Ann Coulters Take on the Cain Affair

[gatlingun6]

Does anyone really want to go back to how it was before unions came into existence?

Gat6

Damn right I do!



Did I say it was break time Little Timmy?! Stop leaning your rickets ridden body on that mine cart and get back into those coal seams!

******************************************************************************************
Yep. I agree why not! Since 2 incomes at 2 jobs are not enough, why not put little Timmy and little Jane to work there are all sorts of jobs they can do with their nimble fingers. Of course they will replace, not augment some adults.

Gat6

[dorminWS]

Oh, spare me the turn-of-the-last-century social commentary!

Unions were needed and did a lot to improve working conditions 75-100 years ago. We had a lot of dangerous working conditions, occupational diseases and child labor going on – partially because of unbridled corporate power and lack of social responsibility, and partially just because those were less enlightened times when there was a greater tolerance by society in general for those things. But the ever-lovin’ federal government has long since taken over all those non-monetary functions from unions. If all the unions disappeared tomorrow, those evils would not return; because of not only government regulartion, but also because of modern mores and societal expectations.

Unions simply aren’t needed anymore to fight and prevent dangerous working conditions, occupational diseases or child labor. They are left with only a couple of ways to justify the dues they collect from their members: The primary one is more money, more money, and more money. Secondarily, they negotiate work and seniority rules that impede management’s ability to be productive, efficient and flexible as today’s global market demands. So wages and benefits keep rising until the market can’t sustain their cost as a component of whatever good or service they are incorporated into, and then the jobs get sent overseas. We have policemen, firemen and teachers whose unions have negotiated wages and benefits the states, cities and towns cannot afford to pay; but the unions wield political and electoral power to prevent any attempt to bring them into conformance with reality and the ability of the taxpayers to bear. We have teachers who are indoctrinating our children to the liberal/labor mindset while graduating functionally illiterate students while their unions prevent all attempts to institute some form of rewarding teachers for teaching well instead of for just occupying a desk for years on end. We have a federal government that unconstitutionally bailed out 2 labor unions at the expense of secured creditors when GM & Chrysler went broke to keep the bankruptcy reorganization from jeopardizing the unions’ position. Why? Because unions fund the democratic establishment. There’s nothing on the top side of this earth that’s more blatantly corrupt. Unions today have outlived their usefulness, but continue to self-perpetuate so their lavishly-compensated leaders can preserve their incomes, power and privileges. These days, they don’t care as much for their members as many of their employers do. At least employers want to keep employees satisfied so they’ll stay on the job and be productive. Unions actually encourage discontent. Our bloated government does all it can to preserve unions because they are allies in perpetuating and funding evr-growing and ever more intrusive government.

So don’t sing praises to unions to me. I know better. They’re big business; just like Exxon-Mobile; except Exxon-Mobile can’t take the employees’ money and contribute to parties and/or candidates. Unions can. Exxon Mobile has far less inpact at the ballot box than unions have, too. All of this makes unions far more dangerous to the brand of free-enterprise-based democracy that has made the USA the world’s only superpower and generated our high standard of living than corporations are or can ever be.

[Kreutz]

Oh, spare me the turn-of-the-last-century social commentary!

You know how rarely one gets to drag out the child miner pictures and have them in context? I'm taking this chance!!!!!!



You kiddos got moxie! Now rat a tat them coal veins!

As for the rest of your post I distrust private sector unions and think public sector ones should be outlawed, so we agree on something.

[dorminWS]

Oh, spare me the turn-of-the-last-century social commentary!

You know how rarely one gets to drag out the child miner pictures and have them in context? I'm taking this chance!!!!!!



You kiddos got moxie! Now rat a tat them coal veins!

As for the rest of your post I distrust private sector unions and think public sector ones should be outlawed, so we agree on something.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

OK, but htey're coal SEAMS, dammit!

[SHMIV]

While I'm not inclined to approve of sending the kids down a mine shaft, or up a chimney, I DO approve of the general idea of putting kids to work.

Child labor laws, in my opinion, have gone way overboard.

Interesting turn, this thread took, lol.

[Kreutz]

Interesting turn, this thread took, lol.

The Cain trains tracks are as unpredictable as his hands and female crotches.

[SHMIV]

Interesting turn, this thread took, lol.

The Cain trains tracks are as unpredictable as his hands and female crotches.

Oooooooohhh.....lol..... Cheap shot...

[gatlingun6]

You mean American people and unions are mutually exclusive? Unions are nothing more than a sub-set of the American people. I truly do not understand this animosity, indeed hostility towards fire fighters, EMTs, nurses, police, school teachers, prison guards, pilots, hotel maids, coal miners, truck drivers, construction workers, electricians, etc.

Does anyone really want to go back to how it was before unions came into existence?

Gat6

The honest, working union members who don't resort to violence and sabotage are just a subset of the total union experience, too. TWA used to have to move all their admin employees away from the windows facing the highway during IAM labor negotiations in the 1970's, because SOMEONE kept driving up and down the highway taking pot shots at the admin building with a .30-06. More recently, the same types of neanderthal behavior occurred when Verizon went on strike and SOMEONE sabotaged equipment at multiple sites, and even more neanderthal behavior in evidence at the BOA executives HOME when buses of union protesters showed up on his lawn to terrorize his kid, who was home alone. I won't even start on SEIU intimidation, beatdowns, and election behaviors or the Okupas movement re-branded as Occupy Whatever...

So, yeah, I support the honest folks you mentioned, but they are members of unions... they are not THE UNION, with its agendas and overpaid bosses and unethical practices.

***************************************************************************************

assuming everything you said was 100% correct, why would that be a reason to deny others who would never engage in such behavior the right to legally organize and form unions?

I assume it was an oversight that you didn't cite the many actions against union members wherein they were fired or otherwise intimidated by management for attempting to organize or even for asserting their rights. Even worse you cited not one incident where union members were assaulted, or even killed by people hired by management.

I for one would certainly not blame those actions on all corporations, nor would I call for the end of corporations because some individuals acting on behalf of corporations, be it CEOs or others acted criminally. No I would rather that the guilty parties be tracked down, tried, convicted and jailed whether union, non-union or management.

There are bad actors in every profession, organization, business and government entity. Corruption, incompetence, stupidity, waste, unethical behavior, immorality, criminality and every other human failing are part and parcel of organizations everywhere, not just unions.

Gat6

[SHMIV]

There are bad actors in every profession, organization, business and government entity. Corruption, incompetence, stupidity, waste, unethical behavior, immorality, criminality and every other human failing are part and parcel of organizations everywhere, not just unions.

Gat6

Indeed. Although, I am aware of a couple of small local organizations that are free of corruptions. But, that's neither here nor there.

The problem with unions, though, is that I have not seen them produce anything. I haven't seen anything constructive from a union in my lifetime. I am aware of at least one railroad company that is in enough fear of unions that they require you to join a union before they hire you, or right after they hire you, anyway. If I remember correctly, the railroad is Norfolk and Southern; but it's been a few years since I looked at working for them.

Unions have succeeded in driving up the cost of doing business, and guaranteeing work to the useless and incompetent. This is not to say that useful and competent people have not benefited, as well.

Unions are kind of like socialism; both work well, assuming that they remain quite local, and 100% voluntary. Unions have expanded quite a bit (if not a helluva lot), and are not voluntary, in some cases (assuming that you feel the need to work at a specific place).

I, personally, would love to see unions just go away. I won't advocate outlawing them, though. Legally speaking, I can't make a case for it.

[mamabearCali]

This is just my opinon and I am by no means an expert on the subject. However I see unions kind of like the internet. It can be a great good (worker saftey/fair wages/equal treatment), or it can be a terrible evil (driving up costs to unsustainable amounts/people not working and still getting paid/other abuses of the system---900K pension for two days of sub work). Unfortunately I have not seen much of the former, but a good deal of the latter in my lifetime. I would not out-law them (certainly can't think that would be legal at all), but mostly I find them much less than helpful and often downright harmful to those they are supposed to support and protect. They had a good start and a good reason to start, but I am afraid that they have outlived a good portion of their usefulness.

[dorminWS]

Right now, the government stacks the decks very heavily in favor of unions in any way they can. It has been the policy of the US and it's Department of Labor to encourage unionism since the days of the New Deal under FDR. In spite of all that, unionism has declined steadily since the '50s. I think it's because people are better-informed and consequently more independent-minded now and just don't need someone else to self-appoint themselves to speak and deal for them at the cost of taking a healthy slice of their paychecks in dues and telling them how to vote and what to do on the job.

Under Obama, in spite of their failure to get laws passed that almost make unionization mandatory (or at least impossible for an employer to oppose and argue against), the National Labor Relations Board is trying to by-pass Congress make those changes by the administrative rulemaking process. The aim of the liberal government establishment, of course, is to prop up the unions that fund their causes.

I would not argue that unions ought to be outlawed. It just is not necessary to outlaw unions. All that is necessary is to give employers equal rights with unions in the law and eliminate the HUGELY pro-union bias of the US DOL and the NLRB. If you did that, any company that got organized probably needed to be.

[gatlingun6]

... If the Bush tax cuts put us in an economic hole that we won't climb out of until they are gone...

Many would not concede this point without much more in-depth discussion. Some evidence, or a link to a credible article, that the Republican establishment drove Cain out would be useful when making that particular assertion. Could be true... maybe not... but it's just your narrative until then.

Cheers

******************************************************************************************
There are many, many reputable sources on the internet beginning with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Here was the claim by President Bush and the Republicans and those Democrats who went along with the Bush Tax cuts: 1. They would pay for themselves 2. They would lead to prosperity for everyone. 3. They would balance the budget by 2011 4. They would lead to millions of new jobs

In actuality they did none of that: 1.Instead of paying for themselves they led to a decline in revenue. Under President Bush we went from a surplus to exploding deficits. 2. The income of the working poor actually declined, middle class income was virtually flat, a continuation of a 30 plus year trend. The income at the very top exploded upwards, with most of that even concentrated in the less than 1% of top wage earners. Finally there was some income growth among a small segment of tax payers in the $200K or so K to I think to around $400K range if I remember the figures correctly. 3. Obviously they did not balance any budget over the 8 year term and 4. The job creation record of the Bush administration was the worst of any administration in 60 years.

The numbers are in and they don't lie. The tax cuts were augmented by other economic policies that all combined to dig an economic hole so deep until it will take years to recover. What happened was no ordinary
recession.

While Bush Administration tax policies were the catalyst for the crash; they were by no means the only culprits. War without sacrifice (meaning the cost went on the national credit card), A medicare prescription drug program and a bone to Health Care providers (Also on the national credit card), Consumers, Wall Street, corporations both large and small, and Main Street, all share in the blame.

I just wonder how long will we continue to believe despite empirical evidence to the contrary; that tax cuts thrown around willy nilly and weighted towards the upper 15% will: 1. Pay for themselves and 2. Will lead to millions of new jobs and prosperity for all.

Trickle down economics in practice is "flow upwards" economics. It's "privatized profits and socialized losses".

This year the Wall Street elite who were bailed out by TARP have done better over three years of the Obama administration than they did over 8 years of the Bush Administration.

Their bonuses on Wall Street in some cases will exceed what they received before the melt down. Will yours?

Gat6