You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
It's an endless cycle of redistribution. That revenue could be much more if they promoted business growth instead of nickel and diming everyone. Once a mandate is in for health care, what is next? Life insurance? Collection of guns? Limit size of your family? It's a slippery slope.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
The economy has been heavily manipulated by the Fed for 100 years. The Fed's tinkering is what leads to crazy booms and crazy busts. Asset bubbles created through artificially low interest rates followed by terrible crashes. The Fed was put into power because the bankers promised that central banking would prevent any more banking panics. Less than 20 years after the Fed's manipulation started, we ended up in the Great Depression.
- Communist China
- Rep: 130
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
Collective bargaining is a legitimate right, so long as it's voluntary on all parties. Unions did a lot of great stuff historically, even if they are often barriers to progress now. I think the Chicago teachers look particularly bad - making well over the average CHI income, leaving 400,000 kids without school to go to right now, and refusing a $16,000 pay increase to come back? People aren't going to sympathize with that.
In Wisconsin, Scott Walker was elected on the promise that he'd do exactly what he did with public sector unions, and then he was elected again in the recall after doing it. So I think the political tides are running against unions, and the poor behavior of teachers' unions have given the whole concept a black eye.
Note on union advocacy of minimum wage historically: that wasn't benevolence. That was pure self-interest. Unionized labor makes more than minimum wage, by advocating a minimum wage they were attempting to restrict cheap labor from competing with them. If you consider the emergence of the minimum wage a good side effect, so be it, but their intention was solely to increase the opportunity cost of hiring non-unionized labor.
Tejastech makes a great point on the Fed, too. I wish that would enter the national dialogue.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
Tejastech makes a great point on the Fed, too. I wish that would enter the national dialogue.
It's the single most important issue. There is a lot of speculation that the Fed is going to announce a new round of quantitative easing this week, and that this time it won't be temporary. "QE to Infinity" is what many analysts are saying. It is the ultimate attempt to kick the can down the road, but at some point this shit will catch up with us and we'll have the biggest economic disaster in history on our hands. All of the petty arguments about abortion and other social issues will seem irrelevant when people realize that our entire way of life is shot to hell. $10,000 for a loaf of bread, etc.
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
Dude, I don't watch the news or listen to whoever is saying whatever. I speak my mind, my opinions. You seem a little upset that I pegged you perfectly...your post just proves it. When are you going to learn you just aren't going to win an argument with me? I can't lose because I have facts on my side. Always. You have what appear to be talking points that are easliy refuted and have been in both this thread and the obamacare thread. You think a flat tax is fantasy land, but obama's vision is great? Unbelieveable. No, what we know is taxing the people that have money never works. The only reason we had a boom in the Clinton era was the .com world. That's it. Nothing Billy did created that. The fact is that the economy has been in shambles since long before any of us were alive. Made no difference who was in charge. You want to talk facts? Suck on that fact for a while.
I'm not butt hurt over anything. I'm not poor and I never will be. I do feel sorry for the poor who keep thinking things like obamacare are helping them when all they are doing is making them more reliant on the gov't and less likely to ever break the cycle of poverty that they keep themselves in. None of this will affect me at all.
You pegged me perfectly? OKay, I'm saying this as nice as possible, but it's pathetic for someone to run their mouth about things they have absolutely no knowledge about. And psssssst, the dot com boom didn't happen until the end of Clinton's term.
You've never won an argument. You've never refuted me, you just jump to something else you have no clue about and try to ignore when you've been stuffed. You don't go by facts. You make things up. I've often suspected this, but you validated it. Thank you. I no longer have to waste my time reading your posts on these subjects.
BTW, where did that .com boom come from? How was it funded? How was it created? Oh yeah, you have no idea. And I love the fact you think the boom of the 90s was soley because people bought windows 95... Or dot coms (LMAO!)... Every single sector (not just technology) was growing... Plus the largest lowering of the debt since WW2... How about the 116 months of job growth? The surge in middle class. And the strong dollar that spured investment by companies. But, of course, you don't need facts. Just your made up opinion. All this with a higher tax rate. Shocking. You tank the economy, you make tax cuts you can't afford, you lower the value of the dollar, you lower investment.
But of course you don't know that. You just want a flat tax system you don't even know how it works. 
It is very sad that you can't give even a second of research to things you seem so passionate about. You're willing to throw away a vote on someone you have no understanding of, how it will adversely affect you and your family, over an issue you have no real understanding of. And I feel sorry for you. And your family, for your refusal to even invest the smallest investment in time and research these things to know exactly what you're doing.
You make me appreciate CC a lot more now.
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
It's an endless cycle of redistribution. That revenue could be much more if they promoted business growth instead of nickel and diming everyone. Once a mandate is in for health care, what is next? Life insurance? Collection of guns? Limit size of your family? It's a slippery slope.
BTW, these are all your paranoid delusions, not based in one ounce of reality, just something that someone fed you. Are you upset about government intrusion? Take it up with the people who made car insurance manditory because they realized there are irresponsible dumbfucks out there that can't be trusted to take responsibility for themselves and understood what kind of financial catastrophe it would create by letting people "take risks" for themselves in matters like this.
You're really upset about government overreach? Take it up with the people who made wearing a seat belt mandatory.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
You don't have to have a car. And I agree everyone should have to have healthcare.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
Insurance rates will go up to cover all those that can't afford it.
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
buzzsaw wrote:Dude, I don't watch the news or listen to whoever is saying whatever. I speak my mind, my opinions. You seem a little upset that I pegged you perfectly...your post just proves it. When are you going to learn you just aren't going to win an argument with me? I can't lose because I have facts on my side. Always. You have what appear to be talking points that are easliy refuted and have been in both this thread and the obamacare thread. You think a flat tax is fantasy land, but obama's vision is great? Unbelieveable. No, what we know is taxing the people that have money never works. The only reason we had a boom in the Clinton era was the .com world. That's it. Nothing Billy did created that. The fact is that the economy has been in shambles since long before any of us were alive. Made no difference who was in charge. You want to talk facts? Suck on that fact for a while.
I'm not butt hurt over anything. I'm not poor and I never will be. I do feel sorry for the poor who keep thinking things like obamacare are helping them when all they are doing is making them more reliant on the gov't and less likely to ever break the cycle of poverty that they keep themselves in. None of this will affect me at all.
You pegged me perfectly? OKay, I'm saying this as nice as possible, but it's pathetic for someone to run their mouth about things they have absolutely no knowledge about. And psssssst, the dot com boom didn't happen until the end of Clinton's term.
You've never won an argument. You've never refuted me, you just jump to something else you have no clue about and try to ignore when you've been stuffed. You don't go by facts. You make things up. I've often suspected this, but you validated it. Thank you. I no longer have to waste my time reading your posts on these subjects.
BTW, where did that .com boom come from? How was it funded? How was it created? Oh yeah, you have no idea. And I love the fact you think the boom of the 90s was soley because people bought windows 95... Or dot coms (LMAO!)... Every single sector (not just technology) was growing... Plus the largest lowering of the debt since WW2... How about the 116 months of job growth? The surge in middle class. And the strong dollar that spured investment by companies. But, of course, you don't need facts. Just your made up opinion. All this with a higher tax rate. Shocking. You tank the economy, you make tax cuts you can't afford, you lower the value of the dollar, you lower investment.
But of course you don't know that. You just want a flat tax system you don't even know how it works.
It is very sad that you can't give even a second of research to things you seem so passionate about. You're willing to throw away a vote on someone you have no understanding of, how it will adversely affect you and your family, over an issue you have no real understanding of. And I feel sorry for you. And your family, for your refusal to even invest the smallest investment in time and research these things to know exactly what you're doing.
You make me appreciate CC a lot more now.
Sadly it is you that has no idea what you're talking about. I hire IT people for a living. I think I have a pretty good grasp on the industry, thank you.
What I won't do is waste my time researching something to discuss it with someone that isn't at all interested in educating himself on the issues. It's a waste of my time. Sort of ironic considering you claim I'm repeating what I heard on the news when you look like you work for the democratic party based on everything you've said so far.
In short: you're convinced universal healthcare as written will be good for us even though you have no actual evidence to back this up, and you're convinced a flat tax (when you have no idea even what percentage is in my head) is automatically dismissed as it can't work. No, it can work if the right numbers are used. But this is why (I repeat) dicussing this with you is a waste of time. You don't know what you're talking about.
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
Smoking Guns wrote:It's an endless cycle of redistribution. That revenue could be much more if they promoted business growth instead of nickel and diming everyone. Once a mandate is in for health care, what is next? Life insurance? Collection of guns? Limit size of your family? It's a slippery slope.
BTW, these are all your paranoid delusions, not based in one ounce of reality, just something that someone fed you. Are you upset about government intrusion? Take it up with the people who made car insurance manditory because they realized there are irresponsible dumbfucks out there that can't be trusted to take responsibility for themselves and understanding what kind of fincial catastrophe it would create by letting people "take risks" for themselves it matters like this.
You really upspet about government overreach? Take it up with the people who made wearing a seat belt mandatory.
So in your mind there is no line? The gov't now has the right to tell us what to eat? What to drink? Where to go? All because they have told us we need to have auto insurance or wear a seat belt? I'd like to think you're smarter than that, but now I have to start wondering...
Just because the gov't has already overreached what they were established to do doesn't mean we want them to keep going. At some point, people will put their foot down. For everybody, that point is different, but it will happen.
