Unions Find Members Slow To Rally Behind Democrats

newyorktimes.com



The rank and file of the Democratic Party are becoming disillusioned with the status quo -- not because of what the Democratic Congress has done, but rather because of what it hasn't done. Namely, effecting more change in the way the government has been run. This is especially true of the economy: many Dems feel that not enough jobs have been created fast enough.

This group of voters includes union members, apparently. As they are in many ways the backbone of the party, it is essential that the Democratic Party wins them over. My biggest concern is that Democrats who may support the party, but not enthusiastically, may not show up at the polls in November. They may feel indifferent about the whole process.

We shall see if the Democrats succeed in rallying their troop on election day.

reply to post by Sestias

The rank and file of the Democratic Party are becoming disillusioned with the status quo -- not because of what the Democratic Congress has done, but rather because of what it hasn't done. Namely, effecting more change in the way the government has been run. This is especially true of the economy: many Dems feel that not enough jobs have been created fast enough.

Yep, the stimulus was not big enough.

Yep, the bailouts of the crony banks and corporations was not enough.

Yep, the theft and breaking the law in regards to GM was not enough.

Yep, tax measures implemented was not enough.

Yep, passing an unConstitutional health care bill was not enough.

Yep, not securing the border, suing a state, and turning them in to the global UN was not enough.

Yep, continuing two wars was not enough.

Yep, continuing the Patriot Act was not enough.

Yep, passing a "supposed" financial reform bill was not enough.

Yep, creating MORE too big to fail components to the economy was not enough.

Alright, I could do this for another two pages, but I think you get the point.
Your OP was quiter humerous, you were shooting for that right?

Also, telling people that they are going to pass Tax Cuts when they are actually just NOT TAX INCREASES, I thought was like ICING on the cake.

I have been spreading that one around, the Dems better not continue to keep using that as a positive, might come back and bite them, just like everything they have done.

Many incumbents and RINO's were the first victims of the tsunami, cannot wait till it reaches November 2nd. Should be quite the calamity.

Heck-listen to Tingles. Even he can see the writing on the wall.

Wow, who is this guy? Certainly not Tingles (Chris Mathews)

Wonder why the statists are running from Obama, heck, why are they running from their own party and their legislation they passed? Kinda begs the question, what were you saying again?

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Sestias

 

.

Alright, I could do this for another two pages, but I think you get the point.
Your OP was quiter humerous, you were shooting for that right?

I wasn't quite shooting for humor, but I was conceding that Obama and the Dems could definitely improve. Maybe we should get the President to write on the blackboard "I will do better" a thousand times

I was indeed inviting responses from all over the political spectrum. I didn't expect I would agree with all of them, but I enjoy civil debate.

I could disagree with you on some things, like the stimulus (which most world economists said was necessary but not big enough) but I think that might be going too far afield for the topic at hand.

Thanks for your input.

reply to post by Sestias


Speaking as a Democrat I can honestly say that I agree with them. I am not enthusiastic at all about voting this November.

The Democrats gave us legislation and many on the outside say we should be happy about this legislative achievements but the Left made it quite clear what our demands were from a Legislature that holds huge majorities. We saw them go for a Stimulus program that was half-ass, a health care bill that was broken down into corporate welfare, a regulations bill that did not do anything important and handed over a Consumer Protection Agency to the claws of the Federal Reserve.

While at the same time the wars continue in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Patriot Act is still in law, Guantanamo is still open, the government can now assassinate legal citizens, the military budget is still massive, transparency has not occurred in Washington, the same old game of politics which is based around power is still in play.

China keeps raping us in trade, we have tax incentives to ship jobs overseas, the economy is still not growing appropriately, jobs have not come back, poverty has went up, the deficit if still over 1 trillion.

And all the while even the Democrats are either running away from or not talking about their own legislation and are to cowardly to call out politicians for being in bed with Wall Street. What exactly is there for us Democrats to be enthusiastic about? The only possible motivator is to know what this country would be like under a Tea Party driven GOP.

At least the Tea Party is seeing the Republicans shake in the fear that if they don't listen to their base they will be kicked out of office. The Democrats have become complacent, as if power if naturally supposed to be theirs so they can do half-ass with it.

The Unions and the people who belong to a Union know what a Tea Party backed GOP in charge would do to them, but they also know that voting for the Democrats have yielded no results. We are stuck in a two-party limbo where on one side, The Right, they are making their voices heard while on the other side, The Left, they are remaining silent at home letting the party act stupid and attack the base.

Right now it is the Republicans turn to feel the wrath of their base, next it will be the Democrats and boy-o-boy I can't wait.

This little tidbit made me chuckle.

A.F.L.-C.I.O. leaders say that they will spend around $50 million on races in 26 states and that unions already have 1,500 full-time campaign workers on the ground. The service employees have budgeted $44 million for the election, while other unions will spend tens of millions of dollars more. All told, labor strategists say their ground troops will make more than 10 million phone calls to members’ homes, distribute millions of fliers at workplaces and knock on millions of doors.

NYTimes That is alot of money to be spent and the worry is corporations donating? Smells like hypocrisy to me. This shows me just how far from reality politics is. The labor unions have gone way beyond their original purpose. The unions were supposed to protect workers from unfair labor practices. Who will protect the rest of us from the unions and their practices?

having been in a union for more than 10 years i can honestly say i hate the ever living hell out of them.

unions have done more harm to this country than you people do think.

when it comes to a union the only thing you people are doing is trading one set of masters for another,

and when it comes to union jobs its a union job you have no choice but to become union.

then theres the subject of union dues current or back dues and so on and so forth.

i think its insane that the only problem that left has with obama is that hes not left enough i think your all forgetting the fact that hes not just "your guy" in office but has the responsiblity for others in this country other than you people.

its not his job to keep taking and taking and stuffing your pockets and leaving others empty.

the simple fact you people are too greedy and to quote your "god" obama " at some point YOU have taken enough.

if the lefts actions are left unckecked there will be no business left in this country or banking or rich

then i ask you people who is going to give you a job a loan on your homes or have a group of people who you can steal from the "so called rich" once those people are gone and they will be gone the only game left in town is your federal government and guess what THERE AINT ENOUGH TO GO AROUND FOR EVERYBODY

the end result of all you want everything you want is poverty.

those people who arent in unions who are living on food stamps or social security ARE LIVING IN POVERTY.

if you people get your way that WILL BE THE LIFE YOU LEAD.

once the rich are gone it will be the unions once the unions are gone it will be the middle class once the middle class is gone kiss your butts goodbye welcome to all the fruits of your labors have accomplished.

me i want the democrats and liberals to lose their azzes and hopefully it will be due the the teaparties and once the teaparties start screwing up and they will its the system we have it will be time to kick them out

its the nature of the game and its sad really because those people do view it as a game.

i view it as playing god.

reply to post by neo96

In the 1950's the "rich" and corporations were paying a higher tax rate than they are now. Yet they were proud to be Americans and were not moving overseas. I would like to return to the economic conditions of the 1950's and early 1960's. At that time unions were pushing up wages for the lowest paid workers, which increased the wages for the workers on the next rung of the ladder, and so forth.

The result was a huge boost to the economy as more and more people, becoming able to afford them, created great consumer demand for things like better food, cars, household appliances, etc. Factories were turning these goods out as fast as they could as the demand for their products rose. The whole economy was humming.

At this time, the middle class was growing by leaps and bounds as more and more people moved up the income ladder. Today it is shrinking.

There is much to be said for a vital and growing middle class.

A middle class tax cut, which would amount to about $500-$2,500 per household, depending on your income, will hardly "redistribute" the wealth of the top 2% of the population. It will just give a little boost to the average working family. Right now, the middle class is supporting the whole government, paying a much higher percentage of their income than the rich. Even Warren Buffet says his secretary pays more of her income in taxes than he does.

"Trickle down" economics, or as Bush Sr. called them, "voodoo" economics, has had its day and the result has been disastrous for the average American. The money just doesn't trickle down the way it's supposed to. It stays with the top 2%. They invest it or save it or buy property overseas, etc. For every $100 of upper class tax cuts the government recoups only $40 in increased economic activity. The middle class pays for these cuts, not the rich, who have lawyers with nothing else to do but find tax loopholes for their clients.

On the other hand, money that is available for the middle and working classes tends to go right back into the economy as it, by necessity, has to be spent more quickly. What we need is a vital middle class to stimulate the economy with consumer demand.

No, asking the rich to pay more of their fair share of taxes will neither bankrupt them nor be the end of the United States. But this country will be revitalized by a healthy and growing middle class.

BTW: My experience with unions has been more positive than yours. One that I have belonged to didn't do a lot to benefit me, but the modest union dues have hardly been a drain on my income and by and large I am better off in total for being a member.

reply to post by Sestias


those days are long over and they will never return.

the idea of the union was a noble one when it began but like everything else it was corrupted in my opinion the interest any union works for is its own self interest not the people its supppose to be helping.

unions are the biggest part of why jobs go overseas because its just too expensive to be here. slam me for this if you want but a business exists to make money and there was a time when it was without a union you cant produce or exist well the reality of todays businesses is that companies or corporations do say and have said we dont need you "being unions".

if you sit there are really think about what it takes to run a successful company: taxes,regulations,insurances utilites,benefits and so on and so forth any businessmen knows that if your paying 60 or 70 or 80 percent or 90 percent to your workers whats the point of even existing.

they exist to make money to make a living
workers exist to make money to make a living

i can admit in the past there was greed on the part of the companies or corporations

but now its is the non stop greed of the unions.

people can not have every single thing they want it just doesnt work that way and unions of today wont recognize this fact.

so this is why they move overseas. to me its not the corporations faults they are trying to exist in the most unfriendly environments of the world.

there will come a day when unions have "priced themselves out of existence" if left unchecked.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Sestias

 

there will come a day when unions have "priced themselves out of existence" if left unchecked.

I completely agree, and have been saying it for years. At one point in history we needed Unions to stand up for the workforce, but today we have regulations that businesses must abide by, and Unions are asking for too much. Just last week I was listening to a debate between the New Jersey Governor, and a teacher who was part of the Teachers Union. Listen to this clip. It's absolutely eye-opening. It's a MUST SEE.

Governor Chrstie Responds to Teacher during Town Hall Meeting

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Sestias

 

those days are long over and they will never return.

Au contraire mon frere.
It's "trickle down" economics that's days are numbered. There are many voters in this country who would like to see the return of the prosperous middle class.

It is because of "liberal" policies that were in place in the 50's and early 60's that this country enjoyed that period of growth and prosperity. It will be liberal policies that will bring these days back.

Much as the far right and the tea partiers want to hold on to the "good old days" of Reagan and Bush and corporate and personal greed, the disaffected voters of this country want a revitalized middle class.

reply to post by 2manyquestions


Do you think it is right to underpay those who have the welfare and the education of the next generation in their hands? In this society we ask everything from these public servants, including the dedication of their whole minds and lives. Should we begrudge them decent pay and benefits?

Chris Christie just wants to puff up his image as a "union buster" in order to appeal to the far right.

First the unions are corporations. they are labor supply corporations. and most are as corrupted and any big business in the US.

In many states you will find as many registered republican union members as democrats.

In some states like Texas where you find a lot of hunters you find little support for the democrats among union members.

A lot of union members are seeing how the treehuggers and anti gun types running the democratic party are doing them more harm then good.

When the democrats DRIVE companies overseas with over regulation and punitive taxes the unions loose any chance for those jobs.

Even if the companies are not driven overseas these same over regulation and punitive taxes take money from the companies that the unions could bargain for.

There are almost no union miners in the western states because the unions were backing anti mining democrats and the rank and file members kicked out the unions because of it. 98% of the miners working in the trade on the west coast are now republican.
It does not create any jobs if you support democrats that are against the trade you are working in.

reply to post by ANNED

Yeah, my state is a so-callled "right to work" state -- in other words, it's hostile to unions. It's true that many businesses have relocated here because of cheap labor and not having to provide benefits of any kind.

People here might have jobs, but they are paid half as much as union workers in New England.

My brother was fortunate to land a job in a factory that was unionized. It made a lot of difference in his standard of living and especially his benefits.

If people in the south and midwest don't join unions in it's because they know if they do they can get penalized or even fired. They'd rather work for almost nothing than have no job at all.

I saw a documentary on Walmart, in which they showed cameras which are actually installed on their roofs in order to spy on their employees who might be organizing in the parking lots or outside the store. It's called, I believe, "The High Cost of Low Prices" or something similar. Walmart, of course, provides few or no health benefits and they actively encourage their employees to apply for Medicaid, food stamps, etc. because their salaries are so low.

Great, huh, making the government carry the cost of the benefits they should be providing for their workers? So we all end up paying taxes to support Wal-Mart's workers while they pay them as little as they can get away with.

And this is now the American way to do business?