• 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!

Democrats threaten violence on Michigan House floor

Fenton said:
You realize Clinton gave halliburton their first " no bid" contract right ?

So much for your warmed over plattitudes
Click to expand...

Clinton also ramrodded NAFTA and got blow jobs in the oval office. But my 401's skyrocketed so I am not so quick to poo-poo him as I do Bush Corp.
 
Captain America said:
Well, I may never recover the losses I incurred back when the Halliburton, er, Cheny/Bush regime blew our money on unjustified wars and fat-cat corporate subsidies and Wall Street running roughshod through my life's 401 savings.

I mean, thanks to Obama, et al, I did recover my losses from the Bush era and my house value is back where it was before the Bush era. So, 8 years later, I'm back to even. But I would have a LOT more in the kitty had it not been for these fatcat, corporate/Wall Street ass kissers commonly known as the GOP.

So, there is five years of lost savings from the unions. 8 years of lost savings from the GOP. I'd just as soon that they both die and go to hell. But that's just me.
Click to expand...

Really, so you were directly affected by the cost of the wars, how? You claim our money has been spent and yet the govt. doesn't seem to have a problem spending more so again, how did the GOP hurt you and your family? seems to me that you believe Bush controlled the economy so much that he destroyed it without any help from the Democrat Controlled Congress?

I find it interesting that I lived during the same period of time and sold my stocks when the Democrats took control of Congress. If you recall, the economy grew from 9.9 trillion to 14.4 trillion during the Bush term and the stock market went over 14000 in 2007 so your losses were in 2008.

I survive regardless of who is President. It really is a shame that you depend so much on the President that you blame the entire party for your own mistakes.
 
Conservative said:
Really, so you were directly affected by the cost of the wars, how? You claim our money has been spent and yet the govt. doesn't seem to have a problem spending more so again, how did the GOP hurt you and your family? seems to me that you believe Bush controlled the economy so much that he destroyed it without any help from the Democrat Controlled Congress?

I find it interesting that I lived during the same period of time and sold my stocks when the Democrats took control of Congress. If you recall, the economy grew from 9.9 trillion to 14.4 trillion during the Bush term and the stock market went over 14000 in 2007 so your losses were in 2008.

I survive regardless of who is President. It really is a shame that you depend so much on the President that you blame the entire party for your own mistakes.
Click to expand...

So, the economy is only affected negatively when it's a democrat that's in office. Gotcha.

It's okay to put all the blame on Obama but Bush gets a pass. Gotcha.

If you want to agree that the president has little or nothing to do with the economy you do realize that you will also have to give Obama the same courtesy too, don't you?

Look, one thing leads to another. It's a domino effect. I would much rather have spent the billions wasted on the Bush Corp. wars on roads, education and healthcare right here in the good ol' USA. Or not spent the money at all.

I agree that there is plenty of blame to go around. But I am trying to relate in terms you guys might possibly understand. And if the buck stops at the Whitehouse, as you guys are insisting it does NOW, then Clinton gets the credit for my savings gains, Bush gets the blame for my savings losses and Obama gets the credit for me recouping my losses. Hey, they're YOUR rules. I mean, you guys blame Obama, democrats and liberals for everything from nose bleeds to **** warts. Just playing by YOUR rules.

You do know that if I had pulled out my 401 savings (which I had every intention on doing had Romney won the election,) I would lose 30% right off the top, don't you? Penalty and tax? Even though my stocks plummeted in value, I still had them. Thank goodness I didn't pull them or my gains would have been much lower. Hopefully, by the time Obama's second term is up, I will have pulled all my investments and be all set up to retire at my beach house in Tarpon Springs. After that, everybody can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. LOL!
 
Last edited:
Captain America said:
So, the economy is only affected negatively when it's a democrat that's in office. Gotcha.

It's okay to put all the blame on Obama but Bush gets a pass. Gotcha.

If you want to agree that the president has little or nothing to do with the economy you do realize that you will also have to give Obama the same courtesy too, don't you?

Look, one thing leads to another. It's a domino effect. I would much rather have spent the billions wasted on the Bush Corp. wars on roads, education and healthcare right here in the good ol' USA. Or not spent the money at all.

I agree that there is plenty of blame to go around. But I am trying to relate in terms you guys might possibly understand. And if the buck stops at the Whitehouse, as you guys are insisting it does NOW, then Clinton gets the credit for my savings gains, Bush gets the blame for my savings losses and Obama gets the credit for me recouping my losses. Hey, they're YOUR rules. I mean, you guys blame Obama, democrats and liberals for everything from nose bleeds to **** warts. Just playing by YOUR rules.

You do know that if I had pulled out my 401 savings (which I had every intention on doing had Romney won the election,) I would lose 30% right off the top, don't you? Penalty and tax? Even though my stocks plummeted in value, I still had them. Thank goodness I didn't pull them or my gains would have been much lower. Hopefully, by the time Obama's second term is up, I will have pulled all my investments and be all set up to retire at my beach house in Tarpon Springs. After that, everybody can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. LOL!
Click to expand...

So no answer to the question as to how GW Bush and Republicans hurt you and your family? Just goes to show that like far too many you buy rhetoric and ignore substance and facts. You stated that there is plenty of blame to go around yet you levy it all on Bush. You blame Bush for budgets that created a 4.9 trillion debt in 8 yrs but not Obama spending that has added 5.6 trillion in 4.

Facts seem to have no place in your world, Democrats took control of the Congress in January 2007 and thus were in charge of the budget for 2008 and 2009. Where is your outrage over Democrat actions or do you not know how our govt. works?

Like all liberals you seem to believe that all taxes are the same and ignore the purpose of those taxes. You really need to educate yourself on all the taxes you pay and what they fund. In the meantime I will continue to wait for you to explain how the GOP and Bush hurt you and your family?

Do you understand how investments work? You don't lose a dime if you don't sell and since there has been an improvement in the stock market any paper loss in 2008 has been recovered none due to Obama policies.

it really is too bad that far too many have your attitude and lack of understanding of civics.
 
j-mac said:
Because while at a point in their history they were a needed answer to a problem in the country regarding business, that reasoning has been addressed, so they have moved to communist greed, and communist ideology.

But considering your own avitar, I don't need to tell you that....
Click to expand...

Communist greed? I think capitalism is far more associated with greed, I don't think too many would disagree with me there.

Unions have meetings, in those meeting the union members (such as myself) get together and we vote on important issues that are brought up. This to me is far more Democratic than what current "private sector" business' are run by.

I would say that Unions are Democratic, and Private Industry is more Dictatorial.
 
OnWisconsin said:
Communist greed? I think capitalism is far more associated with greed, I don't think too many would disagree with me there.

Unions have meetings, in those meeting the union members (such as myself) get together and we vote on important issues that are brought up. This to me is far more Democratic than what current "private sector" business' are run by.

I would say that Unions are Democratic, and Private Industry is more Dictatorial.
Click to expand...

Do you have such little faith in your own ability that you would happily retire after a lifetime of union membership and on a union generated pension that may or not be fully funded? I will never understand anyone that spends their entire career as a union employee and never being rewarded for individual initiative or creativity.
 
OnWisconsin said:
Communist greed? I think capitalism is far more associated with greed, I
don't think too many would disagree with me there.

Unions have meetings, in those meeting the union members (such as myself) get together and we vote on important issues that are brought up. This to me is far more Democratic than what current "private sector" business' are run by.

I would say that Unions are Democratic, and Private Industry is more Dictatorial.
Click to expand...

There is nothing democratic about being forced to pay Union dues because of your geographical location.

But we may not have to put up with the Union stealing for long with more States going to right to work.

That and the stupidity of the union tendency to kill the golden goose will rid us of the union curse once and for all.
 
Conservative said:
Do you have such little faith in your own ability that you would happily retire after a lifetime of union membership and on a union generated pension that may or not be fully funded? I will never understand anyone that spends their entire career as a union employee and never being rewarded for individual initiative or creativity.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Daniel J. Boorstin, former librarian of Congress, has written several books about the American experience. In The Americans: The Democratic Experience, Boorstin describes a number of commercial innovations unique to America that helped shape the country. One of these innovations was that items were made no better than they had to be: in Europe things like saddles and muskets and dinnerware and buggies were produced by craftsmen who made each item to the best of their ability; the Americans developed an assembly line approach that set a minimum acceptable standard for each item, and they made sure that not a single penny was spent to make any individual item stand out from the rest. The American approach meant the items could be sold a lower price than the European equivalent, and the most obvious example is Henry Ford making the automobile available to ordinary folks.

There is a drawback when you apply this line of thinking to labor, as the unions have done: instead of rewarding or celebrating initiative and creativity, these characteristics are actively discouraged, the quality of the workforce degenerates to the lowest acceptable level and union members become interchangeable automatons. Then the only thing that counts is seniority - if you can avoid being fired for a few years, you are considered more valuable than the more competent newcomer and there is no longer a distinction between ten years experience, and one year's experience repeated ten times.

This approach probably has some validity for a mind-numbing assembly line job during the industrial age, but it really doesn't have a place in most of the modern world where initiative and creativity are the keys to success. While most of the pro-union arguments on this thread revolve around wages, wages are not a real problem in a mobile society. The anti-union arguments are against the ridiculous work rules (e.g., Hostess having to deliver cakes and bread in separate trucks) that cripple companies by making them non-competitive.

The bottom line is that unions must move from the 19th century into the 21st century to remain viable, and that means rethinking their business model to something that provides a service their members are willing to pay for. And I predict they will not do that if their members don't have the freedom to take a walk.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
The corporatist viewpoint again, we have reached labor utopia!

If unions had outlived their usefulness, then there would be no need to legislatively cripple them.
Click to expand...
Were they not legislative enabled? Why not level the playing field?

Are you pro-choice?
 
Misterveritis said:
But unions do need government to further their agendas?
Click to expand...
The context was that corporations and conservatives are all boot-strappy, they don't need help from law to rise...but they do.
 
Corporations are legislatively enabled.
Got a point?
Click to expand...

Oh, really? Context is important. Corporations do not require employees to invest in the company, nor do they legally require anyone else to invest in the corporation. That is the context of Union legislation enablement. Your argument is specious at best.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
The context was that corporations and conservatives are all boot-strappy, they don't need help from law to rise...but they do.
Click to expand...
Don't be silly.

Unions cannot last without government coercion to compel people to pay protection money.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Oh, really? Context is important. Corporations do not require employees to invest in the company, nor do they legally require anyone else to invest in the corporation. That is the context of Union legislation enablement. Your argument is specious at best.
Click to expand...
I am not trying to equate corporate structure to union structure, that was not the context. The context was whether or not corporatists were relying upon legislation to further their agenda when the argument was that they do everything on a "free market" basis.

Speciousness.....indeed.
 
Misterveritis said:
No one is compelled to pay a corporation to be employed.
No one should have to be a member of a union to work.

Do you have a point?
Click to expand...
False premise with strawman, federal law prohibits denial of work based upon union membership.

You missed the point, now you are going off on something else entirely.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
False premise with strawman, federal law prohibits denial of work based upon union membership.

You missed the point, now you are going off on something else entirely.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you [deliberately] omit that the same federal law requires the employee to pay the union even if they choose to not be a member. A membership requirement nonetheless.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I am not trying to equate corporate structure to union structure, that was not the context. The context was whether or not corporatists were relying upon legislation to further their agenda when the argument was that they do everything on a "free market" basis.

Speciousness.....indeed.
Click to expand...

When there is a federal law requiring investment within the corporation as a condition of employment, you may have a point. Until then the situations are very, very different.

The union law is a condition of employment. That is the essential difference.
 
clownboy said:
Yes, but you [deliberately] omit that the same federal law requires the employee to pay the union even if they choose to not be a member. A membership requirement nonetheless.
Click to expand...
if they receive benefits procured by union action....duh. That is not denying them work.
 
OpportunityCost said:
When there is a federal law requiring investment within the corporation as a condition of employment, you may have a point. Until then the situations are very, very different.
Click to expand...
Um, that was entirely your creation, it was neither the context or my argument, it is completely obtuse.

The union law is a condition of employment. That is the essential difference.
Click to expand...
Laws requiring corporate charter also are a "condition of employment", what has that got to do with the price of tea in China?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
False premise with strawman, federal law prohibits denial of work based upon union membership.

You missed the point, now you are going off on something else entirely.
Click to expand...
I get it. You are probably a union member. You might even be a union thug.

But I am not going to play your silly game.
 
clownboy said:
Yes, but you [deliberately] omit that the same federal law requires the employee to pay the union even if they choose to not be a member. A membership requirement nonetheless.
Click to expand...

And that is a prime example of mob like "tribute", or payola...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, that was entirely your creation, it was neither the context or my argument, it is completely obtuse.

Laws requiring corporate charter also are a "condition of employment", what has that got to do with the price of tea in China?
Click to expand...

No. It is what occurs. You want to say that corporations seek political advantage through legislative issues. All well and good, but they do not force employees to contribute as a condition to working there. Unions require contributions in non right to work states...as a condition of employment. They have legislated this protection scheme into law in several places. That is the difference.

The fact you cannot or will not address this makes it easy to see how you want to steer the conversation, and are failing to do so. Its not my argument, it is the facts and the context of "corporate legislative advantage" and how Unions use legislation to their advantage. You just dont want to see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom