Pragmatic1

Jungle..you're talking loud and saying nothing. I admire your temerity. However opinion vs facts makes for a weak argument and you are long on opinion but short on facts......And enough with you're Goldman Sachs , savior and Obama b.s. If you take 5 minutes and go to Opensecrets.org you will see that that company gave money to both political parties to hedge their bets. After all that's what wall street does. Money usually follows a winner and after McCain picked his vp it was obvious who that was going to be. Goldman Sachs is hardly a pond of the democrat party. Perhaps you've heard the name Hank Paulson...Bush II's treasury secretary. He also happens to be the former CEO of Goldman Sachs which doesn't really support your myopic argument . Facts matter. Hell son, perhaps you should trying employing some into your
arguments.

"

jungle

Don't be shy son, show us that chart of private sector union growth over the last sixty years.

We are still waiting.

Let me help you:

http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Unio...all+(1948-2004)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...338244802.html


Your turn.

Pragmatic1

They moved because of the pro business free trade policies allowed corporations to escape the unions and the pro labor, Big government regulations they lobbied for and move jobs to third world countries. Of course it's those same Big Government regulations that prevent the same third world pilots from doing your job at commuter pilot rates. Perhaps the anti-labor GOP party will be successful in it's war against the unions and we too can compete against third world labor like our steel and auto counterparts.

Pragmatic1

For some reason your first link doesn't work when I click on it. I'm trying to keep up with your mercurial argument. I thought your argument was that there is no difference between the political parties with respect to unions. I guess after Olly destroyed that argument with facts. Now you are simply stating the obvious that union membership has decreased over the last 60 years. Yes it has and is largely due to right to work legislation in place in several states around the country. Of course this only provides more ammunition to further destroy your original argument. If you look at the list of rtw anti-union states you will see that nearly all of them are Republican Red States. In contrast the majority of the remaining states just happen to be democrat blue states. This fact, coupled with what the GOP governors are doing in WI, OH, IN, NJ and FL with union rights, how can you possibly say with a straight face that there's no difference between the parties on the labor issue. I know it's fun to pretend like " Joe the Plumber" that you will one day walk with the true wealthy of the world. But the truth is you're simply a blue collar heavy machine operator with no real transferable skills and those
socialist, liberal, Marxist policies that you've been indoctrinated to detest actually benefit you. Or you can keep smoking whatever that is on your profile photo.
Right to Work States | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

Your turn.[/QUOTE]

jungle

[/QUOTE]


Union Membership: Overall (1948-2004)
U.S. Union Membership, 1948-2004
(numbers in thousands)
Year %Workforce Total members
1948 31.8 14,271
1949 31.9 13,935
1950 31.6 14,294
1951 31.7 15,139
1952 32.0 15,632
1953 32.5 16,310
1954 32.3 15,808
1955 31.8 16,126
1956 31.4 16,446
1957 31.2 16,497
1958 30.3 15,570
1959 29.0 15,438
1960 28.6 15,516
1961 28.5 15,400
1962 30.4 16,893
1963 30.2 17,133
1964 30.2 17,597
1965 30.1 18,268
1966 29.6 18,922
1967 29.9 19,667
1968 29.5 20,017
1969 28.7 20,185
1970 29.6 20,990
1971 29.1 20,711
1972 28.8 21,205
1973 28.5 21,881
1974 28.3 22,165
1975 28.9 22,207
1976 27.9 22,153
1977 26.2 21,632
1978 25.1 21,756
1979 24.5 22,025
1980 23.2 20,968
1981 22.6 20,646
1982 21.9 19,571
1983 20.7 18,633
1984 18.8 17,340
1985 18.0 16,996
1986 17.5 16,975
1987 17.0 16,913
1988 16.8 17,002
1989 16.4 16,960
1990 16.1 16,740
1991 16.1 16,568
1992 15.8 16,390
1993 15.8 16,598
1994 15.5 16,748
1995 14.9 16,326
1996 14.5 16,269
1997 14.1 16,110
1998 13.9 16,211
1999 13.9 16,477
2000 13.5 16,258
2001 13.5 16,275
2002 13.3 16,146
2003 12.9 15,776
2004 12.5 15,472


No matter how you talk it up the facts are out there for all of us to see.
You really make it too easy.

I challenge anyone to dispute these facts, not with pap but with any real facts.

All readers of this thread will note your avoidance of facts. Go for it, bring it on, but you can't and that is why you can't hope to win.

When the actual effect of your political alignment is made clear, you lose.

I repeat, show us all any facts to the contrary and I will immediately admit defeat.

More crickets?

Pragmatic1

My avoidance of fact? Hilarious. You make this way too easy. Did you even bother to look at what you posted? Your data shows a drop from a high of 31.8% in 1948 to 12.5% in 2004. A drop of 19.3% in 56 years 24 years Dem, 32 GOP. Of that 19.3% drop exactly 5.3% occurred under democratic presidents and 14% under republican. Doooh! Nearly 3 to 1. In fact union membership actually grew under democrats Truman and Kennedy/ Johnson. Under republican presidents it was constant decline with the largest occurring under Reagan/Bush where membership dropped nearly 1/3. I appreciate you proving my point, but I'm sure even your own data won't change your mind. You have consistently proven that facts simply don't matter to you.....Even your own.

Here are just a few "facts" you have presented on this thread.

Your quote "you are really interested go research the largest fatcat bailout in history, still ongoing. Goldman-Sachs was a big player and funded much of the political lift."
"The promise is never delivered, but some of us see a positive when Goldman-Sachs props up our potential savior."....

Fact - Goldan Sachs gave equal to both parties....around 600k to Obama around 600k to GOP candidates. OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting

Your quote " In fact no party is a friend to labor, I challenge you to produce any evidence at all to the contrary based on factual history."...

History...well you were kind enough to provide that evidence. But who needs history when you have a current union crisis on display today. 14 democratic senators left their state to preserve the collective bargaining rights for unions. 19 GOP senators voted to take those rights away with the support of the larger GOP base even after the unions agreed to fiscal concessions. I think that qualifies as a difference between parties.

Your quote "Hell son, when you have more people in the department of agriculture than farmers, something has got to give."

Hell son, you really need to check your talking points. Department of Agriculture employs 106,000. There are over 960,000 who claim farming as primary employment.

I guess I shouldn't be surprise that a fan of Fox News cares little about fact. All that matters is that it justifies your insular view on the particular issue. Fox Noise "we distort
You believe"

Your numbers prove there has been a decline in union membership over the 56 year period you depicted. 73% decline under GOP rule 27% Dem. (57-43) would be Break even btw. Olly provided you with a nearly complete legislative history showing Dem pro-labor policy. You ignore it. I provided you with right to work data as well as present day examples of the anti-union movement of the GOP. You ignore it too and I'm sure you will choose to ignore your own data since it no longer supports your indefensible argument. Despite all the evidence to the contrary you will still claim that there is no difference between the parties on labor issues. Son.... There's no use continuing a debate with someone who has no concern for fact. The world is not flat.

FDXLAG

They certainly did. But you think it was the wages. It isnt it is the taxes, environmental regulations, mandatory beneifts, lawyers, and the union demanded benefits that make America an unfavorable place to do business. Accept of course in non rtw states where the non UAW auto industry jobs are thriving.

But I think Olly forget to mention airline deregulation, who was president then?

Pragmatic1

I'm sure all of those things were players as well. But most corporations pay little in taxes due to the many loopholes. Exxon is a great example of this and despite record profit paid zero tax. I'm been to China and they definitley don't have any real environmental policies or lawyers to represent their workers. Perhaps that's the vision you have for America. Just like all those UAW jobs that once paid 80 to 90k Bubba and Billy Bob now do for 50 k and you think that's something to brag about. You must be a VP at FedEx because I don't understand why a hourly worker would brag about depression of wages. Perhaps we can get rid of our union so we too can make 40% less.

MD11Fr8Dog

It was missing a )

Union Membership: Overall (1948-2004) - Working Life

jungle

[/QUOTE]

At last we come to the real indoctrination.

My premise is that neither party has helped stop the decline of unions over the last 56 years.

You want to squirm around with the statistics to make one side look good and ignore the bottom line.
That is ok, but it ignores the end result.


Part of your dogma wails that corporations pay no taxes, most real sources blow that out of the water:Tax bills for 5 corporate giants - Exxon Mobil: $15.1 billion (2) - CNNMoney.com

Both parties are supported by these corporations, labor also contributes.

You have taken the facts and tried to construct your own little political football and given no consideration to any other possible cause.

If you think it important to swear allegience to one side, it bothers me not at all, but it hasn't helped you.