PDA

View Full Version : Fixing the economy is way to simple


noonereal
11-08-2010, 10:36 AM
Fixing the American economy is way to simple. All you need to do is raise taxes, across the board temporarily (4 years instead of cutting taxes, which is just insane) and use that money to put people to work building infrastructure.

That's it. It is that simple.

Now the folks on unemployment have a job and industry is being subsidized by the infrastructure when it is completed. What a perfect marriage.

People working, (paying taxes) are not in a depression it is those unemployed who are. This is a win win and common sense.

Thank you very much

hold the applause, (except for Whell, I'l accept your accolades)

BlueStreak
11-08-2010, 11:20 AM
I think that was done at least once before............................................ ...

Dave

d-ray657
11-08-2010, 11:45 AM
I think that was done at least once before............................................ ...

Dave

And wee still see buildings and roads that were the result of that program. For those who say that spending should be an investment, I can't see a better one.

Regards,

D-Ray

BlueStreak
11-08-2010, 12:09 PM
Drive on them every day.

Dave

piece-itpete
11-08-2010, 12:18 PM
If the government hired everyone out of work, we'd have 0% unemployment.

I think this is the Dem plan :p

Pete

merrylander
11-08-2010, 02:18 PM
If the government hired everyone out of work, we'd have 0% unemployment.

I think this is the Dem plan :p

Pete

We have about 6 million companies, if each one hired only one new employee the rate would drop to 4%.:rolleyes:

HatchetJack
11-08-2010, 03:43 PM
Noon, you are right we need job creation. I am not against raising taxes when
needed but the economy is so stagnant now is not the time. I think a better
way would be to create jobs due to demand. In order to do that we have to
have product shortages. A grass roots movement to buy American would be
great but I do not know how to start that trend with this generation of
consumers. Someone in power needs to man up and put a stop to all these
imported products that send our wealth to other countries or foreign
corporations. There needs to be better incentives for American companies
to hire Americans and do business here. Paying 40 -50% or more in taxes
and trying to compete with foreign countries sent them over there to begin
with. I think once we get Americans back to work and generating income
there will be money available for bridges and roads ect... I know most of
you are against an American business profiting at the expense of American
workers but really the only way to get back to where we were is to get back
to where we were. Back up and punt and start playing defense again. The
trick offense or economy didn't work. But whatever go ahead and slice and
dice my comments however you guys see fit.

whell
11-08-2010, 03:58 PM
Noon, you are right we need job creation. I am not against raising taxes when
needed but the economy is so stagnant now is not the time. I think a better
way would be to create jobs due to demand. In order to do that we have to
have product shortages. A grass roots movement to buy American would be
great but I do not know how to start that trend with this generation of
consumers. Someone in power needs to man up and put a stop to all these
imported products that send our wealth to other countries or foreign
corporations. There needs to be better incentives for American companies
to hire Americans and do business here. Paying 40 -50% or more in taxes
and trying to compete with foreign countries sent them over there to begin
with. I think once we get Americans back to work and generating income
there will be money available for bridges and roads ect... I know most of
you are against an American business profiting at the expense of American
workers but really the only way to get back to where we were is to get back
to where we were. Back up and punt and start playing defense again. The
trick offense or economy didn't work. But whatever go ahead and slice and
dice my comments however you guys see fit.

Jack, Jack, Jack... You need help, but the goods news is that you've come to the right place. Spend some more time here and you'll hopefully learn the following:

- Corporations are not to be trusted.
- CEO's, or anyone in the "C-Suites" in corporate America can be expected to work for their own selfish ends, and of course, when doing that, just end up screwing the little guy.
- Increased taxation followed by increased government spending is the preferred way to stimulate the economy (of course, we must suspend or disregard the laws of supply and demand here, but let's not let details get in the way)
- You'll resonate big time with folks here by decrying corporations for exporting jobs, but you'll lose them with that whole "better incentives for American companies" thing. No, companies should hire and retain American workers out of a sense of the common good, no matter what product that those workers produce, no matter what industry, no matter what the cost of that labor might be. Profit? You're right. Screw it, its inherently evil.
- Wait, the cost of that labor is not competitive from a global perspective? Well, you'll learn that answer is to start trade wars by slapping stiff tariffs on the goods produced by and imported from Chinese and Mexican companies that have slave labor.

Stick around, Jack. You've much to learn, but since you're here, there's hope for you.




:D

finnbow
11-08-2010, 04:07 PM
Jack, Jack, Jack... You need help, but the goods news is that you've come to the right place. Spend some more time here and you'll hopefully learn the following:

- Corporations are not to be trusted.
- CEO's, or anyone in the "C-Suites" in corporate America can be expected to work for their own selfish ends, and of course, when doing that, just end up screwing the little guy.
- Increased taxation followed by increased government spending is the preferred way to stimulate the economy (of course, we must suspend or disregard the laws of supply and demand here, but let's not let details get in the way)
- You'll resonate big time with folks here by decrying corporations for exporting jobs, but you'll lose them with that whole "better incentives for American companies" thing. No, companies should hire and retain American workers out of a sense of the common good, no matter what product that those workers produce, no matter what industry, no matter what the cost of that labor might be. Profit? You're right. Screw it, its inherently evil.
- Wait, the cost of that labor is not competitive from a global perspective? Well, you'll learn that answer is to start trade wars by slapping stiff tariffs on the goods produced by and imported from Chinese and Mexican companies that have slave labor.

Stick around, Jack. You've much to learn, but since you're here, there's hope for you.

Feel free to disregard the above. I believe Whell actually thinks Reaganomics is a viable economic model.;)

HatchetJack
11-08-2010, 04:27 PM
I liked ole Reagan, when he was around we had Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.
Now we have no Hope and no Cash.

Fast_Eddie
11-08-2010, 05:34 PM
Good a plan as any. Let's take a closer look at the plan the Republicans have offered in the wake of their "historic victory" last week. Let's see they plan to... Um. Their plan includes... What they've suggested is...

Oh, wait. They don't have any plan. I forgot.

d-ray657
11-08-2010, 05:56 PM
Just for the record folks, "too" is the word to use when comparing the degree of something - size, length, repetition, etc - to the expected proportion. For example, something that is larger than it should be is too large. Sorry, the editor in me couldn't be held back any longer.

Regards,

D-Ray

whell
11-08-2010, 07:00 PM
Good a plan as any. Let's take a closer look at the plan the Republicans have offered in the wake of their "historic victory" last week. Let's see they plan to... Um. Their plan includes... What they've suggested is...

Oh, wait. They don't have any plan. I forgot.

We can see how well that unspecified "hope and change" has worked out. :p

d-ray657
11-08-2010, 07:36 PM
We can see how well that unspecified "hope and change" has worked out. :p

So you finally noticed how the changes made by this Administration and Congress (with a nod to the Fed) avoided a depression and saved capitalism (dammit), including the nation's most visible manufacturers, the auto companies.
There's hope for you yet.:D

whell
11-08-2010, 09:11 PM
So you finally noticed how the changes made by this Administration and Congress (with a nod to the Fed) avoided a depression and saved capitalism (dammit), including the nation's most visible manufacturers, the auto companies.
There's hope for you yet.:D

This is a President, surrounded by a team of advisers, that has never produced a product, managed an enterprise more complicated than, say, a lemonade stand, and never hired, managed or fired a single employee, yet we're asked to believe that they single-handedly saved the economy and capitalism.

Yea, that's me, falling out of the turnip truck! ;)

finnbow
11-08-2010, 09:34 PM
This is a President, surrounded by a team of advisers, that has never produced a product, managed an enterprise more complicated than, say, a lemonade stand, and never hired, managed or fired a single employee, yet we're asked to believe that they single-handedly saved the economy and capitalism.

Yea, that's me, falling out of the turnip truck! ;)

It seems that our first MBA President got us into this mess. Yep, the same one who engaged in insider trading with Harken Energy and whose biggest corporate donor was Enron.

http://alaric3rh.home.sprynet.com/science/bceo.html

I'll take intelligent but inexperienced over an ignorant failure any day of the week.

d-ray657
11-08-2010, 09:47 PM
How can "they" "single-handedly" do anything? Does not compute.

I suppose the nation was better off when a failed businessman was running it.

The things that succeeded - the loans to to the auto companies, the loans to the banks, the stimulus plan, were fought and vilified by conservatives, but they worked. The best that you could come up with the explain those successes is even a blind squirrel find a nut.

You are not willing to accept that Obama has the intellect to digest and understand complicated economic information and choose strategies according to that information. He is somewhat stunted in his ability to whittle those complex decisions down into bite sized nuggets tor the television generation. Certainly he is not the gifted salesman that Reagan and Clinton were. I'll still choose the smartest kid in the class to make the important decisions.

Regards,

D-Ray

d-ray657
11-08-2010, 09:54 PM
It seems that our first MBA President got us into this mess. Yep, the same one who engaged in insider trading with Harken Energy and whose biggest corporate donor was Enron.

http://alaric3rh.home.sprynet.com/science/bceo.html

I'll take intelligent but inexperienced over an ignorant failure any day of the week.

Hey Finn, I didn't cheat off of your paper. I promise. My typing was interrupted by a wife that wanted to talk to me before she left for work. I didn't see your post until I had submitted mine. Cross my heart and hope to die.;)

Regards,

D-Ray

Fast_Eddie
11-08-2010, 09:59 PM
We can see how well that unspecified "hope and change" has worked out. :p

To be fair, you can't really say he didn't do anything. In fact, I believe it was all the things he did that got him in trouble. Agree or disagree with him, he did pass the Stimulus, bailed out the banks, bought General Motors and just yesterday printed a lot more money.

I don't care if you don't like the things he did, but it's pretty misleading to suggest that he didn't stand at the plate and swing for the cheap seats.

Fast_Eddie
11-08-2010, 10:00 PM
This is a President, surrounded by a team of advisers, that has never produced a product, managed an enterprise more complicated than, say, a lemonade stand, and never hired, managed or fired a single employee,

Gee, compared to that, a failed oil company and a baseball team sound pretty impressive. Maybe we can get someone who served half a term as Gov. of a state with fewer people than a decent sized city next.

Fast_Eddie
11-08-2010, 10:02 PM
Well shoot. You guys don't need me at all. But, you know, at least we're all sining from the same hymn book.

whell
11-08-2010, 10:23 PM
You are not willing to accept that Obama has the intellect to digest and understand complicated economic information and choose strategies according to that information. He is somewhat stunted in his ability to whittle those complex decisions down into bite sized nuggets tor the television generation. Certainly he is not the gifted salesman that Reagan and Clinton were. I'll still choose the smartest kid in the class to make the important decisions.

Regards,

D-Ray

Nope, I'm not. This is a guy whose handlers seem worried to let him loose without a teleprompter, and when he doesn't have one available he often comes off sounding like a boob. His comments and responses to questions contort into vague, rambling and homogenized cliches that might, on a good day, come within a country mile of answering the question. This doesn't come off, to your point, like lack of oratorical skills. It comes of sounding like someone trying to BS their way through a question when they have no idea what they're taking about.

His stimulus package - a pork festival if there ever was one - had to be passed in a lightning fast manner because we had to "act now (in 2009) to get people back to work and get keep unemployment from exceeding 8% by year end. Would someone please tell the genius in chief that unemployment is above 9.5% and holding...for most of this year and last?

He was the least vetted - by a willing media who drank the Kool-aid of the "historic presidency" - of any presidential candidate that I can remember. He's never had a job that has allowed him to demonstrate the intellectual firepower that you seem willing to imbue him with. He seems framed by what appear to be rigid personal biases..until prompted by his handlers (i.e., the beer summit).

He is prone to making some towering gaffes that make one question whether he really is "smarter than a 6th grader". For example:

"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go."

Or maybe his is really smarter than all of us. As he said at a Ramadan ceremony earlier this year: Ramadan greeting, "Islam has always been part of America and ... American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country." I certainly can't think of a single "extraordinary contribution" (and this is not meant to demean American Muslims, but put the comment in context) but maybe I'm just not that smart.

Now, I do agree with some things he has said. He wants to get away from the concept of bailing out "too big to fail" enterprises, in whatever industry they may be in. However, this is like the fox telling the chicken that he's not hungry, because he's already eaten his way though the chicken coupe. While I agree with his words, he's not got a lot of credibility on this issue.

BlueStreak
11-08-2010, 11:45 PM
Good a plan as any. Let's take a closer look at the plan the Republicans have offered in the wake of their "historic victory" last week. Let's see they plan to... Um. Their plan includes... What they've suggested is...

Oh, wait. They don't have any plan. I forgot.

Well, their plan is to set about establishing a McCarthy style HCUA. See, this way they can keep the public distracted by wasting our time, (and money) with endless hearings, theatrics, witch hunts and boogeyman chasing.
And that whole economy thingy? Uh, ummm....we preserved the Bush tax cu.....LOOK, IT'S THAT HOMO BARNEY FRANK!!!! GIT 'IM!!!

Dave

BlueStreak
11-08-2010, 11:56 PM
This is a President, surrounded by a team of advisers, that has never produced a product, managed an enterprise more complicated than, say, a lemonade stand, and never hired, managed or fired a single employee, yet we're asked to believe that they single-handedly saved the economy and capitalism.

Yea, that's me, falling out of the turnip truck! ;)

No, not single handedly, that's ridiculous.

But when the next Republican Superhero steps into the Presidential phonebooth and straps on his/her cape, suddenly the notion of a singular saviour in the form of an Oval Office occupant will become perfectly reasonable.

Won't it, my friend?:rolleyes:

Dave

P.s.
And don't try to tell me otherwise. Because that's about all we hear from the right is about how Saint Ronnie single handedly saved not just America, but the entire world, ferfuksake.

noonereal
11-09-2010, 05:51 AM
Noon, you are right we need job creation. I am not against raising taxes when
needed but the economy is so stagnant now is not the time. I think a better
way would be to create jobs due to demand. In order to do that we have to
have product shortages. A grass roots movement to buy American would be
great but I do not know how to start that trend with this generation of
consumers. Someone in power needs to man up and put a stop to all these
imported products that send our wealth to other countries or foreign
corporations. There needs to be better incentives for American companies
to hire Americans and do business here. Paying 40 -50% or more in taxes
and trying to compete with foreign countries sent them over there to begin
with. I think once we get Americans back to work and generating income
there will be money available for bridges and roads ect... I know most of
you are against an American business profiting at the expense of American
workers but really the only way to get back to where we were is to get back
to where we were. Back up and punt and start playing defense again. The
trick offense or economy didn't work. But whatever go ahead and slice and
dice my comments however you guys see fit.

We know American Corps will not hire nor source America so giving "incentives" to American corps will not work. The best way to create demand is to put money in the hands of those who will spend it. That would be the unemployed or lowest income folks. The wealthy will simple add to their savings which only helps them and not the country. So if we put the unemployed to work we stimulate the economy and get things but at the same time which is another free ride for private corps. Win win.

Of course now is the time to raise taxes. The people that are working can live without a frw extra dollars and the few extra dollars would put folks to work. Putting those folks to work would stimulate the economy. If we give big business incentives half the money is wasted and goes straight to profits. If the government does it we get all our monies worth.

noonereal
11-09-2010, 05:53 AM
Stick around, Jack. You've much to learn, but since you're here, there's hope for you.




:D

It seems you start with a conclusion and then build a case to support it. Why you are so desperate to hold on to such hooey is beyond me.
I would suggest you stick around. You've much to learn, but since you're here, there's hope for you.

noonereal
11-09-2010, 06:11 AM
I liked ole Reagan, when he was around we had Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.
Now we have no Hope and no Cash.

yes we discussed this yesterday

the Andy and Opie syndrome ;)

noonereal
11-09-2010, 06:13 AM
Just for the record folks, "too" is the word to use when comparing the degree of something - size, length, repetition, etc - to the expected proportion. For example, something that is larger than it should be is too large. Sorry, the editor in me couldn't be held back any longer.

Regards,

D-Ray

language is the art of communication and I find whichever is used the idea is conveyed just fine

you should agree toooooooooooo:p

noonereal
11-09-2010, 06:17 AM
This is a President, surrounded by a team of advisers, that has never produced a product, managed an enterprise more complicated than, say, a lemonade stand, and never hired, managed or fired a single employee, yet we're asked to believe that they single-handedly saved the economy and capitalism.

Yea, that's me, falling out of the turnip truck! ;)

yep, better to have someone like Bush WHO ran his businesses into the ground only to be saved by friends of his dad.

You know whell, most folks who keep falling eventually figure out how to "balance" themselves.

just sayin'

noonereal
11-09-2010, 06:20 AM
Gee, compared to that, a failed oil company and a baseball team sound pretty impressive. Maybe we can get someone who served half a term as Gov. of a state with fewer people than a decent sized city next.

a perfect plan

http://www.palinaspresident.us/

whell
11-09-2010, 07:14 AM
No, not single handedly, that's ridiculous.

But when the next Republican Superhero steps into the Presidential phonebooth and straps on his/her cape, suddenly the notion of a singular saviour in the form of an Oval Office occupant will become perfectly reasonable.

Won't it, my friend?:rolleyes:

Dave

P.s.
And don't try to tell me otherwise. Because that's about all we hear from the right is about how Saint Ronnie single handedly saved not just America, but the entire world, ferfuksake.

Well then why ask the question if you think you already know the answer? The response would have been "no", and then there could have been a potentially interesting follow up discussion. :p

merrylander
11-09-2010, 07:57 AM
I liked ole Reagan, when he was around we had Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.
Now we have no Hope and no Cash.

Actually Jack I'm doing quite well, but then my pension is paid by a Canadian company with a fully funded pension plan, not some half-assed airline that filed bankruptcy so it could run away from its pension plan.

Now would you consider Google as being a successful company? Because there are so many damn loopholes in the tax plan that they only paid 18% income tax last year, not the 35% we hear all the righties moaning about.

The only folks who pay anything close to the 35% are small companies without a smart tax accountant.

Of course we could start by telling all those hedge fund managers to pay their fair share and stop letting them get off with a 15% rate.:rolleyes:

merrylander
11-09-2010, 08:02 AM
How can "they" "single-handedly" do anything? Does not compute.

I suppose the nation was better off when a failed businessman was running it.

The things that succeeded - the loans to to the auto companies, the loans to the banks, the stimulus plan, were fought and vilified by conservatives, but they worked. The best that you could come up with the explain those successes is even a blind squirrel find a nut.

D-Ray

Now you realize why I no longer respond to whell's bleatings, he lost any respecct I might have had for "his" opinions with that come back. That comment showed all the intellect of a fence post.:D

BlueStreak
11-09-2010, 08:04 AM
Well then why ask the question if you think you already know the answer? The response would have been "no", and then there could have been a potentially interesting follow up discussion. :p

Why ask the question when I already know the answer? Because I do it all too often these days. Yes, things really have become that predictable.
Predictable, and ridiculous. Don't you agree?;)

Dave

merrylander
11-09-2010, 08:05 AM
Why ask the question when I already know the answer? Because I do it all too often these days. Yes, things really have become that predictable.
Predictable, and ridiculous. Don't you agree?;)

Dave

"Don't you love farce, . . . ":p

BlueStreak
11-09-2010, 08:09 AM
Actually Jack I'm doing quite well, but then my pension is paid by a Canadian company with a fully funded pension plan, not some half-assed airline that filed bankruptcy so it could run away from its pension plan.

Now would you consider Google as being a successful company? Because there are so many damn loopholes in the tax plan that they only paid 18% income tax last year, not the 35% we hear all the righties moaning about.

The only folks who pay anything close to the 35% are small companies without a smart tax accountant.

Of course we could start by telling all those hedge fund managers to pay their fair share and stop letting them get off with a 15% rate.:rolleyes:

Aren't you getting tired of the way people will say;
"If you tax the rich, you kill their ability to invest!", then turn around and proclaim, "The rich don't pay taxes, anyways. They just pass the cost onto us!"? Sometimes these contradictory statements are even made within the same conversation, by the same person.:rolleyes:

Just making an observation.

Dave

BlueStreak
11-09-2010, 09:55 AM
This is a President, surrounded by a team of advisers, that has never produced a product, managed an enterprise more complicated than, say, a lemonade stand, and never hired, managed or fired a single employee, yet we're asked to believe that they single-handedly saved the economy and capitalism.

Yea, that's me, falling out of the turnip truck! ;)

What business did Reagan run before becoming President? Or Eisenhower, or Kennedy, or Washington, or Nixon, or Roosevelt (Either one of them.), or Grant or................................Hmmmmm? Oh, that's right, Washington ran a.............Plantation, with slave labor, sooooo does that count?

GWB did, he just wasn't very good at it. So he went into politics. Then there's Fiorina and Whitman........oh, those aren't very good examples either, they pretty much did what GW did, only they didn't get elected.
Well, Palin ran a busine......or did she? I know McCain did, he ran a...............Oh.:rolleyes:

Dave

merrylander
11-09-2010, 10:05 AM
Aren't you getting tired of the way people will say;
"If you tax the rich, you kill their ability to invest!", then turn around and proclaim, "The rich don't pay taxes, anyways. They just pass the cost onto us!"? Sometimes these contradictory statements are even made within the same conversation, by the same person.:rolleyes:

Just making an observation.

Dave

Dave, I came hear for purely personal reasons - the love of a good woman - even though her fellow contrymen gave her a hard time, probably because she is of Italian/Spanish ancestry and because she is a damned accomplished person. She learned how to fly, single engine and gliders, survived on her own from age 18, built a successful company with up to 80 employees at one point.

Seing as how I was here I decided to apply for citizenship because it gave me one vote - and the right to criticize the government and business. I lectured abroad - that brought money into the country, I still do today with my pension, so despite some of the snarky comments here I will bloody well continue to point out where things are going wrong, and that is not exactly rocket science.

Our biggest problem (yes my dears it is "we" now and I have the paper to prove it) is this jingoistic attitude that we know best, and no one in the world can teach us a bloody thing (probably why Jingo Bells is the favourite Christmas carol).

So lets take a short look at where I came from;

a)Practically no national debt.

b)No bank failures because no derivatives.

c)A better motgage plan

d)Canadian home owenership exceeds American by about 1.5%

e)No Canadian ever went bankrupt due to medical expenses.

f)Canadians are healthier than Americans.

Just maybe they are doing something right? I mean we can't blame all of that on the climate. Is it so bloody painful and embarassing to admit that just maybe some other people have better ideas?

So I will not apologize for my attitude, I bring more to this country that I get from it so I feel no embarrassment in saying "If your government gives you a PITA you are doing it wrong".:rolleyes:

BlueStreak
11-09-2010, 11:11 AM
I don't understand how you took offense to my post, Rob. It wasn't aimed at you. And, I'm bewildered that you took it that way.

It was aimed primarily at the right-wing punditry, who do as I described on a daily basis, ad nauseum.

I happen to agree with your statements in the previous post. Spot on, as usual.

And to ad; We who were born here were raised to believe that America does no wrong. That we are the best at everything, and that if anyone has a different way it's because they are too stupid to learn from us. America is the only nation that has a clue, we were told. I actually used to think that way, Rob. My own father opened my eyes long ago. Then I went in the Navy and travelled the world, and gained that world view. Eye opening to say the least. Asia, Europe, Mexico, Australia, Canada..........I've never looked back. I've learned that America is at once a great nation and a nation that could learn a lot from other nations.

I'll never think the old way, ever again.

Dave

whell
11-09-2010, 11:49 AM
What business did Reagan run before becoming President? Or Eisenhower, or Kennedy, or Washington, or Nixon, or Roosevelt (Either one of them.), or Grant or................................Hmmmmm? Oh, that's right, Washington ran a.............Plantation, with slave labor, sooooo does that count?

GWB did, he just wasn't very good at it. So he went into politics. Then there's Fiorina and Whitman........oh, those aren't very good examples either, they pretty much did what GW did, only they didn't get elected.
Well, Palin ran a busine......or did she? I know McCain did, he ran a...............Oh.:rolleyes:

Dave

Nor, with any of the above, are we being asked to take the leap of faith required to give credit for reviving the economy and saving capitalism within 2 short years of taking office.

whell
11-09-2010, 11:58 AM
What business did Reagan run before becoming President? Or Eisenhower, or Kennedy, or Washington, or Nixon, or Roosevelt (Either one of them.), or Grant or................................


Reagan spent two terms as California Governor (and a term running the Screen Actors Guild before that). By the time he got to the Oval Office, Reagan would have far more experience as an executive than a Junior Senator or community service worker.

Eisenhour - a military commander, which would require and sharpen much the same business accumen and political savvy as a business exec.

If memory serves, Nixon managed a branch of a successful law firm for a number of years prior to entering the service in WWII.

You get the picture...

d-ray657
11-09-2010, 12:06 PM
Reagan spent two terms as California Governor (and a term running the Screen Actors Guild before that). By the time he got to the Oval Office, Reagan would have far more experience as an executive than a Junior Senator or community service worker.

Eisenhour - a military commander, which would require and sharpen much the same business accumen and political savvy as a business exec.

If memory serves, Nixon managed a branch of a successful law firm for a number of years prior to entering the service in WWII.

You get the picture...

I get the picture that you have determined that Obama gets no credit for any thing positive that was undertaken. Nevertheless, you are more than willing to blame him for things that you suppose will happen.

Regards,

D-Ray

noonereal
11-09-2010, 12:11 PM
I get the picture that you have determined that Obama gets no credit for any thing positive that was undertaken. Nevertheless, you are more than willing to blame him for things that you suppose will happen.

Regards,

D-Ray

surprised?

In 8 years Bush did one thing right, TARP, that's it.

whell
11-09-2010, 12:56 PM
I get the picture that you have determined that Obama gets no credit for any thing positive that was undertaken.

No, that wasn't really the point of the discussion.



Nevertheless, you are more than willing to blame him for things that you suppose will happen.


Where in this thread did I attempt to blame Obama for anything? Maybe in other threads I've questioned the wisdom of his policies, and in this thread I've poked a bit of fun at attempts to paint Obama as someone possessing some unique insight, but I don't recall blaming.

whell
11-09-2010, 01:13 PM
surprised?

In 8 years Bush did one thing right, TARP, that's it.

So, increased funding for AIDS victims was wrong? Increased spending on Education, and supporting the Department of Labor at a time when most Republicans wanted to nuke it? I'd think that most liberals would applaud this. The Healthy Forests legislation was wrong? The Great Lakes Legacy Act was wrong? The Clear Skies Act was wrong? Adding prescription drug coverage to Medicare was wrong?

I'm curious regarding your take on these items, since these items are reflective of a more liberal domestic agenda.

merrylander
11-09-2010, 01:18 PM
I don't understand how you took offense to my post, Rob. It wasn't aimed at you. And, I'm bewildered that you took it that way.

It was aimed primarily at the right-wing punditry, who do as I described on a daily basis, ad nauseum.

I happen to agree with your statements in the previous post. Spot on, as usual.

And to ad; We who were born here were raised to believe that America does no wrong. That we are the best at everything, and that if anyone has a different way it's because they are too stupid to learn from us. America is the only nation that has a clue, we were told. I actually used to think that way, Rob. My own father opened my eyes long ago. Then I went in the Navy and travelled the world, and gained that world view. Eye opening to say the least. Asia, Europe, Mexico, Australia, Canada..........I've never looked back. I've learned that America is at once a great nation and a nation that could learn a lot from other nations.

I'll never think the old way, ever again.

Dave

Dave, I am sorry, it was not directed at you, you are the last person in this group that I would ever take offense to.

It has been an odd morning, just after I posted that, Better Gassings and Electrocutions (aka BG&E) decided to do one of their planned outages. I called and they said power would be back by 2:30. As it was barely 11:15 I hooked up the generator.

Then got the golfcart out of the barn and mulched some garden beds the handyman had cleaned out. And that dear readers is my physical exercise for today.:D

noonereal
11-09-2010, 01:49 PM
So, increased funding for AIDS victims was wrong? Increased spending on Education, and supporting the Department of Labor at a time when most Republicans wanted to nuke it? I'd think that most liberals would applaud this. The Healthy Forests legislation was wrong? The Great Lakes Legacy Act was wrong? The Clear Skies Act was wrong? Adding prescription drug coverage to Medicare was wrong?

I'm curious regarding your take on these items, since these items are reflective of a more liberal domestic agenda.

I can't address all of them at once so let's throw a dart and start with Medicare Part D.
First let me say I am surprised you supported it. I guess you did for the same reasons I did not. It leaves far to many options open to seniors who have been ripped off through "free market" offerings. It also is a windfall for big pharma as Medicare became the largest healthcare group and do not negotiate pricing as does every other prescription drug insurer. Add to that the donut issue that had to be closed by Obie.

This bill was big pharma and heath insurance friendly at the taxpayers expense first and a benefit for our most vulnerable only as a vehicle to that end. This is no freebie, this is strictly a subsidy of senior drugs that demands our seniors invest what little money they have to be of any value at all.

A terrible bill.

Next?

Fast_Eddie
11-09-2010, 02:12 PM
So, increased funding for AIDS victims was wrong? Increased spending on Education, and supporting the Department of Labor at a time when most Republicans wanted to nuke it? I'd think that most liberals would applaud this. The Healthy Forests legislation was wrong? The Great Lakes Legacy Act was wrong? The Clear Skies Act was wrong? Adding prescription drug coverage to Medicare was wrong?

Socialist.

whell
11-09-2010, 02:15 PM
First let me say I am surprised you supported it. I guess you did for the same reasons I did not.

I don't and actually agree that its a terrible bill. We'd likely find we believe its a terrible bill for different reasons, however. ;)

That leaves the following on the list:

Increased funding for AIDS victims, increased spending on Education, and supporting the Department of Labor at a time when most Republicans wanted to nuke it, the Healthy Forests legislation, the Great Lakes Legacy Act and The Clear Skies Act.

piece-itpete
11-09-2010, 02:32 PM
I agree with Eddie :grin:

Pete

merrylander
11-09-2010, 02:41 PM
I agree with Eddie :grin:

Pete

I agree with noon, it was an open handout to big pharma, we looked at it and said screw that, we would lose money on it.:p

Fast_Eddie
11-09-2010, 02:57 PM
increased spending on Education

You may be right, but I went to see if it was true and I'm finding a lot of this:

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=86486

http://www.eschoolnews.com/2007/11/14/bush-vetoes-education-spending-bill/

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ453086&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ453086

http://www.amazon.com/education-spending-dateline-washington-President/dp/B0007UR4AM

I'm sure there were many opportunities in 8 years to make decisions that effected spending for education, and I'm sure at some point he had to have signed something that raised funding for some education somewhere. It would be difficult to be President for 8 years and not. But by and large, it sure *looks* like he took every opportunity to cut education spending.

Like I said, this isn't me, this is the google machine talking. It could be wrong and if you have information that says otherwise I'd look at it. But an anecdotal "he signed that one bill that one time" isn't going to do it.

Thanks,

Ed

d-ray657
11-09-2010, 03:01 PM
I don't and actually agree that its a terrible bill. We'd likely find we believe its a terrible bill for different reasons, however. ;)

That leaves the following on the list:

Increased funding for AIDS victims, increased spending on Education, and supporting the Department of Labor at a time when most Republicans wanted to nuke it, the Healthy Forests legislation, the Great Lakes Legacy Act and The Clear Skies Act.

There are a number of labor unions who would like nuke the DOL. Under their interpretation of the law, if a labor union rep and management have two lunches, it's just fine for the labor rep to pick up the tab on the first one, but a prohibited transaction if the management rep picked it up the second time. The DOL keeps union leaders under much stricter scrutiny than corporate management.

I will give Bush credit for signing the legislation that made significant improvements in the Americans with Disabilities Act, which had been interpreted into near oblivion. I am not familiar with the statutes you mentioned, but I am about as skeptical about the names of statutes as I am of the names of anonymously funded political committees. The Patriot Act stands as a morbid example.

Regards,

D-Ray

piece-itpete
11-09-2010, 03:01 PM
I wonder what deal Obama and Co & Big Pharma came up with in their closed door meeting?

Pete

d-ray657
11-09-2010, 03:08 PM
No, that wasn't really the point of the discussion.

It most certainly was. We mentioned examples of programs and government actions that made an enormous difference in keeping the economy moving. You sought to minimize all of the accomplishments.


Where in this thread did I attempt to blame Obama for anything? Maybe in other threads I've questioned the wisdom of his policies, and in this thread I've poked a bit of fun at attempts to paint Obama as someone possessing some unique insight, but I don't recall blaming.
You might try reading that last sentence again. It pretty well describes your entire monologue on the health care reform. You predict untold dire consequences for the medical system.

Regards,

D-Ray

finnbow
11-09-2010, 03:19 PM
... and supporting the Department of Labor at a time when most Republicans wanted to nuke it?

I personally know a number of people who work at the national office of DOL in Washington. I think, to a person, not one would commend Dubya for his "support." All he did was frustrate the chit out of them by erecting roadblocks to them doing their jobs. For example, he never seated the statutorily mandated advisory committees to OSHA (one for General Industry and one for Construction) during his entire tenure. He didn't want anyone pointing out shortcomings in OSHA's rulemaking or enforcement efforts during his adminstration.

merrylander
11-09-2010, 03:26 PM
I personally know a number of people who work at the national office of DOL in Washington. I think, to a person, not one would commend Dubya for his "support." All he did was frustrate the chit out of them by erecting roadblocks to them doing their jobs. For example, he never seated the statutorily mandated advisory committees to OSHA (one for General Industry and one for Construction) during his entire tenure. He didn't want anyone pointing out shortcomings in OSHA's rulemaking or enforcement efforts during his adminstration.

Is that why all the DOL staff siad Ciao, Chao when Elaine left?:p

whell
11-09-2010, 03:36 PM
You might try reading that last sentence again. It pretty well describes your entire monologue on the health care reform. You predict untold dire consequences for the medical system.

Regards,

D-Ray

OK, but my comments on health care reform are part of another thread, not this one. I'm not picking nits here, but I was reading backwards in this thread trying to figure out what I might have said that prompted your comment.

I'm apparently just as challenged by multi-threading as I am by multi-taking! :)

whell
11-09-2010, 03:43 PM
I personally know a number of people who work at the national office of DOL in Washington. I think, to a person, not one would commend Dubya for his "support." All he did was frustrate the chit out of them by erecting roadblocks to them doing their jobs. For example, he never seated the statutorily mandated advisory committees to OSHA (one for General Industry and one for Construction) during his entire tenure. He didn't want anyone pointing out shortcomings in OSHA's rulemaking or enforcement efforts during his adminstration.

The shortcomings in OSHA's rule-making or enforcement efforts have been around long before Bush Jr, and still exist today.

d-ray657
11-09-2010, 04:03 PM
OK, but my comments on health care reform are part of another thread, not this one. I'm not picking nits here, but I was reading backwards in this thread trying to figure out what I might have said that prompted your comment.

I'm apparently just as challenged by multi-threading as I am by multi-taking! :)

I multi-task by flipping between the WAPO and here (with some sports and Daily Show thrown in), and I would imagine that you do a little flipping over to the WSJ.:rolleyes: Sadly, I have been spending considerably less time at AK, when my pile of projects suggests that I don't really have the time to spend here.

Regards,

noonereal
11-10-2010, 07:13 AM
Sadly, I have been spending considerably less time at AK, when my pile of projects suggests that I don't really have the time to spend here.

Regards,

I have found the same thing Dave.

I have definably neglected AK recently.

BlueStreak
11-13-2010, 08:36 PM
Reagan spent two terms as California Governor (and a term running the Screen Actors Guild before that). By the time he got to the Oval Office, Reagan would have far more experience as an executive than a Junior Senator or community service worker.

Eisenhour - a military commander, which would require and sharpen much the same business accumen and political savvy as a business exec.

If memory serves, Nixon managed a branch of a successful law firm for a number of years prior to entering the service in WWII.

You get the picture...

I asked "What business...........?"

Reagan- Running a Labor Union and a State Government is like running a private business? Since when? Maybe it should be, but it's not.

Eisenhower- No military commander has to turn a profit, he gets 130% of his funding from the taxpayer. The internal military structure more closely resembles communism than anything else. It's very authoritarian, no one gets to vote on anything, everyone works for the federal government and the federal government OWNS everything, including the people. Not a slam against the military, just a statement of fact coming from a former military man who has lived it. You can be written up and punished financially for letting your facial hair grow ferfuksake. Total lack of freedom.

Nixon- So, he was a slimey, scheming, ambulance chaser right from the very beginning, eh? Made his money suing people in the early years and slowly graduated to rigging elections, did he? Very nice. (My apologies to D-Ray.)

Dave

whell
11-13-2010, 10:15 PM
I asked "What business...........?"

Reagan- Running a Labor Union and a State Government is like running a private business? Since when? Maybe it should be, but it's not.

Lets see. They produce a product (representation, complete with bargaining services), they generate revenue via dues, pension contributions, and insurance premiums, they have employees, they have customers, and they screw the little guy, just like their wall street counterparts. Sounds like a business to me.


Eisenhower- No military commander has to turn a profit, he gets 130% of his funding from the taxpayer. The internal military structure more closely resembles communism than anything else. It's very authoritarian, no one gets to vote on anything, everyone works for the federal government and the federal government OWNS everything, including the people. Not a slam against the military, just a statement of fact coming from a former military man who has lived it. You can be written up and punished financially for letting your facial hair grow ferfuksake. Total lack of freedom.

Then why do many military commanders, particularly West Point grads like Ike, go one to have great careers in private industry? They have leadership and organizational management skills, they are fabulous delegators, and they know how to make those around them excel.

Oh, I almost forgot, Ike was also President of Columbia University prior to running for President. Just a tad bit more business acumen for his resume.


Nixon- So, he was a slimey, scheming, ambulance chaser right from the very beginning, eh? Made his money suing people in the early years and slowly graduated to rigging elections, did he? Very nice. (My apologies to D-Ray.)

Dave

You just besmirched the Trial Lawyers Asscoiation, one of the larger donors to the Democrat party. ;)

BlueStreak
11-13-2010, 10:57 PM
Isn't Columbia that ultra-liberal hotbed that had Ahmedinijad as a guest speaker?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe people who are accustomed to treating their underlings like nameless cannon fodder make great businessmen?:D (Ike, BTW, is my favorite 20th Century Republican President.:))

Oh, so now I'm a "besmircher", Huh? Yeah, well it was all tongue-in-cheek anyways, so besmirch that Mr. Poopy-Pants!:p

Dave

d-ray657
11-13-2010, 11:50 PM
Lets see. They produce a product (representation, complete with bargaining services), they generate revenue via dues, pension contributions, and insurance premiums, they have employees, they have customers, and they screw the little guy, just like their wall street counterparts. Sounds like a business to me.


There are several huge differences between unions and corporations. First their "customers" are, with a few exceptions, the owners of the unions. Second, they owe a fiduciary duty to the people who consume their "product." They are governed by a duty of fair representation, in which they are answerable in damages if they don't represent their "customers'" interests.

Corporations owe a duty to their shareholders to make a profit. If the customer gets screwed, that's no big deal as long as the shareholders profit. The officers of the union are democratically elected by their "customers," the members who they serve, and stand for re-election no less frequently than every three years. A board of directors selects corporate officers officers from among their group of cronies, and they set the salary accordingly to what people of the same class want to make. The salaries set for union leaders must be approved by the members, and are subject to judicial review if they are excessive. Most union leaders come from the trade or craft they represent. Accordingly, they are familiar with the work their "customers" do. Corporations bring managers who know diddly squat about the product being made.

Your comparison of unions with wall street is way way off the mark.

Reagan's experience as an executive of a union must also be discounted because he became a traitor to working people. He signaled to management all over that union busting is an acceptable practice. I will grant that Reagan was a very successful politician, but his governance started the decline of the middle class.

Regards,

D-Ray

merrylander
11-14-2010, 08:07 AM
Didn't Saint Ronnie also leave a big deficit in CA?

finnbow
11-14-2010, 08:13 AM
IMHO, Reagan started the country down the road to fiscal insolvency with his ridiculous economic practices. We're now paying the price of our national embrace of Reaganomics.

BlueStreak
11-14-2010, 09:06 AM
IMHO, Reagan started the country down the road to fiscal insolvency with his ridiculous economic practices. We're now paying the price of our national embrace of Reaganomics.

How DARE you!!!

Dave

CarlV
11-14-2010, 11:21 AM
IMHO, Reagan started the country down the road to fiscal insolvency with his ridiculous economic practices. We're now paying the price of our national embrace of Reaganomics.

Just goes to show you that what happens in California happens to the rest of the country. That and people do not learn from others mistakes. Yep, hand out tax credits and tax breaks to all your buddies like Halloween candy and then say how can I be broke I have checks left?

:p


Carl

whell
11-14-2010, 09:00 PM
There are several huge differences between unions and corporations. First their "customers" are, with a few exceptions, the owners of the unions. Second, they owe a fiduciary duty to the people who consume their "product."

Sounds like a number of companies whose employees own a large portion of the shares of stock, like Publix or Food Giant.


They are governed by a duty of fair representation, in which they are answerable in damages if they don't represent their "customers'" interests.

Public companies are answerable in damages if they don't operate in their shareholder's best interests.


Corporations owe a duty to their shareholders to make a profit. If the customer gets screwed, that's no big deal as long as the shareholders profit.


Sounds like collective bargaining to me. If the rank and file need to take a lower wage increase in the contract, that's fine, as long as the pension contributions continue to flow.


The officers of the union are democratically elected by their "customers,"
**Choke**Cough**

Right. The process is about as democratic as a wresting match...and wresting is less of a contact sport! :D


the members who they serve, and stand for re-election no less frequently than every three years. A board of directors selects corporate officers officers from among their group of cronies, and they set the salary accordingly to what people of the same class want to make. The salaries set for union leaders must be approved by the members, and are subject to judicial review if they are excessive.

Tell that to these guys: http://www.tdu.org/node/2372

Unions, of course, have some differences from for profit enterprises, but there are significant similarities - more alike than different especially in this era.

d-ray657
11-14-2010, 11:01 PM
Sounds like a number of companies whose employees own a large portion of the shares of stock, like Publix or Food Giant.

Big difference. There is no difference of the degree of ownership.

Public companies are answerable in damages if they don't operate in their shareholder's best interests.

Which is to make a profit. There are no damages for giving short term profits priority over long term growth. Also show me one suit that a shareholder has won over excessive salaries and bonuses for corporate executives.

Sounds like collective bargaining to me. If the rank and file need to take a lower wage increase in the contract, that's fine, as long as the pension contributions continue to flow.

You want to provide some documentation about this allegation, unless it is a bargaining choice by the members to place more toward pension than wages. In some of the unions I represent, the union negotiates a wage package, and the members have the right to vote on how the package is allocated.

**Choke**Cough**

Right. The process is about as democratic as a wresting match...and wresting is less of a contact sport! :D

The democratic process is protected under federal law. Federal courts or the DOL can void election results when democratic process are not honored. All candidates must be allowed to utilize the membership list to communicate with members. The law governing unions includes a right to free speech by members, and officers are personally answerable in damages for interference with free speech. Show me a private sector business where the employees have a legally protected right to free speech. In a significant difference between how unions and corporations are governed its one member one vote - not more votes based on how much wealth one has accumulated.


Tell that to these guys: http://www.tdu.org/node/2372

The citation you have provided shows that this democratic organization within one of the largest unions in existence has had success in lowering executive compensation. It does show it to be an ongoing battle. Moreover, every three years, the members have the ability to fire any of the officers that they feel have been overpaid. They are required to annually report all of the money received by each officer. That's how the TDU was able to obtain and publish the compensation information.


Unions, of course, have some differences from for profit enterprises, but there are significant similarities - more alike than different especially in this era.

This is where you most wrong. The unions exist for an entirely different purpose than for-profit enterprises. Rather than make a profit at any costs, the unions have a legal obligation to serve the interests of all of the members. When union representation declines, the gap in income between workers and management increases (http://depts.washington.edu/pcls/documents/research/Agnone_RacialInequality.pdf), benefits decline, and employers gain greater control over the lives of the workers. See also: http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/webfeatures_efca_testimony_20070326/

and

http://www.rockhurst.edu/news/events/images/projecti/lindquist.pdf

Regards,

D-Ray

piece-itpete
11-15-2010, 10:40 AM
Yep, the old blame Reagan bit.

Have to go back 30 years to cover your tracks, and then 70 years for 'new' ideas to fix it :p

Pete

BlueStreak
11-15-2010, 10:49 AM
Sounds like a number of companies whose employees own a large portion of the shares of stock, like Publix or Food Giant.

I've worked for companies like this. It's a bunch of shit.
They toss you a handfull of stock, tell you you're an "owner", and then give you absolutely no say in matters. It's little more than a psychological ploy to make you feel empowered. Usually goes hand in hand with low hourly wages. They know where they can stick it.

Public companies are answerable in damages if they don't operate in their shareholder's best interests.

Which is to pay out the highest returns, even if it means outsourcing and/or cutting employees/benefits.

Sounds like collective bargaining to me. If the rank and file need to take a lower wage increase in the contract, that's fine, as long as the pension contributions continue to flow.

What pension? Someone still has a pension? I thought "Great Americans" work until they die? Oh, that's right, only workers with unions still have a pension at all. Hows the 401k workin' out? Think anyone will actually retire off of that unstable bullshit?


**Choke**Cough**

Right. The process is about as democratic as a wresting match...and wresting is less of a contact sport! :D

Same problem as all elections. The union holds an election down at the hall. Seven people show up to vote. Then, the other five hundred bitch when they don't get the leaders they wanted. Here in this wonderful "Right-to-Work State", it's even worse. You vote a union in by a clear majority, then those same seven who are the only ones who vote in leadership elections are also the only ones who pay any dues. The other five hundred who eagerly voted the union in now refuse to pay for the unions services, but still expect to be represented. How long would YOU continue to work for any clients that refuse to pay for your services? Not long, would be my guess. But, of course, this is the whole point of the "Right-To-Work" laws, isn't it?

Tell that to these guys: http://www.tdu.org/node/2372

Well, good for them. Once they are in charge, they will become what they now complain about.

Unions, of course, have some differences from for profit enterprises, but there are significant similarities - more alike than different especially in this era.

This is how the game really works. From the so-called "Employee owned" businesses to the so-called "Right-to-Work" laws, the whole thing is nothing more than a bunch of schemes to make and keep our workforce docile, compliant and cheap.

I know you won't agree. But then ----you're wrong.;)

Dave

whell
11-15-2010, 12:23 PM
This is where you most wrong. The unions exist for an entirely different purpose than for-profit enterprises. Rather than make a profit at any costs, the unions have a legal obligation to serve the interests of all of the members. When union representation declines, the gap in income between workers and management increases (http://depts.washington.edu/pcls/documents/research/Agnone_RacialInequality.pdf), benefits decline, and employers gain greater control over the lives of the workers. See also: http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/webfeatures_efca_testimony_20070326/

and

http://www.rockhurst.edu/news/events/images/projecti/lindquist.pdf

Regards,

D-Ray

D-Ray - with respect, I've sat at the bargaining table. I've seen unions operate up close and personal. I've seen unions trade wage increase demands for pension contribution, when the union has at least stated openly prior to negotiations that the pension account was flush. This has been a theme I've witnessed over and over, and I've been involved with labor negotiations since the mid 1980's. It is one example among many I've witnessed of unions acting more in line with perpetuating the organization than serving the rank and file. Beyond the veneer, unions typically act more like the businesses they negotiate with than not.

I know that the priorities that are communicated to the rank and file are many times not the same as those discussed at the exec committee level. I understand the stated functions and practices of unions. The articles you've posted paint a nice picture of the role of unions both in practice as well as their role in society. However, I suspect that the authors of those pieces have never sat at a bargaining table and would be stunned to see what actually occurs.

We can agree to disagree here.

d-ray657
11-15-2010, 01:07 PM
D-Ray - with respect, I've sat at the bargaining table. I've seen unions operate up close and personal. I've seen unions trade wage increase demands for pension contribution, when the union has at least stated openly prior to negotiations that the pension account was flush. This has been a theme I've witnessed over and over, and I've been involved with labor negotiations since the mid 1980's. It is one example among many I've witnessed of unions acting more in line with perpetuating the organization than serving the rank and file. Beyond the veneer, unions typically act more like the businesses they negotiate with than not.

I know that the priorities that are communicated to the rank and file are many times not the same as those discussed at the exec committee level. I understand the stated functions and practices of unions. The articles you've posted paint a nice picture of the role of unions both in practice as well as their role in society. However, I suspect that the authors of those pieces have never sat at a bargaining table and would be stunned to see what actually occurs.

We can agree to disagree here.

There are a lot of factors at work there. What was the general age of the members of the bargaining unit? If it was an aging work force, the membership would be very much inclined to value pension credits and contributions over taxable wages. That way the members get more bang for their buck in increasing pension coverage. Many times, the priorities are communicated to the union reps rather than the other way around. I assume that you were sitting at the table in a management role. Do you think the bargaining committee was going to let you in on all of the negotiating strategy?

I'm sure that the authors of those articles would acknowledge a societal interest in unions retaining institutional strength. It is that strength that enables them to advance the interests of workers. Moreover, the statistics bear out the inverse relationship between unionism and wealth disparity. The more unions are weakened, the greater the disparity in wealth grows.

Regards,

D-Ray

noonereal
11-15-2010, 02:14 PM
D-Ray - with respect, I've sat at the bargaining table. I've seen unions operate up close and personal. I've seen unions trade wage increase demands for pension contribution, when the union has at least stated openly prior to negotiations that the pension account was flush. This has been a theme I've witnessed over and over, and I've been involved with labor negotiations since the mid 1980's. It is one example among many I've witnessed of unions acting more in line with perpetuating the organization than serving the rank and file. Beyond the veneer, unions typically act more like the businesses they negotiate with than not.

I know that the priorities that are communicated to the rank and file are many times not the same as those discussed at the exec committee level. I understand the stated functions and practices of unions. The articles you've posted paint a nice picture of the role of unions both in practice as well as their role in society. However, I suspect that the authors of those pieces have never sat at a bargaining table and would be stunned to see what actually occurs.

We can agree to disagree here.

Businesses since the 80's placed the union worker in the position of selling out the younger union workers in order to not cut their wages/benefits while profits increased only to later find ways to get rid of the older union worker

Can we agree here?

d-ray657
11-15-2010, 02:23 PM
Yep, the old blame Reagan bit.

Have to go back 30 years to cover your tracks, and then 70 years for 'new' ideas to fix it :p

Pete

Pete, you know that economic effects don't occur overnight. Reagan, Bush and Bush were un-tax and spend. The only President in the last 30 years who had a measurable impact on the deficit was Clinton, who raised taxes AND cut spending. Obama inherited an economic system that had seen government's ability to maintain revenue severely weakened, and which had resulted in a huge crash in the economy. The economic reports show that without the interventions that Obama supported and or proposed, the deficit would actually have been much higher, because there would have been even more joblessness.

Regards,

D-Ray

piece-itpete
11-15-2010, 02:35 PM
And Congress passes the budget of course.

Pete

Charles
11-15-2010, 03:46 PM
And Congress passes the budget of course.

Pete

Pete, are you saying that the Republican congress made Clinton's budget a success?

Chas

BlueStreak
11-15-2010, 11:44 PM
D-Ray - with respect, I've sat at the bargaining table. I've seen unions operate up close and personal. I've seen unions trade wage increase demands for pension contribution, when the union has at least stated openly prior to negotiations that the pension account was flush. This has been a theme I've witnessed over and over, and I've been involved with labor negotiations since the mid 1980's. It is one example among many I've witnessed of unions acting more in line with perpetuating the organization than serving the rank and file. Beyond the veneer, unions typically act more like the businesses they negotiate with than not.

I know that the priorities that are communicated to the rank and file are many times not the same as those discussed at the exec committee level. I understand the stated functions and practices of unions. The articles you've posted paint a nice picture of the role of unions both in practice as well as their role in society. However, I suspect that the authors of those pieces have never sat at a bargaining table and would be stunned to see what actually occurs.

We can agree to disagree here.

I have. But, of course, I was on the "troublemaker" side of the table.

Dave

piece-itpete
11-16-2010, 07:55 AM
Pete, are you saying that the Republican congress made Clinton's budget a success?

Chas

Shhhh - it's a secret. :D

It's also a secret that the balanced budget is a lie anyway, but both parties can make hay out of it. One guy running here as a GOPer was in Congress then and made the same claim.

Another secret, the Dems controlled the House during the out of control 'Reagan' deficit.

Pete