Scott Walker offers a fresh new approach

[pchang]

I'm sure his bed will be filled with him, Rosy Palm, and her 5 sisters.

[DinoDoc]

classy

Hardly my best work but thanks none the less.

probably part of the reason why your bed will most likely be empty tonight

Odd to see you and pchang so desirous to speculate on my carnal activities.

[Sava]

Odd to see you and pchang so desirous to speculate on my carnal activities.

It's out of love.

I hate to see people self-sabotage whether it be anti-social extremist political beliefs, poor hygiene, or lack of social skills.

[pchang]

I have fun speculating about everyone's carnal activities (or at least their attempts at carnal activities). It's one of my main reasons for reading this site.

[-Jrabbit]

You should start a blog about your speculations and findings.

You could call it Poly Amory.

[kentonio]

Breaking the backs of the public-sector unions does two things: 1. Shows a willingness and ability to take on deep-rooted, problematic establishment interests, and 2. does one of the two things required to get state-level finances on track (the other being curbing Medicare).

I can't help but notice that your most dearly held positions seem to involve ****ing poor people and people who need help with medical treatment. Care to comment?

As for your 'breaking the backs of the public-sector unions' line, it actually amuses me. You see once upon a time I was just as vociferously anti-union as you are, however the unions at that time genuinely did have a stranglehold on my country to the extend that they were able to cause things like electricity blackouts, completely public transport shutdowns nationwide and a whole host of other things.

The idea that American unions are some mighty beast that needs to be tamed is so utterly laughable as to make you look like a fool. The power in America is firmly in the hands of those people running the big corporations and banks, not the people trying to protect increasingly disappearing rights for the workers. A job used to be enough to take care of a family, now for millions of Americans two jobs is barely enough.

[Sava]

It's an absolutely hair brained economic philosophy as well. Yes, let's take a consumer economy heavily dependent on people spending disposal income and make sure everyone has less money.

****ing stupid

[kentonio]

You just don't understand Sava, when the rich people have money, some of that money magically appears in the hands of poor people everywhere, because rich people are special like wizards or jedis. You'd trust Gandalf with your money wouldn't you? So why not Charles Koch?

[C0ckney]

As for your 'breaking the backs of the public-sector unions' line, it actually amuses me. You see once upon a time I was just as vociferously anti-union as you are, however the unions at that time genuinely did have a stranglehold on my country to the extend that they were able to cause things like electricity blackouts, completely public transport shutdowns nationwide and a whole host of other things.

if one replaces the word 'unions' with 'workers' one gets a better idea of what was going on. so when we say 'unions' had the power to do x,y and z, we mean 'workers' had the power do x, y and z; workers had power. the unions (workers) had their power taken away, leaving them almost impotent, and leaving power as you put it:

in the hands of those people running the big corporations and banks

it's no coincidence that the position of workers has worsened since then.

[Sava]

You just don't understand Sava, when the rich people have money, some of that money magically appears in the hands of poor people everywhere, because rich people are special like wizards or jedis. You'd trust Gandalf with your money wouldn't you? So why not Charles Koch?

You'd think after 35 years of wrongness, the lessons would be learned.

[DaShi]

It's not about right or wrong. It's about power and money.

[kentonio]

if one replaces the word 'unions' with 'workers' one gets a better idea of what was going on. so when we say 'unions' had the power to do x,y and z, we mean 'workers' had the power do x, y and z; workers had power. the unions (workers) had their power taken away, leaving them almost impotent, and leaving power as you put it:

Nope. In the UK we genuinely did have a position where the unions had become organizations far removed from the direct needs of the workers, where political power and ambition was rife and where the needs of the country as a whole came far, far below the union leaders goals. We were far more socialized then than we are now, and yet we managed to reach a position where the dead weren't even being buried due to strike action.

[Hauldren Collider]

I can't help but notice that your most dearly held positions seem to involve ****ing poor people and people who need help with medical treatment. Care to comment?

As for your 'breaking the backs of the public-sector unions' line, it actually amuses me. You see once upon a time I was just as vociferously anti-union as you are, however the unions at that time genuinely did have a stranglehold on my country to the extend that they were able to cause things like electricity blackouts, completely public transport shutdowns nationwide and a whole host of other things.

The idea that American unions are some mighty beast that needs to be tamed is so utterly laughable as to make you look like a fool. The power in America is firmly in the hands of those people running the big corporations and banks, not the people trying to protect increasingly disappearing rights for the workers. A job used to be enough to take care of a family, now for millions of Americans two jobs is barely enough.

Unions have no reason to exist at all, and to the extent that they do, they are harmful. The only exception I can conjure is the sports unions, and that's because the sports leagues themselves are literally trusts and have to be by the construction of their business.

I have no desire to see people with less medical care. Actually, if we cut medicare, many americans would very suddenly be able to get more medical care. You see, medicare actually just reallocates medical resources from the young and poor to the old and rich. Medical care would become far less expensive for everyone not on medicare. It's also bankrupting the government; at its current rate of growth, it will swallow all federal spending reasonably soon. It prevents states from doing things like funding schools better, fixing bridges, paying policemen, and a whole host of important government services.

[kentonio]

Unions have no reason to exist at all, and to the extent that they do, they are harmful. The only exception I can conjure is the sports unions, and that's because the sports leagues themselves are literally trusts and have to be by the construction of their business.

This is just idiotic. Seriously, have you ever bothered actually opening a history book and looking back at the times when unions actually didn't exist, and employers just **** all over workers? Or so you just not care about that?

I have no desire to see people with less medical care. Actually, if we cut medicare, many americans would very suddenly be able to get more medical care. You see, medicare actually just reallocates medical resources from the young and poor to the old and rich. Medical care would become far less expensive for everyone not on medicare. It's also bankrupting the government; at its current rate of growth, it will swallow all federal spending reasonably soon. It prevents states from doing things like funding schools better, fixing bridges, paying policemen, and a whole host of important government services.

Ignoring the last part from bankrupcy onwards, which is just downright wrong (Medicare accounted for only 14% of the budget in 2013 ffs), you are actually right about the first part. Yes, systems like Medicare (and the UK's National Health Service) are absolutely about moving the cost from the old to the young. The reason this is a completely rational and extremely moral thing to do, is because every damn one of us is going to either get old ourselves or die trying.

The idea that the young should just look after themselves and let the old manage on their own is both morally repulsive and idiotically short sighted. When you have a universal system that takes care of everyone, you not only lower costs but you ensure that people can actually concentrate on living happy productive lives.

[Sava]

He truly is a very stupid person.

(or a really good troll)