Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

brickcityman (< 20)

D**N LIBERALS Trying to Mess with the Free Market

Recs

14

February 25, 2011 – Comments (18) | RELATED TICKERS: LGFTY.DL , RT

I can't take it...  Why is it that these liberals think that the answer to all of our problems is to change laws and remove personal freedoms?

 

[nudge, nudge] ...  Leave me alone I'm ranting....

 

I mean come on...  Now you've got a govenor in the national spotlight who wants to remove a personal right for every worker in...

 

[nudge, nudge] ... I SAID LEAVE me alone... I'm ranting....

 

I mean hasn't this liberal scum bag read his constitution?  ... He cannot take away a persons right to on the basis of...

 

[nudge, nudge]....  OK, Ok, what what is so important that you had to interrupt my rant??????

 

[murmur, murmur]... What's that?  The govenor of Wisconsin is a republican?  Are you sure he's not one of those "log cabin" ones?

 

[murmur, murmur]...  Really?  and are you sure he calls himself a free market conservative?

 

[murmur,murmur]...  Wow!  The unions agreed to ALL of the financial concessions which would enable a balanced budget?  What a great day for the Free Market, problem solved, crisis averted!  So why is this still an issue?

 

[murmur,murmur]... Yeah your right...  He is kind of a d...

 

Oh sorry there folks... False alarm...  How about them Packers ehhh?

 

(PS - I think this would be much more effective as a comic strip but I'm not very graphically inclined)

18 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On February 25, 2011 at 10:45 PM, ChrisGraley (29.65) wrote:

You got a rec from me brickcity.

I agree that both Democrats and Republicans are out to take away individual rights.

 

Report this comment
#2) On February 25, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Lordrobot (92.49) wrote:

Unions are not a "right" so nobody is taking away your individual rights. There is nothing individual about collective bargaining. The largest unions in the US are Gov employees who contribute exactly ZERO to the GDP. So as far as I am concerned thaey are DEAD Weight on the taxpayers and we could easily eliminate 3/4 of them starting with the US postal service and AMTRAK and [drum roll] UNION TEACHERS! 

Rights associated with Unions are RIGHT TO WORK STATES. That means Unions can't bar non-union workers from jobs like they try to do wherever they are located. Unions are poison to a free society.

And when it comes to investing. This advice will serve you well. "Look for the Union label and SELL!"

 

 

Report this comment
#3) On February 25, 2011 at 11:13 PM, topsecret10 (< 20) wrote:

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938:
Maximum Struggle for a Minimum Wage    http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/flsa1938.htm

Report this comment
#4) On February 25, 2011 at 11:14 PM, topsecret10 (< 20) wrote:

  + 1  :)

Report this comment
#5) On February 25, 2011 at 11:18 PM, AvianFlu (37.42) wrote:

Post number 2 sez it all!

Report this comment
#6) On February 26, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Valyooo (99.35) wrote:

Lordrobot what is your beer with USPS?  I like them a lot more than UPS.

I saw somebody say this on another blog on caps and it was great..I can't remember who it was, but it's one of my favorites, and it's so true: Something along the lines of "The only real difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans try to enforce pre-1950s laws."

So true.  Liberetarian for me.

 

Report this comment
#7) On February 26, 2011 at 1:01 AM, ozzfan1317 (79.25) wrote:

rec from me always open to a good civil debate

Report this comment
#8) On February 26, 2011 at 1:36 AM, wolfman225 (62.18) wrote:

My opinion (worth almost what you paid for it) is that NO public employees should be unionized or be granted collective bargaining "rights".  Here's the reason why:  it institutionalizes a conflict of interest between the politician (who in many instances owes his/her election to the money and power of the union) and the constituency he/she is supposed to represent. 

 A fair bargain can only be struck by balancing the opposing interests of the worker and the ones paying the salaries (management).  In the case of government/public employees, they are not bargaining with the taxpayers, but with politicians.  Politicians who are also paid out of the tax base and who have few compunctions about doling out favors to unions in return for support come the next election.  Particularly when the true costs of those bargains won't be felt for years down the road, at which time it'll be someone else's problem.

I can see one possible compromise:  let public sector unions keep their bargaining rights, but take the politicians out of the equation all together.  Create a pool of taxpayer volunteers to be drawn from to be the negotiating committee for each new contract.  Have them sort themselves by Dem or Rep and have a random draw (similar to draws for jury duty, except that, since these people have all volunteered you won't have a problem with people chosen trying to get out of duty) of participants, say 6 of each.

This "jury" will be charged with negotiating with the unions over pay/benefit packages for each new contract.  They would do a much better job than the politicians because there would not be any conflict of interest, since they won't owe the unions any payback, and they would actually represent the taxpayers' ability to pay, thus holding back union demands to reasonable levels.  This jury should also be given the power to require that the state government fully fund any agreements made, in order to avoid conflict over possible future shortfalls.

Limiting jury participants to serving no more than once in each 3 contract cycle period will help prevent influence peddling by either side and having participants drawn by random lots will provide that the jury is made up of a cross-section of the population, representing working class as well as professional businessmen/women.

Any time you have the politicians bargaining with those to whom they are beholden, and when they are bargaining with OPM, it's an open invitation to corruption.  That's what we are beginning to see now in Wisconsin and Indiana.  It will soon spread.

Report this comment
#9) On February 26, 2011 at 3:49 AM, brickcityman (< 20) wrote:

I guess I just have a fundamental disagreement with some responders...  For me, deciding to make a pact with a fellow worker should be a unquestioned right.  Afterall, is there any clause in the constitution (state or federal) that deliniates the state's right to limit such behavior?  ... And while i hate to use it as an argument what about the slipperly slope?  If people joining together in a work context is bad what about in a poltical context?

 

Of course that's just on the plane of ideals.  Many people forgo certain rights as a condition of employment or myriad other reasons.  But in those cases the rules were not changed in the middle of the game (under dubious rationale).

 

I have a hard time arguing from this perspective because I can't help but acknowledge how perverted some unions have become.  Instead of acting as a bulwark for balancing power they often become an entity with its own goals and inertia that serves neither the employer nor the employee.

 

But with that said outlawing something as fundamental as this seems beyond the pale to me.  I think the suggestion to decouple politicians from this decision making is a great one.  and its the sort of thing we should be grasping for instead of throwing the perverbial baby out with the bath water.

 

Think about it another way...  If you assume that any public employee union is bound to result in excessive burdens that cannot be dealt with and use that to justify banning them.  Then a somewhat similar assumption could that any open stock market is bound to result in boom and busts cycles that have negative consequences for innocent bystanders.  How many people have been on CAPS lately advocatng for making stock trading illegal?

Report this comment
#10) On February 26, 2011 at 8:04 AM, ChrisGraley (29.65) wrote:

The problem was stated very well by wolfman and becoming a public servant is not a right but a responsibility.

If you want to keep a union, you need a system where that union deals directly with the taxpayer paying the bills, otherwise the high compenstion just gets rubber-stamped again when the next liberal majority getting campaign money from unions is in control.

If being in a union is that important to someone, there are plenty of unions in the private sector. They may not be as lucrative as the public sector jobs though.

The comparison to the stock market is moot. The stock market doesn't cause the booms or busts. It is simply a medium of exchange that reacts to the booms and busts caused by the government. Banning government would smooth out the economy, banning the stock market would not. 

Report this comment
#11) On February 26, 2011 at 8:56 AM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:

Chris -

You post was spot on.  People bargaining on behalf of taxpayers with public unions have very very little incentive to make the best deal for taxpayers.

My brother is part of a public union in a smallish city and in their contract they put in a "poison pill" that stated city administrators & managers couldn't get a raise unless the workers got a raise.  What a thing of beauty.  In 2009, in the midst of the recession, he got a 1% raise. Last year, he got 2%.  The union negotiated that if an accident occurs (broken water main..), then two people always need to be brought in, paid at time and half and they have to work a minimum of 4 hours.   Wow!!!!

This is not sustainable.

In 2008, life was pretty good for me.  I paid an incredible amount of taxes as contractor.  In 2009, I made 50% of what I did in 2008 due to wage cuts and less hours.  In 2010, I think contractor wages leveled off, I have adjusted my lifestyle.  I make 20% of what I did in 2008.  I am not alone and there are countless others that still don't work.  We have so much less tax revenue. I kinda sound like Alstry :)

Report this comment
#12) On February 26, 2011 at 9:29 AM, devoish (98.56) wrote:

So instead of screaming about the advances public employee and other unions have made to preserve health care, job security and economic justice, angry voters should be asking what or who have been keeping them from obtaining the same. Nor does Wall Street’s pillaging of private 401 (k) retirement plans justify t*t-for-tat, eye-for-an-eye acts of covetous revenge against union pensions. As Erlich writes, "A generation ago, non-union workers often welcomed news of improved wages and benefits for unionized employees, recognizing that a rising tide lifts all boats. But... at a time of sacrifice and insecurity, many would prefer to sink their neighbor’s slightly bigger boat while wistfully hoping for a glance at a yacht in a gated marina."

Best wishes

Steven

PS. Passing a law that says people cannot choose to bargain collectively is taking away their freedm to choose to do so.

And is typical of the "small government" power grab, we should all recognise for what it is.

 

Report this comment
#13) On February 26, 2011 at 9:39 AM, hmhn87 (< 20) wrote:

ta.gg/50h----------------------

ta.gg/50h----------------------

!free shipping!

j0rdan sh0es........ 28 dollar

c0ach p-u-r-s-e...... 25 dollar

c00gi cl0thes........ 20 dollar

U.G.G B00ts.......... 39 dollar

Dear Friend:

We can supply all kind jersey with good quality and low price. contact me, let's talk details.

Delivery time: 5-6days, Shipping Method: EMS

Report this comment
#14) On February 26, 2011 at 10:52 AM, wolfman225 (62.18) wrote:

@Devoish---

But... at a time of sacrifice and insecurity, many would prefer to sink their neighbor’s slightly bigger boat while wistfully hoping for a glance at a yacht in a gated marina."

Kinda sounds like those in Wisconsin who say we should "tax the rich" in order to keep the union happy.

Report this comment
#15) On February 26, 2011 at 12:41 PM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

So instead of screaming about the advances public employee and other unions have made to preserve health care, job security and economic justice, angry voters should be asking what or who have been keeping them from obtaining the same

Economics keeps private employees from obtaining the same.  Unfortunately, private companies do not have the ability to print money, obtain as much money as they like through forcable taxation, or force customers to do business with them.

Any company that tried to do what state, local, and federal governments have been doing in terms of wages and benefits would go out of business incredibly quickly.  The model is unsustainable.  It would be nice if we lived in some magical fairy-land where everyone could get great benefits and free health care and high wages and never risk being fired and we'd all still enjoy freedom and economic prosperity.  Reality does not work that way.  I forget who said it, but the quote is "He who promises heaven will most assuredly bring hell."

Report this comment
#16) On February 26, 2011 at 5:07 PM, devoish (98.56) wrote:

smartmuffin,

Let me remind you that at the present time in the USA, the top 30,000 earners in the USA have an equal amount of income as the bottom 270,000,000. I would say the bottom 90% are doing a very nice job of sustaining the top 30,000 and it is the income of the top 30,000 that should be considered unsustainable.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#17) On February 27, 2011 at 6:55 AM, wolfman225 (62.18) wrote:

The top 30,000 have largely earned every penny of what they have.  They haven't stolen it from anyone.  As for the "bottom 90%.......sustaining the top....?"  I would venture to say it's the other way around, as those at the bottom contribute very little to the services they consume. 

Besides, there is nothing/no one preventing someone in the bottom from becoming one of the top 10% (or even top 1%).  People rise above their circumstances every single day and there are new millionaires created by this economy every year.

Blaming the successful for your own lack is nothing more than an excuse to quit or to not even try to succeed on your own.

Report this comment
#18) On February 27, 2011 at 7:09 PM, devoish (98.56) wrote:

wolfman225,

I disagree.  I depend upon the support of those who do my sweeping for you. Even a truck driver depends upon the tomato picker to pick his food while he drives.

The more time I spend with folks who believe in an elite wealthy class, the more I believe they should try to answer their own questions.

Can anyone in the 5 largest financial firms in the USA claim they deserve their money after the bailout they got?

My answer is no.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement