Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I don't even remember how this all came up, but wouldn't the unions be a nice balance against the business community (as a whole, and specifically)? In terms of lobbying and campaign contributions?

No. Because they go against the business community when the business community is trying to make the economy more flexible and dynamic. And unions don't care at all about the environment so they are no help in that sphere.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
No. Because they go against the business community when the business community is trying to make the economy more flexible and dynamic. And unions don't care at all about the environment so they are no help in that sphere.

"Flexible and dynamic"? You're taking the concept of "wiggle word" to new heights. The only flexible and dynami thing business is doing is figuring out ways to lower costs. Production/revenue hasn't been moving up, so businesses for the last several years have had to "grow" profits by cutting costs. Thats the big lie in the Bush economy. The numbers don't reflect growth - they reflect wringing the same amount of product out of less bodies and machinery.

What unions are doing is trying to keep a certain standard wage for their workers. They are necessary. And you're seeing why right now. If allowed, employers will - in fact, they have an obligation to - reduce costs as much as possible. Workers are a cost. The reason so many white collar workers are getting shitty pay and shitty benefits is because they have no bargaining power. They're becoming what the blue collar workers were before unions. Business has no "check" at the moment.

I agree that theoretically, business should be allowed to wipe out as many workers as it likes. The problem is, I'm not sure that society benefits from that arrangement.

Ayn Rand, much as I like her views, was, from a practical perspective, an idiot.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Yeah, the thing about the 5 months vs. a year was in the article.

Jesus fucking christ, though, that kind of pisses me off. All kinds of kids who get fucked because both parents go to jail and there's no money to cushion it -- and fat cats get to spread out their time so that their poor pampered baby kiddies don't have to pick which felon parent to visit in prison over the weekend. Fucking Fastows should have thought about their kids before they went and committed felonies.

How many instances are you aware of in which a husband and wife commit a violent crime, are both convicted (or plead) and are sentenced concurrently? And in how many instances was one of those sentences less than a year?

Seems to me that you're complianing about a very small set of cases of violent crime. I doubt such an arrangement would have been contemplated if they had both be sentenced to a lot of time.

BTW, can you honestly say you would be equally worried about kids' living with their violent parents or with the Fastows? Methinks there are costs, as opposed to benefits, of depriving the children of their parents in this case.

None of this is to say, however, that everyone involved shouldn't have gotten more time and bigger asset forfeitures.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Unions don't care about overall growth. If the economy is growing, and creating new jobs, that does not help the unions. They need the old jobs not to be threatened. Change is their worst nightmare.

This makes no sense from an economic perspective, and it turns out to be false. For example, unions have been key supporters of drilling in the ANWR.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If growing herb in your own garden for your own use is interstate commerce, what isn't?

Guns near schools, but that's about it. I'm surprised that Rehnquist, who's usually a statist, was in dissent. And that Scalia was not. Although I haven't read the opinions.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
No. Because they go against the business community when the business community is trying to make the economy more flexible and dynamic. And unions don't care at all about the environment so they are no help in that sphere.

What about when the business community is trying to get worker safety laws repealed/modified? Unions are probably quite flexible about how businesses -- other than the one their members are employed -- conduct themselves. ILGW vs. Steelworkers, for example.

You are such a freak about seeing things you don't like as lacking any shades of grey, but being able to appreciate the finer subtleties of what you perceive to be basically on your side.

I'm thinking this is going to be another one of those "you just don't get it" things like your whole higher power crap thing.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How many instances are you aware of in which a husband and wife commit a violent crime, are both convicted (or plead) and are sentenced concurrently? And in how many instances was one of those sentences less than a year?

Seems to me that you're complianing about a very small set of cases of violent crime. I doubt such an arrangement would have been contemplated if they had both be sentenced to a lot of time.

BTW, can you honestly say you would be equally worried about kids' living with their violent parents or with the Fastows? Methinks there are costs, as opposed to benefits, of depriving the children of their parents in this case.

None of this is to say, however, that everyone involved shouldn't have gotten more time and bigger asset forfeitures.

Oh whatever. I bet couples are convicted on tax evasion type stuff all the time.

No, kids shouldn't live with murderer parents or rapist parents. Duh.

Also, duh obviously this is better for the kids. Though what the costs really would be of having both parents gone at the same time, given that there's a shitload of money and apparently relatives of an age to take care of the kids (went to high school with RT, even), I am not sure. Like whoever said (hank?), this is what boarding school is for.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Guns near schools, but that's about it. I'm surprised that Rehnquist, who's usually a statist, was in dissent. And that Scalia was not. Although I haven't read the opinions.

For some good discussion of the opinions, check out the Volokh Conspiracy. (One of the contributors there argued the case against the government.)

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Oh whatever. I bet couples are convicted on tax evasion type stuff all the time.
.

Not with the innocent spouse rules, right? And I doubt there's a lot of prison time for both spouses anyway--one of them will blame the other for the shady financial practices. Don't you watch Desparate Housewives?

But that's not a violent crime--the question was why white collar crims. get "special" treatment.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
For some good discussion of the opinions, check out the Volokh Conspiracy. (One of the contributors there argued the case against the government.)

A lamentable, but true, observation from one of the posts:

• " A decade later, the Republican Congress is vying with the Democratic Congresses of the 1930's and 1960's as the biggest supporter of increased federal power in American history. "
  

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Not with the innocent spouse rules, right? And I doubt there's a lot of prison time for both spouses anyway--one of them will blame the other for the shady financial practices. Don't you watch Desparate Housewives?

But that's not a violent crime--the question was why white collar crims. get "special" treatment.

Innocent spouse doesn't work if the spouse isn't innocent.

And my question was why do these particular people get special treatment.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Innocent spouse doesn't work if the spouse isn't innocent.

And my question was why do these particular people get special treatment.

Do you think her kids are taken care off?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Do you think her kids are taken care off?

Are you suggesting she bit off more than she could chew?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Unions don't care about overall growth. If the economy is growing, and creating new jobs, that does not help the unions. They need the old jobs not to be threatened. Change is their worst nightmare. Businesses are not altruistic, and when they are out for the own interest the don't push for good laws. It is the Business Community in General that pushes for good law, not because their are altruistic, but it is just generally what is good for the business community is good for America because it is the business community that provides the growth.

Yes, but the "business community" does very little lobbying -- virtually none compared to the amount done by individual companies and sectors, virtually all of which are happy to have protectionist, anti-growth legislation. If the makers of buggy-whips had had a good lobbyist....

Lobbyists like the Chamber of Commerce can be pro-growth in a beneficial way. But they can also be anti-tax (i.e., pro-deficit), anti-worker safety, anti-environment, and pro-welfare (i.e., oppose increasing the minimum wage or providing health insurance and let gov't bear the burden) in ways that are very damaging.

I agree with you in general about a lot of union lobbying, but I'm sure glad for some of the basic worker safety and safety net legislation that unions helped bring about.

Business lobbyists can also be as hostile to change as unions, because the business community is often very short-sighted. Environmental laws and regs, for example, are seen as a threat to existing business rather than as an opportunity for new businesses to be created. The reason behind seems obvious -- the Chamber of Commerce is funded by existing business, not by those that may be created in the future.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This makes no sense from an economic perspective, and it turns out to be false. For example, unions have been key supporters of drilling in the ANWR.

And while many unions opposed NAFTA, I believe others supported them. NAFTA, after all, was a big benefit to longshoremen and dockworkers.

Imagine that -- unions acting to further the selfish interests of their members. It sounds almost.... like capitalism. No wonder Spanky hates it.