• 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

j-mac said:
It is Ditto....Look, as a person I like ya, we have known each other for a long time on these boards, and You alone with others have always provided debate instead of bomb throwing, regurgitations of talking point blather...You're a smart guy. So you tell me am I reading this wrong....In one post you say....



Then just a couple of postings later you say...



So at the very least you hedged your original statement....


Although I too am, as a worker myself for anything that would help boost my own take home pay, I also have an eye toward the longevity of the business that provides the job I do. It's like conservation. Is it that labor in Michigan on a auto assembly line is worth $28 per hour, while the same assembly on a line in South Carolina is only worth $17 per hour? While the factors that compile these disparities in pay for the "same" job exist on a host of factors such as cost of living in different areas, it is not all that. And the fact that cost of labor past, and present drive the over pricing of American made autos to the point that they can not be competitive in a world market without outsourcing. That is a problem in the long term vision of the labor force in their negotiation tactic, and push.

If labor unions are going to be relevant in the future they have to change the face they are now showing to the public. Over bloated institutions, heavily political, with a weighted agenda toward more Marxist ideology, and a sense of entitlement that boasts their greatest achievements that came a century ago, and after such great changes they helped usher in, they have settled for a frame of heavy handed, corrupt, and ugly tactics, fostered in associations with nefarious characters, and one sided political ideologies.

Their popularity has waned from nearly 40% in the 70s and 80s to just 7% now, and what face do they show? Trumpka, Hoffa, etc., all doing their part to divide instead of looking at how to make the Union a viable alternative again...They want to do it by force, instead of winning the argument, and that is their down fall.
Click to expand...

OK, let's see if I can make my position a little more clear, then.
The union is hired by the workers to negotiate better wages and working conditions for them, much as a lawyer is hired to negotiate for a better settlement, or perhaps a lighter sentence, in court.
The union is likely to put something on the table that it knows, the employer knows, and the workers should know, is not reasonable. The purpose of that is to establish a bargaining position. No one expects the other side to give in.
Management, usually through their lawyer or labor negotiator, will also come up with something that everyone knows is not reasonable and will be rejected.

From those extreme positions, each side gives a little bit until there is a middle position somewhere that both can live with.

That's how union labor negotiations work. I know from personal experience, having been on both sides of the table at one point or another.

If the management of the auto industry really agreed to nearly eighty bucks an hour for semiskilled labor, then they did a poor job of negotiation.

If I buy a car at sticker price, then that's not the fault of the dealership. I should have known better. And no, I've never bought a car at sticker price.

So, while the union is likely to place an unreasonable "demand" on the table, the rank and file is not going to go on strike to support it. If they do, then management is going to engage in some union busting, and things are likely to get ugly for both sides.

Without a union, the employees are individually negotiating with a much more powerful entity. Their choice is really my way or the highway, my way being whatever management wants to pay.

And, sometimes, what management wants to pay is perfectly reasonable. They do need to have a stable work force, after all, and the last thing they want is for labor to unionize.

So, in reality, the ability to unionize, even if the workers choose not to, helps keep wages up.

The unholy alliance between unions and politicians is another matter, as is the ability of large enterprises to purchase their own politicians. Money in politics is corrupting.
 
Dittohead not! said:
OK, let's see if I can make my position a little more clear, then.
The union is hired by the workers to negotiate better wages and working conditions for them, much as a lawyer is hired to negotiate for a better settlement, or perhaps a lighter sentence, in court.
The union is likely to put something on the table that it knows, the employer knows, and the workers should know, is not reasonable. The purpose of that is to establish a bargaining position. No one expects the other side to give in.
Management, usually through their lawyer or labor negotiator, will also come up with something that everyone knows is not reasonable and will be rejected.

From those extreme positions, each side gives a little bit until there is a middle position somewhere that both can live with.

That's how union labor negotiations work. I know from personal experience, having been on both sides of the table at one point or another.

If the management of the auto industry really agreed to nearly eighty bucks an hour for semiskilled labor, then they did a poor job of negotiation.

If I buy a car at sticker price, then that's not the fault of the dealership. I should have known better. And no, I've never bought a car at sticker price.

So, while the union is likely to place an unreasonable "demand" on the table, the rank and file is not going to go on strike to support it. If they do, then management is going to engage in some union busting, and things are likely to get ugly for both sides.

Without a union, the employees are individually negotiating with a much more powerful entity. Their choice is really my way or the highway, my way being whatever management wants to pay.

And, sometimes, what management wants to pay is perfectly reasonable. They do need to have a stable work force, after all, and the last thing they want is for labor to unionize.

So, in reality, the ability to unionize, even if the workers choose not to, helps keep wages up.

The unholy alliance between unions and politicians is another matter, as is the ability of large enterprises to purchase their own politicians. Money in politics is corrupting.
Click to expand...


*Sigh* I think we are talking past each other here....I can agree that Management made horrible deals that were not in the best interests of the company, and bear at least half of the responsibility of the outcome of those deals, which as we saw resulted in these companies on the brink of going under, and having to file bankruptcy. But, that doesn't absolve the Union end of it either...They knew that this program of guaranteeing full heatlt care, and 75% pension systems for 30 plus years in some cases were unsustainable, and yet once they got them, damaging or not would NEVER concede one iota of those deals without a strike. Which damages not only the business but the community as a whole when that happens, and politicians get involved.

This union system is a corrupt one, and arguing that unions are, or could be a positive force in some circumstances is not in question, what is in question is their current tactics. That must change or they will disappear.
 
j-mac said:
*Sigh* I think we are talking past each other here....I can agree that Management made horrible deals that were not in the best interests of the company, and bear at least half of the responsibility of the outcome of those deals, which as we saw resulted in these companies on the brink of going under, and having to file bankruptcy. But, that doesn't absolve the Union end of it either...They knew that this program of guaranteeing full heatlt care, and 75% pension systems for 30 plus years in some cases were unsustainable, and yet once they got them, damaging or not would NEVER concede one iota of those deals without a strike. Which damages not only the business but the community as a whole when that happens, and politicians get involved.

This union system is a corrupt one, and arguing that unions are, or could be a positive force in some circumstances is not in question, what is in question is their current tactics. That must change or they will disappear.
Click to expand...

Both union and management are to blame for overly expensive compensation packages, no doubt. That unions brought on the near (or perhaps still to come) demise of General Motors is not a logical conclusion. Nor is it reasonable to conclude that overly generous compensation raised the price of vehicles and made them uncompetitive. Prices of GM products are not really higher than those of other manufacturers.

If price were the biggest problem, Mercedes Benz would have been out of business a long time ago.

There is the factor of vehicles that consistently rank poorly in reliability when compared to similar and similarly priced vehicles made by other manufacturers. Your post above blames that one on the unions and their "pot smoking" members who make the cars. Now, I've never worked on an assembly line at GM, so I can't cite personal experience there. I do have experience driving and (unfortunately, at one point purchasing) GM products, and that experience tells me that their vehicles are not as well designed as are some of the others. Reading Consumer Reports and owner reports just confirms my hypothesis: GM cars are not as well designed as are the Hondas and Toyotas in particular.

And that bad experience I had with a GM car: It was not built on an assembly line in the USA, but was foreign made in reality.
 
Conservative said:
Yes, Reagan and Bush spent more money than any Previous President but Obama put that spending on steroids. And yes, Democrats controlled the House during the Reagan term announcing all Reagan Budgets Dead on Arrival. Reagan deficits 1.7 trillion, Bush deficits 4.9 trillion both in 8 years, Obama 5.6 trillion in 4 years.

Democrats controlled the Congress from January 2007 to January 2011. Basic civics would tell you who appropriates the money.
Click to expand...


Yes and quit try to gloss over exactly what Republicans did to this country over the last 30 years. At some point the reckless attitude displayed by Republicans through tax cuts that benefitted only the top earners, massive military spending, give aways to big corporations, the repeal of Glass Stegall, and a few other caused the whole economy to crash. Obama really did not have a choice but to spend to get us out of the whole. One point I would like to make is yes when Glass Stegall was repealed Clinton was President and should have vetoed that bill. However it would have passed regardless because of who controlled the congress. At some point the fiddler had to be paid and regardless who one in 2008 we were looking at masssive spending. So dont act like it wasnt a choice.

PolitiFact | Mitt Romney says Barack Obama has 'doubled' the deficit

However take a look at the above article and see what has actually been done since then. Very telling and most Republicans will not admit it. Instead like Romney they are not going to let facts get in the way of a good ole fashion lie.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Both union and management are to blame for overly expensive compensation packages, no doubt. That unions brought on the near (or perhaps still to come) demise of General Motors is not a logical conclusion. Nor is it reasonable to conclude that overly generous compensation raised the price of vehicles and made them uncompetitive.
Click to expand...

Ok, we can stop right here...This paragraph is such total pablum it is hard to even fathom what it really is that you think a Union may be responsible for? You are a union apologist and will not see the reality of the situation here....Union popularity is 7% Ditto, 7%....If Unions and their supporters like you don't wake the hell up, and realize that this ...

images-4.jpeg


Is a reality of what people think of when they think of unions.
 
Dittohead not! said:
As for the "American" brands, if there really is any such thing any more, I totally disagree that the added costs are the reasons they haven't been selling as briskly as some of the other brands. Look at the prices of similar models of Honda, Toyota, and Chevrolet, for example, and you'll see that the prices are quite similar. Chevy is most likely going to be the least expensive, as a matter of fact. Look at Consumer Reports, however, and talk to people who have owned these brands before, and you'll get the same story: Hondas and Toyotas are much more reliable and better designed. That's why the big three automakers are in trouble. It's called "competition", and without it, Chrysler, Ford and GM would still be selling us tail fins.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and the Hondas and Toyotas are made in America. In fact, they have more American content than the Big Three (which rely heavily on Canadian plants). And they are indeed more reliable and better designed. And they are made in RTW states. Coincidence??
 
TaraAnne said:
Yes and quit try to gloss over exactly what Republicans did to this country over the last 30 years. At some point the reckless attitude displayed by Republicans through tax cuts that benefitted only the top earners, massive military spending, give aways to big corporations, the repeal of Glass Stegall, and a few other caused the whole economy to crash. Obama really did not have a choice but to spend to get us out of the whole. One point I would like to make is yes when Glass Stegall was repealed Clinton was President and should have vetoed that bill. However it would have passed regardless because of who controlled the congress. At some point the fiddler had to be paid and regardless who one in 2008 we were looking at masssive spending. So dont act like it wasnt a choice.

PolitiFact | Mitt Romney says Barack Obama has 'doubled' the deficit

However take a look at the above article and see what has actually been done since then. Very telling and most Republicans will not admit it. Instead like Romney they are not going to let facts get in the way of a good ole fashion lie.
Click to expand...

Did you learn personal responsibility in school? every taxpayer got a tax cut and that allows people to spend their own money and you seem to have a problem with that. That is class envy and promotes class warfare. We have a 16.3 trillion dollar debt most of which came from social engineering.

You seem to have a real problem with rich people and Republicans ,how did they hurt you or your family? Accept a little responsibility for a change. Obama took office with a 10.6 trillion dollar debt which today is 16.3 trillion. What share are you paying of that debt service/
 
Conservative said:
Very Selective Memory you have as you ignore the elections of 1994 as well as the Tax reduction act of 1997. How convenient!! Democrats controlled the Congress when the Clinton tax increases were signed into law and that led to the "bloodbath" of 1994 and the economic turnaround.
Click to expand...


Whats selective about my post?Unlike yours,it addressed the post I quoted. You’re post seems to imply that somehow the "bloodbath of 1994" was somehow responsible for the surpluses of the Clinton years.

If so, point me towards any significant, second term bills passed,during that time that you feel is responsible for the surplus that occurred during the Clinton boom. Incidentally,at the start of Clinton's second term,the unemployment he inherited from bush #1,was=7.3, compared to the end of term one rate of=5.3.

Myself the only significant thing that I can recall is NAFTA;imo that mistake has,and is still is a drag.:( Thru these two bloodshot eyes the economy was well on its way into a rip roaring recovery when the so-called "bloodbath of 1994"hit.In spite of newts 1993 prediction that "the economy would suffer if Clinton raised marginal tax rates".

The state children's health-law,though commendable, hardly contributed to the boom. As a matter fact,if my memory serves me right, the republicans(at least in the house) were wasting away there time and treasure,lugging around a seamen stained dress, trying to impeach the President.

Hopefully, during Obamas second term,bohner will show SOME of leadership and sweep the"teabaggers/grovers" aside and then,just just maybe, we can get something accomplished during OUR PRESIDENTS second term.If not,there’s it onto 2014 and republican irrelevancy, at least on the national level, for years to come.
 
Whipsnade said:
Whats selective about my post?Unlike yours,it addressed the post I quoted. You’re post seems to imply that somehow the "bloodbath of 1994" was somehow responsible for the surpluses of the Clinton years.

If so, point me towards any significant, second term bills passed,during that time that you feel is responsible for the surplus that occurred during the Clinton boom. Incidentally,at the start of Clinton's second term,the unemployment he inherited from bush #1,was=7.3, compared to the end of term one rate of=5.3.

Myself the only significant thing that I can recall is NAFTA;imo that mistake has,and is still is a drag.:( Thru these two bloodshot eyes the economy was well on its way into a rip roaring recovery when the so-called "bloodbath of 1994"hit.In spite of newts 1993 prediction that "the economy would suffer if Clinton raised marginal tax rates".

The state children's health-law,though commendable, hardly contributed to the boom. As a matter fact,if my memory serves me right, the republicans(at least in the house) were wasting away there time and treasure,lugging around a seamen stained dress, trying to impeach the President.

Hopefully, during Obamas second term,bohner will show SOME of leadership and sweep the"teabaggers/grovers" aside and then,just just maybe, we can get something accomplished during OUR PRESIDENTS second term.If not,there’s it onto 2014 and republican irrelevancy, at least on the national level, for years to come.
Click to expand...


Yeah, maybe we can all just wad the Constitution up, and throw it in the trash, and cede all legislative budgetary oversight to Obama, and all become good little drones...I am giddy with anticipation....
 
Whipsnade;1061257124]Whats selective about my post?Unlike yours,it addressed the post I quoted. You’re post seems to imply that somehow the "bloodbath of 1994" was somehow responsible for the surpluses of the Clinton years.
Click to expand...

You realize no matter how many times you make the statement it still remains a lie according to the bank account of the United States. Please show me the budget surplus in the Treasury Data

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

why do you continue to perpetuate the lie. Please educate yourself on the budget of the United States and what makes up the deficit?

If so, point me towards any significant, second term bills passed,during that time that you feel is responsible for the surplus that occurred during the Clinton boom. Incidentally,at the start of Clinton's second term,the unemployment he inherited from bush #1,was=7.3, compared to the end of term one rate of=5.3.
Click to expand...

Tax Reduction Act of 1997 was in the Clinton second term. Google it and learn something

Myself the only significant thing that I can recall is NAFTA;imo that mistake has,and is still is a drag.:( Thru these two bloodshot eyes the economy was well on its way into a rip roaring recovery when the so-called "bloodbath of 1994"hit.In spite of newts 1993 prediction that "the economy would suffer if Clinton raised marginal tax rates".
Click to expand...

Continuing to relive the past only allows you to divert from the present and the disaster called Obama. You probably weren't very old during the Clinton years but that doesn't prevent you today from actually doing some research. You might want to start by googling the Contract with America

The state children's health-law,though commendable, hardly contributed to the boom. As a matter fact,if my memory serves me right, the republicans(at least in the house) were wasting away there time and treasure,lugging around a seamen stained dress, trying to impeach the President.
Click to expand...

Lying under oath is a felony

Hopefully, during Obamas second term,bohner will show SOME of leadership and sweep the"teabaggers/grovers" aside and then,just just maybe, we can get something accomplished during OUR PRESIDENTS second term.If not,there’s it onto 2014 and republican irrelevancy, at least on the national level, for years to come.
Click to expand...

LOL, teabaggers? We saw leadership when Obama had total control of the Congress but then again the leftwing sites you read won't show you how poor that leadership was. BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury will.
 
"Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets":

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion


The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
 
j-mac said:
"Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets":

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion


The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
Click to expand...

How can anyone look at those numbers and still claim there was a budget surplus? Any surplus would reduce the debt and as reported by the bank of the U.S. the debt rose every year and that debt increase includes debt service.
 
Conservative said:
How can anyone look at those numbers and still claim there was a budget surplus?
Click to expand...

There is none so blind as he who will not see. I think I heard that somewhere...
 
j-mac said:
Ok, we can stop right here...This paragraph is such total pablum it is hard to even fathom what it really is that you think a Union may be responsible for? You are a union apologist and will not see the reality of the situation here....Union popularity is 7% Ditto, 7%....If Unions and their supporters like you don't wake the hell up, and realize that this ...

View attachment 67139424


Is a reality of what people think of when they think of unions.
Click to expand...

That 7% is about the same as the approval rating of the US Congress. Should we disband that body as well?
 
Diogenes said:
Agreed, and the Hondas and Toyotas are made in America. In fact, they have more American content than the Big Three (which rely heavily on Canadian plants). And they are indeed more reliable and better designed. And they are made in RTW states. Coincidence??
Click to expand...

Coincidence that reliable and well designed cars are made in RTW states instead of in foreign nations? I don't know. What do you think the cause and effect might be?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Coincidence that reliable and well designed cars are made in RTW states instead of in foreign nations? I don't know. What do you think the cause and effect might be?
Click to expand...

What do you think it is?
 
j-mac said:
What do you think it is?
Click to expand...

Clearly, American workers do a better job than foreign ones.

Or, perhaps, the cars are better designed by the company before they even get to the assembly line.

Two possibilities.
 
TaraAnne said:
Really so now everyone that works a line is a drunk, potsmoking, undereducated loser. Well how typically Republican of you no wonder Republicans lost big in the last election. The facts are this country has the highest income gap in the world or very close to it.
Click to expand...
Some Republicans lost. Romney, for example.
Some Republicans won. The House of Representatives remains under Republican control.
Many states are now in Republican hands. If liberty and freedom are maintained it will occur in those states under Republican control.

What, in your opinion, is the problem with high earners keeping that which is theirs? Do you have a moral argument for why you have a greater right to their wealth than they do?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Clearly, American workers do a better job than foreign ones.

Or, perhaps, the cars are better designed by the company before they even get to the assembly line.

Two possibilities.
Click to expand...

It's clear that some American workers do a better job than other American workers. Is it only conicidence that the better performance comes in RTW states, where competence is allowed to trump seniority?
 
Diogenes said:
It's clear that some American workers do a better job than other American workers. Is it only conicidence that the better performance comes in RTW states, where competence is allowed to trump seniority?
Click to expand...

How is that clear when we're comparing vehicles built in RTW states vs ones built in Canada? Are Canadian workers also members of the UAW?
and, even if they are, how do we know there is a cause and effect relationship here? It still seems to me that the basic design of Hondas and Toyotas are, overall, superior to that of most of the Government Motors products.
 
j-mac said:
Yeah, maybe we can all just wad the Constitution up, and throw it in the trash, and cede all legislative budgetary oversight to Obama, and all become good little drones...I am giddy with anticipation....
Click to expand...

WTF does this post have to do with the post that you quoted?:lamo
 
j-mac said:
Wow, way to stay up to the moment in the thread...We have so moved on....You should too....
Click to expand...

And you appointed yourself the person responsible for getting the rest of the thread up on the herd eh?Typical winger trait.:2wave:
 
Dittohead not! said:
How is that clear when we're comparing vehicles built in RTW states vs ones built in Canada? Are Canadian workers also members of the UAW?
and, even if they are, how do we know there is a cause and effect relationship here? It still seems to me that the basic design of Hondas and Toyotas are, overall, superior to that of most of the Government Motors products.
Click to expand...

I don't claim a cause and effect relationship. I merely wonder whether or not it can be summarily dismissed as mere coincidence. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom