union is the measure

[peacepipe]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/20/947294/-Union-is-the-measure

Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 11:00 AM EST

Union is the measureby Mark Sumner for Daily Kos
Share333 17
permalink 115 Comments

There's a word in the very first line of the Constitution of the United States that describes the instrument through which freedom is held. It's a term for people acting in concert to secure their liberty and hold those rights against any opponent. That word is union.

From its founding, the story of this nation has been the story of union. It is the story of two centuries spent in building up the ability of ordinary citizens to treat with wealthy, powerful, politically connected entities. That story contains instances of tragedy. Thousands died in the struggle, many thousands more suffered poverty or were outcast from communities. But the story of union also contains far-reaching triumphs. Every paid vacation, every weekend, every overtime dollar, every protection from arbitrary dismissal and unfair treatment, everything that makes your working life tolerable, came because people stood together in union at risk to their own livelihoods and often their own lives. Some of those laws exist only because workers stood in union when not only corporations but their own government attacked them not just with guns, but with bombers. They paid the price. You reap the benefits.

When we talk about "the greatest generation" that brought the nation through World War II and built America into a post-war powerhouse, we're speaking of a population where nearly a third of workers were union members. It's no coincidence that the peak period of growth and progress coincides with the peak period of union membership. When people act in union, there's nothing they can't accomplish. When people cannot join in union, when everyone must face the powerful alone, all rights are nothing more than words.Whether in a union of states and nations or a union of workers and citizens, only by working in concert can rights be wrested from oppressors and held against despots. That's why tyrants quake at the sound of union. That's why the right to act in union is the ability that the downtrodden most desire and authorities first attack. Union is the measure of freedom.
The outlawing of independent unions is the clearest and most consistent marker of despotism around the world. When Gaddafi seized control of Libya in 1969, his first speech proclaimed the end of labor unions. No sooner had he secured control of Cuba than Fidel Castro banned the ability of unions to strike or to bargain over salary and benefits, saying such demands were detrimental to "the national economy." In Colombia today, right-wing militias work together with corporations to keep down costs and demands for decent working conditions in the most effective way they know–they execute union leaders.
There's a good reason why governments and corporations alike show trepidation when people are able to organize. Union is effective. For all the pretty speeches and all the ham-handed threats, the signal that the Iron Curtain was finally rising didn't come in Berlin or Washington, D.C., it came in the shipyards of Gdańsk, when men dared to wave the flag of an independent union. Want to determine where governments are actually concerned about the rights of their people? You only have to look at how free people are to organize for a cause. Without that, no other rights matter. With it, all other rights will follow.The First Amendment to the Constitution enshrines a number of freedoms including religion, speech and the press, but this amendment should not be read as a random list of disconnected items. Everything in it directly depends on the liberties held out in the closing words: the ability of the people to peacefully assemble and to petition for redress. When the Constitution extends the right of assembly, it's not just giving us the right to gather together for no purpose. What's protected is the right to join together in common cause, and to seek as a group to move institutions that would not respond to individuals acting alone.

The American dream—the dream that an average citizen can enjoy a decent life, raise a family, and hope for the future—was created in union, sustained by union, and is dependent on union. That dream stands on a knife edge. Already the forces that oppose union have torn away the hopes of many Americans. As union membership has fallen, decent pensions have disappeared. As union membership has fallen, health care costs have increased. As union membership has fallen, pay for workers has stagnated. As union membership has fallen corporate profits—and executive pay—have soared. The decline of union is the birthplace of inequity.At this moment, the same forces that have ripped union away from most workers are acting against those few who still share the ability to speak with a collective voice. They want to wreck this last bastion, burn it down, stomp it, bury it, extinguish it forever, so that they can sleep safe knowing their power will not be challenged. They want to erase the work of two centuries, turn the American dream into a subject for nostalgia, and make the Bill of Rights into a sheet of paper.

That is what's on the line in Wisconsin.

Nothing has changed since the time that first

great article

[mhgaffney]

Good post, peacepipe.

The knee jerks and rightards need some education on this idea, which is what I've been trying to get across -- with little success.

They seem to think that every man for himself is what the framers had in mind -- that somehow predatory Capitalism is divinelu ordained.

In Green Bay they understand this. Unfortunately, the Packers are the exception, it seems, in our dumbed down society.

Well, its dumbed down for a reason.

[Garcia Bronco]

Except the word Union in the constitutions refers to everyone and the Union you describe is a specialminterest group.

Read Federalist Paper 10.

The guy you quoted doesn't even know come up with the premise.

[peacepipe]

Federalists? a party so wedded to the upper class that fell out of power 30 yrs after being put together. a party started by bankers and bussinessman.

[mhgaffney]

Federalist is code for Alexander Hamilton -- who opposed Jefferson and wanted a big central bank.

Well, we've seen the results in recent years -- of Hamiltonianism taken to the limit. It's a failed approach.

Ee need to abolish the central bank -- the fed -- and move back to Jefferson's idea of an informed citizenry leading and running the nation.

[Garcia Bronco]

Federalists? a party so wedded to the upper class that fell out of power 30 yrs after being put together. a party started by bankers and bussinessman.

You are historically challenged to say the least. Don't confuse a political party with the name of a collection of essays and letters. All you need to concern yourself with for the purposes of your instruction is that the Federalist Papers were complied to explain the constitution to the masses.

Federalist Paper 10 was written by the man the wrote our US Constitution. That you would even post that as your response tells me you don't know dick about any of it.

Further, Unioncrat, right or wrong you can't even begin to think for yourself. Which is why you post other peoples stuff. And when you do pozst your own....I get this quoted post. Pathetic.

[mhgaffney]

Notice Garcia obfuscates -- and ignores the real issue -- the matter of the central bank.

He is a mouthpiece for the failed Hamiltonian approach --

[Garcia Bronco]

Federalist is code for Alexander Hamilton -- who opposed Jefferson and wanted a big central bank.

Well, we've seen the results in recent years -- of Hamiltonianism taken to the limit. It's a failed approach.

Ee need to abolish the central bank -- the fed -- and move back to Jefferson's idea of an informed citizenry leading and running the nation.

Oh for the love of pete, that has nothing to do with this.

We can call them "The New Constitution Papers" if you like.

[Garcia Bronco]

Notice Garcia obfuscates -- and ignores the real issue -- the matter of the central bank.

He is a mouthpiece for the failed Hamiltonian approach --

You already have a topic on Central banks....several in fact. If you want to debate though..I'll play. I'll argue either side..and beat your ass...because I am smarter than you. I mean look at you...I am talking about Madison and you're talking about Hamilton.

[peacepipe]

I do agree to an extent with federalists in that I support a stronger central government as opposed to stronger states.

[peacepipe]

You are historically challenged to say the least. Don't confuse a political party with the name of a collection of essays and letters. All you need to concern yourself with for the purposes of your instruction is that the Federalist Papers were complied to explain the constitution to the masses.

Federalist Paper 10 was written by the man the wrote our US Constitution. That you would even post that as your response tells me you don't know dick about any of it.

Further, Unioncrat, right or wrong you can't even begin to think for yourself. Which is why you post other peoples stuff. And when you do pozst your own....I get this quoted post. Pathetic.is that all you can come up with. read the damn article.

[cutthemdown]

Yeah but some people not in the union, have to pay taxes so the people in the union can have better pay and benefits then non union?

[cutthemdown]

Plus the Union, defeated the Confederate states.

Union 1
non union 0

[peacepipe]

Yeah but some people not in the union, have to pay taxes so the people in the union can have better pay and benefits then non union?union workers pay taxes as well.

[mhgaffney]

The point is that the Wall Street tea party agenda is to bust the unions. The point about the central bank is therefor totally relevant.

[cutthemdown]

union workers pay taxes as well.

I realize that. But a union is still a group that singles people out. Not every qualified worker in a field can find union work right? I know tons of out of work teachers who would probably love to get a job. The union cant help them in Long Beach right now. And no principal can say hey people hungry for work, im going to tell my teachers there is lots of teachers out there looking for work, you all have to take a pay cut, then you hire more teachers. But they cant because of the union.

so the union protects the jobs of some, and the wages of some, at the expense of those not lucky enough to get in with the union.

[cutthemdown]

In the private sector, if your job is glutted with applicants its not good for you. In the cushy union you are protected. Those are the differences we are talking about. Thats why unions, public ones, should start paying way more into there healthcare and pensions. Its only fair.

I can maybe go along with the liberals saying we should only have to give in on some money, not let you guy collective bargaining.

[mhgaffney]

I realize that. But a union is still a group that singles people out. Not every qualified worker in a field can find union work right? I know tons of out of work teachers who would probably love to get a job. The union cant help them in Long Beach right now. And no principal can say hey people hungry for work, im going to tell my teachers there is lots of teachers out there looking for work, you all have to take a pay cut, then you hire more teachers. But they cant because of the union.

so the union protects the jobs of some, and the wages of some, at the expense of those not lucky enough to get in with the union.

You are assuming a shrinking economy. It was not always so. During my younger years there was never a shortage of work. You could always go down to the local factory or mill and get on. If you didn't like one job -- go find another.

I've talked with old timers whop remember how it was in the 40s and 50s and it was exactly the same. here was always work for anyone who wanted it.

This has changed because of decisions made on Wall Street by a rather small group of men who don't give a hoot about the people of this country. They dob;t give a hoot about the Constitution. They don't give a hoot about humanitarian values. They don't give a hoot about the environment.

They made decisions starting in the 1970s that have hollowed out the US economy, shipped entire industries off shore, bought both house of Congress, have subverted the process of checks and balances built into the Constitution, and have bought control over all of the media -- so that the American people never hear the truth on any issue that matters to them.

In short, they now rule this nation - even though they are international corporations and so in many cases pay little or no taxes here.

Before the arrival of the white man, the Native Americans looked seven generations ahead before making important decisions. Today, boards of corporations only see as far as the next quarterly earnings report.

This is globalism. It means the end of everything you care about. If it continues there where will be no fit life for your children and their children.

[Rohirrim]

This is the new political paradigm in America: The obscenely wealthy destroy the economy with their greed, then demand restitution from taxpayers for their losses, and blame the wreckage on those at the bottom of the economic scale.

The truly remarkable thing about this is, that the whole country, for the most part, goes along with this scheme.

I wonder how long it will take for the American people to wise up enough to reach the same conclusions already reached in Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen and Bahrain?

Your old road is rapidly agin’
Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’

[loborugger]

This is the new political paradigm in America: The obscenely wealthy destroy the economy with their greed, then demand restitution from taxpayers for their losses, and blame the wreckage on those at the bottom of the economic scale.

The truly remarkable thing about this is, that the whole country, for the most part, goes along with this scheme.



This.

Where we get lost is that so many are trapped in the Dem/Rep loop, and its feed by the talking heads on the TV and that is why people go along with it. So many actually believe that their party - be it R or D - has their best interests at heart and if only they could get their party in charge, things would get better.

[Rohirrim]

If Walker wins in Wisconsin, American workers better prepare themselves. The Republicans smell the blood in the water. They are waiting and watching. If Walker is able to pull this off, labor in America can kiss its ass goodbye.

[alkemical]

Great!

I am currently working for two billion dollar companies, and the avg pay rate here at work is $10/hr.

I love capitalism!

[Pony Boy]

This is the new political paradigm in America: The obscenely wealthy destroy the economy with their greed, then demand restitution from taxpayers for their losses, and blame the wreckage on those at the bottom of the economic scale.

The truly remarkable thing about this is, that the whole country, for the most part, goes along with this scheme.

I wonder how long it will take for the American people to wise up enough to reach the same conclusions already reached in Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen and Bahrain?

Let me fix this......

This is the new political paradigm in America: The obscenely lazy destroy the economy with their entitlement attitude, then demand restitution from taxpayers for their support, and blame the wreckage on those at the top of the economic scale.

The truly remarkable thing about this is that the whole country, for the most part, goes along with this scheme.

I wonder how long it will take for the American people to wise up enough to reach the same conclusions that the lazy should not be given everything free on a plate just for the fact that they were born here! .

[Rohirrim]

Let me fix this......

This is the new political paradigm in America: The obscenely lazy destroy the economy with their entitlement attitude, then demand restitution from taxpayers for their support, and blame the wreckage on those at the top of the economic scale.

The truly remarkable thing about this is that the whole country, for the most part, goes along with this scheme.

I wonder how long it will take for the American people to wise up enough to reach the same conclusions that the lazy should not be given everything free on a plate just for the fact that they were born here! .

Yeah. Teachers, EMT drivers, firemen, cops and nurses are lazy. Brainwashed idiot.

[Pony Boy]

If Walker wins in Wisconsin, American workers better prepare themselves. The Republicans smell the blood in the water. They are waiting and watching. If Walker is able to pull this off, labor in America can kiss its ass goodbye.

Is this a great country or what, I hope this is the beginning of the end for those blood sucking union scumbags......

[epicSocialism4tw]

Except the word Union in the constitutions refers to everyone and the Union you describe is a specialminterest group.

Read Federalist Paper 10.

The guy you quoted doesn't even know come up with the premise.

Daily Kos is a cesspool of anti-intellectual noncognitivism.

They wouldnt know how to exegesize a document if they had written it themselves.

[Rohirrim]

The next propaganda spiel I expect out of the Right-Wing hate machine is that public workers and unions are right up there with the terrorists who hate us for our freedoms. No doubt they're in league with George Soros and the anti-Christ.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The next propaganda spiel I expect out of the Right-Wing hate machine is that public workers and unions are right up there with the terrorists who hate us for our freedoms. No doubt they're in league with George Soros and the anti-Christ.

Its the left wing who has the hate machine. Look at all of those violent protesters threatening to kill Walker.

Ridiculous.

Only a month after Tuscon, no less, and these morons are out there with crosshairs on Walkers face and with signs that call for Walker's death.

[Rohirrim]

Not yet ten years after 911 and all those heroic first responders that the Right tried to adopt as their own, now they want to steal their pensions and take away their right to collectively bargain. I guess the Right only loves you when they can use you in their propaganda war.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Not yet ten years after 911 and all those heroic first responders that the Right tried to adopt as their own, now they want to steal their pensions and take away their right to collectively bargain. I guess the Right only loves you when they can use you in their propaganda war.

I guess that the left is only interested in curtailing "violent rhetoric" when they can use it to score political points after a tragedy.

The left LOVES violent rhetoric.

[chadta]

The left LOVES violent rhetoric.

id say both sides spread the **** pretty good

[El Minion]

A declining unionized work force is the problem ROFL! yet conservatives still romanticize for the days of yore, the 1950's and the Reagan years, which was more unionized than today's labor force. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/22union.html)

The number of American workers in unions declined sharply last year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/b/bureau_of_labor_statistics/index.html?inline=nyt-org) reported on Friday, with the percentage slipping to 11.9 percent, the lowest rate in more than 70 years...

...The Bureau of Labor Statistics said that the overall unionization rate last year was down from 12.3 percent in 2009 and 20.1 percent in 1983, when there were 17.7 million union members. The peak unionization rate was 35 percent during the mid-1950s, after a surge in unionization during the Great Depression (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/g/great_depression_1930s/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) and after World War II.

[epicSocialism4tw]

id say both sides spread the **** pretty good

Not at all.

Liberal media people literally scoured every Tea Party-related get together for any sort of inkling of what they call "violent rhetoric". They occasionally found a thing here or there, but it was a major part of their narrative about the tea party, and I challenge you to actually take a look of what kind of stuff they found and compare it to how many get togethers they actually found them at. I know that Glenn Beck's 300,000 person get together didnt even carry signs, but there was a small group of democrat activists in the middle of the mall just bombing the place with hate speech.

But the far left showed up at their one Nation rally carrying boat loads of hate speech.

Here's a small sampling of some of the stuff from Wisconsin
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/71gsnLfsbbM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Dont let these people fool you, Chad. The extremists in their party have been violent for decades.

[mhgaffney]

Epic needs to wash his mouth out with soap. He lies a lot.

Lying is a sin, Epic. You of all people -- a Christian -- should know this.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Epic needs to wash his mouth out with soap. He lies a lot.

Lying is a sin, Epic. You of all people -- a Christian -- should know this.

Prove it.

[mhgaffney]

I strongly suspect your figure of average salary of teachers at $100,000 was disinformation --

Where'd you get that? FOX? Rush Limbaugh?

I read a summary -- about teachers' salaries. The starting salary is around $31,000 -- and with seniority they make $40-50,000.

The highest paid teacher in Connecticut - -with one of the highest teacher pay scales -- is $57,000.

Your figure is way off. But I'm not surprised -- you obviously post whatever you cull from the most extreme right. -- without even a second thought about whether it's true.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I strongly suspect your figure of average salary of teachers at $100,000 was disinformation --

Where'd you get that? FOX? Rush Limbaugh?

I read a summary -- about teachers' salaries. The starting salary is around $31,000 -- and with seniority they make $40-50,000.

The highest paid teacher in Connecticut - -with one of the highest teacher pay scales -- is $57,000.

Your figure is way off. But I'm not surprised -- you obviously post whatever you cull from the most extreme right. -- without even a second thought about whether it's true.

Teacher salaries vary.

In rural Texas, you can make upwards of 55K + benefits + retirement plan with a masters degree.

In say, Santa Clara County (CA), teachers make about 65K on average and up to 85K.

[TailgateNut]

A declining unionized work force is the problem ROFL! yet conservatives still romanticize for the days of yore, the 1950's and the Reagan years, which was more unionized than today's labor force. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/22union.html)

Union work is akin to home churned ice cream. Yes, it can be done, but it takes twice as long and costs triple the amount of normal (store bought) ice cream.:wiggle:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Union work is akin to home churned ice cream. Yes, it can be done, but it takes twice as long and costs triple the amount of normal (store bought) ice cream.:wiggle:

Depends on the union, brah.

My union is my only line of defense between me and a bunch of greedy f_cks who would have me working for free if they had their way.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/wn-unions-WI.jpg

[cutthemdown]

California will declare bankruptcy and go default before the unions let this happen in calif. Don't worry LABF you will get yours until the state totally broke.

[Garcia Bronco]

California will declare bankruptcy and go default before the unions let this happen in calif. Don't worry LABF you will get yours until the state totally broke.

I declare California bankrupt.

[Rohirrim]

Union work is akin to home churned ice cream. Yes, it can be done, but it takes twice as long and costs triple the amount of normal (store bought) ice cream.:wiggle:

Unions definitely need to clean house, but so does everybody else. To just stand back and allow the corporate bosses and their political toadies to eradicate unions without taking into account the kind of corruption, thievery, and destruction being wrought across America by these same corporate overlords is the worst kind of naivete. We've already seen what America looks like when workers have no voice. It wasn't pretty. We forget that Henry Ford himself ordered his thugs to machine gun union organizers. Back in the day, one in four people in Detroit died of hunger. What was Ford's response? "The problem with the unemployed is that they need to work harder." The presence of unions benefits all workers, not just the ones who pay their dues.

Before unions, there was no such thing as a forty hour week, or overtime, paid time off, or fifteen minute breaks, or safety regulations, or workers compensation, etc. Hell, most corporate giants like Ford and Standard Oil owned the house the worker lived in and collected the rent. Workers shopped in the stores owned by the corporation they worked for. Most of them ended up as indentured servants because they didn't earn enough to pay the food and rent so they were perenially under water. Hence the old blues song, "I owe my soul to the company store." If you got injured on the job and crippled for life, **** you. If you got sick, **** you. Die. And that's the world these corporate bosses want America to go back to.

Doesn't anybody in America wonder why we are not going after the thieving pirates whose actions destroyed our economy? Instead, we are directed to go after unions? Wake the **** up.

[Garcia Bronco]

Unions definitely need to clean house, but so does everybody else. To just stand back and allow the corporate bosses and their political toadies to eradicate unions without taking into account the kind of corruption, thievery, and destruction being wrought across America by these same corporate overlords is the worst kind of naivete. We've already seen what America looks like when workers have no voice. It wasn't pretty. We forget that Henry Ford himself ordered his thugs to machine gun union organizers. Back in the day, one in four people in Detroit died of hunger. What was Ford's response? "The problem with the unemployed is that they need to work harder." The presence of unions benefits all workers, not just the ones who pay their dues.

Before unions, there was no such thing as a forty hour week, or overtime, paid time off, or fifteen minute breaks, or safety regulations, or workers compensation, etc. Hell, most corporate giants like Ford and Standard Oil owned the house the worker lived in and collected the rent. Workers shopped in the stores owned by the corporation they worked for. Most of them ended up as indentured servants because they didn't earn enough to pay the food and rent so they were perenially under water. Hence the old blues song, "I owe my soul to the company store." If you got injured on the job and crippled for life, **** you. If you got sick, **** you. Die. And that's the world these corporate bosses want America to go back to.

Doesn't anybody in America wonder why we are not going after the thieving pirates whose actions destroyed our economy? Instead, we are directed to go after unions? Wake the **** up.

Public sector Unions need to be wiped out. We aren't talking about private Unions.

[chadta]

Public sector Unions need to be wiped out. We aren't talking about private Unions.

The problem isnt the unions, its the people on the other side of the table, who are supposed to represent the public, they dont, its too easy to just give into the unions, and then tax the public more.

Would Gm have given into union demands if they thought they couldn't still make money ? eventually it caught up to them, but they still thought they could make it work. Not so with public sector unions, cost is never an issue, its just try to get it for cheap, but eventually give in. Im curious to see what the longest public sector strike is ?

I like unions, but admit that some are just plain retarded, but that doesn't mean you take away the right to collectively bargain, it means you bargain harder, and longer. If the people who "voted for this to be done" aren't willing to be without some services than they aren't ready to take on the unions.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Public sector Unions need to be wiped out. We aren't talking about private Unions.

I totally agree.

The Dems are completely in the pocket of these unions, and these unions put Dems in place. So what they want is for their guy to be in office, so that when they go to collective bargaining, that theres no resistance.

Public sector unions are an awful idea.

Its obvious at this point that they are unwilling to do what it takes to clean things up and will take the ship down with them if they have to. Its time to cut the cord and let public sector unions drift into the deep.

[Rohirrim]

The problem isnt the unions, its the people on the other side of the table, who are supposed to represent the public, they dont, its too easy to just give into the unions, and then tax the public more.

Would Gm have given into union demands if they thought they couldn't still make money ? eventually it caught up to them, but they still thought they could make it work. Not so with public sector unions, cost is never an issue, its just try to get it for cheap, but eventually give in. Im curious to see what the longest public sector strike is ?

I like unions, but admit that some are just plain retarded, but that doesn't mean you take away the right to collectively bargain, it means you bargain harder, and longer. If the people who "voted for this to be done" aren't willing to be without some services than they aren't ready to take on the unions.

What Walker is doing in Wisconsin is to try and break the union. They've already agreed to the monetary demands, which is what he is telling the people of Wisconsin is the primary object of concern; the budget. But that's obviously bull****. They said they will agree to take a pay cut and pay a portion of their pensions and insurance. He has refused to negotiate. Period. His object is pretty clear. What is a union without the power to collectively bargain? Collective bargaining is the basic purpose of a union.

[Rohirrim]

Public sector Unions need to be wiped out. We aren't talking about private Unions.

Why? What's the difference? I thought the Right wants smaller, less powerful government. And here you are, arguing that the government administrators should have more power over citizens who work for the government than they already have? Your ideology is slipping.

Why shouldn't cops, firemen, teachers and nurses have the same rights as factory workers?

[epicSocialism4tw]

Why? What's the difference? I thought the Right wants smaller, less powerful government. And here you are, arguing that the government administrators should have more power over citizens who work for the government than they already have? Your ideology is slipping.

Why shouldn't cops, firemen, teachers and nurses have the same rights as factory workers?

Um...public sector unions dont put companies at risk, they put states at risk. States are made up of tax paying citizens. It should be obvious to the unionized that when their compensation unreasonably exceeds that of well-educated citizens who work in the private sector, that they will be opposed and done away with. The unions dont care though, they feel that they deserve every bit of our tax dollars whether it destroys our state governments or not. Look at California.

Its time to cut the cord.

[alkemical]

I can't wait to work for .50/day.

[chadta]

I can't wait to work for .50/day.

you may not have to wait long

[baja]

I can't wait to work for .50/day.

IN 1960 MONEY YOU ALREADY DO.

[alkemical]

you may not have to wait long

No doubt...no doubt.

I'm glad I have been helping people with their gardens (indoor and outdoor).

[alkemical]

IN 1960 MONEY YOU ALREADY DO.

Stop making me more depressed.

[Rohirrim]

Um...public sector unions dont put companies at risk, they put states at risk. States are made up of tax paying citizens. It should be obvious to the unionized that when their compensation unreasonably exceeds that of well-educated citizens who work in the private sector, that they will be opposed and done away with. The unions dont care though, they feel that they deserve every bit of our tax dollars whether it destroys our state governments or not. Look at California.

Its time to cut the cord.

The reason these states are having trouble is not unions. It's because the pirates on Wall Street turned the American housing market into a casino and when the bubble burst, housing values and property tax revenue, spiralled into the ground. It's also because the Right's religion, also know as supply side economics, turns out to have been a complete failure and boondoggle. It turns out you can't just suck money out of the treasuries and spend like a drunken sailor while cutting taxes on the rich. In fact, you could almost call it voodoo economics.

Am I suprised the Right Wing greedy bastards want to shift the blame over to unions? Not at all.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The reason these states are having trouble is not unions. It's because the pirates on Wall Street turned the American housing market into a casino and when the bubble burst, housing values and property tax revenue, spiralled into the ground. It's also because the Right's religion, also know as supply side economics, turns out to have been a complete failure and boondoggle. It turns out you can't just suck money out of the treasuries and spend like a drunken sailor while cutting taxes on the rich. In fact, you could almost call it voodoo economics.

Am I suprised the Right Wing greedy bastards want to shift the blame over to unions? Not at all.

You can thank Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for the burst of the housing bubble.

The idea that it was this evil monolith "Wall Street" is patently ridiculous.

[bronclvr]

Ah, the typical OMane mudslinging-right vs. left with no common ground in between, so I'll jump in (the water's fine)-

I hope we can all agree that this issue has risen because of the Economy, and that problem has many beginnings-Rep or Dem, everyone shares in the blame. Here are some thoughts to ponder:

1). Unions foster incompetence. Once you’re in a union, you become incredibly hard to fire. This means that incompetent workers are kept on when they should be fired for the good of the company and remaining workers. It isn’t all bad for the fired worker, either, as sometimes a firing will be just the wake-up call that the fired worker needs to get his or her life together.
When the union represents teachers, cops or other public employees, this incompetence can cost lives, destroy opportunities for great teachers to shine, and so on. Public employees should be subject to the same realities as everyone else in America. If you’re incompetent, you’re looking for a job.

2). Unions make America uncompetitive. The artificially high salaries of union workers make American products uncompetitive overseas, and in America. As we move into a global economy, it is more important than ever for companies to be able to hire people at a somewhat competitive rate, especially to do repetitive work like assembly line work. This brings me to…

3). Unions cause off-shoring. In many cases, work done by unionized employees is just plain too expensive for a company to be competitive. While some companies would love to hire Americans to do certain jobs that must be done by human beings, they cannot and remain in business. This means they go offshore to obtain cheaper labor. And this brings me to…

4). Unionization is slowing any recovery that might be on the horizon by making it more difficult for employers to hire Americans. While the individual employee might benefit from a higher wage, the country, as a whole, does not benefit from unionization.

5). Unions drive up prices of American goods here and overseas. By not allowing companies to make the decisions they need to about where they produce their goods and whom they hire to produce their goods, unions drive up prices. We plain can’t afford this in the Great Recession (which is far from over).

6). Unions delay technological improvements. Most of the assembly work that used to be done by workers can now be performed by robots. Robots can work 24/7, don’t take bathroom breaks, don’t call in sick and don’t strike. Yet unions force some companies to keep human beings doing jobs that can be done much more efficiently and competently by robots.

7). Unions interfere with a good employer/employee relationship. Unions pit employees against employers. This might have been appropriate in the 19th Century. Today it is simply disastrous. Employers know that they have to be competitive in salaries and benefits to retain the best employees, even in this recession. Employees know that they must do a great job to remain competitive on a tough job market. Unions take away that very important connection and turn employees and employers into constant adversaries, when their goals are usually very similar.

8). Unionization takes away free choice. If you’re in a “Union shop” in most states, you’re a part of the union whether you want to be or not. This forces people, in order to keep their jobs, to go against what might be strongly felt ideological beliefs. Those who want to join a union should be able to. Those who do not want to join a union must not be forced or coerced into it.

9). Union contracts bankrupt companies. While the executives at General Motors made some bad decisions, part of the need to bankrupt was the contract they had with the United Auto Workers. Union bosses are often obstinate in re-negotiating contracts when business conditions change. This is a freedom that employers must have in today’s business environment!

10). Unions cost jobs. Let’s be real. If an employer can’t, when necessary, cut hours, benefits, and other employee costs, he or she is going to let workers go or lay them off. This costs jobs when we need to create jobs.

The public employees of Wisconsin and everywhere else need to understand that there is a new and difficult reality in America. They, too, must sacrifice some salary and benefits or our children, the safety of our streets, and our property will all suffer as government entities are forced into laying workers off. It is better for everyone to take a small hit than for some to sit cushy and others to be out on the street.

Unions were needed in the 19th Century. Now, they simply harm employers, employees, and America as a whole. We can’t afford more unionization in America!

[Rohirrim]

You can thank Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for the burst of the housing bubble.

The idea that it was this evil monolith "Wall Street" is patently ridiculous.

You really believe that simplistic drivel. That's what is so sad. Yes, those two were part of the problem. But let's put a monetary value on it. Let's say that Wall Street never created the derivatives casino on top of the housing market bubble. If that bubble deflated by itself, but had no massive derivatives casino on top of it, how much would it have cost us? A hundred billion? Less? More? Hell, if the only thing that fell was Fanny Mae and Freddy Mack, we'd already have the economy up and running again. But we all know that's not the truth.

The truth is that government created a problem (including the dismantling of Glass-Steagle, which was the worst part of the formula) and then Wall Street saw that hole open up and they ran through it with the entire American banking, investment and commercial credit industry on their backs. They turned what might have been a hundred billion dollar crash into a multi-trillion dollar disaster.

And now Rupert Murdoch is telling his idiot minions, "It's the unions' fault." Ha!

[Rohirrim]

Ah, the typical OMane mudslinging-right vs. left with no common ground in between, so I'll jump in (the water's fine)-

I hope we can all agree that this issue has risen because of the Economy, and that problem has many beginnings-Rep or Dem, everyone shares in the blame. Here are some thoughts to ponder:

1). Unions foster incompetence. Once you’re in a union, you become incredibly hard to fire. This means that incompetent workers are kept on when they should be fired for the good of the company and remaining workers. It isn’t all bad for the fired worker, either, as sometimes a firing will be just the wake-up call that the fired worker needs to get his or her life together.
When the union represents teachers, cops or other public employees, this incompetence can cost lives, destroy opportunities for great teachers to shine, and so on. Public employees should be subject to the same realities as everyone else in America. If you’re incompetent, you’re looking for a job.

2). Unions make America uncompetitive. The artificially high salaries of union workers make American products uncompetitive overseas, and in America. As we move into a global economy, it is more important than ever for companies to be able to hire people at a somewhat competitive rate, especially to do repetitive work like assembly line work. This brings me to…

3). Unions cause off-shoring. In many cases, work done by unionized employees is just plain too expensive for a company to be competitive. While some companies would love to hire Americans to do certain jobs that must be done by human beings, they cannot and remain in business. This means they go offshore to obtain cheaper labor. And this brings me to…

4). Unionization is slowing any recovery that might be on the horizon by making it more difficult for employers to hire Americans. While the individual employee might benefit from a higher wage, the country, as a whole, does not benefit from unionization.

5). Unions drive up prices of American goods here and overseas. By not allowing companies to make the decisions they need to about where they produce their goods and whom they hire to produce their goods, unions drive up prices. We plain can’t afford this in the Great Recession (which is far from over).

6). Unions delay technological improvements. Most of the assembly work that used to be done by workers can now be performed by robots. Robots can work 24/7, don’t take bathroom breaks, don’t call in sick and don’t strike. Yet unions force some companies to keep human beings doing jobs that can be done much more efficiently and competently by robots.

7). Unions interfere with a good employer/employee relationship. Unions pit employees against employers. This might have been appropriate in the 19th Century. Today it is simply disastrous. Employers know that they have to be competitive in salaries and benefits to retain the best employees, even in this recession. Employees know that they must do a great job to remain competitive on a tough job market. Unions take away that very important connection and turn employees and employers into constant adversaries, when their goals are usually very similar.

8). Unionization takes away free choice. If you’re in a “Union shop” in most states, you’re a part of the union whether you want to be or not. This forces people, in order to keep their jobs, to go against what might be strongly felt ideological beliefs. Those who want to join a union should be able to. Those who do not want to join a union must not be forced or coerced into it.

9). Union contracts bankrupt companies. While the executives at General Motors made some bad decisions, part of the need to bankrupt was the contract they had with the United Auto Workers. Union bosses are often obstinate in re-negotiating contracts when business conditions change. This is a freedom that employers must have in today’s business environment!

10). Unions cost jobs. Let’s be real. If an employer can’t, when necessary, cut hours, benefits, and other employee costs, he or she is going to let workers go or lay them off. This costs jobs when we need to create jobs.

The public employees of Wisconsin and everywhere else need to understand that there is a new and difficult reality in America. They, too, must sacrifice some salary and benefits or our children, the safety of our streets, and our property will all suffer as government entities are forced into laying workers off. It is better for everyone to take a small hit than for some to sit cushy and others to be out on the street.

Unions were needed in the 19th Century. Now, they simply harm employers, employees, and America as a whole. We can’t afford more unionization in America!

Have you seen the rise in wealth going to the rich over the last thirty years while the salaries of American wage earners has stagnated or regressed? In that same period of time, the productivity of the America worker has exploded. Should the workers get a slice of the pie? Who is creating the wealth? The investors, or the workers? So the slice the workers get should continue to diminish while the slice the already rich gets grows larger and larger?

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2010/2/21/saupload_9_9_09poverty_f1_1.jpg

So you want this to get worse? You think the poor corporate bosses just can't make it anymore because of the big bad unions. It might interest you to know that union representation was up to about a third of the American work force in 1950, the absolute apex of the across-the-board standard of living in American history. Now, it's at less than 14%.

And still, the right wants to argue that unions are bringing America down?

What unadulterated bull****.

[alkemical]

Just remember, "labor costs" and "competitive wages" are words that mean you will be paid less.

So, if you want to be paid less - don't support unions. I've seen what outsourcing labor does in the IT industry, and now the accounting industry, and it will soon work it's way into a few other markets as well.

If you want to compete for $1/day wages, make sure you tell your employer on your next review that you want to help the company be more profitable and want less pay for more work.

[Garcia Bronco]

Why? What's the difference?

The difference has been stated many times; but put squarely private unions TYPICALLY are not getting paid with taxpayer dollars.

[Garcia Bronco]

I can't wait to work for .50/day.

It will almost be like that time you decided to live your life as a homeless person.

[Rohirrim]

The difference has been stated many times; but put squarely private unions TYPICALLY are not getting paid with taxpayer dollars.

If there were no such thing as corporate subsidies, I'd believe you. Doesn't matter anyway. American workers have the right to organize. It doesn't matter who's cutting the checks. Labor deserves rights too.

[bronclvr]

So you want this to get worse? You think the poor corporate bosses just can't make it anymore because of the big bad unions. It might interest you to know that union representation was up to about a third of the American work force in 1950, the absolute apex of the across-the-board standard of living in American history. Now, it's at less than 14%.

Union workers are pussies-I've never worked Union and won't-I don't need someone to "take care of me", I can do it for myself-


And still, the right wants to argue that unions are bringing America down?

What unadulterated bull****.

Unions are making us uncompetitive, and bluntly Unions suck-the right will complain about joblessness, but they won't be responsible for their own lot in life-man up, do your Job well and you will be fine. If not, get another Job where your performance (and not some big, bad Union) determines if you can put Food on the table-

I noticed you didn't use Union vs. non-Union in your "example"-take your rhetoric/slant elsewhere-

[Rohirrim]

Union workers are pussies-I've never worked Union and won't-I don't need someone to "take care of me", I can do it for myself-



Unions are making us uncompetitive, and bluntly Unions suck-the right will complain about joblessness, but they won't be responsible for their own lot in life-man up, do your Job well and you will be fine. If not, get another Job where your performance (and not some big, bad Union) determines if you can put Food on the table-

I noticed you didn't use Union vs. non-Union in your "example"-take your rhetoric/slant elsewhere-

Translation: I don't have an argument, so I'll just spew out my knee jerk prejudices all over the board like vomit.

[alkemical]

It will almost be like that time you decided to live your life as a homeless person.

Right, except I think you're supposed to tell me how I'm supposed to be grateful about getting ****ed in the ass.

[alkemical]

Union workers are pussies-I've never worked Union and won't-I don't need someone to "take care of me", I can do it for myself-



Unions are making us uncompetitive, and bluntly Unions suck-the right will complain about joblessness, but they won't be responsible for their own lot in life-man up, do your Job well and you will be fine. If not, get another Job where your performance (and not some big, bad Union) determines if you can put Food on the table-

I noticed you didn't use Union vs. non-Union in your "example"-take your rhetoric/slant elsewhere-


I LOL at all of you who think hard work = making $.

[bronclvr]

Translation: I don't have an argument, so I'll just spew out my knee jerk prejudices all over the board like vomit.

Been looking in the mirror lately?

[alkemical]

Also FTR:

I don't think all unions are good. I do find unions to be necessary though. We need to make sure that even more liberties aren't taken advantage of that can already be done.

We have Billion dollar a year companies, that don't want to pay fair wages, and look to circumvent and punish employees to screw them out of what is fair pay.

Some unions are a waste and give most unions a bad name. To say all union workers are lazy, etc is just silly.

I've worked for a lot of fortune 1000 companies and let me tell you...if they could pay you "Indian" or "Chinese" wages, they would.

[Rohirrim]

Been looking in the mirror lately?

What a snappy comeback. :spit:

[chadta]

Some unions are a waste and give most unions a bad name. To say all union workers are lazy, etc is just silly.

silly here on the mane, no way

[BroncoLifer]

What a snappy comeback. :spit:

But accurate.

[Garcia Bronco]

If there were no such thing as corporate subsidies, I'd believe you. Doesn't matter anyway. American workers have the right to organize. It doesn't matter who's cutting the checks. Labor deserves rights too.

Subsides exist to lure business to an area.

Labor has all the rights it needs.

[alkemical]

Subsides exist to lure business to an area.

Labor has all the rights it needs.

In principle, yes. In reality, it's socialism.

[Garcia Bronco]

In principle, yes. In reality, it's socialism.

Call it living on a prayer....don't give the business the subside. See what happens. Watch you city fall because it can't attract business.

[Rohirrim]

Call it living on a prayer....don't give the business the subside. See what happens. Watch you city fall because it can't attract business.

Why do we give oil companies subsidies?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

Before we go after the chicken feed that unions represent to fix our budget woes, why don't we go after these hundreds of billions first?

[Garcia Bronco]

Why do we give oil companies subsidies?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

Before we go after the chicken feed that unions represent to fix our budget woes, why don't we go after these hundreds of billions first?

It's in the first paragraph of your link. We lose tax money because they can register anywhere.

[alkemical]

Call it living on a prayer....don't give the business the subside. See what happens. Watch you city fall because it can't attract business.

Hey Wal*Mart's played that game well. Take the subsidies, then when the time runs out and you have to pay taxes, close and move the store across the street.

It's good to bleed towns and cities dry. It helps corporations. They shouldn't have to pay any taxes anyway. Only the middle class working stiffs need to pay taxes.

[chadta]

It's in the first paragraph of your link. We lose tax money because they can register anywhere.

ok, you want to do business here you pay taxes here, all it takes is one oil company to say yes, and they get a monopoly on the market, so nothing changes for us as consumers since they all price fix anyhow, but for the other oil companies that lose access to the biggest market on the planet, id bet it means a fair bit.

That subsidy thing may work, and is actually true for every other industry, but im just not sure i think it fits the oil industry.

[Rohirrim]

ok, you want to do business here you pay taxes here, all it takes is one oil company to say yes, and they get a monopoly on the market, so nothing changes for us as consumers since they all price fix anyhow, but for the other oil companies that lose access to the biggest market on the planet, id bet it means a fair bit.

That subsidy thing may work, and is actually true for every other industry, but im just not sure i think it fits the oil industry.

As the article noted, some of these subsidies are just leftover pieces of legislation that go back to 1913. It needs to be cleaned up, but I guarantee you, not one politician in Washington will step to the plate to do the job.

[chadta]

As the article noted, some of these subsidies are just leftover pieces of legislation that go back to 1913. It needs to be cleaned up, but I guarantee you, not one politician in Washington will step to the plate to do the job.


So they fight over a few pennies from a contract of a few years ago in Wisconsin, but leave millions to be given away to oil companies that they could easily stop ?

You guys are more messed up than i thought.

[alkemical]

So they fight over a few pennies from a contract of a few years ago in Wisconsin, but leave millions to be given away to oil companies that they could easily stop ?

You guys are more messed up than i thought.

This country is F'n CRAZY.

I don't understand how people are so galvanized in their POV's...other than it ties into their narcissism....but that's another story...

[epicSocialism4tw]

This country is F'n CRAZY.

I don't understand how people are so galvanized in their POV's...other than it ties into their narcissism....but that's another story...

One culture has been under attack by the other since the 1960's.

Its more than "POV", its a cultural divide that keeps deepening. "POV" is too simplistic an explanation. "Narcissism" is another simplistic and overly cynical explanation. We're talking about cultural differences that have never been so pronounced here in America.

[Rohirrim]

One culture has been under attack by the other since the 1960's.

Its more than "POV", its a cultural divide that keeps deepening. "POV" is too simplistic an explanation. "Narcissism" is another simplistic and overly cynical explanation. We're talking about cultural differences that have never been so pronounced here in America.

You guys crack me up. Here you guys are on the right wing and your party leaders are saying things like "Compromise is not in our dictionary" and "We will never negotiate" and yet it's the other guys who are unreasonable? The Right has been remorselessly shoving its cultural and political agenda down the national throat for thirty years and it's the other guys who are attacking? Just some more wing nut bull****. Ha!

[TailgateNut]

Translation: I don't have an argument, so I'll just spew out my knee jerk prejudices all over the board like vomit.

Prejudices my ass Rho. Union workers are the laziest bunch of leeches in the workforce. Period!

Now you can jerk your knee.

[alkemical]

Prejudices my ass Rho. Union workers are the laziest bunch of leeches in the workforce. Period!

Now you can jerk your knee.

Nah, you're just being an asshole.

[alkemical]

One culture has been under attack by the other since the 1960's.

Its more than "POV", its a cultural divide that keeps deepening. "POV" is too simplistic an explanation. "Narcissism" is another simplistic and overly cynical explanation. We're talking about cultural differences that have never been so pronounced here in America.

A narcissist never accepts responsability and always passes blame.

[TailgateNut]

Nah, you're just being an a-hole.


It takes practice and balls to speak your mind.

..and thank you for the compliment. I am an asshole, and damn proud of that fact.

[alkemical]

It takes practice and balls to speak your mind.

..and thank you for the compliment. I am an a-hole, and damn proud of that fact.

Speaking your mind doesn't mean you are right, just shows how foolish you can be.

[TailgateNut]

Speaking your mind doesn't mean you are right, just shows how foolish you can be.


Well, pardon me for not being as "all knowing" as you. :spit:

I do KNOW that I don't need to hang on the skirts of my "brothers and sisters" to make a living, nor do I make it a habit to extort compensation I'm not earning.

[alkemical]

Well, pardon me for not being as "all knowing" as you. :spit:

I do KNOW that I don't need to hang on the skirts of my "brothers and sisters" to make a living, nor do I make it a habit to extort compensation I'm not earning.


If your business gets any federal $ to do it's job, you do.

If you got any subsidies for your mortgage, you do.

If you have any VA benefits, you do.

Meanwhile, I've had fortune 1000 companies extort my pay - yet they get tons of tax credits and subsidies...what makes them different?

[mhgaffney]

It's in the first paragraph of your link. We lose tax money because they can register anywhere.

Hey smart guy. Did it ever occur to you that this is the problem?

The problem has been around a long time. In 1961, when JFK outmaneuvered the steel executives who wanted to jack up rates (after promising to keep them stable) -- JFK outsmarted big steel by his savvy statements to the press. And he was right on the issue.

The people supported JFK.

But big steel won the battle anyway -- by going around JFK -- through Canada.

What's the lesson? International corporations have no loyalty to the US -- nor to any other nation. They serve only the bottom line.

We saw this played out again on 9/11.

Via the massive evidence of insider trading by numerous people in the intelligence community - who showed their only loyalty is to a fast buck -- why? Because the international banks and corporations whom the CIA serves -- had already moved off shore!

[Rohirrim]

The Right Wing attack on unions is only one piece of a strategy to disempower the middle class across the board. If Walker wins in Wisconsin, every wage earner in America can expect the attacks on labor to continue. And not just against organized labor. That's just their first enemy. Next comes the minimum wage, health care, labor laws, guaranteed time off, overtime regulations. Let's face it. The global corporatists want the American labor market equalized to Third World dimensions.

The bottom line is that people who work for a living (most of us) are getting a smaller and smaller share of the nation's economic pie.

In August of 2006, the New York Times reported that Federal Reserve study showed that, "Wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation's gross national product since the government began recording data in 1947; while corporate profits have climbed to their highest shares since the 1960."

So the answer to the question is simple. Virtually all of the increase in our gross domestic product over the ten years before the Great Recession went to the wealthiest 2% of the population.

These changes in income distribution are not the result of "natural laws." They are the result of systems set up by human beings that differentially benefit different groups in the society.

---------------------------------
American workers -- and the American economy -- need unions now more than ever. They are the only means by which we can guarantee widely-shared economic growth. And as it turns out, sustained, long-term economic growth requires widely-shared economic growth. Unions are the only way to prevent the collapse of the American middle class.

That's why the fight in Wisconsin is so fundamental. Governor Scott Walker and his corporate supporters want to destroy labor unions -- to eliminate the right to choose a union. They want a low wage economy. They want the freedom to pay people as little as possible at their companies -- and in the government.

They believe if they can break public employee unions, that they can ultimately eliminate organized labor as a meaningful force in the American economy -- and in American politics.

Walker's action are a case study in right wing philosophy. He cut state taxes on corporations and then demanded that middle class state workers take cuts in wages and benefits in order to pay for the corporate tax cuts.

---------------------

In the end, the Republican attack on the right to choose a union completely ignores what is good for everyday Americans -- and for the American economy. It is only concerned with what is good for the narrow economic and political interests of a tiny fraction of our population. That's why they must be defeated. That's why the battle of Wisconsin is really a battle for the survival of the American middle class.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/why-americans-need-unions_b_826951.html

[Rohirrim]

Don't forget:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[Garcia Bronco]

Hey smart guy. Did it ever occur to you that this is the problem?



Sure...all you have to do is snuff out liberty and you can keep business from deciding where to do business.

[alkemical]

Sure...all you have to do is snuff out liberty and you can keep business from deciding where to do business.

So it's only good business, when it's all on business's terms? No give and take?

[Garcia Bronco]

So it's only good business, when it's all on business's terms? No give and take?

huh? That's a huge logical leap. Some would call it hysterical. :)

[mhgaffney]

Garcia Bronco confuses liberty with license.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Why do we give oil companies subsidies?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

Before we go after the chicken feed that unions represent to fix our budget woes, why don't we go after these hundreds of billions first?

This.

And it's not just oil companies...

Here's an example from Washington re: what happens at the state level...

As a Seattle Times article points out, more than $6.5 billion of tax revenue is lost each year due to tax subsidies for business. The legislature does not consider these items in its budget deliberations. A full 88 percent of these subsidies do not have sunset provisions, and thus do not require regular review as a matter of law. The state’s Joint Legislative Committee reviews these tax expenditures only once in 10 years. A 60 percent vote in the legislature in required to repeal any of these subsidies.

Lawmakers’ intent is to leave these tax subsidies unchallenged, even at a time when the most crucially needed social services are being removed from the most vulnerable. The fact that there is no mention of these subsidies in the governor’s proposal demonstrates the class interests that dominate the decisions regarding the budget. Officials in Olympia, the state capital, do not reveal how much money the state loses due to tax subsidies, and the corporations receiving these subsidies are not disclosed. The overall tax structure in Washington state is extremely regressive: people earning under $20,000 per year are taxed at a 17.3 percent rate, while those earning $537,000 or more only pay 2.6 percent.

[Missouribronc]

This.

And it's not just oil companies...

Here's an example from Washington re: what happens at the state level...

So the Seattle Times couldn't obtain documents that are public record?

I didn't bother to hit the link from the New York Times, but if you honestly believe that a major newspaper in a major city couldn't obtain public records like that, then you're an idiot. That's IF you believe that.

I don't. I think, whatever you quoted (and didn't link) didn't bother to do any real research...

[Missouribronc]

Oh my...the World Socialist Web Site.

Now THAT is a one hell of a credible source.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jan2011/wash-j19.shtml

P.S. ...a search of the Seattle Times web site reveals nothing of the sort...

[alkemical]

huh? That's a huge logical leap. Some would call it hysterical. :)

that's all I'm hearing:

businesses shouldn't pay taxes, labor should absorb all costs. Labor should only make what 'corporate' and 'government' say I can make.

Why should a company that grosses billions, get subsidies..that enable them to pay for legislation to combat labor costs? Why is that form of socialism acceptable?

Why do taxpayers and labor have to absorb all the risk and costs? Isn't there a medium? shouldn't government and corporate have obligations to honest compensation for labor?

How can costs be rising so much, but wages decline while productivity increases?

How can we trust big biz and government when the socialistic policies favor one side? How can we compete for fair labor, if we can't afford a seat at the table?

[Garcia Bronco]

Nobody said any of that. Good grief. Come back to earth.


that's all I'm hearing:

businesses shouldn't pay taxes, labor should absorb all costs. Labor should only make what 'corporate' and 'government' say I can make.

Why should a company that grosses billions, get subsidies..that enable them to pay for legislation to combat labor costs? Why is that form of socialism acceptable?

Why do taxpayers and labor have to absorb all the risk and costs? Isn't there a medium? shouldn't government and corporate have obligations to honest compensation for labor?

How can costs be rising so much, but wages decline while productivity increases?

How can we trust big biz and government when the socialistic policies favor one side? How can we compete for fair labor, if we can't afford a seat at the table?

[alkemical]

Nobody said any of that. Good grief. Come back to earth.

Dude, you allude to corporate socialism, but won't engage in a discussion beyond: 'unions and labor are lazy, and business needs benefits'.

You blow down your strawman with your hot air. You lack the ability to discuss this topic and resort to cheap ad hominem tactics to bypass your lack of depth in conversation.

You support corporate socialism, but don't want to admit it. (business should get subsidies in the form of tax breaks/cuts/no tax).

I think that's pretty crazy, and out of this world.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Oh my...the World Socialist Web Site.

Now THAT is a one hell of a credible source.



Typical "shoot the messenger" from the intellectually dishonest right. tsk tsk

P.S. ...a search of the Seattle Times web site reveals nothing of the sort...

Ha ha ha!

What sort of "search" did you do?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

State lawmakers should review whether tax breaks are still worthy

The state Legislature will be making major cuts to close the state's budget deficit. Guest columnist Remy Trupin argues that before cutting important programs, lawmakers should look at every state tax break and evaluate whether they are needed. All should have regular review dates.

By Remy Trupin


THERE'S a lot of talk of reform as we enter a critical legislative session for the state. But for all the talk of the need for change, there's been scant talk of reforming one set of state policies that costs the state more than $6.5 billion a year. The state blindly keeps hundreds of special tax breaks on the books each year, for everything from face-lifts to Wall Street banks.

Not all tax subsidies are bad especially if they accomplish something. But some tax breaks have been on the books since the 1930s, and we've never looked to see if they still make sense.http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2013876467_guest09trupin.html

[mhgaffney]

The budget cutting has also started in Colorado -- which is running a $1 billion deficit. Check out this excellent report by a blogger friend of mine -- who is the director of several health clinics for indigent Coloradoans.

Zero Sum Game

February 19, 2011
by David Adamson

I’ve been to the state capitol many times through the years to advocate for various causes. My trip there this week was unlike any other. I knew it would be different when I got on a crowded elevator to go to the senate offices on the third floor, and a visibly agitated teenager with autism bellowed out, “Why won’t (representative’s name) see us?” The adult accompanying him, wearing a shirt with a slogan about the rights of people with developmental disabilities, tried to calm him, saying, “She just couldn’t. She’s busy.” Then he yelled out the same words again. Everyone on the elevator seemed to grit their teeth, thinking only one floor to go. I also thought about what the boy meant because I was scheduled to see the same representative in an hour.

I was there to plead (lobby) with legislators not to cut funding for healthcare programs, especially for community health centers where I work. Numerous studies have shown that a dollar spent for uninsured persons to receive primary medical care at a health center saves two or more dollars in the healthcare system. If an uninsured person with a step throat is cared for in a health center, the cost is a little over $100. If that same person presents at a hospital emergency room, the cost can easily be $500. Often that ends up being paid, not by the patient, but by your and my health insurance premiums. In other words, the cost is shifted from the patient, to the hospital, then to you.

But logic and practical economics have little sway in highly charged emotional settings. Now that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds from President Obama’s stimulus package are coming to an end, state and local governments are plummeting into a fiscal abyss. Battered by falling taxes from depreciating home values and large numbers of unemployed, state governments are broke. Unlike the federal government, they cannot print money or borrow. Colorado faces a $1 billion plus deficit, and by law must balance the budget, so the general assembly was a highly charged emotional setting, though I didn’t know it at the time.

After finishing a meeting with a new state senator, who listened politely to my plea, I went back to the elevator and pressed the button to go down to the second floor. When the door opened, I had to step aside as a wheelchair occupied by a child with severe Down’s Syndrome was rolled off with an entourage of more adults wearing blue t-shirts.

When I got to the representative’s office, her college-age aide told me that the representative had just texted her that she would not be able to make our appointment because she needed to be present on the floor to vote. I asked the aide if there was any chance I could card her off the floor (that’s when you go to the doors of the chamber and give your business card to security guys in green jackets and they take it to the legislator – if the legislator has the time or interest, s/he’ll come out and speak with you for a few minutes). He said I could try, but wasn’t encouraging.

I saw why when I got to the chamber. The entire bottom floor, and especially the door area, was clogged with persons with developmental disabilities and other lobbyists. I crammed in line to get to the door, but by the time I got there, one of the guys in a green jacket put up an emergency voting sign saying that no aides could enter and no cards would be accepted.

There are glass windows on either side of the doors leading into the general assembly, where you can stand and watch what’s happening and listen to a speaker broadcasting what is being said. Projected on the wall was a slowly scrolling list of multi-million dollar budget cuts. That day cuts were made to many state programs, but I happened to be there to witness ones involving mental health, prisons and education. Various legislators went to the podium to plead not to make the cuts, then others said cut. The dominant, winning theme was that nobody liked doing them, but the budget had to be balanced. While I was there, maybe $50 million was cut. You could tell none of the legislators in either party enjoyed this.

I finally got my card to the representative, a Democrat I’ve lobbied for several years. She came out very briefly as a courtesy. Her face looked tense and drawn. After a short exchange, I gave her some literature with all the facts and figures on how wonderful and cost-effective we are and she went back on the floor, just in time to go argue about a pot of money that comes from taxes on casino gaming. There was an amendment to transfer it away from counties with casino gambling to higher education and research. When the gavel came down after the vote, she lost. So did my organization and our patients because the county supports close to a quarter million dollars of care for the medically indigent at one of our clinics.

I found it ironic that healthcare for poor people had been pushed aside for higher ed and research. The amendment was sponsored by a Democrat. My representative, also a Democrat, opposed it. I think both higher ed and research are very important, classic liberal causes. Who doesn’t? However, there are real people, living right now, who need help, like our patients or the kids being rolled around the capitol.

But decisions really aren’t made on need, but on politics. The higher ed lobby is bigger and more powerful. Maybe they made the case that the research will lead to more jobs down the road. They did something right because they won this particular fight and the money.

Robert Reich recently published an article in the HuffPost claiming:

The Republican strategy is to split the vast middle and working class — pitting unionized workers against non-unionized, public-sector workers against non-public, older workers within sight of Medicare and Social Security against younger workers who don’t believe these programs will be there for them, and the poor against the working middle class.

There’s truth here, but it’s not just Republicans doing this. As the real impacts of the Great Recession spread, more and more fights will break out among groups that are normally allies. Metaphorically speaking, the legislative process will increasingly resemble TV footage of UN helicopters delivering food to starving people, who are fighting among themselves to get a bag of flour.

Even between non-profits, it’s now is a zero sum game where one worthy cause’s gain is another’s loss, and even humanitarian causes cannibalize each other to survive.

http://politicoblues.wordpress.com/

[cutthemdown]

Corporation shouldn't pay taxes. It's just a tax on us. If you have corporate taxes all they do is raise the costs of the good and services they provide and pass the tax on to us. Or they pay workers less etc etc.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If you have corporate taxes all they do is raise the costs of the good and services they provide and pass the tax on to us.

:bs:

It's a buyer's market out there for most types of goods and services these days.

Raising prices in this economy is commercial suicide.

I know you're worried about what would happen to all those poor millionaires and billionaires whose interests you represent if the latter had to pay taxes like the rest of us, but I promise you they'll live.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/koch-crooks.jpg

[chadta]

Corporation shouldn't pay taxes. It's just a tax on us. If you have corporate taxes all they do is raise the costs of the good and services they provide and pass the tax on to us. Or they pay workers less etc etc.

While i agree with this, the problem is that any tax cuts do not mean lower prices on anything, all they mean is more profits for the corporation. So really what do we gain ?

[Missouribronc]

Typical "shoot the messenger" from the intellectually dishonest right. tsk tsk



Ha ha ha!

What sort of "search" did you do?

If the messenger was World Wide Socialists, then yes, I was attacking the messenger.

I see you found an opinion piece by a leftist writer, and not a news story from their capital bureau, or from their business section. Again, more propaganda, but I don't even know why I waste my time with you.

[alkemical]

One culture has been under attack by the other since the 1960's.

Its more than "POV", its a cultural divide that keeps deepening. "POV" is too simplistic an explanation. "Narcissism" is another simplistic and overly cynical explanation. We're talking about cultural differences that have never been so pronounced here in America.

Of course. Narcissists always have someone else to blame.

[alkemical]

Corporation shouldn't pay taxes. It's just a tax on us. If you have corporate taxes all they do is raise the costs of the good and services they provide and pass the tax on to us. Or they pay workers less etc etc.

They pay workers less even WITH the tax breaks, what makes you think they'd pay more. Business doesn't want to pay you more than they WANT to pay you.

[bronclvr]

:bs:

It's a buyer's market out there for most types of goods and services these days.

Raising prices in this economy is commercial suicide.

I know you're worried about what would happen to all those poor millionaires and billionaires whose interests you represent if the latter had to pay taxes like the rest of us, but I promise you they'll live.

You are delusional-

[Rohirrim]

Corporation shouldn't pay taxes. It's just a tax on us. If you have corporate taxes all they do is raise the costs of the good and services they provide and pass the tax on to us. Or they pay workers less etc etc.

And when you cut health care coverage like Medicaid, out of the state budget, you know what happens? Sick people still go to the hospital, driving up health care costs, and the cost gets added to your health care insurance, with, of course, the additional profit margin that the middle men in the insurance industry demand.

[Rohirrim]

You are delusional-

Look at any graph charting wealth in America over the last thirty years. To whom has the overwhelming percentage of wealth produced in America in that timespan been allocated? To the already rich. Don't the workers, who actually produce that wealth (productivity numbers don't lie) deserve a piece of the pie? And yet, in that same period of time, a time of increased productivity and longer hours, pay for workers has stagnated or regressed. The delusion, my friend, is yours.

[alkemical]

Look at any graph charting wealth in America over the last thirty years. To whom has the overwhelming percentage of wealth produced in America in that timespan been allocated? To the already rich. Don't the workers, who actually produce that wealth (productivity numbers don't lie) deserve a piece of the pie? And yet, in that same period of time, a time of increased productivity and longer hours, pay for workers has stagnated or regressed. The delusion, my friend, is yours.

They just haven't worked hard enough.

[Garcia Bronco]

Dude, you allude to corporate socialism, but won't engage in a discussion beyond: 'unions and labor are lazy, and business needs benefits'.

You blow down your strawman with your hot air. You lack the ability to discuss this topic and resort to cheap ad hominem tactics to bypass your lack of depth in conversation.

You support corporate socialism, but don't want to admit it. (business should get subsidies in the form of tax breaks/cuts/no tax).

I think that's pretty crazy, and out of this world.


Seriously...get help. I support states and governments using subsides to attract business. It creates jobs and circulates economy in the locale.

[alkemical]

Seriously...get help. I support states and governments using subsides to attract business. It creates jobs and circulates economy in the locale.


Meh, **** off. You can't discuss anything and when you get trumped you just use personal attacks. You are part of the problem in this country.

[bronclvr]

Look at any graph charting wealth in America over the last thirty years. To whom has the overwhelming percentage of wealth produced in America in that timespan been allocated? To the already rich. Don't the workers, who actually produce that wealth (productivity numbers don't lie) deserve a piece of the pie? And yet, in that same period of time, a time of increased productivity and longer hours, pay for workers has stagnated or regressed. The delusion, my friend, is yours.

I guess I should be more specific on which of LABF's delusions I am speaking of (and there are many)-I was referring to his rebuttal of cutthemdowns's Post on how Corporations' ability to turn Taxes around and make Consumer's pay higher prices on Goods (therefore making Consumers pay Corporations Taxes for them), without it affecting profitability-

Oh, and by the way, Corporations will do whatever they have to to protect themselves (right or wrong)-it is how Business works (right or wrong)-it is about the almighty Dollar after all, and they will make their margins-

[Garcia Bronco]

Meh, **** off. You can't discuss anything and when you get trumped you just use personal attacks. You are part of the problem in this country.

You haven't trumped ****. You operate on theory and little on reality.

[alkemical]

You haven't trumped ****. You operate on theory and little on reality.

Much can be said the same about you. I know more about business than you could ever dream of. (and having $4million in sales will qualify that statement.)

[mhgaffney]

Corporation shouldn't pay taxes. It's just a tax on us. If you have corporate taxes all they do is raise the costs of the good and services they provide and pass the tax on to us. Or they pay workers less etc etc.

You must be on drugs.