Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;492379]I'm not saying that they don't have it readily available, just that there are many that can't afford it, more specifically those that still need psychological treatment.[/quote]
Not sure about the cost for veterans health insurance so I won't comment. The part about psychological treatment is correct but its very tough to make these people come in for treatment and allot of them just don't go because they are embarassed. Its there for them its just not very many take advantage of the help.

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;492389]What decent people? And who's the we? We upstanding, moral Republicans?

Shouldn't you be posting in the Liberal = Anti American thread? :spank:[/quote]

I'll post anywhwre I want, since I am a member of "We".

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=70Chip;492400]I'll post anywhwre I want, since I am a member of "We".[/quote]

You still haven't defined we.

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=70Chip;492386]Just remember. In politics, like football, nothing is ever as good or as bad as it seems. These so called "mandate" elections can be very short-lived. Once all all the Obama kiddies go back to their dismal, solipsistic lives, then decent people will begin to fight back. This is our country. We own it, and we always will.[/quote]
Ok, I'm not a fan of Obama but I do not agree with your statement.

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=firstdown;492398]Not sure about the cost for veterans health insurance so I won't comment. The part about psychological treatment is correct but its very tough to make these people come in for treatment and allot of them just don't go because they are embarassed. Its there for them its just not very many take advantage of the help.[/quote]

Also because at some point, they'd have to pay, I would think? Lots of men were getting treatment but due the folding of many centers back in the day, either fell through the cracks or couldn't go to another hospital (for whatever reason, good or bad).

And even with insurance (which some companies don't even cover) it's a bitch to pay for psych evaluations and a therapist and medicine.

Granted, you do have a point, many don't go out of embarrassment.

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=firstdown;492402]Ok, I'm not a fan of Obama but I do not agree with your statement.[/quote]

Which is saying a lot. For you as a Conservative and me as a Liberal. Yes, we can reach across the aisle after all and agree. :grouphug:

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;492404]Also because at some point, they'd have to pay, I would think? Lots of men were getting treatment but due the folding of many centers back in the day, either fell through the cracks or couldn't go to another hospital (for whatever reason, good or bad).

And even with insurance (which some companies don't even cover) it's a bitch to pay for psych evaluations and a therapist and medicine.

Granted, you do have a point, many don't go out of embarrassment.[/quote]
Ins co. have to cover this now days and its one reason premiums keep going up because congress mandates that they have to cover allot of illnesses. Thats been one of the things that allot of people say could reduce cost if people could choose their coverages rather than congress mandate what the ins.co. have to cover. Good example would be a person who does not drink or use drugs has to pay for caverage which would provide treatment for acohlo and drug addiction. Why is that mandated by congress when he would not need coverage for this or why do they force me to pay for other coverages I don't feel I need?

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=firstdown;492454]Ins co. have to cover this now days and its one reason premiums keep going up because congress mandates that they have to cover allot of illnesses. Thats been one of the things that allot of people say could reduce cost if people could choose their coverages rather than congress mandate what the ins.co. have to cover. Good example would be a person who does not drink or use drugs has to pay for caverage which would provide treatment for acohlo and drug addiction. Why is that mandated by congress when he would not need coverage for this or why do they force me to pay for other coverages I don't feel I need?[/quote]

because you don't know what you'll need... maybe you get hooked on pain pills.. now you can't get fixed since you never paid for it, or you have to get fixed on someone else's dollar.

it's like in galveston - they used to allow you to take money out of your retirement account, so some people did to buy big screen tvs or whatnot, and then b*tched at retirement about not having enough money... so guess what? since 91 or so you can't do that anymore. sometimes people have to be saved from themselves so they don't make a bad decision which ends up affecting others (ie if in this examplbe he became homeless and a tax burden through a direct result his own actions/decisions).

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

The $ 250K bar is already creeping down....and Obama hasn't even "picked out the drapes" yet

[url=http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/mccain-obamas-definition-rich-creeping/comments/]McCain: Obama's Definition of Rich Is 'Creeping Down' - FOXNews.com Elections[/url]

With a supermajority expect an even lower bar for raising taxes.

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

Hope you don't make more than 150K SS33 or your family just might be headed to the poor house. Hope you ball and shine forever, forever and ever.

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

ss33, do you really believe that McCain will not raise your taxes?

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

DAMN LIBERALS....and NEOCONS. To be honest I don't like the eithers of you. Heres why (remember I say this with love)

In general:
- Liberals want to fight no one, neocons want to fight everyone
- Liberals want to spend everything, neocons don't want to spend anything unless theres fighting involved
- Liberals want to make everything Go Green, Neocons could care less about the enviornment (Yes I've heard the hunting argument)
- Both support seperate but equal when it comes to gays which is pretty hypocritical if you ask me.
- Liberals are way to soft on major criminals (rapist, murderers, con artist, etc), Neocons are way to hard on minor criminals (the college kid with a bag of pot, statutory rape between people that are around 1 or 2 years apart)
- Liberals blame everything on Bush. To me thats like knowing the answer to a math problem without knowing how to do the work. The most clichey thing to do these days when discussing politics is to blame everything on Bush. Maybe people should learn not to give a party total control over government. Neocons, well their opponent always happens to be the "most liberal canidate EVER." So liberal that America is going to become a socialist country if they get elected.
- Liberals pander to the "middle class" claiming they'll cut the taxes that a lot of them don't pay any taxes as well as a health care system that if truely allowed would be among the worst in the developed world (think DMV), neocons pander to the crazy Christians promising to completly overturn Roe vs Wade as well as possibly introducing school prayer in public institutions (seriously I don't know of any Christians that HAD to pray before school and last I checked you can do it silently without anyone noticing, I know I used to). Not to mention a good amount of the ones not named McCain oppose stem-cell research. A practice that could lead to medical breakthroughs (I think someone already mentioned waiting list in Canada and the US for organs).
- Liberals have Hollywood actors providing political analysis, Neocons have the lady that doesn't trust Obama because "he's an arab." No mam.
- "Change", "Maverick"

All in all I hate extremes to begin with. I think if I had it my way I would have the most moderate politicians in office, but then again we don't live in an ideal world.

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

Thought this thread deserved a bump since it's now effectively happened with Franken winning the Senate seat in MN.

Let's look at the original predictions from the WSJ, and where we are right now:

WSJ predicts: Medicare for all
Current Situation: Universal Health Care being pushed through Congress, likely approved without bi-partisan support in late summer/early fall.

WSJ predicts: More government control of private economy
Current Situation: Gov't already strong-arms bankruptcies of Chrysler and GM leaving private investors with virtually nothing. Gov't control of GM is 60%, Canadian gov't 12%, IAW 17%. Bail-out $$$ has given the federal government deeper control into the financial industry, to the point of determining executive pay.

WSJ predicts: Union supremacy
Current Situation: Employee Free Choice Act will likely pass easily.
[URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123611995496723249.html"]President Tells Unions Organizing Act Will Pass - WSJ.com[/URL]

WSJ predicts: Cap and Trade (Tax/Regulate)
Current Situation: Crap...ooops...Cap & Trade narrowly passed the House. The Obama Admin will likely use Chicago-style politics to force passage in the Senate on a party line vote. Our only salvation from this will be either Dems in blue-collar states or the two Independents. EPA suppresses Climate Change report that questions (correctly) the junk science of Global Warming.

WSJ predicts: Voting Rights will be stacked towards Dems, led by ACORN.
Current Situation: Bureau of Census will allow ACORN workers to be census-takers. Stimulus bill provided over $ 4B in funding that ACORN is eligible to receive.

Great summary of what would happen with a Dem supermajority IMO:
"In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. [B]Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined."[/B]

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

Who would have ever thought Al Franken would wield this much power

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=SmootSmack;565324]Who would have ever thought Al Franken would wield this much power[/quote]"I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me."

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;565321]Thought this thread deserved a bump since it's now effectively happened with Franken winning the Senate seat in MN.

Let's look at the original predictions from the WSJ, and where we are right now:

[B]WSJ predicts: Medicare for all
Current Situation: Universal Health Care being pushed through Congress, likely approved without bi-partisan support in late summer/early fall.[/B]
WSJ predicts: More government control of private economy
Current Situation: Gov't already strong-arms bankruptcies of Chrysler and GM leaving private investors with virtually nothing. Gov't control of GM is 60%, Canadian gov't 12%, IAW 17%. Bail-out $$$ has given the federal government deeper control into the financial industry, to the point of determining executive pay.

WSJ predicts: Union supremacy
[B]Current Situation: Employee Free Choice Act will likely pass easily.[/B][URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123611995496723249.html"]President Tells Unions Organizing Act Will Pass - WSJ.com[/URL]

WSJ predicts: Cap and Trade (Tax/Regulate)
Current Situation: Crap...ooops...Cap & Trade narrowly passed the House. [B]The Obama Admin will likely use Chicago-style politics [/B]to force passage in the Senate on a party line vote. Our only salvation from this will be either Dems in blue-collar states or the two Independents. EPA suppresses Climate Change report that questions (correctly) the junk science of Global Warming.

WSJ predicts: Voting Rights will be stacked towards Dems, led by ACORN.
Current Situation: Bureau of Census will allow ACORN workers to be census-takers. Stimulus bill provided over $ 4B in funding that ACORN is eligible to receive.

Great summary of what would happen with a Dem supermajority IMO:
"In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed [B]vast expansions of government[/B][B] that have never been repealed[/B], and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. [B]Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined."[/B][/quote]

1) It's about time.
2) Good news--the middle class never thrived more than when union membership was hearty.
3) "Chicago-style" politics. You mean the Obama administration is going to be aggressive? Gee, White House administrations NEVER act like that. ("If you can't stand the heat, boys, . . ." )
4) Amen. The country remains strong because of them.

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;565321]Thought this thread deserved a bump since it's now effectively happened with Franken winning the Senate seat in MN.

Let's look at the original predictions from the WSJ, and where we are right now:

WSJ predicts: Medicare for all
Current Situation: Universal Health Care being pushed through Congress, likely approved without bi-partisan support in late summer/early fall.

WSJ predicts: More government control of private economy
Current Situation: Gov't already strong-arms bankruptcies of Chrysler and GM leaving private investors with virtually nothing. Gov't control of GM is 60%, Canadian gov't 12%, IAW 17%. Bail-out $$$ has given the federal government deeper control into the financial industry, to the point of determining executive pay.

WSJ predicts: Union supremacy
Current Situation: Employee Free Choice Act will likely pass easily.
[URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123611995496723249.html"]President Tells Unions Organizing Act Will Pass - WSJ.com[/URL]

WSJ predicts: Cap and Trade (Tax/Regulate)
Current Situation: Crap...ooops...Cap & Trade narrowly passed the House. The Obama Admin will likely use Chicago-style politics to force passage in the Senate on a party line vote. Our only salvation from this will be either Dems in blue-collar states or the two Independents. EPA suppresses Climate Change report that questions (correctly) the junk science of Global Warming.

WSJ predicts: Voting Rights will be stacked towards Dems, led by ACORN.
[B]Current Situation: Bureau of Census will allow ACORN workers to be census-takers. Stimulus bill provided over $ 4B in funding that ACORN is eligible to receive.
[/B]
Great summary of what would happen with a Dem supermajority IMO:
"In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. [B]Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined."[/B][/quote]


It's not much of a prediction if all they're doing is reading off of the Democrat's agenda book. It's amazing what is being passed off as insightful predictions these days.


p.s. Don't tell anyone this folks but you too can get a piece of that 4 billion dollar pie.

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=BringBackJoeT;565328]1) It's about time.
2) Good news--[B]the middle class never thrived more than when union membership was hearty.[/B]
3) "Chicago-style" politics. You mean the Obama administration is going to be aggressive? Gee, White House administrations NEVER act like that. ("If you can't stand the heat, boys, . . ." )
4) Amen. The country remains strong because of them.[/quote]

Do you work for a union? Unions are the downfall of this country. There once was a time and place for unions but in today's day and age the only thing that a union does is protect the LAZY worker. The union is why GM and Chrysler went bankrupt in my opinion. I work in the automotive industry and have been in many union factories and its the same at each factory you see people sitting on their asses and expecting to be paid like kings. The union is bad for this country...

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=Redskins8588;565344]Do you work for a union? Unions are the downfall of this country. There once was a time and place for unions but in today's day and age the only thing that a union does is protect the LAZY worker. The union is why GM and Chrysler went bankrupt in my opinion. I work in the automotive industry and have been in many union factories and its the same at each factory you see people sitting on their asses and expecting to be paid like kings. The union is bad for this country...[/quote]

Oh get'off'it. Last time I checked the unions didn't cause the Wall St. meltdown nor were they the reason why GM and Chrysler failed. Better quality product, customer care, and poor management is what killed them but you go ahead and believe what you want about unions.

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

Maybe not directly but to pay a person $40 -$60/hour just to sit there and watch parts go buy is way too much money. Then to promise that person the wages and insurance when they retire is insane. If you look at and compare the union workers in the ford, gm, and chrysler plants to the honda, hyundi, and toyota plants you will see that the workers in the big three have it much easier. I mean for christ's sakes chrysler wanted to take $20 away from their workers just to put them on the same level as the honda, toyota, and hyundi workers and the union said "NO". Even with the $20 decrease they still were making $25-$40 per hour. I bet that helped out their cause not to go bankrupted. Just recently a transfercase company in Syracuse, NY is shutting down because of the union. The workers voted down a contract 4 times after the company gave each worker $77,000 to help with the decrease of the workers pay by $9. $77,000 just given to you, and yet the people still vote down a contract between the company and the union. Now their will be around 5,000 people with out a job and the union is the middle man. I bet that helps out the economy also...

One more thing unions are why you have to overpay for a vehicle by $10,000 to $15,000...

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=saden1;565341]It's not much of a prediction if all they're doing is reading off of the Democrat's agenda book. It's amazing what is being passed off as insightful predictions these days.[/quote]This article was an attempt at educating the "uninformed". You and I knew what would happen, but I believe a large segment of those who voted for Obama didn't realize the real consequences


[quote]p.s. Don't tell anyone this folks but you too can get a piece of that 4 billion dollar pie.[/quote]I'm pretty confident unless you're a director/board member of a left-wing organization already "in bed" with the Administration you're not getting anywhere near that $ 4B.

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=BringBackJoeT;565328]1) It's about time.
2) Good news--the middle class never thrived more than when union membership was hearty.
3) "Chicago-style" politics. You mean the Obama administration is going to be aggressive? Gee, White House administrations NEVER act like that. ("If you can't stand the heat, boys, . . ." )
4) Amen. The country remains strong because of them.[/quote]
1) No matter the financial cost or reduction in health care quality/benefits/delivery that will affect the vast majority in the U.S.
2) The years of unions taking advantage of the auto industry are definitely a major contributor to the failure of GM & Chrysler.
3) Chicago style politics is more of the Blago/R. Emanuel style certainly a lot worse than "being aggressive". The WH Chief of Staff dropping F-Bomb laden tirades in meetings with Congressional leaders is just the tip of the iceberg.
4) Voter registration fraud definitely makes the country stronger.

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;565321]Thought this thread deserved a bump since it's now effectively happened with Franken winning the Senate seat in MN.[B]."[/B][/quote]

the people of mn that voted for franken have to be,HAVE TO BE the most retarded people in the entire world.

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=Redskins8588;565350][B]Maybe not directly but to pay a person $40 -$60/hour just to sit there and watch parts go buy is way too much money.[/B] Then to promise that person the wages and insurance when they retire is insane. If you look at and compare the union workers in the ford, gm, and chrysler plants to the honda, hyundi, and toyota plants you will see that the workers in the big three have it much easier. I mean for christ's sakes chrysler wanted to take $20 away from their workers just to put them on the same level as the honda, toyota, and hyundi workers and the union said "NO". Even with the $20 decrease they still were making $25-$40 per hour. I bet that helped out their cause not to go bankrupted. Just recently a transfercase company in Syracuse, NY is shutting down because of the union. The workers voted down a contract 4 times after the company gave each worker $77,000 to help with the decrease of the workers pay by $9. $77,000 just given to you, and yet the people still vote down a contract between the company and the union. Now their will be around 5,000 people with out a job and the union is the middle man. I bet that helps out the economy also...

One more thing unions are why you have to overpay for a vehicle by $10,000 to $15,000...[/quote]


Really? You make it sound all fun and games at plant GM. Honestly though, when you disrespect them in such manner you squander any credibility you have. There's more than meets the eye but why bother with details when you can just toss numbers around without citation. I smell the foul stench of hearsay painted with manure.

Pssst, the average worker salary at GM is not 40-60 dollars an hour as you have state. The average worker's [URL="http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/nov/19/health/chi-ap-factcheck-autos-labor"]hourly rate is $69[/URL] which includes benefits and legacy retiree cost and is expected to go down to $62 in 2010. The actual average take home pay is ~$30 which is comparative to that of Toyota and et al.


Help corporate America, support Universal Health Care.

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;565352]This article was an attempt at educating the "uninformed". You and I knew what would happen, but I believe a large segment of those who voted for Obama didn't realize the real consequences


I'm pretty confident unless you're a director/board member of a left-wing organization already "in bed" with the Administration you're not getting anywhere near that $ 4B.[/quote]

I think they weighed the consequence of electing another republican vs a democrat pretty well. What were the uninformed thinking? "Another republican? Oh hell no, I'm not going to give those mofo another chance to do more damage." And when Obama f'up they'll say the same thing about the democrats.


That's the [URL="http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_stimulus_bill_include_a_52.html"]misinformation bs[/URL] out there about ACORN.You just have to have a legit NGO and apply for the funds. Let's leave the conspiracy theories for 70 shall we.

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=slingin sammy 33;565355]1) no matter the financial cost or reduction in health care quality/benefits/delivery that will affect for the vast majority in the u.s.
[b][u]2) the years of unions taking advantage of the auto industry are definitely a major contributor to the failure of gm & chrysler. [/u][/b]
3) chicago style politics is more of the blago/r. Emanuel style certainly a lot worse than "being aggressive". The wh chief of staff dropping f-bomb laden tirades in meetings with congressional leaders is just the tip of the iceberg.
4) voter registration fraud definitely makes the country stronger.[/quote]

glad to see that i am not the only one!!!

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=saden1;565365]Really? You make it sound all fun and games at plant GM. Honestly though, when you disrespect them in such manner you squander any credibility you have. There's more than meets the eye but why bother with details when you can just toss numbers around without citation. I smell the foul stench of hearsay painted with manure.

Pssst, the average worker salary at GM is not 40-60 dollars an hour as you have state. The average worker's [URL="http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/nov/19/health/chi-ap-factcheck-autos-labor"]hourly rate is $69[/URL] which includes benefits and legacy retiree cost and is expected to go down to $62 in 2010. The actual average take home pay is ~$30 which is comparative to that of Toyota and et al.


Help corporate America, support Universal Health Care.[/quote]

Either way your telling me that it ok for people to make that money for not doing anything, not being a skilled labor? What America do you live in? Are you part of a union? I am only speaking of the UAW, and what I have seen in these plants it is nothing more than f*<king highway robbery going on...

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=Redskins8588;565370]Either way your telling me that it ok for people to make that money for not doing anything, not being a skilled labor? What America do you live in? Are you part of a union? I am only speaking of the UAW, and what I have seen in these plants it is nothing more than f*<king highway robbery going on...[/quote]

Here i was thinking that before GM's [URL="http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/28-01-08_15"]decline they manufactured 9.35 million car in 2007 vs 9.5 million cars that Toyota built[/URL]. With relatively the same number of employees too.

Believe it or not but you don't know what you're talking about and I am more than happy to inform you.

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=saden1;565372]Here i was thinking that before GM's [URL="http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/28-01-08_15"]decline they manufactured 9.35 million car in 2007 vs 9.5 million cars that Toyota built[/URL]. With relatively the same number of employees too.

Believe it or not but you don't know what you're talking about and I am more than happy to inform you.[/quote]

Whatever union lover, next your going to tell me that any kid that shows up to an athletic event should get a trophy just for trying. Yeah that's a good way to teach work ethic, and pamper the lazy. I would love to see an union employee try to work in a non-union factory, the key word there is "work," you won't find that in any union dictionary. Then you will follow up with the education system needs to eliminate physical education just because little Johnny or little Suzy may not be as good as others and their feelings may be hurt...

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

i would take offense to what you are saying 8588, but you really don't know what you are talking about. my dad was a teamster for all but 40 years, and worked for what he has. you seem to forget that there are 2 sides at the table. if these wages are so inconceivable, then why did management agree to them? unions are a big reason that alot of Americans can enjoy a decent wage. the only reason they are starting to fade away is Ronald Reagan, and what he did to the air traffic controllers. with corporate greed running wild, do you trust the board that runs your company, to do whats best for you? i know i don't

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

Well its not hard to see what happens when we get big goverment you just have to turn and look at CA. and the 20 bil in red tape they are now trying to deal with.

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=saden1;565365]Really? You make it sound all fun and games at plant GM. Honestly though, when you disrespect them in such manner you squander any credibility you have. There's more than meets the eye but why bother with details when you can just toss numbers around without citation. I smell the foul stench of hearsay painted with manure.

Pssst, the average worker salary at GM is not 40-60 dollars an hour as you have state. The average worker's [URL="http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/nov/19/health/chi-ap-factcheck-autos-labor"]hourly rate is $69[/URL] which includes benefits and legacy retiree cost and is expected to go down to $62 in 2010. The actual average take home pay is ~$30 which is comparative to that of Toyota and et al.


Help corporate America, support Universal Health Care.[/quote]
SO how many people do you know working at a place like GM?

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=Redskins8588;565381]Whatever union lover, next your going to tell me that any kid that shows up to an athletic event should get a trophy just for trying. Yeah that's a good way to teach work ethic, and pamper the lazy. I would love to see an union employee try to work in a non-union factory, the key word there is "work," you won't find that in any union dictionary. Then you will follow up with the education system needs to eliminate physical education just because little Johnny or little Suzy may not be as good as others and their feelings may be hurt...[/quote]


Your incoherent babbling is pathetic. There are many not so kind words to describe you and I'm pretty confidant you've heard them all so I'll spare you from having to hear them again. Watch out for the cliff ahead genius.

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=dmek25;565396]i would take offense to what you are saying 8588, but you really don't know what you are talking about. my dad was a teamster for all but 40 years, and worked for what he has. you seem to forget that there are 2 sides at the table. if these wages are so inconceivable, then why did management agree to them? unions are a big reason that alot of Americans can enjoy a decent wage. the only reason they are starting to fade away is Ronald Reagan, and what he did to the air traffic controllers. with corporate greed running wild, do you trust the board that runs your company, to do whats best for you? i know i don't[/quote]

Stop it dmek, everyone knows unions are anti-American. It's a communist tactic that will eventually destroy America. Along with the homosexuals and cap-and-trade of course.

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=firstdown;565413]SO how many people do you know working at a place like GM?[/quote]

What does that have to with anything? I could claim to know one person and you would not know if I am telling the truth or lying. I don't need to personally know a GM employee to know the numbers.

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=dmek25;565396]i would take offense to what you are saying 8588, but you really don't know what you are talking about. my dad was a teamster for all but 40 years, and worked for what he has. you seem to forget that there are 2 sides at the table. if these wages are so inconceivable, then why did management agree to them? unions are a big reason that alot of Americans can enjoy a decent wage. the only reason they are starting to fade away is Ronald Reagan, and what he did to the air traffic controllers. with corporate greed running wild, do you trust the board that runs your company, to do whats best for you? i know i don't[/quote]

I am not saying that the union wasn't needed at one time, I agree that a lot of the benefits and work environments that industrial America enjoys today is because of unions. At one point in time unions were needed and did a lot for the average worker. I will not deny that, but in my opinion unions do more harm than good. Oh and I have not only been in union plants but I did work in one before. So yes I did experience a union first hand...

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=saden1;565415]Your incoherent babbling is pathetic. There are many not so kind words to describe you and I'm pretty confidant you've heard them all so I'll spare you from having to hear them again. Watch out for the cliff ahead genius.[/quote]

Whatever, maybe I was wrong, maybe its not the union that will be the downfall of this country. The downfall of this country will be people like you with ideas like yours...

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=saden1;565417]What does that have to with anything? I could claim to know one person and you would not know if I am telling the truth or lying. I don't need to personally know a GM employee to know the numbers.[/quote]
Well when your talking about how hard they work for their money it helps if you have actually know someone working in an auto plant. I had several friends who worked at the loacal ford plant (now closed) and they will admitt over paid under worked. Yes sometimes they worked their butt off but most of the time they said the job was pretty easy and the longer you are their the easier it got.

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=firstdown;565428]Well when your talking about how hard they work for their money it helps if you have actually know someone working in an auto plant. I had several friends who worked at the loacal ford plant (now closed) and they will admitt over paid under worked. [B]Yes sometimes they worked their butt off but most of the time they said the job was pretty easy and the longer you are their the easier it got.[/B][/quote]

This is true at my job too. In fact, it's true of most jobs and if it isn't you're. Saying they don't do anything is different than saying their job is not demanding. I know a lot of folks want to pay them $10 and they want to get paid their fair share.

Re: Liberal Supermajority
 

[quote=saden1;565430]This is true at my job too. In fact, it's true of most jobs and if it isn't you're. Saying they don't do anything is different than saying their job is not demanding. I know a lot of folks want to pay them $10 and they want to get paid their fair share.[/quote]
My buddy is a good example of what the union does in the way of getting in the way. He was installing things into the dash of F150 trucks which kept him pretty busy. After some type of review done by the union his mgr informed him that he would now have two other guys doing this task. When he asked why the mgr said it had something to do with union regulations. So now he had 2 other guys doing a job that he was doing on his own. These were guys they had to higher and would guess that had to be a cost close to $200,000 a year on Ford. MY buddy tried to talk them into just paying him more if they thought he was over worked. Mgr said that would be great if the union would allow that.