RMM Loc: Suburban New York

My solution is to add one choice on the ballot for each office: "None of the above." If "None of the above" gets more votes than Tweedle-Dum or Tweedle-Dummer, there has to be another election, and neither of the Tweedles is eligible to appear on the ballot.

Hal81 Loc: Bucks County, Pa.

I like that idea.

Mattie

----------------------------------------------

Nacy Pelosi is a nitwit! I wish to gosh she could find something to do with her hands when she talks, they are going in all directions. Now, ya talk about a BIG spenders.... she's one of the best!!! She doesnt care, cause she's a very wealthy woman as it is. All Democrats are BIG spenders!!

PNagy Loc: Missouri City, Texas

"My solution is to add one choice on the ballot for each office: "None of the above." If "None of the above" gets more votes than Tweedle-Dum or Tweedle-Dummer, there has to be another election, and neither of the Tweedles is eligible to appear on the ballot."

Sorry about taking your humorous idea seriously, but politics is dead serious, as it is the art of who gets what at whose expense. Not enough people would dare cast a vote they considered wasted by voting for "None of the Above." Moreover, given the enormous amounts of corporate money in politics, the plutocracy would never tolerate the reform. As a matter of fact, they will fight tooth and nail to preserve the current winner-take-all two party system, because of all the so-called democratic models currently in existence it is the most easily co-opted by legalized corporate bribery.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

You repeatedly make your case against corporations I am wondering if you can explain to us how the influence of public unions on our political system is of benefit to the American people. It would seem to me that we are facing a solvency crisis in states and municipalities across the country where politicians have conceded far to much to these unions so that they could remain in power leaving the taxpayers of those communities facing the stark realities of the aftermath, but I am sure that I am mistaken and you can explain to me why these unions have worked towards the betterment of my community and to the quality of life that I enjoy.

Also please explain to us how corporations do not represent vast groups of Americans, as the last time I checked Mircosoft and Apple represent 10's of millions of shareholders across the nation.

PNagy Loc: Missouri City, Texas

I have repeatedly done what you request. Without the work of unions there would be no Fair Labor Standards Act, no right to collective bargaining, and four year old children would be working in coal mines.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

You have done no such thing, there are currently volumes of laws and regulations on the books that prohibit the workplace conditions that you speak of... And, yes at one time in this country the unions helped in the creation of these changes, but that does not seem to be the modern paradigm with unions and again, you avoid my questions with your own deflection, I asked specific questions that you did not answer but you threw out employment conditions that have not existed in this country for some 100 years as a defense of the rhetoric that you bring here daily...

Sorry but you will have to do better than that.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

It seems to me that the problem in the communities is the collapse of the tax base with the collapse of the housing market. Unions in these munis have agreed to cuts in pay and benefits ala Wisconsin but the goal there was not economic viability but rather destruction of the union.

The Governor was in the pocket of the Koch brothers (this documented both in written word and on video).

People should get a fair wage for fair work. Think not, just try one day on the back of the truck!

ole sarg Loc: south florida

I can see no reason to conclude that business has changed in its goal to maximize profits (what it's goal should be) and to do this pay as little as possible.

Get rid of the unions and the laws and regs and I believe we will see a return to the gilded age. Something I do not believe you endorse.

Notice that since the decline in unions that the average household is earning less than it did 15 years ago.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Sarge, the decline in unions and average household income although occurring contemporaneously are not related. We have exported much of our economy to China and emerging markets and have done little to make adjustments in our economy to remain competitive. Did we really think that we could become the retailers of the world and maintain our economic dominance while only selling to ourselves the products that other's produce?

The problems we face as a country are complex and the political sound bites that we are fed are not going to solve anything. Neither is the direction set in DC as I can not recall such pandering and division that has been created by our political masters... Is it any surprise that as we open our markets that our standard of living is lower? Just what did we think was going to happen? Do you really think that if unions push the price of labor up that it will have no consequences? Of course it will, it will benefit those of the union at the expense of all others... period there is no getting around that fact. Union prices create less demand for the products that they produce, given the current environment those prices shift the demand to products that are produced overseas, hence we see most of everything that we buy being produced by foreign manufacturers...

Unless you are going to reestablish a tariff system at great expense to the American consumer unions will do nothing except raise the prices of domestic goods and services and cause fewer jobs to be produced as when those prices rise demand is lessened and fewer workers are need to provide those goods and services.

Pnagy goes on and on about what unions have done for the workers of this country and both you and he have made some valid historical points, but times are different now, we have a myriad of laws and regulations regarding sick leave, insurance benefits, OSHA, minimum wage laws, family leave, discriminatory practices... break periods granted for hours worked, there are ample laws on the books that mitigate the abuses of the past... so that side of the argument becomes less important than getting American back to work and unions do not do that, if anything they put people out of work... so be clear sarge, you are arguing for an advantaged status for a particular class of worker that comes at the expense of other classes of workers and often at the expense of capital investment into particular demographic areas or industries as capital will often seek to avoid heavily unionized areas or industry.

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

PNagy, I'm quite serious about my "None of the above" suggestion. I want the political parties to put up candidates with real credentials and positions, and it could take away the advantage of incumbency. "I voted you in when you first ran because you said you'd do such-and-such, and you didn't. Your opponent is a jerk. Neither of you deserves my vote." If voters sulk and stay home, they cede the choice to those who show up at the voting booth. My proposal gives the disappointed voters a powerful means to force real choices.

Blurryeyed, I'm not disagreeing that unions have gone too far, just as businesses have, but get rid of the unions and watch those laws and regulations that are in place, including those that you agree with, get repealed.

Mattie

Im not sure if it's Stockton, Calif. or which city it was in California that is bankrupt.... totally... they said the unions refused to take a cut in their retirement money therefore, they are at a loss as what to do. The city simply cannot function now!

The unions at one time, were very good for this country.... but not any more. They have become greedy and when you want to get rid of a bad worker... you SIMPLY CANNOT FIRE them..... cause the union is there to protect good workers as well as bad ones.

A place of business simply cannot survive paying the wages the unions want. They cannot. Why do you think Wal Mart has fought for years to not be union based? If they were.. all the products in those stores would double in price to pay for their union benefits and wages. They simply cannot afford it.

Look at Jeffrey Immelt, who is Obama's job czar... he has most all of his GE products made in China. Then watch Obama yell from the roof tops about Romney sending work to China while at Bain, and that is a big fat lie... Romney was long gone from Bain at that time... Obama can't have it both ways. He depends on the unions to support him.... Look at the teacher's unions, that SEIU, one of the bigger unions who screamed from the hill tops... VOTE OBAAMMMMMMA !!!! If I am not mistaken he helped organize that union.

The unions now have sold their products down the drain. They became too powerful and demanded too much to where everything is sky high.. Do you wanna pay outta the nose for things so the union headhonchos make a fortune and those union men make 75.00 an hour???? You may want to .. but I sure as heck don't.

thegrover Loc: Yorba Linda, CA

One of mine too.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I do not argue to get rid of unions in general, if workers see a need to organize then that is certainly within their rights, what I do disagree with is public sector unions as even FDR said that they can't exist as he foresaw the corrupting influence that is inherent in their relationship with the politicians who are responsible in negotiating their contracts. I also find it abhorrent that in many of our states one has to pay a portion of their salaries to an organized syndicate simply for the natural right to work and provide for themselves and their families, no matter that given their own free will they may choose not to.

Federal regulations regarding unions have long been stacked in the favor of unions with little regard to the rights and liberties of the individuals that are forced to join them... Unions would not have the bad rap that they have today if they themselves were not so corrupt. Also from a purely economic theory stand point they do not benefit our economy they distort it to the advantage of their membership at the cost of all others... It does not help the mom working at the local grocery store to have to pay more for union made goods and services... It does not help the homeowner here in Florida to have to pay two pensions to the retired police officer who was able to stack two 20 year stents back to back so that he could draw two separate pensions... the list of abuses could go on.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Blurryeyed:

It seems that there is a direct correlation with the decline of unions and the middle class:
Although Mother Jones not too favorable to Unions or the Democrat Party.

If unions had remained strong and Democrats had continued to vigorously press for more equitable economic policies, middle-class wages over the past three decades likely would have grown at about the same rate as the overall economy—just as they had in the postwar era. But they didn't, and that meant that every year, the money that would have gone to middle-class wage increases instead went somewhere else. This created a vast and steadily growing pool of money, and the chart below gives you an idea of its size. It shows how much money would have flowed to different groups if their incomes had grown at the same rate as the overall economy. The entire bottom 80 percent now loses a collective $743 billion each year, thanks to the cumulative effect of slow wage growth. Conversely, the top 1 percent gains $673 billion. That's a pretty close match. Basically, the money gained by the top 1 percent seems to have come almost entirely from the bottom 80 percent.

And what about those in the 80th to 99th percentile? They didn't score the huge payoffs of the superrich, but they did okay, basically keeping up with economic growth. Yet the skyrocketing costs of things like housing and higher education (PDF) make this less of a success story than it seems. And there's been a bigger cost as well: It turns out that today's upper-middle-class families lead a much more precarious existence than raw income figures suggest.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-union-decline?page=4