.

S.E.I.U. Selfish Employees International Union

Collective bargaining should not be available for state or federal employees for this reason:  The Selfish Employees Idiots Union leaders help elect the people they negotiate with. And the negotiation goes something like this ….”Give us what we want and we’ll make sure you get elected again”. This negotiation resulted in ballooning state pension and benefit obligations to ridiculous and unsustainable levels. Wisconsin is now 3.8 billion dollars in debt and without a bit of cost cutting with its largest line item, will go bankrupt.  The concessions Governor Walker is asking for are not that big of a deal relatively speaking. Workers would be required to increase what they are paying for their benefits but even after the increase, state union workers will be paying 30% less than what a private sector worker pays for their benefits, and let’s not forget that it’s the private sector worker paying for the salaries of the public workers.

Richard Trumpka (Head of SEIU) recently said “we are willing to share in the burden”, implying they are willing to accept concessions employing the usual lies and  B.S. to confuse and obfuscate the situation. They are currently saying that they will agree to the cuts Governor Walker is proposing but they don’t want limits on what they can negotiate for. All they are doing is conceding a small bit in a time when the tide is against them and insisting they maintain the ability to rape the taxpayer when they get one of their guys in office.

The bottom line is,  the SEIU and Dick Trumka are selfish bastards that care nothing for the people of this country who are actually paying the bills. They don’t care that Wisconsin or any state for that matter is going bankrupt because they secretly or not sosecretly believe that the federal government will bail them out, so prudent fiscal governance is a concept they don’t consider. Their only considerations are to line the pockets of their union members at our expense and to maintain their power positions in the SEIU.  The American Federation of StateCounty and Municipal Employees, spent 87.5 million dollars nationally in the 2010 election cycle —99% for Democrats. The self dealing and insestuous relationship between democrats and unions must end and so should collective bargaining.

79 comments to S.E.I.U. Selfish Employees International Union

  • THOMAS PAINE II

    I am a retired county govt. employee who is under a FUNDED retirement plan in a ‘Right-to-Work’ state. Having said that, here is my simple solution to the major problem:

    Make it illegal for ANY union that has PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES as members to use ANY union dues to fund ANY political campaign or contribute to ANY political party or political apparatus.

    If any member of said union wants to send money to the politician of his/her choice, fine; but their union leaders can’t use their union dues for that purpose.

    This simple restriction would defang the ‘union-politician’ beast and disrupt the attempt of the socialist/liberal element to gain control of the political process.

    Just a thought.

    • Wolfgang Riggins

      Works for me. Once the money is taken out of the equation the problem would most likely be solved, but taking the money out of politics is like trying to take the stink out of shit.

    • April

      Great idea, but it will never happen. The Democrats count on buying those votes! JFK would never have been elected if it weren’t for the crooked unions.

  • Dee in Texas

    “but actually conform more than any group i’ve ever seen.” How right you are!
    Conservatives do their own homework, get the facts, and form their own opinions based on reality, rather than slogans and pipe dreams.
    Our pixilated friend cannot argue logic with us because Progressives don’t think for themselves – they merely regurgitate the tired mantra of their handlers – just like political slaves have always done.
    And yet, they consider themselves more enlightened than the rest of us. I guess, in their case, “ignorance IS bliss”.

    • wolfgang

      Looks like more of those young, conformist idiots over in london are rioting/protesting today. Seems their upset at the possiblitiy their “entitlments” may be cut. Awww, poor little babies may have to finance their own lives.

      Lastly, check out my most recent article on the union protestor I ran into in San Fran. Same type of idiot.

  • Dee in Texas

    Poor Leftists – THEIR need for personal validation is so great that they cannot simply live their individual lives, and let the rest of us do the same. They must continually prove their “worth” by interfering in, and controlling the lives of others.
    The whole “wealth redistribution” thing is nothing more than a ego-trip for wanna-be movers and shakers, who vilify the “haves” and reward the “have-nots”, in order to gain power for themselves. The only time they feel “adequate” is when they’re dictating to others.
    They don’t really give a rip about anyone but the guy in the mirror. And they’re so blinded by their own supposed brilliance that they can’t even see the hypocrisy in what they’re doing.

    • Wolfgang Riggins

      You hit the nail on the head especially for the elites and those in power. There are a couple of other types of libs as well. You have the whining needy types that are of course for every and any social program one can think of, because thats how they survive.

      The ones I get a kick out of most are the useful idiots which tend to be the young, ill informed bunch that have knowledge a mile wide and a half inch deep. They are a bunch of dopes that think they are being non-conformist, but actually conform more than any group i’ve ever seen. They are easily identified by their backpacks, bohemian costumes and lack of a regular job.

    • April

      So well stated Dee! I have found this to be the case as well. Every liberal I’ve been friends with — they’re the biggest cheapskates and don’t mind you picking up the tab. It was never a reciprocal thing. I take you to lunch, the next time you take me, etc. There was always some excuse. I’ve come to the conclusion that it is some kind of mental disorder! They just can’t help themselves. They’re tight with their own money, but just love spending yours and mine! I think it’s jealousy, frankly.

  • Rocco Pirro

    In early ’74 the SEIU moved in to represent the workers of the County of Santa Clara. By July of that year, they called a strike. At the time I was a groundskeeper and since I was a former offensive lineman at San Jose State, I was a big, strong guy. The Union recruited me to be on a “special squad” which was essentially a “goon squad” of union thugs. Our job was to throw paint bombs, vandalize property and rough up people on the picket line. These were SEIU tactics then and they are SEIU tactics now.

  • It doesn’t really matter in the end though does it. The wages and contributions to retirement accounts of public servants are still paid by the taxpayer. Shifting money from one pocket to the other doesn’t diminish the load.
    Reducing the public servants wages to be in line with a moderate farmers income would help the the situation.

  • EatMyPixels

    Interesting one-sided discussion. Thank-you for the comments.

    • Wolfgang Riggins

      Go recruit. I’m getting bored with it myself.

      • EatMyPixels

        Wolfy, the only reason you’ve turned to name calling is because you haven’t logically argued your position and you’re overcompensating to cover your ass. Every step of the way I’ve been able to pick apart your argument with basic common sense. If you’d like to label me that’s fine. It only shows childishness on your part.

        You and the people who are defending you are dinosaurs. Again, if it weren’t for the government saving your ass, Capitalism would be caput. Finished. The system would likely have entirely collapsed. China is the up and comer, and we all know what values they aspire to, don’t we?

        • Wolfgang Riggins

          Your high. I evicerated you at ever step. I simply used a bit of name calling because I enjoy rubbing salt in your wounds. You clearly lost and others seem to agree.

          • EatMyPixels

            Haha, I wouldn’t be surprised if you asked your friends to respond to this post to give you credibility. 

            They defend you because you can’t logically rebuff my arguments by yourself and they need to come to your rescue. 

            Bail. You. Out. 

            You hide behind their name calling because your own position is so weak. You resort to name calling and generalizations to distract from the real debate and to shut it down, to not have to engage with a person who is clearly not buying your misguided, selfish, individualist fantasy. Any semi-intelligent person would see right through it. 

            You accuse liberals of behaving in the very sensational and unprofessional way you are. But it’s okay if you do it, right? I get it. Logic, civility and common sense hurts the brain.

            At least I have the cajones go out of my comfort zone and challenge you on your own turf. You wouldn’t last a second on a progressive blog. You’d cry and label them all Nazis or something. Then they’d just be laughing at you because you can’t play nice with the big boys.

            I’m with the majority on this one… Shame. Shame. Shame. 

        • Wolfgang

          You’ve got to be kidding me. Thats the nice thing about text, one can go back and re-read. I slammed you repeatedly and you conveniently ignored provable facts. You provided no facts what so ever, just your feeeelings.

          It ALL goes back to one thing… you attempt to justify a claim on other peoples labor and no amount of reason and logic would sway you, because it would require YOU and others to support themsevles. Personal responsibility is the bane of those on the left.

          If you want to discuss a topic in depth let me know, but your long ranting Sheen like diatribe on 40 different topics doesnt lend itself to serious discussion.

          • EatMyPixels

            What facts did you provide? Skewed data that you probably regurgitated from some ultra right blog or Fox News. Please. Throughout your argument with me, you resorted to the same generalizing that I did. No specifics. Nada. Only I didn’t have to resort to unprofessional 15 year old behavior to get my point across. Don’t quit your day job.

            This coming from a guy who obviously hasn’t even read his own Constitution.

          • EatMyPixels

            With the statement above, I rest my case. Generalizing bullshit that has no basis in reality.

          • Wolfgang Riggins

            You have no case.

            I’ve read the constitution and nowhere in it does it say anything about re-distributing wealth.

            My wish is for people like you to reap what you have sown (crap), and also to leave me to reap what I have sown, while keeping your hand out of my pocket. I know you cant though. Mommy and daddy are still taking care of your bills, and they have created a parasite of a child that will always be dependent on those that are more capable. You are weak and you choose to stay way which is why I have no sympathy for people like you.

          • EatMyPixels

            Why don’t you get a real job. At least I comment in my spare time on my coffee break, while I’m doing REAL WORK. 

            You and far right extremists like you are a cancer on society. Your selfish, xenophobic, greedy mental state is characteristic of SOCIOPATHY. You have no regard for others, except what you can get from them. You take advantage of those less fortunate and then call them lazy as justification. Which just makes you cognitively and socially retarded.  At least I’m happy to pay my taxes and don’t bitch and whine about it constantly. I, unlike you it seems, am happy to HELP society rather than vilify it because it takes away from the me me me me. 

            What a disgrace. 

          • Wolfgang Riggins

            I have a job dummy, this is a hobby.

            We’ll just have to disagree. I don’t believe you have any right to my income and for some reason you do.

            Stop taking money from mommy and daddy and let them live their life, THEY EARNED it.

          • EatMyPixels

            What the hell are you talking about? Man, you really don’t make any sense. The more you talk, the more you sound like a spoilt, whiny little boy. Grow the hell up and realize that we’re all in this together.

            Since you seem to hold the Constitution as absolute authority, I ONCE AGAIN refer you to the 16th Amendment (which I conveniently quoted previously so that you wouldn’t have to break a mental sweat and google it). 

            In terms of “re-distributing wealth”, what do you think TAXES are? If it wasn’t so important for government to collect REVENUE, it wouldn’t have been enshrined there. Redistribution is a logical and natural result of government using those taxes to “promote the general welfare”, not some commie plot to overthrow your ‘liberty’. I know it’s not convenient to accept, but that is the reality misguided individualists don’t like to talk about. 

            One final thought:

            “These are the values inspiring those brave workers in Poland. The values that have inspired other dissidents under Communist domination.  They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.” ~ RONALD REAGAN
            http://bit.ly/gb8Oa7

          • Wolfgang Riggins

            You simply don’t know what you are talking about and you are not real clear in your thinking. Taxes are monies collected by the government, period. Taxes are not redistribution of wealth (as you say in you comment), the redistribution of wealth is TAKING/taxing from one and GIVING to another. It’s an additional step. I point out this simple fact to show you how convoluted and incomplete you are in your thinking. The language matters so don’t be sloppy.
            You also twist the meaning of General Welfare in the constitution. The General Welfare clause does not = the redistribution of wealth. Welfare as it was meant in the constitution refers to health, happiness, and well being (for all). It is not Welfare in its statist redistributive meaning. How could it, the constitution was written for ALL, not only specific niche groups.
            In addition the powers of the federal government are SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED, and if they are not, they are reserved for the states. The states can institute virtually any social program they like, but you are simply wrong if you think these powers are provided to the federal government within the constitution. Obama said “generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties”. What it can’t do to you, not what it can do for you.
            When government gets into redistributing wealth through taxation or regulation it creates all sorts of problems. For example…take a look at my most recent article. Do you advocate this type of preferential treatment as well? I’m sure even you can see some of the immediate problems it creates.

  • End Gang Violence (SEIU!)

    HEY SEIU! You are nothing but a gang of organized criminals! Go back to the crevices you crawled out of. Your days are numbered

  • Dee in Texas

    “EatMyPixels” is a curious screen-name, given that a pixel is just a tiny dot of color. Could this be a Freudian slip? Perhaps he feels like that inconsequential dot because of personal inadequacy? Is he seeking someone to blame because he feels guilty over his own failures?
    Or, is he suffering from Delusions of Grandeur, fully convinced that he’s got all the answers?
    Whatever his problem, it’s obvious that he’s overlooked a simple Reality: his name isn’t GOD, he didn’t create this world, and Life doesn’t operate according to his limited human logic.
    But, pity the guy: it’s really tough when your head inflates so much that it blocks your vision.

    • Wolfgang Riggins

      You are right, could have micro pixel!

      • EatMyPixels

        Honestly? You’re resorting to innuendo and name calling? Doesn’t make your position any stronger, especially since you’re preaching to the choir. Try a little healthy debate outside your ideology and learn something. I have from you and everyone here. You still haven’t convinced me that unions are evil.

        As for delusions of grandeur…. Mwahahahahaha!

    • BorderWatcher

      I’ve heard it said that the less educated you are, the more you think you know.

      Do you think he graduated from kindergarten?

  • Miami

    The math is simple,

    Private sector unions are down to 7% from eating themselves. It’s not enough to earn a good living wage but they want professional incomes without the education, effort and labor. When an assembly line worker is making $45.00 hr plus benefits. There’s something wrong with the business model. Just compare the quality of a union house and a private one.

    Take education, no really take education, the more power the unions have gained the worse the system has become. What has the money gone to? It sure not teaching, but the bureaucracy. Back in the 90’s when I was teaching we had more people working in the county school board offices that all the teachers in the county.

    Or the insane construction projects, one year we did not have the funds for the wrestling season so the coaches came up with the money (1,500.00) between us. Meanwhile the county was paying 7,500.00 per concrete basketball pole, to retrofit the steel poles that were working just fine. On an average 8 per school…I wonder how much the kick back were and who got them?

    Unions produce corruption

  • Skeeter

    As soon as the public employees have their salaries and benefits brought back to WWII levels, when being a civil servant was an interim job devoid of prospects for advancement, we’ll see many of them quit. Once that happens, rehires will be much more affordable and do a better job, since their performance won’t be grandfathered in by the silliness of tenure. Bring it on, Fire Em All, just like Reagan did.

  • Rolly Bones

    @ EatMyShorts

    You sir, are a DOLT. When was the last time you ever got a job from a poor person. I live in a state that taxes business at a rate of 1 dollar to the state for every dollar they pay us as employees. That is just the employment tax. Then you add in unemployment tax. Taxes on the business expense that can’t be written off plus property and equipment taxes. How can you pay top dollar to employees if it costs more to hire someone than to force others to do the work of two people!
    I guess you’ll be in the bread lines with the rest of us soon enough if what you think is correct continues and the Socialist agenda falls into place!

    Rolly

  • BorderWatcher

    Think I have him figured out. He wants everybody to be on welfare so that they can live their homosexual lives, snort their drugs, and pick up their food stamps on somebody else’s dime.

    But what is going to happen when the union workers all retire? Everybody else will be on welfare; the coffers will have dried up; and uh-oh! – no money being paid in retirement.

    What the unions and government can give you, the unions and government can take away. Dudes, you’re screwed!

    • Wolfgang Riggins

      Socialisms great till you run out of other peoples money.

      • EatMyPixels

        So is Capitalism. Or have you forgotten 2008? It was private business, not the taxpayers, that received the largest dole in history.

        • Wolfgang Riggins

          Your a dummy. Pay attention. I’ll say it again slooooowwwwwly.

          I do not approve of either business or people receiving government handouts. It is not capitalism when business receive handouts in any form. Subsidies, bailouts whatever. Got it.

          By the way…you are wrong on the facts. Medicaid, SS, and Medicare “entitlements” dwarf any money provided to business and it is the taxpayer that pay both tabs.

          • EatMyPixels

            The largest for private business. YES. The entitlements you speak of are expenditures for public use. SS, Medicare/caid benefit the PUBLIC GOOD. Don’t kid yourself, most of the people commenting here will probably benefit directly or have family that benefit from these programs. Heck, unless you’re rich (which I’m guessing you’re probably not if you blog for a living), your old mother probably gets it.

  • BorderWatcher

    Think I’ll start calling him “Pixel Head!”

  • BorderWatcher

    Um — is “Eat My Pixel” supposed to be suggestive?

  • BorderWatcher

    Rolls ~

    I guess that is what all the FEMA camps, mass burial boxes, and proposed rapid rail is all about. There are over 800 UNOCCUPIED FEMA camp in the United States, acres of coffin-like boxes (Madison, GA, one example), and mass burial sites being prepared already.

    And EatMyPixels is just bound to be supportive of this regime and the unions.

  • Kevin

    Eat My Pixels has no idea how society actually works.
    He does succeed in stringing more bumper stickers into a post that I ever thought possible. His knowledge of economics is a mile wide and a quarter inch deep.
    He is impervious to persuasion, logic or reason. As a retired career law enforcement official, in my early career I was a union organizer and chief steward. We had pure motives in the beginning but the tenor of the parent union led to the left, as soon as we won our first contract. I ended up fighting the union and winning on a few occasions. The union wasn’t interested in actually supporting the cops but taking the cops’ money and supporting Democrat politicians. That being said, as I progressed up the ladder, I tried to be the kind of boss I wanted to work for and after 21 years, retired knowing that not one of my cops ever filed a grievance against me. Not one. I fought the department higher management when my cops were right and won for them things the union would have died for. I did it because when the issue arose the cops were right and the policies were wrong. I was able to get the command staff above me to see the light. That is what a boss is supposed to do. If the workers make a good case, the boss needs to be open enough to that and man enough to risk his career for the right reasons. I learned an old maxim early on: take care of your men and your men will take care of you. My men were the absolute best, the smartest, most aggressive, hard-working cops who led the department in arrests, recoveries and seizures and compiled an nearly 100% conviction rate. Besides that, they were loved and respected by the public because they were thorough pros.
    So,eat my pixels might try actually listening to others whose opinions are different and more than likely based upon actual experience in life and not just a regurgitation of warmed over socialist rhetoric.

  • Rolls

    Borderwatcher,
    My guess is that Pixil does not believe the Constitution has any baring on how our political system should be implemented. Socialist/Communist usually see it as an outdated, irrelevant document that has failed to provide them with the goodies they want.

    In my opinion it’s because it requires one to buck up and work hard for them. “If a person is willing to give up their freedoms for security, in the end they will have neither freedom nor security”

    Socialist look for security at the cost of freedom. Theirs is an emotional argument that cannot be reasoned with. It is simply left up to people like you and Wolfgang to fight for all people’s freedom so Pixil can continue to spew his ideology of state sponsored theft.

    He doesn’t understand that socialism leads to communism eventually. Communism can only be maintained by killing those who disagree with it and are willing to fight against it. The killing of 100 million human beings by socialist/communist regimes in the 20th century is sufficient enough evidence to convince me that socialism is a very dangerous form of government.

  • Kilroy

    eatmypixels:
    You are the poster child for why people should not confuse intelligence with education. Call the school where you attended and ask for a refund. Was it NYU? Columbia? What hotbed of socialist dribble did you attend? If not, who warped you? Maybe you attended RDDBU? (Red Diaper Doper Baby Univ.)
    Save your chatter for the rallies. You and your 15% of Fabians need to find another country. I think we’re getting ready to put the “No Rent” sign out for you and your ilk.
    I am honestly telling you that the majority have not been given the money we have. We have worked hard to earn it.
    With that said, if we stay on this path of “re-distribution” it will only lead to something you wished you and your “comrades” would have never started. But we will be very obliged to finish it. Of course peacefully with our votes. HA!
    Enough time wasted with you. Your Mom probably has your TV dinner ready. I gotta get up early and go kill me some birds and clean them for supper.
    P.S., I looked at some of the recommended authors above. Flippin’ Fabians. Try reading some Thomas Sowell or Adam Smith. How about….dare I say….the great Milton Friedman? Please quit using your head for a hat rack.

  • Rolls

    Wolfgang,
    Please stop trying to be reasonable and provide fact based arguments with a left wing ideologue. Pixil will not change his belief system based on any facts or principles of truth. He/she is convinced that socialism (state condoned theft) is the best form of government and he/she does not understand human nature. Even his/her pen name suggests a disrespect for people. Pixil appears very frustrated that life is not fair in the sense that it does not guarantee equal results for all. Life demands the best of oneself to receive the best rewards. Its a tough truth, but when one is not willing to strive for excellence, one is never going to receive excellent results. This is the truth that all ideological socialist fail to accept. Their arguments are natural results of a belief that people are best served through giving them what they “need” and are not capable of obtaining it through their own efforts. They see people as victims instead of seeing them as capable. When someone is convinced of this fallacy, no reasonable arguments will prevail to change their minds. I believe it is best just to present your position as best as you can and let whoever is open minded enough to consider all possibilities read it and decide for them self what is true. I find most open minded people once they see the logic of capitalism and a constitutional republic vs. the limitations of socialism tend to agree with capitalism not socialism. You have done a great job of articulating your position of why capitalism is the better (not perfect) economic and political course.

    • Wolfgang Riggins

      You’re right. Pixel is not going to change, and I fool myself thinking that logic, reason, and truth will eventually break through.

      You summed up their mentality perfectly. Great comment.

  • BorderWatcher

    WOLFGANG: “Taxation that takes ones mans money to give to another is absolutely codified theft. Your justification does not change what it is.”

    PIXELS: “I am feeling that this is a stereotypical catchphrase that Republicans use. They use it to justify their own greed and selfishness. It is theft to them because they are not freely willing to share it. They want society to help, support, and sustain them, give them safety and comfort, then whine because they have to help support it with everyone else through their tax dollars.”

    Where in the Constitution does it SAY that we must share anyone’s wealth? I voted the Democrat ticket for many years, Pixel. The Democratic Party is now a Communist Party. I didn’t leave it; it left me.

    The reason the Democrats get on the “greed and selfishness” kick is so that all who get on the government dole will VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS.

    That’s what the unions are supporting.
    That’s what the Progressive Dems are supporting.
    It’s NOT what old-time Dems support.
    It’s not what Republicans support.

    And, did you not “get the memo” in midterms? The American People are not voting for Communist Democrats. The American People have DEMANDED that spending be brought under control, earmarks be abolished, wasteful spending be stopped, and that the federal government show a modicum of intelligence in their responsibility to run this government.

    We do not want Obama’s “Hope and Change.” We HOPE that OBAMA will CHANGE. Otherwise, the House will impeach him if he can’t come up with proof of any sort of citizenship before then and is carried away under chains.

    • April

      Great response. I, too used to vote primarily Democrat, but not since 2000, and never again! I was raised a “blue dog” Democrat before there was such a term, but the party of JFK died a long time ago. The commies have taken it over. I will NEVER vote Democrat again! You can’t trust them, even the supposed “moderate” ones — because when push comes to shove, they will always tow he party line! And, I’m voting out RINO’s! Hear that RINO’s too wimpy to do what is right?

  • BorderWatcher

    “I absolutely agree that business primary function in society is to provide goods and services that people CAN BUY. Basic reality will tell you that you can’t buy more products with less money. What ends up happening is that the middle class and poor can buy less of the goods and services society produces, which puts more pressure on the wealthy to support the economy.”

    What ends up happening is that when no one can buy anything, small businesses shut down. The big manufacturing businesses have already moved overseas because of punitive taxes on not just the big businesses but everybody. Then the fed printed fiat money and decreased the value of the dollar. Packaging in stores has gotten smaller. Even crackers are smaller, and the sleeves are not even being filled.

    This is by design, EatMyPixels. It’s by socialist design.

  • BorderWatcher

    “If business did not provide goods people could afford, if would soon go out of business.”

    “Eventually, yes. This is what is happening now. The middle class is disappearing and more and more people are forced into poverty. Real wages have not risen with the costs of living. The average American makes $250 dollars more than his parents 30 years ago, adjusted for inflation, while the top 5% have doubled and tripled their income. So, business has to increasingly cater to a smaller society of wealthy individuals that support the country’s economy. Not very sustainable. Or, as we are seeing, many businesses go belly up. Also not very sustainable.”

    Well, don’t you have anything to say about the oil companies who are making huge profits and are receiving subsidies from the federal government?

    The reason we are seeing small businesses go belly up is that the Obama administration has posed such unsustainable conditions on the economy that even malls are being shuttered.

    This administration doesn’t know beans about how to boost the economy; and if it does, it either has a poor way of showing it or is tanking capitalism on purpose.

    On the Democratic Party’s own website it says that capitalism is the engine that fuels the economy. So, what is the ulterior motive for killing capitalism?

    ANSWER: To make as many people dependent upon government as possible. Why? Because what the government can give you, it can also TAKE AWAY fromn you!

    The Great Depression of the 1930s is going to look like Sunday School in comparison to what Obama has in mind.

  • BorderWatcher

    EatMyPixels, you are so full of it that you never will understand.

    The first thing to understand is that government cannot boost the economy because government does not have a product to sell.

    The second thing is that it is stupid to believe that borrowing money by the government to spend will boost the economy because not only does the loan have to be paid back, but the interest as well. Money that could go to take care of domestic issues has to go towards paying back the debt and interest.

    As for unions, would you rather pay your share into your retirement so that the governemnt can afford to hire you, or had you rather pay the unions to lobby against your interests? When the state-supported or federally-supported pensions dry up the coffers, you will have no pension.

  • EatMyPixels

    “If business did not provide goods people could afford, if would soon go out of business.”

    Eventually, yes. This is what is happening now. The middle class is disappearing and more and more people are forced into poverty. Real wages have not risen with the costs of living. The average American makes $250 dollars more than his parents 30 years ago, adjusted for inflation, while the top 5% have doubled and tripled their income. So, business has to increasingly cater to a smaller society of wealthy individuals that support the country’s economy. Not very sustainable. Or, as we are seeing, many businesses go belly up. Also not very sustainable.

    As for being ‘King of the World’… that would be nice. But I wouldn’t sit in a palace somewhere getting slaves to do my work and then take all the credit and call myself a god – or at least an enlightened genius. I’d actually help the people under me live lives of dignity rather than whining about them taking “all my hard work” from me and treating them like chattel.

    You keep talking about the rich ‘earning’ their money as though they did it in completely on their own – that they came to wealth ONLY because of their genius or innate ability. This is a narcissistic and sociopathic fantasy, my friend. They did not rise to prominence solely by their own hard work, but the countless others in society who helped them achieve their goals. Their parents who gave them birth and taught them about money, investing, hard work; their teachers and councilors who nurtured their curiosity and goals; maybe the EMT who saved their life when they were a kid; the student loans, grants and scholarships that allowed them to go to college and expand their minds and business acumen; the professors and students that shared their ideas and intellectual property with them in an open, debatable environment; the city infrastructure that allowed them to get to work everyday without dying in a car accident; the wife, friends and social circles that gave them the support they needed to succeed… the list goes on and on. THE RICH DID NOT BECOME RICH BY SHEER WILL OR GENIUS ALONE, BUT BY THE SUPPORT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SOCIETY.
    The rich earn the most benefits from a society that supports their wealth. The society to which they are a part grants them rights, resources and privileges that come from that wealth. In return, they have a duty and responsibility to use those rights and privileges for the common good, not just their own selfish agendas.

    “People like you make taking risks, starting businesses and following dreams less rewarding, because the minute success strikes, whining liberal vultures are there to try to take it away.”

    No risk no reward. I agree. But seriously, if you’re not going to risk anything because you’re afraid somebody will come along and take it away from you, than you shouldn’t be in business. Duh, that IS business. At least in this predatory economic system we’ve chosen to create. If your main concern is about hoarding and selfishly preventing others from tapping your hidden resource of cash or something, perhaps you need to question your motives for making money or do something else. Is a person’s motivation to make money simply to enrich themselves at the expense of society, or is it to enrich themselves while enriching society? What Bill Gates does with his money no doubt enriches society. But he is the exception to the rule, not the rule. The rule, sadly is what has contributed to the 2008 collapse and its consequent recession. Greed without morality. Profit seeking without responsibility. EXCESSIVE risk taking that actually created inflated value in a market that was completely removed from economic reality. That is what happens when wealthy people have too much money on their hands. They can afford to lose it by gambling it in a financial system that not only takes them down, but the whole system as well. That is sad. It shows that that wealth creation is more about greed and self-aggrandizement – driving fancy cars and having nice houses – than service to society and caring for others outside of one’s own limited sphere of influence. That is dinosaur thinking in my mind. It is predatory and unsustainable. It is the very reason we are in this financial mess to begin with.

    “I am not advocating profits at any cost. My point is that companies have zero responsibility to provide more payment to workers than they are worth.”

    Who decides what workers are worth? The business community? Those seeking as much profit for themselves at the expense of everyone else around them? Some government body that has been heavily lobbied by business interests? What I have said is that a manager or owners’ psychological predisposition is to under-value their workers to begin with while over-inflating their own. This gives them every justification to increase their individual earnings while decreasing their workers. In fact, in lean times, that is the only way owners can make more profit for themselves: By paying their employees less. I’m not talking about profit in terms of overall revenues for the business, just what is allocated to those at the top for their incomes. That doesn’t make for a very good outcome for the workers. That is a distortion. And because they have the money and resources on their side, the distortion naturally moves in their direction. It is no doubt that unions will try to over-inflate their workers values, but at least that over-inflation allows some negotiation that brings it back into alignment with reality. They shoot for the stars and hope for the sky. Can you fault them for doing the very same thing any business person would do? Trying to get as much as they can for themselves, while knowing that their objectives are unrealistic? At least in the public sector, you have Government that is an effective check on this type of over-inflated value on the labor side. Who checks it on the business side? Nobody.

    “Taxation that takes ones mans money to give to another is absolutely codified theft. Your justification does not change what it is.”

    I am feeling that this is a stereotypical catchphrase that Republicans use. They use it to justify their own greed and selfishness. It is theft to them because they are not freely willing to share it. They want society to help, support, and sustain them, give them safety and comfort, then whine because they have to help support it with everyone else through their tax dollars. They may think they live on an island (and maybe they’re rich enough to afford one), but that is a DENIAL OF REALITY. They live in society like everyone else, and with a combination of hard work, luck, insight, passion, perseverance, and social support, make it rich and live the high life.

    “…but you conveniently omit GM and Obama. There should NEVER be a bailout of any company or bank because it creates a moral hazard that ensures that it all happens again and again.”

    Agreed. But let’s not forget that it was the business community that begged and whined to Congress for that money under President Bush under threat of total collapse. It was Capitalism itself, not greedy workers, that needed a handout. And because these banks were wealthy and had an over-inflated perceptional value in the market and government, they were bailed out. The bailouts were wrong. They should have been allowed to fail. They system would have reset itself, and many, many businesses would have gone under, but there would be more balance in the system today. That isn’t the case now. It is even worse. I didn’t omit GM. But what I should have mentioned was that because they were able to retool and redevelop their product line, they are now back in solvency and doing quite well. This, to me, is a good outcome of the bailouts. Agreed, they should have been allowed to fail, but now they are more profitable and more transparent to government than they were before. One can hardly say that about the financial industry – which is the epitome of business in our modern age. They have really shown to only have topped up their capital reservoirs with that bailout money to avoid bankruptcy. They haven’t really shown to have restructured and changed substantially and are even now, up to their old over-valuation games with executive bonuses and salaries.

    “Show me in our constitution this “right”… Sorry, not there. However it is in the communist constitution of the USSR along with the right to food, and housing. How do you suppose the U.S. in the short span of a couple hundred years with its constitution of limited government (less so now) outlasted a country (USSR) with a constitution you see as superior? If you haven’t read it, you should. You will love it.”

    Let’s not even bring in communism here. In communist USSR, people wouldn’t even have been able to make profit, let alone reap the rewards from that profit. That’s just ridiculous. The USSR failed because the people were miserable and underemployed, and because of Gorbachev’s Perestroika and Glasnost which opened the door to free market principles and inspired revolution. It doesn’t mean that the right to basic food, housing, clothing, etc is distinctly communist. Communism is totalitarian – people have no choices whatsoever and have to take what is given to them and be ruled by an unelected, or unfairly elected, oligarchy. How could any one in his right mind advocate for that? Be reasonable.

    As for rights, I never said that, “the right for higher wages and more meaningful, purposeful employment and the standard of living that comes from them is every human being’s right,” is constitutional. Neither is the right to make ‘profit’ mentioned in the US Constitution. It says that people are entitled to property. But acquiring that property shouldn’t be at the expense of another’s ability to live in peace and acquire property himself. Wages are the just compensation that allows people to acquire property. But when it is the standard practice is to systematically devalue their value and hence their compensation and inflate the owner’s value, their rights to property are diminished. Individuals are entitled to the fruits of their work. It’s just some distort this entitlement to mean that they can take more than their fare share and deny other’s theirs by extension. Hence, we have a system in which the top 5% feel entitled to most of the resources, land and money in the country, while the bottom 95% have to take what’s left. This is not what the constitution was designed to do.

    The 16th Amendment does say that Congress has the right to levy taxes:

    “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

    So as for that being codified theft, I would say that you are wrong, unless you are saying the constitution is wrong. But, because it is an amendment, I assume you can say it’s not the ‘real’ constitution. It being ‘codified theft’ is not a statement of fact, but a subjective interpretation to justify an Republican ideological belief.

    In fact, just read the preamble to the Constitution:

    “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    What do you think ‘promote the general welfare’ means? The health of society. Social cohesion. Social causes that enrich ALL of society, not just an elite few. How is this mainly done? Through taxes. If it could be done through private philanthropy, as in Bill Gate’s case, that would be great too. But sadly, it is not. That is the reality. The wealthy seem more interested in holding on to their wealth then sharing it. Why have it in the first place? What’s the point of all the money if you’re not going to do something good with it. You can only buy so many things before it gets boring. It just sits in a bank account or investments and rots away, or is gambled in the derivatives market doing no good and a lot of harm. A waste in my opinion. You can’t take it with you when you die. You can give it to your children, in which case they haven’t worked hard to earn it, so do they really deserve it under your philosophy?

    “Virtually every socialist /communist in history vilified profits, and you’re doing it too. Business is in business to make a profit. Without it there are no jobs for you to complain about.”

    I have not vilified profits. You say this to make it seem that my argument is extreme, which it is not. It is moderate. I simply say that profit should be realistic and in line with reality. That seeking profit comes with certain moral, ethical and social costs that should be addressed and accepted as reality – not denied because they run counter to one’s ideology.

    “With a 14 trillion dollar debt and unfunded liabilities of close to 112 trillion, how long do you think it would take to pay off the debt when the entire GDP of the US is 14.26 trillion? THERE IS NO MONEY! Stop kidding yourself.”

    Remember that 14 trillion dollar debt was exacerbated by President Bush because he CUT TAXES ON THE WEALTHY and increased expenditures to finance wars and ‘nation building’ abroad and then gave 700 billion – 2 trillion of it away in bailouts (which I will agree, Obama continued). And those 112 trillion unfunded liabilities you speak of are derivatives. They are one of the major causes of the 2008 crash and were allowed to grow out of control because of an absolute lack of government regulation and financial accountability on Wall Street through the 80’s up until now. They shouldn’t be allowed to exist anyway. The derivative market does absolutely nothing to contribute to the GDP and is a fancy way for investors to gamble on all sorts of intangibles that don’t produce one good or service that helps anybody. Paying those off is a laughing stock. They are not built on anything substantial, and should be defaulted on plain and simple. A lot of investment firms and banks in the US and globally would go belly up though, so I don’t see the government bailing any time soon.

    There IS MONEY. One thing you again do not address, the one thing Republicans systematically refuse to address, is REVENUE. You whine about liabilities but refuse to see where the revenues can come from. Taxes. But because the wealthy want to keep that tax money for themselves – so they buy more cars, or mansions, or islands, or invest in more CDOs and high stakes derivatives and stocks – the whole country has to be denied that source of revenue. Especially when a little tax increase is really not going to hurt their individual bottom lines. The government can stop giving billions in subsidies and tax breaks to a TRILLION dollar oil industry every year. It can start taxing banks – at least the ones that have been investigated that were partly to blame for the bloody mess in the first place – for their risky investments. It can claw back a significant portion of the bonuses that were kept by the architects of the recent financial collapse. There are lots of ways to raise revenue, and some of them will discourage the very behavior that contributed to these problems.

    Agreed, devaluing the currency will not do any good. The spending I advocate for does not require the printing of new money. It requires money that is already in circulation and is redistributed to government in the form or TAXES. That money already exists as income by individuals.

    “What do you mean “the state and fed keeps cutting revenues”?”

    The Federal and State governments cut revenues in the form of cutting taxes. That is their main revenue stream. Individual and corporate taxes.

    “… then just look at the USSR, Cuba, and that new mess, Venezuela, all wonderful examples of socialism.”

    Wrong. The USSR was communist, not socialist. It did not allow capitalistic principles. You should read up on the distinctions between communism and socialism. They are not the same. Cuba was communist to begin with, but is slowly changing to allow a greater mix of free market and government, so in the truest sense of the word, it’s not hardcore communist anymore. It still does not have elected democracy though. Venezuela is socialist, in the sense that they have strong private and public ownership of the resources, but is corrupt because the elected government keeps altering their agreement with the people and refuses to leave office. I don’t advocate for any of these.

    If you want to see socialism on the other end of the spectrum from these, check out Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Canada. Which incidentally hardly get any mention in the press because they are productive, profit-centered, positive forms of socialism. They have strong pubic and private ownership, strong support systems and higher taxation, which fund many of the services that all citizens benefit from, regardless of being rich or poor.

    • GTurner

      Jerez, dude. The correct response to being “schooled” is to shut up and LISTEN, NOT multiply your diatribe by 10!

      While Mr. Riggens is doing a Yeomans job, I’d like to deflate the only remaining tire on your Socialist-mobile:

      “The rich earn the most benefits from a society that supports their wealth. The society to which they are a part grants them rights, resources and privileges that come from that wealth. In return, they have a duty and responsibility to use those rights and privileges for the common good, not just their own selfish agendas.”

      WRONG! The rights in question are endowed upon us by our Creator. Unalienably. The right to life and liberty manifest as my ability to select my own course of action, education, vocation and to KEEP the FRUITS of those decisions to distribute as I see fit. I choose to invest them in causes which I believe are NOT wasteful (educating poor/bright kids, providing a hand UP to those I deem worthy). To suggest that I somehow seek out places to spend my money in ways that won’t benefit my society is ridiculous. Your just pissy because I won’t give it to YOU…

    • BorderWatcher

      Give it up, Dude! You lost the debate. Wolfgang has shot down at every clay pidgeon you have tossed.

      You simply are not making sense because you are not staying within the limits of the Constitution, for one thing. You’re blowing smoke for another.

      Lay off the Koolaid, will you?

      The conservatives are going to eat the Democrats alive in 2012. The American people understand what’s going on. You, sir, do not understand — from what you’ve been spouting.

    • End Gang Violence (SEIU!)

      suck on a douche

  • EatMyPixels

    I absolutely agree that business primary function in society is to provide goods and services that people CAN BUY. Basic reality will tell you that you can’t buy more products with less money. What ends up happening is that the middle class and poor can buy less of the goods and services society produces, which puts more pressure on the wealthy to support the economy. And we have seen what the wealthy seem to do when they have too much cash on their hands: They invest it in risk taking and saving rather than re-tooling and creating jobs.

    Morality and ethics has absolutely EVERYTHING to do with it. Yes, business primary moral obligation is to provide goods and services, but their mandate must grow to encompass their effects on all of society – not just by country, but globally. For example, nuclear technology can produce a reliable means of electricity. If however, the company owning the reactor does not feel morally or ethically obligated to dispose of the waste in a safe way, either voluntarily or by regulation, it will harm society by dumping it in lakes or streams because it is easy and cheap over the short-term. Which causes environmental disaster over the long-term. If companies producing pesticides don’t understand the long-term effects of the science behind the chemicals they put in our food, society gets cheaper food in the short-term, but the soil and people are poisoned over the long term. That is a long-term effect of lack of moral responsibility. You may say that it isn’t moral, but any human being with even a shred of conscience knows that it is. It is moral to do what is right, even at the expense of profit. Given your logic though, companies only have a responsibility to see that the product or service they produce does little harm in the short-term, not over the long-term. This costs society tremendously over time. Who pays for that? The people collectively do. And government is there to protect us and help mitigate further damage. Through taxation and the legislation, research and development that is funded through it. Businesses should absolutely benefit from their positive contributions to society – and they benefit in a lot of intangible ways as well – like prestige, status, social perception. They should absolutely be able to make as much profit as they see fit. But they should also be willing to share in the costs and collective damage to society as well in the long term. Individuals should be taxed and because corporations are individuals under the law, they should also pay their share as well. They can’t have it both ways. As an organization acting as an individual, they can do far more damage than any one individual can do.

    “The concept of equal exchange is completely foreign to liberals as they are always trying to get or to take what is not theirs, always laying claim to someone else’s labor or property, because they “FEEL” that they are entitled to it. No man is entitled to another man’s labor. Taxing one to give to another is codified theft.”

    I can say without doubt that what the financial sector demanded from the government in terms of bailouts (and let’s remember they were initially the Bush bailouts under Hank Paulson, not Obama’s baby – though he carried them out) was ‘entitlement’ par excellence. It is the modus operandi of business epitomized by Wall Street bankers to make it seem that those who make the most money in society are the most deserving of that money and that everybody wants to take it from them – even if it is earned by harming society to the point of collapse. That is a distortion of the economic reality. If you want to talk about reality, let’s talk about it. When a corporate executive makes 170 times the wages of an average American, is that realistic? Does he work 170 times harder than Joe the Plummer? Give me a break. Unless he is Superman or some sort of mechanized robot, he never could. He has people under him that do much of the work with and for him. Do they get a cut of his yearly salary? Probably not. And so, when he cuts salaries/wages for the people at the bottom of the totem pole who carry out his orders, but neglects to downsize his own, he is effectively getting more work for less pay from his employees and making profit AT THEIR EXPENSE. It is his salary, not those of his workers, that is not in line with reality. And when he spends that extra money on campaign contributions to government officials to get them to pass legislation that effectively dissolves laws that give his workers rights to fight for their perceived value, even though it is in his economic and philosophical interests to lower his perception of their value so he can justify his own valued perception and hence his increasing salary… well. That is the distortion of equal exchange. Taxing one to give to the other is not codified theft, it is a way of rebalancing this economic distortion that comes from an overly inflated perception of value at the top.

    Does Bill Gates have rights to his 40 billion fortune solely without any thanks to society? Ridiculous. He didn’t make Windows in a vacuum. He built off the ideas of a hundred years of intellectual property and incremental advancement by others before him. He was born into a family of means and was able to attend M.I.T. and learn from dozens if not hundreds of others around him from faculty to students. He was able to partner with other companies and developers to finance and develop it. He received grants from the government to initially investigate it in college. Every step of the way, society nurtured and supported his dream. Even though he is a conscientious person and is willing to invest a lot of that wealth to humanitarian causes, it does not divert from the fact that even if he didn’t, he would still have a moral obligation to support the society that supported him. He could, and many do in fact say, “no I won’t pay my taxes. I don’t owe society anything. I did it all myself!” Hogwash. That is selfishness, ignorance and exploitation. And we wonder why we have such a predatory economic system. Taxes are one way for society to be reimbursed for the cumulative investments it makes in people and companies that allow them to prosper.

    When they shirk that duty, all society suffers. And make no mistake, it is a duty. A moral duty. Just like it is a moral duty to feed your kids, and love your wife and fight for their safety and protection. Call it what you will to justify your way out of it. That is not a Liberal cause. It is a humanitarian cause. Liberals just have the balls to admit it and fight for it while Republicans hide behind individualism as an excuse for moral selfishness.

    And if you think “The right for higher wages and more meaningful, purposeful employment and the standard of living that comes from them is every human being’s right,” was created by the socialists, I could just as easily say the “rights for individual property ownership and a the corporation’s right to profit off of a society’s resources and labor,” was invented by colonialists. Stop watching Fox.

    “The unions and the liberals have several flaws in their arguments:
    1. They overvalue the work they provide and somehow feel entitled to money not earned. Why would any business that plans on staying in business pay a high wage for work that does not warrant it?”

    Firstly, I think you have your logic distorted. The economic reality is that businesses traditionally under-value labor and over-value management, for obvious profit-driven reasons. With their supply, manufacturing and distribution channels effectively streamlined, if they can lower labor standards as much as possible, they can produce cheaper goods for consumers, or charge the same price but pocket the difference. Only the problem here is that eventually workers can’t buy the goods that are produced and so companies have make the goods even cheaper, which further cuts wages. Meanwhile, that extra money is used to lobby for deregulation that benefits the minority at the expense of the majority. Granted, many Liberals do over-value workers. But that is because Republicans traditionally under-value them and modern Republicans especially, seem to inflate the importance of corporate executives’ perks and pay which isn’t even remotely realistic to any sentient, moral person.

    “2. They ignore the math and destroy their credibility. If the revenue for a company or state is not available then…surprise, it’s NOT AVAILABLE. You WILL take concessions or you will lose your job. (Unless the feds decide to screw everyone and bail out the states or the GM’s of the world).”

    They do not ignore the math. They accept the fiscal reality. They just don’t agree with the solution: that taxes are evil and that the government can get something from nothing or can cut itself away to nothing. The money is there. Surprise, it IS AVAILABLE. Trillions of dollars of it. It’s just that Republicans have effectively distorted the narrative in the country so badly as to make it seem that taxes are not going to solve anything. Again, basic accounting will tell you otherwise. If the country were to even modestly raise the income taxes on the top 1% of the country to say 40% (which was 90% post WWII for comparison) the government would have much more revenue to at least meet their obligations (not the debt of course). Can you really tell me that 5% is going to kill the wealthy? That they are going to fold up shop and move to China in despair? That they would even remotely stop buying the positional goods that make them feel privileged because others would be getting a better deal? Every wealthy person would be taxed and so the goods and services would adjust accordingly across the board. Nobody would really lose out. But society would gain tremendously.

    Republicans destroy their credibility because they are the ones who deny the reality of the fiscal situation. They whine about expenses, but don’t look at revenues. They IGNORE them. Mainly because those revenues go to fund their campaigns, rather than OUR government. They ask the 99% of society to sacrifice for the good of our country. ‘We all have to chip in and sacrifice and cut, cut, cut” they say. Lo and behold, they then threaten governmental shutdowns or taking money out of unemployed people’s mouths if they don’t get the tax concessions that would effectively allow the 1% to not sacrifice a dime. They can’t win the technical argument, which even any semi-intelligent person can refute, so they turn to sensationalism and emotion. They play on our basest fears about the ‘evils’ of government and taxation and turn the support of them into acts of treason or terrorism – even though the government represents the people as a collective, so by extension, they are calling us all treasonous terrorists. They scream about the nasty unions, but look the other way when rich billionaires pollute and manipulate entire state governments to support their limited, ideological, political agenda at the expense of the majority who detest it.

    As for GM, Chrysler, etc. They were bankrupted not by their greedy workers so much as they’re absolute unwillingness to adapt to a new economic climate. The foreign auto-makers, who also manufacture many of their automobiles on US & Canadian soil did quite well, despite their unions. The big three failed (and probably should have been allowed to fail) because they were producing gas-guzzling, pig cars that nobody wanted anymore. They had focused almost exclusively on the oversized vehicle market at a time when gas prices were skyrocketing and practically ignored the fuel-efficient, hybrid and electric markets. They’ve since re-tooled because of that stimulus and are doing quite well, despite their unions.

    “3. It’s always about FEELINGS and subjectivity, when it should be about facts and objectivity. Just because you feel someone should make more money doesn’t mean it is so.”

    My previous point seems to address this.

    “You keep saying that I don’t want my taxes paying for teachers and firefighters. Not so. They simply should not be allowed to demand pay that the revenue cannot support. Do you think they should be allowed to drive a state into bankruptcy?”

    So what can the revenue support? While the Wisconsin government keeps giving tax concessions to business and wealthy individuals, how can the revenue support public employees at a standard of living that would not essentially make them slaves? They have repeatedly been willing to negotiate their salaries and pensions. They have openly said this. What you seem to not get through your head is that the Governor and Republicans have no interest in talking. Period. Collective bargaining is only an evil if the side bargaining is not willing to budge on anything – if they hold the government hostage for unrealistic wages and pensions. I don’t think this is what is happening. In fact, it is the Governor that has zipped his lip and, like a baby throwing a tantrum, refuses to speak until he gets what he wants – which is to quash the unions entirely. That way nobody can negotiate anything. You seem to believe the right wing narrative that has painted them as greedy people that only care about their own salaries at the expense of everyone else in the state. That isn’t the case. The state is going bankrupt because it keeps cutting revenues. All states are going bankrupt because they believe that cutting revenues leads to growth. The Fed keeps cutting revenues because it thinks that leads to growth. It doesn’t have enough money to fund anything anymore. So it leaves it up to the private sector, which seems more interested in hording that cash than funneling it into the development that leads to jobs.

    Reality bites.

    If you would like to truly see the effects of the positions you advocate for, read:

    The Ecology of Commerce by Paul Hawken
    The Trouble With Billionaires by Linda Mcquaig
    Confessions of a Union Buster by Marty Levitt

    • Wolfgang Riggins

      RE: first paragraph
      If business did not provide goods people could afford, it would soon go out of business, and thank you for that enlightening fact that the poor can buy fewer goods than the rich.
      You mention “too much cash”. Oh really? You seem to feel that if you were the king of the world you would be better able to spend other people’s money. It’s not enough that the “rich” EARNED their money, create jobs and pay the vast majority of the taxes, you want more. They earned it, they should keep it. You also said, “They invest in risk taking”. Of course they do! It’s a risk to start a business, “no risk no reward”. People like you make taking risks, starting businesses and following dreams less rewarding, because the minute success strikes, whining liberal vultures are there to try to take it away.

      RE: Paragraph2: of course companies should not be allowed to dispose of waste that damages the environment or harms people in any way. I am not advocating profits at any cost. My point is that companies have zero responsibility to provide more payment to workers than they are worth.

      RE: Paragraph 3: Taxation that takes ones mans money to give to another is absolutely codified theft. Your justification does not change what it is.
      Regarding the bailouts…we are in agreement, but you conveniently omit GM and Obama. There should NEVER be a bailout of any company or bank because it creates a moral hazard that ensures that it all happens again and again.
      Some CEO’s are worth 170x Joe and some are not. If a CEO can grow the business and create value then absolutely. The problem is with the ones who are not and still get paid a kings ransom, and the problem lies with the board of directors that are approving these salaries for these looser CEO’s, not bailouts.

      Paragraph 4 and 5: More of the same. We disagree.

      Re: Paragraph 6: Show me in our constitution this “right”.
      ”The right for higher wages and more meaningful, purposeful employment and the standard of living that comes from them is every human being’s right,”
      Sorry, not there. However it is in the communist constitution of the USSR along with the right to food, and housing. How do you suppose the U.S. in the short span of a couple hundred years with its constitution of limited government (less so now) outlasted a country (USSR) with a constitution you see as superior? If you haven’t read it, you should. You will love it.

      Paragraph 7: Virtually every socialist /communist in history vilified profits, and you’re doing it too. Business is in business to make a profit. Without it there are no jobs for you to complain about.

      Paragraph 8: You are simply wrong on this. Have you not heard about the 14 trillion in debt? Yea, there is money if you’re Ok with printing it which I am sure you are, because printing / devaluing our currency is essentially a surreptitious tax. Now it gets ironic…the spending you advocate for requires the printing of money which devalues the currency which places a greater burden on the poor. You keep mentioning basic accounting… I suggest you do some. With a 14 trillion dollar debt and unfunded liabilities of close to 112 trillion, how long do you think it would take to pay off the debt when the entire GDP of the US is 14.26 trillion? THERE IS NO MONEY! Stop kidding yourself.

      Paragraph 9: Wrong again. The foreign auto manufacturers here don’t have unions. They are all in RIGHT TO WORK STATES that don’t have unions. Where are you getting your info?

      Paragraph 10: The last part of this paragraph makes no sense.
      • The state is going bankrupt because it keeps cutting revenues. All states are going bankrupt because they believe that cutting revenues leads to growth. The Fed keeps cutting revenues because it thinks that leads to growth. It doesn’t have enough money to fund anything anymore. So it leaves it up to the private sector, which seems more interested in hording that cash than funneling it into the development that leads to jobs.
      What do you mean “the state and fed keeps cutting revenues”? Revenues are down because people are out of work.
      If you don’t want to read Thomas Sowell to see the effects of the policies you advocate for, then just look at the USSR, Cuba, and that new mess, Venezuela, all wonderful examples of socialism.

  • EatMyPixels

    Yes, business is in business to make money. Fine. But businesses are also supposed to make society better and more prosperous, not work for the disadvantage of the many at the expense of the few. Although many owners may not see it that way, that is their ethical and moral mandate to be part of this society. They didn’t make their wealth in a vacuum. They made it being part of a society that gave them the family, support, education and financial assistance to make their dreams a reality. Taxes are a significant way the individual or corporation has to give back to the society that supported their desire to make profit and to make their standard of living better. To shirk or whine about that responsibility or fight it by spending more money in creative ways to avoid that obligation is a slap in the face to all of society. It is not the sustainable attitude in my opinion. And really, if taxes were the real issue business was moving out of the US, they would have moved decades ago. We keep lowering the tax bar and expect government to fund our protection, education and infrastructure. If you are a businessman, basic accounting will tell you it can’t work. All society suffers, not just the poor. I don’t see Rupert Murdoch willing to rebuild interstate 5. Do you?

    If people can’t afford the goods business makes because their wages are paltry, how long do you think an economy can survive? Does a business really give back to a country that has allowed it to prosper by cutting wages and the rights of powerless individuals to group together in unions and fight for profit for their members, what business fights for every day? The right for higher wages and more meaningful, purposeful employment and the standard if living that comes from them is every human being’s right. 

    If you don’t want your tax dollars supporting teachers, firefighters, police, nurses and all other public sector workers, then fine. Try to absolve yourself of needing their services in the future, if you can. But I would argue that over-inflating the comparison between public and private sector benefits and pensions is not enough justification in taking the voice of their unions away from them. Especially while using those very same public sector workers – aka. the governor and sympathetic republicans – ram through legislation of such a social magnitude without open debate or compromise. It is precedent setting. If the public unions are corrupt, that corruption should be addressed by it’s members and the government in open dialogue. 

    The unions are willing to negotiate. But the Governor is not. Obviously, it has come to light, because of certain political and ideological interests that are not really about deficit reduction as much as about calculated political strategy and nepotism. If the budget was the real issue, there are ways to deal and compromise on both sides that could help bring expenditures back to reality. 

    And sorry for my type o’s. I am writing this on my iPhone from the safety of my chair. I just have bad grammar. 

    • Wolfgang Riggins

      Society already benefits by the products business provide (light bulbs, cars, toilet paper); otherwise the products wouldn’t be purchased and the company would go bankrupt and disappear as they should. Society also benefits by the jobs that are created. The idea that business has a “moral” obligation to society to pay taxes is absurd. Companies and individuals have responsibility to pay federal and state taxes for roads and such, but morality has nothing to do with it. Companies use the roads as do individuals and should help pay for them.
      Morality is only an issue as it pertains to an equal exchange of value between business and employee and purchasers of product. The employee provides work, and the employer pays a wage for said work. When a proper and equal exchange is made, it is the most moral and just thing on the planet. When this goes awry, a myriad of bad things happen. The following are only a few. GM, US Steel, Chrysler, and others have been driven into bankruptcy because union’s members were extracting more value from the companies they worked for, than they provided in labor. The concept of equal exchange is completely foreign to liberals as they are always trying to get or to take what is not theirs, always laying claim to someone else’s labor or property, because they “FEEL” that they are entitled to it. No man is entitled to another man’s labor. Taxing one to give to another is codified theft.
      As to your second paragraph… —“The right for higher wages and more meaningful, purposeful employment and the standard of living that comes from them is every human being’s right.
      This “right” was created by the socialists, and it does not exist in the constitution. There is no such right. If you want higher wages, better yourself and get a better job. As for more meaningful employment, if you don’t like what you are doing, do something else. Only you can find meaning and purpose in what you do, your employer can’t find it or provide it for you.
      The unions and the liberals have several flaws in their arguments:
      1. They overvalue the work they provide and somehow feel entitled to money not earned. Why would any business that plans on staying in business pay a high wage for work that does not warrant it?
      2. They ignore the math and destroy their credibility. If the revenue for a company or state is not available then…surprise, it’s NOT AVAILABLE. You WILL take concessions or you will lose your job. (Unless the feds decide to screw everyone and bail out the states or the GM’s of the world).
      3. It’s always about FEELINGS and subjectivity, when it should be about facts and objectivity. Just because you feel someone should make more money doesn’t mean it is so.
      You keep saying that I don’t want my taxes paying for teachers and firefighters. Not so. They simply should not be allowed to demand pay that the revenue cannot support. Do you think they should be allowed to drive a state into bankruptcy? That is exactly what is going on in California. When CA firefighters retire at 50, they get roughly $110 thousand a year. To have that kind of cash flow in retirement, you would need slightly over 2 million dollars in the bank. That’s insane and anyone who supports that doesn’t truly know the financial reality.
      If you would like to truly see the effects of the positions you advocate for, read Thomas Sowells book Basic Economics.

    • Wolfgang Riggins

      Even FDR disagrees with you and he was a champion of private sector unions. Here is what he said

      “… Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations … The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for … officials … to bind the employer … The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives …
      “Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people … This obligation is paramount … A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent … to prevent or obstruct … Government … Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government … is unthinkable and intolerable.”

      • April

        For years many of us were brainwashed to think that FDR was one of the best president. Bull! He’s the one who started all these entitlement programs that were supposed to be “temporary” — like social security! What a joke. Once a liberal gets a hold of your tax dollars, they will never give it up. It’s like trying to get candy from a baby!

        The toll roads in Mass. were supposed to be temporary and were paid off decades ago, so a conservative lawmaker filed legislation to eliminate the tolls and it FAILED, just barely. People in liberal states like MA, RI, etc. are BRAINWASHED! They are knee-jerk liberal voters. It made sick to have to vote for Chappaquidick Teddy and John Purple Heart Kerry every election. There was always a token Republican, but they didn’t have a shot at winning. Glad Scott Brown (R) won Kennedy’s seat!

    • Miami

      Simple question,

      Do you want a Doctor who only keeps his job through a union?

  • Wolfgang Riggins

    Business is in business to make money so of course they will move to where their costs are lower, but let’s not pretend that unions don’t drive up costs, clearly they do. Regarding public employees unions, check out this mornings USA today. It clearly supports what I have been saying, which is the tax payer is being fleeced as they are paid much more than private sector union members and comparative jobs in the private sector for non union members. Those are facts that cannot be justified. Sorry for type o’s. Driving and typing with thumbs on iPad.

  • EatMyPixels

    Firstly, businesses are moving to other countries where labor is cheaper. They traditionally hate unions because they don’t like the idea of workers having power to negotiate their working conditions and be paid a realistic value. Take China. Cheap labor and little regulation. This will change of course when Chinese workers begin to demand a higher standard of living. They will naturally form unions. Many businesses want to be able to pay employees next to nothing so they can pad their bottom line and pay their owners and/or investors fat profits at the top. What many of these business owners forget is that it takes all these people to make the business a success. It isn’t just the creative genius of the entrepreneur. He doesn’t manifest it out if nothing. Why should workers then constantly be paid less than they are worth? Who speaks for them when they have little power or money to affect change in their working lives? 

    You don’t want to give your state tax dollars to fund collective bargaining, which traditionally helps the Democratic cause – not because it is some vast conspiracy of the left to usurp the people, but because traditionally it has been the left that has stood behind and fought for the people against narrow, corporate interests with unlimited money. 

    Your tax dollars are being used to pay your Governor and his staff, legislators and senators to essentially lobby for a far right, corporate cause. You’re paying their salaries and pensions too. And these corporations – eg. Koch Brothers – get the voice of the Governor and the public purse to push their cause at others’ expense. How is that any different? But of course, using some creative accounting and a little denial, it’s good governance and doesn’t add to the deficit at all. It’s alright, because he’s ‘pro business’ or ‘right wing’ or whatever label of justification you can muster to make the hypocrisy bearable. 

    • Miami

      Thats why they elected him,

      To fix the mess Liberals have made of state government. Take Michigan and what has become of Detroit or New York city, it took a republican to clean it up. If you had any sense you would see that right to work states are best for everyone most of all the workers who have jobs unlike those who have the highest unemployment numbers.

      Educate yourself, ignorance is nothing to be proud of…

  • EatMyPixels

    You are a disgrace, my friend. As if your corporate buddies aren’t doing the exact same thing. Only it’s okay for them to rape the public through ridicoulus tax breaks and subsidies that increase the deficit and be able to spend unlimited amounts of money to bribe politicians to do their bidding. In the end, you pay out of your pocket because of this corporate cronyism. 

    Next time your over-priced house is on fire, or some wise-guy decides to punch your ignorant, sanctimonious, self-satisfied face in, or your obviously mentally dysfunctional children need extra attention in school, don’t bother calling on a public servant to bail your ass out. They don’t get paid enough to put up with your hypocritical bullshit. 

    Yup. An absolute disgrace. 

    • Wolfgang Riggins

      First of all you assume I approve of corporate subsidies, I do not. If a business cannot survive without subsidies it should die. Regarding corporate tax rates, the lower the better. Take California, business is leaving in droves and going states with lower tax rates. Nationally the same thing is going on, business is moving to other countries because of our taxes. We have the 2nd highest corporate tax rates in the world, so if your for business leaving this country and taking jobs with it, keep slamming business and promoting higher taxes for them, otherwise quit whining that you don’t have a job.

      Your a moron if you think the public is rightfully held hostage by the Unions to pay for their ridiculous pension and benefit packages (that are bankrupting the states). 80% of the general public does not have a pension, and their benefits aren’t anything like what the public sector worker is receiving and they are the ones paying for it. That is just silly. If I thought the state insolvency problem (see CA, MI, IN) would be contained to the state it wouldn’t bother me in the least. The problem I have with it is that the federal govt will be bailing these states out eventually and MY tax dollars will be spent on their stupidity which goes beyond this union issue to things like paying for healthcare and schooling for millions of illegals. States can try anything they like. Pay teachers and firefighters a million a year, I don’t care, but when the chickens come home to roost, don’t ask for a federal bail out. Fix it yourself.

    • GTurner

      EatMy,
      The difference is ONLY whether the coercive power of the State is DIRECTLY applied in the transaction. If I decide I don’t like Corporations engaging with the State (and I DON’T), I’m at liberty to choose to do business elsewhere (and I DO). With the Selfish Employee Idiots Union, that choice has been removed. The power of the State COMPELS me to furnish funds to the SEIU, which propagates ideas which I abhor. As the founder of your party (HA!) Thomas Jefferson asserted, this is both sinful AND tyrannical…

    • Miami

      Corporate subsidies are Crony Capitalism, a product of picking winners and losers. Which Dems have long championed, rewarding those who fund their campaigns, Both parties have long been guilty of this. The tax code has been rigged for these purposes, knowing that Dems have been in control of congress 80% of the last hundred years. You should ask who has pushed for those rigged tax codes. If they wanted it fixed they had two years with full control and could have passed what ever they wanted and didn’t.

      I guess you really don’t have a clue as to the name “public service” the objective is to serve the public. If they don’t want to do so they should find another line of work. If you’re a public servant and don’t believe you are paid enough, you might consider most if not all Public sector jobs make more than I did fighting for this nation even with hazardous pay. You know fighting the battles that allow you to bitch and moan in the freedom my service has provided.

      As for the SEIU and other unions who have embraced the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbolla and Iran who has funded them. But sure you attack those who believe you should pay a part of your healthcare and pension. While those in the private sector pay far more and earn far less.

      The way you sound you should be lucky to have a job… that’s if you have one?

    • John

      Tax breaks are bad?Are you retarded EatMyPixels? You stupid commie. You are the typical fascist pig who bully companies into giving you more while you stack soup cans at a grocery store.You should pick up a book on economics , or hell just pick up a book , and stop using in to level your damn t.v. stand.Your the retard that was too cool and busy acting like an ass in school and drooling on your desk to learn something. Then your glory days on the football field in High School was over and suddenly you have the welfare receivers attitude “I deserve money for nothing” . OH you all love “small business” but damn them to hell if they expand and become “big business”. You have no concept of “Vote with your feet” . You don’t like what they pay you, then go somewhere else. Oh hell no you and commies like you walk in and more money for less skill, like its a right. B.S.!! Moron , Take responsibility for your actions you mental midget! Like Prime Minister Margaret Thacher said “The Problem With Socialism Is You Eventually You Run Out Of Other People’s Money!!!”Wake up window licker.

    • April

      Wow, somebody is ticked, huh? I worked as a volunteer to the fine folks at SEIU (sarcasm here). I also worked on a coalition with the NEA — National Educators of America, one of the biggest lobbying groups that almost entirely supports the Democratic party.

      In the private sector nobody is guaranteed a job for life, so why is it expected in the public sector and with unions?!/ This is what has diminished the respect for the teaching profession. It was the exception that I had great teachers in high school and college. How pathetic is that, and that seems to be the general concensus with most people I speak with about the issue. How sad. Stop protecting the losers hiding behind the union! If teachers cared about the kids so much, that’s exactly what they’d be doing.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>