PDA

View Full Version : Why do the Republicans hate the unemployed?



Qtec
06-25-2010, 04:17 AM
link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn8_Z0XpRKE&feature=player_embedded)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"We don’t have even one Republican willing to help us break this filibuster," she said. "We have every anticipation that we will not have the votes. It’s become very clear that the Republicans in the Senate want this bill to fail.

"It's a cynical move, because it doesn’t serve them in terms of their elections this fall.<span style='font-size: 17pt'> They have decided they want this economy to fail, and they’re willing to take the country down with them,</span>" she said in an emotional conference call. </div></div>

Rachel puts it like this.
link (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/maddow-highlights-republicans-disdain-unem)


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rachel Maddow does an excellent job laying out <span style='font-size: 20pt'>just how badly Republicans hate the unemployed </span>and she summed it up pretty nicely at the end of the segment.

MADDOW: We've got the worst long-term unemployment since the Great Depression. This is going to have repercussions in our country and in our culture for generations. The political leadership we’re seeing on the right in response to that called the unemployed animals, drug test them, call them bums, say they're only out of jobs because they're lazy and want to be. Insult, insult, insult. To add real injury to all of that insult today every Republican in the Senate plus our friend Ben Nelson, <u>blocked a vote on a bill to provide badly needed help to the long-term unemployed in this country.</u>

And as a result, starting tomorrow, more than a million Americans will lose their unemployment benefits. This might sound like something you've heard before. This is the sort of thing that's been knocking around in and out of the headlines for months now. And it's true. It’s because Republicans have blocked extensions of unemployment benefits before. It’s kind of been a Republican hobbyhorse lately.

But in the past, the measure has always been saved at the last minute. That didn't happen this time. Senate Republicans and Ben Nelson really are cutting off the benefits for 1.2 million unemployed people and probably tossing at least some of them out on the street. And as an added bonus, they're giving up the opportunity to stimulate the economy in the most efficient way we know how. Ta da. </div></div>

The GOP..........They apologise to BP, bail out Wall St and shaft the unemployed.

Q

Qtec
06-25-2010, 04:23 AM
Some GOP thinking.




'One of the most surprising things about politics since the crash happened and since unemployment spiked is how many politicians apparently hate people for being unemployed, hate the unemployed; hate the unemployed, or at least they’re willing to voice that for political reasons. After you pay for unemployment insurance when you have a job, a bunch of politicians apparently think that you are a leech and a bad person for taking those benefits when you need them.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ANGLE: That's what's happened to us, is that we have put in so much entitlement into our government that we really have spoiled our citizenry and said you don't want the jobs that are available.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">KYL: And that it doesn't create new jobs, in fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work. </div></div>

Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa has a similar take about being jobless. He offered up this warning about unemployment benefits in February.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> “We shouldn't turn the safety net into a hammock. It should actually be a safety net.” </div></div>

Republican Congressman Dean Heller of Nevada had a take on unemployment benefits that’s twice as derogatory and 17 times as bizarre as that. Here’s how a local newspaper reported on Dean Heller’s position.

Heller said the current economic downturn in policies may bring back the hobos of the Great Depression, people who wandered the country taking on odd jobs…<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> “I believe there should be a federal safety net,” Heller said but he questioned the wisdom of extending unemployment benefits yet again to a total of 24 months, which Congress is doing. “Is the government now creating hobos?” he asked.

If you're out of a job Congressman Heller thinks you may be a hobo. </div></div>

Andre Bauer the Republican Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina, compared people on assistance famously earlier this year to stray animals.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> BAUER: My grandmother was not a highly educated woman but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too of further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better. </div></div>


Q

LWW
06-25-2010, 04:45 AM
When were you going to make the case that they hate the unemployed?

LWW

pooltchr
06-25-2010, 06:05 AM
Q, you will have to look a little bit closer to get to the truth. The Republicans do not hate the unemployed. In fact, most of them would be happy to vote for the extension, if the Dems would agree to either pay for it out of that trillion dollar "stimulus" slush fund, or cut some other wasteful programs from the budget.

They do not want to increase the debt to pay for it.

If you recall, it was the dems who passed the "pay-go" rule. The Reps are just trying to get them to follow their own rules.

Did you lick that spoon clean?

Steve

Qtec
06-25-2010, 06:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Republicans do not hate the unemployed. </div></div>

What about the quotes above? Shall we just ignore them?

This has nothing to do with the budget. This shows GOP ideology in the sunlight. Its a class war and the rich are waging it with the help of the GOP. The GOP don't give a $2it about Joe six-pack!

The banks scammed the whole world and the man in the street is paying for it. The poor [ paycheck to paycheck] are losing their houses and having their lives turned upside down but the banks are back making RECORD profits! Hooray!!!!!!!!!!!..........and in the worst economy since the Great Depression......Thanks GW......they can't find it in their hearts to ease the suffering of a million people[ and their families] who are in the situation they are in because of fraud on Wall St.....and they call themselves Christians................pathetic.

Q..well done guys. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Sev
06-25-2010, 07:20 AM
The scam started with, "The Community Reinvestment Act". The unintended consequences of the government interfering in the free market opened the door to vast amounts of abuse.

That piece of legislation should be removed and all legislation linked to it as well.

Freddie and Fannie should be deconstructed.

As far as creating jobs the Government only has the ability to create bubbles as witnessed by 33% drop the housing market once the rebate ended.
The housing market has not been so low since 1963.

If it remains at that level there will be a further negative trickle down effect in the jobs market as more suppliers and small business fail.

The impact of the spill in the Gulf is also going be a lagging factor in the economy. With Oil washing up on the beaches in FL it is only a short matter of time before the economies of the coastal states are further disrupted. The coastal tourism industry is poised to collapse. Seafood prices are already climbing.

There is a tropical storm brewing in the gulf. If it bears NE it will be game over. A strong storm serge and winds can bring oil up to a mile inland.

eg8r
06-25-2010, 07:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They have decided they want this economy to fail, and they’re willing to take the country down with them</div></div>The economy has already failed and with the signing of HC our current administration and Dem side of Congress have decided they want it to continue for decades to come.


eg8r

eg8r
06-25-2010, 07:23 AM
I am in agreement with the quotes you have and not a single one of them expressed any hate at all. Bauer's quote is a bit extreme if you ask me but the premise is not completely off the mark.

eg8r

Qtec
06-25-2010, 07:41 AM
We are not talking about the chronically unemployed, we are talking about those who have lost their jobs because of the present economic crisis created by G W Bush and the Banks.

When there are 5 people for every job, how can you blame people for being unemployed? If you had viewed the link I provided you would know that!
here it is AGAIN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn8_Z0XpRKE&feature=player_embedded)

Q

LWW
06-25-2010, 07:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q, you will have to look a little bit closer to get to the truth. The Republicans do not hate the unemployed. In fact, most of them would be happy to vote for the extension, if the Dems would agree to either pay for it out of that trillion dollar "stimulus" slush fund, or cut some other wasteful programs from the budget.

They do not want to increase the debt to pay for it.

If you recall, it was the dems who passed the "pay-go" rule. The Reps are just trying to get them to follow their own rules.

Did you lick that spoon clean?

Steve </div></div>

Please, do not contradict the party talking points with your underhanded tricks like expecting accountability.

When the party told Q they would use "PAYGO" he believed it ... when they don't use it, he believes they are still using it but somehow the R's are blocking it.

LWW

eg8r
06-25-2010, 08:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We are not talking about the chronically unemployed, we are talking about those who have lost their jobs because of the present economic crisis created by G W Bush and the Banks.</div></div>Why not? One bad apple will ruin a bucket of good apples. Some of those newly employed have the same mindset as the chronically unemployed but have never been in this situation before and if you have been unemployed for a year or more then you are "chronically" unemployed. There is no answer that is going to make everyone happy. So for me I would continually lower my standards of employment the longer I was unemployed until I ended up getting as many part time jobs as needed to cover my required expenses and be able to save a little at a time. My family can get by on about 2k a month because the only debt we have is our house. Both cars are paid off, no real consumer debt left, only normal operating expenses around the house. Cable would be shut off and we would certainly be raising the thermostat to a level that is affordable.

eg8r

Chopstick
06-25-2010, 09:49 AM
Republicans do not hate the unemployed. They hate being unemployed as everyone should. Democrats however, are just fine with being unemployed, living off the state and protesting about why they can't get more. "If the evil corporations paid their taxes then I could have a plasma TV instead of an LCD one and a new car too." I am not exaggerating. People actually say stuff like this in public all the time.

Deeman3
06-25-2010, 10:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Cable would be shut off and we would certainly be raising the thermostat to a level that is affordable.

eg8r </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">But Ed, shutting off cable and raising the air conditioner would be as unfair as giving up your cell phone and those dandy $5,600 spinner wheels! Where would it stop? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

eg8r
06-25-2010, 11:07 AM
I do agree. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
06-26-2010, 12:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Some of those newly employed have the same mindset as the chronically unemployed </div></div>

You a mind reader now or is that just your opinion?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One bad apple will ruin a bucket of good apples. </div></div>

OMG! What has that got to do with unemployment benefits?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if you have been unemployed for a year or more then you are "chronically" unemployed. </div></div>

Rubbish.

Q

Q

LWW
06-26-2010, 04:45 AM
When were you going to make your case in support of your original point?

I'll be waiting ... I'm sure you are still busy compiling that list of quotes where the cabal has criticized dearest leader and the regime.

LWW

hondo
06-26-2010, 10:09 AM
So, Republicans want to work, Democrats don't?
I wish somebody had told m this 50 years ago.
I grew up in a Democratic city.
Everybody worked until Reagan and Bush busted all the unions and let all our factories go overseas.

pooltchr
06-26-2010, 11:24 AM
Do you honestly think manufacturers would have stayed here if the unions maintained their stranglehold on them?


Steve

bobroberts
06-26-2010, 11:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, Republicans want to work, Democrats don't?
I wish somebody had told m this 50 years ago.
I grew up in a Democratic city.
Everybody worked until Reagan and Bush busted all the unions and let all our factories go overseas. </div></div>

Come on even you don't believe what your saying.The unions have destroyed this economy.The mob took them over in their infancy and look at G.M. for instance.They have to pay people to stay at home.That's why they were taken over by Obama.The govnt should of let them go chapter 7 and restart without the unions.The unions were great back in the days of sweat shops but now we have laws so that can't happen.Besides these days you need to work a full quarter before you can collect ui and then its for almost 2 years.That's not acceptable.

Stretch
06-26-2010, 12:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you honestly think manufacturers would have stayed here if the unions maintained their stranglehold on them?


Steve </div></div>

Don't blame the unions. Nobody can compete with third world wages. We were sold out by big buisness. If it were not for the Unions our Manufacturing overloards would be paying us 3 dollars an hour with no benefits and no security. Gee then we'd all have jobs! How's that free trade working out? St.

pooltchr
06-26-2010, 12:33 PM
I'm not blaming the unions. Hondo was the one who brought that subject up. He suggested that manufacturing left because the unions were forced out. My contention was simply that if the unions had maintained their position, it would not have stopped the movement overseas.

While I am certainly not a fan of unions, I believe the movement of manufacturing to other countries is more the result of government interference than anything else

Steve

wolfdancer
06-26-2010, 04:08 PM
That is exactly what happened in my home town, where the steel, and the auto industry provided good jobs, and good pay for thousands.

pooltchr
06-26-2010, 04:49 PM
And what was it that caused the price of the products being manufactured to be unable to compete in the global market?

Maybe if the unions hadn't put the jackboots to the businesses, they would have been able to remain competative.

Steve

wolfdancer
06-26-2010, 05:11 PM
you don't have a clue about what happened back then. I could give you the history,and I'm sure that Deeman knows of it...but why bother.....

hondo
06-26-2010, 05:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you honestly think manufacturers would have stayed here if the unions maintained their stranglehold on them?


Steve </div></div>

Everything is wonderful, in its own way?

hondo
06-26-2010, 05:32 PM
Reagan and Bush had opportunity after opportunity to slow down the process of Big Business relocating outside the U.S. but those two wer bought off.
Do a little research.

hondo
06-26-2010, 05:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you honestly think manufacturers would have stayed here if the unions maintained their stranglehold on them?


Steve </div></div>

Don't blame the unions. Nobody can compete with third world wages. We were sold out by big buisness. If it were not for the Unions our Manufacturing overloards would be paying us 3 dollars an hour with no benefits and no security. Gee then we'd all have jobs! How's that free trade working out? St. </div></div>

These right wingers , including those posing as Libertarians ( bobroberts) either don't get it or don't want to get it.

hondo
06-26-2010, 05:36 PM
Didn't suggest that at all. Two separate gripes about Reagan and Bush.

pooltchr
06-26-2010, 06:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Everybody worked until Reagan and Bush busted all the unions and let all our factories go overseas. </div></div>

Sounds like one thought to me. Did you teach your students that sentences should usually address one thought at a time.

If you wanted it to be two separate ideas, would it not make more sense to separate the two ideas?

Steve

Sev
06-26-2010, 07:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Everybody worked until Reagan and Bush busted all the unions and let all our factories go overseas. </div></div>

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t278/Sevelli/Emoticons/bsflag.gif

Hondo. That is an ignorant statement.
Please list every union that Reagan and Bush busted.

hondo
06-26-2010, 08:24 PM
Do your own research.
If you don't believe it, ignore it.
If you don't think they did nothing for the mass exodus
over seas, believe what you want.
Or you can research it. I'm a busy man.
It wouldn't matter anyway. Larry or Steve or you
would just spin it anyway.

hondo
06-26-2010, 08:28 PM
I'm not sure how many people remember the air traffic controllers strike in the 1980's but Reagan stepped in and essentially fired them all and hired replacement permanent workers. That one act set the ball in motion for union busting and began what we now see as diminishing workers rights. Reagan was probably the worst president for average working class people many of whom had risen to middle class status based on great union jobs that provided adequate living wages and decent benefits.

Ronald Reagan probably did more damage to working class wages than any other president in modern U.S. history. Even Richard Nixon was not as bad as Reagan. George W. Bush is right behind Reagan in damaging working class wages and killing their hopes of the "American Dream."

Ronald Reagan changed America, and -- with all due deference to his dedication to principle, his indomitable spirit, his affability -- not for the better.

Reagan slashed taxes on the rich, refused to raise the minimum wage and declaring war on unions by firing air traffic controllers during their 1981 strike, Reagan took aim at the New Deal's proudest creation: a secure and decently paid working class. Broadly shared prosperity was out; plutocracy was dug up from the bone yard of bad ideas. The share of the nation's wealth held by the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans rose by 5 percent during Reagan's presidency, while virtually everyone else's declined.

You need look no further than the current recovery to see Reagan's lasting effect on our economy. Corporate profits have been rising handsomely for the past couple of years, at roughly a 30 percent annual rate. But over two years into the recovery, wages are limping along at roughly the rate of inflation, gaining 1 to 2 percent annually. With the percentage of American workers who belong to unions -- 12 percent overall and just 8 percent in the private sector -- having sunk to its lowest level since before FDR, is it any wonder that wages are stuck?

Roughly a quarter of American workers belonged to unions when Reagan took office. When he broke the PATCO strike, it was an unambiguous signal that employers need feel little or no obligation to their workers, and employers got that message loud and clear -- illegally firing workers who sought to unionize, replacing permanent employees who could collect benefits with temps who could not, shipping factories and jobs abroad. Reagan may have preached traditional values, but loyalty was not one of them.

All of this proved that Reagan probably was suffering from the effects of alzheimers while still in office because he literally killed the American worker and his "Reagonomics" policy (known as "trickle down") are still being felt today.
2 years ago.

hondo
06-26-2010, 08:30 PM
Amidst the continued outpouring of praise for Ronald Reagan, let's not forget that he was one of the most anti-labor presidents in U.S. history, a role model for the virulently anti-labor George W. Bush.

Republican presidents never have had much regard for unions, which almost invariably have opposed their election. But until Reagan, no GOP president had dared to challenge labor's firm legal standing, gained through Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the mid-1930s.

Reagan's Republican predecessors treated union leaders much as they treated Democratic members of Congress -- as people to be fought with at times, but also as people to be bargained with at other times. But Reagan engaged in precious little bargaining. He waged almost continuous war against organized labor.

He had little apparent reason to fear labor politically, with opinion polls at the time showing that unions were opposed by nearly half of all Americans and that nearly half of those who belonged to the unions had voted for him in 1980 and again in 1984.

Reagan,in any case, was a true ideologue of the anti-labor political right. Yes, he had been president of the Screen Actors Guild, but he was notoriously pro-management, leading the way to a strike-ending agreement in 1959 that greatly weakened the union and finally resigning under membership pressure before his term ended.

Reagan's war on labor began in the summer of 1981, when he fired 13,000 striking air traffic controllers and destroyed their union. As Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson noted, that was "an unambiguous signal that employers need feel little or no obligation to their workers, and employers got that message loud and clear -- illegally firing workers who sought to unionize, replacing permanent employees who could collect benefits with temps who could not, shipping factories and jobs abroad."

Reagan gave dedicated union foes direct control of the federal agencies that were designed originally to protect and further the rights and interests of workers and their unions.

Most important was Reagan's appointment of three management representatives to the five-member National Labor Relations Board which oversees union representation elections and labor-management bargaining, They included NLRB Chairman Donald Dotson, who believed that "unionized labor relations have been the major contributors to the decline and failure of once-healthy industries" and have caused "destruction of individual freedom."

Under Dotson, a House subcommittee found,the board abandoned its legal obligation to promote collective bargaining, in what amounted to "a betrayal of American workers."

The NLRB settled only about half as many complaints of employers' illegal actions as had the board during the previous administration of Democrat Jimmy Carter, and those that were settled upheld employers in three-fourths of the cases. Even under Republican Richard Nixon, employers won only about one-third of the time.

Most of the complaints were against employers who responded to organizing drives by illegally firing union supporters. The employers were well aware that under Reagan the NLRB was taking an average of three years to rule on complaints, and that in any case it generally did no more than order the discharged unionists reinstated with back pay. That's much cheaper than operating under a union contract.

The board stalled as long before acting on petitions from workers seeking union representation elections and stalled for another year or two after such votes before certifying winning unions as the workers' bargaining agents. Under Reagan, too, employers were allowed to permanently replace workers who dared exercise their legal right to strike.

Reagan's Labor Department was as one-sided as the NLRB. It became an anti-labor department, virtually ignoring, for instance, the union-busting consultants who were hired by many employers to fend off unionization. Very few consultants and very few of those who hired them were asked for the financial disclosure statements the law demands. Yet all unions were required to file the statements that the law required of them (and that could be used to advantage by their opponents). And though the department cut its overall budget by more than 10 percent, it increased the budget for such union-busting activities by almost 40 percent.

Union-busting was only one aspect of Reagan's anti-labor policy. He attempted to lower the minimum wage for younger workers, ease the child labor and anti-sweatshop laws, tax fringe benefits, and cut back job training programs for the unemployed. He tried to replace thousands of federal employees with temporary workers who would not have civil service or union protections.

The Reagan administration all but dismantled programs that required affirmative action and other steps against discrimination by federal contractors, and seriously undermined worker safety. It closed one-third of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's field offices, trimmed its staff by more than one-fourth and decreased the number of penalties assessed against employers by almost three-fourths.

Rather than enforce the law, the administration sought "voluntary compliance" from employers on safety matters - and generally didn't get or expect it. The administration had so tilted the job safety laws in favor of employers that union safety experts found them virtually useless.

The same could have been said of all other labor laws in the Reagan era. A statement issued at the time by the presidents of several major unions concluded it would have been more advantageous for those who worked for a living to ignore the laws and return "to the law of the jungle" that prevailed a half-century before.

Their suggestion came a little late. Ronald Reagan had already plunged labor-management relations deep into the jungle.

Copyright © Dick Meister

pooltchr
06-26-2010, 08:42 PM
Yeah, he really was good!


Steve

hondo
06-26-2010, 08:50 PM
Not surprised at your answer at all.
Even though it says a lot about your lack of concern for the American worker.

Why should we debate at all, Steve?
You hate the working folk in America,
who are now the unemployed. (As the title implies)

wolfdancer
06-26-2010, 09:20 PM
He thinks that others should work for the same wages and under the same labor conditions that they do in underdeveloped countries, yet pay American prices for their goods.
Well, it's hard to compete with child labor in India, and the 12 and 14 hr work days.
He thinks his job and wages would be safe....while everybody else would take major pay cuts.

Stretch
06-26-2010, 10:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He thinks that others should work for the same wages and under the same labor conditions that they do in underdeveloped countries, yet pay American prices for their goods.
Well, it's hard to compete with child labor in India, and the 12 and 14 hr work days.
He thinks his job and wages would be safe....while everybody else would take major pay cuts.
</div></div>

Here is some sobering statistics.

- Nearly 40,ooo manufacturing establishments and 3 million manufacturing jobs have vanished since 2001.

- Today, Chinese imports outstrip American exports by 6 to 1.

- The loss of skilled workers accross the manufacturing sector is a devastating blow to your technical capacity to make things. For the economy it means that the next best idea, the next innovation, the next generation of products and the next investment will be made somewhere else, not in the United States.

- Globalization admirers contend that because the workforce of develping nations are unskilled, they cannot compete with the USA. Thus only low end, low skill jobs are lost to outsourcing. However, this is not true. The Asian workforce, in particular, has made great strides. According to Fortune Magazine, in the next year China will produce 3.3 Million University graduates, all of whom speek English. India too will turn out 3.1 million English speeking graduates. Furthermore in engineering alone China's graduates will number over 600,000, India's 350,000. America's only about 70,000. These graduates are beginning to fill more than Low end, low skill jobs. St.

Qtec
06-27-2010, 02:59 AM
If Nike can have a pair of sneakers made in the East for $5 and then sell them in the US for $220........
If Wal Mart can sell you 3 shirts for $15 and still make a profit.......

When these companies made the decision to move their manufacturing operations to the East etc, they didn't give a FK about America, the economy or the American worker. The Govt didn't force them.

This is the present GOP FKD up thinking.
Free market is best because it increases profits and drives down wages in the US. You can see it on the board...........if you are unemployed you should take any job that is going even if if it is at slave labour wages.
Ed thinks its ok if you should work 16 hrs a day and still don't earn enough to break even!

Q.........meanwhile Defence gets another zillion ....because we are all afraid.

Qtec
06-27-2010, 03:08 AM
link (http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/alan-grayson-powerfully-channels-eisenh)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We have a little exclusive from the great Congressman from Florida.
Alan Grayson adapts Eisenhower's 1953 speech called: "The Chance For Peace" to make an enormous point in our country today. He's changed a few words to make it fit into our current narrative, but they are still important and explosive words that all Americans need to hear.

We waste over 600 billion dollars a year on the Military Industrial Complex and if we even cut back 20% on that monstrosity, how much good can we accomplish here? How much change and prosperity can be funneled to every day working class families that toil so hard just to make ends meet?

<span style='font-size: 20pt'> We have a life of perpetual fear and tension;</span> a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. </div></div>

When Russia folded, the threat from attack was gone. To continue the fear and to continue the flood of tax payer dollars to the military complex, they needed a new enemy!!!!!!!!!!!!


Then 9/11.







Anyway,


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Republicans</span>

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gwr8KJO0Fc&feature=player_embedded)

Q..LOL

hondo
06-27-2010, 05:42 AM
All true.

LWW
06-27-2010, 06:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Everybody worked until Reagan and Bush busted all the unions and let all our factories go overseas. </div></div>

That statement shows a shocking level of willingness to ignore historical reality and cling to the party's bushel of lies.

LWW

LWW
06-27-2010, 06:20 AM
Q ... who buys these Chinese shoes and shirts at Walmart?

If the public wanted US made clothing they have had every opportunity to buy it.

Why didn't they?

LWW

hondo
06-27-2010, 06:28 AM
I noticed you didn't reply to my 2 posts about Reagan but took the easy way out. No surprise.
I'd like to say you've slipped, but remembering back... hmm.

pooltchr
06-27-2010, 07:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not surprised at your answer at all.
Even though it says a lot about your lack of concern for the American worker.

Why should we debate at all, Steve?
You hate the working folk in America,
who are now the unemployed. (As the title implies) </div></div>

No, I hate the unions that exploit the working folks. They use threats against businesses to hold them up for more money, and then skim their share off the top before passing it out to the rank and file.

The ATC strike was an ILLEGAL strike that would have brought the air transportation system to a standstill. RR told them that it was an illegal strike, and if they didn't agree to go back to work, they would be replaced. They didn't agree to go back to work, and they were replaced! They were given options, were aware of the consequences of their actions, and made a choice based on that knowledge.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with firing workers who are breaking the law, given the opportunity to change their behavior, and refuse to do so.

Why is the concept of individual responsibility so distasteful to you?

Steve

LWW
06-27-2010, 08:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I noticed you didn't reply to my 2 posts about Reagan but took the easy way out. No surprise.
I'd like to say you've slipped, but remembering back... hmm. </div></div>

I generally don't directly respond to lies ... but, since you asked.

- The PATCO strike was illegal under a bipartisan federal law that had been in place since 1956.

- The PATCO employees were ordered back to work under federal law passed in 1947 by a dem controlled congress and signed by a dem POTUS.

- 10% obeyed the law and suffered no penalty.

- 90% did not and were fired as specified by law.

- PATCO employees walked off the job at the strike's inception leaving hundreds of planes in the air and putting thousands of innocent citizens at risk.

- PATCO employees were made aware of the applicable laws, and accepted same, upon hiring.

- Any damage done to the PATCO, or other, union(s) was inflicted by the immoral and illegal actions of PATCO members and leaders.

- You are blaming Reagan for following federal law and not allowing innocent citizens to become martyrs in the cause of PATCO receiving a 32 hour work week.

&gt;&gt;&gt;TRUTH VS TRUTHINESS&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PATCO_strike)

I await your next recitation of moonbat mythology.

LWW

hondo
06-27-2010, 09:28 AM
Typical. My 2 posts made several accusations and an over-view
of Reagan's attitude and the implications of his actions.
You focus on one issue that you can find a right wing spin on and ignore the rest of the comments.
Are you awaiting instructions from Herr Beck before you comment further?
I suggest channeling Beck over Limberger.
Wading through his pill-clouded musings might prove troublesome.

pooltchr
06-27-2010, 09:44 AM
Now that you have finished your attack, why not take a crack at addressing the PATCO facts that Larry presented. Do you dispute those facts? If so, on what basis do you believe them to be incorrect?

That is how discussions work. BS insults and attacks simply are a cover for avoiding disucssing the issues.

Y'all are real good at that!

Steve

hondo
06-27-2010, 09:59 AM
I explained clearly my response. Can you read?

LWW
06-27-2010, 10:57 AM
Notice how he made the issue out if the PATCO strike and then wails and gnashes his teeth that I made my arguments towards the issue of his choice.

I suspect that he is ready to claim victim status at any moment.

LWW

LWW
06-27-2010, 11:12 AM
Hondo also fails to consider that PATCO endorsed Reagan during the 1980 election, along with ALPA and the Teamsters Union.

He also ignores the history that PATCO had with the Carter/Ford/Nixon regimes.

PATCO had staged "SICKOUTS" in lieu of strikes as a means of circumventing federal law. Earlier regimes had also threatened mass firings if PATCO staged an illegal strike.

PATCO members misjudged Reagan and assumed he would be a typical politician who would kowtow to them in exchange for their endorsement. They bet they could get away with it and that Reagan was bluffing ... and they lost.

Ever since the far left has condemned Reagan, and in review it is quite clear that they are condemning him for being a leader of character who followed the law and placed the public good over and above his own political considerations.

Those are the reasons Reagan was the most popular 20 the century POTUS and also the one the left hated so deeply.

What an embarrassment to someone that would pick this issue to condemn Reagan.

LWW

pooltchr
06-27-2010, 11:14 AM
I was working in the airline industry when the PATCO strike happened, so, in spite of the fact that I am also a billiard instructor, I just happen to have a little bit of firsthand knowledge regarding the whole thing.

What you and I posted are simply the facts surrounding the strike and subsequent firing of the controllers. Since they can't dispute the facts, they suddenly need to move the conversation in a different direction.

Steve

LWW
06-27-2010, 11:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Reagan slashed taxes on the rich, refused to raise the minimum wage and declaring war on unions by firing air traffic controllers during their 1981 strike, Reagan took aim at the New Deal's proudest creation: a secure and decently paid working class.</div></div>

And here we have more disinformation.

1 - Congress lowered tax rates, the POTUS has no such legal authority.

2 - The tax cuts were pushed by Reagan and they were tax cuts for the rich ... and the poor ... and the middle class.

3 - The middle class was crushed under Carternomics as they were being ground to dust between the millstones of high taxes and high inflation, both of which were fixed under Reaganomics.

4 - The middle class thrived under Reagan, with the black middle class growing faster than it had during any time since reconstruction.

5 - The "NEW DEAL" prolonged high unemployment, crushed the family farm, created a class of refugees unseen at any other time in US history, burned crops in the field and slaughtered livestock when US citizens were starving in order to hold prices high for FDR supporters in industry, and did more harm to the US economy than any POTUS so far in history.

I take no joy in inflicting such intellectual beat downs on you my friend ... just stay down on the mat. It will only get worse if you insist on following this line.

LWW

hondo
06-27-2010, 02:56 PM
Union-busting was only one aspect of Reagan's anti-labor policy. He attempted to lower the minimum wage for younger workers, ease the child labor and anti-sweatshop laws, tax fringe benefits, and cut back job training programs for the unemployed. He tried to replace thousands of federal employees with temporary workers who would not have civil service or union protections.

The Reagan administration all but dismantled programs that required affirmative action and other steps against discrimination by federal contractors, and seriously undermined worker safety. It closed one-third of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's field offices, trimmed its staff by more than one-fourth and decreased the number of penalties assessed against employers by almost three-fourths.

Rather than enforce the law, the administration sought "voluntary compliance" from employers on safety matters - and generally didn't get or expect it. The administration had so tilted the job safety laws in favor of employers that union safety experts found them virtually useless.

The same could have been said of all other labor laws in the Reagan era. A statement issued at the time by the presidents of several major unions concluded it would have been more advantageous for those who worked for a living to ignore the laws and return "to the law of the jungle" that prevailed a half-century before.

hondo
06-27-2010, 02:58 PM
Most important was Reagan's appointment of three management representatives to the five-member National Labor Relations Board which oversees union representation elections and labor-management bargaining, They included NLRB Chairman Donald Dotson, who believed that "unionized labor relations have been the major contributors to the decline and failure of once-healthy industries" and have caused "destruction of individual freedom."

Under Dotson, a House subcommittee found,the board abandoned its legal obligation to promote collective bargaining, in what amounted to "a betrayal of American workers."

The NLRB settled only about half as many complaints of employers' illegal actions as had the board during the previous administration of Democrat Jimmy Carter, and those that were settled upheld employers in three-fourths of the cases. Even under Republican Richard Nixon, employers won only about one-third of the time.

Most of the complaints were against employers who responded to organizing drives by illegally firing union supporters. The employers were well aware that under Reagan the NLRB was taking an average of three years to rule on complaints, and that in any case it generally did no more than order the discharged unionists reinstated with back pay. That's much cheaper than operating under a union contract.

The board stalled as long before acting on petitions from workers seeking union representation elections and stalled for another year or two after such votes before certifying winning unions as the workers' bargaining agents. Under Reagan, too, employers were allowed to permanently replace workers who dared exercise their legal right to strike.

Reagan's Labor Department was as one-sided as the NLRB. It became an anti-labor department, virtually ignoring, for instance, the union-busting consultants who were hired by many employers to fend off unionization. Very few consultants and very few of those who hired them were asked for the financial disclosure statements the law demands. Yet all unions were required to file the statements that the law required of them (and that could be used to advantage by their opponents). And though the department cut its overall budget by more than 10 percent, it increased the budget for such union-busting activities by almost 40 percent.

hondo
06-27-2010, 03:00 PM
Ronald Reagan probably did more damage to working class wages than any other president in modern U.S. history. Even Richard Nixon was not as bad as Reagan. George W. Bush is right behind Reagan in damaging working class wages and killing their hopes of the "American Dream."

Ronald Reagan changed America, and -- with all due deference to his dedication to principle, his indomitable spirit, his affability -- not for the better.

Reagan slashed taxes on the rich, refused to raise the minimum wage and declaring war on unions by firing air traffic controllers during their 1981 strike, Reagan took aim at the New Deal's proudest creation: a secure and decently paid working class. Broadly shared prosperity was out; plutocracy was dug up from the bone yard of bad ideas. The share of the nation's wealth held by the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans rose by 5 percent during Reagan's presidency, while virtually everyone else's declined.

You need look no further than the current recovery to see Reagan's lasting effect on our economy. Corporate profits have been rising handsomely for the past couple of years, at roughly a 30 percent annual rate. But over two years into the recovery, wages are limping along at roughly the rate of inflation, gaining 1 to 2 percent annually. With the percentage of American workers who belong to unions -- 12 percent overall and just 8 percent in the private sector -- having sunk to its lowest level since before FDR, is it any wonder that wages are stuck?

Roughly a quarter of American workers belonged to unions when Reagan took office. When he broke the PATCO strike, it was an unambiguous signal that employers need feel little or no obligation to their workers, and employers got that message loud and clear -- illegally firing workers who sought to unionize, replacing permanent employees who could collect benefits with temps who could not, shipping factories and jobs abroad. Reagan may have preached traditional values, but loyalty was not one of them.

hondo
06-27-2010, 03:04 PM
Why am I repeating posts? As I explained earlier, LWW and the klan find one aspect of any debate that they feel they can counter with Right Wing blogs.
I used PATCO as an example of the catalyst that started the chain reaction.

LWW has always felt that if he can counter just one aspect of the other side's argument, he has countered it all.

AU contraire, my fine feathered friend.

LWW
06-27-2010, 03:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Union-busting was only one aspect of Reagan's anti-labor policy. He attempted to lower the minimum wage for younger workers, ease the child labor and anti-sweatshop laws, tax fringe benefits, and cut back job training programs for the unemployed. </div></div>

The reality is that under Reagan the inflation adjusted to 1996 dollars the US minimum wage averaged $5.08 while under Clinton it was an inflation adjusted $4.72.

&gt;&gt;&gt;TRUTH VERSUS TRUTHINESS&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html)

LWW

LWW
06-27-2010, 03:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why am I repeating posts?</div></div>

Because you vainly hope against hope that repeating the party lie long enough and loud enough will somehow make it true?

I apologize for not researching every one of your points to disprove them ... but you simply believe so many things which just aren't true and I have limited time to help you through it all.

LWW

pooltchr
06-27-2010, 03:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A statement issued at the time by the <span style='font-size: 17pt'>presidents of several major unions </span>concluded it would have been more advantageous for those who worked for a living to ignore the laws and return "to the law of the jungle" that prevailed a half-century before. </div></div>

How can you expect to have any credibility when you post something this ridiculous, from a group of people who most certainly don't have the best interests of the economy at heart?

Steve

hondo
06-27-2010, 03:54 PM
You don't have to apoogize for not addressing every issue.
It's what you do. Especially if Beck or Limberger have
said nothing on the subject.

hondo
06-27-2010, 03:55 PM
And you do? What am I missing?

LWW
06-27-2010, 04:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What am I missing? </div></div>

Pretty much everything ... but, that's why I'm here to help you.

LWW

hondo
06-27-2010, 04:32 PM
Oh, goody! Any recent blogs by Herr Beck you'd like me to peruse?

LWW
06-28-2010, 03:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh, goody! Any recent blogs by Herr Beck you'd like me to peruse? </div></div>

I honestly couldn't picture you forming an opinion of a conservative by learning what they are all about ... you seem to always prefer the spoon feedings over intellectual pursuits.

LWW

Gayle in MD
07-02-2010, 07:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The scam started with, "The Community Reinvestment Act". The unintended consequences of the government interfering in the free market opened the door to vast amounts of abuse.

That piece of legislation should be removed and all legislation linked to it as well.

Freddie and Fannie should be deconstructed.

As far as creating jobs the Government only has the ability to create bubbles as witnessed by 33% drop the housing market once the rebate ended.
The housing market has not been so low since 1963.

If it remains at that level there will be a further negative trickle down effect in the jobs market as more suppliers and small business fail.

The impact of the spill in the Gulf is also going be a lagging factor in the economy. With Oil washing up on the beaches in FL it is only a short matter of time before the economies of the coastal states are further disrupted. The coastal tourism industry is poised to collapse. Seafood prices are already climbing.

There is a tropical storm brewing in the gulf. If it bears NE it will be game over. A strong storm serge and winds can bring oil up to a mile inland. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The scam started with, "The Community Reinvestment Act". The unintended consequences of the government interfering in the free market opened the door to vast amounts of abuse.
</div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">This is the biggest Republican RW lie about the melt down.

First of all, under Bill Clinton, the CRA was not allowing low doc loans, nor was F and F handing out sub prime.

THAT ALL HAPPENED UNDER BUSH AND UNDER GREENSPAN - A FREE MARKET ZEALOT, WHO STATED CLEARLY HE HAD NO CONCERNS ABOUT FRAUD IN THE MARKET!

The meltdown took off AFTER fannie and freddie got out of the sub prime market, which emerged under BUSH!

Before that, the CRA operated for thirty years! There was never a problem until Greenspan held interest rates down underf circumstances which should have caused hin to raise them, as he himself stated, we were under an illogically exhuberant Real Estate Boom.

It wasn't until Fannie and Freddie got out of sub prime completely, that predatory lenders took over sub prime, and Wall Street's gambling with other people's money, without funds to back up their actions, as they quickly passed off risks to unsuspecting takers, using corrupt rating institutions, and complex unintelligiable paper work, that the market, with Wall Street's corrupt practices, began to build a completly corrupt financial industry.

Even if you choose to insist that CRA had anything to do with the meltdown, that fact is that the bubble was created between 2003, and late 2006, under a Republican Fed Chairman, a Republican majority Congress, a Republican President, and the Republican policies of no ovesight, Free market zealots!

Even if CRA was the crux of the problem, which it was not, Bush and Greenspan, and Bush's appointees, were still in charge throughout the entire fiasco!

They allowed it even after they were warned over and over again about what was building into disaster.

It was BUSH's FAULT! It happened on his watch, under his own oversight appointees. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

LWW
07-02-2010, 07:28 AM
Well the regime must love the unemployed, I agree with that part ... after all, they keep making more and more of them. 125,000 more just last month.

LWW

Gayle in MD
07-02-2010, 07:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ronald Reagan probably did more damage to working class wages than any other president in modern U.S. history. Even Richard Nixon was not as bad as Reagan. George W. Bush is right behind Reagan in damaging working class wages and killing their hopes of the "American Dream."

Ronald Reagan changed America, and -- with all due deference to his dedication to principle, his indomitable spirit, his affability -- not for the better.

Reagan slashed taxes on the rich, refused to raise the minimum wage and declaring war on unions by firing air traffic controllers during their 1981 strike, Reagan took aim at the New Deal's proudest creation: a secure and decently paid working class. Broadly shared prosperity was out; plutocracy was dug up from the bone yard of bad ideas. The share of the nation's wealth held by the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans rose by 5 percent during Reagan's presidency, while virtually everyone else's declined.

You need look no further than the current recovery to see Reagan's lasting effect on our economy. Corporate profits have been rising handsomely for the past couple of years, at roughly a 30 percent annual rate. But over two years into the recovery, wages are limping along at roughly the rate of inflation, gaining 1 to 2 percent annually. With the percentage of American workers who belong to unions -- 12 percent overall and just 8 percent in the private sector -- having sunk to its lowest level since before FDR, is it any wonder that wages are stuck?

Roughly a quarter of American workers belonged to unions when Reagan took office. When he broke the PATCO strike, it was an unambiguous signal that employers need feel little or no obligation to their workers, and employers got that message loud and clear -- illegally firing workers who sought to unionize, replacing permanent employees who could collect benefits with temps who could not, shipping factories and jobs abroad. Reagan may have preached traditional values, but loyalty was not one of them. </div></div>

Excellent post, Hondo, and every bit of it is absolutely true.

An excellent outline of how RR and every Republican President since RR, has destroyed the Middle Class.

They are nothing but pawns for Corporate fascist pigs.

G.