billvon 2,444
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteI don't believe in anyone being forced to pay to advance political causes which they do not support. Why don't you, exactly?
as posted by billvon, that is exactly what happens to every citizen in this country...
Because the government does a few things of which you do not approve, that is reason for you to condone unions and other organizations doing the same thing?
You've already surrendered. Kneel down and kiss the feet of tyranny.
....surrendured.
.... means what, por favor?
dudeist skydiver # 3105
billvon 2,444
>that is reason for you to condone unions and other organizations doing the same thing?
When unions and PAC's do it, it's bad. However, you can choose to not belong to the union or not pay the PAC, which is an excellent way to deal with such things.
When the government does it, it is much, much worse. US citizens cannot choose to not pay taxes.
When unions and PAC's do it, it's bad. However, you can choose to not belong to the union or not pay the PAC, which is an excellent way to deal with such things.
When the government does it, it is much, much worse. US citizens cannot choose to not pay taxes.
dbattman 0
My first three cars were Chrysler LeBaron. All three were purchased used and served me well until the started developing problems at about 100-120k miles.
My current car is a 2000 Nissan Altima, purchased with 32K and now has 95k and does not leave a single drip on my driveway. It burns only a small amount of oil and hasn't given me a single problem. The VIN number starts with a 1, indicating it was assembled in the USA.
Why did I buy a foreign brand this time around? Walk around a used car lot and look at the differences. The foreign brands have better build quality and tighter gap tolerance. Check out Consumer Reports or Edmunds and the foreign brands beat out domestics all the time.
I am an Engineer by education and experience and I refuse to continue to support half-assed engineering and poor workmanship any longer. My customers get the best I can give them and I take the liberty of upgrading equipment and installations whenever I feel the extra cost will provide a better long-term solution even when it sacrifices the margin. That's called respect and it will get you very far.
My current car is a 2000 Nissan Altima, purchased with 32K and now has 95k and does not leave a single drip on my driveway. It burns only a small amount of oil and hasn't given me a single problem. The VIN number starts with a 1, indicating it was assembled in the USA.
Why did I buy a foreign brand this time around? Walk around a used car lot and look at the differences. The foreign brands have better build quality and tighter gap tolerance. Check out Consumer Reports or Edmunds and the foreign brands beat out domestics all the time.
I am an Engineer by education and experience and I refuse to continue to support half-assed engineering and poor workmanship any longer. My customers get the best I can give them and I take the liberty of upgrading equipment and installations whenever I feel the extra cost will provide a better long-term solution even when it sacrifices the margin. That's called respect and it will get you very far.
sfzombie13 307
i, too, am a highly skilled carpenter. i am not a master, but a journeyman and i take pride in my work. i will not do a half-ass job, unless i am instructed to do so. however, this does not apply to erecting scaffolding. i will not take a shortcut there. i cannot speak for other carpenters, however. the ones that i have worked with ahve been diverse in their skills/training/work ethic. kinda like the nation as a whole. i believe the unions should only hire people who take pride in their workmanship, and through a little diligence, i can help move it in that direction. none of you can say that about the govt. if everybody would put their foot down, we could change the country for the better. i can't do it alone, nor do i want to. just cause they are my opinions, doesn't make them right. that is what is called majority rule.
_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
TheAnvil 0
I'm confused here. You don't approve of private SS accounts set up so money supposedly taken for retirement from individuals will actually be spent on the individual from whom it was taken. Yet you DO approve of unions taking $$ from individuals for collective bargaining and instead using that $ to promote political causes which said individual may or may not support. Odd.
Interesting thing about the left's arguments against privatized accounts. In almost all of them one finds an implied admission that $$ being taken in the name of SS from individuals will never be spent on the individual from whom the $$ is taken under the system as is. Pay for the collective, not yourself, eh comrades?
Perhaps I'm out of it - work has been taking a lot of my time throughout the day and night too on many days and I have a stomach virus ticking me off too - but I haven't seen any political ads paid for by taxpayer $$. Can somebody send me a link? If it's just some link about Bush travelling about the nation pushing his agenda then don't bother wasting my time.
IF such ads exist, those clamoring about them using the argument about using their taxpayer $$ for causes they don't support who do not also complain about the Beck decision not stricly being enforced with regards to unions are all shining examples of hypocrisy.
Interesting thing about the left's arguments against privatized accounts. In almost all of them one finds an implied admission that $$ being taken in the name of SS from individuals will never be spent on the individual from whom the $$ is taken under the system as is. Pay for the collective, not yourself, eh comrades?
Perhaps I'm out of it - work has been taking a lot of my time throughout the day and night too on many days and I have a stomach virus ticking me off too - but I haven't seen any political ads paid for by taxpayer $$. Can somebody send me a link? If it's just some link about Bush travelling about the nation pushing his agenda then don't bother wasting my time.
IF such ads exist, those clamoring about them using the argument about using their taxpayer $$ for causes they don't support who do not also complain about the Beck decision not stricly being enforced with regards to unions are all shining examples of hypocrisy.
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
billvon 2,444
> You don't approve of private SS accounts set up so money
> supposedly taken for retirement from individuals will actually be
> spent on the individual from whom it was taken.
Correct. I do not approve of the government trying to take over what should be a private matter. Saving for retirement is up to each person; social security simply keeps people from starving. It is not and should not be a way to get rich via government investment bankers.
>Yet you DO approve of unions taking $$ from individuals for
> collective bargaining and instead using that $ to promote political
> causes which said individual may or may not support.
As long as membership is optional, I think they can do whatever they want. Want to contribute to, or belong to, a political organization, or a labor organization, or the Church of the Big Dog? Up to you.
In other words, I'm in favor of leaving people, rather than the government, in charge. An odd idea to many right-wingers, I know - but the government really isn't there to take care of you. What it is there to do is spelled out in the constitution. And investment banking ain't in there.
>Pay for the collective, not yourself, eh comrades?
As I recall, you are the one in favor of a socialistic system where the government. rather than a bank/investment banker of your choice, does your investing.
>but I haven't seen any political ads paid for by taxpayer $$. Can
>somebody send me a link?
Just google "Karen Ryan." Or here's a link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/politics/13covert.html?hp&ex=1110776400&en=c0b6bad84e5bf46a&ei=5094&partner=homepage
An excerpt:
Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.
> supposedly taken for retirement from individuals will actually be
> spent on the individual from whom it was taken.
Correct. I do not approve of the government trying to take over what should be a private matter. Saving for retirement is up to each person; social security simply keeps people from starving. It is not and should not be a way to get rich via government investment bankers.
>Yet you DO approve of unions taking $$ from individuals for
> collective bargaining and instead using that $ to promote political
> causes which said individual may or may not support.
As long as membership is optional, I think they can do whatever they want. Want to contribute to, or belong to, a political organization, or a labor organization, or the Church of the Big Dog? Up to you.
In other words, I'm in favor of leaving people, rather than the government, in charge. An odd idea to many right-wingers, I know - but the government really isn't there to take care of you. What it is there to do is spelled out in the constitution. And investment banking ain't in there.
>Pay for the collective, not yourself, eh comrades?
As I recall, you are the one in favor of a socialistic system where the government. rather than a bank/investment banker of your choice, does your investing.
>but I haven't seen any political ads paid for by taxpayer $$. Can
>somebody send me a link?
Just google "Karen Ryan." Or here's a link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/politics/13covert.html?hp&ex=1110776400&en=c0b6bad84e5bf46a&ei=5094&partner=homepage
An excerpt:
Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.
jimbarry 0
Quoteas for the collective bargaining thing, i consider it a small price to pay in order to bring home $10000 in one month.
Of course I cannot and will not question your skill or your pride, however, if you're labor is really worth $10,000 per month, why do you need collective bargaining to get it?
More power to you for getting what you can get, but what makes more sense is when someone's labor is worth exactly as much as someone else will pay for it, without the strongarming, corruption, and rank-and-file class warfare that unions promote.
TheAnvil 0
The amounts proposed by GWB for personal accounts would not make one rich by any means.
Union membership is not optional in many states - if you want to work.
The accounts GWB proposes are under the control of the taxpayer and not the Congress, which is why Comrade Reid et al are so against them. I don't see them as socialistic.
This political advertising thing is bull. Packaged interviews are no different than congressmen sending out flyers at taxpayer expense to their constituents, granting interviews to CNN/FOX/CSPAN on any issue, travelling to their respective constituents to forward any plans they might have, etc. Been done for years. Nobody forced any media to play the clips, so I don't really think it advertising at all.
Union membership is not optional in many states - if you want to work.
The accounts GWB proposes are under the control of the taxpayer and not the Congress, which is why Comrade Reid et al are so against them. I don't see them as socialistic.
This political advertising thing is bull. Packaged interviews are no different than congressmen sending out flyers at taxpayer expense to their constituents, granting interviews to CNN/FOX/CSPAN on any issue, travelling to their respective constituents to forward any plans they might have, etc. Been done for years. Nobody forced any media to play the clips, so I don't really think it advertising at all.
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
sfzombie13 307
i think you are just not paying attention to the facts here.
first of all, in every state of the union, membership in any union is optional. it took me three years to get into one in wv, one of the most pro-union states that exist. the only way i got into one was joine in nc. and yes, i worked in construction, non-union, for the whole time. the only thing right to work states do is lower the union wage without providing a better wage for non-union laborers. you can use any examples you want, but i've been there.
second, in response to jim, i don't think ANY person is worth $10000 in one month. that includes every single citizen in the us, all of them. i got so sick and tired of my boss's saying "you bring home more than me" and driving 3 brand new cars, living in $million homes, etc. i even think i heard a person in the thread about minimum wage saying he showed the payroll to his employee and he and his wife brought home less than her. that's just so much bullshit. and strong-arming? man, you're living in the 60's. get your facts straight before you start spouting off. my local took a $0.15 pay cut this year, some strong arm. it don't sound like much, but what it boils down to is about $4 million a year in the pocket of some corporate executive. THAT'S FAIR???
you guys need some lessons in economics. the only way we can raise the standard of living in the us is to support the economy, buy american. but you can't afford it? because coporations are greedy, ceo's need to make millions to break even. i'm not against anyone getting rich, but if you have to do it through such questionable practices as foreign out-sourcing, then that's shameful. buy american, support americans.
first of all, in every state of the union, membership in any union is optional. it took me three years to get into one in wv, one of the most pro-union states that exist. the only way i got into one was joine in nc. and yes, i worked in construction, non-union, for the whole time. the only thing right to work states do is lower the union wage without providing a better wage for non-union laborers. you can use any examples you want, but i've been there.
second, in response to jim, i don't think ANY person is worth $10000 in one month. that includes every single citizen in the us, all of them. i got so sick and tired of my boss's saying "you bring home more than me" and driving 3 brand new cars, living in $million homes, etc. i even think i heard a person in the thread about minimum wage saying he showed the payroll to his employee and he and his wife brought home less than her. that's just so much bullshit. and strong-arming? man, you're living in the 60's. get your facts straight before you start spouting off. my local took a $0.15 pay cut this year, some strong arm. it don't sound like much, but what it boils down to is about $4 million a year in the pocket of some corporate executive. THAT'S FAIR???
you guys need some lessons in economics. the only way we can raise the standard of living in the us is to support the economy, buy american. but you can't afford it? because coporations are greedy, ceo's need to make millions to break even. i'm not against anyone getting rich, but if you have to do it through such questionable practices as foreign out-sourcing, then that's shameful. buy american, support americans.
_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
TheAnvil 0
BZZZT! WRONG! I have friends that cannot teach in schools without their wages being garnished and sent to the NEA or AFT. Join, no join, the union gets their dollars regardless. Optional my ass. Pretend that it's not if it makes you feel better, but the union gets their $. Your statement about right-to-work states is completely incorrect as well. Do a bit of research.
Not sure what you're talking about with regards to strong arming, but yes, unions strong arm all the time. Ask anybody who used to work for Eastern Airlines and valued their paycheck.
I'll happily discuss economics with you anytime you're ready. Given your statement on outsourcing I don't believe you are quite yet because the concept of optimizing for competition and profit seems to be eluding you a bit.
Not sure what you're talking about with regards to strong arming, but yes, unions strong arm all the time. Ask anybody who used to work for Eastern Airlines and valued their paycheck.
I'll happily discuss economics with you anytime you're ready. Given your statement on outsourcing I don't believe you are quite yet because the concept of optimizing for competition and profit seems to be eluding you a bit.
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Quotefirst of all, in every state of the union, membership in any union is optional.
No, it is not. 22 states are right-to-work states. That means 28 states are not right-to-work.
Quotei don't think ANY person is worth $10000 in one month
I do.
Quotei even think i heard a person in the thread about minimum wage saying he showed the payroll to his employee and he and his wife brought home less than her. that's just so much bullshit. and strong-arming?
That was me. No, it isn't bullshit. It is true. And strong-arming? How so? She thought she made less than anyone else. I showed her otherwise. She seems pretty happy now with her salary.
Quotemy local took a $0.15 pay cut this year, some strong arm
And how much did you pay your union local for the honor of taking a pay cut? Gee, maybe you could have kept some more money for your kids and wife.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
SkyDekker 1,150
QuoteBZZZT! WRONG! I have friends that cannot teach in schools without their wages being garnished and sent to the NEA or AFT. Join, no join, the union gets their dollars regardless. Optional my ass. Pretend that it's not if it makes you feel better, but the union gets their $. Your statement about right-to-work states is completely incorrect as well. Do a bit of research.
what is it I read here so often.....don't like it, move.
billvon 2,444
> The amounts proposed by GWB for personal accounts would not make
> one rich by any means.
Ah! Then get rid of personal accounts and let people invest their OWN money in their OWN accounts in a manner of THEIR choosing. That way some of them might just get rich. Then they pay more in taxes, helping support the US and reducing the deficit.
>Union membership is not optional in many states - if you want to work.
Please quote the relevant laws prohibiting employment if not belonging to a union.
>The accounts GWB proposes are under the control of the taxpayer and not
>the Congress, which is why Comrade Reid et al are so against them. I
>don't see them as socialistic.
Government control of private investment functions. A great system, eh, comrade? Think of the power over the markets the government investment bankers will have! No longer will the market be subject to the whims of capitalism; those government bankers will wield the power of Damocles over any fund they manage. Want to ensure a company's success? Make it part of an official government-managed fund. Want to smite a company that is naughty in the eyes of the administration? Dump it.
After all, if most people's social security is tied up in the markets, it would be political suicide to NOT manipulate them so they always seem to do well.
>This political advertising thing is bull.
I agree.
> Packaged interviews are no different than congressmen sending out
> flyers at taxpayer expense to their constituents, granting interviews to
> CNN/FOX/CSPAN on any issue, travelling to their respective
>constituents to forward any plans they might have, etc.
Vinnie, if Gore were president today, and he was using taxpayer money to air fake news stories on CNN about climate change, your blood pressure would be 200/120, and you would be hauling out your best denigrations to describe such a practice. Since it's Bush airing fake news stories about how great private investment accounts will be, you are calmer (which is surely a good thing!) but does not change the fact that it's wrong.
> one rich by any means.
Ah! Then get rid of personal accounts and let people invest their OWN money in their OWN accounts in a manner of THEIR choosing. That way some of them might just get rich. Then they pay more in taxes, helping support the US and reducing the deficit.
>Union membership is not optional in many states - if you want to work.
Please quote the relevant laws prohibiting employment if not belonging to a union.
>The accounts GWB proposes are under the control of the taxpayer and not
>the Congress, which is why Comrade Reid et al are so against them. I
>don't see them as socialistic.
Government control of private investment functions. A great system, eh, comrade? Think of the power over the markets the government investment bankers will have! No longer will the market be subject to the whims of capitalism; those government bankers will wield the power of Damocles over any fund they manage. Want to ensure a company's success? Make it part of an official government-managed fund. Want to smite a company that is naughty in the eyes of the administration? Dump it.
After all, if most people's social security is tied up in the markets, it would be political suicide to NOT manipulate them so they always seem to do well.
>This political advertising thing is bull.
I agree.
> Packaged interviews are no different than congressmen sending out
> flyers at taxpayer expense to their constituents, granting interviews to
> CNN/FOX/CSPAN on any issue, travelling to their respective
>constituents to forward any plans they might have, etc.
Vinnie, if Gore were president today, and he was using taxpayer money to air fake news stories on CNN about climate change, your blood pressure would be 200/120, and you would be hauling out your best denigrations to describe such a practice. Since it's Bush airing fake news stories about how great private investment accounts will be, you are calmer (which is surely a good thing!) but does not change the fact that it's wrong.
TheAnvil 0
Their OWN money? 
To whom, exactly, do you believe the money that the Federal government takes out of your paycheck belongs?
Pay MORE in taxes? How much is enough? Let's reduce the deficit by cutting spending on programs that do not work.
Try getting a job as a teacher in a union system without either joining a union or getting your wages garnished for the same amount as union dues. Not going to happen. Better still, try finding out how much of that $$ goes towards political expenditures.
What makes you think the gov't would exert complete control over private accounts of any sort? It would merely serve as the collection agent.
What amount of air time on any network has been purchased? How much $$ has been expended towards this purchase? How much has been obligated for this purchase? NONE. NO air time has been purchased. NO $$ has been expended for air time. NO $$ has been obligated for air time. $$ out of the WH PR budget has been used to tape interviews with the president and released to the networks to broadcast if they see fit to do so. A video press release.
You're right though. If Gore had been in the White House I'd be ticked off with high blood pressure and cursing 'Gorons' and their ilk with reckless abandon.
How 'bout that Argentine debt restructuring?
To whom, exactly, do you believe the money that the Federal government takes out of your paycheck belongs? Pay MORE in taxes?
How much is enough? Let's reduce the deficit by cutting spending on programs that do not work. Try getting a job as a teacher in a union system without either joining a union or getting your wages garnished for the same amount as union dues. Not going to happen. Better still, try finding out how much of that $$ goes towards political expenditures.
What makes you think the gov't would exert complete control over private accounts of any sort? It would merely serve as the collection agent.
What amount of air time on any network has been purchased? How much $$ has been expended towards this purchase? How much has been obligated for this purchase? NONE. NO air time has been purchased. NO $$ has been expended for air time. NO $$ has been obligated for air time. $$ out of the WH PR budget has been used to tape interviews with the president and released to the networks to broadcast if they see fit to do so. A video press release.
You're right though. If Gore had been in the White House I'd be ticked off with high blood pressure and cursing 'Gorons' and their ilk with reckless abandon.
How 'bout that Argentine debt restructuring?
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
> which they do not support.
Yet I am forced to fund political ads that push a policy I disagree with, through our government. It's great that you happen to agree with the social security private-accounts thing, but I don't. Yet you seem perfectly OK with the government using my money for political ads, which seems to contradict your statement above.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites