Reagan and Reality

[orion]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Probably , traditionally , I am talking about a party that represents the working class and their interest. [/quote]

Oh, a special interest group?

And this sounded like a yes, they are socialist. Meaning those crazy right wingers trying to make people believe a labor party is socialist are just calling a spade a spade.[/quote]

What is socialist about a political party or action commity that represents American Labor ?
[/quote]

Who they represent has no bearing on them being socialist. [/quote]

How are they socialist, I content they would not be , they would not be , and the opposition’s defense agaist them would be to label them socialist
[/quote]

What would make them socialists (or not) is the policies they’d support. So, what policies would they support?[/quote]

We would agree that that an organization that represented labor is not Socialism unless they support a socialist’s agenda[/quote]

If they represent, say, teachers in public schools, they cannot really help it, can they?

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Probably , traditionally , I am talking about a party that represents the working class and their interest. [/quote]

Oh, a special interest group?

And this sounded like a yes, they are socialist. Meaning those crazy right wingers trying to make people believe a labor party is socialist are just calling a spade a spade.[/quote]

What is socialist about a political party or action commity that represents American Labor ?
[/quote]

Who they represent has no bearing on them being socialist. [/quote]

How are they socialist, I content they would not be , they would not be , and the opposition’s defense agaist them would be to label them socialist
[/quote]

What would make them socialists (or not) is the policies they’d support. So, what policies would they support?[/quote]

We would agree that that an organization that represented labor is not Socialism unless they support a socialist’s agenda[/quote]

Nice dodges. If you propose that a labor party would not be socialist, then you must assert what their non-socialist policies would be.

But, if they were non-socialist, I’d still not like them because they’d be nothing more than a special interest group.

[pittbulll]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Probably , traditionally , I am talking about a party that represents the working class and their interest. [/quote]

Oh, a special interest group?

And this sounded like a yes, they are socialist. Meaning those crazy right wingers trying to make people believe a labor party is socialist are just calling a spade a spade.[/quote]

What is socialist about a political party or action commity that represents American Labor ?
[/quote]

Who they represent has no bearing on them being socialist. [/quote]

How are they socialist, I content they would not be , they would not be , and the opposition’s defense agaist them would be to label them socialist
[/quote]

What would make them socialists (or not) is the policies they’d support. So, what policies would they support?[/quote]

We would agree that that an organization that represented labor is not Socialism unless they support a socialist’s agenda[/quote]

If they represent, say, teachers in public schools, they cannot really help it, can they?

[/quote]

Being a public employee , does not make you a socialist, I would think the closet American comes to Socialism is the Military

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Probably , traditionally , I am talking about a party that represents the working class and their interest. [/quote]

Oh, a special interest group?

And this sounded like a yes, they are socialist. Meaning those crazy right wingers trying to make people believe a labor party is socialist are just calling a spade a spade.[/quote]

What is socialist about a political party or action commity that represents American Labor ?
[/quote]

Who they represent has no bearing on them being socialist. [/quote]

How are they socialist, I content they would not be , they would not be , and the opposition’s defense agaist them would be to label them socialist
[/quote]

What would make them socialists (or not) is the policies they’d support. So, what policies would they support?[/quote]

We would agree that that an organization that represented labor is not Socialism unless they support a socialist’s agenda[/quote]

If they represent, say, teachers in public schools, they cannot really help it, can they?

[/quote]

Being a public employee , does not make you a socialist, I would think the closet American comes to Socialism is the Military

[/quote]

No, because military service is voluntary.

[pittbulll]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Probably , traditionally , I am talking about a party that represents the working class and their interest. [/quote]

Oh, a special interest group?

And this sounded like a yes, they are socialist. Meaning those crazy right wingers trying to make people believe a labor party is socialist are just calling a spade a spade.[/quote]

What is socialist about a political party or action commity that represents American Labor ?
[/quote]

Who they represent has no bearing on them being socialist. [/quote]

How are they socialist, I content they would not be , they would not be , and the opposition’s defense agaist them would be to label them socialist
[/quote]

What would make them socialists (or not) is the policies they’d support. So, what policies would they support?[/quote]

We would agree that that an organization that represented labor is not Socialism unless they support a socialist’s agenda[/quote]

Nice dodges. If you propose that a labor party would not be socialist, then you must assert what their non-socialist policies would be.

But, if they were non-socialist, I’d still not like them because they’d be nothing more than a special interest group.[/quote]

Do you mean like the Democrats or Republicans or the Tea Baggers

[pittbulll]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Probably , traditionally , I am talking about a party that represents the working class and their interest. [/quote]

Oh, a special interest group?

And this sounded like a yes, they are socialist. Meaning those crazy right wingers trying to make people believe a labor party is socialist are just calling a spade a spade.[/quote]

What is socialist about a political party or action commity that represents American Labor ?
[/quote]

Who they represent has no bearing on them being socialist. [/quote]

How are they socialist, I content they would not be , they would not be , and the opposition’s defense agaist them would be to label them socialist
[/quote]

What would make them socialists (or not) is the policies they’d support. So, what policies would they support?[/quote]

We would agree that that an organization that represented labor is not Socialism unless they support a socialist’s agenda[/quote]

If they represent, say, teachers in public schools, they cannot really help it, can they?

[/quote]

Being a public employee , does not make you a socialist, I would think the closet American comes to Socialism is the Military

[/quote]

No, because military service is voluntary.[/quote]

Living life is voluntary, then as long as the so called labor party was voluntary then it would not support the Socialist agenda

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Probably , traditionally , I am talking about a party that represents the working class and their interest. [/quote]

Oh, a special interest group?

And this sounded like a yes, they are socialist. Meaning those crazy right wingers trying to make people believe a labor party is socialist are just calling a spade a spade.[/quote]

What is socialist about a political party or action commity that represents American Labor ?
[/quote]

Who they represent has no bearing on them being socialist. [/quote]

How are they socialist, I content they would not be , they would not be , and the opposition’s defense agaist them would be to label them socialist
[/quote]

What would make them socialists (or not) is the policies they’d support. So, what policies would they support?[/quote]

We would agree that that an organization that represented labor is not Socialism unless they support a socialist’s agenda[/quote]

Nice dodges. If you propose that a labor party would not be socialist, then you must assert what their non-socialist policies would be.

But, if they were non-socialist, I’d still not like them because they’d be nothing more than a special interest group.[/quote]

Do you mean like the Democrats or Republicans or the Tea Baggers[/quote]

Sometimes, but all of those groups claim to serve the interest of the nation or the rights of man in general. The labor party specifically excludes people from whom it represents.

It would be like electing an “oil” party specifically dedicated to the needs of the oil industry.

A representative has the responsibility to fairly and evenly (as possible) serve the interests of ALL of their constituents. A labor party is there to specifically lobby for a specific group and their interests regardless of rightness or fairness to people outside the group.

Yes, a labor party is a special interest group I would fight against for that specific reason.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Living life is voluntary, then as long as the so called labor party was voluntary then it would not support the Socialist agenda[/quote]

No, membership in the party doesn’t matter. Participation in their agenda is not voluntary.

[pittbulll]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Living life is voluntary, then as long as the so called labor party was voluntary then it would not support the Socialist agenda[/quote]

No, membership in the party doesn’t matter. Participation in their agenda is not voluntary. [/quote]

Are you talking about the Military ?

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Living life is voluntary, then as long as the so called labor party was voluntary then it would not support the Socialist agenda[/quote]

No, membership in the party doesn’t matter. Participation in their agenda is not voluntary. [/quote]

Are you talking about the Military ?
[/quote]

No.

[pittbulll]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Living life is voluntary, then as long as the so called labor party was voluntary then it would not support the Socialist agenda[/quote]

No, membership in the party doesn’t matter. Participation in their agenda is not voluntary. [/quote]

Are you talking about the Military ?
[/quote]

No.[/quote]

It fits the Military also , would you agree ?

[florelius]

Labor partys doesnt need to be socialist, but most did start out as “soft-socialist” partys, then
right after the russian revolution, many labor partys in Europa became more radical and joined the comintern.
But in the 1920s most europeen labor partys splitted in two and you had know a communist party and a socialdemocratic party. After WW2 the labor partys of europa degenereted into leftliberal partys and represent much what the democrats in the US represent. As an sidenote it is probably relevant to point out that the british labor party have been more "soft-socialist" than other labor partys, as example the norwegian who where rather radical up untill the 1930s.

ps. I would argue that if a labor party is not socialist, it is not serving the workers wery well
and its just another liberal party to make middleclass people feel good about themself for “helping”
the workers out.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Ronald Reagan was the worst President America has known all the old Steel towns that are now vast fields of Welfare Recipients can all be lain at the feet of Ronald Reagan, Hundreds if not thousands of thriving companies , Thousands of towns and cities hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs , gone thanks to Ronnie[/quote]

Which begs the question, why don’t we just ban all imports? That would make all industry better and America better. Then we just hand out government money to any company that isn’t making it, that way no business ever fails.

I’m telling you guys, it’s foolproof.[/quote]

No need to ban anything just make sure that all the same players have the same human rights record and the same record on the ecology of the industry, I am running out of battery
[/quote]

No one has the same record. The Japanese don’t have the same idea of humans rights we do, so ban Honda?

There are a lot of things more important that humans rights issues that cause the discrepancies in cost of business.
[/quote]

My point is that Reagan wanted American Steel to compete with third world countries that paid pennies a day if they did not get away with not paying their workers at all , Reagan’s concept was that you flood the market with cheap goods and every one can buy more , that is good until no one has money to buy the cheap goods .

[/quote]

Seeing as the economy has done great and there is no higher level of consumer-ship in the world, please explain how that isn’t what happened?[/quote]

I disagree that the economy is doing good , we have no where near the manufacturing base we had before Reagan , He was the Unions worts enemy he cut off our nose to spite our face , he threw the baby out with the bath water , he fucked America in the ass
[/quote]

LOL. The problem with a liberal is that they equate not doing something you don’t have the right to do with proctively doing something bad.

The union is the union’s worst enemy. Not taking people’s money by force to prop up an inefficient industry isn’t “fucking america in the ass”. [/quote]

I personally think Unions are evil, but a necessary evil . Corporations will screw employees as well as any one else for profit, that is why we need another evil (CONSUMER PROTECTION)
[/quote]

Unions are corporations. [/quote]

Oh and they have about two dozen acts passed in their favor.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Unions are corporations. [/quote]

True , they were also organized crime[/quote]

Not to mention, they are also generally monopolies. It’s like the worst of all worlds, but you still think they are good?[/quote]

Capitalism, despite its clear benefits, has a history of chewing up its workers. Labor organizations are one way of addressing that concern.

Another one is corporate social responsiblity which is all too often, these days and in the past, a pipe dream.[/quote]

Yes, they are awesome for workers and I don’t think many reasonable people would deny the need or use for unions, but Unions have several acts in which they are unaccountable to the law.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Probably , traditionally , I am talking about a party that represents the working class and their interest. [/quote]

We had that, used to be called Democrats, but now the Democrats went the way of the Republicans.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
a special interest group I would fight against for that specific reason.[/quote]

I have to throw a flag, why the hate on the special interest group?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Well yes , English is my first language, It may not make sense that Reagan was responsible for the demise of the Steel industry, because the way history accounted for Reagan’s Reign was incorrect
As far as my writing defying logic , I believe that is a deficiency on your part[/quote]

I know we passed the weed bill and everything, but gotta chill on that hashish man!

[pittbulll]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Well yes , English is my first language, It may not make sense that Reagan was responsible for the demise of the Steel industry, because the way history accounted for Reagan’s Reign was incorrect
As far as my writing defying logic , I believe that is a deficiency on your part[/quote]

I know we passed the weed bill and everything, but gotta chill on that hashish man![/quote]

[666Rich]

Reagan is such a polarizing figure, perhaps because he embodied archtype conservatism.

Yes, Reagan instituded supply side tax cuts while at the same time increasing fiscal outlays, predominatley in the military expenditure area. Without a doubt this was to foster an increase in our interventionist foreign policy, supplying “aid” to countries such as Egypt, Iran, Iraq and Isreal. Thus, taxpayers dollars were diverted for military expenditures in those countries on American military hardware, for our imperial supply line and hegemony. Add that to the whole “lets have an arms race with the commies to win the cold war”. The communist empire of the soviet union would have eroded on its own due to similar circumstances of wasted government money to the subsidized military industrial complex.

SO by that regards, with the effects still being felt today in the region, Reagan gets an F in my book.

The aforementioned spending on the military industrial complex while cutting taxes increased the structural deficit to a large degree. Considering governments are not driven by a profit motive, generally spending is erroneous, and deficits are ignored until a reckoning period comes in terms of credit ratings and who will buy more debt.

Living in Pittsburgh, which was THE steel town, and Youngstown as our neighbor, its a shame to see the blight in certain areas in both cities. Pittsburgh has recovered fairly well by using the higher education sectors, healthcare and other diversified industries. Id say, economically, Pittsburgh is one of the best cities in the country right now.

Unions caused workers in that industry to be paid above their discounted marginal value product. Furthermore, those same cost burdens discouraged further hiring, and thus growth. Perhaps support would erode for unions if more people were aware of the unemployment which they perpetuate. How does that sound about the welfare of the worker? Or should you say, only joe’s welfare is important because hes in the union as opposed to Jim who is not, and will not be hired because of unionized costs. Once again, discounted marginal productivity. Translate the lack of expansionary ability by the unions, in collusion with public officials along with pension and other costs and you have an uncompetitive industry.

Corporations are not “evil”. They wouldnt exist if the consumer thought them nefarious. The disaterous cycle of union power and political nepotism towards them (big union and big government) are precisely the reason why detroit is a waste, wisconsin is in chaos and certain industries left the country.

[pittbulll]

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Reagan is such a polarizing figure, perhaps because he embodied archtype conservatism.

Yes, Reagan instituded supply side tax cuts while at the same time increasing fiscal outlays, predominatley in the military expenditure area. Without a doubt this was to foster an increase in our interventionist foreign policy, supplying “aid” to countries such as Egypt, Iran, Iraq and Isreal. Thus, taxpayers dollars were diverted for military expenditures in those countries on American military hardware, for our imperial supply line and hegemony. Add that to the whole “lets have an arms race with the commies to win the cold war”. The communist empire of the soviet union would have eroded on its own due to similar circumstances of wasted government money to the subsidized military industrial complex.

SO by that regards, with the effects still being felt today in the region, Reagan gets an F in my book.

The aforementioned spending on the military industrial complex while cutting taxes increased the structural deficit to a large degree. Considering governments are not driven by a profit motive, generally spending is erroneous, and deficits are ignored until a reckoning period comes in terms of credit ratings and who will buy more debt.

Living in Pittsburgh, which was THE steel town, and Youngstown as our neighbor, its a shame to see the blight in certain areas in both cities. Pittsburgh has recovered fairly well by using the higher education sectors, healthcare and other diversified industries. Id say, economically, Pittsburgh is one of the best cities in the country right now.

Unions caused workers in that industry to be paid above their discounted marginal value product. Furthermore, those same cost burdens discouraged further hiring, and thus growth. Perhaps support would erode for unions if more people were aware of the unemployment which they perpetuate. How does that sound about the welfare of the worker? Or should you say, only joe’s welfare is important because hes in the union as opposed to Jim who is not, and will not be hired because of unionized costs. Once again, discounted marginal productivity. Translate the lack of expansionary ability by the unions, in collusion with public officials along with pension and other costs and you have an uncompetitive industry.

Corporations are not “evil”. They wouldnt exist if the consumer thought them nefarious. The disaterous cycle of union power and political nepotism towards them (big union and big government) are precisely the reason why detroit is a waste, wisconsin is in chaos and certain industries left the country.[/quote]

Union shops had a trickle down effect on the community. The economy in Youngstown during the 60s and 70s were if you wanted to hire some one you had to pay good wages or hire High School kids

Unions had some bad aspects I will admit it , but this sentiment that they were a terrible thing is incorrect. We owe the middle class to the Union and we also the fading middle class to the vacume they left