What would Ronald Reagan have said about the goings on in Wisconsin?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Gabfly1, Mar 11, 2011.

  1. Larson

    Larson Guest



    It underscores how much the US has changed for the worse. Collective bargaining courses were standard curriculum in university business schools. I suppose those have disappeared. Not that I was ever a big supporter of unions, but their demise and small business contraction coincide with the fall of rome (USA).
     
    #11     Mar 11, 2011
  2. Hello

    Hello

    The reason no one is bothering to respond is because it is a bad argument on your part, Regan may have supported private sector unions to a degree, but there is no way he would have been fine with what is going on today. The public sector does not need unions, because the government (democrats) already give them ridiculous pay/benefits in order to buy their votes. As it stands right now you could cut 90% of public sector jobs, drop the average salary by 33% and you would still have people lining up for miles in order to get these jobs.

    You are the one who is always complaining about Regan and trickle down economics, so which is it, was Regan in favour of taxing and spending, or did he believe in trickle down economics?
     
    #12     Mar 11, 2011
  3. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Translation: Please I'm begging you, argue with me, I have nothing better to do than obsess over US politics.
     
    #13     Mar 11, 2011
  4. bpcnabe

    bpcnabe

    from the referenced wiki article linked above:

    Let me make one thing plain. I respect the right of workers in the private sector to strike. Indeed, as president of my own union, I led the first strike ever called by that union. I guess I'm maybe the first one to ever hold this office who is a lifetime member of an AFL - CIO union. But we cannot compare labor-management relations in the private sector with government. Government cannot close down the assembly line. It has to provide without interruption the protective services which are government's reason for being.

    In other words SAG, yes, public sector unions, no.
     
    #14     Mar 11, 2011
  5. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a particular fan of Reagan. Just that the self-proclaimed particular fans of Reagan do not seem to be on the same page as he was. So, you see, the hypocrisy is not really my own.

    P.S. Really? People lining up for miles to take teaching jobs?

    http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.html

    http://www.nationalforum.com/Electr...Flynt, Samuel Teacher Shortage in America.pdf
     
    #15     Mar 11, 2011
  6. Another stellar contribution to a national discussion (yours, not mine) by a concerned and involved American. Buddy, can you spare a flag pin?
     
    #16     Mar 11, 2011
  7. Hello

    Hello

    I didnt need to get by past the first line to realise the article will be completely biased b.s. I trust 2 university professors to write an unbiased report on the shortage of teachers about as much as i would trust optional777 to babysit my kids.

     
    #17     Mar 11, 2011
  8. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Thanks, I thought so too
    American or Canadian?
     
    #18     Mar 11, 2011
  9. That ties in with:

    "...It was in recognition of this that the Congress passed a law forbidding strikes by government employees against the public safety..."

    Are teaching jobs ones regarding "protective services" or public safety? And, MORE IMPORTANTLY, the above references are ones regarding the right to strike, rather than one regarding the right of collective bargaining. Try to make the distinction.

    Again, apple meet orange.
     
    #19     Mar 11, 2011
  10. So you are implicitly suggesting there is an oversupply of qualified teachers lining up to take teaching positions at even lower salaries? Kindly identify your objective sources.
     
    #20     Mar 11, 2011