You don't know enough about me to make a value judgement on my politics. On certain issues, you may look like Rush Limbaugh compared to me.
The Healthcare union caters to nurses over the other branches which in reality the service ends have more employees.
I seen things in the Union that I don't care for. If someone screws up it is hard to get rid of them which in reality it should not be. You pay into a strike fund that while being told this will keep you being paid when we strike. The problem is when you strike it is no where near enough to cover your expenses.
To me the have over inflated the pay rate in the nation and we pay that over inflated pay rate in taxes. They haggle with benefits to get the most for people's dollar (the consumer and tax payer). So yes I have a problem with unions lol. When a secretary that works at a office making 9 to 10 dollars an hour is paying taxes to pay a different secretary her salary of 18 to 22 dollars an hour I tend to find that to be a problem.
I agree with you one hundred percent. I support the right to associate and form unions in any and all positions that we work for but i dont think it is right to force people to be apart of a union membership. Recently where i live there was a Metro Transit Bus Strike, I have a few friends who were drivers and they just wanted to be on the roads making the money that is needed to support their families but because the majority of the union wanted to strike it didn't matter what they wanted, If they had the option of not being apart of the union they would have still been able to work and not struggle through those weeks.
Not saying that- that is the bad end of unions and there have certainly been some horrible cases (recently the UAW). But there are good ones too. Comes down to relative power between a corporation, a union, and the workers- a check and balance system if you will.
It's a good thing, in my opinion. It hinges on the fact that jobs don't belong to employees they belong to employers and if the employer wants his Aunt working at his business then he should be able to fire anyone, at will. I am not against voluntary private sector unions but like FDR I think public unions should never have been allowed as they create a conflict of interest and public money is involved.
On some issues I would be called an ULTRA-liberal. On others, I would be called a Conservative, but an Eisenhower Conservative, not a Reaganist.
And many of my positions are not just left, but they are FAR-left, and I am essentially a semi-neo-Marxist.
1. I would set taxes on the top rich at 99%. How many liberals do you know favor that ? (note: when Eisenhower was president top tax was 91-92% for the whole 8 years).
2. I would set a national minimum wage at $20/hour with hardship exemptions for companies that couldn't afford it.
3. I would have govt. healthcasre not only for all US citizens, but for our pets too (cats, dogs, birds, horses, etc). How many "liberals" have you heard advocate THAT lately, Mr. Value Judge ?
4. I would outlaw "right to work" laws.
5. I would strongly increase workers' rights.
I'm curious though, as to how you came to assess that I'm not a liberal. Care to elaborate ?
You kind of proved my point by asking how many liberals would support those points (the implication being almost none).
You kind of proved my point by asking how many liberals would support those points (the implication being almost none).
But I sensed that you meant I was too Conservative to be a liberal. Maybe you didnj't mean that. Doesn't matter, really. Even if most liberals wouldn't support a 99% tax on the rich, that doesn't mean that position is not liberal. It could be called Ultra-liberal. Same with the other positions.
I called you a religious centralist and you think I thought you were a conservative? :giggle:
Why not ? I am a Conservative. An Eisenhower Conservative favoring high taxation on the rich, big, strong govt, strong national defense, good homeland security, with opposition to immigration, Islamization, and affirmative action, and support for gun control, law and order, and the death penalty.
As for religious centralist, I don't even know what that means.
Why not ? I am a Conservative. An Eisenhower Conservative favoring high taxation on the rich, big, strong govt, strong national defense, good homeland security, with opposition to immigration, Islamization, and affirmative action, and support for gun control, law and order, and the death penalty.
And you again prove my point that you're not a liberal.
As for religious centralist, I don't even know what that means.
It means that you're a religious person with a centralist political outlook. What else would it mean?
I'm a bit religious I guess (on the Christian side), not centralist though. I'm far-left on economics, as was Eisenhower, and quite Conservative on just about everything else. REAL Conservative though. Not psuedo-Conservative, like the Reaganists, who really don't know what they are.
Well then we probably have a lot in common aside from the Islam thing.
Anyway, we're way off topic.
Well then we probably have a lot in common aside from the Islam thing.
Anyway, we're way off topic.
We DO have a lot in common, especially since we both are from the same right-to-work state (Florida), and we have the same anti-worker Republican legislature. Also the same Rick (Cut Spending) Scott for governor. A rich guy who bought the office of governor, just so he could protect rich guys like himself.
And all these spending cuts filter down to the local communities as well. Everything now is >> "Oh we no longer do that - we don't have the funds"
No, but Florida's multimillionaires sure do. Hell, in Hillsborough County Animal "Services" (or sanitation) has even stopped picking up roadkill on the roads. We're supposed to pick up our own dead animals now. Where does this end ?
Good economic overview of right to work measures: http://www.economonitor.com/dolanecon/2013/01/03/the-not-so-simple-economics-of-right-to-work-laws/
Similar threads
