Originally posted by Mrs. JB I think an equally valid (and rarely discussed) concern is what happens if a future terrorist attack is tied to us waging war on Iraq? It can't have escaped most politicians that a war on Iraq will very likely lead to an escalation of tensions between America/Israel and many Muslim countries. As we've seen with Israel and Palestine the constant volley of attack and retaliation has done nothing to end the terrorism. It has only served to escalate the situation. So what happens to our two-party system if a majority Republican-backed war leads to further terrorist attacks? (I suspect nothing, but it is worth asking in the context of this discussion). I think it is a very valid discussion point also. I don't think anything will happen, because there are many instances where we have blundered (both parties) in this fashion, with few repurcussions. The problem is that its a tenuous connection...i.e. trying to prove cause/effect...in those circumstances. Gore's in a tough spot. I read his speech. Reports of it seemed to imply that he's anti-war and 'unsupportive' of the President. There certainly was some political crap in it (like the mention of the deficit), but much of what he said about Iraq was very level-headed and potentially sage. He may truly have expressed his convictions (more cerebral than GW for sure) and serious reservations about GW's approach, yet he didn't get much credit for the content, and criticisms of it mildly hinted of being 'anti-American'. So in effect, although his speech may actually be based on much more sound rationale than GW's approach, he and the Democratic Party could get lambasted if his speech is simply (and superficially) characterized as 'anti-war', and then Iraq is implicated in 'something' later.
In the event of another terror attack that would be connected to Iraq there is no doubt that the democratic party would suffer. Immediately following 9-11 82% of the American public polled was behind President Bush. If there was another attack (God forbid) say by Iraq, and the President is meeting harsh liberal criticism before the event I wouldn't go as far as to say it would be their death but I do believe they would become irrelevant. At least until the country begins to heal. But I myself, wouldn't jump up and down because neither party satisfies all my concerns.
Another thing that is interesting to point out...like what he said or not, Gore's voice in this was one many Dems have been wanting for a while now. There are still a lot of democrats out there who wish their leadership would show some balls and stand up to conservatives out there. They want the party of Martin Luther King, Jr, JFK and Bobby Kennedy, not the party of Bill Clinton no matter how popular he was. There is still a strong contingent of loyal dems who want to see the party speaking out against social injustice and who feel the democratic party has gotten too cozy with business. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I do agree with one thing and that is the Dems lack leadership. Clinton was charasmatic which made him popular but he wasn't a "fear not what your country can do for you" or a "you, sir, are no Jack Kennedy" democrat. I know a lot of people in that party who were dying for a higher up (outside of actual party governing body who don't really matter) to get pissed off and blow off some steam. In some ways, Daschle's outburst was a mirror of Gore's and he did it because it was overwhelmingly supported within the party.
I think we need only one party...in fact only one ruler...the Refman administration FOREVER!!!!! The world would be a much better place.
Jeff Quote:: Ultimately, it's all politics. The GOP will continue to suck up to the far right and big business. The Dems will continue to suck up to the trial attornies and labor unions. The world will turn. The sun will shine. And, all will remain exactly as it is until we decide that we're tired of the same **** over and over again. **** Cohen: Thats takes care of the contributions, not votes. Jeff, I really don't understand what you are saying unless it is what Cohen is seems to be saying that you don't like the money contributions of conservatives, big business, unions or trial attornies, Nader is basically one. If you are saying you want a politics devoid of great influence by these blocks, you are saying a pox on everyone and what do you have? There are just enough people left who don't fit your disliked groups to amount to much. It is a fantasy that there are enough people with your own views on the issues to have a majority party. For instance the great majority of progressive people,though perhaps less in the South like unions as they are the people who brought us the weekend, the 40 hr week, workplace safety and a large middle class. BTW your hostile attitudes toward unions puzzles me given your otherwise support I assume for good pay, health care and working conditions for most people. Have you always been self employed? As far as Cohen's worry. So the Democratic party loses for awhile because it has priniples which are temporarily unpopular or even is wrong on an issue. It will bounce back. People are bound to eventually tire of a party whose main goal is tax breaks for the wealthy and low inflation regardless of how many people are out of work. If the Demorats falter for awhile the conservatives/Republicans will push this agenda to the appoint where there is a backlash.
Wow...so much to respond to...better get to it. Now that workplace conditions are an animal of Federal law and NOT collective bargaining I guess the unions have outlived their usefulness. Now labor unions have become what big business has always been about...the eternal quest for more. I can't believe I have to explain this. The tax cut was across the board. You conveniently left out the THOUSANDS of low income families that were taken off the tax rolls entirely by the tax cut. Of COURSE the wealthy are going to have a larger cut IN NOMINAL DOLLARS. 15% of the people pay 55% of the taxes. So if you have an across the board tax cut, those 15% will have a larger cut in NOMINAL DOLLARS. The important thing is to look at the percentage of the tax bill cut. You'll find that the less a taxpayer makes, the larger the percentage tax reduction. It makes mathematic sense. Instead of saying what I just did, Bush described it as "fuzzy math." I can only assume he did this because the average Joe will have a hard time sorting through it. The average Joe (nobody here falls into that category) gets their news from 15 second sound bites and has the attention span of a fruit fly. Rampant inflation is a hallmark of an economy on the brink of collapse. Check out Argentina and the former Soviet Union where people would spend their pay IMMEDIATELY because it would buy so much less the very next day if they waited. IMO you want to keep inflation low (anything above 3% spells BIG trouble) and keep interest rates stable (but low) in order to foster an environment where business can thrive and people will be put to work. That is the Republican theory as well. So the conservatives don't care about the people? I disagree with the Dems 98% of the time, and I would never insinuate that they didn't care about the people. If this is the way you feel...then you have no objectivity and nothing of substance to add to the discussion. BTW...the current recession started in March 2000, when Clinton was still in office. The recession is NOT Bush's fault...but it isn't Clinton's fault either. If you really feel the need to blame somebody for the normal business cycle we've had for hundreds of years (which I don't recommend) then blame Alan Greenspan. He's the guy in charge of monetary policy...you know...the same guy Clinton had in there.
OK, then I'll insinuate it. When you listen to some of the top leadership it is obvious that they are in this whole thing to self promote and to enable the "little man" to be dependant on the gub'mint. They then try to get the "little man" out to vote thus ensuring their survival. As a firm believer in social Darwinism I respect that. But as a dude that disagrees with 90 percent of their collective philosophy it bugs the hell out of me. There was a time when the Democrats were great, healthy, patriotic rivals to the Republicans. Read this speech by JFK: (He was a Dem) Let every nation know. . .whether it wishes us well or ill. . . that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge. . .and more. Sounds a lot more like Ashcroft than Jacks own snotty little brother, Teddy. JFK siad that as a patriot and an AMerican. Not as a Democrat. And I know there are other parts of the spech were he talks about the need and respect for the UN and other stronly Democratic views but oh my God, the most gripping parts of his speech were straight from the mind of Jeb Bush. Or G.W. Or 41. Or REagan. You get my drift. And I undertand that times were different then. Times are always different. But still...The left has drifted farther to the left and the right has headed more distantly right. Most people are somewhere in the middle. Chants
BTW...the current recession started in March 2000, when Clinton was still in office. The recession is NOT Bush's fault...but it isn't Clinton's fault either. Just to clarify -- the current recession began in Q2 2001. Q1 2001 was the first quarter with negative GDP growth, and a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. The economy did begin to slow in Q3 2000, but it was still growing. In March 2000, everything was speeding right along. http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm To also clarify, the recession ended in Q4 2001. However, leading economic trends continued in recession-form and we are now projected to be back in recession possibly Q4 2002 or Q1 2003. Because this was never a consumer-based recession, it didn't really follow "normal" patterns. Now, continued job losses and stock market weakness appear to be leading to a weakening in the consumer sector for the first time. Now that workplace conditions are an animal of Federal law and NOT collective bargaining I guess the unions have outlived their usefulness. Now labor unions have become what big business has always been about...the eternal quest for more. I'm not a big fan of labor unions either, but they serve as a balance to prevent big business from going out of control. Unfortunately, some of them have gotten too powerful and ruined the balance between business and labor. Instead of saying what I just did, Bush described it as "fuzzy math." I can only assume he did this because the average Joe will have a hard time sorting through it. Or because, had he tried to explain it, he would have said something wrong. But yeah, there was nothing wrong with the structure of his tax cut. Personally, my issue was with its size and the concept behind it (it magically went from "we have a surplus - you should get it back" to an "economic stimulus" package that wasn't designed to stimulate the right economics). And I undertand that times were different then. Times are always different. But still...The left has drifted farther to the left and the right has headed more distantly right. Most people are somewhere in the middle. Actually, I think both parties have moved towards center on many issues. For example, you'd never see the Democratic Party today propose something like the New Deal. Democrats don't really even try to support massive new social programs; just little things. Republicans don't really try to shrink government either - they add just as many programs, just in different categories. Both parties have now essentially become about small pork projects.
Now that workplace conditions are an animal of Federal law and NOT collective bargaining I guess the unions have outlived their usefulness. Now labor unions have become what big business has always been about...the eternal quest for more. Refman, your statement on the law regarding workplace conditions is largely wrong. To a limited extent you are right in that some basic workplace coditions are covered by federal law, a employer in a non-union enviroment is still bound by state and federal and municipal statutes--. has to pay minimum wage, overtime, follow OSHA guidelines,etc.-- all these protections have come into place through union organizing in the political realm and unions are constantly pressuring politicians to extend these basic laws governing the work place. Now to the part where you are totally wrong. During collective bargaining provisions of work conditions are bargained for-- the number of hours of vacation for year, whether a worker has a the right to shut down a hazardous work process til a grievance resolves the issue, whether overtime is compulsory, wheher the job provides insurances, such as health, disability, how much sick time, rate of pay and many other issues. In fact may strikes for instance have occurred over work and safety conditions when the rate of pay has been agreed on. As the society becomes more educated we see more and more that unions are not just for laborer types. Nurses and doctors are uionizing more, so are lawyers in such employers as governments. Many of these workers do so despite relatively good pay because they are tired of being subject to be fired by the whim of their bosses, despite years of excellent service etc. Many Texans don't know that under the Texas Employment at Will Doctrine you can be fired for any or no reason at all except for certain laws such as the civil rights laws ad if you have a union contract with a just cause provision. No matter how many years of good service you can be terminated on the spot because the boss had a fight with their spouse for example. Unions can and do have collective bargaining negotiations for termiation about just cause provisions, which give you the right to have a neutral outside arbitrator decide whether under the contract you were fired for just cause or for instance the boss does't like you personally, which would lead to reinstatment.
Well, Refman, I assume you speak as someone who has, at one time or another, picked strawberries for a living? You should try it, and then say unions are irrelevant. I'll admit it. I'm a union member, so I'm biased, and NO, I don't pick strawberries. But I will say, with the 40-hour workweek a bit of nostalgia (for most workers), and with more of us working weekends, I really don't see unions are irrelevant. Sadly, pro sports unions are the highest profile examples, but there are still many many workers who truly need collective bargaining, IMO.
Originally posted by glynch ...Many Texans don't know that under the Texas Employment at Will Doctrine you can be fired for any or no reason at all except for certain laws such as the civil rights laws ad if you have a union contract with a just cause provision. No matter how many years of good service you can be terminated on the spot ... Can't you quit a company on the spot, no matter how many years they trained you and provided good pay?
glynch -- it works both ways...if the employee wants to pick up..no matter how much I've invested in him/her...he/she can...they can move on to the highest bidder. and if i want to keep him/her around, i have to up his/her salary...thus, the market rewards the employee if he/she is marketable...even if he/she is marketable solely from the training i invested in.
Cohen, madmax, you've got the employer's argument down. The question is whether we run the country primarily for the benefit of the relatively few owners or give some countervailing rights besides the freedom to quit and not have a job for the vast majority who are employees. Unions are the best way to do this unless you want thousands of regulations as they are at the job. Also it is good for employees to realize how few rights they have without unions. Nothing wrong with having the facts about the law, right? .
what rights do the owners have other than the right to fire, which is balanced by the counter-right to walk off the job whenever they like? are you proposing a union for virtually every job in america??
I have an idea. Let's regulate the hell out of everything to give workers more rights...like saying they don't have to be competent. The paperwork alone will cost so much that many companies will not be able to stay afloat without chrging prices more than people are willing to pay. Let's see how many people have jobs then. There is a price to be paid for every decision made. In this scenario the price will be paid by the little guy you so dearly wish to protect.
Um, let's see: * right to set the preponderance of rules on site * right to determine salary structure (above minimum) * right to distribute profits as owner sees fit * right to employ as few people as possible * right to give big chunks of money to both political parties so as to assure a labor-hostile nation * right to sell or close company at a moments notice Actually, I don't know of any unions who, on paper, try to save the jobs of incompetant people. Unions don't get automatic rights for their workers. Owners do as they please, and unions can file grievances. Decently-prepared grievances usually go to arbitrators, and the arbitrators (in nearly all cases) are parties agreed upon by both labor and management. It is VERY difficult for a union to win a grievance for a completely incompetant person. Believe me, if I was on the management side, I would hate unions. They would completely get in my way. I understand that. But I truly think they do a little more good for working humans than they do bad for management. And besides, look around you: management is truly "winning" this debate in the US of A. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe total union membership continues to decline nation-wide. (Perhaps because of major shifts in labor sectors -- i.e. manufacturing to service). edit: what was this thread about again? Good topic at any rate!
I was just responding to the 'fire at will' issue. Fire at will and quit at will sound pretty even to me. And FWIW, every stockholder is an 'owner', so it's not like only a few lucky souls benefit from efficiently run corporations, everyone's pension does also. As for the unions, well, some goods...some bads. Much more helpful in the past.
wait, wait, wait...those are all private property rights, save one!!! those aren't employee/employer rights!!! right to employ as few people as possible??? do you really wanna change that one??? the only one that isn't a private property right (though it sorta still is) is the right to donate to political parties...excuse me, but don't individuals/employees have that right too??? that's not a special right reserved for employers. believe me...i have 3 employees...they have me as much over the barrell as i do them...if my paralegal leaves, she's not easily replaced...and a good part of her value is the time and resources i invested in her to train her for our particular field...i don't think the deck is stacked against her. it would cost me all of that all over again to hire and train someone to replace her.
