Union Boss salaries- They have a lot in common with the people they represent

[thereisnospoon]

Union Boss salaries- They have a lot in common with the people they represent






yes the 1%

Michael J. Sullivan, general president of the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association
Salary: $1,043,023

Robert A. Scardelletti, international president of the Transportation Communications Union
Salary: $748,531

Newton B. Jones, president of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
Salary: $607,022

Terence M. O’Sullivan, general president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America
Salary: $589,124

John T. Niccollai, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 464A
Salary: $532,752

Gerald McEntee, international president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
Salary: $512,369

I keep asking the gung ho unions are to worshiped people if in their lives they had ever seen a poor or even middle class union boss.
They never acknowledge the question. Because if they do acknowledge it, they are fucked.

No, as I said earlier, comparing six figure salaries for union bosses compared to 8 figure salaries for CEO's, I'd much rather have the union guys get six figures if that means I get upper five figures intead of lower five figures.

Classic rationalization. Nonsense.

 

[Old Rocks]

There has never been a time when most private sector jobs were unionized. Unionization peaked at 35% of private sector jobs in the mid-50s. By 1980, it was at 20%. Today, it is at 10%.

This is a trend that has been occurring for a very long time, and is not merely a function of political ideology.

Okay, I know you have reading comprehension problems, so let's go back and read what I actually wrote.

Once upon a time, most private sector jobs were unionized or enjoyed good benefits because their employers didn't want them to join a union, start a union or go looking for a union job.

See the point, there, guy. The threat of unionization actually benefited non-union people because non-union shops had to offer comparable benefits.

They did not do it out of the goodness of their hearts. Because most of these mother f***ers have little goodness or heart.

Even Republicans realized that they had to get right with working people in the era of Eisenhower and Nixon.

Now, to a degree, unions have been a victim of their own successes. When Nixon started up OSHA, they really didn't need to fight the safety battle so much anymore.

Not quite true. Employers started dealing with excessive union demands by shifting production south. The deindustrialization of the Rust Belt did not happen because of China or Mexico. It happened because of Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee. Unions made costs prohibitive so businesses just moved where the environment was less hostile and more welcoming. That's what guys like you totally fail to understand. When you bleat on about threatening business owners' kids, that guy thinks "I don't need this shit. I'm off to Texas." And poof! There go your jobs.

Don't like the idea of anybody threatoning anybody else's kids. Not from either side.

There are still battles for the unions. But they are of a differant sort, now.

For instance, both the stockholders and the unions, employees, have a stake in excessive management compensation that makes a company far less competative. Both have an interest in seeing some of the profit going back into the infrastructure of the company to keep it competative.

Another battle for the unions is health care. And the lessons there are from the other industrial nations that have Universal Health Care, and far better results for everybody, for the corperations and for the employees.

Continueing education and apprenticeships for the crafts, union and management co-operation, are an absolute neccessity for the health of our businesses and for the employees. In my craft, I have seen the average age move up to 56. This is not good for the businesses, and not good for the workers. Too many hours and dependence on too few older people.

 

[Gadawg73]

Okay, I know you have reading comprehension problems, so let's go back and read what I actually wrote.



See the point, there, guy. The threat of unionization actually benefited non-union people because non-union shops had to offer comparable benefits.

They did not do it out of the goodness of their hearts. Because most of these mother f***ers have little goodness or heart.

Even Republicans realized that they had to get right with working people in the era of Eisenhower and Nixon.

Now, to a degree, unions have been a victim of their own successes. When Nixon started up OSHA, they really didn't need to fight the safety battle so much anymore.

Not quite true. Employers started dealing with excessive union demands by shifting production south. The deindustrialization of the Rust Belt did not happen because of China or Mexico. It happened because of Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee. Unions made costs prohibitive so businesses just moved where the environment was less hostile and more welcoming. That's what guys like you totally fail to understand. When you bleat on about threatening business owners' kids, that guy thinks "I don't need this shit. I'm off to Texas." And poof! There go your jobs.

Don't like the idea of anybody threatoning anybody else's kids. Not from either side.

There are still battles for the unions. But they are of a differant sort, now.

For instance, both the stockholders and the unions, employees, have a stake in excessive management compensation that makes a company far less competative. Both have an interest in seeing some of the profit going back into the infrastructure of the company to keep it competative.

Another battle for the unions is health care. And the lessons there are from the other industrial nations that have Universal Health Care, and far better results for everybody, for the corperations and for the employees.

Continueing education and apprenticeships for the crafts, union and management co-operation, are an absolute neccessity for the health of our businesses and for the employees. In my craft, I have seen the average age move up to 56. This is not good for the businesses, and not good for the workers. Too many hours and dependence on too few older people.

Voice of reason and common sense.
I agree with you as I am open to changes in the current health care system we now have in America.
It is a failure and costs us dramatically in the world competitive arena.
Good post.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I keep asking the gung ho unions are to worshiped people if in their lives they had ever seen a poor or even middle class union boss.
They never acknowledge the question. Because if they do acknowledge it, they are fucked.

No, as I said earlier, comparing six figure salaries for union bosses compared to 8 figure salaries for CEO's, I'd much rather have the union guys get six figures if that means I get upper five figures intead of lower five figures.

Classic rationalization. Nonsense.

Classic stupidity on your point, spoon, if you don't get the point. What a doosh and a maroon.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I am always amused how conservatives vilify unions.

Let's be honest what happened here. Once upon a time, most private sector jobs were unionized or enjoyed good benefits because their employers didn't want them to join a union, start a union or go looking for a union job. The Wealthy paid a healthy share of the taxes, as they should. There were tariffs in place that protected our industries (vital to our national defense and economy) from unfair foreign competition. You had a vibrant middle class, Mom could stay home with the kids while Dad worked, people could enjoy vacations.

Then these idiots went along with the Plutocrats' oky-dokes.

"Give up your unions, and your right to collectively bargain. We’ll recognize you for your hard work and merit. We’ll use nice sounding terms like ‘right to work’ and ‘At Will employment’ to describe this."

"Dooooooy, Oky-doke!" said the middle class.

So they find themselves working harder for less money, and eventually get put out on the street at 50 because the company can always find someone younger who'll work cheaper.

“Give up your Union Medical Plans, and go with these company Medical Plans instead!”

“Dooooy, Oky-doke”

They find themselves paying more every year for plans that cover less and less. HMO stands for Horrible Medical Options. And if they got too sick, they found they were usually the first to be let go during a downsizing.

"Give up your pensions, we'll let you get in on the Wall Street fun with something called a 401K. Then you can borrow against the value of a home you already paid off! Trust us!"

"Dooooy, Oky-Doke"

Now they find themselves with a busted 401K, an underwater mortgage in foreclosure AND no hope of ever actually retiring. Meanwhile the fat cats on Wall Street and the banks got a government bailout they paid for, and paid themselves bonuses out of it.

"Hey, hey, you know, we can get more business opportunities if we sign this free trade bill with third world rat-holes that don't have the safety, environmental and work rules we have."

"Doooooy, Oky-Doke"

And they act all surprise when the manufacturing jobs go to China, and the Customer Service jobs go to India, and when their POS Chinese made computer breaks down, they can call to Pradip… er, “Bobby” about how to fix it, but he doesn't understand English.

"Hey, let's give tax cuts to rich people!"

"Doooy, Oky-Doke!"

Oh, that means we increase taxes on working people. SUCKERS!!!

And of course, if someone might actually figure out that they’ve been had, we can distract them by talking about gay marriage, abortion, guns or some other issue that gets their blood boiling for no good reason.

The ironic thing is that the GOP has engaged in this obscene transfer of wealth, but instead of being angry at the people who perpetrated it, we are angry at the people in the unions who DIDN'T FALL FOR IT.

In short, someone burns down your house, and instead of wanting to punish the arsonist, you want them to burn down your neighbor's house instead.

"DOOOOOY, Oky-doke"

Ok...Let's get to the facts....Since you started with "once upon a time"...
At it's peak, unionization of labor in the US was about 35%. So there goes your claim of "Most private sector jobs were union"..
The wealthy pay MOST of the tax burden. That is the present. The facts bear that out.
Let's be clear, the federal and most state governments do not have revenue problems, they have spending problems. Here in NC they collect over 35 cents per gallon for gasoline. That money is supposed to go toward road repair and construction. For decades, the politicians in Raleigh have been robbing the road money and placing it into the general fund. Then using that money for pet projects unrelated to transportation. NC is falling behind on repairs and improvements. The common refrain" there isn't the money to fund that". That is not a revenue problem. It's a spending problem.
DOn't tell us about taxation. You go ahead and tell the people in Washington to get their fiscal house in order and then you can come back and ask for more. Until then, the store is closed. BTW, what makes you believe higher taxes would benefit you in any way? Suppose the Obama admin increased taxes to say 50% for every person making over $100k, so what, do you think a check will show up in your mailbox?
Tariffs are anti business and anti consumer. We're in no position to demand higher prices for anything. Neither are other countries. Tariffs..DO you have any idea the damage to international trade the first hint of a US policy instituting tariffs would create?
And even so, how in the world would these surcharges bring jobs to the US?
And just what do you think would happen to consumer prices here? And please, don't reply with "sure prices would rise a bit". Newsflash, the cost of consumer goods would skyrocket. You people seem to forget that the money has to come from somewhere.
Let's get something straight. If wages rise, so do prices.
If I make a widget that costs me one dollar per unit and you come along with your tariff idea and force me to use more expensive union labor my cost per unit rises. I will have to raise my retail price. I would raise enough to negate the rise in cost. So now my widget will retail for $5 when I used to sell it for $3.00.
What's wrong with rewarding employees for good work based on merit?
Unions operate in a captive environment where the best worker is lumped in with the mediocre. Once the best and brightest catch wind of the slugs getting raises the same as they, guess what? The best will slack off thinking their efforts will go unrewarded.
Meanwhile, when the union bosses show up to hammer out a new deal, the employer asks "can I get rid of the slackers". The union guy says "no way". "But I will make sure the slackers will work out better THIS time. And besides, you really can't fire them. The contract does not allow for dismissal for lack of productivity." That's infuriating. The business owner cannot run his business the way he sees fit under the law.
It is you who want to burn down the neighbor's house.
Your class warfare says that. Rather than promote education and skill enhancement training for the purpose of encouraging people to increase their skill set and thus increase their income potential, you want to punish those who you believe are unfairly lifted to the top of the economic ladder. When you see a wealthy person, you do not think achievement and success. You think luck and criminal behavior.
I must ask....Given the propensity of you people on the left to use the term "working people", I want to see your definition of "working people"...
This oughta be good.

 

[Toro]

Don't like the idea of anybody threatoning anybody else's kids. Not from either side.

There are still battles for the unions. But they are of a differant sort, now.

For instance, both the stockholders and the unions, employees, have a stake in excessive management compensation that makes a company far less competative. Both have an interest in seeing some of the profit going back into the infrastructure of the company to keep it competative.

Another battle for the unions is health care. And the lessons there are from the other industrial nations that have Universal Health Care, and far better results for everybody, for the corperations and for the employees.

Continueing education and apprenticeships for the crafts, union and management co-operation, are an absolute neccessity for the health of our businesses and for the employees. In my craft, I have seen the average age move up to 56. This is not good for the businesses, and not good for the workers. Too many hours and dependence on too few older people.

Good post.

I generally support many of the union proxy solicitations. They are often very pro-shareholder friendly.

 

[Toro]

Ummm,,, we went off the cliff on Bush's watch, not Obama's.. Why do you all try to pretend that this isn't the case?

The Economy crashed in 2008. After Bush cut taxes, and let 50,000 factories relocate to China. We did all the stuff you guys said we should do, and it was a fucking disaster.

The members of the Banking Committees in the House and Senate crashed the economy by allowing Fannie/Freddie to go unchecked creating trillions of dollars in bad paper while forcing banks to lend to unqualified individuals. They set up a system where the loan originators could sell the loans to other financial institutions who then packaged up the paper and resold it as "mortgage backed securities" None of these people were ever told by the government that there was "just one problem you may encounter"...What was that? It's called a market correction in real estate.
Now let's get real. A 10% reduction in taxes did not and could not negatively affect the economy. To think otherwise is foolish.
Oh, free trade policies and burdensome government regulations plus expensive US labor is what chased business overseas.
I must ask..Why do you believe high tariffs would bring manufacturing back to the US?

Big part of the problem but the big $$$ was in the corporate loan areas. Those dwarfed what Freddie and Fannie did.
Vast speculation on vacant land had nothing to dowith Fannie and Freddie. There are areas here in Georgia where roads subdividing thousands of 1/3 of an acre lots with no homes on it are everywhere.
But I agree with your premise. On point.

The GSEs played their role but they weren't the main driver of the Housing Crisis. The worst speculation was in non-conforming loans, i.e. loans not made by the GSEs. If you believe in the efficacy of markets, that cannot happen if Freddie and Fannie were the supposed cause.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am always amused how conservatives vilify unions.

Let's be honest what happened here. Once upon a time, most private sector jobs were unionized or enjoyed good benefits because their employers didn't want them to join a union, start a union or go looking for a union job. The Wealthy paid a healthy share of the taxes, as they should. There were tariffs in place that protected our industries (vital to our national defense and economy) from unfair foreign competition. You had a vibrant middle class, Mom could stay home with the kids while Dad worked, people could enjoy vacations.

Then these idiots went along with the Plutocrats' oky-dokes.

"Give up your unions, and your right to collectively bargain. We’ll recognize you for your hard work and merit. We’ll use nice sounding terms like ‘right to work’ and ‘At Will employment’ to describe this."

"Dooooooy, Oky-doke!" said the middle class.

So they find themselves working harder for less money, and eventually get put out on the street at 50 because the company can always find someone younger who'll work cheaper.

“Give up your Union Medical Plans, and go with these company Medical Plans instead!”

“Dooooy, Oky-doke”

They find themselves paying more every year for plans that cover less and less. HMO stands for Horrible Medical Options. And if they got too sick, they found they were usually the first to be let go during a downsizing.

"Give up your pensions, we'll let you get in on the Wall Street fun with something called a 401K. Then you can borrow against the value of a home you already paid off! Trust us!"

"Dooooy, Oky-Doke"

Now they find themselves with a busted 401K, an underwater mortgage in foreclosure AND no hope of ever actually retiring. Meanwhile the fat cats on Wall Street and the banks got a government bailout they paid for, and paid themselves bonuses out of it.

"Hey, hey, you know, we can get more business opportunities if we sign this free trade bill with third world rat-holes that don't have the safety, environmental and work rules we have."

"Doooooy, Oky-Doke"

And they act all surprise when the manufacturing jobs go to China, and the Customer Service jobs go to India, and when their POS Chinese made computer breaks down, they can call to Pradip… er, “Bobby” about how to fix it, but he doesn't understand English.

"Hey, let's give tax cuts to rich people!"

"Doooy, Oky-Doke!"

Oh, that means we increase taxes on working people. SUCKERS!!!

And of course, if someone might actually figure out that they’ve been had, we can distract them by talking about gay marriage, abortion, guns or some other issue that gets their blood boiling for no good reason.

The ironic thing is that the GOP has engaged in this obscene transfer of wealth, but instead of being angry at the people who perpetrated it, we are angry at the people in the unions who DIDN'T FALL FOR IT.

In short, someone burns down your house, and instead of wanting to punish the arsonist, you want them to burn down your neighbor's house instead.

"DOOOOOY, Oky-doke"

Ok...Let's get to the facts....Since you started with "once upon a time"...
At it's peak, unionization of labor in the US was about 35%. So there goes your claim of "Most private sector jobs were union"..
The wealthy pay MOST of the tax burden. That is the present. The facts bear that out.
Let's be clear, the federal and most state governments do not have revenue problems, they have spending problems. Here in NC they collect over 35 cents per gallon for gasoline. That money is supposed to go toward road repair and construction. For decades, the politicians in Raleigh have been robbing the road money and placing it into the general fund. Then using that money for pet projects unrelated to transportation. NC is falling behind on repairs and improvements. The common refrain" there isn't the money to fund that". That is not a revenue problem. It's a spending problem.
DOn't tell us about taxation. You go ahead and tell the people in Washington to get their fiscal house in order and then you can come back and ask for more. Until then, the store is closed. BTW, what makes you believe higher taxes would benefit you in any way? Suppose the Obama admin increased taxes to say 50% for every person making over $100k, so what, do you think a check will show up in your mailbox?
Tariffs are anti business and anti consumer. We're in no position to demand higher prices for anything. Neither are other countries. Tariffs..DO you have any idea the damage to international trade the first hint of a US policy instituting tariffs would create?
And even so, how in the world would these surcharges bring jobs to the US?
And just what do you think would happen to consumer prices here? And please, don't reply with "sure prices would rise a bit". Newsflash, the cost of consumer goods would skyrocket. You people seem to forget that the money has to come from somewhere.
Let's get something straight. If wages rise, so do prices.
If I make a widget that costs me one dollar per unit and you come along with your tariff idea and force me to use more expensive union labor my cost per unit rises. I will have to raise my retail price. I would raise enough to negate the rise in cost. So now my widget will retail for $5 when I used to sell it for $3.00.
What's wrong with rewarding employees for good work based on merit?
Unions operate in a captive environment where the best worker is lumped in with the mediocre. Once the best and brightest catch wind of the slugs getting raises the same as they, guess what? The best will slack off thinking their efforts will go unrewarded.
Meanwhile, when the union bosses show up to hammer out a new deal, the employer asks "can I get rid of the slackers". The union guy says "no way". "But I will make sure the slackers will work out better THIS time. And besides, you really can't fire them. The contract does not allow for dismissal for lack of productivity." That's infuriating. The business owner cannot run his business the way he sees fit under the law.
It is you who want to burn down the neighbor's house.
Your class warfare says that. Rather than promote education and skill enhancement training for the purpose of encouraging people to increase their skill set and thus increase their income potential, you want to punish those who you believe are unfairly lifted to the top of the economic ladder. When you see a wealthy person, you do not think achievement and success. You think luck and criminal behavior.
I must ask....Given the propensity of you people on the left to use the term "working people", I want to see your definition of "working people"...
This oughta be good.

Sigh. You make this up all by yourself?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I am always amused how conservatives vilify unions.

Let's be honest what happened here. Once upon a time, most private sector jobs were unionized or enjoyed good benefits because their employers didn't want them to join a union, start a union or go looking for a union job. The Wealthy paid a healthy share of the taxes, as they should. There were tariffs in place that protected our industries (vital to our national defense and economy) from unfair foreign competition. You had a vibrant middle class, Mom could stay home with the kids while Dad worked, people could enjoy vacations.

Then these idiots went along with the Plutocrats' oky-dokes.

"Give up your unions, and your right to collectively bargain. We’ll recognize you for your hard work and merit. We’ll use nice sounding terms like ‘right to work’ and ‘At Will employment’ to describe this."

"Dooooooy, Oky-doke!" said the middle class.

So they find themselves working harder for less money, and eventually get put out on the street at 50 because the company can always find someone younger who'll work cheaper.

“Give up your Union Medical Plans, and go with these company Medical Plans instead!”

“Dooooy, Oky-doke”

They find themselves paying more every year for plans that cover less and less. HMO stands for Horrible Medical Options. And if they got too sick, they found they were usually the first to be let go during a downsizing.

"Give up your pensions, we'll let you get in on the Wall Street fun with something called a 401K. Then you can borrow against the value of a home you already paid off! Trust us!"

"Dooooy, Oky-Doke"

Now they find themselves with a busted 401K, an underwater mortgage in foreclosure AND no hope of ever actually retiring. Meanwhile the fat cats on Wall Street and the banks got a government bailout they paid for, and paid themselves bonuses out of it.

"Hey, hey, you know, we can get more business opportunities if we sign this free trade bill with third world rat-holes that don't have the safety, environmental and work rules we have."

"Doooooy, Oky-Doke"

And they act all surprise when the manufacturing jobs go to China, and the Customer Service jobs go to India, and when their POS Chinese made computer breaks down, they can call to Pradip… er, “Bobby” about how to fix it, but he doesn't understand English.

"Hey, let's give tax cuts to rich people!"

"Doooy, Oky-Doke!"

Oh, that means we increase taxes on working people. SUCKERS!!!

And of course, if someone might actually figure out that they’ve been had, we can distract them by talking about gay marriage, abortion, guns or some other issue that gets their blood boiling for no good reason.

The ironic thing is that the GOP has engaged in this obscene transfer of wealth, but instead of being angry at the people who perpetrated it, we are angry at the people in the unions who DIDN'T FALL FOR IT.

In short, someone burns down your house, and instead of wanting to punish the arsonist, you want them to burn down your neighbor's house instead.

"DOOOOOY, Oky-doke"

Ok...Let's get to the facts....Since you started with "once upon a time"...
At it's peak, unionization of labor in the US was about 35%. So there goes your claim of "Most private sector jobs were union"..
The wealthy pay MOST of the tax burden. That is the present. The facts bear that out.
Let's be clear, the federal and most state governments do not have revenue problems, they have spending problems. Here in NC they collect over 35 cents per gallon for gasoline. That money is supposed to go toward road repair and construction. For decades, the politicians in Raleigh have been robbing the road money and placing it into the general fund. Then using that money for pet projects unrelated to transportation. NC is falling behind on repairs and improvements. The common refrain" there isn't the money to fund that". That is not a revenue problem. It's a spending problem.
DOn't tell us about taxation. You go ahead and tell the people in Washington to get their fiscal house in order and then you can come back and ask for more. Until then, the store is closed. BTW, what makes you believe higher taxes would benefit you in any way? Suppose the Obama admin increased taxes to say 50% for every person making over $100k, so what, do you think a check will show up in your mailbox?
Tariffs are anti business and anti consumer. We're in no position to demand higher prices for anything. Neither are other countries. Tariffs..DO you have any idea the damage to international trade the first hint of a US policy instituting tariffs would create?
And even so, how in the world would these surcharges bring jobs to the US?
And just what do you think would happen to consumer prices here? And please, don't reply with "sure prices would rise a bit". Newsflash, the cost of consumer goods would skyrocket. You people seem to forget that the money has to come from somewhere.
Let's get something straight. If wages rise, so do prices.
If I make a widget that costs me one dollar per unit and you come along with your tariff idea and force me to use more expensive union labor my cost per unit rises. I will have to raise my retail price. I would raise enough to negate the rise in cost. So now my widget will retail for $5 when I used to sell it for $3.00.
What's wrong with rewarding employees for good work based on merit?
Unions operate in a captive environment where the best worker is lumped in with the mediocre. Once the best and brightest catch wind of the slugs getting raises the same as they, guess what? The best will slack off thinking their efforts will go unrewarded.
Meanwhile, when the union bosses show up to hammer out a new deal, the employer asks "can I get rid of the slackers". The union guy says "no way". "But I will make sure the slackers will work out better THIS time. And besides, you really can't fire them. The contract does not allow for dismissal for lack of productivity." That's infuriating. The business owner cannot run his business the way he sees fit under the law.
It is you who want to burn down the neighbor's house.
Your class warfare says that. Rather than promote education and skill enhancement training for the purpose of encouraging people to increase their skill set and thus increase their income potential, you want to punish those who you believe are unfairly lifted to the top of the economic ladder. When you see a wealthy person, you do not think achievement and success. You think luck and criminal behavior.
I must ask....Given the propensity of you people on the left to use the term "working people", I want to see your definition of "working people"...
This oughta be good.

Sigh. You make this up all by yourself?

We mock what we do not understand.
Look genius, if you think you might have something to add to the discussion, have at it.
Leaving drive by one liner posts only makes you appear ignorant.

 

[Neotrotsky]

.

[URL="http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/191290-open-thread-for-jakestarkey-and-neotrotsky-to-flame-one-another.html"]No doubt the...


----------------------------------------


here boy
[/URL]

 

[Gadawg73]

The members of the Banking Committees in the House and Senate crashed the economy by allowing Fannie/Freddie to go unchecked creating trillions of dollars in bad paper while forcing banks to lend to unqualified individuals. They set up a system where the loan originators could sell the loans to other financial institutions who then packaged up the paper and resold it as "mortgage backed securities" None of these people were ever told by the government that there was "just one problem you may encounter"...What was that? It's called a market correction in real estate.
Now let's get real. A 10% reduction in taxes did not and could not negatively affect the economy. To think otherwise is foolish.
Oh, free trade policies and burdensome government regulations plus expensive US labor is what chased business overseas.
I must ask..Why do you believe high tariffs would bring manufacturing back to the US?

Big part of the problem but the big $$$ was in the corporate loan areas. Those dwarfed what Freddie and Fannie did.
Vast speculation on vacant land had nothing to dowith Fannie and Freddie. There are areas here in Georgia where roads subdividing thousands of 1/3 of an acre lots with no homes on it are everywhere.
But I agree with your premise. On point.

The GSEs played their role but they weren't the main driver of the Housing Crisis. The worst speculation was in non-conforming loans, i.e. loans not made by the GSEs. If you believe in the efficacy of markets, that cannot happen if Freddie and Fannie were the supposed cause.

True but everyone of those houses built was on new land bought as land zoned something far other than the 5 per acre houses or 3 per acre or whatever, that were eventually built there.
And all of the subdivisions that were platted and zoned R-8, which is 5 per acre, had appraisals for each lot that in this area were 80K a lot and the loans to the developers were 100% of that. Now those lots are worth 30K if you are lucky enough to get that.
Do the math.
There are thousands of those subdivisions in America today that were foreclosed on and the amount of deficiencies on those loans dwarfs the total of all the foreclosures on occupied residences.
Speculation is what did us in. Sure, the mortgage market and it's built in employment of millions of folks took center stage as when the first domino fell it hit the builders, the workers, the agents, the mortgage brokers and the money brokers. It affected more people but the speculative market, THE INVESTORS WITH THE CASH, took the biggest hit.
They start the process and when they get their ass kicked THE WHOLE THING CRASHES.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am always amused how conservatives vilify unions.

Let's be honest what happened here. Once upon a time, most private sector jobs were unionized or enjoyed good benefits because their employers didn't want them to join a union, start a union or go looking for a union job. The Wealthy paid a healthy share of the taxes, as they should. There were tariffs in place that protected our industries (vital to our national defense and economy) from unfair foreign competition. You had a vibrant middle class, Mom could stay home with the kids while Dad worked, people could enjoy vacations.

Then these idiots went along with the Plutocrats' oky-dokes.

"Give up your unions, and your right to collectively bargain. We’ll recognize you for your hard work and merit. We’ll use nice sounding terms like ‘right to work’ and ‘At Will employment’ to describe this."

"Dooooooy, Oky-doke!" said the middle class.

So they find themselves working harder for less money, and eventually get put out on the street at 50 because the company can always find someone younger who'll work cheaper.

“Give up your Union Medical Plans, and go with these company Medical Plans instead!”

“Dooooy, Oky-doke”

They find themselves paying more every year for plans that cover less and less. HMO stands for Horrible Medical Options. And if they got too sick, they found they were usually the first to be let go during a downsizing.

"Give up your pensions, we'll let you get in on the Wall Street fun with something called a 401K. Then you can borrow against the value of a home you already paid off! Trust us!"

"Dooooy, Oky-Doke"

Now they find themselves with a busted 401K, an underwater mortgage in foreclosure AND no hope of ever actually retiring. Meanwhile the fat cats on Wall Street and the banks got a government bailout they paid for, and paid themselves bonuses out of it.

"Hey, hey, you know, we can get more business opportunities if we sign this free trade bill with third world rat-holes that don't have the safety, environmental and work rules we have."

"Doooooy, Oky-Doke"

And they act all surprise when the manufacturing jobs go to China, and the Customer Service jobs go to India, and when their POS Chinese made computer breaks down, they can call to Pradip… er, “Bobby” about how to fix it, but he doesn't understand English.

"Hey, let's give tax cuts to rich people!"

"Doooy, Oky-Doke!"

Oh, that means we increase taxes on working people. SUCKERS!!!

And of course, if someone might actually figure out that they’ve been had, we can distract them by talking about gay marriage, abortion, guns or some other issue that gets their blood boiling for no good reason.

The ironic thing is that the GOP has engaged in this obscene transfer of wealth, but instead of being angry at the people who perpetrated it, we are angry at the people in the unions who DIDN'T FALL FOR IT.

In short, someone burns down your house, and instead of wanting to punish the arsonist, you want them to burn down your neighbor's house instead.

"DOOOOOY, Oky-doke"

The Wealthy paid a healthy share of the taxes

When was this perfect world, how much did the wealthy make and what was the healthy share they paid?
Be specific.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Big part of the problem but the big $$$ was in the corporate loan areas. Those dwarfed what Freddie and Fannie did.
Vast speculation on vacant land had nothing to dowith Fannie and Freddie. There are areas here in Georgia where roads subdividing thousands of 1/3 of an acre lots with no homes on it are everywhere.
But I agree with your premise. On point.

The GSEs played their role but they weren't the main driver of the Housing Crisis. The worst speculation was in non-conforming loans, i.e. loans not made by the GSEs. If you believe in the efficacy of markets, that cannot happen if Freddie and Fannie were the supposed cause.

True but everyone of those houses built was on new land bought as land zoned something far other than the 5 per acre houses or 3 per acre or whatever, that were eventually built there.
And all of the subdivisions that were platted and zoned R-8, which is 5 per acre, had appraisals for each lot that in this area were 80K a lot and the loans to the developers were 100% of that. Now those lots are worth 30K if you are lucky enough to get that.
Do the math.
There are thousands of those subdivisions in America today that were foreclosed on and the amount of deficiencies on those loans dwarfs the total of all the foreclosures on occupied residences.
Speculation is what did us in. Sure, the mortgage market and it's built in employment of millions of folks took center stage as when the first domino fell it hit the builders, the workers, the agents, the mortgage brokers and the money brokers. It affected more people but the speculative market, THE INVESTORS WITH THE CASH, took the biggest hit.
They start the process and when they get their ass kicked THE WHOLE THING CRASHES.

And of course you'll still see people on here insisting that GW Bush crashed the economy.
The real estate business together with the lending( mortgage) business was doomed the minute the federal government started interfering with both.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ok...Let's get to the facts....Since you started with "once upon a time"...
At it's peak, unionization of labor in the US was about 35%. So there goes your claim of "Most private sector jobs were union"..
The wealthy pay MOST of the tax burden. That is the present. The facts bear that out.
Let's be clear, the federal and most state governments do not have revenue problems, they have spending problems. Here in NC they collect over 35 cents per gallon for gasoline. That money is supposed to go toward road repair and construction. For decades, the politicians in Raleigh have been robbing the road money and placing it into the general fund. Then using that money for pet projects unrelated to transportation. NC is falling behind on repairs and improvements. The common refrain" there isn't the money to fund that". That is not a revenue problem. It's a spending problem.
DOn't tell us about taxation. You go ahead and tell the people in Washington to get their fiscal house in order and then you can come back and ask for more. Until then, the store is closed. BTW, what makes you believe higher taxes would benefit you in any way? Suppose the Obama admin increased taxes to say 50% for every person making over $100k, so what, do you think a check will show up in your mailbox?
Tariffs are anti business and anti consumer. We're in no position to demand higher prices for anything. Neither are other countries. Tariffs..DO you have any idea the damage to international trade the first hint of a US policy instituting tariffs would create?
And even so, how in the world would these surcharges bring jobs to the US?
And just what do you think would happen to consumer prices here? And please, don't reply with "sure prices would rise a bit". Newsflash, the cost of consumer goods would skyrocket. You people seem to forget that the money has to come from somewhere.
Let's get something straight. If wages rise, so do prices.
If I make a widget that costs me one dollar per unit and you come along with your tariff idea and force me to use more expensive union labor my cost per unit rises. I will have to raise my retail price. I would raise enough to negate the rise in cost. So now my widget will retail for $5 when I used to sell it for $3.00.
What's wrong with rewarding employees for good work based on merit?
Unions operate in a captive environment where the best worker is lumped in with the mediocre. Once the best and brightest catch wind of the slugs getting raises the same as they, guess what? The best will slack off thinking their efforts will go unrewarded.
Meanwhile, when the union bosses show up to hammer out a new deal, the employer asks "can I get rid of the slackers". The union guy says "no way". "But I will make sure the slackers will work out better THIS time. And besides, you really can't fire them. The contract does not allow for dismissal for lack of productivity." That's infuriating. The business owner cannot run his business the way he sees fit under the law.
It is you who want to burn down the neighbor's house.
Your class warfare says that. Rather than promote education and skill enhancement training for the purpose of encouraging people to increase their skill set and thus increase their income potential, you want to punish those who you believe are unfairly lifted to the top of the economic ladder. When you see a wealthy person, you do not think achievement and success. You think luck and criminal behavior.
I must ask....Given the propensity of you people on the left to use the term "working people", I want to see your definition of "working people"...
This oughta be good.

Sigh. You make this up all by yourself?

We mock what we do not understand.
Look genius, if you think you might have something to add to the discussion, have at it.
Leaving drive by one liner posts only makes you appear ignorant.

In other words, you are violating copyright. And JoeB tears you a new butt hole below. Even when you cheat, your lose.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Ok...Let's get to the facts....Since you started with "once upon a time"...
At it's peak, unionization of labor in the US was about 35%. So there goes your claim of "Most private sector jobs were union"..

Go back and read my original statement.... where I put the qualifier "or enjoyed good benefits because of ....unions."

The wealthy pay MOST of the tax burden. That is the present. The facts bear that out.

Uh, no, they don't. They pay more of the income tax because right now, they control an obscene amount of the wealth, but they still have to hit working folks with other taxes and schemes to finance those big tax breaks for the wealthy.

DOn't tell us about taxation. You go ahead and tell the people in Washington to get their fiscal house in order and then you can come back and ask for more. Until then, the store is closed. BTW, what makes you believe higher taxes would benefit you in any way? Suppose the Obama admin increased taxes to say 50% for every person making over $100k, so what, do you think a check will show up in your mailbox?

Higher taxes on rich assholes would benefit me in many ways.

First, it means the governmetn will stop borrowing from the butchers in Beijing. Bad enough those scumwads are taking our jobs, but we have to pay them interest on our money?

Second, if we put that money into public works and public services, it would raise employment and wages across the board as companies stop paying obscene salaries to CEO's and start paying the people who do the work a decent amount.

Tariffs are anti business and anti consumer. We're in no position to demand higher prices for anything. Neither are other countries. Tariffs..DO you have any idea the damage to international trade the first hint of a US policy instituting tariffs would create?

Why would I give a crap about "international trade". We are currently bleeding 500 BILLION a year in trade deficits every year for the last 20 years or so. Now, the "anti-Trade" argument might have made sense when we were exporting manuctured goods at a high rate, but we aren't. Haven't been in a long time.

If I make a widget that costs me one dollar per unit and you come along with your tariff idea and force me to use more expensive union labor my cost per unit rises. I will have to raise my retail price. I would raise enough to negate the rise in cost. So now my widget will retail for $5 when I used to sell it for $3.00.

Guy, I've been working in Purchasing for 20 years, domestic and international. Trust me, free trade is as much about breaking the middle class in this country as any economic reason.

What's wrong with rewarding employees for good work based on merit?
Unions operate in a captive environment where the best worker is lumped in with the mediocre. Once the best and brightest catch wind of the slugs getting raises the same as they, guess what? The best will slack off thinking their efforts will go unrewarded.

Yeah, but you know what, having worked in non-union shops, I never see the 'best worker' get ahead. I see the ass-kisser get ahead. I've seen the idiot children of the boss' friend get ahead. I've seen the gal with the nice ass and no brain get ahead. I've seen guys who are hard workers with years of experience get dumped on because they are too old, or perhaps because they ran into a medical issue that took them out for a few weeks.

Meanwhile, when the union bosses show up to hammer out a new deal, the employer asks "can I get rid of the slackers". The union guy says "no way". "But I will make sure the slackers will work out better THIS time. And besides, you really can't fire them. The contract does not allow for dismissal for lack of productivity." That's infuriating. The business owner cannot run his business the way he sees fit under the law.

Again, I've seen more people fired for bullshit than I've seen fired for "slacking", and I've seen some slackers get away with murder. Your whole premise is that bosses really know what is going on in their own shops, and it's been my experience most of them are kind of clueless.

It is you who want to burn down the neighbor's house.
Your class warfare says that. Rather than promote education and skill enhancement training for the purpose of encouraging people to increase their skill set and thus increase their income potential, you want to punish those who you believe are unfairly lifted to the top of the economic ladder. When you see a wealthy person, you do not think achievement and success. You think luck and criminal behavior.

Yeah, pretty much.

I should point out that in most unions, promotion and advancement is based on improving skill sets. For instance, in the trades, you have to move up from apprentice to journeyman learning the trade from a more experienced person.

As opposed to the Corporate model, where the idea is to create "McJobs" that can be filled cheaply and quickly...

I must ask....Given the propensity of you people on the left to use the term "working people", I want to see your definition of "working people"...
This oughta be good.

Someone who goes to a job every day, doesn't go off for half the day and play golf or drink two martini lunches or is done every day at 3 PM.

 

[JoeB131]

[

The Wealthy paid a healthy share of the taxes

When was this perfect world, how much did the wealthy make and what was the healthy share they paid?
Be specific.

Top Marginal Rate after WWII was 92%, and most rich folks (after deductions that were geared towards helping keep the economy healthy) most paid at least 48%.

That was the same after JFK lowered the top Marginal Rate in 1961 to 71%.

Reagan and after, the tax burden shifted from the wealthy to working folks. And that was the problem. So did the wealth.

 

[Neotrotsky]

[

The Wealthy paid a healthy share of the taxes

When was this perfect world, how much did the wealthy make and what was the healthy share they paid?
Be specific.

Top Marginal Rate after WWII was 92%, and most rich folks (after deductions that were geared towards helping keep the economy healthy) most paid at least 48%.

That was the same after JFK lowered the top Marginal Rate in 1961 to 71%.

Reagan and after, the tax burden shifted from the wealthy to working folks. And that was the problem. So did the wealth.

Rates do not equate to share of burden

From that right wing USA Today news



Fact check: The wealthy already pay more taxes

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

The 10% of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70% of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.​

Truth is hard for the Left
In fact, it is their worst enemy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------




Here boy

 

[zeke]

And of course you'll still see people on here insisting that GW Bush crashed the economy.
The real estate business together with the lending( mortgage) business was doomed the minute the federal government started interfering with both.

No way could two unpaid for wars, a huge unpaid for tax cut and a huge unpaid for perscription drug program have ANYTHING to do with the state of the economy. No fuking way.

It was ONLY the housing crash. HEHEHEHEHEHEHE. (Brought to us by the "free market".)
Except it wasn't very "free".


Repeat after me a simple mantra for simple minded Rethugs; it is all Obama's fault, it is all Obama's fault, George Bush never existed, it is all Obamas fault.

There there now, feel better Rethugs?

 

[JoeB131]

[

The Wealthy paid a healthy share of the taxes

When was this perfect world, how much did the wealthy make and what was the healthy share they paid?
Be specific.

Top Marginal Rate after WWII was 92%, and most rich folks (after deductions that were geared towards helping keep the economy healthy) most paid at least 48%.

That was the same after JFK lowered the top Marginal Rate in 1961 to 71%.

Reagan and after, the tax burden shifted from the wealthy to working folks. And that was the problem. So did the wealth.

Rates do not equate to share of burden

From that right wing USA Today news

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

The 10% of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70% of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.​

Truth is hard for the Left
In fact, it is their worst enemy

One more time.

Income taxes are only PART of the picture.

When you factor in sales taxes, gasoline taxes, Social Security, Medicare, state taxes, property taxes - the ugly truth is- the middle class is carrying the load, not the wealthy.

It's like you keep repeating this crap about the income tax with no critical thought at all.

 

[zeke]

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

The 10% of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70% of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Truth is hard for the Left
In fact, it is their worst enemy

Here is some truth for you that you may not be able to understand; I do not give a flying fuk if the ultra wealthy pay 50% of their income in federal income taxes. They will survive just fine.

Is that to hard to understand? Call it class warfare I don't give a shit what you call it. All I know is we need more money, they have it and I could care less if they pay more in taxes.

The ultra wealthy are not looking out for me why in the fuk would I care if they pay more in taxes. They have been using their wealth and influence to get lower taxes and higher incomes for years.

Why do you care? I just don't get it. And don't trot out the "fairness" bullshit. Just a water boy for the rich is all you are. Fool.