Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Buy less! Fix things 1st! trade! buy used! Recycle! Shop local! Buy USA Union made!

Posted 7 years ago on Nov. 23, 2012, 10:22 a.m. EST by VQkag2 (16478)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Simple concepts to help your world, your nations economy, your neighbors.




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 7 years ago

When you fix something, and do it well, try and make a web page or youtube video about how you did it if searches show little info on it. Include any specifications you might have for the device or whatever it is, including some of those you might not have used.

Keep in mind that text is searched while video content is not, only the tags indicate what is in it. .pdf's are also spidered, but they are a pain to view depending on your browser.

Also, if you've found a very good product, make a review, the same for a bad one. Be technical if possible.

And stop buying plastic crap from china.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

This is the 1st step necessary to re order society and refocus on the 99%


Get with the program!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago


[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

STOP, buying plastic non union crap from China!

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 7 years ago

Definately going to buy used, and on clearance. However, I believe people should lie in the bed they make for themselves. I dont beleive I can afford to buy american let alone union. The people of this land has kept home and land ownership from me for 48 years. Now that I began the 30 year mortgage process at a nice low rate of 3.2%. Im not sure I feel sorry for anyone who is struggling. I say let them lie in the bed they made for themselves, while me and my family rake in what is due us, having acheieved the true state of self reliance and having never ripped off another american as they collectively did and are still trying to do to us on a near daily basis.

As my phone continuously rings off the hook for more business, and bait and switch salesmen and women (alternatively). I repeat the speech to them I have said so many times, "What a shame that you have to lie and deceive other people to put food on your table", and hang up.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I'm not sure what group you are upset with.

Care to specify.?

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

Do like the Swiss.! Get pissed enough to vote on obscene fat cat salaries.



[-] -1 points by BlueMonday (-154) 7 years ago

all swiss citizens are required to own guns,................. you agree with that?

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

Nope. Do you?

[-] -2 points by BlueMonday (-154) 7 years ago

i agree with the swiss govt requiring all citizens to own guns. the govt issues them to their citizen and trains them

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 7 years ago

The Swiss don't have a standing army. That's why most Swiss own guns. They are part of a well regulated militia. Under the control of the government. You likely don't have that excuse.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

Cool site that encourages reuse, barter and so forth.



[-] -3 points by BlueMonday (-154) 7 years ago

try reading the constitution, article I section 8 clause 16. the second amendment ( the entire bill of rights ) is about individual freedom(s).

[-] 4 points by Buttercup (1067) 7 years ago

Our Constitution has nothing to do with the Swiss. We have a standing army. We no longer rely soley on a citizens militia.

Try reading case law. Rights are not absolute and limitless. There are all sorts of limits on rights. Try reading Scalia from Heller. “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

Type of gun can be restricted. We banned fully automatic weapons 100 years ago. As well as restrictions on time, place and manner.

You have the individual right to a reasonable level of self defense. It's already been determined that the right to own a gun can absolutely be restricted and regulated as to type, time, place and manner.

"The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". - Scalia, Heller.

[-] -1 points by BlueMonday (-154) 7 years ago

what you quote scalia saying is not the complete quote.

[-] -3 points by Einsatzgruppen1 (-56) 7 years ago

So what?

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

Would you consider supporting labor by signing this petition?


[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

Why? Do you support the NRA arming criminals?


[-] -2 points by BlueMonday (-154) 7 years ago

left wing site.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

Got a problem with the left wing?

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

You don't believe it?

What about NRA kickbacks for every gun sold?


[-] -2 points by BlueMonday (-154) 7 years ago

no, i dont believe it. and the nra supports gun safety training. your site is lying.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

The Site(S) ain't mine. "gun safety"? Yeah that is a huge profit center for the NRA! You make my point.

NRA only fights for gun profits over people. Their phony claims of concern for our rights is all lies.

And most NRA members are smart enough to know and support reasonable gun safety regulations.


[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

They are also encouraged NOT to keep them in their homes.

Do YOU agree with that?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

This cute, but real! Effective, and worth expanding on.


Changing behavior one person at a time.


[-] 0 points by tomy (0) 7 years ago

Jack mowing the lawn boosting on the roads, previous the audience start to prevent. http://www.mmolive.com The cops ceased him to ask: http://www.mmomesos.com/ "Why are you driving by so fast?" Port replied: "I'm sorry, my braking system bad, so I want to drive to be fixed as soon as possible, so as to prevent injuries."! ' Welcome to my site: http://www.mmohome.com

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Spam? Please refrain.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

Instead of getting caught up in the union vs non-union, how about supporting American made. That would go a long way in keeping the dollars here and would create jobs here. You would get broad support with this rather than divisive tie in issues.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I certainly support American made. Clearly the thread states that. I also support unions. They aren't mutually exclusive! I'm not going to shy away because there are anti unionists maligning decent hard working American unionists.

That would be a quick way to losing the battle to save unions. Probably why we lost so much ground.

I can't be bullied into silence by anti unionists.

Do you support unions?

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

Sometimes, but I also support right to work. There should be a choice. There are people on both sides disparaging the other and that gets us no where. I have no problem with private sector unions. I do, however, do not support public sector unions. As a taxpayer, I have no say in the negotiations, which as the owner of the company (governement), I should. And the public service unions will only support candidates that reward them with contracts that eventually the taxpayers can not afford as is so evident now in many municipalities. But that is "money in politics" and another topic. Who is bullying you?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Support Decent hard working American union workers!


Maybe you were being dishonest and just pretending to argue against unions the other day? Maybe the truth is you do support the decent hard working American union workers?

I'm hoping that is so, and this website can help you guide your shopping dollars to those decent hard working American union workers.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

There is no dishonesty with me. I present you problems and possible solutions for debate. My issue is not with the workers themselves, but with the system that re-cycles the same bad decision making. It all gets back to money in politics. This is why public sector unions are not a workable solution. I am not against the workers, their benefits or anything, only that the promises made (contracts) is not something that is fiscally sustainable. You know this to be true. There has been graphs, data, etc, that presents a coming time that choice of services vs benefits,wages, etc will need to be made, and if one waits too long, it will be very painfull. Better to reign in the problem now with responsible elected people that can act accordingly. The labor tail should not wag the city dog. It's too disproportionate to the rest of the municipal population.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

We disagree. I don't go after decent hard working American union workers. They constantly give back, agree to concessions, & make sacrifices.

I won't do it. I stand with the workers!


[-] 1 points by elf3 (4149) 7 years ago

agree huge difference in private vs public unions (but wait are we all being duped here?) Think about this: Maybe government jobs are just doing what jobs always did, when private companies wages stagnated, downsized, regressed cut benefits, demanded more output... perhaps the government jobs just kept up with the cost of living and represent what employment used to look like. Think about it before this generation noone really was clamoring for government jobs.. now it's become like a lottery fantasy in comparison with the private sector; so is that because they pay to much and are corrupt (maybe) or is part of it because private sector jobs began to exploit and degrade the American worker? I don't know the answer but I think it's a question worth exploring... do government jobs just look so great because they kept up with inflation while private sector wages and benefits completely deflated? Have government jobs become so corrupt now because they have become so desirable in comparison to the private sector?

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

OWS supporting labor!!!!


We ain't dead yet!! Come support your fellow decent hard working Americans.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

Unions under attack by repubs. We must support them They must be stengthened.


[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

At the lower levels, I do not believe there is rampant corruption, rather large efficiency issues. But as for wages and wage /benefit growth in the public sector, there are only the taxpayers to provide the source. There is nothing for sale. Only services provided, which the cost of can only increase over time, which relies on tax revenue (or borrowing).

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

The taxpayer does have a say in the negotiations. We elect politicians who represent us in negotiations. So I have to disagree with that.

Unions represent decent, hardworking Americans. Without Unions corp 1% plutocrats exploit, abuse, underpay, allow dangerous work condition, punish workers who speak up, cut benefits among other things.

Unions have always created improvements in worker rights, treatment, conditions, & compensation. Public unions usually are 1st to create those improvements.

We should avoid the insidious efforts to split us by pitting taxpayers against decent, taxpaying, hardworking public union members.

The cost of public employees are not the reason for our budget shortfalls..

Our budget shortfalls come from the corp 1% who have bought our govt, rigged the tax laws, outsourced our jobs, evaded their fair share of taxes, crashed the economy, and more. We cannot punish decent hard working American public union members by balancing the budget on their backs.!

The reckless, irresponsible corp 1% plutocrat banksters are to blame! They must be the focus of our outrage and ire. They must pay for the crimes against the people. Not the decent hard working American families.

I stand with the workers! With the 99%. Where do you stand.?

(Step away from the corp 1% criminal banksters)

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

I disagree that the tax payer has a say so in the negotiations. In the large cities, where this is usually the problem, it is a endless cycle of elections of same people, bad contracts and the reward of support. This leads right into the argument for no money in politics. All people are decent hard working Americans, not just union people. So drop the needless propaganda and stay on topic. Ok, so in one sentence you say we have a say so in negotions, then you state that the 1% have bought the very people we elect for those negotiations. I would doubt that the 1% is supporting the elected officials that hand out bad contracts. Your statement is a bit contradictory.

Let's assume for argument, that you raise taxes in a municipality because you want (or need) to pay for high cost union contracts for public workers. If that happens, then the very people that could pay will leave for a different place, leaving the less able to support it, which they can not, which then forces the municipality to borrow to fund the costs. Everybody in the municipality suffers, not just the union workers.

You go on like I am against workers. Not true when I was also one. Why would I be against them. I am for fairness, but for all, not just public service workers. Inability to fund a contract just throws debt to the future while keeping the elected in power. So where do you stand? This is not a union or not union issue, but rather a jobs for all issue. Leave the rhetoric and propaganda out of your argument for once and give us a solution if you have one. You can lay blame in a lot of places, but that is not solutions to the problem. This is not pitting one against the other as you imply. There really is no need for public service unions at all. Besides, in a municipality the public service workers account for a small percentage of the population, yet derive all the benefit from the taxpayers. What do you think would happen if that was put into direct democracy action? I believe that the service employees union would be in for a rude awakening. Most would likely vote down the contract.

You are also confusing the national debt with local government. Not the same issue at all.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I ain't confused at all. The anti public union forces have claimed that states/municipalities can't afford the union contracts because of budget shortfalls (during this bush created great recession, go figure). The anti public union people have been spewing that propaganda in order to bust the unions, take away their rights to collective bargaining, cut their pay, & fire them!.

The budget shortfall is the result of loss of revenue. Period. The loss of revenue is a result of the great recession created by the1% banksters. It is wrong to correct their mistake on the back of decent, hard working Americans. (no propaganda, truth!)

So the solution is simple, balance the budget on the back of the wealthy who created the recession, who got away with the loot, and have done nothing to contribute to the recovery. Use the revenue from those wealthy to grow the economy which in turn will add revenue.

No need to go after the decent hard working Americans in public unions.

State repub leaders have fired almost a million decent hard working Americans in the middle of this unemployment crises, Do you think that is good for economic growth, or increased revenue?. No. They had no interest in that. Their goal was to bust unions.

So ignore the fear mongerers who scream deficit, debt! and use that fear to destroy decent hard working Americans jobs!

Always stand with the decent hard working Americans, And never entertain the anti union tactics that the corp 1% are behind. We all absolutely need, & benefit from unions.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

That's where you are mistaken. The bad contracts go way back beyond anything to due with the recent recession. The downturn only highlighted the problem. And yes, there is a major difference in local government and the deficit at the national level. One has nothing to do with the other. Local Tax payers supply the revenue for the local governments. Local tax laws are the same for everyone. When private unions are about 10% of the workforce , there is no reason to pit one side against the other. There are many workers that do not wish to be in a union, or where it does not make any sense. Stop with the rhetoric. Stop with the "decent hard working Americans". Everyone is decent hard working Americans, you keep trying to make that inclusive of unions only. You can see from this short debate that the issue is very divisive. So why not stay with the buy American first and leave the rest alone for a while. Can you support that? That is very inclusive for everyone and everyone benefits.

Also. You did not debate the points as usual. You still fail to listen very well after all this time. You repeated the usual rhetoric. Stop. Try debating the specific points and leave the other nonsense out of the discussion.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

When I say "decent hard working Americans" I mean union and non union.

I'm not pitting union members against non union members. YOU are when you attack the decent hard working public union members. (I can say that because it is true)

I'm saying all workers benefit from unions, therefore I'm saying we should not allow the anti union 1% corp oligarchs divide us by pitting non union workers against union workers.

You and your anti union propaganda isdesigned to divide us. Your false claims that decent hard working public employees have created the current fiscal problems is a lie!

The cop 1% oligarchs created the fiscal problems. Unions benefit all workers.

Stop twisting the truth.


[-] 0 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

Again you missed the point. I did not state that the unions are the problem with the municipal budget shortfall but rather the bad contracts that the politicians give them due to thier support in elections. It is a terrible cycle and needs to end. The rest of the taxpayers end up paying for these bad contracts. They can no longer afford them. If you raise taxes on business or the local taxpayers, they just leave, making it worse. So what is your grand solution? You complain but offer no solutions other than rhetoric. How would you fix this mess that is hurting most municipalities. Local government can no longer supply the services when the revenue continues to go to paying the workers and the benefits from the contracts. The 1% have no influence in this issue. If you tax them, they move. If you tax the business, they relocate. So to ask you, what is your answer! How are they going to fund these future payments? Where do you get the revenue? More casinos? More lotteries? That is just taking more from those who can least afford it. Your turn! Let's see some real critical thought from you this time instead pf the usual rhetoric.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I reject your suggestion that the wealthy and business will leave if we increase their taxes. Sounds like a good reason not to, but I don't buy it.

You're solution guarantees that decent hard working Americans go hungry, lose their homes, & healthcare, It further guarantees that consumer spending is removed from the economy, and therefore decreases revenue.

You advocate austerity/cuts (like europe who are back in recession as a result) I advocate stimulus (like the US who has not went back into recession)

I reject your suggestion that the problem is bad contracts. That is bullshit and a weak attempt to pit decent hard working non union private sector workers against decent hard working public sector workers.

So the solution is simple. cut taxes/debt for working class, raise taxes on the wealthy, penalize outsourcing, reward insourcing, implement a living wage.

All of this will grow the economy/revenue and the municipalities will meet their budget responsibilities without hurting decent hard working American public sector workers.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

It is already a fact that people leave when taxes go up and services go down. Why would anyone stay? Prove me otherwise. I am not advocating austerity, just some common sense in municipal governments. Show me otherwise that public union contracts are not creating a budget problem for many municipalities. The elected officials that you say we have a say in their action, have given away the farm to stay elected. The rest have to pay. Your solution will not help local municipalities. Again I ask you for some specific actions, not just a few talking points.

Raising taxes on the wealthy will not help municipal governments. How much would you raise the local rate?

If you cut the local middle class rates, by how much as to offset the revenue required for the promised services?

Local government can not tax companies for outsourcing. They can however give incentives for companies to stay within the municipality but that can unfairly penalize the rest of the companies that are already there, and the local tax payers are funding the shortfall.

Implement a living wage? Local government can not impose wage laws without extreme consequence to the business that operates within the municipality. How would that company compete with others in the rest of the country where wage costs are lower. Company would either move or go under.

You make these grand statements yet provide no substance. I am trying to discuss issues of public unions and local municipal governments. These are serious issues and will not just go away because of your talking points. They require solutions. Give me something! There is no money and the funding gap is growing. Even the pension liabilities remain badly unfunded. And that was before the recession. That was our wonderfull municipal politicians spending our tax dollars on other things and passing the responsibilities to the next generation. What do you think would happen if the union pension fund bankrupted and there was no money for future retirees ?

So try again. Let's see if you really have anything to offer specifically. And forget the rhetoric please. You want to debate? Here is your opportunity.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I repeat! Growing the economy is the best way to address all current budget shortfalls! Fed, state, & municipal.

The proposals I suggested (that you dismissed as "talking points") were obviously at the Fed level. In fact my proposals are NOT talking points, rhetoric or just "grand statements". They represent the only way to stimulate the economic growth necessary to improve the budgetary state of all levels of government.

And it has the benefit of not hurting decent hard working American families who did not create the revenue shortfall, or the economic great recession. In addition it avoids the economically damaging strategy of hurting the very decent hard working Americans we need to increase consumer demand, & therefore economic growth.

Sound economic policy proposals. That's what I offer.

You simply wanna go after the victims of the 1% corp oligarchs reckless, irresponsible behavior. You offer only union busting ideas. You offer right wing talking points, & strategy that will hurt economic growth.

You got anything beyond cut public union contracts.? Cause that ain't created any of our current economic problems.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

Of course growing the economy or at least getting back to about 4% unemployment is everyone's goal. But that does not address the problem posed. Even in a good economy, this problem will persist in both state and municipal governments. There will come a day when cuts will need to be made and it will be painfull when it occurs. But you also did not really answer any of the points made above. I think you have repeated the "decent hard working American families " enough times now. Give it a rest. Please address the revenue shortfall in the states and cities that was there before the recession. How will it be addressed? Economic recovery is not the answer, it only delays the inevitable problem. It is the same with the federal deficit. Economic down turns exacerbate the problem, but the actual problem persisted long before the current recession. Show me how economic growth will cover the shortage when it never has done so on the past. The politicians have always spent everything plus money they do not have. What makes you think this will be different. What makes you think that economic growth and the resulting tax revenue will not be spent, given out in higher contract or other new programs? Do you really believe that the pols will fund the shortages in the pension plans with additional tax revenue? Try to answer the questions posed as they are specific and not talking points.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I will not give you more than the specifics I have given regarding how to grow the economy.

Growth is the best way to deal with these budgetary problems.

You disagree. No prob. I can handle that. I disagree with you on your strategy of goin after decent hard working union workers contracts.

So we are at an impasse. I hope that my solution is chosen to address these problems because it will less painfull to the 99%.

Good luck to you in all your good efforts

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

Growth is great, wonderfull, etc. but it is not enough. Is that so difficult to comprehend? You and I are not at an impasse. That is not what the discussion is about. You are in denial of a significant problem that will eventually need to be addressed. Again, it was a problem during the previous growth period, and it will not just disappear because you say so. So what would you do? What policy would you support? The 99% can not afford the taxes required in the long run. If you had a choice, which would you cut: programs or benefits?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I disagree with your suppositions.

I believe specifically that growth WILL absolutely address the municipal budgetary shortfall.

Obviously I can't every municipalities in the nation because there are thousands. But I think before we start goin after decent hard working Americans we should give it a try.

Whatta you think? Worth a try? Ya with us? Or do you haveta go after the union workers?

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

So what suppositions do you agree with? Give me some of your own. How can we find a way through this mess? Just believing growth will solve this mess is not reality. Try again. Show me how growth will cover the current fiscal issues as I mentioned. How would you deal with underfunded health and pension plans? Give me more than growth as an answer. Show me some specifics.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Economic growth WILL absolutely address the budgetary problems face by all levels of Govt.

And yes indeed it has worked before. The last Dem Administration raised taxes on the wealthy and created a surplus (That means eliminated the deficit) for 3 years until the last Rep Admin Admin blew up the deficit (as they always do).

So yeah if we get people to work (get repubs to stop blocking jobs bills, and get state repubs to rehire the ignorantly fired state workers) and grow the economy, all the budget problems from the fed deficit, right down to municipal budget shortfalls will be addressed.

Ok? Easy Peezy!

Oh. And stop fuckin with decent hard working American families!!

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

Try to be civil please. "easy peezy"? Really? That your specific response? Go back in history just a little way. You will find that you are completely wrong. (or take a look at california). Normal economic growth nowhere near addresses the issues at the municipal levels. The surplus was at the federal level and that was back a few administrations. And it was not just repub administrations that laid off public workers. That occurred where ever there was a necessity to cut cost in the face of lower revenues. So again, try to address the questions and issues proposed by more than just the statement of economic growth. Show me where there will be enough funds to pay for all the services, wages and other programs at the state and municipal levels with a normal economy. Especially when there is large debt, unfunded health and pension plans, etc. I am not advocating getting rid of these benefits, but rather, how are they going to be funded when the growth curve of required payments are not equal to the incoming revenues. I am advocating the slowing down of the overly generous contract benefits that get submitted each cycle when the taxpayers that have to support the programs do not receive any thing near the benefit they fund. I ask you again: do you really believe that politicians will actually cut programs to fund these benefit requirements? Would they use the current revenues? Would they stop creating new programs? Or would they just continue to expand government with the growth revenues and pass the problem further down the line? You did not address these in your last response. Some specifics please.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

My opinion (based on solid economic theory and historical facts) is that growth WILL address the budgetary shortfalls at all levels of govt.

You 'OPINION' appears to be the opposite. I've offered the solid economic theories of Keynes, I cite the past growth as a foundation for my contention. I say further we are on the verge of massive growth if and when we embrace the greentech, infrastructure economy that is on the horizon..

You've offered NO evidence for you opinion against growth. I offer all the above.

I'm positive, you're negative. And in your negativity you are lashing out at your fellow decent hard working Americans.

I will never do that. Sorry

Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] -2 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

This is not about negative or positive. And I am well versed in economics and historical events. You believe that I am not for supporting growth? No. Of course I do. And in a perfect world, growth would be all we needed along with a fair tax system and a few other things. I am asking you if you had to choose, what would you do? Because that is real. It is not being negative. If you were in charge, would you support the tax payers or the municipal workers or borrow more? Can you understand the dilemma? PS. Looks like we are running out of replies.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I indicated my proposal would address "every" level of govt. budget shortfall.

I said no cutting of pgms that benefit the 99%. What did you interpret as me cutting pgms for the 99%.?

Past growth is past. I submit future growth will be much stronger.

Raise taxes on wealthy, cut military budget & waste, fraud, & abuse across the board, invest in greentech, infrastructure, vet jobs to stimulate the growth needed to address the budget shortfalls at every level of govt.

I realize you disagree. Doesn't matter to me. I know this will work. Arguing, repeating ourselves is pointless.

Your only solution appears to be to cut/hurt decent hard working Americans.

I will NEVER agree with that.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

NO cutting the programs that benefit the 99%!. The military budget can be cut in a big way, and corp welfare should be cut.

But I disagree that growth can't resolve the budgetary shortfalls that exist at every level of govt.

In fact it is the best & most powerful way to do so.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

YYou said " cutting the programs that benefit the 99%". Those were your words (see above post). That is why I asked because it did not seem like a statement that you would support. I realize that we disagree, but opinion about growth does not make it so. I would love that it would be reality, but unfortunately it is not. What I am asking for is some support for you opinion. I am trying to get you to understand that this is a serious issue that will need to be addressed. The shortage during the recession worsened the problem. So not only do we have to make that up, we have to fix the problem that was already there. What prediction that you have that new growth will be better and will pay for everything? You are wrong that I am against workers, but how do we fund the responsibilities that have been promised without either reduction of services, slowing the benefit curve, reducing workers, etc. it a real dilemma, with no good choices. What is wrong with discussion about this reality? You can not just dismiss it with "growth will solve everything". It is not enough. And you do not address growth at less a rate than you predict, which is entirely possible with the world economy. Long periods of high growth is not sustainable without inflation.

[-] -2 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

Your answer does not address the municipal level. Your speaking at the federal level when discussing military and corp welfare which does nothing at the local levels. You can look it up, but as stated,past periods of growth did not adequately provide funding for the promises made. Are you saying to cut the programs for the 99%? If yes, then why? Are the taxpayers supposed to just fund wages and benefits and get less and less in return?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Here is a great article on budget issues


[-] 0 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

Read the article but it seemed incompete. No link to report mentioned. I would agree that there are many ways to get additional revenue and also cut spending. But that is federal and we are talking at the local level. That is a huge difference. Local municipalities do not have the means the federal has. And the local municipalities are in competition with one another. For discussion, lets Assume a period of growth. Companies wish to expand, etc. they will go where the rates are better for them, where more skilled labor (educated or trained), where there are adequate services and infrastructure,etc. how does a municipality compete if they attempt to tax to greatly the companies with ithe city limits. Same goes for the labor force. If wage tax rates go up, people leave or at minimum live outside the city limits. I see that here wher I am.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Christ you so concerned about companies going to some other city!

Every city worries about that cause corp constantly shake our cities down with hollow threats of leaving. Just read this past Sat in NYT a reporter uncovering $80b in tax deals for corps (much more uncovered) around the country.

And I've seen many stories over the years of towns trying to sue corps who take the tax breaks and leave in a couple of years.

THAT is what creates the budget shortfalls.


You don't give a shit about hurting the decent hard working Americans, but your perfectly willing to cave in to the shakedown of corps who don't really need the tax breaks, and will leave regardless (as they have many, many times.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

???????? From a month ago.????? Thought we had a general agreement on this one.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

You don't want me to post here anymore?. That's not new.

You've pretty much only criticized my positions, and me personally while attempting to chase me away, or convince me not to post.

As you are again. If you feel the forum is irrelevant why are YOU here.?

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

That was not my intention, I think you assume to quickly. I discuss your positions, never have I tried to permanently chase you away, that is a pointless excercise. As I stated, but you misunderstood, I do not come here as much as I used too for stated reasons. And yes, this site has become more irrelevant and that is why I am moving on to other forums.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

My apologize, My bad.


[-] 0 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

Ok, thanks, but maybe you should even take a break once in a while from here. I am not on here much anymore. Nothing new and same old statements and attacks from the forum residents. Shame it has evolved to this state of irrelavance compared to last year.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

good luck in all your good efforts.


[-] -1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

VQ. You must be the worst listener. Where am I advocating for the corporations? We are discussing revenue shortfall in municipalities. I am not on one side or the other, but trying to examine the relavent constraints that local government has. Cities are definitely competing though. What is your answer to that? People want jobs. Cities need revenue. They evaluate the cost of tax breaks versus the resulting revenue. Might not always be best deal but what is a city to do? They should deal in the interest of their constituents and not make bad deals or be held hostage, yet they need the jobs. So what would you suggest? And you know very well that is not the only reason for budget shortfalls. And why are the voters not holding the pols responsible if they do a bad deal? Whose fault is that if they keep the same people in office, as usually occurs in the cities.

Your assertion seems like your same old style from before. Any one in disagreement is for the other side. How can any solutions ever be sorted out when that is your assumption?

Now I have presented some pertinent issues, even asked specific questions and dilemmas. I am trying to see what might result from the discussion. So choose.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Well, make any deal transparent & binding. corps must be held accountable, & they must show they need thetax breaks.

I live in NYC, we give breaks but I think these businesses should consider themselves lucky to be able to do business in this great city.

If a business wants access to a market they should be willing to pay their fair share of taxes. Voters/people must organize and protest/boycott corps that shakedown our govts.

[-] -2 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

Transparency is fine. But how would you attract a business when you are competing against other cities?
How would you suggest that a company shows need for tax breaks? Private firms do not show their books, while public firms are open for anyone to see. I believe that no company really need tax breaks, but they are looking for the best deal and location. We do the same thing. When you look for a job, do you not consider the following: wage, benefits, location, lifestyle, etc? It is the same for a business. The issue is really with the small business owner. He does not get the tax break while he is the one that generates the most jobs, and then he must deal with the lack of services based on lost tax revenue from the deal with the large corporation. Yet the pols that the people elect cater to the large firms. So who is really to blame here? Simple answer: the politicians. So protest them!

A business in NYC is an expensive proposition. Has nothing to do with luck. And one can do business in NYC without actually having a location there. Access to a market is not governed necessarily by taxes. It might be true when located there, but are you suggesting that taxes be charged for market access? You realize that would go against constitutional law and a few others? Besides, anything sold in new York is subject to 7% sales tax. Compare that to Delaware where you have no sales tax. We see it here when purchasing a large cost item, many people go across the state line to avoid the sales tax.

You talk of protest against corps, but what about the elected politicians that make the deal?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Money out of politics? Yeah fundamental problem.

I support movetoamend.org



Good start if you are interested !

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I protest politicians all the time.

I just don't pretend dishonest corps have not screwed cities (not NYC so much) by shaking them down, threatening press conferences blaming pols for not "keeping them in the city", refusing to open their books, extracting tax give backs, and then leave anyway in a few years.

So yeah pols are complicit (and should be targeted with protests), but corps are the instigator, and the one who gets the loot. Whenever you analyze a con you gotta follow the money.

In these scenarios the people/city are the 'mark', the corp is the con artist, the pol is just a tool.

Get it?

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

I believe we are "generally" in agreement on this one. But maybe there should be a contract so the city can recoup if a company leaves. I do disagree the pol is just the tool though. They are equally complicit in any bad deal and should be held accountable, but unfortunately , they are not. One other thing: private business will not open their books, nor should they as that woulan rebate an unfair advantage for some (financial information leakage would be a real problem). We say "tax breaks", but in reality it is really the incentives bundle. Free land, special or better services, etc. Remember that a business goal is to be profitable, and they will go to wherever that is optimum for operations. So there is the rub. So maybe the question is this: is it a municipal responsibility to get businesses to locate within their domain? Or should they stick with providing an attractive environment for those that live there, which in turn attracts business due to the two main items they seek: an attractive market and people with attractive skills and education. If they concentrate on the first item, the second is sure to come. But when one talks about pols and corps breaks, it kind of gets back to money in politics doesn't it? There is a lot of money that gets kicked back into campaign funds.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

The biggest reason for cities budget shortfall is the lack ofrevenue crreated by the unfair tax abatement/giveaways deals the cities give to corps.

Just end that scam and the budgets will be fine without hurting the decent hard working Americans.

Ya with us?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Next topic! Recently an analysis of city/state tax givebacks & other economic benefits to businesses (who shakedown these govts by claiming they will leave otherwise) was asmuch as $80 million. Further more it was estimated that there was 10 times more that was hidden.

This has been the biggest drag on city/state govts budgets.

Gee what should we do about that? That ain't ok is it?

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

No, and that is also an issue. When breaks are unfairly given, it can penalize existing businesses that have been in the cities for the long term. And keeps the burden on the tax payers. But then how do we get attract new companies (jobs) into the city? And how to keep ones from leaving for greener pastures? That is a real dilemma. A city must provide an attractive environment for a business to operate (taxes, infrastructure, safety, etc,). We must find a balance for this. Yet the voters continue to re-elect pols that give away a lop sided deal. who is responsible for keeping an eye on local gov? Yet the voters continue to support bad deals: this goes both ways: public worker contracts and tax breaks, incentives. The big problem is that the employees rely on tax revenue from a captive group, while the corps can come and go. What do think about that? Where is the balance?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Well in the context of this conversation, when I say "decent hard working Americans" I am referring to the public service workers that you (& the state repub party members) are targeting to balance state/municipal budgets that have are out of balance because of the recession.

Of course I agree that everyone should be considered decent hard working Americans unless found not to be. But you aren't targeting everyone just the decent hard working public service workers.

And you have such a problem with the description I can't but throw it in there.

'decent hard working Americans' ;)

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

I am not targeting them only. That is a wrong assumption. I am only presenting that a a major issue (of many) that needs to be addressed, and the sooner the better. It will get harder and harder for anyone living in a large municipality to support the revenue requirements. And that includes "decent hard working Americans" and the businesses where they work. On to the next topic.



[-] 0 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

Sometimes discussion with you is hopeless, but I try. So I ask you a final question here: define "decent hard working Americans" since that sees to be a favorite phrase. To me, everyone is a decent hard working American, so why keep repeating the rhetoric / talking point. It's the same as saying "working families" which covers everyone also. It's very tiring.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

No, I was away so did not shop on Saturday, but do support local shops in my area year round. I do go to the big box stores also, but try to spread the spend locally as much as possible.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Good man. Support your local shops. Ask them about American made.

"Look for the union label"


[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

We're gonna have to pass a law if we're gonna get manufacturing jobs back.


Hows that?

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

VQ, What now? 3 months ago? Just to bump your post?

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

Just to add a current update to this critical issue (labor rights)

Do you ever set aside the tedious, useless personal attacks and actual comment intelligently on the topic ofthe thread?

Don't you know that every comment you make has a reply button on it?

[-] -3 points by auargent (-600) 7 years ago

i buy what suits me. my cars might be made in america but they are not american companies. why should i support unions? unions are a money laundering service for the dem. party.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

You are mistaken about Unions. Obviously they supports Dems! Dems support them (or have anyway) Repubs are clearly trying to destroy/bust them.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

How about this?

Do like the Swiss.! Get pissed enough to vote on obscene fat cat salaries.


[-] 0 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

What is this a reply to?? Not sure which comment this is connected to.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

It is an update on wage issues. An article showing how other countries address income inequity.

Go after the obscene compensation of lazy, do nothing, pencil pushing execs and redirect that money to the decent hard working average 99%'r!!!

Support your fellow workers!!!!

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

While I agree that they have sometimes obscene compensation packages, I do not agree that they are lazy, do nothing execs. Executive level work is quite stressfull, hours are long (70+ hours) and they do a lot more than "pencil push". On another note, why did you lose your previous ID? (VQ)?

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 7 years ago

He didn't. He's just using one of his other multiple usernames (like Imagine40) to continually bump his old posts. It's his new tactic. He's an attention whore, but he can't help it:


But I have seen a bit of improvement in his attitude lately, so there's still hope for the man.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

After a couple of discussions, he has not changed at all. It's like talking to a rock.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 7 years ago

He's become a little more informed, but I agree, he just can't seem to think outside that box.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

Most are useless, do nothing, bureaucrats who bring NO value let alone commensurate value. Not ALL of course. But most.

And certainly I don't buy into the fantasy pushed on Americans for 40 years of the "magical CEO" who takes credit for massive profits/stock price etc. No magic in squeezing the worker with stagnant wages, or outsourcing to 3rd world, or cutting benefits, then being rewarded.

Outrageous!!! And obscene. Let's take a vote like the Swiss,

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

While I have already agreed on the compensation, you have absolutely no clue of the level of work that goes on in the executive levels. To the outsider, there could be the appearance of not doing much, but in reality, it is quite the opposite. Not sure where you get that idea from.

What about my other question about your ID?

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

"no clue"? How would you know about my personal knowledge of executive work.? In fact I know well enough. And the opinion I am expressing is not mine alone. Many execs (& others who know) have come out with the same opinion.

This ain't about my personal experience although that is adequate to form an opinion. This is about the reality of our current exec/labor situation. You think they work hard, I KNOW most do not. And none deserve obscene compensation.

Your personal question about ID's is unrelated to the issues in this post. I will limit comments to issues that affect the 99%. And I much prefer to not get personal at all.

Thank you.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

Your reply is confirmation of what I stated.

[-] -1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

You mean your weak, pathetic, unproven defense of lazy, do nothing, pencil pushing execs??????

"Executive level work is quite stressfull, hours are long"??? Bullshit. they leach and benefit off the work of average workers. and do not deserve 400x the compensation.!!!

I know where you get your info from. from the EXECS!!! And the republican puppets that do their bidding.

I support the average workers of America who are squeezed and exploited by the over compensated greedy, selfish corp 1% oligarchs.

Just as Occupy does.

And I am proud of that stand.

[-] 1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 7 years ago

My dad is actually pretty high up in a company. The work that he has put forth to get there would have deterred most people years ago. He's worked in rat infested places around the world....places you wouldn't want to sleep for a night.....14 hours a day 6 days a week. He's back in the states now and works in Houston...but still wakes up at 4am in the morning and gets home at 5:30.....works when he gets home on conference calls....has to work through weekends sometimes. This is a guy a majority on occupy would view as "elite"....sometimes it's not quite as easy as you think. A lot of these guys are really working their a$$es off...but you don't get to see the behind the scenes.

Are there examples of lazy ass pencil pushers who make ridiculous amounts of money? I bet there are....but their are a lot that bust their asses day in and day out....and have for decades to get to where they are now. When they stop busting their asses....they get fired.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

Your personal story notwithstanding, I stand by my statement.

MOST of the execs, corp 1% oligarchs are lazy, do nothing, pencil pushers who push leach & benefit off the work of decent hard working americans.

The 99% have been squeezed, exploited, victimized by wage stagnation, outsourcing, benefit cuts, pension theft by these execs.

I stand with the 99%.

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 7 years ago

I actually disagree. Are the wealth gaps and pay differences sometimes absolutely ridiculous...you bet...and I definitely question that. But to say that the execs and business owners are lazy pencil pushers...I think is completely inaccurate. I've worked for a number of companies and have yet to come across an exec that didn't work his or her ass off. The responsibilities at that level are enormous...and if you f'k up....you're gone.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

You are a worker? Great. Good luck to you. OWS is fighting for ALL workers.

And I support workers over bad execs everyday.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

Your personal experience notwithstanding, I KNOW that the corp 1% oligarchs want us to think they do such difficult work, but MOST DON'T.

I do not fall for that bullshit.

I believe the workers over the execs. And the workers KNOW that they do all the work. And the workers know they do not get compensated fairly. And the workers know that MOST execs absolutely DO NOT earn the obscene compensation they squeeze out of the workers.

You may know better than the workers, but that is not likely.

[-] 1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 7 years ago

I am a worker.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Most businesses fail in the first 5 years, around like 95% of em.

Executive work is not easy, its a lot of juggling, deal making and multitasking. Lots of very long hours.

That being said, I dont know anyone who wouldnt like to have systems in place that do the work for them, for the most part, Thats what people in business try to get to. Similar to renting properties..,..semi passive income.

400 xs the labor rate is obscene.

There's a reason you are able to post on this site 24/7, and its not because you are out in the labor pool.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

"reason you are able to post on this site 24/7"? Your personal comments about me are misguided, inaccurate, and meaningless.

I will brook NO defense of the lazy, greedy, do nothing corp 1% oligarchs who are at the center of all our problems by stealing the peoples govt & pushing conservative policies that have lifted their compensation at the expense of the 99%.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Im just saying, you made a few moves, and are now able to support yourself with little to no effort. I manage some rentals for other people. Its certainly not as rough work as flipping em.

Bash the multi nationals to pieces. Like we were saying at the Move To Amend event, 1% has such a nice ring to it, but its probably closer to about .0375 percent. But that just doesnt ring.

I do think, however, its dangerous to start bashing success in general. Theres a lot of successful people out there doing very good things for people, and really busting their asses to keep the companies going.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

OTP. You are in a classic VQkag discussion. He just can not admit to existence of other opinion not his own, and then you are labeled partisan or doing a personal attack. No facts matter other than his.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

Whatever, I ain't talkin about good execs.

And once again your personal comments/insults ("able to support yourself with little effort"? "Not as rough work as flipping"???) are misguided, inaccurate, and meaningless. Your attempts to distract with dishonest personal attacks simply proves you are wrong, and I am right.

I win!

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Why would that be disgracing you? You have rental properties. Are you disgraced about it? You shouldnt be. People will always need a place to stay, its a good market to be in while DC and Wall St pillage the nation.

I figure you arent talking about good execs. But the blanket statements can be seen as otherwise.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

I disagree!

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

personal attacks as a distraction from this critical issue at the center of OWS is what you were attempting.

Weak and pathetic.

Support workers over corp 1% oligarchs!!!!

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

It wasnt an attack. If you took it as that, Im sorry.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

You don't speak for me. You don't know me or what I want. YOU are talking (lying) about MY personal life because you can't discuss the actual topic, which is corp 1% oligarch execs who have squeezed the (99%) decent hard working Americans.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

I thought I was making a good comparison. Guess not.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

"disgrace"? Where did that come from? You have resorted to making things up, with your make believe narrative about my personal work history, my personal property ownership, and now my personal feelings???

Your personal comments/questions are clearly off topic. Please refrain.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Its not off topic at all. We are talking about people who have managed to lighten their work load after a career of hard work. Granted, during the housing boom, it was tough not to get it going, but still.

My stating that stuff is not an attack. Its simply stating that is what we all strive for, yourself included.

Early retirement, getting to work less in the later years, are not things that are bad.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

VQ. You still are a poor listener. You bring up compensation again. I already agreed on that. I have interacted with all levels of workers, bottom to top. I know exactly what is going on. You seem bent over on partisan speak. You made the statement about "lazy pencil pushers". So I guess managers, directors, VPs, etc all fall into the same class? Your statements show your ignorance of what is required of upper level positions in small and large companies. Just to ask, how many hours do you think an executive level person works a week?

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

I said execs!! i said corp 1% oligarchs. I consider midlevel and below the ones who do the real work.

You personal comments/attacks on me prove I am right & you are wrong.

I win.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

Do "real work"? BTW, Discussion is not about winning or losing, it about the exchange of opinion or ideas. Its about learning, which clearly is not your intent. ("I win") Really?

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

Really! Please refrain from the personal comments and I won't state that it means I win.

Stick with the topic. Stick with the truth. Perhaps then you WILL learn as you claim you are here for.


[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

VQ , I am on topic. Not sure how anything I said is a personal attack. Are you thin skinned? All I said was that by your statements you are ignorant of what goes on at the executive level. That is not a personal attack, just a statement that you are lacking on real knowledge of the subject matter. If you would like to see an actual personal attack, I can oblige, but it is not really the place for it here.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

This is not about negative or positive. And I am well versed in economics and historical events. You believe that I am not for supporting growth? No. Of course I do. And in a perfect world, growth would be all we needed along with a fair tax system and a few other things. I am asking you if you had to choose, what would you do? Because that is real. It is not being negative. If you were in charge, would you support the tax payers or the municipal workers or borrow more? Can you understand the dilemma? PS. Looks like we are running out of replies.

I've said repeatedly what I would do. I'm sorry you can't handle my answer.

Raise taxes on the wealthy (I don't believe their threats of leaving!)

Cut the military, & waste fraud & abuse

invest in job creation to create economic growth.

That will address budget shortfalls at all levels of govt.

I won't use budget problems to go after decent hard working Americans. (they pay taxes too!)

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

The problem isn't a matter of buying American made. It's a matter of dividing the profits fairly among the workers. That division between employers and employees continues to widen.


[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

Raising wages is key!!

Who has stagnated American workers wags?


Time to vote pay cuts for execs, & use that $$ to raise worker wages.


[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

us civilization does need everyone working 40 hours a week to distribute food and services

we make up busiwork

because there is hardly any real work that needs to be done

we live in a Utopia but turn back to the 40 hour matrix to look away

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

this is not a contest to see which nation deserves to be working

over a limited supply of jobs

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

But we can expand the job market here by purchasing goods made here. Time to expand the limited supply. Each country can do that for their populations. It is not a question of "deserves", rather ability to grow.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

I have all I need except health care or a job

there is already enough food around to eat

there are few factories and we are making up jobs because we are afraid to rest

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Shop Local! Here is a group that supports the effort.



[-] 0 points by newShep (-179) 7 years ago

Buy less! Fix things 1st! trade! buy used! Shop local! Buy American made!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Now your talkin. Sing it like you mean it! And don't forget: 'buy union.!'

[-] -1 points by newShep (-179) 7 years ago

If you noticed, I left that one out

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I did mention that you shouldn't forget 'buy union' so that should have been your 1st hint that I did notice.


Did you mean to call yourself newShemp, & just misspell it?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Remove the concept of disposable from industry/business/marketing/products.

Living in a disposable society gets you mountains of crap going into land fills.

Promoting disposable products - removes jobs from the economy - repair refurbish maintenance.

Promoting disposable products - speeds the UN-necessary use of material resources.

Promoting a disposable society promotes an un-caring nature in the population. LOOK - JUST - REPLACE IT!!!! Put That In The Garbage - And Get A New One!!!! Hey - but I just bought this one!!! WHAT??? - A week ago it's obsolete now - toss it and get the new one.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago


It's "Futureshock" (Alvin Toffler 1972)


(hope that ain't too out there)

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

More people should have paid attention to Future Shock.

Because they haven't we are living much of FS as facts of reality.

Corps(es) love a disposable economy - out their door - not their concern anymore.

Corps(es) love the disposable economy so much - they have extended it to the workforce.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

And I was just reminded of another book sort of related.


They cover different aspects of the problem but are related.


[-] -1 points by amabokuf (-97) 7 years ago

Unions have exceeded their usefulness and have become an economic liability and no longer serve any purpose other than to enrich Democrats and make Union Bosses wealthy.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

"Reports of our death are greatly exaggerated." SC

[+] -4 points by janus2 (-387) 7 years ago

i want nothing union made.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago
[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Unions advocate for decent hard working Americans.

You are against decent hard working Americans?

[-] -3 points by janus2 (-387) 7 years ago

unions are no longer of any value, excpet to union leaders who make a fortune off the backs of the people they claim to represent

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Bullshit! Just more anti worker right wing lies!

Stop shilling for 1% oligarchs who exploit workers and continue to prey on your family and mine!


[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

AhA! You have a fire under your ass today. I like it.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Ok. If you say so.

There once was a union maid, she never was afraid

Of goons and ginks and company finks and the deputy sheriffs who made the raid.

She went to the union hall when a meeting it was called,

And when the Legion boys come 'round

She always stood her ground.

Oh, you can't scare me, I'm sticking to the union,

I'm sticking to the union, I'm sticking to the union.

Oh, you can't scare me, I'm sticking to the union,

I'm sticking to the union 'til the day I die." WG

[-] -3 points by janus2 (-387) 7 years ago

take a look at trumpka, stein and gerard. the only use they have for the union membership is the money and power they get from the labor of their membership.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

You are not dealing with reality. You are simply reading right wing anti union talking points.

You betray your own class for the 1% criminals exploiting your own family.

You have no honor!

[-] 3 points by agkaiser (2449) from Fredericksburg, TX 7 years ago

A fool is like an idiot. There's no point in explaining to them why they're a fool or and idiot. They either won't believe you or won't understand you. Probably both.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

You are correct. My weakness is the need to challenge these right wing (anti union in this case) wackos whenever the rear their ignorant heads.

Whack 'em down! But I agree with you. And I do believe they are both fools & idiots.

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (2449) from Fredericksburg, TX 7 years ago

Yeah. I know better but often am immoderate in my response to the morons. I try to refrain from engaging trolls. It only encourages them. But sometimes I can't help myself. And other times, if I'm in a fey mood, I just make some hyperbolic or incendiary response to jack them up. You know: like referring to them as fools and idiots in a comment I think they're likely to read even though on the surface it doesn't look like it was intended for them.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I've done that as well. I've spent months trying to be polite, but what'sthe point? There is no support on the forum for civil discourse.

So fuck it!

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (2449) from Fredericksburg, TX 7 years ago

That's it! More and more I just want to screw with their heads. The only problem is they either have no heads or they're so far up their asses that they can't be sighted to fuck with 'em.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

LOL. That is true. But I can tell when they get upset. It's actually very simple. Just continue challenging the extremism with logic.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago
[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Does that please you?

[-] -3 points by newShep (-179) 7 years ago

Not really but it proves that unions no longer have an affect on anything, they are hosed

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

They must be resurrected.

We need unions if we are going to succeed at getting higher wages for American workers, better benefits, safer conditions and an end to the exploitation & abuse that decent hard working Americans are subjected to.

Don't you want these improvements for your fellow Americans?


[-] -2 points by newShep (-179) 7 years ago

Union members are only union leaders little servants and nothing more

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

You are uninformed, or blatantly lying. Clearly you are anti union and unappreciative of the many benefits unions have created for you and all workers (union or not)

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Please explain to me what the fuck good is a powerless union?

Please also explain how unions provide NOTHING to their members.

[-] -2 points by janus2 (-387) 7 years ago

the union heads do not provide for their members, the members provide for the union leaders.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

All I can say, is they sure helped me out several times in my life.

I'm sure you'll tell me my experience doesn't count though, as I'm not Rush Limbaugh.

[+] -4 points by newShep (-179) 7 years ago

Union members are the union leaders little servants. Union dues do nothing but go up, to feed pie mouths like Trumpka, etc

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago


This is just full shit.

You should try taking it up at your local teamsters union hall.

Talk to some real people, instead of listening to Limbaugh and his ilk.

[-] -2 points by janus2 (-387) 7 years ago


[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

That's "right". Just do whatever the boss asks.

Who gives a fuck if you die doing it.

Who gives a fuck if you are maimed for life. It's you own damn fault!!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Cool. Move to Somalia. No unions there worth mentioning.