|
Post by mouse on Mar 25, 2010 15:02:13 GMT
yes i know all that..one of my ancestors was in the group that forced the end of slavery... bloody good gene pool abso-bloody lutely
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 25, 2010 23:51:02 GMT
>>>That's what das and the rest of the pro corporate lunatics aren't smart enough to comprehend. the simple, yet irrefutable FACT is that ALL business can operate without management, NO business can operate without labor. they pervert the capitalist idea into the exact opposite, and cheer the unfortunate fact that, instead of rewarding those who actually work, their capitalism does the exact opposite
C'mon Jumbo, please get real. Organized labor is the ball and chain around the ankle of free enterprise. It's labor unions that have driven our manufacturing industries offshore to Taiwan and China or (or at a minimum to anti-union states like Tennessee and South Carolina). The combination of labor unions and their patron politicians (The Democrats) is lethal for free enterprise and economic success.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 26, 2010 8:06:27 GMT
>>>That's what das and the rest of the pro corporate lunatics aren't smart enough to comprehend. the simple, yet irrefutable FACT is that ALL business can operate without management, NO business can operate without labor. they pervert the capitalist idea into the exact opposite, and cheer the unfortunate fact that, instead of rewarding those who actually work, their capitalism does the exact opposite C'mon Jumbo, please get real. Organized labor is the ball and chain around the ankle of free enterprise. It's labor unions that have driven our manufacturing industries offshore to Taiwan and China or (or at a minimum to anti-union states like Tennessee and South Carolina). The combination of labor unions and their patron politicians (The Democrats) is lethal for free enterprise and economic success. On the other hand, Trade Unions have a proud heritage of standing up for the working man and woman, and preventing rip-off employers treating them like slaves. I wouldn't want to live in China, even if there were more jobs there, where I had no human rights or freedoms as an employee. There are more important things in life than profit. Your argument that organised labour is 'lethal' for free enterprise is demonstrable nonsense. The richest nations in the world are the ones which have a history of trade unionism. Sure, it's not all roses and silly strikes and the like are the price we have to pay for this. But I believe in dignity and freedom for all, and trade unions have definitely got a role to play in that.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 26, 2010 9:35:27 GMT
&no...its some unions taking things tooo far that is the problem just as unions were formed because some employers took things too far the labour force needs to have representation...as NOT ALL employers are sweetness and light with the good of their workers paramount.....if ALL employers were good employers there would be no need for unions and workers rights we too have great problems with the outsourcing of production to india..phillipenes etc ...this out sourcing is not always for higher proffits some times its so that goods on sale can be at competative prices the reality is SOME people are greedy and that applys as much to the worker as the employer and the share holder if they were not greedy we wouldnt need unions as ALL workers would be treated fairly in regard to working hours..pay etc dont put ALL the blame on the worker..anymore than ALL the blame on the employer and share holders a labourer is worthy of his hire as the good book says and there is more to life than proffit
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 26, 2010 10:21:04 GMT
>>>That's what das and the rest of the pro corporate lunatics aren't smart enough to comprehend. the simple, yet irrefutable FACT is that ALL business can operate without management, NO business can operate without labor. they pervert the capitalist idea into the exact opposite, and cheer the unfortunate fact that, instead of rewarding those who actually work, their capitalism does the exact opposite C'mon Jumbo, please get real. Organized labor is the ball and chain around the ankle of free enterprise. It's labor unions that have driven our manufacturing industries offshore to Taiwan and China or (or at a minimum to anti-union states like Tennessee and South Carolina). The combination of labor unions and their patron politicians (The Democrats) is lethal for free enterprise and economic success. don't be daft clown. the ONLY reason an industry goes offshore is greed, and nothing but. i do have to concede that there is one intelligent republican. pat buchanan has opposed nafta from the beginning. every other republican, and too many democrats, have abrogated their responsibility to control corporations, and allowed them to go to china, mexico, and wherever, where they have NO right to be. unions have absolutely nothing to do with it. you would do a lot better if you could be consistent lad. you need to make up your mind and go with one or the other. which time are you lying? you either don't want to hurt the poor and enrich the wealthy, or you do. EVERYTHING that you've posted says that you do.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 26, 2010 10:35:47 GMT
>>>That's what das and the rest of the pro corporate lunatics aren't smart enough to comprehend. the simple, yet irrefutable FACT is that ALL business can operate without management, NO business can operate without labor. they pervert the capitalist idea into the exact opposite, and cheer the unfortunate fact that, instead of rewarding those who actually work, their capitalism does the exact opposite C'mon Jumbo, please get real. Organized labor is the ball and chain around the ankle of free enterprise. It's labor unions that have driven our manufacturing industries offshore to Taiwan and China or (or at a minimum to anti-union states like Tennessee and South Carolina). The combination of labor unions and their patron politicians (The Democrats) is lethal for free enterprise and economic success. On the other hand, Trade Unions have a proud heritage of standing up for the working man and woman, and preventing rip-off employers treating them like slaves. I wouldn't want to live in China, even if there were more jobs there, where I had no human rights or freedoms as an employee. There are more important things in life than profit. Your argument that organised labour is 'lethal' for free enterprise is demonstrable nonsense. The richest nations in the world are the ones which have a history of trade unionism. Sure, it's not all roses and silly strikes and the like are the price we have to pay for this. But I believe in dignity and freedom for all, and trade unions have definitely got a role to play in that. you have to remember das' stated admiration of slave labor and sweatshops. his statement to the effect that he admires the coporate executive who has eight year old children working twelve hours days for pennies solely to buy his fifth villa and an extra yacht, pretty much says it all
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 26, 2010 10:42:44 GMT
&no...its some unions taking things tooo far that is the problem just as unions were formed because some employers took things too far the labour force needs to have representation...as NOT ALL employers are sweetness and light with the good of their workers paramount.....if ALL employers were good employers there would be no need for unions and workers rights we too have great problems with the outsourcing of production to india..phillipenes etc ...this out sourcing is not always for higher proffits some times its so that goods on sale can be at competative prices the reality is SOME people are greedy and that applys as much to the worker as the employer and the share holder if they were not greedy we wouldnt need unions as ALL workers would be treated fairly in regard to working hours..pay etc dont put ALL the blame on the worker..anymore than ALL the blame on the employer and share holders a labourer is worthy of his hire as the good book says and there is more to life than proffit out sourcing is not always for higher proffits some times its so that goods on sale can be at competative prices huh uh. while it would still be wrong, a modicum of a case could be made for it if that were so. it isn't though. while it is true that some products produced in third world countries are a bit cheaper, the cost to produce, cost to consumer ratio is NOT equivalent. if something costs ten dollars to produce here, and it is sold for twenty dollars, but costs two dollars to produce in china but sold for fifteen dollars, there is NO acceptable reason for it. it is nothing but greed, and there's no way around it
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 26, 2010 11:29:40 GMT
no point in making some thing if no one can aford to buy it jumbo.... and we have to be realistic about out sourcing[not some thing i agree with by the way.. i am very much against out sourcing]...just as i am about importing people who will acept lower wages which in turn reduces the wages and standards of employment and living of all of all in the long term] and i also think that out sourcing is a very false economy i was reading that here in the uk some firms have returned to the uk having tried overseas and found that long term it doesnt work..ie standards have slipped and so they lost custom and they have realised that to keep their customer base they need to be situated in the uk..that is good news however that has yet to drip through to the heads of british telecome and other firms who have spurned the uk in the cause of proffit
some thing which seems to have escaped the minds of our leaders is that people were not made to make the economy and bussines but that the economy and bussines should work in the interests of people not PROFFIT...ffs just how much proffit is enough for some just as governments should realise that nations are not their private and personal fifedoms to be run to their agendas..... people before proffit.....having said that workers also have a duty a fair days work for a fair days pay is not a bad maxim faults on both sides...but untill we can reach an agreement on WHAT is enough and what constitutes fair........we are stuffed
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Mar 26, 2010 11:45:29 GMT
In the broader picture, government remains big, clumsy inefficient, prone to corruption, etc., but it also retains many democratic checks and balances, including the ability of the populace to vote legislators, presidents, and parties in and out of office. Meanwhile the worst things that have happened in this country in the last 10 years have been either the result of irresponsible deregulation of "free markets" (Enron, the mortgage business, banks etc.) and things done by the government that weren't much subject to checks and balances, like the Iraq invasion, partial destruction of the bill of rights in the name of homeland security, violation of the Geneva conventions--basically all cases of the executive dept behaving dictatorially. There are ostensibly checks and balances in place to check these abuses, but they haven't been well exercised. One of my biggest disappointments with the Obama administration has been its failure to restore the bill of rights losses, right the violations of Geneva conventions...we'll see how things play out in Iraq.
Also, I am not in love with the new HCR bill. I would much rather have seen a single-payer universal insurance system instituted. It would be enormously more efficient and save a lot of money while keeping health care delivery private. And after 45 years of having such a system for people over 65 and some of the poor, it can hardly be said that the results have been negative for these people or for the health care industry. "Single payer" is the government program - already serves 50 or so million people who like it a lot. This HCR is nothing of the sort. It mostly resembles Mitt Romney's - that great socialist - program in Mass.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 26, 2010 14:37:53 GMT
Quote: Also, I am not in love with the new HCR bill. I would much rather have seen a single-payer universal insurance system instituted. It would be enormously more efficient and save a lot of money while keeping health care delivery private. And after 45 years of having such a system for people over 65 and some of the poor, it can hardly be said that the results have been negative for these people or for the health care industry. "Single payer" is the government program - already serves 50 or so million people who like it a lot. This HCR is nothing of the sort. It mostly resembles Mitt Romney's - that great socialist - program in Mass. Clemie, I'm sympathetic to that POV as are, probably, most Democrats and liberals. But, it's still nice to be able to step up out of the swamp of ooze we were occupying with the rabid right - mud wrestling, one might say. Exciting that the amendments passed without violence - once it was obvious that was going to happen, I guess Easter vacation won out over trying to make points with the loonie fringe and FOX. Things will be some better, plus the Student Aid Reform was passed along with HCR. Then, when the dust settles, and more and more people begin to see this was a good move, perhaps it can be improved. With all their bluster, I think Republicans are going to have trouble trying to base their 2010 campaigns on Heath Reform repeal.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Mar 26, 2010 14:48:11 GMT
In the broader picture, government remains big, clumsy inefficient, prone to corruption, etc., but it also retains many democratic checks and balances, including the ability of the populace to vote legislators, presidents, and parties in and out of office. Meanwhile the worst things that have happened in this country in the last 10 years have been either the result of irresponsible deregulation of "free markets" (Enron, the mortgage business, banks etc.) and things done by the government that weren't much subject to checks and balances, like the Iraq invasion, partial destruction of the bill of rights in the name of homeland security, violation of the Geneva conventions--basically all cases of the executive dept behaving dictatorially. There are ostensibly checks and balances in place to check these abuses, but they haven't been well exercised. One of my biggest disappointments with the Obama administration has been its failure to restore the bill of rights losses, right the violations of Geneva conventions...we'll see how things play out in Iraq. Also, I am not in love with the new HCR bill. I would much rather have seen a single-payer universal insurance system instituted. It would be enormously more efficient and save a lot of money while keeping health care delivery private. And after 45 years of having such a system for people over 65 and some of the poor, it can hardly be said that the results have been negative for these people or for the health care industry. "Single payer" is the government program - already serves 50 or so million people who like it a lot. This HCR is nothing of the sort. It mostly resembles Mitt Romney's - that great socialist - program in Mass. I wonder if you'll ever admit that BILL CLINTON (the ultimate sex liar-1 of my names for that ##***) had a BIG PART in deregulation when he GOT RID OF Glass-Spigel act (not sure I spelled that right) in the 1990's. That was also a DIRECT CAUSE of the evil that the bankers pulled on us with the 2008 bailout, derivatives scams, etc. How convenient you only mention the past 10 years...
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Mar 26, 2010 17:29:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 26, 2010 19:12:35 GMT
no point in making some thing if no one can aford to buy it jumbo.... and we have to be realistic about out sourcing[not some thing i agree with by the way.. i am very much against out sourcing]...just as i am about importing people who will acept lower wages which in turn reduces the wages and standards of employment and living of all of all in the long term] and i also think that out sourcing is a very false economy i was reading that here in the uk some firms have returned to the uk having tried overseas and found that long term it doesnt work..ie standards have slipped and so they lost custom and they have realised that to keep their customer base they need to be situated in the uk..that is good news however that has yet to drip through to the heads of british telecome and other firms who have spurned the uk in the cause of proffit some thing which seems to have escaped the minds of our leaders is that people were not made to make the economy and bussines but that the economy and bussines should work in the interests of people not PROFFIT...ffs just how much proffit is enough for some just as governments should realise that nations are not their private and personal fifedoms to be run to their agendas..... people before proffit.....having said that workers also have a duty a fair days work for a fair days pay is not a bad maxim faults on both sides...but untill we can reach an agreement on WHAT is enough and what constitutes fair........we are stuffed that is true, but it isn't the case. a good example is cars. when cars were made in the u.s., and auto workers got top dollar and benefits, new cars cost less than ten thousand dollars. now, the majority is done in china or mexico where the workers are paid a pittance, and cars cost twenty thousand dollars. the fair day's work for a fair day's pay should be the law of the land, and not just a good motto. the people that actually produce should be rewarded, rather than those who sit on their dead azz as nothing but a financial drain on a company ten percent profit on the actual cost of production is more than a fair profit. after all the administrative payments, if a corporation is two or three percent ahead, they need nothing more
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 26, 2010 19:13:46 GMT
In the broader picture, government remains big, clumsy inefficient, prone to corruption, etc., but it also retains many democratic checks and balances, including the ability of the populace to vote legislators, presidents, and parties in and out of office. Meanwhile the worst things that have happened in this country in the last 10 years have been either the result of irresponsible deregulation of "free markets" (Enron, the mortgage business, banks etc.) and things done by the government that weren't much subject to checks and balances, like the Iraq invasion, partial destruction of the bill of rights in the name of homeland security, violation of the Geneva conventions--basically all cases of the executive dept behaving dictatorially. There are ostensibly checks and balances in place to check these abuses, but they haven't been well exercised. One of my biggest disappointments with the Obama administration has been its failure to restore the bill of rights losses, right the violations of Geneva conventions...we'll see how things play out in Iraq. Also, I am not in love with the new HCR bill. I would much rather have seen a single-payer universal insurance system instituted. It would be enormously more efficient and save a lot of money while keeping health care delivery private. And after 45 years of having such a system for people over 65 and some of the poor, it can hardly be said that the results have been negative for these people or for the health care industry. "Single payer" is the government program - already serves 50 or so million people who like it a lot. This HCR is nothing of the sort. It mostly resembles Mitt Romney's - that great socialist - program in Mass. that's because single payer, ie the government plan, is the ONLY intelligent one
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 26, 2010 19:15:25 GMT
Quote: Also, I am not in love with the new HCR bill. I would much rather have seen a single-payer universal insurance system instituted. It would be enormously more efficient and save a lot of money while keeping health care delivery private. And after 45 years of having such a system for people over 65 and some of the poor, it can hardly be said that the results have been negative for these people or for the health care industry. "Single payer" is the government program - already serves 50 or so million people who like it a lot. This HCR is nothing of the sort. It mostly resembles Mitt Romney's - that great socialist - program in Mass. Clemie, I'm sympathetic to that POV as are, probably, most Democrats and liberals. But, it's still nice to be able to step up out of the swamp of ooze we were occupying with the rabid right - mud wrestling, one might say. Exciting that the amendments passed without violence - once it was obvious that was going to happen, I guess Easter vacation won out over trying to make points with the loonie fringe and FOX. Things will be some better, plus the Student Aid Reform was passed along with HCR. Then, when the dust settles, and more and more people begin to see this was a good move, perhaps it can be improved. With all their bluster, I think Republicans are going to have trouble trying to base their 2010 campaigns on Heath Reform repeal. since real americans don't support ANY part of the republican's obstructionism, that's a given
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 26, 2010 19:17:35 GMT
In the broader picture, government remains big, clumsy inefficient, prone to corruption, etc., but it also retains many democratic checks and balances, including the ability of the populace to vote legislators, presidents, and parties in and out of office. Meanwhile the worst things that have happened in this country in the last 10 years have been either the result of irresponsible deregulation of "free markets" (Enron, the mortgage business, banks etc.) and things done by the government that weren't much subject to checks and balances, like the Iraq invasion, partial destruction of the bill of rights in the name of homeland security, violation of the Geneva conventions--basically all cases of the executive dept behaving dictatorially. There are ostensibly checks and balances in place to check these abuses, but they haven't been well exercised. One of my biggest disappointments with the Obama administration has been its failure to restore the bill of rights losses, right the violations of Geneva conventions...we'll see how things play out in Iraq. Also, I am not in love with the new HCR bill. I would much rather have seen a single-payer universal insurance system instituted. It would be enormously more efficient and save a lot of money while keeping health care delivery private. And after 45 years of having such a system for people over 65 and some of the poor, it can hardly be said that the results have been negative for these people or for the health care industry. "Single payer" is the government program - already serves 50 or so million people who like it a lot. This HCR is nothing of the sort. It mostly resembles Mitt Romney's - that great socialist - program in Mass. I wonder if you'll ever admit that BILL CLINTON (the ultimate sex liar-1 of my names for that ##***) had a BIG PART in deregulation when he GOT RID OF Glass-Spigel act (not sure I spelled that right) in the 1990's. That was also a DIRECT CAUSE of the evil that the bankers pulled on us with the 2008 bailout, derivatives scams, etc. How convenient you only mention the past 10 years... reagan started the deregulation stupidity. clinton didn't have any right signing the garbage that the republicans passed while he was president, but he didn't initiate the lunacy
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Mar 26, 2010 22:39:02 GMT
You really HATE it when ANYONE brings up the EVIL ACTS of your Democratic Party "gods" don't you? Keep worshipping your Democratic Party Gods and ENJOY being spied on (your phone calls and e-mails read), ENJOY renewal of Patriot Act, ENJOY the lies from the current God president and keep telling yourself that the Democrats really ARE different! RIGHT! The latest "God" spewed his evil lies left and right about "change". RIGHT! He's doing the SAME EVILS as Dubya and you hate to hear about it. I don't appreciate being called names on here and it's going to be reported to staff. I'm going to bring up how the Democratic Party is really no different from Republican Party every chance I get. If you don't like it, too bad. It needs to be exposed. Enjoy all the evils from Dubya that your current God is keeping up! Keep willfully ignoring them, rationalizing them and excusing them. You speak about flame stuff and then call me names? I told Bushadmirer that he's in total denial about Dubya's evil and he doesn't accuse me of crap and doesn't call me names. At least he doesn't lash out with crap when he's confronted with stuff that needs to be exposed. If anyone on here finds bad stuff about the few politicians I admire, I'd hate it if you DIDN'T post to me about it! I'd rather know than not. And if people want to use sarcasm like I do that's fine with me! Isn't that better than using a bunch of crude swear words, personal attack words, etc.?
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Mar 26, 2010 22:57:49 GMT
I wonder if you'll ever admit that BILL CLINTON (the ultimate sex liar-1 of my names for that ##***) had a BIG PART in deregulation when he GOT RID OF Glass-Spigel act (not sure I spelled that right) in the 1990's. That was also a DIRECT CAUSE of the evil that the bankers pulled on us with the 2008 bailout, derivatives scams, etc. How convenient you only mention the past 10 years... reagan started the deregulation stupidity. clinton didn't have any right signing the garbage that the republicans passed while he was president, but he didn't initiate the lunacy Why didn't the SEX LIAR then NOT sign it into law? Was there a gun to his head? What a JOKE! He could have stopped it and you know it. He was NO better than Reagan with the deregulation thing. Rationalization is alive and well.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 27, 2010 0:53:47 GMT
Riotgrrl said, "Trade Unions have a proud heritage of standing up for the working man and woman, and preventing rip-off employers treating them like slaves. "
That's not my observation Riotgrrl. Our trade unions tend to be corrupt and self serving in the best case, mafia owned and controlled in the worst case (and I think the latter more common). Gullible union members elect rodents time after time. Read up on the American Teamsters union if you need more details. The rodents who own and operate the unions are out for themselves. They put up a false front suggesting that they care about the working man but it's just a facade. The world would be better off if labor unions were to be outlawed worldwide. They're a plague on our economies.
|
|
|