• 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
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...

and the owner of that company should be able to fire you for "banding together"
 
haymarket said:
That was a major part of the argument. To deny it was is just a lie.
Click to expand...

Slaves were legitimate property under the laws of that day. We might have been far better off if the parties who wanted to abolish slavery had just purchased and freed the slaves.
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

Please see my post # 293.
 
teamosil said:
Why? That is totally absurd. You think we should just pretend the regressive taxes don't exist? Why? Just to intentionally distort our understanding of the tax system? Obviously you understand that's stupid.



Because, obviously, that makes no sense whatsoever... How could anybody possibly know whether a tax should be more progressive or more flat or whatever without knowing where we stand currently?
Click to expand...

You miss the point and then pretend it doesn't exist. You think that progressive taxes should become even more progressive in order to make the overall system more progressive.

I realize you don't understand this You have engaged in diversion, evasion and downright obfuscation on this point.
 
jet57 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
Slaves were legitimate property under the laws of that day. We might have been far better off if the parties who wanted to abolish slavery had just purchased and freed the slaves.
Click to expand...

An interesting idea. Sadly, it falls into the category of Coulda Shoulda Woulda.
 
haymarket said:
It had a great deal more to do with the quality of life.
Click to expand...
To each his own. The leaches of society do well in California. The productive move on with their lives. Every year it gets worse there. Every year those who can move do. Those who have things that tie them to the area suffer. It was the same in NAZI Germany in 1936-37. The ones who tarried a bit ended up paying a very heavy price.

When I lived there every day there were stories of small companies moving out of LA to Nevada. I suspect it is still true today.
 
earthworm said:
But, in the past, this was a practice...And if the conservatives fully take over this November, expect the past to return...
Quite the horrible thought....
Click to expand...

be afraid, be very afraid. You might have to pay for your own food and shelter.
 
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Thrilla said:
obvious reason eh.... let me think...

you enjoy surfing and the waves in Alabama suck?
Click to expand...

No castro street in Alabama?:mrgreen:
 
haymarket said:
Aha!!!! That must explain why Alabama has seven times the population of California? ;)
Click to expand...
Yes. It has the millionaires and billionaires the one term Marxist flexible president Barrack Hussein Obama enjoys so much along with many millions of illegal aliens and poor. It is well on the way to resembling any medium-sized third world country.
 
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

tell that to your master Barack Oblamer who claims the rich don't pay their fair share

tell that to his marxist midget supporter Robert Reich



The rich should have no duty to pay as much as the parasite advocates claim they should
 
Misterveritis said:
To each his own. The leaches of society do well in California. The productive move on with their lives. Every year it gets worse there. Every year those who can move do. Those who have things that tie them to the area suffer. It was the same in NAZI Germany in 1936-37. The ones who tarried a bit ended up paying a very heavy price.

When I lived there every day there were stories of small companies moving out of LA to Nevada. I suspect it is still true today.
Click to expand...

I guess that is why Alabama has seven times the population of California. :roll:;)
 
haymarket said:
We had that discussion. Your side lost.
Click to expand...

But we are winning now. global economics are wiping away private sector unions and taxpayers tire of the parasitic and bloated greedy public sector unions. REPEAT AFTER ME WALKER WON BY A HIGHER MARGIN than he did last time
 
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

Personal property rights are one of the basis of economics. An economic breakdown occurs when personal property rights are violated.
 
TurtleDude said:
tell that to his marxist midget supporter Robert Reich
Click to expand...

Viciously attacking people because of their height now. I should say I am shocked. But I do not lie that well.
 
haymarket said:
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.

Union Facts : How To Decertify Your Union
Click to expand...

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. ;-)
 
Last edited:
zgoldsmith23 said:
Personal property rights are one of the basis of economics. An economic breakdown occurs when personal property rights are violated.
Click to expand...



The standard right libertarian position to be sure. Yes, we fully understand that.
 
haymarket said:
Why are you asking personal questions?
Click to expand...
It pays to know ones enemies. I would expect a school teacher to understand property. You do not. I hope you did not harm too many with your views.

You need not answer. I vaguely remember someone saying you were and you did not deny it.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
The standard right libertarian position to be sure. Yes, we fully understand that.
Click to expand...

no you don't. YOu reject the concept of personal property. you have stated that the masses have the right to violate personal property rights whenever they want
 
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 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...

And you voice those rights through the normal democratic process.
 
TurtleDude said:
no you don't. YOu reject the concept of personal property. you have stated that the masses have the right to violate personal property rights whenever they want
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom