More hidden costs of Bush's war are emerging

[Damocles]

wow you must think small 8 person businesses make a lot of money or something....that they can just absorb around a 12.5 % labor increase....

Get real guy.

I think that the guy would fire one of those working out on the field, put himself out there, and use this guy for the office administration. Thus taking not one hit in the labor force for his company.

You simply do not read my post, or pick and choose what you want from it.

This is what I personally would do. You can also make him a supervisor who checks on the quality of work of others if the bookwork was not enough. Remember he was your best employee before this happened. He surely could find the mistakes of another and thus cut rework and save money in that area as well, freeing you up even more to do the installs.

 

[Damocles]

ding ding ding ding.... bullshit meter going off again...

I am desparate for no such thing and never have been and do not get any real pleasure in OWNAGE.... and I said such!!! (though i did kid that once i did what tiana asked me to do that it was kinda fun, but that was in jest) and for all the years you have known me, I may have mentioned ownage once in all those years so...if you are talking about me, then what you said is bull shit...to highest degree of stink!!!!!!!


And as far as the rest of the CRAP AND LIES you just spouted about me.... waiting for you to leave to say something.... you can put your head where the Sun DON'T SHINE....though it is there already! gees...just a tad testy there Damo....

you are just an incredible liar who seems to think his shit doesn't stink

...hope you are proud of yourself!!!!!

care

Well, sorry there Care... I don't think my poop doesn't stink. If you care this much about whether I used that effect, I will no longer use it in posts with you.

As I said, I don't think it would be necessary in this case and I disagree with you.

 

[uscitizen]

A good boiler installer does not necessarially make a good bookkeeper. 2 entirely different skillsets and mindsets.
I can understand how nearly anything works and fix it, but lordy , keep me away from the paperwork

this is a way for the gummit to slide out from under their obligations and levy a "war tax" on businesses.

 

[Damocles]

A good boiler installer does not necessarially make a good bookkeeper. 2 entirely different skillsets and mindsets.
I can understand how nearly anything works and fix it, but lordy , keep me away from the paperwork

this is a way for the gummit to slide out from under their obligations and levy a "war tax" on businesses.

However, I did still mention other applications. You could also get him into setting up trucks and making sure all the equipment was there (inventory), he would surely know what was necessary to take along on an install. (He was your best employee, according to the story).

I would bet I could find him something useful to do, even if he was terrible at paperwork, that would in the end benefit my company.

 

[uscitizen]

Yeah but my point is could your small company afford to have him ?
I agree with the sentiment of hiring /rehiring the vets. The reality can be somewhat different though. In large corps t is not big deal, but in a mom and pop company that is possibly just barely making it....


McCain should be raising money for the vets instead of for his election bid. If he did he might just get elected....

 

[Care4all]

The bottom line is that if this company can truely not manage an additional position "made up" for this young man without bankrupting the company which would make 8 people unemployed, then he can not hire him back, but as the article says, this might result in a law suit, which would also probably bankrupt the company and make 8 people unemployed.

I think the law needs to rewriten with an allowance for small businesses with injured vets that return with permanent disabilities that prevent them from doing the job they were doing before being deployed to not have to rehire them....

And in unison with this waiver for these small businesses under these specific circumstances, a policy that puts the ownage back on to our government to handle these cases...such as 100% disability payments while they retrain or reeducate these soldiers in another field that they would be capable of doing with their disability.

And even thought Damo has given all of these scenarios of what the owner should do with his company of 8, like the owner giving up his own position in the company for this veteran to take it....as uscit has tried to explain to him, that this IS NOT ALWAYS possible.... without hurting the company in a grave manner.... for all you know, this man's wife is doing the books at home and is not even being paid by the company to do this....as just one example.

Care

 

[Damocles]

The bottom line is that if this company can truely not manage an additional position "made up" for this young man without bankrupting the company which would make 8 people unemployed, then he can not hire him back, but as the article says, this might result in a law suit, which would also probably bankrupt the company and make 8 people unemployed.

I think the law needs to rewriten with an allowance for small businesses with injured vets that return with permanent disabilities that prevent them from doing the job they were doing before being deployed to not have to rehire them....

And in unison with this waiver for these small businesses under these specific circumstances, a policy that puts the ownage back on to our government to handle these cases...such as 100% disability payments while they retrain or reeducate these soldiers in another field that they would be capable of doing with their disability.

And even thought Damo has given all of these scenarios of what the owner should do with his company of 8, like the owner giving up his own position in the company for this veteran to take it....as uscit has tried to explain to him, that this IS NOT ALWAYS possible.... without hurting the company in a grave manner.... for all you know, this man's wife is doing the books at home and is not even being paid by the company to do this....as just one example.

Care

I have explained again, and again. This person did not say it would bankrupt him. He asked a legal question and got an answer.

I gave solutions, or ways that he could make it work for him.

The whole, "give up his position" is rubbish. Having another do your paperwork is not "giving up your position".

The idea that it isn't always possible is fine. But in this particular situation he never stated his company was going to go down the tubes, he just wondered if he had to considering the guy could no longer install boilers.

The idea that in this situation the guy should get a pass and the government be his savior is emotive politics. It didn't even speak to the question of the article. It simply assumed heard-hearted conservatism that didn't care, and it was simply an overreaction to what was simply a legal question.

Stepping in to "solve" a problem that wasn't even presented doesn't make you more "right", it just means you have asserted things that were not apparent in the story. The guy wasn't asking for help, he was asking for information.

 

[uscitizen]

My whole point in this thread was not really for this particular case but for the hidden costs of Bush's war that are just now beginning to rear their heads up.

And no Damo the article did not say it would bankrupt him but with only 8 employees, including the owner, I would expect it to be likely.

I agree with Care that the primary responisbility for supporting the injured vets belongs to our government, not small business owners.

 

[Damocles]

My whole point in this thread was not really for this particular case but for the hidden costs of Bush's war that are just now beginning to rear their heads up.

And no Damo the article did not say it would bankrupt him but with only 8 employees, including the owner, I would expect it to be likely.

I agree with Care that the primary responisbility for supporting the injured vets belongs to our government, not small business owners.

I think that small business owners are the government. We all pay, one way or another.

In this case, if he could show that he could not legitimately find him a place the vet would be out of luck for a job, but would still have disability, etc.

The idea that he would be abandoned because the guy might not be able to find a legitimate position for him is baseless. The idea that the guy would go bankrupt if he had to find a position for him is also baseless, the question didn't say, "If I hire him back I'll go bankrupt, what do I do?" The question was, "Do I have to find a position for him?"

The guy didn't sound desperate in his question and the assumption that because he has 8 employees he would go broke with 8 employees (assuming he fires the guy that replaced this one) is again, not in evidence.

My position has been:

The question wouldn't have entered my mind, and this is how I would have solved my dilemma.

You all have been saying that I am somehow "wrong" in my opinion.

My secondary position has been:

There is no evidence that it would be necessary for the government to take this over in this case. The assumption that it would be is emotive and not rational, there is no evidence that there is a need in this case for the government to "save" this vet.

 

[Cancel7]

My whole point in this thread was not really for this particular case but for the hidden costs of Bush's war that are just now beginning to rear their heads up.

And no Damo the article did not say it would bankrupt him but with only 8 employees, including the owner, I would expect it to be likely.

I agree with Care that the primary responisbility for supporting the injured vets belongs to our government, not small business owners.

I agree.

And Damo, do you really find this position unfathomable? Think about it. Imagine you were passionately against this war from the very beginning. Imagine that the reason you were against it was because you thought about all of the death and suffering it would cause to your own, and to the Iraqis, and you cringed. Imagine that you didn't hate the troops, but rather, were horrified at what was going to happen to them. Imagine that you believed in your heart it was for no good reason whatsoever. (and of course, were later proved right on that, but that's almost ancillary)

Then imagine, you spent years being called an america-hater, and told that you hate the troops and want to spit on them, and that you were demoralizing them.

Who would you want to pay for the ensuing disaster? Because you know, I'd like to tax every son-of-a-bitch who supported this f'ing travesty, and give that money to the returning wounded and mentally devastated so that they might have some hope of survival. Not because I don't want my taxes to pay for it, and not even because I dont' want my taxes increased to help pay for them. I have no objection to either of these things.
But because those bastards should pay. They should pay. They should learn what "support the troops" actually means, and come to understand it means more than slapping a bumper sticker on your car and calling other people names. And they should come to know that supporting the troops, in a war, doesn't end when they come home. It's a lifetime commitment.

 

[Cancel7]

I think that small business owners are the government. We all pay, one way or another.

In this case, if he could show that he could not legitimately find him a place the vet would be out of luck for a job, but would still have disability, etc.

The idea that he would be abandoned because the guy might not be able to find a legitimate position for him is baseless. The idea that the guy would go bankrupt if he had to find a position for him is also baseless, the question didn't say, "If I hire him back I'll go bankrupt, what do I do?" The question was, "Do I have to find a position for him?"

The guy didn't sound desperate in his question and the assumption that because he has 8 employees he would go broke with 8 employees (assuming he fires the guy that replaced this one) is again, not in evidence.

My position has been:

The question wouldn't have entered my mind, and this is how I would have solved my dilemma.

You all have been saying that I am somehow "wrong" in my opinion.

My secondary position has been:

There is no evidence that it would be necessary for the government to take this over in this case. The assumption that it would be is emotive and not rational, there is no evidence that there is a need in this case for the government to "save" this vet.

Fine. But I think that others on this thread are responding to this, with the certain knowledge that there are many tens of thousands, and more to come, in this same position. What are we going to do about them?

 

[uscitizen]

It's a lifetime commitment.
//

yes, they offered up their lives and many lost them in the service of our government, so the government owes them!

And specifically for this war I say "in the service of" not "defence of their country". Same as in the last one...sigh....and the one before....and the one before...
WW2 was a bit different though, It was the last war we had to be involved in.

 

[Damocles]

Fine. But I think that others on this thread are responding to this, with the certain knowledge that there are many tens of thousands, and more to come, in this same position. What are we going to do about them?

What we already do. Disability, etc. Such things have not disappeared and while there are individual extreme cases of bureaucracy gone awry and some vets being ignored, they are found rather quickly by the media, exposed, and then corrected. The fourth institution is doing its job in this case.

Once again, I gave what I would have done then was told I was "wrong" because it would certainly bankrupt him because 1/8th of his workforce was "gone"...

I then gave why I didn't think it was in evidence that it was necessary "in this case", as Care stated, to have the Government come and take over to "save" this guy. I also gave the opinion that most vets don't want that kind of "salvation" or to be given make work jobs in the Government, unless it would be a very last resort.

So far, all I have heard in response is emotive babble and how "wrong" I am in my opinion. I think the emotive response is not rational, and have given very rational reasons why I think so. Yet all I get is insistence that I must see it your way.

I don't think the Government that got them there is the best salvation for them. You won't be able to convince me that it is, either.

 

[uscitizen]

Damo the best salvation for them is not what i am talking about, it is who is responsible for supporting disabled vets. Support and salvation are not the same things.

 

[Damocles]

I agree.

And Damo, do you really find this position unfathomable? Think about it. Imagine you were passionately against this war from the very beginning. Imagine that the reason you were against it was because you thought about all of the death and suffering it would cause to your own, and to the Iraqis, and you cringed. Imagine that you didn't hate the troops, but rather, were horrified at what was going to happen to them. Imagine that you believed in your heart it was for no good reason whatsoever. (and of course, were later proved right on that, but that's almost ancillary)

Then imagine, you spent years being called an america-hater, and told that you hate the troops and want to spit on them, and that you were demoralizing them.

Who would you want to pay for the ensuing disaster? Because you know, I'd like to tax every son-of-a-bitch who supported this f'ing travesty, and give that money to the returning wounded and mentally devastated so that they might have some hope of survival. Not because I don't want my taxes to pay for it, and not even because I dont' want my taxes increased to help pay for them. I have no objection to either of these things.
But because those bastards should pay. They should pay. They should learn what "support the troops" actually means, and come to understand it means more than slapping a bumper sticker on your car and calling other people names. And they should come to know that supporting the troops, in a war, doesn't end when they come home. It's a lifetime commitment.

Oh, and point to where I said it was "unfathomable", I'd love to see that one.

I said irrational, not unfathomable. I said emotive, not unfathomable.

I never once have given indication that I don't understand your response, I have given indication of why I think it is overreaction and emotive response to what can be dealt with rationally. I have not once held that I don't understand your position, I have only held that with the evidence we have currently that your government intervention was not necessarily needed.

 

[Cancel7]

What we already do. Disability, etc. Such things have not disappeared and while there are individual extreme cases of bureaucracy gone awry and some vets being ignored, they are found rather quickly by the media, exposed, and then corrected. The fourth institution is doing its job in this case.

Once again, I gave what I would have done then was told I was "wrong" because it would certainly bankrupt him because 1/8th of his workforce was "gone"...

I then gave why I didn't think it was in evidence that it was necessary "in this case", as Care stated, to have the Government come and take over to "save" this guy. I also gave the opinion that most vets don't want that kind of "salvation" or to be given make work jobs in the Government, unless it would be a very last resort.

So far, all I have heard in response is emotive babble and how "wrong" I am in my opinion. I think the emotive response is not rational, and have given very rational reasons why I think so. Yet all I get is insistence that I must see it your way.

I don't think the Government that got them there is the best salvation for them. You won't be able to convince me that it is, either.

Damo, people can't survive on disability, and the system is not even close to being able to handle, financially, what's coming, and even what is already here. You're fooling yourself.

 

[Cancel7]

Oh, and point to where I said it was "unfathomable", I'd love to see that one.

I said irrational, not unfathomable. I said emotive, not unfathomable.

I never once have given indication that I don't understand your response, I have given indication of why I think it is overreaction and emotive response to what can be dealt with rationally. I have not once held that I don't understand your position, I have only held that with the evidence we have currently that your government intervention was not necessarily needed.

Damo, raising taxes during wartime, and asking for a shared sacrifice, is not irrational.

What is irrational is that this has not been done in this war.

 

[Damocles]

Damo the best salvation for them is not what i am talking about, it is who is responsible for supporting disabled vets. Support and salvation are not the same things.

Once again, the first response that I gave was what I would have done.

The second one was in response to the "OMGZ!@!!11!!, the government should step in and hire this guy!!!11!!!11"

Which was emotive and irrational. There was no evidence present of the NEED for the government to intervene in this case.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, people can't survive on disability, and the system is not even close to being able to handle, financially, what's coming, and even what is already here. You're fooling yourself.

My father survived on disability, this is simply incorrect.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, raising taxes during wartime, and asking for a shared sacrifice, is not irrational.

What is irrational is that this has not been done in this war.

I agree with this. I think it should have been done. When have I ever stated that we should not have raised taxes during wartime?