Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40

Thread: U.S. threatens to rescind stimulus money over wage cuts

  1. #11
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: U.S. threatens to rescind stimulus money over wage cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by chevydriver1123 View Post
    Considering my father a Vietnam Vet is a union worker Im going to say no. Obama panders to the scumbag leadership of unions not the actual workers themselves.
    I'll agree, in many places where the cancer of Unions is embedded, you are either part of the Union, or you don't work.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: U.S. threatens to rescind stimulus money over wage cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    U.S. threatens to rescind stimulus money over wage cuts - Los Angeles Times

    Any of you still believe Obama gives a **** about the Economy? That he's out to help bring the country back stronger then ever?

    You've got blinders on. This entire fiasco has been, as we've been saying over and over and over, power. And gee, a Chicago politician strong arming in favor of a union?

    It's here, for everyone to see... what Obama really is, who he is, and what he really wants.
    From your post it's not even clear what your problem is with the story. Honestly, I'm not even sure you read the story.

    How exactly does this show the President doesn't care about the economy?

  3. #13
    Conservative Independent
    DarkWizard12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Tyler TX
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 01:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,562

    Re: U.S. threatens to rescind stimulus money over wage cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    I'll agree, in many places where the cancer of Unions is embedded, you are either part of the Union, or you don't work.
    I've heard of this, mostly in massachusets and the New England.

    Can anyone tell WTFing logic is behind that? If I don't want to be in a union, why do I have to be in a union to work?

  4. #14
    Dispenser of Negativity
    Cold Highway's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
    Last Seen
    12-24-12 @ 11:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    9,596
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: U.S. threatens to rescind stimulus money over wage cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkWizard12 View Post
    Whatever happened to just good-ole collective bargaining of the early 1920's?
    Sadly it's dying because the leadership rather get into partisan politics than actually helping out its members. You should've seen the crap my dad got during the election from his union. It was nothing but pro-Obama bull****, nothing on McCain (except the bs attacks) or any of the other candidates. My dad was originally going to vote McCain so many of the stuff was a moot point anyway but after seeing how he voted for the bailout as well he voted for Barr.
    Jackboots always come in matched pairs, a left boot and a right boot.

  5. #15
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: U.S. threatens to rescind stimulus money over wage cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    From your post it's not even clear what your problem is with the story. Honestly, I'm not even sure you read the story.

    How exactly does this show the President doesn't care about the economy?
    As a liberal, you probably don't see the problem with Washington directing how a state handles itself, and to do so in favor a union... well that's just icing on the cake as it were.

    To be competitive, and cost effective, wages had to drop... oh but Obama won't have none of that... and he used the club of the Government to make it so.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  6. #16
    The Image b4 Transition
    Lightdemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    beneath the surface
    Last Seen
    05-31-12 @ 02:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,829

    Re: U.S. threatens to rescind stimulus money over wage cuts

    I think it depends on what you think is the solution is to the economic problem.

    Obama has been pushing the idea of money coming from the bottom up, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that this decision is to give money to the workers. For this stimulus plan to follow his logic, it must be the way it is.

    I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but at least it's consistent with Keynesian Economics. Raising aggregate demand, while we're in a recession/depression is what it calls for (if we're going to go with a Stimulus Package, which is already underway).
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Let the public school provide the basics, you as the parent can do the fine tuning.

  7. #17
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: U.S. threatens to rescind stimulus money over wage cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightdemon View Post
    I think it depends on what you think is the solution is to the economic problem.

    Obama has been pushing the idea of money coming from the bottom up, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that this decision is to give money to the workers. For this stimulus plan to follow his logic, it must be the way it is.

    I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but at least it's consistent with Keynesian Economics. Raising aggregate demand, while we're in a recession/depression is what it calls for (if we're going to go with a Stimulus Package, which is already underway).
    How can Dear Leader be pushing the idea of money "coming from the bottom up" when a government stimulus plan is by definition coming from the top down?


    • Dear Leader is not hiring hordes of unemployed after the fashion of Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps.
    • Dear Leader is not handing out government checks to individuals as President Bush mistakenly did last year.
    • Dear Leader's "stimulus" (if it can be called that) is quintessential trickle-down economic theory: billions upon billions of government programs and "infrastructure" projects, which are transformed into billions of government contracts handed out to government contractors, which in turn hire and staff for the projects so obtained.
    • Dear Leader's bailouts of Wall Street funnel money to banks and to AIG in the hopes that the extra capital will inspire them to be a little less harsh or hasty in foreclosing on defaulted mortgages.


    Nothing about Dear Leader's efforts involve anything coming "the bottom up." Every aspect of Dear Leader's efforts to date involve taking the tax revenue of future years and shoveling it out the door today towards big companies and big contractors, in the hopes that those big companies and big contractors will hire the little guy and cut down on unemployment.

    $2 an hour is not a small wage cut, especially when going from $12.10 per hour to $10.10 per hour--a $4,000 wage cut over a working (2000 hour) year. But if trimming wages in that fashion preserves a few more jobs (the unemployment benefits of which would amount to far more than $4,000 per person per year), is that not the sort of "hard choice" that Dear Leader himself proclaimed to be necessary? Given California's budget woes, is that not superior to trimming jobs--and then trimming additional jobs to pay for the unemployment benefits of the workers so displaced? Is this not in keeping with Dear Leader's own stated priority of "spreading the wealth"?

    The truth is SEIU barked, and Dear Leader servilely complied with their request. He has sold himself at auction to so many masters he'd need the personalities of Sybil to adequately service them all.

  8. #18
    Advisor Batman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Fulton, KY
    Last Seen
    05-11-09 @ 12:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    407

    Re: U.S. threatens to rescind stimulus money over wage cuts

    The economic mess in California is the precursor for the entire country.
    Violence Can Be Used For Good

  9. #19
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:01 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,361
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. threatens to rescind stimulus money over wage cuts

    You know, I suspect that most unions are good things. They help their employees and work with management to make for better work places. I have no real evidence to back this up, except that you don't hear about most unions, and sometimes you got to respect organizations that quietly get things done. I suspect that the biggest problems unions have is the bad publicity inherent in the UAW, which is well deserved. When the auto industry booms, the UAW holds up the big three for everything they can get, and have zero interest in making a healthy auto industry. The UAW actually plans things out come contract negotiation time, which of the big three is going to give in easiest, negotiate with those first and threaten a lengthy strike. When they fold, the other two will follow suit. I remember 20 years ago or so, when GM was doing a round of layoffs...seemingly daily on the news, there would be some one who was being layed off, standing in front of their 3 story house, with the boat and RV out front, complaining they did not know how they where ever going to get by....

    Any limitations or requirements put on a state for any political reason to get stimulus money is a really bad idea. This just is not the time to play politics, paying off political patrons. It's just a horrible thing. It is not the federal governments place to tell states how to run things, and using needed money to blackmail a state into doing what you want is simply wrong.

  10. #20
    The Image b4 Transition
    Lightdemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    beneath the surface
    Last Seen
    05-31-12 @ 02:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,829

    Re: U.S. threatens to rescind stimulus money over wage cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    How can Dear Leader be pushing the idea of money "coming from the bottom up" when a government stimulus plan is by definition coming from the top down?

    • Dear Leader is not hiring hordes of unemployed after the fashion of Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps.
    • Dear Leader is not handing out government checks to individuals as President Bush mistakenly did last year.
    • Dear Leader's "stimulus" (if it can be called that) is quintessential trickle-down economic theory: billions upon billions of government programs and "infrastructure" projects, which are transformed into billions of government contracts handed out to government contractors, which in turn hire and staff for the projects so obtained.
    • Dear Leader's bailouts of Wall Street funnel money to banks and to AIG in the hopes that the extra capital will inspire them to be a little less harsh or hasty in foreclosing on defaulted mortgages.
    Well, I suppose I should give you an intro to Demand-side economics then.

    It is bottom up because aggregate demand has shifted because the consumers have more spending power. While you may think that the government is part of the "top" it is actually neutral. The "top", by in all conventional use, is referred to employers and shop owners. Therefore the "bottom" are the workers and wage-earners. The closest the government will be to the "top" is that they are in charge of improving infrastructure and construction, but unlike the "top" they are not there to make a profit, they are there to provide jobs, and therefore they benefit the "bottom", not the "top". This would be the 3rd point you were trying to make (above).

    If the bottom receives paychecks, that's more money they can spend/save. The more money in their pockets, or in their banks, the more products they can spend on. This essentially raises aggregate demand, and increases in production and sales in the long run (this is the part where it benefits the "top"; after the "bottom" has gotten their benefit). Therefore it's bottom-to-top.

    But like I said, it depends on what you think is the solution to the economic problem. If you don't think Keynesian economics is the answer, obviously you wont agree with the stimulus package.
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Let the public school provide the basics, you as the parent can do the fine tuning.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •