AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@georgeob1,

Quote:

However creating vast new top-down regulatory structures that govern huge sectors of the economy and stifle precisely the new innovations and enterprises that are indispensable for a recovery; and providing very large politically motivated payoffs to the Labor Unions that are in major part responsible for the runaway costs of government at all levels as well as the loss of major manfacturing industries in this country ..... is not the way to do it.

So..

Quote:

the legislation addressing health care, financial reform and the other Administration initiatives to expand the regulatory reach of the EPA a potential new consumer "protection" agency; alter the interpretation of existing law by the National Labor Relations Board

How do any of those govern huge sectors of the economy and stifle new innovations and enterprises let alone are payoffs to Labor Unions?

Simply because you say so and call me stupid doesn't provide support for your statement. It only calls into question your ability to back up your statement with any facts.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Which do you want? Jobs or a balanced budget. In an economic downturn you can't have both and you will be lucky to get one

And at the moment we have neither.
I'm not saying ita all Obama's fault. I know that Bush is mostly to blame.

However, the unemployment rate was 7.6% when Obama was sworn in, it is now over 9% and has been over 10%.
Even Obama admitted that there were no "shovel ready projects" for his stimulus bill, yet the admin claimed there were.

So, he is as much (or more) to blame for the out of control spending in DC as are the repubs.
And he is totally to blame for any deficit spending that has occurred since he passed his first budget.
You cannot blame Bush for the Obama budget.

BTW, does anyone know how Obama voted on any govt spending bills when he was a Senator?

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados, I am willing to discuss these issues with you. However, I don't accept responsibility for your education in basic areas of our common lives. I believe you are well enough able to inform yourself of the legislated responsibilities and activities of (for example) the National Labor Relations Board, the current administration's appointees to it, and the new initiatives they have proposed. Similarly you are well enough able to study and analyze the fact and potential of the EPA's newly assertion that CO2 is a toxic gas, enabling their claim to administrative authority over this ubiquitous substance and the likely economic consequences of this claim in industries that are now somewhat paralyzed by uncertainty about what they will next unilaterally impose. I believe I have a right to assume you are aware of the growing financial crisis among state and local governments and the contributions that exploitive government employee unions have made to this crisis and the harm they have done to many public services, including education.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Similarly you are well enough able to study and analyze the fact and potential of the EPA's newly assertion that CO2 is a toxic gas,

You're probably going to want to take that up with the Supreme Court, as they agreed that the EPA has a right to regulate it. Do you pretend that the EPA simply made this up on their own?

http://www.pewclimate.org/epavsma.cfm

The SC found that they had both the authority and responsibility to do so. It's not our fault if you don't like that, and it isn't Obama's fault either. I would also point out that the EPA was defending AGAINST this position in front of the court, so your term 'EPA's newly assertion...' is false.

I shouldn't have to accept responsibility for your education in such basic areas, George.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

The only problem with making CO2 a "toxic gas", and with the EPA wanting to regulate it, is HOW are they going to regulate it?

Every living thing that breathes oxygen exhales CO2, including humans.
So, how do they plan to regulate nature?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

The only problem with making CO2 a "toxic gas", and with the EPA wanting to regulate it, is HOW are they going to regulate it?

Every living thing that breathes oxygen exhales CO2, including humans.
So, how do they plan to regulate nature?

Well, you and I breathe out an extremely tiny bit of it. A chemical plant might breathe out a tremendously huge amount of it. Comparing the two is a little silly; a chemical plant might put out the same amount of CO2 in a single day as an entire town full of people.

But like I said - take it up with the Supreme Court, because they found the EPA has both the authority and the responsibility to do so.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

squinney wrote:

Am I missing something?

Yes you are. The incentives for innovation precisely to reduce or eliminate the need for labor in manufacturing are made much higher by the exploitive, obstructionist behavior of Labor Unions. (I have had extensive direct experience with these issues.) They resist beneficial changes in workflow and process management, and demand an ever higher share of the revenues, for ever less value-added work in the face of increasing price competition from foreign manufacturers. Indeed in most manufacturing industries in this country the only way to survive in increasingly competitive and global markets is to invest heavily in expensive automation precisely to avoid large labor forces and the disruptions associated with parasitic unions. The last strike by the UAW against General Motors was precisely over this issue. GM wanted to improve the automation of their plants in Michigan to make them more competitive interms of both coat and quality with non union Toyota plants in Kentucky and other areas, and the UAW went on strike at a carefully chosen critical time in the product cycle and won. GM collapsed a few years later. This wasn't the only cause, but it was a core element of what brought the company down for every one. A similar story could be told about the now departed U.S. textile industry.

Your research is admirable, but you have drawn the wrong conclusion from it.

Personally, I'm not big on labor unions. My only experience with them was when I had to contribute to one as an automatic deduction from my measly grocery store pay while putting myself through college.

However, I don't think the numbers support that unions and support of them on behalf of Democrats is what has stifled innovation or led to loss of manufacturing jobs to the extent we have seen over the past 9 years.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/the-new-face-of-the-union-movement-government-employees

The Post Office, Teachers Unions, service / government sector seems to be the main form of unions now, and they don't manufacture.

If you go to about 3/4 of the way down the page at that link, you'll see that labor union manufacturing had already taken a hit in membership before 2000, so that doesn't account for the biggest losses which have taken place in the last 10 years. Union membership is now only about 7% of the work population, with 52% of those being governement. (Teachers, PO, Highway Patrol, etc.)

1 Reply

@squinney,

I think we generally agree here. with or without unions we would have lost a lot of manufacturing jobs as the governments and societies of Asian and Latin Americn nations began to abandon socialistic systems and encourage free enterprise. Their far lower labor costs gave them some advantages we simply couldn't beat in many areas. However, it is also a fact that the actions of labor unions in the industries they did control (textiles, automobile manufacturing, steelmaking and others) did indeed hasten the decline of our industrial base and, as a result, contributed significantly to the decline in union membership in the U.S. private sector. They resisted productivity improvements in work processes and automation and insisted on unrealistic wages and benefits for existing employees - even at the expense of new and future emploiyees - just to hold on even though such inflexibility knowably reduced their employer's ability to survive in competitive markets.

You are right that the main component of organized labor today is among government employees at all levels from cities to the Federal Government. In a similar way they are bankrupting our local governments and corrupting public services at all levels. Of course in their rhetoric they are for quality services and all things good, but in practice they have government sanctioned monopolies on public employment ant the right to collect 1-2 % of their members pay - in advance automatically on their payrolls - and use the huge sums they collect to buy off politicians to enhance the power and financial reach of both. Moreover they stoutly resist accountability for what they and their members actually do at every turn.

In nature successful parasites don't kill their biological hosts. Labor unions are not successful parasites

Our manufacturing economy is largely dead. Let's hope local government (and public education) doesn't suffer the same fate.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mm, If you understand anything about American politics and politicians, they are not prone to "live within their means." That's a fact and a given. That means those Americans able to pay more in taxes must do so. That's also a fact and a given. Do you know why? Because when the federal deficit continues to increase under most administrations and congress, the portion of the interest payment on loans becomes higher and higher. That's also a fact and a given. There will be a time in the future when the value of our money will be like monopoly money, because nobody will want US dollars. That will happen because there will be nothing to back it up; not our economy, not our assets, and not our government.

Do you have any understanding of macro economics? In a world economy, one country cannot continue to spend more than the value of their GDP.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob, That was true some decades ago when our schools produced more math and science majors. The US now ranks in the thirties of all developing and developed countries in math and science. China and India will run over us in the very near future, and talking about how we can boost our economy through innovation is good for the imagination, but not realistic.

In this morning newspaper, there's a very good article on why the US consumer is not able to help with increasing our GDP; they are paying more on their mortgage than their home is worth - which restricts all other spending. Even when mortgage loan rates are at their lowest in many decades, home sales are still stagnant. A good, growing, economy will be built on new homes being built and sold. That will not happen for more than a decade, because most families are struggling to a) keep their jobs, b) find jobs, and c) keep up their payments for their home and cars.

The 9.6% unemployment rate is not going to move in our favor any time soon. Regulatory structures are not isolated to the federal government; the cost to operate any business in Silicon Valley is still one of the most expensive in this country - based on taxes and other regulations that creates more handicaps than benefits for aspiring companies. The constraints that CA and the local governments have created for our area is going to hurt our economy for the short-term and long-term. That's the reason why even established Silicon Valley companies look for new locations outside this state and country.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mm, You're doing the same thing okie does; blame Obama for the increasing unemployment rate when the trend of unemployment started during GW Bush's tenure, and you want miracles from Obama to stop it immediately. Not logical or realistic.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I don't argue with the points you are making Cicerone. However, I don't understand your opening comment (what of what I wrote is no longer true?) or on what basis you find any disagreement - if that is the case.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob, I was responding to your

Quote:

However creating vast new top-down regulatory structures that govern huge sectors of the economy and stifle precisely the new innovations and enterprises that are indispensable for a recovery; and providing very large politically motivated payoffs to the Labor Unions that are in major part responsible for the runaway costs of government at all levels as well as the loss of major manfacturing industries in this country ..... is not the way to do it. These issues were - in my view - major factors in the rerversals the Democrats experienced in the recent elections.

What I was trying to say is that new innovations and enterprises for recovery cannot happen when our schools fail to produce the math and science majors necessary for this to happen.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I am not blaming Obama for the unemployment rate.
But lets not forget, when he pushed for the stimulus, AFTER he was elected, he said it would keep unemployment under 8%.
We all know that didnt work out.
So, while I will blame Bush for starting the problem, lets not forget that on Jan 20, 2009 when Obama was sworn in the unemployment rate was 7.6%.
Its now over 9% and has been as high as 10%.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

I am not blaming Obama for the unemployment rate.
But lets not forget, when he pushed for the stimulus, AFTER he was elected, he said it would keep unemployment under 8%.
We all know that didnt work out.

Yeah, because that forecast was based on 2008 levels that got adjusted WAY down in spring of 2009.

Quote:

So, while I will blame Bush for starting the problem, lets not forget that on Jan 20, 2009 when Obama was sworn in the unemployment rate was 7.6%.
Its now over 9% and has been as high as 10%.

Yeah, but it's not as if Obama took actions which caused it to rise. It was going to keep rising no matter what he did. The Stim bill helped keep it from rising farther, and helped boost the economy some, but wasn't successful in dropping the level down at all.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

One of the first places I think we should look at for cutting the federal budget is federal jobs and wages. I am sure there are people doing insufficient or unnecessary work or jobs, and the pay scales are too high. Not only have federal government employees topped the 2 million mark, but their average compensation is too high. We could probably save at least a few billion by giving this issue a severe wake up call. If they don't like it, I am sure we could find somebody that wants to work for their money.

If we want to be serious, what would be wrong with at least a 10% wage cut right away? After all, they make almost double that of State and local government employees, and a full double that of private sector employees. Why? The "Why" is especially pertinent, given they are not working efficiently and are breaking the country. We could start by making an announcement pointing out that this country is in huge debt and that we can no longer pay for all of the jobs. Either take the huge pay cuts or go find another job and we can find somebody else to do the work.

Don't look for my suggestion to happen, which is one example of why this country is too weak willed to actually solve our financial problems. Much of the reason politicians have no spine to do that, the responsible thing, is because federal workers now have huge political clout, just by virtue of their bloated numbers anymore. Especially with Democrats, government employees form a huge part of their base. Tell me that is not a conflict of interest, anyone? We have allowed the foxes in the henhouse to multiply to a point almost beyond our ability to control them. The Tea Partiers have realized this, but are they strong enough in numbers and clout to actually do anything anymore?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

http://images.usatoday.com/news/graphics/2010/2010-08-10-fedpay/fedpay.jpg

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

What I was trying to say is that new innovations and enterprises for recovery cannot happen when our schools fail to produce the math and science majors necessary for this to happen.

No argument there. However Creating new bureaucracies with vast (and hard to predict) regulatory powers over increasing domains of our economy and higher taxes, accompanied by even faster rising government expenditures doesn't help either.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I totally agree.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I totally agree.

Reminder to you, ci, one of those new creations of more regulatory powers with unknown cost is Obamacare.

0 Replies

Unemployment increased under Obama because he succeeded in doing what increased it--increased federal spending and threatened to increase federal taxes-- and.failed to do what would have decreased it--decreased federal spending and promised to decrease federal taxes.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know