• 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!

Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

Last two years beginning of a downward slide for Public Sector Unions?

  • Yes, their power has waxed and now it shall wane.

    Votes: 40 62.5%

  • Unions will respond and their power will grow.

    Votes: 14 21.9%

  • It depends on November.

    Votes: 10 15.6%
  • Total voters
    64
haymarket said:
The standard right libertarian position to be sure. Yes, we fully understand that.
Click to expand...

Not quite. That's a standard in economics. It has nothing to with Libertarianism but more with "Common Sense Economics."
 
haymarket said:
Baloney. Even worse - it is yesterdays baloney coming out on the other end.

You are lying about my position. Go ahead and prove you have intellectual integrity. Quote me on both of your ridiculous and totally false allegations as to what I believe about private property ..

DO IT AND DO IT NOW or man up and apologize.

Prediction: you will be impotent to do either.
Click to expand...

YOu have constantly said the rich's wealth exists only as long as the masses decide to let them keep it

Moderates like OldReliable67 called your position "fascist" on the economics thread when you posted your bit about the rich groveling before the masses to keep what they have
 
haymarket said:
I guess that is why Alabama has seven times the population of California. :roll:;)
Click to expand...
Well, you certainly got me with that one.

And we have far fewer illegal aliens too. Darn the bad luck.

The cost of living is lower. It takes me less than 15 minutes to drive to work (it was close to an hour each way in LA). We have lower crime.

Describe me as hurt that the leeches have gravitated to the Left coast.

Just don't Californicate Alabama.
 
Misterveritis said:
Well, you certainly got me with that one.

And we have far fewer illegal aliens too. Darn the bad luck.

The cost of living is lower. It takes me less than 15 minutes to drive to work (it was close to an hour each way in LA). We have lower crime.

Describe me as hurt that the leeches have gravitated to the Left coast.

Just don't Californicate Alabama.
Click to expand...

that sounds like Lynard Skynard doing a cover of a Red Hot Chilly Peppers tune
 
Misterveritis said:
Statists, Marxists, socialists, communists, and other tyrants always couch their tyranny in such terms.

Without the right to own property and laws to establish rules for transfer of the rights to property we are no longer civilized.
Click to expand...

Which is why statist decivilizers hate property rights and do everything in their power to denigrate them. Property rights stand between them and their coveted power over others.
 
haymarket said:
And you voice those rights through the normal democratic process.
Click to expand...

As was done, thus this thread wondering if a trend has indeed started, as the possibilty to balance budgets partly buy cutting gov't labor costs may spread. ;-)
 
haymarket said:
More baloney. Even worse - its yesterdays baloney that is now on the end of the process.

Propery rights have been used by those on the far right to oppose lots of things that progressives favored including
*** a defense of slave ownership
*** a defense of secession by Southern slave holding states
*** opposition to Civil Rights legislation in the Sixties
*** labor rights for the last hundred and more years

It is a fact of history.

If libertarians want to apologize for their stand and change it, that would be welcomed.
Click to expand...

you have not asked the person you attacked about his position on slavery, or civil rights... you simply reached deep in your ass and implied he supports slavery based on nothing more than his professed support for property rights.

your argument is nothing more or less than " supporting property right= supporting slavery"... and for an alleged educator , that is an extremely moronic argument.. an argument that can be demonstrated to apply to you as well, unless of course you are going to sit here and deny property rights do not exist or should not exist.
basically put, if you own property and you enjoy and support that right to own your property... you, too , support slavery.... that is your own argument throw right back in your face.


now watch folks, Haymarket will continue with his dishonesty... watch him ,once again, not take responsibility for his dishonest attack like any common adult would... watch him dance, deflect, and juke his way towards rationalizing his lie.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK skippy, then return to the 1950 federal gov't spending as a percentage of GDP, removing ALL of those federal social programs (added since 1950) that redistribute wealth to "the poor" as well. The budget sword cuts both ways. The current mess that passes for a federal "budget" has changed DRASTICALLY since the 1950s, yet you LIKE that part, you just miss the high taxation on those anonymous "rich guys". Being able to pick and choose the tax rates of a particular system must be coupled with the spending rates of that system as well. We now spend 24% of GDP at the federal level, far more than in 1950.
Click to expand...

I covered that rebuttle when I mentioned that the population has grown. The higher the population, the bigger the percentage of those that will at some time require some sort of government services: let's also not forget corporate tax breaks that only add to the deficit. And for the record, the idea of the cost of government services is rather repelling to me: what it shows is the startling reality that the system; that is to say our country and its ethos are not working: teh country is not creating a system whereby the population feeds itself. That was the point that I was making with repsect to the lack of business sense that it takes to lower the taxes / support of our country and its system with respect to 1%. In war; like WWII: (note the tax rate then); everybody fights. We're very close to that kind of "damage" to our country now, only the socializing of the problem is becoming more and more focused on that segment of the population that has no resources: ya' can't buy anything with no money. And you are conviently forgetting that our GDP has shrunk relative to the population, (which I covered also), and with that also comes the shrinking of the value of a dollar. So, you're rebuttle isn't quite adding up.

I'm coming at this topic with a very "scientific" say, black and white perspective: ya'know; it is or it isn't. What the right wants under these circumstances just doesn't make sense when we consider what's really going on. So, their agenda with respect to the 1% is just BS.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Viciously attacking people because of their height now. I should say I am shocked. But I do not lie that well.
Click to expand...

yeah, TD is a horrible person for insulting his height... he should be more like you and falsely attack his support for slavery... that's so much better.








.
 
Henrin said:
Lol. So the government has a license to take your property to support them or do you not realize you just said that.
Click to expand...

Of course the government has a license to tax. It's the very first power granted to the Congress in the constitution and it is reaffirmed in the 16th amendment. You already know that of course.

Henrin said:
Like usual you fail to realize the difference between taxes as an idea and the government taking your income in the form of such ideas as the income tax.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you mean here. Are you saying that you prefer non-income taxes? If so, you're certainly free to hold that preference, but it isn't a widely shared one. Hence the 16th amendment.

Henrin said:
Tell me again why do you believe the government can take your income with force but other people/organizations can not? Don't worry if you fail to notice there is no difference because after all it is to be expected.
Click to expand...

Well, a country has to either have a government or not. The overwhelming majority of Americans prefer having a government, so that's what we have. If you really don't want to live under a government, you could certainly move to Somalia where they effectively have no government. I don't think you'd actually find that you like it in practice though.
 
Centinel said:
You are right. In fact, it is quite the opposite. If one wishes to acquire another's property, one must offer something in exchange. Such is the nature of civilized society. On the other hand, criminals and the government freeload on others by taking without permission. They are a decivilizing force that must be endured to the extent that they can't be eliminated entirely.
Click to expand...

If you really believe that government isn't offering you anything in exchange and that a government that lacks the power to collect taxes woud be more civilized, then perhaps you would find life in Somalia to be the height of civility. I kinda doubt it though.
 
skwaaaawk.. move to Somalia.. skwaaaawk... move to Somalia...skwaaaaawk... move to Somalia


anyone wanna give Tea a cracker?
 
Thrilla said:
skwaaaawk.. move to Somalia.. skwaaaawk... move to Somalia...skwaaaaawk... move to Somalia


anyone wanna give Tea a cracker?
Click to expand...

So you're saying you don't want a government, but you don't want to think about what life is like without a government either?
 
randel said:
you always have a choice james, always, no one is holding a gun to your head, no one is forcing you to work in a union shop, as i stated, you can always find another job in a non union shop, so yes, you have a choice....
Click to expand...

Again that is a lie.If I want to be police office,public school teacher, fire fighter or some other public sector job with a closed shop I have no choice but to join a union and not just any union but the approved union. I just say fine I'll go this fire station,police station,public school or some other public sector job across town that doesn't have a union or a union I support.


nd no free riders james, you want what my dues paid to negotiate for , join the union, don't expect to get freebies.
Click to expand...

Again unions were created for the benefit of the workers in general.So what ever an employer chooses to pay me is none of the union's business. If an employer wants to pay me the same,less or more than what a Union worker at the same company makes then that is mine and the employer's business, not the union's.
 
teamosil said:
So you're saying you don't want a government, but you don't want to think about what life is like without a government either?
Click to expand...

who said I don't want a government?.. sure as **** wasn't me... show me the person who is spreading lies and i'll go deal with them...

there are very very few anarchists around.. even fewer here at DP.. they are nearly nonexistent.

you are intentionally and falsely attributing an anarchist position to people who disagree with your position.
do I need to explain why that is wrong or are you capable of figuring it out on your own?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You REFUSE to look at the rights of ALL of the governed, especially the NON-GOV'T workers (the majority of the people) that must fund the 2% that work for the gov't through taxation. We the people have rights too, including the right to set gov't employee pay and benefit rates. That is not some "fairness" jive defined by a union, that is for ALL of the people to decide, with NO regard for the wants of any minority no matter how loud or oppressed they claim to be. Was it not strange that we saw no mass exodus of teachers, fleeing WI to higher paying states? After all these "drastic cuts" and "stolen rights" left them destitute an unable to feed their families, right? It is summer time, school is out, time to flee the oppression and head for greener pastures during the off season. ;-)
Click to expand...


Funny how those rabid union supporters claim that a workers union and employers have a right to form contracts to dictate closed shop.But not one public sector workers union has ever negotiated with its employers for benefits,tenure, "trial de nova" for employees being fired, pensions and many other things.Because why would tax payers approve of those things when many tax payers do not get those things themselves.
 
randel said:
sorry chief, if i feel my interests are better met by attempting to band together with a group of like minded people, it is my right to form a union....just as a company attempts to maximize profit, i have every right to attempt to maximize the value i recieve for my labor..
Click to expand...

A right implies choice.Closed shops do not offer choices and votes to unionize are not anonymous. Notice how no one ever says you should be forced to own and carry a gun,forced to join a religion, forced to protest,forced to vote and right in the same sentence.Thats due to the fact if you were forced to own and carry a gun, join a religion, forced to vote, or forced to protest then it wouldn't be a right, it would be mandates. A right implies that it is a actual choice to exercise. If you die hard union supporters actually believed banding together and forming a union is a right you wouldn't be trying to force people to join a union as a condition of employment, you would allow workers to form different union should they decided that they do not like your union's political stands.
 
jamesrage said:
Because why would tax payers approve of those things when many tax payers do not get those things themselves.
Click to expand...
Ah, so the real reason for anti-union sentiment comes out. "If I can't have it, neither can they." Figures.
 
jamesrage said:
A right implies choice.Closed shops do not offer choices and votes to unionize are not anonymous. Notice how no one ever says you should be forced to own and carry a gun,forced to join a religion, forced to protest,forced to vote and right in the same sentence.Thats due to the fact if you were forced to own and carry a gun, join a religion, forced to vote, or forced to protest then it wouldn't be a right, it would be mandates. A right implies that it is a actual choice to exercise. If you die hard union supporters actually believed banding together and forming a union is a right you wouldn't be trying to force people to join a union as a condition of employment, you would allow workers to form different union should they decided that they do not like your union's political stands.
Click to expand...

Those are more "privileges" than "rights."
 
TurtleDude said:
and the owner of that company should be able to fire you for "banding together"
Click to expand...
to quote alex trebek, jeopardy host "no, i'm sorry, that is incorrect"...
 
Thrilla said:
why is it bad in this case, but good in the "tax the rich" sentiment?
Click to expand...
The argument for making the tax code reflect income inequality has nothing to do with "if I can't have it, neither can they."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom