The Great American Third Party

[kalm]

Private sector unionism may be off as a percentage of private sector workers, but public sector unionism (teachers, AFSCME, etc.) is way up. That's a YUGE swing to the left.

So you're saying there's a net increase. Link?

[Ivytalk]

Trends among our "yutes": BLM, SJWs, need for "safe space," suppression of free speech on campus, adulation of Bernie Sanders, "free stuff"/ sense of entitlement among Millennials (such as klam's son's insistence on higher minimum wage for tending golf courses) = more unreconstructed leftism.

[kalm]

Perhaps this is incorrect but...

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/ ... in-one-map

[UNI88]

Perhaps, but not on the big issues like militarism, the war on drugs, supply side economics and wealth inequality.

We're going to have to disagree on militarism. We're losing the war on drugs and a shift to what you call the left is coming. I would argue that it is more common sense than left or right. You keep hammering supply side economics but what do you offer as an alternative? Keynesian or socialism hasn't proven any more effective. Yes the Scandinavian countries have had success but there is also Greece, Italy, etc. Wealth inequality is a symptom of a problem not the problem itself. I've said it a thousand times but we need to focus on equal opportunities not equal outcomes. And the left is just as complicit in the lack of equal opportunities as the right with the bureaucratic one-size fits all education policies that they have championed (and I know that Bush signed No Child Left Behind but that was a leftist, federal government solution to our education woes).

Throw out WWI and WWII as there are obviously times where it's justified, but not a bad point. Democratic presidential records and liberalism are not necessarily one in the same. Modern day lefties like Sanders are more closely aligned with the Pat Buchannon's and Rand Paul's of the world. The dominant paradigm of the last 40 years has been one of nationalism and the idea of pax americana. It's been supported by both sides, but the left has embraced the Clinton's and Obama's rather than the McGoverns. That's a move to the right.

A move to the right if I accept how you define the right. There is more to the right than just Dubya/Cheney. Bush I was a significantly better coalition builder than Obama. What about Reagan and Gorbachev and Nixon and China? The Clinton's and Obama are just as much representatives of the left as McGovern and can't be ignored.

I'll quibble with the idea that big labor is as damaging as Wall Street. It represents less than 10% of private sector labor now. Which one do you think Obama and Clinton represent more? I'm no fan of unions and agree with the rest of what you've said. But their power is nowhere near what it once was and a beaten down organized labor is a move to the right.

You can't consider the position of labor and ignore the public sector. Yes unionism has declined in the private sector but it has grown exponentially in the public sector and its influence on government especially at the state and local level is tremendous. I know Illinois is the extreme example of Democratic policies run amok and dragging an entire state down the drain but read this opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune - Rauner vs. Madigan and that back-from-the-dead AFSCME bill

this is a bill that takes the unprecedented step of removing the authority of the executive branch to fully negotiate on behalf of all those Illinois taxpayers. The bill would create a process by which the two sides would submit contract proposals to an arbitration panel. An arbitrator would choose the winning proposal. Arbitrators tend to favor organized labor, which is why AFSCME is fighting so hard for the legislation. The union wants to make an end-run around the governor.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... story.html

And is the decline of private sector unionism a move to the right when to a large extent it is because they accomplished their primary objectives and in an effort to maintain their power and stay relevant they shot themselves in the foot and sometimes the head. They've contributed to their own demise and still refuse to take responsibility for how their actions have helped to chase manufacturing and jobs overseas. We live in a global economy and too many unions have had a short term focus on fighting for every penny and every job with no regard for how it damages the employer's ability to compete and employ the needed workers.

I didn't mention SS, and you just seem to ranting about a pet peeve here. Yet, again, a reduction in government anti-poverty entitlements is a move to the right.

Ranger mentioned SS and when asked for examples you said that Ranger had already provided some and then provided more so it was fair game. SS is unsustainable in its current format. It has to be reformed. And I'm not against anti-poverty programs. I would argue that throwing money and bureaucracy at the problem has proven largely ineffective and I would argue that the Left's insistence on maintaining the programs rather than looking at ways to reform and improve them has been just as damaging as the Right's attempts to reduce their funding. Let's give the money to the states and let them experiment and find solutions that work rather than using the leftist approach of dictating from on high.

I keep trying to wrap my mind around how free trade is good for anyone other than multinationals and the investor class, but I haven't been convinced yet. Of course we're a service economy, but technically, without manufacturing (adding tangible value to a natural resource), how do services create actual wealth for the entire economy?

Free trade is happening whether we want it to or not. Others will participate without us and IMO we are hurt more by not participating than by participating. Innovation (technology, logistics, etc.) is changing the world and we can't j just turn back the clock. There are going to be winners and losers and jobs will be lost and gained. Let's focus on winning tomorrow's jobs rather than holding on to yesterday's.

Who else should we be compared to? Maybe Japan?

Or Botswana?

The comparison is irrelevant. The issue was that our being to the right of other western democracies was used to argue that we have shifted to the right. The comparison doesn't prove anything because we have been to the right of most western democracies since WWII.

[Ivytalk]

Private sector unionism may be off as a percentage of private sector workers, but public sector unionism (teachers, AFSCME, etc.) is way up. That's a YUGE swing to the left.

So you're saying there's a net increase. Link?

I was looking at the January '16 Bureau of Labor Statistics report on Union membership. It shows data for 2014 and 2015. Private Union membership about 6.5% of total employed, while public Union membership is over 35%. Highest public sector rate of over 41% is at the local government level, which isn't surprising (teachers, cops, firefighters, etc.).

[AZGrizFan]

The country is more "centrist" only because the "center" has moved left.

[kalm]

The country is more "centrist" only because the "center" has moved left.

Unless your talking about the voters. If so then I agree.

[kalm]

Perhaps, but not on the big issues like militarism, the war on drugs, supply side economics and wealth inequality.

We're going to have to disagree on militarism. We're losing the war on drugs and a shift to what you call the left is coming. I would argue that it is more common sense than left or right.

We spent an estimated $15 billion on the War on Drugs in 2010 and arrested over 1.6 million people most of them for weed possession. I agree there's some light at the end of the tunnel with the legalization movement, and it's a matter of common sense, but I'd suggest a majority of those pushing against decriminalization are on the right. Much of the funding for weed prohibition support comes out of the prison industrial complex (privatization). That ain't a group of lefties.

You keep hammering supply side economics but what do you offer as an alternative? Keynesian or socialism hasn't proven any more effective. Yes the Scandinavian countries have had success but there is also Greece, Italy, etc. Wealth inequality is a symptom of a problem not the problem itself. I've said it a thousand times but we need to focus on equal opportunities not equal outcomes. And the left is just as complicit in the lack of equal opportunities as the right with the bureaucratic one-size fits all education policies that they have championed (and I know that Bush signed No Child Left Behind but that was a leftist, federal government solution to our education woes).

My point is that Reagan and his team did a fantastic job of selling supply side to the extent that in broad terms (relatively low taxes on the rich and corporations, deregulation, privatization) it's pretty much been embraced by every administration since. Corporate taxes use to make up 40% of all receipts, they now represent 10%. Top marginal rates were above 50% for decades. Forget the wealth envy and morality arguments coming from lefties and just focus on the fact that this tax revenue either gets replaced by higher taxes on the lower income levels, is balanced by cuts to services (mostly consumed by lower income levels), or the debt increases. All of these things have either been threatened or have already occurred. You might think that's the way things should be but the fact remains it is move to the right.

I agree with opportunity vs outcome and your points on education but we still lag behind other developed countries when it comes to socio-economic mobility.

Throw out WWI and WWII as there are obviously times where it's justified, but not a bad point. Democratic presidential records and liberalism are not necessarily one in the same. Modern day lefties like Sanders are more closely aligned with the Pat Buchannon's and Rand Paul's of the world. The dominant paradigm of the last 40 years has been one of nationalism and the idea of pax americana. It's been supported by both sides, but the left has embraced the Clinton's and Obama's rather than the McGoverns. That's a move to the right.

A move to the right if I accept how you define the right. There is more to the right than just Dubya/Cheney. Bush I was a significantly better coalition builder than Obama. What about Reagan and Gorbachev and Nixon and China? The Clinton's and Obama are just as much representatives of the left as McGovern and can't be ignored.

I define a move to the right in this instance by our interventions abroad. The argument isn't whether or not Republican administrations had some diplomatic successes. The argument is that Hillary and Obama did very little to pull back our forces like a McGovern would have. Again, feel free to agree with those policies, but they are two prominent Democrats who have acted like Republicans. Again a move to the right.

I'll quibble with the idea that big labor is as damaging as Wall Street. It represents less than 10% of private sector labor now. Which one do you think Obama and Clinton represent more? I'm no fan of unions and agree with the rest of what you've said. But their power is nowhere near what it once was and a beaten down organized labor is a move to the right.

You can't consider the position of labor and ignore the public sector. Yes unionism has declined in the private sector but it has grown exponentially in the public sector and its influence on government especially at the state and local level is tremendous.

A quick scan of charts showing union membership for both private and public sectors doesn't support this. Not saying you're wrong but provide a link. Regardless, the article I provided for Ivy shows that overall union membership has been in decline for decades. Even if it's mostly private sector less union influence is still a move to the right.

And is the decline of private sector unionism a move to the right when to a large extent it is because they accomplished their primary objectives and in an effort to maintain their power and stay relevant they shot themselves in the foot and sometimes the head. They've contributed to their own demise and still refuse to take responsibility for how their actions have helped to chase manufacturing and jobs overseas. We live in a global economy and too many unions have had a short term focus on fighting for every penny and every job with no regard for how it damages the employer's ability to compete and employ the needed workers.

Again, I'm not a union fan, but the power to negotiate wages, work conditions, and benefits is still lefty notion and it's in decline.

I didn't mention SS, and you just seem to ranting about a pet peeve here. Yet, again, a reduction in government anti-poverty entitlements is a move to the right.

Ranger mentioned SS and when asked for examples you said that Ranger had already provided some and then provided more so it was fair game. SS is unsustainable in its current format. It has to be reformed. And I'm not against anti-poverty programs. I would argue that throwing money and bureaucracy at the problem has proven largely ineffective and I would argue that the Left's insistence on maintaining the programs rather than looking at ways to reform and improve them has been just as damaging as the Right's attempts to reduce their funding. Let's give the money to the states and let them experiment and find solutions that work rather than using the leftist approach of dictating from on high.

And I quoted Ranger on two specific points, neither of which is SS . I actually agree with much of what you've said here with the reminder that despite it's warts, SS has pulled many seniors out of poverty. It needs to be reformed but I don't trust Wall Street any more than I do government to fix it. I like the idea of state driven solutions.

I keep trying to wrap my mind around how free trade is good for anyone other than multinationals and the investor class, but I haven't been convinced yet. Of course we're a service economy, but technically, without manufacturing (adding tangible value to a natural resource), how do services create actual wealth for the entire economy?

Free trade is happening whether we want it to or not. Others will participate without us and IMO we are hurt more by not participating than by participating. Innovation (technology, logistics, etc.) is changing the world and we can't j just turn back the clock. There are going to be winners and losers and jobs will be lost and gained. Let's focus on winning tomorrow's jobs rather than holding on to yesterday's.

Free trade is a misnomer but I agree it's a reality. That doesn't mean we have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We have massive natural resources, infrastructure, and markets all of which should be used as leverage when we negotiate "free trade" deals. I'm not saying we shouldn't enter into mutually beneficial trade deals but they need to benefit all Americans. Not that it necessarily should happen, but if we backed out of something like the TPP, it's not as if those other countries wouldn't still want our markets and resources and wouldn't be willing to trade on different terms.

Who else should we be compared to? Maybe Japan?

Or Botswana?

The comparison is irrelevant. The issue was that our being to the right of other western democracies was used to argue that we have shifted to the right. The comparison doesn't prove anything because we have been to the right of most western democracies since WWII.

How about to the right of ourselves several decades ago? I think that was the original point and it's still vaild.

[UNI88]

We spent an estimated $15 billion on the War on Drugs in 2010 and arrested over 1.6 million people most of them for weed possession. I agree there's some light at the end of the tunnel with the legalization movement, and it's a matter of common sense, but I'd suggest a majority of those pushing against decriminalization are on the right. Much of the funding for weed prohibition support comes out of the prison industrial complex (privatization). That ain't a group of lefties.

I'll concede the war on drugs is a right wing issue for the most part but I think we're already moving left and this move will continue.

My point is that Reagan and his team did a fantastic job of selling supply side to the extent that in broad terms (relatively low taxes on the rich and corporations, deregulation, privatization) it's pretty much been embraced by every administration since. Corporate taxes use to make up 40% of all receipts, they now represent 10%. Top marginal rates were above 50% for decades. Forget the wealth envy and morality arguments coming from lefties and just focus on the fact that this tax revenue either gets replaced by higher taxes on the lower income levels, is balanced by cuts to services (mostly consumed by lower income levels), or the debt increases. All of these things have either been threatened or have already occurred. You might think that's the way things should be but the fact remains it is move to the right.

I agree with opportunity vs outcome and your points on education but we still lag behind other developed countries when it comes to socio-economic mobility.

The problem with your analysis is that it assumes that there is a fixed amount of income to be taxed and that government is operating efficiently so that any lost revenue means reduced services. It also ignores that taxing corporate income and personal income is actually taxing the same revenue twice.

I would argue that we should reduce corporate income taxes as much as possible in order to encourage employers to base their headquarters in the US and employ more people.

When discussing tax rates you can’t just look at federal income taxes, you have to consider state and local taxes. When you do so you have to admit that a high earner who is actually paying taxes (more on that later) is actually paying more than 50% of their income to the government. How much is enough? IMO, 50% is plenty and if that isn’t enough than the government needs to look at efficiency improvements not higher taxes. I don’t have a problem with closing the loop holes that the wealthy use to avoid taxes though.

Back to your original argument about how tax reductions place a greater burden on the poor, what if a tax reduction spurred the economy increasing wages and jobs and thus government revenues without placing any additional burden on the poor (i.e. by growing the economy)? Don’t think it can happen, LBJ’s tax cuts helped pay for the Great Society. It isn’t always successful but that is the basic premise of supply side economics and it has proven more successful than its Keynesian counterpart.

I define a move to the right in this instance by our interventions abroad. The argument isn't whether or not Republican administrations had some diplomatic successes. The argument is that Hillary and Obama did very little to pull back our forces like a McGovern would have. Again, feel free to agree with those policies, but they are two prominent Democrats who have acted like Republicans. Again a move to the right.

I don't think we're going to agree on this one. Yes Democrats representing the left like to talk about peace but they don't walk the walk. McGovern was an exception not the rule. Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, Obama, Clinton all were/are interventionists. The only (D) President that wasn't might have been Carter.

A quick scan of charts showing union membership for both private and public sectors doesn't support this. Not saying you're wrong but provide a link. Regardless, the article I provided for Ivy shows that overall union membership has been in decline for decades. Even if it's mostly private sector less union influence is still a move to the right.

Again, I'm not a union fan, but the power to negotiate wages, work conditions, and benefits is still lefty notion and it's in decline.

I would agree that overall union membership has dropped but as I've said, I'm not sure that is a signal that we've moved to the right or reflective of 1) the reality that unions achieved most of their primary objectives and 2) since achieving their objectives they've become militant in fighting for things that actually harm employers ability to compete and damage their credibility with the American people. I have no problem with unions fighting for wages and benefits but they aren't always realistic in their wage demands (examples - at the start of the recession a Chicago union went into negotiations demanding a 7% increase, they ended up getting 4% at a time when corporate profits were flat or negative and professionals were getting no increases. They then complained when open shop competitors started getting more work. The Chicago Teachers Union got a 4% increase during their last negotiation and then complained about the number of schools that the Chicago School system closed. Did the teachers deserve that increase? I think so but the problem was that Chicago Schools are beyond broke, they have a finite amount of money and every penny that went to the teachers was one less penny for maintenance and other needs. Something had to give and the teachers union knew it). Unions themselves are more than 50% responsible for this so I think it is more representative of the status quo than a shift to the right. Could this be changing and the need for unions be returning? Yes.

And the rising influence of public sector unions is not a good thing. Illinois is a great example of that.

And I quoted Ranger on two specific points, neither of which is SS . I actually agree with much of what you've said here with the reminder that despite it's warts, SS has pulled many seniors out of poverty. It needs to be reformed but I don't trust Wall Street any more than I do government to fix it. I like the idea of state driven solutions.

You distrust Wall Street and I distrust government to fix these problems, which brings up an interesting idea for an analysis. Why don’t we evaluate the effectiveness of government programs like we do charities? For example, many people won’t give to some charities because too small of a percentage of their income gets to the people they are set up to assist. My guess is that government programs are bloated with bureaucracy and too much of our tax dollars are going to support the bureaucracy rather than actually achieve the objectives of the program it is meant to support.

I like SS as a concept but it is an unsustainable ponzi scheme long-term and needs to be reformed. You can’t take in a fixed amount of money and promise to give out a fixed amount of money upon retirement unless the amount you promise to give out is extremely conservative (which it isn’t). Because of this we are paying people more than they have contributed + interest earned and using contributions from today’s employees to cover the difference. As time goes on you are using more and more of today’s dollars to pay for yesterday’s contributors and eventually you won’t have anything to pay today’s contributors when they retire. You then put the taxpayer on the hook to make up the difference. To make it sustainable you need to move to a defined contribution plan where each contributor gets their contributions plus interest. I know it puts people at the mercy of the market but life involves risks and the government can't protect people from everything. What is wrong with giving someone a choice in how their contributions are managed? I for one have significantly more faith in my ability to manage my funds but I have no problem with those who aren’t as confident and want to let the government manage theirs.

Finally you talk about SS pulling many seniors out of poverty so I have to ask how many people do you think Wall Street has helped out of poverty and/or pushed into a comfortable middle class retirement? 401(k)s and other retirement plans have been a huge benefit to the American people. Wall Street has its warts but its also been a positive overall so let’s not throw that baby out with the bath water either.

Free trade is a misnomer but I agree it's a reality. That doesn't mean we have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We have massive natural resources, infrastructure, and markets all of which should be used as leverage when we negotiate "free trade" deals. I'm not saying we shouldn't enter into mutually beneficial trade deals but they need to benefit all Americans. Not that it necessarily should happen, but if we backed out of something like the TPP, it's not as if those other countries wouldn't still want our markets and resources and wouldn't be willing to trade on different terms.

There is some truth to what you argue but our markets are only ½ the equation. We also want and need access to their markets. And as I mentioned, we can’t ignore the service aspect of the economy. And you don’t think China is ready and waiting to step into any void we leave? Look at South America. Other countries have options and just as we shouldn’t be the big bully militarily (a right wing approach from your perspective), we also shouldn’t be the big bully economically (a left wing approach from others perspective). Both approaches will hurt us long-term.

Overall I think we’ve moved right on some issues and left on others and that overall we’re not that far from where we were several decades ago.

[AZGrizFan]

Klam, you are getting' your ass handed to you in this thread. Maybe it's best you take a break for a while...

[kalm]

Klam, you are getting' your ass handed to you in this thread. Maybe it's best you take a break for a while...

Z, it's called a discussion and I'm enjoying it immensely. 88 is one of the best and is raising some excellent points. Unlike you, I'm open to having my mind changed.

You just run along and let the adults talk now, ok?

[AZGrizFan]

Klam, you are getting' your ass handed to you in this thread. Maybe it's best you take a break for a while...

Z, it's called a discussion and I'm enjoying it immensely. 88 is one of the best and is raising some excellent points. Unlike you, I'm open to having my mind changed.

You just run along and let the adults talk now, ok?

Sorry, I was channeling Douche1Bag there for a moment.

And FYI, I've changed my position on several issues through discussion on this board and others. So, kindly GFY.

[Chizzang]

Once a long time ago we had a debate on here about "liberal thinking"
and the idea was too confusing for some

Liberal thinking has nothing to do with Liberals (in fact very few Liberals at all)
But in essence it is a state of "mental openness"
where you prefer to have no opinion while deciding what your opinion is

AZ was completely debilitated by the idea - to the point of hilarity actually (God bless his grumpy heart)

[AZGrizFan]

Once a long time ago we had a debate on here about "liberal thinking"
and the idea was too confusing for some

Liberal thinking has nothing to do with Liberals (in fact very few Liberals at all)
But in essence it is a state of "mental openness"
where you prefer to have no opinion while deciding what your opinion is

AZ was completely debilitated by the idea - to the point of hilarity actually (God bless his grumpy heart)

What in the holy fuck are you talking about? I'd LOVE to see a link to that alleged thread....

[kalm]

We spent an estimated $15 billion on the War on Drugs in 2010 and arrested over 1.6 million people most of them for weed possession. I agree there's some light at the end of the tunnel with the legalization movement, and it's a matter of common sense, but I'd suggest a majority of those pushing against decriminalization are on the right. Much of the funding for weed prohibition support comes out of the prison industrial complex (privatization). That ain't a group of lefties.

I'll concede the war on drugs is a right wing issue for the most part but I think we're already moving left and this move will continue.

Thank you and agreed.

My point is that Reagan and his team did a fantastic job of selling supply side to the extent that in broad terms (relatively low taxes on the rich and corporations, deregulation, privatization) it's pretty much been embraced by every administration since. Corporate taxes use to make up 40% of all receipts, they now represent 10%. Top marginal rates were above 50% for decades. Forget the wealth envy and morality arguments coming from lefties and just focus on the fact that this tax revenue either gets replaced by higher taxes on the lower income levels, is balanced by cuts to services (mostly consumed by lower income levels), or the debt increases. All of these things have either been threatened or have already occurred. You might think that's the way things should be but the fact remains it is move to the right.

I agree with opportunity vs outcome and your points on education but we still lag behind other developed countries when it comes to socio-economic mobility.

The problem with your analysis is that it assumes that there is a fixed amount of income to be taxed and that government is operating efficiently so that any lost revenue means reduced services. It also ignores that taxing corporate income and personal income is actually taxing the same revenue twice.

I would argue that we should reduce corporate income taxes as much as possible in order to encourage employers to base their headquarters in the US and employ more people.

When discussing tax rates you can’t just look at federal income taxes, you have to consider state and local taxes. When you do so you have to admit that a high earner who is actually paying taxes (more on that later) is actually paying more than 50% of their income to the government. How much is enough? IMO, 50% is plenty and if that isn’t enough than the government needs to look at efficiency improvements not higher taxes. I don’t have a problem with closing the loop holes that the wealthy use to avoid taxes though.

Back to your original argument about how tax reductions place a greater burden on the poor, what if a tax reduction spurred the economy increasing wages and jobs and thus government revenues without placing any additional burden on the poor (i.e. by growing the economy)? Don’t think it can happen, LBJ’s tax cuts helped pay for the Great Society. It isn’t always successful but that is the basic premise of supply side economics and it has proven more successful than its Keynesian counterpart.

Hey! If I don't get to use the economic growth under Ike's high taxes, you don't get to use it with LBJ/Kennedy's cuts.

You seem to have now switched the argument to Keynes vs. Hayek (which has been argued ad nauseum) and dropped the argument of whether supply side economics has been embraced and represented a move to the right...which it has.

Although I will add that the double taxation meme has its detractors as well. As this article suggests, when you pay your plumber you plumber shouldn't have to pay income tax on that money because you already have? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-john ... 45527.html

I define a move to the right in this instance by our interventions abroad. The argument isn't whether or not Republican administrations had some diplomatic successes. The argument is that Hillary and Obama did very little to pull back our forces like a McGovern would have. Again, feel free to agree with those policies, but they are two prominent Democrats who have acted like Republicans. Again a move to the right.

I don't think we're going to agree on this one. Yes Democrats representing the left like to talk about peace but they don't walk the walk. McGovern was an exception not the rule. Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, Obama, Clinton all were/are interventionists. The only (D) President that wasn't might have been Carter.

You're making my point for me. The Democratic Party itself has moved right. Democratic leadership abandoned the peace movement decades ago despite a vocal anti-war contingent on the left. Heck, it's about to select a neo-conservative hawk over Bernie Sanders.

A quick scan of charts showing union membership for both private and public sectors doesn't support this. Not saying you're wrong but provide a link. Regardless, the article I provided for Ivy shows that overall union membership has been in decline for decades. Even if it's mostly private sector less union influence is still a move to the right.

Again, I'm not a union fan, but the power to negotiate wages, work conditions, and benefits is still lefty notion and it's in decline.

I would agree that overall union membership has dropped but as I've said, I'm not sure that is a signal that we've moved to the right or reflective of 1) the reality that unions achieved most of their primary objectives and 2) since achieving their objectives they've become militant in fighting for things that actually harm employers ability to compete and damage their credibility with the American people. I have no problem with unions fighting for wages and benefits but they aren't always realistic in their wage demands (examples - at the start of the recession a Chicago union went into negotiations demanding a 7% increase, they ended up getting 4% at a time when corporate profits were flat or negative and professionals were getting no increases. They then complained when open shop competitors started getting more work. The Chicago Teachers Union got a 4% increase during their last negotiation and then complained about the number of schools that the Chicago School system closed. Did the teachers deserve that increase? I think so but the problem was that Chicago Schools are beyond broke, they have a finite amount of money and every penny that went to the teachers was one less penny for maintenance and other needs. Something had to give and the teachers union knew it). Unions themselves are more than 50% responsible for this so I think it is more representative of the status quo than a shift to the right. Could this be changing and the need for unions be returning? Yes.

And the rising influence of public sector unions is not a good thing. Illinois is a great example of that.

You provide a great argument here for the downside of unions, but again, from a big picture perspective, the diminishing of organized labor is in general, a move to the right.

And I quoted Ranger on two specific points, neither of which is SS . I actually agree with much of what you've said here with the reminder that despite it's warts, SS has pulled many seniors out of poverty. It needs to be reformed but I don't trust Wall Street any more than I do government to fix it. I like the idea of state driven solutions.

You distrust Wall Street and I distrust government to fix these problems, which brings up an interesting idea for an analysis. Why don’t we evaluate the effectiveness of government programs like we do charities? For example, many people won’t give to some charities because too small of a percentage of their income gets to the people they are set up to assist. My guess is that government programs are bloated with bureaucracy and too much of our tax dollars are going to support the bureaucracy rather than actually achieve the objectives of the program it is meant to support.

I like SS as a concept but it is an unsustainable ponzi scheme long-term and needs to be reformed. You can’t take in a fixed amount of money and promise to give out a fixed amount of money upon retirement unless the amount you promise to give out is extremely conservative (which it isn’t). Because of this we are paying people more than they have contributed + interest earned and using contributions from today’s employees to cover the difference. As time goes on you are using more and more of today’s dollars to pay for yesterday’s contributors and eventually you won’t have anything to pay today’s contributors when they retire. You then put the taxpayer on the hook to make up the difference. To make it sustainable you need to move to a defined contribution plan where each contributor gets their contributions plus interest. I know it puts people at the mercy of the market but life involves risks and the government can't protect people from everything. What is wrong with giving someone a choice in how their contributions are managed? I for one have significantly more faith in my ability to manage my funds but I have no problem with those who aren’t as confident and want to let the government manage theirs.

Finally you talk about SS pulling many seniors out of poverty so I have to ask how many people do you think Wall Street has helped out of poverty and/or pushed into a comfortable middle class retirement? 401(k)s and other retirement plans have been a huge benefit to the American people. Wall Street has its warts but its also been a positive overall so let’s not throw that baby out with the bath water either.

You're not going to get me to argue whether government is inefficient. It is. I've pretty much agreed with you here from the start. I was just suggesting that what government uses up in waste and graft (the latter of which benefits the private sector) is similar to Wall Street takes in greed. BTW, and FTR, when I mentioned "state driven solutions" I was referring to your idea rather suggesting that globally speaking, I'm a statest.

Free trade is a misnomer but I agree it's a reality. That doesn't mean we have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We have massive natural resources, infrastructure, and markets all of which should be used as leverage when we negotiate "free trade" deals. I'm not saying we shouldn't enter into mutually beneficial trade deals but they need to benefit all Americans. Not that it necessarily should happen, but if we backed out of something like the TPP, it's not as if those other countries wouldn't still want our markets and resources and wouldn't be willing to trade on different terms.

There is some truth to what you argue but our markets are only ½ the equation. We also want and need access to their markets. And as I mentioned, we can’t ignore the service aspect of the economy. And you don’t think China is ready and waiting to step into any void we leave? Look at South America. Other countries have options and just as we shouldn’t be the big bully militarily (a right wing approach from your perspective), we also shouldn’t be the big bully economically (a left wing approach from others perspective). Both approaches will hurt us long-term.

Overall I think we’ve moved right on some issues and left on others and that overall we’re not that far from where we were several decades ago.

Agree to disagree.

[AZGrizFan]

Once a long time ago we had a debate on here about "liberal thinking"
and the idea was too confusing for some

Liberal thinking has nothing to do with Liberals (in fact very few Liberals at all)
But in essence it is a state of "mental openness"
where you prefer to have no opinion while deciding what your opinion is

AZ was completely debilitated by the idea - to the point of hilarity actually (God bless his grumpy heart)

What in the holy fuck are you talking about? I'd LOVE to see a link to that alleged thread....

What's the matter, chizzy? Furiously searching away for a thread that was made up in your own head?

[Chizzang]

What in the holy fuck are you talking about? I'd LOVE to see a link to that alleged thread....

What's the matter, chizzy? Furiously searching away for a thread that was made up in your own head?

AZ it's already been established... so who really gives a f*ck..?

[JohnStOnge]

I'm pretty sure there are some posts in this thread that are longer than any post I've ever done. Not that I mind. It's fine. But I don't get this thing where I'm the "long post" guy when really, on average, my posts aren't that long.

[AZGrizFan]

What's the matter, chizzy? Furiously searching away for a thread that was made up in your own head?

AZ it's already been established... so who really gives a f*ck..?

in other words, it was some made up thread in your own head that you now can't find.

100% par for the Chizzy course.

[Chizzang]

AZ it's already been established... so who really gives a f*ck..?

in other words, it was some made up thread in your own head that you now can't find.

100% par for the Chizzy course.

Yeah... that's it AZ it's 100% made up
Just right out of thin air I said to myself, Gosh I should probably make up a story about AZ

[CID1990]

in other words, it was some made up thread in your own head that you now can't find.

100% par for the Chizzy course.

Yeah... that's it AZ it's 100% made up
Just right out of thin air I said to myself, Gosh I should probably make up a story about AZ

Actually you should enlist Skelly to go furiously sear for this ancient rumored thread. He enjoys that

[Chizzang]

Yeah... that's it AZ it's 100% made up
Just right out of thin air I said to myself, Gosh I should probably make up a story about AZ

Actually you should enlist Skelly to go furiously sear for this ancient rumored thread. He enjoys that

We used to have more philosophical discussions on this forum than we do now...
Sure they usually devolved into an argument about who's base was dumber

But I kinda miss those days...

On a side note:
T-Man was always good for an obnoxious rant also - I miss those also

[kalm]

Actually you should enlist Skelly to go furiously sear for this ancient rumored thread. He enjoys that

We used to have more philosophical discussions on this forum than we do now...
Sure they usually devolved into an argument about who's base was dumber

But I kinda miss those days...

On a side note:
T-Man was always good for an obnoxious rant also - I miss those also

88' and I were doing our best until you jaggoffs stepped in.

[CAA Flagship]

Once a long time ago we had a debate on here about "liberal thinking"
and the idea was too confusing for some

Liberal thinking has nothing to do with Liberals (in fact very few Liberals at all)
But in essence it is a state of "mental openness"
where you prefer to have no opinion while deciding what your opinion is

AZ was completely debilitated by the idea - to the point of hilarity actually (God bless his grumpy heart)

Then why do you call it "liberal thinking"?
Is it like "parkway" or "foul pole"?

[Chizzang]

Once a long time ago we had a debate on here about "liberal thinking"
and the idea was too confusing for some

Liberal thinking has nothing to do with Liberals (in fact very few Liberals at all)
But in essence it is a state of "mental openness"
where you prefer to have no opinion while deciding what your opinion is

AZ was completely debilitated by the idea - to the point of hilarity actually (God bless his grumpy heart)

Then why do you call it "liberal thinking"?
Is it like "parkway" or "foul pole"?

Thank you for asking...
The term "Liberal" has a core meaning which is loosely associated with "freely open to"
it is a kind of "broad or general acceptance of"

Now this should not be confused with the Political ideology in any way



So yeah...., Foul Pole works here