Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 92 to 104 of 107
  1. #92
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    5,463
    Quote Originally Posted by RoBoTeq View Post
    A companies labor cannot and should not be seperate from the company...period. A company that does not have full control of it's labor cannot profit and grow because labor is a main factor in company operations. Labor must be completely and utterly commited to the company, not to some Socialist organization that costs the company more money to operate and dictates the rules of engagement of the labor force for the company.

    This is exactly why organized labor has declined so greatly in the private sector and has increased so much in the public sector. Labor unions are Socialist by design and therefore are more attractive to the Socialist minded government employee who does not have to strive for company profits making.
    Curious, you've just described a loosely fitting description of socialist/communism control of production. All you needed to add is that workers can't quit because they work for the State. Robo the commie? Kinda fits, Que' No!?
    Tracers work both ways.

  2. #93
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    5,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Elfshadow View Post
    I like that you see that their are no real differences between a union and a corporation but don't understand why you don't see that they are exactly like a corporation, corrupt and out for their own gain, and willing to sell their workers out in order to profit the union bosses. Unions are just as bad as the corporations they are supposed to be standing up for.
    I do understand corruption when it's appropriate. Trade Unions I've been associated with have consisted of people, with all their assets and flaws. The Union leadership has had the same mix of people that business, politics, and all other endeavors people take part in. Like politicians, Union leaders are voted in. It's up to the members to be involved. Like our system of government it requires an informed electorate to make it work.
    You'll only hear through our media when it doesn't work. Just as corporations can be very different ethically, so can Unions. In Unions, issues, except the day to day business, go to a vote.
    Where you live there is probably little Union exposure so if you want to know what the truth is it will take some work. Our media is owned by the corporates so depending on them for the facts is a stretch. Some news print is supportive of Unions but media has their biases. One objection I have is how Unions have been, in some ways forced, to funnel money through the political system. Forced to play the same game the corporate lobbies do. I think if most of that money had been spent telling the American people what Unions are about many workers would have a different attitude about Unions and about how to control their own working future.
    The future of Unions might not be viable for many reasons. A lot of money has been spent on politicans willing to sell their services to the highest bidder. Creating anti-union legislation like "Right To Work For Less", and complicating the process where workers can elect union representation. Our country gave workers the right to bargain collectivly. I don't know why workers fail to see the tremendous value that right is.
    In the same we elect out political leaders Union members elect theirs. Just like our politicans some find ways to keep getting elected in the end it's still "Power To The People". If given the chance, corporate capitalists will take it all. BTW I know there are some very ethical corporations out there. Just hope you work for one.
    Tracers work both ways.

  3. #94
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta GA area
    Posts
    20,860
    Quote Originally Posted by netsalt View Post
    Rather than use an election map let use a REAL indicator of makers vs takers.

    Sometimes, my gut hunch says to look at a post from a Lib I have on ignore... this was one of those times.

    Looked at the chart, and thought; I bet the so called spending adds up to more than what the chart suggests came in... SO
    According to the heading on the second column: "Federal Spending per US$ of Federal Taxes"... and there are 50 states noted... so there should be $50 of US tax to spend... Well:
    Add up all the so called amounts going out (second column)... and one gets $56.15... Hmmm

    As usual, liberal sources of media are NOT dependable to report facts correctly... So IMO the entire chart is bogus.

    Now as to the suggestion that RED states get more $$$... Well Red states are usually represented by successful business types... they are better at managing $$$ than air-headed liberals with NO real world business experience. Just common sense the $$$ goes to the ones that KNOW (read that experience) how to manage it. Take a look through-out history... money ALWAYS ends up in the hands of those that know how to manage it... and it ALWAYS leaves the hands of those who do not. Regardless of country, business, time, etc... always the same.

    SO: It would appear yet again; the liberal media got caught in a lie... as well as the liberal poster who promoted it. Nothing new here.
    GA-HVAC-Tech

    Quality work at a fair price with excellent customer service!

    Romans Ch's 5-6-7-8

    2 Chronicles 7:14

  4. #95
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by RoBoTeq View Post
    You jumped from the original intent for tariff's to your claim that tariffs are to stabilize the U.S. dollar with no regard to all of what has been done with tariffs in between. In the case of sugar, the tariffs continue to be used and abused to subsidize labor with higher cost of goods to Americans.
    I know tariffs have been abused. I want to see the end of them. I love your quote. It applies to this situations. They created a bad situation. They then removed a pillar that was stabilizing what they had created. Its not the intent, its the effects of a large amount of unintended consequences. Most of this can be traced back to the creation of the petro-dollar, and the Dollars status as a reserve currency. The labor unions and companies of this nation are just the fall guys of the government. The government has created these problems.

  5. #96
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Losantiville
    Posts
    1,713
    Quote Originally Posted by ga-hvac-tech View Post
    Sometimes, my gut hunch says to look at a post from a Lib I have on ignore... this was one of those times.

    Looked at the chart, and thought; I bet the so called spending adds up to more than what the chart suggests came in... SO
    According to the heading on the second column: "Federal Spending per US$ of Federal Taxes"... and there are 50 states noted... so there should be $50 of US tax to spend... Well:
    Add up all the so called amounts going out (second column)... and one gets $56.15... Hmmm

    As usual, liberal sources of media are NOT dependable to report facts correctly... So IMO the entire chart is bogus.

    Now as to the suggestion that RED states get more $$$... Well Red states are usually represented by successful business types... they are better at managing $$$ than air-headed liberals with NO real world business experience. Just common sense the $$$ goes to the ones that KNOW (read that experience) how to manage it. Take a look through-out history... money ALWAYS ends up in the hands of those that know how to manage it... and it ALWAYS leaves the hands of those who do not. Regardless of country, business, time, etc... always the same.

    SO: It would appear yet again; the liberal media got caught in a lie... as well as the liberal poster who promoted it. Nothing new here.
    If this is the best you got put me back on ignore ( I consider it a badge of honor). All you are bringing to the table are second hand chain emails anyway. By the way I think you misunderstand the methodology of the chart.

    The Tax Foundation is the oldest non-profit tax think tank in the country, founded in 1937. Their stated mission is "to educate taxpayers about sound tax policy and the size of the tax burden borne by Americans at all levels of government." It also argues for a tax system characterized by "simplicity", "neutrality", "stability", "transparency" and "growth-promotion".[1]
    It was founded at the University Club in New York. Founding members included:



    Sounds like a bunch of "libs"????????????????????????????


    Politifact
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...leaning-state/

  6. #97
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Losantiville
    Posts
    1,713
    No response, I guess it is easier to hide your head in the sand and ignore the truth. I thought this could be a good teaching moment for GA but it appears he understands nothing about deficit spending so the lesson would be lost on the student. This country may need a balanced budget, but politicians who can do it are rare.

  7. #98
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,923
    Quote Originally Posted by canusayinsanity View Post
    Just because Walmart supplies jobs doesn't mean its good for the towns it inhabits. Its been proven that ur hurts economy,and closes small businesses. The ones which say what's the problem with Walmart are the people who have had it easy for too long n make too much money to give a sh?t.
    This is all just Union Socialist bullcrap you are spewing out. When Walmart's are built, the overall economy of the area increases. That means that more people in that area are put to work, either directly for Walmart of indirectly for all of the other businesses that feed off of the consumers that the Walmart attracts to the area. That is why large stores like Walmart are given incentives to build stores in areas that need economic boosts.

    In Southern Lancaster County, where I live, Walmart was successfully prevented from building a store even after Walmart funded a several million dollar road/intersection improvement. The reason for the success is that Southern Lancaster County just didn't need the economic boost, so the incentives to Walmart were not offered.
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  8. #99
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,923
    Quote Originally Posted by hvacker View Post
    Curious, you've just described a loosely fitting description of socialist/communism control of production. All you needed to add is that workers can't quit because they work for the State. Robo the commie? Kinda fits, Que' No!?
    I am sorry to say that it does not surprise me that you do not understand what Capitalism is or realize that there is no denying that labor unions are Socialist organizations, and always have been. Labor unions and other Socialist organizations even share logos and names;
    .


    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  9. #100
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,923
    Quote Originally Posted by ga-hvac-tech View Post
    Sometimes, my gut hunch says to look at a post from a Lib I have on ignore... this was one of those times.

    Looked at the chart, and thought; I bet the so called spending adds up to more than what the chart suggests came in... SO
    According to the heading on the second column: "Federal Spending per US$ of Federal Taxes"... and there are 50 states noted... so there should be $50 of US tax to spend... Well:
    Add up all the so called amounts going out (second column)... and one gets $56.15... Hmmm

    As usual, liberal sources of media are NOT dependable to report facts correctly... So IMO the entire chart is bogus.

    Now as to the suggestion that RED states get more $$$... Well Red states are usually represented by successful business types... they are better at managing $$$ than air-headed liberals with NO real world business experience. Just common sense the $$$ goes to the ones that KNOW (read that experience) how to manage it. Take a look through-out history... money ALWAYS ends up in the hands of those that know how to manage it... and it ALWAYS leaves the hands of those who do not. Regardless of country, business, time, etc... always the same.

    SO: It would appear yet again; the liberal media got caught in a lie... as well as the liberal poster who promoted it. Nothing new here.
    Those red states that get more than they give are states where the federal government pumps money into for more and more roads for leftists to be able to travel through those states faster while going from one blue state to another.
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  10. #101
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by ga-hvac-tech View Post
    Looked at the chart, and thought; I bet the so called spending adds up to more than what the chart suggests came in... SO
    According to the heading on the second column: "Federal Spending per US$ of Federal Taxes"... and there are 50 states noted... so there should be $50 of US tax to spend... Well:
    Add up all the so called amounts going out (second column)... and one gets $56.15... Hmmm
    The columns you are looking at are a series of ratios not a cumulative sum. You have taken ratios and tried to convert them into a cumulative sum........a mathematical no-no.

    Of course the figure does not equal 50, nor does the fact that it does not equal 50 invalidate the chart.

    Because the state ratios vary, it is statistically unlikely that the figure will be a nice, neat 50.

    This is what you have overlooked in your incompetent, shallow anaylsis.


    As usual, liberal sources of media are NOT dependable to report facts correctly...
    Well, it is rather more a case of you not understanding primary mathematical functions.

    We should also keep in mind that ga havac tech's main source of info is hilariously inaccurate pass-along e-mails.



    So IMO the entire chart is bogus.
    Son, even Jethro Bodine would be embarrassed at the botch you made of simple math.


    You better stick with counting finger and toe math.......you are light years out of your league here.






    Now as to the suggestion that RED states get more $$$... Well Red states are usually represented by successful business types... they are better at managing $$$ than air-headed liberals with NO real world business experience. Just common sense the $$$ goes to the ones that KNOW (read that experience) how to manage it. Take a look through-out history... money ALWAYS ends up in the hands of those that know how to manage it... and it ALWAYS leaves the hands of those who do not. Regardless of country, business, time, etc... always the same.

    SO: It would appear yet again; the liberal media got caught in a lie... as well as the liberal poster who promoted it. Nothing new here.
    The governor of one of the reddest states in America has been a politician most of his life and his state would be bankrupt now if not for an infusion of billions of dollars supplied as part of the stimulus. I of course speak of Gov. Goodhair Oops Rick Perry and the State of Texas.

  11. #102
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,923
    All that Socialist chart indicates are the amounts that states receive in federal money. That is absolutely no indication of the state being socialist or not. States can have federal money poured into them for infrastructure, military installations and other non-state used purposes. As with most information put out by leftists, that chart is deceitful.
    A review of the data shows that some very large programs, including defense spending, Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, and [COLOR=#668833 !important][COLOR=#668833 !important]farm [COLOR=#668833 !important]subsidies[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR], had major effects on how much money each state received, to the extent that individuals get far more per person than in other states. In some cases, it was several programs that affected the total amount the government spent on the state per capita, but in others, it may have been just one program.
    Often that program was defense spending. States like Virginia, Alaska, Maryland and New Mexico received the most money per capita in federal procurement spending, which includes things like Medicaid and NASA, but the majority of which goes to the Department of Defense. To give an idea of the amount of money the federal government poured into military bases and research centers in these states, the government spent approximately $7,300 per person on all programs in Nevada. It also spent approximately $5,000 per person on defense spending alone in Virginia.

    Read more: States That Get The Most Federal Money - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2012/08/03/stat...#ixzz2DWP4DTWL
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  12. #103
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by RoBoTeq View Post
    All that Socialist chart indicates are the amounts that states receive in federal money. That is absolutely no indication of the state being socialist or not. States can have federal money poured into them for infrastructure, military installations and other non-state used purposes. As with most information put out by leftists, that chart is deceitful.
    You seem to have ignored spending on Medicare-Medicaid, Social Security, and Farm subsidies, all of which you boys consider give-aways, which your article listed along with defense spending as major contributors to federal spending.

  13. #104
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    5,463
    [QUOTE=RoBoTeq;14673091]I am sorry to say that it does not surprise me that you do not understand what Capitalism is or realize that there is no denying that labor unions are Socialist organizations, and always have been. Labor unions and other Socialist organizations even share logos and names;
    .



    Curious again. You think I don't understand capitalism? That's lame. You'll get nowhere with crap like that. Especially with your description of the corporate/labor relationship.
    Since Robo has been reading Ann Rand et al, he sees socialist/commies behind every fireplug. Too bad his information isn't first hand but another hand-me-down from his neo-capitalist propagandists. Robo would be hard pressed to find a socialist/commie at any Union meeting in this country. In fact Union members can be ultra-cons. But don't ask Robo because he has never been a member, never been to a meeting, and speaks out of ignorance.
    So, go ahead Robo and cling to your assumptions but just don't try to take on a role of educating us. Your way too myopic.
    There are American tribes in the SW that have a symbol similar to the Nazi Swastika. Gee, I wonder if that means Navajos are Nazis?
    [IMG]
    Tracers work both ways.

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event