• 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!

Income Inequality

What should be done to battle income inequality in the USA?

  • Do not intervene

    Votes: 39 53.4%
  • Yes, do intervene

    Votes: 34 46.6%

  • Total voters
    73
I was alive back then. millions of people were not starving to death

:dramallama:
Well according to the numbers you would be wrong. And you can be starving without dieing. Starving means to suffer greatly from hunger as well as to be dieing from hunger. many did back then, and still more do today. I know plenty of people I am sure are starving now. Not to death, but they suffer greatly from hunger everyday.

IMO (given your stated views) you were not and do not pay attention to such things, that in fact you probably try to turn a blind eye, as many do.

I was alive is not proof.

What's your religion? Seriously what is it? I am agnostic.
 
I'm not sure how to google it and find the answer. I just remember that we had to have a separate donation for the political action committee, and that those donations were voluntary and were above the regular union dues.

Based on my searches and readings, it appears dues can be used by unions for political purposes. As I wrote in another post, Prop 32 in 2012 sought to curtain this type of spending and was defeated.

This NY Times article outlines the issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/us/politics/battle-over-unions-moves-to-california.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

If passed, it would also bar unions from using automatic payroll deductions to raise money for political campaigns, a major source of labor’s political funding.​

I'm not sure what the distinction is regarding automatic payroll deductions. Aren't dues collected via automatic payroll deduction?

Going with the assumption they are, it would appear all dues collected can be used in any manner the unions seem fit, including political activity, otherwise Prop 32 would not have been introduced.
 
Well according to the numbers you would be wrong. And you can be starving without dieing. Starving means to suffer greatly from hunger as well as to be dieing from hunger. many did back then, and still more do today. I know plenty of people I am sure are starving now. Not to death, but they suffer greatly from hunger everyday.

IMO (given your stated views) you were not and do not pay attention to such things, that in fact you probably try to turn a blind eye, as many do.

I was alive is not proof.

What's your religion? Seriously what is it? I am agnostic.

you failed to prove your point.
 
Yes thats true, but it hurts the working man-you are under the unions thumb or bounce. Not very free, is it?

You're under your bosses thumb everywhere you work.

And the union gets you much more money for the work you do.

There are issues with many unions. But right to work isn't about working. Its about killing unions.
 
This is a vague answer. So, no FDA? OSHA? What I mean is, in what way, exactly, would you free the US market?

The majority problem is with government oversight and corporate welfare. The rules would need to be changed to hold everyone to the same standards, and we'd have to stop allowing the government to bail out losers of economic games, the market would have to take care of it.

FDA? Probably would still exist on some level. OSHA? Of course. It's not to say that government intervention is always bad or unwarranted. Sometimes the market will not have innate limitations that need to be enforced by an outside source. But when it entangles so completely and then starts to select winners itself, we move away from the Free Market system.
 
Based on my searches and readings, it appears dues can be used by unions for political purposes. As I wrote in another post, Prop 32 in 2012 sought to curtain this type of spending and was defeated.

This NY Times article outlines the issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/us/politics/battle-over-unions-moves-to-california.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

If passed, it would also bar unions from using automatic payroll deductions to raise money for political campaigns, a major source of labor’s political funding.​

I'm not sure what the distinction is regarding automatic payroll deductions. Aren't dues collected via automatic payroll deduction?

Going with the assumption they are, it would appear all dues collected can be used in any manner the unions seem fit, including political activity, otherwise Prop 32 would not have been introduced.

From the article:

The measure, Proposition 32 on the November ballot, would prohibit both unions and corporations from making contributions, but the corporate provision is far less stringent than the one aimed at unions, analysts said. If passed, it would also bar unions from using automatic payroll deductions to raise money for political campaigns, a major source of labor’s political funding.

It would supposedly prohibit all donors other than individuals from contributing to campaigns, but (surprise) the corporate provision is "less stringent", read, "unenforceable".


And, the wording of the proposition does imply that union dues are used for political campaigns, which would be something new. Let's see what I can find out:

The landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Communications Workers of America v. Beck (1988) lets union members get a refund for the part of their dues that are used for political activity. Learn more about your Beck rights.
Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (2010) altered the ways that unions can spend money in federal elections. Find out how Citizens United changed union political spending.

From the "citizens United" link:

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2003, also known as “BCRA” or “McCain-Feingold”, put restrictions on unions and corporations and the independent expenditures they could make if the funds came from the general treasury:

No “electioneering communication,” defined as “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” that is “publicly distributed” within 30 days of a primary election
No speech that expressly advocates for a candidate’s election or defeat
If a union or corporation wanted to do this, it had to set up a separate political action committee (PAC), that is typically funded by individuals within the union or corporation.

An “independent expenditure” is money spent by groups or individuals that are not controlled by a candidate (such as his or her campaign committee).

Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation created under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Citizens United wanted to run television commercials to advertise their documentary that negatively portrayed then-candidate for president Senator Hillary Clinton within 30 days of a primary. The group asked for a court order that said it would be able to run the commercials and stop the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from finding it in violation of BCRA. After many decisions and appeals, the case made it to the United States Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Opinion

The Supreme Court’s opinion said several things, but the key takeaways were that a union or corporation:

Can make independent expenditures from its general treasury without creating a PAC. The court held that the BCRA section that banned this political speech violated the First Amendment.
Must still publicly disclose its identity if it sponsored an advertisement.
Cannot directly donate to a candidate or candidate’s committee.

So, the rules have changed since I was involved. The union can, as per the Supreme Court, sponsor "speech", i.e., political ads, but can't contribute to a candidate.
 
1.) What has caused this phenomenon

Fred Foldvary has an excellent article on the causes and possible solutions to poverty
Foldvary on Fixing Capitalism

While some wealth inequality is perfectly natural, the privatization of our commons without proper restitution is a major contributor to the inequality we are seeing.

2.) What are the long term implications if the trend is allowed to continue

Continuing growth of inequality, unrest, more crime, possible revolution.

3.) What, if anything, should be done to adjust our course

Replace our current tax system with LVT and create a citizens dividend.
 
From the article:



It would supposedly prohibit all donors other than individuals from contributing to campaigns, but (surprise) the corporate provision is "less stringent", read, "unenforceable".


And, the wording of the proposition does imply that union dues are used for political campaigns, which would be something new. Let's see what I can find out:



From the "citizens United" link:



So, the rules have changed since I was involved. The union can, as per the Supreme Court, sponsor "speech", i.e., political ads, but can't contribute to a candidate.

There may have been some special type of union worker contribution that had to be kept separate, but based on what I've known and what I have seen, dues have always been available for political purposes.

This automatic function was behind the scam the SEIU pulled with Home Health Care workers. I'm going to guess they collected close to $400 million over the years from California alone, when the legislators they purchased approved the classifying of in home health providers as public employees, and immediately started collecting dues, which the state withheld from payments and sent to the SEIU.

Considering they did the same in Illinois and in other states, that must be well over $1 billion they collected (The Supreme Court just stopped that) and have been using for whatever political purposes they want.

I think one needs to be careful when making statements containing absolutes, as you did multiple times on this subject. "It's against the law in California for unions etc., etc." is clearly an inaccurate statement, and misrepresents the facts.
 
There may have been some special type of union worker contribution that had to be kept separate, but based on what I've known and what I have seen, dues have always been available for political purposes.

This automatic function was behind the scam the SEIU pulled with Home Health Care workers. I'm going to guess they collected close to $400 million over the years from California alone, when the legislators they purchased approved the classifying of in home health providers as public employees, and immediately started collecting dues, which the state withheld from payments and sent to the SEIU.

Considering they did the same in Illinois and in other states, that must be well over $1 billion they collected (The Supreme Court just stopped that) and have been using for whatever political purposes they want.

I think one needs to be careful when making statements containing absolutes, as you did multiple times on this subject. "It's against the law in California for unions etc., etc." is clearly an inaccurate statement, and misrepresents the facts.
It was against the law, and still is against the law to contribute to a candidate using dues money. Yes, there is a special type of contribution, and it is voluntary and above and beyond union dues. That hasn't gone away. I didn't realize that the Supreme Court had ruled that the prohibition of using dues for political ads was an infringement on free speech.

But, you're right about one thing: One needs to be careful when making statements containing absolutes, like this one: "Dues have always been available for political purposes."
 
It was against the law, and still is against the law to contribute to a candidate using dues money. Yes, there is a special type of contribution, and it is voluntary and above and beyond union dues. That hasn't gone away. I didn't realize that the Supreme Court had ruled that the prohibition of using dues for political ads was an infringement on free speech.

But, you're right about one thing: One needs to be careful when making statements containing absolutes, like this one: "Dues have always been available for political purposes."

They are, and they continue to be. Perhaps you should learn more about this issue before you add to evidence you have no idea. The Supreme Court ruling did not prohibit union spending on politics, it prohibited the way unions like the SEIU were confiscating dues from paychecks.

Perhaps it's time you file your posts under "Quit while behind", because you've taken more steps backwards.
 
They are, and they continue to be. Perhaps you should learn more about this issue before you add to evidence you have no idea. The Supreme Court ruling did not prohibit union spending on politics, it prohibited the way unions like the SEIU were confiscating dues from paychecks.

Perhaps it's time you file your posts under "Quit while behind", because you've taken more steps backwards.

No more than you should have.
"The Supreme Court ruling did not prohibit union spending on politics" No, according to my sources and what I said earlier, it expanded the ability of unions to spend dues money on politics.


"It prohibited the way unions like the SEIU were confiscating dues from paychecks." No, unions still deduct dues just as they always have.

Perhaps, before starting to leap, hoot, and declare victory in some debate no one is judging anyway, you need to read what has actually been posted.
 
No more than you should have.
"The Supreme Court ruling did not prohibit union spending on politics" No, according to my sources and what I said earlier, it expanded the ability of unions to spend dues money on politics.


"It prohibited the way unions like the SEIU were confiscating dues from paychecks." No, unions still deduct dues just as they always have.

Perhaps, before starting to leap, hoot, and declare victory in some debate no one is judging anyway, you need to read what has actually been posted.

LOL. I don't need to hoot and holler. That's not my style.

Obviously, you have no idea what the Supreme court ruled on, nor what the scope of that ruling was.

As to reading what was posted, I did. Try to remember that my original comment was in response to your claim about union spending on politics in California. We now understand the accuracy of that statement.
 
LOL. I don't need to hoot and holler. That's not my style.

Obviously, you have no idea what the Supreme court ruled on, nor what the scope of that ruling was.

As to reading what was posted, I did. Try to remember that my original comment was in response to your claim about union spending on politics in California. We now understand the accuracy of that statement.

The Supreme Court ruling was that unions could use dues money to pay for political ads. Before that, it was against the law to do so, and so the unions had to collect funds for political purposes above and beyond the dues collected.

So, now they can run political ads with dues money. Before that, they couldn't.

I didn't know about the ruling until researching the issue, so I did learn something. Maybe you did too, I'm not sure.

Now as for whether unions should be able to be involved in political decisions, that's quite another issue.
 
There's a lot of discussion about school choice. I haven't been able to find any but for the people that act as if it's a no brainer, which country that beats the US in test scores use a private system or a system that includes lots of private schools?

Most I've found are highly centralized public school system and teacher are typically well paid. In some of the countries teachers are revered by society.

If there is a school system out there performing well with a public private mix or heavily private I can see how some people might point to that as why we should go private but at the moment, all I see is trillion in potential wealth to private companies at stake and huge PR campaigns in which what's promised doesn't pan out.
 
The Supreme Court ruling was that unions could use dues money to pay for political ads. Before that, it was against the law to do so, and so the unions had to collect funds for political purposes above and beyond the dues collected.

So, now they can run political ads with dues money. Before that, they couldn't.

I didn't know about the ruling until researching the issue, so I did learn something. Maybe you did too, I'm not sure.

Now as for whether unions should be able to be involved in political decisions, that's quite another issue.

I don't know what you researched, but it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the Supreme Court ruling that outlawed the classification of home healthcare workers as public employees, thus providing a massive windfall of union dues the SEIU then used for political purposes.

Justices Rule Certain Workers Can't Be Forced to Pay Union Fees - WSJ

WASHINGTON—Home-based care workers in Illinois aren't full-fledged public employees so they can't be forced to pay dues to a union they don't want to join, a divided Supreme Court said. But the limited ruling stopped short of barring organized labor from collecting fees from government workers who object to union representation.
 
There are Federal laws in place now for worker protections. The best worker protection is to do a very good job each day.

The laws are insufficient as written and enforced to create a robust middle class. Workers are not protected enough.
 
The laws are insufficient as written and enforced to create a robust middle class. Workers are not protected enough.

workers who want to be middle class in terms of US standards need to be able to compete better than the middle classes in India, China, Mexico etc
 
workers who want to be middle class in terms of US standards need to be able to compete better than the middle classes in India, China, Mexico etc

To be honest, they really can't because the standard of living here is so much higher than in India, China, Mexico, etc. that they have to be paid more here, just to be in the middle class, than people in those other countries. Our most destitute people usually make more getting a government check than the middle class in lots of third world nations.
 
I don't know what you researched, but it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the Supreme Court ruling that outlawed the classification of home healthcare workers as public employees, thus providing a massive windfall of union dues the SEIU then used for political purposes.

Justices Rule Certain Workers Can't Be Forced to Pay Union Fees - WSJ

WASHINGTON—Home-based care workers in Illinois aren't full-fledged public employees so they can't be forced to pay dues to a union they don't want to join, a divided Supreme Court said. But the limited ruling stopped short of barring organized labor from collecting fees from government workers who object to union representation.
So, we're on a different subject now.

If I understand you correctly, then, home based care workers are not required to pay dues to the union, but organized labor can still collect fees from government workers who don't want union representation.

I'm not sure what that has to do with political contributions, but whatever.

The nature of union representation is that everyone is included. Either a particular labor group is represented, or it is not. The union can not represent only those who pay dues, and exclude the rest. If, for example, the union negotiates a pay raise, then everyone gets the raise whether they do or don't want to be a part of the union. Do we agree on that point?
 
So, we're on a different subject now.

If I understand you correctly, then, home based care workers are not required to pay dues to the union, but organized labor can still collect fees from government workers who don't want union representation.

I'm not sure what that has to do with political contributions, but whatever.

The nature of union representation is that everyone is included. Either a particular labor group is represented, or it is not. The union can not represent only those who pay dues, and exclude the rest. If, for example, the union negotiates a pay raise, then everyone gets the raise whether they do or don't want to be a part of the union. Do we agree on that point?

No, all the same subject, if you followed the thread. It has to do with union dues, how it's collected, who it's collected from, and how it is spent. I cited the recent Supreme Court case as an example because it illustrated that unions, including those in California, most certainly do use dues for political purposes, which you tried to suggest is not allowed by law.

Their ruling was that unions, and state legislatures they bought to pass the legislation, can't reclassify home health care workers as public employees and then in collusion with state officials, become the lone bargaining force allowed to collect dues from people who don't want to join. The whole purpose in California, where this home health care scam originated, was to stuff the coffers of the union so it could spend $10's of millions on political issues. The SEIU is on the Board of George Soros Democracy Alliance, along with other Progressive forces like the NEA, and the AFL-CIO.

The collective bargaining aspect has nothing to do with the issue of what unions can do with dues and politics.
 
It's indisputable fact that income inequality in the United States has grown substantially in the past few decades.

Median nominal incomes, adjusted for inflation, have not gone up in the USA since the 50's. (Median is the halfway point, so we are talking about the middle-earner). In contrast, the per capita GDP has risen quite dramatically, due to the increased purchasing power of the upper echelon.


I pose three questions to you:

1.) What has caused this phenomenon
2.) What are the long term implications if the trend is allowed to continue
3.) What, if anything, should be done to adjust our course


Thanks

anonymous polls suck
 
workers who want to be middle class in terms of US standards need to be able to compete better than the middle classes in India, China, Mexico etc

Do you really think US workers can compete with wages in places like China and Singapore?
 
workers who want to be middle class in terms of US standards need to be able to compete better than the middle classes in India, China, Mexico etc

Workers in China, India, and Mexico should be working under the same protections as US workers. If they're underpaying them and working in sweatshops with no environmental standards, they shouldn't be entering our market and undercutting our workers.
 
Do you really think US workers can compete with wages in places like China and Singapore?

of course not at a low skill level but if they want to live middle class lifestyles they need to be able to out produce those workers.

global economics is the rule and income redistributionist schemes aren't going to change that
 
Back
Top Bottom