The DU Folks are Getting Nervous

[Erin]

Separate issue

In poor taste, I'm using this thread to pass on an e-mail I just received:

Since many are receiving a Social Security check every month
- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we put away, you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and
Senate.

Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic party.

Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

Q: Which party decided to give money to immigrants?
A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country at 65 and got
Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they
never paid a dime into it.

Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you the
Republicans want to take your Social Security. And the worst part about
it is, you believe it!

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by justhangn
Personally, I think the republicans finally good off their duff and voted because the consequences were too great if they didn't.

Just, I think you're on to something there. My county is traditionally Republican and the polling places were jampacked all day yesterday. The election ladies said they'd never seen anything like it and some of them have been working the polls since Hector was a pup. On our local government TV show, they said it was like that all over Frederick County - record turnouts.

 

[Christy]

Ahhhhhh! Poor Dems!

http://angrydems.com/

Anyone notice that OUR Board Dems are awfully quiet today? Come on guys! Come back!

I'm waiting with great anticipation to see what Ms Streisand has to say about all this!

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Christy
... I'm waiting with great anticipation to see what Ms Streisand has to say about all this!

"~`~`~`~ Mem' ries. Of the Houses we left behind.... ":silly:

 

[Sharon]

Originally posted by Kyle


"~`~`~`~ Mem' ries. Of the Houses we left behind.... ":silly:

 

[Kyle]

Christy

The angry Dems website is too damn funny!!!



They think they lost because Daschle was licking W's boots? They wish!

Daschole holding up every peice of legislation, appointments of judges and ignoring the nations concerns wouldn't have anything to do with it now...

Nor I suppose that little "Memorial Service" that resembled a mass stroking of each other....

Nor the NJ bait and switch episode!

 

[Larry Gude]

Angry Dems...

An ever humble opinion about the "angry dems" and the postings there:

God bless them for expressing themselves. If you ever wonder (or forget) why democratic or liberal or Green leaders act the way they do, just re-read this stuff.

 

[vraiblonde]

Do you know that, before the Internet, I could go about my life blissfully unaware that people like the Angry Dems existed? Kind of frightening that there are people who are not only living in a fantasy world, but that they don't seem to realize they're living in a fantasy world.

 

[Delilah903]

KKT's 2nd AMENDMENT VIEWS

I think there is a good possibility that the turn out of the Republicans at the polls on Tuesday had a lot to do with KKT's views of gun control. I really feel that this was a definite threat to most law abiding citizens in Maryland and they just didn't want to take the chance that she would get away with what she was proposing.

 

[Bruzilla]

I don't think KKT's gun control ideas had much to do with the election. I kept waiting for Ehrlich to attack her on those issues and he never really did... nor did he have to.

After spending the last few months creeping about the DU's background, it became really obvious that no one saw KKT as a serious candidate. The only reason that she was on Glendenning's ticket was her last name. Glendenning pretty much kept her locked away like a crazy uncle in the cellar. Gave her some goof-off money to do "busy" work with and stay out of his hair. She never shaped any state policies, never did any serious decision making, and never did anything that really counted.

Then when you add the fact that she's not a very effective speaker or campaigner, and you have a recipe for disaster. When she talked about her debate with Ehrlich, she focused on the point that people said she was a much better speaker than many had thought. What the heck bragging right is that? Vote for me because I speak better than most people thought I did??? She showed very clearly during that debate that she was highly partisan and didn't want to work with opposing groups or hear opposing opinions. She did this while Ehrlich was about falling all over himself ensuring that he would be open to all points of view. I think that was her big downfall. Had she focused on being more open and inclusive, she would have easily won. Instead she focused on her speaking skills and not making any "football" flubs while campaigning. Like most of the DU folks said (albeit quietly)... "she isn't that bright."

 

[Delilah903]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
I don't think KKT's gun control ideas had much to do with the election. I kept waiting for Ehrlich to attack her on those issues and he never really did... nor did he have to.

Glendenning pretty much kept her locked away like a crazy uncle in the cellar. When she talked about her debate with Ehrlich, she focused on the point that people said she was a much better speaker than many had thought. What the heck bragging right is that? Vote for me because I speak better than most people thought I did??? Had she focused on being more open and inclusive, she would have easily won. Instead she focused on her speaking skills and not making any "football" flubs while campaigning. Like most of the DU folks said (albeit quietly)... "she isn't that bright."

You could be right Bruzilla. She did seem to have difficulty remembering from time to time where she was!

It also scared me the way she squinched her eyes up every time she wanted to make a point. I think this is a sign of some type of mental illness!

 

[MGKrebs]

Shell shocked

Originally posted by Bruzilla
What went wrong for the Dems...

1. Republican voter turnout. For decades we have heard about the inner-city black vote and senior citizens being the lynchpin in politics because they have the highest turnout rates. But... we heard about these phenominal turnouts when overall turnout rates were below 30%. Most turnout rates for yesterday were around 60%, so I would guess that about 30%-40% more Republicans went out to vote than usual. Another Dem myth bites the dust.

I am definitely still in shock.
1. Agreed, repubs got the turnout. I am shocked, SHOCKED i tell you, that george turns out to have coattails after all. Did not expect his World war III Rolling Thunder Review the last few days before the election to have any impact.

2. You are right here. Dems only got to talk about what they were against, nothing about what we are for. It was a tough gig, though. Can't talk about the war. Media didn't want to talk about any scandals. Hard to go against tax cuts when the economy is in the shitter. And it's funny, but apparently, many of the same people who insist on no more gun laws, presumably in the event that we may have to fight the government someday, don't mind that the government can now read our emails, search our homes without warrants, listen to our phone calls, and detain us with no charges -indefinitely- without a lawyer-in an undisclosed location- with no judicial recourse. So civil rights was off the table too.

3. I'm surprised to hear this. If this is the perception of the mainstream, I am really saddened and discouraged. My view; the dems bought into 95% of Homeland Security- hell, they originally proposed it- but the repubs would not give that last 5% to get it passed. Bush didn't even want the bill for several months. He pulled a Clinton on us and adopted our plan, so we look stupid when we resist it.

As far as the judges- of course, my view is that if he would nominate judges who were at least superficially moderate, they would have passed them. Alas, you'll get all the right wing wackos you deserve now.

4. Wellstone- again, very sad that people would somehow think that this was a coreographed dem party event. After all, it was a memorial for the most liberal member of the Senate. What did we expect? And nobody was controlling the 20,000 Minnesotans who showed up. Oh well. Whatever.

5. How hypocritical is this? Repubs sick and tired of vendettas and whining? Jeez.

 

[Bruzilla]

MG, I had to agree 100% with Bush's reasons for sticking to his guns. I've worked with government workers all of my adult life, and I damng sure wouldn't want unionized workers responsible for protecting the country. No offense to the unions, but they do make it so that it's about impossible to get rid of someone who's a flaming incompetent. All you can do is hope to find someone stupid enough to hire them away from your group and pass your problem child onto someone else. The only other option is to promote them out of their job, which usually ends up making things worse. If were serious about homeland security, you better be able to fire the bad apples that come along without having to fight through two years of union haggling.

I think that the Dems need to realize that you are not the party of working people. Most of your support comes from people on entitlement programs, and whether they are disabled, lazy, unwed mothers of six kids, or retirees, they are not working people. These people consume revenues, they do not produce them. Don't believe me, take a look at that county map that came out after the 2000 presidential election. Gore took the major cities and south Florida. Who lives in these places? Not the working men and women that generate the tax revenues that the others consume.

Democrats will always get votes from the revenue consumers as long as they continue to deliver the goods to the entitlement programs. That's why the best weapon the Dems have is scaring people on welfare, social security, and other entitlements. The real working people are Republicans and Independents, and they are getting tired of supporting more and more consumers.

 

[MGKrebs]

Think about what you are saying!

Originally posted by Bruzilla
MG, I had to agree 100% with Bush's reasons for sticking to his guns. I've worked with government workers all of my adult life, and I damng sure wouldn't want unionized workers responsible for protecting the country.

Most of the people who responded to 9/11 were union workers. The idiots who ignored the warnings were management. UPS drivers are union, Fedex is not- the UPS drivers are every bit as good, if not better. Almost every established industry is unionized. You don't want jobs going overseas, but how are we supposed to prevent it? Do you know what the pacific dock lockout was about? many of the jobs were being replaced by automation, and the workers wanted to be retrained in new jobs so they could keep working, and the management didn't want to do it.

No offense to the unions, but they do make it so that it's about impossible to get rid of someone who's a flaming incompetent. All you can do is hope to find someone stupid enough to hire them away from your group and pass your problem child onto someone else. The only other option is to promote them out of their job, which usually ends up making things worse. If were serious about homeland security, you better be able to fire the bad apples that come along without having to fight through two years of union haggling.


This is flat out BS. The whole idea of these union rules is to keep personal vendettas and shitty management from abusing workers. I was a manager in a union shop for a long time, and i appreciated their input into my (our) decisions. They often thought of things that "the management" hadn't, that made things better. Union workers are not some sub-human species. They are just like you and me, and we all work hard when treated right. Yes, it gets a little out of hand sometimes, but these things get fixed.

If the personnel rules are that screwed up, they need to be fixed- not eliminated. Without unions, management has ALL the power. With unions, it's supposed to be more even. You know "collective bargaining".

I'm in the convention business, and a few years ago, Chicago was losing conventions because the union rules made it too expensive to go there. The unions got together, fixed things up, and now it's much better.

If you are thinking about the people working in the car tag office (or something similar), think about that job- extremely tedious, entry level type work. It's not a union problem, it's a job description problem.

I think that the Dems need to realize that you are not the party of working people. Most of your support comes from people on entitlement programs, and whether they are disabled, lazy, unwed mothers of six kids, or retirees, they are not working people. These people consume revenues, they do not produce them. Don't believe me, take a look at that county map that came out after the 2000 presidential election. Gore took the major cities and south Florida. Who lives in these places? Not the working men and women that generate the tax revenues that the others consume.

This is really sad. Now I am even more depressed. If this is the perception, we are surely screwed. So what are you saying- farm workers and strip mall workers are the only "producers"? And retirees are retired from what? Not working? Or is this a race thing? It's OK to work in the city as long as you LIVE in the burbs?

I drive through poor neighborhoods every day on my way to work. Those folks get up, get in their beat up car at 7:30 every morning just like me, and go to work. They work the worst jobs for the least pay, and have to put up with people like you telling them they are worthless scumbags.

I'm really trying hard to listen and not attempt to "convert" you, but reading stuff like this really makes me angry and depressed at the same time. I'm really trying to get a sense of why people identify with repubs, and all i keep hearing is money and racism, and a little bloodlust on top of it all. You've got your guys in now. We'll see how it works. Good luck.

 

[Larry Gude]

Krebs,

You know can't do that in here and get away with it!

To wit:

This is flat out BS. The whole idea of these union rules is to keep personal vendettas and shitty management from abusing workers.

My bro in law works for Metro. Don't even go there. He estimates some 20% are Super Stars and maybe the great middle is 40-60% who put out acceptable effort but there is a solid 1 out of 5 or more who make just as much as every body else ($30 plus per hour plus bennies) and could not hold a check out job at the 7-11.
They have to damn near commit a crime to get gone.

The dockworkers are fighting, yes, about modernization. I would to if my $100,000 a year job (ON AVERAGE!!!) was at risk. They track some containers with chalkboards to keep some of these jobs.

Yah ever notice how there is very little discussion about what, exactly, union folks make and there is endless detail about the top brass and their millions? This does not justify paying some putz who went to school with the founders son $20 mil to "under perform", but merely illustrates that, by and large, when you are making $100,000 a year and are going on strike people making $50k (about national household average) are not gonna be quite as sympathetic.

Unions have the exact same goal as the business itself: Gaining the highest possible return with the least possible expense.

You call it "protecting workers" which was more accurate 75 years ago when there was way more workers than work. I call it "return on investment" today.

Unions have a place in our society, no doubt in my mind but when there becomes an imbalance between what the product costs and what it is worth, well, we got a problem.

Voting democrat and doing nothing about illegal immigration is suicide IMHO for Unions. It is simply a fact that we do not have kids like we used to therefore the worker pool shrinks. By necessity, companies will pay more for good people but this dynamic disappears when immigrants are happy to do the job for less. Supply and demand.

As far as UPS goes, we had them both in our office at the same time, our UPS guy and our Fed Ex guy. It was hilarious, listening them bust on each other!

Bottom line, I asked them "Fedex, would you want UPS' job?"

Fedex didn't hesitate "Nope. To many rules."

I asked UPS if he wanted Fedexs job...he hesitated. Just a bit.

On the flip side, Fedex had to run, UPS stayed and chatted for a minute or two. Fedex said on the way out the door “He can afford it! He gets paid by the hour!”

There is a trade off union v. non. The protection and higher average wages costs you freedom. Most Union guys are stuck. They can't afford to leave, to change careers. That's great if opportunities elsewhere suck.

 

[MGKrebs]

Whatever.

So what is the goal? What will make you happy? What will your world be like if (when, I guess) you get your way?

Nobody on welfare? (We'll deal with the homeless later?)
Kill all our enemies? (How many are there?)
No unions? ( Just like Haiti?)
Drill for oil everywhere? (Was going to Las Vegas for vacation anyway?)
Privatize Social Security? (Why not- KPMG needs more profit)

 

[Bruzilla]

MGK, you're going to extremes... again. Unions are a good thing, but not all the time. Think back to the air traffic controllers. In setting up the Homeland Security agency, you're going to get quite a few losers into the mix, and the Prez needs to be able to get rid of these people as needed. Same deal with reassigning personnel. I grew up in the Navy with the words "The Needs of the Navy" justifying whatever the Navy needed me to do. That's the way things have to be in the military, and it should be the same deal in the HSA.

And, for the record, there are LOADS of people who abuse their union labor agreements and you know it. Why do you think that the unions fear technology so much? They would rather have us paying higher costs for goods than reduce costs through the loss of union jobs.

 

[MGKrebs]

I know I'm exaggerating.

I'm just trying to get you to say what is acceptable. So we agree- unions are a good thing...in principle. I agree that they abuse their power sometimes. That doesn't mean we have to eliminate ALL unions or work rules, as the HS bill will do for these people.

For the record, I am against the HS bill altogether. It was stupid when the dems proposed it ( a political PR gambit), I wasn't surprised when Bush opposed it ( him being against big government and all), then shocked when he suddenly embraced it, and decided we needed it RIGHT NOW. Oh, except without the employee protections. The FBI and CIA are not even included anyway, and the problem was not with the function of the field people, it was with the HQ chickensh*ts who failed to make decisions or support their field people. The HS bill will only make this worse, with a huge beauracracy gathering tons more data, that still won't be able to be analyzed in time to prevent anything (partly because we are firing Arabic translators for being gay), and it's going to take years to implement anyway, IF we can find the money to do it at all.

And why does the President alone get to make these personnel decisions? Isn't that a little weird, for the POTUS to be hiring and firing individual air traffic controllers? Seems like there should be a better way. Besides, in a "national emergency", which the President can declare, he can do all of this stuff anyway. Nevertheless, I suppose it's possible, but I doubt that the President personally reassigned YOU in the Navy. Would you want a future President Hillary Clinton with this power?