young they must provide alternate income from their savings or another job til they reach 65. So many of them go into policing or firefighting out of high school and have 30 years in by the time they’re in their mid 50s, and then retire and collect a pension for the next 30-35 years even though they’re still capable of working for many years. Often they get another job anyway and double dip. They also should not base pension off of the total pay they receive in their final years, but it should be calculated based on base salary or wage without overtime. These guys game the system working tons of overtime right before retirement and then collect huge pensions. Pensions are often calculated off of average total pay in the last few years and by the time these guys have 30 years in they have so much pull, they are given as much overtime as they want and they overload with it.

2
Churchill 2 points ago +3 / -1

Nah, it’s a legitimate issue. There is a generational issue insofar as the Boomers have ridden interest rates from 20% in 1980 all the way down to 0% now, which has made them rich as all out because their stocks and houses have appreciated as a result. Now there are people earning what used to be decent money who can’t even buy a decent house around major metro areas because the towns are filled up with empty-nester retired boomers who have huge stock accounts that allow them to afford the property taxes and remain in their 3500-4000 sq ft homes and vacation in their 2nd and even 3rd vacation homes. Meanwhile 30-45 year olds with kids are stuck in little rental homes because said empty nesters won’t just sell their primary residence and move down to Florida like the generation before did so as to make room for the younger generation. It’s a big reason why people are moving south — young families can’t afford a house in the northern states.

Now the dang federal reserve won’t let prices reset, so they’re freezing younger generations out of decent homes and the ability to invest at reasonable equity prices.

21
Churchill 21 points ago +21 / -0

I would think that if you ceded NoVA to DC, a chunk of VA’s representatives would go with it. Granted, maybe it would still be a net positive from the global perspective.

1
Churchill 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don’t give a darn about the Saudis either, nor do I care if some shale oil companies go bust. They borrowed too much money and invested unwisely. In old days, they’d just be **cked. But the point of this deal is to collusively increase the price of oil in a non-free-market way. Effectively the US is joining with OPEC in support of oil producers, which is pretty historic, really.

The US economy is not really free market anymore, unfortunately. It hasn’t been since the financial crisis.

3
Churchill 3 points ago +3 / -0

Domestic fracking companies are really struggling with the low oil prices. They have a lot of debt. I think they need prices in the $40s so this may not save them regardless.

Truthfully, Trump’s interest here is in avoiding bankruptcies and job losses in the domestic oil fracking industry. Putting those aside, the fracking industry at this point can quickly ramp up and down based on pricing so it actually doesn’t matter much other than that ramping down means job losses and debt defaults. Domestic oil employment and production would plummet in the near-term, but could ramp up quickly later if pricing came back.

Pricing will have to come back in the long-term because the Saudis use their oil to bankroll their national budget, and they need prices in like the $80s to avoid deficits. They can pump profitably in the $20s, but they need it in the $80s to maintain their national standard of living where the entire country is employed in overpaid government jobs funded by oil sales. The Saudi government is quite desperate, which is why they initiated the crisis in the first place.

So for Trump, this was just to avoid the near term bad press around bankruptcies, job losses and reduced oil output.

1
Churchill 1 point ago +1 / -0

Granny, first, I personally know 2 doctors who did this and were turned away from the pharmacy. I know them. They told me about it. Directly. After I mentioned reading about articles saying doctors doing this. I am not going to put their names here of course.

Second, self-prescribing doctors are not being arrested so why would their names be posted in these articles? How many articles do you find citing names of people who run red lights? The articles reference pharmacists and regulators overseeing pharmacies who confirm that doctors are self-prescribing and that there has been a run on these medications. The pharmacists quoted describe confronting and turning away doctors who are self prescribing very large quantities to stock up home inventories.

These reports comport perfectly with how the world really works. Anybody who knows doctors, or has a doctor in the family, knows very well that doctors self prescribe or prescribe for their family all the time. Happens regularly. In this case though, we have a shortage of these drugs because they’re not being manufactured at a rate to supply many millions of people.

Look, this is not really all that shocking. When you have a desperate situation — fear for one’s safety — and important items or materiel is in short supply, you get a run on the materiel. It’s basic human nature. If you don’t intervene you run out. It will take a little time for supply of these drugs to ramp up to meet the now much higher demand. It will get there and then the restrictions will be removed. You’ll see.

I get it that it’s unlikely you’ll believe me. If there’s one thing I’ve learned reading these sorts of sites is that people will fiercely resist evidence that doesn’t comport with their view of the world. They’ll disbelieve their own eyes.

Even if the evidence is straight forward and staring you in the face and makes more sense than easily debunked theories such as that pharmaceutical companies are suppressing these drugs to make money with a vaccine. Even if a vaccine is created, no company is going to make much profit with it. Vaccines are not profitable because they require capital investment to create and ramp up production and then people only take it once. Once enough people are vaccinated, the drug is worthless. That is an awful product. Furthermore, all the socialist governments in the world will not allow any vaccine manufacturer to charge high prices for the vaccine. They’ll demand that the drug be sold at barely above its cost to produce and confiscate the drug if the company refuses.

1
Churchill 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're absolutely right. Before this illness, companies only made enough of this stuff to supply people with lupus and arthritis. Suddenly the demand went through the roof and there’s shortage. People with access (doctors, rich and powerful) scramble to get the limited amount. So measures are taken to prevent waste of the limited supply. You can’t just wave your hand and make 100 million doses appear in a week. It takes time to make and distribute more.

I don’t even think we’re disagreeing. Just people want to see a conspiracy. I’m sure there are companies that want to find a way to make money off this illness, and of course the Dems and the media are trying to blame Trump.

In reality no company’s going to make much money off of COVID. There’s little profit in vaccines. They get used once and that’s it. Terrible product. Plus do you think socialist governments all over the world will allow any vaccine to be priced very high? Vaccines are just not worth much to a company. Curing this thing would be more of a PR score than a moneymaker.

-6
Churchill -6 points ago +2 / -8

They’re keeping docs from prescribing it freely because there are limited quantities and some doctors were self-prescribing large quantities to create a personal inventory for themselves, their friends and families. Just google search “doctors prescribing hydrochloroquine” and see what comes up.

Really I’d think you only need to prescribe it to the small number of people developing breathing issues.

What you post is interesting, since if Italy is prescribing these drugs liberally it might suggest the drug is not effective. The mortality rate in Italy is terrible, so that would not exactly be a ringing endorsement of the drug as a treatment.

-4
Churchill -4 points ago +1 / -5

Sure there’s evidence. Just google search for “doctors self prescribing hydroxychloroquine.”

I actually know some doctors personally who self-prescribed to stock up in case they got sick. They were not sick. The pharmacy limited them to a small number of doses.

One article starts:

“Doctors are hoarding medications touted as possible coronavirus treatments by writing prescriptions for themselves and family members, according to pharmacy boards in states across the country.

The stockpiling has become so worrisome in Idaho, Kentucky, Ohio, Nevada, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Texas that the boards in those states have issued emergency restrictions or guidelines on how the drugs can be dispensed at pharmacies. More states are expected to follow suit.

“This is a real issue and it is not some product of a few isolated bad apples,” said Jay Campbell, executive director of the North Carolina Board of Pharmacy.

The medications being prescribed differ slightly from state to state, but include those lauded by President Trump at televised briefings as potential breakthrough treatments for the virus, which has killed at least 675 people in the United States and infected more than 52,000.”

I don’t understand why this is being couched as a liberal or conservative position. I am conservative. I am also curious about this medication and whether it works. But I also understand human nature. The fact that some doctors are hoarding these drugs actually supports Trump’s position that they may be a viable treatment. But do you want to die because you can’t get your hands on these drugs because the doc down the street has filled his closet with 200 doses of the stuff for his family and closest friends?

Really until they have a lot more of these drugs, I don’t think you’d want to allow people to take it other than the ones who are in the hospital having breathing problems. The vast majority of people with this illness recover without need for medical intervention.

-7
Churchill -7 points ago +2 / -9

I don’t discount the possibility that there is a corporate preference for a vaccine, but the main reason docs are being blocked is because doctors were self-prescribing large quantities of these drugs for themselves to protect themselves and family/friends, which was creating a shortage. Basically hoarding. These drugs are needed by people with lupus and arthritis too, in addition, perhaps, to those with Covid that develop breathing issues. I don’t disagree with restricting access, frankly.

view more: ‹ Prev