So...what do YOU think of this?

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://www.salon.com/news/the_labor_movement/?story=/tech/htww/2011/03/24/the_gop_declares_hunger_war

[AVGWarhawk]

No comment.

[Ducimus]

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/trickle-down.jpg

[mookiemookie]

If they want to wage class warfare, they should study history and find out which side always wins.

[Platapus]

While it is emotionally satisfying to jump on political parties. Please note that the existing law in the US is that if you quit your job, you can't get food stamps for a while (there are exceptions).

www.ct.gov/dss/lib/dss/pdfs/brochures/food_stamps_96.3.pdf

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/

All this GOP plan is doing is treating people who choose not to work (striking) as people who choose not to work (quit their job).

I can understand the logic, if you voluntarily refuse to work, why should the government pay you?

I would say this article is misleading and rather biased.

[krashkart]

I would say this article is misleading and rather biased.


I would have to agree with you there. Scare tactics to rally behind. :yep:

[mookiemookie]

While it is emotionally satisfying to jump on political parties. Please note that the existing law in the US is that if you quit your job, you can't get food stamps for a while (there are exceptions).

www.ct.gov/dss/lib/dss/pdfs/brochures/food_stamps_96.3.pdf

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/

All this GOP plan is doing is treating people who choose not to work (striking) as people who choose not to work (quit their job).

I can understand the logic, if you voluntarily refuse to work, why should the government pay you?

I would say this article is misleading and rather biased.

A strike is not quitting a job. A strike is a protest for better wages or working conditions. They do not deserve to be punished for that.

The GOP says that unions are a relic that have served their purpose. If they keep attacking the rights of labor like this, then they're going to create the need for unions again.

[Growler]

Salon's always been a little nalyevo; ThinkProgress isn't exactly a bipartisan source, either. That said, looks like business as usual in American politics.

I swear, if the politicians - and for that matter, the voters, too - ever really started acting like grown-ups, we might actually be able to accomplish something.

[Platapus]

They do not deserve to be punished for that.



Strange, why would you consider this "punishment"?

Why should the government pay people (food stamps) when they choose (voluntarily) not to go to work?

Besides, I thought that unions pay people during strikes. Don't they do that any more? I thought that was one of the benefits of joining a union?

In any case, if the government needs to pay striking people (voluntarily choosing not to work), then the government needs to pay other people who quit their job (voluntarily choose not to work).

Why would one group be different from another?

[Takeda Shingen]

Salon.com? I'd say that the article is worth about as much as it would coming from the Heritage Foundation.

[tater]

Workers have the right to behave as they wish on their own time. Employers should have the right to react as they wish within the bounds of business to employees violating their agreement to show up in exchange for wages—ie; they should be allowed to fire them.

If an employee of mine didn't show up for work in protest, he's gone, there are no shortages of replacements. If good employees come and ask for raises, and they are worth it, then they get it if possible.

The government should be entirely uninvolved. I also think that "striking" should be considered "resignation" if they lose their jobs. It is a voluntary act on the part of the employee to violate what is in effect a contract between employer and employee. So I'm 100% behind no food stamps for people CHOOSING not to go to work.

[Aramike]

A strike is not quitting a job. A strike is a protest for better wages or working conditions. They do not deserve to be punished for that.To what end?

[Ducimus]

All this GOP plan is doing is treating people who choose not to work (striking) as people who choose not to work (quit their job).


Context is everything.
If your striking, your standing up for your rights. (or what you percieve them to be)
If you quit, your just being a slacker.

[Aramike]

It's funny, but unions used to use dues to help their members out in times of work stoppages. Now I guess the rest of us are supposed to because they'd rather make massive political contributions instead.

[mookiemookie]

The government should be entirely uninvolved. I also think that "striking" should be considered "resignation" if they lose their jobs. It is a voluntary act on the part of the employee to violate what is in effect a contract between employer and employee. So I'm 100% behind no food stamps for people CHOOSING not to go to work.

Well which is it? You're either for the government being uninvolved or for them being involved and denying food stamps to the families of striking workers. You can't have it both ways.

[tater]

A strike is not, and should not, be different than quitting. It is sorta like walking away during haggling—they guy follows, then offers a better price.

You think you are worth a certain amount more money, and demand it and walk out. The employer can either do the math, and decide that you are in fact worth it (as a GROUP, vs firing the lot and having to train many from scratch), or they can decide that you are NOT worth it.

That's all it should be. You have the right to demand more and walk out, he should have the right to replace you. If the union was in fact a "guild" of highly skilled workers, they would in effect not be easily replaced, and they'd rarely get replaced—because the replacements would be grossly less useful workers.

In reality, they are often very replaceable.

A rational system (as I have outlined) would be entirely fair, and would serve to eliminate frivolous strikes, and make real demands by "value added" unions far more effective (since they'd be "the" pool of skilled workers).

[tater]

Well which is it? You're either for the government being uninvolved or for them being involved and denying food stamps to the families of striking workers. You can't have it both ways.

Huh?

I think there should be no food stamps for anyone who voluntarily doesn't work, period. If someone loses their job (downsized, whatever), then they can get food stamps. Strikers are not out of work through no fault, or someone else's fault, they are out of work by CHOICE. The government should not subsidize strikes. Perhaps the company that is the victim of the strike should get "food stamps" in the form of a bailout to make up for lost work by the strikers?

If only income is considered, then should a retired person with wealth in the bank, but no "income" be allowed full bore foodstamps because they have no income, just a few million in their bank account?

[Platapus]

Context is everything.
If your striking, your standing up for your rights. (or what you percieve them to be)
If you quit, your just being a slacker.


I agree. Than let me modify my position. I don't think the government should pay people "standing up for their rights".

If I sue the government for redress of grievances (a constitutional right) can I expect the government to pay me during the suit? Some of these suits can last years and years.

And that is standing up for a constitutional right

[Ducimus]

I get the impression your comments are targeted at one specific group of people. (IE Wisconsin). I'm speaking about everybody in general.

Now i'm not all that favorable about Union leaders nowdays (they're a bunch of crooks), but the concept behind unions im in favor of. If it wasn't for organized labor, things like the 15 minute break, the 30 min lunch, or child labor laws wouldn't exist.

As an aside, you can bet your ass that corporate interest would LOVE to see a reduction in ALL of that. They don't care about their employees, AT ALL, what they care about, is the bottom line. The almighty dollar. This is why they have the GOP in their pocket looking out for their best interests - chipping away at labor and environmental laws. Organized labor doesn't have near the clout it used to and they know it. So give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. Meanwhile the rest of us get screwed over, for their own personal gain. I hate that idea more then i can express into words.

[August]

A strike is not quitting a job. A strike is a protest for better wages or working conditions. They do not deserve to be punished for that.

The GOP says that unions are a relic that have served their purpose. If they keep attacking the rights of labor like this, then they're going to create the need for unions again.

They're not being punished, they are just not being rewarded. That is a big difference. Striking or quitting, in both cases it is a voluntary work stoppage.

I would further postulate that if the union isn't willing to suffer as much as the company they're striking against then their demands really aren't all that justified. Certainly not to the degree that non union taxpayers should be forced to fund them.

[gimpy117]

1789: "Let them eat cake"

2011: "let them eat nothing"

Thanks GOP. another gem from the business first party of america.

also, what If they are already on food stamps? they just going to get them yanked because they strike? This isn't about "not rewarding Strikers" its about making it harder, or impossible to strike. I continue to be amazed how the GOP continues to be so pro big business even at the american people's expense. Its shameful that they are more concerned about business profits than labor rights.

[Ducimus]

1789: "Let them eat cake"

2011: "let them eat nothing"

Thanks GOP. another gem from the business first party of america.

also, what If they are already on food stamps? they just going to get them yanked because they strike? This isn't about "not rewarding Strikers" its about making it harder, or impossible to strike. I continue to be amazed how the GOP continues to be so pro big business even at the american people's expense. Its shameful that they are more concerned about business profits than labor rights.

Well, its not like the Dem's are any better. They postulate differently is all. Instead of corporate interests, their in the pocket of special interests. Which also, doesn't really serve the American people very well.

You know what i wish? I wish there was an America First party, but without the praise Jesus mumbo jumbo.

I also wish we'd have an uprising, honestly i do, i just don't want to see anyone killed, but i figure we could probably do with a second revolution. It's the only way we'll get rid of the GOP AND the Dem's.

I also think we should get back to our roots, and Tar and feather (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarring_and_feathering) every suit wearing crook on wallstreet and big corporate board rooms, and ride them all out of town on a rail. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riding_the_rail)

edit:
And THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4e8iAofnrw) just needs to be said in general.

[mookiemookie]

I get the impression your comments are targeted at one specific group of people. (IE Wisconsin). I'm speaking about everybody in general.

Now i'm not all that favorable about Union leaders nowdays (they're a bunch of crooks), but the concept behind unions im in favor of. If it wasn't for organized labor, things like the 15 minute break, the 30 min lunch, or child labor laws wouldn't exist.

As an aside, you can bet your ass that corporate interest would LOVE to see a reduction in ALL of that. They don't care about their employees, AT ALL, what they care about, is the bottom line. The almighty dollar. This is why they have the GOP in their pocket looking out for their best interests - chipping away at labor and environmental laws. Organized labor doesn't have near the clout it used to and they know it. So give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. Meanwhile the rest of us get screwed over, for their own personal gain. I hate that idea more then i can express into words.

"Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter."

[tater]

Gimpy makes a bad analogy.

The "right" to strike should be as simple as this: the government will not compel strikers to work (they therefor do not have their right to not show up at work impinged upon). FDR compelled the coal miners to go back to work, for example. That removed their "right to strike." This "right" should not include not losing their jobs for a failure to show up at work. Not showing up is not showing up, why doesn't matter, and shouldn't matter.

[tater]

The "almighty dollar" is a good thing as a motivator. It's an entirely predictable motivator, too. Any absurd notion that the employer should have some altruistic motivation would be impossible to predict. Putting "the worker" ahead of profit only guarantees that the company will become uncompetitive unless the workers bust their chops to be vastly more productive than the competition to justify their better standing. The simple metric of remaining profitable is far easier to deal with, and is self-correcting.

A company cares about the bottom line. As long as the workers make themselves indispensable to that goal, they are worth something, and can "bargain" effectively. It's a simple contract where both parties benefit.

[Ducimus]

I don't think your seeing why they don't care is a point of contention.

If you, in good faith and integrity injure yourself in the course of your job duties. They don't care about you. They only care if your going to cost them money. You are just a cog. A replaceable widget. They don't even care if you have a job.

In fact, corporations do everything they can to hire less people. They are run by people who do not care about this or any other country. Their global, and they have no loyalties except to the boardroom. They may work here, they may live here, but at the end of the day they DO NOT CARE about this country or anyone in it. They'd sooner offshore all jobs if it meant more money in their own pockets and making the boardroom happy.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I'm with tater in saying that the government should not be involved when it comes to unions, and I'll also raise him a "no food stamps for anybody, ever". I can understand the desire to to feed the hungry, house the homeless, and clothe the children, the males, and the unattractive, but food stamps? Discretionary coupons that people who are unable to maintain an income level that prevents them from starving in a nation where it is all but impossible to starve in the course of normal events? That's the best they could do? That's like the grocery equivalent of housing projects we keep having to destroy and rebuild because they fall apart.

If we must have public welfare and a safety net, I think we should be approaching the concept more responsibly. Just off the top of my head, I would suggest that for every case where there is not a proven inability to work in any capacity, workfare should be substituted for welfare. Instead of enabling people by allowing them to game the system, give them centers where they can do low-level government work in exchange for proper, if somewhat spartan, housing, food, medical care, and perhaps some community recreational opportunities, but no pay that can be used for discretionary spending. Pay them minimum wage, but put it all in the bank as a medium-term certificate of deposit.

Granted, that would be expensive, but at least it wouldn't be so wasteful. Being the heartless capitalist I am, my preferred approach is to just give them nothing at all aside from the tremendous amount of private charity that already exists in this country; but as a former liberal I can say with confidence that the "enlightened" left can certainly come up with a better plan than food stamps if they could be bothered to take the time.

But as always, it's not the "enlightened" left making these decisions. It's not even the "dumb" left that comprises the vast majority of the Democratic party's solid but can't-be-bothered-to-vote electorate. It's the political left, which is part of a vote-getting machine that we put in place when we chose the government as our agency of reform and change. No amount of good intention is going to face that gauntlet and come out the other side intact. Certainly not when "free" stuff and special interests on both sides of the fence are involved.

[August]

"Corporations" can mean anything from a global conglomerate employing hundreds of thousands down to a mom and pop small business employing a handful of people. I rarely see this distinction reflected in the pro union stance.

If a union has the right to strike and collect benefits and an individual does not then it's unequal treatment under the law.

[August]

It's funny, but unions used to use dues to help their members out in times of work stoppages. Now I guess the rest of us are supposed to because they'd rather make massive political contributions instead.

Which is why the unions are so against having dues payment made voluntary as it might negatively impact the size of those political contributions.

[Slyguy3129]

I gotta ask out of curiosity, has the GOP ever been the good guy?

If not it sounds to me like you guys need someone to blame and since the GOP and the Democrats rarely agree you blame them.

To me the whole worlds problems are the liberals fault, and the last time I checked I'm no corporation nor am I getting paid to think that. Of course before you jump down my back that's a joke.

But I must admit I never tire of hearing how bad the Republicans are. It's almost as funny as how the whole worlds problems are Bush's fault.

Stop blaming people and do something about it. That goes for both sides of the aisle. I'll be a republican till the democrates grow up and stop blaming others instead of doing something about it. Then I'll pat them on the head tell them how proud I am of them and the continue voting the way I do.

[Ducimus]

I gotta ask out of curiosity, has the GOP ever been the good guy?
.

They were, until George Herbert Walker Bush left office. It' was all downhill from there. Now they're so blantantly bought out by corporate and wall street interests, its not even funny.

Both parties need to go. Seriously. I think the only way we'll pull this nation out of the hole, is to do away with both parties and start fresh. The reputation each has is well deserved. From "bleeding heart hippies" to "party of No".

The art of compromise is lost on them. They view it was a war. All or nothing. I USED to think that one party canceling the other out was a great thing. If one party has power here, the other there, everything comes out in the wash. Checks and balances and all that. I don't think so anymore. With either one saying, "My way or the highway", nothing will ever get done, and the country slips further down the ****hole. The end of the American era is upon us, our economy is going down the crapper, our industry has gone overseas, and our infrastructure is crumbleing underneath us. In my opinion, our country IS in decline, and none of these jackwagons can't see past their own BS.

[Sailor Steve]

What do I think of this? Given the amount of posts he's made since the opener, I think TVM is trolling again.

On the other hand, the discussion is interesting, which I'm sure wasn't his intent.

As everyone knows, I fall into (and agree with) the "parties are the bane of political life" group, and have a deep personal animosity for everyone whose primary response is to blame "the other side".

[Aramike]

Hmmm ... interesting. No one seems to want to answer the question: "to what end?".

Gimpy: Mr. King-of-Rhetoric, do you have a few examples of unionized, striking employees as of late that are trying to live well within their employers' means but would not be able to eat because of such a decision?

Mookie: So it's OK for you if employees sharing an average salary of, say, $50k strike because they aren't getting a 10% raise rather than a 5% one year?

In your mind, it's okay for the taxpayers to fund that?

Why is it that liberals always avoid the tough questions about any policy? Are bumper sticker slogans really enough?

[Castout]

:doh: I thought US was different . . .

[Tribesman]

Stop blaming people and do something about it.
To me the whole worlds problems are the liberals fault
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:

As to the topic, on the face of it the proposal seems reasonable, the language needs tightening and much clearer definitions.
However on a practical level it would be so open to abuse its a bad piece.
To me it appears to be an example of populist legislation which has a wide appeal, but at its core contains are measures which should be so unpopular people would choke on it.

As for the inefficiencies and problems with welfare and stamps, its nice to see Unsersea Lcpl dreaming back to pre-Dickensian "ideals" which were so problem riddled expensive and inefficient they were eventually got rid of.

Mookie: So it's OK for you if employees sharing an average salary of, say, $50k strike because they aren't getting a 10% raise rather than a 5% one year?


If people have a right to strike they have a right to strike.
In your mind, it's okay for the taxpayers to fund that?


How long would such employees have to be on strike before their position was such as to be eligable for wany welfare at all?

[mookiemookie]

Mookie: So it's OK for you if employees sharing an average salary of, say, $50k strike because they aren't getting a 10% raise rather than a 5% one year?

gimpy's right on this: Widget Makers Local 214 is contemplating a strike because widget makers aren't paid a living wage, and their families are on food stamps despite their employment as widget makers. But they can't strike because their families will starve to death if they do. This is an ok situation for you? You've just de facto taken away a basic right of labor - the right to strike. And don't give me the "they need to find another job" thing; retraining takes time and money. If the answer were that simple and easy, we would never have any sort of unemployment. He doesn't need a recent example of this. It's enough that if your law allows for a situation for that to happen, it's a stupid law.

The merits of a given strike are going to vary from situation to situation. The world is not as black and white as you would try to make it. That's why black and white solutions that take away workers basic rights such as striking and collective bargaining are a step backwards.

This is an all out offensive on the middle class and lower class in this country. They're not even trying to hide it anymore. But ask Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette how well that worked out for them. Class warfare always end up with the lower and middle classes winning.

[Tribesman]

Class warfare always end up with the lower and middle classes winning.
Class warfare always ends up with the lower and middle classes thinking they have won.

[August]

That's why black and white solutions that take away workers basic rights such as striking and collective bargaining are a step backwards.

So you're all for collective bargaining but you oppose individual bargaining? What did you call them, "slackers"?

You have a right to demand anything you want from your employer and he has a right to refuse your demands, but you don't have a right to make me fund your conflict. That is what you're doing when you demand government benefits for a situation that you choose to create.

Unions pay dues. Let them use those dues to pay their members when they strike.

[mookiemookie]

So you're all for collective bargaining but you oppose individual bargaining? What did you call them, "slackers"?

:06:

[August]

:06:

Apologies. I got you mixed up with Ducimus. :oops:

The second point still stands. Why should I be expected to fund a unions labor dispute? The very same people who would slash my tires and sabotage my work if I happen to share the same jobsite?

[mookiemookie]

The second point still stands. Why should I be expected to fund a unions labor dispute? The very same people who would slash my tires and sabotage my work if I happen to share the same jobsite?

I'm framing my thinking more in "if your family is on food stamps and you strike, they can revoke them" rather than "you're giving up your income to strike and the government is being asked to pick up the slack" side of it. The second, I can sort of see your point. The first I find absolutely unconscionable.

Even worse in this bill:

‘(2) STRIKE AGAINST A GOVERNMENT- For the purpose of subparagraph (A)(iv), an employee of the Federal Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, who is dismissed for participating in a strike against the Federal Government, the State, or the political subdivision of the State shall be considered to have voluntarily quit without good cause." (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1135&version=ih&nid=t0%3Aih%3A138)

Note that if you "voluntarily quit" a job, you're not eligible for unemployment or public assistance. This bill is right and truly evil.

[Sea Demon]

Note that if you "voluntarily quit" a job, you're not eligible for unemployment or public assistance. This bill is right and truly evil.

Any union member who is on food stamps and paying union dues needs to reevaluate their dues paying situation or loyalty to their union. This sob story is total BS. Seriously, this bill is good policy for taxpayers. Taxpayers being forced to pay people to not work is the real crime here. My message to these bums is to get their butts back to their jobs and work...just like the rest of us have to.

[mookiemookie]

Any union member who is on food stamps and paying union dues needs to reevaluate their dues paying situation or loyalty to their union. This sob story is total BS. Seriously, this bill is good policy for taxpayers. Taxpayers being forced to pay people to not work is the real crime here. My message to these bums is to get their butts back to their jobs and work...just like the rest of us have to.

Union member with family on food stamps wants to go on strike to get a better paying job so they don't have to be on food stamps, but they can't strike because they'd lose their food stamps, so they stay on food stamps. Yeah sounds like a real winner of a way to motivate people to get off public assistance.

[Sea Demon]

Union member with family on food stamps wants to go on strike to get a better paying job so they don't have to be on food stamps, but they can't strike because they'd lose their food stamps, so they stay on food stamps. Yeah sounds like a real winner of a way to motivate people to get off public assistance.

If they're in such bad shape, their union is a failure. And they shouldn't be paying union dues. I call this a BS sob story. And we've seen them before when pressure to other unions have been applied in the past. I've seen it in certain parts of my industry, and it's a total sham.

Also, In order to uplift oneself, a person need not "go on strike" to "get a better job". To get a "better job"....get an education, network, learn new skills on your own, and take responsibility for yourself. Nobody should be paid or receive my assistance (public assistance)to voluntarily not work so they can agitate for more. These jerks need to work if they want to eat. And it's not my responsibility to see to it that they have the dream job of their choice with all the perks to go with it. Typical union/liberal Democrat mentality...."what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine too".

[August]

Note that if you "voluntarily quit" a job, you're not eligible for unemployment or public assistance. This bill is right and truly evil.


I've never yet heard of a government worker, especially a Federal one, that was dismissed for striking unless the strike puts the public at risk (Air Traffic Controllers for example) and they have ignored several requests to return to work.

But government workers are a different situation. I just don't see the justification for public to have to support a private unions labor dispute.

[Ducimus]

In order to uplift oneself, a person need not "go on strike" to "get a better job". To get a "better job"....get an education, network, learn new skills on your own, and take responsibility for yourself.

You forgot to mention the part where any 2 or 4 year degree is about worthless now due to being so freaking common. So common in fact, you'll find people who got educated, working in crumby retail jobs that you only need a high school diploma for.


Oh and since Mookie's mentioning widgets....
http://mktg343.pbworks.com/f/c280tax.jpg
From what i've read here, according to Sea Deamon and LanceCpl, Stuff like this is A OK in their book. I guess they support things like Mr Widget there ****ing everyone over.

Im done with this, it only pisses me the **** off.

[Slyguy3129]

That still falls under the blame Bush ideas. You can make the same argument that If Republicans have been bought out by Corporations, then the Democrats have be bought out by Unions.

I agree with what Unions stand for, stand up for the working man, I mean damn someone has to right? And they no doubt did that in their time and I'm sure they have brought about a ton of reform, but that time has come and gone.

It just seems like we fall into the same political stereotypes, its hard for Democrats to break away from Class Warfare because my God, in all honesty that is all they preach. Republicans? Ok I guess I can see the No party, No we don't want more Federal Government, No we don't want more spending, No we don't want Universal Health Care, No we don't want to pay for you we can pay for ourselves, I can see that. But Democrats are not the only ones who have pushed for and gotten re-form and it is also not an inherent Republican idea either.

I think our problem is that we are so opposed to the others ideas, normally because of anger that we are not willing to see the good in which they do. I mean for me, if I here another spread the wealth argument, or Class Warfare argument, or Rich people and Corporation are Evil argument, or Blame Bush argument I don't know what I'll do. But somewhere inside all the crap there is bound to be a good idea, an idea we can all agree on and all benefit from and if I can see it, then Democrats can see some good that Republicans do. If you can't then here is a news flash, you are part of the problem we have today.

On another note, if you voluntarily choose not to work, the Federal Government should not give you a dime, period. In all honesty it should not be the Federal Government doing that anyways, it should be State Government. If you choose not to work, you choose not to get a pay check, and you choose to be broke, and I'll be God damned if I'm going to give you any of my money to help you. Everyone feels that they should be paid more. If every single person on this Globe was paid $100 ph, we would want to be paid a $105. If you want a freaking raise be smart about it. Work you ass off, then go to your boss with a plan, tell him your plans for the future, why you want that raise, house/kids/car/school whatever, then explain all these things that you have done. If he says not right now, then accept it and kindly ask, what more can I do? Where else can I prove that I am worth that raise? That is what you do to get a raise, you don't get a bug up your ass and walk off the line and say I won't go back till I get paid more. No matter how you slice it, that doesn't look good, or efficient or like you are worth that raise.

[Sailor Steve]

I think our problem is that we are so opposed to the others ideas, normally because of anger that we are not willing to see the good in which they do. I mean for me, if I here another spread the wealth argument, or Class Warfare argument, or Rich people and Corporation are Evil argument, or Blame Bush argument I don't know what I'll do. But somewhere inside all the crap there is bound to be a good idea, an idea we can all agree on and all benefit from and if I can see it, then Democrats can see some good that Republicans do. If you can't then here is a news flash, you are part of the problem we have today.
But you only point the finger at Democrats. Are you not being as one-sided and blind as you claim they are?

[Slyguy3129]

But you only point the finger at Democrats. Are you not being as one-sided and blind as you claim they are?

That still falls under the blame Bush ideas. You can make the same argument that If Republicans have been bought out by Corporations, then the Democrats have be bought out by Unions.

I agree with what Unions stand for, stand up for the working man, I mean damn someone has to right? And they no doubt did that in their time and I'm sure they have brought about a ton of reform, but that time has come and gone.

It just seems like we fall into the same political stereotypes, its hard for Democrats to break away from Class Warfare because my God, in all honesty that is all they preach. Republicans? Ok I guess I can see the No party, No we don't want more Federal Government, No we don't want more spending, No we don't want Universal Health Care, No we don't want to pay for you we can pay for ourselves, I can see that. But Democrats are not the only ones who have pushed for and gotten re-form and it is also not an inherent Republican idea either.

I think our problem is that we are so opposed to the others ideas, normally because of anger that we are not willing to see the good in which they do. I mean for me, if I here another spread the wealth argument, or Class Warfare argument, or Rich people and Corporation are Evil argument, or Blame Bush argument I don't know what I'll do. But somewhere inside all the crap there is bound to be a good idea, an idea we can all agree on and all benefit from and if I can see it, then Democrats can see some good that Republicans do. If you can't then here is a news flash, you are part of the problem we have today.

On another note, if you voluntarily choose not to work, the Federal Government should not give you a dime, period. In all honesty it should not be the Federal Government doing that anyways, it should be State Government. If you choose not to work, you choose not to get a pay check, and you choose to be broke, and I'll be God damned if I'm going to give you any of my money to help you. Everyone feels that they should be paid more. If every single person on this Globe was paid $100 ph, we would want to be paid a $105. If you want a freaking raise be smart about it. Work you ass off, then go to your boss with a plan, tell him your plans for the future, why you want that raise, house/kids/car/school whatever, then explain all these things that you have done. If he says not right now, then accept it and kindly ask, what more can I do? Where else can I prove that I am worth that raise? That is what you do to get a raise, you don't get a bug up your ass and walk off the line and say I won't go back till I get paid more. No matter how you slice it, that doesn't look good, or efficient or like you are worth that raise.

Edited out overly aggressive response.

[mookiemookie]

I agree with what Unions stand for, stand up for the working man, I mean damn someone has to right? And they no doubt did that in their time and I'm sure they have brought about a ton of reform, but that time has come and gone.

Seeing as your party wants to roll back the labor rights that unions fought and people died for, then you're ushering in a new era where unions are needed.

You seem to be myopic on what a strike is used for. Not every union action is about pay. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire) Are you saying that workers striking over poor work conditions should just suck it up?

And what is your obsession with "Blame Bush?" No one is blaming Bush. You need to update your party sloganeering.

[Sailor Steve]

Do I have to sit here and point out what I say about my party to you. Do I have to spoon feed you every one of my post SS? Ever post I make you come after and take one slice and complain, I don't think you really read it.
The one post I challenged only because of your gross misuse of the language. Perhaps I was wrong, but that was my observation.

In this case (and in several others) I see you saying that if only the Democrats would open their eyes they would see that they are wrong. You don't apply that same measure to the Republicans, so it seems that you assume that you are right and "they" are wrong. That kind of one-sided thinking is, to me, the real problem, no matter which side is doing it.

The people who frighten me most in this world are the ones who "know" they are right, for the simple reason that no one is ever right all the time. And, if you checked my posting habits you would know that I apply that attitude to everyone here. You just don't see this because you're new.

[Penguin]

The real scandal is not the plan to deny foodstamps to striking employees, but the fact that there are jobs that don't allow people to support themselves!

While the libertarians on here claim that the government subsidizes the working poor, it de facto subsidizes employers who are to greedy to pay decent wages - all under the assumption that we are talking about full time jobs.
A strike could maybe even help the people to get out of the dependancy on food stamps.

[Sailor Steve]

While the libertarians on here claim that the government subsidizes the working poor,
Which is true...

it de facto subsidizes employers who are to greedy to pay decent wages - all under the assumption that we are talking about full time jobs.
Also true.

A strike could maybe even help the people to get out of the dependancy on food stamps.
Is that the answer? Is that the only answer? Is there an answer at all?

The Left believes in a world where no one is left out, and sees the Right doing everything they can to obstruct that, because they are greedy and self-serving. The right sees a world where everyone pulls his own weight, and recognizes that the only way for the Left's world to work is if they forcefully take what others have rightfully earned.

One sees big corporations screwing everyone. The other sees big government screwing everyone. Both are right, and both spend their time accusing each other rather that working toward a solution. Is there a solution? As always, I don't know. What I do know is that the kind of finger-pointing I see going on is useless self-righteous arrogance, and won't solve anything.

[August]

You don't apply that same measure to the Republicans, so it seems that you assume that you are right and "they" are wrong. That kind of one-sided thinking is, to me, the real problem, no matter which side is doing it.

So in other words if one side is "wrong" then the other side also has to be wrong by default?

[Slyguy3129]

Seeing as your party wants to roll back the labor rights that unions fought and people died for, then you're ushering in a new era where unions are needed.

You seem to be myopic on what a strike is used for. Not every union action is about pay. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire) Are you saying that workers striking over poor work conditions should just suck it up?

And what is your obsession with "Blame Bush?" No one is blaming Bush. You need to update your party sloganeering.

Well if they usher in a new era where unions are needed won't you be happy? Isn't that what you want, an era where unions are needed? I'm a bit lost on that one? Have you ever worked for Pilgrams Pride, let me tell you all about working conditions. They suck. And my obsessions with Blame Bush is no more or no less the same obsessions that most Democrats preach, I was quoting Duci who instead of just blaming W was also blaming HW.

The one post I challenged only because of your gross misuse of the language. Perhaps I was wrong, but that was my observation.

In this case (and in several others) I see you saying that if only the Democrats would open their eyes they would see that they are wrong. You don't apply that same measure to the Republicans, so it seems that you assume that you are right and "they" are wrong. That kind of one-sided thinking is, to me, the real problem, no matter which side is doing it.

The people who frighten me most in this world are the ones who "know" they are right, for the simple reason that no one is ever right all the time. And, if you checked my posting habits you would know that I apply that attitude to everyone here. You just don't see this because you're new.

SS you seem like a nice dude, I'm sure you have a great head on your shoulders, but I'll tell you one thing. Nothing, and I mean nothing upsets me more than having someone tell me, what I said. You seems to bring that out in me ALOT and then your always there to quote my first response after I take a breather and repost. You imply that I know that I'm right, and thats irritating as well, I don't "know" anything I have my belief system which I think encompasses a little from both party, (Worker Rights/ Equal Right/ Left Side) (Gun Control/Pro-Life/Limited Federal/Right Side). But what I understand from your beleif system is that both parties are wrong, so no matter what I think of both parties I'm going to be wrong in your eyes, that's just fine, I think your wrong as well.

If I didn't know any better I think you like watching me get hot under the collar.;)

And might I add, that people might have gotten used to have more. From everything I have heard from people in and around places I work/worked at, we will never get back to the way things were in the 90's. They are over, we are all going to have to get by on less. All of us, fair or not, its not happening, it has happened.

[mookiemookie]

One sees big corporations screwing everyone. The other sees big government screwing everyone.

It's very hard to tell the two apart anymore.

[AVGWarhawk]

Man...glad I said 'no comment.' Post #2 :yeah:

[Slyguy3129]

Man...glad I said 'no comment.' Post #2 :yeah:

Ha probably the most intelligent thing anyone has posted in this thread. :haha:

[Sailor Steve]

If I didn't know any better I think you like watching me get hot under the collar.;)
Not in the least. As you can probably tell, I see a number of people who don't opine, but rather preach their political religion. From your comments you seemed to be one of those. If not, then I apologise. That won't stop me from making similar comments, and it won't stop me from being wrong - or right, as the case may be.

Perhaps this is a good time to restate my own personal philosophy for all the newer guys. I've been wrong so many times in my life I now go into every discussion assuming I'm probably wrong again. Unfortunately that makes me suspicious of anyone who states an absolute, i.e. "This is the way it is". I've come to call that kind of attitude "I'm right and you're stupid", and hate reading it more than just about anything else.

As for myself, I came up with my own self-descriptive quote: "Some people are born stupid. I've had to work hard my whole life to get this way. And I'm proud of the job I've done."

So I agree with both sides, and I disagree with both sides, and I try not to take either side. And I get my back up when I see someone flatly state that It's all "the other side's" fault.

And I don't have any answers.

[Ducimus]

Im still ****ing pissed.

THIS has been eating at me for the last 30 minutes,

Typical union/liberal Democrat mentality...."what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine too".

You know what, i don't consider myself a liberal democrat, but i do tend to be pro union, so i have to say.

Screw you and the horse you rode in on. Ive seen this BS line being spewed before.

So Here's a ****ing clue for the clueless:
- I dont want your stuff. Mr Rich suspender man.
- This is not some socialist commie plot Mr Me me me, mine mine mine, you can't have it!

What this is about, is the basics of life. I as an individual do not have grandiose ideas about the world. All i want... all i expect is:

- 3 meals in my frying pan.
- A roof over my head
- A decent job that provides enough income to cover it all of the above.
- I just want to live relatively comfortable until i die. That's it, its all i want.


You know why workers strike? To get better wages. You know why they want better wages? Because the cost of living keeps going up, and you know that thing called "upward mobility"? DOESN'T EXIST.

I'll wager most people are much like myself.
- I've worked with the same employer for many years now. (i have only been promoted once in all that time, and now there is no where else to go)
- I make 14 dollars an hour. (and thats after several pay raises)
- My rent is 1200 dollars a month
- It took me 3.5 hours pay, just to fill up my gas tank to go to work for the week.

I manage my finances well. I've NEVER asked anyone for anything. I've never pandered, borrowed or begged. I'm a loyal american, I'm a reliable worker, ive served this country, i pay my taxes,...

So lets get back to this :

""what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine too"

You know what... **** you.

[Sailor Steve]

So in other words if one side is "wrong" then the other side also has to be wrong by default?
Not at all. Both sides usually have something worth saying. My only quibble is with the guy who seems to seems to assume his side is right and the other side is the problem. That guy leaves no room for the concept that he might be wrong, seems to think he has nothing left to learn, and to me is therefore is possibly the biggest danger of all.

"Sides" are made up of individuals. Some of them work toward a real solution, and some just shout about how they're right and you're stupid. It's the individuals who can make good things happen, and it's the individuals who can screw us all. I don't address "sides", just the way some individuals make arguments.

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm sticking to my guns...no comment. :DL

[Sailor Steve]

I'm sticking to my guns...no comment. :DL
Well, you're just a namby-pamby, wishy-washy, fence-sitting rag doll!











No, wait...that's me. :dead:

[Slyguy3129]

No one side has the answer, our country is strongest when both sides have come to gather and worked towards one common goal, or against one common enemy.

I see that in things after PH, and I saw things like that after 9/11 for a short time.

But people in D.C don't seem to understand something similar has happen to our economy on the same scale as PH and 9/11 combined. And both are to stubborn to let their own "ideas" take a back seat and fight the common enemy. Not the Japanese, not the Terrorist, Not the Banker, spending.

Our country is weakest when our ideas are polar opposite of each other and we can't agree to get things fixed. But as I said, it normally takes a hard, hard slap in the face by reality to wake us up the problem is this time around we seemed to have missed that check.

The key to greatness in our country is when we get the strong and passionate political beliefs of both sides running parallel. But the problem with our country is getting them to run parallel.:rotfl2:

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, you're just a namby-pamby, wishy-washy, fence-sitting rag doll!











No, wait...that's me. :dead:

Nah....just got to know when a impending battle will end in a draw. :DL


or a few bannings, brow beatings and frowning in your general direction. :03:

[AVGWarhawk]

http://www.funcage.com/photos/Stop-being-afraid.jpg (http://www.funcage.com/?)

[Slyguy3129]

That is the most awesome poster I have ever seen. I to tire of the blah-blah-blah American, I suppose I should call myself European-American. I have never been there and am X generation removed from there, but ultimately that is where I am from. Sounds just as good to me, I don't like getting called white anymore. :haha:

Nothing like good ol'e Uncle Sam to slap us on the back of the head and tell us like it is.

[Sea Demon]

What this is about, is the basics of life. I as an individual do not have grandiose ideas about the world. All i want... all i expect is:

- 3 meals in my frying pan.
- A roof over my head
- A decent job that provides enough income to cover it all of the above.
- I just want to live relatively comfortable until i die. That's it, its all i want.



Fine. All I ask is people take responsibility for themselves and earn it. It's not up to taxpayers to make it happen. All I say to these types is don't ask me to subsidize your choices. Don't look to taxpayers to make these things happen for you.

You know why workers strike? To get better wages. You know why they want better wages? Because the cost of living keeps going up, and you know that thing called "upward mobility"? DOESN'T EXIST.Absolutely no "Upward Mobility" on my tax dollar. Upward mobility is dependant on good work ethic, personal responsibility, and positive choices. Not strikes, agitation, tantrums, and childishly shouting "SHAME, SHAME, SHAME" ad nauseum at your legislators.

How come a large percentage of people in the private sector have never been "on strike", yet they find a way to earn a decent living and are forced to budget accordingly? I personally don't care if the private sector union types strike, just leave me and my tax dollars out of it. However, if you choose to voluntarily remove yourself from the workplace to agitate for more goodies, then that's on you. Bottom line, you want to eat and pay your bills...you gotta work just like the rest of us.

Honestly, where do public sector unions get their salaries, pensions, and benefits from? And they greedily want more. They have what they have, and they want others to pony up more. And while they agitate to get more, they want taxpayers to fork over more goodies and put food on their tables. All while the private sector workers they depend on, continue working day in and day out. This union mentality is a sickening mentality. "Strikes" are BS. If you want to protest things like wages, do it on your own time and on your own dime.

At some point these union jerks are going to regret kicking this hornets nest.


I manage my finances well. I've NEVER asked anyone for anything. I've never pandered, borrowed or begged. I'm a loyal american, I'm a reliable worker, ive served this country, i pay my taxes,...I've never called you disloyal, or unreliable. I'm not speaking about you personally at all. But since you addressed it, if you're not happy with your condition, or employment, that's not my fault. It's not the taxpayers fault. Find a different solution for yourself. Make small adjustments that allow for your financial situation to change.

[Slyguy3129]

I think the *ahem* final solution would be for us to create a ton of robots to do our work for us and hook them up to this big fancy supercomputer so that they will all work and think together and we will just continue to get checks.

Wait..........why does that sound so familiar..........

[AVGWarhawk]

I think the *ahem* final solution would be for us to create a ton of robots to do our work for us and hook them up to this big fancy supercomputer so that they will all work and think together and we will just continue to get checks.

Wait..........why does that sound so familiar..........

Borg :hmmm:

[gimpy117]

You all Keep talking about how "everybody should pull their own weight" you know what though...thats what a striking union is trying to do, to change their working situation that they feel is unfair so they can better feed their families and live better. This bill is nothing to do with protecting the american taxpayer, Its about Busting unions who have the audacity to even attempt a strike. Its removing a safety net in our country, one that allows for the less powerful to stand on equal terms with the man at the top when it comes to fairness in the workplace. Thats not right. When our government starts passing laws that are tailored to help a company more than the people of this nation, I think we need to step back and reevaluate that government.

This is a full out attack on the working people in this nation. not just the public sector Unions, because, and please correct me if i'm wrong, but they aren't just talking about cutting off food stamps for public union strikes, but for everyone.

[Takeda Shingen]

I cannot believe that an obvious troll thread has gone on for 5 pages. :doh:

[Sea Demon]

You all Keep talking about how "everybody should pull their own weight" you know what though...thats what a striking union is trying to do, to change their working situation that they feel is unfair so they can better feed their families and live better. This bill is nothing to do with protecting the american taxpayer,

Everybody should pull their own weight. It's obscene that anybody would find that offensive. In fact, the individual who refuses to pull their own weight is another problem altogether. My other assertion is that most people in the private sector find ways to change their working situation, find ways to become upwardly mobile, and plan to better their working conditions.....all without a union, or striking, or public agitation. Unions just ain't what they used to be. They have outlived their usefulness and are dying for a reason. From what I've seen, they don't help the little guy at all. They largely soak up their members dues by force (no choice) and use them for political agendas.

This thread does bring to light one of the main problems though, and why I consider the union mentality to be that of a parasite. They believe taxpayers SHOULD BE FORCED to put food on their table while they agitate to take more from those same taxpayers. This bill has everything to do with protecting the taxpayer.

This is a full out attack on the working people in this nation. not just the public sector Unions, because, and please correct me if i'm wrong, but they aren't just talking about cutting off food stamps for public union strikes, but for everyone.

I don't want to subsidize anybody who chooses not to work voluntarily so they can agitate for more goodies. No thanks. Not on my dime ever. Get your butt to work, and protest and bargain on your own time.

[Slyguy3129]

You all Keep talking about how "everybody should pull their own weight" you know what though...thats what a striking union is trying to do, to change their working situation that they feel is unfair so they can better feed their families and live better. This bill is nothing to do with protecting the american taxpayer, Its about Busting unions who have the audacity to even attempt a strike. Its removing a safety net in our country, one that allows for the less powerful to stand on equal terms with the man at the top when it comes to fairness in the workplace. Thats not right. When our government starts passing laws that are tailored to help a company more than the people of this nation, I think we need to step back and reevaluate that government.

This is a full out attack on the working people in this nation.

Well think of it from the other perspective. Especially with the economy like it is now, what if they can't offer you that raise without risking the whole company? I don't think there are 100% unions in every company, therefore you strike to get better whatevers but the company in reality can't do it without killing itself, therefore all you are doing is putting yourself and everyone else out of a job?

Oh wait I forgot, the rich guy in charge is the Devil.:hmmm: Why? Because he has money. But then that would make us all Devils because we all work to get money.:hmmm:

Uhoh paradox *breaks brain*.

In reality it isn't about busting "all" unions, its about busting unions that have to much and abuse their power. Not unlike busting up monopolies of companies from the way I see it.

I've worked in plenty of union, and no-union jobs and I have never had to through a fit *ahem* go on strike in order to get a raise, or a bit of vacation. Do like I said in a previous post. Bust ass, show proof of such, accept the answer of no, ask what I can do to get that raise, perform to such level, return with same question. If still no, start looking else where for work, and let them know. If you are a good worker they will find a way to get it done. If they give you a time-line make sure you both stick to it.

In reality nobody likes getting told no, but its just as much a part of life as yes is. Like I said I think we as a culture have gotten used to having more than we should. I am by no means well off, but I have enough to get food on my table. I don't need every channel on DTV, I don't need superfast unlimited internet, I don't need the newest model car that comes out, I don't need the newest laptop that comes out every 6 months, I don't need to keep the temp around 60 degrees, I don't need to have 600 different suits of clothes, I don't need to go out and eat every week, I don't need anything more than 4 hots a cot and a clean suit of clothes to get me there and back. No its not a luxury life, but none of us was promised that, well I don't count promises coming from Federal levels.

If I feel like I am being held back in work, I don't point the finger anywhere else but to myself. I think our culture has gotten into blaming other and not taking responsibility.

*Dons helmet and Kevlar* Said alot of things people don't want to hear.

*Grabs Pop Corn*

[gimpy117]

Well think of it from the other perspective. Especially with the economy like it is now, what if they can't offer you that raise without risking the whole company?

what?? with the amount some companies pay their ceo's and top staff, and the profits they make...you are really gonna say this.

. Was it not Henry ford who said that your worker is your best customer? when you pay the little guy more, the money gets spent and the economy moves forward.


I've worked in plenty of union, and no-union jobs and I have never had to through a fit *ahem* go on strike in order to get a raise, or a bit of vacation. Do like I said in a previous post. Bust ass, show proof of such, accept the answer of no, ask what I can do to get that raise, perform to such level, return with same question. If still no, start looking else where for work, and let them know. If you are a good worker they will find a way to get it done. If they give you a time-line make sure you both stick to it.

well thats all fine and dandy that your employer was a good one. very much like mine. I work in a union, I know the CEO by a first name. they are good to us. But what if? wouldn't you want to know that if working conditions become bad you would have the right and even mere ability to strike? Especially because jobs are harder and harder to find in this place. The whole "find a new job" statement is a gross understatement.


In reality it isn't about busting "all" unions, its about busting unions that have to much and abuse their power. Not unlike busting up monopolies of companies from the way I see it.

Well Im glad you can make the distinction, but the bill doesn't. it effects ALL unions. there isn't some "good union" clause the exempts all the nice unions.


In reality nobody likes getting told no, but its just as much a part of life as yes is. Like I said I think we as a culture have gotten used to having more than we should. I am by no means well off, but I have enough to get food on my table. I don't need every channel on DTV, I don't need superfast unlimited internet, I don't need the newest model car that comes out, I don't need the newest laptop that comes out every 6 months, I don't need to keep the temp around 60 degrees, I don't need to have 600 different suits of clothes, I don't need to go out and eat every week, I don't need anything more than 4 hots a cot and a clean suit of clothes to get me there and back. No its not a luxury life, but none of us was promised that, well I don't count promises coming from Federal levels.

so you're saying that everyone who wants a better living wage, or safer working conditions is some greedy slob? yeah hardly. Subtle straw man is subtle.


Oh wait I forgot, the rich guy in charge is the Devil. Why? Because he has money. But then that would make us all Devils because we all work to get money.

cute comment. Except theres a pretty big difference between the average Joe and a CEO. 400 families have 50% of the total wealth. Id say the bottom 50% asking for a bit more isn't money grubbing. Especially when this wealth had been made largely of the sweat of their brows.

[Slyguy3129]

what?? with the amount some companies pay their ceo's and top staff, and the profits they make...you are really gonna say this.

also, learn economics. Was it not Henry ford who said that your worker is your best customer? when you pay the little guy more, the money gets spent and the economy moves forward.

Have you ever tried to run a business? Do you work for one of the companies that has CEO that get paid outrageously? Do you know the difference between economics and philosophy? I'm thinking no on all counts.

But seeing as you wouldn't dare see it from anywhere but your side, why should they dare see it from your side? After all you think they have all the power right?

And please point out where exactly in my post I said greedy? Oh you mean by how our culture is used to having more than we need? That's not saying we are greedy it says we have alot of stuff? Just go and talk to some of the greatest generation and ask them what all they had to get by with back during the Great Depression. Ask them about their "safe" working environments, ask them about their hourly wage.

[Ducimus]

Well think of it from the other perspective. Especially with the economy like it is now, what if they can't offer you that raise without risking the whole company?

You don't have the perspective at all. At this point, i don't care about pay raises. I've been waiting for my layoff notice for 4 months now. Way i see it, ive been living on borrowed time. Once im eventually out of work, what will i do? I've worked where i have for 11 years. Ive gotten specialized. A 4 year degree is worth the paper its printed on, a 2 year degree even less, and the economy is bleeding jobs.

Oh wait I forgot, the rich guy in charge is the Devil. Why? Because he has money

It's not that he has the money, its HOW he got that money. Outsourcing jobs, cutting employee benefits and the like, while giving yourself huge raises and bonuses, is not an honest days work IMO.

[AVGWarhawk]

It's not that he has the money, its HOW he got that money. Outsourcing jobs, cutting employee benefits and the like, while giving yourself huge raises and bonuses, is not an honest days work IMO.


We have to remember...it is all about the stock holders. The man at the top is one of those stock holders. :03:

damn it....I had a comment. Darn it Duci.

[Slyguy3129]

Hey I was in the military for about 6 years I was promised easy jobs and triple digit pay once I got out. I've been out of formal work since the 23rd of December. That's right I got laid off two days before Christmas, but since it was at the end of my shift at 02:00 on the 24th, it was really my Christmas Eve present! Duci I hope to hell you don't have to go through that, especially since its so hard to find another one.

I have never understood why everyone thinks that every rich person got their money because they stepped on the little guy. Lets put that logic to practice shall we?

All white people are racist, all black people steal, all native americans go around naked with long hair, all rich people are evil, all poor people just don't want to work, all Europeans talk funny, all Americans are fat/dumb, all Canadians are Eh-holes, all Mexicans speak only spanish, ok some are jokes of course but you get where I'm coming from. Not every single person who has wealth has gotten their money from crude business practices. Have some of them? Damn straight they have, does that give anyone the right to punish all of them? Hell no it doesn't.

[Ducimus]

I have never understood why everyone thinks that every rich person got their money because they stepped on the little guy.

Aside from personal experience, things like this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4

BTW, im sorry your out of work. I will be too eventually. I'm not looking forward to it.

[Sea Demon]

I have never understood why everyone thinks that every rich person got their money because they stepped on the little guy. Lets put that logic to practice shall we?


That's how Democrats energize their base and "get out the vote".

Once im eventually out of work, what will i do? I've worked where i have for 11 years. Ive gotten specialized. A 4 year degree is worth the paper its printed on, a 2 year degree even less, and the economy is bleeding jobs.

And you probably wonder why businesses seek to locate in places where taxes are lower, cost of government is contained and reasonable, and regulation is less burdensome. There is a reason businesses are leaving California.

so you're saying that everyone who wants a better living wage, or safer working conditions is some greedy slob?

Hey gimpy. When I show up for work on Monday, refuse to work, and stand outside the building yelling "SHAME,SHAME, SHAME.." or some other stupid chant, who the hell's gonna pay my bills? Who's going to fund my pension? Who's going to put food on my table? I think you know the answer to that. What I'm saying in response to your statement here is everyone seeking better wages cannot do it on the backs or the money of others. They choose not to work, they should get nothing.

But hey, there's nothing stopping you from forking over some of your cash to help any of these people. How many have you helped? I say to liberals with your viewpoint all the time that compassion talk is cheap. Shut your mouth and open your own checkbook.

[Slyguy3129]

Thanks for the post to support your opinion but I still say that not all of them are out to get you, and because of that no one has the right to punish them all. You can only punish the ones who have broken the law, if we cross the line of punishing them for being rich, whats to stop them from punishing us because we are poor?

Course I love hearing about the 1% of Americans. I also understand that they also pay the most taxes if not more than any of us, and donate quite a bit to charity, not to mention the guys who start the businesses and do the hiring and what not.

I have no doubt in my mind that some of them are no good ratfink slimely under-the-table dealing low down crooks, but not all of them and I refuse to lump anyone with wealth into the category. I hope one day I'll have wealth, and I'll damn the torpedoes towards anyone that says I cheated the little guy to get it when I didn't.

[Slyguy3129]

But hey, there's nothing stopping you from forking over some of your cash to help any of these people. How many have you helped? I say to liberals with your viewpoint all the time that compassion talk is cheap. Shut your mouth and open your own checkbook.

I quite like the way that sounds!

[Ducimus]

I hope one day I'll have wealth,

Don't we all? Either by hard work, like working ones way up the company ladder (which doesn't seem to happen anymore ), or by lucky happenstance like winning the lottery. It's part of the American dream. Trouble is, it's just that, a dream, it is not reality.

edit: BTW, i squelched Sea Demon after he pissed me the **** off. That pole smoker can spew his vomit tell the cows come home, i don't care. Also, i'd bet my bottom dollar he doesn't open his wallet for jack ****. He's a trollin, and im done biting on the bait.

I need to get off this topic, ALL it does, is piss me off.

[Slyguy3129]

Yea I watched the video that used to be in your sig, very outspoken man that fellow.

But I don't buy into the idea that my idea of creating a better life for myself is a wet dream. Hell I was promised the world when I entered service and I'm damn near flat broke and having to live at home all over again. Talk about feeling manly and warrior like. But there isn't anyone to blame, and even if there was, it isn't going to do me or anyone else any good. But I know that once I find myself a job, and prove to the person who hired me that I'm a damn good worker who works his hind quarters off I will eventually move up and hopefully gain some wealth.

I think people expect to get handed wealth, and then when it isn't well then someone screwed you. No, some people get wealth from just being in the right place at the right time and thinking outside the box, and yes some people got it from cheating their workers. Wealth is not promised for anyone. And wealth is certainly not promised forever either. Than could lose it just as "easily" as they earned it.

[Ducimus]

But I don't buy into the idea that my idea of creating a better life for myself is a wet dream.
I wish i could share your optimism.

I was promised the world when I entered service
Personally i never promised the world anything. I entered the service convinced i was going to be dead by the time i hit my early 20's. When i left active duty 5 years later, I have lived one day at a time ever since, and still do today.

But there isn't anyone to blame, and even if there was
In terms of the economy and the job market, when it comes to the blame game, I put it squarely the door step Wallstreet, and the big time, big league CEO's. Or any CEO who has outsourced enough US jobs to number in the thousands. (have to have a cut off point somewhere. )

Wealth is not promised for anyone
That is true, though the opportunity to either make or break it, is socially implied. When the opportunity is seemingly removed, the mere chance.... then peoples hackles go up.

[Slyguy3129]

Yea I didn't buy into the whole promised the world bit either, with the exception of seeing it of course. After all that promise came from the government! :03::haha:

Was just saying that the promise had indeed been made.

Some might say the Great Depression was caused by Progressives who wanted to cause the need for a Central Banking System. But I think that's a load of bull to.

If anyone is the blame for anything, its Wallstreet for taking advantage of something they could see coming but the everyday man didn't. But then again, that's being smart in the system.

You and I agree on one thing, there are some shady low down ratfink under-the-table dealing low lifes with wealth. But we stray when we look at the big picture and how many. But the important thing is we have common ground. If we focus on that, its how things get done.

[Ducimus]

I'll come clean with the patently obvious. When it comes discussion topics, there are two things that will get my hackles up beyond the capacity of rational thought, and you'll see my come flying out of my corner, swinging. Call them my General Topics achillies heel, if you will.

1.) Anything related to wallstreet, CEO',s golden parachutes, big oil executives, Big corporate, etc. I grew up in a blue collar household. As a kid, i watched my father leave every morning wearing a United steel workers T shirt, a leather belt i was on the recieving end of once or twice, a lunch box, and on a couple occasions, a picket sign.

2.) Evangelicalism.

[gimpy117]

Oh and I found this on that sight too: Florida's republican ideas are sure working.

http://www.businessinsider.com/20-cities-where-the-recovery-never-happened-2010-3#5-palm-bay-fl-16



But hey, there's nothing stopping you from forking over some of your cash to help any of these people. How many have you helped? I say to liberals with your viewpoint all the time that compassion talk is cheap. Shut your mouth and open your own checkbook.

Forking over cash? damn right i am...I like you also pay taxes. how much was your refund this year? Mine was $55. The difference is I'm not so angry that I'm doing my civic duty and supporting our government. Where do you all get off thinking that you are the only one who pays taxes in this country? Last time I checked Liberals pay their taxes too.

[Tribesman]

Oh and I found this on that sight too: Florida's republican ideas are sure working
Those are almost two years old, do you have anything more up to date to demonstrate if they have been working or not.
There are plenty of D areas in that 20 too.

[gimpy117]

Those are almost two years old, do you have anything more up to date to demonstrate if they have been working or not.
There are plenty of D areas in that 20 too.

yeah...the rust belt. well we've not been doing so hot here for a long time. But then again...only 2 states from MI, supposedly the hardest Hit state are on there

[Tribesman]

Its OK Gimpy I looked myself, that place still scores worse on the latest version of that report.

[Slyguy3129]

Forking over cash? damn right i am...I like you also pay taxes. how much was your refund this year? Mine was $55. The difference is I'm not so angry that I'm doing my civic duty and supporting our government. Where do you all get off thinking that you are the only one who pays taxes in this country? Last time I checked Liberals pay their taxes too.


Of course they aren't working where have you been? Don't you know Democrats have done everything they can to stop the evil Republicans from getting there plans done? Not to mention that the Dems have had a longer time to mess the system up (04) than we have had to fix it (11). Just had to throw that out there.

We don't think we are the only ones paying taxes, we are tired of other people wanting to pay for junk and forcing us onboard. I don't want to pay for Joe Blows health issue down the street and quite frankly if he dies while sad it wasn't my obligation to help fix him. If you liberals want to that's fine, we don't won't any part of it.

If you guys want to "strike" because that's the "only way" you can get your point across then that's fine, use your tax dollars to pay for whatever you need not mine.

When it boils down to it I understand your point of view, I really do. I might not agree with it but I do sympathize, but I'm sorry I don't want my tax dollars gong towards it. It's like when I worked a Pilgrams and they wanted me in the union. I asked where it went and the man flatly told me politics, I told him while I appreciate what he does and has accomplished, he will not be getting any help from me. It is my money that I earned it is my right to choose where it goes, not yours and visa-versa.

[Ducimus]

.. Democrats ..Republicans ..the Dems... you liberals ..


I still say screw both of those parties, I want an America First party without the Praise Jesus mumbo jumbo. :haha:

[Slyguy3129]

Lol I agree if you find one let me know, I'll keep a keen eye and let you know if I find one.

By American first do you me the heck with the world? Ah Duci you know that will make people not happy with us, lol.

[Ducimus]

Lol I agree if you find one let me know, I'll keep a keen eye and let you know if I find one.

By American first do you me the heck with the world? Ah Duci you know that will make people not happy with us, lol.

Well technically, there IS an America First party. Its a throwback to a preWW2 lobby movement that wanted us to stay out of WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Party_%282002%29

Of what i read on the wiki page, im not quite on board with the pro life stance, but whatever, its not like im out making babies, but it goes hand in hand with their stance on church and state. I'll never go on board with that.

Overall, i think they might be a bit too much on the extreme side for me, but most of their platform i agree with. ( Well, I agree with it more then i do the GOP or the Democrat's, lets put it that way.) I suspect for many other people who are disgusted with Dumbo and Jack ass circus act, will also find them too much on the extreme side as well, so i don't expect this little party to be going anywhere any time soon.

edit: The white supemist incident also throws me off. Im definatly not on board with that.

[Slyguy3129]

Ouch, its a shame that the parties that really put America first are either racially exclusive and or don't have a chance, I have to agree this one seems healthy in both those departments.

[Blood_splat]

There is hope.
http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/asteroid%20impact.jpg

[Slyguy3129]

Is that Tiberium Wars? CnC 3 lol?

[gimpy117]

Of course they aren't working where have you been? Don't you know Democrats have done everything they can to stop the evil Republicans from getting there plans done? Not to mention that the Dems have had a longer time to mess the system up (04) than we have had to fix it (11). Just had to throw that out there.


what rock have you been under? It's bee 3 years since Obama took office and bush just came off 8?

secondly. Those who live in glass houses. Who was it just a while ago who said as a party that they would block ALL legislation unless the bush tax cuts were extended?

are you serious or just trolling?

ps. When bush took power we had modest budget surpluses

[UnderseaLcpl]

From what i've read here, according to Sea Deamon and LanceCpl, Stuff like this is A OK in their book. I guess they support things like Mr Widget there ****ing everyone over.

Im done with this, it only pisses me the **** off.

It ain't all that simple, Deuce. I'm sorry if my stance pisses you off, but it isn't like I don't sympathize with the plight of the working class. Believe it or not, I'm actually on your side. I've worked a lot of crappy jobs and at the moment I'm a union employee, despite my rhetoric. I'll call myself out on this one; I took a job with the railroad and the BLET because it was easy and paid well. The railroads, and their unions, have been railroading the US economy for more than half a century. The railroads themselves have arguably been doing that since their inception. In any case, I can understand your frustration but I think you're missing some major factors.

Firstly, I'd ask you to consider just what it is you want and how you think it might be implemented. You want to better the lives of workers, right? Or at least ensure they make enough to get their basic needs taken care of, perhaps with a bit of disposable income, yes? If you agree then we have common ground there.

Secondly, I'd like to ask you how you propose to make that happen. Presumably, you'd like to force it to happen somehow, and that necessarily means giving the government power, as it is the only agency legally allowed to use force or sanction it.

With that established, you should be well-aware of just how effective an agency it is. We bitch about legislation and taxation and priorities and everything else under the sun constantly. Would that happen if government were a proper agency to effect change? Would everyone be complaining about lobbyists? Would everyone be complaining about politicians? It should be abundantly clear by now to every single person that something is wrong with the government and the democratic process doesn't help it at all.

I'm sure you get the point, but I'll break it down even further for the benefit of others who may not have followed the whole thread. Any time you give anyone fiat power over anything, you are just asking for abuse by vested interests. They have more time and more capital to devote to ensuring that their own interests are secured than people who worry about the good of the nation as whole, and the people these interests are talking to are politicians, of all things. Business will always capture the regulators, no matter what. Politicians are in the business of politics, and it only takes one good pitch by people whose only job is to influence politicians to put a law in place that favors the vested interest.

Do you not see? By agitating for government intervention, you're just giving the same people you blame for your woes a way to abuse you further. What do you think companies do with the power you're giving them? What have you seen so far? They either capture the regulators or go somewhere else and take their jobs with them.

If you really want to stick it to the man, the best way to do it is by dropping all trade protections and lowering corporate tax rates to 0.0%. Think about it. The US is the largest market in the world. The USD is the global reserve currency. It has tremendous amounts of unexploited resources. It straddles the two oceans between the 2nd and 3rd-largest markets on the planet. If we undid the taxes and a great deal of the regulation that fills an entire freaking wing of the library of congress, companies the world over would be throwing themselves at us. We would be like a mega-mecca-Switzerland. There would be more jobs than we would know what to do with, and companies would be paying top dollar just to attract any employees at all.

And they'd be good jobs, too. Office jobs. Finance jobs. Well-paying resource-extraction jobs (which we kind of already have), and short-staffed service industry to provide for them. Not crappy, repetitive manufacturing jobs, though we'd own the companies that manufactured things.

Being the best place in the world to do business is what made this country great. What you're arguing for is a the same politically-popular but economically disastrous trade-protectionist and welfare stance that accelerated the decline of the US manufacturing industry and led to the outsourcing of decent jobs.

There is no law that will ensure that you have a decent job. There is no politician that will secure your future for you. There is no way you can force people to buy union products whose prices are raised by union wages (well, except in the case of railroads and other non-exportable industry:DL). There is only the market and the laws of supply and demand. We're in a golden position right now. We are the largest single market in the world. We have monopsony power. Our currency is the world reserve currency. And we're wasting all that while people like you frak around with some BS political machinery that everyone already knows is not effective.

I don't mean to be disrespectful in my brusqueness, nor do I mean to insult your intelligence or character, Deuce. I bought the same argument you did and then switched sides, and then switched sides again when it suited me by becoming a a BLET member. As such, I cannot judge you, but this ludicrous government nonsense needs to stop. We are Americans and we are defined by our willingness to accept, adapt to, and overcome changing circumstances. We are the leaders of the free world, and IMO it is high time we started showing the rest of the world just how good we are at that.

[Slyguy3129]

what rock have you been under? It's bee 3 years since Obama took office and bush just came off 8?

secondly. Those who live in glass houses. Who was it just a while ago who said as a party that they would block ALL legislation unless the bush tax cuts were extended?

are you serious or just trolling?

ps. When bush took power we had modest budget surpluses

Seriously do not not read or can you simply not read? I included the years that I meant. The Dems took over both the House and the Senate in 2004 when the oh so wonderful Nancy P showed up. Since then its has been a wrecking ball. But then again perhaps you just don't live on Earth.

Best thing that ever happened.

No I am serious, refer to ealier comment.

PS: Before Bush came into office we had two World Trade Center Towers located in New York City, New York, and an unscathed Pentagon in D.C.

[Slyguy3129]

Undersea that is probably the most well thought out post in this thread. Thank you for stating our case, clearly, respectfully, and intelligently.

[gimpy117]

Seriously do not not read or can you simply not read? I included the years that I meant. The Dems took over both the House and the Senate in 2004 when the oh so wonderful Nancy P showed up. Since then its has been a wrecking ball. But then again perhaps you just don't live on Earth.

Best thing that ever happened.

No I am serious, refer to ealier comment.

PS: Before Bush came into office we had two World Trade Center Towers located in New York City, New York, and an unscathed Pentagon in D.C.

so you blame 911 for the unnecessary war in Iraq and the bush administration's inability police the banks properly? The FED is appointed, not elected

but you're still stuck in 2003 where all your party needed to do is yell 911! see we had to do it!

[krashkart]

Which party do you belong to, comrades? :O:


Party means nothing; they both suck ass. Elect honest people and to hell with their affiliations. Will the bastards fix our country? They goddamn well better fix our country. But the only way we can ensure that our best interests are in mind will be when we wake up and start electing people that will work for us as though we are family. Don't let them ****ers lie to you. Take them to task at rallies. YOU ask the questions, not the moderator. Beat these sumbitches at their own game. Tear those ****ers a new ******* and then some. Rip them up and make them hurt during the next election cycle. And keep it up. Make it a family tradition to keep these people in check every time there is an election coming. :yep:

This is our country. Stand up for it.

[Slyguy3129]

No, I don't blame 9/11 for anything. I don't think the financial meltdown would have been anywhere near this level had it not been for

1: 9/11: There was alot of money lost that day as well.

2: I believe the war and Iraq and Afghanistan are fought to prevent another 9/11. We can argue this till we both die of old age. But war is expensive. Don't forget Obama added another recently.

3: For the record, the laws that were passed that prevented Bush from "policing" Wall street was passed in 1999, when the previous savior of the Democrats (and a President I will admit that I agree with most of the time) Clinton was in office. Hell one of your fellow constituents didn't want to do so, because "In 10 years we will be bailing these financial institutions out with tax payer money."

So again, I state my point on that. And again with the blame Bush for all the worlds problems. I wish I had a dime for every time that was said to me. I'd have enough money to retire at 23.

[Slyguy3129]

Which party do you belong to, comrades? :O:


Party means nothing; they both suck ass. Elect honest people and to hell with their affiliations. Will the bastards fix our country? They goddamn well better fix our country. But the only way we can ensure that our best interests are in mind will be when we wake up and start electing people that will work for us as though we are family. Don't let them ****ers lie to you. Take them to task at rallies. YOU ask the questions, not the moderator. Beat these sumbitches at their own game. Tear those ****ers a new ******* and then some. Rip them up and make them hurt during the next election cycle. And keep it up. Make it a family tradition to keep these people in check every time there is an election coming. :yep:

This is our country. Stand up for it.

We have a Tea Party that did just that last November.

Mind you its not a Political party that can run, but it endorsed groups (Mostly if not all Republicans) that agreed with where the Tea Party stood. It stands damn near identical to what you posted. It was the worst loss for the Democrats in this country since 1948. America got the message, but we didn't quite snag the Senate, so unfortunately it is (or rather Reed is) holding us by the balls still.

[krashkart]

We have a Tea Party that did just that last November.

Mind you its not a Political party that can run, but it endorsed groups (Mostly if not all Republicans) that agreed with where the Tea Party stood. It stands damn near identical to what you posted. It was the worst loss for the Democrats in this country since 1948. America got the message, but we didn't quite snag the Senate, so unfortunately it is (or rather Reed is) holding us by the balls still.

I don't really care for any 'party'. Once an organization is in place and has gained power it will be corrupted (if it hadn't been corrupt to begin with). I believe in individuals acting up as a group when things get out of hand at the higher levels, and then we go back to our normal lives once the asswipes at top have understood our concerns*.


*And have adopted our concerns to a ****ing tee for at least **200 years.


I'm all for change, and there should be some serious concerns not only put to our leadership, but also held to them for the duration of their terms minute by minute. Just like when we were kids -- Poppa didn't trust us after we had lied to him? He would stand over us with a belt or a pair of work boots to make sure we didn't **** something up. These *******s in government should be treated just as fairly. Beat their asses raw when they **** up. Let them remember what childhood was all about: Learning responsibility; to our families, and to our people. :yep:


**And then 200 years later we begin the whole process over again. Human + Power = Dumb****. Ask any European power.

[mookiemookie]

3: For the record, the laws that were passed that prevented Bush from "policing" Wall street was passed in 1999, when the previous savior of the Democrats (and a President I will admit that I agree with most of the time) Clinton was in office.

Poor poor George Bush really wanted to curb the Wall Street excesses and reign in the "lend to securitize" model, curb derivatives, and prevent the i-banks from over-leveraging themselves, but those dirty Democrats hamstrung him, you see? http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/n/pukeface.gif

The quickest way to spot a political hack not worth listening to is how they describe the causes of the financial crisis. If they don't mention Larry Summers, Greenspan, Phill Gramm and the CFMA, the repeal of Glass Steagall, and ultra low rates - or if they bring up the CRA or try to pin it all on Freddie and Fannie, and only blame one side or the other, then you can safely tune them out.

[Platapus]

The quickest way to spot a political hack not worth listening to is how they describe the causes of the financial crisis. If they don't mention Larry Summers, Greenspan, Phill Gramm and the CFMA, the repeal of Glass Steagall, and ultra low rates - or if they bring up the CRA or try to pin it all on Freddie and Fannie, and only blame one side or the other, then you can safely tune them out.

It is just human nature to want to reduce problems we don't fully understand into a soundbyte like "it is his fault". It helps people emotionally deal with problems if they can personify it and lay blame.

[mookiemookie]

It is just human nature to want to reduce problems we don't fully understand into a soundbyte like "it is his fault". It helps people emotionally deal with problems if they can personify it and lay blame.

I'll admit, it's a huge and complex issue full of esoteric themes. The average American doesn't know an RMBS from a CMBS from TALF from a PPIP from a QE2. I deal with this stuff every day so it's fairly clear to me, but I guess I can see why someone would rely on a talking head to boil this down into something they can understand, like "Left wing good, right wing bad" or vice versa.

[Slyguy3129]

I'm not saying there wasn't more he could do, but it's easy to sit outside the oval office and nit pick one decision out of hundreds.

The first thing is the President inherently does not have direct control of the economy, that would be "State Run Capitalism"/Communism, last I checked we are a free market society, so he only has limited power in that department, Congress has more power than the President on the economy. If he had ultimate power over everything we would just have the executive branch rather than three independent branches.

As much as I would love to make Obama out to be an idiot because the economy like I said he only has so much power.

Yes the deregulation in 1999, limited his power further but also limited Congress' power further as well.

No I wasn't happy about the TARP, it's one of the few things he did that I wasn't happy about. But to blame it Bush when it was obviously others shows ignorance on how the system works, and the fact that you don't want to hear that shows just how much you know.

Blaming it on one man, when it is the responsibility of many others is just flat wrong, and honestly the only reason you do it, is because your party says its his fault, showing that you have absolutely no independent thought and that you just follow what your party says. And that is 99.999999% of what is wrong with this country on both sides of the aisle.

I don't listen or believe everything I hear from my party, least of all what they say about the other side, I form my own opinion on such things.

I said in a PM that I think the Democrats are the party of dreamers and the Republicans are the party of here and now. It sounds so wonderful all the things that the Dems promise but the fact of the matter is, as long as the human condition stays like it is (and any change in that would make make us something else) their dreams just are not possible, rather highly improbable. I would love to live in a world where there was no hunger or war or homelessness, but as I said, that is highly highly improbable. Not to mention a few other ideas they have that I think the polar opposite of. I would bring them up for debate but that would further derail this thread.

Back on topic though, I will state again, that everyone has equal rights to say where they want there money to go, obviously these folks along with myself do not want their money going to people who willingly "exercise their rights as a union". You can do that if you choose, I don't agree on it, but what I can do, is spot my money from going into your wallets for choose to do so. That is just as much my right as you right to "strike". You are unhappy that the decision was made that's fine alot of people feel that unions have to much power and it all goes to politics not the worker. I showed that when I talked of the union at my former job.

Union "dues" are supposed to be set aside to pay the workers when they strike, but they rather go to political lobbyist. Their jobs are first and for most to get more power to the workers(union) and take more power from the evil (the corporation). But in doing so they are handicapping the worker because

1: The money the workers pay are supposed to be for themselves, so when they do strike the union has enough money to pay them while they are "out of work".

2: The worker already has all the power, last I checked nobody in this country is forced to work anywhere where they feel unsafe, disrespected, and underpaid. So if you are unhappy where you are out, exercise your power and look for another job while you have time off. The whole point of an interview is to let both parties know what you expect of each other.

3: The only real power the Corporations have is to pick up and leave the area/country. And low and behold that is their right, and they are exercising it quite well right now. The reason why? So much regulation that they can not operate efficiently, preventing profit. I know corporations making money is evil, but where do you think you wage/raise/safe work environment gets money from?

When it boils down to it, it is a highly dramatized, bloated, over-hyped, case of the mouth biting the hand that feeds it. To make matters worse prices go up on the consumer because of it so that the company might make a profit, essentially "screwing" the worker twice. People see that and they are tired of it, and they don't want their money going towards it, that is our right, as much as your to "strike". Don't like it? Make a better argument or do as the companies do and pack up and leave.

EDIT: As someone mentioned before my post, yes all those gentlemen had a hand in the financial crisis. I rather hope, they didn't institute it, but there are some who believe they did. I think they just made a big freaking mistake and we are all paying for it. BTW thanks for belittling my opinion when I was obviously making a counter point to his wanting to blame one person, I was playing along with that theory "putting in to practice". But like I said thank you.