- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,813
- Reaction score
- 2,233
- Location
- Huntsville, AL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
What part did you disagree with?The poor, poor, white Christian male. They are so picked on. You're so silly.
No, your editing was false, but you know that. It's just easier for you to play that game instead of addressing the issue.
Then let us go with logic. Every time a federal worker gets hired at least one individual does not get hired in the private sector. Government can do plenty to influence employment. First they could roll back the onerous, massive heavy burdens of regulations. There re more than 80,000 rules and regulations that affect businesses and people. Every month find the one that hurts businesses the most and repeal it. For good measure put the administrator who signed it into prison for harming the people. Each month find the next worst one. Repeal it and have the idiot that sighed it go to prison to replace the first one. Repeat until there is full employment.Never suggested that was what we needed. Just want you to realized that firing people means less jobs, and that the ONLY way government can do much of anythign about unemployment is to hire people. I'm asking for logic thought here.
Nice try. We were assigned a union minder when we entered the facility. It was planned.I think we've had this conversation on another forum . . . You worked for a firm that was subcontracted to troubleshoot a problem. You have a very bad attitude toward union employment to begin with, and that kind of a projection comes through in conversation, which means you were being rude, so those steel workers saw you coming.
He had a pad of paper. He created a work slip and 20 minutes to an hour later a couple of union laborers showed up to lift the edge of the printer so I could get the serial number and model number. I not only could have done it myself but the whole job could have been done in two days. With the union "help" it took more than a week. Only a union thug thinks this is a good idea.Uh, no. You were assigned a guy to help with the physical part of the work, and my original statement about protecting work still stands as well. You are really exagerating this story of yours to feed your prejudice and create misinformed rumor.
True. and irrelevant.Labor unions, like any other organizations are made of many types of people that have many types of ideas on an across the board subject matter.
Unions are not led by one specific political outlook: I have met many union people who "hate Obama" etc, so again, your assertion is empty and without any merit. And of course you end this thought too with an unsubstantiated opinion that adds up to zero.
And that is why private sector unions are dying off. They are not needed. But public sector unions are growing. Hmm. Do they need protection from the taxpayer?Labor unions are only instituted in companies that create such draconinan mangement that employees collect in order to protect themselves.
Uh-huh. Labor unions are a European socialist idea.Most of the heavy industries began organizing in the 19th century: the Philidelphia shoe cobblers orgainzed in 1790, so labor unions are as American as apple pie and founded on the ideal of the ideal of the Us Constitution, thus outfits like the Steel Workers union will just brush your comments away like dust on a table.
You are entitled to believe so. And yes, the chuckle remains the best part of your posts.Opinions like yours are just so uninformed as to be funny; and immature actually: devoid of any substanative experience or cognitive ability with a subject, thus the (chuckle); so I'm glad you like that: it says a lot.
Nice try. We were assigned a union minder when we entered the facility. It was planned.
He had a pad of paper. He created a work slip and 20 minutes to an hour later a couple of union laborers showed up to lift the edge of the printer so I could get the serial number and model number. I not only could have done it myself but the whole job could have been done in two days. With the union "help" it took more than a week. Only a union thug thinks this is a good idea.
True. and irrelevant.
I see. How many unions give political contributions to democrats? And how many to Republicans? More importantly how many public sector unions give to each?
And that is why private sector unions are dying off. They are not needed. But public sector unions are growing. Hmm. Do they need protection from the taxpayer?
Uh-huh. Labor unions are a European socialist idea.
You are entitled to believe so. And yes, the chuckle remains the best part of your posts.
Then let us go with logic. Every time a federal worker gets hired at least one individual does not get hired in the private sector. Government can do plenty to influence employment. First they could roll back the onerous, massive heavy burdens of regulations. There re more than 80,000 rules and regulations that affect businesses and people. Every month find the one that hurts businesses the most and repeal it. For good measure put the administrator who signed it into prison for harming the people. Each month find the next worst one. Repeal it and have the idiot that sighed it go to prison to replace the first one. Repeat until there is full employment.
Then let us go with logic. Every time a federal worker gets hired at least one individual does not get hired in the private sector. Government can do plenty to influence employment. First they could roll back the onerous, massive heavy burdens of regulations. There re more than 80,000 rules and regulations that affect businesses and people. Every month find the one that hurts businesses the most and repeal it. For good measure put the administrator who signed it into prison for harming the people. Each month find the next worst one. Repeal it and have the idiot that sighed it go to prison to replace the first one. Repeat until there is full employment.
I submit that you have time to grow up now that you are free of the union you were in.Uh, wrong agin: when labor, as we know it, started in the US in 1790, socialism as even a concept, let alone a government practice, did not exist. Labor as it's been raised in Europe goes back to the trade guilds, so your assesment is without merit whatsoever.
I submit, that you have a very badd attitude of labor based on envy, and that attitude will not change.
I submit that you are making up your "Pittsbugh Steel" story as you go along: none of it makes sense and is very weak just on it's face.
I submit that you have no knowledge of labor; or for that matter, American history as it relates to labor, so you just hide behind the "socialism" assertion becasue you lack the ability to argue your case effectively.
Yeah. That is why we are doing so well. The dollars that pay the federal worker must come from an individual who created wealth, be borrowed or be printed. When the money is taken, through taxes, out of the private sector it cannot be used in the private sector. it is lost. The other two forms of theft are just a bit different in how the thievery occurs.It doesn't work that way. There is no connection between and federal worker and private sector job. Both hire, and there is still not enough to around. Eliminating one who hires just means one less job.
Rest is another topic. I like to try and deal with one at a time.
I understand that since you were in a union during your formative years that you inclination is likely to be anti-American. Understood.Private and government employment are in two different camps: one is not dependent upon the other; unless of course you're talking about the Pentagon budget, which could use some trimming - oh wait, that war stuff - too big to fail; sorry.
I read this twice. I think you were going somewhere with the beginning of your statement, farted, and ended up somewhere else.So, name somoe of those 80,000 rules and regulations, and then perhaps divide the number of different types of businesses, by 80,000 and see what you come up with. That is to say; your assertion of 80, 000 is taken from someone like Larz Larson or someother right-wing radio dolt and doesn't add up to a hill of beans without some sort of cooberation.
Sigh. I cannot fix stupid. No one can.Regualtions and employment are not mutually exclusive, adn I challenge you to prove otherwise. And again; which regulation hurts business? Name it; name them . . .
Yeah. That is why we are doing so well. The dollars that pay the federal worker must come from an individual who created wealth, be borrowed or be printed. When the money is taken, through taxes, out of the private sector it cannot be used in the private sector. it is lost. The other two forms of theft are just a bit different in how the thievery occurs.
What part did you disagree with?
I submit that you have time to grow up now that you are free of the union you were in.
I submit that you are unable to accept the Pittsburgh Steel story because you do not want to admit that unions behave as I described.
I submit that your history of the labor movement is colored by your life immersed in unionism.
Yes, it is paid for by taxes. We all know that. And during our most successful years of this nation, the wealthy paid more in taxes than they do now. How terrible.
When we fire a busybody bureaucrat we win twice. First we stop paying them with our taxes. They are no longer a direct drain on our wealth. Second, they stop harassing us with more and more rules and regulations. We should fire them as quickly as we can and eliminate all the stupid regulations they came up with. For satisfaction's sake I would love to see us close down agencies and jail the leaders and their supporters in Congress.Still, that is another issue. The fact remains, once you fire someone, they are unemployed.
Then why not tax corporations 100%?And taxes don't effect jobs in the private sector much at all.
If you have to pay a dollar less in taxes because you are no longer paying some busybody bureaucrat to make up rules that you must comply with what will you do with that extra dollar?Unemployment will hurt them much more, as there will be less people with the money to buy anything. You do need to know how this works. Employers don't take tax cuts and create jobs, and if there are buyers, tax increases won't stop them from meeting the need of buyers.
Your editing. I clearly said both parties. And your pity party whine about the poor, poor christian white male. It was about as silly as it gets.
:coffeepap
I read this several times and it did not make sense to me. Then I thought that maybe you had used a wrong word. I changed the word and it began to make sense to me: "one party has been effective in using workers while seemingly ignoring not only their responsibility..."
I agree that the democratic party has figured out how to use workers as well as to divide everyone into pretty little groups, some black who when dead look like the son the president never had; some unmarried women; some working women; some stay-at-home-moms, some illegal aliens; some gay, lesbian and in-betweens; some rich millionaires and billionaires, meaning anyone who earns 250K per year; some secretaries (as in Buffet's and Obama's) who pay a greater tax rate than their bosses.
And even one who must be demonized by all of the others, the evil white Christian man.
Here is what I said.
Are you disagreeing that the democratic party uses workers?
Are you disagreeing that the democratic party divides us up onto little groups in order to pit one group against another?
Are you disagreeing that the democratic party demonizes white, especially if they are Christian, men?
I am trying to make this easy for you.
I know what you said. You edit to include only one party. And then went on to whine. But let me help:
The workers have very little support, period. Democrats give more lip service, but they take no more advantage of workers than republicans do. Both abuse and take advantage of the worker, giving back very little. But what little workers get most often comes from democrats. But not enough for anyone to sing their prasies.
Both parties divide us into groups. Only an idiot doesn't see that.
And no, no one really demoizes white males,Christian or otherwise. And no politiicain demonizes Chritians at all. Too many conservative Chrisitans just look like whining little children when the take offense at every little misunderstanding (or deliberate mischaracterization) they mae or have.
One party, the democratic party consistently uses people. Consistently.
One party consistently demonizes white male Christians.
We shall have to agree to disagree.
<but secretly, deep down inside, you know that I am right>
You either clearly do not know what happens, or you are not going to answer it because you know that they are then pushed off on the taxpayer through the Federal pension guarantee program.
Welcome to PBGC
1) What makes them special? Most people who work in this country contribute to a 401K for their retirement, along with employer contribution match if you're lucky.
2) Unions destroy job opportunities. Tell me, If I want to work for a company that has union employment, then why must I join their union?
j-mac
I don't understand this line of thinking. America had it's greatest prosperity, and very low unemployment, under Dwight Eisenhower, and it was during this time that unions were strongest. Care to tell me how unions contributed to the destruction of jobs during that era?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?