All about San Pedro, Ambergris Caye, Belize Ambergris Vacations Homepage
May 21, 2012, 08:56:24 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Unions and the Democratics  (Read 519 times)
ragman
Superstar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367



« on: June 19, 2011, 05:55:06 AM »

Good article by Krauthammer.  Sounds somewhat like the problems in Greece that could be a preview of what will happen in the USA if this situation of stifling business and spending money we don’t have isn’t brought under control.

We are getting closer to the point of no return and the only way to repair this damage is going to be more suffering by all Americans of every economic classification. (loss of entitlements and increase of taxes for everyone) Just like the Clinton (1994)  and Obama bipartisan debt committees stated.  We seem to have the answer but not the will or the leader to get us there.  Unless we get a President who doesn’t care about getting re-elected but does care about saving the country we are screwed.   Cry

http://www.heraldnews.com/opinions/x1425872215/CHARLES-KRAUTHAMMER-Democrats-union-owned-and-operated

Democrats union owned and operated
By Charles Krauthammer
Posted Jun 17, 2011 @ 04:41 PM
 
WASHINGTON —
“Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected,” observed President Obama this week, enjoying a nice chuckle about the unhappy fate of his near-$1 trillion stimulus. To be sure, Obama has also been promoting a less amusing remedy for anemic growth and high unemployment: exports. In this year’s State of the Union address, he proclaimed a national goal of doubling exports by 2014.

One obvious way to increase exports is through free-trade agreements. But unions don’t like them. No surprise then that for two years Obama has been sitting on three free-trade agreements — with Colombia, Panama and South Korea — already negotiated by his predecessor.

Under the pressure of dire economic conditions and of the consequences of stiffing three valued allies, Obama appeared ready to relent — only to put up a last-minute roadblock. He’s demanding an expansion of Trade Adjustment Assistance — taxpayer money (beyond unemployment compensation) given to workers displaced by foreign competition, something denied to Americans rendered unemployed by domestic competition. It’s an idea of dubious fairness but nicely designed to hold up ratification, while placing blame on Republican heartlessness rather than on political sabotage by Democrats beholden to unions for the millions they pour into Democratic coffers.

Nothing new here. In 2009, Obama pushed through a federally run, questionably legal, bankruptcy for the auto companies that robbed first-in-line creditors in order to bail out the United Auto Workers. Elsewhere, Delta Air Lines workers have voted four times to reject unionization. A federal agency, naturally, is investigating and, notes economist Irwin Stelzer, can order still another election in the hope that it yields the answer Obama’s campaign team wants.

But Democratic fealty to unions does not stop there. Boeing has just completed a production facility in South Carolina for its new 787 Dreamliner. The National Labor Relations Board, stacked with Democrats — including one former union lawyer considered so partisan that he required a recess appointment after the Senate refused to confirm him — is trying to get the plant declared illegal. Why? Because by choosing right-to-work South Carolina, Boeing is accused of retaliating against its unionized Washington state workers for previous strikes.

In fact, Boeing has increased unionized employment by more than 2,000 at its Puget Sound plant. Moreover, the idea that a company in a unionized state can thus be prohibited from expanding into right-to-work states by a partisan regulatory body is quite insane. It violates the fundamental principle in a free-market economy that companies can move and build in response to market conditions, rather than administrative fiat. It jeopardizes the economic recovery, not only targeting America’s single largest exporter in its attempt to compete with Airbus for a huge global market, but also threatening any other company that might think of expanding in any way displeasing to unions and their NLRB patrons.

Obama has been utterly silent in the Boeing affair. Which is understood by all as tacit approval. He’s facing re-election next year. And Democrats need unions.

Of course, unions need Democrats — who deliver quite faithfully. In last year’s nationwide “shellacking” of Democrats, for example, Wisconsin gave Republicans control of both legislative chambers and elected a Republican governor who made clear his intention to rein in public-sector union power.
When the Republicans tried to do as promised, Democrats, lacking the votes, tried to block it by every extra-parliamentary maneuver short of arson. State Senate Democrats fled Wisconsin to prevent a quorum.

Demonstrators filled the statehouse for days and nights on end. And when the bill finally passed nonetheless, Dane County’s Democratic district attorney went to court to have it thrown out on procedural grounds.

They found a pliant judge to invalidate the law. A famous victory, but short-lived. On Tuesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned the ruling, upbraiding the judge for having “usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin Constitution grants exclusively to the Legislature.” The law is reinstated.

Instructive cases all, demonstrating how those who lose popular support — Democrats at the polls, unions in their declining membership — can subvert and circumvent the popular will by judicial usurpation (Wisconsin) or administrative fiat (Boeing).

The Wisconsin maneuver ultimately failed, as likely will the assault on Boeing. In the interim, however, there is collateral damage — to U.S. exports, to the larger economy, to bankruptcy law, to free trade, to a constitutional system wherein the legislatures make the laws, rather than willful judges and partisan regulators.

But what are those when there are unions to appease and elections to win?


Logged

Jim
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
rykat
Superstar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 859



« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2011, 01:56:44 PM »

Love Krauthammer! His site is dull but he is an excellent conservative thinker, occasionally skewed because he just doent like someone but good thinking nonetheless
« Last Edit: June 19, 2011, 01:58:35 PM by rykat » Logged

IMPEACH OBAMA!
clover
Superstar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2370



Email
« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2011, 09:15:40 AM »

Union membership is down this year to 1 in 8 workers nationwide...from 1 in 5 during the Reagan years.  'Kraut' hammer is beating a dead horse...but hey...that's part of his pro big business platform.  I'd like to see him take on corporate welfare and excessive military spending with the same vigor...but hey....that's not part of the GOP platform.  If we cut military spending back to 2002 levels and ended the billions of dollars paid to big business as subsidies entitlements wouldn't even be an issue.

I love the part where he says Obama's policy allowed the automakers to go bankrupt......that would be TARP....but he probably figures no one is smart enough to figure out that was passed in 2008.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/21/union-membership-declines-amid-hard-economic-times/
Logged

Never argue with a fool.  They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
ragman
Superstar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367



« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2011, 06:39:12 PM »

1. Corporate welfare and subsidiaries to big business.  I thought you beat that horse to death already.  Wink  How about union subsidiaries?  Gave them control of GM.  Gave them exemption from Obamacare.  Trying to let the unions declare where a business can expand and build new plants in the USA.  Earlier in his Presidency he was looking for a way to change the law so  it was no longer a secret ballot for union representation.  ON AND ON AND ON....    Grin

2. Much of the money for TARP has or will be paid back.  Of course TARP was started by Bush with a Dem. congress and senate, but mostly administered by OTO after Bush left.
Here is an article that is not TARP friendly but they admit that most of the money for the Banking System, minus Fannie and Freddie will or has been paid back.  A lot of TARP money was used for purposes other than to prop up the banking system.  GM and mortgage help for lenders being two.  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/242731/did-tarp-money-really-get-paid-back-kevin-d-williamson
 Short version: If TARP had only done what TARP was supposed to do — prop up the banking system — it still would have been a mess, but a mess for which the banks, not the taxpayers, ultimately would have picked up the tab. With everything that's rolled  up into TARP, we’re going to take a bath. And it could get really bad if we don’t do something about Fannie and Freddie – and by doing something I don’t mean getting behind a whole new passel of weak mortgages made to people who cannot even raise the money for a down payment.

This article was from National Review so it must be a lie.  Wink
Logged

Jim
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
clover
Superstar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2370



Email
« Reply #4 on: June 20, 2011, 07:16:32 PM »

Let's get TARP straight first..........TARP was a congressional act.  50% of the money was funded in the Bush administration....and in accordance with the act....50% was funded by the Obama administration.  How the money was funded, and to who was approved by Congress...not Obama.    The GOP sure knows how to lie about facts. Wink  As I recall Senators running for the Presidency were summoned to DC to pass this ACT or be branded un-american.

I guess you forgot that GMC also owned GMAC which was also a major player in the mortgage business.......not just cars Wink

So I assume you support TARP bailouts to help banks that made bad investments.......but don't support taxpayers that got hung out to dry(without a bailout)........because of the banks?



The union is challenging Boeing (violating union contracts) in South Carolina.........that should get to the Supreme Court in about 2013.....so what's your bitch?

The only thing the GOP doesn't like about unions is two fold
(1) they make a living wage
(2) they normally support Democrats.


Let's just tell the truth and knock off the BS Grin

« Last Edit: June 20, 2011, 08:24:54 PM by clover » Logged

Never argue with a fool.  They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
deadserious
Superstar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1607



WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2011, 07:46:57 AM »

2. Much of the money for TARP has or will be paid back. 

Not once cent of TARP will be paid back. 

GM paid back TARP funds with other government grants just so they could say they paid it back.  That's right, they paid back government loans with free government money...  and people wonder why I'm jaded.
Logged

Now back to your regularly scheduled drivel...
ragman
Superstar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367



« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2011, 07:57:29 AM »

ds, you are correct that government funds are being used in many cases to pay back TARP.  Now explain where those funds came from?  They where not part of the previous administrations plan.  It was additional money spent by this administration.  It is a mess and getting worst.  Cry
Logged

Jim
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
deadserious
Superstar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1607



WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2011, 07:59:23 AM »

ds, you are correct that government funds are being used in many cases to pay back TARP.  Now explain where those funds came from?  They where not part of the previous administrations plan.  It was additional money spent by this administration.  It is a mess and getting worst.  Cry

That doesn't make TARP 1 any better of an idea than TARP2
Logged

Now back to your regularly scheduled drivel...
ragman
Superstar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367



« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2011, 07:23:11 AM »

Below is a graft of the money influence of PAC's 1989 - 2009 for both parties.  Notice how most PAC groups divide their money to try to influence both parties.  This is with the exception of Labor Unions, Teachers, and Lawyers.  The extent of this unbalance gives you a clue to why certain strategies are carried out by certain parties which may not be in the best interests of most Americans. I find it especially troubling that the union money does not necessary reflect the opinions of the people who are forced into giving it through dues. Very interesting. The Department of Labor states that Unions have given $2.2 billion between 2007 - 2010 which would be for OTO and company.

It comes out to 5% of union money goes to Repubs  with vitually 0% from teachers and lawyers.  

Comments?

Well the file was too large to put here so here is the link.
 
http://biggovernment.com/files/2011/07/Big-Labor-2.2-Billion.jpg

Just click on the graft to enlarge it.



Logged

Jim
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
rykat
Superstar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 859



« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2011, 08:02:08 AM »

Interesting graph! Wink Cheesy
Logged

IMPEACH OBAMA!
ragman
Superstar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367



« Reply #10 on: November 04, 2011, 02:21:28 PM »




I don't know how this got by me but what Numb Nuts can not do through congress he will do anyway.    Angry  On one hand he crys about jobs and on the other he promotes rules and regulations that are anti-job.  Maybe GB is correct.  Maybe he purposely would like to wreck the economy?   


Obama NLRB Eliminates Secret Ballot Elections-Making Card Check Forced Unionism a Reality

Posted By Don Loos On August 30, 2011 @ 4:06 pm In Big Labor, Justice/Legal, News, Politics | 160 Comments


 
Outgoing NLRB Chair Wilma Liebman and the of the Obama Appointed NLRB Board members, Craig Becker & Mark Pearce, voted to eliminate secret ballot election protections [1].  Now, when employers make secrets deals with a union bosses agreeing to recognize a union without allowing his employees a secret ballot vote;  employees no longer have the right to force an NLRB secret ballot election and allow workers to decide if they want the union or not.
 
Unable to pass EFCA, Card Check Forced Unionism,  through a Democrat-controlled congress, Obama is paying off Big Labor through his handpicked NLRB Board.  He is doing all this at the expense of worker freedoms and worker paychecks. And, the NLRB Decision is applied retroactively to bar even elections that have already been held but not counted.
 



Employees can now be forced to pay for an undisclosed arrangement between employers and labor union bosses without having the right to put it to a secret ballot election.
 


This is particular heinous in non-Right To Work states where employees are forced to pay union dues and fees regardless of the fact that they did not want the union.  The NLRB’s actions again prove why the National Right To Work  Act [2] needs to be passed.   Then, every American will have the freedom to withhold his paycheck from union bosses if they choose.
Logged

Jim
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
clover
Superstar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2370



Email
« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2011, 05:44:28 PM »

Unions represent 12.4% of the workforce.  Let's get down to what's real.  The Republicans want to turn america into a 3rd world country where labor has no representation.  True or false Wink 
Logged

Never argue with a fool.  They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC