Page 1 of 58 123451151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 867
  1. #1
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,664

    Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Seems to be no end to union troubles across the board. They have driven cities and states to the brink of bankruptcy... and some in fact into bankruptcy. They have driven previously private industries overseas, out of business or into the care of the US taxpayer like in the case of GM and Chrysler. It's time for unions to come back to earth with their wage/benefit expectations.

    Yes, They’re Overpaid
    The truth about federal workers’ compensation


    "Scapegoating,” claimed the American Federation of Government Employees. “Punishment,” said the Federal Managers Association. “Transparently cynical,” declared Paul Krugman. President Obama’s late November announcement of a two-year pay freeze for federal workers has been poorly received by unions and left-wing activists, who see it as the end result of a year-long campaign to reduce federal salaries. Taxpayers should hope it is just the beginning. Fundamental reform of federal pay would save tens of billions of dollars annually, and it would be a strong indication that lawmakers are serious about reducing long-term deficits in all parts of the budget.

    Unfortunately, the debate over federal pay has been fraught with extreme claims. Some politicians have accused federal workers of making double what they deserve, while government unions maintain they are underpaid by around 25 percent. The rhetorical back and forth has largely hidden a substantial academic literature, dating back to the 1970s, that compares the pay of federal and private workers. Economists have addressed the issue with a variety of techniques and from a number of different angles. Over the past year, we have worked to update their results with the most recent data, and our conclusions have been the same as theirs: Federal employees do receive a substantial wage premium by comparison with similar private workers.

    The standard approach to comparing the salaries of different groups is to employ the “human capital model,” which assumes that workers are paid according to their skills and personal characteristics. If any group differences in wages remain after controlling for age, education, experience, race, gender, marital status, immigration status, state of residence, and so on, then one group is said to enjoy a wage premium over the others. Economists using this approach find that federal workers generally earn wages 10 percent to 20 percent higher than comparable private sector workers. When we ran a similar analysis with 2009 wage data from the Current Population Survey (CPS), the result was a 12 percent premium. James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation found that the federal premium today could be as much as 22 percent, depending on the specific control variables employed. In general, the federal pay premium is very large for lower and middle-skilled employees and shrinks for the best-qualified federal workers.

    Because we have datasets like the CPS—large, representative samples of American workers providing abundant demographic details—the human capital method is the best and most widely accepted method of comparing pay across groups. But the method does have some limitations, which defenders of federal pay use to cast doubt on these results. The press often has obliged by portraying the pay debate as a he-said, she-said question that can never really be answered.

    It’s useful then to approach the federal pay question from more than one angle. For instance, we might ask whether economists’ human capital model can really account for all of the relevant differences among workers. Perhaps federal workers have some personality trait—greater motivation, for example—that we cannot measure adequately with our standard control variables. Or maybe our “years of education” variable disguises more prestigious degrees held by federal workers. Neither of these hypotheses seems particularly likely, but we can’t falsify them with the standard human capital model. It’s not feasible to measure directly every single human capital trait.

    To address this concern, we can change the approach. Rather than comparing different people at one point in time, we can follow the same people through time. Workers frequently change jobs, and sometimes they switch between federal and private sector jobs. Their change in wages when they make this switch can tell us a lot about federal pay. If workers get a much bigger raise when they switch from private to federal employment than workers who switch from one private job to another, we can infer that the federal government overpays.

    Following individuals over time builds into the analysis an ideally rich set of control variables. When people change jobs, they bring with them not just their observable skills like work experience and education, but also their intelligence, their motivation, their specific training, and whatever else affects their productivity. We need not directly measure these variables. All are naturally controlled for when we compare the change in wages people experience when switching between the federal and private sectors.

    The specific econometric procedure is called “fixed effects,” because it focuses on wage changes for individual workers, who have many characteristics that are fixed from year to year. One of the first economists to apply fixed effects analysis to the federal pay issue was Princeton’s Alan Krueger in 1988. Using a dataset called the Displaced Workers Survey, Krueger found that workers who lost jobs in the private sector and then joined the federal government earned about 12 percent more than displaced workers who found another private sector job. (Somewhat ironically, Krueger would go on to become President Obama’s chief economist at the Treasury Department.)

    A forthcoming Heritage Foundation report updates Krueger’s analysis using a much larger and more representative dataset known as the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). The SIPP follows tens of thousands of people over several years, carefully documenting their wages and labor force status on a monthly basis. Combining the SIPP waves that began in 2004 and 2008, the fixed effects analysis indicates a federal wage premium of at least 8 percent.

    A similar approach confined to postal workers reached a similar conclusion. In the late 1990s, the Postal Service surveyed all new hires, asking them how much they were paid in their previous job. Overall, new postal hires received salaries over 28 percent higher than what they had been paid in the private sector, which University of Pennsylvania law professor Michael Wachter and his co-authors called “enormous wage increases over their previous wages in full-time private sector jobs.”

    If fixed effects analysis works so well, why use the human capital method at all? Because fixed effects analy-sis has its own limitations. For one thing, the smaller samples make measurement error more of a problem. If some private workers are incorrectly identified as federal workers or vice versa, then the federal wage premium will appear smaller than it really is. Furthermore, the SIPP covers a relatively small part of a worker’s life cycle. We know from the human capital studies that the federal premium tends to get larger as experience grows. Since the SIPP data capture pay in only the first year a worker switches to federal employment, the observed 8 percent pay premium probably underestimates the overall pay gap.

    Human capital and fixed effects models tell us a lot about wages in the federal versus the private sector, but they tell us nothing about nonwage compensation. To supplement the findings on wages, analysts commonly estimate the value of pension and health benefits offered by each sector and then add them to the wage results from the human capital model. But even this is incomplete, because benefits come in many forms that can be hard to quantify. Even a low-salary job without a 401(k) or a health plan could be relatively attractive if it offered other forms of compensation, such as generous sick leave, lengthy vacation time, reliable job security, and flexible scheduling. Federal employment offers all of these, but how do we incorporate every perk into the federal-private comparison?

    One method is to use quit rates. Federal workers quit their jobs at less than one-third the rate of private workers, which suggests federal employees don’t feel they can get a better combination of salary, benefits, and job perks in the private sector. Just as fixed effects naturally accounts for many hard-to-measure skill differences, quit rate analysis automatically encompasses the full range of compensation in each sector.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  2. #2
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,664

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    ^^^ Cont...

    For years, defenders of federal pay have attributed low quit rates to the fact that federal employees receive traditional defined benefit pensions, which reward long job tenure and discourage midcareer employees from leaving. Richard Ippolito, the author of a 1987 study that made this claim, suggested what he called a “litmus test” for his theory: Switch federal employees from traditional defined benefit to 401(k)-type defined contribution plans, then see if quit rates change. “If federal workers are paid too much relative to their quality level,” Ippolito wrote, “the quit rate will not change much; if their pay is too low, the quit rate will increase markedly.”

    As it happens, history has provided this test: While federal employees hired before 1984 have only defined benefit pensions, those hired after 1984 have a smaller defined benefit pension coupled with a defined contribution plan. If the pension job lock theory were correct, quit rates today should be much higher than in 1984. In fact, precisely the opposite is the case: Quit rates among federal workers hired after 1984 are actually around 30 percent lower than for similar workers in 1984. This casts serious doubt on the claim that the structure of federal pensions, not generous overall compensation, explains the small number of federal employees who leave their jobs.

    Just as few federal employees quit their jobs, many private sector workers seek federal employment, seeing it as both well compensated and secure in a time when many private sector jobs are not. While data on the number of applicants per federal or private sector job are scant, research in the late 1980s indicated that federal jobs on average received 25 percent to 38 percent more applicants than private sector positions. A 1985 study by economist Steven Venti concluded that from 18 percent to 29 percent of workers would accept federal employment if offered. Roughly three times as many men would be willing to accept federal employment as are actually offered federal jobs; for women, the ratio is six times, implying that federal jobs provide a significantly more attractive overall package than private sector options.

    These results, Venti concluded, suggest “the government could continue to attract a workforce of current size with substantially lower wages.” Moreover, even significantly lower wages would only slightly reduce the quality of federal job applicants. We will have the opportunity to test this view as the administration’s pay freeze takes effect. Will federal quit rates rise as pay is frozen? We doubt it.

    The left often portrays any criticism of public sector employees as an attack on government, unions, or working Americans. In addition, they say, even if claims of overpayment are true, the numbers are small relative to looming deficits from entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

    But this misses an important point: If ordinary Americans are to accept significant sacrifices in programs that are dear to them, they need to know that there isn’t a protected class receiving better treatment.

    A number of studies of fiscal consolidations in OECD countries over the past several decades have shown that reductions in the government wage bill—that is, the size and pay of the public sector work force—are an important part of larger efforts to balance the budget. A recent study published by the American Enterprise Institute showed that countries that succeeded in reducing their fiscal gaps placed a lot of weight on reducing public sector pay.

    One reason is that reducing the public workforce shifts resources to the private sector, where they are almost certainly better utilized and so benefit the economy. A second, and probably more important, reason is basic credibility: When a government is willing to take on entrenched interests, it demonstrates to both citizens and financial markets that it is serious about reform. Individuals are more willing to invest when they feel confident their taxes will not rise in the future, and lenders are more willing to purchase government debt when they know it can be paid back.

    A 1996 International Monetary Fund study concluded: “Fiscal consolidation that concentrates on the expenditure side, and especially on transfers and government wages, is more likely to succeed in reducing the public debt ratio than tax-based consolidation.” Given the size of the fiscal gap the federal government must close, it seems foolish to leave the government wage bill out of the equation.

    The devil is in the details. Cutting or freezing federal pay across the board would be an improvement over the status quo, but more fundamental reform is needed. Without a change in the basic system of setting pay, salaries could easily creep upward again with little fanfare. In addition, we do not want to cut the wages and benefits of certain federal workers—research scientists, engineers, and senior lawyers, for example—who are not currently overpaid.

    We could offer some specific proposals—cutting down on excessive vacation pay and phasing out the defined benefit pension come to mind—but more important for now are the principles a new system should follow. Rather than a rigid pay schedule, the federal government should attempt to at least approximate the effects of supply and demand that private labor markets exhibit. While academic studies can attempt to account for differing salaries, benefits, job security, and work conditions, the ultimate test is the market itself, where job seekers compare the overall package offered in federal employment with the offer from private employers. Probably the best way to capture market effects is to track the number of applications submitted for a given federal job. When large numbers apply for a position, that is a signal that the compensation package may be overly attractive; likewise, when a federal position attracts few applicants—and many high level positions do—then better pay may be warranted. But to act as if a small number of salary-setting bureaucrats can accurately set pay and compensation for thousands of jobs of different types is folly, which hurts taxpayers and reduces the effectiveness of the federal workforce.

    The question of whether federal workers are overpaid is often portrayed in the media as unanswerable, with each side of the debate citing its own numbers. In fact, the academic evidence is much more one-sided: Generally speaking, federal workers do receive higher salaries than similar private employees; individuals changing jobs receive bigger pay increases when their new job is with the federal government; federal employees quit less than private workers; and private workers line up to get federal jobs.

    Fundamental reform of federal compensation—not merely temporary pay freezes or furloughs—could offer significant benefits to taxpayers. At the same time, we must acknowledge that there is no perfect solution. No amount of “good government” reforms can ensure that federal workers are paid exactly the same way as their private sector counterparts, because the federal government can never be subject to market forces the way the private sector is.

    Taxpayers should recognize that bureaucratic inefficiencies like excessive pay are part and parcel of large government. Reform of the pay system is important and necessary, but ultimately the best means of reducing excessive federal paychecks is to reduce the size of the federal government.

    Andrew G. Biggs is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Jason Richwine is a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  3. #3
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,664

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    On the happenings in Wisconsin today brought about by the teachers unions...



    Pulling kids out of class to picket for them. When exactly did collective bargaining become a "fundamental human right"?
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  4. #4
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    17,922

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    On Hannity tonight... videos of the union protesters in Wisconsin carrying signs of swastikas, naming the governor Hitler, Mubarek and Mussolini, and with crosshairs on photographs of his face. And get this... they're protesting at the governor's HOUSE!!!

    I didn't realize the astroturfed Tea Party folks were there.

    And... they bussed in union protesters from out of state... while the Democrats of Wisconsin's Senate bussed themselves to Illinois so they couldn't be brought back to the state house by the state police.

  5. #5
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,664

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    ^^^ I'm absolutely sure the MSM will be falling over themselves calling for the new tone of civility/discourse tomorrow.

    This could get good..
    Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) Introduces Amendment to Defund Union-Controlled NLRB

    As the union-controlled National Labor Relations Board continues its job-killing push to unionize America’s workplace—including deciding whether to break-up and unionize company employees by classification—Republican Congressman Tom Price (GA) has introduced an amendment to completely defund the NLRB through the end of FY 2011.

    [via Labor Relations Today]

    The House continues its consideration of H.R. 1, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act for FY2011. This bill, if passed, will make appropriations for the continuing operation of the various federal government agencies through September 30, 2011. As reported by The Hill several hundred additional amendments have recently been introduced, which are taking up considerable time in the debate.

    Among the amendments introduced is C.R. 578, introduced by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), to defund the National Labor Relations Board, as follows:

    At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

    Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out and implement the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.)
    Given the current anti-business and anti-worker tenor of the NLRB, its declining caseload, as well as the blatant shilling the current NLRB is doing at the behest of union bosses, a defunding of this union-corrupted agency would be a welcome step to making it easier for America’s job creators to create jobs.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  6. #6
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    In a House
    Posts
    968

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    yes, because we all know unions are the only reason states are in trouble.

    Couldn't be that repubs know unions vote for Dems and want to break them up, could it?

    Notice how Walker left out the unions that supported him, police, firefighters and state troopers?

    It's purely political, nothing more, rewarding those who supported him.

    If he was serious, he would have included all the state's unions, not just the one who supported his opponent.
    Fox News watchers are less informed - The Proof

    I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
    - Thomas Jefferson

  7. #7
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Obamaland
    Age
    34
    Posts
    9,523

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    I'm in a union. Sure is better than not being in a union


    As another election draws near; the G.O.P. are yet again filled with a stupid confidence that the they will win the White House. What they don't realize about people like Trump, Carson, and Cruz is that their rhetoric only resonates within an echo chamber, but not the American people. They live in an illusion of falsehood and distorted truth and only seek information and opinions that confirm these beliefs and instantly reject anything that contradicts them because only their opinions matter. Their notion of freedom is freedom for themselves and those alike to them, but not the rest of the country which has changed.
    These are the reasons why the G.O.P is set to lose in 2016. And when that happens, rest assured that they will have myriad of conspiracy theories blaming everyone and everything from the liberal media, to Oprah, to welfare moms, and pretty much everyone but their own disgusting selves.



  8. #8
    Joined
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Vvardenfell
    Age
    55
    Posts
    10,829

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    From the first post:


    The standard approach to comparing the salaries of different groups is to employ the “human capital model,” which assumes that workers are paid according to their skills and personal characteristics.
    Well, that shows that particular model is useless then. There are many factors relating to what people are paid, but those two figure pretty low down. Yet again academics confuse theory with cold hard reality. It seems to me that there is one, and only one, way of comparing public and private sector pay: what are people doing the same job in each paid? Any other comparison is mostly just an exercise in bias or throwing meaningless figures about. If you aren't comparing like with like your figures are at best highly questionable. Interestingly, when anti-Union people start these attacks, this is the one comparison that they resolutely fail to show - which I will admit is pretty hard. Instead we get a load of much more complicated statistical manipulation which brings to mind old saying about lies and damn lies. It may well be that public sector workers over there are paid more than their private equivalents, but nothing in that article shows any such thing. Again: like-for-like, or your argument is useless.


    M

  9. #9
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorafornia, USSA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    13,275

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by liteman View Post
    yes, because we all know unions are the only reason states are in trouble.

    Couldn't be that repubs know unions vote for Dems and want to break them up, could it?

    Notice how Walker left out the unions that supported him, police, firefighters and state troopers?

    It's purely political, nothing more, rewarding those who supported him.

    If he was serious, he would have included all the state's unions, not just the one who supported his opponent.
    Quote Originally Posted by JustinC939 View Post
    I'm in a union. Sure is better than not being in a union
    You guys sound like my brother-in-law who works for the post office. He's of course in a union, and just passed up a nice fat pension in which he would've received 85% of his current pay every year for the rest of his life after retirement. Do either of you think this is a sustainable model? I mean really? It's no wonder our infrastructure is a disaster that gets worse year after year. We're paying retired government employees to be retired!
    I was "deplorable" before it was cool.

  10. #10
    Joined
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Age
    32
    Posts
    2,746

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    The problem is, people seem to think they need some kind of authority to reinforce or back up there feelings or beliefs. That for some reason, they cant assemble to petition or protest on there own accord.


    The main issue with the unions are easily summed up in one word.

    Greed.

  11. #11
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Obamaland
    Age
    34
    Posts
    9,523

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by kbohip View Post
    You guys sound like my brother-in-law who works for the post office. He's of course in a union, and just passed up a nice fat pension in which he would've received 85% of his current pay every year for the rest of his life after retirement. Do either of you think this is a sustainable model? I mean really? It's no wonder our infrastructure is a disaster that gets worse year after year. We're paying retired government employees to be retired!
    Well good for him. But if he had received that retirement package in the form of a wage that he could use to invest in his own retirement fund in lieu of his retirement package; would you consider it paying someone to be retired when he really earned that retirement?
    It really puzzles me how every conservative will gripe about a middle class guy earning a decent living, but has no problem with the top 2% paying less in taxes than the rest of us.

    I worked in a non-union workplace for almost 9 years. And in that time span, I watched our benefits and perks go out the window as company as profits actually went up. The management basically looted that place until it closed. One of the GMs actually went to jail for taking kickbacks from steel suppliers.
    I'm not saying that a union would flat out prevent corporate corruption, but it would prevent corporations from looting their employees to some degree.
    And even aside from wages and benefits, unions are there to ensure fair treatment, fair pay, equal opportunity, and a safe workplace for all employees along because you simply cannot count on an employer to do any of these things voluntarily.
    I'm only part of a small union, and I understand that the big unions are also corrupt. Working in the auto industry for as long as I have. I've had the opportunity to visit some GM and Chrysler plants, and those guys have it made. They are both overstaffed and over paid. The UAW would turn a one man operation would turn into a 10 man operation, and pay them all $80,000 a year. That is unreasonable. You can't expect to make vehicles affordable to people making $40,000/year when your employees make $80,000/year.
    Anybody who has had a taste of factory work would understand and appreciate the fact that we have things like Unions, OSHA, workers compensation. And I think it's entirely unfair to call out the unions as being the job killers in this country when corporate fat cats do just the same. And it's really funny how people conveniently forget all about NAFTA.
    Last edited by JustinC939; 02-18-2011 at 12:52 PM.


    As another election draws near; the G.O.P. are yet again filled with a stupid confidence that the they will win the White House. What they don't realize about people like Trump, Carson, and Cruz is that their rhetoric only resonates within an echo chamber, but not the American people. They live in an illusion of falsehood and distorted truth and only seek information and opinions that confirm these beliefs and instantly reject anything that contradicts them because only their opinions matter. Their notion of freedom is freedom for themselves and those alike to them, but not the rest of the country which has changed.
    These are the reasons why the G.O.P is set to lose in 2016. And when that happens, rest assured that they will have myriad of conspiracy theories blaming everyone and everything from the liberal media, to Oprah, to welfare moms, and pretty much everyone but their own disgusting selves.



  12. #12
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    In a House
    Posts
    968

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by kbohip View Post
    You guys sound like my brother-in-law who works for the post office. He's of course in a union, and just passed up a nice fat pension in which he would've received 85% of his current pay every year for the rest of his life after retirement. Do either of you think this is a sustainable model? I mean really? It's no wonder our infrastructure is a disaster that gets worse year after year. We're paying retired government employees to be retired!
    What about the CEO's who don't even retire, but upon leaving a company, get a gigantic golden parachute. Who do you think pays for those?

    I've worked in a union job before and I've had to work where I have used union labor and non-union labor. The union laborer's knew their job and got it done quickly with little oversight from me. The non-union laborer's I constantly had to answer questions and stay on top of every move they made and took twice as long to get the job done.

    Cuts have to be made and TAXES must be raised to get out of the troubles this country is facing now. But you'll never make it with just one of these.

    But the middle class is being asked to make all the sacrifices while the rich sit back and enjoy their tax cut extensions and record wealth increases. It just doesn't seem fair, nor what the founding fathers probably would've wanted.
    Fox News watchers are less informed - The Proof

    I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
    - Thomas Jefferson

  13. #13
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Age
    37
    Posts
    6,499

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Its war on the middle class. Executives and Corporations receive record profits and tax breaks yet the guy who makes $80K/yr working a 40-50 hr/wk job and has to take care of a family of 4 needs to take a pay cut. Give me a friggin break. Its soul-less, heart-less, and immoral.

  14. #14
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Obamaland
    Age
    34
    Posts
    9,523

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackDragon24 View Post
    Its war on the middle class. Executives and Corporations receive record profits and tax breaks yet the guy who makes $80K/yr working a 40-50 hr/wk job and has to take care of a family of 4 needs to take a pay cut. Give me a friggin break. Its soul-less, heart-less, and immoral.
    Oh, but the rich are job creators....... overseas


    As another election draws near; the G.O.P. are yet again filled with a stupid confidence that the they will win the White House. What they don't realize about people like Trump, Carson, and Cruz is that their rhetoric only resonates within an echo chamber, but not the American people. They live in an illusion of falsehood and distorted truth and only seek information and opinions that confirm these beliefs and instantly reject anything that contradicts them because only their opinions matter. Their notion of freedom is freedom for themselves and those alike to them, but not the rest of the country which has changed.
    These are the reasons why the G.O.P is set to lose in 2016. And when that happens, rest assured that they will have myriad of conspiracy theories blaming everyone and everything from the liberal media, to Oprah, to welfare moms, and pretty much everyone but their own disgusting selves.



  15. #15
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,664

    Re: Unions Federal, State & whats left of the private sector...

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackDragon24 View Post
    Its war on the middle class. Executives and Corporations receive record profits and tax breaks yet the guy who makes $80K/yr working a 40-50 hr/wk job and has to take care of a family of 4 needs to take a pay cut. Give me a friggin break. Its soul-less, heart-less, and immoral.
    Class warfare my arse. Geesus that canard is so beat to death. Whats "soul-less, heart-less, and immoral" is taxpayers having to pay outright for the outrageous pay & benefits of public sector unions. And again on the backside in the form of bailouts for the havoc the unions wreak on the private sector.



    Vicious cycle that is bankrupting the fed and states.

    You won't get an argument from me about executives pay. You also won't see me shedding any tears for the union stooge who makes $80K a year working on an assembly line who just got shown the door because his job just got shipped overseas. Sorry.. as far as "skilled labor" goes the guy working the drive thru at Taco Bell has him beat hands down at a fraction the cost. Unions are rendering their members obsolete and that ain't my fault.



    Is This How a President Should Act?

    From the Washington Post:

    The president's political machine worked in close coordination Thursday with state and national union officials to mobilize thousands of protesters to gather in Madison and to plan similar demonstrations in other state capitals.

    Their efforts began to spread, as thousands of labor supporters turned out for a hearing in Columbus, Ohio, to protest a measure from Gov. John Kasich (R) that would cut collective-bargaining rights.

    By the end of the day, Democratic Party officials were working to organize additional demonstrations in Ohio and Indiana, where an effort is underway to trim benefits for public workers. Some union activists predicted similar protests in Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. [...]

    The White House political operation, Organizing for America, got involved Monday, after Democratic National Committee Chairman Timothy M. Kaine, a former Virginia governor, spoke to union leaders in Madison, a party official said.

    The group made phone calls, distributed messages via Twitter and Facebook, and sent e-mails to its state and national lists to try to build crowds for rallies Wednesday and Thursday, a party official said.
    Just think–there once was a time (for more than a century, actually), when the president of the United States thought it too imperious to deliver the State of the Union via a speech to a joint session of Congress, since that would smack of telling a co-equal branch of government what to do. Now we have a president not just taking rhetorical sides in a state issue, but actively mobilizing his political organization to affect the outcome(s), even though (to my knowledge) nothing that Gov. Walker or any other belated statehouse cost-cutter is doing has a damned thing to do with federal law.

    I have written in the past about how libertarians are pretty lonely in the political scheme of things in terms of constantly being challenged to defend themselves against the "logical conclusion" of their philosophy. But I think it's time to amend that. We are witnessing the logical conclusion of the Democratic Party's philosophy, and it is this: Your tax dollars exist to make public sector unions happy. When we run out of other people's money to pay for those contracts and promises (most of which are negotiated outside of public view, often between union officials and the politicians that union officials helped elect), then we just need to raise taxes to cover a shortfall that is obviously Wall Street's fault. Anyone who doesn't agree is a bully, and might just bear an uncanny resemblance to Hitler.

    The president's heavy-handed involvement, along with House Republicans' refusal to sign off on any new bailout of the states, means that this may very well be America's biggest and most widespread political fight in 2011. It's a cage match to determine first dibs on a shrinking pie. A clarifying moment.


    ^^^ What the WI demorats fled the state in.

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •