Why so serious...winners and losers of health-care reform.

obama has certainly been applying a textbook ass-kicking to republican party as of late.

 

I really don't care. I think the republicans are worse than the democrats as they sell out when they claim they don't.

 

Labor Unions have done wonders for America. You brought up Akron and Detriot. Why do you think large companies outsourced these jobs overseas besides the tax breaks?? So these companies can destory labor unions. Why do you think Walmart has been known for shutting down stores when employees have talked about creating labor unions.

Labor Unions were vitial to our country in the late 1800's to early 1900's. Unions aren't as strong anymore since companies have learned how to destory them....

 

Rocketman1981,

In the future, when you start spouting complete horses***, don't do it in one of my areas of expertise. For future reference, those areas would include business, computers, and drug policy.

Not in the days of the robber barons, no. As a result of government regulation of and union intervention in the free market, this is the case today.

Again, this is the case NOW, after the government has already regulated and the unions have intervened and changed the way businesses were run. The regulation and intervention I am talking about happened as a direct result of the robber barons' egregoius behavior.

You are absolutely free to make that choice today, the government doesn't bar you from working as much as you want. However, government regulation allows you to make that choice because businesses are no longer allowed to require you to work over 40 hours per week without overtime. These regulations were put in place because the robber barons you are defending quite literally worked people to death.

Partially because businesses kept their practices as secret as possible (there was no information superhighway at the time) and there was no other company to buy the products from because THE ROBBER BARONS WERE MONOPOLISTS! If you wanted gas, the only place to go was Standard Oil, if you needed steel, the only option was US Steel.

Because there were no other options. Many, MANY companies engaged in these practices until unions intervened and government regulated.

While I share some agreement about politicians' propensities for robbery and while I completely agree about bribes in the form of "campaign contributions," you are completely ignorant of history.

If you had any knowledge of history, you would see that the people GIVING money to politicians are the present day robber barons, much as they were when the robber barons were giving money to Congress in the early 1900s.

 

I re-read this and realized why I don't write for a living.

What I'm trying to say is that in a third world country, the government is irrelevant because (for the argument of market purpose), it's just a tool used by companies. The "moat" Rocketman was talking about is an effect of such a relationship. The US government had similarly, sided with corporations and it wasn't until the early 20th's century that it decided to be an arbitrator between Unions and Corporations.

Re reading your posts, I think Rocketman and I have different definition of what a robber baron is. I think of a robber baron as someone who is against a free market, likes monopolies, use the government to their advantage through direct connections...etc. Bill Gates is no robber baron.

 

They had a much freer market in Sinclair's time, which led to meat packers engaging in practices that would shock the conscience today. The system we have today is a direct result of the regulation that government placed on business.

In this age, the standards aren't that poor because government stepped in. The "free market" led to abuses that government then corrected.

No, we regulate because it has been proven conclusively that in the absence of regulation, businesses will ALWAYS choose the cheaper option. Even if it means that people will die, business will choose the cheap way out because to them, the only thing that is important is the bottom line.

If you dispute anything in the above paragraph, then you are trying to deny reality.

 

If companies were allowed to operate in a "free market," absent government regulation, the monopoly simply reduces its profits and operates at a loss until the smaller competitor is out of money and can no longer stay in business. This type of behavior was exactly what the robber barons did, which led to Sherman, which is the government regulation that forced and end to the robber barons' execrable practices.

 

I don't think he has ever worked for a large company before. In any field, bottom line is the key to everything. It's more important than anyone's safety.

 

Your alternate reality is a fanciful, idyllic place of which Rand would be proud.

Unfortunately, the rest of us have to live in the real world, where we have been regulating businesses for the benefit of the consumer for centuries. Government has never "stayed out of business" and any exhortations to the contrary are fiction.

 

Keeping watching your MSNBC buddy. Mark my words unemployment will be higher in 2012 and Obama will be voted out. If you consider growing our debt faster in one year then any president, wasting all of our money and lying to the American people over and over again an ass-kicking then yeah he is giving us all a good ass-kicking. And we will beat his ass out come 2012.

 

Of course, what you ignore is how we got to where we are now. I tend to agree about the current usefulness of most unions, but they were an integral part of how we got OUT of the robber baron era. Collective bargaining is one of the huge steps that allowed workers to cease being little more than indentured servants to their company.

Unfortuantely, your opinion appear to be based in a world replete with unicorns, wizards, and flying purple pigs. The rest of us live in the real world where your opinion is demonstrably false.

 

Again, you are ignoring history. If businesses were allowed to operate under pre-Sherman rules, the monopoly could (and in reality did) lower its prices under the new competitor, drive them out of business, and then raise prices again to make up the losses.

This was SOP for Standard Oil.

 

You don't own a textbook do you? Sounds like everything you know came out of Atlas Shrugged.

 

Let me guess. GladiatorRowdy works for the government?

I disagree that it was government mandates/unions that created the lifestyle we enjoy today. I believe the productivity increases through capitalism allowed wealth to be spread around and those people desired a lifestyle.

They were able to be very productive as technology and free market advances created significant wealth and they desired free time.

Just a completely different opinion about these matters.

I think people in a wealthier society wants more cleanliness, lifestyle and there is a greater opportunity cost as a free market creates new jobs and opportunities for those that want to work hard.

 

Consider your words marked.

Please tell me how you came to this > 10.1% unemployment in 2012 number?

I'm sure your model is quite complex.

I'd like to see it.

 

I haven't had MSNBC or Faux "News" on my television ever or CNN since the Ike evacuation.

On unemployment, I think you are wrong, but only time will tell. Obama losing in 2012 would be monumental, given that he just passed the biggest reform in 40 years. In order for this to happen, the GOP will have to win over people like me, moderates who have never been married to either party. Let's just say they have a LONG way to go.

You probably already know this, but your statement is factually not true. 60% of today's deficit is the direct result of Bush policies.

Where exactly has Obama directly wasted ANY of our money, much less all of it?

WTF are you talking about? Do you (like your GOP bretheren) just make up **** and hope that stupid people will believe it because you repeated it over and over again?

The only way this will happen is for a damned fantastic candidate to emerge from the ranks of the GOP. I am not hopeful, but would welcome a Republican candidate that I would consider voting for. I won't hold my breath, though.

 

You are wrong yet again. Batting 1.000 today, though. At least you're consistent.

You are simply ignorant of history if you actually believe this. At the very least, the unions were instrumental in getting government to regulate, among other things...

-The end of child labor in the US
-Establishing the eight-hour day
-Protecting workers’ safety and health
-Helping create Social Security, unemployment insurance and the minimum wage

No, unions formed because of the egregious business practices of the time, engaged in collective bargaining with business and government to change the law, regulate businesses, and end the aforementioned practices.

It isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of you ignoring demonstrable facts.

I know that businesses will do whatever they can to save money in order to create wealth for their shareholders.

Whoever taught you your opinion was wrong. Please get some education, you need it desperately.

 

the previous president was a businessman. he was very successful running that and the country

 

I'd be shocked if unemployment was higher in 2012, and it means very bad things for this country if it is, considering the amount of money invested in trying to get new jobs. I do believe Obama will have a fight on his hands in 2012 though, assuming the GOP puts forth someone better then Sarah Palin.