Tennessee has hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers, businesses large and small are going under, and the new jobs being created here is few to none.
All of this in a state that has hardly any unionization at all. "Union states" are in no better or worse shape than Tennessee, other than the fact that the people who belong to unions are able to have good health insurance and make more money which they spend in local businesses and contribute to the tax base.
It would be great if you people would spend more time coming up with productive ideas for fixing the mess the Republicans made instead of reciting talking points that are misleading or just flat out lies.
The economy, thanks to Republican borrow and spend policies, has seized up and people have lost trillions of dollars, not to mention jobs and homes.
Somebody HAS to start spending money to get the economy humming again and it is clear now that banks and businesses - the core Republican constituency - are not doing it. That means the government has to.
This has happened before and it will happen again, with positive results in varying degrees. The difference this time is that President Obama's deficit spending is focused on job creation and middle class tax cuts; a formula that has been proven successful at least twice in the 20th century (once under FDR and again under Reagan, of all people).
The Republican solution - if they bothered to have one - is simply to hand tax breaks to the wealthy. Which HAS already been happening since 2003. If tax cuts for the wealthy and business were the solution, wouldn't we have avoided the whole crisis in the first place?
And the theory here that Obama works from, which again, has been proven successful here, is that by deficit spending to create jobs, that people will start working again, spend money and pay taxes and the government will get back their investment. That is what we're talking about, after all - an INVESTMENT. How come conservatives only obey the law "you have to spend money to make money" when it comes to the private sector and not to government?
For conservatives, and apparently the Chattanooga Times Free Press, sticking to failed ideas is more important than trying ones that we know will work.
Rolando says: "Meanwhile the taxpayer suffers again; this time losing part of the tax money to DC just so they can return it to the states -- after taking their piece of the action off the top."
This doesn't even make sense. The Feds are using tax money to create jobs - about 70,000 in Tennessee alone. Those 70,000 people will then pay income taxes on those jobs, which will go back to Washington to cover the initial stimulus investment.
And that's the problem with conservatives. They fail to see that the stimulus is an investment. To them, investments can only be made with private capital, which is simply ridiculous.
How about some basic Econ 101 before you spout off, Rolando.
The Employee Free Choice Act DOES NOT ELIMINATE SECRET BALLOT ELECTIONS. Period. I challenge anyone - including the author of this op-ed - to find language in the actual bill itself that shows this. The myth of "eliminating a secret ballot" is a lie and is designed by opponents to paint the bill as somehow "un-American" or anti-democratic.
They are lying. What WILL happen is that the EFCA would permit WORKERS - not employers - to decide whether they want to use a secret ballot election or majority sign-up (what you call "card-check") in the process for forming a union. This is a good thing because a union election is not remotely like what we all think of when we hear the term "election" in this country. The timetable for it is set by the employer and the employer has unlimited access and opportunity to have forced meetings on the clock that push anti-union propaganda and they have time to harrass, intimidate, bribe, and even fire workers who are pro-union before the election even happens.
Again, EFCA would allow the workers to decide on using secret ballot or majority sign-up.
And here's the other thing you need to know. The Heritage Foundation, which this editorial cites as its sources, is a right-wing Republican think tank that is notorious for producing "research" that is one-sided and skewed in order to arrive at the conclusions that its founders want. Heritage is NOT non-partisan, it is NOT non-biased, and it is definitely NOT a reliable source for accurate information. We should trust the Heritage Foundation's "research" as much as we would from a researcher funded by tobacco companies who tell us there are no risks to smoking.
It's too bad that a reputable paper like the Chattanooga Times Free Press has not done better research into the actual bill and instead rely on a Republican organization in forming its opinion.
Recruiting by unions seen rising
Redbearded, your logic is flawed.
Tennessee has hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers, businesses large and small are going under, and the new jobs being created here is few to none.
All of this in a state that has hardly any unionization at all. "Union states" are in no better or worse shape than Tennessee, other than the fact that the people who belong to unions are able to have good health insurance and make more money which they spend in local businesses and contribute to the tax base.
It would be great if you people would spend more time coming up with productive ideas for fixing the mess the Republicans made instead of reciting talking points that are misleading or just flat out lies.
Obama, Demo budget bills too big
The bottom line is this.
The economy, thanks to Republican borrow and spend policies, has seized up and people have lost trillions of dollars, not to mention jobs and homes.
Somebody HAS to start spending money to get the economy humming again and it is clear now that banks and businesses - the core Republican constituency - are not doing it. That means the government has to.
This has happened before and it will happen again, with positive results in varying degrees. The difference this time is that President Obama's deficit spending is focused on job creation and middle class tax cuts; a formula that has been proven successful at least twice in the 20th century (once under FDR and again under Reagan, of all people).
The Republican solution - if they bothered to have one - is simply to hand tax breaks to the wealthy. Which HAS already been happening since 2003. If tax cuts for the wealthy and business were the solution, wouldn't we have avoided the whole crisis in the first place?
And the theory here that Obama works from, which again, has been proven successful here, is that by deficit spending to create jobs, that people will start working again, spend money and pay taxes and the government will get back their investment. That is what we're talking about, after all - an INVESTMENT. How come conservatives only obey the law "you have to spend money to make money" when it comes to the private sector and not to government?
For conservatives, and apparently the Chattanooga Times Free Press, sticking to failed ideas is more important than trying ones that we know will work.
Stimulus helps state budget
Rolando says: "Meanwhile the taxpayer suffers again; this time losing part of the tax money to DC just so they can return it to the states -- after taking their piece of the action off the top."
This doesn't even make sense. The Feds are using tax money to create jobs - about 70,000 in Tennessee alone. Those 70,000 people will then pay income taxes on those jobs, which will go back to Washington to cover the initial stimulus investment.
And that's the problem with conservatives. They fail to see that the stimulus is an investment. To them, investments can only be made with private capital, which is simply ridiculous.
How about some basic Econ 101 before you spout off, Rolando.
Assault on real ‘employee choice’
First of all, let's be clear about one thing:
The Employee Free Choice Act DOES NOT ELIMINATE SECRET BALLOT ELECTIONS. Period. I challenge anyone - including the author of this op-ed - to find language in the actual bill itself that shows this. The myth of "eliminating a secret ballot" is a lie and is designed by opponents to paint the bill as somehow "un-American" or anti-democratic.
They are lying. What WILL happen is that the EFCA would permit WORKERS - not employers - to decide whether they want to use a secret ballot election or majority sign-up (what you call "card-check") in the process for forming a union. This is a good thing because a union election is not remotely like what we all think of when we hear the term "election" in this country. The timetable for it is set by the employer and the employer has unlimited access and opportunity to have forced meetings on the clock that push anti-union propaganda and they have time to harrass, intimidate, bribe, and even fire workers who are pro-union before the election even happens.
Again, EFCA would allow the workers to decide on using secret ballot or majority sign-up.
And here's the other thing you need to know. The Heritage Foundation, which this editorial cites as its sources, is a right-wing Republican think tank that is notorious for producing "research" that is one-sided and skewed in order to arrive at the conclusions that its founders want. Heritage is NOT non-partisan, it is NOT non-biased, and it is definitely NOT a reliable source for accurate information. We should trust the Heritage Foundation's "research" as much as we would from a researcher funded by tobacco companies who tell us there are no risks to smoking.
It's too bad that a reputable paper like the Chattanooga Times Free Press has not done better research into the actual bill and instead rely on a Republican organization in forming its opinion.