pinko Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) And is he a supporter of the WRAP party in Alberta and does he live there? I don't expect he will answer my questions about his finances and I would understand why he isn't forthcoming with such information. However in the case of his education I see no reason why he would be reluctant to answer that question. Edited February 24, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) I don't expect he will answer my questions about his finances and I would understand why he isn't forthcoming with such information. However in the case of his education I see no reason why he would be reluctant to answer that question. Because he's probably at work using the National Citizens Coalition's computers... Edited February 24, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Because he's probably at work using the National Citizens Coalition's computers... Harper used to work there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 And you believe that driving the standard of living down in areas that cannot freely collectively bargain is a way to do this??? 'Cause it's all about "the freedom"... The only reason the standard of living is driven down is because government is too big, and the private sector too small. Public sector unions don't create more wealth, they destroy it. Every time the government has to pay for a program, a department or its employees it does so by taking money out of the private sector - i.e. the only place where real wealth can be created. The government creates nothing but debt. And how 'bout you answer the question...Are you a WRAP lovin' Albertan??? I am an Albertan, yes. A Wildrose Alliance Party supporter, no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Harper used to work there. Yuppers...So did Gerry Nichols... 'Cause it's all about "the freedom"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 The only reason the standard of living is driven down is because government is too big, and the private sector too small. Public sector unions don't create more wealth, they destroy it. Every time the government has to pay for a program, a department or its employees it does so by taking money out of the private sector - i.e. the only place where real wealth can be created. The government creates nothing but debt. I am an Albertan, yes. A Wildrose Alliance Party supporter, no. Did you attend public school in Alberta? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 The only reason the standard of living is driven down is because government is too big, and the private sector too small. Public sector unions don't create more wealth, they destroy it. Every time the government has to pay for a program, a department or its employees it does so by taking money out of the private sector - i.e. the only place where real wealth can be created. The government creates nothing but debt. I am an Albertan, yes. A Wildrose Alliance Party supporter, no. Bullshite... Wages and benefit plans have stagnated and/or regressed since 1980... Ironically,since the election of neoliberal economic proponents Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan (Mulroney in '84)... Unionization rates have dropped in that same period of time,meanwhile,we've seen most of the jobs that used to be the backbone of our economy shifted overseas to low wage juridictions...And,at the same time,record corporate profits... Not shocking to see how the two are related at all... I wonder why You keep blathering about the public sector yet don't seem to be capable of understanding the relationship between the lessening of the importance of organized labour,as it relates to a whole host of areas of the workplace,and a lower standard of living for all... I'm not shocked you live in conlibertervative Alberta...I'm surprised your not a WRAPper..RTW is in thier labour platform... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Just try to stick to the game and don't worry about my gender or place of residence... Then why do you keep bringing it up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 If an employer, government or otherwise was sound in their practices and how they treated their workers, there would be no need for unions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 If an employer, government or otherwise was sound in their practices and how they treated their workers, there would be no need for unions. Very true... 9 out of 10 times,it's managements treatment of it's workforce that brings on a union drive... Not the other way around... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) You are what you post...and if I am an American prick...you are a Canadian xenophobe. You just said that opinions are to be welcomed...why so defensive all of the sudden? I didn't call you a prick. Insulting people and calling them names is against the rules. I don't do that - but I do report those who do. Then don't answer....but if you pitch such opinions based on class warfare and anti-American sentiment, don't be surprised if it gets blown back in your face. I have already explained that this has nothing to do with you cliche'd understanding of economic fairness, nor has it the slightest to do with anti-Americanism. You seem to be hurling a lot of allegations around. Is it because you are not capable of actually addressing any of the points? Edited February 24, 2011 by Scotty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Agreed....unions and closed shops inflate their undeserved wages right out of the market, to the point where they have the right to sit home without any job at all. Right to work, even for less, is better than no work at all. How about doctors and lawyers inflating their value right out of sight, to the detriment of all of society. Middle class people can't even afford doctors and lawyers any more, and even paying health insurance is eating up an ever increasing share of people's pay checks. But strangely, the same people who want to crush unions will fight to the death for the rights of doctors and lawyers to earn millions, no matter how that hurts society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Sure ... The "freedom" to work for less... Who cares how much you make if you live in a free market where products/services are free of taxes/regulation, and companies existing in a sink-or-swim economy would be focused on being competitive i.e. providing goods/services for lower costs and at higher levels of quality? Government interference through corporate favoritism, and subsidies mitigate risk, and drive up costs for consumers. The dollar figure of what you earn is a relative number. You can make very little and still enjoy a lot of relative wealth. Inflated prices are the result of too much government involvement in the economy, not the opposite. And with less taxation required to pay for things like inflated teacher salaries you'd be free to keep more of what you earn, and spend it as you see fit. That's freedom. 'Cause it's all about "the freedom"(see shareholder value and an upwards wealth redistribution excercise) "shareholder value" and "upwards redistribution" are byproducts of our current corporatist system where the lines between government and corporations are blurred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Private sector unions won't be outlawed...nor should they be. Public sector unions will be outlawed eventually as our debt crises worsen. You can't get blood from a stone. And yet, no matter how poor Americans become, laboring under huge debt loads, and taxes (which are increasingly going to corporations as welfare) the same people who want to do away with unions will applaud insurance companies, pharmaceuticals and health care corporations charging ever increasing amounts for basic heath care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 I didn't call you a prick. Insulting people and calling them names is against the rules. I don't do that - but I do report those who do. I am allowed to call myself a prick. You called an entire "class" of Americans names. I have already explained that this has nothing to do with you cliche'd understanding of economic fairness, nor has it the slightest to do with anti-Americanism. You seem to be hurling a lot of allegations around. Is it because you are not capable of actually addressing any of the points? No...it is because we have already discussed these points many times and I am bored. Just because you decided to uncloak yourself does not mean you get the kid glove treatment. You have your opinions...and I have mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 How about doctors and lawyers inflating their value right out of sight, to the detriment of all of society. Middle class people can't even afford doctors and lawyers any more, and even paying health insurance is eating up an ever increasing share of people's pay checks. False...a majority of "middle class people" are quite satisfied with their employer paid health insurance and coverage. But strangely, the same people who want to crush unions will fight to the death for the rights of doctors and lawyers to earn millions, no matter how that hurts society. It doesn't hurt society any more than an overpaid hockey player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Of course not, but in a free market it wouldn't matter. In a free market with plenty of private sector jobs, people would be more free to choose where they work - and companies would have more incentive to provide a better working environment and/or better pay/benefits to keep talent from competitors. What fantasies have you been reading? In that kind of environment companies will be able to offer just about anything to workers desperately scrambling for enough to feed their families. No benefits, forced overtime, and dangerous working conditions will all become standard part of the work environment. Scrooge would be delighted. "Are there no prisons!? Are there no work houses!?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Hey, here's a novel idea what about RAISING TAXES as a way to get out of our debt crisis, especially those that can easily afford to contribute a little more for the benefit of the country or state? There's a disconnect here...you don't get it. Taxes will never pull a government out of debt because the only way a government can operate is at a debt to taxpayers - government is an administrative body that doesn't produce anything, and requires private wealth to operate. Increasing taxes means more wealth must be taken out of the private sector to pay for government, and it's a cycle without end. The way out of debt is to shrink government to a sustainable size, and to end government interference in the economy so that the private sector can grow, and more wealth can be created across a greater swath of the population. Asking government to grow via taxation in order to provide more wealth has the entire scenario a$$-backwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 No...raising taxes will not offset all of the structural and growing debt. Wisconsin (and many other states) cannot tax themselves out of a hole that grows larger every day. Entitlements must be curtailed. Funny how the United States had a budgetary surplus under Clinton. Then Bush came in and cut taxes. Suddenly there was a big budget deficit! And you've had one ever since, as every Republican politician cries "Vote for me and I'll cut taxes!" Anyone want to laugh? This is from 2000 President Clinton today projected that the United States will have a $1.9 trillion budget surplus over the next decade. He said the increase in the expected surplus means the government will be debt-free by 2010. ABC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) Funny how the United States had a budgetary surplus under Clinton. Then Bush came in and cut taxes. Suddenly there was a big budget deficit! And you've had one ever since, as every Republican politician cries "Vote for me and I'll cut taxes!" Clinton also ran deficits and the national debt increased overall. Anyone want to laugh? Yes...the topic is Wisconsin. Try to get your anti-American rants into the right topic. Edited February 24, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 No way!!! That's an encumberance!!! Let's crush workers rights instead....And we'll use public sector workers as a test case!!! RTW!!! 'Cause it's all about the "freedom"!!!! It's not about "crushing" workers rights, that's rich...crushing the rights of teachers making what, 40k+ a year? It's about recognizing the unsustainable path of unions demanding more in the face of massive amounts of debt. In the private sector, at least if a union there decides to hold out for more, people have a choice whether to support the costs incurred from higher wages/benefits...but in the public sector where all taxpayers foot the bill collective bargaining becomes basic extortion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 False...a majority of "middle class people" are quite satisfied with their employer paid health insurance and coverage. The majority of Americans want public health care. It doesn't hurt society any more than an overpaid hockey player. It certainly does. There's a tiny number of hockey players, and people can choose not to attend their games. They can't choose not to ever see a doctor. Some people get their brains scrambled at the idea of taxes, but don't see the immense cost being levied on them by the health care industry as another tax, though it is in everything but name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 In theory, not in practice. Also, when your job is "State Cheese Inspector" there are limited lateral options. State Cheese Inspector? In a free market economy there'd be no such position. And if said cheese inspector were in the private sector and found it hard to move laterally, he/she would need to re-train, move into a different career...do something different. And what are you talking about, "not in practice"...the society in which we currently live is nowhere near a free market...no society is. Given how dire the current situation is with the mixed economy we've tried for decades now, I think it's time we give freedom a go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) The majority of Americans want public health care. They already have "public health care", in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Veterans Administration, and state programs. You have no idea what Americans want, just what you want for them....from another nation! It certainly does. There's a tiny number of hockey players, and people can choose not to attend their games. They can't choose not to ever see a doctor. Some people get their brains scrambled at the idea of taxes, but don't see the immense cost being levied on them by the health care industry as another tax, though it is in everything but name. Yes they can...I don't worry about doctors, even when I need one. If you want socialized medicine, why not food, housing, and clothing too? Edited February 24, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 BOO! Hey, here's a novel idea what about RAISING TAXES as a way to get out of our debt crisis, especially those that can easily afford to contribute a little more for the benefit of the country or state? Scared? That's already been tried. New Jersey raised taxes significantly for 10 years in a row. Their situation didn't improve. All they managed to do was drive businesses and individuals out of the state. Raising taxes can't make up for the pyramid scheme of public sector union pensions and benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.