Bluegrassrivals

Free competitive enterprise is the most creative and productive form of economic order that the world has seen. The recent slow pace of American growth is due not to the failure of our free economy but to the failure of our national leadership.

The $9 billion of added interest charges on the national debt would have been even higher but for the prudent insistence of the Democratic Congress that the ceiling on interest rates for long-term Government bonds be maintained.

America uses half the minerals produced in the entire Free World. Yet our mining industry is in what may be the initial phase of a serious long-term depression. Sound policy requires that we strengthen the domestic mining industry without interfering with adequate supplies of needed materials at reasonable costs.



FROM THE 1960 DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM.

I have a very low opinion of the Democrat Party, but even I have probably underestimated the depths to which the party has sunk.

According to a recent Gallup survey, a majority of Democrats now view socialism favorably. This is a very alarming result, IMO, and it points to the failure of public schools and universities to teach Americans about the long list of socialist failures over the past century.

Looking at the flip side of this issue, it can be viewed as an indication of the success that NEA and other far left wing institutions have had in undermining the strengths of this nation.

JFK and his contemporary liberal Democrats would be shocked at how far their party has fallen.

Quote:[INDENT][Image: -hg_cxvgaugmwblhj7jpyg.gif]

Link to survey results[/INDENT]

Things have changed a lot since 1960 but not so much since 1980, when Ronald Reagan rose to rally patriotic Americans to defeat the liberal train wreck of a president of his day, Jimmy Carter. For those of you too young to have heard any of Reagan's speeches live, listen to the following speech and note how much of it applies just as much today as it did then.

[YOUTUBE="Reagan v. Obama"]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FR5MweSZjbc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FR5MweSZjbc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

Barack Obama is the man that Reagan warned us about.

[YOUTUBE="Obama, the man Ronald Reagan warned us about"]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FR5MweSZjbc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FR5MweSZjbc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

Great clip Hoot. I kind of like this one.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgTgenwl2aA&feature=player"]YouTube- Reagan Tells Obama To Shut Up![/ame]

Mr.Kimball Wrote:Great clip Hoot. I kind of like this one.

If Reagan were alive, he would be doing just that. BTW, I meant to post two videos but I must not have put the second one on the clipboard.

Those of us who watched Reagan rout the Soviets in the Cold War and the liberals here at home are now watching a rerun of the '70s. Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter on steroids.

You got to love Ronald Reagan. Those were some great videos Mr. Kimball and Hoot. For those who don't know, today is Ronald Reagan's 99th Birthday. I understand that they are working on a huge celebration for his 100th birthday next year.

thecavemaster Wrote:Ronald Reagan loved America, no doubt. He was a lovable man. He was charismatic, carried himself with an air of leadership. However, when he broke the air traffic controller's strike, he struck a blow at unions, struck a blow in the direction of the haves. Plus, the idea that what we now have, or, really, have ever had is "free market capitalism" suggests you guys buy heavily into a load of crap.

Thanks to the SPOTUS, we are moving further from a free market economy everyday. More union members now work in government than in the private sector.

The average salary for federal employees far outstrips the average private sector salary. Furthermore, 19 percent of federal employees are now paid salaries of more than $100,000 per year.

It is impossible to have a truly free economy when the federal government robs the private sector of so much wealth. Reagan did the right thing when he fired the air traffic controllers who engaged in an illegal strike and refused to heed his order to return to work.

Most politicians would have just thrown more money at the union as if they had an endless source of the green stuff. That is the Obama way. He has a long history of voting "present" instead of making the right choice.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Thanks to the SPOTUS, we are moving further from a free market economy everyday. More union members now work in government than in the private sector.

The average salary for federal employees far outstrips the average private sector salary. Furthermore, 19 percent of federal employees are now paid salaries of more than $100,000 per year.

It is impossible to have a truly free economy when the federal government robs the private sector of so much wealth. Reagan did the right thing when he fired the air traffic controllers who engaged in an illegal strike and refused to heed his order to return to work.

Most politicians would have just thrown more money at the union as if they had an endless source of the green stuff. That is the Obama way. He has a long history of voting "present" instead of making the right choice.

So, sometimes, the government should intervene? Correct? Apparently when it serves the purposes of vested interests? Maybe that's it: conservatives believe in government activism in different issues than liberals.

thecavemaster Wrote:So, sometimes, the government should intervene? Correct? Apparently when it serves the purposes of vested interests? Maybe that's it: conservatives believe in government activism in different issues than liberals.

Do you read the posts to which you respond? Do you previous your own posts? The executive branch has the responsibility to enforce the law. The air traffic controllers were breaking the law and Reagan did his job when he fired them. The issue had nothing to do with judicial activism.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Do you read the posts to which you respond? Do you previous your own posts? The executive branch has the responsibility to enforce the law. The air traffic controllers were breaking the law and Reagan did his job when he fired them. The issue had nothing to do with judicial activism.

Ronald Reagan weakened unions in favor of the Big Bosses. In real numbers, the wages of the blue collars did not even begin to match the increases of the "Bring the car 'round, would you" crowd under Reagan.

thecavemaster Wrote:Ronald Reagan weakened unions in favor of the Big Bosses. In real numbers, the wages of the blue collars did not even begin to match the increases of the "Bring the car 'round, would you" crowd under Reagan.

Do you have any numbers to support that assertion? How did Reagan weaken private unions? Democrats controlled Congress, so what laws did he sign that weakened unions?

Also, how many blue collar workers had jobs during the Reagan years versus the Carter years? Did the high unemployment rate of the Carter years not affect both blue collar and white collar workers? Did blue collar workers not benefit from the sharp drop in mortgage rates during the Reagan years?

There is no way that anybody can make a credible argument that American citizens were better off under Carter than Reagan. No way. That kind of propaganda might not even sway Chris Matthews.

Mr.Kimball Wrote:Great clip Hoot. I kind of like this one.

This really made me LOL.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Do you have any numbers to support that assertion? How did Reagan weaken private unions? Democrats controlled Congress, so what laws did he sign that weakened unions?

Also, how many blue collar workers had jobs during the Reagan years versus the Carter years? Did the high unemployment rate of the Carter years not affect both blue collar and white collar workers? Did blue collar workers not benefit from the sharp drop in mortgage rates during the Reagan years?

There is no way that anybody can make a credible argument that American citizens were better off under Carter than Reagan. No way. That kind of propaganda might not even sway Chris Matthews.

Of course, you don't have access to anything that might refute your way of seeing...which makes your continual use of the "propoganda pimp" ironic, if not plainly hypocritical.

thecavemaster Wrote:Of course, you don't have access to anything that might refute your way of seeing...which makes your continual use of the "propoganda pimp" ironic, if not plainly hypocritical.

Nothing new here. I ask you to support your assertions and you respond with a personal attack. Originality or independent thought is obviously not your forte. At least post a link to your daily liberal talking points. I can take it from there. :biggrin:

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Nothing new here. I ask you to support your assertions and you respond with a personal attack. Originality or independent thought is obviously not your forte. At least post a link to your daily liberal talking points. I can take it from there. :biggrin:

Yes, yes, Hoot, the endless posting of links suggests you to be quite independent. I would suggest to you that, for instance, "establish justice" and then apply it to a terrorist's trial requires no "think by link." I believe "justice" in this circumstance is accomplished outside a military tribunal. You, apparently, do not...though you have given no philosophical underpinning for your opinion beyond vengeance, which even you can surely admit has been, historically, a very poor substitute for justice.

thecavemaster Wrote:Yes, yes, Hoot, the endless posting of links suggests you to be quite independent. I would suggest to you that, for instance, "establish justice" and then apply it to a terrorist's trial requires no "think by link." I believe "justice" in this circumstance is accomplished outside a military tribunal. You, apparently, do not...though you have given no philosophical underpinning for your opinion beyond vengeance, which even you can surely admit has been, historically, a very poor substitute for justice.

If you cannot support opinions with any facts, your are just wasting my time along with anybody else's who takes time to read your pointless rants.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Nothing new here. I ask you to support your assertions and you respond with a personal attack. Originality or independent thought is obviously not your forte. At least post a link to your daily liberal talking points. I can take it from there. :biggrin:

Of course he doesn't have anything. He never does.

thecavemaster Wrote:Ronald Reagan weakened unions in favor of the Big Bosses. In real numbers, the wages of the blue collars did not even begin to match the increases of the "Bring the car 'round, would you" crowd under Reagan.

He did exactly what he should have. PATCO members were well imformed of what consequences they would face if they did not return to work after Reagans directive. They chose bluff tactics and paid dearly. The strike was illegal according to the Taft-Hartley Act which restricts federal union employees from striking. All collective bargaining agreements have two sides, and the union was not willing to honor their obligation to the agreement. Reagan had no choice, and I've always admired him for that stance. And before you start, this is coming from a guy who was a member of the CWA at that time.


And before you start rambling on even more about Reagan being a union buster, are you failing to remember that Reagan was once president of the Screen Actors Guild?

Mr.Kimball Wrote:He did exactly what he should have. PATCO members were well imformed of what consequences they would face if they did not return to work after Reagans directive. They chose bluff tactics and paid dearly. The strike was illegal according to the Taft-Hartley Act which restricts federal union employees from striking. All collective bargaining agreements have two sides, and the union was not willing to honor their obligation to the agreement. Reagan had no choice, and I've always admired him for that stance. And before you start, this is coming from a guy who was a member of the CWA at that time.


And before you start rambling on even more about Reagan being a union buster, are you failing to remember that Reagan was once president of the Screen Actors Guild?

Ronald Reagan wanted to reduce the power of the unions, which he saw as an impediment to growth. When Reagan broke up the air traffic controllers' union, it really changed the framework for labor relations. The ATC's were government employees, and when they were fired, it gave private employers a green light to also fire striking workers and hire permanent replacements. A number of major corporations adopted that policy, which deeply weakened unions. Workers became reluctant to strike, because they feared losing their jobs. As a corrolary, when unions are strong, workers are well positioned to say that if productivity grows 2 percent this year, they are going to get something like a 2 percent increase in wages. But as unions lose strength, gains in productivity didn't translate into wage growth. Workers were not powerful enough to demand their share. Instead the benefits of all that productivity increasingly went to those at the top.

thecavemaster Wrote:Ronald Reagan wanted to reduce the power of the unions, which he saw as an impediment to growth. When Reagan broke up the air traffic controllers' union, it really changed the framework for labor relations. The ATC's were government employees, and when they were fired, it gave private employers a green light to also fire striking workers and hire permanent replacements. A number of major corporations adopted that policy, which deeply weakened unions. Workers became reluctant to strike, because they feared losing their jobs. As a corrolary, when unions are strong, workers are well positioned to say that if productivity grows 2 percent this year, they are going to get something like a 2 percent increase in wages. But as unions lose strength, gains in productivity didn't translate into wage growth. Workers were not powerful enough to demand their share. Instead the benefits of all that productivity increasingly went to those at the top.

Demand their share? And what share do they have the right to demand? Just because they want it? Is that how it's supposed to be? Your acting like it's a right of passage or something. It's not they that are putting forth the capital of investment, etc., etc. What if there is a decrease in productivity? Should they be held accountable for that and take an associated cut when that happens too? Shouldn't it work two ways, if that's what your saying? Yet it never does.

The great thing about living in America CM (at least for the time being anyways), is that nobody has to work anyplace where they dont like where they are at. Nobody holds a gun to anybody and forces anybody to work anywhere. Every American citizen that does not like their job, does not like the pay, does not like the hours, or does not like the benefits is free to seek other employment if they want to. Nobody in this country is forced to put up anything that they may view as crap. Employers should also have the freedom to hire or deny employment for what ever reason they wish. After all it's their money at stake.




Are you still not going to acknowledge that the air controller's strike was illegal?

Mr.Kimball Wrote:Demand their share? And what share do they have the right to demand? Just because they want it? Is that how it's supposed to be? Your acting like it's a right of passage or something. It's not they that are putting forth the capital of investment, etc., etc. What if there is a decrease in productivity? Should they be held accountable for that and take an associated cut when that happens too? Shouldn't it work two ways, if that's what your saying? Yet it never does.

The great thing about living in America CM (at least for the time being anyways), is that nobody has to work anyplace where they dont like where they are at. Nobody holds a gun to anybody and forces anybody to work anywhere. Every American citizen that does not like their job, does not like the pay, does not like the hours, or does not like the benefits is free to seek other employment if they want to. Nobody in this country is forced to put up anything that they may view as crap. Employers should also have the freedom to hire or deny employment for what ever reason they wish. After all it's their money at stake.




Are you still not going to acknowledge that the air controller's strike was illegal?

It was "illegal" for African Americans to go sit and eat lunch. "Legal" ain't always the test. Justice is a higher concept than "law." Yeah, right, tell a guy with a mortgage and a couple of kids, "Hey, bud, you don't like it...take a walk." Don't play that, Kimball. Most Americans are strapped and trapped; the "golden handcuffs" and all that. It takes a rare individual to walk away from "the Dream" and examine some things, get to the point of "life does not consist in the abundance of material possessions." It is my opinion that, on the whole, workers need to be protected from "owners" much more than vice versa. I think history bears that out. Of course, "an honest day's work for an honest day's pay" does work both ways. An employee who shirks duties and doesn't do an "honest day's work" isn't pulling the weight of productivity.

thecavemaster Wrote:It was "illegal" for African Americans to go sit and eat lunch. "Legal" ain't always the test. Justice is a higher concept than "law." Yeah, right, tell a guy with a mortgage and a couple of kids, "Hey, bud, you don't like it...take a walk." Don't play that, Kimball. Most Americans are strapped and trapped; the "golden handcuffs" and all that. It takes a rare individual to walk away from "the Dream" and examine some things, get to the point of "life does not consist in the abundance of material possessions." It is my opinion that, on the whole, workers need to be protected from "owners" much more than vice versa. I think history bears that out. Of course, "an honest day's work for an honest day's pay" does work both ways. An employee who shirks duties and doesn't do an "honest day's work" isn't pulling the weight of productivity.

Would you please stop using useless unrelated examples of the such in trying to debate a subject at hand. Reagan had the nation's security being held hostage by means of an illegal strike. There are` reasons why the Taft-Hartley law was inacted.You know full well of that.

Strapped and trapped? I'm one of those guys that have mortgages and 3 kids too. I also shoulder the entire burden of guaranteeing several million dollars of borrowed capital. Yet I'm willing to put it all on the line. I should have the right to hire anybody I want or deny anyone I want. It is not anyone's "right" that they hold my life's work hostage.


Workers be protected from what? There are laws that say that you cannot not pay someone for labor rendered . Is that what you are`referring to? That is their protection.

I am glad that you do realize the "honest days pay" analogy. Seeing that it in fact, does work both ways, is all that needs to be applied.

Mr.Kimball Wrote:Would you please stop using useless unrelated examples of the such in trying to debate a subject at hand. Reagan had the nation's security being held hostage by means of an illegal strike. There are` reasons why the Taft-Hartley law was inacted.You know full well of that.

Strapped and trapped? I'm one of those guys that have mortgages and 3 kids too. I also shoulder the entire burden of guaranteeing several million dollars of borrowed capital. Yet I'm willing to put it all on the line. I should have the right to hire anybody I want or deny anyone I want. It is not anyone's "right" that they hold my life's work hostage.


Workers be protected from what? There are laws that say that you cannot not pay someone for labor rendered . Is that what you are`referring to? That is their protection.

I am glad that you do realize the "honest days pay" analogy. Seeing that it in fact does work both ways, is all that needs to be applied.

Justice does not take a back seat to passengers wanting to board a plane.
Reagan desired the weakening of unions. Do you deny that? Also, I have personally worked with a group of employees made sick by a company that subverted OSHA and allowed too high Toulene levels to exist in a plant. Bottom line: the company knew that the men and women working there had morgages to pay, kids to feed. I watched more than one man's life destroyed mentally and physically; ground up by interests and money bigger than they could imagine. For every "Erin Brockovitch" tale, there's a hundred where workers get screwed and are compensated with nothing but pain.

thecavemaster Wrote:It was "illegal" for African Americans to go sit and eat lunch. "Legal" ain't always the test. Justice is a higher concept than "law." Yeah, right, tell a guy with a mortgage and a couple of kids, "Hey, bud, you don't like it...take a walk." Don't play that, Kimball. Most Americans are strapped and trapped; the "golden handcuffs" and all that. It takes a rare individual to walk away from "the Dream" and examine some things, get to the point of "life does not consist in the abundance of material possessions." It is my opinion that, on the whole, workers need to be protected from "owners" much more than vice versa. I think history bears that out. Of course, "an honest day's work for an honest day's pay" does work both ways. An employee who shirks duties and doesn't do an "honest day's work" isn't pulling the weight of productivity.

Most US presidents, including Reagan, have taken their oaths of office seriously. Reagan was obligated to enforce the laws of the United States. PATCO had the right to challenge the constitutionality of the prohibition against strikes and it had the opportunity to challenge the legality of the firings. Reagan took the correct action or the fired air traffic controllers would have been put back to work.

What Reagan did differently than many private companies do is that he did not forgive the lawbreakers after a contract was signed. Union strikers typically believe that the law does not apply to them and the illegal actions that they take during a work stoppage will be forgiven when a new contract is signed.

If more companies followed Reagan's example, the public's perception of unions would be much better today.

You talk about unions in academic terms. If you have ever been confronted on a picket line with a large group of men wearing ski masks and carrying guns and clubs, you might see things differently. Unions should not shield lawbreakers from justice.

thecavemaster Wrote:Justice does not take a back seat to passengers wanting to board a plane.
Reagan desired the weakening of unions. Do you deny that? Also, I have personally worked with a group of employees made sick by a company that subverted OSHA and allowed too high Toulene levels to exist in a plant. Bottom line: the company knew that the men and women working there had morgages to pay, kids to feed. I watched more than one man's life destroyed mentally and physically; ground up by interests and money bigger than they could imagine. For every "Erin Brockovitch" tale, there's a hundred where workers get screwed and are compensated with nothing but pain.

Justice? What justice do you refer to. The justice done was Reagan's enforcement of a FEDERAL LAW on the books. It wasn't without warning CM. There was not one single air controller that did not know those facts when they applied for the job. If your not willing to accept the agreement of the job mandates, dont take the job. It's real simple. What you had were employees not willing to honor their end of a collectivley agreed upon contract. They were in violation. Simple story here: Nobody would have been fired if they had showed up to work and done their jobs.

I dont know if he did or not. You have proof of that in what statement he ever made? Perhaps you have an opinion, but we all know everybody has one. It doesn't always mean they are right though. However, if the PATCO example is what you are basing your opinion on then that is not even remotely applicable to your assertion.


There are regulatory and safety agencies that address those situations that you mention. Why wasn't OSHA or what ever agency that would apply in this case notified? All it takes is a phone call. Exactly who is to blame more here? Then again what does your story have to do with what we are talking about? I fail to see the correlation.

The unions problems did not start with Reagan. The union problems started from within, at one time their intentions were good news for the workers, but over the past 30 of 40 years the interest of these unions have gone from the employees to control and profits.