So this is how liberty dies...

[Trishntek]

its such a shame you dont even understand what you cut and paste from shitty sources.

so are you our DVD Burner replacement? All critic and no substance.

edit: Oh shit that's right,,, we are "swine" of which you cannot be "bothered."

[Elderberry]

I can't speak for Simon, but that's not what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that, thanks to the ruling by the supreme court that gave corporations the ability to give billions of dollars to fund elections, now more than ever before, the Unions are the only organizations that are actually standing up for the rights of the working man. And even though you might not be in a Union, you are a working man who will indirectly benefit from the actions of the Unions even though you are not paying dues to help in their efforts.

what benefits do I indirectly receive from the actions of the unions?

When Unions become a voice for their members and win higher wages, better working conditions, additional holidays, etc. non-union workers benefit because even non-union employers have to offer higher wages, better working conditions, etc. to their employees if they want to be competitive in hiring from the labor pool. So, indirectly gains made by Unions are passed on to non-union workers because of the competitive labor market.

If you search way way back in the threads, you will see that I have not been a staunch Union supporter, as I had thought for awhile that they may have out-grown their usefulness. But recent afore mentioned events have caused me to again change my thinking. There is a definite assault on the middle class going on in this country and in this political climate, which has given Unions back their relevance and they need to once again establish their necessary place in defending the middle class for the good of the country.

[can't sit still]

Seems that now cash is suspicious;

I tried to use cash at the Federal building in Los Angeles a while ago. They refused to take it. It does say on the notes that they are legal tender for ALL debts both public and private. They wouldn't take a $ 20 to get an Apostile.

[Trishntek]

I can't speak for Simon, but that's not what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that, thanks to the ruling by the supreme court that gave corporations the ability to give billions of dollars to fund elections, now more than ever before, the Unions are the only organizations that are actually standing up for the rights of the working man. And even though you might not be in a Union, you are a working man who will indirectly benefit from the actions of the Unions even though you are not paying dues to help in their efforts.

what benefits do I indirectly receive from the actions of the unions?

When Unions become a voice for their members and win higher wages, better working conditions, additional holidays, etc. non-union workers benefit because even non-union employers have to offer higher wages, better working conditions, etc. to their employees if they want to be competitive in hiring from the labor pool. So, indirectly gains made by Unions are passed on to non-union workers because of the competitive labor market.

If you search way way back in the threads, you will see that I have not been a staunch Union supporter, as I had thought for awhile that they may have out-grown their usefulness. But recent afore mentioned events have caused me to again change my thinking. There is a definite assault on the middle class going on in this country and in this political climate, which has given Unions back their relevance and they need to once again establish their necessary place in defending the middle class for the good of the country.

I would submit that in the era of a glut of labor availability, there is no leverage in the labor force. If an INDIVIDUAL is willing to work for an arrangement made between that INDIVIDUAL and the EMPLOYER, it has nothing to do with collective bargaining. In fact, if I were to settle for Union wages based upon national average for my position, I would be making about 30% LESS. I have demonstrated my value to my employers over the years by working hard, being efficient and not making demands outside my own responsibility of self-reliance. By my own perseverence and expertise, among the 400-or-so people who perform my profession nation-wide, I have a reputation for hard work, honesty and integrity. Those are the things that make the common man valuable. Mobs who threaten, bribe and shirk their duty in the name of "fairness" have no sympathy or gratitude from me.

[Elderberry]

I would submit that in the era of a glut of labor availability, there is no leverage in the labor force. If an INDIVIDUAL is willing to work for an arrangement made between that INDIVIDUAL and the EMPLOYER, it has nothing to do with collective bargaining. In fact, if I were to settle for Union wages based upon national average for my position, I would be making about 30% LESS. I have demonstrated my value to my employers over the years by working hard, being efficient and not making demands outside my own responsibility of self-reliance. By my own perseverence and expertise, among the 400-or-so people who perform my profession nation-wide, I have a reputation for hard work, honesty and integrity. Those are the things that make the common man valuable. Mobs who threaten, bribe and shirk their duty in the name of "fairness" have no sympathy or gratitude from me.

I agree with everything you said up until you arrived at a false conclusion based on false assumptions.

Because a person like yourself has an entrepenerial spirit and ability, you are in the minority. You make the false assumption that the majority of the workforce has the same talent and ability as you. If only that were true.

However, being that you earn more than most, you are still not in that upper 2% that are becoming even wealthier off your hard work and labor, and more importantly, your belief that those that are not as fortunate are to blame for the financial woes of the country. To those upper 2% you are no better than those for whom you express your disdain.

Remember, the 400 wealthiest people in this country have more money than 50% of the rest of the population. When you become one of those 400, you can afford that attitude.

[Trishntek]

I would submit that in the era of a glut of labor availability, there is no leverage in the labor force. If an INDIVIDUAL is willing to work for an arrangement made between that INDIVIDUAL and the EMPLOYER, it has nothing to do with collective bargaining. In fact, if I were to settle for Union wages based upon national average for my position, I would be making about 30% LESS. I have demonstrated my value to my employers over the years by working hard, being efficient and not making demands outside my own responsibility of self-reliance. By my own perseverence and expertise, among the 400-or-so people who perform my profession nation-wide, I have a reputation for hard work, honesty and integrity. Those are the things that make the common man valuable. Mobs who threaten, bribe and shirk their duty in the name of "fairness" have no sympathy or gratitude from me.

I agree with everything you said up until you arrived at a false conclusion based on false assumptions.

Because a person like yourself has an entrepenerial spirit and ability, you are in the minority. You make the false assumption that the majority of the workforce has the same talent and ability as you. If only that were true.

However, being that you earn more than most, you are still not in that upper 2% that are becoming even wealthier off your hard work and labor, and more importantly, your belief that those that are not as fortunate are to blame for the financial woes of the country. To those upper 2% you are no better than those for whom you express your disdain.

The only reason I have a truck full of $MILLION medical equipment is because of the 2% and their willing investment. The medical facilities I service can ill afford such equipment and it is a whole lot better than patients being forced to travel to mega medical centers for the service I perform. You would rather those patients go to the mega big-city facilities where Union employees, who have no sweat equity invested, perform the service?

If Unions have their way, that is how they prefer it to be. Oh and it will only be done between 8AM and 5PM. If you are writhing in pain with a kidney stone on a Friday afternoon, "We'll see you two weeks from next Tuesday mmmmkay?"

You see,,,, the way we do it, the patient comes first. You can believe all the bullshit slogans you want on union posters and they can do the job just as well as I can. But they will do it based upon their need for breaks and overtime and quotas. The patient is merely another medical record number.

You make the false assumption that the majority of the workforce has the same talent and ability as you. If only that were true.

There is no assumption whatsoever. A person's value is based upon what he or she does, not how long they've been there, not because some pay scale says they are that valuable,,,, they are only as valuable as the product of their time and effort. To say otherwise actually diminishes the value of good performers and rewards those who take advantage of the situation.

Whenever a society is limited to the lowest common denominator, the entire society is compromised. There is no benefit to the individual and everyone is simply herded along. Wearing the same brand, eating the same food and drinking the same koolaid.

You decry large corporate political contributions, yet say nothing of what labor union political action committees contribute. I submit to you that Unions do much more to influence the electoral process than corporations.

My reference to Hitler above, in the context of the attached link, mentioned his annihilation of collective bargaining, strikes and riots. He actually created a labor union within the realm of the National Socialist Party. You either were in it or you were crushed. My point is, labor unions have much the same mentality. And as the President of the NEA (teachers union) said, they have no interest in teaching children. The labor union does not give a whit about job performance, production, quality or efficiency. All they want is control. Control of people, control of employers, and when it comes to public employee unions, they want control of government.

[Elderberry]

Again, I have no problem with building a better mouse trap. Of the 300 or so million people in this country, how many would you say are capable of doing what you did? So, you either find some way to allow the rest to live a decent life or you exterminate them. Unions are looking out for those people. So you decide.

It's your call.

[Trishntek]

In spite of our lively discussion, I greatly admire you and thoroughly enjoy our friendship. I see you as I see everyone,,,, an individual. Classifications of people simply contributes to the idea of collective salvation, social justice and denial of individuality.

I would hope you understand after meeting us face to face that we stand firm on the rights of the individual; the right to express, the right to explore, the right to succeed and the right to fail. When people are herded into classifications and layers of societal status, they are labeled, packaged and doomed to fulfill nothing more than what that status allows. When people are individuals without class, status, labels etc, the world is their oyster. Their imagination is unlimited. Their individuality shines.

You truly are a loving and lovely individual and I admire you. Thank you for the exchange of ideas.

[Elderberry]

In spite of our lively discussion, I greatly admire you and thoroughly enjoy our friendship. I see you as I see everyone,,,, an individual. Classifications of people simply contributes to the idea of collective salvation, social justice and denial of individuality.

I would hope you understand after meeting us face to face that we stand firm on the rights of the individual; the right to express, the right to explore, the right to succeed and the right to fail. When people are herded into classifications and layers of societal status, they are labeled, packaged and doomed to fulfill nothing more than what that status allows. When people are individuals without class, status, labels etc, the world is their oyster. Their imagination is unlimited. Their individuality shines.

You truly are a loving and lovely individual and I admire you. Thank you for the exchange of ideas.

I believe what you say as well. However you are still ignoring the harsh reality that given this right, there are far more people that will fail than will succeed. Again I ask, what do you do with those people?

Anyway, it appears that you feel we have reached an impasse and would like to discontinue the discourse. I have no problem with that. Hopefully, after you have a few more years of wisdom under your belt, you'll come around!

[Trishntek]

Again I ask, what do you do with those people?

The path to success is paved with failures. Work with the willing knowing that some will get left in the dust. Those who give up are NOT MY PROBLEM!

[Elderberry]

Again I ask, what do you do with those people?

The path to success is paved with failures. Work with the willing knowing that some will get left in the dust. Those who give up are NOT MY PROBLEM!

Then whose problem are they? Less than stellar humans will be conceived and born into our society every day. Many will be incapable of success no matter how hard they try. Those people will always be someone's problem, and society has decided it will provide for the less fortunate.

The "ultimate solution" in dealing with the marginal people of our society has already been tried, has not only failed, but has been rejected by our society in favor of making them our problem and caring for them.

Last I knew, you were a member of this society.

This is not a political argument. This is a humanitarian imperative.

[littleflower]

JK you always seem to speak in absolutes. there are degrees, here .... i don't think anyone really believes that we just just leave the poor to themselves (there are many programs to help them), or work people to death (as was the case in the industrial age) .... the question is, how much power should those people have over people who are capable of doing more?

i have no problem with unions ... but why should they have unlimited power relative to the businesses? don't we need both? how many jobs - union or otherwise - would we have if the unions get everything they want? how many jobs went overseas due to union demands?

and what of the people who are capable of being productive who say "fuck this" to watching their money go to the unproductive, and become unproductive themselves? i mean, really, if the government was paying, i'd stop earning my living and become an artist in a minute. who wouldn't? how many people work jobs they don't like because they want to support themselves? how often do i hear people in the media talk about how you should only work at something that interests you, without worrying about money? where do you thing we would be if this were the prevailing attitude?

the way you talk, you'd think no one ever thought of this stuff before, or that nothing has ever been done to try to solve these problems!!

oh ... and say hi to john and weho for me .........!

[Elderberry]

Will do. Hope all is well with you. Haven't seen you posting here much lately.

I am talking in absolutes and extremes? Please re-read your post and you'll see much better examples of extremes in both example and conclusion.

You assume that the people of whom I speak are the way they are by choice rather than by fate of birth (genetics). I assert that this is not true for the vast majority of Americans. There will always be freeloaders, but you don't base conclusions on the exception.

You assume that Unions have unfettered power. I suggest that they have less power today than ever before indecent history. Are you trying to suggest that corporations and banks are powerless on this equation? How many jobs were sent overseas because of union demands? I suggest not near as many as were sent overseas by corporate greed. OK let's not use the word greed, let's be polite and say profit.

Why would you assume that everyone would scam the system if given the opportunity? That's either a sad commentary on humanity or your own moral weakness.

Speaking of art, what would be wrong with the government giving grants to artists? They give big grants to large corporations all the time, which do nothing but enrich the stock holders. Wouldn't it be nice to live in a country that respected the talent of their citizens? The National Endowment is always underfunded while oil companies always manage to get government help to spite the fact that their profits are in the billions.

More people need to see the cup as half full and expect the best rather than assume the worst, and stop drawing conclusions from the exception rather than the rule.

[littleflower]

you are the one drawing conclusions from the exception, not me! i am NOT against unions, or giving grants to artists! i am for balance. i want to see limitations on unions and government as well as corporations. you suggest that only corporations are greedy .... i believe that greed is everywhere. unions and government are full of corruption, and all must be kept in check.
remember that corporations that fail do not exist unless government bails them out.... a lot of manufacturing jobs left because companies could no longer afford to pay the wages and pensions and benefits that unions demanded.

this does NOT mean that i have no problem with corporate big-wigs who pay themselves exorbitant salaries while keeping labor costs down! it means that i don't see a simple pie-in-the-sky solution like you do ... and i have a lot more fear of the harm that may be done by government personnel who think they can fix these problems .... problems that are as old as humanity itself.

[Trishntek]

They give big grants to large corporations all the time, which do nothing but enrich the stock holders.

Psssst,,, the sole purpose of CORPORATION is to enrich their STOCKHOLDERS!

And I'm absolutely against government involvement in capitalist endeavors. They either survive or fail on their own talent and ideas,,,, just like their employees.

[Simon of the Playa]

so we should do away with child labor laws, minimum wage and OSHA requirements for safety?


just askin'...

[ygmir]

I see it as a "tug of war" between business and labor:
Business wants max profits
Labor wants max wages (including perks and bennies)

the war takes place each using their own powers.

We've seen where business fails, because labor requires to much.
We've also seen, workers on welfare, because they don't make enough.

Unions have, and had, a place in the mix.

But, they can also get to big, to corrupt.
They are huge political machines, doing what they want, with or without permission of an individual member.
They "require" membership, and dues associated.

Gov. should only come it, related to things like "child labor", "OSHA", and stuff like that.

We can't lose sight of the fact, that, business will only be viable, as long as those running it feel they make enough for their efforts.
And, that is very subjective.
If you require to much of a company, they can and will just close the doors.

Labor seems to not recognize the need, in tough economic times, to maybe lower wages or benefits, to help keep a business afloat.
Conversely, we see businesses lowering wages, and still making record profits.


How, can anyone think it's simple?
Who, can make all these arbitrary decisions as to "who gets how much"?

it's the constant battle, that makes it work.

The problem, to me, is when gov. gets in on one side or the other, unbalancing the power of the purse string.

[Elderberry]

They give big grants to large corporations all the time, which do nothing but enrich the stock holders.

Psssst,,, the sole purpose of CORPORATION is to enrich their STOCKHOLDERS!

And I'm absolutely against government involvement in capitalist endeavors. They either survive or fail on their own talent and ideas,,,, just like their employees.

Ya think?

Government, at least from a regulatory standpoint, needs to be involved in order for capitalism to work.

[Elderberry]

you are the one drawing conclusions from the exception, not me! i am NOT against unions, or giving grants to artists! i am for balance. i want to see limitations on unions and government as well as corporations. you suggest that only corporations are greedy .... i believe that greed is everywhere. unions and government are full of corruption, and all must be kept in check.
remember that corporations that fail do not exist unless government bails them out.... a lot of manufacturing jobs left because companies could no longer afford to pay the wages and pensions and benefits that unions demanded.

this does NOT mean that i have no problem with corporate big-wigs who pay themselves exorbitant salaries while keeping labor costs down! it means that i don't see a simple pie-in-the-sky solution like you do ... and i have a lot more fear of the harm that may be done by government personnel who think they can fix these problems .... problems that are as old as humanity itself.

Then what's the problem? We seem to mostly agree.

[Simon of the Playa]

the problem is YGGY, that GOVT. (under republicans) starting in 1981 with PATCO has systematically destroyed the unions because of demographics and voting patterns, plain and simple...

and now in wisconsin, and other states the same process is continuing under the tutelage and sponsorship of big business.

the FAT CATS cannot have their cake and eat it too.

we will eat them first.

class warfare is not out of the question as far as i'm concerned.

[Simon of the Playa]

its such a shame you dont even understand what you cut and paste from shitty sources.

so are you our DVD Burner replacement? All critic and no substance.

edit: Oh shit that's right,,, we are "swine" of which you cannot be "bothered."

you said it...no pearls for you.

[ygmir]

and, if gov. is using unfair advantage, I agree, it's not ok.

especially related to gov. workers:
it seems such a "sticky wicket"............at a point, there is so much money in the barrel. Since, gov. makes nothing nor creates wealth, it is limited in resources.
If society (majority vote) will not allow for raising revenues (read taxes/fees), then, gov. has to cut expenditures, to stay within a budget.

That's, to me, when it gets tough.
Do you keep the workforce or wages where they are? Or, do you cut kids school food programs?
do you lay off teachers?
or, stop athletics programs at a school?

A lot can be overcome on the gov. end by reducing waste, IMHO.
I think, much of what gov. does, is not only redundant, but unnecessary. And, so many, have had it this way for so long, they feel "entitled" to said job or service.

I look at schools, (here anyway) and see multi levels of administration and administrators, all well over 100K in salary, and they only talk about reducing teaching staff and kids programs.

One district here, has 700 kids, total.
They have a superintendent at 200K
principal at 160K
vice principal at 120K
school psychiatrist 60K (part time)
school counselor ditto
Some special ed classes with only a couple of students, but still a teacher and at least one aid. Sometimes, each kid has an aid.

I'm sure this example can be extrapolated, and made to fit any bureaucracy in gov.
Especially at the state and local levels, where education is a huge part of the budget.


So, how do you do it?
I think gov. should have to work with a balanced budget.
Period.
And, only provide what can be afforded.
If the majority thinks more should be "provided", let them vote for it and be willing to pay for it.

[Elderberry]

We can't lose sight of the fact, that, business will only be viable, as long as those running it feel they make enough for their efforts.
And, that is very subjective.
If you require to much of a company, they can and will just close the doors.

It's hard to find much to disagree with in your post, but the above section I find interesting.

Business will ALWAYS find a way to make enough for their efforts. However there is a new and interesting phenomenon that has entered into the picture. In the "good ole days" a business was in business to provide a product or service which not only enriched the business owners, but enriched the people purchasing the service or product and the economy as a whole.

Today however, more and more "businesses" are solely in the business of making money and not providing any service or products. So, rather than contributing anything back for their efforts, they are simply sucking the wealth out of the economy and amassing it to the few.

Nothing is being contributed back, no products, no services, no jobs, nothing! That, in my opinion, is the main problem.

[ygmir]

We can't lose sight of the fact, that, business will only be viable, as long as those running it feel they make enough for their efforts.
And, that is very subjective.
If you require to much of a company, they can and will just close the doors.

It's hard to find much to disagree with in your post, but the above section I find interesting.

Business will ALWAYS find a way to make enough for their efforts. However there is a new and interesting phenomenon that has entered into the picture. In the "good ole days" a business was in business to provide a product or service which not only enriched the business owners, but enriched the people purchasing the service or product and the economy as a whole.

Today however, more and more "businesses" are solely in the business of making money and not providing any service or products. So, rather than contributing anything back for their efforts, they are simply sucking the wealth out of the economy and amassing it to the few.

Nothing is being contributed back, no products, no services, no jobs, nothing! That, in my opinion, is the main problem.

yeah, but even these businesses to which you refer ( I'm guessing stock brokers, hedge funds, traders, stuff like that?), if you look at it, create jobs, which affords those workers houses, cars, boats, big macs, and the occasional tryst with a senators page or massage parlor.
The money the make, it would seem still circulates.
Yup, they make a lot.
But, if made legitimately (which I understand, is not always the case), why is that bad?
So they make a big wage?
Those people hire me, and others, to make things, fix things, perform, etc.

I distance my self from the "Madoff/Keeting" type, in that as cheaters and/or liars, they got the wealth undeservedly.

But, a good honest stock broker, who helps me with my retirement account, helps me save for college, etc, deserves his wage.
If I think he charges too much, I can go elsewhere.

[Simon of the Playa]

YGGY, you know that we are actually quite close in our belief systems, but what really sticks in my craw is the inability for people to simply call for A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.

Big business is Rigged in favor of Big Business...

they have the WAYS AND MEANS to make more ways and means.


there needs to be in place LAWS WITH TEETH to prevent what the Keating Five (oh, hello John McCain) Bernie Madoff and Half of Wall Street did to our collective unlubed asshole.

Labor Unions are lube, that is all.

now they want to take that away.....well, FUCK THAT SHIT...


it's time the Great Mass Of Submissives get Uppity and Bite the Cock that chokes.



hows that for framing the argument?

[ygmir]

YGGY, you know that we are actually quite close in our belief systems, but what really sticks in my craw is the inability for people to simply call for A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.

Big business is Rigged in favor of Big Business...

they have the WAYS AND MEANS to make more ways and means.


there needs to be in place LAWS WITH TEETH to prevent what the Keating Five (oh, hello John McCain) Bernie Madoff and Half of Wall Street did to our collective unlubed asshole.

Labor Unions are lube, that is all.

now they want to take that away.....well, FUCK THAT SHIT...


it's time the Great Mass Of Submissives get Uppity and Bite the Cock that chokes.



hows that for framing the argument?

there are days I love you....................................

[can't sit still]

Looks like obummer has to find 10 willing puppet-governors so that he can ram his agenda down the throats of the rest of the states. He just has to look for the 10 most insolvent states and co-opt therm with promises of federal money.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum ... 963090/pg1
Shoot, it's the obvious solution to bypass what little resistance congress has to offer. Find 10 starving politicians and pull their strings. FUCKER

[Simon of the Playa]

get the fuck out of here.


your opinions, like my asshole, stink.

[can't sit still]

This is an excellent article by Daniel Hannan, a member of th European parliament. He recommends the America NOT follow the European model. He claims that it will result in a big reduction of both the economy and personal freedom;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... to+America

[Elderberry]

Ygmir, that amount of money never circulates. No person could ever spend that amount in several lifetimes. Why do you think so many forward thinkers like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are trying to get the super rich to give their billions away? Money made and hoarded for the sake of just having money does nothing good.