I'll admit it. I'm not a nurse. I did want to be a nurse at one time, but now Im going the RT route. I researched nursing for a long time before making the decision NOT to become one. Considering the fact that most of you complain (on here at least) of not getting fair treatment, of getting cursed out by doctors/patients, of being overstressed, overworked and not getting they pay you feel you deserve, why oh why won't you join a union? Why do you come here to vent about administration or policies when it doesn't have to be that way? I want to know what makes you feel that you don't deserve to be heard.
Iron workers have a union, boiler-makers have a union, auto workers have a union. Not to sound holier-than-thou-, but most RN have more education than those that I've previously mentioned. So, why is it that you refuse to unite, and stand against a system that seems to disrespect you? I have to know.
The Bush taxcuts offered virtually no help to the middle class. (And when you factor in cuts to middle class programs such as college financial aid a case can be made that in fact his policies have harmed the middle class.)
When given the choice between abolition of the AMT (which would benefit the middle class) and tax cuts for the top 1% and above the Republican congress chose the latter.
Your first sentence is that Bush 43's tax cuts have offered no help to the middle class, but the article you link to doesn't talk about anything other than the "fairness" of the taxes. If you'd posted a link to some article that shows REAL numbers as they apply to working stiffs like you and me, I might even listen to your argument.
This is one major problem that I have with the liberal mindset (and union mentality for that matter - since this is what the thread is about)... whenever I hear negative grumblings about tax cuts, it's always in the context of fairness. "The rich aren't paying their fair share" or "they can afford to pay more, so they should" or something of that ilk. It's always about fairness. Life isn't fair, get used to it.
So somebody else makes more ... lots more ... than you or I, they are also generally the folks that invest into our economy the most. Their dollars create jobs. Since you're into biased articles, here's one for you.
That is a great article - complete with 4 charts!!!!
. . . . . ."What make this tax nightmare scenario particularly scary are the economic benefits that will never be realized if the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts disappear. . . . "
The key point was that tax relief was not dedicated proportionately across the economy. I have no problem with tax cuts when they are fairly apportioned. Somehow I think Bush's base would do just fine with a 2.3% tax cut vs. the 7.5% they are scheduled to receive. There are a few pressing needs out there that we need to address that can only be handled through some public spending. (For example, rotting bridges, deficient roads, financial aids for students, public health etc.) The historical record which Paul Krugman and Larry Bartels have addressed at length shows that the US economy has performed better under broad prosperity models over the last 60 years than under so called "progrowth" policies.
Trying to bring this back on thread. Between 1945-73 when collective bargaining was an accepted right of workers workers achieved wage growth that matched the overall growth in economic productivity per worker. Since 1973 workers wages have stagnated and failed to keep pace with productivity growth. The net effect for the middle class has been downward pressure on wages and decreased economic mobility.
If you need a concrete example take your annual wage and add 12%. The average worker has lost 12% in earnings since 1973 under policies espoused by the heritage foundation.
Labor as a movement stands for economic opportunity regardless of the uterine lottery. Good policy asks how can we help people achive to the best of their ability. Good health and good education are a key component of closing the barriers to achievement. This does not guarantee equal results but closing the barriers helps to set the stage for people to follow their muse.
Ever think about why those jobs are being sent overseas?
Yes, because the products can be made by workers who are working for slave wages.The owners of the company can pocket more money.Pretty simple, greed.While workers here in the states keep having more and more of their jobs shipped overseas, who will be able to afford even the "cheap" goods?
Yes, because the products can be made by workers who are working for slave wages.The owners of the company can pocket more money.Pretty simple, greed.While workers here in the states keep having more and more of their jobs shipped overseas, who will be able to afford even the "cheap" goods?
I gotcha. It sounds like you're saying that we need to elevate the rest of the world's labor force/pay status so that it's equal to ours. Let me know how that goes.
As for being greedy, I guess it's not good business sense for entrepreneurs to get the best deal they can on their merchandise. If you're calling good business sense "greed," then you're more bitter towards the "haves" than I would have guessed.
Try and wrap your mind around a global economy... the US is not a biosphere where outside influences don't have any impact on us. The reason many jobs are going overseas is because there is a willing labor force.
What you consider a "slave" wage may be more money that others have earned in a lifetime. Why do you think so many people want to come to the states and work? Must be baseball and apple pies. Along that line, why should they have to come here if we're importing jobs to their country?
How many jobs have you created this year? In your lifetime?
Without the efforts of the human capital no jobs or businesses can be sustained. In other words the people who do the work are the greatest resource of any organization.
Without the efforts of the human capital no jobs or businesses can be sustained. In other words the people who do the work are the greatest resource of any organization.
I agree with the above, but you completely missed the point ... and are unwittingly helping me to illustrate mine.
Let's recap to stay stay on track: The comment was made that Bush tax cuts did nothing for the middle class and only helped the rich. I said, "the money the rich aren't paying in taxes help create jobs." Herring thinks I'm denigrating nurses. Viking is trying to change the subject by distraction with "people are the greatest resource..."
People ARE the greatest resource in any organization. If the Bush tax cuts are creating jobs, then I'd think this would be a good thing. Union labor likes jobs, new jobs, more jobs. Creating jobs thereby expands the "greatest resource" a business has.
This thread is starting to bore me. Was hoping to have an intelligent conversation because the mental exercise is good, but it sounds more and more like a broken record espousing the same ol' same ol'.
diveRN
135 Posts
Your first sentence is that Bush 43's tax cuts have offered no help to the middle class, but the article you link to doesn't talk about anything other than the "fairness" of the taxes. If you'd posted a link to some article that shows REAL numbers as they apply to working stiffs like you and me, I might even listen to your argument.
This is one major problem that I have with the liberal mindset (and union mentality for that matter - since this is what the thread is about)... whenever I hear negative grumblings about tax cuts, it's always in the context of fairness. "The rich aren't paying their fair share" or "they can afford to pay more, so they should" or something of that ilk. It's always about fairness. Life isn't fair, get used to it.
So somebody else makes more ... lots more ... than you or I, they are also generally the folks that invest into our economy the most. Their dollars create jobs. Since you're into biased articles, here's one for you.