Lucky...

I'll get fired thanks. I'm not trying to say that employees don't pull shit, I'm trying to say that employers have the deck stacked by this POS pres and former Repug Congress.

Yea, but ya can't just tell the (neo) cons that, you have to spell it out for them. They still resist the obvious.

Let's look at the real-world application of this if ever made law. Employers would notify employees that after a certain future date that their contributions to the employee in the form of health insurance will be taxable. The employee has 2 choices: - Refuse the coverage (which is what the intent of this law is) - Continue to accept it and enjoy a great state and federal withholding Some will refuse the coverage and intend on buying their own coverage, but never have the money for it. Others will continue to accept the coverage and realize they are not having enough money, so they might change their withholding exemptions and take it in the ass at the end of the year. I'm just looking to see how this could ever help anyone but employers hoping this would leverage employees to reject the coverage. Perhaps you can help, Gawain.

Oops, I meant to write, Employer that fuck employees do very well. As compared to China, I'll give you that one. How about for a white male? Oh yea, there are none. If you are in a career that has many options, good for you.

I didn't say the worse, I could suggest a trip to many European countries. They work 35 hr/wk many of them, get several weeks a year vacation too. China is a low standard and teh US is likely below the Mason-Dixon line as for worker's conditions. This sounds like the 3 bears argument. Unfortunatley I don't think it's true, I think the employers that fuck companies do very well, some of the companies that treat their employees well do alright, but cutting teh bottom line is the key. Unfortunately employers usually have the upper hand, esp when a Repub is in office, so they get to call teh shots. Now for professionals, things are different as they have more bargaining power, perhaps that's where you get your notions from. Good for you, but that could change in 15 minutes and you would be considering a union.

How am I failing to respond? I gave my editorial, so where's your point? What intelligent discourse? All I see is avoidance. Like this, this is the avoidance. OH, like this: Under his proposal, states that put in place a basic health plan for all of their citizens would get access to what he calls "affordable choice grants." The grant money would come from programs that now reimburse providers when they care for the indigent. SO would: - This money taken from indigent care cover all costs? - There be no money for indigent care? - All states have similar plans? - Insurance coverage for middle classers fall in quality? And you like that? Where is the funding for indigent people going to come from if it is robbed from these other sources? What Bush is inferring is that these people decline coverage from employers to save the emp money, after all, that is the important issue with Bush, and then get cheap coverage on their own, very poor coverage, and then use it as a tax break. So the worker should get cheap coverage and call it a tax break, sweeeeet. So, the key to getting a tax cut will be to keep the cost of the policy below the size of the new deduction. The prospect of a tax cut would serve as a huge incentive for people to spend less on health insurance. And that’s good to you, right? From a businessman’s perspective, sure. If you’re duck broke government programs work the best. If you have money, you don’t want to see poor people get assistance.

Yep, kinda like standing out front disallowing the minority kids from using your garden hose to get a drink while the rich guys run out the back with the TV. I doubt we will see a response from the other side on this one, they have a habit of selctive response.

No, these are the facts: - Clinton signed a min wage increase that was packed with tax cuts for the rich in 1996, into effect in 1997. - Congress introduced another bill with the same fat goodies for the rich in early 2000, it died in the Republican Congress, Clinton never had the ability to sign or veto it. - Recently Congress just introduced a new bill that passed in the House, was killed in the Senate. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16558329/ Senate Dems even agreed to the fat goodies, the Repubs denied even with those freebies. So, once again, you are wrong, Clinton signed the only min wage increase that was ever put in front of him and it even included more huge giveaways to the rich as a concession. HR3846 was funneled into HR3081. Who cares who did it, the House voted to combine them. By combining the two bills, Republicans hoped to prevent House Democrats from passing a stand-alone wage increase and making it a major campaign issue. http://usgovinfo.about.com/...y/news/aa030800a.htm Why a campaign issue, to argue that Dems are for workers and Repubs are not? Show where employees are getting fired for an additional buck an hour. No, he did sign one that went into effect in 97, he said he would veto it with all the packed goodies. Typical how Republican arguments are a microcosm of the entire truth. The Republicans now refuse to pass one even with the goodies, so I think we see where truths lie. I asked for more clarification: “This is from when? Can you provide cites as I do? Was this the min wage under Clinton or now?” Uh, how is it that 3 Repubs and the little guys are clarification? Just provide clarification as I asked. - FACT: it was 96 that Clinton did sign the min wage bill with goodies for the rich. http://www.cnn.com/US/9608/20/minimum.wage.sign/ Clinton signs minimum wage increase New law also gives tax breaks, brings back airline tax August 20, 1996 The bill, passed by Congress on August 2, raises the current $4.25 federal minimum wage by 90 cents an hour in two stages. The rate will rise to $4.75 an hour October 1, then will increase to $5.15 on September 1, 1997. So it went into effect in Oct 96 and was complete in Sep 97. - FACT: it was 2000 when the issue came up again and dies in the Senate after being coupled with another fat package for the rich.http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/news/aa030800a.htmClinton Asks Congress to Raise Minimum Wage Dateline: 03/08/00 Update: 03/10/00 House Passes Wage Increase Bill - FACT: The Republican Senate just killed another one that was packed with goodies for the rich, they just didn’t want to see an increase for the poor. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16558329/ - FACT: You don’t have your facts straight.

I don't care if union leadership gets what pay. Senioity is at the forefront of union membership. These evaluations are subjective and the union wants that removed from employment. As workers get older they can perform less, but their knowledge is valuable. Employers wnat to be able to fire old guys for cheaper young ones, unions want seniority rights so that cannot happen.

The thread title is about Republicans and worker's rights, the union issue is just one of so many issues on teh table, feel free to grab any of the other many issues as well. As for your rant about hating unions, it supports my point. Do you think union workers do better in union shops? The data suggests so, both in wage and in safety. Furthermore, things like the OT law, Erg Bill and min wage increase are pionts to further argue that Repubs are not for working families. To answer your points: - Unions a thing of the past: ------> I think they will cycle. As thinsg bet bad as tehy are now, people vote Dem more and unions are strengthened. As people foget, unions go away. I think this legislation is a note that unions will make a resurgency as Dems enter office. - Senate is the more rational of the two chambers: -----> Which is why they get to filibuster and the House does not. Yea, that's rational. They are both made up of the same type of politicians, just that the Senate is more exclusive. - Funny how those touting worker's rights never seem to get it through their skulls that there are few Americans who don't actually work: ----->Inferring that people who work don't want unions???? Ridiculous. Go to a construction site or teamster's meeting and say that. - Yet 'working Americans' is constantly used to describe the low-middle class: -----> No, people who do the work, they call it, "touch labor" in many circumstances. People who actually do the work are the workers, management is just that, sit back and go to meetings, fuck around. - Most insulting, but right leaning folks should be used to being insulted by leftists: -----> (A tear rolls down face) Many union members are Republicans and many workers are Repubs who cinsider management lazy. Calling mnagement lazy and overpaid is not a partisan label.

http://news.yahoo.com/...eVEJuhIU9x2D8gUGw_IE Another clear case in point that Bush is not for working families. Would the majority of Congressional Republicans fall in behind Bush? Most likely, they just got thru killing the federal minimum wage increase, so there is no evidence the other way. Why is it that Mr. Cut Taxes is deciding to raise taxes for the middle class working families? I don’t see corporate taxes getting raised. Medical insurance payments from employers can equal as much ac 25%, possibly more of that employees pay, so it’s a huge tax increase. Is this the answer for Bush doubling the largest debt rate increase of Reagan/GHW Bush? Is he going to try to gather tax revenue from working people to pay for the corporate giveaways? Nice. Yea, Bush and the Repubs are for working families. Bush spotlights rising health care costs President Bush is not giving up on his call to overhaul the tax code for those who buy health insurance. The president focused his attention again on the topic after a recent government report projected that health care spending would double by the year 2016. Analysts say current tax policy is contributing to the increase in spending through incentives that favor more comprehensive and expensive health benefits. The president noted that the current policy also discriminates against those who buy their insurance in the individual market. They don't get the same tax advantages as those who get insurance through their employers. "When it comes to health care, everyone should get the same tax breaks," Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address. The president has proposed treating health insurance contributions as income, which would cause workers' taxable wages to shoot up dramatically. But the president then calls for a standard tax deduction for those who buy health insurance — $15,000 for family coverage and $7,500 for individual coverage. So, the key to getting a tax cut will be to keep the cost of the policy below the size of the new deduction. The prospect of a tax cut would serve as a huge incentive for people to spend less on health insurance. Democratic leaders were quick to criticize the plan. But more recently, a group of 10 senators — five Republicans and five Democrats — wrote the president and told him they agreed that current tax rules for health insurance disproportionately favor the rich while promoting inefficiency. Bush went to Chattanooga, Tenn., earlier this month to try to generate momentum for his tax proposal. He shared a stage with people who hold full-time jobs but cannot afford to insure their families. For Danny Jennings, a father of two who manages a nursery, the plan would save about $4,500 a year on his tax bill, Bush said. "These tax savings would put basic coverage within the reach of his family," Bush said. The president said he also wants to support governors who come up with innovative ways to help their citizens get insurance coverage. Under his proposal, states that put in place a basic health plan for all of their citizens would get access to what he calls "affordable choice grants." The grant money would come from programs that now reimburse providers when they care for the indigent. "By taking existing federal funds and turning them into Affordable Choices grants, we will give America's governors more money and more flexibility, so they can help provide private health insurance for those who need it most," Bush said.

It's called a lie by ommission, as opposd to one by commission.

More evidence that the Rpubs are not for working families: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_1&printer=1;_ylt=AiWYHZr8eVEJuhIU9x2D8gUGw_IE Bush spotlights rising health care costs President Bush is not giving up on his call to overhaul the tax code for those who buy health insurance. The president focused his attention again on the topic after a recent government report projected that health care spending would double by the year 2016. Analysts say current tax policy is contributing to the increase in spending through incentives that favor more comprehensive and expensive health benefits. The president noted that the current policy also discriminates against those who buy their insurance in the individual market. They don't get the same tax advantages as those who get insurance through their employers. "When it comes to health care, everyone should get the same tax breaks," Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address. The president has proposed treating health insurance contributions as income, which would cause workers' taxable wages to shoot up dramatically. But the president then calls for a standard tax deduction for those who buy health insurance — $15,000 for family coverage and $7,500 for individual coverage. So, the key to getting a tax cut will be to keep the cost of the policy below the size of the new deduction. The prospect of a tax cut would serve as a huge incentive for people to spend less on health insurance. Democratic leaders were quick to criticize the plan. But more recently, a group of 10 senators — five Republicans and five Democrats — wrote the president and told him they agreed that current tax rules for health insurance disproportionately favor the rich while promoting inefficiency. Bush went to Chattanooga, Tenn., earlier this month to try to generate momentum for his tax proposal. He shared a stage with people who hold full-time jobs but cannot afford to insure their families. For Danny Jennings, a father of two who manages a nursery, the plan would save about $4,500 a year on his tax bill, Bush said. "These tax savings would put basic coverage within the reach of his family," Bush said. The president said he also wants to support governors who come up with innovative ways to help their citizens get insurance coverage. Under his proposal, states that put in place a basic health plan for all of their citizens would get access to what he calls "affordable choice grants." The grant money would come from programs that now reimburse providers when they care for the indigent. "By taking existing federal funds and turning them into Affordable Choices grants, we will give America's governors more money and more flexibility, so they can help provide private health insurance for those who need it most," Bush said. ____________________________________________________________ Mr. Tax Break wants to raise taxes on workers by raising their taxes, then tell them, if they purchase cheap health coverage, they can call it a tax break, all the while having less coverage. Have you guys gone away with your, 'the Republicans aren't against workers' insanity?

That is the 800, right?

Right, so the defense budget doesn't include the 1/2 trillion + we/ve spent on the Iraq War, meaning the so-called defense budget is far larger than the enormous 1/2 trillion $ annual budget we now have. So you're right, drawing from 2 credit cards makes the tally look less severe.

That's all true, but I wonder how many sell out cheap? If I'm gonna take that risk I need at least 150k/yr and that is still pretty cheap. Some go over for as little as 70k as I understand it. Not that I've been there, but I also don't see how these people get into the situations they do. There was an SUV stormed and taken in teh street, were they stopped? You have to have your head on a swivel and keep enough distance in front of you if you have to evade, as you're stopped. Constantly look behind to see if someone is charging, etc. I just think these guys go over as typical white collar Americans, thinking they can call the police for every infraction, these insurgents play in such a way that the typical apathetic American can't comprehend it; this is not a trip to the European countryside.

I made 2 statements, which part of which post?

No, they still murder Catholics (JFK)

Lieberman is a POS, always has been, at least we can't say the Dems were duped as I think it was 2/3 of his votes came from Repubs. No one was fooled, everyone knew he has always been a Repug, hell, he voted for the war and fully supported it even as a Dem, then the Dems failed to nominate him in the primaries for last Nov's election. I hope he does switch prties he caucuses with and becomes full-blooded Nazi, then see how the country switches even harder to teh left and he is out in 6. Sometimes it takes radical action to get even a bigger swing. The way teh coubtry is going I would think a conservative would seek moderation to stop the bleeding.... they're going to get such a strong kneejerk reaction that things will be left for decades as teh sting rolls on. I think there is absolute data to determine that the reds are lousy fiscals, if OBama turns the debt neutral or lowers it, it will be further obvious, esp if he does so with a Dem Congress. WHEN Obama gets elected it will be funny watching the Repubs try not to throw racist inferences out as they describe dislike for him.

Another thought, the Revolutionary War was bloody, but things had to get worse before better, so we waged it rather than to fold in to Engalnd. So will things get bad if the workers trued to demand benefits? Yes. The idea is that it would be worth it in the longrun. Hell, I have read that back in the 20's, companies would have thugs pull guys out of strike lines and kill them. Things have to get ugly to establish peace, look at WWII; I bet there were millions of casualties worldwide.

That's why I wrote corps overall. I don'tknow, are corp profits doing well now? I wonder how we're the richest country in the world, have perhaps the most vital economy, spend virtually dollar for dollar what the rest of teh world does on defense (offense), yet we have very poor worker conditions, lawer pay, short vacations, very bad benefis? Could it be that corps explloit workers? Could it be that corps make big profits, yet decide to funnel them to things other than worker benefits? A good example is the 911 response, airlines were given massive chunks of cash, no provision to pay back or keep employees on, 1 short unemp extension, then nothing, then American Airlines CEO still took his multi-million bonus until everyone complained..... and still workers have no/very shabby benefts. Perhaps at first, then the corps are going to learn how to function by making other concessions or go out of business. I giess we could keep operating by fucking our workes. Don't worry, workers are too unorganized and ignorant to become solid, it will take enough people to lose family members until there is enough anger to make a change, which is why theRepugs are for Mexican immigration..... they cross lines and are answers to labor issues. Then how is it that foreign companies can stay in business even paying higher taxes so the gov can provide medical coverage for all citizens? Perhaps fewer gazillionaires? Our economy is more prolifi, so how can we do it and they not do it? Oh, I know, I know, we dump on our workers under the guise that anyone can go from rags to riches. If the gov were less fascist and quit running behind corps, let the fair market determine itself, corps would learn to function with differnt rules. WHat's funny is that a lot of professionals like you probably share management opinions, yet sometimes they are union. Riht now SPEA comes to mind; you're probably a member. SPEA is teh engineers union, so everyone knows what I'm talking about. But SPEA, how isit that engineers need a union? Can't they stand alone? Well, they are a smart, solid bunch of guys and they kick corps asses like Boeing everytime. Now, will you answer the rest of the Republican issues? The ones where I ask if he Republicans are here to fuck workers via the legislation I posted?

Wasn't it you saying that GM killed GM? Was it someone else? Anyway, GM's product line did that for themselves. Furthermore, to work for 12 bucks an hour is tantamount to cutting all corp taxes to ensure they would still employ people. WIth corps making huge profits overall, and employees largely w/o health ins, I think the problem lies with the employers. If more workplaces were union it would bring the middle class back. To say that union shop make non-union shops into 2-teir wage systems in kinda like saying that if we just cut all corp taxes corps would keep giving us jobs. There has to be a fight against the richest country in the world having poor wages/conditions. If it means making non-union shops into sweat shops, then good, perhaps they will become union too. Have we established that unionization creates unemployment? If so, is it negligible? And is being out of work in case of a strike a bad thing if the strije was caused by poor working conditions? Really? The Sago mine was in a non-RTW state in a non-union shop. If employers lean on workers reporting accidents/unsafe conditions, then OSHA is just a poster on the wall. If even Bill won’t answer these I must have a good point about Republicans / workers. 5) Republicans promote workers advancements? If so, answer these: -----> Why does congress strike min wages bill that are not piggybacked? -----> Why did the Repubs kill the Erg Bill? -----> Why did Bush and his cronies push OT Bill until it passed?

OK, I thought you entered a new link. Strongarm tactics you say, while everyone has essentially ignored my assertion about the company looking for these incidents to make the union look ugly for any fence riders. I think the company is the villain, you say the union is, now let's quit using isolated opinions and use data. The orginal question was about Republicans and their take on the union drive, keeping ballot elecions drawn out and private, I'm asking if anyone thinks the Repubs are for labor. I don't know if it's 50% or greater than 50%, but yes, that is he concept behind non-RTW states. IF teh union is adopted in a RTW states, the others are not forced to join. That's why I throw in a lot of objective data. have questiosn for you, do think: 1) Unions are good fro workers? 2) Republicans dislike unions? 3) Unions promote better wages for workers? 4) Unions promote safer workplaces for workers? 5) Republicans promote workers advancements? If so, answer these: -----> Why does congress strike min wages bill that are not piggybacked? -----> Why did the Repubs kill the Erg Bill? -----> Why did Bush and his cronies push OT Bill until it passsed? This issue is huge, the first cite was just a start as to how Republicans have treated workers. Let's address all the issues and get an answer for that question based not upon what you or Ithink, but upon the data and legislative acts.

You need to stop running from issues and start addressing the imperical data, quotes, etc. Quit being semantic to avoid issues. So you want this thread to die? WHy? Just pick a point and run with it. All I see you doing is criticizing how I write, who cares? I'ver posted a mountain of data, pick a spot and go. http://news.yahoo.com/...ress_labor_veto_dc_1 It wouldn't come up, what is it? Can you build up a point rather than just trhowing in a URL? The original point is: Is anyone still stupid enough to believe that the Repubs are for worker's rights? That's a rhetorical question supported by union drive material and then RTW laws, safety, etc. The issue to the thread is well-rounded, unionizing is a part of it. The card signing and ballotting is a huge pain inteh ass that leads to innacuracies, why not just have an open count of cards that are to be referneced whenever needed? More relaibel, more honest, less corrupt. Is this a serious question? Uh, you have to have 50% or is it over 50%, but if you have < 50% there is no need for a vote.

And even more clarity: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/news/aa030800a.htm It was March 2000 that the HR's Divinci posted occurred. House Passes Minimum Wage Increase With Tax Cut Package But GOP Tax cut will bring presidential veto Dateline: 03/10/00 The U.S. House yesterday passed a bill that would increase the minimum wage by $1 to $6.15 over the next two years, but House Republicans succeeded in passing a companion $112 tax cut bill which President Clinton has promised to veto. "Once again, the Republican leadership has derailed what should be a simple vote on the minimum wage with a maximum of political maneuvering," stated the president after the Thursday vote. "Congress should send me a bill I can sign, not one I have to veto." By a roll call vote of 246 - 179, the House passed a bipartisan amendment to bill H.R. 3856 increasing the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15 over the next two years. Earlier, the House had passed H.R. 3081, the Republican-backed $112 billion tax cut bill, by a roll call vote of 257 - 169. The House then passed the combined bill, H.R. 3846 by a roll call vote of 282 - 143. By combining the two bills, Republicans hoped to prevent House Democrats from passing a stand-alone wage increase and making it a major campaign issue. House Republicans argue that their tax package will help offset the costs of raising the minimum wage to businesses. Many GOP lawmakers consider the wage increase a "job-killer" and a roadblock to new investment and expansion of the economy. President Clinton has repeatedly stated that he would veto any legislation containing large tax cuts because they would drain money from Social Security and Medicare. Before the wage increase bill is sent to the president, differences between House and Senate versions will have to be resolved by a conference committee of both houses of Congress. So if the pres had line item voto powers, he would have done so, he vetoed the tax breaks that the Repubs had piggybacked with the min wage increase.