Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why do republicans hate unions and working people?

Posted 2 years ago on June 5, 2012, 3:48 p.m. EST by DoubleVoice (115)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

how many times do i have to tell the truth?,.i guess as many times the fascist/conservatives tell lies ,. ?,.Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican’s would still be sitting in the dark)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have”.,.[its #10 on the list of 14 signs you are a fasisct/conservative but its #1 as far as im concerned,.]

Source(s): http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=AlgnUWxG8qRNjy…

198 Comments

198 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

Unfortunately, a lot of the rhetoric since Reagan and the 1980's has turned many "right-wingers" into radical individualists, if only in their own minds.

Just do a study of the far-right, aka. Libertarians and Anachro-Capitalists, and you should see what I mean.

[-] -2 points by linker (-241) 2 years ago

yea - no radicals on the left

[-] 5 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Not enough radicals on the (so called) left these days ;)

[+] -5 points by RealWorld2 (-114) 2 years ago

Why do liberals now care more about making teachers imposible to fire than they do about teaching kids?

[-] 3 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

That's not what I mean, at all. Unions do the wrong thing a lot, but it's largely the curriculum and the metrics for "success", that destroys the education system.

[+] -4 points by RealWorld2 (-114) 2 years ago

Management has lost control to the employees. Crummy teachers are passed around rather than canned.

Watch "Waiting for Super Man" some time.

[-] 4 points by factsrfun (6884) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

crummy CEO's are passed around from board to board, that cost us ten times as much, but because it's "private" we don't get to bitch about that, but we have to support them with low taxes and in some states the government even gets involved in contracts to help the rich guys out against the big bad unions, one man one vote for corporate affairs no more voting by number of shares, so you better like your partners, that’s what we need

[-] -1 points by RealWorld2 (-114) 2 years ago

There are far fewer of them, it isn't tax money, and the "CEO" bitch is a really weak argument for continung govt union conflicts of interest. Shareholders appreciate your concern about what they pay their management.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6884) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Money is money like oil it's fluid, they come hat in hand for tax break after tax break, then say “we’re private” give me a break!

[-] -2 points by RealWorld2 (-114) 2 years ago

And they shouldn't get them. But that's what government does, and when they don't ask, government does it anyways like with the "green" energy boondoggles. Yet at every turn, liberals say: make it bigger.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6884) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I don't hear liberals say "make the military bigger" yet we have the "biggest" in the world by ten times over, if the liberals were running so much wouldn't we have ten times the healthcare instead of one tenth and one tenth the military?

I don’t hear liberals say “put more people in prison” yet we have more people in prison than China or North Korea, we have the biggest prison system in the world and the cons want to make it bigger, if liberals ran things wouldn’t we have the biggest schools intead of the biggest prisons?

[-] -3 points by RealWorld2 (-114) 2 years ago

And they'd all work in unions, retire at 50, wouldn't be possible to fire, and would have pensions worth a multiple of the taxpayers that fund them. I get that. But what's liberal about supporting govt unions with all the problems?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6884) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Unions are unions. What??? If you work for the government you don't have a right to live?

[-] -1 points by RealWorld2 (-114) 2 years ago

No, they really aren't. Private sector unions don't get to elect their own bosses. Come on, that's the entirety of Wisconsin was: the union trying to fix its problems by first fixing the election. It's completely different.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6884) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So if you belong to a union you can't buy stock?

I'm pretty sure that's not correct.

[-] -3 points by RealWorld2 (-114) 2 years ago

Sure, you can. Some companies have even had large union stakes like United Airlines before it filed bankruptcy. But for them to elect their own bosses, they first have to own enough of the company. That's an economic stake.

But in government, they vote for their bosses but don't have the economic stake of owners. They're just a small share of the population. The analogy would be the employees owning 5% of a comany, but then diverting the income belonging to other shareholders just to themselves.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6884) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So they don't pay taxes? this is really a stupid position, employees can be shareholders and vote like any other and they can be citizens and vote like any other, now if you are worried about people diverting funds to their personal benefit because they have too much control in the voting process, the corporate boardrooms and CEOs is where you want to be focusing your attention now there some shit that goes on there. We diffidently need more shareholder right protections.

[+] -4 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

Why don't we start with the big "boondoggle" offenders before we pick on teachers (who should be getting CEO salaries for what they do for society! telling) and green tech (which should be funded much more so we can get off oil and catch up with Germany) like the two bogus Cheney-Bush wars for oil "boondoggles," the greatest bank heist in history Wall Street "boondoggle," the various passed along costs of fossil fuel "boondoggle," the Medicare Part-D "boondoggle," the corporate offshoring, subsidies, tax evasions and economic treason "boondoggles;" and the war on drugs "boondoggle"?? That cost us real money and harm, maim and kill millions every year.

But focusing on REAL "boondoggles" adds nothing to the divide and conquer, crab mentality, agenda that is his real intention.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

great post!

[+] -4 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

Thanx, got it from JIFFYSQUID92. Spread the word! We have a flood of RW BS slopping and sliming over everything here. The RealWorld turkey must wreak!!

[-] -3 points by RealWorld2 (-114) 2 years ago

Why not deal with what's right in front of us: public unions. The "what about the other guy" defense is a poor reason for passing on reform and doesn't explain what's so liberal about supporting govt unions at all cost.

[-] -2 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

Because the cost of Union Labor is insignificant (bottom of the expenditure list, but near the top in public benefit) compared to the real money wasting "boondoggles" listed above that hurt us all. Because the whole fucking point is to save money, RIGHT?? RIGHT?? HMmmmm???

[-] 0 points by RealWorld2 (-114) 2 years ago

At the federal it's much less as a share, but that's not true at the state and local level. Retirement benefit alone are over 20% of revenues in San Jose. That's why they voted 70% for reform. They don't want to trade closing libraries for padding the employees, especially given corrupt bargains struck between labor and the officials they voted into office.

[+] -4 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

Sham!

Penny wise and dollar foolish! Deliberately!

[-] 0 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

there is no such thing as a crummy CEO corporate darwinism makes sure of that

[-] 0 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

I agree. Crummy teachers should be canned, but you are taking a single issue that can be addressed separately and turning it into economic warfare.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Troll alert. If you want to waste your time, please continue. Notice how one of your legs is getting longer?

[-] 0 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

Thanks for the heads up.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Check the number of posts (5) five? That's it?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6884) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

crummy CEO's should be left with minimum wage till their victims are paid in full

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

No disagreement there.

[-] -2 points by RealWorld2 (-114) 2 years ago

Economic warfare? Oh, is that the one about supporting "working families" that work for government and somehow then claiming that you're in favor of working families despite the working families getting stuck with the taxes?

[-] -1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

You are attacking the livelihood of the police, teachers, garbage men, firemen, etc. Are you promoting some form of anachro-capitalism or something?

[+] -4 points by RealWorld2 (-114) 2 years ago

But they're attacking the livelihoods of taxpayers by draining them for ever higher taxes and worse services to fund benefits unheard of by taxpayers that employ them.

[-] 3 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

Douchebag, it's the banksters that are draining the economy. I couldn't emphasize more on how stupid right-wingers are who blame their economic woes on taxes this late in the game. Where have you been, living under a rock?

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Foul: ad hominem.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

I despise proto-fascists, whether a "lefty" or a "righty".

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Calling a stranger on the Internet a "douchebag" doesn't advance your argument in any way. Just FYI.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

I'll put on the kid gloves with the harmless but misguided, not with the dangerous and arrogant.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Any time that you allow yourself to get distracted from your argument to attack the person instead of what the person is saying, you do a disservice to your own argument. And you appear weak and undisciplined.

[-] -3 points by RealWorld2 (-114) 2 years ago

Sure it is. Everyone, look over there! Nice diversion, but the people in Wisconsin saw an abuse and went with reform. Some towns in California overwheminly went with reform too. See, taxpayers have grown tired of tone deaf unions demanding tax increaes for benefits that they themselves don't have,

[-] 2 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

Well then why don't they get union jobs then, or start their own unions? Taking away someone's toy just because they have it and you don't is just plain jealousy, especially since they're not doing any cheating to get it.

If you were part of a union, would you not look out for your best interests too? Doesn't every human being look out for themselves first?

[-] -2 points by RealWorld2 (-114) 2 years ago

Wrong analogy. You forget who's paying for the toy.

Yours is a poor argument for not reforming the government unions. It's a problem when employees vote for their bosses who then return the favor by screwing ordinary taxpayers.

[-] 2 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

I never said don't reform the government unions. I'm saying that jealous people should get off their asses and start their own union instead of complaining about other hard-working Americans.

The people that complain about unions are the redneck idiots that could barely get out of high school, have no financial knowledge because they blow all of their money on souped up 10mpg pick-up trucks and cheap beer.

They COULD have done something with their lives, but frankly its their own faults for not being in a union. Its their faults for not going to college and not paying attention in HS instead of fucking all of the time. Which BTW brings them part of the blame for the 2 kids that they have before turning 21 (I say part because too many southern schools teach religious BS instead of teaching men how to use a condom.)

If you don't like how your tax money is spent, then GTFO and go live in Iran. Unfortunately for you there are plenty of people here who still care about working Americans and will fight for the 99% over any 1% greed.

[-] 1 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

The only "fucking" of ordinary people comes from the 1% that continues to take all of our money and screw us out of our future, all in the name of the "free market."

But, you know, put all of the blame on average hard-working Americans instead of on the real culprits...

You're a brainwashed hack, RealWorld2. That's why you have a -57. No one agrees with you. Peddle your BS somewhere else.

[-] -2 points by RealWorld2 (-114) 2 years ago

They did protect worker's rights. Many more workers work outside government than in government. For stupid rednecks, they sure have a lot of them. Your union stooge didn't even survive your own primary and your candidate got buried TWICE. LOL

Maybe people are waking up to the idea that there's nothing liberal about supporting govt unions.

[-] 2 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

Getting rid of unions only makes it that much easier for workers to be abused, paid shit for wages, and treated like replicable cogs instead of human beings. The rednecks absolutely voted against their own interests, because I guess they don't care if the 1% treats them like disposable pawns as long as they have some cheap beer! YEE HAW!

Government unions didn't take ANYTHING away from taxpayers, except for a few dollars that would have went to bombs instead. Why aren't you railing against the $700 billion spent each year on bullets and bombs? That's where the REAL government WASTE is.

[-] -2 points by RealWorld2 (-114) 2 years ago

No, it's better to reform things here, just they're doing in Wisconsin. Plenty of people do care. They just fended off an attack by entrenched unions, again.

[-] 2 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

No they don't care, otherwise they would protect workers' rights instead of helping the 1% get their way. Stupid rednecks. I almost feel bad for them. Almost.

[-] -3 points by RealWorld2 (-114) 2 years ago

No, getting rid of GOVT UNIONS is needed. Funny how leftists think govt is the model for everything, but then is somehow this exploitive employer. Too funny.

Government is being drained of its capacity to do what it's supposed to do by the unions. San Jose voted for reform, 70% in favor. Their city now spends over 20% of revenues on retirement benefits. They aren't alone.

Govt unions vote for their bosses who then in turn return the favor and fuck the ordinary people. There's nothing liberal or progressive in supporting this subversion of our government.

[-] -3 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

Wall Street and Big Biz has that tax black hole completely covered.

[-] -3 points by RealWorld2 (-114) 2 years ago

Denial, that's interesting but as well a weak argument. "Just take more" has been the un-official operating motto of the unions for too long. The people are tapped and all you can think of is someone else to tap to keep the abuse flowing.

[-] -3 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

You live in Opposite World! One where American democracy means that evil-maniacal rich (Bircher) zealots buy Governors; and when you try to save money you ignore the major, unparallelled greedy Wall Street and Big Biz, money wasters and focus on the last segment of workers who still make a paltry decent wage. Turn it around man! UR driving the wrong way on the freeway!!

As I said above, Wall Street and Big Biz has that tax and "Just take more" black hole completely covered. You would make a terrible CPA, penny wise and dollar foolish. Because the point is to save money, right? RIGHT??

Read this: http://www.consumersavvytips.org/penny_wise_dollar_foolish_the_right_way_and_the_wrong_way_to.html

[-] -1 points by RealWorld2 (-114) 2 years ago

Abuse doesn't make an argument for tolerating abuse. Be against all abuse, even union abuse. You'll at least have some credibility left.

[-] 0 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

I'll worry about my cred, you try to find some.

Penny wise and pound foolish, just loses.

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

This is the result of how our current system (and society) is structured. As it stands now, the relationship between unions and public authorities tends to be adversarial. When teacher performance is less than ideal, the knee jerk is to fire or punish the teacher, not provide additional training. I think this comes from a "reward/punishment" mentality (i.e. the idea that the only reason why people do anything productive is either to avoid punishment, or enrich themselves in some way).

Couple that with a culture that has managed to devolve itself towards a sort of societal attention deficit disorder, or an "immediate gratification" culture, and we get the mess we have today. People today seem to lack the patients to implement far reaching reforms (which usually requires time and patients).

Even unions are very top down organizations, and they could certainly benefit from a more participatory approach. But at the end of the day, as long as our economic fortunes are as concentrated as they are today, I don't think things will change for the good. Our structure promotes divisiveness. It pits the poor against the middle class, it blames the poor for their condition (and our dysfunctional sense of individualism prevents us from seeing how our social structure contributes to their condition). So adversarialism is built into every aspect of our society. Rather than moving us towards a culture where everyone's interests become aligned, our system moves people apart.

I think it would serve us well to believe that mankind can do better. I just cannot believe that the only way to inspire productivity is through divisiveness. Certainly the evolution of our culture is an improvement on our past, but success has a way of making a people complacent. What worked yesterday will not necessarily work tomorrow. I'm afraid it's possible that things just haven't gotten bad enough for people to realize this (but I really hope I'm wrong).

[-] 2 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

Wow great post!

I agree that we are trained to be adversarial, instead of cooperative. I believe that children's sports, business structure, even classrooms create this notion of "hierarchy" in people's minds from a very early age.

Look at how kids seat themselves on a bus. The oldest or most popular sit in the back, while the very front is for the outcasts or for the kid who is in trouble. If kids were taught from an early age that all of these divisions are BS and to embrace all others as equals, then maybe we would get something positive out of the future generations.

On the teacher issue, too many people are blaming the teachers when their kids get bad grades. It doesn't necessarily mean that the teacher did a terrible job. Maybe its the kid that's fucking up? Maybe its the school system in general that needs reform? You remember being a kid. You remember how much school felt like a prison, how rigid everything was setup to be. You remember how inept the staff was when it came to getting disruptive kids out of class, and how much petty BS led to students being revered for failing classes. It was fucked up to see how D average students got all of the hot girls, because they were the "rebels" while anyone who got As was in the "nerd" crowd. Maybe we need to fix THAT part of the system instead of blaming the teachers all the time?

This conversation should be happening WAY more often:

"Look Mr.Blahblah, your kid is a fucking retard AND it is clear that he has received no guidance from you as a parent. You need to teach him to behave and force him to study or we're going to expel him."

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Right, even the idea that learning and working somehow requires sacrifice and denying ourselves enjoyment ... seems like a bizarre cultural phenomena, but there may be some deeper thing behind this idea. After all, humans glorify sacrifice, we've even selected a sacrificial lamb as our deity, and so I don't think the results should surprise us. We're somewhat programmed to think problems can be solved by a messianic figure, rather than thinking we can control the outcomes in our own societies (and this mentality, I think, plagues human thinking). We worship ideas that enslave us, can there anything more bizarre or counter-intuitive?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28261) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I believe it is also why the teaching of morals is frowned upon - easier to separate a population that has no concept of mutual support.

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

The bizarre factor in the "morality" equation is religion (and the unique American approach to religiosity). We do need to agree on a set of SECULAR principles, and here's where movements like OWS can really have an impact. I think it goes without saying that this movement is inspiring young people (perhaps more so than adults). I think we have a real opportunity, but I also think we could benefit from a greater commitment to intellectualism.

We can pry open our culture all day long, reveal its shortcomings, but without a real academic discussion about alternatives, the impression is that the bad aspects of our culture, while unfortunate, cannot be changed. This does not require a universal consensus on which alternatives to endorse, but if we want to promote ideas like philosophical anarchism (a very alien idea to most people), we need to do it in a much more rigorous way (if we expect people to seriously consider these novel ideas).

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28261) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Agree.

Education and outreach are essential.

And issues explored and communicated lead to awareness and understanding as more people are exposed to critical thinking and compare it to the world around them.

This is why this is not a simple protest on the criminal action of WallStreet that sent the market/economy crashing.

[-] 2 points by RayLansing (99) 2 years ago

Republicons are self entitled hypocrites claiming that these hardworking people are "self entitled".

[-] -3 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

"Divide and conquer," Snotties own words. Doesn't get plainer than that.

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss2 (125) 2 years ago

LOL... How many of these things did Republicans fight for?

[-] 3 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

The better question might be: How many of these things are Republicans fighting to take away to fund more bombs of course.

[-] 1 points by JOELEWHITE1 (14) 2 years ago

Actually, those rural republicans voted against the Walker recall, and are still sitting in the dark.

[-] 1 points by know1 (210) 2 years ago

great !

[-] 1 points by Bighead1883 (285) 2 years ago

This story relates worldwide because those with jobs have not yet felt the pain.

[-] 0 points by Freemantake (-21) 2 years ago

Dems Can’t Make it Without Government Worker Unions----------hahhahahahha get a real job idiots

[+] -4 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

Here's the really rich part of your RW-clever reply, neither can you!

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Here is an interesting study - I'll post the conclusion and a link:

"CONCLUSION:

This paper has finally reached the end of its long journey into the world of Right to Work laws, and is now ready to answer the question: Should a state adopt a Right to Work law? In analyzing that question this paper has primarily focused on how adopting a Right to Work law impacts what matters most to a state: its people. And as unions and companies affect people indirectly it has analyzed them as well.

The main reasons people claim a state should not adopt Right to Work laws are that they lead to lower wages, are damaging to unions, and are morally wrong because they allow people to receive union services without paying for them. This paper’s critical analysis of Right to Work literature has provided strong evidence that the first two potential drawbacks of Right to Work laws are red herrings. Numerous credible studies have shown that real wages in Right to Work and non-RTW states are about the same, and if anything Right to Work states have slightly higher real wages. Additionally, although Right to Work laws do make it easier for people to free ride or receive union services without paying for them, the best estimate available suggests the proportion of people who are truly taking advantage of unions in this way is insignificant. As to how Right to Work laws affect union membership, the jury is still out. Most research suggests that total union membership within a state could decrease by between zero and eight percent after a state adopts a Right to Work law. This would be the most significant negative effect to a state of adopting Right to Work laws. However, it seems fairly safe to say that the possible reduction in union size does not negatively affect workers’ wages.

The main reason to adopt Right to Work laws is that Right to Work laws spur a state’s economic activity, lead to lower unemployment and higher job growth, and make a state more attractive to business. The aforementioned benefits are supported by the preponderance of available research on this topic, and by the experiences of the two most recent adopters of Right to Work laws, Idaho and Oklahoma. Both of these states have experienced tremendous economic activity after adopting Right to Work laws. There are other relevant benefits of Right to Work laws. These laws do stop a state’s citizens from having to go through the ordeal and possible harassment associated with becoming Beck Objectors. Additionally, a limited amount of research on the topic does suggest that adopting a Right to Work law may actually have a small positive effect on the value of a state’s businesses’ stocks.

When one weighs the benefits of Right to Work laws, mainly stronger economic growth and new job creation, against the negative effects of Right to Work laws, mainly the possibility of somewhat weakened unions, the choice is clear. In either case the real wages people earn are the same, but the economic growth and job creation are different. States wanting to be well positioned for success in the 21st century should adopt a Right to Work law."

http://right-to-work-laws.johnwcooper.com/

[-] 3 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

"Right to work" is probably the greatest example of double-speak since Orwell wrote 1984...

The corporate propaganda machine has convinced a lot of people that they will have a better standard of living without unions, because companies will pay them based on their merit... its a load of crap. They have less pay, fewer benefits, and the future is getting bleaker with the erosion of the middle class.

There is power in numbers and it ought to be blatantly obvious to anyone that the reason corporations are pushing this right to work crap is because its more profitable for them to pay people less... at least until there is no-one left to buy their products.

The problem with unions is not union leaders (who are frankly paid lousy for the amount of responsibility they have) but rather government regulations that let corporations avoid being unionized and allowing them undercut union competitors, whether that is by outsourcing or whatever.

But we've let the idiots in power set the stage for the race to the bottom we are now experiencing, and its just a question of how bad it has to get before we see people out in the streets like they were at the turn of the last century.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

The study that I linked doesn't support your claim. "right-to-work" states have similar pay and benefits, once you factor in cost of living, and lower unemployment rates. While you say it should be blatantly obvious that unions are the way to go - maybe it isn't so obvious.

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Have you seen the number of foreclosures?

Similar pay and benefits if you actually have a job maybe, but in terms of the macro-economic effect of union busting, to me it looks like we are headed back to 1905. Hence all this talk about getting rid of a minimum wage...

To be honest I just skimmed it but if there is on thing about economic studies I know its that they are often biased toward the corporate interests who pay for them. Maybe this one doesn't fit that description, I'm to busy to delve into it right now, but unions are a critical check & balance against corporate power and profiteering.

[-] -2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

And I say that they aren't crtical. There are 23 right to work states, and 27 forced unionism states. I don't think you can make a case for gross differences in quality of life, workplace safety, or economic wellness between the two groups.

Unions are an answer to some worker issues, but they aren't the only answer.

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

I've always believed that companies who treat their employee's like crap to make an extra buck should have a union, that way companies who treat their employees decently can still compete with them.

Not all unions are perfect, but by and large I think they are better than the alternative. There is a reason why the ruling class doesn't like them, and its not because they feel sorry for people paying dues. They limit their power over employees, and they increase their cost of labor. Two things that are good for the working class.

If there were strong pro-union legislation across the board companies would have less to complain about because the playing field would be equal, and they could gain a competitive advantage with good union relations. Which is how it should be IMO.

[-] -3 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

You are trying to convince people that lower wages, let's just put rights and benefits aside, results in a better economy. Do you realize how stupid that is? Can I interest you in a very reasonable bridge?

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Read the study above - it shows that right to work states have comparable wages and high employment rates. I'm trying to convince people that unions doesn't automatically mean better. For every study I show you that says RTW is better, you can certainly find one that says Unions are better. My point is that there is no definitive body of research that shows one is better than the other for either the employee or the local economy.

So no, I'm not proposing that lower wages are better than higher wages - but that wages are not the whole picture.

[+] -4 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

We have a well documented US history and well documented foreign histories as well as current data, that show that Unions increase wages and the general well being of workers, which in turn makes a more vibrant economy and a better funded government treasury which increases public services. Restricting wages and removing collective representation for workers naturally has the opposite effects. Quit trying to screw the workers! Median wages have stagnated since the 70s and benefits have gone down the toilet. We have the greatest disparity of rich and poor, and the greatest accumulation of wealth among the smallest number of people in the top 1%. Aim UP, not down!

[-] -1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

A) Data does not show that unions increase wages, in fact the data that I presented to you shows little to no difference in real wages between RTW and union states. I can show you other studies that support the same concept. I'm not saying that the benefit of one over the other is definitive - in fact, I would present that we can't show that one solution is better than the other.

B) You are assuming the removing collective representation has the opposite effect. Do you have anything to support this claim? Can you show me that the difference between safety, real wages (metered by cost of living), benefits, etc are that great between union and non-union states? It simply isn't the case.

If unions are so great, why did the rolls drop so dramatically in Wisconsin when the option was presented?

It is a common claim that anyone who is against unions is against workers. Again, this is simply not the case. I live in a RTW state, and we are doing just fine. I don't need a union coming in and forcing me to pay to support their agenda. It could be that the relationship between worker and management in union states has become so contentious that people can't work out the issues without threatening to go on strike. That's unfortunate.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Wow, your words ring true because as a person who has started almost every job at minimum wage and have worked half my life in Illinois and half my time in Arizona, I can say that I really have not seen much a difference. although almost every person I knew in Illinois swore by the union creed, almost everyone I know in Arizona believes the exact opposite. Most of the people here feel that Unions had their place, but are now retro. You make a compelling argument.

I believe the ballot box is where the real worker rights and wages are appropriated and because there is almost no better lobby than a union, so in that regard, maybe there is still use for them.

[-] -2 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

Complete BS!

[+] -4 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

Thank you!

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

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by camams (7) 2 years ago

Taxpayers are fed up feeding the corrupt union boss. America has woke up and we will stamp out public and federal unions. Gov Walker should run for President.

[-] -1 points by Freemantake (-21) 2 years ago

Honest hardworking tax paying folks like me do not like public or Federal unions. Why??? because they are corrupt and no good for America

[-] 2 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

Yeah...minimum wage, 40 our work weeks, workers comp, lunch breaks, and less child labor are absolutely terrible for America.

[-] -1 points by Krowell (-69) 2 years ago

Classic, and what did people do before the liberals were here to protect is all?

If you are so in control, where are the jobs?

[-] 2 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

A REAL Progressive party is NOT in control. The Democrats are just a soft right-wing party at this point. We need a party with real balls to step up and take on the 1% instead of taking their money.

[-] -1 points by Krowell (-69) 2 years ago

The problem is then who is going to work. With out incentives, everybody will be looking at the next guy to do the work. Just look at what happened in Greece and now the Germans are sayign no way.

[+] -5 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

We were ruled by the King of England! You never heard?

[-] -2 points by Jojo1919 (0) 2 years ago

Unions are corrupt ; nothing against working people.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Unions are only corrupte when their members become apathetic.

Just like the rest of the country,.

[-] 2 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

Unions are made up of working people.

[-] -2 points by Clancy (42) 2 years ago

Unions are a great thing but they have abused their power. They constantly argue with the governor and state legislature over wages. Usually the American tax payer gets screwed over. Republicans like Unions but today's unions have abused their power and screwed non union workers over. Forcing someone to join a union so they can work is wrong. RIGHT TO WORK,

[-] -2 points by AmericanMan (-1) 2 years ago

I read what DoubleVoice posted. Reading one MUST ASSUME that republicans LOVE TO drink, eat,, shampoo, take drugs that are dirty. We just love for us and our children to do that. We have always encouraged that. One MUST ASSUME that American population all died off during the 50's, 60's and 70's since democrats did start clean us up later. Yes we all died but thanks to democrats we are all safe and VERY HAPPY with America today. We LOVE America so much that democrats have brough us all together. Yes, they even made money healthy. They made money SOOOOoooooo healthy that the government make even more every day. About $15+ trillion more. Thank you democrats for all the great work you have done so us stupid republicans will stop poisoning our children. Wait,,,,,,,, DoubleVoice failed to mention why,,,,, after they have done SOOOOoooo much,, that their kids are FATTTTTTTTTTTTTT. And their wife is FATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT. So republicans were killing people with dirty shampoo and democrats are killing them with FAAATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28261) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Corporations. They have been behind the downfall of American society. With bought influence in government. A weak FDA a weak EPA a weak CFTC a weak SEC a weak free trade program, a corrupt fossil fuel program a weak labor program a weak Social Security program a weak Health care system etc etc etc.

Profits over People.

Corporations.

[-] -3 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

Why do Cons hate Unions and working People? Because they are waging a Class War on the 99% in behalf of a cabal of greed-addled zealots in the 1%. The plan of attack is Shock Doctrine and the reward is classic rape and pillage. To mercenary Cons and their insatiable employers, wage slaves are much more desirable than Union (organized) workers ~ lowest cost and greatest insecurity.

And they love socialism for paying for their losses and the commons they depend on, but their profits are all PRIVATE!!

[-] -3 points by RealityTime2 (-25) 2 years ago

We don't hate workers or unions, that's a government employee ruse. We just want our government back and an end to a terrible conflict of interest with union members setting the table for negotiations at the ballot box.

The cycle of hand-picking politicians who in turn appease the unions rather than serve the people needs to stop. Seems like a lay-up for OWS and liberals to support, but for some reason, it just isn't.

[-] 3 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

Unions ARE the people, dumbass! They're the only people in the 99% who have enough power to stop the 1% from screwing them over, which is why you have been duped into helping to 1% destroy them. By turning against Unions you are turning against the people.

[-] 2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

If you look at what happened in Wisconsin, it doesn't look to me like the Unions ARE the people. When given the option, the people left the unions. Certainly 1/2 the members of the public sector employees left, and in some cases up to 2/3 the members left.

Now you can also stomp your feet and talk about how stupid these people are - but these are OUR people. These are the workers, and they have made a choice.

If unions are so wonderful, why does membership have to be mandatory? It seems to me that if they were so great - people would want to join them, even in right-to-work states.

[-] 1 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

Only in a few unions is membership mandatory. And the numbers of people in unions is declining because nearly every state in the country has the backwards "Right To Work (for scraps)" laws in place that make it impossible for people like me to start a new union. If I want to unionize my workplace, I get fired, period. How many millions of Americans in the Right To Work states also want to band together, but can't? Any polls done of them?

Some people ARE stupid. They sit on their ass after work and get brainwashed by Fox News instead of going online or to the library and learning things for themselves. They don't have the mental capacity to see the impact of always demanding "no taxes!" and then wondering why when the neighbors' homes burn down that the fire department doesn't arrive on time, or when the police department is so inept that they can't keep gang-bangers from roaming the streets and selling drugs in broad daylight, or they wonder why their kids are so dumb because the only teachers that the schools can get are the ones who couldn't find better paying work in the private sector.

The union members who voted for Walker will realize how dumb they were when no one stops their employer from taking away their insurance, pension, retirement, and cuts most of their jobs away. When their jobs go to Mexicans that will take the work for minimum wage or less under-the-table. When their plant closes because China will provide workers for close to nothing. Good job, idiots!

We need an amendment to the constitution that protects unionization as free speech and freedom of assembly. It should be counted just like discrimination as a reason that employers cannot fire you.

[-] 2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I don't disagree with you on your last statement. Employees should have a right to unionize and organizers should not discriminate.

Just because people disagree with your point, it doesn't mean they are stupid. There is a whole other side to the argument that has valid points as well. You are sounding a little brainwashed yourself. When unions demand more and more things, particularly in tough times, then companies often times have to lay off workers or freeze hiring because they can't afford to add more jobs. One of the reasons that jobs go to Mexico and China is because some unions have overpriced themselves - forcing companies to look for other options.

And the walker vote wasn't just about unions. It was also about a balanced budget. Something the federal government hasn't seen in a very long time. You can't spend what you don't have. When you do, you just continue to dig deeper and deeper into the whole. I'm telling you - this vote is going to have an impact on this presidential election.

[-] 1 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

Sorry, I wish I could give the right-wing supporters the benefit of the doubt, but I have seen so many dirty tricks and so much lying propaganda from their side that I have to conclude that their followers really are lacking.

The broken window during a OLB protest?

Robo-calls telling people to vote on Wednesday?

Robo-calls telling people that they don't have to vote if they signed the recall petition?

Death threats? Bombings of Planned Parenthood centers? Christian extremism being embraced by the party? Birthers?

You can find an excuse for each of these things individually, but taken together it seems clear that the conservatives are fucking insane

I'm afraid that I'll need some physical protection to keep from getting capped by one of these loons. These people are absolutely nuts, and I don't want to be the one without a gun when they decide to take the laws into their own hands.

PS: How does a balanced government budget directly improve your life? I can't think of anything that would change in my day-to-day if all of the governments' budgets (not my problem) were suddenly balanced. I DO know that I will never vote for austerity of any kind, especially when there is so much that the rich can give before everyone has to suffer.

As for Mexico and China, Mexico and China are to blame for out pricing American labor, not the other way around. We should have never signed any free trade agreements with these countries, because there is no way that ANY employee can match the wages that the Chinese are making at these jobs. No one is going to work for $2 a day, because $2 is nothing in this country. You can't eat, have shelter, get clean water, or buy clothes on $2 per day, and forget it if you have a kid.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I can't think of anything another hand-out will do to directly improve my life. Forgiving student loans doesn't do me any good. The ability to have an abortion? Nope. Equal pay for women - no impact. I could go on and on. One of the big problems with society as it is now is that people are only concerned about what directly impacts them - and the reality is, not much of these big ticket items has a direct, day to day impact. However, you have to see that your government continuing to go deeper and deeper into debt, grossly overspending is going to have an impact on the health and wellness of our country.

Are you going to propose to me that the republicans have a monopoly on crooked politics? You can't be that brainwashed...or maybe you are.

[-] 3 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

Both parties aren't perfect, but one is 10,000x worse than the other. At least Democrats sometimes throw a bone to the lower & middle class.

I really don't give a rat's ass how much debt "the country" has. Its just a number. My life didn't get .001% worse because the debt went up by .001% on any given day. It was exactly the same, and everyone else is living the same life too. What affects us is when politicians use this number to try to justify directly screwing over our lives with austerity measures while giving the 1% more and more of our money. THAT's why I'm here. The 1% gets to fuck us over while we are powerless to stop them, and short of bullets or massive protests I can't think of a way for us to be heard.

I don't want a hand out. I want Republicans to stop killing middle America. I want them to go away and never meddle with our lives again.

[-] -2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Good plan. Keep spending and spending and spending. Is that how you run your household?

I'm not looking for handouts either. I want the Democrats to stop running my country into the ground.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

No, that is not how I run my household, but I don't send my household to bomb other countries either. Comparing a household to a government is a ridiculous analogy.

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

You're right. Households are run on real money, while government are run on make believe money. Just keep spending and spending and spending. It doesn't matter, we can always just print more or ask the Chinese for another loan.

It is a sound, albeit simple, analogy for the point I was trying to make.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

The economy is not dependent on what my household does or does not do. Your household does not lose jobs in a recession because of anything my household budget does. This is about what national policies we adopt that effect all households now and in the future.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

No, apparently it is about my analogy.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

You're a super analogist in your own mind.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I prefer master analogist, but thank you all the same.

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

lol association

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

so close the deficit with taxes

convert the war industry to high speed rails and power generation

[-] 1 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

Matt has got it right. Have you wondered why conservatives are so eager to go to war? Democrats aren't much better. Why are we still spending $700 billion on bullets and bombs when that kind of money can eradicate homelessness, and fund jobs for so many Americans...

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

I smoke and voted for the cigarette tax

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 2 years ago

I hate unions because they distort prices and competition. They seek to use bullying power to set wages rather than allowing the market to do so, thereby making things worse for everyone. If there are no unions and no tariffs, then there's "perfect competition" and that's what we should strive towards.

We need a market where everyone dictates their own path in perfect competition, not holding one party hostage for your agenda.

BTW, FDR didn't even support public sector unions. That's how far off base the modern day left has taken us.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions

[-] 4 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

Distort prices and competition? The 1% does that. The 99% only wants to be payed a fair wage for its work.

$2 a day to manufacture clothes is NOT fair! That's what we would get if the Unions hadn't been there to protect workers' rights. If it wasn't for Unions we would be working 12 hour days, living in cage homes, and fired for getting a cold. We could lose limbs on the line and fired with no damages rewarded. We would send off our 6 year old children to work as well, and scrape by on bread and rice. We would still be dying at 40 instead of 80 thanks to the lack of health regulations if the unions didn't fight for them.

The 1% are the real bullies. They want a "free market" so that they can bully everyone into begging for scraps while they take all of the workers' output and make money off of it. People like YOU don't help. You don't care about the workers or anyone other than yourself. YOU are the problem with this world.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 2 years ago

No, unions do that. Fair is whatever the market dictates.

I understand you're a drone, so I'm not going to waste my time on you.

[-] 2 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

The free market is NOT fair! In the "free market" that you desire the employer would have all of the power over the employee. The employee would just be a slave, forced to work for scraps of food and since the employer can just fire you at any time and leave you to starve to death, you are forced to keep working. In your twisted world its OK to let millions of people die from lack of food, since the "free market" will give one group of people (the ones with the resources) ALL of the power. The world is just ran by a few families that were born into the same money over each generation, while average Joe American is born with no possible chance of being more than a slave since everything is owned by someone else.

Greed kills. Free market = greed. I don't want a free market.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 2 years ago

Baloney. The poor can rise and become millionaires. Millionaires can lose everything.

The free market is infinitely more fair than a centrally controlled economy where fairness is forced. That was tried in Russia, Cuba, the former eastern bloc states and look what happened.

By your definition, North Korea can be considered the fairest of them all. Everything is equalized! Everyone starves, but at least everyone is equal.

[+] -7 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Conservatives want small government. There is no way small, unintrusive government can be fascist. Fascism, socialism, communism are all hallmarks of big oppresive government. It is the liberal left who is empowering big government and its' laws and programs. It is the left that supports fascism, socialism and communism.

[-] 6 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

You should read a bit more about fascism before attempting to define it or equate it with socialism or communism. The Italians coined the term fascism in the early 20th century, and Benito Mussolini defined it with a single sentence: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

You won't like the actual definition, because that exactly describes modern America.

[-] 0 points by Harrigan (2) 2 years ago

And here we have it folks! Proof that given enough monkeys and enough typewriters in time you might get "King Lear"...

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

That is exactly why conservatives are not fascist. Conservatives want to shrink the size of government to make it harder for the government and corporations to merge. If the government can't write a law to protect you, there is no reason for the corporation to buy. Fascism is a hallmark of over oppressive, corrupt big government conspiring with a willing corporate structure to purchase favors.

It is equatable with socialism and communism because it favors the rights of the state over the rights of the individual.

[-] 3 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Conservatives don't seem to favor smaller government at all. They want to control people's sexual habits, reproduction, legislate religious myths as somehow scientifically sound, control the rights of people to assemble and protest, outlaw flag-burning, etc, etc, etc.

More or less your vision of conservatism contradicts everything conservatives have tried to accomplish in this country so far. They have consistently worked to restrict individual freedom to fit into their concept of the world, which is heavily tinged by superstition and mythology.

Whether you acknowledge the fact or not; the United States is currently a fascist state, in which the government and corporate power have merged. The Supreme Court decision favoring Citizens United over the FEC proves that. Most of this trend toward fascism has been fueled by conservative actions.

Citizens United describes its own mission: "Seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty with security."

The doublespeak translates to "traditional American values" of our form of big government merged with multi-national corporate power. Our ideal society will be filled with "strong families" in the image of our interpretation of Christianity. Finally "national sovereignty with security" means little more than constant war with ever-increasing defense budgets to defend us from the hobgoblins of conservative paranoia.

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

The people you speak of are not conservative. Traditional American values involves smaller government and less of a burden on the people.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Well, I'm not progressive, an anarchist, a leftist--some people might say.

Then you're fine with evolution being the standard taught in all schools; gay marriage; abortion; truly free speech, assembly, and protest; and even flag burning (which I do not condone, but allow some people feel it accomplishes a purpose). Then we're on the same page. All we need to do is eliminate the corporate control of our political system. Then you and I can fly the black flag together: no central government at all.

[-] 4 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

We're are a large country. We're a big participant in a globalized world with many complexities. Madagascar has a small government. Shall we model ourselves after Madagascar?

Where are you seeing the 'left' supporting socialism and communism?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Small government means that the government does not over regulate and "help" the citizens.

Obama is the left and he supports redistribution of wealth and single payer health care.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Redistribution of wealth (ie: progressive taxation), regulation and government social services is not socialism or communism. Socialism means that workers own the means of production. Communism means the state owns the means of production.
None of the things you describe has anything to do with socialism or communism.

Progressive taxation, regulation and certain government provided social services is entirely consistent with classic liberal capitalism.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.

He believed in government intervention - ''especially when the object is to reduce poverty.''

He believed in regulation - ''When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.''

Adam Smith believed that government has a role in providing certain public goods for the benefit of society. Like schools, infrastructure, and social welfare. He supported government provided education and government regulation. It's not socialism. It's not communism. It's classical liberal capitalism.

It is only neo-liberal economic theories and policy that believes otherwise. That all taxation is bad, all government services are bad, all regulation is bad.

The neo-libs have successfully slandered classical liberal theory and Adam Smith. To the extent that you believe these things are socialist and communist. The neo-libs have done a very good job.

[+] -5 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

In socialism, who pays the wages to the people? In communism, who pays the wages to the people? There is more to both than just ownership and/or control of production.

The "rich" already pay the lions share of the taxes and public expenses. To demand more of others without supporting paying more yourself is just greed on your part. You are so greedy you do not want to contribute to help the welfare of others.

In a free country, government does not provide the means of survival to the citizens. When the state controls the economy, the people are slaves to the state.

I am much more inclined to find inspiration from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Richard Allen, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Paine, and the rest of the founding fathers who established the our country based on the protection of individual rights and freedom and private property. If the government can take from some to give to others, then theree is no freedom.

[-] 5 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

'There is more to both than just ownership and/or control of production'. Yes. And there is also more to the ideas of taxation, regulation and social policy than to simply say that taxation, regulation and social policies equates to socialism/communism. Those things are entirely consistent with classical liberal capitalist theories. It is not nearly so simple as capitalism v socialism/communism.

'The "rich" already pay the lions share of the taxes'. Can you get blood from a rock? 50% of the population is at or near poverty level. The wealthy today have an effective tax rate of 15-20%. From the 1930's (following the Gilded Age and Great Depression) to the 1970s top effective tax rates were 60-70%. This period also happened to be our most prosperous.

http://www.thenation.com/image/extreme-inequality-chart

The Founding Fathers mainly concerned themselves with the political system of government. Most of the Founders envisioned an agrarian society and as such, were mainly concerned about property rights, land ownership and contract rights. Correct? Hamilton, as Sec of the Treas. built upon Adam Smiths ideas of capitalism, but was not entirely convinced of his laissez faire theories. He believed in using government to affect economic and monetary policy for the benefit of society.

And since then we've developed far beyond a simple agrarian society. Because our economy is far more complex than the simple agrarian society the Founders envisioned, it follows that our economic policies are also more complex.

Of course rights and freedoms are important. But we aren't a simple agrarian society anymore. Size of government, how big or how small, what size would you suggest? We should have as big a government as we need without it being any bigger than necessary.

Perhaps the size of government would be smaller if our economic policies were working for more people, rather than just the few, that the neo-liberal policies have resulted in.

Wealth inequality is dangerous to society, it's dangerous to democracy. The wealth inequality we have today is a sign of a sick economy. If economic policies were such that more people were prospering, perhaps government would/could be smaller.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1916- 1939

[+] -7 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Nothing has changed. Private property and private ownership are key to prosperity. Wanting to take anothers property for your own use is unbridled greed. It is envious, covetous, jealous and the worst of human nature.

[-] 7 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Holy crap. 'Nothing has changed' - OMG are you out of your mind? Their concerns with property rights were based on a vision of a simple agrarian society and a reaction against monarchy rule. We're not a simple agrarian society anymore. Most of them also owned slaves. And land ownership became the basis for voting rights!

You are taking an extremely simplistic view of property rights, without regard to the cultural norms of the time, without regard to the cultural influences that absolutely shaped the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Some of which was later amended! To reflect changing cultural norms and societal changes and developments. The 16th Amendment was partially a reaction to the Gilded Age. Where too much economic power was concentrated in the hands of the few. This is extremely dangerous to the economy, society and democracy.

But according to your 'nothing has changed' logic, we should unratify Amendments 11 through 27, especially 15 and 16 I suppose.

Progressive taxes are not based on greed or jealousy. It's based on a desire for a healthy economy and a healthy democracy. It's not socialist/communist. It's classic Adam Smith. So let go of your irrational notions of socialism and communism. Completely irrational fears. And recognize that we have developed far beyond an agrarian society, and societal norms of slavery and white male land owners having voting rights. The Constitution has been Amended and evolved over time to reflect new societal norms and developments.

You're living in a time warp, back in the late 1700's. Early 1800's maybe. Not everything was all flowers and sunshine back then ya know. Jeesh. Join us in the 21st century why don'tcha.

[-] 4 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

This weeks Civics Champion strikes again with another eloquent post that nails it... well done!

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Minor point. my ancestor was the victim of an oligarchy between 1636-1645 in Hingham MAwhen a whole oligarchist community immigrated from a town by the same name in East Anglia, England. To the extent that we are still exploited by oligarchies, you might say that that hasn't changed.

There must be three times as many people on this forum as there are in the 1%. I can understand the 1% using absurd arguments to hold onto the privileged position that they built, but these nevergonnabe's, are a mystery that is hard to explain without using the word "stupid".

[-] 0 points by treasure (-81) 2 years ago

1% of 300,000,000 is 3 millions. I don't think there are 9 millions people on this forum.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Well, I got to fifteen or so, and I fell down trying to get my other shoe off without losing the count. Let's agree on "a lot" OK?

You aren't suggesting that the people who have spent many hours disrupting people who have some concerns regarding the privileges that some have been fortunate to have written into the law which benefit themselves at the expense off the country as a whole, are actually part of the 1%, are you?

[-] 0 points by treasure (-81) 2 years ago

There are like 15 regular users on this forum.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I could have left my shoe on. Dang. You missed this part.

You aren't suggesting that the people who have spent many hours disrupting people who have some concerns regarding the privileges that some have been fortunate to have written into the law which benefit themselves at the expense off the country as a whole, are actually part of the 1%, are you?

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

16 and 17, definitely.

And you can color greed any way you want. When you look at the possessions of someone else and desire them for yourself, you are being covetous. When you think about how good they have it because of their possession, you are being jealous. When you want to take what someone else has because you think you deserve it more than they do, you are being greedy, and when you you vote for someone who promises they will take from others to provide for you, you are a thief.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

toonces, is that you?

[-] -2 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Yes. They (whoever "they" are) inactivated my ability to post. I figure if they do it again, ya'll can stew in your own pot without my differing opinion. Nothing more American than shutting down opposing viewpoints.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Maybe if you stop calling people jealous for offering a different opinion than yours, you wouldn't get ousted. just saying.

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

I have been called far worse for no reason other than posting a differing opinion. As far as being jealous and greedy, I have backed up the reasons a person is jealous and greedy and covetous and envious and a thief for wanting to take the property of others.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Let me put this into context for you. I decide to work for my employer and we agree on a wage. Later I find out the owner is not paying me my fair share in relation to others in the organization. If I were to then try and renegotiate my wages, would you call me a thief for wanting to take more of his money. Or would it simply be me seeking redress for being wronged in the first place. Perhaps I should even take this person to court and seek back pay. There are two sides to every story. And there are base motives on both sides. Only a pious fool would claim to be above greed, jealousy, or any other base emotion. You can call me jealous until the cows come home, but it won't change the fact that the richest in our country have rigged the tax system to favor them and put an unfair burden on the rest of us. Yes, I want to renegotiate my position in society, because I believe I was unfairly taken advantage of. Now, if it was just me acting this way, you might have a solid case of jealousy, but when 67% of Americans feel the rich should be taxed more, I think you have a problem that goes far beyond mere jealousy.

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Let me put it into context for you. Perhaps you weren't producing what the others who were making more than you produced. Perhaps it is a competency issue and not a wage issue.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Double Holy crap! Wow. Yeah, you're a freaking idiot. Clearly part of the problem and totally pathetic.

You clearly cannot see greed for what greed really is. Greed is when you have a thousand or more times more than you will ever need and cannot see beyond your own selfish material desires when you already have a thousand times more than you'll ever need.

'Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed

Taxation is not jealousy or thievery. It's a payment for services provided by the government. We pay taxes for lots of different services. Just because you may not approve of some of the programs or services provided by the government, that doesn't make it thievery.

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

You are an uncivilized, simple minded, interminable imbecile.

[-] -1 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Wiki? You could have posted that definition.

Greed is wanting to take someone else's wealth without working to earn it.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Go back to the warm cuddlely language of an illegitimate gay Scotsman who held the job of King of England for a short time.

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

lol

when you have all the property and refuse to share you are jealous

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

No, then you have Monopoly and you won the game.

[-] -1 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

I take my last post back. We have to pay taxes to the government on property we have already bought. The government owns all the land property. What OWS is pushing for is to have the government own ALL the property, no matter what it is.

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

taken to an extreme peanut butter and jelly sandwitches are mandatory

[-] -1 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

No one has all the property, but you seem to think someone does.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

The banks own most of it through liens from their mortgages. How many homes and business's do you think are owned free and clear?

[-] -1 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Mine will be shortly (except for the government).

[-] 3 points by flip (6866) 2 years ago

the key to prosperity - really - that is your opinion and not fact so back it up! you might want to read rousseau - and where did they get that private property - ever heard of the acts of enclosure?

[-] -2 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

History backs it up. The only places where there has been true prosperity are those places that has protected the individuals right to own property.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Translation: Only people who owned private property can be truly prosperous. Lords of the Manor, slave owners, Monarchs... etc, etc, etc..

[-] -1 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Anyone in the US can own their own home if they are willing to work for it.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Right.... the economy has absolutely nothing to do with it. Willing to work and able to work are two different things.

Detroit has 50% unemployment because industry has left. The jobs that are left over are service jobs that pay mostly minimum wage. Floirda has a bunch of empty houses, and very little employment opportunities.... Cali and NY are pretty much the same. The property taxes in NY, I was paying $10,000 a year... thats like a second mortgage. I had to leave, now I rent.

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

I bet there's an abandon high school there too

the dude in concord brought property in new york

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Sounds like you have an issue with the government expecting you to pay too much in taxes.

Welcome to the Tea Party

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Yeah thats how the Tea Party started. They have changed quite a bit since then.

[-] 2 points by flip (6866) 2 years ago

more opinion - you are missing something - trace history and prosperity and i think you will find that we had private property for a long time before we had any real prosperity. what changed - as an aside i think geo got it right

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Private citizens in society did not have their right to own private property protected by their government.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Meaning in the US white males... up until the 1860's. Less then half the population, and of them many could not afford to buy property but resorted to homesteading to acquire property.

In the 1600's the english settlements were actually corporately owned. So I think it is a brief period of history where your sentence applies, at least in the US.

[-] 1 points by flip (6866) 2 years ago

what the hell have you been smoking - please explain the dates and places you are talking about. europe 1700 - america 1800 - rome 200. do you have any idea about the history? doubtful

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

hmm

[-] 3 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I don't know why you attempt to define complex political systems, when you obviously know so little about them. In both socialism and communism, if one follows the Marxist proposition to the ideal end, wages will neither be necessary nor desirable.

Communism and socialism differ on some issues, but the primary difference is that communists reject the notion of property ownership altogether, whether that property is fixed or movable. In a true communist society all forms of property are held in common; distribution is by need, A socialist society also believes in distribution by need, but property is owned and its use allocated by the state. Marx believed a socialist state was an intermediate step from capitalism to communism,

These are very simplistic explanations, which do absolutely no justice to Marxian thought or the evolutionary process in accomplishing the ideal communist state, but should give you an idea that your beliefs of socialism and communism are based on misconceptions.

Finally, in The Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels postulated that in a truly communist society the state would wither away, which means no hierarchical government at all. You can't get government much smaller than that.

Your abject adoration of the founding fathers is touching but irrational. They were humans subject to the same frailties as we are and none of them would have claimed to be divinely inspired.

Here's a quotation for you on which to build a life and a just society: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Karl Marx.

[+] -4 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Who will own the house you will live in? Who will decide what house you live in? Your moms house? Your best friends house? Wouldn't whoever decides be the 1%?.

In this world that OWS looks to create, wouldn't every house have to be torn down and every house have to be made exactly the same? What happens if you take the house everyone has decided you should live in and fix it up a little bit? Now you fall outside of equal. You are the 1%. Your upgrade MUST be destroyed to keep everyone equal. In that world, it MUST be done. Someone has to enforce that. they will fall outside of "equal".

What happens if you are more successful than your neighbors growing a garden? You are now the 1%. Your garden MUST be redistributed to those who have not been successful.

This is why socialism and communism won't work. It cannot work. In theory, it sounds good, but in practice, it must be forced upon those subjected to it. It MUST be FORCED.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Did you not read what I wrote?

In either society--socialist or communist--there is no individual property ownership. In socialism the state owns all property and allocates use; in communism all property is considered common with use collectively determined by need.

Equal does not mean uniform. People differ in abilities as well as needs. A single person would need far different housing than a family of five. You err in your definition of equal and confuse it with uniform. Both socialism and communism assure all of basic needs. Each person is free to improve upon that with collective agreements.

Marx and Engels realized that to transition from capitalism to communism would require an evolutionary process in order to put in common all property and interface with the outside world. Socialism, a representative form of government with central authority to nationalize and redistribute, fulfils this requirement. Representatives are democratically elected and subject to quick recall by their constituents.

Obviously the whole Marxist theory fills volumes, but again you have misinterpreted Marxism as a whole.

Communism is the ultimate stage of Marxist theory and any central government becomes unnecessary. Communes--which most often use either socialistic or communistic ideas--have succeeded for many years: the Hutterites, many of the Israelis kibbutzim, etc. No force is required.

[-] -1 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

So, how do I get a bigger house? How do I get a house on the water?... on the side of a mountain?... with acreage?... with a two car garage?

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Do you need those things?

In an ideal communist society those who do the best (by collective agreement)--which might be the best janitor as well as the top manager, since both are essential to the whole--would be suitably rewarded by collective agreement. The same goes, for example, for front-row seats to a sporting event. The persons, interested in the particular sporting event, who did the best jobs would be rewarded with those seats.

Such a system accomplishes two purposes. First it rewards those, who by general agreement excel in whatever their work. Second, it discourages those want to hang on for the free ride.

Lenin actually quoted the Bible in his idea of discouraging malingerers: "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." (2 Thess 3:10)

You do realize the early Christians practiced communism. That's right; read all about it. Start with Acts 2:44-47, move up to Acts 5:1-10, in which Peter confronts two malingerers, Sapphira and Ananias. You see, even the early Christians had problems in their communes, but learned how to overcome the same problems faced by nearly all societies,as Paul made clear in 2 Thessalonians.

[-] -1 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

So, the answer is "no", I cannot get a larger house unless someone else says I can have one.

I would rather play by rules that say I can have a bigger house if I work hard and earn it.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

An ideal communist society says the same thing Those who work hard deserve certain rewards; that might be a bigger house, though certainly no mansions would exist in such a society.

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

they build Mansions in Livermore where I grew up

that and apartments

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Livermore? Ha, I have a close friend that works at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. You might have picketed there a few times or near his mansion, :{)

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

no.

I did deliver newspaper to the lab

Id be happy with a newspaper job if I could live comfortably

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

They exist for the top.

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

In this world that OWS looks to create

people would be sculpted from brine,

everyone would pull their eyes out and bet them in alleys playing marbles

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Sounds like fun. I want the aggie.

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

the rich own the property and means of production

[-] -3 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Private individuals and private corporations own the property and means of production

Who would you suggest own the property and means of production?

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Sorry dummy, $700 checks for people, no child behind, medicare part d, Bush ownership society, etc....

You party is just as fascist as the left.

[+] -4 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Bush is a one world government progressive. Bush is not a conservative.

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

No shit. And neither is the Republican Party.

Hope you enjoy voting for globalist corporatist, anti-American scum.

[+] -5 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

The Tea Party is trying to bring the Republicans around to a more conservative party. The Tea Party is trying to hold their feet to the fire. Perhaps the democrats would be well served by the left demanding from them honesty about their intentions as well.

In my opinion, he would be better than a Marxist, anti American scum.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Perhaps the democrats would be well served by the left demanding from them honesty about their intentions as well.

Stay tuned to the DNC/Charlotte and you will see....

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Two corporatist anti American scums, battling it out, and the people still believe.

What a freakin joke.

[+] -4 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

At least Romney isn't a communist.

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

No, he's a corporatist. Just like Obama.

[Removed]