You make a good point Shon. There are some unions that do benefit the individual and I should have pointed that out. Unions did a good job in the early 1900's with safer working conditions, wages, hours, etc...
Not all unions are bad however when the government is pushing for unionization across the board, my question is why? Why is it so important? Why would the government want so much control over the private sector?

When you take decision making from a business it almost always ends bad for the business. Unions are the middle man whom may have a seperate agenda other than helping the associate or keeping the business affloat.
This is what happened with GM and Chrysler. Also K-Mart went bankrupt due to the unionization. California is just about bankrupt due to union pension benifits among other things. It just finally caught up with them.

I admit a year ago I would most likely would have been for unions however recently I have been studying business and marketing to help with the Strongman stuff. I have a better understanding on what works and what doesn't business wise now. I still have a lot more to learn though.

My father worked in a powerhouse for 19 years. He was a member of the boilermaker union (was pretty much forced into joining if he wished to keep his job). The most he made per hour was around just above $20.00 an hour. Not all that bad however his take home pay was only about $10 an hour. The rest (about 50%) of his paycheck went to union dues, taxes, etc...

One thing I forgot to mention about card check was that even if you refused to sign the form for the 50% plus one you would still be forced into the Union if enough forms were signed. The union reps would then know whom signed the forms and whom didn't. They would be able to make life very interesting indeed.
Once in the union you must conform to the union agenda as well as pay dues that they dictate. They will also require you to attend rallies of the political affilation they are representing. They'll also "ask" you to pay for tickets to political dinners to support certian politicians and would "urge" you to vote for certian individuals.
Everything I stated here came first hand with the union my father was with. This union was heavily affiliated with the state government.

Now I understand that all unions are not bad however absolute power currupts absolutely. Unionization is a direct link to bigger government.


Here is my arguement...
-If you decide to start a business would you prefer to be able to make the decisions that will directly effect your business success
or
have to follow union guidelines that will have you catering to a union reps and their agendas?

SOLUTIONS?

Here is a list of issues this country has. Let's play a mind game.
You are the leader of the free world, how would you deal with...

1. Economy

2. Foriegn policy

3. Healthcare

4. Corruption in DC

You may pick one of these (or all) or post on some other issue that you're concerned with regarding the Government. I will not argue any points. You're the President, here's your chance!!

I'll start with Corruption in DC:

The Soviet Solution: Take all the politians and lawyers, line them up, and shoot them.
Worked real well in 1917.


Just kidding, thought I'd post a socialist solution. Lenin was happy with it.

CZAR WARS
Sunstein: Americans too racist for socialism
Defends communism, welfare state but says 'white majority' oppose programs aiding blacks, Hispanics

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 07, 2009
10:35 pm Eastern


By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily



Cass Sunstein


JERUSALEM – The U.S. should move in the direction of socialism but the country's "white majority" opposes welfare since such programs largely would benefit minorities, especially blacks and Hispanics, argued President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.

"The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics)," wrote Sunstein.

The Obama czar's controversial comments were made in his 2004 book "The Second Bill of Rights," which was obtained and reviewed by WND.

In the book, Sunstein openly argues for bringing socialism to the U.S. and even lends support to communism.

"During the Cold War, the debate about [social welfare] guarantees took the form of pervasive disagreement between the United States and its communist adversaries. Americans emphasized the importance of civil and political liberties, above all free speech and freedom of religion, while communist nations stressed the right to a job, health care, and a social minimum."

(Story continues below)




Continued Sunstein: "I think this debate was unhelpful; it is most plausible to see the two sets of rights as mutually reinforcing, not antagonistic."

Get Glenn Beck's 'Common Sense' ... The case against an out-of-control government: Inspired by Thomas Paine

Sunstein claims the "socialist movement" did not take hold in the U.S. in part because of a "smaller and weaker political left or lack of enthusiasm for redistributive programs."

He laments, "In a variety of ways, subtle and less subtle, public and private actions have made it most difficult for socialism to have any traction in the United States."

Sunstein wants to spread America's wealth

WND first reported Sunstein penned a 2007 University of Chicago Law School paper in which he debated whether America should pay "justice" to the world by entering into a compensation agreement that would be a net financial loss for the U.S. He argues it is "desirable" to redistribute America's wealth to poorer nations.

A prominent theme throughout Sunstein's 39-page paper, entitled "Climate Change Justice" and reviewed by WND, maintains U.S. wealth should be redistributed to poorer nations. He uses terms such as "distributive justice" several times. The paper was written with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner.

"It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid," wrote Sunstein.

He posited: "We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.

"If the United States agrees to participate in a climate change agreement on terms that are not in the nation's interest, but that help the world as a whole, there would be no reason for complaint, certainly if such participation is more helpful to poor nations than conventional foreign-aid alternatives," he wrote.

Sunstein maintains: "If we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses."

Sunstein proposed 'socialist' bill of rights

In "The Second Bill of Rights," WND also reported, Sunstein proposed a new "bill of rights" in which he advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state. Among his mandates:


The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;


The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;


The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;


The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;


The right of every family to a decent home;


The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;


The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;


The right to a good education.
On one page in his book, Sunstein claims he is "not seriously arguing" his bill of rights be "encompassed by anything in the Constitution," but on the next page he states that "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."

Later in the book, Sunstein argues that "at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America's constitutive commitments."

WND has learned that in April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled "The Constitution in 2020," which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.

Sunstein has been a main participant in the movement, which openly seeks to create a "progressive" consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020. It also suggests strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.

Just before his appearance at the conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he "will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANUGT6CmBpw&feature=player_embedded#

At least the government keeps their word about defunding Acorn, haha.

Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Do you believe he earned it?

Here is a list of accomplishments (some copied from another forum) that he's achieved since in office (forget the fact that the deadline for getting nominations into the Nobel commitee was 11 days after his inaugeration).

These are not in order.
1. Opted not to use Bible in his inaugeration, first President ever to do so.

2. Gave the queen of England an Ipod with all of his current speeches.

3. Bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia.

4. Kissed Hugo Chavev on the cheek and accepted Chavev's book as a gift.

5. Endorsed the Socialist Evo Morales of Bolivia.

6. Sided with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro against Honduras

7. Announced he would meet with Iranians without no pre-conditions while iran is building their nuclear weapons program.

8. Gave billions to AIG with no pre-conditions...then back tracked and fined AIG executives for gross business misconduct.

9. Expanded bailouts, catered to special interests.

10. Doubled our National Debt.

11. Announced the termination of our current missle defense system the day after North Korea launches an ICBM.

12. Released info on US intelligence gathering despite urgings of his own appointed CIA Director along with 4 previous CIA Directors.

13.Accepted without comment 5 of his cabinet members that cheated on their taxes.

14. Did nothing to incourage freedom and human rights when Iranians protested their corrupt election.

15. Unemployment hits 9.8%.

16. Attends "townhall meeting" that have staged questions.

17. Refuses to support troops in Afghanistan.

18. Ignores the 1.7 million citizen 9/12 march on Washington D.C.

19. Appoints numerous Czars/ advisors that have radical, marxist, socialist backgrounds.

20. Fires CEO and owns GM.

21.Appoints Judge Sonia Sotomayor whom has stated rascial comments on a number of occasions as well as having a socialist background.

22. Promises to close Gitmo..still open.

23. Sends a few Chinese Gitmo detainees to a tropical island and gives the island a few million $$ for there trouble.

24. Barack/ Michelle "Date Night" that costs taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars.

25. Air Force One SNAFU photo op over New York, New York.

26. Pushing Healthcare Reform despite the nation can't afford it.

27. whenever overseas, always apologises for America's past actions and plays the Bush Blame Game.

28. Hugely increasing size of government. Adding government dept's at will.

29. Dismantles missle defense network in Poland and Czech Rebublic so not to "upset Russia". Then 2 days after announces GE is scheduled to talk with Russian officials.

30. Cutting 500 million from Medicare and increasing SEIU benifits 11 plus billion.

31. Downplays his association with ACORN.

32. Pushes a $787 Billion Stimulas 1400+ page bill as fast as possible through congress and senate. No one read the bill.

33. Only 14% of $787 billion bill has been spent With only a fraction of that 14% going towards "shovel ready jobs". The rest going to special interest groups.

34. Jeff Jones, a founder of the terrorist group, Weather Underground" is on the commitee of the Apollo Alliance, that wrote the Stimulas Bill. As well as Van Jones, the radical Marxist/ socialist "Green Jobs Czar".

35. Called Kanye West a "Jackass" for his behavior at an awards shows....I happen to agree with the President.

36. The value of the dollar bill has dropped 9% in the last nine months with a total drop of 29% since 10 years ago.



I am sure I can come up with more. These were just ones that I could remember off the top of my head.

Tentative Inspection Program Would Allow Russia to Visit U.S. Nuclear Sites
The plan, which Fox News has learned was agreed to in principle during negotiations, would constitute the most intrusive weapons inspection program the U.S. has ever accepted.

FOXNews.com

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

0 x
in order to recommend a story, you must login or register.
322 Comments | Add Comment
ShareThisPEOPLE WHO READ THIS ALSO READ
Plan B for Iran? U.S. Wants Bunker-Buster Fast 28273326
White House Escalates War of Words With FOX News 28263072
Tracking Your Taxes: Is Essential Air Service Really Essential? 28280206
Obama Quietly Authorizes 13,000 More U.S. Troops for Afghanistan 28274314
Insurers Escalate Criticism of Health Overhaul 28253034
Russia and the United States have tentatively agreed to a weapons inspection program that would allow Russians to visit nuclear sites in America to count missiles and warheads.

The plan, which Fox News has learned was agreed to in principle during negotiations, would constitute the most intrusive weapons inspection program the U.S. has ever accepted.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who met with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said publicly Tuesday that the two nations have made "considerable" progress toward reaching agreement on a new strategic arms treaty.

The 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires in December and negotiators have been racing to reach agreement on a successor.

Clinton said the U.S. would be as transparent as possible.

"We want to ensure that every question that the Russian military or Russian government asks is answered," she said, calling missile defense "another area for deep cooperation between our countries."

On another critical issue, Lavrov declared that it would be counterproductive to threaten Iran with more sanctions over its nuclear program -- as he resisted efforts by Clinton to win agreement for tougher measures should Iran fail to prove its program is peaceful.

Clinton visited Moscow on her first trip since becoming America's top diplomat, in an effort to gauge Moscow's willingness to join the U.S. in imposing sanctions.

Clinton said the U.S. agreed it was important to pursue diplomacy with Iran.

"At the same time that we are very vigorously pursuing this track, we are aware that we might not be as successful as we need to be, so we have always looked at the potential of sanctions in the event we are not successful and cannot assure ourselves and others that Iran has decided not to pursue nuclear weapons," she said at a joint news conference.

Iran insists it has the right to a full domestic nuclear enrichment program and maintains it is only for peaceful purposes, such as energy production.

President Obama -- who visited Russia in July -- has vowed to "reset" U.S.-Russia relations. On Tuesday, Clinton apologized for missing that meeting because of a broken elbow.

"But now both my elbow and our relationships are reset and we're moving forward, which I greatly welcome," she said.

She was to meet with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev later Tuesday.

Fox News' Dana Lewis and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40&feature=player_embedded


If you love this country, truly love this great nation of ours this should piss you off to no end.

Just seen that the new and improved health care bill being proposed is 1990 pages long with another possible 800 extra pages in amendments to be added on.

At least they are keeping it simple.

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml

I have posted a link to a site that lists the US Congressmen.

This Friday the House will be voting on the 1990 page Healthcare bill.
This little gem of legislative crap has nothing to do about providing healthcare coverage to the poor individuals that need health care but are unable pay for it.

This, my fellow Americans is a power grab, pure and simple.
The US Government now controls 30% of the American economy (up from 19% a year ago). If this bill passes in the Congress and the Senate the Federal Government will take hold of another 16% for a total of 46%.

I will be damned to just sit by and watch this administration bankrupt the Nation and future generations. My wife and I do not have any children however I cannot but think of our neices and nephews, our friends children and the youth of this once great nation. What impact will the decisions made in D.C. have on our children, our grandchildren?

Do you want a Nation where your children have the opportunity to succeed to great heights or would you prefer a nation of the mediocre? President Obama has surrounded himself with Communists, Marxists, Socialists and anti-capitalists. He wants to "spread the wealth". That's marxism my freinds.

Definition of Marxism/ Socialism:
1. Any of various theories or systems of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or the community rather than by private individuals, with all members of society or the community sharing in the work and the products.
2. The stage of society, in Marxist doctrine, coming between the capitalist stage and the cummunist stage, in which private ownership of the means of production and distribution has been eliminated.

Sound familiar. GM, Chrysler, AIG, TARP Bill, Stimulas Bill, Recovery Act, Cash for Clunkers, etc, etc....Also talk about regulating the internet, bailing out newspapers, etc...

I, for one, have had enough. I have contacted our local congresswoman and pleaded my case stating that if she votes 'Yea' this Friday to pass the Congressional version of the Healthcare Bill, I will do everything in my power to make sure she is not re-elected for another term.

I urge you to do the same. Use the link above and contact your congresman. Let them know what damage they are doing to the Nation.

GET OFF YOUR ASS DAMN IT!

If you do nothing, which is exactly what they want you to do in D.C., you deserve the Government that is coming and you can explain to your children and grandchildren that you just sat back while our freedoms and liberties were stripped from our hands.

I love Glenn Beck and Fox News in general. I am happy to see stuff like this on the forum.

Thanks Brian.

I have to thank Obama for one thing and that would be since he's taken office I have a better understanding of what I value.

Tony

The U.S. unemployment rate climbed to 10.2% in October, topping the 10% mark for the first time in 26 years, the Labor Department reported Friday. Nonfarm payrolls dropped by 190,000 in October, bringing to total number of jobs lost in the recession to 7.3 million. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch were forecasting a rise in the unemployment rate to 10%, with 150,000 lost payroll jobs. The unemployment rate of 10.2% was the highest since April 1983. An alternative gauge of unemployment, which includes discouraged workers and those forced to work part-time, rose to 17.5%, the highest on record dating to 1995.

===========================================
It's a good thing they rushed the Stimulas Bill earlier this year so un-employment wouldn't hit 10%

Iran tested advanced nuclear warhead design – secret reportExclusive: Watchdog fears Tehran has key component to put bombs in missiles


Julian Borger, diplomatic editor guardian.co.uk, Thursday 5 November 2009 20.45 GMT
An Iranian long-range Shahab-3 missile being fired at an unspecified location. Photograph: Press TV/AFP/Getty Images

The UN's nuclear watchdog has asked Iran to explain evidence suggesting that Iranian scientists have experimented with an advanced nuclear warhead design, the Guardian has learned.

The very existence of the technology, known as a "two-point implosion" device, is officially secret in both the US and Britain, but according to previously unpublished documentation in a dossier compiled by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iranian scientists may have tested high-explosive components of the design. The development was today described by nuclear experts as "breathtaking" and has added urgency to the effort to find a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis.

The sophisticated technology, once mastered, allows for the production of smaller and simpler warheads than older models. It reduces the diameter of a warhead and makes it easier to put a nuclear warhead on a missile.

=======================================

I read a couple of months ago the White House saying we had nothing to worry about Iran procurring Nuclear weapons, that it would be a number of years before Iran would be able to produce and deploy such a device.
I didn't believe it when they posted it. This proves me right, unfortunite.ly

The Soros Plan To Kill Capitalismby Matthew Vadum
Having purchased, rented, or placed a down payment on all the political influence up for sale in America, leftist troublemaker George Soros now plans to ramp up his war on markets worldwide by creating an “Institute for New Economic Thinking” (INET).

“The system we have now has actually broken down, only we haven’t quite recognized it and so you need to create a new one and this is the time to do it,” Soros told the Financial Times last month.



Soros said he wants Communist China to run this new financial system. “You really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order, a financial world order,” Soros said.

If that doesn’t send a chill down the spines of freedom lovers in America and elsewhere, nothing will.

In an interview with Der Spiegel last year Soros said European-style socialism “is exactly what we need now. I am against market fundamentalism. I think this propaganda that government involvement is always bad has been very successful — but also very harmful to our society.”


As preparation for INET, which already has a functioning website, Soros gathered economists to plot his renewed drive for world statism. One of those economists is Joseph Stiglitz, a member of the Socialist International. Stiglitz sits on SI’s Commission on Global Financial Issues, which was created “to address from a social democratic perspective the ongoing global financial crisis.” Of course to socialists a capitalist economy is by definition always in crisis, but that’s a discussion for another day.

INET’s website quotes socialist Stiglitz saying, “The financial crisis has caused a moment of deep reflection in the economics profession, for it has put many long-standing ideas to the test. If science is defined by its ability to forecast the future, the failure of much of the economics profession to see the crisis coming should be a cause of great concern.”

Soros, the de facto owner of America’s Democratic Party who spent over $20 million to prevent President Bush’s reelection in 2004, plans to shell out $50 million for INET over a decade and hopes matching funds will bring in another $150 million.

Why Soros feels he’s not having enough impact on the world is unclear.

Soros helped finance the Czech Republic’s 1989 “Velvet Revolution” that brought Vaclav Havel to power. He acknowledged having orchestrated coups in Croatia, Georgia, Slovakia, and Yugoslavia. He brought the financial systems of the United Kingdom and Malaysia to their knees.

In the U.S., his preferred candidate now lives in the White House, the radical party he adores controls Congress, and interest groups and the bulk of the progressive political infrastructure kneel at his feet.

Through his charity, the Open Society Institute, Soros funds groups such as ACORN that are among the most influential in America.

Newsweek’s Michael Hirsh channels Soros in describing the purpose of INET. The new institute, Hirsh writes, will “make research grants, convene symposiums, and establish a journal, all in an effort to take back the economics profession from the champions of free-market zealotry who have dominated it for decades, and to correct the failures of decades of market deregulation.”

Of course free market enthusiasts do not dominate the field of economics, as Donald J. Boudreaux, chairman of the economics department at George Mason University points out, but why should Soros let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of his grand project.

Only in the twisted fantasies of the septuagenarian billionaire philanthropist whose demeanor is that of an aging James Bond villain on sedatives could such phantom armies of marauding free market fundamentalists wreak havoc on America. Perhaps these were the same laissez-faire legionnaires who brought us Sarbanes-Oxley, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, various government bailouts of private industry, farm subsidies, ethanol mandates, smart growth, and the Community Reinvestment Act in recent decades.