Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

JPhillips 04-27-2012 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMax58 (Post 2647621)
I don't think I'd disagree with him being out of touch but do you think his only reason for running (and spending his own money doing so) is so that he can enact policy that will enable him to make a lot more money in 4-8 years from now?


I think he's running because he's egotistical, as are all presidential candidates, and because he sees a Mormon in the White House as a pivotal moment in the history of his religion. I think he's willing to take whatever policy positions he needs to so as to get the job.

panerd 04-27-2012 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swaggs (Post 2648420)
Dola...

I feel like I need someone like Nate Silver to explain what Paul's plan is here. :)


I think the Paul campaign is well aware that they won't win the Republican nomination but his supporters are tired of the "small government" Republican party policing the world and trying to run peoples personal lives. I think the goal is to try to influence the party's platform, maybe shore up a cabinet spot or primetime convention speaking slots, and send a warning that he could easily go third party and hurt Romney much worse than Obama. (Though I agree with your earlier post that a lot of anti-war/anti-police state liberals aren't very impressed with Obama's first term either)

Like JPhillips said the Republican party treats him like a red-headed step child and will do anything possible to bend the rules so he can't use the delegate approach but I really do think Paul has a following that could "tea party" the election to Obama. And given the two choices at least a lame duck Obama might actually try to scale down the endless wars and police state here in America where Romney will just make it worse. (I see no difference ecomonically between the two candidates)

panerd 04-27-2012 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2648434)
I think he's running because he's egotistical, as are all presidential candidates, and because he sees a Mormon in the White House as a pivotal moment in the history of his religion. I think he's willing to take whatever policy positions he needs to so as to get the job.


No doubt. Trying to accomplish what his father could not.

JPhillips 04-27-2012 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2648439)
I think the Paul campaign is well aware that they won't win the Republican nomination but his supporters are tired of the "small government" Republican party policing the world and trying to run peoples personal lives. I think the goal is to try to influence the party's platform, maybe shore up a cabinet spot or primetime convention speaking slots, and send a warning that he could easily go third party and hurt Romney much worse than Obama. (Though I agree with your earlier post that a lot of anti-war/anti-police state liberals aren't very impressed with Obama's first term either)

Like JPhillips said the Republican party treats him like a red-headed step child and will do anything possible to bend the rules so he can't use the delegate approach but I really do think Paul has a following that could "tea party" the election to Obama. And given the two choices at least a lame duck Obama might actually try to scale down the endless wars and police state here in America where Romney will just make it worse. (I see no difference ecomonically between the two candidates)


I see the opposite. I don't think there's a ton of difference foreign policy wise, with the great exception of a possible Iran war, but the difference between a negotiated budget and the Ryan plan is huge.

panerd 04-27-2012 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2648445)
I see the opposite. I don't think there's a ton of difference foreign policy wise, with the great exception of a possible Iran war, but the difference between a negotiated budget and the Ryan plan is huge.


The great exception being the Iran war might be the difference between Middle East war and possible WWIII with China and Russia? I really think Obama might do something if re-elected about the wars but maybe they will be so set on Hilary '16 that they will be just as bad as Romney would be.

As far as the Ryan budget goes... to me its all rhetoric. So they supposedly were about to shut the government down over the debt ceiling last year and where are we now? Same out of control spending/pointless laws from both parties.

EDIT: But given the choice of a Republican house battling Obama or Romney with a Repubican house I will gladly take an Obama election win.

Edward64 04-28-2012 07:00 AM

This is an interesting deilemma (and test) for Obama. Wonder how this will play out.

Escaped Chinese activist in U.S. embassy, friend says - CNN.com
Quote:

A prominent human rights activist, whose 18-month house arrest in eastern China and dramatic escape attracted worldwide attention, is in the U.S. embassy in Beijing, a close friend said Saturday.

"When Chen Guangcheng first fled to Beijing, we had to keep moving him from place to place to ensure his safety -- and we agreed the U.S. embassy is the only absolutely secure location in town," said Hu Jia, a fellow activist and one of the few people who've seen him since he arrived in the capital.

"I understand he's now in a 100% safe place and that place is the U.S. embassy."

A U.S. embassy spokesman declined to answer questions about him and Chinese authorities have not commented.

Edward64 04-28-2012 07:49 AM

Nice to ratchet up our presence there and seeing cooperation from our allies.

US deploys F-22s to base near Iran | Fox News
Quote:

The U.S. military has deployed several F-22s, the nation's most advanced fighter jets, to an allied base less than 200 miles from Iran.

The Air Force strongly denies this deployment is meant as a show of force against Iran or that it is in some way related to a potential strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Rather, it says this is all part of a routine deployment and "security cooperation with regional partners."

The Air Force won't say how many jets were sent or exactly where they are stationed, but privately, U.S. officials have told Fox News the jets are in hangars at the United Arab Emirates' Al Dafra Air Base, a fact first reported by Aviation Week.

Edward64 05-13-2012 06:28 AM

How it came out was awkward and not sure if Obama really would have publically stated it without the Biden incident but glad its out and there is a clear distinction on this matter between Romney and Obama ... how times have changed.

Poll: Majority approves of Obama’s marriage decision – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
Quote:

When President Barack Obama made his first public endorsement of same-sex marriage Wednesday, the political implications were murky – while it clearly helped the president with his liberal base, it was unclear whether moderate supporters and African-Americans would respond positively.

On Friday, the first poll taken after his ABC News interview showed 51% of Americans approved of the decision, compared to 45% who disapproved. The results from the Gallup survey, which was taken May 10, closely mirror recent polling of Americans on the issue of marriage equality.

In a Gallup survey taken May 3-6, 50% of respondents said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized as legal, compared to 48% who said they should not.

Edward64 05-20-2012 04:36 PM

Iraq is no longer in the news and its all Afghanistan now. I like how he is committed to winding down the war but frankly, am not sure its the right way. Like Bush, Obama's legacy will be written around 2 wars, war on terror, OBL and the great recession. It'll be interesting to read the history books in 20 years.

Obama predicts 'hard days ahead' in Afghanistan at NATO summit opening | Fox News
Quote:

The NATO alliance that has fought for a decade in Afghanistan is helping that nation shift toward stability and peace, but there will be "hard days ahead," President Obama said Sunday as alliance leaders insisted the fighting coalition will remain effective despite France's plans to yank combat troops out early.
:
:
The end of the war is in sight, Obama said following a lengthy discussion with Afghan President Hamid Karzai on the sidelines of the NATO summit. The military alliance is pledged to remain in Afghanistan into 2014, but will seal plans Sunday and Monday to shift foreign forces off the front lines a year faster than once planned

Afghan forces will take the lead throughout the nation next year, instead of in 2014, despite uneven performance under U.S. and other outside tutelage so far. The shift is in large part a response to plummeting public support for the war in Europe and the United States, contributors of most of the 130,000 foreign troops now fighting the Taliban-led insurgency. A majority of Americans now say the war is unwinnable or not worth continuing.
:
:
Karzai has said repeatedly he will step down from power when his term ends in 2014, opening the way for new elections. NATO's scheduled end of the war was built around those plans, with foreign forces staying until the 2014 election but exiting the country by 2015.
:
:
Past Afghan elections were riddled with irregularities, and the U.S. applied heavy pressure to Karzai to schedule a second round of voting during the last presidential contest in 2009. The runoff was never held because Karzai's challenger pulled out, protesting what he said was an impossible level of corruption.

The election chapter opened a rift between the U.S. and Karzai, who suspected that the Obama administration wanted to replace him.

The Obama administration has mostly repaired its relationship with Karzai, but mistrust remains on both sides.

The U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomacy, said before the meeting that Obama and Karzai also were to discuss prospects for a political settlement or peace pact between Karzai's government and the Taliban-led insurgency. The Taliban pulled out of U.S.-led talks in March, but separate talks among Afghan and other contacts continue, the U.S. official said.


larrymcg421 06-05-2012 12:26 PM

9th Circuit denies en banc request in Prop 8 case. SCOTUS here we come! Or, more accurately, Anthony Kennedy here we come.

Ninth Circuit Declines to Rehear Prop 8 Case | Backstory Blog | Human Rights Campaign

JediKooter 06-05-2012 12:34 PM

Anyone in Vegas throwing down odds on if the Supreme Court will decide to hear it or not?

ISiddiqui 06-05-2012 12:48 PM

There is a DOMA case and Prop 8 case both coming up to SCOTUS... my, won't this be an interesting upcoming term.

lungs 06-05-2012 12:55 PM

If things hold up as they should, Scott Walker will survive the recall challenge. This will be a black eye for the Democrats IMO. They needed a better challenger. Democrats haven't groomed any new blood in Wisconsin and the old Farmer (Rural)-Labor coalition is no longer.

There are four Republican senators up for recall, so if they can get one of those seats, that'll give them a majority at least. As it stands right now, a RINO (I use the term endearingly) holds the power in the Senate.

Young Drachma 06-05-2012 07:54 PM

Turnout in Wisconsin is reportedly extremely high. Despite the spending, that doesn't bode well for Walker and the GOP. We'll see what the exit polling looks like when polls close in a few minutes.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/e...CTION=POLITICS

mckerney 06-05-2012 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud (Post 2666461)
Turnout in Wisconsin is reportedly extremely high. Despite the spending, that doesn't bode well for Walker and the GOP. We'll see what the exit polling looks like when polls close in a few minutes.

News from The Associated Press


Big turnout in Madison is a good sign.

Amy at WTDY ‏@AmyBarrilleaux

Madison City Clerk tells me turnout is on pace to hit 119% in Madison, adding "That would be unprecedented."

JonInMiddleGA 06-05-2012 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud (Post 2666461)
We'll see what the exit polling looks like when polls close in a few minutes.


A virtual dead heat across the board.

Those who went out on Tuesday to cast ballots were nearly evenly divided along party affiliation, the exit polls showed, with 35% of those voting being Democrats, 33% Republicans, and 32% independent voters.

Neither party had an edge among voter's favorability: Republicans and Democrats alike were seen as unfavorable to 50% of those who cast ballots on Tuesday, and 47% saw each party as favorable.

The electorate was also divided along their opinions of the collective bargaining limitations, with 48% disapproving and 50% approving.


Exit polls show close Wisconsin recall race – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Among the more interesting numbers I've seen is that hardly anyone made up their minds recently, the enormous advertising push may have influenced turnout to some extent but had little room to impact how people voted (somewhere in the 80's percent had made up their minds as far back as April).

JonInMiddleGA 06-05-2012 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mckerney (Post 2666484)
Madison City Clerk tells me turnout is on pace to hit 119% in Madison, adding "That would be unprecedented."[/i]


LOL.

Those are like Chicago kinda numbers ;)

Young Drachma 06-05-2012 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2666488)
LOL.

Those are like Chicago kinda numbers ;)


They have same-day voter registration so that muddles things.

Young Drachma 06-05-2012 08:52 PM

NBC News calling it for Walker.

JonInMiddleGA 06-05-2012 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud (Post 2666515)
They have same-day voter registration so that muddles things.


Ohhhhhhhh, okay.

(I really thought that was a funny quote, either intentionally or unintentionally)

Young Drachma 06-05-2012 09:08 PM

RT @chucktodd: Our models indicate that once all the votes are counted, Walker's final margin will be somewhere in the 4-6 point range

JonInMiddleGA 06-05-2012 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud (Post 2666554)
RT @chucktodd: Our models indicate that once all the votes are counted, Walker's final margin will be somewhere in the 4-6 point range


Wouldn't that be equal to or slightly better than what he won by in 2010? Meaning that all of the hooha actually changed pretty much nothing as far as the electorate goes?

rowech 06-05-2012 09:21 PM

The whole thing was a total waste of time and money. Made even more of a waste by running the same guy who lost the first time.

JonInMiddleGA 06-05-2012 09:22 PM

The various media outlets appreciate the $60m in extra revenue however.

Young Drachma 06-05-2012 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2666562)
Wouldn't that be equal to or slightly better than what he won by in 2010? Meaning that all of the hooha actually changed pretty much nothing as far as the electorate goes?


Yeah. He won by about 5.7% the first time (Which I didn't realize until I googled was also against Barrett. Oops.)

Apparently 60% of exit voters polled this year said that they thought that recalls should only be used for criminal malfeasance, not because you didn't like what they decided to do when elected.

19% of Walker voters said they voted for Obama in 2008.

Seems silly to run the same guy against the guy you didn't like and expect a better result.

JonInMiddleGA 06-05-2012 09:24 PM

This blog notes something I mentioned elsewhere earlier: that there were quite a few Obama/Walker votes in this one.

There were some Walker-Obama voters on Tuesday - JSOnline

rowech 06-05-2012 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud (Post 2666581)
Yeah. He won by about 5.7% the first time (Which I didn't realize until I googled was also against Barrett. Oops.)

Apparently 60% of exit voters polled this year said that they thought that recalls should only be used for criminal malfeasance, not because you didn't like what they decided to do when elected.

19% of Walker voters said they voted for Obama in 2008.

Seems silly to run the same guy against the guy you didn't like and expect a better result.


And I'm sure the Republicans will take this as "a mandate" and will extend their hand too far and then everything will swing back to the Democrats as the pendulum swings again.

I'm sick of every vote result being "a mandate."

Buccaneer 06-05-2012 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2647525)
The level of obstruction by the GOP in the Senate really is unprecedented. We've never had a four year period where 60 votes was required to do almost anything and one party is almost totally united in opposition. If this is the way the Senate is going to work from now on every president is going to be a failure.


Why in the world do you make it sound like it's a bad thing?? If we had a Rep president and Dem Senate, I would expect and hope for the exact same results. The worse scenario in WashDC would be the same party in both executive and legislative.

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-05-2012 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2666580)
The various media outlets appreciate the $60m in extra revenue however.


Sounds like another Democrat-induced stimulus package to me.

lungs 06-05-2012 11:26 PM

All the hoopla that went with this doesn't change much. Everything Walker passed in his first few months was with a clear majority in the State Senate but after the recalls last year, the Republican edge went to 17-16 with my own Republican Senator pretty much blocking anything controversial that Walker tried to put through after the first batch of recalls.

Senate and Assembly elections will be crucial this fall. Don't think the Dems can swing the assembly but the Senate might be possible. Tonights Senate recalls were terrible for the Democrats too, but it doesn't matter as the legislature won't be in session until after the election.

Overall, as a Wisconsin liberal, I think the Democratic Party here sucks. Tom Barrett was honestly the best they could come up with. That doesn't bode well.

JonInMiddleGA 06-05-2012 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lungs (Post 2666732)
with my own Republican Senator pretty much blocking anything controversial that Walker tried to put through after the first batch of recalls.


Those are folks who might find themselves on the wrong side of things when all is said & done.

lungs 06-05-2012 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2666733)
Those are folks who might find themselves on the wrong side of things when all is said & done.


I'm trying to interpret this one. Wrong side of some authoritarian conservative government that will send their secret police to eliminate him? You've really got to get out of your fantasy world once in a while. (Apologies if I'm misinterpreting)

A brief recall effort was staged by Republicans around here but never got off the ground. Electorally, he's safe.

JonInMiddleGA 06-05-2012 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lungs (Post 2666742)
I'm trying to interpret this one. Wrong side of some authoritarian conservative government that will send their secret police to eliminate him? You've really got to get out of your fantasy world once in a while. (Apologies if I'm misinterpreting)


Yeah, you're waaaaaaay off here.

Quote:

A brief recall effort was staged by Republicans around here but never got off the ground. Electorally, he's safe.

This is what I was referring to. We tend to beat people like that in primaries, screw the recall mess. Wasn't really thinking about where he/you/everybody is in the election calendar / cycle though.

lungs 06-06-2012 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2666753)
Yeah, you're waaaaaaay off here.


Got to admit, it's hard to tell sometimes with you :) I also have to admit your writing reminds me of Jake Featherston at times (I know you'll get that one)



Quote:

This is what I was referring to. We tend to beat people like that in primaries, screw the recall mess. Wasn't really thinking about where he/you/everybody is in the election calendar / cycle though.

I don't see him losing a primary. He has gone along with things like voter ID and concealed carry but blocked a big mining bill. It's just too moderate or even liberal of a district for the Republicans to jeopardize losing the seats to the Democrats.

larrymcg421 06-06-2012 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 2666626)
Why in the world do you make it sound like it's a bad thing?? If we had a Rep president and Dem Senate, I would expect and hope for the exact same results. The worse scenario in WashDC would be the same party in both executive and legislative.


That's great, but not everyone agrees with you. Why are you acting surprised that someone would want the side that represents their beliefs to have more power?

larrymcg421 06-06-2012 01:39 AM

There's one huge race left in Wisconsin. With 1 precint remaining, Lehman (D) leads Wanggaard (R) by 800 votes. If that holds, then the Dems have retaken the state senate.

JonInMiddleGA 06-06-2012 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lungs (Post 2666757)
I also have to admit your writing reminds me of Jake Featherston at times (I know you'll get that one)


Indeed I do :)

fantom1979 06-06-2012 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 2666626)
Why in the world do you make it sound like it's a bad thing?? If we had a Rep president and Dem Senate, I would expect and hope for the exact same results. The worse scenario in WashDC would be the same party in both executive and legislative.


I personally think there is a huge difference between disagreeing on ideological grounds and being an obstructionist. When I hear that the Republicans vote against the President because they think a bill is "big government", then I understand and can sympathize. When I hear that Republicans vote against the President because he is a Democrat, and they want to obstruct progress as much as possible to prevent him from being re-elected, then I think that is wrong and damn close to treason. This isn't a Rep/Dem thing, I think the same thing when the roles are reversed.

Dear Mr. Congressman, I didn't send you to Washington to get re-elected and to bash the President. I sent you there to get something done.

SackAttack 06-06-2012 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 2666770)
There's one huge race left in Wisconsin. With 1 precint remaining, Lehman (D) leads Wanggaard (R) by 800 votes. If that holds, then the Dems have retaken the state senate.


With 60/60 reporting, looks like ~800 ended up being the final margin for Lehman.

rowech 06-06-2012 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fantom1979 (Post 2666787)
I personally think there is a huge difference between disagreeing on ideological grounds and being an obstructionist. When I hear that the Republicans vote against the President because they think a bill is "big government", then I understand and can sympathize. When I hear that Republicans vote against the President because he is a Democrat, and they want to obstruct progress as much as possible to prevent him from being re-elected, then I think that is wrong and damn close to treason. This isn't a Rep/Dem thing, I think the same thing when the roles are reversed.

Dear Mr. Congressman, I didn't send you to Washington to get re-elected and to bash the President. I sent you there to get something done.


More and more I think the best bet for the country is just to make sure we ALWAYS have opposing parties in the different branches. If you like one side for the executive branch, that's fine but make sure to vote the opposite side for the congress.

That way we only get stuff that is truly beneficial for the majority.

lungs 06-06-2012 08:09 AM

I went to bed thinking the Senate wouldn't flip... Glad Lehman pulled it off. Not that it matters before November, but it's one less seat the Dems have to win or protect.

If this holds after November, the Wisconsin GOP will get a dose of the National GOPs obstruction tactics in the legislature.

BrianD 06-06-2012 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud (Post 2666581)
Apparently 60% of exit voters polled this year said that they thought that recalls should only be used for criminal malfeasance, not because you didn't like what they decided to do when elected.


This is exactly what I have been saying to people. I don't like everything that Walker has done, or the way that he has done it. He did get fairly elected, though, and I think the time to act for those that want him out is the next election. The recall is expensive, and you end up with one of two results. 1. You win and guarantee that every elected official faces a recall attempt going forward. 2. You lose and and give the other party a "mandate" for what they are doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rowech (Post 2666802)
More and more I think the best bet for the country is just to make sure we ALWAYS have opposing parties in the different branches. If you like one side for the executive branch, that's fine but make sure to vote the opposite side for the congress.

That way we only get stuff that is truly beneficial for the majority.


This is the result I was hoping for on the recall election. Giving one party total control seems to lead to trouble. It also doesn't help that Republicans tend to take that total control and run with passing everything they can, while Democrats don't seem to be willing to do the same thing. Without a split government, we don't actually have checks and balances.

JonInMiddleGA 06-06-2012 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fantom1979 (Post 2666787)
Dear Mr. Congressman, I didn't send you to Washington to get re-elected and to bash the President. I sent you there to get something done.


And there's nothing more important my Congressman can "get done" than discomfit the left every time they're off base.

JediKooter 06-06-2012 10:54 AM

"Getting something done" is just giving too much credit to a group of people who proven time and time again that all they want to do is live off the teat of the public that is stupid enough to keep re-electing them.

lungs 06-06-2012 11:07 AM

I forgot about the gerrymandering Republicans did when redrawing districts in WI. Senate will probably flip back Republican after November.

Coffee Warlord 06-06-2012 11:15 AM

"Getting something done" is also what has led to 90% of the bullshit laws we're now stuck with. We're far more concerned with Doing Something than actually solving problems.

Buccaneer 06-06-2012 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord (Post 2667006)
"Getting something done" is also what has led to 90% of the bullshit laws we're now stuck with. We're far more concerned with Doing Something than actually solving problems.


and the monstrous legislations (and federal programs) that result in so many dollars benefiting the fewest possible.

Coffee Warlord 06-11-2012 10:50 AM

I still wish Mitch Daniels was running for President.

Quote:

"That's the most successful campaign strategy for him," Daniels said." "The American people, I think, will rightly demand to know something more than he's not President Obama."

Daniels added that Romney had work to do in building a consensus across "a broad spectrum of Americans to big changes we need."

"Spend the precious time and dollars explaining what's at stake and a constructive program to make life better," Daniels told The Indianapolis Star. "And as I say, look at everything through the lens of folks who have yet to achieve."

On Sunday, Daniels also said Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's survival in a contentious recall effort Tuesday was not a reflection of the Republican Party's standing nationwide.

Democrats led the recall challenge after Walker signed into law last year a measure that curbed collective bargaining rights for most public employees. The controversy quickly snowballed into a massive labor fight that turned the national spotlight onto Wisconsin for more than a year.

"It would be, I think, a huge mistake for Republicans to misread Wisconsin as some kind of great harbinger. I don't see it that way at all," Daniels said. "I mean, there was clearly a threat of 'enough already' vote there that said it is an abuse of the process with all of the recalls. (It's) not even clear that Gov. Romney will be that strong in Wisconsin."

He added: "So he better have an affirmative and constructive message and one of hope. I think that he will, and that's why I think ultimately he'll prevail."


DaddyTorgo 06-11-2012 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord (Post 2669676)
I still wish Mitch Daniels was running for President.


Most intelligent Republican I've heard in a long time.

Which of course means he's absolutely unpalateable to the base.

cartman 06-11-2012 12:14 PM

Yeah, he says that part of the message has to be "hope". That slogan didn't go over too well with Rs in 2008.

larrymcg421 06-12-2012 09:52 PM


DaddyTorgo 06-12-2012 10:10 PM

Spending as a % of GDP looks screwy as a result of the recession though...best to overlay a line of "total govt. spending" on top of that to show its rate of actual $-change too.

larrymcg421 06-12-2012 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2670650)
Spending as a % of GDP looks screwy as a result of the recession though...best to overlay a line of "total govt. spending" on top of that to show its rate of actual $-change too.


Sure, I just thought it was worth noting that spending as a % of GDP has actually gone down under Obama.

gstelmack 06-13-2012 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 2670656)
Sure, I just thought it was worth noting that spending as a % of GDP has actually gone down under Obama.


So the Republicans in Congress aren't actually spending wildly like we were all led to believe? NOTE: I think they have been horrible at the fiscal responsibility they preach.

Where is 2011 on that chart?

The biggest thing I take away from the last couple of years is the $3.8 trillion budget submitted by Obama on $2.2 trillion in revenue. 42% deficit!

DaddyTorgo 06-13-2012 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2670729)
So the Republicans in Congress aren't actually spending wildly like we were all led to believe? NOTE: I think they have been horrible at the fiscal responsibility they preach.

Where is 2011 on that chart?

The biggest thing I take away from the last couple of years is the $3.8 trillion budget submitted by Obama on $2.2 trillion in revenue. 42% deficit!


You'd rather "austerity" cutbacks? Talk to the Europeans before you get so giddy about that idea...it doesn't work and only makes things worse.

Not trying to say that that's the ONLY reason we deficit-spent (I'm not stupid, it's a problem exacerbated by both parties), but it's a contributor. Might/would have been less deficit-spending without the recession.

RainMaker 06-13-2012 02:11 PM

Until tax revenues go up somehow, the deficit is going to be really high. Unless the public is willing to cut SS, Medicare, and the Defense budget.

gstelmack 06-13-2012 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2670731)
You'd rather "austerity" cutbacks? Talk to the Europeans before you get so giddy about that idea...it doesn't work and only makes things worse.

Not trying to say that that's the ONLY reason we deficit-spent (I'm not stupid, it's a problem exacerbated by both parties), but it's a contributor. Might/would have been less deficit-spending without the recession.


The longer we wait, the worse it's going to get when things finally do happen. Either the government we'll live within its means, or we'll go bankrupt. And the longer we wait, the harder the fall.

And yes, the public's insistence on Social Security and Medicare and other entitlement programs and the sanctity of the defense budget (although curiously the one thing in all this the Federal Government is constitutionally obligated to provide) is a huge factor here.

cuervo72 06-13-2012 09:09 PM

Not about the presidency per se, but darned does the First Lady campaign via TV shows. iCarly, Biggest Loser, now Restaurant Impossible (though Cory Booker's been on that one too).

stevew 06-13-2012 09:54 PM

Old people and wars are destroying this country.

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-20-2012 11:23 AM

I'm a bit surprised that Obama did this. It's obviously well within his rights to do so, but given his comments in the past related to Bush doing the same thing and his campaign of 'change', this seems to be more of the same old thing that Obama promised wouldn't happen during his campaign.

Obama invokes executive privilege as Holder faces contempt vote | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

panerd 06-20-2012 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2674494)
I'm a bit surprised that Obama did this. It's obviously well within his rights to do so, but given his comments in the past related to Bush doing the same thing and his campaign of 'change', this seems to be more of the same old thing that Obama promised wouldn't happen during his campaign.

Obama invokes executive privilege as Holder faces contempt vote | The Ticket - Yahoo! News


Saw this a little earlier and was reading through some of the comments at the bottom. And the basic reaction seems to be "Well Bush did it more" yeah well "Clinton did it also". I hope the resident liberals here on FOFC (who I really believe are far more educated than the idiots on yahoo comments) will give me a better explanation on this than "Obama is better than Bush."

DaddyTorgo 06-20-2012 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2674496)
Saw this a little earlier and was reading through some of the comments at the bottom. And the basic reaction seems to be "Well Bush did it more" yeah well "Clinton did it also". I hope the resident liberals here on FOFC (who I really believe are far more educated than the idiots on yahoo comments) will give me a better explanation on this than "Obama is better than Bush."


Not familiar with the particulars of the situation, but unless there really is some sort of reason I'm doubting you'll find us resident liberals knee-jerk defending it.

JediKooter 06-20-2012 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2674494)
I'm a bit surprised that Obama did this. It's obviously well within his rights to do so, but given his comments in the past related to Bush doing the same thing and his campaign of 'change', this seems to be more of the same old thing that Obama promised wouldn't happen during his campaign.

Obama invokes executive privilege as Holder faces contempt vote | The Ticket - Yahoo! News


I'm not surprised at all. This is from the man that promised that his presidency would be the most transparent in history and, well, has basically gone the complete opposite of it from the very beginning. And it's election season, don't want too many ugly things rising to the surface that may hurt his chances of re-election.

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-20-2012 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2674520)
Not familiar with the particulars of the situation, but unless there really is some sort of reason I'm doubting you'll find us resident liberals knee-jerk defending it.


Generally speaking, most of the feedback from the liberal side has been disappointment or no comment at all from what I've seen.

JPhillips 06-21-2012 07:35 PM

Following in the steps of Citizen's United, the Supremes reached beyond the questions of a case and found a way to rewrite the law in favor of current conservative thinking. On the question of whether or not unions needed a clear opt-out clause, they decided that unions must have an opt-in clause, and they made a clear threat that they're willing to make right to work the national standard.

Quote:

“[C] compulsory fees constitute a form of compelled speech and association that imposes a ‘significant impingement on First Amendment rights,’” the Court said, quoting an earlier case. “Our cases to date have tolerated this ‘impingement,’ and we do not revisit today whether the Court’s former cases have given adequate recognition to the critical First Amendment rights at stake.”

PilotMan 06-21-2012 08:10 PM

If employees have the choice to opt out within the same group, that will be the death knell of the modern labor union. Especially ones of which I belong.

DaddyTorgo 06-22-2012 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2676342)
Following in the steps of Citizen's United, the Supremes reached beyond the questions of a case and found a way to rewrite the law in favor of current conservative thinking. On the question of whether or not unions needed a clear opt-out clause, they decided that unions must have an opt-in clause, and they made a clear threat that they're willing to make right to work the national standard.


This fucking court is a sick fucking joke. Of course the joke is on the 99%.

RainMaker 06-22-2012 12:35 AM

Why shouldn't an employee be able to decide whether they want to be part of a union or not?

miked 06-22-2012 06:55 AM

I didn't think it was opting out of the unions. In the case, didn't the union assess members and nonmembers $25M so they could lobby? With very little notice to opt out of the ridiculous cost?

JPhillips 06-22-2012 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2676566)
Why shouldn't an employee be able to decide whether they want to be part of a union or not?


Although not really what this case was about, it's actually a difficult problem. If people can get the same benefits from not being in a union that they can from being in a union, obviously, not many people will join the union. That will eventually lead to the union falling apart and now no one will enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining.

There isn't an obvious answer, IMO.

ISiddiqui 06-22-2012 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 2676682)
I didn't think it was opting out of the unions. In the case, didn't the union assess members and nonmembers $25M so they could lobby? With very little notice to opt out of the ridiculous cost?


Indeed. That's why its a Free Speech issue. Because they were, without much notice, assigning increased dues on members and non-members alike for lobbying purposes.

DaddyTorgo 06-22-2012 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 2676833)
Indeed. That's why its a Free Speech issue. Because they were, without much notice, assigning increased dues on members and non-members alike for lobbying purposes.


Well that's not necessarily cool.

I take back the REASON for my outrage (but not the substance of it I have a feeling).

Grover 06-22-2012 09:51 AM

I'd like to thank my state senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins for voting down the bill that would have granted equal pay to women.

What an embarrassment to have these two women represent the state of Maine.

ISiddiqui 06-22-2012 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2676844)
Well that's not necessarily cool.

I take back the REASON for my outrage (but not the substance of it I have a feeling).


Would it lessen it even more to realize it was a 7-2 decision, with Sotomayor and Ginsburg concurring with the majority?

JPhillips 06-22-2012 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 2676833)
Indeed. That's why its a Free Speech issue. Because they were, without much notice, assigning increased dues on members and non-members alike for lobbying purposes.


It still doesn't excuse the overreach from an opt-out to an opt-in.

edit: That part of the decision was 5-4.

DaddyTorgo 06-22-2012 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grover (Post 2676860)
I'd like to thank my state senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins for voting down the bill that would have granted equal pay to women.

What an embarrassment to have these two women represent the state of Maine.


This is hilarious, in a really really depressing way.

There shouldn't be a woman in the state of Maine that ever votes Republican again.

ISiddiqui 06-22-2012 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2676871)
It still doesn't excuse the overreach from an opt-out to an opt-in.

edit: That part of the decision was 5-4.


That was dicta. Alito said it approaches, if not crosses, First Amendment rights, but didn't specifically strike down prior decisions on the matter.

Basically:

Quote:

By authorizing a union to collect fees from nonmembers and permitting the use of an opt-out system for the collection of fees levied to cover nonchargeable expenses, our prior decisions approach, if they do not cross, the limit of what the First Amendment can tolerate. The SEIU, however, asks us to go farther. It asks us to approve a procedure under which (a) a special assessment billed for use in electoral campaigns was assessed without providing anew opportunity for nonmembers to decide whether they wished to contribute to this effort and (b) nonmembers who previously opted out were nevertheless required to pay more than half of the special assessment even though the union had said that the purpose of the fund was to mount a political campaign and that it would not be used for ordinary union expenses. This aggressive use of power by the SEIU to collect fees from nonmembers is indefensible.

Quote:

To respect the limits of the First Amendment, the union should have sent out a new notice allowing nonmembers to opt in to the special fee rather than requiring them to opt out. Our cases have tolerated a substantial impingement on First Amendment rights by allowing unions to impose an opt-out requirement at all. Even if this burden can be justified during the collection of regular dues on an annual basis, there is no way to justify the additional burden of imposing yet another opt-out requirement to collect special fees whenever the union desires.

Opt-in for the special assessment here. For regular dues the opt-out still stands, though Alito isn't a fan.

Coffee Warlord 06-22-2012 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2676871)
It still doesn't excuse the overreach from an opt-out to an opt-in.


Overreach? To make it easier for people to NOT get fucked out of more money by their union? Yeah, no.

Hell, I'd prefer it if the ability for unions to collect special assessments for political purposes be banned entirely. (Technically, I'd prefer it if unions were utterly destroyed, but that's a different discussion.)

DaddyTorgo 06-22-2012 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord (Post 2676919)
Technically, I'd prefer it if unions were utterly destroyed, but that's a different discussion.


What's the matter - you don't like your 40hr work week? You'd rather work 60 for less pay?
1. Unions Gave Us The Weekend: Even the ultra-conservative Mises Institute notes that the relatively labor-free 1870, the average workweek for most Americans was 61 hours — almost double what most Americans work now. Yet in the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century, labor unions engaged in massive strikes in order to demand shorter workweeks so that Americans could be home with their loved ones instead of constantly toiling for their employers with no leisure time. By 1937, these labor actions created enough political momentum to pass the Fair Labor Standards Act, which helped create a federal framework for a shorter workweek that included room for leisure time.
2. Unions Gave Us Fair Wages And Relative Income Equality: The relative decline of unions over the past 35 years has mirrored a decline in the middle class’s share of national income. It is also true that at the time when most Americans belonged to a union — a period of time between the 1940′s and 1950′s — income inequality in the U.S. was at its lowest point in the history of the country.
3. Unions Helped End Child Labor: “Union organizing and child labor reform were often intertwined” in U.S. history, with organization’s like the “National Consumers’ League” and the National Child Labor Committee” working together in the early 20th century to ban child labor. The very first American Federation of Labor (AFL) national convention passed “a resolution calling on states to ban children under 14 from all gainful employment” in 1881, and soon after states across the country adopted similar recommendations, leading up to the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act which regulated child labor on the federal level for the first time.
4. Unions Won Widespread Employer-Based Health Coverage: “The rise of unions in the 1930′s and 1940′s led to the first great expansion of health care” for all Americans, as labor unions banded workers together to negotiate for health coverage plans from employers. In 1942, “the US set up a National War Labor Board. It had the power to set a cap on all wage increases. But it let employers circumvent the cap by offering “fringe benefits” – notably, health insurance.” By 1950, “half of all companies with fewer than 250 workers and two-thirds of all companies with more than 250 workers offered health insurance of one kind or another.”
5. Unions Spearheaded The Fight For The Family And Medical Leave Act: Labor unions like the AFL-CIO federation led the fight for this 1993 law, which “requires state agencies and private employers with more than 50 employees to provide up to 12 weeks of job-protected unpaid leave annually for workers to care for a newborn, newly adopted child, seriously ill family member or for the worker’s own illness.”

mckerney 06-22-2012 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2676874)
This is hilarious, in a really really depressing way.

There shouldn't be a woman in the state of Maine that ever votes Republican again.


Thankfully what we learned from Wisconsin's state senators when they killed the states equal pay act is that there isn't actually a wage gap between men and women, and even if there was it would be a good thing due to men needing to make more money as family bread winners.

mckerney 06-22-2012 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2676929)
What's the matter - you don't like your 40hr work week? You'd rather work 60 for less pay?
1. Unions Gave Us The Weekend: Even the ultra-conservative Mises Institute notes that the relatively labor-free 1870, the average workweek for most Americans was 61 hours — almost double what most Americans work now. Yet in the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century, labor unions engaged in massive strikes in order to demand shorter workweeks so that Americans could be home with their loved ones instead of constantly toiling for their employers with no leisure time. By 1937, these labor actions created enough political momentum to pass the Fair Labor Standards Act, which helped create a federal framework for a shorter workweek that included room for leisure time.
2. Unions Gave Us Fair Wages And Relative Income Equality: The relative decline of unions over the past 35 years has mirrored a decline in the middle class’s share of national income. It is also true that at the time when most Americans belonged to a union — a period of time between the 1940′s and 1950′s — income inequality in the U.S. was at its lowest point in the history of the country.
3. Unions Helped End Child Labor: “Union organizing and child labor reform were often intertwined” in U.S. history, with organization’s like the “National Consumers’ League” and the National Child Labor Committee” working together in the early 20th century to ban child labor. The very first American Federation of Labor (AFL) national convention passed “a resolution calling on states to ban children under 14 from all gainful employment” in 1881, and soon after states across the country adopted similar recommendations, leading up to the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act which regulated child labor on the federal level for the first time.
4. Unions Won Widespread Employer-Based Health Coverage: “The rise of unions in the 1930′s and 1940′s led to the first great expansion of health care” for all Americans, as labor unions banded workers together to negotiate for health coverage plans from employers. In 1942, “the US set up a National War Labor Board. It had the power to set a cap on all wage increases. But it let employers circumvent the cap by offering “fringe benefits” – notably, health insurance.” By 1950, “half of all companies with fewer than 250 workers and two-thirds of all companies with more than 250 workers offered health insurance of one kind or another.”
5. Unions Spearheaded The Fight For The Family And Medical Leave Act: Labor unions like the AFL-CIO federation led the fight for this 1993 law, which “requires state agencies and private employers with more than 50 employees to provide up to 12 weeks of job-protected unpaid leave annually for workers to care for a newborn, newly adopted child, seriously ill family member or for the worker’s own illness.”


So in other words what you're trying to say is that unions destroyed America?

Coffee Warlord 06-22-2012 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2676929)
What's the matter - you don't like your 40hr work week? You'd rather work 60 for less pay?


I will not discount the fact that unions were both necessary and did some good at one point in our history.

However, I do believe they are now relics who benefit neither employee nor business. Most have become far too interested in building and maintaining power & wealth for themselves, not for their members.

JediKooter 06-22-2012 10:55 AM

Not really trying to get into a pro-con union debate, but, the problem with the unions of today is, they cater to the crappy workers. In other words, instead just admitting that union employee X, doesn't show up on time, takes more breaks than he should, or just does a shitty job overall, they will protect that employee to the bitter end.

Quite frankly, the union should be setting much higher standards for its members and let the dead weight go. By not severing ties with that dead weight and protecting people like that, it only perpetuates the myth that unions are no good.

However, I do feel unions still serve a purpose, especially in this day where salaries have stagnated while the CEOs continue to make more and more money and refuse to award their workers. Though, there are a couple of industries where I think unions should not be allowed and that is government jobs or jobs that deal with national security and that's because of the unions protecting the worst of the employees.

And that's my opinion on unions, this day, June 22nd, two thousand and twelve.

JonInMiddleGA 06-22-2012 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord (Post 2676958)
Most have become far too interested in building and maintaining power & wealth for themselves, not for their members.


Something that's been largely true during the lifetime's of the large majority of their current members (unless the average age is a lot older than I can imagine)

JPhillips 06-22-2012 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord (Post 2676919)
Overreach? To make it easier for people to NOT get fucked out of more money by their union? Yeah, no.

Hell, I'd prefer it if the ability for unions to collect special assessments for political purposes be banned entirely. (Technically, I'd prefer it if unions were utterly destroyed, but that's a different discussion.)


So as long as you agree it's okay for the Supremes to go beyond the questions of the case to determine the law?

larrymcg421 06-22-2012 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord (Post 2676958)
I will not discount the fact that unions were both necessary and did some good at one point in our history.

However, I do believe they are now relics who benefit neither employee nor business. Most have become far too interested in building and maintaining power & wealth for themselves, not for their members.


And do you really think that if unions were completely destroyed, companies wouldn't try to roll back some of the rights that the unions fought for in the past?

ISiddiqui 06-22-2012 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2676985)
So as long as you agree it's okay for the Supremes to go beyond the questions of the case to determine the law?


Dicta happens ALL the time from Marbury v. Madison and prior!

JPhillips 06-22-2012 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 2676995)
Dicta happens ALL the time from Marbury v. Madison and prior!


Maybe I have that part wrong, but what I have read has the opt-in part of the decision, specifically as it relates to these contributions, as decided 5-4 and binding. Is that not correct?

Coffee Warlord 06-22-2012 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 2676990)
And do you really think that if unions were completely destroyed, companies wouldn't try to roll back some of the rights that the unions fought for in the past?


How many industries / professions are there right now (in the US) that are not unionized? Are they suffering in squalor, working 80 hours a week alongside children, being paid pennies?

You really think companies are going to ban together and somehow manage to overturn federal labor laws (that apply to EVERYONE, not just union workers)?

ISiddiqui 06-22-2012 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2677002)
Maybe I have that part wrong, but what I have read has the opt-in part of the decision, specifically as it relates to these contributions, as decided 5-4 and binding. Is that not correct?


From the LA Times article on it:

Quote:

In California and most states that bargain with public-sector unions, dissident employees must affirmatively opt out if they do not want their share of the fees to pay for politics. Alito said the right rule might require unions to get an affirmative "opt in" from employees before they can collect full fees.

Supreme Court rules against union on nonmember fees for politics - latimes.com

"might" is never binding.

Dicta however can be persuasive, so Sotomayor and Kagan wrote that the SEIU was wrong in not issuing a seperate special assessment notice, but wasn't a fan of Alito's opt-in dictum language.

larrymcg421 06-22-2012 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord (Post 2677005)
How many industries / professions are there right now (in the US) that are not unionized? Are they suffering in squalor, working 80 hours a week alongside children, being paid pennies?

You really think companies are going to ban together and somehow manage to overturn federal labor laws (that apply to EVERYONE, not just union workers)?


Without the threat of union political activity, then I would expect federal labor laws to be weakened. Furthermore, I think you're crazy if you don't think companies would try to take advantage of the lack of a union workforce to try and maximize their profits. That doesn't mean we're going to go back to the 1800's as in your ridiculous strawman example, but I'd expect certain things like overtime regulations, safety regulations, etc to be seriously curtailed if unions completely vanished.

ISiddiqui 06-22-2012 11:55 AM

From SCOTUS blog on the case:

Quote:

Justice Alito announced the second opinion of the day, in Knox v. Service Employees International Union. By a vote of seven to two, the Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further consideration. It held that the case is not moot; five members of the Court further held that the First Amendment does not allow a public-sector union to require objecting non-members to pay a special fee for the purposes of financing the union’s political and ideological activities. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Kagan.

What is in bold is the holding. The rest is dictum.

JPhillips 06-22-2012 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 2677019)
Without the threat of union political activity, then I would expect federal labor laws to be weakened. Furthermore, I think you're crazy if you don't think companies would try to take advantage of the lack of a union workforce to try and maximize their profits. That doesn't mean we're going to go back to the 1800's as in your ridiculous strawman example, but I'd expect certain things like overtime regulations, safety regulations, etc to be seriously curtailed if unions completely vanished.


A lot more companies would treat their employees like WalMart.

JPhillips 06-22-2012 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 2677024)
From SCOTUS blog on the case:



What is in bold is the holding. The rest is dictum.


I'm still confused. What's the precedent going forward, an opt-out or an opt-in?

Swaggs 06-22-2012 11:59 AM

I would imagine that without unions (and we are already starting to see this more and more, in my experience), you will see a lot fewer full-time (40-hour/week) workers that receive benefits and more part-time workers without company-provided healthcare, pensions, matching 401K, etc. Probably more contract workers that have to pay their own taxes (as opposed to payroll taxes) without benefits.

DaddyTorgo 06-22-2012 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 2676990)
And do you really think that if unions were completely destroyed, companies wouldn't try to roll back some of the rights that the unions fought for in the past?


This. It'd be the thing that the companies would do on Day 1.

Fuck - I'm not unionized. Nobody in family is unionized. Nobody in my family has ever been unionized.

But I've got huge respect for what unions have done, and continue to do.

That being said, I agree with what Jedi says about unions not setting high enough standards for their workers and for protecting lazy/crappy employees. That's the single biggest issue that I think people have with them - if you fix that I imagine the % of people with a positive impression of unions would be in the like...80% range.

JPhillips 06-22-2012 12:17 PM

I don't like a few things about corporations, therefore, all corporations should be destroyed.

panerd 06-22-2012 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 2677019)
Without the threat of union political activity, then I would expect federal labor laws to be weakened. Furthermore, I think you're crazy if you don't think companies would try to take advantage of the lack of a union workforce to try and maximize their profits. That doesn't mean we're going to go back to the 1800's as in your ridiculous strawman example, but I'd expect certain things like overtime regulations, safety regulations, etc to be seriously curtailed if unions completely vanished.


A slippery slope to counter a strawman. Delicious.

chadritt 06-22-2012 12:27 PM

Ive spent almost my entire career working non-union. Its amazing to me just how differently some non-union shops can treat you. Ive had places where we worked minimum of 60 hour weeks and usually more for no OT and most people were getting paid VERY little. Heck, my first job was usually 70 - 80 hour work weeks and even one 100 hour week that almost got me fired since I complained.

I worked one job for 2 weeks that got flipped union after I left, the union saw my time cards and flipped out over what they termed abuse but my employer just saw as "the way things are". I think I got more money in retroactive pay than I had on my original paychecks

Im working my first union job right now and I work my 50 hours and then im expected to go home. If I work a 6th day I not only get paid for it, which is a luxury in non-union shops, but I get paid extra. On top of that Ive earned enough hours that I will be receiving a fantastic healthcare plan which would be unaffordable for me otherwise and a pension plan. I get the issues some people have with the union, employers especially arent too happy about it, but man its great for me as a worker.

Should probably answer the obvious question: I work in post production for reality TV shows and a large majority are still not covered by the various entertainment guilds and unions though that is slowly changing.

Warhammer 06-22-2012 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediKooter (Post 2676959)
Not really trying to get into a pro-con union debate, but, the problem with the unions of today is, they cater to the crappy workers. In other words, instead just admitting that union employee X, doesn't show up on time, takes more breaks than he should, or just does a shitty job overall, they will protect that employee to the bitter end.

Quite frankly, the union should be setting much higher standards for its members and let the dead weight go. By not severing ties with that dead weight and protecting people like that, it only perpetuates the myth that unions are no good.

However, I do feel unions still serve a purpose, especially in this day where salaries have stagnated while the CEOs continue to make more and more money and refuse to award their workers. Though, there are a couple of industries where I think unions should not be allowed and that is government jobs or jobs that deal with national security and that's because of the unions protecting the worst of the employees.

And that's my opinion on unions, this day, June 22nd, two thousand and twelve.


+1

I will also add that the union leaders are out for power. That means having more union members, which means you protect those that are your own.

I sell to the construction industry and it is crazy how many people are not trained properly, or do not care about their performance. They don't worry about it because the next day, they'll be at another jobsite pulling down some cash.

Heck, even some of the things we say the big bad evil corporations would take away (like safety equipment) if unions went away, would not be used by the workers anyway. Many things are only used on jobsites due to union regulations. It's nuts.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.