[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[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?[/quote]
This was about a special interest group as a political party. In which case I’d hate on them because by their very tenants they wouldn’t be doing there job as elected officials.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[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?[/quote]
This was about a special interest group as a political party. In which case I’d hate on them because by their very tenants they wouldn’t be doing there job as elected officials.[/quote]
You mean like the NRA ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[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?[/quote]
This was about a special interest group as a political party. In which case I’d hate on them because by their very tenants they wouldn’t be doing there job as elected officials.[/quote]
You mean like the NRA ?[/quote]
Not really, first, they do not really want government to do anything, but not to do anything, second they will probably not profit from that.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[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?[/quote]
This was about a special interest group as a political party. In which case I’d hate on them because by their very tenants they wouldn’t be doing there job as elected officials.[/quote]
You mean like the NRA ?[/quote]
LOL. you always miss the point. No, not like the NRA. First and foremost, the NRA is not a political party. Secondly, they are not a special interest group (in terms of fighting for a specific population segment). The NRA’s goal is to defend the rights of all people to bear arms. They try to guarantee that right to everyone because they think that is a fundamental right.
For example, people and groups that fought for suffrage were not special interest groups because they fought for the right of ALL people to vote. whether people decide to use that right or not doesn’t matter.
If for instance the NRA fought for the right to bear arms for some people while excluding others, then they would be a special interest group. Further, I would still only be against them in that case if they became a party. Otherwise I wouldn’t care.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[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?[/quote]
This was about a special interest group as a political party. In which case I’d hate on them because by their very tenants they wouldn’t be doing there job as elected officials.[/quote]
You mean like the NRA ?[/quote]
Not really, first, they do not really want government to do anything, but not to do anything, second they will probably not profit from that.
[/quote]
Oh , I thought the NRA was actively involved with lobbying and promoting policy that was to the advantage of gun owners . I am not sure but I never thought of the NRA as nonprofit
A recent poll done a few weeks ago rated Ronald Reagan the greatest President who ever lived! And I don’t mean just among modern day Presidents, I’m talking about every President. He beats them all among the voting public.
(Just wanted to stop by and rub some sand in the eyes of the anti Reagan crowd—how did it feel?)
Some of this thread makes my head hurt.
I have a difficult time seeing how unions give a net societal benefit. Ideally a union fights to protect workers. Reality is somewhat different. http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/02/23/unions-and-good-policy/
Unions do tend to be anti free trade. Free trade does provide a net societal benefit.
That said, there are costs from removing trade barriers, and these costs are often concentrated on relatively small groups of people. The same could also be said for technological innovation (which has displaced far more blue-collar jobs than has free trade).
Where Reagan (and Congress, and the states, and their respective successors) have failed is in addressing those concentrated costs in more effective manner. America needs to find ways to help displaced workers develop new skills and to encourage them to move to places where they can maximize the return on those skills (one of the hardest things about the closing of a factory is the depression of the local real estate market, which makes it difficult for workers to relocate (side note: this is one of the reasons why our current economy is so hard hit by unemployment - underwater homeowners can’t afford to move to where the jobs are).
The failure to provide this kind of help winds up wiping out many of the gains from trade, because those workers end up on the public dole. That’s where the effort should be focused - not in trying to fight free trade or technological innovation.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[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?[/quote]
This was about a special interest group as a political party. In which case I’d hate on them because by their very tenants they wouldn’t be doing there job as elected officials.[/quote]
You mean like the NRA ?[/quote]
LOL. you always miss the point. No, not like the NRA. First and foremost, the NRA is not a political party. Secondly, they are not a special interest group (in terms of fighting for a specific population segment). The NRA’s goal is to defend the rights of all people to bear arms. They try to guarantee that right to everyone because they think that is a fundamental right.
For example, people and groups that fought for suffrage were not special interest groups because they fought for the right of ALL people to vote. whether people decide to use that right or not doesn’t matter.
If for instance the NRA fought for the right to bear arms for some people while excluding others, then they would be a special interest group. Further, I would still only be against them in that case if they became a party. Otherwise I wouldn’t care.[/quote]
I don’t miss your point i just come to different conclusions , the Unions job is to defend the rights of workers
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Some of this thread makes my head hurt.
I have a difficult time seeing how unions give a net societal benefit. Ideally a union fights to protect workers. Reality is somewhat different. http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/02/23/unions-and-good-policy/
Unions do tend to be anti free trade. Free trade does provide a net societal benefit.
That said, there are costs from removing trade barriers, and these costs are often concentrated on relatively small groups of people. The same could also be said for technological innovation (which has displaced far more blue-collar jobs than has free trade).
Where Reagan (and Congress, and the states, and their respective successors) have failed is in addressing those concentrated costs in more effective manner. America needs to find ways to help displaced workers develop new skills and to encourage them to move to places where they can maximize the return on those skills (one of the hardest things about the closing of a factory is the depression of the local real estate market, which makes it difficult for workers to relocate (side note: this is one of the reasons why our current economy is so hard hit by unemployment - underwater homeowners can’t afford to move to where the jobs are).
The failure to provide this kind of help winds up wiping out many of the gains from trade, because those workers end up on the public dole. That’s where the effort should be focused - not in trying to fight free trade or technological innovation.[/quote]
Reagan failed on many fronts .
Free trade is not the way to go , fair trade is and I am aware it is a subjective point.
Why doesn’t the market thrive where their are the least restrictions . Somalia , Afghanistan. I will try and sum it up in few words .
Business needs the stability of a regulated society to thrive .
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[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?[/quote]
This was about a special interest group as a political party. In which case I’d hate on them because by their very tenants they wouldn’t be doing there job as elected officials.[/quote]
You mean like the NRA ?[/quote]
LOL. you always miss the point. No, not like the NRA. First and foremost, the NRA is not a political party. Secondly, they are not a special interest group (in terms of fighting for a specific population segment). The NRA’s goal is to defend the rights of all people to bear arms. They try to guarantee that right to everyone because they think that is a fundamental right.
For example, people and groups that fought for suffrage were not special interest groups because they fought for the right of ALL people to vote. whether people decide to use that right or not doesn’t matter.
If for instance the NRA fought for the right to bear arms for some people while excluding others, then they would be a special interest group. Further, I would still only be against them in that case if they became a party. Otherwise I wouldn’t care.[/quote]
I don’t miss your point i just come to different conclusions , the Unions job is to defend the rights of workers[/quote]
No… the union’s goal is to make money. Second to that is pursuing the interest of workers that belong to their specific union. Interest and rights are 2 completely different things.
The actually attack and try to do away with the rights and interest of workers who don’t pay them dues. That is what this collective bargaining is all about. Current collective bargaining law removes the workers right to choose.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Some of this thread makes my head hurt.
I have a difficult time seeing how unions give a net societal benefit. Ideally a union fights to protect workers. Reality is somewhat different. http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/02/23/unions-and-good-policy/
Unions do tend to be anti free trade. Free trade does provide a net societal benefit.
That said, there are costs from removing trade barriers, and these costs are often concentrated on relatively small groups of people. The same could also be said for technological innovation (which has displaced far more blue-collar jobs than has free trade).
Where Reagan (and Congress, and the states, and their respective successors) have failed is in addressing those concentrated costs in more effective manner. America needs to find ways to help displaced workers develop new skills and to encourage them to move to places where they can maximize the return on those skills (one of the hardest things about the closing of a factory is the depression of the local real estate market, which makes it difficult for workers to relocate (side note: this is one of the reasons why our current economy is so hard hit by unemployment - underwater homeowners can’t afford to move to where the jobs are).
The failure to provide this kind of help winds up wiping out many of the gains from trade, because those workers end up on the public dole. That’s where the effort should be focused - not in trying to fight free trade or technological innovation.[/quote]
Reagan failed on many fronts .
Free trade is not the way to go , fair trade is and I am aware it is a subjective point.
Why doesn’t the market thrive where their are the least restrictions . Somalia , Afghanistan. I will try and sum it up in few words .
Business needs the stability of a regulated society to thrive .[/quote]
Using your logic, why doesn’t the market thrive in the most heavily regulated areas? like communist russia?
Its because there are many factors that go into the success for an economy.
And lastly and most importantly, freedom is the only thing that is fair. Anything else requires forcing someone to do what you want because you said so.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[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?[/quote]
This was about a special interest group as a political party. In which case I’d hate on them because by their very tenants they wouldn’t be doing there job as elected officials.[/quote]
You mean like the NRA ?[/quote]
LOL. you always miss the point. No, not like the NRA. First and foremost, the NRA is not a political party. Secondly, they are not a special interest group (in terms of fighting for a specific population segment). The NRA’s goal is to defend the rights of all people to bear arms. They try to guarantee that right to everyone because they think that is a fundamental right.
For example, people and groups that fought for suffrage were not special interest groups because they fought for the right of ALL people to vote. whether people decide to use that right or not doesn’t matter.
If for instance the NRA fought for the right to bear arms for some people while excluding others, then they would be a special interest group. Further, I would still only be against them in that case if they became a party. Otherwise I wouldn’t care.[/quote]
I don’t miss your point i just come to different conclusions , the Unions job is to defend the rights of workers[/quote]
No… the union’s goal is to make money. Second to that is pursuing the interest of workers that belong to their specific union. Interest and rights are 2 completely different things.
The actually attack and try to do away with the rights and interest of workers who don’t pay them dues. That is what this collective bargaining is all about. Current collective bargaining law removes the workers right to choose. [/quote]
I am aware what the law is intending to do , it is intending to do away with collective bargaining and to punish those that do not see things the same way the Republicans see them
I do not think the Union’s mission statemnet would be to make money, The objection from the so called right is the Unions were too good at their job regardless whether making money was their first priority or not 
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[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?[/quote]
This was about a special interest group as a political party. In which case I’d hate on them because by their very tenants they wouldn’t be doing there job as elected officials.[/quote]
You mean like the NRA ?[/quote]
LOL. you always miss the point. No, not like the NRA. First and foremost, the NRA is not a political party. Secondly, they are not a special interest group (in terms of fighting for a specific population segment). The NRA’s goal is to defend the rights of all people to bear arms. They try to guarantee that right to everyone because they think that is a fundamental right.
For example, people and groups that fought for suffrage were not special interest groups because they fought for the right of ALL people to vote. whether people decide to use that right or not doesn’t matter.
If for instance the NRA fought for the right to bear arms for some people while excluding others, then they would be a special interest group. Further, I would still only be against them in that case if they became a party. Otherwise I wouldn’t care.[/quote]
I don’t miss your point i just come to different conclusions , the Unions job is to defend the rights of workers[/quote]
No… the union’s goal is to make money. Second to that is pursuing the interest of workers that belong to their specific union. Interest and rights are 2 completely different things.
The actually attack and try to do away with the rights and interest of workers who don’t pay them dues. That is what this collective bargaining is all about. Current collective bargaining law removes the workers right to choose. [/quote]
I am aware what the law is intending to do , it is intending to do away with collective bargaining and to punish those that do not see things the same way the Republicans see them
I do not think the Union’s mission statemnet would be to make money, The objection from the so called right is the Unions were too good at their job regardless whether making money was their first priority or not :)[/quote]
They are a company, they make money. That is their goal.
And no, the current law is set up to punish those who don’t agree with unions, this is just doing away with that.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Some of this thread makes my head hurt.
I have a difficult time seeing how unions give a net societal benefit. Ideally a union fights to protect workers. Reality is somewhat different. http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/02/23/unions-and-good-policy/
Unions do tend to be anti free trade. Free trade does provide a net societal benefit.
That said, there are costs from removing trade barriers, and these costs are often concentrated on relatively small groups of people. The same could also be said for technological innovation (which has displaced far more blue-collar jobs than has free trade).
Where Reagan (and Congress, and the states, and their respective successors) have failed is in addressing those concentrated costs in more effective manner. America needs to find ways to help displaced workers develop new skills and to encourage them to move to places where they can maximize the return on those skills (one of the hardest things about the closing of a factory is the depression of the local real estate market, which makes it difficult for workers to relocate (side note: this is one of the reasons why our current economy is so hard hit by unemployment - underwater homeowners can’t afford to move to where the jobs are).
The failure to provide this kind of help winds up wiping out many of the gains from trade, because those workers end up on the public dole. That’s where the effort should be focused - not in trying to fight free trade or technological innovation.[/quote]
Reagan failed on many fronts .
Free trade is not the way to go , fair trade is and I am aware it is a subjective point.
Why doesn’t the market thrive where their are the least restrictions . Somalia , Afghanistan. I will try and sum it up in few words .
Business needs the stability of a regulated society to thrive .[/quote]
Using your logic, why doesn’t the market thrive in the most heavily regulated areas? like communist russia?
Its because there are many factors that go into the success for an economy.
And lastly and most importantly, freedom is the only thing that is fair. Anything else requires forcing someone to do what you want because you said so.[/quote]
I would think those places you claim that would have more regulations , don’t . I think those places would be more likely to steal the business , like Venezuela.
Chavez has stolen several mines and such.
I do think Russia is making big gains in establishing trust with business. It is part of thge term BRIC Brazil,Russia, India, China
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Some of this thread makes my head hurt.
I have a difficult time seeing how unions give a net societal benefit. Ideally a union fights to protect workers. Reality is somewhat different. http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/02/23/unions-and-good-policy/
Unions do tend to be anti free trade. Free trade does provide a net societal benefit.
That said, there are costs from removing trade barriers, and these costs are often concentrated on relatively small groups of people. The same could also be said for technological innovation (which has displaced far more blue-collar jobs than has free trade).
Where Reagan (and Congress, and the states, and their respective successors) have failed is in addressing those concentrated costs in more effective manner. America needs to find ways to help displaced workers develop new skills and to encourage them to move to places where they can maximize the return on those skills (one of the hardest things about the closing of a factory is the depression of the local real estate market, which makes it difficult for workers to relocate (side note: this is one of the reasons why our current economy is so hard hit by unemployment - underwater homeowners can’t afford to move to where the jobs are).
The failure to provide this kind of help winds up wiping out many of the gains from trade, because those workers end up on the public dole. That’s where the effort should be focused - not in trying to fight free trade or technological innovation.[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Reagan failed on many fronts .
Free trade is not the way to go , fair trade is and I am aware it is a subjective point.
Why doesn’t the market thrive where their are the least restrictions . Somalia , Afghanistan. I will try and sum it up in few words .
Business needs the stability of a regulated society to thrive .[/quote]
Yes, you’re right. Anarchy is bad. You need the rule of law to have functioning markets. However, there is a distinct difference between anarchy and a market economy. The basics you need for a market economy are private property rights, courts to resolve disputes and enforce contracts and a police force to enforce the courts (you also need an army for border defense, but that gets a bit beyond what you need for a market).
However, none of that has anything to do with the general point on unions and free trade. With unions (particularly unions favored under law as in the U.S.), you generally have higher wages and benefits for the favored union members, along with higher unemployment for everyone else who would like to be employed, higher prices for consumers and an incentive for employers to move the production offshore (or to a non-union state - see the auto industry).
And the net gain to society from free trade is large - but diffuse. The costs are smaller - but more concentrated. It would make sense for us as a society to utilize some of the surplus on retraining and addressing the associated issues for those who are displaced.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Some of this thread makes my head hurt.
I have a difficult time seeing how unions give a net societal benefit. Ideally a union fights to protect workers. Reality is somewhat different. http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/02/23/unions-and-good-policy/
Unions do tend to be anti free trade. Free trade does provide a net societal benefit.
That said, there are costs from removing trade barriers, and these costs are often concentrated on relatively small groups of people. The same could also be said for technological innovation (which has displaced far more blue-collar jobs than has free trade).
Where Reagan (and Congress, and the states, and their respective successors) have failed is in addressing those concentrated costs in more effective manner. America needs to find ways to help displaced workers develop new skills and to encourage them to move to places where they can maximize the return on those skills (one of the hardest things about the closing of a factory is the depression of the local real estate market, which makes it difficult for workers to relocate (side note: this is one of the reasons why our current economy is so hard hit by unemployment - underwater homeowners can’t afford to move to where the jobs are).
The failure to provide this kind of help winds up wiping out many of the gains from trade, because those workers end up on the public dole. That’s where the effort should be focused - not in trying to fight free trade or technological innovation.[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Reagan failed on many fronts .
Free trade is not the way to go , fair trade is and I am aware it is a subjective point.
Why doesn’t the market thrive where their are the least restrictions . Somalia , Afghanistan. I will try and sum it up in few words .
Business needs the stability of a regulated society to thrive .[/quote]
Yes, you’re right. Anarchy is bad. You need the rule of law to have functioning markets. However, there is a distinct difference between anarchy and a market economy. The basics you need for a market economy are private property rights, courts to resolve disputes and enforce contracts and a police force to enforce the courts (you also need an army for border defense, but that gets a bit beyond what you need for a market).
However, none of that has anything to do with the general point on unions and free trade. With unions (particularly unions favored under law as in the U.S.), you generally have higher wages and benefits for the favored union members, along with higher unemployment for everyone else who would like to be employed, higher prices for consumers and an incentive for employers to move the production offshore (or to a non-union state - see the auto industry).
And the net gain to society from free trade is large - but diffuse. The costs are smaller - but more concentrated. It would make sense for us as a society to utilize some of the surplus on retraining and addressing the associated issues for those who are displaced.[/quote]
I lived through Reagan’s hatchet job on the Steel Industry, I am curious what industry or industries would you train hundreds of thousands men used to a high paying jobs.
There were all kinds of promises for retraining .
You can not do away with an industry as large and high paying as the steel industry and not punch a HUGE whole in America
Go to Youngstown OH,Flint Mich, any of those old steel towns and cities , see first hand the devastation Reagan created with no up side . These cities belong in Eastern EU
Embarrassed Republicans Admit They’ve Been Thinking Of Eisenhower Whole Time They’ve Been Praising Reagan
This was funny.
I think that the 20 million jobs that Reagan created speaks for itself. Blaming him for any job loss in dying industries is a fools errand.
REAGAN SUCKED DONKEY DICK
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Embarrassed Republicans Admit They’ve Been Thinking Of Eisenhower Whole Time They’ve Been Praising Reagan
This was funny.[/quote]
That is what you get when you have a Public relations firm representing you even years after you die , people believe anything if you tell them often enough