Nationswide protests-will they spread?

[GH]

[quote=briansd1]Like Mitt Romney said, you can’t have simple solutions to complicated problems.[/quote]

This would contradict Occam’s razor – The simplest solutions are most often the right solution!

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=sdduuuude][quote=briansd1]The financial crisis is partly a result of bad underwriting and putting the wrong people into the wrong financial products.[/quote]

You mean the banking crisis that we turned into a financial crisis by making the taxpayers bail out the banks.

I say let those banks sell whatever products they want, just make sure the banks pay for the error.

Put the responsibility and pain of failure on them and they will be more careful. It isn’t really that complicated.[/quote]
+1. Not difficult at all. You can’t complain about wall street on one hand and support the bail out of banks on the other.[/quote]

From everything I’ve seen and read, the people involved in the OWS movement were very much opposed to the bank bailouts as well.

Again, there is very little difference between the OWS crowd, and the **original (and real)** Tea Party…before it was co-opted by the Republicans and turned into an anti-healthcare, anti-govt movement.

[an]

CAR, I wasn’t referring to OWS as a whole as supporter of bail outs. I was referring to Brian specifically, who do support the bail out. I’ve seen one interview of OWS supporter who also support the bail out the same way Brian does. But I can’t say she represent the OWS.

[paramount]

One thing for sure, government brutality and ruthlessness will continue and probably get worse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xLGHZ8Cf9M&feature=colike

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdduuuude][quote=jpinpb]pri_dk – my brother is involved in the auto industry and claims union as the problem. Couple of questions that maybe you can give me some feedback/answers. How many factory auto workers are living in mansions and fly in private jets?

Should labor be brought to the low levels of third world countries, working conditions and pay, so that the head guys at corporations can continue to enjoy their rich lifestyle?

When companies are making record profits off the backs of workers in third world countries, tax breaks by our government that the rich paid politicians to pass and the loss of jobs here, do you really still hold on to the unions being the cause of these problems?

Should our labor (pay and conditions) be as cheap as third world countries so we can keep jobs and companies can make record profits?[/quote]

Unions serving government seem to be the problem, not so much unions serving corporations. As far as I’m concerned, the unions and corporations can battle it out in their own way. Both are private enterprises, really.

Unions serving government, however, seem vey crooked to me. The unions gain a monopoly on providing services, they block individuals from working in their area, then trade votes for higher wages. It is true thug behavior and needs to stop. Unions serving government are really an unregulated monopoly. Not sure how anyone can love that.

Because fat-cat corporate officials supply the funds for corporate union workers, I can understand how you might side with the union there. However every-day taxpayers bear the brunt of paying public union wages. In a sense, the union is the private corportion here, milking the public coffers and taxpayers.[/quote]

Do you think private corporations aren’t guilty of gaining a monopoly on services, blocking individuals (or other buisinesses/entities) from working in their area, and trading votes (or campaign contributions) for higher pay (contracts, etc.)?[/quote]

Whether I think that or not isn’t relevant to the point I was trying to make – that unionized labor fighting against government employers is much much worse than unionized labor fighting against private employers and needs to be stopped.

But I don’t think corporations can block anyone else from working in their area the way unions can. If I’m a teacher, I cannot approach the city and ask for a job. I must go through the union to get the government contract. If I am an aerospace worker, I can work for one of many different private firms that each may have several government contracts.

[UCGal]

Unless you’re a teacher applying to a charter school (publicly funded, but non-union)
Or an aerospace engineer applying to Boeing. (Private industry, unionized engineers.)

[sdduuuude]

[quote=UCGal]Unless you’re a teacher applying to a charter school (publicly funded, but non-union)
Or an aerospace engineer applying to Boeing. (Private industry, unionized engineers.)[/quote]

Boeing in Seattle, maybe. Not Boeing in South Carolina 🙂

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=CA renter][quote=sdduuuude][quote=jpinpb]pri_dk – my brother is involved in the auto industry and claims union as the problem. Couple of questions that maybe you can give me some feedback/answers. How many factory auto workers are living in mansions and fly in private jets?

Should labor be brought to the low levels of third world countries, working conditions and pay, so that the head guys at corporations can continue to enjoy their rich lifestyle?

When companies are making record profits off the backs of workers in third world countries, tax breaks by our government that the rich paid politicians to pass and the loss of jobs here, do you really still hold on to the unions being the cause of these problems?

Should our labor (pay and conditions) be as cheap as third world countries so we can keep jobs and companies can make record profits?[/quote]

Unions serving government seem to be the problem, not so much unions serving corporations. As far as I’m concerned, the unions and corporations can battle it out in their own way. Both are private enterprises, really.

Unions serving government, however, seem vey crooked to me. The unions gain a monopoly on providing services, they block individuals from working in their area, then trade votes for higher wages. It is true thug behavior and needs to stop. Unions serving government are really an unregulated monopoly. Not sure how anyone can love that.

Because fat-cat corporate officials supply the funds for corporate union workers, I can understand how you might side with the union there. However every-day taxpayers bear the brunt of paying public union wages. In a sense, the union is the private corportion here, milking the public coffers and taxpayers.[/quote]

Do you think private corporations aren’t guilty of gaining a monopoly on services, blocking individuals (or other buisinesses/entities) from working in their area, and trading votes (or campaign contributions) for higher pay (contracts, etc.)?[/quote]

Whether I think that or not isn’t relevant to the point I was trying to make – that unionized labor fighting against government employers is much much worse than unionized labor fighting against private employers and needs to be stopped.

But I don’t think corporations can block anyone else from working in their area the way unions can. If I’m a teacher, I cannot approach the city and ask for a job. I must go through the union to get the government contract. If I am an aerospace worker, I can work for one of many different private firms that each may have several government contracts.[/quote]

Teachers apply with the district, not the union. In some cases (but not all) you are automatically assigned union membership when you accept a position with a public school district.

As UCGal said, you can either work for a non-union charter school or a private school. The vast majority of people who apply for a position with a public school district are doing it specifically because there IS a union. You always have the option of working for lower pay and benefits in a non-union position…though I’m not quite sure why anyone would choose to do so.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CA renter]The vast majority of people who apply for a position with a public school district are doing it specifically because there IS a union. You always have the option of working for lower pay and benefits in a non-union position…though I’m not quite sure why anyone would choose to do so.[/quote]

You are saying the same thing – that unions increase the cost of teachers’ salary because they can command higher prices based on their market power. In other words, it’s a monopoly. Yes, there are other options, but they are not viable.

That monopoly selling to the public entity hurts the taxpayers. Also, that monopoly uses its voting power to put people in office that are willing to keep the monopoly in place, again, at the taxpayers’ expense.

How anyone, regardless of their left/right tendencies, can support the legality, morality or public worth of any public employee unions is truly beyond me.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=CA renter]The vast majority of people who apply for a position with a public school district are doing it specifically because there IS a union. You always have the option of working for lower pay and benefits in a non-union position…though I’m not quite sure why anyone would choose to do so.[/quote]

You are saying the same thing – that unions increase the cost of teachers’ salary because they can command higher prices based on their market power. In other words, it’s a monopoly. Yes, there are other options, but they are not viable.

That monopoly selling to the public entity hurts the taxpayers. Also, that monopoly uses its voting power to put people in office that are willing to keep the monopoly in place, again, at the taxpayers’ expense.

How anyone, regardless of their left/right tendencies, can support the legality, morality or public worth of any public employee unions is truly beyond me.[/quote]

PRIVATE entities who do business with the government use their money and/or voting power to put people in office who are willing to keep the monopoly in place…at the taxpayers’ expense. Not only that, but EVERYONE who has any power at all, even if they don’t do business directly with the government — all corporations, banks, business associations, etc. — use their money/voting power to extract money from taxpayers. It can be in the form of tax credits, incentives, new infrastructure which benefits the corporations, special trade and tax policies, etc. There are so many ways that PRIVATE entities use the government/taxpayers to benefit their bottom line.

It’s naive to think that public employee unions are the problem. At least the money that goes to public employees is spent back into the local economy where the tax money came from. That’s much less likely to be the case where private corporations/entities are concerned. These public union positions provide decent-paying jobs that keep demand levels up for local businesses. They also help private sector workers because private employers have to compete with public employers for employees; and private, non-union positions pay better wages/benefits as a result.

Keep in mind, the unions cannot control who gets into office, nor the decisions they make, any more than a private entity can. They have no more power over politicians than private entities do.

Now, if you want to argue that ALL money and influence (including offers of jobs in the private sector, etc.) should be kept out of politics, we’d be 100% in agreement.

[scaredyclassic]

How can you keep ALL money and influence out of politics? Would we even have a democracy anymore?

[jpinpb]

[quote=AN][quote=briansd1]It’s interesting that those who want be rich don’t support the Buffett Rule. But Warren Buffett himself supports the Buffett Rule. Who’s the better judge of fairness and equity here?[/quote]
No one is stopping them from giving their money to the government. Why does Buffet give his money to charity instead to the IRS? Why are they not leading my example to send checks to the IRS? They are also welcome to pay for all of their employee’s income tax too if they want. Everyone is equal judge of fairness and equity. Just because you make more money doesn’t mean your definition of fairness and equity is more valid.[/quote]

True that no one is stopping him from paying extra, but why should he if the other rich people are not made to do so also. It is the principle.

[quote=briansd1]
Like Mitt Romney said, you can’t have simple solutions to complicated problems.
[/quote]

Election Day’s still 12 months and a couple of weeks away, too far from now for a lot of voters to be paying attention. But big campaign contributors surely are.

The president’s already raised $90 million to keep his job. Republicans — with eight major candidates still in the running — have raised slightly less collectively, around $83 million.

It’s a truth of campaign finance that financial companies are big givers. And our Washington bureau chief John Dimsdale reports this year is no different.

John Dimsdale: Companies in the finance industry — including banks, insurance and real estate — have always been the biggest campaign contributors, ever since the Center for Responsive Politics began tracking donations by industry 20 years ago.

And it’s still true. So far this year, the finance industry or its employees have donated one in every 10 campaign dollars. In 2008, Barack Obama attracted almost 60 percent of the industry’s contributions. This year, the Center’s Michael Beckel reports a different trend.

Michael Beckel: All of the major financial players — Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America — Mitt Romney is their number one beneficiary this year across the board.

That may be in part because Romney is one of their own, having run a major private equity firm, Bain Capital.
Marketplace link

I think the banks won’t be taxed into failure. I’m thinking they have a little spare money. Especially B of A. Didn’t they just raise fees on ATM cards?

[jpinpb]

[quote=AN]Why do you want them to fail after spending $700B+ on them? I haven’t heard any tax proposal of taxing wall street. I heard of taxing the “rich” though.[/quote]
Come on. The rich own Wall Street.

[jpinpb]

And with regard to public versus private money, Halliburton (private company) got a little bit of money from our taxpayers on a no-bid contract.

I think we can stop the private/public conversation now.

[UCGal]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdduuuude][quote=CA renter]The vast majority of people who apply for a position with a public school district are doing it specifically because there IS a union. You always have the option of working for lower pay and benefits in a non-union position…though I’m not quite sure why anyone would choose to do so.[/quote]

You are saying the same thing – that unions increase the cost of teachers’ salary because they can command higher prices based on their market power. In other words, it’s a monopoly. Yes, there are other options, but they are not viable.

That monopoly selling to the public entity hurts the taxpayers. Also, that monopoly uses its voting power to put people in office that are willing to keep the monopoly in place, again, at the taxpayers’ expense.

How anyone, regardless of their left/right tendencies, can support the legality, morality or public worth of any public employee unions is truly beyond me.[/quote]

PRIVATE entities who do business with the government use their money and/or voting power to put people in office who are willing to keep the monopoly in place…at the taxpayers’ expense. Not only that, but EVERYONE who has any power at all, even if they don’t do business directly with the government — all corporations, banks, business associations, etc. — use their money/voting power to extract money from taxpayers. It can be in the form of tax credits, incentives, new infrastructure which benefits the corporations, special trade and tax policies, etc. There are so many ways that PRIVATE entities use the government/taxpayers to benefit their bottom line.

It’s naive to think that public employee unions are the problem. At least the money that goes to public employees is spent back into the local economy where the tax money came from. That’s much less likely to be the case where private corporations/entities are concerned. These public union positions provide decent-paying jobs that keep demand levels up for local businesses. They also help private sector workers because private employers have to compete with public employers for employees; and private, non-union positions pay better wages/benefits as a result.

Keep in mind, the unions cannot control who gets into office, nor the decisions they make, any more than a private entity can. They have no more power over politicians than private entities do.

Now, if you want to argue that ALL money and influence (including offers of jobs in the private sector, etc.) should be kept out of politics, we’d be 100% in agreement.[/quote]

Dylan Ratigan has a campaign to get ALL money out of politics.
http://www.getmoneyout.com/

I’m not sure I agree with that but I *do* agree with a radical change to campaign finance. Limit personal contributions of actual humans to some fixed amount. Eliminate PACs and Super PACs. Eliminate Union financial contributions to political candidates and paid “issue” ads. Eliminate corporate contributions and paid issue ads. Corporations and unions can ask employees/members to contribute personally or volunteer personally, but not coerce. After all – we have free will – folks won’t contribute or volunteer if they don’t agree. No coercion of any kind allowed. (My company “suggests” that employees above a certain paygrade contribute to a PAC – I have yet to do it because I disagree with pretty much every candidate the PAC funds. If they ever even hinted it was required I’d make such a stink…)

And severely restrict lobbying. Shut down lobbyist-for-hire K street firms. Citizens (human beings) should be able to go make their case. Employees of a company should be able to go make a case for their industry. (In other words – it’s ok for a company to have a DIRECT employee who’s job it is to make the case for their industry.) But having 3rd party firms involved in it, providing access, etc, corrupts the system.

But I’m not in charge.

[Author]

Posts