Democrats versus Republicans

[chucklesR]

The reason workers are rejecting unions is because they can SEE the jobs being moved offshore - and see the typical corruption and overhead a union entails.

Doesn't take a lot of common sense to realize that when the cost of providing 'something' goes up, the price of buying 'something' rises with it.

Only government enjoys a free lunch in that regard. They get to provide 'something' irregardless of current cost by simply adding to the deficit.

[PBzeer]

We all heard about the guys from the Big Three flying to DC in corporate jets and how terrible that was. Didn't hear much, if anything, about the $23 million UAW Resort with the $6 million golf course that's losing millions, when they nixed the Senate plan. Nobody on this earth is all right or all wrong (though some definitely tilt one way or the other).

When you have a problem, you work together to solve it. Not worry about coming out on top.

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by Rumnlime

The reason workers are rejecting unions is their employers threaten them with factory closing and moving to Asia.

That's very simplistic, it's much more complex than that. Society is different now than it was when unions were making most of their progress. All of the things that unions scream about today such as working too many hours, child labor, no time off for injuries, dangerous working conditions, etc, well, all of those things were ACTUALLY HAPPENING when unions became popular in this country. The golden age for unions was the late 1800's to mid 1900's - that is to say, from the end of the civil war lasting for about 50 years. This just isn't the same country anymore, and most unions these days are corporations in themselves, bureaucratic, entrenched, etc. It's just not the same world anymore. If you want to see REAL labor unions these days, you need to go to places like Central America where there is work to be done.

[sailaway21]

Originally Posted by Rumnlime

So let me get this straight. Public sector employees have unions, benefits, and pensions, while these are disappearing in the private sector. You think the solution, then, is to eliminate the benefits in the public sector and trash their unions? How about the other solution? Force private sector employees to provide these benefits? Are you a sailor? Ever hear "A rising tide raises all boats?" I'm a public sector employee and I work hard. I'm paid well for it and looking forward to retiring (at 66) on our boat. But I'd have to work 20 years and save every penny of the money (not eating or paying any other bills) to buy the lowest priced house in the city I work in.

You want security? Tell it to the Marines. There's your security.

Unions? Most people do the simple math and figure out that they'd be giving ten percent of what they could make from their employer to some stranger just for the privilege of that stranger negotiating for them. Many of us have decided to eliminate the middle man.

Government unions are a bit of an oxymoron. They're really nothing more than lobbying firms. Their union contracts are not rooted in the real world where either employees or businesses have to actually pay for escalating costs like medical benefits. Government employees, their unions, and their legislative masters have one glaring difference from private industry. They don't have to actually pay for what they do or think is correct; they have the tax payer for that nasty little detail.

Your government retirement and benefit package will far exceed anything realized in private industry unless the retiree has invested extremely wisely or been lucky. While government civil service pensions are under no threat whatsoever, Social Security ain't lookin' too secure. Oh yeah, we raided that fund so we could hire more government employees and could afford to pay them well and retire them well.

Yes, a rising tide does lift all boats but the tide in this case is controlled by the invisible hand of the market, not the wishes of government. If you think that government can do this just take a look at the history of post-war Britain, specifically the denouement of her socialist polices in the 1970's and 80's.

The reason you cannot afford a house within the city you work is an absence of market forces. Things like rent control and restrictive zoning laws mean that the cost of out of date and insufficient houses rise while making what few new houses are built prohibitively expensive. Eliminate excessive zoning requirements and rent control in, say, Manhattan and the Bronx, and you'd see a veritable explosion of demolition and new building almost overnight. Instead, what you have is a government run housing lottery that satisfies only those wealthy enough to opt out of it. Or do you think that there is no room for more housing in NYC?

Reagan said that government isn't the solution, it's the problem. Wrap your mind around that and you'll begin to live free.

[Rumnlime]

Well, this has been fun, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. However, before I abandon this thread, I would like to comment on a few statements that have recently appeared.
1. I pay less than 1% of my gross pay to have a union negotiate for me, not 10%.
2. My Social Security has been used by the Bush administration to f**k up Iraq, not to overpay government workers.
3. The "invisible hand" of the market is manipulated by very visible forces seeking their own advantage. It is not impersonal.
4. The HOPE program referenced earlier was just an attempt at window-dressing by the Bush administration to pretend that they gave a damn about the problem. No way was it ever funded by $350 billion. That money went to the Wall Street fat cats.
5. Personal economic security and national military security are not the same thing.
6. Lest anyone forget, police and fire are also public sector employees. Anyone think they are overpaid?
7. Moody's ran an excellent table showing the change in GDP for every dollar in federal tax cuts or stimulus. Might be worth your time taking a look at the table before making any further comments about the economic benefits of tax cuts for the wealthy or corporations. I'll sum it up for you: they don't work.

[PBzeer]

Let me see if I have this right. The purpose of taxes is to amass revenue for the government.The Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts all increased the amount of tax generated revenue. So you claim they don't work?

It is not the role, function, nor obligation of government to provide you or anyone else with economic security. That you may choose to let them assume that responsibility, is your choice, and not one you can force on others.

[chucklesR]

4. The HOPE program referenced earlier was just an attempt at window-dressing by the Bush administration to pretend that they gave a damn about the problem. No way was it ever funded by $350 billion. That money went to the Wall Street fat cats.

The HOPE program was written by and for the previous Congress. A Congress controlled by the democrat's since 2006. You can HOPE and you can obfuscate, but you can't change the facts, Bush's choices were veto this semi-crap filled piece of legislation and have nothing, or let it go and have HOPE.

Typically, you think the money went to Wall Street, did you bother checking for a single f'ing FACT?

no, you didn't.

[sailaway21]

Rumnline,
Where oh where did you ever get the idea that the government was supposed to provide you with economic security? Certainly not from the Constitution.

Before you abandon the thread you might consider that Social Security has been used to fund everything and not just the things you disagree with. Of course, your 1% union dues ensures that it keeps funding you and not the Marines, right? One man's pork is another man's necessity.

Since the hand of the market is so visible to you perhaps you could explain last year's run up in oil prices.

You're right about police and fire. That's why the Clinton administration's program that put 100,000 new police officers on the street was such a typical federal government joke. It provided funding for small towns with no crime problem the same as it did large cities with a huge crime problem. Typical one size fits all federal program. Course out here the cop's union won't let them be utilized for picking dandelions which is about all we had for an extra cop to do. But we got one anyway. Sure, we need more of that. Pretty soon we'll be running the whole country the way NYC is run.

[chucklesR]

And let's not forget that 99% of those 100,000 police officers were laid off the second the federal dollars ran out, creating false hope and unemployment in it's wake.

But man, it sure did sound good didn't it.

[AdamLein]

Originally Posted by Rumnlime

How about the other solution? Force

That's what it always comes down to, ain't it.