Or how the Democrat Party funds its campaigns on the taxpayer dime.
Some might think that I am simply picking on unions this week. I was thinking about this premise while reading about how the SEIU astroturfs protesters to show up at Romney events for eleven bucks an hour. So while the MSM slanders the TEA Party as "astroturf" and "teabaggers" people are admitting on film that they are paid to protest on behalf of the SEIU and, by extension, Barack Obama.
If you think that's greasy, keep reading.
Public sector unions are nothing more than taxpayer funded, campaign fronts for the Democrat Party. This isn't something as innocent as a taxpayer/citizen donating to a campaign, or even the practice of a union taking dues from Democrats and Republicans and donating to Democrats. These are campaign contributions that are being taken from the United States Treasury, and your pocket whether you want it to or not.
I think it goes without saying that labor unions align with Democrats. Even more so, unions that represent public employees. In case you haven't noticed the SEIU is fully and violently behind Barack Obama and the Democrat Party 100%. As a result, all members of the SEIU have their dues go toward these campaigns, whether they are a Democrat or not. Afterall, its not like government workers have a choice of whether to join the union or not.
This practice is shady enough when it is the poor hospital and hotel workers who are bullied and intimidated into the SEIU and other such unions. What makes it so much worse in the public sector is that the donations are coming in the form of dues taken from salaries of public sector employees. These salaries, of course, come the treasury of either the US Government or the state for which the people are employed.
One of four things the Democrat Party excels at is growing government (the others are spending, taxing and appeasing our enemies). Growth of government means more government employees, etc.
More government employees = more unions members = more dues = campaign money to Democrats.
Ironically, anyone can come to this logical conclusion by following Vladimir Lenin's advice to "follow the money."
Congratulations people, you're donating to Barack Obama whether you want to or not.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Friday, September 28, 2012
As with every election season the air waves and Internet is full talking heads and politicians stumping about how the economy should be run. To this day I don't why Democrats and Republicans don't get along. After all, both are for "jobs," "a strong middle class" and "fixing the economy." Of course while making the case for their version of these things "the other guy" wants to "destroy" jobs, the middle class and the economy.
A couple of polarizing topics that will come up is unions and the minimum wage. Many people, myself included have gone into the reasons why increases to the minimum wage and unions (especially public sector unions) actually damage the economy. Simply put, minimum wage increases drive up the cost of goods and services at every level and these increases are passed on to the consumer. Your dollar means less. With a legally mandated working conditions, safety guidelines, workday, etc. unions aren't exactly fighting for safer working conditions or keeping the workers from getting screwed. Today, the only thing on the table for unions is negotiating more pay and benefits for less work. Less work per worker means more employees. This also translates to more expensive goods and services.
These cases have been made over and over again with no real change in dialog. As with every election cycle the Left is going to one of their default tactics. Scaring the crap out of people.
There are two prevalent myths about unions and minimum wage. Both of which state that without unions and minimum wages the workers will be pushed into poverty while rich fat cats, who no doubt look like the guy from Monopoly will fornicate with super models on top of stacks of cash.
The last couple years right-to-work laws have been coming up in several states. Right-to-work laws essentially state that a person does not have to pay union dues or participate in unions as a condition of employment. This has been deemed by the Left as a "war on workers." The idea is that if unions don't prevail we will be have our wages or salaries cut, we'll lose all of our benefits and be shoved off to the poor house.
I have one question: Are you a member of a union?
If you are an American, there is an 88.2% chance the answer to that question is "no." Statistically speaking, only 11.8% workers are in a union (6.9% of private sector employees and 40.7% of public sector employees). Union membership continues to decrease every year. The fact of the matter is that workers do not want to be in a union. But to hear the unions, not belonging to a union means you are about to become a serf. That being said, if you were to look at Toyota and GM what you will find is very telling. Non-unionized Toyota workers get paid more than unionized GM workers. While GM has a pension retirement plan, that is the primary source of GM's financial woes. They are contractually obligated to spend on pensions first, cars second. This results in poor quality products, which translates in to few cars sold, less revenue and on until they go bankrupt or bailed out.
Similarly, we have the minimum wage. Without the minimum wage we'd all be paid pennies a day just like in China, or whatever. We've all heard this boogeyman story. If we don't raise the minimum wage, why we'll all be in the poor house. Then corporate big wigs will fornicate with supermodels on stacks of cash while we all starve. And yes, said corporate big wigs look like the guy from Monopoly.
This is inaccurate. We are a consumer driven society. Everyone has stuff they need to buy, stuff they can sell. But what if you're not a business owner? Or don't have oil shooting out of the ground in your backyard? What can you sell? Yourself. Your work, actually. When you go to work at a job, any job, you are selling your labor. Your job is a contract between you and your employer for you to carry out certain tasks for a specified period of time. As part of the agreement you are paid as per your contract.
The fact remains that the majority of people earn more than the minimum wage. The logic that if we don't have a minimum wages means that we will all earn nothing is flawed. If the minimum wage were the only thing keeping us from earning pennies a day, then it stands to reason that we'd all be earning the minimum wage. As as stated that is obviously not the case.
Why is this? The answer is simple. Free market, supply and demand. When it comes to the supply of labor, we the people are in control. We determine what we are willing to do for what price. The minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour. Let's take two occupations, grocery bagger and logger. The grocery bagger makes minimum wage and the logger makes much more. The question becomes, if they both paid $7.25 per hour, which would you do?
If every job paid the minimum wage no one would dig coal, cut down trees or drive trucks. But what about cushy white collar jobs? While not physically demanding, white collar jobs come with a level of stress. Again, who would go to school for ten years to become a doctor if it only paid minimum wage?
At the end of the day, don't let yourself be cowed by these arguments.
Posted by Darth T at 7:56 AM
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Disclaimer: As a courtesy to the idiots and dishonest floating around out there I want to be clear: I do not endorse violence, I don't wish harm to anyone, and anyone reading should not take it as such.
On September 11, 2012 the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked and four Americans, including the US Ambassador to Libya, were murdered. At the same time the US Embassy in Egypt was also attacked. We're told that this is all because of a YouTube video. We nearly saw the same thing a while back when a Florida preacher threatened to burn a copy of the Koran. I could get into how there is evidence that the attacks were coordinated by al Qaeda. I could get into the bungled handling by the Obama Administration (shocker!). But that's not why I'm writing today. There will be time for that.
Full Disclosure: I was initially going to call this post, "Is it time to for Christians to behead those who insult Christ?" Another idea was, "Proof violence makes the world go 'round."
The original title was a throwback to a very common phrase thrown around at rallies for the "Religion of Peace."
|This is not an isolated occurrence...|
Initially, the media settled on bashing Mitt Romney for speaking out on the issue. If you haven't seen video of Romney's statements, I highly recommend you do so. It gives you a glimpse of how much better handled US foreign policy could be. I'm of the opinion that someone had to make a statement since the current President was too busy campaigning and touting how much money he's raised.
But once it was clear the attacks on Romney were a losing proposition, the media and left have gone to their default. That is conceding and apologizing for American rights. The issue, to them, is not that we have thousands to millions of people who will run amok at the slightest provocation. At best, they line the streets and trample each other to death. At worst they go on killing sprees and burn their own cities down. No that's not the issue. The issue is that someone would dare insult their prophet. As I am typing this, the man is in hiding and the federal government is scrambling to find a way to go after this man. First amendment be damned! We must appease to stop the temper tantrum.
No doubt around the Internet, or around your sphere of influence, or even on TV you've heard how "radical Christians" are just as bad (if not worse!) as radical Muslims. You know those radical Christians like chicken sandwich peddlers with the audacity to say they support man/women marriages...
This is of course is complete and total B.S. Are there crazies in the name of Christ? Sure, but Christian Radicals are your local tee-ball team compared to Radical Islam's NY Yankees. A quick Google search for "radical christians attack" shows the second result for a news story where Muslims are killing Christians. The top result is for wikipedia's "christian terrorism" article. Citing such recent examples as the Spanish Inquisition. It's very telling. The fact of the matter is that Christians simply are not as violent, radical and volatile as our Muslim counterparts (this includes the most "radical" Christians).
Let's face facts, the offending YouTube video was, well a YouTube video. Christians have an entire multi-billion dollar apparatus that dedicates its time to mocking Christianity. The entertainment industry, the Democrat Party, the media. All of these folks take no issue with mocking and denigrating Christianity. The very people hand-wringing, apologizing for and denouncing the man and his rights that made that video possible call insults to Christ "art."
|pictured: "art." and yes that is urine.|
All this, and these phonies want to thump their chests and pronounce who "edgy," "provocative" and "politically incorrect" they are. How brave of you to mock the savior of a group of people who are going to react by verbally disagreeing then running off to a bake sale for injured vets or something. Maybe they'll volunteer at a soup kitchen or have a knitting club too!
That's the real meat of this. The Bill Maher's of the world mock Christians because they have a great deal of confidence that no one is going cut their throats over it. There will be no bombs, no shooting, no beheadings. None of that will happen. Period.
Make no mistake, they don't hold Islam in higher regard than Christianity. They are afraid, plain and simple. They are scared enough that not only will they will not insult Islam, but they will also sell out their rights and the rights of others. They are practically begging to rescind the freedom of speech when it pertains to Islam. They want so bad to offend someone, but not someone who will retaliate. In short they are bullies and cowards.
Posted by Darth T at 7:04 PM