PDA

View Full Version : OT: Unions - love 'em or hate 'em?


Pages : [1] 2

Pontius Pirate
06-23-2009, 10:06 AM
Was just reading this piece on Donald Fehr, and it reminded me how much I hate unions:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/tom_verducci/06/23/donald.fehr/index.html?bcnn=yes

Man-Goblin
06-23-2009, 10:06 AM
Hate.

Rock Chalk
06-23-2009, 10:08 AM
Despise.

BroncoInSkinland
06-23-2009, 10:14 AM
Unions will be the death of capitalism and are slowly choking the life out of the American dream. At the start they served a valuable purpose ensuring safe working conditions and fair pay, they have since become a haven for lazy workers and a way to extort the people who make the economy go. Institutionalized sloth. I guess you could say I don't like them much.

Man-Goblin
06-23-2009, 10:18 AM
Unions will be the death of capitalism and are slowly choking the life out of the American dream. At the start they served a valuable purpose ensuring safe working conditions and fair pay, they have since become a haven for lazy workers and a way to extort the people who make the economy go. Institutionalized sloth. I guess you could say I don't like them much.

What? Are you saying the auto industry might be in better shape right now without unions? nahhhhh, no way!

Rock Chalk
06-23-2009, 10:25 AM
What? Are you saying the auto industry might be in better shape right now without unions? nahhhhh, no way!

Folks, take notice of how to use sarcasm on the internet in a superb manner.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 10:25 AM
Wow, a lot of union hate here. While I agree that union demands can get out of hand, the idea of a union is essential to protect workers rights and to create acceptable wages to ensure a strong middle class (obviously, for those who know my political views, this comes as no surprise). Without unions, the corporates would take advantage of workers to no end. As said, while I agree that union demands often get out of hands, there's a happy medium to be had. People suck on both sides of the equation, but the idea of the union is sound. Don't give me this "destroys capitalism" BS. That is only if you want a few rich fat cats and an underpaid workforce...you know, something like we already have.

epicSocialism4tw
06-23-2009, 10:26 AM
Unions are destroying everything that they originally fought for because theyre nothing more than greedy coalitions of people who want to phase out competition for jobs while they try to provide themselves more and more opportunity to be lazy.

ORTONRULES
06-23-2009, 10:27 AM
Unions are for the weak minded, weak soul, week kneed.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 10:29 AM
Unions are destroying everything that they originally fought for because theyre nothing more than greedy coalitions of people who want to phase out competition for jobs while they try to provide themselves more and more opportunity to be lazy.

Agreed unions can be greedy....but...they are formed to protect themselves against greed. Kind of a vicious cycle, aint it? Humans just screw everything up. You'd think there was some alien force that pushes us to **** ourselves...nope, we just do it on our own accord

Dukes
06-23-2009, 10:29 AM
Unions will be the death of capitalism and are slowly choking the life out of the American dream. At the start they served a valuable purpose ensuring safe working conditions and fair pay, they have since become a haven for lazy workers and a way to extort the people who make the economy go. Institutionalized sloth. I guess you could say I don't like them much.

This

ORTONRULES
06-23-2009, 10:31 AM
Agreed unions can be greedy....but...they are formed to protect themselves against greed. Kind of a vicious cycle, aint it? Humans just screw everything up. You'd think there was some alien force that pushes us to **** ourselves...nope, we just do it on our own accord


1. you obviously work for a union
2. The only people which "screw everything up" are those flipping liberals who believe it is "the right to happiness" instead of "the right to pursue happiness"

55CrushEm
06-23-2009, 10:35 AM
Without unions, the corporates would take advantage of workers to no end.

Really? There are no union employees at my company, and we are doing quite well (considering the current state of the economy). I'm certainly not being taken advantage of by my employer.

And actually, I would argue the opposite......unions have been taking advantage of the companies they work for....extorting pay raises and other benefits, when in the case of the big auto manufacturers, they can't afford.

People need to be reminded (apparently) that it is a priveledge, NOT A RIGHT, to have a job.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 10:41 AM
1. you obviously work for a union
2. The only people which "screw everything up" are those flipping liberals who believe it is "the right to happiness" instead of "the right to pursue happiness"

I actually don't work for a union, but have been taken advantage of by corporates. I'm just a "flipping liberal" with socialist leanings. And spare me the lectures, trust me, im educated and didn't just come to my beliefs all willy nilly. I will respect your beliefs even though we don't agree, please respect mine.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 10:42 AM
Really? There are no union employees at my company, and we are doing quite well (considering the current state of the economy). I'm certainly not being taken advantage of by my employer.

And actually, I would argue the opposite......unions have been taking advantage of the companies they work for....extorting pay raises and other benefits, when in the case of the big auto manufacturers, they can't afford.

People need to be reminded (apparently) that it is a priveledge, NOT A RIGHT, to have a job.

I agree unions have taken advantage of employers, i said they've gone overboard. But just because your company has treated their employees well, doesn't mean they all do (and im sure you'll agree.) As I stated, there's a happy medium to be had here with unions, but to abolish them will further divide the classes, when we really should aspire for a strong middle class. Not just for equality reasons, but for a functioning economy, we need a spending middle class.

Archer81
06-23-2009, 10:48 AM
All unions are is a way to collect money for the purposes of one political party. Anything you HAVE to join automatically makes me suspect.


:Broncos:

alkemical
06-23-2009, 10:50 AM
Really? There are no union employees at my company, and we are doing quite well (considering the current state of the economy). I'm certainly not being taken advantage of by my employer.

And actually, I would argue the opposite......unions have been taking advantage of the companies they work for....extorting pay raises and other benefits, when in the case of the big auto manufacturers, they can't afford.

People need to be reminded (apparently) that it is a priveledge, NOT A RIGHT, to have a job.

Yet, for my and my coworkers - business is very much taking advantage of us.

UberBroncoMan
06-23-2009, 10:59 AM
Wow, a lot of union hate here. While I agree that union demands can get out of hand, the idea of a union is essential to protect workers rights and to create acceptable wages to ensure a strong middle class (obviously, for those who know my political views, this comes as no surprise). Without unions, the corporates would take advantage of workers to no end. As said, while I agree that union demands often get out of hands, there's a happy medium to be had. People suck on both sides of the equation, but the idea of the union is sound. Don't give me this "destroys capitalism" BS. That is only if you want a few rich fat cats and an underpaid workforce...you know, something like we already have.

I'm not surprised you'd "back" unions to a large extent based on your history of posts in the political field. You easily come of as a socialist thinker... too bad it fails everywhere.

What many people who don't understand why unions are a pile of **** don't get is that humans who rise into power are more often than not... corrupt masses of filth. Thus, practically every major union is corrupt. There's a reason the Japanese auto industry is raping our companies... there's also a reason why GM vehicles made and sold in China are doing so well.

Unions gain money and spend it to control politicians and so forth. They subscribe to the socialist and dare I say almost communist philosophy of equality which simply isn't healthy or truly viable for a corporation to maintain. Due to the insane benefits given to workers currently in the auto industry, companies like GM and Chrysler practically exist as a form of health care/pension creation due to the Union stranglehold.

They've failed because of the parasitic nature of humans to get as much as they can.

Oh and as one person said... anything you are essentially FORCED to join not of your own freewill isn't democratic.

Oh, and **** unions.

Dukes
06-23-2009, 11:05 AM
I'm not surprised you'd "back" unions to a large extent based on your history of posts in the political field. You easily come of as a socialist thinker... too bad it fails everywhere.

Oh, and **** unions.

I respect SonOfLe-loLang, disagree on politics, but still respect him. He's already stated many times he's a socialist.

alkemical
06-23-2009, 11:08 AM
I'm not surprised you'd "back" unions to a large extent based on your history of posts in the political field. You easily come of as a socialist thinker... too bad it fails everywhere.

What many people who don't understand why unions are a pile of **** don't get is that humans who rise into power are more often than not... corrupt masses of filth. Thus, practically every major union is corrupt. There's a reason the Japanese auto industry is raping our companies... there's also a reason why GM vehicles made and sold in China are doing so well.

Unions gain money and spend it to control politicians and so forth. They subscribe to the socialist and dare I say almost communist philosophy of equality which simply isn't healthy or truly viable for a corporation to maintain. Due to the insane benefits given to workers currently in the auto industry, companies like GM and Chrysler practically exist as a form of health care/pension creation due to the Union stranglehold.

They've failed because of the parasitic nature of humans to get as much as they can.

Oh and as one person said... anything you are essentially FORCED to join not of your own freewill isn't democratic.

Oh, and **** unions.


What about corporations that use the same capital influence in the capitol to exert their own rules for labor? Isn't it the same thing?

BroncoInSkinland
06-23-2009, 11:08 AM
Wow, a lot of union hate here. While I agree that union demands can get out of hand, the idea of a union is essential to protect workers rights and to create acceptable wages to ensure a strong middle class (obviously, for those who know my political views, this comes as no surprise). Without unions, the corporates would take advantage of workers to no end. As said, while I agree that union demands often get out of hands, there's a happy medium to be had. People suck on both sides of the equation, but the idea of the union is sound. Don't give me this "destroys capitalism" BS. That is only if you want a few rich fat cats and an underpaid workforce...you know, something like we already have.

Not going to bother debating you, your views are probably as set in stone as mine are. But be aware that when the government run corporations come crashing down due to the unsustainable nature of their respective business models the "underpaid" workforce is going to be looking for jobs while the "fat cats" will be busy driving the economy just as they always have. You get what you work for in the world, modern unions are a way to circumvent that ... for a limited amount of time.

UberBroncoMan
06-23-2009, 11:09 AM
I respect SonOfLe-loLang, disagree on politics, but still respect him. He's already stated many times he's a socialist.

I don't respect his stances since he's a radical thinker when it comes to the liberal democracy that's historically been a part of the United States. When I hear a rampant socialist cry how Obama isn't really one it just makes me /facepalm. There's a reason for the attraction. It's really hard to look at anything he says politically and go... oh yeah!?

If you want socialism to work, find another species or watch Star Trek.

Edit: oh and I should add... that socialism in Star Trek looks great! Hell I might not mind living in that type of world. But it's utter fantasy and based on humans not being greedy, killing one another etc. It's simply not possible for their to be a world where everyone has the necessities they need, there is too much hate based on stupid **** like race/culture (China actually hates us a great deal in reality). We're not going to get food replicators to feed the planet etc. The 200,000 child soldiers in Africa aren't going to wake up and say... oh ****, maybe I shouldn't have let myself get brainwashed and kill that village. There will always be evil to prevent good from being absolute.

Humans are what they are, and the best possible form of living is Roman Republic/United States style of governing HOWEVER our nation needs an extremely strict vetting process, and term limits to stem corruption (that means Senate/House seats get 1-2 terms max) and any decent/major sign of corruption from an individual disqualifies them. Liberal Democracy would flourish if the people in charge of our nation weren't spending all their time maintaining and abusing their power rather than focusing it on the betterment of the people they were hired/voted to serve.

With humans the way they are... if we added socialism/communism and let all these corrupt mother ****ers have even MORE POWER, then we're a ****ing stupid species that can't grasp REALITY. This is why I can't see how any intelligent human being would want socialism/communism. It's just giving more power to the already powerful corrupt.

UberBroncoMan
06-23-2009, 11:13 AM
What about corporations that use the same capital influence in the capitol to exert their own rules for labor? Isn't it the same thing?

The difference is that the unions will destroy the economy due to the destruction of the corporations they infest. We have set laws on how labor forces are to be treated... minimum wage... etc. Unions are a large reason why so much work has gone overseas. Corporations and people keep the economy running... if a union destroys a corporation, then the people still lose their job and their cash flow. Thus the union is by far the greater of two evils (if you want to call it that).

Power leads to corruption. Yes corporations included. However the damage done by the union train of thought is vastly greater in a nation that is inherently a liberal democracy (liberal democracy doesn't mean "liberal" like a socialist by the way).

bfoflcommish
06-23-2009, 11:22 AM
where were all you bastards to back me up in the other thread about unions 2 week ago??? bastages! hahahahahaha

queue spider in 3....2.....

BroncoInSkinland
06-23-2009, 11:25 AM
where were all you bastards to back me up in the other thread about unions 2 week ago??? bastages! hahahahahaha

queue spider in 3....2.....

I avoid WRP like the plague. I have enough on my plate here dealing with the Broncos related stuff, if I spent too much time in WRP my head would explode.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 11:25 AM
I don't respect his stances since he's a radical thinker when it comes to the liberal democracy that's historically been a part of the United States. When I hear a rampant socialist cry how Obama isn't really one it just makes me /facepalm. There's a reason for the attraction. It's really hard to look at anything he says politically and go... oh yeah!?

If you want socialism to work, find another species or watch Star Trek.

Edit: oh and I should add... that socialism in Star Trek looks great! Hell I might not mind living in that type of world. But it's utter fantasy and based on humans not being greedy, killing one another etc. It's simply not possible for their to be a world where everyone has the necessities they need, there is too much hate based on stupid **** like race/culture (China actually hates us a great deal in reality). We're not going to get food replicators to feed the planet etc.

Humans are what they are, and the best possible form of living is Roman Republic/United States style of governing HOWEVER our nation needs an extremely strict vetting process, and term limits to stem corruption (that means Senate/House seats get 1-2 terms max) and any decent/major sign of corruption from an individual disqualifies them. Liberal Democracy would flourish if the people in charge of our nation weren't spending all their time maintaining and abusing their power rather than focusing it on the betterment of the people they were hired/voted to serve.


Ok, first of all, Obama is hardly a socialist. Just look at how they are handling healthcare right now and you can clearly see he has no desire to even consider something like a single payer system, which isn't even really socialist (though is the kind I support since, ideally, it provides cheaper healthcare while promoting competition...and also can allow you to buy supplemental coverage, like they do in france, which is usually recognized as the best healthcare in the world).

When I speak of my socialist beliefs, I do so in theory only, as you should as well. With politics, you have to be set in your beleifs and take the less of all evils that best fit your beliefs. I have deep and varied reasons for being a democratic socialist (im not a communist, for reasons stated, i dont want the government to control EVERYTHING, i like them as a regulatory force)

And as for democratic socialism not working, france, sweden, denmark usually don't complain too much and they are always high in the quality of life surveys. Yes, they pay very high taxes, but they see their returns in things like free healthcare, childcare, college, and even government paid vacation pay. Imagine one day being at the ATM and noticing the gov't put 4,000 dollars in your account so you can go on vacation for 6 weeks? pretty cool if you ask me. I don't mind paying into a system that pays back in social services.

broncocalijohn
06-23-2009, 11:25 AM
Unions will be the death of capitalism and are slowly choking the life out of the American dream. At the start they served a valuable purpose ensuring safe working conditions and fair pay, they have since become a haven for lazy workers and a way to extort the people who make the economy go. Institutionalized sloth. I guess you could say I don't like them much.

while I agree, i have not read lower than this thread to know that Spider has responded and is ready to detour to give you a special "Throat punch special" personally delivered while his truck is still running.
It is completely lame to think of Unions and million dollar baseball players. Fehr did make sure that his players got to stay on the steroids so it helped him line his pockets from the players being overpaid for false statistics.

bfoflcommish
06-23-2009, 11:25 AM
I avoid WRP like the plague. I have enough on my plate here dealing with the Broncos related stuff, if I spent too much time in WRP my head would explode.

actually it was here in open forum.

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2009, 11:27 AM
I think the time for Unions has passed.

BroncoInSkinland
06-23-2009, 11:28 AM
actually it was here in open forum.

Oh, then I am just blind, or mighta been too lazy/drunk to say something at that time, hard to say. :wiggle:

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 11:28 AM
I think the time for Unions has passed.

Shocking ;) I was wondering when you would chime in. Though i always enjoy a good debate with you, at least you have a brain.

bfoflcommish
06-23-2009, 11:29 AM
Oh, then I am just blind, or mighta been too lazy/drunk to say something at that time, hard to say. :wiggle:

haha it was the would you shop past a picket line thread

broncocalijohn
06-23-2009, 11:30 AM
Ok, first of all, Obama is hardly a socialist. Just look at how they are handling healthcare right now and you can clearly see he has no desire to even consider something like a single payer system, which isn't even really socialist (though is the kind I support since, ideally, it provides cheaper healthcare while promoting competition...and also can allow you to buy supplemental coverage, like they do in france, which is usually recognized as the best healthcare in the world).


So naive. I guess you havent heard his past recordings of him explaining he would want a totally run health care. Others also have stated. Give the people a little of what "they" want and slowly nail them to this idea 10 to 15 years down the road.

Dukes
06-23-2009, 11:34 AM
So naive. I guess you havent heard his past recordings of him explaining he would want a totally run health care. Others also have stated. Give the people a little of what "they" want and slowly nail them to this idea 10 to 15 years down the road.

Sounds like Obama's plan for Cap and Trade, with a main focus on bankrupting the coal industry.

Archer81
06-23-2009, 11:35 AM
Ok, first of all, Obama is hardly a socialist. Just look at how they are handling healthcare right now and you can clearly see he has no desire to even consider something like a single payer system, which isn't even really socialist (though is the kind I support since, ideally, it provides cheaper healthcare while promoting competition...and also can allow you to buy supplemental coverage, like they do in france, which is usually recognized as the best healthcare in the world).

When I speak of my socialist beliefs, I do so in theory only, as you should as well. With politics, you have to be set in your beleifs and take the less of all evils that best fit your beliefs. I have deep and varied reasons for being a democratic socialist (im not a communist, for reasons stated, i dont want the government to control EVERYTHING, i like them as a regulatory force)

And as for democratic socialism not working, france, sweden, denmark usually don't complain too much and they are always high in the quality of life surveys. Yes, they pay very high taxes, but they see their returns in things like free healthcare, childcare, college, and even government paid vacation pay. Imagine one day being at the ATM and noticing the gov't put 4,000 dollars in your account so you can go on vacation for 6 weeks? pretty cool if you ask me. I don't mind paying into a system that pays back in social services.


Western Europe doesnt have "free" anything. They pay for it, difference is the state decides whats best, rather than the individual. Also, if $4,000 just showed up in my bank account, that means someone else who earned it got their money taken from them so I can go off on a vacation I dont deserve.

As for healthcare, the government is not in the business of competition. Creating a government healthcare system means the full bargaining power of the US would be behind this nightmare, undercutting other healthcare insurers, putting them out of business and leading us to a single payer system. Also, if European medicine was so awesome...why do millions of French, Germans, Brits, Irish, Belgians, Dutch, ect come HERE for surgeries and treatments?

:Broncos:

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 11:36 AM
So naive. I guess you havent heard his past recordings of him explaining he would want a totally run health care. Others also have stated. Give the people a little of what "they" want and slowly nail them to this idea 10 to 15 years down the road.

Oh jeez, i don't know what propaganda machine you've been listening to, but anytime even the idea of single payer gets mentioned, people laugh. Why? Because even our "left" is center right these days. The fact that mostr moderate dems are even balking at a public plan, to ensure lower costs but still promote competition shows how "socialist" he is. C'mon, socialism has just become a right wing buzzword, nothing he's doing is socialist other than taking over the dying car industry that probably is gonna fail with or without the government.

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2009, 11:37 AM
Shocking ;) I was wondering when you would chime in. Though i always enjoy a good debate with you, at least you have a brain.

You give me too much credit. Iam as dumb as the next poster....which might be Dortoh.

This isn't the time of TR and the rampant abuse of employees. However, thanks to Unions for getting us to this point, and they may be needed in the future, but I think we're at the point when it's time for them to go.

UberBroncoMan
06-23-2009, 11:38 AM
Ok, first of all, Obama is hardly a socialist. Just look at how they are handling healthcare right now and you can clearly see he has no desire to even consider something like a single payer system, which isn't even really socialist (though is the kind I support since, ideally, it provides cheaper healthcare while promoting competition...and also can allow you to buy supplemental coverage, like they do in france, which is usually recognized as the best healthcare in the world).

When I speak of my socialist beliefs, I do so in theory only, as you should as well. With politics, you have to be set in your beleifs and take the less of all evils that best fit your beliefs. I have deep and varied reasons for being a democratic socialist (im not a communist, for reasons stated, i dont want the government to control EVERYTHING, i like them as a regulatory force)

And as for democratic socialism not working, france, sweden, denmark usually don't complain too much and they are always high in the quality of life surveys. Yes, they pay very high taxes, but they see their returns in things like free healthcare, childcare, college, and even government paid vacation pay. Imagine one day being at the ATM and noticing the gov't put 4,000 dollars in your account so you can go on vacation for 6 weeks? pretty cool if you ask me. I don't mind paying into a system that pays back in social services.

That right there is why you have 0 credibility with me. Look at Obama's voting record. Look at the communists/socialists he's surrounded himself his entire life with.

I lived in Europe have you? The ****ing taxes sucked dick. We b**** about gas prices here HAHAHAHA. Have you ever had national health care? Well military health care is similar. It' s a pile of **** too. I've got friends in Sweden and England. It's a pile of **** that's slowly going bankrupt (especially so in England where they have already had to re-privatize a lot of it). You're on a list for your treatment... thousands upon thousands of people die on lists every year.

Socialism feeds to the weak and endorses the concept of not working hard. Europe is notorious for lazy workers. There's a reason Sweden has one of the largest and most abundant online gaming population in the world (and they're a small ****ing country in comparison). In that nation it's ok to sit on your ass and play games all day because you're taken care of.

Now... I will be nice and give you some credit. "government to control EVERYTHING." It's good to see you believe that. However, I believe that once you give a corrupt mother****er a cookie, he's going to ask for milk. I for one believe the United States has the ability more than the socialist nations in Europe, to become even more corrupt. We have elected officials who want the government to control the banks and various other industries (even the oil industry).

I believe once the government controls the basic necessities for life (energy, banks, health care)... THEY CONTROL EVERYTHING... and with numerous people we have elected it just means more fighting for power.

They actually believe we're too stupid to run our own lives and that the government must do it for us.

**** sometimes I wonder if they're right... and that's sad.

If this trend continues and the government actually controls all of those things, we will wake up one day realizing that the government does in fact control our lives.

Like I said... Star Trek socialism seems great, but it's not possible.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 11:40 AM
Western Europe doesnt have "free" anything. They pay for it, difference is the state decides whats best, rather than the individual. Also, if $4,000 just showed up in my bank account, that means someone else who earned it got their money taken from them so I can go off on a vacation I dont deserve.

As for healthcare, the government is not in the business of competition. Creating a government healthcare system means the full bargaining power of the US would be behind this nightmare, undercutting other healthcare insurers, putting them out of business and leading us to a single payer system. Also, if European medicine was so awesome...why do millions of French, Germans, Brits, Irish, Belgians, Dutch, ect come HERE for surgeries and treatments?

:Broncos:


Whatever, im not going to argue with you because it's pointless. you have your beliefs, i have mine. I'm not denying the american healthcare system does have its advantages (we have so much more money in it that other countries simply because we make more), but its so ineffcient it hurts. We're the only industrialized country without any sort of universal healthcare. It's sick the way we treat our poor here.

And French healthcare is widely regarded as the best run. It provides a public option and the opportunity to buy additional coverage if you choose. The fact that insurance companies here TURN people away because they are risks is downright sick and inhumane. We as humans should try to take care of eachother, not just make money off each other.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 11:42 AM
That right there is why you have 0 credibility with me. Look at Obama's voting record. Look at the communists/socialists he's surrounded himself his entire life with.

I lived in Europe have you? The ****ing taxes sucked dick. We b**** about gas prices here HAHAHAHA. Have you ever had national health care? Well military health care is similar. It' s a pile of **** too. I've got friends in Sweden and England. It's a pile of **** that's slowly going bankrupt (especially so in England where they have already had to re-privatize a lot of it). You're on a list for your treatment... thousands upon thousands of people die on lists every year.

Socialism feeds to the weak and endorses the concept of not working hard. There's a reason Sweden has one of the largest and most abundant gaming population in the world (and they're a small ****ing country in compairison). In that nation it's ok to sit on your ass and play games all day because you're taken care of.

Now... I will be nice and give you some credit. "government to control EVERYTHING." It's good to see you believe that. However, I believe that once you give a corrupt mother****er a cookie, he's going to ask for milk. I for one believe the United States has the ability more than the socialist nations in Europe, to become even more corrupt. We have elected officials who want the government to control the banks and various other industries (even the oil industry).

I believe once the government controls the basic necessities for life (energy, banks, health care)... THEY CONTROL EVERYTHING... and with numerous people we have elected it just means more fighting for power.

They actually believe we're too stupid to run our own lives and that the government must do it for us.

**** sometimes I wonder if they're right... and that's sad.

If this trend continues and the government actually controls all of those things, we will wake up one day realizing that the government does in fact control our lives.

Like I said... Star Trek socialism seems great, but it's not possible.

Whatever dude, im not gonna argue with you. I love how i lose all credibility because you happen to think Obama wants to turn us into communist russia. You clearly have no clue what a socialist is. Obama barely even leans left enough these days and perhaps its an impossibility in America.

And im not saying Euro countries aren't flawed in their own right, but you act as if our system is perfect. Keep things they way they are with rising costs, you'll see a health system crumble to the ground real quick.

UberBroncoMan
06-23-2009, 11:42 AM
Oh jeez, i don't know what propaganda machine you've been listening to, but anytime even the idea of single payer gets mentioned, people laugh. Why? Because even our "left" is center right these days. The fact that mostr moderate dems are even balking at a public plan, to ensure lower costs but still promote competition shows how "socialist" he is. C'mon, socialism has just become a right wing buzzword, nothing he's doing is socialist other than taking over the dying car industry that probably is gonna fail with or without the government.

National health care is socialist btw.

On that note, what do you think has killed the auto-industry? Socialist Unions. Ding Ding.

So is promising to create FIVE MILLION GOVERNMENT JOBS.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 11:42 AM
And of course the taxes sucked dick. But their taxes are funnelled back into society in healthcare, childcare, college...etc. Ours go to a ****ing military.

alkemical
06-23-2009, 11:43 AM
The difference is that the unions will destroy the economy due to the destruction of the corporations they infest. We have set laws on how labor forces are to be treated... minimum wage... etc. Unions are a large reason why so much work has gone overseas. Corporations and people keep the economy running... if a union destroys a corporation, then the people still lose their job and their cash flow. Thus the union is by far the greater of two evils (if you want to call it that).

Power leads to corruption. Yes corporations included. However the damage done by the union train of thought is vastly greater in a nation that is inherently a liberal democracy (liberal democracy doesn't mean "liberal" like a socialist by the way).



I could argue that the greed of profits over people is why corporations went overseas. hershey's a good example of that.

Corporations left unfettered will also destroy the economy because everyone will be working for company script. We'll all be making far lesser wages.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 11:45 AM
National health care is socialist btw.

On that note, what do you think has killed the auto-industry? Socialist Unions. Ding Ding.

I love how you blame the entire auto failure on unions and not the companies failure to adjust to a new business model. There are a lot of reasons the auto industry failed, union demands are just a slice.

And the most "radical" health care plan they are discussing the the invention of a public option to drive down costs. You dont have to choose that option if you don't want to. Hardly socialist...its a far cry from even a single payer system. And the public option probably wont even pass because we are a center right nation. get off the libertarian high horse and quit buying into the propaganda.

My guess is that healthcare goes the way of stimulus...a watered down bill

UberBroncoMan
06-23-2009, 11:45 AM
And of course the taxes sucked dick. But their taxes are funnelled back into society in healthcare, childcare, college...etc. Ours go to a ****ing military.

Wow man don't hate on the military...

Our ****ing Stimulus makes our military spending look like a jerk off session.

alkemical
06-23-2009, 11:47 AM
National health care is socialist btw.

On that note, what do you think has killed the auto-industry? Socialist Unions. Ding Ding.

So is promising to create FIVE MILLION GOVERNMENT JOBS.

Giving corporations tax $$$ is socialist.

UberBroncoMan
06-23-2009, 11:47 AM
I love how you blame the entire auto failure on unions and not the companies failure to adjust to a new business model. There are a lot of reasons the auto industry failed, union demands are just a slice.

And the most "radical" health care plan they are discussing the the invention of a public option to drive down costs. You dont have to choose that option if you don't want to. Hardly socialist...its a far cry from even a single payer system. And the public option probably wont even pass because we are a center right nation. get off the libertarian high horse and quit buying into the propaganda.

My guess is that healthcare goes the way of stimulus...a watered down bill

Union demands are hardly a slice. They are the biggest reason. Oh and since you bring up business models. It should be noted that our government has placed numerous restrictions that have forced these changes of which the committees were mostly democratic.

I don't buy into propaganda. I base my understanding of things on facts and HISTORY.

Archer81
06-23-2009, 11:48 AM
Whatever, im not going to argue with you because it's pointless. you have your beliefs, i have mine. I'm not denying the american healthcare system does have its advantages (we have so much more money in it that other countries simply because we make more), but its so ineffcient it hurts. We're the only industrialized country without any sort of universal healthcare. It's sick the way we treat our poor here.

And French healthcare is widely regarded as the best run. It provides a public option and the opportunity to buy additional coverage if you choose. The fact that insurance companies here TURN people away because they are risks is downright sick and inhumane. We as humans should try to take care of eachother, not just make money off each other.


The system proposed by Obama wont exactly cover existing conditions. He said it himself about preventative health care. what happens when you hit your 50's and 60's and have to be put on lists to get joint replacements or organ replacements? You will be rejected because of your age, which is more inhumane than the system we have now.

As you mentioned, Americans just have more money than anyone else, so to cry about the American poor wont engender the same response if we were in Mexico or Zaire. Its not the government's job to hand hold you through your entire life.

Charity begins at home, it cant be legislated.

:Broncos:

UberBroncoMan
06-23-2009, 11:48 AM
Giving corporations tax $$$ is socialist.

Yeah that too. Good one.

... I should make a picture of Obama and play pin the tail on the Socialist. Every tail would have a Socialist act he's doing/done!

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 11:48 AM
Wow man don't hate on the military...

Our ****ing Stimulus makes our military spending look like a jerk off session.

I'm not hatingo n the military, and please don't turn into this "le-lo doesn't support the troops" Its just sick that we have to funnel so much goddamn money into it. The world is a sick, sick place.

BroncoLifer
06-23-2009, 11:48 AM
....Imagine one day being at the ATM and noticing the gov't put 4,000 dollars in your account so you can go on vacation for 6 weeks? pretty cool if you ask me.

Imagine one day working for your own living and not being a parasite on the rest of society. Pretty cool (and responsible) if you ask me.

UberBroncoMan
06-23-2009, 11:49 AM
I'm not hatingo n the military, and please don't turn into this "le-lo doesn't support the troops" Its just sick that we have to funnel so much goddamn money into it. The world is a sick, sick place.

Woot we agree on another thing!

Archer81
06-23-2009, 11:50 AM
And of course the taxes sucked dick. But their taxes are funnelled back into society in healthcare, childcare, college...etc. Ours go to a ****ing military.


You realize so much of our money goes into our military to protect these European countries you hold a shining torch on? If they had to pay for their own defense beyond internal security needs, they wouldnt be able to afford this socialist bull****.


:Broncos:

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2009, 11:51 AM
If this trend continues and the government actually controls all of those things, we will wake up one day realizing that the government does in fact control our lives.

Like I said... Star Trek socialism seems great, but it's not possible.


I was actually thinking about this the other day. It really is a utopia from a certian point of view. They are also in the year 2223.

UberBroncoMan
06-23-2009, 11:51 AM
Imagine one day working for your own living and not being a parasite on the rest of society. Pretty cool (and responsible) if you ask me.

Man lol. I actually laughed when he said the government paying us for vacation.

Again that's the philosophy that the government must take care of you because we obviously are too stupid to save up money to pay for a vacation.

I don't get how he says he doesn't want the government to RUN EVERYTHING, when he clearly wants them heavily involved in all aspects of our lives.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 11:51 AM
The system proposed by Obama wont exactly cover existing conditions. He said it himself about preventative health care. what happens when you hit your 50's and 60's and have to be put on lists to get joint replacements or organ replacements? You will be rejected because of your age, which is more inhumane than the system we have now.

As you mentioned, Americans just have more money than anyone else, so to cry about the American poor wont engender the same response if we were in Mexico or Zaire. Its not the government's job to hand hold you through your entire life.

Charity begins at home, it cant be legislated.

:Broncos:


Actually, get your facts straight...the White House has proposed nor has it backed a plan. Their is one plan out there (the HELP one i think) that is severely flawed...but obviously there are others in the works and this thing is far from over.

Clearly, the poor in america are better off than the poor in third world countries, but we can do a better job of protecting ours. Not to mention, a funcitioning economy works best when theres a strong middle class to spend. If we continuet his road and the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, the disappearing middle class cannot sustain spending and you'll just be in continued recession (this is obviously just theory here, as is all this discussion).

alkemical
06-23-2009, 11:51 AM
Yeah that too. Good one.

... I should make a picture of Obama and play pin the tail on the Socialist. Every tail would have a Socialist act he's doing/done!



hey, didn't bush do some bail outs too? Doesn't walmart get billions in tax money?

Come on man, stop being a one trick pony... that's got tiajuana written all over it.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 11:53 AM
Man lol. I actually laughed when he said the government paying us for vacation.

Again that's the philosophy that the government must take care of you because we obviously are too stupid to save up money to pay for a vacation.

I don't get how he says he doesn't want the government to RUN EVERYTHING, when he clearly wants them heavily involved in all aspects of our lives.

Government isn't meant to be a bully, its meant to govern and guide. This often gets perverted by humanity (because we are flawed, flawed beings) but people act like the government is some big, bad body to oppress. It doesnt have to be that, nor should it be.

Obviously no one gets this right, empires fail all the time. Ours will too.

UberBroncoMan
06-23-2009, 11:53 AM
I was actually thinking about this the other day. It really is a utopia from a certian point of view. They are also in the year 2223.

Yeah man it's ****ing great. Like I said... that type of socialism would ****ing rock. But it's just not possible... absolutly impossible. It's a "utopia" as you put it. A world without parasitic lazy ****s or men killing for power isn't going to happen.

Oddly enough though, I think it actually would take contact with an alien species to unite the human race. Space and the realization that we're small would help a bit.

On the flip side though, we might just kill each other over who gets to be closest to the aliens and try to mooch their technology lol

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2009, 11:54 AM
You realize so much of our money goes into our military to protect these European countries you hold a shining torch on? If they had to pay for their own defense beyond internal security needs, they wouldnt be able to afford this socialist bull****.


:Broncos:

Plus Medicare and Medicaid are complete failures and only through robbing Peter to pay Paul do they stay afloat.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 11:54 AM
hey, didn't bush do some bail outs too? Doesn't walmart get billions in tax money?

Come on man, stop being a one trick pony... that's got tiajuana written all over it.

Yes, but we must feel bad for those huge corporations. Lets protect those at all costs....no need to protect the people that actually give them their profit.

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2009, 11:55 AM
Yeah man it's ****ing great. Like I said... that type of socialism would ****ing rock. But it's just not possible... absolutly impossible. It's a "utopia" as you put it. A world without parasitic lazy ****s or men killing for power isn't going to happen.

Oddly enough though, I think it actually would take contact with an alien species to unite the human race. Space and the realization that we're small would help a bit.

On the flip side though, we might just kill each other over who gets to be closest to the aliens and try to mooch their technology lol

Also though...you only see the Star Fleet side of it. Do don't see actual life in the context of the Story.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 11:56 AM
Plus Medicare and Medicaid are complete failures and only through robbing Peter to pay Paul do they stay afloat.

Complete failures? Come on. The problem isnt medicare and medicaid...the problem is rising healthcare costs that bloat those problems. Medicare and Medicade, along with SS, are some of america's most popular programs. I think you should go live on that libertarian island they are building out of foam or whatever:) Or "go galt" or something:)

UberBroncoMan
06-23-2009, 11:56 AM
Government isn't meant to be a bully, its meant to govern and guide. This often gets perverted by humanity (because we are flawed, flawed beings) but people act like the government is some big, bad body to oppress. It doesnt have to be that, nor should it be.

Obviously no one gets this right, empires fail all the time. Ours will too.

I have no doubt the United States of America will not last for all time.

However, you can't get a government that actually "govern's and guides" the right way when the government is filled with corrupt tools.

The government is a big, bad body to oppress because the people who fill it are those type of people.

BECAAAAAAAAAAAUSE - "We are flawed, flawed beings."

You want socialism to work in a way that's just never going to happen successfully. Humans are too corrupt.

Archer81
06-23-2009, 11:57 AM
Actually, get your facts straight...the White House has proposed nor has it backed a plan. Their is one plan out there (the HELP one i think) that is severely flawed...but obviously there are others in the works and this thing is far from over.

Clearly, the poor in america are better off than the poor in third world countries, but we can do a better job of protecting ours. Not to mention, a funcitioning economy works best when theres a strong middle class to spend. If we continuet his road and the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, the disappearing middle class cannot sustain spending and you'll just be in continued recession (this is obviously just theory here, as is all this discussion).


US has the most affluent and stable middle class in the world. Only at election time is it shrinking or being "endangered" from greedy corporate interests. 40% of Americans already dont pay taxes, which puts more pressure on the middle and upper classes to fund these social monstrosities we dont need.

:Broncos:

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2009, 11:58 AM
Yes, but we must feel bad for those huge corporations. Lets protect those at all costs....no need to protect the people that actually give them their profit.

When governemnt sets up system that are supposed to mimic the private sector they create a conflict of interest. They can no longer apply the same rules to themselves that they apply to the private sector. Nor enforce the law without being bias and hypocrits. We need the Governemnt to enforce contracts. They can't do that properly when they are in the same game. For example, SOX. SOX is a law aimed at publically trade companies and the reliability of their financial statements. Great. It's a PIMA, but great. Well it does't apply to GSE's like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Why? Because they are GSE (Government Sponcered Entities). Had they had to complt with SOX we might not be in so deep right now.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 11:59 AM
I have no doubt the United States of America will not last for all time.

However, you can't get a government that actually "govern's and guides" the right way when the government is filled with corrupt tools.

The government is a big, bad body to oppress because the people who fill it are those type of people.

BECAAAAAAAAAAAUSE - "We are flawed, flawed beings."

You want socialism to work in a way that's just never going to happen successfully. Humans are too corrupt.

On this we agree. Humans are too corrupt for pure socialism, just as they are for pure libertarianism. But, really, what can we do but fight for what we believe in, ya know?

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 12:00 PM
US has the most affluent and stable middle class in the world. Only at election time is it shrinking or being "endangered" from greedy corporate interests. 40% of Americans already dont pay taxes, which puts more pressure on the middle and upper classes to fund these social monstrosities we dont need.

:Broncos:

Top 30,000 incomes make more than the next 250,000,000

UberBroncoMan
06-23-2009, 12:01 PM
When governemnt sets up system that are supposed to mimic the private sector they create a conflict of interest. They can no longer apply the same rules to themselves that they applty to the private sector. For example, SOX. SOX is a law aimed at publically trade companies and the reliability of their financial statements. Great. It's a PIMA, but great. Well it does't apply to GSE's like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Why? Because they are GSE (Government Sponcered Entities). Had they had to complt with SOX we might not be in so deep right now.

Damn... that's a really good point, I never even thought about that.

Just another point though about how government fails so much of the **** it touches.

It exists to feed and sustain itself. Part of that is by putting restrictions on other things while exempting itself.

I kind of feel for Sonof now simply because it seems like he really wants humanity to exist in harmony and be taken care of, but he doesn't get that what he wants isn't truly possible. Humans are evil, it's not going to happen the way you've dreamed it out in your head.

Archer81
06-23-2009, 12:02 PM
Top 30,000 incomes make more than the next 250,000,000


Top 30,000 incomes pays nearly half the tax burden. Does that seem fair to you?


:Broncos:

ElwayMD
06-23-2009, 12:03 PM
I was actually thinking about this the other day. It really is a utopia from a certian point of view. They are also in the year 2223.

Yeah but then the Borg would come in and screw everything up.

UberBroncoMan
06-23-2009, 12:03 PM
Top 30,000 incomes make more than the next 250,000,000

If you work your way into the top 30,000 good ****ing job for you! How do you feel about sports athletes btw? How about move actors? news anchors? Most of these people are democrats/socialists btw.

I guarantee if you looked at the top 30,000 you'd be surprised because you'd realize MOST of them are democrats. They are the people who "care" and "wuv" everyone.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 12:05 PM
Top 30,000 incomes pays nearly half the tax burden. Does that seem fair to you?


:Broncos:

I'm not sure if your percentagei s correct, but absolutely its fair. They are just being taxed a somewhat similar rate as the rest of us...they should be taxed a lot more like we did in the 60's and 70's. They're lives won't change at all and they'll be, in theory, paying back to the people who made them rich in the first place.

gyldenlove
06-23-2009, 12:05 PM
Plus Medicare and Medicaid are complete failures and only through robbing Peter to pay Paul do they stay afloat.

How is that different from other health insurance options?

UberBroncoMan
06-23-2009, 12:05 PM
Top 30,000 incomes pays nearly half the tax burden. Does that seem fair to you?


:Broncos:


Ouch lol.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 12:06 PM
If you work your way into the top 30,000 good ****ing job for you! How do you feel about sports athletes btw? How about move actors? news anchors? Most of these people are democrats/socialists btw.

I guarantee if you looked at the top 30,000 you'd be surprised because you'd realize MOST of them are democrats. They are the people who "care" and "wuv" everyone.

I wish it were as easy as "working hard" To be that rich it involves a ton of luck and circumstance as well as hard work.

Seriously, insult me all you want, we just have a difference in opinion, but don't insult my intelligence and imply im not "getting" something, because that's bull****. Perhaps im more compassionate than you are and i ****ing hate most of the people around me...but i dont feel as if im better than them.

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2009, 12:07 PM
Complete failures? Come on. The problem isnt medicare and medicaid...the problem is rising healthcare costs that bloat those problems. Medicare and Medicade, along with SS, are some of america's most popular programs. I think you should go live on that libertarian island they are building out of foam or whatever:) Or "go galt" or something:)

Unless you convince doctors and nurses to take less money they aren't going down. This is why government subsidized healthcare is a failure out of the gate and leads to socialized medicine(Read as Government Employed Doctors....also the same people they get their licensing from). Medicare can't exist without printing more money and the same goes for medicaid. The only way to truly combat rising health care costs is education. Health education, wellness education, and Medical Education. If doctor mom can do it...so can you.

UberBroncoMan
06-23-2009, 12:07 PM
I'm not sure if your percentagei s correct, but absolutely its fair. They are just being taxed a somewhat similar rate as the rest of us...they should be taxed a lot more like we did in the 60's and 70's. They're lives won't change at all and they'll be, in theory, paying back to the people who made them rich in the first place.

Son... there is a big problem that you just can't seem to get.

The tax dollars?

WE ****ING WAIST IT ALL ALL SORTS OF STUPID ****.

Earmarks to help retain power and gain political allies, stupid projects for the same reason... bailouts etc.

It's just feeding the corrupt sharks more money.

UberBroncoMan
06-23-2009, 12:08 PM
Unless you convince doctors and nurses to take less money they aren't going down. This is why government subsidized healthcare is a failure out of the gate and leads to socialized medicine(Read as Government Employed Doctors....also the same people they get their licensing from). Medicare can't exist without printing more money and the same goes for medicaid. The only way to truly combat rising health care costs is education. Health education, wellness education, and Medical Education. If doctor mom can do it...so can you.

People abuse the **** out of national health care too. ER rooms filled with people for coughs and paper cuts (not even joking).

gyldenlove
06-23-2009, 12:10 PM
Without unions 10% of the people on this board would die in preventable work accidents before the age of 35 or as a direct result of dangerous work conditions before the age of 45.

Things you wouldn't have if it wasn't for trade unions: health insurance of any kind, Saturdays off, paid vacation, termination pay, maternity leave, paid sick days, compensation for death or harm in work accidents.

The day it becomes illegal for companies to contribute money either directly or through lobby organizations to politicial parties and candidates, that day unions will have outlived themselves. As long as coorperations have as much influence as they do on capitol hill, unions are necesity.

UberBroncoMan
06-23-2009, 12:11 PM
I wish it were as easy as "working hard" To be that rich it involves a ton of luck and circumstance as well as hard work.

Seriously, insult me all you want, we just have a difference in opinion, but don't insult my intelligence and imply im not "getting" something, because that's bull****. Perhaps im more compassionate than you are and i ****ing hate most of the people around me...but i dont feel as if im better than them.

Sonof... I don't understand you at all. You actually seem to have conservative principles amidst a sea of socialism.

You point out how 30,000 people make so much money... and they now deserve it because THEY WORKED FOR IT.

That's not socialist at all, and that's something I believe.

I think you're a different breed altogether. Some sort of quasi-mix.

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2009, 12:11 PM
How is that different from other health insurance options?

They are not using taxpayer money. What we need in this country for individuals is what we get for group plans through employers. The problem is what these insurance companies are allowed to put in the contract and how they are allowed to change the contract over time. We don't need to spend 1 to 1.6 trillion dollars for what amounts to 15 million uninsured Citizens who cannot afford health insurance. How do we use health insurance? Health insurance isn't for a cough or a fever. It's for big ticket items and such...broken arm, apendex(sp) and so on. What doesn't help the costs are people that go to the hospitial or doctor for ever little thing they come across.

Archer81
06-23-2009, 12:12 PM
I'm not sure if your percentagei s correct, but absolutely its fair. They are just being taxed a somewhat similar rate as the rest of us...they should be taxed a lot more like we did in the 60's and 70's. They're lives won't change at all and they'll be, in theory, paying back to the people who made them rich in the first place.


You mean the 60's and 70s that led to social civil war and economic stagnation? Its not fair to ask for the few to pay for the many, especially when so many OF the many dont pay anything at all. They get a free ride because they are "poor" while the rich are used to drive these great social ambitions of our fearless leaders. Would it really be that bad to allow the rich to keep their money, expand their businesses which hire more of these downtrodden, miserable poor?

No, why actually fix the problem and lose a voting block.


:Broncos:

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2009, 12:12 PM
Sonof... I don't understand you at all. You actually seem to have conservative principles amidst a sea of socialism.

You point out how 30,000 people make so much money... and they now deserve it because THEY WORKED FOR IT.

That's not socialist at all, and that's something I believe.

I think you're a different breed altogether. Some sort of quasi-mix.

He's a compicated man...that can only be understood by his woman.

Rohirrim
06-23-2009, 12:16 PM
I'm not surprised you'd "back" unions to a large extent based on your history of posts in the political field. You easily come of as a socialist thinker... too bad it fails everywhere.

What many people who don't understand why unions are a pile of **** don't get is that humans who rise into power are more often than not... corrupt masses of filth. Thus, practically every major union is corrupt. There's a reason the Japanese auto industry is raping our companies... there's also a reason why GM vehicles made and sold in China are doing so well.

Unions gain money and spend it to control politicians and so forth. They subscribe to the socialist and dare I say almost communist philosophy of equality which simply isn't healthy or truly viable for a corporation to maintain. Due to the insane benefits given to workers currently in the auto industry, companies like GM and Chrysler practically exist as a form of health care/pension creation due to the Union stranglehold.

They've failed because of the parasitic nature of humans to get as much as they can.

Oh and as one person said... anything you are essentially FORCED to join not of your own freewill isn't democratic.

Oh, and **** unions.

So, I'm guessing your argument also applies to the heads of corporations?

Rohirrim
06-23-2009, 12:18 PM
Without unions 10% of the people on this board would die in preventable work accidents before the age of 35 or as a direct result of dangerous work conditions before the age of 45.

Things you wouldn't have if it wasn't for trade unions: health insurance of any kind, Saturdays off, paid vacation, termination pay, maternity leave, paid sick days, compensation for death or harm in work accidents.

The day it becomes illegal for companies to contribute money either directly or through lobby organizations to politicial parties and candidates, that day unions will have outlived themselves. As long as coorperations have as much influence as they do on capitol hill, unions are necesity.

Ooops! Let's not go there. ;D

55CrushEm
06-23-2009, 12:20 PM
Ok, first of all, Obama is hardly a socialist.

You're kidding, right?

alkemical
06-23-2009, 12:21 PM
So, I'm guessing your argument also applies to the heads of corporations?

I kinda brought that up before, and when he couldn't use his canned answers he started ignoring me.

UberBroncoMan
06-23-2009, 12:23 PM
So, I'm guessing your argument also applies to the heads of corporations?

I've stated that the the majority of humans who rise to positions of power are corrupt, so yes that would apply to many of those as well. I went into this earlier and the differences between corps and unions.

Edit: I kinda brought that up before, and when he couldn't use his canned answers he started ignoring me.

lol? What alternate dimension did that occur in?

55CrushEm
06-23-2009, 12:28 PM
Actually, get your facts straight...the White House has proposed nor has it backed a plan. Their is one plan out there (the HELP one i think) that is severely flawed...but obviously there are others in the works and this thing is far from over.

Clearly, the poor in america are better off than the poor in third world countries, but we can do a better job of protecting ours. Not to mention, a funcitioning economy works best when theres a strong middle class to spend. If we continuet his road and the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, the disappearing middle class cannot sustain spending and you'll just be in continued recession (this is obviously just theory here, as is all this discussion).

So how do you define "protecting" the poor? By making them more dependent on government? GIVING them more "free" stuff?? How does that create incentive to go to work and make your own living?

55CrushEm
06-23-2009, 12:30 PM
Yes, but we must feel bad for those huge corporations. Lets protect those at all costs....no need to protect the people that actually give them their profit.

Explain to me why profits are BAD. Profits get re-invested into companies, which allow them to grow, which allow them to hire more people.

I love how the left continually villifies companies that (gasp) MAKE MONEY.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 12:31 PM
Sonof... I don't understand you at all. You actually seem to have conservative principles amidst a sea of socialism.

You point out how 30,000 people make so much money... and they now deserve it because THEY WORKED FOR IT.

That's not socialist at all, and that's something I believe.

I think you're a different breed altogether. Some sort of quasi-mix.

Huh? I think you misunderstood me. I implied the reason that they got into that 30,000 was luck and circumstance. Sure, hard work is involved, but that presupposes that everyone else didnt work as hard. That's freakin absurd. There are tons of people who work hard that don't acheive financial success. Not to mention, the reason people get rich is because the masses are supporting them (whether its buying their product or whatever). Society is a huge web, a huge machine, and it exists best when all cogs are well oiled. We should do our best to keep it that way.

Also, and i know garcia hates this argument, but we are not all born with equal opportunities...whether that be due to financial or mental capacity.

alkemical
06-23-2009, 12:31 PM
Explain to me why profits are BAD. Profits get re-invested into companies, which allow them to grow, which allow them to hire more people.

I love how the left continually villifies companies that (gasp) MAKE MONEY.

That's the not point of the issue. Walmart hires lots of people at poverty level rates, is that ethical?

Rock Chalk
06-23-2009, 12:32 PM
Wow, a lot of union hate here. While I agree that union demands can get out of hand, the idea of a union is essential to protect workers rights and to create acceptable wages to ensure a strong middle class (obviously, for those who know my political views, this comes as no surprise). Without unions, the corporates would take advantage of workers to no end. As said, while I agree that union demands often get out of hands, there's a happy medium to be had. People suck on both sides of the equation, but the idea of the union is sound. Don't give me this "destroys capitalism" BS. That is only if you want a few rich fat cats and an underpaid workforce...you know, something like we already have.

I disagree with this.

In theory, yes, unions do that. Communism works in theory too. When Unions were created (the Teamsters) it was to protect workers from long hours, dangerous jobs, fair wages and such. However, at that time workers had no other choices. There was usually only a few companies in any industry and the competition for work was fierce.

Now, companies cannot afford to treat employee's like crap. In order to stay competitive, they MUST give employee's fair wages or they will lose that employee. And with so many studies shown that it is cheaper for the company to retain a good employee than to hire a new one, there is no reason for unions to exist at all.

The IT industry is a perfect example of this. There are few, if any, unions for the IT industry because companies know that employee's will leave for better pastures if they are not compensated fairly and are treated poorly.

Moreover, the Unions of today are not your grandfather's unions. They are corrupt cesspools where those in power are not doing what they do in the best interest of the workers, but rather the best interest of the UNION. Higher wages for workers means higher union dues and more money to those running the union. Meanwhile, the corporations have sent all the jobs elsewhere because they cannot afford to stay in business and stay competitive in this global economy paying an American worker wages that price their product out of the range of the rest of the world's middle class.

Unions have outlived their usefulness. They need to be disbanded. So many jobs are non-union and the employee's of those jobs have great wages and benefits but if you are a blue collar worker, you shouldnt be making 60K+ a year no matter where you live and you damn sure shouldnt get paid AFTER you get laid off.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 12:34 PM
Explain to me why profits are BAD. Profits get re-invested into companies, which allow them to grow, which allow them to hire more people.

I love how the left continually villifies companies that (gasp) MAKE MONEY.

Oh my god, why do you guys always take it to the extreme? When did i say profits were an evil thing? And why does everyone act like corporate america is a victim? I think its often disgusting the way corporations treat people...which is to say as a widget, not a human. WHy is it that when corporations start downsizing, they just cut the lowest wages outright instead of some big wigs taking a salary hit so everyone can keep their job. Makes little sense to me.

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2009, 12:36 PM
So how do you define "protecting" the poor? By making them more dependent on government? GIVING them more "free" stuff?? How does that create incentive to go to work and make your own living?

Yep...when you give someone something they can earn on their own you weaken them and make them subservant. Now, apply that across generations and you have a huge dependency problem.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 12:38 PM
So how do you define "protecting" the poor? By making them more dependent on government? GIVING them more "free" stuff?? How does that create incentive to go to work and make your own living?

Im not saying cut them checks, but it would be nice if everyone could go to a public school like the one i went to...or even half that. It would be nice if everyone got some form of healthcare so 1) they arent drowning in bills or 2) afraid to go to the doctor. C'mon man, quit breaking to the extremes

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 12:39 PM
Yep...when you give someone something they can earn on their own you weaken them and make them subservant. Now, apply that across generations and you have a huge dependency problem.

Oh geez, come on. No one is getting checks cut to them here. But we can do a better job with social services...building schools, infrastructure...etc.

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2009, 12:39 PM
Also, and i know garcia hates this argument, but we are not all born with equal opportunities...whether that be due to financial or mental capacity.

True to a point, but everyone generally has the ability to reach any potential provided they are wise. It's all about environment, which plays a bigger role, IMO, than nature across the board.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 12:40 PM
OK, im off to lunch....flame away. Im surprised i got through this last hour without calling someone an asshole;) Fun as always.

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2009, 12:41 PM
Oh geez, come on. No one is getting checks cut to them here. But we can do a better job with social services...building schools, infrastructure...etc.

Cites and government get money to imporve infrasturcture through taxes and such yet the decide to spend the money else where. It happens here in Colorado. That why tax'em Bill Ritter is 400 million short.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 12:43 PM
If anyone wants to ask me a question of why i believe something, feel free to PM me. Its hard to keep track of all your questions when 25 people are simolteanously telling me im wrong. I enjoy good debate

55CrushEm
06-23-2009, 12:43 PM
I'm not sure if your percentagei s correct, but absolutely its fair. They are just being taxed a somewhat similar rate as the rest of us...they should be taxed a lot more like we did in the 60's and 70's. They're lives won't change at all and they'll be, in theory, paying back to the people who made them rich in the first place.

If you believe this....then you don't know a thing about the effect that taxes have on the economy....not to mention that the rich are NOT taxed at similar rates to the lower classes. You do realize that there are higher tax brackets as you make more money, right....i.e. the more you make, the higher percentage they take? So no, the rich already pay far more as a percentage of their income compared to poorer people.

Second, under Carter, the highest federal income tax bracket was 70%....yes, 70%. I'm sure you think that's a good thing....but here is why it is not.....when you tax someone's income like that, they then have incentive to work LESS, i.e. be less productive. Why? Because why would I want to work to make that extra amount, when the government takes 70% of it?? Fortunately, when Reagan took office, he eliminated all the income brackets except for the 15% and the 28%.....that with the capital gains cut....and the economy took off....straight through the 90s with a minor recession in 1991.

Lastly, here are the real percentages of who pays what for income taxes.....

The top 5% of wage earners pay 54% of all income taxes.
The top 10% of wage earners pay 66% of all income taxes.
The top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of all income taxes.
So basically the bottom half of WAGE EARNERS pay no taxes.

But I'm glad you think that's fair.....and that the wealthier people still need to pay more....Uhh

Here are the stats....directly from the IRS.... http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in06tr.xls

SonOfLe-loLang
06-23-2009, 12:44 PM
Cites and government get money to imporve infrasturcture through taxes and such yet the decide to spend the money else where. It happens here in Colorado. That why tax'em Bill Ritter is 400 million short.

i agree gov't can be corrupt, but my beliefs are generally spoken in theories. Trust me, i think the american government is all kinds of screwed up. but instead of just simply ignoring it and do think there are ways to improve it. ANd, obviously, that requires a lot of regulation. As said, at the end of the day, humanity is probably too flawed for anything to really "work," but that said, we can do a better job of taking care of our own.

Ok, out

55CrushEm
06-23-2009, 12:45 PM
I wish it were as easy as "working hard" To be that rich it involves a ton of luck and circumstance as well as hard work.

No, it pretty much is as easy as "working hard"....as well as taking risks.

What you said is the standard lefty mantra to perpetuate the class warfare in this country.....that the rich simply "got lucky".

Smiling Assassin27
06-23-2009, 12:45 PM
Timely article:

700 NYC teachers are paid to do nothing
By KAREN MATTHEWS, Associated Press Writer Karen Matthews, Associated Press Writer Mon Jun 22, 5:20 pm ET
NEW YORK – Hundreds of New York City public school teachers accused of offenses ranging from insubordination to sexual misconduct are being paid their full salaries to sit around all day playing Scrabble, surfing the Internet or just staring at the wall, if that's what they want to do.

Because their union contract makes it extremely difficult to fire them, the teachers have been banished by the school system to its "rubber rooms" — off-campus office space where they wait months, even years, for their disciplinary hearings.

The 700 or so teachers can practice yoga, work on their novels, paint portraits of their colleagues — pretty much anything but school work. They have summer vacation just like their classroom colleagues and enjoy weekends and holidays through the school year.

"You just basically sit there for eight hours," said Orlando Ramos, who spent seven months in a rubber room, officially known as a temporary reassignment center, in 2004-05. "I saw several near-fights. `This is my seat.' `I've been sitting here for six months.' That sort of thing."

Ramos was an assistant principal in East Harlem when he was accused of lying at a hearing on whether to suspend a student. Ramos denied the allegation but quit before his case was resolved and took a job in California.

Because the teachers collect their full salaries of $70,000 or more, the city Department of Education estimates the practice costs the taxpayers $65 million a year. The department blames union rules.

"It is extremely difficult to fire a tenured teacher because of the protections afforded to them in their contract," spokeswoman Ann Forte said.

City officials said that they make teachers report to a rubber room instead of sending they home because the union contract requires that they be allowed to continue in their jobs in some fashion while their cases are being heard. The contract does not permit them to be given other work.

Ron Davis, a spokesman for the United Federation of Teachers, said the union and the Department of Education reached an agreement last year to try to reduce the amount of time educators spend in reassignment centers, but progress has been slow.

"No one wants teachers who don't belong in the classroom. However, we cannot neglect the teachers' rights to due process," Davis said. The union represents more than 228,000 employees, including nearly 90,000 teachers.

Many teachers say they are being punished because they ran afoul of a vindictive boss or because they blew the whistle when somebody fudged test scores.

"The principal wants you out, you're gone," said Michael Thomas, a high school math teacher who has been in a reassignment center for 14 months after accusing an assistant principal of tinkering with test results.

City education officials deny teachers are unfairly targeted but say there has been an effort under Mayor Michael Bloomberg to get incompetents out of the classroom. "There's been a push to report anything that you see wrong," Forte said.

Some other school systems likewise pay teachers to do nothing.

The Los Angeles district, the nation's second-largest school system with 620,000 students, behind New York's 1.1 million, said it has 178 teachers and other staff members who are being "housed" while they wait for misconduct charges to be resolved.

Similarly, Mimi Shapiro, who is now retired, said she was assigned to sit in what Philadelphia calls a "cluster office." "They just sit you in a room in a hard chair," she said, "and you just sit."

Teacher advocates say New York's rubber rooms are more extensive than anything that exists elsewhere.

Teachers awaiting disciplinary hearings around the nation typically are sent home, with or without pay, Karen Horwitz, a former Chicago-area teacher who founded the National Association for the Prevention of Teacher Abuse. Some districts find non-classroom work — office duties, for example — for teachers accused of misconduct.

New York City's reassignment centers have existed since the late 1990s, Forte said. But the number of employees assigned to them has ballooned since Bloomberg won more control over the schools in 2002. Most of those sent to rubber rooms are teachers; others are assistant principals, social workers, psychologists and secretaries.

Once their hearings are over, they are either sent back to the classroom or fired. But because their cases are heard by 23 arbitrators who work only five days a month, stints of two or three years in a rubber room are common, and some teachers have been there for five or six.

The nickname refers to the padded cells of old insane asylums. Some teachers say that is fitting, since some of the inhabitants are unstable and don't belong in the classroom. They add that being in a rubber room itself is bad for your mental health.

"Most people in that room are depressed," said Jennifer Saunders, a high school teacher who was in a reassignment center from 2005 to 2008. Saunders said she was charged with petty infractions in an effort to get rid of her: "I was charged with having a student sit in my class with a hat on, singing."

The rubber rooms are monitored, some more strictly than others, teachers said.

"There was a bar across the street," Saunders said. "Teachers would sneak out and hang out there for hours."

Judith Cohen, an art teacher who has been in a rubber room near Madison Square Garden for three years, said she passes the time by painting watercolors of her fellow detainees.

"The day just seemed to crawl by until I started painting," Cohen said, adding that others read, play dominoes or sleep. Cohen said she was charged with using abusive language when a girl cut her with scissors.

Some sell real estate, earn graduate degrees or teach each other yoga and tai chi.

David Suker, who has been in a Brooklyn reassignment center for three months, said he has used the time to plan summer trips to Alaska, Cape Cod and Costa Rica. Suker said he was falsely accused of throwing a girl's test sign-up form in the garbage during an argument.

"It's sort of peaceful knowing that you're going to work to do nothing," he said.

Philip Nobile is a journalist who has written for New York Magazine and the Village Voice and is known for his scathing criticism of public figures. A teacher at Brooklyn's Cobble Hill School of American Studies, Nobile was assigned to a rubber room in 2007, "supposedly for pushing a boy while I was breaking up a fight." He contends the school system is retaliating against him for exposing wrongdoing.

He is spending his time working on his case and writing magazine articles and a novel.

"This is what happens to political prisoners throughout history," he said, alluding to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. "They put us in prison and we write our `Letter From the Birmingham Jail.'"

Mountain Bronco
06-23-2009, 12:47 PM
Unions in their original form were very much a representative democratic type organization and were very usefull. In fact, the expanse of a big brother, socialistic government in the US has led to the downfall of unions.

Unions originally fought for what the government now guarantees such as minimum wage, work place safety, leave for health reasons ect..., but now with the fair labor standards acts, continually rising minimum wages, leave acts etc... guaranted by the federal governments, the unions have to go beyond that to justify their existance and this is where the problem comes in because they have driven the cost of unsilled labor up. I am sorry, but many union jobs are not skilled labor and paying unskilled laborers much more than minimum wage is bad business for companies and consumers.

In this highly regulated world unions are no longer necessary and in some cases are very harmful.

55CrushEm
06-23-2009, 12:48 PM
That's the not point of the issue. Walmart hires lots of people at poverty level rates, is that ethical?

Good for Walmart. If they're doing something illegal, they'll get nailed...

But they ARE employing people, and that is always better then having those people living soley off of the government teat.

gyldenlove
06-23-2009, 12:49 PM
Timely article:

Excellent example of why Bureaucracy is the death of efficiency. Why the hell does it take 7 months or more to do a damn disciplinary hearing? it is not a murder investigation, they need to get a few people together, it is a he said/she said situation most of the time with little or no evidence.

Those kind of things should be dealt with before the end of the week and people are back to work to out of here.

gyldenlove
06-23-2009, 12:50 PM
Good for Walmart. If they're doing something illegal, they'll get nailed...

But they ARE employing people, and that is always better then having those people living soley off of the government teat.

They will? hmm, I wonder how many times they have been nailed for hiring illegal aliens.

chadta
06-23-2009, 12:50 PM
They've failed because of the parasitic nature of humans to get as much as they can.

oh but when its the capitalist trying to make as much as he can on the backs of his workers its ok, gotcha


On that note, what do you think has killed the auto-industry? Socialist Unions. Ding Ding.

actually piss poor managment killed the north american auto industry, im sure the guy on the line is the guy who decided we needed 15 brands of hummer and not one small fuel efficient car when gas was 4 bucks a gallon.

In the mid 90's when GM sold 4.5 million vehicles they had well over 200,000 hourly employees and large profits were made. In 2007 they sold 4.4 million vehicles with only 70,000 employees and they are losing money hand over fist. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out hourly wages are not the problem.


you damn sure shouldnt get paid AFTER you get laid off.


sure they should, when those things were negotiated it was becasue the company didnt want to give a wage increase at the time, so they gave them other stuff that didint directly effect costs at the time. like sick days, the city workers in toronto are on strike cuz the city is demanding they give back some of the sick days they get every year, well they took those days in lieu of getting a raise years ago, so if they are to be given back then the city needs to replace it with the 25 cents an hour for the last 13 years or however long its been since they made that deal.




and onto socialized medicine

just say NO

as somebody said, you get retards going to emerg for a papercut, or a cough, or anything because they dont know what to do and think its just free, then when you need to go your stuck there for hours waiting. Without paying anything they jus think its free, a user fee of some sort is an absolute must just to keep the system from being abused, and that is why so many canadians go to the states for stuff, cuz the waiting lists up here are just stupid. everybody should have access to health care, but there is a difference between access and abuse.

alkemical
06-23-2009, 12:51 PM
Good for Walmart. If they're doing something illegal, they'll get nailed...

But they ARE employing people, and that is always better then having those people living soley off of the government teat.

wrong - they are actually ENCOURAGING people to live on assistance, with the billions they get in tax breaks - it's not illegal, but that's because they bought the laws:

A Substantial Number of Wal-Mart Associates earn far below the poverty line

* In 2001, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861. The 2001 poverty line for a family of three was $14,630. ["Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?", Business Week, 10/6/03, US Dept of Health and Human Services 2001 Poverty Guidelines, 2001]

* A 2003 wage analysis reported that cashiers, the second most common job, earn approximately $7.92 per hour and work 29 hours a week. This brings in annual wages of only $11,948. ["Statistical Analysis of Gender Patterns in Wal-Mart's Workforce", Dr. Richard Drogin 2003]

Wal-Mart Admits Public Health Care is a "Better Value"

* President and CEO Lee Scott said in 2005, "In some of our states, the public program may actually be a better value - with relatively high income limits to qualify, and low premiums." [Transcript Lee Scott Speech 4/5/05]


but hey, if that's not enough:


Costs to Taxpayers

Download the Costs to Taxpayers flyer - PDF

Your tax dollars pay for Wal-Mart's greed

* The estimated total amount of federal assistance for which Wal-Mart employees were eligible in 2004 was $2.5 billion. [The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart, A Report By The Democratic Staff Of The Committee On Education And The Workforce, 2/16/04]

* One 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,750 per year. This cost comes from the following, on average:

o $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.

o $42,000 a year for low-income housing assistance.

o $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families.

o $100,000 a year for the additional expenses for programs for students.

o $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP)

o $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance.

[The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart, A Report By The Democratic Staff Of The Committee On Education And The Workforce, 2/16/04]

Health care subsidies compared to executive compensation

* Excluding his salary of $1.2 million, in 2004 Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott made around $22 million in bonuses, stock awards, and stock options in 2004.

* This $22 million could reimburse taxpayers in 3 states where Wal-Mart topped the list of users of state-sponsored health care programs, covering more than 15,000 Wal-Mart employees and dependents. [Wal-Mart Proxy Statement and News Articles GA, CT, AL].

Your tax dollars subsidize Wal-Mart's growth

* The first ever national report on Wal-Mart subsidies documented at least $1 billion in subsidies from state and local governments.

* A Wal-Mart official stated that "it is common" for the company to request subsidies "in about one-third of all [retail] projects." This would suggest that over a thousand Wal-Mart stores have been subsidized. ["Shopping For Subsidies: How Wal-Mart Uses Taxpayer Money to Finance Its Never-Ending Growth," Good Job First, May 2004]

55CrushEm
06-23-2009, 12:51 PM
WHy is it that when corporations start downsizing, they just cut the lowest wages outright instead of some big wigs taking a salary hit so everyone can keep their job. Makes little sense to me.

Actually they don't......many "big" salaries get cut too. Many middle management jobs oftentimes.

I can tell you right now....that if my company starts to drastically downsize (knock on wood)....I guarantee that I'm in more danger of losing my job than most of the AP clerks down the hall, who make a fraction of what I do.

gyldenlove
06-23-2009, 12:51 PM
No, it pretty much is as easy as "working hard"....as well as taking risks.

What you said is the standard lefty mantra to perpetuate the class warfare in this country.....that the rich simply "got lucky".

Working hard? I know a lot of people who have a full-time job as well as a part-time job to make ends meet, they work 60+ hours every single week, but can't afford a nice house or a new car, I am sure they will delighted to hear that they will be rich if they keep it up.

peacepipe
06-23-2009, 12:52 PM
All unions are is a way to collect money for the purposes of one political party. Anything you HAVE to join automatically makes me suspect.


:Broncos:Unions supports canidates that support labor. Why would they support a party that looks to destroy them.

gyldenlove
06-23-2009, 12:55 PM
If you believe this....then you don't know a thing about the effect that taxes have on the economy....not to mention that the rich are NOT taxed at similar rates to the lower classes. You do realize that there are higher tax brackets as you make more money, right....i.e. the more you make, the higher percentage they take? So no, the rich already pay far more as a percentage of their income compared to poorer people.

Second, under Carter, the highest federal income tax bracket was 70%....yes, 70%. I'm sure you think that's a good thing....but here is why it is not.....when you tax someone's income like that, they then have incentive to work LESS, i.e. be less productive. Why? Because why would I want to work to make that extra amount, when the government takes 70% of it?? Fortunately, when Reagan took office, he eliminated all the income brackets except for the 15% and the 28%.....that with the capital gains cut....and the economy took off....straight through the 90s with a minor recession in 1991.

Lastly, here are the real percentages of who pays what for income taxes.....

The top 5% of wage earners pay 54% of all income taxes.
The top 10% of wage earners pay 66% of all income taxes.
The top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of all income taxes.
So basically the bottom have of WAGE EARNERS pay no taxes.

But I'm glad you think that's fair.....and that the wealthier people still need to pay more....Uhh

Here are the stats....directly from the IRS.... http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in06tr.xls

What else took off during the Reagan administration..... oh yes, the foreign debt. If you are fine with China and Saudi Arabia owning most of the US, then the Reagan model is excellent. If you want America to be independent and not rely on other countries to keep lending, then you better get a better tax policy or close down schools, police, military and fire fighters.

50% of wage earners are part time employees and people on minimum wage. Would you rather they pay taxes or rent?

55CrushEm
06-23-2009, 12:57 PM
Working hard? I know a lot of people who have a full-time job as well as a part-time job to make ends meet, they work 60+ hours every single week, but can't afford a nice house or a new car, I am sure they will delighted to hear that they will be rich if they keep it up.

If they are working as hard as you say....then they either 1) have too many kids to support, 2) don't make enough money at those jobs, in which case I'd say "go to college" to earn a better living or , 3) live in an area where the cost of living is too high.

All of those can be fixed by CHOICES. And don't try giving me any crap about how not everyone can afford to go to college.....ANYONE can get stafford loans.

Don't reach into someone else's pocket b/c they make more money.

Rohirrim
06-23-2009, 12:58 PM
That's the not point of the issue. Walmart hires lots of people at poverty level rates, is that ethical?

Makes it especially poignant when you consider that the Walton family are probably the richest family in the history of America.

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2009, 12:59 PM
Excellent example of why Bureaucracy is the death of efficiency. Why the hell does it take 7 months or more to do a damn disciplinary hearing? it is not a murder investigation, they need to get a few people together, it is a he said/she said situation most of the time with little or no evidence.

Those kind of things should be dealt with before the end of the week and people are back to work to out of here.

Exactly. I am apalled at the idiocy in that article. 23 arbitrators that only work 5 days a month cost the NY taxpayers to the tune of 65 million.

This is exactly why government has no business running health care or many domestic programs.

Mountain Bronco
06-23-2009, 12:59 PM
Until now I though son of an a-hole was a decent guy, then his taxing bit got me pissed off. I worked my ass off to be in a possition where I could make a good living and in total I pay about 45% of the money I earn in taxes (employer and individual taxes). Why should I pay more than that? It is almost half already. We live in a system the has disincentives for making more money. I boggles my mind. And keep saying it will not affect my life. That is a loser mentality and the typical hatred of those make money that is being driven into our youth these days. When I work my ass off every penny someone takes is one that make me upset. If that is greed than so be it.

End Rant.

alkemical
06-23-2009, 01:01 PM
If they are working as hard as you say....then they either 1) have too many kids to support, 2) don't make enough money at those jobs, in which case I'd say "go to college" to earn a better living or , 3) live in an area where the cost of living is too high.

All of those can be fixed by CHOICES. And don't try giving me any crap about how not everyone can afford to go to college.....ANYONE can get stafford loans.

Don't reach into someone else's pocket b/c they make more money.

how are stafford loans 'supplied'?

peacepipe
06-23-2009, 01:06 PM
National health care is socialist btw.

On that note, what do you think has killed the auto-industry? Socialist Unions. Ding Ding.

So is promising to create FIVE MILLION GOVERNMENT JOBS.
I love how some people/know nothings want to blame unions for the failures of the auto industry.

Ford CEO was on larry king live stated very clearly that the UAW was not the problem. The fact ford didn't need a bailout proves the union wasn't the problem. Chrysler,GMC not putting out a product everyone likes was a problem. putting out gas gusslers with sky high gas prices was a problem. These problems were/are management created.

55CrushEm
06-23-2009, 01:08 PM
What else took off during the Reagan administration..... oh yes, the foreign debt. If you are fine with China and Saudi Arabia owning most of the US, then the Reagan model is excellent. If you want America to be independent and not rely on other countries to keep lending, then you better get a better tax policy or close down schools, police, military and fire fighters.

50% of wage earners are part time employees and people on minimum wage. Would you rather they pay taxes or rent?

A better tax policy? Here it is......lower them. Across the board. Period. Lefties, for some reason, can't comprehend how lowering tax rates actually creates MORE tax revenue. If you don't believe it, then again, you don't understand the effect of taxes on the economy. Tax revenue coming into the U.S. treasury DOUBLED from the beginning to the end of Reagan's term, yet he lowered income taxes, capital gains taxes, etc.

How does that happen, you ask? Because supply-side economics WORKS, not Keynesian economics....not zero-sum economics. The flawed theory in the latter resides in the idea that if one person gets richer by one dollar, then someone else must have gotten poorer by one dollar. That is simply not true. The GDP does grow, right? The economic "pie" gets bigger. And that is precisely why tax revenue increases, in a good economy, even when rates are cut.

Under Reagan, unemployment plummeted (it was double-digit under Carter, along with double-digit interest rates)......i.e. more and more people went back to work. So....would you rather have 1,000 people paying 70% tax, or 5,000 paying 30% tax?

Higher taxes worsen the economy......it is not my opinion, it is proven economic fact.

55CrushEm
06-23-2009, 01:11 PM
Makes it especially poignant when you consider that the Walton family are probably the richest family in the history of America.

Good for the Walton family. But again, here you are making villians out of rich people. I am thankful everyday for rich people, because they provide jobs. You look at them as evil because they make more than you and me.

I aspire to be rich. You look to take from them, because it's not "fair" that they make more than you.

55CrushEm
06-23-2009, 01:12 PM
how are stafford loans 'supplied'?

Ummm, gee, by the government? But you DO have to PAY THEM BACK.

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2009, 01:14 PM
Working hard? I know a lot of people who have a full-time job as well as a part-time job to make ends meet, they work 60+ hours every single week, but can't afford a nice house or a new car, I am sure they will delighted to hear that they will be rich if they keep it up.

First you have to save. See we live in this instant gratifcation world. "I need my dream house today"

I am completely utterly finanically solvent and don't drive a new car or live in my dream home. Not yet anyway. The first **** up you can make is to have kids before you are 27-30. back that up...the first **** up you can make is to get into credit card debt ("I need it now" or "Hell yeah, I'll finance a pizza"). Then the kids.


-The 3rd **** up:

"Need a car? "

"Hell yeah."

"Finance this one at 100 percent."

"Awesome"

Buying a new car with no money down at an early age is the third **** up you can make when you just need to get from A to B. "I've got kids too so I need a bigger one" Sweet that'll come with a side of increased insurance, personal property tax, and fuel costs. **** you probably didn't consider when you went down to the dealer. Rember this too...there is nothing going on at the dealership that's good for you.


-Then the new and improved fourth **** up:

Buy a house you can't possibly afford for any sustained amount of time

People often end up where they are based on the decisions they make. Subtle decsions that didn't seem as important or as far reaching at the time, but they matter. Oh yes they do. So in short:

Wear your condom
Don't use credit cards, don't even get them
Don't buy a new car when an old one will do
And make sure when you sign your name that you RTFC


Oh and don't marry some broad just causeshe'll **** you. That's **** up 2 1/2.

:)

Honorable mention:

Home equity loans

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2009, 01:17 PM
A better tax policy? Here it is......lower them. Across the board. Period. Lefties, for some reason, can't comprehend how lowering tax rates actually creates MORE tax revenue. If you don't believe it, then again, you don't understand the effect of taxes on the economy. Tax revenue coming into the U.S. treasury DOUBLED from the beginning to the end of Reagan's term, yet he lowered income taxes, capital gains taxes, etc.

How does that happen, you ask? Because supply-side economics WORKS, not Keynesian economics....not zero-sum economics. The flawed theory in the latter resides in the idea that if one person gets richer by one dollar, then someone else must have gotten poorer by one dollar. That is simply not true. The GDP does grow, right? The economic "pie" gets bigger. And that is precisely why tax revenue increases, in a good economy, even when rates are cut.

Under Reagan, unemployment plummeted (it was double-digit under Carter, along with double-digit interest rates)......i.e. more and more people went back to work. So....would you rather have 1,000 people paying 70% tax, or 5,000 paying 30% tax?

Higher taxes worsen the economy......it is not my opinion, it is proven economic fact.

"And it's outta here. He really got a hold of that one. It's in the parking lot."

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2009, 01:18 PM
Ummm, gee, by the government? But you DO have to PAY THEM BACK.

Yep...you can file Bankruptcy and still be on the hook for those.

alkemical
06-23-2009, 01:18 PM
A better tax policy? Here it is......lower them. Across the board. Period. Lefties, for some reason, can't comprehend how lowering tax rates actually creates MORE tax revenue. If you don't believe it, then again, you don't understand the effect of taxes on the economy. Tax revenue coming into the U.S. treasury DOUBLED from the beginning to the end of Reagan's term, yet he lowered income taxes, capital gains taxes, etc.

How does that happen, you ask? Because supply-side economics WORKS, not Keynesian economics....not zero-sum economics. The flawed theory in the latter resides in the idea that if one person gets richer by one dollar, then someone else must have gotten poorer by one dollar. That is simply not true. The GDP does grow, right? The economic "pie" gets bigger. And that is precisely why tax revenue increases, in a good economy, even when rates are cut.

Under Reagan, unemployment plummeted (it was double-digit under Carter, along with double-digit interest rates)......i.e. more and more people went back to work. So....would you rather have 1,000 people paying 70% tax, or 5,000 paying 30% tax?

Higher taxes worsen the economy......it is not my opinion, it is proven economic fact.


http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=5561455


Most Companies in US Avoid Federal Income Taxes
Report Says Most Corporations Pay No Federal Income Taxes; Lawmakers Blame Loopholes

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2009, 01:21 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=5561455


Most Companies in US Avoid Federal Income Taxes
Report Says Most Corporations Pay No Federal Income Taxes; Lawmakers Blame Loopholes

Exactly...which is why I am calling on all of your support for a flat tax system for individuals and buinesses at 5 percent with no loopholes or joint filings or any such nonsense. You pay 5 percent on your income. That's it. We will of course put into the bill that a rate adjustment will be performed every quarter century never to exceed 15 percent.

This will need to be a Constitutional Amendment.

alkemical
06-23-2009, 01:22 PM
Ummm, gee, by the government? But you DO have to PAY THEM BACK.

I just find the irony in you bitching about people using gov't services, only to tell them to use them.

alkemical
06-23-2009, 01:25 PM
Exactly...which is why I am calling on all of your support for a flat tax system for individuals and buinesses at 5 percent with no loopholes or joint filings or any such nonsense. You pay 5 percent on your income. That's it. We will of course put into the bill that a rate adjustment will be performed every quarter century never to exceed 15 percent.

This will need to be a Constitutional Amendment.

Hey man, i'm all for it. I'm not a blind union supporter - but i've seen some real ****ty things companies have done to people. I'm not going to defend lazy, or incompetent people - but i've seen them everywhere:

Military, Private Sector, fortune 500 companies, state agencies, etc.

People like to just pick out one thing to bitch at - but i'm pretty sure lazy and stupid people are everywhere.



I do know when i was homeless, i had the dock supervisor tell me @ seacrest foods i was his ****er and i will do whatever work is needed or he'll black list me from the day labor job pool.

But hey, he made $60k/yr so he was a better person than me.

55CrushEm
06-23-2009, 01:26 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=5561455


Most Companies in US Avoid Federal Income Taxes
Report Says Most Corporations Pay No Federal Income Taxes; Lawmakers Blame Loopholes

I have not yet read the article....but I will. But, first of all, the vast, vast majority of companies in this country are "small businesses". The GE's, Microsoft's, Merck's of the world (companies of that size) are in the vast minority. So, I'm not sure if the article is implying that companies of vast size are not paying taxes.......but if they are, that is not true.

Similar to personal income taxes.....I'm sure the behemoths (the top wage earners) pay the bulk of the corporate taxes. Many small companies can take the Section 129 deduction, to name an example, which in the case of a very small company, would exempt them from taxes by accelerating their depreciation of fixed assets. I'd go on, but I don't want to bore you with accounting pronouncements.

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2009, 01:29 PM
Hey man, i'm all for it. I'm not a blind union supporter - but i've seen some real ****ty things companies have done to people. I'm not going to defend lazy, or incompetent people - but i've seen them everywhere:

Military, Private Sector, fortune 500 companies, state agencies, etc.

People like to just pick out one thing to b**** at - but i'm pretty sure lazy and stupid people are everywhere.



I do know when i was homeless, i had the dock supervisor tell me @ seacrest foods i was his ****er and i will do whatever work is needed or he'll black list me from the day labor job pool.

But hey, he made $60k/yr so he was a better person than me.

Like you said...pricks are everywhere, but I wonder what came first? The chicken or the egg? Did he walk into that job day 1....or did experiences mold him that way. Either way I guess...there is no substitution for good home traing. Please read my 4 **** ups list. Any combination of the 4 including number 2 leads to the poor home training senario.

55CrushEm
06-23-2009, 01:29 PM
I just find the irony in you b****ing about people using gov't services, only to tell them to use them.

Like I said, I have no problem with people taking stafford loans for 2 reasons....

First and foremost, and as I previously mentioned, they HAVE TO PAY IT BACK....i.e. the government is not GIVING them money, like so many of the social services.

Second, it IS to further education, and help them get better jobs, higher pay, etc. Isn't that a good thing?

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2009, 01:33 PM
I have not yet read the article....but I will. But, first of all, the vast, vast majority of companies in this country are "small businesses". The GE's, Microsoft's, Merck's of the world (companies of that size) are in the vast minority. So, I'm not sure if the article is implying that companies of vast size are not paying taxes.......but if they are, that is not true.

Similar to personal income taxes.....I'm sure the behemoths (the top wage earners) pay the bulk of the corporate taxes. Many small companies can take the Section 129 deduction, to name an example, which in the case of a very small company, would exempt them from taxes by accelerating their depreciation of fixed assets. I'd go on, but I don't want to bore you with accounting pronouncements.


Exxon alone pays roughly more in income tax than the bottom 50 percent of all individual tax payers

55CrushEm
06-23-2009, 01:37 PM
Exxon alone pays roughly more in income tax than the bottom 50 percent of all individual tax payers

But that is good that they pay so much in taxes, because Exxon is EVIL !!!!!! They make profits and grow.....and stuff.

:wiggle:

Pontius Pirate
06-23-2009, 03:45 PM
I love how some people/know nothings want to blame unions for the failures of the auto industry.

Ford CEO was on larry king live stated very clearly that the UAW was not the problem. The fact ford didn't need a bailout proves the union wasn't the problem. Chrysler,GMC not putting out a product everyone likes was a problem. putting out gas gusslers with sky high gas prices was a problem. These problems were/are management created.

I'm not suprised he didn't blame the Unions - no one wants to take on the UAW. It's like taking on the mafia.

Rohirrim
06-23-2009, 04:09 PM
America is a funny country. If a workingman says, "To do this job, I want twenty bucks an hour, time and a half for overtime, paid time off, health insurance and a solid retirement package" we start screaming at him and calling him a commie bastard. If the owner of the company says, "To do this job I want $20 million a year (500 times more than the average employee), stock options worth millions, lifetime health coverage, a sweet golden parachute worth millions, a free limo and a free jet" and we say, "Well that's just fine. He earns it." Ha!

Dempsey Dog
06-23-2009, 04:27 PM
Hate 'em! They add to the cost of doing business and make us uncompetitive. The are for the least skilled and motivated workers in our society.

I intentionally buy from non-union companies whenever possible. I refuse to pay for their added costs.

rastaman
06-23-2009, 04:43 PM
Unions are for the weak minded, weak soul, week kneed.

NFL players sure are glad they have a UNION!!!! ;)

rastaman
06-23-2009, 04:48 PM
Hate 'em! They add to the cost of doing business and make us uncompetitive. The are for the least skilled and motivated workers in our society.

I intentionally buy from non-union companies whenever possible. I refuse to pay for their added costs.

Predatory capitalism and insane corporate greed and exploitation makes America uncompetitive.

rastaman
06-23-2009, 04:51 PM
I'm not suprised he didn't blame the Unions - no one wants to take on the UAW. It's like taking on the mafia.

The mafia would kill their first born for an entire generation if they could get away with the theft and greed AIG, wall street, and the bankers were allowed to get a way with.

Gotta luv Republican Capitalism......"Whoever Said Pimping Wasn't Easy" was lying!!!!!:thumbs:

Pontius Pirate
06-23-2009, 04:53 PM
America is a funny country. If a workingman says, "To do this job, I want twenty bucks an hour, time and a half for overtime, paid time off, health insurance and a solid retirement package" we start screaming at him and calling him a commie bastard. If the owner of the company says, "To do this job I want $20 million a year (500 times more than the average employee), stock options worth millions, lifetime health coverage, a sweet golden parachute worth millions, a free limo and a free jet" and we say, "Well that's just fine. He earns it." Ha!

I think you may have missed some (read: all) news coverage over the various CEO's getting blasted in the press recently for their ungodly compensation in light of their companies performance. You might have also missed some of those very CEO's going to jail for SOX violations.

rastaman
06-23-2009, 04:54 PM
Exxon alone pays roughly more in income tax than the bottom 50 percent of all individual tax payers

On paper it appears Exxon pays taxes in upwards of 35%, but thats not taking in to consideration all the corporate tax loopholes and offshore accounts they use to pay roughly only 5-7% of of their income in cororate taxes.

55CrushEm
06-23-2009, 05:53 PM
On paper it appears Exxon pays taxes in upwards of 35%, but thats not taking in to consideration all the corporate tax loopholes and offshore accounts they use to pay roughly only 5-7% of of their income in cororate taxes.

Honestly, where do you get your information? For the fiscal year ended 12/31/08, XOM (Exxon Mobil) recorded tax expense of $36.5 billion on PBT (profit before tax) of $81.8 billion. That is a consolidated GAAP tax rate of 44.6%.

Not sure what you're trying to prove by throwing up false data.

55CrushEm
06-23-2009, 06:05 PM
On paper it appears Exxon pays taxes in upwards of 35%, but thats not taking in to consideration all the corporate tax loopholes and offshore accounts they use to pay roughly only 5-7% of of their income in cororate taxes.

And to expand on someone else's point earlier....and to tie it into the tax rates....

One poster mentioned that "corporate greed" was the reason for companies moving jobs overseas. In reality, one of the major reasons that companies are doing this is the corporate tax rates. Today, the United States (along with Japan) has one of the highest corporate tax jurisdictions in the world. All business will up and relocate to any jurisdiction that will give them more beneficial tax treatment.....this holds true across state lines as well as across international lines.

Other countries over the past few years have been lowering their corporate tax rates TO ATTRACT MORE BUSINESS. The logic isn't too hard to grasp.....and as a result, can you blame companies for wanting to move?? Tax expense is one of the single largest expenses on companies income statements.....as well as the one where they have the least decision making authority to alter.

Archer81
06-23-2009, 06:27 PM
http://tinyurl.com/djjfqz


:Broncos:

Dukes
06-23-2009, 08:47 PM
And to expand on someone else's point earlier....and to tie it into the tax rates....

One poster mentioned that "corporate greed" was the reason for companies moving jobs overseas. In reality, one of the major reasons that companies are doing this is the corporate tax rates. Today, the United States (along with Japan) has one of the highest corporate tax jurisdictions in the world. All business will up and relocate to any jurisdiction that will give them more beneficial tax treatment.....this holds true across state lines as well as across international lines.

Other countries over the past few years have been lowering their corporate tax rates TO ATTRACT MORE BUSINESS. The logic isn't too hard to grasp.....and as a result, can you blame companies for wanting to move?? Tax expense is one of the single largest expenses on companies income statements.....as well as the one where they have the least decision making authority to alter.

Which is why many companies are moving to Ireland.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/opinion/29friedman.html?_r=1

Here's something you probably didn't know: Ireland today is the richest country in the European Union after Luxembourg.

"We went on a borrowing, spending and taxing spree, and that nearly drove us under," said Deputy Prime Minister Mary Harney. "It was because we nearly went under that we got the courage to change."

And change Ireland did. In a quite unusual development, the government, the main trade unions, farmers and industrialists came together and agreed on a program of fiscal austerity, slashing corporate taxes to 12.5 percent, far below the rest of Europe, moderating wages and prices, and aggressively courting foreign investment. In 1996, Ireland made college education basically free, creating an even more educated work force.

The results have been phenomenal. Today, 9 out of 10 of the world's top pharmaceutical companies have operations here, as do 16 of the top 20 medical device companies and 7 out of the top 10 software designers. Last year, Ireland got more foreign direct investment from America than from China. And overall government tax receipts are way up.

Sorry Rasta, your evil emperor (Reagan) had it right all along.

Spider
06-23-2009, 09:05 PM
Unions in their original form were very much a representative democratic type organization and were very usefull. In fact, the expanse of a big brother, socialistic government in the US has led to the downfall of unions.

Unions originally fought for what the government now guarantees such as minimum wage, work place safety, leave for health reasons ect..., but now with the fair labor standards acts, continually rising minimum wages, leave acts etc... guaranted by the federal governments, the unions have to go beyond that to justify their existance and this is where the problem comes in because they have driven the cost of unsilled labor up. I am sorry, but many union jobs are not skilled labor and paying unskilled laborers much more than minimum wage is bad business for companies and consumers.

In this highly regulated world unions are no longer necessary and in some cases are very harmful.

;D I was getting ready to rip into a bunch of people here , but your 1 post here derailed that , I am pro union , but you make a very strong case against them ...... Oh was I getting ready to rip into some people ;D
See what alot of you bed wetters dont get and you(Mountain Bronco)is not a bed wetter by any means , is I dont give a rats ass if you like Unions or not , I just hate your stupidity .........

Spider
06-23-2009, 09:10 PM
AmesJ laid out 3 or 4 post , And you bed wetters went right over it ...... you went ofter son of for being a Socialist , you ****ing retards , the system we have now is very socialistic to corporate , Some here know my family has money , and I married into Money , you defend the rich got news for you clowns , they wouldnt piss in your asshole if your guts were on fire , I told Both my family and my inlaws to **** off , I dont need their money .......
Now I have had a bad day very bad , who wants to step up , call me anti American , troop hater , or a socialist I am in richfield Ut @ the Flyig J on my way to Fort Irwin California .......Go ahead anyone of you tell me I am lazy .........

chadta
06-24-2009, 03:43 AM
tell us how you really feel spider

alkemical
06-24-2009, 05:26 AM
I have not yet read the article....but I will. But, first of all, the vast, vast majority of companies in this country are "small businesses". The GE's, Microsoft's, Merck's of the world (companies of that size) are in the vast minority. So, I'm not sure if the article is implying that companies of vast size are not paying taxes.......but if they are, that is not true.

Similar to personal income taxes.....I'm sure the behemoths (the top wage earners) pay the bulk of the corporate taxes. Many small companies can take the Section 129 deduction, to name an example, which in the case of a very small company, would exempt them from taxes by accelerating their depreciation of fixed assets. I'd go on, but I don't want to bore you with accounting pronouncements.

The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren't paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits.

More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts.

alkemical
06-24-2009, 05:28 AM
Like I said, I have no problem with people taking stafford loans for 2 reasons....

First and foremost, and as I previously mentioned, they HAVE TO PAY IT BACK....i.e. the government is not GIVING them money, like so many of the social services.

Second, it IS to further education, and help them get better jobs, higher pay, etc. Isn't that a good thing?

As you are seeing now, even a 2yr degree nets you very little. An associates degree is now the equiv. of a highschool diploma.

Education has turned into big-business. You don't laugh when you see ITT commercials for the I.T. industry? The job market is so depressed with declining wages, yet they keep spinning "job data #'s" to justify people going...

Again, the consumerist ideals we have been molded in are ****ing us in the ass.

alkemical
06-24-2009, 05:30 AM
Exxon alone pays roughly more in income tax than the bottom 50 percent of all individual tax payers

Industry-Specific Tax Breaks

However, Exxon's critics point out that its stated tax rate doesn't reflect a number of deductions and tax breaks that are afforded the oil and gas industry in the U.S. Erich Pica, a spokesman for the environmental group Friends of the Earth, says the U.S. federal tax code contains more than $17 billion in breaks to benefit the oil and gas industry for fiscal years 2007-11.

That $17 billion is made up mainly of tax breaks newly offered or extended in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, including a "percentage depletion allowance" that allows oil companies to deduct 15% of their sales revenue, to reflect the declining value of their investment, and 70% of their drilling costs.

Additionally, oil and gas companies pay reduced royalty fees on products they recover from federally owned waters, which Pica says could cost taxpayers $65 billion over five years.


http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2008/db2008051_596535.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_ news+%2B+analysis

alkemical
06-24-2009, 05:36 AM
Honestly, where do you get your information? For the fiscal year ended 12/31/08, XOM (Exxon Mobil) recorded tax expense of $36.5 billion on PBT (profit before tax) of $81.8 billion. That is a consolidated GAAP tax rate of 44.6%.

Not sure what you're trying to prove by throwing up false data.

It's not, read up on the subsidies.

55CrushEm
06-24-2009, 06:17 AM
It's not, read up on the subsidies.

What he said IS false.

First of all, lots of companies get subsidies from the government (not that I think they should). What are the subsidies for specifically? My guess would be investment in new energy resources.

Regardless, it has noting to do with their tax expense on the income statement. If XOM is receiving government subsidies, contracts, or grants....that would eventually fall into the revenue line....and it still doesn't deter from the fact that XOM paid recorded 44.6% tax expense.

alkemical
06-24-2009, 06:29 AM
What he said IS false.

First of all, lots of companies get subsidies from the government (not that I think they should). What are the subsidies for specifically? My guess would be investment in new energy resources.

Regardless, it has noting to do with their tax expense on the income statement. If XOM is receiving government subsidies, contracts, or grants....that would eventually fall into the revenue line....and it still doesn't deter from the fact that XOM paid recorded 44.6% tax expense.

You didn't even research it and are going on assumptions. Please educate yourself before commenting any further.

Hogan11
06-24-2009, 06:43 AM
Didn't read the whole thread, don't really have to....I've worked in both union and non-union shops and it wasn't even a close contest. Politics at a personal level, I'll take working at that Union shop anyday of the week.

Garcia Bronco
06-24-2009, 06:46 AM
Industry-Specific Tax Breaks

However, Exxon's critics point out that its stated tax rate doesn't reflect a number of deductions and tax breaks that are afforded the oil and gas industry in the U.S. Erich Pica, a spokesman for the environmental group Friends of the Earth, says the U.S. federal tax code contains more than $17 billion in breaks to benefit the oil and gas industry for fiscal years 2007-11.

That $17 billion is made up mainly of tax breaks newly offered or extended in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, including a "percentage depletion allowance" that allows oil companies to deduct 15% of their sales revenue, to reflect the declining value of their investment, and 70% of their drilling costs.

Additionally, oil and gas companies pay reduced royalty fees on products they recover from federally owned waters, which Pica says could cost taxpayers $65 billion over five years.


http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2008/db2008051_596535.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_ news+%2B+analysis

And yet they still pay taxes in double digit billions after that per year. This is why we need to scrap the tax code and give companies no incentive to not pay taxes. Flat tax. It's fiar for everyone.

55CrushEm
06-24-2009, 06:54 AM
You didn't even research it and are going on assumptions. Please educate yourself before commenting any further.

I appear to be FAR more educated on the topic of taxes and the economy than you do.

XOM recorded 44.6% tax expense in 2008......fact. You can read the financial statements yourself.

alkemical
06-24-2009, 06:59 AM
I appear to be FAR more educated on the topic of taxes and the economy than you do.

XOM recorded 44.6% tax expense in 2008......fact. You can read the financial statements yourself.

What about the subsidies and tax credits?

55CrushEm
06-24-2009, 07:07 AM
What about the subsidies and tax credits?

They have to be recorded on the face of the income statement. They have to be buried in the numbers. GAAP requires it.

alkemical
06-24-2009, 07:18 AM
They have to be recorded on the face of the income statement. They have to be buried in the numbers. GAAP requires it.

Well i'll trust the reports outlining the subsidies and tax breaks that show billions more returned in tax incentives, credits and skirting of the tax law using personal income tax instead of corporate tax.

Of course though, that's what happens when you have billions, and you use lobbyists to dictate the laws to your own needs.

55CrushEm
06-24-2009, 07:30 AM
Well i'll trust the reports outlining the subsidies and tax breaks that show billions more returned in tax incentives, credits and skirting of the tax law using personal income tax instead of corporate tax.

Of course though, that's what happens when you have billions, and you use lobbyists to dictate the laws to your own needs.

You do that. I'll trust the reports they filed with the SEC.

And I'm curious how using a federal tax incentive/credit is "skirting the law"?

If using a LEGAL tax incentive/credit is "skirting the law".....then every single American who files a 1040 is a law breaker.....::)

alkemical
06-24-2009, 08:14 AM
You do that. I'll trust the reports they filed with the SEC.

And I'm curious how using a federal tax incentive/credit is "skirting the law"?

If using a LEGAL tax incentive/credit is "skirting the law".....then every single American who files a 1040 is a law breaker.....::)

most avg people don't have off shore accounts.

55CrushEm
06-24-2009, 08:21 AM
Well i'll trust the reports outlining the subsidies and tax breaks that show billions more returned in tax incentives, credits and skirting of the tax law using personal income tax instead of corporate tax.

Of course though, that's what happens when you have billions, and you use lobbyists to dictate the laws to your own needs.

Need more proof that ExxonMobil pays ****load of taxes? (My 44.6% figure was slightly off.....certainly Exxon pays more than the 5-7% that Ratta-tatta man (sp) claimed in another post)

"Corporate profits receive a lot of media attention, but what receives considerably less attention are the corporate taxes paid on corporate profits. Do a Google search for "Exxon profits" and you'll get about 8,000 hits. Now try "Exxon taxes" and you'll get a little more than 300 hits. That's a ratio of about 33 to 1.

I'm pretty sure that Exxon's tax payment in 2007 of $30 billion (that's $30,000,000,000) is a record, exceeding the $28 billion it paid last year.

By the way, Exxon pays taxes at a rate of 41% on its taxable income!



Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend. Here's one way to put Exxon's taxes into perspective.

According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:

Total number of tax returns: 130 million

Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million

Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion

Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion


[U]Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes). "

http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-exxon-s-2007-tax-bill-30-billion

Villify XOM all you want....but taxable income is derives AFTER you take into account all of your deductions, etc.....41% of there taxable income was paid to Big Brother.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-24-2009, 08:22 AM
And yet they still pay taxes in double digit billions after that per year. This is why we need to scrap the tax code and give companies no incentive to not pay taxes. Flat tax. It's fiar for everyone.

Oh no, not this flat tax bs again!

Garcia Bronco
06-24-2009, 08:24 AM
Oh no, not this flat tax bs again!

It'll eventually happen. It's the best thing we can do for ourselves to curb Government crime and spending.

alkemical
06-24-2009, 08:27 AM
Need more proof that ExxonMobil pays ****load of taxes? (My 44.6% figure was slightly off.....certainly Exxon pays more than the 5-7% that Ratta-tatta man (sp) claimed in another post)

"Corporate profits receive a lot of media attention, but what receives considerably less attention are the corporate taxes paid on corporate profits. Do a Google search for "Exxon profits" and you'll get about 8,000 hits. Now try "Exxon taxes" and you'll get a little more than 300 hits. That's a ratio of about 33 to 1.

I'm pretty sure that Exxon's tax payment in 2007 of $30 billion (that's $30,000,000,000) is a record, exceeding the $28 billion it paid last year.

By the way, Exxon pays taxes at a rate of 41% on its taxable income!



Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend. Here's one way to put Exxon's taxes into perspective.

According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:

Total number of tax returns: 130 million

Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million

Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion

Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion


[U]Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes). "

http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-exxon-s-2007-tax-bill-30-billion

Villify XOM all you want....but taxable income is derives AFTER you take into account all of your deductions, etc.....41% of there taxable income was paid to Big Brother.

Good info. I pay about 42% of my income in taxes. So it's nice to see someone else is paying into it as well.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-24-2009, 08:32 AM
It'll eventually happen. It's the best thing we can do for ourselves to curb Government crime and spending.

It won't happen. Our government can't agree on any sort of new tax structure (even something like a value added tax which would be GREAT for healthcare), they won't suddenly agree to a flat tax

Garcia Bronco
06-24-2009, 08:38 AM
It won't happen. Our government can't agree on any sort of new tax structure (even something like a value added tax which would be GREAT for healthcare), they won't suddenly agree to a flat tax

Either we change our tax code or fall apart. Count it. People in California can't continue to prop up Mississippi, LA, and DC for example. We cannot continue to add government service after governemnt service and be able to pay for it. Medicare, SS, and medicaid are bankrupt. When you add up all the taxes we pay in a year...from sales tax to property tax to state and federal income tax we shell out near 40 to 50 percent. The party is almost over and the fat dortoh is getting ready to sing.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-24-2009, 08:48 AM
Either we change our tax code or fall apart. Count it. People in California can't continue to prop up Mississippi, LA, and DC for example. We cannot continue to add government service after governemnt service and be able to pay for it. Medicare, SS, and medicaid are bankrupt. When you add up all the taxes we pay in a year...from sales tax to property tax to state and federal income tax we shell out near 40 to 50 percent. The party is almost over and the fat dortoh is getting ready to sing.

I think you and I know we'll sooner fall apart. I completely agree our tax structure is ****ed, I just don't think a flat tax is the answer. though i know we've argued this before (probably more than once actually).

chadta
06-24-2009, 08:53 AM
And I'm curious how using a federal tax incentive/credit is "skirting the law"?

so now its all abbout whats legal ?

well unions are legal, so are strikes

Garcia Bronco
06-24-2009, 08:56 AM
I think you and I know we'll sooner fall apart. I completely agree our tax structure is ****ed, I just don't think a flat tax is the answer. though i know we've argued this before (probably more than once actually).

The tax code in its current form whether by accident or on purpose only divides the populace into class warfare.

SportinOne
06-24-2009, 09:16 AM
Unions may not be perfect but capitalism is also far from perfect.

Half you idiots are just spitting back up what you hear on the radio.. good for you, at least you pay attention.. but you have no original thoughts.. your daddy taught you well. capitalism is fading.. Sorry, but anyone who favors a system in which there is guaranteed to be a percentage of starving, homeless people really needs to do some soul searching.

peacepipe
06-24-2009, 09:17 AM
I'm not suprised he didn't blame the Unions - no one wants to take on the UAW. It's like taking on the mafia.

The media didn't have a problem attacking the UAW. But either way the point is the UAW was not the cause of the auto industries collapse. Labor represents only 10% of their costs. As i have already stated this was management created.

Pontius Pirate
06-24-2009, 09:18 AM
In the end, Unions ARE a thing of the past. 33% of the American workforce were in a Union in 1945. That number has steadily declined (through Dem AND Rep administrations) to 12%.

peacepipe
06-24-2009, 09:27 AM
2. Workers want unions more than ever before. The proportion of workers who want unions has risen substantially over the last 10 years, and a majority of nonunion workers in 2005 would vote for union representation if they could. This is up from the roughly 30% who would vote for representation in the mid-1980s, and the 32% to 39% in the mid-1990s, depending on the survey. Given that nearly all union workers (90%) desire union representation, the mid-1990s analysis suggested that if all the workers who wanted union representation could achieve it, then 44% of the workforce would have union representation. The rise in the desire for union representation since then suggests that the share of the nonunion workforce wanting union representation in 2005 was 53%. These results, in turn, suggest that if workers were provided the union representation they desired in 2005, then the overall unionization rate would have been about 58%.
http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp182.html

Pontius Pirate
06-24-2009, 09:27 AM
The media didn't have a problem attacking the UAW. But either way the point is the UAW was not the cause of the auto industries collapse. Labor represents only 10% of their costs. As i have already stated this was management created.


Right, labor has nothing to do with the viability of the U.S. auto industry. Oh, how naieve the mind of a union idealist...

"The Associated Press reported that, for example, the average United Auto Workers member makes $29.78 per hour at GM, while Toyota pays its workers (most of whom are non-union) about $30 per hour. However, when total benefits (including pensions and health care for workers, retirees and their spouses) is factored in, GM's total hourly labor costs is about $69, while Toyota's is about $48."

SonOfLe-loLang
06-24-2009, 09:31 AM
In the end, Unions ARE a thing of the past. 33% of the American workforce were in a Union in 1945. That number has steadily declined (through Dem AND Rep administrations) to 12%.

While unions are shrinking this probably isnt a desire not to have them as much as corporations becoming very adept at union busting.

peacepipe
06-24-2009, 09:32 AM
Right, labor has nothing to do with the viability of the U.S. auto industry. Oh, how naieve the mind of a union idealist...

"The Associated Press reported that, for example, the average United Auto Workers member makes $29.78 per hour at GM, while Toyota pays its workers (most of whom are non-union) about $30 per hour. However, when total benefits (including pensions and health care for workers, retirees and their spouses) is factored in, GM's total hourly labor costs is about $69, while Toyota's is about $48."
Which adds up to a whopping 10% of cost per ford CEO Allen Mulalli. again a management created problem.

peacepipe
06-24-2009, 09:37 AM
Nearly 60 million U.S. workers say they would join a union if they could, based on research conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates in December 2006.
The desire to be in a union is still the same, it's just been made harder to unionize.

JJG
06-24-2009, 09:50 AM
Unions may not be perfect but capitalism is also far from perfect.

Half you idiots are just spitting back up what you hear on the radio.. good for you, at least you pay attention.. but you have no original thoughts.. your daddy taught you well. capitalism is fading.. Sorry, but anyone who favors a system in which there are guaranteed to be a percentage of starving, homeless people really needs to do some soul searching.

We will always have a percentage of starving homeless people no matter how much or how little the government is involved.

Pontius Pirate
06-24-2009, 11:15 AM
Nearly 60 million U.S. workers say they would join a union if they could, based on research conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates in December 2006.
The desire to be in a union is still the same, it's just been made harder to unionize.

Hey! Let's have a statistics battle!

"A Zogby Poll conducted in 2005 found that only 16 percent of employees said they would definitely vote for union representation compared to 38 percent who said they would definitely vote against. When you combine those who would definitely and probably vote for a union compared to those would would definitely or probably vote against a union the numbers were 36 percent for and 56 percent against with the rest undecided.

Another indication is the results of National Labor Relations Board Elections. Even though employment covered by the NLRB grew by more than 2.3 million jobs in 2006, the NLRB conducted only 1,755 union representation elections covering 87,172 employees. Unions won 60 percent of these elections but they don't petition the NLRB to conduct an election until they think they have a pretty good shot at winning.

In other words, even when they thought they had a good shot at it the unions only won 60 percent of the time and only tried to organize workers in less than 4 percent of the new jobs."

Pontius Pirate
06-24-2009, 11:16 AM
While unions are shrinking this probably isnt a desire not to have them as much as corporations becoming very adept at union busting.

So, basically, unions are losing because they suck.

Garcia Bronco
06-24-2009, 11:17 AM
Nearly 60 million U.S. workers say they would join a union if they could.

No they didn't. LOL. I would love to see a 60 million person survey outside of a census.

55CrushEm
06-24-2009, 11:25 AM
Good info. I pay about 42% of my income in taxes. So it's nice to see someone else is paying into it as well.

I'll bet both you and I pay more than that as in total taxes as a percent of gross income, when you factor in every tax you pay....sales tax, excise taxes, gas taxes, real estate taxes, income taxes (fed and state), etc......probably upwards of 50%.....

I know many on the left think that's good......I think it's a crime.

55CrushEm
06-24-2009, 11:30 AM
Unions may not be perfect but capitalism is also far from perfect.

Half you idiots are just spitting back up what you hear on the radio.. good for you, at least you pay attention.. but you have no original thoughts.. your daddy taught you well. capitalism is fading.. Sorry, but anyone who favors a system in which there is guaranteed to be a percentage of starving, homeless people really needs to do some soul searching.

Sorry chief.....capitalism works. Socialism does not. Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried. You "idiots" that think socialism works, just need to check your history. Anyone who favors a system in which people get something for doing nothing, really needs to have their head examined. Giving people something for nothing, does NOT, and never will incentivize them to work. It teaches them to be dependent on someone else.

alkemical
06-24-2009, 11:31 AM
I'll bet both you and I pay more than that as in total taxes as a percent of gross income, when you factor in every tax you pay....sales tax, excise taxes, gas taxes, real estate taxes, income taxes (fed and state), etc......probably upwards of 50%.....

I know many on the left think that's good......I think it's a crime.

last time i did the math, it was 42%.

(and that's with me NOT owning land)

Garcia Bronco
06-24-2009, 11:31 AM
I'll bet both you and I pay more than that as in total taxes as a percent of gross income, when you factor in every tax you pay....sales tax, excise taxes, gas taxes, real estate taxes, income taxes (fed and state), etc......probably upwards of 50%.....



Yep. People don't add it up though.

Dukes
06-24-2009, 11:32 AM
http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp182.html


A completely unbiased source, I'm sure.

alkemical
06-24-2009, 11:32 AM
A completely unbiased source, I'm sure.

I'd take one right now. I wouldn't have always taken one....but some of the liberties us "contractors" are getting laid on us by our "employers" is pretty ****ty.

TailgateNut
06-24-2009, 11:59 AM
Good info. I pay about 42% of my income in taxes. So it's nice to see someone else is paying into it as well.


Okee Dokee.:spit:

alkemical
06-24-2009, 12:03 PM
Okee Dokee.:spit:

It's true mang. By the time i add up all the sales tax, pay roll taxes, double taxes on my cellphone, etc - it's 42%

chadta
06-24-2009, 12:05 PM
"The Associated Press reported that, for example, the average United Auto Workers member makes $29.78 per hour at GM, while Toyota pays its workers (most of whom are non-union) about $30 per hour. However, when total benefits (including pensions and health care for workers, retirees and their spouses) is factored in, GM's total hourly labor costs is about $69, while Toyota's is about $48."

sure and when toyota has been around 100 years and actually gives something to the retired workers, then they will have the same costs, also if toyota actually highered more workers full time instead of stringing them along on 3 month contracts providing no security, id have a little more respect for them, and its not just the "unskilled workers" i know millwrights and electricians that are on the same 3 month bs.

as i said before In the mid 90's GM sold 4.5 million vehicles they had well over 200,000 hourly employees and large profits were made. In 2007 they sold 4.4 million vehicles with only 70,000 employees and they are losing money hand over fist. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out hourly wages are not the problem.

Garcia Bronco
06-24-2009, 12:26 PM
sure and when toyota has been around 100 years and actually gives something to the retired workers, then they will have the same costs, also if toyota actually highered more workers full time instead of stringing them along on 3 month contracts providing no security, id have a little more respect for them, and its not just the "unskilled workers" i know millwrights and electricians that are on the same 3 month bs.

as i said before In the mid 90's GM sold 4.5 million vehicles they had well over 200,000 hourly employees and large profits were made. In 2007 they sold 4.4 million vehicles with only 70,000 employees and they are losing money hand over fist. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out hourly wages are not the problem.

GM had to bailed out in the 70's, the 80's, the 90's and the oughts.

55CrushEm
06-24-2009, 12:28 PM
Predatory capitalism and insane corporate greed and exploitation makes America uncompetitive.

I find this statement funny.

First of all, capitalism simply means that the economy is privately controlled (not state controlled). When things are privately controlled, this naturally breeds competition. That would be a GOOD thing.

So....referring to rastaman's quote.....capitalism (competition) makes America uncompetitive......:kiddingme

O......K..... Ha!

alkemical
06-24-2009, 12:29 PM
I find this statement funny.

First of all, capitalism simply means that the economy is privately controlled (not state controlled). When things are privately controlled, this naturally breeds competition. That would be a GOOD thing.

So....referring to rastaman's quote.....capitalism (competition) makes America uncompetitive......:kiddingme

O......K..... Ha!



So there should be no ethics involved in making a buck?

Pontius Pirate
06-24-2009, 12:34 PM
sure and when toyota has been around 100 years and actually gives something to the retired workers, then they will have the same costs, also if toyota actually highered more workers full time instead of stringing them along on 3 month contracts providing no security, id have a little more respect for them, and its not just the "unskilled workers" i know millwrights and electricians that are on the same 3 month bs.

as i said before In the mid 90's GM sold 4.5 million vehicles they had well over 200,000 hourly employees and large profits were made. In 2007 they sold 4.4 million vehicles with only 70,000 employees and they are losing money hand over fist. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out hourly wages are not the problem.

Not sure where to even begin with this doozy.

1) Toyota has "been around" since 1937. Not sure what time even has to do with it

2) You don't think GM has tons of contractors? How do you think they go from 200k to 70k employees? Outsourcing and contractors, buddy. I wonder why? Oh, maybe because of the labor costs? Nah....

3) Finally, "The Japanese automaker has fewer retirees in the U.S., and its health care benefits and pensions are less generous than those negotiated between Detroit and the UAW. Another key point is that health costs and pensions for auto workers in Japan - worth billions - are subsidized by the Japanese government. Not so in the U.S."

55CrushEm
06-24-2009, 12:35 PM
So there should be no ethics involved in making a buck?

Absolutely there should. Not ALL government regulation is bad, although most is....and most is very unnecessary.

Example.....the FDA.....that is good government regulation. It is nice to know that people can buy food at the grocery store, and it won't kill them....same for medicine.

But at the same time, a totally free market WILL eventually work to give the poeple EXACTLY what they demand. If enough people were to buy tainted meat for example....and thousands of people were dying because of it.....eventually people would STOP buying the meat from the seller, and the seller would eventually figure out on his own that he needs to sell a better product, if he wants to stay in business.

55CrushEm
06-24-2009, 12:37 PM
So there should be no ethics involved in making a buck?

And he said capitalism makes America uncompetitive......THAT is funny, because capitalism is precisey what makes the market COMPETITIVE.

alkemical
06-24-2009, 12:38 PM
Absolutely there should. Not ALL government regulation is bad, although most is....and most is very unnecessary.

Example.....the FDA.....that is good government regulation. It is nice to know that people can buy food at the grocery store, and it won't kill them....same for medicine.

But at the same time, a totally free market WILL eventually work to give the poeple EXACTLY what they demand. If enough people were to buy tainted meat for example....and thousands of people were dying because of it.....eventually people would STOP buying the meat from the seller, and the seller would eventually figure out on his own that he needs to sell a better product, if he wants to stay in business.


Except when the FDA approves drugs that are bad, right? Same principle i'm discussing with you. You have to have a hybrid. You can't dispel unions, for you can't put faith in large corporations to do the right thing - just like you can't have unfettered gov't.


Or people would just put in religion that they shouldn't eat meat.... ;)

rastaman
06-24-2009, 12:39 PM
Sorry chief.....capitalism works. Socialism does not. Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried. You "idiots" that think socialism works, just need to check your history. Anyone who favors a system in which people get something for doing nothing, really needs to have their head examined. Giving people something for nothing, does NOT, and never will incentivize them to work. It teaches them to be dependent on someone else.

The countries with the highest standards of living in the world are the mixed economies of Scandinavia.

We don't have free market capitalism in America. We have corrupt cronyism. The old Soviet Union didn't have socialism, it had something much more evil and corrupt.

We should ditch both forms of corruption and take a look at the countries who have higher standards of living than ours. Perhaps we have something to learn.

alkemical
06-24-2009, 12:42 PM
Sorry chief.....capitalism works. Socialism does not. Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried. You "idiots" that think socialism works, just need to check your history. Anyone who favors a system in which people get something for doing nothing, really needs to have their head examined. Giving people something for nothing, does NOT, and never will incentivize them to work. It teaches them to be dependent on someone else.

We do not have a free market system - we have had a socialist system for quite sometime. For big business and for poor people.

It's how it is, and how it has been. Sorry man.

55CrushEm
06-24-2009, 12:50 PM
The countries with the highest standards of living in the world are the mixed economies of Scandinavia.

We don't have free market capitalism in America. We have corrupt cronyism. The old Soviet Union didn't have socialism, it had something much more evil and corrupt.

We should ditch both forms of corruption and take a look at the countries who have higher standards of living than ours. Perhaps we have something to learn.

You are right.....we DON'T have free market capitalism in America....not even close. But we'd be far better off with far LESS government regulation.

Sadly, Reagan had it right....."Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

Anyway, back to your Scandinavian reference.....The wealth is spread (I hate that Obamainistic term) among FAR fewer people. The most populous country in Scandinavia is Sweden....and its population is less than 10 MILLION !!! Compare that to America's 300+ million, and GDP or wealth or whatever you want to use per capita is far less in the USA, of course.

55CrushEm
06-24-2009, 12:54 PM
We do not have a free market system - we have had a socialist system for quite sometime. For big business and for poor people.

It's how it is, and how it has been. Sorry man.

We do not have full blown socialism, but sadly, we've have been moving in that direction (god only knows why, as it has failed everywhere) for quite sometime. We will soon be the U.S.S.A.....United Socialst States of America.

Government does not (yet) own the means of production and distribution of goods/services.....so we are not really socialist. But the left would like us to become that way.....sadly.

alkemical
06-24-2009, 12:57 PM
We do not have full blown socialism, but sadly, we've have been moving in that direction (god only knows why, as it has failed everywhere) for quite sometime. We will soon be the U.S.S.A.....United Socialst States of America.

Government does not (yet) own the means of production and distribution of goods/services.....so we are not really socialist. But the left would like us to become that way.....sadly.

So would your "righties" - i mean - bush started the bail outs...

Remember when big business was saying "if you don't pay us, we'll fail and take you with us"

rastaman
06-24-2009, 12:58 PM
I find this statement funny.

First of all, capitalism simply means that the economy is privately controlled (not state controlled). When things are privately controlled, this naturally breeds competition. That would be a GOOD thing.

So....referring to rastaman's quote.....capitalism (competition) makes America uncompetitive......:kiddingme

O......K..... Ha!

In the real world of dog eat dog capitalism, capitalists drive down wages, with the help of the lawmakers, and seek to raise the final cost of their products to make as high a profit as possible. It makes no sense to abstract and idealize a possible scenario which has never really existed.

Production should be based on use value, not exchange value, and we need to move to a steady-state economy in order to save the planet and ourselves from ruin. Only a strong working-class movement can begin to get us where we need to go.

We need to do a lot of things, but what concrete steps would you suggest to get us there? I'm all ears. If the lawmakers are too corrupt and beholden to corporations to even place conditions on how our tax dollars are being spent, as recent events have so clearly demonstrated, then how do you expect them to act in our interest and implement some of the more far-reaching policies which you are proposing?

In a nutshell, Reagan deregulated, took off safeguards for his friends, in 80s,..In 90s republicans took off more safeguards, and Republican Phil Gramm sent the wolves in the henhouse. Our resources, our way of life is purposely being taken away so the rich can get richer.

55CrushEm
06-24-2009, 01:02 PM
So would your "righties" - i mean - bush started the bail outs...

Remember when big business was saying "if you don't pay us, we'll fail and take you with us"

Ummmm......I have said several times on this board before that I am no fan of Bush.....and Bush is hardly a "righty". Bush increased the size of government more than ANY president since FDR....and Obama is trying to outdo him.

The last FISCAL conservative we had was Reagan. We need another....government needs to get SMALLER and spend LESS money. And btw, that is precisely why the Constitution exists.....to LIMIT the size of government.

My support will be behind Mitt Romney in 2012.....I don't give a crap about his religious beliefs or anything else. What I do know is that he is very fiscally conservative.....and unless someone else comes along in the next 3 years that is more fiscally conservative than him......he'll have my vote.

chadta
06-24-2009, 01:08 PM
1) Toyota has "been around" since 1937. Not sure what time even has to do with it

and when did they actually gain any sort of market share ? an old company with 12 employees isnt going to have retirees. Toyota is basically a 40 year old company in north america.


2) You don't think GM has tons of contractors? How do you think they go from 200k to 70k employees? Outsourcing and contractors, buddy. I wonder why? Oh, maybe because of the labor costs? Nah....

howd that work for them since they are now losing money with less employees selling the same number of cars. Keep up the contracting work.

3) Finally, "The Japanese automaker has fewer retirees in the U.S., and its health care benefits and pensions are less generous than those negotiated between Detroit and the UAW.

well apparently age does mean something, if your a young company you wont have many retirees now will you.

3) Another key point is that health costs and pensions for auto workers in Japan - worth billions - are subsidized by the Japanese government. Not so in the U.S."

so because japan provides socialized heath care they have a bit of an advantage no ? once again gm workers fault how ?

55CrushEm
06-24-2009, 01:24 PM
In the real world of dog eat dog capitalism, capitalists drive down wages, with the help of the lawmakers, and seek to raise the final cost of their products to make as high a profit as possible. It makes no sense to abstract and idealize a possible scenario which has never really existed.

Production should be based on use value, not exchange value, and we need to move to a steady-state economy in order to save the planet and ourselves from ruin. Only a strong working-class movement can begin to get us where we need to go.

We need to do a lot of things, but what concrete steps would you suggest to get us there? I'm all ears. If the lawmakers are too corrupt and beholden to corporations to even place conditions on how our tax dollars are being spent, as recent events have so clearly demonstrated, then how do you expect them to act in our interest and implement some of the more far-reaching policies which you are proposing?

In a nutshell, Reagan deregulated, took off safeguards for his friends, in 80s,..In 90s republicans took off more safeguards, and Republican Phil Gramm sent the wolves in the henhouse. Our resources, our way of life is purposely being taken away so the rich can get richer.

Where to start......capitalism does not drive down wages. Capitalism creates competition....both in the product market, and the labor market. If more and more companies arrive that will create a demand for labor....wages will rise. The price of almost everything can be predicated on supply and demand. Likewise more competitive products are created....prices go down....also good for the people.

"The rich get richer" - One of the handbook phrases of the left said to perpetuate class warfare and to make people envious of the more well-to-do. Yes, the rich got richer during the 80's. GOOD !! Guess what, however.....the poor did NOT get poorer. The poor got richer too!! Everyone got richer during the 80's because tons of jobs were created.....and they weren't the bull**** phony government created jobs, nor were they "burger flipping" jobs. They were real private sector jobs.....excellent.

Again, you attempt to villify the rich. Why? The rich provide jobs. Again, I'm thankful for people like Bill Gates.....I hope he gets even richer than he already is......so that he can create thousands MORE jobs. You would hope the government tax to death Microsoft....and distribute that money to the "less fortunate".

I will gladly continue this conversation on Monday (I'll bump the thread).....but right now it is 4:20 EDT, and I'm leaving to go out of town for the long weekend.....not dodging the thread (obviously, as I think I've posted more in this thread than I have in the last 6 months in all other threads combined).

Take care.....may someone grant you the wisdom to become more fiscally conservative. :thumbsup:

rastaman
06-24-2009, 01:25 PM
Ummmm......I have said several times on this board before that I am no fan of Bush.....and Bush is hardly a "righty". Bush increased the size of government more than ANY president since FDR....and Obama is trying to outdo him.

The last FISCAL conservative we had was Reagan. We need another....government needs to get SMALLER and spend LESS money. And btw, that is precisely why the Constitution exists.....to LIMIT the size of government.

My support will be behind Mitt Romney in 2012.....I don't give a crap about his religious beliefs or anything else. What I do know is that he is very fiscally conservative.....and unless someone else comes along in the next 3 years that is more fiscally conservative than him......he'll have my vote.

Reagan was not a fiscal conservative by a long shot. Jimmy Carterís last budget produced a deficit of $77 billion. At the time, it seemed huge. But Reaganís first budget swelled the deficit to $128 billion. By the next year, 1983, it had exploded to $208 billion and was creating severe problems for the economy. By 1992, at the end of the ďReagan Revolution,Ē the deficit was approaching $300 billion a year at end of Bush I presidency.

rastaman
06-24-2009, 01:40 PM
Where to start......capitalism does not drive down wages. Capitalism creates competition....both in the product market, and the labor market. If more and more companies arrive that will create a demand for labor....wages will rise. The price of almost everything can be predicated on supply and demand. Likewise more competitive products are created....prices go down....also good for the people.

"The rich get richer" - One of the handbook phrases of the left said to perpetuate class warfare and to make people envious of the more well-to-do. Yes, the rich got richer during the 80's. GOOD !! Guess what, however.....the poor did NOT get poorer. The poor got richer too!! Everyone got richer during the 80's because tons of jobs were created.....and they weren't the bull**** phony government created jobs, nor were they "burger flipping" jobs. They were real private sector jobs.....excellent.

Again, you attempt to villify the rich. Why? The rich provide jobs. Again, I'm thankful for people like Bill Gates.....I hope he gets even richer than he already is......so that he can create thousands MORE jobs. You would hope the government tax to death Microsoft....and distribute that money to the "less fortunate".

I will gladly continue this conversation on Monday (I'll bump the thread).....but right now it is 4:20 EDT, and I'm leaving to go out of town for the long weekend.....not dodging the thread (obviously, as I think I've posted more in this thread than I have in the last 6 months in all other threads combined).

Take care.....may someone grant you the wisdom to become more fiscally conservative. :thumbsup:

Okay Smart Azz! No one is bedrudging anyone for making money. They have to pay taxes, which is what you have a problem with. Why should they get a tax break? they have had a tax break under Bush, which is why we have such a huge deficit.

I have never seen statistics of these rich people and the amount of jobs they create. A large fraction of small businesses are partner firms and not really employment generation machines. Companies can still hire as long as they make profit even if the CEOs personal incomes are taxed a little bit more.

When private industry stops investing and reduces jobs on a massive scale, as is now the case, the Government needs to step in.

Trickle UP Ecnomics No More Trickle Down which is NOT Sustanable...create jobs and let people have access to microloans to create small businesses and become self-employed and rebuild a system of trust in the economy.

The rich shuffle money among themselves spending on Lamborghinis, gulfstreams, high end fashion which surprise make other rich people richer. Upper middle class and middle class are the correct segment to target for consumption They will buy GM ford, TVs, computers, clothes. The lower income folks are left just wishing.

Pontius Pirate
06-24-2009, 02:40 PM
howd that work for them since they are now losing money with less employees selling the same number of cars. Keep up the contracting work.

So what is the common denominator here? Oh yeah, labor costs. Thanks for agreeing with me that GM's labor costs are higher and therefore one reason for their eventual demise (read: not sole reason, but one reason).

peacepipe
06-24-2009, 04:58 PM
Hey! Let's have a statistics battle!

"A Zogby Poll conducted in 2005 found that only 16 percent of employees said they would definitely vote for union representation compared to 38 percent who said they would definitely vote against. When you combine those who would definitely and probably vote for a union compared to those would would definitely or probably vote against a union the numbers were 36 percent for and 56 percent against with the rest undecided.

Another indication is the results of National Labor Relations Board Elections. Even though employment covered by the NLRB grew by more than 2.3 million jobs in 2006, the NLRB conducted only 1,755 union representation elections covering 87,172 employees. Unions won 60 percent of these elections but they don't petition the NLRB to conduct an election until they think they have a pretty good shot at winning.In other words, even when they thought they had a good shot at it the unions only won 60 percent of the time and only tried to organize workers in less than 4 percent of the new jobs."
They don't petition the NLRB until they have 50%+ majority of the workforce,in most cases the union will want 70%+ support.Even though 30% is all that is needed to petition the NLRB.


Which proves that the intimidation tactics & the coercing companies do works. Hence why EFCA needs to be passed.

Hey look at it this way, if people truely do not want to join a union then noone should worry about EFCA being made into law.

chadta
06-24-2009, 04:59 PM
So what is the common denominator here? Oh yeah, labor costs. Thanks for agreeing with me that GM's labor costs are higher and therefore one reason for their eventual demise (read: not sole reason, but one reason).


but i thought that was all solved by contracting out ?

listen im not saying labour costs arent part of the problem, but they sure as heck arent the biggest problem, the biggest problem was incompetent management who decided they could continue to build big piles of crap with gas at 4 bucks a gallon and rely on the " buy american moto" to continue to get people to buy the product. Besides sure the unions may have made these contract demands, but it was management who gave it to them, so at some time somebody thought they could make money even under these circumstances.

this isnt a black and white thing, its not an us vs them thing, everybody needs to be reasonable, unions and management. Dont ask me to take a pay cut while giving yourself a bonus, at the same time i wont expect a raise if your salaries have been frozen, fair is fair.

the justice system is based on it being better to have 100 guilty men go free then have one innocent one convicted, well the unions kinda work the same way for the employees, yes they protect alot of dead wood, yes that is unfortunate, but if management was not asleep at the switch those people never woulda made it out of the 90 day probationary period. Why is it a bad thing for a lazy guy to be protected but not a murderer ?

Dukes
06-24-2009, 05:18 PM
The rich shuffle money among themselves spending on Lamborghinis, gulfstreams, high end fashion which surprise make other rich people richer. Upper middle class and middle class are the correct segment to target for consumption They will buy GM ford, TVs, computers, clothes. The lower income folks are left just wishing.

You're so out of your mind sometimes it just amazes me. Lets start with rich people's toys. First of all, who do you think makes those Lamborghinis, Jets, Yachts? The companies that make them employ THOUSANDS of middle class workers. Do you have any idea what it costs to maintain these? Do you think the guy servicing those exotic cars at the dealer makes more than $60K a year? Do you even understand the logistics behind what it takes to own a private jet? It takes a crew of dozens at airports to keep them fueled, clean and serviced. Are all of those people rich?

Do you ever take a moment to just look at how many people have jobs because of someone else's wealth? No, of course not because to you anyone with money is evil (which is also funny because the majority of rich elite are Progressives).

Spider
06-24-2009, 06:18 PM
You're so out of your mind sometimes it just amazes me. Lets start with rich people's toys. First of all, who do you think makes those Lamborghinis, Jets, Yachts? The companies that make them employ THOUSANDS of middle class workers. Do you have any idea what it costs to maintain these? Do you think the guy servicing those exotic cars at the dealer makes more than $60K a year? Do you even understand the logistics behind what it takes to own a private jet? It takes a crew of dozens at airports to keep them fueled, clean and serviced. Are all of those people rich?

Do you ever take a moment to just look at how many people have jobs because of someone else's wealth? No, of course not because to you anyone with money is evil (which is also funny because the majority of rich elite are Progressives).

LOL My uncle a millionaire several times over , it is ok for him to get money any way he can , thats capitalism at its finest, the American way ......... But a mother ****er like me busting my ass day in day out to support a family wants to make more and I am an evil commie socialist bastard out to destroy America .........funny how that works hey

Spider
06-24-2009, 06:20 PM
oh yeah ,and if I meet a couple of other drivers that want the same thing , we all become lazy but yet my uncle and father in law can merge , form an offshore account and that is a great business venture .........
So tell me bedwetters how much are you guys worth , and how much of it is a trust fund

Spider
06-24-2009, 06:35 PM
LOL another uncle of mine just as rich , owns a farm , what he does is hire illegal workers for harvest , the when it comes time to pay them he calls immigration and has them all hauled off But he is rich and he does need his toys , so in the bedwetters world it not only ok ,t is down right funny

Dukes
06-24-2009, 06:48 PM
LOL My uncle a millionaire several times over , it is ok for him to get money any way he can
It's not ok if he's doing it illegally

thats capitalism at its finest, the American way .........
That's a dramatic thing for even you to say

But a mother ****er like me busting my ass day in day out to support a family wants to make more
Some people in your party would call you a greedy republican if you told them that.
and I am an evil commie socialist bastard out to destroy America .........funny how that works hey

Well you throat punches are devastating

Spider
06-24-2009, 07:08 PM
It's not ok if he's doing it illegally thats the thing , you dont get rich by playing by the rules ..........As he once told me , Some people are riders , others are meant ot be rode , dont blame me for their stupidity ........


That's a dramatic thing for even you to say is it really ? Ask Tucker of the tucker torpedo if the big 3 are honest and fair , see the movie barbarians at the gates , see what wall street has done .........


Some people in your party would call you a greedy republican if you told them that. only the liberals and extreme ones at that

Well you throat punches are devastating;D I havent punched anyone in over a year now ;D well close to a year anyway

alkemical
06-25-2009, 06:09 AM
Where to start......capitalism does not drive down wages. Capitalism creates competition....both in the product market, and the labor market. If more and more companies arrive that will create a demand for labor....wages will rise. The price of almost everything can be predicated on supply and demand. Likewise more competitive products are created....prices go down....also good for the people.

"The rich get richer" - One of the handbook phrases of the left said to perpetuate class warfare and to make people envious of the more well-to-do. Yes, the rich got richer during the 80's. GOOD !! Guess what, however.....the poor did NOT get poorer. The poor got richer too!! Everyone got richer during the 80's because tons of jobs were created.....and they weren't the bull**** phony government created jobs, nor were they "burger flipping" jobs. They were real private sector jobs.....excellent.

Again, you attempt to villify the rich. Why? The rich provide jobs. Again, I'm thankful for people like Bill Gates.....I hope he gets even richer than he already is......so that he can create thousands MORE jobs. You would hope the government tax to death Microsoft....and distribute that money to the "less fortunate".

I will gladly continue this conversation on Monday (I'll bump the thread).....but right now it is 4:20 EDT, and I'm leaving to go out of town for the long weekend.....not dodging the thread (obviously, as I think I've posted more in this thread than I have in the last 6 months in all other threads combined).

Take care.....may someone grant you the wisdom to become more fiscally conservative. :thumbsup:


Uhm, capitalism does encourage lower wages... I mean paying some kids .35 a day to make stuff for us proves it.

Pontius Pirate
06-25-2009, 10:04 AM
Hey look at it this way, if people truely do not want to join a union then noone should worry about EFCA being made into law.

That is the weakest, slippery slope argument I've heard yet on EFCA. You realize EFCA removes the secret ballot election, right? Meaning, workers no longer vote privately on Union's. It's like being asked to go up to the chalkboard to right down your vote.

Hey, look at it this way:

"In polling conducted for CDW in January by McLaughlin & Associates, nearly three-quarters (74%) of union households were opposed to the card check provisions in the Employee Free Choice Act. An overwhelming 88% of union households believed that a workerís vote should be kept private during a union organizing election, and 85% of union households believed that a secret ballot election is the best way to protect the individual rights of workers when they are deciding whether to join a union."

Pontius Pirate
06-25-2009, 10:11 AM
Why is it a bad thing for a lazy guy to be protected but not a murderer ?

So your argument for Union's boils down to that, huh?

That's basically akin to saying, "Hey, why is it a bad thing for the Mafia to have good lawyers when terrorists in Guantanamo have no legal rights?"

That could be an even bigger logical fallacy than the one "peacepipes" made above.

I love this ****.

chadta
06-25-2009, 12:07 PM
So your argument for Union's boils down to that, huh?

no

im saying that it is flawed, i never said it was perfect, but i accept that flaw to get the benefits of it.

peacepipe
06-25-2009, 01:27 PM
That is the weakest, slippery slope argument I've heard yet on EFCA. You realize EFCA removes the secret ballot election, right? Meaning, workers no longer vote privately on Union's. It's like being asked to go up to the chalkboard to right down your vote.

Hey, look at it this way:

"In polling conducted for CDW in January by McLaughlin & Associates, nearly three-quarters (74%) of union households were opposed to the card check provisions in the Employee Free Choice Act. An overwhelming 88% of union households believed that a workerís vote should be kept private during a union organizing election, and 85% of union households believed that a secret ballot election is the best way to protect the individual rights of workers when they are deciding whether to join a union."
LOL, considering 100% of my union hall is in complete support it.
EFCA gives the employees a choice in wether they want a vote to begin with. If 50+1% signed on to form a union then they(the employees) can decide wether there is a vote or not. Either way once their is a majority sign up it's a done deal.

Pontius Pirate
06-25-2009, 01:39 PM
LOL, considering 100% of my union hall is in complete support it.
EFCA gives the employees a choice in wether they want a vote to begin with. If 50+1% signed on to form a union then they(the employees) can decide wether there is a vote or not. Either way once their is a majority sign up it's a done deal.

I can't speak for your union hall and your own vested interests.

But given that you're so comfortable with secret ballots being done away with, I'm sure you wont' mind if all of your votes are done publicly on a clipboard that you pass around.

"Hey everyone, it says here that PeacePipe doesn't want a union! Can someone go talk to him? KtHXBAI!"

peacepipe
06-25-2009, 01:56 PM
I can't speak for your union hall and your own vested interests.

But given that you're so comfortable with secret ballots being done away with, I'm sure you wont' mind if all of your votes are done publicly on a clipboard that you pass around.

"Hey everyone, it says here that PeacePipe doesn't want a union! Can someone go talk to him? KtHXBAI!"
When a petition is made to the NLRB there is already majority sign up for union. At which point their is no real reason to even have a vote. If you have 100 employees and 60,70 or whatever number above 50 sign up to unionize then your union.This vote that is currently forced onto employees is just a means for employers to buy time to intimidate/strongarm emloyees into voting no. EFCA gives the power on wether to vote or not to the employees.

peacepipe
06-25-2009, 02:02 PM
Right, labor has nothing to do with the viability of the U.S. auto industry. Oh, how naieve the mind of a union idealist...

"The Associated Press reported that, for example, the average United Auto Workers member makes $29.78 per hour at GM, while Toyota pays its workers (most of whom are non-union) about $30 per hour. However, when total benefits (including pensions and health care for workers, retirees and their spouses) is factored in, GM's total hourly labor costs is about $69, while Toyota's is about $48."what a retiree makes should /does not have any bareing on what an active employee makes an hour. Go to factcheck.com to find out how discredited this post is.

Pontius Pirate
06-25-2009, 03:15 PM
When a petition is made to the NLRB there is already majority sign up for union. At which point their is no real reason to even have a vote. If you have 100 employees and 60,70 or whatever number above 50 sign up to unionize then your union.This vote that is currently forced onto employees is just a means for employers to buy time to intimidate/strongarm emloyees into voting no. EFCA gives the power on wether to vote or not to the employees.

So...let's all vote on whether or not we get to vote? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. EFCA is complete garbage, and nothing you are saying (or can say) will change my view on that.

Pontius Pirate
06-25-2009, 03:18 PM
what a retiree makes should /does not have any bareing on what an active employee makes an hour. Go to factcheck.com to find out how discredited this post is.

1) Um, yes it should. If total labor costs are resulting in retirees getting fatter packages, the company is obviously going to look at shaving their labor costs elsewhere. You can't argue that certain components of labor cost flat-out don't matter (i.e. retiree packages).

2) Why don't you go check out your website and tell me what it says, then we can talk.

chadta
06-25-2009, 03:28 PM
1) Um, yes it should. If total labor costs are resulting in retirees getting fatter packages, the company is obviously going to look at shaving their labor costs elsewhere. You can't argue that certain components of labor cost flat-out don't matter (i.e. retiree packages).

2) Why don't you go check out your website and tell me what it says, then we can talk.

im gonna have to agree with pontius on this one, they do matter, BUT its only because they mismanaged the money that was supposed to fund those pensions, and because the have been around alot longer then say toyota, if toyota had as many retires as gm they would be in a similar boat.

question kinda off topic, but i dunno if its worthy of its own thread

gm and chrysler got concessions as part of bankruptcy, is ford not now at a huge disadvantage because they didnt get those same consessions ? are they not doomed to repeat what gm is currently doing in a few years ? or is ford showing that if the guys running gm had a clue that they didnt infact need concessions and that labour costs arent as big a problem after all.

Seamus
06-25-2009, 03:33 PM
Peacepipe,
I believe that you have a fact incorrect on the 50 + 1% vote. It isn't 51% of the people are for a union, then throw an official vote. It is if a majority of the workers are interested in a union, then a vote will be held to unionize.

I work in a non-union shop, funny when times were good, the machinist union came down here with quite the charters (thugs) out of Chicago to get a vote for unionization. They came out to my house, knew who I was and asked for me to take a card (showing interest in having a union shop). Once they showed a majority of workers had accepted the cards, they could hold a vote for unionization, this wasn't explained by the group handing out the cards by the way.

In the end, they were not interested in our shop after a decline in workload and personnel. Union supporters were upset because this appeared to be an interest in just the $, not the employees.

I have worked union and non union shops, I find that I don't need a third party to negotiate my wages for a monthly fee. I have done fine on my own not being lumped as an employee with a hire on date X. I have demonstrated to be quite valuable for the company and paid appropriately, what a concept.

chadta
06-25-2009, 05:47 PM
up here in ontario the law here only requires 40% of employees to have signed cards to get to a vote, but you cant vote again for 12 months if you dont win, so its in the unions best interest to make sure they are going to win before calling for a vote.

peacepipe
06-25-2009, 08:13 PM
So...let's all vote on whether or not we get to vote? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. EFCA is complete garbage, and nothing you are saying (or can say) will change my view on that.Not looking to change your veiw just looking to correct some of the garbage you are throwing out there.

peacepipe
06-25-2009, 08:40 PM
Peacepipe,
I believe that you have a fact incorrect on the 50 + 1% vote. It isn't 51% of the people are for a union, then throw an official vote. It is if a majority of the workers are interested in a union, then a vote will be held to unionize.

I work in a non-union shop, funny when times were good, the machinist union came down here with quite the charters (thugs) out of Chicago to get a vote for unionization. They came out to my house, knew who I was and asked for me to take a card (showing interest in having a union shop). Once they showed a majority of workers had accepted the cards, they could hold a vote for unionization, this wasn't explained by the group handing out the cards by the way.

In the end, they were not interested in our shop after a decline in workload and personnel. Union supporters were upset because this appeared to be an interest in just the $, not the employees.

I have worked union and non union shops, I find that I don't need a third party to negotiate my wages for a monthly fee. I have done fine on my own not being lumped as an employee with a hire on date X. I have demonstrated to be quite valuable for the company and paid appropriately, what a concept.

In my situation we staight asked " do you want to unionize, if they were interested but unsure i didn't have them sign. Signature was only gathered once I knew they were for unionizing. 50+1% of maybes aren't worth a sh**.

Let me ask you this;
how much do you pay for health insurance? Me I don't pay a penny.
Does your job provide an annuity for you? My job does,not a penny out my pocket.
Does your job also give you a pension? mine does & doesn't cost me anything.

but hey good for you, if you are happy with what got so be it. You're getting what your worth I'm getting what i'm worth. it's free market it is what america is all about. The only differance as a union we have more leverage at the table.

Pontius Pirate
06-25-2009, 08:57 PM
In my situation we staight asked " do you want to unionize, if they were interested but unsure i didn't have them sign. Signature was only gathered once I knew they were for unionizing. 50+1% of maybes aren't worth a sh**.

Let me ask you this;
how much do you pay for health insurance? Me I don't pay a penny.
Does your job provide an annuity for you? My job does,not a penny out my pocket.
Does your job also give you a pension? mine does & doesn't cost me anything.

but hey good for you, if you are happy with what got so be it. You're getting what your worth I'm getting what i'm worth. it's free market it is what america is all about. The only differance as a union we have more leverage at the table.

So the truth comes out: you're a union organizer. Well hell, of course you're gonna be pro-union. Your livelihood depends on it! If I was a drug dealer, I'd be championing all the great things cocaine can do for your obesity.

Now let's talk facts: in a study done by UCSB, researchers studied the effects union organization (and the presence of unions) had on companies across a cross-section of industries. I'll let the results speak for themselves:

"The empirical results indicate equity losses are the greatest in industries where union wage gain are the highest and unionization rates are the largest, and in the most labor-intensive firms, independent of the size of the bargaining unit involved in the election."

Essentially, unions are bad for business. Sure, you get some sweet pension deals and cheap healthcare. But ultimately it's a short-term gain. The reality are those union jobs are going away bud. Or need I cite all those stats again?

alkemical
06-26-2009, 05:39 AM
im gonna have to agree with pontius on this one, they do matter, BUT its only because they mismanaged the money that was supposed to fund those pensions, and because the have been around alot longer then say toyota, if toyota had as many retires as gm they would be in a similar boat.

question kinda off topic, but i dunno if its worthy of its own thread

gm and chrysler got concessions as part of bankruptcy, is ford not now at a huge disadvantage because they didnt get those same consessions ? are they not doomed to repeat what gm is currently doing in a few years ? or is ford showing that if the guys running gm had a clue that they didnt infact need concessions and that labour costs arent as big a problem after all.


Some of the blame too, lies with companies signing bad contracts.

There was a Simpson's Episode where Burns took on the union, i think that's a good example for both sides too look at.

Pontius Pirate
06-26-2009, 10:08 AM
http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Infographic-UAW-Union-C.article.jpg

peacepipe
06-26-2009, 10:17 AM
So the truth comes out: you're a union organizer. Well hell, of course you're gonna be pro-union. Your livelihood depends on it! If I was a drug dealer, I'd be championing all the great things cocaine can do for your obesity.
Now let's talk facts: in a study done by UCSB, researchers studied the effects union organization (and the presence of unions) had on companies across a cross-section of industries. I'll let the results speak for themselves:

"The empirical results indicate equity losses are the greatest in industries where union wage gain are the highest and unionization rates are the largest, and in the most labor-intensive firms, independent of the size of the bargaining unit involved in the election."
Essentially, unions are bad for business. Sure, you get some sweet pension deals and cheap healthcare. But ultimately it's a short-term gain. The reality are those union jobs are going away bud. Or need I cite all those stats again? And all this time I thought you were being objective on unions!

let's see I know a company that made 18 BILLION in profit in 2008. Funny thing is 13 differant unions represent all there workers. 18 billion dollars of profit in a recession means you're very sccessful. GE is that company. besides I don't buy into any study where they go into it with the premace that unions are bad.

BTW,i'm not an organiser,at the time I worked in a non-union fab shop. I was not even the person in this shop that got this ball rolling to go union. The 2 persons responsible were fired & I stepped up to the plate to continue what they had started.

Union jobs are not going away. as long as their are people who want better pay & benefits there will always be unions. that and it's a 1st ammendment right garauntees their will always be unions.

Pontius Pirate
06-26-2009, 10:54 AM
And all this time I thought you were being objective on unions!

let's see I know a company that made 18 BILLION in profit in 2008. Funny thing is 13 differant unions represent all there workers. 18 billion dollars of profit in a recession means you're very sccessful. GE is that company. besides I don't buy into any study where they go into it with the premace that unions are bad.

BTW,i'm not an organiser,at the time I worked in a non-union fab shop. I was not even the person in this shop that got this ball rolling to go union. The 2 persons responsible were fired & I stepped up to the plate to continue what they had started.

Union jobs are not going away. as long as their are people who want better pay & benefits there will always be unions. that and it's a 1st ammendment right garauntees their will always be unions.

You've already lost all credibility with me when two posts ago you said you went around asking people to join a union and now you're trying to say you weren't an organizer. On the other hand, I neither represent unions or management. So who is the biased one in this picture?

I gave empirical research - you turn around and give me ONE company (that has unions) that made a profit. That's like me saying "See, research proves that smoking kills" and you saying "but I know this one guy who smokes who isn't dead yet."

Oh, and GE is actively union-avoidant. Meaning, they pursue operations that will not result in union growth and they seek to contain their union membership in legacy operations. I.e. they have NO interest in seeing their union % increase.

Lastly, I guess I do have to remind you: Union representation has declined from ~35% in the 50's to ~12% today - STEADILY. Yes, my friend, union jobs ARE going away. But leave to the union organizer to be unable to face that fact.

peacepipe
06-27-2009, 09:34 AM
You've already lost all credibility with me when two posts ago you said you went around asking people to join a union and now you're trying to say you weren't an organizer. On the other hand, I neither represent unions or management. So who is the biased one in this picture?
With every one of your post you show your bias against unions. Saying now that "i niether represent unions or management" doesn't make your opinion any less bias then mines.

I gave empirical research - you turn around and give me ONE company (that has unions) that made a profit. That's like me saying "See, research proves that smoking kills" and you saying "but I know this one guy who smokes who isn't dead yet."
one for example is what I posted but if you want more for example let's see... anheuser bucsh,miller,walt disney world to name a few more.,

Oh, and GE is actively union-avoidant. Meaning, they pursue operations that will not result in union growth and they seek to contain their union membership in legacy operations. I.e. they have NO interest in seeing their union % increase.whoopty doo, there union-avoidant there still union represented. Not wanting to see that % increase doesn't mean a thing all comp. for most part don't want unions to begin with .If companies wanted unions the entire workforce would be union. I don't care wether a company is not for union cause it's up to the workers to unionize. If a company pays a fair wage & benefits they should have nothing to worry about.


Lastly, I guess I do have to remind you: Union representation has declined from ~35% in the 50's to ~12% today - STEADILY. Yes, my friend, union jobs ARE going away. But leave to the union organizer to be unable to face that fact.[/QUOTE]our #s are not as big as they once were but I wouldn't count your eggs before they hatch. 59 dems with the 60th on the way....EFCA will become law.

Spider
06-27-2009, 09:49 AM
one for example is what I posted but if you want more for example let's see... anheuser bucsh,miller,walt disney world to name a few more.,



alot of LTL trucking companies are union , and making a huge profit ....... ****ing freight haulers ;D

Pontius Pirate
06-27-2009, 11:48 AM
With every one of your post you show your bias against unions. Saying now that "i niether represent unions or management" doesn't make your opinion any less bias then mines.


one for example is what I posted but if you want more for example let's see... anheuser bucsh,miller,walt disney world to name a few more.,

whoopty doo, there union-avoidant there still union represented. Not wanting to see that % increase doesn't mean a thing all comp. for most part don't want unions to begin with .If companies wanted unions the entire workforce would be union. I don't care wether a company is not for union cause it's up to the workers to unionize. If a company pays a fair wage & benefits they should have nothing to worry about.


]our #s are not as big as they once were but I wouldn't count your eggs before they hatch. 59 dems with the 60th on the way....EFCA will become law.
Hilarious!

footstepsfrom#27
06-27-2009, 02:57 PM
Glad I didn't waste 30 minutes reading this thread.

Unions...much like corporations...are a necessary evil in the checks and balances of capitalism, a flawed, imperfect system of trade and monetary exchange that is 1) the best system available right now, and 2) still has lots of huge problems that need fixing. If you're of the opinion that blue collar people are inherently lazy, shifless or dishonest and would all be rich if they weren't, and white collar corporate officers are productive, creative bastions of good in the world you probably see unions as bloodsuckers.

And vice versa...

55CrushEm
06-28-2009, 06:13 AM
Reagan was not a fiscal conservative by a long shot. Jimmy Carterís last budget produced a deficit of $77 billion. At the time, it seemed huge. But Reaganís first budget swelled the deficit to $128 billion. By the next year, 1983, it had exploded to $208 billion and was creating severe problems for the economy. By 1992, at the end of the ďReagan Revolution,Ē the deficit was approaching $300 billion a year at end of Bush I presidency.

First of all the deficits were not creating problems for the economy. But, I'll play along......if those deficits were creating problems for the economy......how will Obama's record deficits help?

55CrushEm
06-28-2009, 06:14 AM
The rich shuffle money among themselves spending on Lamborghinis, gulfstreams, high end fashion which surprise make other rich people richer. Upper middle class and middle class are the correct segment to target for consumption They will buy GM ford, TVs, computers, clothes. The lower income folks are left just wishing.

Ummmm......when these products are purchased.....someone had to make them. Purchase of these products keep people employed.

55CrushEm
06-28-2009, 06:25 AM
Okay Smart Azz! No one is bedrudging anyone for making money. They have to pay taxes, which is what you have a problem with. Why should they get a tax break? they have had a tax break under Bush, which is why we have such a huge deficit.
I don't have a problem with people paying taxes. I have a problem with the wealthier people pay a grossly disproportionate percentage of the tax burden....and then people like you saying they still don't pay enough. Refer to post #103 and #167. And we don't have huge deficits because of tax breaks. Again, you don't understand the effects of taxes on the economy. Lowering tax rates, will INCREASE tax revenue in the long run by creating more jobs. WE HAVE DEFICITS SOLELY BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENTS' INSATIABLE APPETITE TO SPEND MORE AND MORE !!

I have never seen statistics of these rich people and the amount of jobs they create. A large fraction of small businesses are partner firms and not really employment generation machines. Companies can still hire as long as they make profit even if the CEOs personal incomes are taxed a little bit more.
Where are they? Government doesn't create jobs, chief. The private sector does.

When private industry stops investing and reduces jobs on a massive scale, as is now the case, the Government needs to step in.
Wow. So wrong. The only time private industry stops investing and "lowers" job creation is when they are taxed so heavily, that they CAN'T. The government only needs to step in if they are going to reduce the corporate tax burden. As I mentioned previously, the U.S. and Japan are 2 of the highest corporate tax jurisdictions in the world now. Is it any wonder why companies are setting up shop elsewhere? Governments need to create incentives for business to reside in their jurisdictions.....the only way is through tax incentives and tax cuts.