• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats threaten violence on Michigan House floor

Careful, Conservative. You're getting dangerously close to my own point of view.

Can I explain that 3.8 trillion dollars? Sure. It's the result of decades of out of control government growth, much of which has happened during the past five or six years.

I've got a solution, too. It's quite simple, really:

No more giving away money, not to foreign powers, not to corporations, not to individuals, not to anyone. End the war on drugs, the war on poverty, and the war on terror. Fund the military, but let's not spend as much as the rest of the world combined. In short, let's quit wasting money. Spend what is saved upgrading our infrastructure, funding research, but not subsidizing plants, not even "green" ones. There is private venture capital for that, after all.

There really isn't a lot of difference between a Conservative and a Libertarian when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

The problem with the budgeting process is it is a baseline budget which means that if a department spends the money that is the baseline which means they get more money the next year. There never is any incentive to save. Budgets are yearly and deficits are yearly. Obama has yet to have a deficit under a trillion dollars. Bush had one deficit over a trillion dollars in 8 years.
 
QUOTE OpportunityCost

]Really. You dont understand that stockholders are voluntary?

And someone should have to sell their stock because some wingnut CEO decides that he wants to donate YOUR MONEY to a political campaign? :shock:


They can sell out their shares at any point if they dont agree with corporate positions.


Just as those that disagree with joining a union shop can go for the next job opportunity.

Further if corporations spend too much on political activity they have a board to answer to and that board is ultimately answerable to stockholders. Stockholders expect a return on their investment, if any expense is too high they will want to know why and curtail it if its too much.

And the corp board is dominated by what? corporate CEOS. Stuffing stockholders money in there pockets for rubbers stamping the Corp CEOS plan four times a year.


Unions spent billions in the last few election cycles.


The 2012 election was the most expensive election in the history of the WORLD; topping $6 billion. From what I’ve read 69% of that dough,THIS CYCLE ALONE, was spent on backing conservative causes. Where did you get the info that unions spent billions from?And how many do you consider” the last few election cycles“?

They dont seem to have any problem getting around general funds limitations.


clarify this.

Just to clarify, individual members cannot object can they?

Yes. What they donate if voluntary, most is leg work and phone banks also by volunteers/union members :2wave:
 
The 2012 election was the most expensive election in the history of the WORLD; topping $6 billion. From what I’ve read 69% of that dough,THIS CYCLE ALONE, was spent on backing conservative causes.

Jeez! It sounds like they were really motivated. I wonder why. Do you have any ideas?
 
Lawyers are a problem.....Until you need one....heheh....But come on Ditto....$79 per hour total compensation to attach two wheels and tires to each car coming down the line? Really?

The union can't decide to pay someone $79 an hour for a job that is probably worth less than half of that. All it can do is negotiate on the behalf of its clients. If management gives away the store, that's their fault.
 
There really isn't a lot of difference between a Conservative and a Libertarian when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

The problem with the budgeting process is it is a baseline budget which means that if a department spends the money that is the baseline which means they get more money the next year. There never is any incentive to save. Budgets are yearly and deficits are yearly. Obama has yet to have a deficit under a trillion dollars. Bush had one deficit over a trillion dollars in 8 years.

Yes, zero based budgeting is the way to go. Another thing: Let's not have a use it or lose it budget either. If a government entity can be run efficiently, and has money left at the end of the year, that doesn't mean that they should get less the following year. It means that other similar programs need to emulate what the efficient ones are doing. Current budget pracgtice encourages waste.

Plus, the baseline budgeting encourages the government to claim that they've cut something by 5%, when in fact, they intended to increase it 10%, but only increased it 5%. Such creative math wastes a lot of money as well, and fools some people into thinking that cuts are actually being made.
 
The union can't decide to pay someone $79 an hour for a job that is probably worth less than half of that. All it can do is negotiate on the behalf of its clients. If management gives away the store, that's their fault.


Well, that much I will give you, but only so much....See, when the negotiations go on for these things the Management have a choice to make, either give in to strong arm union tactics, or have your plant shut down until you do, and if you don't give in then go out of business....It's thug from start to finish. People are tired of it. Bullies never win in the long run.
 
The union can't decide to pay someone $79 an hour for a job that is probably worth less than half of that. All it can do is negotiate on the behalf of its clients. If management gives away the store, that's their fault.

Private unions? You bet, public unions? A different story. Put all wage and benefit issues on the ballot for the voters, not politicians who can be bought.
 
The union doesn't own the business, nor does it work there. The employees who hired the union work there. It is the job of the union to work for better salaries and working conditions for their employees.

The union- worker relationship is much like the lawyer - client relationship. The difference is, no one seems to think it is wrong for a group or individual to be represented by a lawyer.
When I have hired a lawyer he was on MY side. Unions are an evil that sometimes must be tolerated.
 
This is what becoming a right to work state gets ya.:2wave:


Persons below poverty level, percent, 2007-2011 Us =17.6%.............. Alabama=14.3%

Per capita income 2007-2011 US=$27,915............Alabama=$23,483


Persons below poverty level, percent, 2007-2011 US=17.6% .............Alabama= 14.3%

High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2007-2011 US=85.4% Alabama =81.9%

The difference, for those with an interest, is that Alabama is on its way up. Those states that coerce their workers to pay union dues, are on their way down.
 
When I have hired a lawyer he was on MY side. Unions are an evil that sometimes must be tolerated.

When workers hire a union, it is on their side. Lawyers are also an evil that sometimes must be tolerated.
Just like unions.
 
When workers hire a union, it is on their side. Lawyers are also an evil that sometimes must be tolerated.
Just like unions.
I have had NO positive experiences with unions or their members. I do not believe the unions are on the side of the business. Unions are parasites that occasionally kill the host. They always suck the life out of their host.
 
Well, that much I will give you, but only so much....See, when the negotiations go on for these things the Management have a choice to make, either give in to strong arm union tactics, or have your plant shut down until you do, and if you don't give in then go out of business....It's thug from start to finish. People are tired of it. Bullies never win in the long run.

Workers aren't going to vote to strike over unreasonable wage demands. They might if the management tries to cut pay, or if they refuse to raise wages long enough in the face of inflation.

Wages overall, particularly for unskilled and semi skilled work, have not kept up with inflation over my working life at least. It is much harder for blue collar people to make a living now than it used to be 40 or 50 years ago.
 
I have had NO positive experiences with unions or their members. I do not believe the unions are on the side of the business. Unions are parasites that occasionally kill the host. They always suck the life out of their host.

No, unions are not on the side of business. They are on the side of labor. Labor pays for them. Labor votes them in. They are there for labor, not for management. Management is the other team.
 
Workers aren't going to vote to strike over unreasonable wage demands. They might if the management tries to cut pay, or if they refuse to raise wages long enough in the face of inflation.

Wages overall, particularly for unskilled and semi skilled work, have not kept up with inflation over my working life at least. It is much harder for blue collar people to make a living now than it used to be 40 or 50 years ago.


:violin My heart is bleeding....Hey how hard do you think it is to show a consistent gain for the shareholders? I bet they don't do it by boasting a golf palace in Michigan like the union does....

Your fantasy of unions not asking unreasonable wage demands is really funny.
 

"There will be blood" is an expression, implying political payback. Similar to Sarah Palin putting a gun sight graphic over Gabby Giffords district, putting the congresswomen in the 'Crosshairs'. Palin was also found of saying, "Don't retreat, reload."

There's a lot emotion in MI, and no reasonable person believes the rep was calling for violence.
 
No, unions are not on the side of business. They are on the side of labor. Labor pays for them. Labor votes them in. They are there for labor, not for management. Management is the other team.
We agree. Unions are parasites. It is best to limit their damage.
 
:violin My heart is bleeding....Hey how hard do you think it is to show a consistent gain for the shareholders? I bet they don't do it by boasting a golf palace in Michigan like the union does....

Your fantasy of unions not asking unreasonable wage demands is really funny.

I didn't say that they don't ask, now did I?
I said that the union membership wouldn't vote to strike over it.
I also said that, if management gives in to unreasonable demands, then they aren't doing their job. It's called "negotiation."

Ever buy a new car?
Do you go in and pay the sticker price?
Do you do your own negotiation, or get some help? It's your choice, of course, just as it is the worker's choice to do their own or not.
 
I didn't say that they don't ask, now did I?
I said that the union membership wouldn't vote to strike over it.
I also said that, if management gives in to unreasonable demands, then they aren't doing their job. It's called "negotiation."

Ever buy a new car?
Do you go in and pay the sticker price?
Do you do your own negotiation, or get some help? It's your choice, of course, just as it is the worker's choice to do their own or not.


Look, here's the breakdown for ya....The article stated that the pay package average was a total of $79 per hour, that was $28 an hour wage, and the rest was their cadillac health plan, and pension. Now, take that $28 per hour and over 40 hours that equals a straight $1,120 per week, or $58,240 per year...Now, consider a reasonable overtime amount, of say 10 hours per week, at time and a half, that bumps them to $80,080 per year, not bad for working the line.

Now consider that if you started at age 19 like many of my buddies did in Lansing straight out of High School, they are over 30 years service now and ready to retire at age 50, with lifetime continuation of their health care (best in the nation), and 75% of their highest pay year, using the $80K number that would be $60K per year for the REST of their lives.

You tell me who pays for that? Or if that is fair, or taking advantage? I have bought more than one car in my lifetime, and the cost added on for this crap is what is making it harder to sell American cars in this country. It is also a reason that these companies are leaving Michigan for the south, or over to China. The model is unsustainable.
 
We,ll get back to fiscal responsibility when the bush tax-cuts expire.

I totally agree with you here and not just for the rich. All the tax cuts need to expire 40% cut in military and stop all of the corporate welfare and then we can think about adjusting Medicare and Medicade . Oh and end that big pharma give way that Bush did as well
 
Look, here's the breakdown for ya....The article stated that the pay package average was a total of $79 per hour, that was $28 an hour wage, and the rest was their cadillac health plan, and pension. Now, take that $28 per hour and over 40 hours that equals a straight $1,120 per week, or $58,240 per year...Now, consider a reasonable overtime amount, of say 10 hours per week, at time and a half, that bumps them to $80,080 per year, not bad for working the line.

Now consider that if you started at age 19 like many of my buddies did in Lansing straight out of High School, they are over 30 years service now and ready to retire at age 50, with lifetime continuation of their health care (best in the nation), and 75% of their highest pay year, using the $80K number that would be $60K per year for the REST of their lives.

You tell me who pays for that? Or if that is fair, or taking advantage? I have bought more than one car in my lifetime, and the cost added on for this crap is what is making it harder to sell American cars in this country. It is also a reason that these companies are leaving Michigan for the south, or over to China. The model is unsustainable.

Yes it is very fair considering the CEO of that comapny will retire with benefits that are 200% better than a man that did his work for 30 years as opposed to a person who worked for 10
 
I totally agree with you here and not just for the rich. All the tax cuts need to expire 40% cut in military and stop all of the corporate welfare and then we can think about adjusting Medicare and Medicade . Oh and end that big pharma give way that Bush did as well


Hell, why stop there? You obviously believe that the money people earn is yours, so just take it all, and give people a stipend to live on. :roll:
 
Hell, why stop there? You obviously believe that the money people earn is yours, so just take it all, and give people a stipend to live on. :roll:

No I dont the biggest drivers of the debt were the Bush tav cuts. We had a surplus before boy wonder got into office and just like Republicans do when in power they charge up the credit card. See Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2. Obama had to clean up the mess left by the Republican congress and President.


Your reply shows you are not serious about this countries debt problem.
 
Yes it is very fair considering the CEO of that comapny will retire with benefits that are 200% better than a man that did his work for 30 years as opposed to a person who worked for 10


Your jealousy is unbecoming. If the line worker is upset at what he or she makes as opposed to the CEO of a multi national company, then maybe instead of drinking booze, and smoking pot on their breaks, and all through out High School, they should have excelled in business in collage, and got the job....Don't be silly.
 
Look, here's the breakdown for ya....The article stated that the pay package average was a total of $79 per hour, that was $28 an hour wage, and the rest was their cadillac health plan, and pension. Now, take that $28 per hour and over 40 hours that equals a straight $1,120 per week, or $58,240 per year...Now, consider a reasonable overtime amount, of say 10 hours per week, at time and a half, that bumps them to $80,080 per year, not bad for working the line.

Now consider that if you started at age 19 like many of my buddies did in Lansing straight out of High School, they are over 30 years service now and ready to retire at age 50, with lifetime continuation of their health care (best in the nation), and 75% of their highest pay year, using the $80K number that would be $60K per year for the REST of their lives.

You tell me who pays for that? Or if that is fair, or taking advantage? I have bought more than one car in my lifetime, and the cost added on for this crap is what is making it harder to sell American cars in this country. It is also a reason that these companies are leaving Michigan for the south, or over to China. The model is unsustainable.

That unsustainable contract is what the management agreed to. If it was not sustainable, and it's easy to see why it isn't, then that is not the fault of the union, nor the workers who hired them to negotiate for them. No one forced management to agree to unreasonable demands.
Someone did a poor job of negotiation.

As for the "American" brands, if there really is any such thing any more, I totally disagree that the added costs are the reasons they haven't been selling as briskly as some of the other brands. Look at the prices of similar models of Honda, Toyota, and Chevrolet, for example, and you'll see that the prices are quite similar. Chevy is most likely going to be the least expensive, as a matter of fact. Look at Consumer Reports, however, and talk to people who have owned these brands before, and you'll get the same story: Hondas and Toyotas are much more reliable and better designed. That's why the big three automakers are in trouble. It's called "competition", and without it, Chrysler, Ford and GM would still be selling us tail fins.
 
Back
Top Bottom