You misread me Boo. Although that's understandable from the position I reflect. I used to be a union member back in the 60s after I got out of the servce. I saw both good and bad and the theory of unions is good. Unfortunately we failed as a people to control the growth and influence of them from being a representative for workers' right in labor-management relations to a political force to be catered to by politicians. That corrruptive influence should never have been legally allowed to happen. Then, like politicians they lusted for the insatiable, more and more power and influence and rather than represent their members they used them. And the rest is a history of corruption and the pervasive what's in it for me attitude. Unions have become their own worst enemy, especially in the public sector. Obama's whoring to the unions in hard times will take it's toll way beyond political affiliations of the citizen. When a father comes home and looks at his kids sleeping and wonders why he couldn't do better by them and sees the abuses in wages and benefits laid on the taxpayers back by unions he thinks I'll get my revenge at the ballot box. Beware...the Silent Majority is coming back and they're pissed-off again.As for unions, imperfect institutions, can you recall your history. What were working conditions like before unions? I would not be too egar to return to a time in which workers have less voice. Why conservatives tend to defend the wealthy and demonize the worker I don't understand. how they can do this and keep any votes from workers is even less understandable. But remember, things tend to swing back and forth, and otfen the worse thing that happen is to get what you ask for.
You ask why conservatives defend the wealthy. We believe in the true promise of America and I keep repeating it on forums I post to, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. That promise was for Equality of Opportunity, NOT a Guarantee of Equality of Outcome. That's your basic difference in economics between the left and right. The wealthy either inherited their wealth, in which case it's nobody's business or concern OR they went out and through investment, hard work and/or risk-taking THEY EARNED IT, in which case it's still nobody else's business. If you believe like your Great Leader in "redistribution of the wealth" you're a socialist. Socialism always fails in the end because it creates a sick society with no inspiration for betterment only for survival and when it runs out of other peoples' money it collapses in upon itself. All I ask is that you (the liberal progressives) be forthright if you believe in socialism and summon up the courage to ADMIT IT! If you believe as Obama appears to, that goverment...the state, should control the means of production of goods and services you're a refined socialist know as a Marxist. All fall under the umbrella of the type of state that shelters such, a Communist one.