Jim DeMint is an agent of Al Qaeda.

So the Union boogeyman is more of a threat than terrorism to Pants Pisser DeMint.

Tells you where his priorities are.

This is yet another example of the GNOPs fixation with putting (failed) ideology over the good of the country.

I agree that DeMint is being a tool here.

However:

DeMint also wants a Senate floor debate and roll call votes, not confirmation by consent as the Democrats sought.

Seems reasonable, have people on record their votes for the President's nominees.

DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton said that Obama didn't nominate Southers until September, and he charged that Reid "has been too busy trading earmarks for votes on health care" to deal with DeMint's concerns.

An important point, followed with typical partisan jabs, but still an important point.

DeMint's objection creates a procedural hurdle that could take three days of debate and test votes to overcome, or could potentially be limited if Democrats offered DeMint a compromise. No one was taking conciliatory stance on Monday, however. Manley called DeMint's opposition "disgraceful."

I need to do some reading on how 1 Senator from the very very very minority party can cause such a delay.

On a slightly related topic:

Do you guys think the military will ever get a union? I sure hope the hell we don't. In a deployed environment "it's not my job" won't cut it.

What he's arguing is that the American Standard of Living is a greater threat than the terrorists.

Incidentally, that's exactly what the terrorists have been telling us. Go figure.

I'm presently visiting in SC and I actually do feel slightly dumber since I arrived here.

Danni, you've probably made both wherever you are from and SC smarter with your visit (and absence).

Danni, Whatever you do don't drive through Tennessee. You'll go full retard.

If organized labor got involved, DeMint said, union bosses would have the power "to veto or delay future security improvements at our airports."

He urged Obama to "re-think" supporting unionizing the TSA "and put the interests of American travelers ahead of organized labor."

DeMint also wants a Senate floor debate and roll call votes, not confirmation by consent as the Democrats sought.

Contrary to the politicized headline, this is DeMint's stand. The argument sounds reasonable, but the problem is much bigger.

They should declare the TSA as a failed organization and sunset it. Let the airlines take over the responsibility without govt interference.

DeMint is surely a greater threat than unions OR Al Qaeda. herm

Let the airlines take over the responsibility without govt interference.

#9 | Posted by L_RContrarian

So there is uneven enforcement of security across the board?

I can just imagine a company like Airtran an their enforcement.

Oh please. Demint is doing what most of us would do. If you are an elected official, put your vote on the record. Unfortunately, Pelosi and Reid are doing everything they can to keep their minions from having to answer for their records. Personally, I think the voice vote is way out of date for the Congress of the United Stated.

As for spending a liittle time debating the background beliefs and qualifications of who is running the TSA, I would kind of like to know something about the guy before I get on one of his airplanes. I mean what's the big deal? It's not like he's running for President.

They all are "man made disasters."

On a slightly related topic:

Do you guys think the military will ever get a union? I sure hope the hell we don't. In a deployed environment "it's not my job" won't cut it.

#4 | Posted by andyuhenet at 2009-12-30 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

While I agree that that the Military is NOT the place for a union, there is a big difference between a factory job and serving in the Military.

The biggest being that if you decide to quit your factory job, you most likely won't end up in a prison for doing so.

In a deployed environment "it's not my job" won't cut it.

#4 | Posted by andyuhenet

Well what do you think will happen if the TSA is unionized??

"Can't move this sceener to that screen--go get the other guy"

"It's not my job to dust that purse for explosives--get the other guy"

"Won't check these people in--it's not my job--go get the other guy"

"I'm at lunch--go get the other guy"

"I ain't touching no ones shoes--go get the other guy"

You think the lines are bad now--wait to see the lines if there is a union involved.

They don't need to be unionized.

Maybe the TSA should pay more so that workers wouldn't want a union.

Starting salary for an entry level TSA screener ranges from $23,400 to $35,000 per year. TSA salary for a screening manager ranges from $44,000 to $68,000 per year. Getting an associates degree in Criminal Justice or Homeland Security will help set you apart from other candidates when being considered for TSA jobs in management or other high level TSA positions.

FF for Danni #6 lol

OMG--they offer a PhD in Homeland Security!!

They would be smarter and better qualified than Janet!!

Murphy you are right wing troll who could never give a liberal any credit for anything.

Murphy you are right wing troll who could never give a liberal any credit for anything.

#20 | Posted by jackass at 2009-12-30 10:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Being a Liberal proves the inability to do something credit-worthy.

More GOP obstructionism?

From Jimbo DeMented?

Can we get a "Ooh, wotta suprise!" Flag up in here?

Be Well.

Perhaps DARTHCHENEY should read:

This is actually not nearly as crazy as it sounds. During WWII, Australian Stevedores refused to modify their union contracts. Even when it appeared that the Japanese may be able to invade Australia. Some of the stipulations included in the union contracts included the right to refuse work when it was raining, and double/triple time pay on weekends. Many within the Stevedores union would only show up on weekends, making a full weeks pay for two days of work. This drove the allies to assign US servicemen to the job of unloading the ships, which they were often able to to in one third to one half the time of the Stevedores.

The Stevedores also had an absenteeism rate of roughly 20%, but when the Americans who were supplying the war materiel decided to increase the automation in unloading the ships (using more cranes and forklifts), the Stevedores union staged strikes. The problems were only resolved later in the war, as captures Islands formerly held by the Japanese were opened up for use as logistics centers.

If they did unionize, they should be obligated in the same way that the Air Traffic Controllers were. You strike-your gone. Along with any accruing benefits you may have had access to.

This is actually not nearly as crazy as it sounds. During WWII, Australian Stevedores refused to modify their union contracts. Even when it appeared that the Japanese may be able to invade Australia. Some of the stipulations included in the union contracts included the right to refuse work when it was raining, and double/triple time pay on weekends. Many within the Stevedores union would only show up on weekends, making a full weeks pay for two days of work. This drove the allies to assign US servicemen to the job of unloading the ships, which they were often able to to in one third to one half the time of the Stevedores.

The Stevedores also had an absenteeism rate of roughly 20%, but when the Americans who were supplying the war materiel decided to increase the automation in unloading the ships (using more cranes and forklifts), the Stevedores union staged strikes. The problems were only resolved later in the war, as captures Islands formerly held by the Japanese were opened up for use as logistics centers.

If they did unionize, they should be obligated in the same way that the Air Traffic Controllers were. You strike-your gone. Along with any accruing benefits you may have had access to.

'Do you guys think the military will ever get a union?'

There is still a Union.

I am grateful to our military for giving my family the opportunity to be. With our love, our being, and moral.

We will succeed.

Thanks again.

"DeMint: Union Greater Threat Than Terrorists"

YA THINK?

Unions built America. With no unions, there would be no middle class. All benefits enjoyed by the working man today came from the bloodshed by union workers--the five day work week---vacations with pay--health benefits---a decent wage for decent work. The only reason these things are enjoyed by non union workers is the bosses know they will unionize if they aren't offered.

Unions built America. With no unions, there would be no middle class. All benefits enjoyed by the working man today came from the bloodshed by union workers--
#28 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I agree with you, but Unions have outlived their time. They are too powerful and are ruining the American workforce.

Unions built America.

So did the slaves. I guess if you are consistent with your logic, we should keep slaves as well as unions.

What a freakshow you are, bOoB

They are too powerful and are ruining the American workforce.

#29 | Posted by Eddie at 2009-12-31 03:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Which particular workforce are you talking about? There are very few unions left.

Union membership has declined significantly since the 80's and we are seeing the result. The rise of corporatism, outsourcing, downsizing, loss of the manufacturing sector, stagnation of wages, loss of benefits, the decline of the middle class. Yet some still see unions as a Freddie Prinze joke.
The corporate brainwashing continues.

Hey, ya know wot would really blow Demented's mind?

If the terrorists formed a union.

A union of suicide bombers would be interesting.

Come join the "Not-so-smart-bomb" Union Local 001.

Great hours, decent pay but admittedly a lousy retirement package.

Ka-Boom!

KK, just being silly there.

Unions have outlived their time. They are too powerful and are ruining the American workforce.

Disagree.

Unions may well be the last lynchpin holding the middle class in place in America.

The decline of the American union eerily parallels the the declining middle class.

Disallowing the majority of workers a voice at the table in terms of resolving issues concerning their hours, wages, working conditions etc is not a solution to the burgeoning wealth inequality gap in America.

Quite the opposite in fact.

Be Well.

Unions may well be the last lynchpin holding the middle class in place in America.

???

I thought Bush got the blame for that. I guess that was a different thread.

oops wrong quote above:

The decline of the American union eerily parallels the the declining middle class.

They should declare the TSA as a failed organization and sunset it.
I agree, but that won't be happening. People are still in a state of pants-pissing over terrorists.

Let the airlines take over the responsibility without govt interference.
Well, that's the way it was before 9/11. That system was scrapped due to the perceived security failures of of 9/11.

I agree with you, but Unions have outlived their time. They are too powerful and are ruining the American workforce.
Unions have at least in part come to embody the same sorts of corruption and abuses of power they were created to fight against.

What I see is unions have increasingly smaller but more well-defended kingdoms. About 25% of American workers were unionized in 1980, today about 8% are. The unions are certainly not "too powerful." What I would like to see is more unions and more willingness for unions and management to actually realize they live and die together. But that's unlikely to happen since the way you make money in America these days is not by working together, but by screwing over some other guy.

If they did unionize, they should be obligated in the same way that the Air Traffic Controllers were. You strike-your gone.
No Federal workers are allowed to strike. But TSA employees should have the right to unionize like any other Federal workers. But that right was specifically denied in the bill which created the TSA.

I think this story just underscores how ill-prepared we are to fight this sham "War" which hasn't even been officially declared a war by Congress. Instead of appointing the TSA Czar or whatever his job title is, the nomination is held up because some Republican is anti-union. We saw it with Franken's anti-rape amendment too. If our two parties can't put aside their differences to fight a War on Terror, we shouldn't try to fight that war. We've pretty much met bin Laden's demands by this point anyway, let's just call it a day.

The decline of the American union eerily parallels the the declining middle class.

Well said. America is increasingly becoming the wealthiest Third World nation in history.

Why does Demint like terrorists more than the American worker?

Let the airlines take over the responsibility without govt interference

A recipe for disaster if I have ever heard one.

Just look at the incompetent pilots that are right now flying regional airlines... pilots with no bad weather training, no stall recovery training, etc.

I shudder to think what would have happened if US Airways flight 1549 was piloted by Marvin Renslow instead of Chesley Sullenberger.

Why does Demint like terrorists more than the Ameican worker?

Republican.

They are too powerful and are ruining the American workforce.

#29 | Posted by Eddie at 2009-12-31 03:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Which particular workforce are you talking about? There are very few unions left.

#31 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-12-31 03:18 AM | Reply | Flag

He is just parroting right wing talking points and has no idea.

Voting on the record = condemnation of the middle class

Makes perfect sense to me.

"Unions built America. With no unions, there would be no middle class."

The demand for labor is what built the middle class. By the time the unions were created and began collectively negotiating on behalf of their members, it was already a given that employment in manufacturing and industry would provide a higher standard of living that agriculture, which is why you saw mass migration from the country to the city. It wasn't until the advent of quasi-religious revolutionary ideologies, such as Marxism, that workers became militant in demanding higher wages and greater levels of control. But they didn't build the middle class, not by a long shot. The owners and managers of the factories still needed that labor, and to get it they had to be willing to pay more than what workers would have made elsewhere. Just like today. It's just unfortunate that the markets in those days were less globalized, and therefore less exposed to competition. Otherwise, American industry may have never got off the ground.

There are two different types of unions-industrial and trade. Industrial Unions, such as the SEIU and the UAW are largely parasitic. Their only purpose is to garner higher wages for it's largely unskilled members. Members who would be competing for jobs at McDonald if it weren't for their union representation. All they really do is drive up the cost of goods and services without adding any additional value. Remember the guy in Pennsylvania who demanded that volunteers no longer be allowed to clean public parks because it took union jobs. That's a prime example of industrial unionism at work.

Trade Unionism is different. Trade Unions are generally made up of skilled employees, and while they do negotiate collectively for higher wages and benefits, they are also internally policing and ensure a requisite level of quality within their ranks. Personally, I would use a trade union labor of non-union labor if I needed someone with that particular skill. I would contend that most union members today are members of trade unions, and are less likely to be problematic that the Industrial Union workers.

Illegal immigrants are more efficient workers than union members. I would rather hire a Mexican than some white lazy SOB from a local

I would rather hire a Mexican

So you would rather operate you business illegally and unethically.

Speaks volumes about your personality.

I love how you union critics just live in stereotypeland. Amazing. If any of us started talking about Republicans or rich people the way you talk about union members, I would be roundly excoriated. And rightly so. I would suggest some eye-opening measures. Unions are not the same everywhere; union members are not the same everywhere. Kudos to MadBomber for trying to do more than paint with a broad brush, but I must say I didn't understand this sentence: " Personally, I would use a trade union labor of non-union labor if I needed someone with that particular skill." Is there a typo in there or a word missing?

union of security people is the last thing we need in a WAR on terror.
I guess a us military union would be right after that.

good post prag but I disagree. I know thats not going to bring you to your knees in a state of shock.
best example is when RR had to bust the airline controllers....when these people could shut down the airline industry on basically whims of people who have a long history of shadiness at best....I KNOW..thats generalizing somewhat, but even still..

and unions like seiu and the andy dude and thier bullshit last summer and such certainly doesnt leave us with warm and fuzzy thoughts about them...

Tells you where his priorities are.
#2 | Posted by 726

......no need to be hard on DeMint......

.....he is, after all, just a corporate whore doing his masters' bidding for the airline industry......

I would rather hire a Mexican than some white lazy SOB from a local
#44 | Posted by timbci

.....does your hot dog cart get so busy that you need hired help ?......

#50

FF

So, Afk, if I start bashing Republicans as a whole based on the actions of a few corrupt assholes, you'll be cool with that? You'll cheer me from the sidelines?

That said, thanks for giggle--you're right, I'm stunned! : ) (And thanks for the "good post" comment--it's nice to be recognized now and then.)

well prag
its the day for being nice to people...
what with the calendar officially saying 2010 which is the year that I am counting on the american people saving this republic

but in the meantime..
happy and safe new years to you and yours...

"Illegal immigrants are more efficient workers than union members. I would rather hire a Mexican than some white lazy SOB from a local."

Really? I mean, I could understand if you were clearing brush or cutting wood, something that required no skill, but would really hire someone with skill, or at least no proven skill to wire your house, or to lay tile, or install plumbing? It's your choice, but when you are spending several hundred thousand on a house, wouldn't you rather know that the work being done was quality work? And if it wasn't that you would at least have a line of recourse? You certainly should have the right to choose the lowest bidder, if cost is your biggest concern, but in my experience it rarely is.

"but I must say I didn't understand this sentence"

Typo. Now reads: "Personally, I would use a trade union labor OVER non-union labor if I needed someone with that particular skill."

And I would do so because of the implicit level of quality that comes from hiring union labor. A union electrician has attended a mandated electrician training course. If I just hire a Mexican on the street corner, all I have is his word that he knows what he is doing. And if he screws it up, I'd likely never be able to get anything out of him.

"The rise of corporatism, outsourcing, downsizing, loss of the manufacturing sector, stagnation of wages, loss of benefits, the decline of the middle class."

Corporatism? Corporatism is what the Obama administration is trying to put in place. It's an alternative to the free market, characterized by government regulation of the market: Setting wage rates, production schedules, limits on profits, etc. It's basically a form of socialism, since the ultimate intent is to "smooth out" the inequalities that result from free society. Hitler and his National Socialists may have been the first and most unabashed corporatists, but much of Western Europe has followed suit.

"So, Afk, if I start bashing Republicans as a whole based on the actions of a few corrupt assholes, you'll be cool with that?"

That already happens here. You've probably seen the derisive adaptation of the word before: Rethuglican, Repuglican, etc.

nice JAB there madbomber...

now go for the body...

"nice JAB there madbomber..."

Similar comments are made about the Dems: Demoncrats, dumbocrats, etc.

Libertarians are often referred to by the statist opponents as loonytarians.

But everyone already knows all of this

Corporatism is what the Obama administration is trying to put in place.
#54 | Posted by madbomber

.....the corporations are spending record amounts lobbying to oppose Obama's initiatives, why would they bother if Obama's agenda was "corporatism"?.......

....during the previous administration, corporations like big oil were invited to re-write the Environmental Protection laws, big pharma got to pass laws not allowing competition with their prices, no administration has ever been a bigger corporate whore than that one......

.....it is strange that you should accuse this administration of the sins of the previous one....

You've probably seen the derisive adaptation of the word before: Rethuglican, Repuglican, etc.
#55 | Posted by madbomber

.......you forgot 'shameless corporate whores'....

This is yet another example of the GNOPs fixation with putting (failed) ideology over the good of the country.
#3 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY

More GOP obstructionism?.
#22 | Posted by dethspud

Corporatism is what the Obama administration is trying to put in place.

Corporatism has been in place for quite some time now and neither political party is in a position to do anything about it.

There are a variety of reasons for this, but a big one is that campaign contributions are considered Constitutionally protected free speech, so the corporations simply contribute to both parties and their interests are satisfied. Now, Congress could easily enact a law changing the way campaign contributions are done. So why don't they? While it might benefit them, it could also hurt them a lot, so there's little incentive to take that risk.

One could easily argue this looks more like another example of the Left using yet another tragedy to recklessly slip though more garbage laws.

Hello?

The law preventing the TSA workers from unionizing is quite obviously an example of the Right using yet another tragedy to recklessly slip through more garbage laws.

Accuse the other side of what you are doing, that's a classic strategy right there.

Accuse the other side of what you are doing, that's a classic strategy right there.

#62 | Posted by snoofy

Do you honestly think that the outcome would have been different if there was an administrator of the Transportation Security Administration?

"Aw shit... they just confirmed the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration. I guess the Will of Allah has to wait until later. Crap."

R0B0T, of course you are right, both sides are capable of obstructionism. In this case, the garbage law preventing TSA from unionizing, and the blocking of the attempt to take out the garbage, are both R. efforts.

In general the Republicans are better at obstructionism, the record is quite clear on this. Whether or not that's good or bad is up to you, but there's no denying the numbers.

".....it is strange that you should accuse this administration of the sins of the previous one...."

My point was the the "corporatism" often referenced by the left, the one implying the ramant unchecked power of private enterprise, is completely different from the contemporary definition.

Here's the wiki definition and page link for corporatism:

"Corporatism is a system of economic, political, and social organization where corporate groups such as business, ethnic, farmer, labour, military, patronage, scientific, or religious groups are joined together into a single governing body in which the different groups are mandated to negotiate with each other to establish policies in the interest of the multiple groups within the body.[1] Corporatism views society as being alike to an organic body in which each corporate group is viewed as a necessary organ for society to function properly.[2] Corporatism is based on the sociological concept of functionalism.[3] Countries that have corporatist systems typically utilize strong state intervention to direct corporatist policies and to prevent conflict between the groups."

I'm actually glad to have an advocate in the form of big business.

You don't have an advocate, period. If you think big business advocates on your behalf, you're just stupid.

"That already happens here. You've probably seen the derisive adaptation of the word before: Rethuglican, Repuglican, etc."

Yes, Madbomber, but I don't engage in it. And I think painting with a broad brush, no matter who's being painted, is wrong. Many critics of the Left also engage in it. Afk, for instance (hi, Afk), does it all the time--the Democrats this, the Left that, as if we're some monolithic entity acting in lockstep. (When, congressionally speaking, the Republicans are much better at lockstep manuevers than are the Dems.)

So Madbomber, you seem to have missed my point.

But thanks for clarifying your other sentence.

"I'm actually glad to have an advocate in the form of big business, otherwise the environmentalists would have us paying $10 for a gallon of gas and driving Priuses, and the Socialists would have us working half the work week in order to fund someone else's standard of living, while paying $20 for a Big Mac so the teenager making it could "earn" a living wage."

This has to be among the three weirdest comments I've read in almost two years here. Advocate? Big business? Wow. Never mind the rest of the implicit and explicit assertions.

"You don't have an advocate, period. If you think big business advocates on your behalf, you're just stupid."

Big Business advocates for being able to make more money. Now, you're right. They could be in front of congress asking that a law be passed ordering citizens to buy their products. Where that's the case, I would be less supportive.

To truly understand my comment, you have to understand those forces that have positioned themselves against big business, because while you can attempt to make the argument that big business is bade for the American people, You can virtually prove that those who seek to control the markets are bad for the American people. See, if consumers don't like a certain business, they can simply just stop buying their goods or services. No MNC has the funds to function even in the short term in the absence of incoming revenues. It's the fact that consumers have a say in which company they buy from that keeps them in check. The companies have to keep them on their good side. In short, any business in the US serves at the pleasure of the consumers.

Now let's look at the other half...those who choose to regulate business. Why? As I said, if they are doing something that consumers disapprove of, consumers always have other options. Exxon dumping oil sludge to increase it's margins? Fine. There's always Shell. Or BP. Or even Citgo. The real reason that someone would want to regulate the markets is because it is absolute the best way to regulate society. To regulate "we the people." To make us behave in a way we otherwise wouldn't. Take wage regulation for instance. I'm sure that many here would regard it as another case of "common use corporatism" if Wal Mart spent a few million fighting an increase in the minimum wage laws, no. But let's consider what the effects of that law would be if it were implemented. First Wal Mart's labor costs would go up. This means that they would have to charge more to consumers. Given that their business model is built around very low profit margins and providing maximum value to the consumer, they would now be less competitive. At some point, they would lose the low cost competitive advantage that they have so carefully cultivated over the last couple of decades. Maybe they would even go out of business. That's bad for those associates of Wal Mart, who now have to find new jobs, but in reality they are a small number. The bigger tragedy is that Americans have lost some of their freedom by having the government force them to pay more for a goods or service than they would have, and more than what the markets would have otherwise dictated.

And this is just one theoretical example. Cap N Trade is one that's being played out in real life. Big Business would be idiotic to not spend whatever free resources they may have fighting this thing. It make give Al Gore a warm fuzzy that he contributed to slightly cleaner air for the next few months or years, but the costs would be enormous. Adding a pollution tax would mean that producers would have to charge consumers more. Combine that with our already ridiculously high labor costs and you quickly have a situation where US products are no longer competitive in the global marketplace. Because you know that the Indians and the Chinese, who couldn't give a shit about faddish environment trends, would jump all over this opportunity. And they'd be stupid not to.

Anyway, those were just a couple of undeniable areas where big business is perfectly positioned as the first line of defense against those ideologues who harbor no misgivings about sacrificing every last bit of wealth making capability in this country to the gods of Socialism, or social justice, or multiculturalism, or theocracy, or whatever.

"Many critics of the Left also engage in it. Afk, for instance (hi, Afk), does it all the time--the Democrats this, the Left that, as if we're some monolithic entity acting in lockstep. (When, congressionally speaking, the Republicans are much better at lockstep manuevers than are the Dems.)"

I actually posted pretty much the same thing in #56.

Left and right are pretty ambiguous terms. Hitler was referred to as being on the right, but his economic policies were solidly leftist. Even his rampant racism was shared, at least in part, by the communists under Stalin, regarded by many as being the vanguard of the left. In addition, Hitler's biggest enemies within Germany, were the so-called conservatives. Those remnants of the aristocracy that had little regard for the Austrian Corporal. Many of these conservatives were officers in the German Military.

Additionally, it's always baffled me why contemporary American liberals referred to themselves in such a manner, when they were openly opposed to practical liberalism. In that respect, Ronald Reagan was much more liberal than Jimmy Carter.

The argument sounds reasonable,

Yeah, the unionized firefighters and police in NYC sure failed miserably on 9-11.

Hitler was referred to as being on the right, but his economic policies were solidly leftist. Hitler's biggest enemies within Germany, were the so-called conservatives.

Giving the big corporations huge contracts, arresting union leaders and eventually staffing factories with slaves is leftist? Everybody left of Goering ended up dead or in a concentration camp so only his early conservative supporters were left to eventually (as the war fell apart) oppose him. As far as the anti-sematism, check out some conservatives in the west for their support of Hitler.

You sure have an early start on New Years.

So,

Is Al-Q a union of terrorists?

"Big Oil" has no legislative power,
#66 | Posted by madbomber

.....they did with the previous administration, going so far as being given free reign to rewrite the Environmental Protection Act......

Big Business would be idiotic to not spend whatever free resources they may have fighting this thing.

.....as I said, big business is fighting almost everything that this administration is proposing, because the new measures will decrease profits, but make life more bearable for ordinary Americans.
We are the most ripped off people in the world, and big business wants the ride to continue.....

The bigger tragedy is that Americans have lost some of their freedom by having the government force them to pay more for a goods or service than they would have, and more than what the markets would have otherwise dictated.

......horseshit, pure and simple, we pay double and triple the going rate for drugs, healthcare, food, power, that people in other countries pay, because we are being ripped off, with the long-time collusion of the federal government.....

.....and we get far less back in services of education, healthcare and social supports.....

......you are a shill for the oppressive oligarchy that works to keep Americans as economic slaves .....

Hitler was for the lazy working class much like Obama. Obama stole money from Cerberus Capital when he decided to disreguard bankrupcy laws. Hitler would have been proud the way Obama took control of Chrysler and gave it to the UAW.

#75 | Posted by timbecile at 2009-12-31 07:31 PM | Reply | Flag: Godwin

"Once in power, Hitler showed his true colors by promptly breaking all his promises to workers. The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. An organization called the "Labor Front" replaced the old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the Nazi party and did not represent workers. According to the law that created it, "Its task is to see that every individual should be able to perform the maximum of work." Workers would indeed greatly boost their productivity under Nazi rule. But they also became exploited. Between 1932 and 1936, workers wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for skilled labor, and from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for unskilled labor. (3) Yet workers did not protest. This was partly because the Nazis had restored order to the economy, but an even bigger reason was that the Nazis would have cracked down on any protest."

But it will *never* happen in America....

How long will it be before Obama's civilian police force is knocking on your door.

MadBomber, have you ever read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair? The regulations put in place after the scandal caused by that book were not bad for the American people.

big business is perfectly positioned as the first line of defense against those ideologues who harbor no misgivings about sacrificing every last bit of wealth making capability in this country to the gods of Socialism, or social justice, or multiculturalism, or theocracy, or whatever.

And yet you have no misgivings sacrificing it all to please Wall Street. You're no different than those you decry, you just wave a different flag. Our "wealth making capability" has been dismantled and shipped to China for years... so that WAL*MART can "provide maximum value to the consumer."

Hitler was referred to as being on the right, but his economic policies were solidly leftist. Even his rampant racism was shared, at least in part, by the communists under Stalin, regarded by many as being the vanguard of the left.

Name any living human being who considers Stalin "the vanguard of the Left." You're out of your fucking mind. Your comments that Hitler was a liberal are equally inane.

Name any living human being who considers Stalin "the vanguard of the Left." You're out of your fucking mind. Your comments that Hitler was a liberal are equally inane.

Well I don't know about Stalin but there are several big fans of Mao in the white house

"Left and right are pretty ambiguous terms. Hitler was referred to as being on the right, but his economic policies were solidly leftist. Even his rampant racism was shared, at least in part, by the communists under Stalin, regarded by many as being the vanguard of the left. In addition, Hitler's biggest enemies within Germany, were the so-called conservatives. Those remnants of the aristocracy that had little regard for the Austrian Corporal. Many of these conservatives were officers in the German Military.
Additionally, it's always baffled me why contemporary American liberals referred to themselves in such a manner, when they were openly opposed to practical liberalism. In that respect, Ronald Reagan was much more liberal than Jimmy Carter.

#71 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER "

Hitler was a darling of the British and American conservatives they made a lot of money off of trade with Nazi Germany and he was anti-Socialism. He broke unions, was big business friendly, implemented deficit spending and raised defense spending significantly. Sounds like Reaganomics doesn't it? And when Germany's consumption became unsustainable he used the fake invasion by Poland to launch his full campaign to ultimately capture natural resources to sustain Germany. The reunification of the Sudetenland and oppression of minorities made the populist monkeys war happy. Sound real familiar to the Bush years?

The aristocrats were competition knocked out by Hitler they were NOT the conservatives opposition as you try to make us believe.

And please go fuck yourself comparing the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany as being similar in Communist Russia. While Jews were definitely a mistreated minority they were not exterminated. Many fought for Russia and advanced far in sciences after WW2. Most of the Russian programers I have met from USSR days have been Jews.

As usual poor republican monkeys such as yourself are trying to compare all the evils in the world to Obama when his policies will benefit you more than Republican's would. What's next Ghengis Khan?

All I'm going to say is this,( I'm a union member, by the way) whether you're to the left or right politically:

Do you like the 40 hour work week?

Do you like the 8 hr workday, 40 hr work week?

Do You like time-and-half for overtime ?

Do you like company assisted paid health insurance?

Do you like company assisted paid life insurance?

Do you like annually paid vacations?

and of course; cannot forget this one!

Do you like the Great American Weekend? (Sat & Sun off)

If you like all these things well then you better thank the Unions. Corporate America 80 to 100 years ago fought against these tooth & nail!

All these gains were brought to you by The American unions.

SHANE-
I realize you're a union guy. So was my father-in-law.

As you look at unions of today (and considering the past several decades, too) can you think of any negatives resulting from unions?

So did the slaves. I guess if you are consistent with your logic, we should keep slaves as well as unions.

What a freakshow you are, bOoB

#30 | Posted by goatman at 2009-12-31 03:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

???

Right, because they're the exact same thing, slaves and unions. Sure.

"As you look at unions of today (and considering the past several decades, too) can you think of any negatives resulting from unions?

#83 | POSTED BY OOHRAH"

Since Reagan has effectively broken the unions benefits and salaries have dropped. While the unions haven't exactly helped themselves that doesn't remove their relevance. You remove the last unions you will see a collapse in the compensation for labor. We go back to labor abuses of the early 20h century. Do you really think we have "progressed" as a people since then? Of course not. Greed rules as always when it is unopposed.

The wealthy are making for more profit percentage wise now then ever before at the cost of the common man. The funny thing is the common man thinks immigrants, terrorists, gays and abortion is why. These are just bones thrown to the masses to deflect from the attack from the wealthy.

To OOHRAH:

I hear you Oohrah, and I constantly call them out (My Union Reps) on this and that. All I ask for is the middle-class lifestyle my father raised me in( 60's 70's). The middle-class did very well back then.

How has coporate America helped you and the middle class in the last 20 years?

The more I think about it the more I think it may be Federal goverment,(empire building) and Corporate America (unrestrainted greed) working at the same time together. The Middle-class was left behind.

My question to you and all out there is:

How did it get this way and how do we get it back to where it was for the middle-class?

P.S. Oohrah Are You an Ex-Jarhead? If so, Semper-fi Baby!!!

"The more I think about it the more I think it may be Federal goverment,(empire building) and Corporate America (unrestrainted greed) working at the same time together. The Middle-class was left behind."

Don't think for a second that the expansion of the Federal government was for empire building it was strictly for corporate greed. Have you noticed how many support functions of the military have been outsourced to contractors? The reliance on high tech helps out big business. The US military's primary mission is the expansion and defense of the US business empire. The nuclear arsenal which is a small percentage of the budget is the real defense.

SHANE-
At 49 I assume we're close in age. I grew up in the 60s and 70s. My father was a natural gas transmission station operator (non-union) and my mother was a high school English teacher (union).

I recall my father telling me on several occasions how his employer provided workers with pay and benefits to a degree sufficient so workers wouldn't have to consider unionizing.

We were middle class. My folks saved and spent wisely.

Those opportunities exist today. Unfortunately, too many people buy into the "gotta have it" mentality and spend beyond their means. Gubment is certainly guilty of that as well.

" recall my father telling me on several occasions how his employer provided workers with pay and benefits to a degree sufficient so workers wouldn't have to consider unionizing."

Basically says it all.

"Those opportunities exist today. Unfortunately, too many people buy into the "gotta have it" mentality and spend beyond their means. Gubment is certainly guilty of that as well."

The dropping of interest rates and the subsequent creation of cheap debt lowered the value of the dollar and inflated the costs of assets. The "housing boom" was created by the banking system not demand.

"gotta have it" as in health care and education which have all increased dramatically in cost as subsidies have decreased?

FUR-
The "gotta have it" is the larger home... the newer car... the latest electronic gadgets... the brand name clothes for kids... and a myriad of other material things we obtain to "have it now."

If you want to get into the reasons for spiraling healthcare and education costs, we can go there at some point. The root of it can be found in government intervention. Not a lack of government intervention.

OOhrah,

But don't you see?!! The Unions work inadvertently, to help non-union companies.

I work for Sysco Food service, which is union. Our main competitor Shamrock Food service which is non-union pays their workers a similar wage plus a little more. I asked my Shamrock frind why do they do this and he said:

"They pay us above average wages so we won't go union."

My father worked in management for a company for over 25 years and he said the same thing . Whenever the union won anything they ( the upper-management) had to up grade management's compensation so as to match it.

Now, I ask you honestly, Oohrah, do you really think that corporate America would "just give" labor all those things I stated (better wages,OT, insurance, weekends off etc.)just out of the kindness of their hearts? I think not. These were fought for very hard by our grandfathers generations ago.

I'll leave you with a George Orwell quote:

"Tyrants can stand moral indignation until the cows come home. It's force they're afraid of."

SHANE-
The threat of unionizing will cause many companies to pay a bit more than they otherwise might. Another reason for paying a bit more - and I have a local friend who owns a security system and private investigation firm. This man pays his people more than he "has" to... not to avoid unionization... but so avoid turnover and to build loyalty/consistency. His turnover is nearly non-existent.

As to your question, do you really think that corporate America would "just give" labor all those things I stated (better wages,OT, insurance, weekends off etc.)just out of the kindness of their hearts?

It's a double-edged sword. Unions have decimated the auto industry... an industry saddled with long term retirement and healthcare costs it can't sustain. Granted, no one held a literal gun to the heads of ownership.

Yet, what's the end result? Bankruptcy...loss of jobs. In other cases it means plant closures and shipping jobs out of the country.

Unions were very important in winning concessions many years ago. Over time, in my view, unions have largely outgrown their usefullness in a variety of ways. That's not to say they have no value, however.

"It's a double-edged sword. Unions have decimated the auto industry... an industry saddled with long term retirement and healthcare costs it can't sustain. Granted, no one held a literal gun to the heads of ownership. "

The auto industry killed themselves by producing crap cars and losing market share to europe and japan. The expenses the auto industry had to pay out would only work in a growth model. They were too busy profit taking in the 60s and 70s to invest in R&D to sustain market share.

FUR-
I will agree that the Big Three could have done better in developing cars Americans wanted and that it certainly contributed to losing market share.

Will you also acknowledge the legacy insurance and retirement benefits for unions has made profitability nearly impossible?

The reality is that the Big Three would have lost market share regardless of what cars they'd made. There was no (or virtually none) competition from Japan and elsewhere till maybe the 70s.

Oohrah,

I guess we could both debate this until we're both blue in the face.

I' just leave you with this thought to mull over.

In my little town UPS workers (who are also teamsters) make a top pay of $30.00 per. hour as per their last contract.

Fed-Ex which is a similar company and a competitor is non-union. Fed-Ex's top pay to their workers is $20.00 per hour.

Both of these companies are strong financially.

Now if you or any other red-blooded American were offered a job by these two companies who's offer would you accept? You need not answer. I already know.

If you do not have union representation, Management Will Dictate!!

"Giving the big corporations huge contracts, arresting union leaders and eventually staffing factories with slaves is leftist?"

Government control and manipulation of the markets to achieve an ideological end is most definitely leftist, and that's exactly what Hitler did. BTW, unions have historically been as much in opposition to communism or socialism as they have been to free markets. The only difference is that in the west, unions were not persecuted for their activities like they were in the communist sphere.

"they did with the previous administration, going so far as being given free reign to rewrite the Environmental Protection Act"

Really? So "Big Oil" drafted and bill which, once finished became law of the land? It didn't go through any legislative wickets? No congressmen voted on it? No president signed it? You don understand how our government works, right?

".....as I said, big business is fighting almost everything that this administration is proposing, because the new measures will decrease profits, but make life more bearable for ordinary Americans."

No, it won't. Increasing my costs for goods and services won't do a motherfucking thing for me, other than further deplete my paycheck. That has got to be one of the dumbest statements I have ever seen anyone make. Maybe you can explain to me how by increasing my cost of living my life becomes more bearable.

".....as I said, big business is fighting almost everything that this administration is proposing, because the new measures will decrease profits, but make life more bearable for ordinary Americans."

Uh, no dude. Wrong again. The only thing we may pay more for is healthcare, but then again our healthcare quality is unrivaled. Gas here in the Northern Plains is about $2.69 per gallon. Know what it is in London? About $6.67 per gallon. Lucky them. If paying more makes life more bearable, they're doing way better than we Americans.

"MadBomber, have you ever read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair? The regulations put in place after the scandal caused by that book were not bad for the American people."

The Jungle was little more than a sensationalized propaganda piece by an avowed socialist. What is never mentioned, is that if the conditions in Chicago were that bad, they didn't have to work there. At the time the Novel takes place, westward migration was in full swing. The Rudkos family could have just as easily moved west and started a farm in Nebraska. Or a ranch in Montana. In real life, people choose to to work where they do for a specific reason. They choose to. They are not forced to.

"And yet you have no misgivings sacrificing it all to please Wall Street. You're no different than those you decry, you just wave a different flag. Our "wealth making capability" has been dismantled and shipped to China for years... so that WAL*MART can "provide maximum value to the consumer."

Your whole statement is contradictory. Had those businesses been forced to stay in the US, incurring much higher labor costs than they would have overseas, there wouldn't even be a Wal Mart, and the only reason people would be paying the higher costs is because they were forced to. I could care less about Wall Street, but the succeed by making consumers happy. It's a fantasy to think that if we had retained all those high paying, low skill jobs that the US would somehow be better off. We wouldn't. The conditions that allowed for that paradigm to exist have changed. There's almost no way you could bring those jobs back and expect the products they produce to be competitive in the global markets. Hell, it's likely that they wouldn't even be competitive domestically unless people were forced to buy them.

"Name any living human being who considers Stalin "the vanguard of the Left." You're out of your fucking mind. Your comments that Hitler was a liberal are equally inane."

Do you need a history lesson on global socialism? The Soviet Union was the birthplace of communism, and Stalin was it's leader. Virtually every leftist in World War II supported Stalin, not because he was fighting Hitler, but because he was the head of a movement that they believed would inevitably dominate the globe. As for any "living" people...well Since Stalin is dead he wouldn't present a very strong defender of socialism.

"The aristocrats were competition knocked out by Hitler they were NOT the conservatives opposition as you try to make us believe."

The only significant attempt on Hitler's life by German resistance was made by a group of conservative army officers led by Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg. Stauffenberg was both a conservative and an aristocrat. The event was the basis for the film Valkyrie. Here's a short synopsis of the conservative opposition movement.

"And please go fuck yourself comparing the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany as being similar in Communist Russia. While Jews were definitely a mistreated minority they were not exterminated. Many fought for Russia and advanced far in sciences after WW2. Most of the Russian programers I have met from USSR days have been Jews."

I had Jewish family members in Latvia. Initially the were rounded up by the Nazis and sent to concentration camps. Some died. Then they were "liberated" by the Red Army, who killed most of those that remained, being that they were of the Bourgeois. During the war Stalin had allowed the creation of a Jewish resistance unit that operated under Soviet Control. After the war ended, he became suspicious of this organization, and began oppressing it's members. In the final days of his life, Stalin issued a written order directing the arrest of prominent Russian Jews, who would have inevitably been sent to the Gulags. Or Worse. Khrushchev rescinded the order immediately upon taking office. Who knows what the outcome would have been had Stalin lived for another year.

"Do you like the 40 hour work week?"

What's that. I work until the work is done, be it in 40 hours or 70 hours.

"Do you like the 8 hr workday, 40 hr work week?"

I fly bombers for the Air Force. Sometimes a single flight will last 20 hours, and that doesn't include all the pre-takeoff prep work or debrief.

"Do You like time-and-half for overtime ?"

What's overtime? I'm on salary.

"Do you like the Great American Weekend? (Sat & Sun off)"

Now that is nice! Except when I'm working.

"The wealthy are making for more profit percentage wise now then ever before at the cost of the common man. The funny thing is the common man thinks immigrants, terrorists, gays and abortion is why. These are just bones thrown to the masses to deflect from the attack from the wealthy."

Actually that's not exactly true. The wages of professional employees has gone up dramatically as demand has increased. In 1974, a college degree would earn you somewhere around 5% more than a non college graduate. Now you would make roughly double what a non-grad makes. It's not quite triple if you have a graduate degree. If anything, profit margins have decreased for many established companies, for the same reasons that wages have for low skilled labor. Increased global competition.

"How has coporate America helped you and the middle class in the last 20 years?"

Virtually every good or service you use or consume id brought to you by a corporation. I return for these services, you pay them money. Even if real wages have gone down for low skill labor, spending power has increased. Even the poor nowadays ca afford a computer, internet, DVDs, washer, dryers, etc. This happened primarily because competition drove down costs.

"Now, I ask you honestly, Oohrah, do you really think that corporate America would "just give" labor all those things I stated (better wages,OT, insurance, weekends off etc.)just out of the kindness of their hearts? I think not. These were fought for very hard by our grandfathers generations ago."

Without you or someone like you, those businesses won't make a cent. They have to give you what you want in order for you to work for them. I have no doubt that your employer would prefer to pay you as little as possible, while you would undoubtedly demand as much from them as possible. Your utility to the production process is what drives your wages. What Unions have effectively done is engaged in price setting, so let me ask you this. Would you be as supportive if all the local grocery stores in your area got together and colluded to keep prices high and increase profits? You should if you support unions. It's no different.

"The auto industry killed themselves by producing crap cars and losing market share to europe and japan."

The reason they were producing crap cars is that the cost to produce a vehicle included a $1400 labor premium that the Japanese didn't have to pay. That money had to come out somewhere, and it came out in the quality of the parts used in the vehicle's production. Oddly enough, while the US made cars are trending towards smaller and more fuel efficient, the Japanese SUVs just keep getting bigger. I suspect I'm going to end up trading my Yukon Denali in for a Nissan Armada or Toyota Landcruiser.

Well, Madbomber let me put it to you in a different context. Most Americans are still just working stiffs like me. Not all of us can be cool pampered Air Force pilots. No, the majority of Americans still just work for a living.

My question to you is:

Do you think that the American working class was better off before unions?

Madbomber the reason spending power has increased is because all American households have two wage earners (ie Mom & Dad) working to make ends meet. That's axiomatic now. 40 years most of the moms stayed home (didn't you ever watch "Leave it to Beaver"). And yeah most Americans are buying all this stuff but they're also carrying around $5000 to $10,000 in credit card debt.

And as for Corporate America paying you, how did you say it:

"They have to give you what you want in order for you to work for them."

Oh yeah, then explain to me the 15 to 20 million Mexicans that weren't here 20 years ago.

And last but not least the reason they're paying a $1400.00 labor premium thts so they could pay for the exorbitant healt care insurance. Those "socialist" in Japan have socialized medicine!!!

"Not all of us can be cool pampered Air Force pilots. No, the majority of Americans still just work for a living."

Actually, you have as much right to be a pilot as anyone else, it's just that you have elected for whatever reason not to pursue that course. Or you could be a doctor. Or an accountant. Or any number of different professional occupations that would drive high wages without the need of union intervention.

"Do you think that the American working class was better off before unions?"

That's a good question, and I don't know that I have an answer. I completely support the right of workers to engage in collective bargaining, just like I would support the rights of grocery stores to engage in collective price setting. The reason for it is that the market will correct itself by creating greater incentives for new entries into the different markets. Grocery stores engaging in price setting will encourage new entries willing to charge less, and in those highly inelastic markets the price setters would be forced to correct downwards. The same is true with union labor. It's generally far more expensive that non-union labor, which creates enormous incentives for non-union labor to step in and take those jobs for less money. That is exactly why you have seen the migration of jobs from the US to China and Indonesia. Cheaper labor.

What I have a problem with is when people expect the government to step in and help the unions with the problems that come from engaging in price setting. The big three's problems are almost solely due to their union obligations, and the UAW remains unwilling to accept any sort of pragmatic compromise. That pretty much means that they will be reliant on government subsidization until they can find some way to get consumers for pay more for American made vehicles.

So, while it is possible that unions have contributed to the wealth creation process at some point in history, they have become a burden to the economy. Decreasing competitiveness and flexibility. These affect most of all of us, negatively, while providing a positive return for only a small, select few.

"Madbomber the reason spending power has increased is because all American households have two wage earners (ie Mom & Dad) working to make ends meet."

No. The reason spending power has increased in because competition has increased, which drives increases in technology, which further increases competition. Typically, when people are talking about real wages, the point to the 1950s as being the high point. And although that may have been a time of high real wages, things were far more expensive. Familes had one car. Now the average household (containing 2.6 people) has 2.3 cars. eating out was a rare treat. now it is a multi-weekly event, even for the poor. Even as late as the late 1990s, computers were prohibitively expensive for many people. Now you can get one at Wal Mart for $300. And cell phones. Have gone from being a Gordon Gecko accessory to a consumable good sold at gas stations.

"Oh yeah, then explain to me the 15 to 20 million Mexicans that weren't here 20 years ago."

They came here because they were willing to do the same jobs that Americans were doing for far less money, and still be better of than they would have had they stayed in Meheeco. And in coming here, they have saved consumers countless billions, thereby increasing spending power, while offering services that people could not have otherwise been able to afford. It's kind of a win-win deal.

"And last but not least the reason they're paying a $1400.00 labor premium thts so they could pay for the exorbitant healt care insurance. Those "socialist" in Japan have socialized medicine!!!"

The total cost of producing a GM, Ford, or Chrysler in the US includes a $1400 in union obligations that Japanese producers building cars in the US do not have. So we're not comparing a car made in Japan with a car made in the US, we're comparing two cars made in the US by union and non-union workers.

But to the point, I think that if Obamacare were to pass, it might be enough for the big three to ditch their UAW healthcare obligations, effectively making them $100 billion dollars richer. But then again I doubt that the unions would be willing to trade their Cadillac plans for some low quality public option. I sure as hell wouldn't.

Well Madbomber I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I don't understand many things that I've seen change over the past decades. My wages and most of my friend's wages have increased to about 30% to 40% over the past decade, but the cost of living has nearly doubled. Wages have not kept up with inflation.

And as for Illegal-Mexicans somehow being a blessing in disguise for America that one baffles me. Especially, coming from an Air Force officer sworn to uphold and defend the U.S.constition.The welcoming of illegal immigrants onto American soil so as to boost big business bottom line, my God man surely you don't believe that. Most of them around here live in second-class peonage that the low wages put place them in; and also they put a great strain on our local medical facilities because they have no medical insurance(another cost saver for big business). As for all the jobs going to China because of cheap labor;. What are we going to pay for those goods with when they ship them back and we have no jobs ( well, the Mexicans will have jobs, I guess).

You said the paradigm has changed.

What is the new paradigm and how will that benefit America; how are we to change as a nation to compete(in your opinion)?

Or is corporate globalism here to stay and the Americans are just in denial? And if we are indeed
Globalist; what are you as an officer of the United States Air Force protecting?

"Do you think that the American working class was better off before unions?"

That's a good question, and I don't know that I have an answer.

Oh please. There's no way you could possibly think labor was better off before trade unions. Twelve hour workdays six days a week and no health care. Child labor. Unsafe working conditions.

"What is the new paradigm and how will that benefit America; how are we to change as a nation to compete(in your opinion)?"

American workers have to stay competitive, and since accepting lower wages doesn't seem likely, the only other option is that they have to become smarter. The reason that college grad make so much more than non-grads is that they are a scarce asset relative to demand. In fact, US companies continue to import skilled labor via H1-Bs in order to meet critical positions. These are high paying jobs that would be filled by American workers, if there were American workers available. In the manufacturing sector, the US needs to continue to export all commoditized industries, as there is no practical way we can ever stay competitive in those areas. I suspect that a manufacturing segment will remain, but it will be comprised of highly differentiated products made by companies with a lot of pricing power.

"Or is corporate globalism here to stay and the Americans are just in denial? And if we are indeed
Globalist; what are you as an officer of the United States Air Force protecting?"

Protecting wages for one segment of society is not a matter of national defense. Even if it were, I doubt that you or anyone else would want us to go drop bombs on the competition. But since were talking about it, the reason that workers were able to earn such high wages in the postwar period is that we were the only industrialized economy left intact. If you wanted a car, or a tractor, or a refrigerator, you bought it from the US. It gave companies an enormous amount of pricing power, which in turn gave labor an enormous amount of pricing power. The emergence of global competition changed all that. To return to those days really would require a war that would devastate the countries that are in competition with the US.