U.S. Politics - Page 555 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5541  
Old 12-10-12, 20:31
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
You seem to think right to work precludes people from joining a union. I think you might want to think about that.
Except that's not what it's about at all, it's about busting up the unions, plain and simple. What incentive is there for a business to hire a union worker when they can hire a non-union worker for less pay, fewer benefits, and they don't have to give a crap about worker's rights or safety, since the employee won't have a union to back him/her up? That's expensive stuff. I can see why businesses want to bust the unions.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...ght-to?ref=fpa

Well no, not "we". Rs want a race to the bottom.

Quote:
You realize unions are just a simple, in-your-face, money laundering scheme for the D's, particularly public employee unions, right?
man, you conservatives really do seem to resent working people having the right to talk back to their employers.

Quote:
That is hilarious. Lessee, force people who want to work to pay dues, then use those dues to elect policy makers favorable to all things pro-union. It's called special interest and you guys frown on that... except when you don't.
Maybe if Rs were a little less hostile toward unions they might get some of that money, eh? Maybe if they stopped siding with CEOs and the top brass on every issue they might be seen in a more favorable light by workers and the middle class?


It's ironic that the Republican Party used to be the party that supported worker's rights - Teddy Roosevelt for eg - but now they just downright hate them.

Quote:
As bad as the economy is in the US, it's worse in Michigan by almost every measure. Gotta start turning it around somewhere.
Weren't you guys against the auto bailout? Judging from the past election, I don't think Michiganders appreciated your advice. It's no secret why the Rs are trying to ram this through with as quickly as possible with no debate and after the election.

Last edited by VeloCity; 12-10-12 at 20:41.
Reply With Quote
  #5542  
Old 12-10-12, 20:41
spetsa's Avatar
spetsa spetsa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: between a bar stool and a bike saddle
Posts: 452
Default

Velocity

Personally, I'd love for it to pass and for Snyder to sign it - if he does, he hands MI to the Ds for years to come.[/QUOTE]

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...oposal_2_(2012)

You do relaize that this was put to the people in November, correct?
Reply With Quote
  #5543  
Old 12-10-12, 20:54
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
Except that's not what it's about at all, it's about busting up the unions, plain and simple. What incentive is there for a business to hire a union worker when they can hire a non-union worker for less pay, fewer benefits, and they don't have to give a crap about worker's rights or safety? That's expensive stuff.

man, you conservatives really do seem to resent working people having the right to talk back to their employers.

Maybe if Rs were a little less hostile toward unions they might get some of that money, eh? Maybe if they stopped siding with CEOs and the top brass on every issue they might be seen in a more favorable light by workers and the middle class?


It's ironic that the Republican Party used to be the party that supported worker's rights - Teddy Roosevelt for eg - but now they just downright hate them.

Weren't you guys against the auto bailout? Judging from the past election, I don't think Michiganders appreciated your advice. It's no secret why the Rs are trying to ram this through with as quickly as possible with no debate and after the election.
Quote:
Except that's not what it's about at all, it's about busting up the unions, plain and simple. What incentive is there for a business to hire a union worker when they can hire a non-union worker for less pay, fewer benefits, and they don't have to give a crap about worker's rights or safety? That's expensive stuff.
Unions can still organize as they still do here in Cali. Workers have a right not to have forced union representation. That's all this is.

Quote:
man, you conservatives really do seem to resent working people having the right to talk back to their employers.
Man, you democrats seem to engage in a lot of selective outrage. unions have bought and paid for most D politicians. On would think you might take issue with that... guess not.

Quote:
Maybe if Rs were a little less hostile toward unions they might get some of that money, eh? Maybe if they stopped siding with CEOs and the top brass on every issue they might be seen in a more favorable light by workers and the middle class?
Comedy gold right there. Maybe if union employees were a little more interested in providing value to their employers they would find the 'need' for a union to be non-existent.

Quote:
It's ironic that the Republican Party used to be the party that supported worker's rights - Teddy Roosevelt for eg - but now they just downright hate them.
It's funny how you talk about workers rights... except when they want to work and not be part of a union. They don't have that right, right?

Quote:
Weren't you guys against the auto bailout? Judging from the past election, I don't think Michiganders appreciated your advice. It's no secret why the Rs are trying to ram this through with as quickly as possible with no debate and after the election.
The way it was done? Yes sir. I was anyways. Shaft the stakeholders except the UAW, take them to bankruptcy, emerge without fixing the problem which is existing union deals and unfunded pension liability. Oh, and if the US Treasury sold their 500 million shares of GM today the US taxpayer would lose about $14 Billion. So there's that.

On second thought, Bernanke is printing up about $45 Billion a month, so $14 Billion is chump change.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5544  
Old 12-10-12, 21:03
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,522
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
And in most developed economies this is exactly what you have.
No what we have is a democratically elected political class that has become subservient to the lobbyists and big finance. This makes the so-called developed economies regressive.

Quote:
If they are breaking laws nationally or internationally then they need to be held to account. Other than that, their model is consumer driven. If you want to blame somebody, blame their customers.
My point was that this very legal structure needs to be changed, in becoming less pro-profit and more pro-society.


Quote:
I get that this is your perception. While undoubtedly true in some cases my perception is this is the exception, not the rule.
It has never been the exception, but the sustained praxis.

Quote:
Compared to when and when? Tell me a time when this wasn't true?
I don't give a damn about the past, other than learning from it. What progressive civilization has tried to achieve, was to correct history through the enlightenment ideals of egalitarianism and collective sovereignty. Those ideals and mandates have been betrayed by liberalism - in the US as in no other place.

Quote:
Particularly when one group is pitted against another... like we see now.
If there is any group pitted against another, then it is your constituency against society. The unpleasant result I brought up was merely a sounding of the bells.

Quote:
Well, the fact remains. In the absence of hard core business ideals there is no such thing as functioning government (for very long anyways).
Other than the fact that Plato would not have agreed with your analysis, my perception is that governance needs less economy, whereas the economy needs more governance to function well. The problem is that just the opposite holds true and thus neither functions well.
Reply With Quote
  #5545  
Old 12-10-12, 21:15
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spetsa View Post

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...oposal_2_(2012)

You do relaize that this was put to the people in November, correct?
That was a vote on a state constitutional amendment proposal to make collective bargaining a constitutional right in MI. It was total overreach by the unions and to no one's big surprise it didn't pass. But all that said was that Michiganders don't think collective bargaining should be a constitutional right - that's fine, I don't have a problem with that, it's not a constitutional issue.

But in turn, the Rs have totally overreached in response by apparently taking that as support for right-to-work. It wasn't. And now they realize that, so they're trying to sneak it past before the new legislature begins in Jan, when they they're going to lose some seats to Ds and thus it'll have far less chance of passing.

Notice btw what Snyder had to say back then:

Quote:
However, Gov. Snyder has also discouraged his own party from pursuing "right-to-work" legislation. He believed that both "right-to-work" bill and the initiatives that would prevent them are too divisive, saying, in March, that, "My concern is that could start a whole divisive atmosphere of other people trying to put right-to-work on the ballot, a whole bunch of things like that, and that would distract from the good things we've got going on."
And you know what's really interesting about the right-to-work? The Rs attached a completely unrelated appropriations to the bill that makes it a spending bill, which means that, under MI law, once passed it can't be recalled. Yep, they're really anxious to let the people decide, eh?

Last edited by VeloCity; 12-10-12 at 21:38.
Reply With Quote
  #5546  
Old 12-10-12, 21:49
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,103
Default

A step in the right direction.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill...e-defense-cuts

Oh right, but back to unions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2271868.html

Quote:
Hostess Brands acknowledged for the first time in a news report Monday that the company diverted workers' pension money for other company uses.

The bankrupt baker told The Wall Street Journal that money taken out of workers' paychecks, intended for their retirement funds, was used for company operations instead. Hostess, which was under different management at the time the diversions began in August 2011, said it does not know how much money it took.
Damn unions, driving companies to bankruptcy with their pension demands.

Last edited by VeloCity; 12-10-12 at 21:53.
Reply With Quote
  #5547  
Old 12-10-12, 21:52
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubroma View Post
No what we have is a democratically elected political class that has become subservient to the lobbyists and big finance. This makes the so-called developed economies regressive.



My point was that this very legal structure needs to be changed, in becoming less pro-profit and more pro-society.




It has never been the exception, but the sustained praxis.



I don't give a damn about the past, other than learning from it. What progressive civilization has tried to achieve, was to correct history through the enlightenment ideals of egalitarianism and collective sovereignty. Those ideals and mandates have been betrayed by liberalism - in the US as in no other place.



If there is any group pitted against another, then it is your constituency against society. The unpleasant result I brought up was merely a sounding of the bells.



Other than the fact that Plato would not have agreed with your analysis, my perception is that governance needs less economy, whereas the economy needs more governance to function well. The problem is that just the opposite holds true and thus neither functions well.
Quote:
No what we have is a democratically elected political class that has become subservient to the lobbyists and big finance. This makes the so-called developed economies regressive.
You mean our polticians are corrupt? Jesus Christ, when did that happen?

Quote:
My point was that this very legal structure needs to be changed, in becoming less pro-profit and more pro-society.
John Lennon lyrics come to mind here. It's a nice sentiment.

Quote:
I don't give a damn about the past, other than learning from it.
Okay, except human behavior is reasonably well established. You'd have an easier time getting water to run uphill.

Quote:
If there is any group pitted against another, then it is your constituency against society.
No. The groups pitted against each other are those that continue to be lied to by big government and those that don't look to big government to solve their issues. It's very simple.
Quote:
Other than the fact that Plato would not have agreed with your analysis, my perception is that governance needs less economy
Well, Plato aside, you are certainly getting less economy these days. How's that working out?
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5548  
Old 12-10-12, 22:23
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Unions can still organize as they still do here in Cali. Workers have a right not to have forced union representation. That's all this is.
No, it's really not. You know that, but you hate unions so much that you don't mind if workers are paid less, receive fewer benefits, etc etc, just so long as those damn unions are broken up.

Quote:
Man, you democrats seem to engage in a lot of selective outrage. unions have bought and paid for most D politicians. On would think you might take issue with that... guess not.
Even in MI, one of if not the most heavily unionized states, unionized workers make up only about 17% of the labor force. I don't think unions are quite as powerful as you guys would like to believe. Anyway, you've already blown your cover. It's pretty obvious from your tirades that this has nothing to do with workers and really is entirely a political issue for the right, nothing more, nothing less. Not that I'm surprised.

Quote:
Comedy gold right there. Maybe if union employees were a little more interested in providing value to their employers they would find the 'need' for a union to be non-existent.
Now that is comedy gold.

Quote:
It's funny how you talk about workers rights... except when they want to work and not be part of a union. They don't have that right, right?
I have no problem with workers unionizing. None. Zip. Zero. You clearly do.

Quote:
The way it was done? Yes sir. I was anyways. Shaft the stakeholders except the UAW, take them to bankruptcy, emerge without fixing the problem which is existing union deals and unfunded pension liability. Oh, and if the US Treasury sold their 500 million shares of GM today the US taxpayer would lose about $14 Billion. So there's that.

On second thought, Bernanke is printing up about $45 Billion a month, so $14 Billion is chump change.
Look, you guys can dance around and try to rationalize it all you like, and we on the left have been dead wrong about a number of things, but simple fact is that you were dead wrong about the auto bailout. There was no alternative other than allowing the entire industry to go under, and in this case government had to step in where the markets and private industry failed. The alternative was to allow the entire industry to go down and what the US Treasury holds today is a pittance compared to how that would've impacted the national economy. Even the CEO of Ford acknowledges that.
Reply With Quote
  #5549  
Old 12-10-12, 23:05
Glenn_Wilson's Avatar
Glenn_Wilson Glenn_Wilson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 2,833
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
No, it's really not. You know that, but you hate unions so much that you don't mind if workers are paid less, receive fewer benefits, etc etc, just so long as those damn unions are broken up.

Even in MI, one of if not the most heavily unionized states, unionized workers make up only about 17% of the labor force. I don't think unions are quite as powerful as you guys would like to believe. Anyway, you've already blown your cover. It's pretty obvious from your tirades that this has nothing to do with workers and really is entirely a political issue for the right, nothing more, nothing less. Not that I'm surprised.

Now that is comedy gold.

I have no problem with workers unionizing. None. Zip. Zero. You clearly do.

Look, you guys can dance around and try to rationalize it all you like, and we on the left have been dead wrong about a number of things, but simple fact is that you were dead wrong about the auto bailout. There was no alternative other than allowing the entire industry to go under, and in this case government had to step in where the markets and private industry failed. The alternative was to allow the entire industry to go down and what the US Treasury holds today is a pittance compared to how that would've impacted the national economy. Even the CEO of Ford acknowledges that.
Is the CEO of Ford a republican? Did Ford take the bailout money or were they financially sound?
__________________
something less offensive
Reply With Quote
  #5550  
Old 12-10-12, 23:17
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
No, it's really not. You know that, but you hate unions so much that you don't mind if workers are paid less, receive fewer benefits, etc etc, just so long as those damn unions are broken up.

Even in MI, one of if not the most heavily unionized states, unionized workers make up only about 17% of the labor force. I don't think unions are quite as powerful as you guys would like to believe. Anyway, you've already blown your cover. It's pretty obvious from your tirades that this has nothing to do with workers and really is entirely a political issue for the right, nothing more, nothing less. Not that I'm surprised.

Now that is comedy gold.

I have no problem with workers unionizing. None. Zip. Zero. You clearly do.

Look, you guys can dance around and try to rationalize it all you like, and we on the left have been dead wrong about a number of things, but simple fact is that you were dead wrong about the auto bailout. There was no alternative other than allowing the entire industry to go under, and in this case government had to step in where the markets and private industry failed. The alternative was to allow the entire industry to go down and what the US Treasury holds today is a pittance compared to how that would've impacted the national economy. Even the CEO of Ford acknowledges that.
Quote:
No, it's really not. You know that, but you hate unions so much that you don't mind if workers are paid less, receive fewer benefits, etc etc, just so long as those damn unions are broken up.
Yeah, it really is. Private unions are collapsing on their own. No need to 'break' them.



Perhaps the unions should re-think their positions and strategies.

Quote:
Even in MI, one of if not the most heavily unionized states, unionized workers make up only about 17% of the labor force. I don't think unions are quite as powerful as you guys would like to believe.
Well, they buy elections.

Quote:
Anyway, you've already blown your cover. It's pretty obvious from your tirades that this has nothing to do with workers and really is entirely a political issue for the right, nothing more, nothing less. Not that I'm surprised.
Blown my cover? That's funny.

Unions have nothing to do with workers either. Besides protecting the dues paying bad workers and holding back the dues paying good workers. Union (bosses) are about the dues and the political favor that can be purchased. End of.

Quote:
I have no problem with workers unionizing. None. Zip. Zero. You clearly do.
I have no problem with it either. I also don't have a problem with people being allowed to say, "no thanks." You clearly do.

Quote:
but simple fact is that you were dead wrong about the auto bailout. There was no alternative other than allowing the entire industry to go under, and in this case government had to step in where the markets and private industry failed.
No. This was about politics, not saving an industry. Ford elected not to play the Feds game. GM would have gone through bankruptcy and been forced to make structural changes a la UAL. Guess what? UAL found financing, exited BK court, merged with Continental etc., etc. Same would have happened with GM, like it or not

You guys are in danger of breaking your arm patting from yourself on the back. BO wrote a huge check and didn't fix the problem. Congratulations.

Quote:
The alternative was to allow the entire industry to go down
Complete BS.

Quote:
Even the CEO of Ford acknowledges that.
What else is he going to say? Obama is a clown? Hell, there may come a time when he needs 40 or 50 billion. BO has set a precedence now. How could he bailout two of the big three and turn his back if Ford ever 'needs' him?
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009

Last edited by Scott SoCal; 12-10-12 at 23:20.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:52.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.