2012 or Never

[Grant]

For a long time they did. Then the world changed and they didn't.

Yes, at one time Unions were of value but now there are laws in place that protect workers and Unions are just a big corrupt business, run by the Tony Sopranos of the world.

 

[Conservative]

You have not heard of the stimulus funding the President provided to the states that prevented millions of layoffs?

The question is why is it Federal responsibility to "save" state jobs? Interesting that most of those so called saved jobs were Democrat constituent union jobs. Where does personal responsibility rest in your world?

 

[Grant]

And, Obama is still worried about his chances of getting re-elected.

Has he lost confidence in his teleprompter?

 

[AClockworkGrape]

Yep, until we EXTERMINATED every Democrat in the country.

Uhhh, what?

 

[Peter King]

Has he lost confidence in his teleprompter?

we can't all talk about the trees being of the right height, the big lakes and the little lakes that are dotted around Michigan

 

[AdamT]

Union membership is at a 70 year low, bls data, look it up. As for driving business out of the state, you cannot be that poorly informed not to know that is exactly what is happening in Michigan.

Yeah, that's awesome, right?

 

[upsideguy]

Every President since LBJ except Reagan raided SS to fund other budget items and Reagan would have too but it was broke at the time. You simply don't have any understanding at all what taxes fund what programs. Anyone that calls SS and Medicare an expense to the govt. is simply naive, gullible, and uneducated which makes these people Obama supporters.

When the GOP selects their candidate I will make that bet with you. Until then I will continue to try and educate you on subjects you obviously know nothing about yet act like an expert on. It really is a shame how so many people ignore results and simply buy the rhetoric and that includes you.

Wow Con.... so you are an Obama supporter...

After all, you consistently count SS as a government expense. Just this morning you told us that the Obama budget called for $3.8T in expenditures.

The population was a lot lower during those President's and the budgets weren't 3.8 trillion dollars like Obama has proposed. You continue to ignore that there are only so many dollars that the people have, if you raise Federal taxes that is going to hurt your state as more will leave it. Maybe that is what you want,a strong central govt. to take care of you

You are correct.... Page 83 of the expected budget for 2012 confirms the $3.8T number.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf

The problem is that the $3.8T INCLUDES $765B of social security benefits to be paid. (The number for 2011 was $727, which is confirmed by the social security administration per Social Security Administration: Social Security Basic Facts )

This means, Con, that you (an "anyone") are calling social security a government expenditure, making you "....simply naive, gullible, and uneducated......." or "..... an Obama supporter..."

I am sure he will appreciate your vote.


[Pst: A private message to Con... no one else read this.

Con. we all appreciate your facts, but you might want to brush up on your command of them as it is often not so hard to shoot them down. I understand you had a career as a personnel manager, so numbers are not your game. Accordingly, all of us here can cut you some slack if you put in the right effort to try to get them right (and keep it consistent). Just a thought: perhaps 4000 well thought out "rifle shot" posts might be more powerful, and contribute more to DP, than 29,000 blind shots from a machine gun.]

 

[Catawba]

Alright, we need to agree on terms. How about this. I bet the GOP candidate carries the 65 and above vote whereas you say Obama will do the same. The loser must post a thread in the basement that is no less than 10 lines about how awesome the other one is. Deal?

My wager is that the GOP loses in November with a smaller percentage of the senior voters than they carried in the 2008 presidential election, with the same stakes you listed. Are you in?

 

[Catawba]

***Breaking news***

In response to the GOP sentiment that while Romney is not their choice, they will rally around him after he's won the nomination -

Colbert unveiled tonight "The Countdown to Love Mitt Clock"!!!!!


(This will help GOP voters know exactly when to start loving Mitt)

 

[MarineTpartier]

My wager is that the GOP loses in November with a smaller percentage of the senior voters than they carried in the 2008 presidential election, with the same stakes you listed. Are you in?

No way bro! I'm not betting the GOP wins. Not happening. I'll agree to the terms I outlined. I think those are fair. But any bet that involves the GOP having to win is a no-go for me lol.

 

[Andalublue]

Yeah, that's awesome, right?

Small wonder the business elite are so keen on destroying the union movement; bigger share of the national income for them. Class warfare rages on.

 

[Gill]

Yeah, that's awesome, right?

Another dishonest post from you. The middle class "share" of income has nothing to do with actual income.

 

[Gill]

Why do Republicans oppose laws that make voter registration automatic with getting a driver's license or ID?

Guess you never heard of the Motor Voter law initiated by Ronald Reagan. All anyone has to do is say yes when asked if they want to register to vote while getting a drivers license.

 

[Andalublue]

Another dishonest post from you. The middle class "share" of income has nothing to do with actual income.

It certainly has. In a growing economy a declining share of national income for the lower socio-economic classes means a slower increase in their actual incomes compared to the higher s-e classes. Their actual incomes may increase but the wealth gap also increases, thus increasing social inequality. In a declining market a decrease in the share of national income means an overall decrease in actual income in order that the higher classes see no such decline. This gives the lie to the disingenuous trope that "we're all in this together". As I said above, rampant class warfare.

 

[TheNextEra]

I posted the bls summary sheet, did you bother reading it?

Yes, I did, and nowhere in there was the so called fact that "unions are bad" as you claim. Care to try again or will you just spout more rhetoric and opinion?

 

[Camlon]

Yeah, that's awesome, right?

Mister, correlation does not mean causation.

 

[Gill]

It certainly has. In a growing economy a declining share of national income for the lower socio-economic classes means a slower increase in their actual incomes compared to the higher s-e classes. Their actual incomes may increase but the wealth gap also increases, thus increasing social inequality. In a declining market a decrease in the share of national income means an overall decrease in actual income in order that the higher classes see no such decline. This gives the lie to the disingenuous trope that "we're all in this together". As I said above, rampant class warfare.

Only those eaten up with envy concern themselves with how much others earn. If my income matches my needs, I could care less how much my boss earns.

 

[Conservative]

Yes, I did, and nowhere in there was the so called fact that "unions are bad" as you claim. Care to try again or will you just spout more rhetoric and opinion?

Who said union per se are bad? The question is why do we need unions today? Unions are like companies, neither are inherently bad but both have bad people in them that make it appear that they are bad. There is a reason union membership is at a 70 year low, care to make a guess why?

 

[Thunder]

Who said union per se are bad? The question is why do we need unions today? Unions are like companies, neither are inherently bad but both have bad people in them that make it appear that they are bad. There is a reason union membership is at a 70 year low, care to make a guess why?

Union-busting and lots of legislation ****ing with unions.

every American would be a member of a union, if they had the right to.

a Union simply gives the workers the right to speak with one collective voice, rather than competing against each other as the bosses giggle.

 

[Conservative]

Union-busting and lots of legislation ****ing with unions.

every American would be a member of a union, if they had the right to.

a Union simply gives the workers the right to speak with one collective voice, rather than competing against each other as the bosses giggle.

Please explain why union membership is dropping, states are moving to right to work status, and how unions make this country better? Have you ever dealt with union management? You think it is the right of a union to try to unseat a duely elected governor of a state? All employees have a right to speak as a collective voice with private businesses, I am completely against public unions as was FDR who is a liberal hero. Like all liberal programs unions have outlived their usefulness and the American public is reacting that way as well.

 

[AdamT]

Another dishonest post from you. The middle class "share" of income has nothing to do with actual income.

Another idiotic post from you. Of course share of income correlates to actual income. :lol:

 

[Camlon]

every American would be a member of a union, if they had the right to.
.

If that is the case, then why do 27 states feel the need to force employees who don't want union representation to pay union dues. With your logic, everyone would happily pay union dues anyway.

 

[AdamT]

Please explain why union membership is dropping, states are moving to right to work status,

You realize that "right to work" is anti-union, right?

Personally I think that both unions and management suck in this country. The unions are out to extract as many concessions from management as possible, without regard to the health of the business, and management is out to extract as much work as they can from employees for the least amount of money possible, without regard to the well being of the workers. Somehow unions and management in other countries are able to work together to the benefit of both. Not sure how to get there from here.

 

[Conservative]

You realize that "right to work" is anti-union, right?

Personally I think that both unions and management suck in this country. The unions are out to extract as many concessions from management as possible, without regard to the health of the business, and management is out to extract as much work as they can from employees for the least amount of money possible, without regard to the well being of the workers. Somehow unions and management in other countries are able to work together to the benefit of both. Not sure how to get there from here.

Really love capitalism, don't you?

 

[Camlon]

Another idiotic post from you. Of course share of income correlates to actual income. :lol:

No, it doesn't.

If you increase income for all groups, then share of income will stay the same, while actual income will increase.