Biden for PREZ?!?!?!

[Starlight]

I dislike these kinds of all-encompassing claims about unions, whether it be positive or negative. Some unions are pretty bad. Some unions are pretty good. Rhetoric that tries to paint all unions as corrupt or all unions as the greatest organizations are both incorrect and unhelpful.

And let me be clear that I'm in no way saying that all unions everywhere are good or that there aren't some bad side-effects of them.

My view is simply that the evidence shows pretty clearly (to the point where even the IMF agrees) that unions have been found to be the best tool for pushing up worker wages, because they are a way of empowering workers to negotiate with management for their share of the income.

At risk of giving some more charts. Iceland is the country in the world with the strongest unions. Here's their wages vs productivity graph:
iceland wages.jpg
Over the years their country's productivity has increased due to technological development, and the strong unions have allowed workers wages to increase too because instead of all the productivity gains going to the mega-rich owners of the companies, the unions have been able to demand that the companies share those profits with their workers.

Whereas in America the productivity gains have gone into the pockets of the rich, and not been paid to the workers as a result of the declining power of unions, and it makes a big difference:


Nobody likes strikes, or thinks that all unions are run efficiently or anything of the sort. But at the end of the day it is better to have unions than not because workers throughout the country get paid more and can negotiate for better working conditions, it's that simple.

[lilpixieofterror]

Honest question, why do people here seem to have a problem with charts? Sam got mocked mercilessly for using them. I find them to be very useful in understanding peoples' points.

I find that they tend to be heavily biased. Take a look at Starlight’s latest charts. He points out that worker production has increased, but ignores the fact it’s due to increased and better automation and not because workers today are better. Ignoring that key piece of information paints an incorrect picture.

[KingsGambit]

I find that they tend to be heavily biased. Take a look at Starlight’s latest charts. He points out that worker production has increased, but ignores the fact it’s due to increased and better automation and not because workers today are better. Ignoring that key piece of information paints an incorrect picture.

I'm not asking about his specific charts, I'm asking about charts in general. That's also what Sparko's post was asking about. (And what Sam kept getting criticized for.)

[JimL]

There's your problem right there.

At least in the USA, the Republicans are against big government, and the Democrats are for it. They want more control, more social programs, more government nannying. The republicans want less regulations, more control in the private sector, less government regulations, and less social programs.

When the government has all the power and authority, then it is "in the hands of the few" and that is what you get under liberal policies. Everyone going to the government for food and jobs.

Democrats, liberals, don't want big government, they want good government, government of, by, and for the people. Republicans, conservatives, don't believe in government of, by, and for the people. You can call it nannying if you want, but all it really is, is a recognition that we as a people and as a country are better off when we, as a self governing people, look out for one another. It's kind of a christian attitude without the religious aspect to it. It seems that republicans, the pretend christian values party, doesn't really have christian values when it comes to their fellow man. Sure, they have their excuses, like "government doesn't work," "government has to much authority," "there's to much dependency on government." But those are all just excuses that conservatives use because when it comes right down to it, they just don't really care if other people don't have health care, if they're starving, if they're living in the street etc etc. As far as conservatives are concerned that's not their problem and those people are all just a bunch of lazy takers anyway. Conservatives are the modern day Scrooge, they think, "let them die and decrease the surplus population."

[Sparko]

No. But you seem to have an odd hatred of them.

Not hatred. Distrust. Because I make a living making them. I know how easy it is to manipulate "facts" to make a chart show what you want it to.

'Big government' is different to 'controlling government'. If the government is taxing the rich and passing wealth to the needy, that wealth empowers the poor, the sick etc to be able to do things and live lives and have chances that they otherwise wouldn't have.

and increased the control of the government. It then controls the lives of those "poor" and "sick"

If you have minimal government, all the power rests in the hands of the few ultra-rich billionaires, which is power to the few and not the many.

Except in a free society, those "rich" people all depend on an open market, which in turn depends on the middle class workers making enough money to buy the goods produced. You do have some people more successful than others, but the path to riches is open to everyone. The government's job is to keep the playing field as level as possible without stifling business. There is nothing wrong with being successful and rich, Starlight. You make it sound like a disease.

The type of government that makes for the freest and most empowered and happiest people, according to all the empirical data, is a high-taxing high-spending government that builds great infrastructure for the populace to use (roads, rail, electricity grids, fibre broadbands, airports etc), provides great healthcare and education, supports the poor and needy etc, because this gives everyone in the country the freedom to not worry about the basics and ensures everyone is equipped with the necessities of life. It puts everyone up to a standard where they can pursue life, liberty, and happiness. If you think of it in terms of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the government has the task of making sure nobody is on the lowest levels of the pyramid of having to worry about not having shelter or enough food, and so frees people up to focus on living at the higher levels - trying to live fulfilled lives with meaning and love etc.

All the Republican "small government" BS talking point boils down to at the end of the day is making sure those ultra-rich billionaires are doing phenomenally well and letting the rest of the country starve to death or die from lack of healthcare or from pollution put out by the factories owned by those billionaires etc. It devolves into feudalism where the billionaires become the Lords and the rest of the country their surfs / slaves.

I am not going to argue what makes the "best" government here. I was commenting on how your idea of the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Your idea is backwards. More government is big government and controlling government. You say you are against authoritarianism, but that is exactly what you get when the government controls healthcare, infrastructure, jobs, finances, businesses, etc.

[lilpixieofterror]

I'm not asking about his specific charts, I'm asking about charts in general. That's also what Sparko's post was asking about. (And what Sam kept getting criticized for.)

I used Starlight’s as an example because it’s a well known example. As Sparks pointed out, charts and graphs can be made to say whatever you want them to say. You just need to learn how to do it.

[Sparko]

Democrats, liberals, don't want big government, they want good government, government of, by, and for the people. Republicans, conservatives, don't believe in government of, by, and for the people. You can call it nannying if you want, but all it really is, is a recognition that we as a people and as a country are better off when we, as a self governing people, look out for one another. It's kind of a christian attitude without the religious aspect to it. It seems that republicans, the pretend christian values party, doesn't really have christian values when it comes to their fellow man. Sure, they have their excuses, like "government doesn't work," "government has to much authority," "there's to much dependency on government." But those are all just excuses that conservatives use because when it comes right down to it, they just don't really care if other people don't have health care, if they're starving, if they're living in the street etc etc. As far as conservatives are concerned that's not their problem and those people are all just a bunch of lazy takers anyway. Conservatives are the modern day Scrooge, they think, "let them die and decrease the surplus population."

JimL, when you actually know what the bible teaches about government handouts or Christian charity, post it here and we can have a discussion.

Because so far you are pretty much just making a fool of yourself.

[Zymologist]

Democrats, liberals, don't want big government, they want good government, government of, by, and for the people. Republicans, conservatives, don't believe in government of, by, and for the people. You can call it nannying if you want, but all it really is, is a recognition that we as a people and as a country are better off when we, as a self governing people, look out for one another. It's kind of a christian attitude without the religious aspect to it. It seems that republicans, the pretend christian values party, doesn't really have christian values when it comes to their fellow man. Sure, they have their excuses, like "government doesn't work," "government has to much authority," "there's to much dependency on government." But those are all just excuses that conservatives use because when it comes right down to it, they just don't really care if other people don't have health care, if they're starving, if they're living in the street etc etc. As far as conservatives are concerned that's not their problem and those people are all just a bunch of lazy takers anyway. Conservatives are the modern day Scrooge, they think, "let them die and decrease the surplus population."

:yawn:

[Cow Poke]

Democrats, liberals, don't want big government, they want good government, government of, by, and for the people. Republicans, conservatives, don't believe in government of, by, and for the people. You can call it nannying if you want, but all it really is, is a recognition that we as a people and as a country are better off when we, as a self governing people, look out for one another. It's kind of a christian attitude without the religious aspect to it. It seems that republicans, the pretend christian values party, doesn't really have christian values when it comes to their fellow man. Sure, they have their excuses, like "government doesn't work," "government has to much authority," "there's to much dependency on government." But those are all just excuses that conservatives use because when it comes right down to it, they just don't really care if other people don't have health care, if they're starving, if they're living in the street etc etc. As far as conservatives are concerned that's not their problem and those people are all just a bunch of lazy takers anyway. Conservatives are the modern day Scrooge, they think, "let them die and decrease the surplus population."

Jim, this sounds like liberal talking points from the far left, with an extremely broad inaccurate brush. Quite honestly, this just sounds like an angry rant.

[Zymologist]

Jim, this sounds like liberal talking points from the far left, with an extremely broad inaccurate brush. Quite honestly, this just sounds like an angry rant.

I disagree with the "far left" part. The whole "if you disagree with my solution to problem X, you don't care about X" thing is extremely common from the left, and around here.

Boring, we've heard it before.

[lilpixieofterror]

Democrats, liberals, don't want big government, they want good government, government of, by, and for the people. Republicans, conservatives, don't believe in government of, by, and for the people. You can call it nannying if you want, but all it really is, is a recognition that we as a people and as a country are better off when we, as a self governing people, look out for one another. It's kind of a christian attitude without the religious aspect to it. It seems that republicans, the pretend christian values party, doesn't really have christian values when it comes to their fellow man. Sure, they have their excuses, like "government doesn't work," "government has to much authority," "there's to much dependency on government." But those are all just excuses that conservatives use because when it comes right down to it, they just don't really care if other people don't have health care, if they're starving, if they're living in the street etc etc. As far as conservatives are concerned that's not their problem and those people are all just a bunch of lazy takers anyway. Conservatives are the modern day Scrooge, they think, "let them die and decrease the surplus population."

Interesting because I have donated time and money to food banks, homeless shelters, pregnancy centers, or shelters that protect women from abusive relationships. Beyond pretending that your political opponents are all Scrooge and laugh with glee at the suffering of others, while you expect to government to do it all for you, what do you do personally?

[JimL]

JimL, when you actually know what the bible teaches about government handouts or Christian charity, post it here and we can have a discussion.

Because so far you are pretty much just making a fool of yourself.

You must be under the impression that the bible was written during times of democratic governance. I know what the Jesus of the bible says about treating your fellow man and as far as I'm concerned that extends to the kind of government we in a democratic society vote for. So you can pretend to yourselves that you follow christian principles, you can make all the excuses you want, but you know what Jesus was said to have said as well to people like you who look the other way, and that is that he would spit you from his mouth and say to you "I never knew you."

[Cow Poke]

Interesting because I have donated time and money to food banks, homeless shelters, pregnancy centers, or shelters that protect women from abusive relationships. Beyond pretending that your political opponents are all Scrooge and laugh with glee at the suffering of others, while you expect to government to do it all for you, what do you do personally?

Yeah, my life is pretty much polar opposite of what Jim described BECAUSE of my faith in Christ. I'm trying to think of any of the activities in which I am involved that accept government funds.


OH!!! OK, one example is going on right now - a program we run IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS where we have, in effect, a "Vacation Bible School on steroids" for 8 weeks in the summer at one of our local middle schools. From 8 to noon each weekday, we serve breakfast and lunch to about 155 kids (age 5 - 3rd grade) in cooperation with our local school district where we hire public school teachers to tutor kids in math, reading and writing. They learn Christian songs, Bible verses, engage in games... The local school district provides the transportation, running their buses, and allowing us to use their facilities, and they pay for bus drivers, custodial people, and supplement some of the teachers' salaries for teachers we don't hire.

And this would be a great example of an EXCEPTION to my oft repeated statement that "government money has strings". In this case, I would be wrong, because so far, there are no restrictions or conditions on us. (that was our condition )

It's one of those cases where you'd love to shout it from the rooftops, but you're concerned because some anti-Christian idiot is going to scream "separation of church and state" and work to shut this down. Meanwhile, we raise about $50,000 a year from private donations and small business investment to buy the meals, pay for the teachers, hire older high school (or college) students to help....

[JimL]

Jim, this sounds like liberal talking points from the far left, with an extremely broad inaccurate brush. Quite honestly, this just sounds like an angry rant.

I don't know where you get that from CP, it may be an angry rant, republicanism as we know it today certainly does anger me, but they are my thoughts not some echo chamber talking points.

[Roy]

Yeah, my life is pretty much polar opposite of what Jim described BECAUSE of my faith in Christ. I'm trying to think of any of the activities in which I am involved that accept government funds.

Driving on government-funded roads and bridges?