Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please explain how tax breaks for one group are forced to be picked up by another. More of one groups own earned income kept in their pockets does not "cost" anyone else a dime. And besides, taxes paid by corporation's are business expenses passed on to the customer in the price of a product or service.
What about the people that want to vote for policies that stabilize the middle class that are forced to pick up the tab for all of the tax breaks that the corporatists have received in recent years
I don't have a problem with unions inherently, though I feel that many (especially teacher's unions) have lost their way and are very destructive. That said, I've always had a problem with forced union dues/membership AND representation. If you don't want to be a part of the union, you should be able able to say "no" and not have to pay dues without losing your job (forcing you to do otherwise as a legal matter is constitutionally suspect in my opinion, something that the Supreme Court may address this term). But I'm opposed to legal requirements that unions have to represent everyone within a bargaining unit, whether they are dues paying/members or not (again, this is a freedom of association issue to me).
Unions have often become nothing more than the financial arm of the Democratic Party and are often to blame for lower employment where they exist. See this study from Heritage regarding some pitfalls of unions: How Unions Work | The Employee Free Choice Act and the Economy
Quite frankly, the argument that the decline of unions (over the last 4-5 decades) has led to a small middle class has always been bizarre as the argument doesn't acknowledge the destructive role that unions have often themselves in creating such anti-competitive markets that companies are/were forced to relocate (either to other states or out of the country) and or lay off workers to meet the financial demands imposed by union pressure/collective bargaining. Just take a look at Detroit, etc. There's a reason why automakers (both foreign and domestic) are increasingly choosing right to work states to do business in. Note, while automaker jobs in right to work states pay less than in some forced-unionization states, keep in mind that they are still well-paying jobs, especially for education level (someone on an assembly line setup with little formal education shouldn't be commanding $60k per year anyway).
That's nonsense. Keeping more of the money that YOU EARNED (whether as a corporation or as individuals) is not welfare; it's keeping more of your money. Welfare is the financial support provided to people/organizations in need (note, being "in need" is understood for the purposes of welfare as not earning enough to support yourself, etc.). Corporations and other earners keeping more of their money (as opposed to people/organizations getting more money than they make/pay into the system) is not welfare. The entire "corporate welfare" term has always been bizarre to me for that reason.
Ridiculous statement. That's right up there with "tax cuts cost the Government" For that to be true you have to begin with the premise that all money is the Governments. Oh wait a minute.....that's exactly what the Democrats think.
Just an FYI--and I don't expect any anti-union folks to believe me--but union dues do NOT go to support any candidates of any party. Union FUNDS, yes. There are separate funds, usually collected through raffles and specific fundraisers that can go to support candidates, as any PAC does. In my particular union, it is very clear and transparent. There is still misunderstanding, mostly from those outside the union, or those that do not attend meetings.
Our local is very active in the community. We believe it is our responsibility as gainfully employed individuals to make our community stronger. We participate in several initiatives each year, and intend to continue to do so. We use our collective strength to help those in our unit and in others get fair treatment--we all do better when we all do better. In most cases, the Democrats are the party that would most favor the treatment we are seeking--but not always. We have had races where Republicans have been endorsed (mostly at a local/regional level).
But what Republicans do YOU know that would seek union endorsement? Do you really think hard-line GOPers would want to be aligned with a group their party so vocally seeks to destroy? Seriously? With all of the anti-union legislation, why on earth is it a shock that unions support the other side?
And unions are really about more than just increases in wages. But that doesn't really matter right at this moment. The problem with our state of discourse of late is that it is really just statements from one side and the other. Not TO each other. There is no discussion, no conceding a point, no willingness to learn from either side far too often. So, I probably just wrote all of this to make myself feel better. And I do. Until...GO!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
