Ok, let's talk unions again

[telcoman]

The New York Times is a very well regarded and respected United States newspaper read around the world by most leaders of many countries.

I'ts OP ED pages publish those with first hand knowledge on both sides of important issues including many in congress and even some of our enemies.

Letters to the editor come from readers around the world.

The NY Times is not a mouthpiece for any political party like Fox ( which quite ofter refers to it) and just publishes all the news thats fit to print with very in depth articles many times longer than I sometimes have time for.

Your opinion as to what is a reliable news source, and what isn't, is irrelevant.

EXHIBIT A: You quote the DailyKoz.

I rest my case.

Well Greg here is the point I was trying to make you understand

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
By WARREN E. BUFFETT
Published: August 14, 2011


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opini ... ef=opinion

Here are the words of one of the richest men in the United States publihed in The New York Times.

Not published in The Washington Times which you seem to enjoy

"While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors."

"Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent."

"If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot."


BTW my tax rate is higher than Warren's and I'm not happy about that.
That is why it is going to be Obama for me in 2012

As far as The dailykos goes they do have some well written and thoughtful posts and insights.
Perhaps you should read some of them to stimulate some of your dead brain cells.

Please learn to spell it

http://www.dailykos.com/

Telcoman

[AZhitman]

You need to get off this "income must geometrically follow education" trip you're on Greg. Not everyone has the ability to sit through years of school, yet they can paint a car, trim a bush, cook a steak, fix a circuit or change a spark plug better than a PhD can.

Ironically, your income follows education was common in Russia and other communist countries. Capitalistic countries favor letting your beloved free market set the wages. Can't have it both ways big guy. (do you lean a little towards communism?)

Good for them. We need those people.

But to somehow insist that they DESERVE to have all the frills and perks that come with a higher income means they're gonna have to work twice as hard for twice as long. THEY can't have it both ways. They've made a decision and a choice, in a free country, and are free to pursue their dream. It just doesn't mean it's OWED to them.

I'm all about the free market setting the wages. I'm NOT ok with short-sighted idiots holding companies hostage in order to attain those wages. Don't want to work for what we're paying? GTFO and let someone else take the job. These things need not be decided in a courtroom.

How did you somehow get the deluded idea that I'm not ok with the market setting wages?

By the way, the majority of those union guys earn more than me, so don't talk to me about "communism", dude. Next thing I know, you're gonna drop "racist" or "Hitler" into the discussion.

[AZhitman]

Howie, I don't have one problem with the super-rich being hit at a higher rate. I concur with Warren (and you) 100% on that.

Your taxes won't go down in 2012, man. Hate to break it to you. BHO just approved a crap-ton more money for Somalian aid, bought a couple million-dollar buses, and headed out for another taxpayer-funded vacation on Martha's lovely island off the cost of Massachusetts.

[telcoman]

Howie, I don't have one problem with the super-rich being hit at a higher rate. I concur with Warren (and you) 100% on that.

Your taxes won't go down in 2012, man. Hate to break it to you. BHO just approved a crap-ton more money for Somalian aid, bought a couple million-dollar buses, and headed out for another taxpayer-funded vacation on Martha's lovely island off the cost of Massachusetts.

Well I'm glad we can finally agree on something
Our president does deserve a vacation. Check out how many days GWB took off as compaired to President Obama and report back to us. He had no problem pissing taxpayer money away what with two wars tax cuts for his wealthy friends and his failure to negotiate drug prices that gave billions to the drug industry.
We haven't gotten over the last president from Texas and some wingnuts want another one?
Perry should just stay in Texas.
We don't need another right wing presidential failure to further screw up our economy.

Telcoman

[AZhitman]

He had no problem pissing taxpayer money away what with two wars tax cuts for his wealthy friends and his failure to negotiate drug prices that gave billions to the drug industry.

As opposed to our current POTUS who couldn't find the balls to end the tax cuts?
Twice as many wars?
A healthcare plan that most respected economists say won't fly?

We don't need another right wing presidential failure to further screw up our economy.

You chug Kool-Aid like a sorority girl chugs wine coolers. Grab your bifocals and have a read:

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/factch ... et-speech/

[AZhitman]

More about the classless union thugs (who should simply be fired permanently):

http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/ ... -property/

Howie, you must be proud of your home-state people. At least out here "in the boonies", we don't throw poo. That's behavior I'd expect of primates, not $37-an-hour family types.

...here's an independent outsider overview of the current situation: http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/ ... sides-win/

Like I said before, and I feel the need to reiterate: The union workers in question are fighting a losing battle - people simply aren't using landline phones anymore, and their jobs are becoming obsolete. Get over it. Verizon can't be expected to continue to pay these people as if home phones are still in demand - that's ludicrous.

Does anyone remember typewriter assembly workers throwing feces? Get with the times, people.

[IBCoupe]

As opposed to our current POTUS who couldn't find the balls to end the tax cuts?

Wait, what? As I recall, the Right went into a fit at the suggestion that even some of the tax cuts be lifted.

[IBCoupe]

Video on your link appears to be broken, but I'm gonna guess there's no feces in it, Greg. Your link, which, by the way, seems totally reasonable and objective when you glance at their home page, appears to take a court injunction against a wide variety of activities as indicative that those activities widely took place.

In all seriousness, I don't think links like those are helpful.

[R/T Hemi]

. . .
We don't need another right wing presidential failure to further screw up our economy.

Telcoman

If it was just the economy that would be one thing. But it wasn't. His two terms did more to set America back in the stone ages than any president ever. His legacy will haunt our country for a generations. He's destroyed the Republican party (one of his good deeds) and left us with morons like Perry thinking they have a chance. After 8 years of GW, I'm convinced the Divine Being is a Democrat.

[R/T Hemi]

Good for them. We need those people.

. . .

By the way, the majority of those union guys earn more than me, so don't talk to me about "communism", dude. Next thing I know, you're gonna drop "racist" or "Hitler" into the discussion.

Just out of curiosity, do you see how your first sentence can be construed as racist? I'm sure you didn't mean that, but you're implication is that we have "classes" of people.

The last sentence causes me to believe you've made that mistake before.

Let me offer you a politically correct way to state your thoughts.

Good for them, We need a society with diverse skill sets.

[AZhitman]

As opposed to our current POTUS who couldn't find the balls to end the tax cuts?

Wait, what? As I recall, the Right went into a fit at the suggestion that even some of the tax cuts be lifted.

Since when does the opposition having a fit preclude someone from doing the right thing?

[AZhitman]

Good for them. We need those people.

Just out of curiosity, do you see how your first sentence can be construed as racist? I'm sure you didn't mean that, but you're implication is that we have "classes" of people.

Only to someone who's looking for it. And if someone is that dense, I'm not terribly concerned with their opinion, as they're clearly incapable of debating such matters without engaging in ad hominem attacks.

Next thing I know, you're gonna drop "racist" or "Hitler" into the discussion.

The last sentence causes me to believe you've made that mistake before.

Feel free to look for it. This is the only place I talk politics, so happy hunting. Won't be the first (or last) time you've been wrong in your assumptions.

Let me offer you a politically correct way to state your thoughts.

Good for them, We need a society with diverse skill sets.

Yeah. We do need those people.

[Encryptshun]

Now, if he HAD let the cuts expire, Greg, would you be praising him for that? I seem to remember another thread back then where he was being criticized as a "job killer" for considering letting them expire....

I think keeping them was an act of supplication for the right, which any good negotiator or relationship-builder would do in order to show that he's willing to work with the opposition to get things done. Unfortunately for him, his faith in their willingness to give anything BACK was misplaced. He gives, they take. Then they call him partisan, a socialist, and someone who has no ideas.

That's the part that chaps my rear-end so much. Their strategy has been:

1) Represent him as a radical leftist
2) Ignore his gestures toward centrist policy
3) Purposely sabotage his bills under the flag of compromise (i.e. individual mandate, stimulus)
4) Screw him over so much that he quits trying to appeal to them, thereby proving themselves right

It reminds me of another strategy we've seen in the media:

1) Say pit bulls are untrustworthy
2) Find supposedly "tame" pit bull
3) Back pit bull into a corner and poke it in the eye with stick until it has no choice but to fight back
4) Say "see, that proves that pit bulls are untrustworthy"

[AZhitman]

Now, if he HAD let the cuts expire, Greg, would you be praising him for that?

Not necessarily, but it doesn't affect me too terribly much (so my opinion from a taxation standpoint doesn't have a lot of commitment behind it).

What I WOULD praise is him doing what he said he'd do. Keeping his promise to the people who placed their faith in him. That's a big deal with me.

[Encryptshun]

A good leader knows what battles to pick. When faced with an insurmountable headwind, any executive will make concessions so that at least SOMETHING gets done. What Obama promised to do was to keep the tax cuts in place for people earning under $250K while letting them expire for those over $250K. If he had kept fighting that battle, he would have lost and he'd have been blamed for increasing taxes on the low and middle class. By agreeing to keep them all in place, he got something positive out of the deal for everybody.

To me, that doesn't make him worthy of lost faith -- it means he's a pragmatist that is more interested in results than in stonewalling.

[AZhitman]

...or someone who overpromises on the campaign trail.

Certainly not my largest objection to his policy decisions. It's a comparatively small matter to me.

[Encryptshun]

Honestly, if we ever got someone who ran for POTUS and didn't overpromise, his/her platform would have to be:

"Well, pretty much my impact will be a few pet projects that are around for 12 years or so, but overall Washington will be the same place when I leave as when I got there -- a wretched hive of scum and villany."

[R/T Hemi]

Only to someone who's looking for it. And if someone is that dense, I'm not terribly concerned with their opinion, as they're clearly incapable of debating such matters without engaging in ad hominem attacks.

Regardless, I hope I've pointed to a reason you might have been called a racist in the past. I don't think you are, but those who don't understand you're just a lovable red state dwelling hillbilly might not.

Feel free to look for it. This is the only place I talk politics, so happy hunting. Won't be the first (or last) time you've been wrong in your assumptions.

I admitted I didn't think you were a racist. I just pointed out a racist remark you made hoping to educate you in social skills. What are friends for anyway?

[IBCoupe]

Wait, what? As I recall, the Right went into a fit at the suggestion that even some of the tax cuts be lifted.

Since when does the opposition having a fit preclude someone from doing the right thing?

Since you need a majority to pass a law. President Obama lacks the authority to raise taxes unilaterally. "The right thing to do" is not within his power to do.

[AZhitman]

I just pointed out a racist remark you made hoping to educate you in social skills.

You gotta be kidding me.

To portray that as a "racist" remark in any way, shape or form implies that there's somehow a correlation between unskilled labor and people of color.

YOU made that ignorant and biased correlation, not me.

As such, I really don't have anything further to say to you.... except:

hillbilly

Yeah. You don't hide your erroneous perceptions (or your prejudices) very well. Weren't you claiming there are no "classes' of people?

...yet you're fine with calling me a "hillbilly".

Your credibility is irreparably shot.

My social skills are just fine, thanks - ask anyone who's met me. I'm consistent. I say what I mean and mean what I say. It's called integrity.

[AZhitman]

President Obama lacks the authority to raise taxes unilaterally.

Have we now determined that "letting tax cuts expire" = "raising taxes"?

Seems to me I recall a prior discussion on this topic wherein we disagreed on that technicality (with my position being that they're not the same). I could be off in my recollection, though.

[Encryptshun]

Besides, Greg, you live in Arizona. You'd be a "mesabilly".

[AZhitman]

Besides, Greg, you live in Arizona. You'd be a "mesabilly".

It's a "buttebilly". Get it right.

[AppleBonker]

hillbilly

Yeah. You don't hide your erroneous perceptions (or your prejudices) very well. Weren't you claiming there are no "classes' of people?

...yet you're fine with calling me a "hillbilly".

Hey, are we allowed to call names again?

[R/T Hemi]

You gotta be kidding me.

Nope, just helping you.

To portray that as a "racist" remark in any way, shape or form implies that there's somehow a correlation between unskilled labor and people of color.

YOU made that ignorant and biased correlation, not me.

You still don't see it. Let me offer you a little help here....


Good for them. We need those people. (emph mine)

A little elitist on your part right? You blew it. Just admit your error and move on.

Yeah. You don't hide your erroneous perceptions (or your prejudices) very well. Weren't you claiming there are no "classes' of people?

...yet you're fine with calling me a "hillbilly".

Well, in all fairness, I called you a "lovable hillbilly." That's not that bad.

Your credibility is irreparably shot.

You can't shoot that far.

My social skills are just fine, thanks - ask anyone who's met me. I'm consistent. I say what I mean and mean what I say. It's called integrity.

[/quote]

I'm just curious, is Denial a red state? Because I'm pretty sure you live in Denial.

[Encryptshun]

Besides, Greg, you live in Arizona. You'd be a "mesabilly".

It's a "buttebilly". Get it right.

LOL

You know, that's what I originally wrote, but I didn't want it to be....um...misconstrued.

[szh]

Hey, are we allowed to call names again?

No.

But, I will be reasonable about what I edit and what I don't. Erring on the side of "less" is better.

Regardless, keep it reasonably civil, folks.

Or else, I end up wasting time editing posts and ... that ... will not ... make me happy.

Z

[AppleBonker]

Hey, are we allowed to call names again?

No.

Just stirring the pot...

Also, Verizon is threatening to suspend benefits for the striking workers during the strike (health, dental, etc):
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-1 ... efits.html

Apparently, this was in their last contract, so I doubt it's too shocking for them.

Additionally, these workers are primarily involved in the land-line division. So while they're arguing that the company is still profitable and executive pay is ample (the "they've got plenty of money so they can afford our benefits" argument), I wouldn't be shocked if the land-line portion of the company was not as profitable. I'm not going to search out their financial statements, but with the rise in people turning to cellular exclusively for their phone needs, it would make sense for profits in the land-line sector to be dropping. Given that assumption, wouldn't it make sense for the workers in that division to take a bit more of a hit to absorb the decrease in profit (or loss)? Or should the company as a whole evenly distribute that hit?

[IBCoupe]

President Obama lacks the authority to raise taxes unilaterally.

Have we now determined that "letting tax cuts expire" = "raising taxes"?

Seems to me I recall a prior discussion on this topic wherein we disagreed on that technicality (with my position being that they're not the same). I could be off in my recollection, though.

It doesn't matter, Greg. President Obama does not have the authority to set tax policy. He can't raise taxes, he can't lower taxes. He can't retain them if Congress has other plans.

All he can do is use the bully pulpit to influence public opinion and the Congresspeople who serve them. But ultimately, if Congress says no, Congress says no. You can play games with semantics, but it's not even about something central to this issue.

[AppleBonker]

Another thought:

Does it seem odd to anyone else that employers and employees never seem to clash as hard when a union is not involved? I just found this pretty sweet site:
http://newscenter.verizon.com/2011-bargaining/

I doubt too often one would find a company publicly smearing their workers like that if not for the union.