• 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?


  • Total voters
    64
earthworm asked this

So, what is more important ??
The concept of property or the concept of fairness ?



Property.

I have no doubt every slave owner in pre civil war America would stand proudly and give you an ovation.
 
Me too. I lived in Los Angeles County for about a year when I knew California was not the state for me. To the People Republic of California I was a cash cow to be milked for the benefit of the government. So I found a similar job in Alabama and have never regretted leaving California.

I have been to California many times.
I have been to Alabama once.

There are obvious reasons why.
 
All the evidence is right under all your noses....as private sector unions declined so did the pay of all workers. The rich and make no mistake about this it is the RICH that have taken benefits and pensions off private sector workers. I DEFY anyone to prove me wrong now...while they were taking benefits and your pensions in the last 20 yrs CEO pay has SOARED along with their bonus and perks. They have stagnated your pay and theirs SOARED. They took from YOU and gave it to themselves.
Since 1983 taxs for the 1% and corporations have been cut fully in half and even more for capitiol gains. While their taxs were being cut, they sent millions of decent paying american jobs to china and elsewhere to enable THEM to make even more at the workers expense.
Now tell me non rich private sector workers have they seen any trickle down...Of course they havent...they lost benefits and pensions and pay all the while the rich were getting their taxs halved and their salaries were soaring...>NOW PROVE ME WRONG any one of you...
Guys like turtledude have the audacity to say labor was overpriced while ceo pays soared by 10s of millions...in his mind workers are just plain dogchit and dont deserve a dime, they are surfs, lackeys, peons, slaves for the rich to do as they choose with...F that, I will lose my life before I ever let that happen.
Now the same PIGS are after Public Workers, because they CANT ALLOW the dumbass private sector working class to ever figure out just how badly theyve been screwed...they cant afford the private sector dummys to group with public sector workers...the pigs know they would never win another election....but the rich are fortunate...they have private sector workers making from 10k a year to 200,000 BSd that they are being screwed by public workers....I keep waiting for the dumbarses to wake up...but maybe theyre just to dumb to ever realize it.
 
earthworm asked this







I have no doubt every slave owner in pre civil war America would stand proudly and give you an ovation.

they just might... but that doesn't excuse your intellectual dishonesty in implying he supports slavery by supporting property rights.
 
Last edited:
The right to property isn't a license to freeload.

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.
 
they just might... but that doesn't excuse your intellectual dishonesty in implying her supports slavery by supporting property rights.

That was a major part of the argument. To deny it was is just a lie.
 
obvious reason eh.... let me think...

you enjoy surfing and the waves in Alabama suck?

It had a great deal more to do with the quality of life.
 
That was a major part of the argument. To deny it was is just a lie.
sure it was, back in those days

the person you are trying so hard to insult was not arguing that people are property..... you are being incredibly dishonest and should apologize for implying he supports slavery.
 
You know Ipast that we haven't reached the level of say Ford in the past. For example, what the private sector can do next is provide the police force that is necessary to protect big business and their workers. A few large companies can cooperate to do this to reduce costs. This will reduce local taxes for home owners, whoever they are. Just noting that you are complaining about something that is natural and that most want and deserve.
 
sure it was, back in those days

the person you are trying so hard to insult was not arguing that people are property..... you are being incredibly dishonest and should apologize for implying he supports slavery.

Baloney. For some reason, forces on the far right always seem to side with property over people. That was true on slavery and it is true today on labor rights.
 
sure it was, back in those days

the person you are trying so hard to insult was not arguing that people are property..... you are being incredibly dishonest and should apologize for implying he supports slavery.

and it was the same convenient excuse the far right gave for NOT supporting Civil Rights laws in the Sixties - that would be the 1960's. And libertarians still wear out their computer keys defending that today for the reason of property rights.

Nothing has changed except the calendar.
 
Last edited:
It had a great deal more to do with the quality of life.

ahh yes, i forgot, you enjoy paying more taxes,being subject to overreaching government regulation, and having the Democratic Party in control of peoples lives... yes, I would suppose California would be a better fit for you. ;)

the waves in Alabama do suck though....
 
It had a great deal more to do with the quality of life.

ahh yes, i forgot, you enjoy paying more taxes,being subject to overreaching government regulation, and having the Democratic Party in control of peoples lives... yes, I would suppose California would be a better fit for you. ;)

the waves in Alabama do suck though....
 
Baloney. For some reason, forces on the far right always seem to side with property over people. That was true on slavery and it is true today on labor rights.

I'm not interested in your rationalization for why you were being dishonest in implying he supports slavery.

you should apologize to him , as your attack was unjustified and dishonest.
 
I'm not interested in your rationalization for why you were being dishonest in implying he supports slavery.

you should apologize to him , as your attack was unjustified and dishonest.

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.
 
ahh yes, i forgot, you enjoy paying more taxes,being subject to overreaching government regulation, and having the Democratic Party in control of peoples lives... yes, I would suppose California would be a better fit for you. ;)

the waves in Alabama do suck though....

Aha!!!! That must explain why Alabama has seven times the population of California? ;)
 
]Great. Then everyone is roughly paying the same percentage of their income for the functioning of government. So the rich are paying their fair share after all. Thanks for pointing that out.

Ya'know; I have to say something here with respect to this "redistribution of wealth" nonsense. It's propoganda, and bad propoganda at that. Raising taxes on the wealthy is the same thing that a company does when they want to cut your pay. Why does a company cut your pay? (This where political ideologies switch places): This country; "the company" can not afford to operate at such a deficit any longer; we're going under!

Raising taxes on the wealthy is taking their tax rate back up to where it was before Ronald Reagan; which was a rate of 70% or more. Starting with his first year, Reagan cut the taxes of the welathy in this country by some 40% during his term Historical Top Tax Rate

During this country's peak production years: the 1950s, when the standard of living was the highest in the world; for the middle class in particular, the tax rate of the wealthy in this country was a steady 91 & 92%. As the source shows, the tax rate for the rich goes into a steady decline from then on. As the middle class began to disappear, the rate of the 1% under Nixon . . . starts todrops exponentially, and in the course of only one generation, it drops to 35%.

We've had recession after recession since then, and under modern conservative / Libertarian economics, the 1% didn't do anything to "save the country". In fact, they sent money out of this country to increase returns and actract more money. With the money they made, we should all be on easy street by now, right? I man; we were all working for it! But, "the 1% create all the jobs, right? . . . As the middle class has taken hit after hit, and the population goes up and up, and the services required to manage a country of 300 million steadliy goes up; the taxes of the brilliant and "super powered" 1% should go down?? Nahh, I don't think that makes sense: it's not good business. The 1% takes advantage of and qualifies for any the services of federal government provides; up to and including military protection: that's happened a couple of times as I recall . . . So, why is it some sort of "redistribution" to demand that they pull their own weight? remembering of course that although their tax rate is currently 35%, the 1% have access to lawyers and loopholes and write offs that ensure that they don't pay 35%.

So, I think that the whole "1% creates all the jobs and this is just wealth redistribution, (as though it were some sort of socialist concept), is just BS. Reality says otherwise.
 
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.

Everything on your list is off topic except for "labor rights". Your idea and my idea on "labor rights" differ a lot. If 2% of the people choose to work for the gov't and just over half of them want a union 1%+x, then you assert they have a right to pay a politician in need of campaign cash in exchange for an increase in pay and benefits in a contract. Once the vast majority decide that past contract was a bad idea, and elect a new politician, the new politician is somehow not allowed to change that deal in any way except to increase pay and benefits of the last politician? That is insane. No "right" except to FORCE all gov't workers to pay dues to the existing union as a condition of employment was taken, the rest was 'negotiated' by the "boss" as a take it or leave it deal, just like the last contract offered by the union and accepted by the "boss". Rights of the majority must be respected as well. You or any other citizen have no right to an ever increasing amount of public funding, that the majority do not possess to freeze or reduce that amount of public funding if they so choose. If you doubt the ability of the gov't to back out of a contract or deal, simply visit a native American tribe or look at your own social security "information".
 
Last edited:
Everything on your list is off topic except for "labor rights". Your idea and my idea on "labor rights" differ a lot.

It is right and proper to point out the truth: that the continued use of "property rights" by those on the right of the political continuum is a time honored tactic they have been employing for the last two centuries.

If you find that off topic - that indeed is one of the things we differ alot about.

I do not understand your posting about past contracts and majorities. Who exactly are you talking about in it?

Anytime a majority of workers in a union shop want out - there is a legal procedure for them to do so. Its part of the law. The rights of the majority are very much respected.

http://www.unionfacts.com/article/union-member-resources/how-to-decertify-your-union/
 
Last edited:
I have been to California many times.
I have been to Alabama once.

There are obvious reasons why.
Such as? Perehaps you are the unproductive sort. You would be welcomed in California. And maybe a little less in Alabama.
 
]Great. Then everyone is roughly paying the same percentage of their income for the functioning of government. So the rich are paying their fair share after all. Thanks for pointing that out.

the rich are paying far more actually dollars which means they are paying far more than their fair share. They pay many dollars for each dollar of services they get in return while the bottom 20% are paying pennies for dollars in government services
 
the rich are paying far more actually dollars which means they are paying far more than their fair share. They pay many dollars for each dollar of services they get in return while the bottom 20% are paying pennies for dollars in government services

This is why the term FAIR SHARE is meaningless and should be trashed and smashed, crushed and flushed. It is something nobody can agree upon.

So lets get rid of it in the interest of moving the discussion along past self imosed belief systems.
 
Back
Top Bottom