Obama '08?

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

What do you mean 'browbeat?' They can negotiate with management the way that any other union does. That's clearly legal and the right to self-organize is a fundamental one in our society.

Not only that, the latest USSC ruling states that groups of people have the same rights as individuals. That would mean that a union should have the same rights.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Bingo!!! So do civilian employees agree to the terms when they take a job. I see no difference actually.

Gee okie.. when they TOOK the job they agreed to terms that let them organize. NOW, the GOP wants to change the rules AFTER they took the jobs. Who is breaking the agreement? It isn't the workers, that's for sure.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Surely there are pre-agreed terms of payment and benefits. Perhaps those terms do not disallow the right to belong to a union, but I am asserting here that perhaps those terms should do that? I think we need to take another look at that.

Except you aren't LOOKING at it. You are FORCING those workers to accept new rules after they have already agreed to existing rules. Those workers are not being allowed any say in renegotiating the rules. They are just being TOLD what the new rules will be in spite of contracts they have.

1 Reply

@parados,

Unfortunately workers do need to be told what to do. It is sometimes in their own interest and sometimes not.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Yes, it is fundamental, and as the article I posted earlier, the situation in Wisconsin is a classic case of the government and its employees special interests colliding with the interests of the people that are supposed to be able to self determine through our elected officials how our tax money is spent to serve us. Maybe you have not caught on, but the people are fed up with government bureaucracies and government employees that have forgotten who they should be working for. I would advise you to watch what happens in Wisconsin very closely, because you could learn some things.

Okie has it exactly right. Government employee unions should not even exist. Unions have not been elected by the people to represent their government. Unions have not been elected by the people to compel government to spend more revenue than they can obtain from what a majority of the people are willing to pay.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

I think that unions are the present "boogeymans" of the GOP. However, howthe hell is this OBAMAs issue? Sounds like creative straw gathering

2 Replies

@farmerman,

They're famous for blaming everything on Obama, including the Great Recession that happened when GW Bush was president. The GOP say unemployment is increasing, and that's the fault of Obama.

There really is no cure for stupid.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

They're famous for blaming everything on Obama, including the Great Recession that happened when GW Bush was president. The GOP say unemployment is increasing, and that's the fault of Obama.
There really is no cure for stupid.

Apparently there is no cure for it, ci. Under Bush, the average unemployment rate was 5.27%, despite two wars, Katrina, 9/11, and the dot com bubble bust that he inherited. Under Obama so far, it has averaged 8.5%, is currently over 9% and has no hope of getting much better soon. Besides that, we are looking at astronomical deficits and debt being piled upon us by this administration. Here are some pictures for you, ci, to hopefully help you understand it.

http://winteryknight.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/unemployment.jpg?w=400&h=219

http://winteryknight.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg?w=400&h=330

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I think that unions are the present "boogeymans" of the GOP. However, howthe hell is this OBAMAs issue? Sounds like creative straw gathering

It continues to amaze me that so many of you find some basic things so hard to figure out. Unions are a huge constituency of the Democratic Party. Obama is now the face and leader of the Democrat Party. Sorry, but policies have real results, which must be realized in the world of reality. Somebody has to pay for higher demands by union thugs. What you are seeing in Wisconsin was inevitable to happen at some point, and Wisconsin will not be the last place where this will happen. I would recommend the following article for your reading and comprehension, farmer.
http://therightfieldline.blogspot.com/2010/01/jfks-unionization-of-federal-work-force.html
" JFK's unionization of federal work force made Democrat Party a public-sector dependency
The central battle in our time is over political primacy. It is a competition between the public sector and the private sector over who defines the work and the institutions that make a nation thrive and grow.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy planted the seeds that grew the modern Democratic Party. That year, JFK signed executive order 10988 allowing the unionization of the federal work force. This changed everything in the American political system. Kennedy's order swung open the door for the inexorable rise of a unionized public work force in many states and cities.

This in turn led to the fantastic growth in membership of the public employee unions—The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the teachers' National Education Association.

They broke the public's bank. More than that, they entrenched a system of taking money from members' dues and spending it on political campaigns. Over time, this transformed the Democratic Party into a public-sector dependency."

1 Reply

@okie,

I'm so sure that no conservative works for any union, it's interesting to see that okie is an advocate for the very rich to pay less taxes, and are critical of unions. I wonder if any republican union worker feels at home with the GOP?

okie needs to tell them (republicans that work under union contracts) to quit their jobs.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I have friends that are union members, but generally they are not fans of unions either.

For myself, I burned out on unions when I was in college, when a family member's close friend had his family threatened with bodily harm by union thugs if he did not quit supporting a group's effort against a government contractor becoming unionized. It happened before an election for the employees to vote whether to unionize or not. Besides the threats, the thugs also were throwing buckets of nails in the roadway exiting the work place. I decided right then and there I would never belong to any union. And because my chosen profession was never subject to unions, I never had to worry anyway.

P.S. I am still waiting for cyclops or any lib to tell us if government employees should be unionized, then why not the military?

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

I decided right then and there I would never belong to any union.

I saw the movie, The Godfather and I decided right then and there to never have anything to do with Italians. The I saw a movie about the Yakuza so Japanese are now on my list of people to avoid.

Have you ever seen company thugs busting their employees' heads, Okie?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

I believe this event will backfire badly on the public sector labor unions and their paid Democrat toadies.

As I said to Okie earlier - I believe that you have this completely backward. There will be a backfiring on this, but it is much more likely to affect Gov. Walker and the Republicans than it is the teachers' union.

Quote:

It has benome increasingly clear to a growing number of people that many of their elected legislators are in the pockets of the public sector employee unions and that gross financial abuses of public treasuries have occurred.

This is the sort of evidence-free statement you love to make. Increasingly clear to who? You? This is the opinion Republicans have ALWAYS held. And you have no data showing that increasing groups of Americans as a whole believe what you say. You're just projecting your own opinions - again.Cycloptichorn

Perhaps you will deign to provide us with just a small sample of the fruits of the extensive study and erudition on these matter that you claim so frequently. The ratio of your bombastically repeated claims of knowledge and proofs to actually providing them is very large indeed. Just a quick scan over the last five pages will reveal repeated claims, but no proofs. Consider yourself asked.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The ratio of your bombastically repeated claims of knowledge and proofs to actually providing them is very large indeed. Just a quick scan over the last five pages will reveal repeated claims, but no proofs. Consider yourself asked.

Ya gotta admit, the boy's got cojones or, ... or he is so fantastically stupid, he doesn't realize that he's describing himself.

0 Replies

Quote:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/federal_budget_us/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

President Obama released his proposed budget for the 2012 fiscal year on Feb. 14, 2011. The budget calls for $3.7 trillion in spending for the fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1, 2011, with a projected deficit of $1.1 trillion. Government shortfalls are projected to decline to "sustainable'' levels for the rest of the decade.

The proposal represents a midterm pivot for Mr. Obama from costly economic stimulus measures to deficit reduction, but is bound to be contested fiercely by House Republicans who have called for far deeper cuts. In many ways Mr. Obama's proposal is more of a political and philosophical statement, given the certainty of major changes being made as it works its way through a divided Congress.

The budget reflects Mr. Obama’s cut-and-invest agenda: It creates winners and big losers as he proposes to slash spending in some domestic programs to both reduce deficits and make room for increases in education, infrastructure, clean energy, innovation and research to promote long-term economic growth and global competitiveness.

Among the losers are programs that Mr. Obama has supported, even expanded, in the past: Popular programs for home-heating aid to poor families and for community services block grants would be cut in half, and a multi-state Great Lakes cleanup project would lose a quarter of its money compared to 2010.

Pell grants for needy college students would be eliminated for summer classes, and graduate students would start accruing interest immediately on federal loans, though they would not have to pay until after they graduate; both changes are intended to help save $100 billion over 10 years to offset the costs of maintaining Pell grants for 9 million students, according to administration officials.

For the current fiscal year 2011, which ends Sept. 30, the Obama budget projects a deficit of more than $1.6 trillion, a level equal to nearly 11 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest shortfall since the end of World War II. That projection has swelled recently mostly due to the big tax cut deal that Mr. Obama and Congressional Republican leaders agreed to in December to spur the still-fragile economic recovery. It included a payroll tax cut this year for all Americans.

The deficit for fiscal year 2012 is projected to be lower, due to the end of some of those tax cuts and of the two-year stimulus package that Mr. Obama signed into law soon after taking office, along with increased economic growth and other deficit-reduction measures.

No formal budget was ever adopted for the current fiscal year, which began on Oct. 1, 2010. During a lame-duck session after midterm elections, Senate Republicans blocked an omnibus spending bill. Instead, Congress adopted a continuing resolution that extended previous spending levels until March 4, 2011. House Republicans have pledged to cut $60 billion out of discretionary spending for the rest of the fiscal year.

While the focus in Congress is on cuts to current spending, many economists and government officials, including Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, consider the country's long-term budget picture to be far more worrisome, as spending on Medicare and Social Security is expected to outstrip revenue growth as the country's population ages.

0 Replies

PRESIDENT OBAMA IS SUCH A CHARMING GANGSTER

Quote:

...
President Obama released his proposed budget for the 2012 fiscal year on Feb. 14, 2011. The budget calls for $3.7 trillion in spending for the fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1, 2011, with a projected deficit of $1.1 trillion.
...
For the current fiscal year 2011, which ends Sept. 30, the Obama budget projects a deficit of more than $1.6 trillion, a level equal to nearly 11 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest shortfall since the end of World War II.
...

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

I believe this event will backfire badly on the public sector labor unions and their paid Democrat toadies.

As I said to Okie earlier - I believe that you have this completely backward. There will be a backfiring on this, but it is much more likely to affect Gov. Walker and the Republicans than it is the teachers' union.

Quote:

It has benome increasingly clear to a growing number of people that many of their elected legislators are in the pockets of the public sector employee unions and that gross financial abuses of public treasuries have occurred.

This is the sort of evidence-free statement you love to make. Increasingly clear to who? You? This is the opinion Republicans have ALWAYS held. And you have no data showing that increasing groups of Americans as a whole believe what you say. You're just projecting your own opinions - again.Cycloptichorn

Perhaps you will deign to provide us with just a small sample of the fruits of the extensive study and erudition on these matter that you claim so frequently. The ratio of your bombastically repeated claims of knowledge and proofs to actually providing them is very large indeed. Just a quick scan over the last five pages will reveal repeated claims, but no proofs. Consider yourself asked.

Be specific - what are you asking about here?

From reading the post here, it seems that you are asking me to provide evidence for YOUR position. I stated:

Quote:

And you have no data showing that increasing groups of Americans as a whole believe what you say. You're just projecting your own opinions - again.

And that's perfectly true. You don't have any data showing this. If you do - present it. It certainly isn't my job to go and hunt up data to prove your argument.

When I make an assertion for which you want backup data, I'll happily provide it. But I'm not going to do the homework for lazy people.

You get super-pissy when people call you out on your bullshit, yaknow that? This is generally considered a sign that people know their argument isn't built on a solid foundation. Otherwise you would just shut me up by presenting the data. That very rarely happens, because you're either too lazy or incapable of doing so.

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Yaknow what? It isn't my job to hunt up data for your argument, but hell, I love a good challenge, so I figured, why not. Just to show you who is serious here and who is not.

Here's a recent poll which shows that majorities of Wisconsinites oppose the Gov's plan in Wisconsin:

http://weaskamerica.com/2011/02/18/weirdness-in-wisconsin/

Quote:

We Ask America, 2/17, 2,397 adults, MoE 2.0

”As you may know, Gov. Scott Walker has proposed a plan to limit the pay of government workers and teachers, increase their share of the cost of benefits, and strip some public-employ unions of much of their power. We’d like to know if APPROVE or DISAPPROVE of Gov. Walker’s plan.”

Approve: 43%
Disapprove: 52%

We Ask America is a Conservative polling outfit, just to cut that criticism off right at the knees.

Not even half the state supports what Walker is doing. IIRC, you're from Michigan, right? You ought to know enough about the history of WI to know that assaults on the rights of Labor in that state aren't going to go over well.

You don't seem to understand that, as much as 'tea party' fever swept through the right-wing last Fall, most people still don't trust the Republican party to solve things. They don't trust that your elected leaders have an actual plan to make anything better. And if you really want to see data on that, then please do ask.

Let me know when you're ready to get serious on this or any discussion, George. I have been disappointed for a long time that you lack the willingness to really engage in a fact- and evidence-based discussion. I say that, because facts and logical argumentation based on verifiable facts - not assertions - are the only way to really change anyone's opinion on matters or to come to some sort of conclusion as to whose argument really has more merit. This constant circle of assertion -> counter-assertion -> re-assertion gets us nowhere and is rather boring.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

This is getting a little ... strange. The issues in dispute - including your preemptory denial are fairly clearly encapsulated in your posted excerpts above. I offered an opinion and you countered with a contrary opinion, but no proof or argument, .... and then, in an increasingly familiar way, castigated me for offering no proof - in efect for doing exactly whay you did in response.

Moreover, this is clearly an issue involving future events for which the best one can do is pile on indicators in support of, or denying, a particular conjecture. proof is not possible because the future is not known.

The issue of right to work laws in various states has lain dormant for four decades, and now it is back on the tablke in several states. Issues concerning limitations to the negotiating rights of public employees are also on the table in several states, and that number is likely to grow. Democrat legislators in Wisconsin have fled the state in a desperate attempt to delay action on long overdue adjustments to the compensation of state employees. In the face of all this you blandly assert that all this will backfire on the governor. Given the prevailing private sector unemployment in Wisconsin, the budget deficit faced by this state, and its already high level of taxation, I find your assertions to be something less than intuitively obvious.

2 Replies

The strikers in Wisconsin simply want to preserve their First Amendment rights. Were they to present themselves armed and shoot the Governor, then the wing nuts would applaud them.

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know