You don't what you are talking about. First of all, when someone says anything is ALWAYS bad, I know immediately that I'm dealing with someone with a limited intellectual capacity, because he is not thinking, he's simply spouting rhetoric. Did you read my post? Do you have any clue what it was like for people working in the woods or in thousands of other occupations before there were unions? The Private Sector has done fantastic things for our country. Left completely unchecked, it has also done some lousy things for our country (the polluting of the Great Lakes, Acid Rain, Child Labor, segregated lunch counters, etc,etc). Have you ever encountered a strikebreaker, paid by a company owner, swinging a baseball bat at your head? My grandfather did. Many times. If you haven't, it might be wise to limit your comments to something you know about. If, on the other hand, you are implying that unions are unnecessary in 2001, fine, make your case. But recognize that conditions were not always what they are now.
"(They essentially blackmail a company owner into surrendering more of his property then he is willing to (in the form of higher wages/benefits)."
No they don't. They don't and can't force any company owner to give up any property that he is unwilling to give up. If a company owner chooses to accede to a union's demands, he or she is doing so voluntarily, because he or she determines that the potential loss of production and loss of employees is a greater negative than the loss incurred by paying higher wages/benefits. It's very simple; it's pure, free market negotiation in the wage sector. Companies have on their side money and the freedom to hire other workers; Unions have on their side numbers and skilled labor.
"If the workers don't want to work for the offered wages they can work elsewhere."
And if the workers feel they are not being compensated adequately, they can attempt to organize and risk being fired or replaced by less skilled workers who are willing to accept a lower wage. It's all very free, on both sides. Are you trying to limit freedom? That doesn't sound very Conservative.
"There would be plenty of charities available to help the poor if the liberal government do-gooders would stop stealing our money to give to those who won't work."
No. That is a rationalization. For one thing, you get a tax write-off for the dollars and goods you give to charities, so you should be giving lots to your favorite charity, because you know that it reduces the amount you pay to that evil Federal Government. Besides, everyone could give more to charities, with or without our tax system. If we did as Jesus instructed us, we would sell all that we own and give it to charity, and then follow Him, and then we would have no tax problems at all. Here's a quiz for you: In America, which group gives the lowest percentage of annual income to charities, the top 10% of wage earners, the middle 80% or the bottom 10%? You guessed it, the (mostly Conservative) top 10% gives the samllest %. And despite the taxes they pay, they still have the most disposable income left over each month after their bills are paid, don't they? We don't give as much as we should to charities because because we are by nature selfish (see "Original Sin" in the Bible), not because of our tax system.
"Yes I saw the results of your study. So 80% of the welfare users only use it for a year or less. What gives them the right to claim my money as their own?"
I assume from your previous post about the Bible (which I will address when time permits) that you identify yourself as a Christian. The question here is whether in your heart you feel that helping people who really need it and are not long term abusers of the system is a good, moral use of your tax dollars.
"If my taxes were lower I'd give more to charities to help these people (who really need it. THE REST CAN STARVE)." (my capitalization)
What would Jesus do, John? Did He say, "If someone asks for your coat, give him your cloak also", or did He say, "If someone asks for your coat, first determine whether he is a welfare cheat"?
"But since I pay far to much for social entitlement programs there is nothing left for other charities."
There's nothing left for other charities? You mean you, the big-hearted, private-charity-oriented, Christian conservative, give nothing to charity while I, the lying, social-program-supporting, Christian liberal, give money to my Church and over a dozen charities, and volunteer my time at a school for homeless kids, as I detailed in my previous post?
You are correct here. I should have said "in 99% of cases unions are bad" In the last 1% they are only neutral.
No they don't (blackmail owners). They don't and can't force any company owner to give up any property that he is unwilling to give up. If a company owner chooses to accede to a union's demands, he or she is doing so voluntarily, because he or she determines that the potential loss of production and loss of employees is a greater negative than the loss incurred by paying higher wages/benefits.
According to your reasoning kidnapping is totally ethical because the ransom payer is paying it voluntarily. Likewise mugging is totally ethical (when the mugge doesn't resist) because the muggee is handing over his wallet voluntarily.
So the union says "pay us more or we won't let you make anything and we'll block the entries to your plants and we'll attack any replacement workers you bring in". Sounds like blackmail to me. But according to your reasoning blackmail is totally ethical because the one paying the blackmail does it voluntarily.
"If the workers don't want to work for the offered wages they can work elsewhere."
And if the workers feel they are not being compensated adequately, they can attempt to organize and risk being fired
But the then union cries and calls for help from the Government and eventually forces the owner to hire these thugs back again. (I thank God for Ronnie firing PATCO.)
it's all very free, on both sides.
Yeah right. The union forces the owners to accept an agreement that the owners would rather not make and the unions use the Government (is it Fair Labor Relations Board?) to enforce it. The owner is blackmailed. This is not freedom.
"There would be plenty of charities available to help the poor if the liberal government do-gooders would stop stealing our money to give to those who won't work."
No. That is a rationalization. For one thing, you get a tax write-off for the dollars and goods you give to charities, so you should be giving lots to your favorite charity, because you know that it reduces the amount you pay to that evil Federal Government.
I get NOTHING from moneys taken by the government for entitlement programs. The moneys on which I get write offs would be given anyway as God commands these tithes. I'd give more if the government didn't steal it first.
Besides, everyone could give more to charities, with or without our tax system. If we did as Jesus instructed us, we would sell all that we own and give it to charity, and then follow Him, and then we would have no tax problems at all.
Jesus told this to one person (Luke 18:18-23) as an example. Did he tell this to Nicodemus (John chapter 3)? N. was rich. Why didn't Jesus tell him to sell all? Perhaps because the rich man was owned by his things and Nicodemus owned his things? The bible promises us prosperity and blessings. It is not wrong to have many things. It is only wrong when these things come between you and God, as they did for the rich man.
You guessed it, the (mostly Conservative) top 10% gives the samllest %.
And this same top 10% pays, what, 95% of the taxes taken? They've already made their contribution. Unfortunately it's taken from them at the point of a gun.
"If my taxes were lower I'd give more to charities to help these people (who really need it. THE REST CAN STARVE)."
(my capitalization)
2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
(God's Word)
Christian liberal
This is a contradiction in terms. (although the rest of the description might be accurate)
My giving is between me and God but just to maintain my witness I will let you know that we tithe and give offerings (and we tithe on gross not net)
GSA(P)