Thread: Politics and religion.

  1. #3286
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonny View Post
    And All The Freedoms Were Slowly Snuffed Out.
    Don't be sad Bonny.
    Look at it this way.....you'll still be able to eat your turkey, with a spoon.
    No need for a knife and fork....that effectively halves the amount of cutlery you will need to wash after the dinner.....you'll have that going for ya


    "I'm Back !!"

  2. #3287
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,869
    Blog Entries
    3
    Around 2003 or 2004 my daughter in law graduated from St. Ambrose. There was a Polish man by the name of Lech Walesa that spoke to the graduates & crowd in general. He told all of us to hold onto our freedoms don't left them be taken away from us. So easily said but so hard to hold on to in reality.

  3. #3288
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonny View Post
    Around 2003 or 2004 my daughter in law graduated from St. Ambrose. There was a Polish man by the name of Lech Walesa that spoke to the graduates & crowd in general. He told all of us to hold onto our freedoms don't left them be taken away from us. So easily said but so hard to hold on to in reality.
    Lech Walesa is a very clever man, I've read some of his work on anti-socialism.
    Too bad Lech isn't running your country.


    "I'm Back !!"

  4. What an interesting fact! Union membership in the US - in private industry is about 6.9% and 36% in the public sector continuing a downward trend.

    In Australia private sector union memberhsip is 14% and growing! Public sector - that is government employees - 46%. Wow.

    Those maties are a far way down the road to socialism! Look sharp maties or you'll be swallowed up in carbon taxes and union members...

  5. #3290
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Seward's Folly, AK
    Posts
    3,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary View Post
    What an interesting fact! Union membership in the US - in private industry is about 6.9% and 36% in the public sector continuing a downward trend.

    In Australia private sector union memberhsip is 14% and growing! Public sector - that is government employees - 46%. Wow.

    Those maties are a far way down the road to socialism! Look sharp maties or you'll be swallowed up in carbon taxes and union members...
    That is interesting, any chance of a source link?

    I have viewed Ausie society going the way of the Socialist for many many years.
    I have a HUGE SIG!!!!



    My Dogs. Erp the Cat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
    Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.

  6. #3291
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by blue View Post
    That is interesting, any chance of a source link?

    I have viewed Ausie society going the way of the Socialist for many many years.
    Ho hum.....looks like we've been hit with FACTS again by THE ONE WHO KNOWS ALL.
    You won't get source facts from that spoilt arrogant yankee.
    blue....she ain't got a source....hee hee.

    Now for some real facts.
    Australia has one of the best health systems in the world. We probably have one of the lowest unemployment figures in the world. Unionism rears it's ugly head every time a Labor party gets voted in, but they won't last long, and the unions will fall back on their butts where they belong.
    Australia doesn't have a shot economy, almost falling into third world status like some. The Australian dollar is way stronger than the US dollar. And, believe it or not, we here have more freedom of speech than you all in US do.

    Good God, who is she calling "Maties".....I could'nt imagine any Australian in their right mind who would even consider "mateship" with that one....I think that term would be well beyond her.


    "I'm Back !!"

  7. Quote Originally Posted by blue View Post
    That is interesting, any chance of a source link?

    I have viewed Ausie society going the way of the Socialist for many many years.
    Sure blue...the numbers are from 2010 but, before the nay-sayers attack, labor statistics are not usually reported in "real time."

    Australia

    DOL - US

    Facts are facts...

  8. #3293
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    25,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary View Post
    What an interesting fact! Union membership in the US - in private industry is about 6.9% and 36% in the public sector continuing a downward trend.

    Why such a disparity between the public sector and private industry, I wonder?
    I've been Boo'd ... right off the stage!

    Aaahh, I have been defrosted! Thank you, Bonny and Asiel!
    Brrrr, I've been Frosted! Thank you, Asiel and Pomtzu!


    "That's the power of kittens (and puppies too, of course): They can reduce us to quivering masses of Jell-O in about two seconds flat and make us like it. Good thing they don't have opposable thumbs or they'd surely have taken over the world by now." -- Paul Lukas

    Cassie's Catster page: http://www.catster.com/cats/448678

  9. Quote Originally Posted by cassiesmom View Post
    Why such a disparity between the public sector and private industry, I wonder?
    There are a couple reasons for the difference. Unions are attractive to employees who do not feel any control over their worklife - employees who work for large, impersonal employers where the decisions makers are far away from them. That rather defines most public sector jobs - postal service, firefighters, police, teachers, etc. Hospital are becoming fertile ground for union organizers - large organizations - decision makers far away.

    Smaller employers are more able to know what is going on in the organization and put out fires. Smaller organization can simply respond faster to problems.

    Wages are rarely the reason most union campaigns get started. And most campaigns begin when employees contact the union rather than the other way around. When I was working in labor relations I was involved in a few campaigns - and every time it was the same thing - favoritism - the boss.

    For example, in San Diego County the average number of employee is 12. Most people in the US public sector work for small/medium sized employers where the perceived need for a union is less.

  10. #3295
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    13,266
    Quote Originally Posted by wombat2u2004 View Post
    Now for some real facts.
    Australia has one of the best health systems in the world.
    Wom, how does the Australian health system work? I'd really like to know more about that. Thank you.
    Pat
    I meant," said Ipslore bitterly, "what is there in this world that truly makes living worthwhile?"
    Death thought about it.
    "Cats," he said eventually. "Cats are nice."

    -- Terry Pratchett, Sourcery

  11. #3296
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,869
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary View Post
    There are a couple reasons for the difference. Unions are attractive to employees who do not feel any control over their worklife - employees who work for large, impersonal employers where the decisions makers are far away from them. That rather defines most public sector jobs - postal service, firefighters, police, teachers, etc. Hospital are becoming fertile ground for union organizers - large organizations - decision makers far away.

    Smaller employers are more able to know what is going on in the organization and put out fires. Smaller organization can simply respond faster to problems.

    Wages are rarely the reason most union campaigns get started. And most campaigns begin when employees contact the union rather than the other way around. When I was working in labor relations I was involved in a few campaigns - and every time it was the same thing - favoritism - the boss.

    For example, in San Diego County the average number of employee is 12. Most people in the US public sector work for small/medium sized employers where the perceived need for a union is less.
    You mention favoritism - the boss. What do you mean by that? Like ignoring someones seniority in the company, breaking company rules, as an example. The boss would be non-union working for the company as the employee would be union working for the company type of thing? Do the bosses get reprimanded by the company like firing or transferred someplace else? I know of a company three faults by the employee even if they are protected by the union & out the door they go.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by Bonny View Post
    You mention favoritism - the boss. What do you mean by that? Like ignoring someones seniority in the company, breaking company rules, as an example. The boss would be non-union working for the company as the employee would be union working for the company type of thing? Do the bosses get reprimanded by the company like firing or transferred someplace else? I know of a company three faults by the employee even if they are protected by the union & out the door they go.
    The most common complaint leading employees to try and bring a union into the workplace is favoritism by the boss. Not being treated "fairly" by the boss. Some people always getting the dirty jobs - that sort of thing. This is before a union is elected so there is no non-union boss - union employees - yet. Yes, I have seen managers and supervisors who are disciplined - including termination - for not doing their job well. In the campaigns I have been involved in - the first thing is to make sure the supv/mgr understands his/her role. Often having a meeting with the supv/mgr present to ask employees what are the complaints and expecting the the supv/mgr to accept responsibility and talk through the issues.

    Interesting to note, the National Labor Relations Board has ruled that you cannot fire the supv/mgr until after the vote. Or at least made it very dangerous to do so.

  13. #3298
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,169
    Hey ES, I'll be the one manning the soup kitchen soon, along with some coloured people I know.
    You'd better stop being so crabby, or I won't give you a bread crust to have with your bowl of cabbage soup....heee heee


    "I'm Back !!"

  14. #3299
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,169
    Ahhhhhhhhh....it's so nice to live in the lucky country.


    "I'm Back !!"

  15. #3300
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,169
    Ohhhh.....look what I found..........

    There seems to be a lot of debate around the water cooler and the dinner table as to which President is most responsible for the increase in the National Debt.
    (Note: This debate also includes future paupers like ES)

    In this article, I’d like to take a look at the growth in the National Debt by President using an unbiased approach. This analysis uses National Debt figures from the U.S. Treasury Department and the White House Office of Management and Budget.

    To be sure, there is plenty of blame to go around for the uncontrolled growth in the National Debt. For this analysis, I’ve begun with Ronald Reagan’s first term and followed it through the first year of Barack Obama’s administration. No effort has been made to cast any particular President in a favorable or unfavorable light.

    The numbers below do NOT reflect the actual National Debt. Instead, they reflect the amount of the INCREASE in the National Debt during each presidential term.

    > Ronald Reagan’s First Term – $656 billion increase

    > Ronald Reagan’s Second Term – $1.036 trillion increase

    > George H.W. Bush’s Term – $1.587 trillion increase

    > Bill Clinton’s First Term – $1.122 trillion increase

    > Bill Clinton’s Second Term – $418 billion increase

    > George W. Bush’s First Term – $1.885 trillion increase

    > George W. Bush’s Second Term – $3.014 trillion increase

    > Barack Obama’s First “Year” – $1.573 trillion increase

    To summarize, the National Debt increased by huge amounts under each of these presidents. The largest increase for a complete term occured during George W. Bush’s second term. The largest increse during a single year occurred during Barack Obama’s first year.

    Current Obama administration projections indicate that the National Debt will increase by approximately $6.5 trillion during President Obama’s first term. If that happens, then he will obviously overtake President Bush’s record increase in the National Debt.

    It is clear that the National Debt has been growing uncontrollably in recent years, regardless of which political party has been in power. To reverse this trend, we need to hold our elected officials accountable and demand that they balance the budget and reduce the National Debt.

    Wow ES.....yer really are living beyond your means.....eh ???


    "I'm Back !!"

Similar Threads

  1. Illinois Politics
    By Puckstop31 in forum Dog House
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 10-13-2014, 03:32 PM
  2. My kind of politics!
    By RICHARD in forum Dog House
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-26-2010, 09:18 PM
  3. I hate politics!
    By Miranda_Rae in forum Dog House
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-03-2004, 10:31 PM
  4. Foreign Politics.
    By RICHARD in forum Dog House
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-15-2004, 12:28 PM
  5. politics (richard!)
    By leslie flenner in forum Dog House
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-27-2004, 02:21 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Copyright © 2001-2013 Pet of the Day.com