PDA

View Full Version : OHIO LOOKIN' GOOD!



Gayle in MD
11-08-2011, 07:22 PM
one percent in:

33% Yes.

67% NOOOOOOOOO

(Kudos! Columbus Democratic Mayor, Michael Coleman has won re-election)

Ba bye Kasich

Ba bye Christie...

Ba bye Walker....

Ba bye Scott....

Ba bye Boehner... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Your RW Repiglican War on the Middle Class is coming to an end...

cushioncrawler
11-08-2011, 07:52 PM
Hmmmm -- soon, very soon, krappynomicysts will be able to get back to doing what they do best.
mac.

Gayle in MD
11-08-2011, 08:00 PM
13% reporting
Yes 37%
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 63%

Ba-Bye Kasich!

Dems leading in KY as well...the Dems are beating their repiglican challengers. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif


Ba bye Repiglicans....

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

llotter
11-08-2011, 09:31 PM
It is a really bad sign for the future of America. The likelihood that we will end up like Greece has just taken big step in the wrong direction. I was very surprised and now wonder how honest the how the unions stole the election.

eg8r
11-08-2011, 09:36 PM
If the unions win I hope all those that voted for them demand jobs with the union. Flock to your local union house and demand a job. Force them to come good on their statements. There is a reason all these companies moved their trillion dollars overseas and it has everything to do with excessive taxation and unions. The two biggest daggers to jobs in this country.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-08-2011, 10:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">13% reporting
Yes 37%
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 63%

Ba-Bye Kasich!

Dems leading in KY as well...the Dems are beating their repiglican challengers. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif


Ba bye Repiglicans....

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

Bravo!!! The Anti-Union Bill Failed in Ohio! The American dream is still alive and well in Ohio. The Lie of the Repiglican crooks, has failed. Hats off to all of the teachres, firemen and policemen, member of Unions, Middle Class Americans, who spoke out strong against the unconscionable policies of Repiglican CROOKS!

AND in Mississippi, The Anti-Americanism misogyny of what was mislabled as "Personhood" has failed!!! Americans spoke against the Repiglican efforts to criminalize body functions of women, deny them their Constitutional right to use birth control, and failed to remove their constitutional RIGHTS to life, liberty and the pursuit of FREEDOM. Their first step in overturning Roe V.Wade, FAILED.

Repiglicans lost their unscrupulous battle to demonize women and remove their Constitutional rights! A huge backlash by those who were duped into voting for Repiglicans making huge statements against their Unconstitutional actions, all over this country!

BRAVO!

llotter
11-09-2011, 07:13 AM
The American Dream is that everyone has the opportunity to go as far as their talents, their intelligence and their hard work will take them. Unionism, on the other hand, rewards the few at the expense of the many and those rewards are so great as to bankrupt the many.

Unions have largely priced themselves and the industries out of existence in the private sector where over time, people are free to buy non-union products and that is what they chose. The Ohio issue relates to public sector unions, the last stronghold of unionism, where the 'customer' is not free to choose and the unions just continue to raise the cost until everyone is bankrupt. This is exactly what is causing havoc in Europe as the unions drive their economies into the ground and Ohio is evidence that we are on the same irreversible track.

Gayle in MD
11-09-2011, 07:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The American Dream is that everyone has the opportunity to go as far as their talents, their intelligence and their hard work will take them. Unionism, on the other hand, rewards the few at the expense of the many and those rewards are so great as to bankrupt the many.

Unions have largely priced themselves and the industries out of existence in the private sector where over time, people are free to buy non-union products and that is what they chose. The Ohio issue relates to public sector unions, the last stronghold of unionism, where the 'customer' is not free to choose and the unions just continue to raise the cost until everyone is bankrupt. This is exactly what is causing havoc in Europe as the unions drive their economies into the ground and Ohio is evidence that we are on the same irreversible track. </div></div>


<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Stunning ignorance! You both prove you are authoritarian fascists.</span> </span>

cushioncrawler
11-09-2011, 08:01 AM
I LOVE UNIONS
(Donald Cochrane / John Hill)
Susan Christie - 1966


I don't like snails or toads or frogs
Or strange things living under logs
But mmm, I love unions!

I don't like to dance with Crazy Ted
He's always jumping on my head
But mmm, I love unions!

Unions, unions, la-la-la!
Unions, unions, ha-ha-ha!
Root doot doot-doot, doot doot doot!

Unions, unions, la-la-la!
Unions, unions, ha-ha-ha!
Root doot doot-doot, doot doot doot!

I don't like rain or snow or hail
Or Moby Dick the Great White Whale
But mmm, I love unions!

I don't like shoes that pinch your toes
Or people who squirt you with a garden hose
But mmm, I love unions!

Unions, unions, la-la-la!
Unions, unions, ha-ha-ha!
Root doot doot-doot, doot doot doot!

Unions, unions, la-la-la!
Unions, unions, ha-ha-ha!
Root doot doot-doot, doot doot doot!

SPOKEN: Union is a tuberous vegetable, and is a member of the genus
Stinkus Delicioso. It was highly prized by the ancient Egyptian
pharaohs and their friends and cousins. It causes watering of the
eyes and rubifaction of the skin, but it is very, very tasty.

Unions, unions, la-la-la!
Unions, unions, ha-ha-ha!
Root doot doot-doot, doot doot doot!

Unions, unions, la-la-la!
Unions, unions, ha-ha-ha!
Root doot doot-doot, doot doot doot!

How vewy, vewy cwood.

Gayle in MD
11-09-2011, 08:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The American Dream is that everyone has the opportunity to go as far as their talents, their intelligence and their hard work will take them. Unionism, on the other hand, rewards the few at the expense of the many and those rewards are so great as to bankrupt the many.

Unions have largely priced themselves and the industries out of existence in the private sector where over time, people are free to buy non-union products and that is what they chose. The Ohio issue relates to public sector unions, the last stronghold of unionism, where the 'customer' is not free to choose and the unions just continue to raise the cost until everyone is bankrupt. This is exactly what is causing havoc in Europe as the unions drive their economies into the ground and Ohio is evidence that we are on the same irreversible track. </div></div>



By Tim Dickinson
November 9, 2011 7:00 AM ET
Party of the RichMatt Mahurin
The nation is still recovering from a crushing recession that sent unemployment hovering above nine percent for two straight years. The president, mindful of soaring deficits, is pushing bold action to shore up the nation's balance sheet. Cloaking himself in the language of class warfare, he calls on a hostile Congress to end wasteful tax breaks for the rich. "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," he thunders to a crowd in Georgia. Such tax loopholes, he adds, "sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that's crazy."

Preacherlike, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response. "Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver," he demands, "or less?"

The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: "MORE!"

The year was 1985. The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan. Today's Republican Party may revere Reagan as the patron saint of low taxation. But the party of Reagan – which understood that higher taxes on the rich are sometimes required to cure ruinous deficits – is dead and gone. Instead, the modern GOP has undergone a radical transformation, reorganizing itself around a grotesque proposition: that the wealthy should grow wealthier still, whatever the consequences for the rest of us.

Modern-day Republicans have become, quite simply, the Party of the One Percent – the Party of the Rich.

"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. "They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."

The staggering economic inequality that has led Americans across the country to take to the streets in protest is no accident. It has been fueled to a large extent by the GOP's all-out war on behalf of the rich. Since Republicans rededicated themselves to slashing taxes for the wealthy in 1997, the average annual income of the 400 richest Americans has more than tripled, to $345 million – while their share of the tax burden has plunged by 40 percent. Today, a billionaire in the top 400 pays less than 17 percent of his income in taxes – five percentage points less than a bus driver earning $26,000 a year. "Most Americans got none of the growth of the preceding dozen years," says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. "All the gains went to the top percentage points."



The GOP campaign to aid the wealthy has left America unable to raise the money needed to pay its bills. "The Republican Party went on a tax-cutting rampage and a spending spree," says Rhode Island governor and former GOP senator Lincoln Chafee, pointing to two deficit-financed wars and an unpaid-for prescription-drug entitlement. "It tanked the economy." Tax receipts as a percent of the total economy have fallen to levels not seen since before the Korean War – nearly 20 percent below the historical average. "Taxes are ridiculously low!" says Bruce Bartlett, an architect of Reagan's 1981 tax cut. "And yet the mantra of the Republican Party is 'Tax cuts raise growth.' So – where's the fucking growth?"

Republicans talk about job creation, about preserving family farms and defending small businesses, and reforming Medicare and Social Security. But almost without exception, every proposal put forth by GOP lawmakers and presidential candidates is intended to preserve or expand tax privileges for the wealthiest Americans. And most of their plans, which are presented as common-sense measures that will aid all Americans, would actually result in higher taxes for middle-class taxpayers and the poor. With 14 million Americans out of work, and with one in seven families turning to food stamps simply to feed their children, Republicans have responded to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression by slashing inheritance taxes, extending the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, and endorsing a tax amnesty for big corporations that have hidden billions in profits in offshore tax havens. They also wrecked the nation's credit rating by rejecting a debt-ceiling deal that would have slashed future deficits by $4 trillion – simply because one-quarter of the money would have come from closing tax loopholes on the rich.

The intransigence over the debt ceiling enraged Republican stalwarts. George Voinovich, the former GOP senator from Ohio, likens his party's new guard to arsonists whose attitude is: "We're going to get what we want or the country can go to hell." Even an architect of the Bush tax cuts, economist Glenn Hubbard, tells Rolling Stone that there should have been a "revenue contribution" to the debt-ceiling deal, "structured to fall mainly on the well-to-do." Instead, the GOP strong-armed America into sacrificing $1 trillion in vital government services – including education, health care and defense – all to safeguard tax breaks for oil companies, yacht owners and hedge-fund managers. The party's leaders were triumphant: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell even bragged that America's creditworthiness had been a "hostage that's worth ransoming."

It's the kind of thinking that only money can buy. "It's a vicious circle," says Stiglitz. "The rich are using their money to secure tax provisions to let them get richer still. Rather than investing in new technology or R&D, the rich get a better return by investing in Washington."

It's difficult to imagine today, but taxing the rich wasn't always a major flash point of American political life. From the end of World War II to the eve of the Reagan administration, the parties fought over social spending – Democrats pushing for more, Republicans demanding less. But once the budget was fixed, both parties saw taxes as an otherwise uninteresting mechanism to raise the money required to pay the bills. Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford each fought for higher taxes, while the biggest tax cut was secured by John F. Kennedy, whose across-the-board tax reductions were actually opposed by the majority of Republicans in the House. The distribution of the tax burden wasn't really up for debate: Even after the Kennedy cuts, the top tax rate stood at 70 percent – double its current level. Steeply progressive taxation paid for the postwar investments in infrastructure, science and education that enabled the average American family to get ahead.

That only changed in the late 1970s, when high inflation drove up wages and pushed the middle class into higher tax brackets. Harnessing the widespread anger, Reagan put it to work on behalf of the rich. In a move that GOP Majority Leader Howard Baker called a "riverboat gamble," Reagan sold the country on an "across-the-board" tax cut that brought the top rate down to 50 percent. According to supply-side economists, the wealthy would use their tax break to spur investment, and the economy would boom. And if it didn't – well, to Reagan's cadre of small-government conservatives, the resulting red ink could be a win-win. "We started talking about just cutting taxes and saying, 'Screw the deficit,'" Bartlett recalls. "We had this idea that if you lowered revenues, the concern about the deficit would be channeled into spending cuts."

It was the birth of what is now known as "Starve the Beast" – a conscious strategy by conservatives to force cuts in federal spending by bankrupting the country. As conceived by the right-wing intellectual Irving Kristol in 1980, the plan called for Republicans to create a "fiscal problem" by slashing taxes – and then foist the pain of reimposing fiscal discipline onto future Democratic administrations who, in Kristol's words, would be forced to "tidy up afterward."

There was only one problem: The Reagan tax cuts spiked the federal deficit to a dangerous level, even as the country remained mired in a deep recession. Republican leaders in Congress immediately moved to reverse themselves and feed the beast. "It was not a Democrat who led the effort in 1982 to undo about a third of the Reagan tax cuts," recalls Robert Greenstein, president of the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "It was Bob Dole." Even Reagan embraced the tax hike, Stockman says, "because he believed that, at some point, you have to pay the bills."

For the remainder of his time in office, Reagan repeatedly raised taxes to bring down unwieldy deficits. In 1983, he hiked gas and payroll taxes. In 1984, he raised revenue by closing tax loopholes for businesses. The tax reform of 1986 lowered the top rate for the wealthy to just 28 percent – but that cut for high earners was paid for by closing tax loopholes that resulted in the largest corporate tax hike in history. Reagan also raised revenues by abolishing special favors for the investor class: He boosted taxes on capital gains by 40 percent to align them with the taxes paid on wages. Today, Reagan may be lionized as a tax abolitionist, says Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator and friend of the president, but that's not true to his record. "Reagan raised taxes 11 times in eight years!"

But Reagan wound up sowing the seed of our current gridlock when he gave his blessing to what Simpson calls a "nefarious organization" – Americans for Tax Reform. Headed by Grover Norquist, a man Stockman blasts as a "fiscal terrorist," the group originally set out to prevent Congress from backsliding on the 1986 tax reforms. But Norquist's instrument for enforcement – an anti-tax pledge signed by GOP lawmakers – quickly evolved into a powerful weapon designed to shift the tax burden away from the rich. George H.W. Bush won the GOP presidential nomination in 1988 in large part because he signed Norquist's "no taxes" pledge. Once in office, however, Bush moved to bring down the soaring federal deficit by hiking the top tax rate to 31 percent and adding surtaxes for yachts, jets and luxury sedans. "He had courage to take action when we needed it," says Paul O'Neill, who served as Treasury secretary under George W. Bush.

The tax hike helped the economy – and many credit it with setting up the great economic expansion of the 1990s. But it cost Bush his job in the 1992 election – a defeat that only served to strengthen Norquist's standing among GOP insurgents. "The story of Bush losing," Norquist says now, "is a reminder to politicians that this is a pledge you don't break." What was once just another campaign promise, rejected by a fiscal conservative like Bob Dole, was transformed into a political blood oath – a litmus test of true Republicanism that few candidates dare refuse.

After taking office, Clinton immediately seized the mantle of fiscal discipline from Republicans. Rather than simply trimming the federal deficit, as his GOP predecessors had done, he set out to balance the budget and begin paying down the national debt. To do so, he hiked the top tax bracket to nearly 40 percent and boosted the corporate tax rate to 35 percent. "It cost him both houses of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections," says Chafee, the former GOP senator. "But taming the deficit led to the best economy America's ever had." Following the tax hikes of 1993, the economy grew at a brisk clip of 3.2 percent, creating more than 11 million jobs. Average wages ticked up, and stocks soared by 78 percent. By the spring of 1997, the federal budget was headed into the black.

But Newt Gingrich and the anti-tax revolutionaries who seized control of Congress in 1994 responded by going for the Full Norquist. In a stunning departure from America's long-standing tax policy, Republicans moved to eliminate taxes on investment income and to abolish the inheritance tax. Under the final plan they enacted, capital gains taxes were sliced to 20 percent. Far from creating an across-the-board benefit, 62 cents of every tax dollar cut went directly to the top one percent of income earners. "The capital gains cut alone gave the top 400 taxpayers a bigger tax cut than all the Bush tax cuts combined," says David Cay Johnston, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich – and Cheat Everybody Else.



http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109

cushioncrawler
11-09-2011, 09:22 AM
There iz no Nobel Prize for Krappynomix.
mac.

Gayle in MD
11-09-2011, 09:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There iz no Nobel Prize for Krappynomix.
mac. </div></div>


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif

Who are the Nobel prize winners for 2008?
For physics: Yoichiro Nambu, Makoto Kobayashi, and Toshihide MaskawaFor chemistry: Osamu Shimomura, Martin Chalfie, Roger Y. TsienFor physiology or medicine: Harald zur Hausen, Franηoise...

Who is the winner 2008 Nobel prize for economics?
Paul Krugman

Nobel prize winners in economics 1970?
Paul A. Samuelson.

Who are the 2009 Nobel Prize winners in Economics?
Oliver Williamson

Who is the winner of nobel peace prize 2008?
Martti Ahtisaari.



http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_is_the_winner_of_the_nobel_economics_prize_for _2008

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_is_the_winner_of_the_nobel_economics_prize_for _2008#ixzz1dDrDjllR

Soflasnapper
11-09-2011, 11:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the unions win I hope all those that voted for them demand jobs with the union. Flock to your local union house and demand a job. Force them to come good on their statements. There is a reason all these companies moved their trillion dollars overseas and it has everything to do with excessive taxation and unions. The two biggest daggers to jobs in this country.

eg8r </div></div>

This is tremendously unlikely, as the unions have been in decline across the board in membership and as a percentage of the working population since probably the '80s.

Moreover, the median household income has been flat or growing extremely slowly for much of this time, likely at least partially as a result of the above fact.

Fact is, companies at whatever level of taxation would prefer to pay zero, and why wouldn't they? Zero is less than any taxation amount, and even though many of our largest companies already enjoy an effective zero rate of taxation (having paid nothing over a 5 year period in corporate taxes), that still isn't enough for them. So they engage in further legalistic dodges like setting up a mail box 'headquarters' in a foreign country to make sure their revenues remain fully untaxed. The move they are now making is to try to get a minor 5% tax or something on monies they repatriate to this country.

Soflasnapper
11-09-2011, 11:07 AM
The Ohio issue relates to public sector unions, the last stronghold of unionism, where the 'customer' is not free to choose and the unions just continue to raise the cost until everyone is bankrupt.

There has been no showing that any fiscal problem in Ohio is the result of rampant and unchecked union wage and benefit hikes, as opposed to the impact of the financial system meltdown from fraud and crime.

As a matter of fact, attacking the right of collective bargaining was a stealth move, unannounced as the key move of Kasich in his campaign, and never mentioned as the action required to rein in the state's fiscal problems.

This bait and switch politics was, in my view, wholly political in nature, meaning that the real aim of this had little or nothing to do with the state's finances, and everything to do with political finances. As the one remaining strong pillar of manpower and financial support for the Democratic party over the GOP, all these moves are falsely portrayed as required for fiscal reasons, when they are simply preferred for political reasons.

It's part of the 'defund the left' project, a kind of shaped charge attached to a foundational pillar for the Democratic party, in order to collapse their ability to compete with the big money boys who want to clear the decks of any largish competitors.

eg8r
11-09-2011, 11:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is tremendously unlikely</div></div>What is tremendously unlikely? The fact that the people who voted for unions will not go down and force the union to do what they promised? I agree, they won't do it but I believe it is because they are lazy. They are fickle. They want everyone else to do the work and they want a raise in the process. Unions are good for the employees as long as the company they work for has a weak spine and willing to allow union wages and benefits to run them into the ground.

I agree unions, if allowed to proceed as they wish, could continue to raise the wages of America union workers. They would work hard to get them better benefits at a cheaper cost than those non-union employees. In doing so you can look at the automotive industry and see just how that cripples a corporation. The corporation has one main goal and that is to increase profits for shareholders. The government and the greedy lefties have yet a completely different goal. Their goal is increase tax revenue and line the pockets of those with their hands out waiting for freebies. It is tough for those two to coexist so if we look to see who is smarter you will find yet again, the rich will do the things that made them rich. They will move their money to places where they get taxed less. The poor continue to do what made them poor which is sit at home and wait for their government checks to show up.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-09-2011, 12:07 PM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Again, stunning ignorance and hateful twisted ideology, unfactual and based on petty hatred.</span>.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
A growing number of Americans suspect that the American economic system is rigged in favor of the rich and merely affluent. That growing number of Americans is right.

Here are three of the many ways that markets for compensation are rigged to benefit not only the top 1 percent but also the top 10 percent, a group that includes many well-paid professionals:

</div></div>

http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=370844#Post370844

Soflasnapper
11-09-2011, 01:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is tremendously unlikely</div></div>What is tremendously unlikely?
</div></div>

That it is unionized workers that have prompted corporations to out-source, an out-sourcing that has grown larger and larger as the unions have shrunk in size and influence across the board in industrial companies and endeavors.

If this is your argument, how does Germany fit into that framework? Still a strongly unionized country, with benefit schedules that dwarf anything in this country, with a strong industrial production, and probably a second place showing among the world's leading exporters?

eg8r
11-09-2011, 02:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That it is unionized workers that have prompted corporations to out-source, an out-sourcing that has grown larger and larger as the unions have shrunk in size and influence across the board in industrial companies and endeavors.
</div></div>I don't find it unlikely at all. Why do you think companies flock to low wage countries for their labor? It sure isn't because the wages are dirt cheap in the US. I understand there are many variables as to why they have left and that unions are not the only reason but unions have driven up wages so high that it only makes sense to be part of the reason why they are leaving.

I would say we as a country have a long way to go as far as employer to employee relations go before we can compare the two unions. In the US, employers and employees (unionized included) consider themselves on opposite sides. In Germany that is not the case. From what I have read in the past, the unions in Germany was much less adversarial and for the most part did not try to nickle and dime their employer to death. Due to the employer/employee relationship there, the unionized workers come to work and do their job. My brother in law works for Volkswagen. Before a German even comes to the states to work in that factory he fights for what he wants in his contract. Once he is satisfied he comes to the US and absolutely works his butt off. My brother in law said that they don't understand a 9-5 shift. They work till the job is done. They don't take a break every couple hours just for the heck of it, they keep on working. He contrasts that with the unionized employees he has worked with at other companies here in the US and they are no where near as diligent in their work. They take excessive breaks. They want their birthday's off as a paid vacation, and on and on. There is a big difference between the average German union worker and the average American union worker.

There are tons of factors as to why unions work over there and why they don't here. Over there, the unions work for the good of the employer and the employee. Here the union only works for the employee. The unions in the US forget that if they employer cannot afford to keep his doors open then there will be no job for the employee.

On top of that, I also think there is a giant cultural difference between Germany and the US. The US is much more selfish in every facet. This country is run by the almighty dollar and it just doesn't seem like Germany has that same greedy mentality (employer or employee).

eg8r

sack316
11-09-2011, 04:06 PM
Another slam from Ohio in the same voting, by a slightly wider margin, was against Obamacare...

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-09-2011, 04:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That it is unionized workers that have prompted corporations to out-source, an out-sourcing that has grown larger and larger as the unions have shrunk in size and influence across the board in industrial companies and endeavors.
</div></div>I don't find it unlikely at all. Why do you think companies flock to low wage countries for their labor? It sure isn't because the wages are dirt cheap in the US. I understand there are many variables as to why they have left and that unions are not the only reason but unions have driven up wages so high that it only makes sense to be part of the reason why they are leaving.

I would say we as a country have a long way to go as far as employer to employee relations go before we can compare the two unions. In the US, employers and employees (unionized included) consider themselves on opposite sides. In Germany that is not the case. From what I have read in the past, the unions in Germany was much less adversarial and for the most part did not try to nickle and dime their employer to death. Due to the employer/employee relationship there, the unionized workers come to work and do their job. My brother in law works for Volkswagen. Before a German even comes to the states to work in that factory he fights for what he wants in his contract. Once he is satisfied he comes to the US and absolutely works his butt off. My brother in law said that they don't understand a 9-5 shift. They work till the job is done. They don't take a break every couple hours just for the heck of it, they keep on working. He contrasts that with the unionized employees he has worked with at other companies here in the US and they are no where near as diligent in their work. They take excessive breaks. They want their birthday's off as a paid vacation, and on and on. There is a big difference between the average German union worker and the average American union worker.

There are tons of factors as to why unions work over there and why they don't here. Over there, the unions work for the good of the employer and the employee. Here the union only works for the employee. The unions in the US forget that if they employer cannot afford to keep his doors open then there will be no job for the employee.

On top of that, I also think there is a giant cultural difference between Germany and the US. The US is much more selfish in every facet. This country is run by the almighty dollar and it just doesn't seem like Germany has that same greedy mentality (employer or employee).

eg8r </div></div>

Unbelievable!

The greed is at the top, not in the Middle Class

Union workers and public sector employees in this country work just as hard as any other workers.

Studies prove that government workers, for example, are not paid higher wages than their education and responsibilities justify.

You've bought into the RW lies hook, line and sinker.

It's not your fellow Americans who are greedy and devastating this country, it's the greedy top one percent, and the corrupt shadow banking industry, that is smothering out everything else with their colossal GREED and unconscionable hidden theft!

You're so far out there it's incredible.


One would be pressed to find someone more thoroughly brainwashed by the RW propaganda machine. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Americans have a right to unionize and negotiate for decent wages, a decent work environment, health and retirement, these are human rights.

Ever heard the traditional economic principles of our country... that a rising tide, raises all boats.

Greed and corruption at the corporate level, has destroyed those once accepted American values, as the wealthy have taken more and more from the rest, and sought slave labor, while hiding their money in foreign accounts.

The American people bailed out the corrupt banking and financial industry, and the Repiglicans have protected those same crooks from having to operate out in the open, and give up their corrupt policies, by blocking regulations that could strengthen protections for consumers.

Greed and corruption of the wealthiest at the top, the corrupt shadow banking industtry, corrupt insurance and pharmaceutical industries, corruption in the energy indsutry, have destroyed that once true principle, thatt rising tide, and Repiglican policies have been most responsible for that sad fact, and they're still not satisfied! They refuse to raise taxes on the thieves who stole from the rest of us, while taking everything away from workers in our country, who were most abused by the RW economic fiasco, crony capitalism on crack.


G.

eg8r
11-09-2011, 04:21 PM
All the UE that voted for unions on that ballot should feel all warm and fuzzy knowing that unions do not create jobs and will not help them pay for health care when it becomes required.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
11-09-2011, 05:01 PM
Yes, in another contrast with our situation here, in Germany, UNIONS (their representatives) sit on the corporate board of directors, as stakeholders in the company, and possibly, shareholders. Not sure of that last one. Perhaps a kind of ownership with regard to profit sharing.

It's not particularly fair to complain about regular breaks (which would be in the contract, and in fact, in regular labor law apart from the contract), which you say our workers here take, and German workers do not. THEY GET 6-8 WEEKS OF PAID VACATION A YEAR, on top of maybe 15 country holidays.

Americans have by FAR the longest work years, ahead in hours worked per year compared even to the famously hard-working Japanese.

Soflasnapper
11-09-2011, 05:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another slam from Ohio in the same voting, by a slightly wider margin, was against Obamacare...

Sack </div></div>

True, but with a difference that makes all the difference.

When the union-bargaining ending law was on the ballot, upon the defeat of Prop 2 (whatever it was called), that law was overturned.

When Obamacare was on the ballot, the result had no binding effect. Or so I thought was the case.

Do you have any information to the contrary?

cushioncrawler
11-09-2011, 05:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There iz no Nobel Prize for Krappynomix. mac.</div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif
Who are the Nobel prize winners for 2008?
For physics: Yoichiro Nambu, Makoto Kobayashi, and Toshihide MaskawaFor chemistry: Osamu Shimomura, Martin Chalfie, Roger Y. TsienFor physiology or medicine: Harald zur Hausen, Franηoise...

Who is the winner 2008 Nobel prize for economics?
Paul Krugman

Nobel prize winners in economics 1970?
Paul A. Samuelson.

Who are the 2009 Nobel Prize winners in Economics?
Oliver Williamson

Who is the winner of nobel peace prize 2008?
Martti Ahtisaari.</div></div>Gayle -- There were are and will allways be 5 possible annual Nobel Prizes.

In addition the Bank of Sweden haz in recent years awarded
......The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.

In 2011 this woz awarded jointly to Thomas J. Sargent and Christopher A. Sims.

I hav little doubt that Nobel would puke if he were alive.
mac.

sack316
11-10-2011, 02:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another slam from Ohio in the same voting, by a slightly wider margin, was against Obamacare...

Sack </div></div>

True, but with a difference that makes all the difference.

When the union-bargaining ending law was on the ballot, upon the defeat of Prop 2 (whatever it was called), that law was overturned.

When Obamacare was on the ballot, the result had no binding effect. Or so I thought was the case.

Do you have any information to the contrary? </div></div>

No, you are indeed correct Sofla. The rejection of Obamacare in that vote was largely symbolic and will not (or can not) carry any weight at this time. At least not until the Supreme Court makes some sort of ruling, from my understanding.

From an action standpoint, it was nothing. From a court of public opinion standpoint, very telling! As the perception of the collective bargaining vote pretty much is "they put the smack down on that idea!" due to the wide margin. The vote on Obamacare was even slightly wider of a margin, which says a lot. But then again, as you point out, does nothing.

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-10-2011, 02:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another slam from Ohio in the same voting, by a slightly wider margin, was against Obamacare...

Sack </div></div>

True, but with a difference that makes all the difference.

When the union-bargaining ending law was on the ballot, upon the defeat of Prop 2 (whatever it was called), that law was overturned.

When Obamacare was on the ballot, the result had no binding effect. Or so I thought was the case.

Do you have any information to the contrary? </div></div>

No, you are indeed correct Sofla. The rejection of Obamacare in that vote was largely symbolic and will not (or can not) carry any weight at this time. At least not until the Supreme Court makes some sort of ruling, from my understanding.

From an action standpoint, it was nothing. From a court of public opinion standpoint, very telling! As the perception of the collective bargaining vote pretty much is "they put the smack down on that idea!" due to the wide margin. The vote on Obamacare was even slightly wider of a margin, which says a lot. But then again, as you point out, does nothing.

Sack </div></div>

I wonder how many Ohioans fail to secure their own Health Insurance?

Could be that certain parts of the country have more folks who fail to buy Health Insurance?

Additionally, there have been so many lies told about the Affordable Health Care Act, I wonder how many people even know what's involved, if we don't do something to make those who fail to be responsible for themselves, secure heath care coverage, instead of dumpimg their emergency room costs, on all of the rest of us, driving up overall costs, for all, by using the most expensive alternative, energency room care.

Many illegal aliens filled emergency rooms across this country, and never paid their bills. Hospitals in some areas, had to close.

It's a fact, that the unsustainable rising health care costs, and the costs exacerbated by corrupt health insurance companies, created a massive problem for the country at large.

IOW.... something had to be done, and there are a lot of people who are being helped a great deal, by the Affordable Health Care Act, with more on line to get prescription cost relief, as time goes by.

The AHCA may need some tweaking, but it is a start, which was sorely needed on many levels, due to the far reaching economic consequences of nothing being done for so many years... people being dumped, from their insurance providers, losing their homes, had a huge impact on foreclosures, many people ending up living in shelters, and worse, trying to save the lives of their sick children.



G.