I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012

Osso bursted my bubble previously.

I hate the fact that innocents are sometime killed. But in countries that protect the people planing ways to kill as many U S of A citizens as possible it is our only option. Or are you willing to accept another 9/11 which might involve hundreds of thousands rather than 4 thousand?

You forgot the BIG banks who control not only our politicians but also our economy. To put it simply we are screwed and a majority of the populace not only isent aware of it but dont want to be made aware of it.

Even the democrats dont want to see a resurgence of unions they being big business orientated.

I agree that many or most Democrats are in on the big business pay-off.

It's still hard to believe.



The facts aren't with you there. Most unionized industries in this country have been destroyed by overseas competitors. Many that could have been saved by investment in productivity-enhancing technology were lost because the unions foolishly resisted relaxing out dated and no-longer-relevant work rules or resisted automation that might have saved most of the jobs in a still competitive economic world. The UAW's last strike against GM perfectly illustrated this principle. The issue was GM's plan to modernize two assembly plants in Flint Michigan to enable them to equal the productivity of competing Toyota Plants in the South that were eating GM's market share. GM proposed billions of investment in automation in the plants that would have enabled them to compete. However, because the investment would reduce plant employment by about 20%, the union resisted and went on strike. GM eventually gave up on the plan and capitulated. Three years later the two plants were closed forever,

Almost all of our currently thriving industries, including technology and manufacturing are non-union. Moreover, as we all saw in the recent WW unionizing effort in Tennessee, most private sector union organizing efforts fail because the workers don't want unions. The great majority of union membership in this country today is among government employees (local, state & Federal), and as we are seeing in Detroit, Illinois and California their self-serving political corruption is bankrupting governments across the country and destroying our public educational system.

Unions thrive only where they have government-protected monopolies. If people are given a free choice, unions disappear. These are facts.

That is bull shyt. I belonged to a union for 50 years because it gave me protection from assholes who would have fired me because I had the balls to point out the fact that they were demanding i do work that was mortally dangerous. big business dosent care if my ass gets blowed off or burnt off. Unions kept me alive in spite of company men.

In short, move unionized businesses overseas. Bottom line, do anything necessary to keep from paying a reasonable wage.

No, not at all. It is interesting that some of the highest wages in the country are paid in industries with the least unionization.

More to the point however, is the observable fact that, except for public sector employees, unionized by administrative action of governments, unionism is rapidly dying in this country. They once served a beneficial purpose, but now that nearly all of their former accomplishments are codified in the law, there is little benefit they can offer. Most unions merely operate as protection rackets behind the shield of laws granting them local monopolies and a (currently) very sympathetic NLRB,

As the Wisconsin experience illustrates, once public employees are given the free choice about paying union dues, most opt to forego them. When your customers are no longer willing to pay for your product, perhaps it is time to pack up and go.

There's no incentive to unionize, if wages are high. Ask McDonald and Walmart employees about it.

My strong impression is that both MacDonalds and Walmart are well-run and very successful companies that don't have much trouble attracting and keeping employees -- despite all the organized hostility of those who seek to destroy them.

hey George-good to hear yer dulcet tones

Yeah, dulcet. That's surely it.

Good to encounter both you and edgartblythe again

You said hostility. I said fair wages.

Anyway, back to farmerman's original subject - Hillary in 2016.

I find myself increasingly doubtful that Hillary will actually run in 2016. I agree she is currently the Dem's best bet, but I wonder about her own motivation for yet another campaign that will surely be a bruising affair. Questions about her tenure in the State Dept and her joint management (with Bill) of the Haiti redevelopment funds (more will likely come out of that affair) will be hot and possibly damaging issues. Following in Obama's wake appears to be an increasingly difficult and unrewarding task. The burden of defending the "achievements" of the past eight years might prove to be a daunting challenge, and it will be very hard for her to evade her involvement in any holdover issues from it.

What will she get for a win?? Bill will be back with her in the White House, possibly more unmanageable than ever. She will have a demanding role as president with an incorrigable nag looking over her shoulder who's done it all before. Life can be tough on such second acts. Doesn't sound like fun for her to me.

Bill might be more unmanageable than ever, but, we had a balanced budget under him.

If Hilllary wins I will probably be glad re her adversary - well, who knows now, but I'll be depressed out of my tree, greatly depressed.


Drone along with me, sing a happy song..

Like with Obama, she is not my first choice, but I may have to vote for her.

That was a direct result of Republican control of both Houses of Congress, and Clinton's sudden rebirth as a fiscal conservative. Remember "the era of big government is over"?

We are in much worse fiscal shape now.

I just have a hard time seeing how she would see running as a benefit to her at this stage.