The real “takers” in America are the unproductive, rent-extracting rich

[initforme]

Please explain how a person who is a good worker who makes a decent wage but belongs to a union is a threat to anyone. I understand the shenanigans of union leaders who are taking advantage of their own is a bad thing.
But for the most part most of the workers arent a problem and really dont use the union to their advantage. They go about their daily business, put in a good day's work, and rarely have time to think about the union. But they are looked down upon. Why is this?

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

Again when billionaires come out against laborers and those middle class people who work hard, dont receive any assistance to barely make it they give themselves a bad name. Like the wages those people make are too much. Their benefits must be cut, their wages must be lowered. When it is observed in that sense Plutocracy would fit the bill.

They can afford to offer what they do, less and less, because if the workers don't like it, they'll just pack up and move elsewhere. It is a Plutocracy. I still think once the rumbles of the new global wealth settles things will return to a more reasonable state here. May take awhile.

 

[PredFan]

Please explain how a person who is a good worker who makes a decent wage but belongs to a union is a threat to anyone. I understand the shenanigans of union leaders who are taking advantage of their own is a bad thing.
But for the most part most of the workers arent a problem and really dont use the union to their advantage. They go about their daily business, put in a good day's work, and rarely have time to think about the union. But they are looked down upon. Why is this?

THEY aren't, UNIONs are.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

Please explain how a person who is a good worker who makes a decent wage but belongs to a union is a threat to anyone. I understand the shenanigans of union leaders who are taking advantage of their own is a bad thing.
But for the most part most of the workers arent a problem and really dont use the union to their advantage. They go about their daily business, put in a good day's work, and rarely have time to think about the union. But they are looked down upon. Why is this?

You notice not two, maybe three years ago this wasn't an issue. That's important because who MADE it an issue? Politicians did, who are owned by the mega-wealthy. It's they who make people who are or were in a union evil incarnate. No one hardly had an opinion of it before they made it an issue.

 

[initforme]

I dont hear alot of good positive comments about labor on conservative talk radio that I listen to.
Now I have owned my own business for over 25 years now. Its a construction/concrete small company. My workers are loyal and they are unionized carpenters. I believe in paying them a more than competitive wage. I have had zero problems with the "union" and basically never hear them talk about it. They earn what they get and in my eyes any worker with half a brain would keep looking for the betterment of his family by increased wages.

 

[boilermaker55]

When you cannot break away from the ideology long enough to at least listen, now we see how the tea party right really is, and what the rest of congress has to deal with

more class warfare....HATE THEM RICH

then they turn around and vote for them..cracks me up

SEVEN out the top ten richest people in Congress, DEMOCRATS

salon a propaganda arm of the Democrat-Progressive-Commie party

The richest members of Congress - Aug. 21, 2012

If you had bothered to read some of what was posted you would realize they are NOT talking about EVERYONE who is wealthy.


You are such a limited person.

You Never truely discuss anything.

You merely react as if its YOU personally that is being discussed.


When you have a country or world where MORE and MORE people are falling into poverty and fewer and fewer people have all the resources there is something going wrong.

Why do you wish to return to the days of kings and queens?

 

[Stephanie]

I wonder if Salon was thinking of her when they wrote this?
links in article

SNIP:
Obama Advisor Valerie Jarrett Linked to Real Estate Scandals

Barack Obama’s personnel decisions as President-Elect are crushing any hopes that his administration will bring a new spirit of integrity and honesty to Washington. First there was the selection of Clinton attack dog Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff. Then there was the selection of another Clinton crony, John Podesta, to co-chair Obama’s transition team. And now Barack Obama has tapped Valerie Jarrett to partner with Podesta in handling the transition.

Who is Valerie Jarrett?

Characterized as "the other side of Barack Obama’s brain" by CBS News, Jarrett first met the Obamas seventeen years ago when she offered Michelle Obama a job. Since that time Jarrett has served as a very close advisor to both Obamas. While some have speculated that Jarrett is interested in taking Obama’s place in the U.S. Senate, the New York Times reported that it is more likely she will become a senior White House adviser. And that is terrible news.

Judicial Watch recently obtained documents linking Valerie Jarrett to a series of real estate scandals, including several housing projects operated by convicted felon and former Obama fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko.

According to the documents, which we obtained from the Illinois Secretary of State, Valerie Jarrett served as a board member for several organizations that provided funding and support for Chicago housing projects operated by real estate developers and Obama financial backers Antoin "Tony" Rezko and Allison Davis. (You may recall that Davis is also Obama’s former boss.)

Jarrett was a member of the Board of Directors for the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corporation along with several Davis and Rezko associates, as well as the Fund for Community Redevelopment and Revitalization, an organization that worked with Rezko and Davis. Jarrett wrote of her support for Davis/Rezko projects, and was also one of the strongest supporters in revitalizing two struggling Chicago banks which later provided loans and mortgages for the Davis/Rezko housing projects.

And what sort of housing projects were Davis and Rezko operating? According to press reports, housing projects operated by Davis and Rezko have been substandard and beset with code violations. The Chicago Sun Times reported that one Rezko-managed housing project was "riddled with problems — including squalid living conditions…lack of heat, squatters and drug dealers." Davis, meanwhile, was nailed for a code violation when sewage began to seep through electrical outlets in one of his low income apartment buildings.

Of course, Jarrett would have no issues supporting these kinds of housing projects. As Chief Executive Officer of the Habitat Company, Jarrett managed a controversial housing project located in Obama’s former state senate district called Grove Parc Plaza. According to the Boston Globe, the housing complex was considered "uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage…In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale – a score so bad the buildings now face demolition." It is no stretch to say that she was a slumlord. Jarrett refused to comment on the conditions of the complex.

Valerie Jarrett is a product of the corrupt Chicago political machine. Washington already has plenty of corruption; we don’t need to import more of it from Chicago.

All of it here
Slumlord Runs Obama Transition? | Judicial Watch

 

[initforme]

Explain how the unions are such a threat. I understand the threat politically as they are basically democrats. I lean more towards the libertarian view but the unions have had no impact on my business and all my carpenters are union members.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

Explain how the unions are such a threat. I understand the threat politically as they are basically democrats. I lean more towards the libertarian view but the unions have had no impact on my business and all my carpenters are union members.

Again, was it a political issue 3 years ago? No. The politicians and their handlers made it an issue to cripple one of the Democrats biggest donors - the labor unions.

 

[Mac1958]

Explain how the unions are such a threat. I understand the threat politically as they are basically democrats. I lean more towards the libertarian view but the unions have had no impact on my business and all my carpenters are union members.

I have three issues with unions, all of them fixable:

1. Rules written into contracts that make it difficult for an employer to fire a union worker for cause. If an employee is not performing up to an employer's standards and expectations, the employer should be able to act in the best interests of his business without roadblocks. An employee is not "owed" a job. An employee is there to create value for his employer.

2. Rules written into contracts that create inefficiencies. If an employee can pick up that tool but not that tool, or he can drive this truck but not that truck, or can push this button but not that button, we're creating gross inefficiencies for the business that simply don't need to be there.

3. Retirement packages that hamstring a company's present as well as its future. We're already seeing what happens when a retirement plan makes promises it cannot keep, when retiree costs create massive strains on a company or governmental organization. Robust retirement plans given to former employees who are no longer providing value to their employer are a huge net drag.

These three items are not included in every contract, at least as I understand it. But they're the parts of deals that create artificial handicaps for businesses in an intensely competitive business environment.

.

 

[Katzndogz]

Interestingly, in the book I'm reading, their job security is actually more volatile than for most of the rest of us. Yea, it is a big gamble.

On the other hand, where I think you missed a point is that they have high-dollar parties and such where they all get together and stroke each other's egos. They want recognition. They're ego driven like most successful people no matter the field. There's nothing wrong with that either. Your last paragraph, by the way, is spot on!

No doubt some of the mega-entrepreneurs have egos the size of politicians', and business owners in general have to have significant self-confidence to weather the various storms. I would say, however, that many of them (Trump springs immediately to mind) do much of their showbiz as a marketing tactic, and it works.

.

My basic premise is that I just wish the American mega-wealthy would be more interested in reinvesting in America. I realize the temptation in this new global economy to invest overseas for higher profits has got to be attractive. But you'd think since they use their money-clout to buy politicians to rig the playing field their way, they'd want to also twist those politician's arms in making it more profitable to invest here in the states as opposed to Hong Kong.

You might wish that the American mega-wealthy would be more interested in investing or reinvesting in America but the answer is why the hell would ANYONE be interested in investing or reinvesting in America? It's a hostile country to investment, it's a country that imposes nonsense regulations to put the businesses what would benefit from investment out of business and the people of this country want to spend that money on lazy asses who want to sit around and smoke dope all day.

Investment? In this country? You'd have to be pretty stupid to do that. The mega-wealthy are a lot of things, but not stupid.

 

[editec]

Shall we stop kidding ourselves?

Unions are LABOR monopolies.

Their primary benefit is that they are (were) generally facing off against gigantic PRODUCTION MONOPOLIES.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"Labor unions are rent extractors too according to that article.

Now that i agree with."


I dont have a problem with the uber wealthy. its their money. The problem is the growing trend that the uber wealthy want to see the little guy get "littler" as they get richer.

For one the so called uber wealthy don't really care about the little guy and they certainly are not going out of their way to make sure the little guy gets screwed. If they get richer it has no effect on anyone else's ability to do the same.

For all the squawking and crying about taxes the uber rich do you would think they are being tortured or something. If you are a millionaire why would you care? Why do the rich not like hard working middle class people?

Why should a person have to give up more of their money just because they have more?

Why should I fork over 20% of my income or more to the fucking government when others pay next to nothing?

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

No doubt some of the mega-entrepreneurs have egos the size of politicians', and business owners in general have to have significant self-confidence to weather the various storms. I would say, however, that many of them (Trump springs immediately to mind) do much of their showbiz as a marketing tactic, and it works.

.

My basic premise is that I just wish the American mega-wealthy would be more interested in reinvesting in America. I realize the temptation in this new global economy to invest overseas for higher profits has got to be attractive. But you'd think since they use their money-clout to buy politicians to rig the playing field their way, they'd want to also twist those politician's arms in making it more profitable to invest here in the states as opposed to Hong Kong.

You might wish that the American mega-wealthy would be more interested in investing or reinvesting in America but the answer is why the hell would ANYONE be interested in investing or reinvesting in America? It's a hostile country to investment, it's a country that imposes nonsense regulations to put the businesses what would benefit from investment out of business and the people of this country want to spend that money on lazy asses who want to sit around and smoke dope all day.

Investment? In this country? You'd have to be pretty stupid to do that. The mega-wealthy are a lot of things, but not stupid.

Well I appreciate you not continuing to go with the "labor union" topic, which isn't the topic of this thread (but certainly could be a viable sub-topic later). You see, that's what I don't get. Not only do the 0.01% of America, but of the world, influence our political decisions, but write a lot of our laws via their lobbyists (yea, lobbyists write a lot of legislation now, not the pea-brained politicians). So what I don't get is that if they have such influence as to decide who we can vote for (real choice we have, hey?) why can't they take it a step further and influence the tax laws and such to make it in their benefit to reinvest here? That's what doesn't make sense to me. I mean they can wield their power to "legally" set up tax shelters overseas, but can't buy off the people they put in Washington to ease the regulations. I mean, if I were a zillionaire in America, why would I want to spend half my life in an airplane going to Seoul or Hong Kong or some BFE place in India to check on my investments/business?

 

[PredFan]

I dont hear alot of good positive comments about labor on conservative talk radio that I listen to.
Now I have owned my own business for over 25 years now. Its a construction/concrete small company. My workers are loyal and they are unionized carpenters. I believe in paying them a more than competitive wage. I have had zero problems with the "union" and basically never hear them talk about it. They earn what they get and in my eyes any worker with half a brain would keep looking for the betterment of his family by increased wages.

Again, no one is saying the WORKERS themselves are bad or whatever, they are saying that UNIONs and the current concept of UNIONs, especially public sector UNIONs, is bad for the country.

 

[PredFan]

Explain how the unions are such a threat. I understand the threat politically as they are basically democrats. I lean more towards the libertarian view but the unions have had no impact on my business and all my carpenters are union members.

Start a thread on it. That way you won't derail this thread and you'll get plenty of input from many people.

 

[PredFan]

No doubt some of the mega-entrepreneurs have egos the size of politicians', and business owners in general have to have significant self-confidence to weather the various storms. I would say, however, that many of them (Trump springs immediately to mind) do much of their showbiz as a marketing tactic, and it works.

.

My basic premise is that I just wish the American mega-wealthy would be more interested in reinvesting in America. I realize the temptation in this new global economy to invest overseas for higher profits has got to be attractive. But you'd think since they use their money-clout to buy politicians to rig the playing field their way, they'd want to also twist those politician's arms in making it more profitable to invest here in the states as opposed to Hong Kong.

You might wish that the American mega-wealthy would be more interested in investing or reinvesting in America but the answer is why the hell would ANYONE be interested in investing or reinvesting in America? It's a hostile country to investment, it's a country that imposes nonsense regulations to put the businesses what would benefit from investment out of business and the people of this country want to spend that money on lazy asses who want to sit around and smoke dope all day.

Investment? In this country? You'd have to be pretty stupid to do that. The mega-wealthy are a lot of things, but not stupid.

This^

 

[PredFan]

My basic premise is that I just wish the American mega-wealthy would be more interested in reinvesting in America. I realize the temptation in this new global economy to invest overseas for higher profits has got to be attractive. But you'd think since they use their money-clout to buy politicians to rig the playing field their way, they'd want to also twist those politician's arms in making it more profitable to invest here in the states as opposed to Hong Kong.

You might wish that the American mega-wealthy would be more interested in investing or reinvesting in America but the answer is why the hell would ANYONE be interested in investing or reinvesting in America? It's a hostile country to investment, it's a country that imposes nonsense regulations to put the businesses what would benefit from investment out of business and the people of this country want to spend that money on lazy asses who want to sit around and smoke dope all day.

Investment? In this country? You'd have to be pretty stupid to do that. The mega-wealthy are a lot of things, but not stupid.

Well I appreciate you not continuing to go with the "labor union" topic, which isn't the topic of this thread (but certainly could be a viable sub-topic later). You see, that's what I don't get. Not only do the 0.01% of America, but of the world, influence our political decisions, but write a lot of our laws via their lobbyists (yea, lobbyists write a lot of legislation now, not the pea-brained politicians). So what I don't get is that if they have such influence as to decide who we can vote for (real choice we have, hey?) why can't they take it a step further and influence the tax laws and such to make it in their benefit to reinvest here? That's what doesn't make sense to me. I mean they can wield their power to "legally" set up tax shelters overseas, but can't buy off the people they put in Washington to ease the regulations. I mean, if I were a zillionaire in America, why would I want to spend half my life in an airplane going to Seoul or Hong Kong or some BFE place in India to check on my investments/business?

It's because you are thinking wrong. You are trying to make reality fit your belief rather than looking to reality to form your belief. The reason you can't make reality fit your belief is that your belief is wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Shall we stop kidding ourselves?

Unions are LABOR monopolies.

Their primary benefit is that they are (were) generally facing off against gigantic PRODUCTION MONOPOLIES.

Wrong. Unionized companies aren't monopolies. That's why they go bankrupt. True monopolies don't go bankrupt

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"rent-extracting"...meaning they provide housing, no?