Moore On Wealthy People's Money: "That's Not Theirs, That's A National Resource, It's Ours"

reply to post by Aim64C

Unfortunately, you are trotting out union stereotypes which depict them at their worst, and don't account for bad management. Secondly, your Pollyanna vision of lowered cost of living accounts neither for the looting of the middle class, best exemplified by your foreclosures, and the wretched state of your economy. The rich keep getting richer and everybody else gets poorer. Theory ain't treating you guys too well, so I wouldn't be hanging my hat on it.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Blaming all of society's ills on unions is bad economics....

But who said unions are to blame for all of society's ills?

Certainly wasn't me.

All I have said is that since unions got to share a good piece of the economic gain over the years, it is now time to also share some of the economic pain.

That is not accomplished by eliminating collective bargaining.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by Aim64C

 

Unfortunately, you are trotting out union stereotypes which depict them at their worst, and don't account for bad management. Secondly, your Pollyanna vision of lowered cost of living accounts neither for the looting of the middle class, best exemplified by your foreclosures, and the wretched state of your economy. The rich keep getting richer and everybody else gets poorer. Theory ain't treating you guys too well, so I wouldn't be hanging my hat on it.

To be fair, I don't think the current state of our economy can be blamed on globalism or unions. Globalism is simply a different way to do things (quantity over quality, etc) and the notion to blame unions is just silly.

Our current disaster was caused by the banking industry and Wall Street gamblers. We keep finding these other things to blame but you can't get around the fact that they caused it, refused to prevent it, then profited (profiting) from it. I think the very fact that people are grasping for other targets is a testament to the effectiveness of the owned news giants.

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by Aim64C

 

Unfortunately, you are trotting out union stereotypes which depict them at their worst, and don't account for bad management. Secondly, your Pollyanna vision of lowered cost of living accounts neither for the looting of the middle class, best exemplified by your foreclosures, and the wretched state of your economy. The rich keep getting richer and everybody else gets poorer. Theory ain't treating you guys too well, so I wouldn't be hanging my hat on it.

To be fair, I don't think the current state of our economy can be blamed on globalism or unions. Globalism is simply a different way to do things (quantity over quality, etc) and the notion to blame unions is just silly.

The simple fact that the well-paying jobs in the industrial sector have migrated overseas without a realistically proportional reduction in cost...like the automobile sector, for example...attests to the effects of globalism on the economy. Not to mention quality...disposable appliances and toxic drywall, etc, etc.

So, nice to know one can afford foreign-made junk...too bad it's junk.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by Aim64C

 

Unfortunately, you are trotting out union stereotypes which depict them at their worst, and don't account for bad management. Secondly, your Pollyanna vision of lowered cost of living accounts neither for the looting of the middle class, best exemplified by your foreclosures, and the wretched state of your economy. The rich keep getting richer and everybody else gets poorer. Theory ain't treating you guys too well, so I wouldn't be hanging my hat on it.

To be fair, I don't think the current state of our economy can be blamed on globalism or unions. Globalism is simply a different way to do things (quantity over quality, etc) and the notion to blame unions is just silly.

The simple fact that the well-paying jobs in the industrial sector have migrated overseas without a realistically proportional reduction in cost...like the automobile sector, for example...attests to the effects of globalism on the economy. Not to mention quality...disposable appliances and toxic drywall, etc, etc.

So, nice to know one can afford foreign-made junk...too bad it's junk.

I would be hard pressed to find reasons to defend globalism so I won't even try. I was simply saying where the blame of our current financial situation should be placed. I would prefer so see a hybrid of globalism and self-sustainability. Like maybe food, energy, and mining all local and then trade outside for some of the other toys. Right now we are imbalanced and not sustainable (corporate capitalism, baby!) but the blame for the recession is not on the shoulders of globalism. And it sure as heck isn't on unions, either.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Blaming all of society's ills on unions is bad economics....

But who said unions are to blame for all of society's ills?

Certainly wasn't me.

All I have said is that since unions got to share a good piece of the economic gain over the years, it is now time to also share some of the economic pain.

That is not accomplished by eliminating collective bargaining.

I think you have to eliminate collective bargaining in order to deal with things like the teacher tenure issues, which is at the heart of the Wisconsin dispute.

Originally posted by centurion1211
I think you have to eliminate collective bargaining in order to deal with things like the teacher tenure issues, which is at the heart of the Wisconsin dispute.

If there is any opportunity for the West to pull out the slump that has been inflicted upon it, we're going to need an educated society. And while tenure should not protect a bad teacher from being fired...why should a person dedicate their education to the profession of teaching if there is no job security at the end? Why should somebody even consider going into teaching if they can't be assured of a steady job? You don't invest in the future by firing teachers whenever there is a tight budget.That's not what you'd call spending smart.

Not to mention the fact that worker's rights account for more than just that one issue. Talk to any steward to get the range of abuses that management is capable of. I know that from experience. Further...collective bargaining goes both ways...both parties put their signature to the document, which is a set of rules for the workplace. Do American workers not deserve a fair work environment? I maintain that no workplace is unionised that doesn't richly deserve it. Obviously that includes the public sector.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by centurion1211
I think you have to eliminate collective bargaining in order to deal with things like the teacher tenure issues, which is at the heart of the Wisconsin dispute.

If there is any opportunity for the West to pull out the slump that has been inflicted upon it, we're going to need an educated society. And while tenure should not protect a bad teacher from being fired...why should a person dedicate their education to the profession of teaching if there is no job security at the end? Why should somebody even consider going into teaching if they can't be assured of a steady job? You don't invest in the future by firing teachers whenever there is a tight budget.That's not what you'd call spending smart.

But tenure does exactly that - protects bad teachers from being fired. And loading the system with bad teachers just about guarantees that our society will NOT be educated to the same level as competing societies. Even you have to admit that is a fact.

And in the private and/or non-union sectors, job security is earned by doing a good job, not for just hanging around the longest. What a concept, eh?

We are also not talking about firing teachers in Wisconsin because there is a tight budget. It's about the ABILITY to get rid of bad teachers and replace them with good teachers. The unions and their supporters say no to that. What are they really protecting? Certainly not the education and welfare of their children.

Come on, none of these concepts are that hard to understand.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by centurion1211
I think you have to eliminate collective bargaining in order to deal with things like the teacher tenure issues, which is at the heart of the Wisconsin dispute.

If there is any opportunity for the West to pull out the slump that has been inflicted upon it, we're going to need an educated society. And while tenure should not protect a bad teacher from being fired...why should a person dedicate their education to the profession of teaching if there is no job security at the end? Why should somebody even consider going into teaching if they can't be assured of a steady job? You don't invest in the future by firing teachers whenever there is a tight budget.That's not what you'd call spending smart.

But tenure does exactly that - protects bad teachers from being fired. And loading the system with bad teachers just about guarantees that our society will NOT be educated to the same level as competing societies. Even you have to admit that is a fact.

And in the private and/or non-union sectors, job security is earned by doing a good job, not for just hanging around the longest. What a concept, eh?

We are also not talking about firing teachers in Wisconsin because there is a tight budget. It's about the ABILITY to get rid of bad teachers and replace them with good teachers. The unions and their supporters say no to that. What are they really protecting? Certainly not the education and welfare of their children.

Come on, none of these concepts are that hard to understand.

I am speaking from experience as a chief steward in a public sector workplace, one who has also negotiated a contract. You can't talk me out of what I know is right, so we'll just have to respectfully agree to disagree. That work for you?

reply to post by ldyserenity

The problem with your rant is that all the "work" you say he did is moot, as 80% of his crockumentaries are B.S. Sitting in a library or interviewing people is not "work." The fact that he's a freaking Communist means nothing?

reply to post by MisterMiyagi

Did you read what you wrote? "The Rich" is a relative term, after all. I earn money on my investments, and the rich make interest on their money. How do figure they get money from your investments? Moors brought into the light what an economic ignoramus he is when he said that ".....there's only so much money." What a colossal (meant both ways) jewel of economic ignorance. He's just as much a moonbat as Sheen.

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by freedish

Originally posted by Mak Manto


I don't get what people have against him. He has no problem with people wanting to go out and start a business and make money. He has a problem when corporations and certain people lying, cheating and stealing to become wealthy.

That's not a Marxist philosophy...

You aint gunna fix that problem by taxing the rich. people are always gonna lie, cheat, and steal.

And who says all the wealthy people had to lie, cheat, and steal to become wealthy?

Ever heard the saying strengthen those who strengthen you?

Except the middle class hasn't been strengthened, hasn't it? It's only driven a deep gap in which many Americans now feel that there is pretty much only two classes: rich and poor.

The idea to give incentives, bonuses, and cuts to the wealthy in the belief that it'll come down to the middle class is a stupid idea.

Bush tried it once with his tax cuts for the rich, and it didn't help.

So, what, Moore's the bad guy by saying that he feels that these mega-corporations and moguls shouldn't get away with screwing innocent Americans?

That shows you just don't get it, and you've never done any research. Are you going by what you were taught in school or read in a forum? Lowering tax rates has ALWAYS brought more money into the government coffers; it works every time. It worked when Queen Elizabeth the 1st did it, and John Kennedy, and Reagan and Bush Jr. get your facts straight.

What kind of crap is the statement "... our jobs collectively belong to us." And, no, when he said that everyone's money belongs to us all (paraphrased), he meant you, me, our 401K, ALL of it. Odd how when the Left said the middle class was getting smaller, it was because many people had moved UP a class. Why is it that the average "poor" person owns at least one car, over 40% own their own home, have a large screen TV, DVD players, cell phones, etc? By the way, the people he was rooting for aren't the "middle class" according to the IRS. If you're making $100K, you're rich.

reply to post by bigshow
Bigshow wrote "...How many people squawk about paying school taxes when they don't have kids...yet don't recognise the strengths of an educated society. It goes on, and the reward is civilisation. Cut everything, and you have suburban Detroit."

REPLY: Odd that you should mention Detroit. During the past 20 years over half the population has moved away. Detroit hasn't had a Conservative Mayor for over 40 years. Detroit (like Cleveland, Ohio, my home town) has been the testing ground for every Liberal economic, union and social experiment to come down the pike and, like you said, look at the shape it's in.

We are paying more money that ever into our (failed, Liberal, union, government-run) education system, and on average America is 24th in the world in reading, math and science, when just 50 years ago we were number one.

Originally posted by Helmkat

Originally posted by zappafan1
reply to post by Helmkat

 

YOUR wealth is completely controlled by YOU..... except for that which goes to pay for the welfare state and union dues to overpaid state workers.

Nice try.

The wealthy are setting all the rules and making sure that the rest of us don't get to play.

Oh and those overpaid State workers?-Wrong answer- They are doing what all American workers should be doing, getting organized and not letting the rich control THEIR wealth.

REPLY: It's the public unions that set the rules, and those who PAY for it don't get to play. You ignored my statement. Please show us where some company is keeping you from educating yourself, working hard for 14 hours a day, six days a week, and getting "rich" yourself. What the public unions and their government hacks do is nothing more than money laundering. The Mob would love to have it that good, and without the broken knees.. oh, wait..... it's the rest of us who get the broken knees through taxation by the very people the unions promote/hire.

Since what Moore was defending was collective bargaining, could someone please show me where, in our rights, we have the "right" to collective bargaining? It's not there, so you can breathe a sigh of relief. The idea of bargaining, is where a person has a good or service available, and he/she bargains with the person who pays for it, eventually coming to a conclusion/payment that benefits them both. This isn't what happens with public unions, because those who pay for it aren't in the loop, 'nor at the bargaining table.

Considering what the teachers and administrators are paid, and the dismal failure of the kids they are teaching, they are overpaid.

Originally posted by zappafan1
This isn't what happens with public unions, because those who pay for it aren't in the loop, 'nor at the bargaining table.

I'd say you don't write the laws or police the land or put out fires, either. You empower others to do it on your behalf.

Considering what the teachers and administrators are paid, and the dismal failure of the kids they are teaching, they are overpaid.

Do the teachers set the curriculum, or is it set at the state level by elected officials? I donno how it is down there, but I don't know of any teacher who doesn't contribute their own money for class materials, etc. Further, they are constantly upgrading and trying to achieve what they can with limited resources, limited time, and an administrative culture that would rather push a slow kid along to the next level than use remedial efforts. So you wanna fix it by lowering their wages and taking away their job security? Sorry...you get what you pay for.

Enjoy your idiocracy.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by zappafan1
This isn't what happens with public unions, because those who pay for it aren't in the loop, 'nor at the bargaining table.

I'd say you don't write the laws or police the land or put out fires, either. You empower others to do it on your behalf.

Considering what the teachers and administrators are paid, and the dismal failure of the kids they are teaching, they are overpaid.

Do the teachers set the curriculum, or is it set at the state level by elected officials? I donno how it is down there, but I don't know of any teacher who doesn't contribute their own money for class materials, etc. Further, they are constantly upgrading and trying to achieve what they can with limited resources, limited time, and an administrative culture that would rather push a slow kid along to the next level than use remedial efforts. So you wanna fix it by lowering their wages and taking away their job security? Sorry...you get what you pay for.

Enjoy your idiocracy.

edit on 9-3-2011 by JohnnyCanuck because: (no reason given)

REPLY: As a past member and shop steward of the UAW, and past member of the IBEW, I'll say that you are somewhat correct; the states decide what curriculum to use, but the Fed. Dept. of Education plays a role in that. However, considering the hundreds of billions going to education there shouldn't be a need for teachers to purchase anything. Limited time and resources is another matter. 45 years ago class sizes were 38 to 45 kids per class, and there were no shortages of resources, and America was number one in reading math and science. As time has shown, class size plays no part in a "qualified" teachers' ability to educate kids. The administrative culture that pushes a kid along is because the schools get more money for each kid they pass on.

As for those we hire to do things, it wouldn't be difficult to have a citizen council that plays a direct role when bargaining for pay and benefits. It's when you have politicians in power who are IN power because of union votes, that's a form of corruption, and at least violate the Hatch Act... and maybe RICO. Unions, at least here, are all about political power and money (their money) and Socialism/Marxism. Mostly, unions advance the mediocre and fire the achievers, and bargain for more pay/benefits than the job is worth. For instance, a couple of teachers in New York were charged with child molestation, and it took over 1 1/2 years and hundreds of thousands of $$$ to get them fired.

Currently, in New Jersey, going out 30 years, there is a public debt of $300 BILLION in union benefits, which can NEVER be paid. It's mathematics 101. And that is not the fault of "the rich" or anyone else but corruption and politics.

Of course, I understand you may be somewhat limited in what you write, considering that people in Canada no longer are able to speak freely (no freedom of speech.)

Originally posted by zappafan1
Of course, I understand you may be somewhat limited in what you write, considering that people in Canada no longer are able to speak freely (no freedom of speech.)

Yah...that's why life sucks up here. That's why I harangue my lawmakers continually...the sound of jackboots at the door. And howz that ol' Patriot Act treatin' you these days?
Her's a quick quiz on freedom...What's the difference between a Mississippi Riverboat cruise out of NOLA, and a St. Lawrence River cruise out of Quebec City?
In Quebec...they don't search a woman's purse for WMD before boarding.

Our lack of freedoms? Sure...In the words of the prophet..."Don't step in that, Wilbur..."

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

I am speaking from experience as a chief steward in a public sector workplace, one who has also negotiated a contract. You can't talk me out of what I know is right, so we'll just have to respectfully agree to disagree. That work for you?

Yeah, well, if you read my other posts you know I've also been a union member and have seen the waste and sweetheart deals in action, too. You can't convince me to give up what I know is right either.

And thank God that the number of people agreeing with you on screwing the system - the government using taxpayer money in this case - for their own personal gain and the hell with the rest of us is sharply decreasing in the U.S.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by zappafan1
Of course, I understand you may be somewhat limited in what you write, considering that people in Canada no longer are able to speak freely (no freedom of speech.)

Yah...that's why life sucks up here. That's why I harangue my lawmakers continually...the sound of jackboots at the door. And howz that ol' Patriot Act treatin' you these days?
Her's a quick quiz on freedom...What's the difference between a Mississippi Riverboat cruise out of NOLA, and a St. Lawrence River cruise out of Quebec City?
In Quebec...they don't search a woman's purse for WMD before boarding.

Our lack of freedoms? Sure...In the words of the prophet..."Don't step in that, Wilbur..."

REPLY: Hey.... I don't live that far from Canada, and I agree withe the loss of freedom thing' sort of. The Patriot Act was just a grouping of laws that had been, for the most part, on the books for decades. The Security thing IS a bit of a joke. The "racial profiling" thing is all about political correctness. But, our security has to be correct 100% of the time, while a terrorist only has to be right once. Our joke of a homeland security leader is just that.... a joke. Israeli-style profiling would be great, but she says it won't work here..... they're too afraid of attorneys lawsuits. What a shame.