Trump predictions

[detbuch]

A start on a part of "the swamp":

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...cid=spartandhp

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I do think it is unreasonable for a private citizen to have to release work they were paid to do. Just as you shouldn't be expected to release the work you do for your employer, Hillary (or anyone in any admin) should have to release that same work (unless it was illegal in some way, etc.).

I can't remember past Pres. releasing transcripts and don't believe that was common like releasing your taxes is.

I don't think it's the same thing. My company owns the work I do for them. I don't think Goldman Sachs was "buying" the speech from Hillary, rather paying her to come and give the speech. Unless her speech had any proprietary details in it, which I can't see how it would.

[PaulS]

They could have been asking her view on global trends to use it their investment decision making. Why should a competitor of theirs have access to the info. they paid $ for?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

They could have been asking her view on global trends to use it their investment decision making. Why should a competitor of theirs have access to the info. they paid $ for?

Then that's not a speech, that's consulting work. Paul, if what you said were true, all she'd have to do is say "the speech itself is proprietary information to the clients who paid me", and that would be the end of it. She hasn't said that (as far as I know), which tells us, that the picture you painted, isn't even close to what happened.

[rphud]

Late to the party and it may have been posted already, but the one professor somewhere that predicted the Trump win a while back followed up with a prediction that he will be impeached to put Pence in the oval office full time. Now that's a prediction!

[Nebe]

Wouldn't surprise me.
Have I mentioned legalization of marijuana ? Kiss that goodbye.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Billionaire US President-elect Donald Trump has said he is not obliged to cut ties to his business empire when he takes office on 20 January.

His son-in-law Jared Kushner - a real estate heir who has no experience of diplomacy - could help forge peace between Israel and Palestinians (really and you all complained about the commuinty orignizer )


The US should not be a "nation-builder" in the world this I agree with.. but not sure his Cabinet are on the same page

And the right took a fit with Bill on a plane with the Attorney General . the Clinton foundation and donations from other Governments quid pro quo

But they remain silent with the suggestion he is unwilling to cutting ties with business with tie's or loans from other government..

And his administration will be going after Unions so much for working class America

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Billionaire US President-elect Donald Trump has said he is not obliged to cut ties to his business empire when he takes office on 20 January.

His son-in-law Jared Kushner - a real estate heir who has no experience of diplomacy - could help forge peace between Israel and Palestinians (really and you all complained about the commuinty orignizer )


The US should not be a "nation-builder" in the world this I agree with.. but not sure his Cabinet are on the same page

And the right took a fit with Bill on a plane with the Attorney General . the Clinton foundation and donations from other Governments quid pro quo

But they remain silent with the suggestion he is unwilling to cutting ties with business with tie's or loans from other government..

And his administration will be going after Unions so much for working class America

so you are saying you have a problem with people on the right holding(or not) Trump to the same standards(or lack of) that people have held the Clinton's(and others) to in the past?..........and before any of the things you listed have actually occurred...this is like "fake news"...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Billionaire US President-elect Donald Trump has said he is not obliged to cut ties to his business empire when he takes office on 20 January.

His son-in-law Jared Kushner - a real estate heir who has no experience of diplomacy - could help forge peace between Israel and Palestinians (really and you all complained about the commuinty orignizer )


The US should not be a "nation-builder" in the world this I agree with.. but not sure his Cabinet are on the same page

And the right took a fit with Bill on a plane with the Attorney General . the Clinton foundation and donations from other Governments quid pro quo

But they remain silent with the suggestion he is unwilling to cutting ties with business with tie's or loans from other government..

And his administration will be going after Unions so much for working class America

You are suggesting that what Trump MIGHT do in the future, is the moral equivalent of what the Clintons actually DID in the past?

I also think they should sell their share in that business, it doesn't look good. But he hasn't even had the chance to do anything improper yet.

Unions, especially public unions, need to go. Why is it, that when workers are given the right to choose whether or not they wish to join a union, they overwhelmingly vote "no"? And why are liberals opposed to letting workers choose whether or not they want to support an organization like a labor union? I thought liberals were pro-choice, I am pretty sure I heard that somewhere???

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

so you are saying you have a problem with people on the right holding(or not) Trump to the same standards(or lack of) that people have held the Clinton's(and others) to in the past?..........and before any of the things you listed have actually occurred...this is like "fake news"...

Do you need it to happen 1st for it to be an Issue by then its to late

With the Clinton foundation you knew who donated what and when the rest of the rights narrative was just that fake news

As of today know one knows who he he owes or who own's him

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You are suggesting that what Trump MIGHT do in the future, is the moral equivalent of what the Clintons actually DID in the past?

I also think they should sell their share in that business, it doesn't look good. But he hasn't even had the chance to do anything improper yet.

Unions, especially public unions, need to go. Why is it, that when workers are given the right to choose whether or not they wish to join a union, they overwhelmingly vote "no"? And why are liberals opposed to letting workers choose whether or not they want to support an organization like a labor union? I thought liberals were pro-choice, I am pretty sure I heard that somewhere???

As I said to Scott why wait until theres an issue where the push from the right for him to do the right thing their just remaining quite..

Sadly your wrong about people having a choice they vote overwhelmingly no ...

Yet only 11.3% of our total work force is Union in the United States and Republicans want to bring that number to ZERO Why is that?? thats a lot of effort to destroy the livelihood's of 11%

I see because you cant get what they have thru your Work place they (union workers) shouldn't have it in theirs

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

As I said to Scott why wait until theres an issue where the push from the right for him to do the right thing their just remaining quite..

Sadly your wrong about people having a choice they vote overwhelmingly no ...

Yet only 11.3% of our total work force is Union in the United States and Republicans want to bring that number to ZERO Why is that?? thats a lot of effort to destroy the livelihood's of 11%

I see because you cant get what they have thru your Work place they (union workers) shouldn't have it in theirs

"Sadly your wrong about people having a choice they vote overwhelmingly no "

Umm, no I'm not. That's why unions, and the democrats they own, are so adamantly opposed to 'right to work'.

"why wait until theres an issue "

So you're OK criticizing people in anticipation of them doing something wrong. Should we jail people ahead of time too, before the actually do anything?

"Yet only 11.3% of our total work force is Union in the United States and Republicans want to bring that number to ZERO Why is that?? thats a lot of effort to destroy the livelihood's of 11%"

If you ever bothered to listen to anyone, you'd know the answers. In the public sector, labor unions are bankrupting towns and states.

WTF is your evidence that getting rid of the union, will "destroy the livelihood" of the 11%? How do the other 89% manage to survive? If unions really added value to their members, people wouldn't overwhelmingly opt out when given the choice. But that's what they do in 'right to work' situations.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Sadly your wrong about people having a choice they vote overwhelmingly no "

Umm, no I'm not. That's why unions, and the democrats they own, are so adamantly opposed to 'right to work'.

"why wait until theres an issue "

So you're OK criticizing people in anticipation of them doing something wrong. Should we jail people ahead of time too, before the actually do anything?

"Yet only 11.3% of our total work force is Union in the United States and Republicans want to bring that number to ZERO Why is that?? thats a lot of effort to destroy the livelihood's of 11%"

If you ever bothered to listen to anyone, you'd know the answers. In the public sector, labor unions are bankrupting towns and states.

WTF is your evidence that getting rid of the union, will "destroy the livelihood" of the 11%? How do the other 89% manage to survive? If unions really added value to their members, people wouldn't overwhelmingly opt out when given the choice. But that's what they do in 'right to work' situations.

work to rule states they want the benefits collective bargaining brings but dont want to pay for it (free stuffers ) public sector, labor unions are bankrupting towns and states. False again but again another example of residents want services yet dont want to pay for them ..

What should a police office make in your town or state ? or firefighter or teacher ?? correctional officer... I bet you would only be happy if it was less than what you make .. Big business just went after overtime over 40 hrs for employees making less than 50k a year I get it make America great again but over time over time 40hrs we dont want America to be that great

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Do you need it to happen 1st for it to be an Issue by then its to late ??

With the Clinton foundation you knew who donated what and when the rest of the rights narrative was just that fake news

As of today know one knows who he he owes or who own's him

I admit that it's quite a change having an incoming president who actually had job and career outside government.... I don't think the Foundation disclosure agreement came about or into affect till she actually became SOS...and was nothing more than something they were excited to undermine and work around in typical Clinton fashion

you should prepare now for the fact that everything Trump says and does for the next 4-8 years is going to make you crazy

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

work to rule states they want the benefits collective bargaining brings but dont want to pay for it (free stuffers ) public sector, labor unions are bankrupting towns and states. False again but again another example of residents want services yet dont want to pay for them ..

What should a police office make in your town or state ? or firefighter or teacher ?? correctional officer... I bet you would only be happy if it was less than what you make .. Big business just went after overtime over 40 hrs for employees making less than 50k a year I get it make America great again but over time over time 40hrs we dont want America to be that great

What a police officer SHOULD make, in a perfect world, would be a lot. Enough to be very comfortable. Same with teachers and firefighters. But this is the real world, and in this world, they should make what we can reasonably afford to pay them. But they are currently making more than most places can afford, especially when you include benefits. Cops retiring at age 45 with 60,000 a year pensions? Teachers who make 100k, and can retire at age 59 with 75j a year pensions? That is insane, and it's why CT is going bankrupt. Other states pay their public servants more modestly, yet they get people to fill those jobs.

As to the labor unions. They give big money to democrats, who then are the ones who decide how much money to give to the unisons they are beholden to. It's a ridiculous conflict of interest, no one is representing the taxpayer in those discussions. And the results speak for themselves.

May I ask what state you live in? Do you live somewhere where union benefit debt isn't a major issue?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

If a cop,fireman or teacher were a bad job,why is it they are so coveted? Teaching has got to be one of the most stress free jobs imaginable. Fire,police and corrections are for the most part jobs which require zero education and the compensation is generous to say the least.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Duke41]

I predict he will be the next Reagan. The country is going to rise together.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

If a cop,fireman or teacher were a bad job,why is it they are so coveted? Teaching has got to be one of the most stress free jobs imaginable. Fire,police and corrections are for the most part jobs which require zero education and the compensation is generous to say the least.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agree with everything except I think teaching is stressful and exhausting. But as you say, the competition for those jobs is fierce, because people want the financial security and especially the benefits, which in most left leaning states, are insane. CT will declare insolvency within ten years, it's not mathematically possible to pay for the benefits the unions got from the democrats they bought
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

If a cop,fireman or teacher were a bad job,why is it they are so coveted? Teaching has got to be one of the most stress free jobs imaginable. Fire,police and corrections are for the most part jobs which require zero education and the compensation is generous to say the least.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not sure what education has to do with pay but clearly you have not done your research on those professions and the degree many officer carry ..

Cops retiring at age 45 with 60,000 a year pensions? Teachers who make 100k, and can retire at age 59 with 75j a year pensions?

not sure were you got this from but thats not the case in MA sure you and do 20 \50% but less then 1% of people take that and Teachers have to work until like 65 to get close to 50%

you guys need real sources not just what you heard ..

I have 29 years at 50 if i left today i would get around 55% if i leave a 35 years at 55 I get 80% .. degree or no degree want my benefits my pay then do my job ... that goes for every profession...

funny when people complains about the money big business CEO make
Their envious and dont value success... but when a regular guy is doing better Via collective bargaining or the strength of their Union it becomes Vile and unfair ... thats my issue with union haters uniformed and disgruntle

[Sea Dangles]

I am not too sure why I was quoted before that statement. I do know there is a lot of incentive for police to get higher education.$$$$

As far as real sources....I spent years as a public employee in my home town which qualifies me as knowledgable enough to stand by my comments. There are few risks and many rewards for public employees. How much education is required at your job,or do you just have to show up?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

funny when people complains about the money big business CEO make
Their envious and dont value success... but when a regular guy is doing better Via collective bargaining or the strength of their Union it becomes Vile and unfair ... thats my issue with union haters uniformed and disgruntle

There are several problems in discussing labor unions and wages in the total market. An obvious one is comparing big business salaries with union wages. Both are extreme minorities in the marketplace. CEOs especially so. That is also the proverbial apples and oranges.

Probably more relevant to compare big business CEOs with small business managers or owners. And to compare union wages to their actual counterpart non-union wages of the so-called "working class."

And what's most material, at this time, is the comparison between public sector and private sector workers and unions.

As far as private sector unions go, in my opinion, they are perfectly fine if they are in-house. That is if a union exists solely within a given company rather than being a national or international organization.

Public sector unions are essentially different than private sector unions. First, and most glaring, the public sector is dependent on the private sector and is meant to be its servant not its master. But when public sector unions "bargain" they are doing so against the private sector without the private sector actually being at the table. The private sector pays the wages but doesn't have a bargaining say. Bargaining in-house in public sector is incestuous. It is public workers bargaining with themselves against the private sector.

I know you like the "big picture." In that picture, on the whole, the "working class" of the public sector does much better in total wage and benefit packages than their counterpart in the private sector. It seems to me that the picture is out of whack. At best, shouldn't there be equity rather than disparity? And if there is a disparity, shouldn't private sector wages, which pay for the public sector's, be higher?

And the perniciousness of in-house public "collective bargaining" with itself leads, even more than in the private sector, to the predictable unsustainable situations in which government at all levels cannot be afforded. The most glaring problem, similar to big business compensation predicaments, are the lifelong pension and benefits which become larger than what is being paid to those who are still working.

When the Progressive founder of forced "collective bargaining," FDR, along with the major union leaders at that time, said that government employees must not be unionized, that should tell you something. They knew what would happen. And it has.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I am not too sure why I was quoted before that statement. I do know there is a lot of incentive for police to get higher education.$$$$

As far as real sources....I spent years as a public employee in my home town which qualifies me as knowledgable enough to stand by my comments. There are few risks and many rewards for public employees. How much education is required at your job,or do you just have to show up?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess my point is education alone is not indicator of success in any field or Job. nor should it produce a certain wage I know a lot of 4 year degree educated people who are horrible correctional officers and highshcool grad's who are the best .. Granted we aren't building Rockets. But in todays Job market even in corrections a GED wont get you in and a High school diploma with out Military service isn't much help. There are a lot of risks for public safety employee i am sure i dont need to list them .. and many rewards as well

Again I dont understand the endless assault on union working Americans who are 11% of the work force from Conservatives

you want America great again Trump supporters want the good times of the 50's and 60's places need to be unionized

The percentage of workers belonging to a union (or "density") in the United States peaked in 1954 at almost 35%

now we are at 11% and the middle class is weak

[Sea Dangles]

I don't blame you for supporting unions as they support you and the other 11%. I also am sure you understand it can create a bit of a fiscal issue for some of the municipalities that are burdened with the generosity the employees have earned. Six weeks vacation with 14 paid holidays plus a sick day per month and a couple personal days,throw in a clothing allowance,a three hour minimum callback for OT,maternity leave and around 75k per year and you have the guys who fill pot holes in my town.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I don't blame you for supporting unions as they support you and the other 11%. I also am sure you understand it can create a bit of a fiscal issue for some of the municipalities that are burdened with the generosity the employees have earned. Six weeks vacation with 14 paid holidays plus a sick day per month and a couple personal days,throw in a clothing allowance,a three hour minimum callback for OT,maternity leave and around 75k per year and you have the guys who fill pot holes in my town.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree.. But sadly those benefits were once only afforded to the private sector.. public unions fought to bring their members in line with the private sector who were giving it to their employees at that time.. but private companys decided to change or just went belly up leaving employees with nothing or just stopped providing good benefits once that happened we (union ) benefits started getting undo scrutiny from businesses conservatives

With U.S. private sector union membership sharply reduced, the right is training fire on public sector unions, seen as critical rivals.

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.o...-sector-unions

Is your example of 7 weeks and 75 k a new hire ? if so thats crazy.. or is that the guy who's been there 25 or 30 years? then not so crazy

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

not sure what education has to do with pay but clearly you have not done your research on those professions and the degree many officer carry ..

Cops retiring at age 45 with 60,000 a year pensions? Teachers who make 100k, and can retire at age 59 with 75j a year pensions?

not sure were you got this from but thats not the case in MA sure you and do 20 \50% but less then 1% of people take that and Teachers have to work until like 65 to get close to 50%

you guys need real sources not just what you heard ..

I have 29 years at 50 if i left today i would get around 55% if i leave a 35 years at 55 I get 80% .. degree or no degree want my benefits my pay then do my job ... that goes for every profession...

funny when people complains about the money big business CEO make
Their envious and dont value success... but when a regular guy is doing better Via collective bargaining or the strength of their Union it becomes Vile and unfair ... thats my issue with union haters uniformed and disgruntle

"Cops retiring at age 45 with 60,000 a year pensions? Teachers who make 100k, and can retire at age 59 with 75j a year pensions?

not sure were you got this from but thats not the case in MA "

It is very much the case here in CT.

"that goes for every profession... "

Not even close. In most professions which are in the private sector, we must convince customers to voluntarily give us money. In the case of public labor unions, you can take my money by force. HUGE difference. I cannot choose to not pay my taxes.

"funny when people complains about the money big business CEO make '

Read my previous comment. In the private sector, CEOs do not take one cent from any customer, unless that customer freely chooses to give it to them.

"thats my issue with union haters uniformed and disgruntle"

I am very informed. But yes I am disgruntled, because here in CT the public unions are killing the state. Here in CT, the unfunded liability to public labor unions for pensions and healthcare, is $19,000 for each of the 3 million people living in my state. That is insane, and can never be funded, not in a million years.

In the private sector, I put almost 13% of my salary into social security (my contribution + employer contribution) and if I am lucky, I will start collecting 35k a year at age 67. Teachers in this state put 5% of their salary towards their pension, which pays them 75% of the average of their highest 3 years salary (can easily be 75k a year) starting at age 59.

You tell me that makes sense and is fair.

How is this for a real source...

http://articles.courant.com/2014-03-...es-connecticut

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=detbuch;1112790
Public sector unions are essentially different than private sector unions. First, and most glaring, the public sector is dependent on the private sector and is meant to be its servant not its master. But when public sector unions "bargain" they are doing so against the private sector without the private sector actually being at the table. The private sector pays the wages but doesn't have a bargaining say. Bargaining in-house in public sector is incestuous. It is public workers bargaining with themselves against the private sector. .[/QUOTE]

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

Great post, and that's the problem. Too many ticks gorging on the private sector dog, and when the parasite kills the host, that's all folks. Here in CT, we fill file for insolvency in 7-10 years, because those benefits can never, ever be paid for.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I agree.. But sadly those benefits were once only afforded to the private sector..

That's not true. Public employees had pensions and health insurance, etc. before they became unionized. Even better, they had far more job security than private sector employees. And many, if not most, of the private sector employees at the time did not have company paid benefit packages.

public unions fought to bring their members in line with the private sector who were giving it to their employees at that time..

No, they fought to bring their members in line with the unionized private sector, not with the average of private sector compensation. And because of their support of and affiliation with the leftist political class, they not only maintained their far superior job security than even private sector union employees, but were then able over time to get even better benefit and wage packages. This was even more so in Democrat municipalities which had a symbiotic relationship with public workers and their unions. Their so-called collective bargaining was, essentially and politically, with themselves. So, because political power was more important than fiscal reality, they were able to get compensation which their communities were not able realistically to sustain. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the great Democrat hero who was responsible for "collective bargaining" in the first place, realized the danger of public sector unions and insisted that public employees must not be unionized.

but private companys decided to change or just went belly up leaving employees with nothing or just stopped providing good benefits

Exactly . . . the private sector is not secure. And because of the necessity for the private sector to maintain at least the semblance of fiscal responsibility, it has to adjust its workforce either in number or in compensation.

Government doesn't just go "belly up." It persists and its employees stay on and it takes a massive crisis to cut back on their compensation.

once that happened we (union ) benefits started getting undo scrutiny from businesses conservatives

No, the scrutiny is not undo. The public sector depends on the private sector. The public sector, for the most part, does not produce wealth or goods. It is basically a service sector which is supposed to serve the private sector (the public at large). The private sector pays the public sector to do so. When public employees demand compensation which is unreasonable compared to average private sector compensation, and when they get compensation packages which are unsustainable without draining the resources of the public at large, it is not undo to scrutinize that compensation.

With U.S. private sector union membership sharply reduced, the right is training fire on public sector unions, seen as critical rivals.

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.o...-sector-unions

There should not be a rivalry between public unions and the public at large. If the private sector wealth waxes and wanes, so should that of the public sector that serves it. When it reaches the stage of rivalry, something other than compensation squabbles is going on. In my opinion, that something is politics.

The battle (rivalry) is not between Public unions and the "right," it is between socialistic form of government and free market form. Your article demonstrates that. That is the proper argument we should be having.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There should not be a rivalry between public unions and the public at large. If the private sector wealth waxes and wanes, so should that of the public sector that serves it. When it reaches the stage of rivalry, something other than compensation squabbles is going on. In my opinion, that something is politics.

The battle (rivalry) is not between Public unions and the "right," it is between socialistic form of government and free market form. Your article demonstrates that. That is the proper argument we should be having.

the story clearly outlines how the right has disrupted private unions and now are after public one because they vote Dem

there is no grand plan because between socialistic form of government and free market form. as you suggest


no the battle is between the haves and the have nots .. no one cared about public sector unions until private companys put the screws to the private sector ... yes there is little risk for a public worker when it comes to job security.. but the right thinks you can privatize all area of Government and thats their Goal.. there is no private police or fire compete with there never has ..

Many city and town legacy cost have become un funded mostly do to lack of Tax revenue for who else but big business in my town alone where taking a hit from 2 shut down coal electric plants who where taxed on output other places give generous tax breaks to companys who promise jobs then bail after the tax incentive expires..

But is much easier to attack the teacher or Cop or fireman then the real cause ... But lets make America Great again Counting on the company's to come back to the states, give the a big tax break and be thankful for more min wage jobs .. all this from the companys who screwed us in the 1st place

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

the story clearly outlines how the right has disrupted private unions

Economics has "disrupted" private unions. Private unions "disrupted" the economic conditions of private companies.

and now are after public one because they vote Dem
there is no grand plan because between socialistic form of government and free market form. as you suggest

Your article talks about "new battle grounds and initiatives", and about "A high stakes battle." It says "Prominent in many states since the 1970s, public sector unions have delivered a one-two political punch – helping to elect liberal Democrats to state and local offices and then pushing those officeholders to expand public services like health care and education. Even at their heyday, most private sector unions struggled to have much impact in state politics, so by undercutting unionized public employees conservatives can weaken their most powerful adversary, clearing the way for legislatures and governors to achieve right-wing priorities such as tax cuts, sharp reductions in social spending, and the elimination of regulations."

It ends with "So far, however, progressives have not had much success at defending public sector unions – in large part because, since 2010 and 2014, Democrats find themselves holding historically low numbers of seats in state legislatures where rights for public unions are decided. Liberals tend to focus on national politics and campaigns for the presidency, but clearly state governments are equally important arenas – above all for fights over public employee unions that are likely to influence the future balance of power between liberals and conservatives in American politics overall."

Your article is clearly pushing for a new plan, "grand" or not, of having public unions be more active in turning state legislatures from "conservative" to "progressive." "Conservative" is code for free market capitalism and "progressive" or "liberal" are now clearly labels for progressive style government which is a form of socialism which ultimately trends toward total fascism if not total socialism.

Your article is clearly about the nexus between politics and unions. And it explicitly says that unions support, and require, progressive government. It clearly lays out the battle between conservative government and progressive government. That's the battle that must be won if public unions are to thrive.

So your article does propose a battle plan which elevates the struggle between two forms of government--a free market form and a socialistic form. And public unions are a byproduct of that struggle. And they depend on the socialist form to survive.

no the battle is between the haves and the have nots .. no one cared about public sector unions until private companys put the screws to the private sector ...

The battle between the haves and the have nots is one of those union mantras that is not quite accurate. Modern battles between unions in the private sector is between the wealthy "haves" usually big companies, and their employees who are usually not wealthy but are well-off "haves." Public sector unions, the not wealthy but still well-off haves, battle against their public-at-large tax cash cow private citizens who overall on average are often not as well-off.

Oh . . . and yes, some, including FDR, your Democrat (Progressive) hero and creator of forced "collective bargaining" did care about public unions right at the beginning of it all and well before private companies supposedly, as you put it, "put the screws to the private sector." FDR and prominent labor leaders at the time such as Samuel Gompers said that there must not be public unions--for the same reasons that I have mentioned. They knew the pernicious problems public unions would create.

yes there is little risk for a public worker when it comes to job security..

Absolutely correct. A big plus over what many private workers (you know--the ones who pay for the public workers security) face.

but the right thinks you can privatize all area of Government and thats their Goal.. there is no private police or fire compete with there never has ..

I haven't heard about privatizing ALL areas of government, but some areas could actually better serve the public at less cost. Detroit (the administration is not "conservative" but very "progressive") has contracted with a private trash and garbage pickup company in order to divest itself of some of the legacy costs that helped bankrupt it. And the service is actually better and more reliable. And the company took on most of the drivers that had worked for the city.

Many city and town legacy cost have become un funded mostly do to lack of Tax revenue for who else but big business in my town alone where taking a hit from 2 shut down coal electric plants who where taxed on output other places give generous tax breaks to companys who promise jobs then bail after the tax incentive expires..

I may be wrong, but don't the employees who work for those companies pay taxes on their wages. And don't they spend money and buy homes and pay property taxes and gas taxes and fuel the economy of other local retail businesses all of which boosts the overall tax revenue of the community? Why on earth would you expire tax incentives when they help infuse economic blood into your system. And, basically, the dirty little secret is that companies don't pay as much in taxes as it appears. They mostly pass the tax burden back on to consumers. So another bonus of tax incentives is that it saves the public some money when they buy the products.

But is much easier to attack the teacher or Cop or fireman then the real cause ... But lets make America Great again Counting on the company's to come back to the states, give the a big tax break and be thankful for more min wage jobs .. all this from the companys who screwed us in the 1st place

Actually, the companies brought you an economic base from which you could better yourself--in the first place. What happens in the second, third, or whatever place after that is not as simplistic as you and Michael Moore make it out to be.

It sounds as if you're not in favor of having the companies coming back to the states unless the unions and the government can impose on them the things that chased them out--in the first place (or was that the second, or third, place?). And if you don't have the companies that brought enough wealth to your community, in the first place, to pay for those teachers and police and fire fighters, who is "attacking" those folks by not providing a tax break which keeps the companies in town?

Right now, without those treacherous companies, some places are left only with those minimum wage jobs that you complain about. Many blame a great deal of that on our benevolent illegal alien population. But Trump is a "racist" for trying to remove that element. Of course, those treacherous companies are said to want the illegals because they can pay them less. Can you blame them for wanting to reduce their costs? I hear a lot of big businesses, and Wall Street, you know, those dastardly money grubbers who devastate the country, are afraid of trump. Hmmph. Probably because they don't like racists.

You do realize that the so-called "middle class" is a by-product of capitalism? Unions did not create the middle class. They benefited from working for wealthy companies which paid them well--much more than they would have gotten otherwise--even before they were unionized.

That in socialism there is no middle class--just the ruling elite over all the rest? In equalitarian societies everybody is equal, there is no class, except for the head honchos, they are always more equal than the rest.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

the story clearly outlines how the right has disrupted private unions and now are after public one because they vote Dem

there is no grand plan because between socialistic form of government and free market form. as you suggest


no the battle is between the haves and the have nots .. no one cared about public sector unions until private companys put the screws to the private sector ... yes there is little risk for a public worker when it comes to job security.. but the right thinks you can privatize all area of Government and thats their Goal.. there is no private police or fire compete with there never has ..

Many city and town legacy cost have become un funded mostly do to lack of Tax revenue for who else but big business in my town alone where taking a hit from 2 shut down coal electric plants who where taxed on output other places give generous tax breaks to companys who promise jobs then bail after the tax incentive expires..

But is much easier to attack the teacher or Cop or fireman then the real cause ... But lets make America Great again Counting on the company's to come back to the states, give the a big tax break and be thankful for more min wage jobs .. all this from the companys who screwed us in the 1st place

"the right has disrupted private unions and now are after public one because they vote Dem"

I am critical of public labor unions NOT because they vote democrat, but because they are putting immense financial strain on public resources, and because they demand insane, INSANE benefits that were done away with, for good reason, in the private sector long ago.

"the battle is between the haves and the have nots "

I want my state to avoid bankruptcy. That means paying our public servants what we can reasonably afford to pay them. You can twist that into saying I only care about the rich, but my brother and sister-in-law are public schoolteachers here in CT, and they pull in over 100 large EACH, and they have immense pensions waiting for them. They are now "the haves". We can't afford it, we just can't.

"Many city and town legacy cost have become un funded mostly do to lack of Tax revenue"

CT is not suffering from a lack of tax revenue. It suffers from stupid spending. The #1 item on the list of stupid spending, is union benefits. Ct tax revenue is sky high. But we spend more. It doesn't matter what your revenue levels are, you need to spend less than hat you have. Right? If your state has less tax revenue, it needs to cut spending. Is that controversial? When a household has less income, it needs to cut spending. Same with a town or state.

"But is much easier to attack the teacher or Cop or fireman then the real cause ..."

Remind me again, what's the "real cause"? I can say to you, it's much easier to ignore the real issue, and attack republicans as hating teachers and cops. I love teachers and cops. But we can no longer afford to overpay them. We need to reign in those benefits before too many Baby Boomers are retired.