Liberals and Unions ruined American Business

Discussion in 'Politics' started by NeoRio1, Nov 20, 2008.

  1. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Personally I got no problem with them leaving, if some one else is dumb enough to pay more.



    I think AAA's point was that not all of them are successful to begin with.
     
    #31     Nov 21, 2008
  2. Are you fine with the successful ones leaving? If you are than your dumb.
     
    #32     Nov 21, 2008
  3. ACtually, yes, I apologize and should use spell check. I tend to type too quickly, especially when the market is moving like today.


    c
     
    #33     Nov 21, 2008
  4. jem

    jem

    to me, comparing ceo's is to major league ballplayers is like comparing teachers to daytraders.


    ceo's should be measured by stock profits and prices 5 years out.

    I would not have a problem paying them big money based on long term profits and shareholder value - probably measured by stock price and dividends.
     
    #34     Nov 21, 2008
  5. I am a registered indpendent, did not vote for Clinton nor Bush. I am anti-abortion, especially when used as a means of birth contol. I am a fiscal consverative, not a fan of unions, but want to keep the government out of my bedroom and everyone else's. I think there are more who think in the middle 60 percent than the extreme 20% on either side. I am not particulary religious, but respect people of faith. I support alternative enegy, including nuclear, and don't ming offshore drilling, but am unsure about drilling in Alaska wildlands.

    My point is the labeling of liberal' or neocon or calling names is just not productive. I have read some really good discussions here on ET, but one must sort through so much crap, that it makes it hard to find.

    I may have a different opinion on certain issues than you, but I am willing to bet that we agree on several major issues as well. Liberal and conservative don't need to be bad words to the other side. I remember when a day trader was cool, and then he became a horrible blight on the market. Both labels were wrong in my opinion.

    I just don't like Americans acting like European soccer fans to the point that they start to really hate each other for supporting one team or another.



    c
     
    #35     Nov 21, 2008
  6. If your so sensitive that you can't get over people calling people liberals and conservatives than get off the politics forum.

    The hyper sensitive dislike of name calling is such a meaningless and unimportant topic. I was not even addressing it as a topic and you totally ignored the rest of my comment.

    What i was addressing was the problem so many people have now days. It is the problem of actually figuring who is right and who is wrong.

    Right or wrong. A solution is fixing a wrong and turning it into a right. A falsehood of politics is when members from another thought process and belief system spread lies about the truth of what is really wrong with the issue in the first place.

    On a scale of 1-10 high CEO pay would be around a 2 to 3 when looking at the negativity it has on companies. On a scale of 1-10 Unions would be around a 7 to 8 when looking at the negativity they have on companies. It is established that unions have far stronger and wider negative impacts on companies than high CEO pay. YET! Yet member's from different belief systems refuse to believe that unions are the main problem.

    Why do they refuse to guage the importance of the issues? Because they have been living on a pro union tagline for the last 70 years and if they actually admit that powerful unions destroy companies than they will look like the capitalistic destruction crew that they are.

    So the sense of my name calling sense it's the only issue you want to debate. Trying to fix an issue by not looking at the biggest problem negatively affecting the issue is wrong. Refusing to believe the actual problem is wrong. Stating that Unions help companies when they don't is wrong. The people of different thought processes i was talking about are liberals. Liberals are pro-unions. Unions are the number one problem that destroy companies. If liberals are pro-unions than they are also pro-destruction of companies.

    Liberals would rather destroy American business than be held accountable for their own mistakes.
     
    #36     Nov 21, 2008
  7. Why don't you run for office then dipshit and do something substantive towards these convictions you have instead of living here on this forum and braying at the moon.
     
    #37     Nov 21, 2008
  8. Many people would agree that these guys are overcompensated stuffed shirts at best and corrupt buffoons at worst. But the question, Triple A, is who gets the power to tell a corporate entity what is a fair salary. Freedom to contract is an essential, and efforts to regulate exec comp would be a huge assault on this freedom.
     
    #38     Nov 22, 2008
  9. Not only that but the issue of executive pay is miniscule when compared to Unions when studied in terms of negative impacts affecting companies. One party simply ignores the comparison of negative impcats which will continue to have drastic effects. But hey as long as they can continue to convince the American people that this is simply not true the longer they get to keep their power.
     
    #39     Nov 22, 2008
  10. Are you trying to set the record for how many antagonistic threads someone can start in a week? This is 3 out of 5 threads in one category!!!

    Take some Xanax, and chill out, UnaPoster
     
    #40     Nov 22, 2008