ariscus99

Because the unions created the middle class in America and the middle class is America.

Unions did nothing of the kind. America had a thriving middle class before the unions were ever a factor.

Here's another way of looking at unions. Prof Hayek was simply brilliant!

However 22 states are right to work states, and they are among the most economically sound states right now.

Quite simply because I love my job. I love helping people. I love the adrenaline rush of going into a burning building while everyone is running out. I love the comrade re of the fire house. I get to have a family of another 1000 people in my dept. knowing any one of them would lay down their life for me, and I would do the same for them. You son may understand, police have a similar feeling towards one another, but very few others understand the brotherhood that makes up firefighting. However, in the near future I will be leaving my "cush union job" to go back to school to pursue a career that I wont be forced into unionization(thank god).

Public sector employees with their benefits package do make more than their private sector counterparts, it's been shown several times, I'm fairly sure I've posted it at least once. The salary level in and of itself may be lower but not once benefits are factored in, as I have proved, with facts.

So your okay with the democrats from WI being docked 100% of their pay as long as they continue to flee the state and refuse to do the job they were elected to do?

Ah, yes, it is the Wisconsin unions that have compromised and have given in to the economic demands but they should never, ever give up their collective bargaining right. Ever. It's a give and take from both sides, so that neither side has all the power. But walker wants all the power.

So they shouldn't EVER? But it was okay for the democrats to force the federal employees to do so?

Talking about the same topic in another forum and this little gem came up, pretty good summation of what unions are really all about.

Agreed. What people dont understand is that labor is a competative market too. People want hard workers and WILL pay them what they are worth. I've had a job at a union place and skirted joining. I got paid MORE than the union guys. How? My job required working with other companies and when i went there and busted my ass they offered me jobs..I'd threaten to leave and get a raise to stay. The people trying to hire me actually had a meeting with the union to see if they could bend the rules and pay me more than the unions starting rate so they could hire me. (eventually offered to hire me with a automatic 19 years seniority)

Unions suck...they are a place for lazy people to hide. The only thing a union has ever done for me is try to lower my pay. I eventually quit when the union tried to force me to join, take a pay cut to fit my "seniority" and charge me back dues (still owe the teamsters several k). How's that for looking out for the workers? they're looking out for themselves. Luckily i was about done with that phase of my life anyway but I could have been out a great job that helped me get through college with nice savings and no debt all thanks to the "help" of the union. Thanks but no thanks.

but he can't really go and advocate for something that he doesn't allow 2 million of his employees to participate in without looking a little silly.

And of course you have proof that it was President OBAMA who signed an executive order forbidding federal workers to strike. I didn't think so.

You know, I'm looking around, and I don't see obama giving them back their rights. Something he could advocate for, but has chosen not too, so yes I can say obama doesn't allow them to participate. Why is he not "hitting the street in comfy shoes" like he promised? Because he's a hypocrite and is trying to keep his head down. Unless you have a different explanation for yet another failed obama promise?

From the krugman article;

You don’t have to love unions, you don’t have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that they’re among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy. Indeed, if America has become more oligarchic and less democratic over the last 30 years — which it has — that’s to an important extent due to the decline of private-sector unions.

And now Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to get rid of public-sector unions, too.

The above demonstrates my point that the left doesn't really care about "fairness" or whatever; they just want to destroy America. Public sector unions are the exactly opposite of private sector unions. Early labor organizers thought that unions were needed because an individual worker had no bargaining power with an employer who owned the entire company, and so the owners were exploiting the workers, living high on the hog at their expense. Now, public sector employees are living high on the hog at taxpayer expense. The average salary for public sector employees is nearly $70,000 a year, compared with an average of $40,000 in the private sector. Public sector unions don't represent "the interests of middle- and working-class Americans." Instead, those public sector unions are extorting taxpayers to fund their sinecure jobs with their lavish benefits and pension programs. None of these people's lifestyles would be possible were it not for all the taxpayers getting up and going to work every day at private sector jobs. The protestors are protesting not greedy capitalist tyrants, but the taxpayers, those middle-class Americans who make their entire lifestyle possible. It's a disgrace and a perfect opportunity to get rid of public sector unions once and for all.

On PATCO...again:

The Carter Legacy & the Era of “Union Busting”

According to the Left’s narrative, it was the PATCO strike, the replacing of strikers in the private-sector during the 1980s, combined with the Reagan-appointed National Labor Relations Board that has caused the decline of unions. However, this view is as misleading as it is simplistic.

Before Ronald Reagan stepped into the Oval Office, the American economy had suffered

nearly a decade of economic malaise. By June of 1980, the “misery index” had reached an all-time high and the Carter Economy had become an issue of the presidential campaign. By the time November 1980 rolled around, Carter’s stagflation had become a household word and Ronald Reagan became President. However, this did not happen before President Carter had set into motion the most fundamental shift in America’s regulatory environment that caused the most remarkable decline in union power since the 1947 passage of the Taft-Hartley Amendments to the National Labor Relations Act.

While Walker wants the state workers to give up everything, including collective bargaining rights, I haven't heard him willing to make any personal sacrifices. How about giving up some of his salary and those in the state assembly too.

I did some calculations and based on the percentage he want state workers to give up - if he, those in the assembly, the money they get for staff and per diem were reduced the same - they could save about $545,000 dollars. It certainly would help. And that doesn't include eliminating mileage which they shouldn't get. I mean I never got paid to drive to my job.

But I haven't heard any such concession from him. Other governors in other states have taken pay cuts. Now it's time for him to put his money where his mouth is.

Great idea! And we can start by docking the pay 100% for the senators who decided to flee the state and not do the job they were elected to do! Good thinking CM! The last governor we had here in CA did it salary free. Another great idea would be to switch to a part time legislature with really drastic pay cuts, since our state lawmakers work even less than teachers do, why not switch to a part time and let them get second jobs.

Also Krugman's Nobel doesn't give him free reign to comment on anything and then to be left unchallenged. He's commenting on unions here, not strictly economics so it's not as if his Nobel makes him an expert on this topic. Bush went to Harvard and Yale; should we use that to determine whether he was right or wrong?

Anyways, Krugman overplays his hand by acting like unions are always playing for the good side against the mean rich people. They're not. They are advantageous to employees, and that's it. Unions don't do any favors to the rest of us (the consumers), and they certainly aren't good for business. We've seen this play out again and again in the auto industry and now public schools across the country. Unions aren't inherently bad; they serve the good purpose of making sure employees are treated decently. But that's old news now. Now, unions just grab for power like anyone else with money.

And yet . . . krugmans economics have been nothing but wrong - dead wrong. Why should any of us listen to anything the keynesians have to say? They were unable to predict the current crisis (like the Austrians have) and have been woefully impotent in implimenting any policy that has helped. And if someone who supposedly an "expert" doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground in his supposed area of expertise, why I should I listen to anything he has to say on any other subject?

So, quick trivia for all the boys and girls out there: Who stripped one of the biggest unions of their collective bargaining rights? Answer: Republicans right? No no no, Jimmy Carter and the Democrats. Why doesn't anyone know about this? Because it would make all the hypocritical democrats look even more foolish than ever. Now everyone is wondering why President Obama hasn't held good to his word that if someone tried to strip unions of their right's he'd be there in "some comfy shoes marching with you all"? Well, he doesn't keep many promises so this isn't really too much different, but he can't really go and advocate for something that he doesn't allow 2 million of his employees to participate in without looking a little silly.

Here's the story;

Union bosses, Democrats and their sycophantic followers on the Left have been allowed to rewrite history for 30 years. Despite evidence to the contrary (see chart at right), they have largely cast blame for the fall of unions on “The Reagan Era,” blaming Ronald Reagan (and, later, his Republican successors) for the massive decline in unionization. Sadly, for those of us in the union movement during the 80s and early 90s, like Pavlov’s dogs, we believed The Big Lie—unfortunately, many still do today—that Reagan and Republicans are the cause of the union movement’s demise. The fact of the matter is, by the time Ronald Reagan was sworn into office the die had already been cast: Private-sector union membership in the United States had already begun its free fall, aided by market forces and the deregulatory push that the Carter administration put in place.

The simplistic view of Ronald Reagan,

the union-buster, stems from the 1981 PATCO strike and the “wide-spread union-busting” that followed in the private-sector. The problem with the anti-Reagan meme is that it completely ignores broader, more structural and consequential factors that led to the decline of unions.

While Ronald Reagan did fire more than 11,000 air traffic controllers when they engaged in (as federal workers) an illegal strike less than a year after taking office, the strike contingency plan Reagan deployed had already been developed

under Carter.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under Carter conducted a management campaign of harassment against union controllers.

And 12 months before the government’s contract with PATCO was set to expire, Carter formed a “Management Strike Contingency Force” to prepare for a walkout–including the use of scabs.

The Carter Legacy & the Era of “Union Busting”

According to the Left’s narrative, it was the PATCO strike, the replacing of strikers in the private-sector during the 1980s, combined with the Reagan-appointed National Labor Relations Board that has caused the decline of unions. However, this view is as misleading as it is simplistic.

Before Ronald Reagan stepped into the Oval Office, the American economy had suffered

nearly a decade of economic malaise. By June of 1980, the “misery index” had reached an all-time high and the Carter Economy had become an issue of the presidential campaign. By the time November 1980 rolled around, Carter’s stagflation had become a household word and Ronald Reagan became President. However, this did not happen before President Carter had set into motion the most fundamental shift in America’s regulatory environment that caused the most remarkable decline in union power since the 1947 passage of the Taft-Hartley Amendments to the National Labor Relations Act.

Due, in part, to the

Great Steel Strike of 1959 (which opened the door to foreign competition), the American steel industry had already begun to decline by the time Carter was in the White House. However, by the 1970s and early 80s, more and more industries were beginning to feel the effects of the global marketplace, with Japan and Germany becoming ever-larger competitors.

Foreign competition, in turn, was beginning to bring greater economic pressure to bear on U.S. companies which caused them to begin re-evaluating the old labor-relations models. The increased economic pressure caused companies to begin taking a harder line in negotiating union contracts with unions across the country and, in cases where unions struck, companies began to use with more frequency a tool that had been

available since the 1930s, the right to permanently replace economic strikers.

When Ronald Reagan appointed members to the National Labor Relations Board, his appointments and their subsequent decisions were frequently blasted as being “anti-union.” Notwithstanding the argument that many of the NLRB’s decisions under the Reagan Board were more favorable to employers than any since the Eisenhower Board, even the

totality of the Reagan Board’s decisions could not have had the negative outcomes that were set in motion by Carter.

Deregulating Railroads, Trucking & Breaking Ma Bell’s Back

In addition to deregulating the airline industry earlier in his Presidency, in 1980, two laws were signed by Carter that greatly transformed the rail and trucking industries. The first was the Staggers Rail Act and the other was the Motor Carrier Act. By largely deregulating both the rail and trucking industries, these two laws have significantly altered the landscape for transportation unions.

When President Carter signed the Staggers Rail Act into law, he

proclaimed:

“By stripping away needless and costly regulation in favor of marketplace forces wherever possible, this act will help assure a strong and healthy future for our nation’s railroads,” the president’s signing statement promised. “Consumers can be assured of improved railroads delivering their goods with dispatch.”

For the most part, Carter’s prediction has come to pass, as railroads were able to finally able to set their own prices and dump unprofitable lines. However, with deregulation has come a loss of union membership as the industry changed over the last 30 years.

Wow, democrats busting unions and deregulating? What's that all about?

Here's more;

. In 1978, Democratic President Jimmy Carter, backed by a Democratic Congress, passed the Civil Service Reform Act. Washington had already established its General Schedule (GS) classification and pay system for workers. The 1978 bill went further, focused as it was on worker accountability and performance. It severely proscribed the issues over which employees could bargain, as well as prohibited compulsory union support.

Democrats weren't then (and aren't now) about to let their federal employees dictate pay. The GS system, as well as the president and Congress, sees to that. Nor were they about to let workers touch health-care or retirement plans. Unions are instead limited to bargaining over personnel employment practices such as whether employees are allowed to wear beards, or whether the government must pay to clean uniforms.

In Wisconsin, for instance, the teachers union doesn't just bargain for more health dollars. It also bargains to require that local school districts buy health insurance for their teachers through the union-affiliated health-insurance plan, called WEA Trust. That requirement gives the union (not the state) ultimate say over health benefits. It also costs the state at least $68 million more annually than it would if schools could buy the state-employee health plan—money that goes to a union outfit.

Since Washington pols aren't about to let unions run their town, the result is a weird bifurcation. On the state level, union campaign dollars are primarily contingent upon Democrats agreeing to allow public-employee unions to milk taxpayers dry. On the federal level, union dollars are primarily contingent upon Democrats agreeing to pervert federal laws and institutions so that private-sector unions get special privileges over employers and nonunion companies—consider project-labor agreements, Davis-Bacon and card check.

All of this helps explain why Mr. Obama has gone quiet on Wisconsin, and why Organizing for America is scurrying to hide its involvement. The president's initial instinct was to jump into the state, a 2012 battleground area where he might build points with his liberal base.

First of all none of that Title X money is used for abortions. It is used for all the other services I listed. No tax dollars are used for abortions.

That money is going to a business that performs abortions. Connect those dots. Eliminate the service from planned parenthood, and move that service to another clinic, get the people who donate the money to planned parenthood for abortions do donate it to other places that do abortions so planned parenthood is no longer a part of the abortion world, which would make many people much more at ease about giving them money for women's health and family planning. What is wrong with planned parenthood not offering abortions, but instead referring it elsewhere?

Good dodge. A+

Don't be angry with me, because I've done my best not to use the government, and think that others can do the same if they want to. It's choices that I and my family have chosen throughout our lives. I understand it's not for everyone. But I think the country would be a much better place if people tried harder.

I understand that you're older, and have experienced most that life has to offer so you are an absolutely brilliant old lady who knows more than anyone in there 20's could ever know. I get that, I really do. But see, what maybe you don't get is that just because it took you, 40-50-60+ years(I don't know your age) to gain all this knowledge through experience, doesn't mean everyone else will take as long to gain experience's. On a daily basis I see some of the worst the world has to offer, and I see people at their worst most vulnerable time's. It can accelerate certain parts of a life having to deal with this. It affords me the opportunity to see an aspect of human life that you've never seen, and probably never will. Allowing some young dumb idealistic punk like me to have knowledge that maybe others of my age don't. And then again maybe it doesn't. But I know I've seen things you've never seen, never will, and probably can't imagine or want to see. And if that doesn't add up to life experience, well I must be headed the wrong way. But I'm happy with it.

Now, do your best not to contort this into something it's not, I know how you love to do that. I'm not saying I know it all, or that I have nothing left to learn, I know that the exact opposite is true. What I'm saying is you sound ignorant when you write me off based on my age.

As I used to tell pattygreen - if saving unborn babies and reducing abortion is the REAL agenda and the most important thing - then reducing unwanted pregnancies is the most important way to do that.

In order to reduce unwanted pregnancies you must be willing to provide access to contraceptives to poor people - men and women. They don't have $50 or $60 to buy it at a drugstore. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's all about personal responsiblities and if you dont' have money don't have sex - but we live in the real world where poor people have sex. Imagine that!! I guess if you're poor you shouldn't have sex. That's the immature mantra from the right but hardly realistic. Like telling teens not to have sex before marriage. That doesn't work either. A mature debate deals with the world as it is. I want poor people to be responsible and go to these clinics and get birth control and family planning.

So, if reducing unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions is the real agenda then those who call themselves pro-life will support funding for family planning clinics that provide it.

And birth control can fail, so even if someone buys their own, that is no guarantee it will work. There was something in the news recently that an implant didn't work and women were getting pregnant - which is a reason abortion needs to be kept safe and legal.

By all means keep abortion safe and legal. I've never once said I was against it. I wouldn't want my wife or daughter or sisters to have one, but I know it's not my choice, and it shouldn't be. If I had to carry a child I sure as hell wouldn't let someone tell me what to do about it. That doesn't mean however I should sit around for 24-25-26 weeks and then decide to have an abortion, late term abortion and abortions of viable babies is disgusting and that should be illegal. Like what this guy was doing, delivering live babies and cutting their spinal cords with scissors. But if a woman wants a first trimester abortion, then have at it, after some soul searching hopefully. It shouldn't be used as a form of birth control, which it currently is.

I don't think anyone would have any problem fully supporting Planned Parenthood if they removed abortions from the list of services offered. Why not do that? It's bargaining, right? I don't want my money going to support abortion. It should be paid for out of pocket or by your INS company or by donation. Get some of your rich liberal buddies to donate some money to clinics that do abortions. But not at the same clinics that the government funds.

People know the consequences of sex. No birth control is 100% effective. Most everyone knows that as well. But to say something as outlandish as the blood of the aborted fetus' are on the hands of republicans because they don't want government money going to clinics that do abortions is irresponsible, and disgusting. The republicans aren't forcing them to have sex or have abortions, the blood is only on the hands of the people making the choice.

Great story about more passing of the buck. So people who are upside down in their homes and are behind in payments will have the banks forgive(at the cost of several billion to the banks) the price down to the current market value? Well what about the people who are upside down but not behind in payments? Screw you responsible American, you don't need help. The white house isn't talking about this yet, because they know if it comes out that this will in fact be the case, that they are only going to help people behind in their payments or in foreclosure, millions will stop paying their mortgage to try to get a slice of the government pie. And why shouldn't they? If they don't they're going to penalized for doing what they are contractually obligated to do. Don't worry big brother is here to help you out again. Though I suppose your jumping for joy about this cm because the banks will be paying for it, redistributing some wealth around yay.

How can fringe benefits cost nearly as much as a workers salary? Answer: Collective bargaining.

The showdown in Wisconsin over fringe benefits for public employees boils down to one number: 74.2. That's how many cents the public pays Milwaukee public-school teachers and other employees for retirement and health benefits for every dollar they receive in salary. The corresponding rate for employees of private firms is 24.3 cents.Gov. Scott Walker's proposal would bring public-employee benefits closer in line with those of workers in the private sector. And to prevent benefits from reaching sky-high levels in the future, he wants to restrict collective-bargaining rights.

The average Milwaukee public-school teacher salary is $56,500, but with benefits the total package is $100,005, according to the manager of financial planning for Milwaukee public schools. When I showed these figures to a friend, she asked me a simple question: "How can fringe benefits be nearly as much as salary?" The answers can be found by unpacking the numbers in the district's budget for this fiscal year:•State Pension. Teachers belong to the Wisconsin state pension plan. That plan requires a 6.8% employer contribution and 6.2% from the employee. However, according to the collective-bargaining agreement in place since 1996, the district pays the employees' share as well, for a total of 13%.

•Teachers' Supplemental Pension. In addition to the state pension, Milwaukee public-school teachers receive an additional pension under a 1982 collective-bargaining agreement. The district contributes an additional 4.2% of teacher salaries to cover this second pension. Teachers contribute nothing.

•Classified Pension. Most other school employees belong to the city's pension system instead of the state plan. The city plan is less expensive but here, too, according to the collective-bargaining agreement, the district pays the employees' 5.5% share.

Overall, for teachers and other employees, the district's contributions for pensions and Social Security total 22.6 cents for each dollar of salary. The corresponding figure for private industry is 13.4 cents. The divergence is greater yet for health insurance:

•Health care for current employees. Under the current collective- bargaining agreements, the school district pays the entire premium for medical and vision benefits, and over half the cost of dental coverage. These plans are extremely expensive.

This is partly because of Wisconsin's unique arrangement under which the teachers union is the sponsor of the group health-insurance plans. Not surprisingly, benefits are generous. The district's contributions for health insurance of active employees total 38.8% of wages. For private-sector workers nationwide, the average is 10.7%.

As the costs of pensions and insurance escalate, the governor's proposal to restrict collective bargaining to salaries—not benefits—seems entirely reasonable.

In addition to the cuts mentioned above, the republicans in their infinite hypocrisy, are cutting funds for Title X family planning which enables 5 million women nationwide access to health care including breast exams, mammograms, cancer screening, birth control and screening for STD's. In my area, about 80,000 women access this care. Medical clinics that receive these funds prevent nearly a million unintended pregnancies a year thereby preventing thousands of abortions.

So, by cutting this funding there will be an increase in abortion. Now, I know that the republican's so called pro-life stance is phoney - they don't really care about babies or life. But they will still have the blood of these murdered babies (which is how they refer to abortion) on their hands by cutting family planning funds. But somehow they will get away with this hypocrisy because it won't be headlined in the media like the tea partiers message that Obama wasn't born here or the elderly receiving home heating assistance are abusing the system -what with their mentality of entitlements and all.

I like how you say the blood of the babies will be on the republican's hands, once again passing responsibility onto someone else. Are the republicans forcing these women to have sex? Are they not allowing them to walk into the neighborhood drug store and buy condoms, or spermicidal foam, or any of the other dozens of contraceptives? Are they hindering them from taking some of their own money, walking into a doctors office and paying the $60 fee to be scene and the $50 dollar prescription? Life and it's choices have consequences. If a women chooses to have unprotected sex, that is her choice. If a man chooses to have unprotected sex it's his choice. People need to take RESPONSIBILITY for their actions. I doubt there are few people out there who don't know that the consequences of unprotected sex are often pregnancy and STD's. I'll believe the republicans have blood on there hands when you show me how they are forcing people to have unprotected sex. Hell I walk into the bathroom of my local grocery store and buy and FDA approved condom for 25 cents. If I CHOOSE not to use it, I suffer the consequences. There is not statute stating I must have sex, or preventing me from budgeting for birth control myself. It's another part of the nanny state that democrats are working towards.

Where did I ever say that I thought the "you" was directed at me personally? Nowhere. I knew what you meant and when you saw my reply you backpedaled because you saw how ridiculous and insane your post was.

Here;

I don't receive any government handouts. Never did. But your're the one sucking on the teet of the union perks while bashing them. So screw you.

You can't even keep up with the crap your spewing anymore, you copy and paste and copy and paste and don't really know what your putting down, you forget stuff, it's a little sad. Thanks for playing.

Where did I ever say that I thought the "you" was directed at me personally? Nowhere. I knew what you meant and when you saw my reply you backpedaled because you saw how ridiculous and insane your post was.

You said it - you backpedaled - now don't blame me for the consequences of what you said. I, and everyone else who read your post, knew what you meant.

As I said, ask you union about whether you can opt out at the next meeting. If not, then find another non-union line of work since you find it so distasteful. In the private sector, of course. I hear Walmart's hiring. Hell, they even have those commericals on tv about how you can rise up the ladder there to all kinds off cushy positions in managment.

No, you skewed it the way that made your argument sound best, like most liberals do. I am not backpedaling, and have no need to, my family did what it had to do to survive with out being a leech on society. I would love people to have the devotion my parents did to their children to make ends meet on their own to instill a strong work ethic in there children. Show me in the post where I say every struggling American needs to dig through a dumpster? Show me that, in black and white, or get off you high horse, I can contort your words too, however I like to be honest and not do that. Try it sometime.

You take every last letter to a disgusting extreme to try and get a point across, your intellectually dishonest, it's quite disturbing. I don't do the job I do for the money or the benefits, I volunteered throughout high school and college as a firefighter, no pay, no benefits, and showed up day in and day out to help others, not for money, because there was none, not for health insurance, because there was none, not for retirement, because there was none. I'm not allowed to volunteer anymore, because of my union, or I would still be doing it. If walmart's hiring why are there so many unemployed cm? They must not want to work right. You heard it here first, cm says the unemployed masses refuse to work for Walmart where they can climb the ladder to management!!!!

Wow, that sounds dishonest, well, cm would say it so I can too.

And then the incentiveto work hard is what? If you know you aren't going to lose anything if you loseyour job, why worry about it. Eh, I'll find a job eventually.

So, you're saying that if a person loses his job it's because they didn't work hard enough? Are you sure you aren't Glenn Beck? Where is your chalkboard? More looney logic from you - you are becoming increasingly discredible, if that is possible.

Are you saying that a lack of hard work does not lead to job loss? In your field we all know it doesn't, once you reach tenure as a teacher you can do nothing, have failing students, fail your tests, rape your students, you name it (again, I'm not saying YOU personally did these things okay, focus on that while you read so your next post doesn't say that I called you a rapist because I know if I didn't make that clear you would) and you can't be fire. New York has upwards of 700 teachers getting paid to surf the internet and play scrabble because they can't be fired, thanks unions!

So in part, yes I'm saying if people lose there jobs it sometimes has to do with them not working hard. If I had to layoff ten people who do you think I'm going to choose from my 50 employees, the hardest workers? The ones who show up every morning 10 minutes early with a smile on their face? Or the one who whines and complains and I catch sitting around all doing nothing? Of course some people's job loss was beyond their control. But not all of them.

Nice try - with the backpedaling and all. But you can't put the toothpaste back in the extremist tube now. Even pattygreen didn't try to backpedal on her extremist positions.

I don't receive any government handouts. Never did. But your're the one sucking on the teet of the union perks while bashing them. So screw you.

I'm not backpedalling on anything, I was very clear about what I meant, you feel free to spin it in your mind in whatever way you need to to make yourself feel good. "You" was meant as a generality, not you specifically. The world doesn't actually revolve around you, get over yourself, your acting like a sixteen year old girl. And my union, as I've said wont allow me not to be a part of it.

Firsty of all no one held the banks hostages and forced them to make badloans. When we went to buy our first and second home we didn't knowwhat table or computations the banks used to calculate your eligibility for theloan. If we had chosen too expensive of a house, they would have toldus. And if the banks are making $1 million dollar loans to peopleearning $70,000 then they need to get out of the banking business because theyare stupid and creating risk for the rest of us. So, it is thebank's fault.

Thethousands of mortgage defaults and foreclosures in the "subprime"housing market (i.e., mortgage holders with poor credit ratings) is the directresult of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make badloans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans tolow-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call"communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purelyeconomic criteria.

Theoriginal lobbyists for the CRA were the hardcore leftists who supported theCarter administration and were often rewarded for their support with governmentgrants and programs like the CRA that they benefited from. These includedvarious "neighborhood organizations," as they like to callthemselves, such as "ACORN" (Association of Community Organizationsfor Reform Now). These organizations claim that over $1 trillion in CRA loanshave been made, although no one seems to know the magnitude with muchcertainty. A U.S. Senate Banking Committee staffer told me about ten years agothat at least $100 billion in such loans had been made in the first twentyyears of the Act. So-called "communitygroups" like ACORN benefit themselves from theCRA through a process that sounds like legalized extortion. The CRA is enforcedby four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of theCurrency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit InsuranceCorporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, ornew branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these fourbureaucracies if a CRA "protest" is issued by a "communitygroup." This can cost banks great sums of money, and the "communitygroups" understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They usethis leverage to get the banks to give them millions of dollars as well as promising to make acertain amount of bad loans in their communities. A mannamed Bruce Marks became quite notorious during the last decade for pressuringbanks to earmark literally billions of dollars to his organization, the"Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America." He once boasted tothe New York Times that he had "won" loancommitments totaling $3.8billion fromBank of America, First Union Corporation, and the Fleet Financial Group. Andthat is just one "community group" operating in one city — Boston.

Bankshave been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA: If they comply, they knowthey will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don't comply, theyface financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers,branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost alarge corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars. Like mostbusinesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to theirbureaucratic masters.

Consequently,banks in every community in America have been forced to hold a portfolio of badloans, euphemistically referred to as "subprime" loans. In order tocompensate themselves for the added risk of extending these loans, many lendershave increased the lending fees associated with mortgage loans. This is simplyan indirect way of doing what banks always do — and what they must do to remainsolvent: charging effectively higher rates of interest on riskier loans.

Butthis is discriminatory!, complained the "community organizations."Thus, if one browses the ACORN web site, one can read of their boasts of having"predatory lending laws" passed in numerous states which outlaw suchfees, prohibiting banks from protecting themselves from the added risk involvedin making forced loans to "subprime" borrowers.

These are price control laws, and price controls alwayscause shortages. Normally, banks would respond to such laws by extending fewerriskier loans. But in this case the banks areforced tocontinue making the marginal loans by their bureaucratic masters at the Fed andthe other three federal bureaucracies mentioned above. So-called predatorylending laws therefore force the banks to "eat" the losses. This isundoubtedly a contributing factor to the bankruptcy of dozens of mortgagelenders over the past year.

Thenof course there is the issue of the Fed's monetary policy having created thehousing bubble, characterized by a spectacular escalation of real estate valuesin every American city over the past decade or so. This created a furtherproblem for the financial institutions that are victimized by the CRA. They areforced to make a certain amount of bad loans, but because of the Fed-createdexplosion in housing prices, many thousands of subprime borrowers no longerqualified, by a long stretch, for conventional mortgages based on theirincomes.

Theonly way these borrowers could qualify for their mortgage loans (even ignoringtheir bad credit ratings) was to take out adjustable rate mortgages, some ofwhich had astonishingly low first-year rates in the 3 percent range, andsometimes lower. This is what has largely fueled the subprime mortgage meltdown— the inability of thousands of subprime borrowers to afford their mortgagesnow that their rates have adjusted upward. Thus, the combination of the Fed'senforcement of the CRA (with the help of political pressure groups like ACORN)and its post 9/11 monetary policy in general are the reasons for the burstingreal estate bubble and the "subprime" mortgage meltdown.

Don'texpect to read about this in the "mainstream media," however, whichgenerally views groups like ACORN as heroic champions of the poor, laws likethe CRA as anti-discrimination laws, and places all of the blame for the subprimemortgage meltdown on greedy capitalists, especially mortgage brokers.Encouraged by such reporting, the odious Senator Charles Schumer of New Yorkhas promised federal legislation that will reign in these miscreants, while theBush administration is proposing an indirect bank bailout by having the FederalHousing Administration cover many of the bad "subprime" loans. Thiswill create what economists call a "moral hazard" by encouraging evenmore bad loans to be extended in the future. Every banker in America will beglad to extend loans (at high rates of interest) to the most uncreditworthyborrowers if he thinks there is no possibility of default with the FHAeffectively guaranteeing the loan.

If someone loses their job, there ought to be some program that they canpay a certain amount each month on their mortgage until they get back on theirfeet and are able to repay the loan in full. The bank doesn't haveto foreclose (which they don't want) - the people get to stay in their homesand everyone wins.

And then the incentiveto work hard is what? If you know you aren't going to lose anything if you loseyour job, why worry about it. Eh, I'll find a job eventually.

Your whole "personal responsibility" arguement that is thecornerstone of those on the right who have jobs, homes and healthcare (and withyou and your spouse - union perks) and is just smoke and mirrors todeflect from the real problem.

Negative. The whole "personalresponsibility" argument, is based on what that stands for and represents. Iwas just watching America Live with Megyn Kelly and she had some left wing guyon who was on the same premise as you that it's all the banks fault, but hefinally acted like an adult and said someof the blame is on the bank, but the majority has to be with the person whotook out the loan they couldn't afford. And as I've stated before, if I had thechoice of not being in my union, I would, as would many of my coworkers. But ifI choose to opt out guess what? The union still take $92 a month from me. How ridiculousis that?

Show me where the middle class or working poor aren't pulling theirweight. I have provided statistics to show how productivity is up.

Show me where the middle class have gotten richer and the richpoorer. I have shown you statistics that prove the opposite.

I'm all for the poor andmiddle class getting richer, but why must the rich get poorer? Can you explainthat to me?

Show me where the current economic crisis was caused by middle classgreed, enrichment, laziness or the fault of the working poor or senior citizensgetting social security. I have shown you statistics that show itwas from Wall Street greed and bush's failed economic policies.

Well quite simply if wedidn't have SS we would have 32% of our annual budget freed up to use, whichplays into the phase out of SS being a good idea.

Show me where the power of the middle class has been enhanced in termsof wealth or political clout. The last bastion of power to level theplaying fields - the unions - is being assaulted in a concerted effort from theright (part of their larger, sinister agenda)

Why, in these timeswould their power or political clout have been enhanced? Times are bad, notgood. Things don't usually enhance during bad times. Unfortunately youtypically need money to make money, so the wealthy don't usually lose a wholelot, which is why many strive to get there. Again why should the "playing field"be level? Why shouldn't some have more than others? Those who work harderdeserve more. If you want everyone to be equal, try some communist country, butthat's not how it works in a capitalist one. If it were easy to get rich,everyone would be, and it would mean nothing. It shouldn't, however beimpossible to get rich, which because of our capitalist nation it's not. It canbe done with hard work, determination, and sometimes a little bit of luck.

Because of thecurrent recession there are more people hurting financially that are gettingunemployment, food stamps and other entitlements that they paid for when theywere working - but show me where, outside of the current recession, that thisis the biggest cause of our economic problems - or even within this recession.

Entitlements make up themajority of our national budget, so one could deduce that if they wereeliminated or restricted, that we would then have much more money to spend.

You can't give tax cuts (costing billions) - that aren't paid for- tomillionaires and billionaries - and then say we have a budget problem - andtherefore we need to cut subsidies to Planned Parenthood, or home heating oil,etc..

We just threw billions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest americans thatdidn't need it. They aren't creating jobs - they are just gettingricher. And they've been getting richer because they are taking fromthe middle class by asking for lower wages or shipping jobs overseas or anynumber of things to get richer.

Of course they ship jobsoverseas, America has(thanks to unions) largely priced itself out ofmanufacturing of goods. Why pay an American worker $20 an hour and have thembitch and moan all day long about it and only want more from you, when you canpay someone in another country $3 or $4 an hour and they are just thankful tohave a job. Companies are in the business of making money, not supporting youor me. If I own a business and I pay you $15 an hour to do your job and youcome to me and demand $25 and tell me you won't work for any less, I'll fireyou, because guess what there is 100 people in line behind you who would loveto have that job.

How about if all the Wall Street crooks give up their bonuses for oneyear and donate that money to the struggling states to be used for education,police, fire and government services? It only took the bushadministration one week - ONE FREAKING WEEK - to come up with $800 billion tobail out the crooks on Wall Street - so I think it's time they gave somethingback. THAT'S WHERE REAL PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY STARTS - WITH THEONES WHO F***ED UP.

Quit blaming the hard working people of this country - starting with the easytargets - for the crimes of the rich. It's time thewealthy started acting responsible.

It's time EVERYONEstarted acting responsibly. Starting with living within your means, that goesnot only for people but for governments especially, local, city, state, and thetrainwreck money spending national government we have.

Isn't there a homeless person you can point in the direction of a dumpster?

Classy, even for you. As I stated before, the point of that was not to say thats what people should have to do, but it's what one family chose to do in order to not take handouts from the government, because they were determined to make it on their own. If not everyone is willing to go to those extremes I understand. However if you choose to not try at all and immediately to turn suckle on the teet of government handouts, screw you.

Greedy millionaires and billionaries on wall street got $800 billion to bail them out and this is the best you can do? You can't refute the facts I have presented because you have nothing to back up your emotional rants about how it's the greedy middle class person who wants a second home that's the problem. Yeah, that's the problem.

And FYI - the number one cause of foreclosures is medical bills resulting from lack of insurance (possible due to losing their job) or insurance won't pay Not someone getting a flat screen tv. Just another right wing rant to deflect from the truth because the right wing can't handle the truth (they come out looking really bad).

Why are you trying to convince me that the bail out was unfair? I didn't want it. I would have much rather let them suffer the consequences of their actions. But nooo, they were "too big to fail" what a bunch of crap. They should have failed, because they DID fail. Letting them fall apart would have been a great example for us to put in the history books so we don't make the same mistakes again, which we will because we now the government will just bail us out of it. Who cares if we can afford and what we're doing to the economy of not only the nation but the whole world.

Here is an article written in January listing the top 4 reasons for foreclosures:

1. Economic Downturn – The decline of the economy can have a significant effect in employment. When companies downsize, a member or member of a particular family can lose their jobs. In effect, their buying power. Consequently, their ability to keep up with mortgage payments and other bills is also severely affected.2. Speculation –Another reason why a foreclosure defense lawyer Atlanta is hired is due to the fact that many real estate investors buy property based on speculation. They use the properties as rentals with the hopes that they can rake in heaps of cash later on. Foreclosure becomes inevitable when the investor lacks solid experience in managing these rental properties.

Because of the economy’s downturn its effect in the buying power of people, many renters lose the capacity to pay the required rent which consequently results to the owner’s inability to pay the mortgage on time.

3. Overspending –This is probably the most common reason why people end up hiring an Atlanta foreclosure defense attorney. Individuals who doesn’t have the skill to handle and manage their finances properly; people who have gambling problems and drug problems are more inclined to facing property foreclosures.

The solution to this problem is quite obvious—learn to manage your money effectively so you can keep up with your financial obligations and avoid further expenses that entails losing an investment or hiring a foreclosure defense lawyer Atlanta.

4. Family Crisis –Illnesses and death in the family can sneak up on us and leave us dumbfounded. If unprepared for events such as these, they can leave a gaping wound in our budget and could result to delayed or unpaid mortgage payments and other bills. Dealing with illnesses or eventual death and home eviction altogether is just not ideal.

The war cry of the left: "It's everyone else's fault!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I took out a huge loan I couldn't afford, damn you banker's, and Bush....damn you Bush. I got a second on my home to by a mercedes and a flat screen, but I lost my job and have two mortgages to pay now, damn you wall street, and damn you Bush, I deserved that car and those tv's.

I have no pity for them.

I thought I would clear this up before you twist into something it's not. By "them" I mean the people who got the "too good to be true" deals. Not the everyday Joe, who bought a reasonably priced home, that subsequently lost value, it sucks for them, and I feel bad, but that is why you save money for the hard times. As those who lived through the '20's knew, frugality is king, living within your means is a necessity, not some neat idea. But the people who went and bought an $800k house on a $60k salary, because they thought it would go up in value 30% and they could flip it and sell it for more. They were greedy, and they make up a huge number of these foreclosure's. Also the people who took out huge second mortgages to buy cars and big screen tv's, they were greedy and are now reaping what they have sewn.