How come conservatives are trying to dictate to business

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
I am just trying to nail down the argument your making. For instance you now seem be saying elected officials of any given state should be able to veto any decision a business located in that state makes if they deem than decision harmful to the state economy as a whole.

This concept is generally referred to as "centralized planning" and is a core component of a socialized economy. I would have never pegged you as a closet socialist.


Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Malliber: You seem to be making the argument that conservative governmental officials know how to run an automotive plant better than VW management?

Well here is what the typical conservative official fears: The VW plant will unionize and soon other automotive plants all over the south will unionize falling like dominos because the employees at other plants will see how good it is at the unionized plant and want it too. Eventually unionized employees will realize their lives are better because of the unions and vote against the conservatives that tried to take their rights to unionize away.


__________________________________________________________________________


Non answer. How will unionization help the Tennessee economy more than it does now?

Please answer and stop giving us your lazy answer about how conservatives want everybody to be poor.

VW did NOT originally support this, and it is very suspicious that they are now willing to accept it.



You apparently are not going to answer my question, because I'm guessing you can't.

I will try one more time.

If unionization of the VW plant is so good, then why wouldn't Tennessee officials support it?

They obviously feel that it is going to cost the state revenues.
I have answered your question a few times. I will try once more with an economic basis:
Generally speaking overall wages in the region should go up which is beneficial to the economy as a whole. People will have more disposable income to spend at other businesses located in the state.
But now answer my question do you want elected officials to hold veto power over businesses decisions?
Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
I have answered your question a few times. I will try once more with an economic basis:
Generally speaking overall wages in the region should go up which is beneficial to the economy as a whole. People will have more disposable income to spend at other businesses located in the state.
But now answer my question do you want elected officials to hold veto power over businesses decisions?


You would be wrong. Unionization will not only eliminate direct jobs, but will indirectly eliminate other jobs in the community.

California (voted the worst state to do business in, several years in a row) has liberals who veto power over business decisions. Do you agree that California should not be doing that?
Your forgetting I confessed to loving socialism. Higher wages do result in more jobs, and a better standard of living. Most of the rest of the 1st world now considers the U.S. cheap labor. Even Italy considers us a cheap labor.

Employees getting treated better including higher wages is a good thing. The problem in California is largely due to the prohibition on raising property tax valuations. You have people and companies that owned property in the 1970s paying property taxes rates based upon 1970s valuations. Since California can't make use of property taxes like most other states they are forced to implement other taxes and fees to make up for it. So the unattractive business environment you speak of was a product of conservative activism.


Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
I have answered your question a few times. I will try once more with an economic basis:
Generally speaking overall wages in the region should go up which is beneficial to the economy as a whole. People will have more disposable income to spend at other businesses located in the state.
But now answer my question do you want elected officials to hold veto power over businesses decisions?


You would be wrong. Unionization will not only eliminate direct jobs, but will indirectly eliminate other jobs in the community.

California (voted the worst state to do business in, several years in a row) has liberals who veto power over business decisions. Do you agree that California should not be doing that?



Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
Your forgetting I confessed to loving socialism. Higher wages do result in more jobs, and a better standard of living. Most of the rest of the 1st world now considers the U.S. cheap labor. Even Italy considers us a cheap labor.

Employees getting treated better including higher wages is a good thing. The problem in California is largely due to the prohibition on raising property tax valuations. You have people and companies that owned property in the 1970s paying property taxes rates based upon 1970s valuations. Since California can't make use of property taxes like most other states they are forced to implement other taxes and fees to make up for it. So the unattractive business environment you speak of was a product of conservative activism.


Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
I have answered your question a few times. I will try once more with an economic basis:
Generally speaking overall wages in the region should go up which is beneficial to the economy as a whole. People will have more disposable income to spend at other businesses located in the state.
But now answer my question do you want elected officials to hold veto power over businesses decisions?


You would be wrong. Unionization will not only eliminate direct jobs, but will indirectly eliminate other jobs in the community.

California (voted the worst state to do business in, several years in a row) has liberals who veto power over business decisions. Do you agree that California should not be doing that?



Wrong again. California is one of the highest taxed states in the nation. By the way Prop. 13 applies to people who owned property in the 70's and earlier. I have a tax base on my home based upon what I purchased it for.

In regards to unions, you seem to be very naive if you think VW just does nothing.
Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
I am just trying to nail down the argument your making. For instance you now seem be saying elected officials of any given state should be able to veto any decision a business located in that state makes if they deem than decision harmful to the state economy as a whole.

This concept is generally referred to as "centralized planning" and is a core component of a socialized economy. I would have never pegged you as a closet socialist.


Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Malliber: You seem to be making the argument that conservative governmental officials know how to run an automotive plant better than VW management?

Well here is what the typical conservative official fears: The VW plant will unionize and soon other automotive plants all over the south will unionize falling like dominos because the employees at other plants will see how good it is at the unionized plant and want it too. Eventually unionized employees will realize their lives are better because of the unions and vote against the conservatives that tried to take their rights to unionize away.


__________________________________________________________________________


Non answer. How will unionization help the Tennessee economy more than it does now?

Please answer and stop giving us your lazy answer about how conservatives want everybody to be poor.

VW did NOT originally support this, and it is very suspicious that they are now willing to accept it.



You apparently are not going to answer my question, because I'm guessing you can't.

I will try one more time.

If unionization of the VW plant is so good, then why wouldn't Tennessee officials support it?

They obviously feel that it is going to cost the state revenues.


Okay let me answer it. YOU CAN'T GET ANY MORE REPUBLICAN THAN TENNESSEE. They are totally controlled by Republicans and we all know how republicans feel about unions. God forbid they even whisper union support then they would be considered Rino's. Check out this chart it is quite an eye opener. Like I said you can't get any redder than Tennessee.

Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states
Quote

Originally posted by: Tutontow
Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
I am just trying to nail down the argument your making. For instance you now seem be saying elected officials of any given state should be able to veto any decision a business located in that state makes if they deem than decision harmful to the state economy as a whole.

This concept is generally referred to as "centralized planning" and is a core component of a socialized economy. I would have never pegged you as a closet socialist.


Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Malliber: You seem to be making the argument that conservative governmental officials know how to run an automotive plant better than VW management?

Well here is what the typical conservative official fears: The VW plant will unionize and soon other automotive plants all over the south will unionize falling like dominos because the employees at other plants will see how good it is at the unionized plant and want it too. Eventually unionized employees will realize their lives are better because of the unions and vote against the conservatives that tried to take their rights to unionize away.


__________________________________________________________________________


Non answer. How will unionization help the Tennessee economy more than it does now?

Please answer and stop giving us your lazy answer about how conservatives want everybody to be poor.

VW did NOT originally support this, and it is very suspicious that they are now willing to accept it.



You apparently are not going to answer my question, because I'm guessing you can't.

I will try one more time.

If unionization of the VW plant is so good, then why wouldn't Tennessee officials support it?

They obviously feel that it is going to cost the state revenues.


Okay let me answer it. YOU CAN'T GET ANY MORE REPUBLICAN THAN TENNESSEE. They are totally controlled by Republicans and we all know how republicans feel about unions. God forbid they even whisper union support then they would be considered Rino's. Check out this chart it is quite an eye opener. Like I said you can't get any redder than Tennessee.

Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states


I don't care if they are Republican. You need to answer the questions instead of the usual "Fox News", "Right Wing Conspiracy", etc. If they believed that unionization would mean the loss of no jobs directly or indirectly and that tax revenues would increase, they would gladly endorse it. Obviously they don't believe unionization is going to help their economy.
Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote

Originally posted by: Tutontow
Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
I am just trying to nail down the argument your making. For instance you now seem be saying elected officials of any given state should be able to veto any decision a business located in that state makes if they deem than decision harmful to the state economy as a whole.

This concept is generally referred to as "centralized planning" and is a core component of a socialized economy. I would have never pegged you as a closet socialist.


Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Malliber: You seem to be making the argument that conservative governmental officials know how to run an automotive plant better than VW management?

Well here is what the typical conservative official fears: The VW plant will unionize and soon other automotive plants all over the south will unionize falling like dominos because the employees at other plants will see how good it is at the unionized plant and want it too. Eventually unionized employees will realize their lives are better because of the unions and vote against the conservatives that tried to take their rights to unionize away.


__________________________________________________________________________


Non answer. How will unionization help the Tennessee economy more than it does now?

Please answer and stop giving us your lazy answer about how conservatives want everybody to be poor.

VW did NOT originally support this, and it is very suspicious that they are now willing to accept it.



You apparently are not going to answer my question, because I'm guessing you can't.

I will try one more time.

If unionization of the VW plant is so good, then why wouldn't Tennessee officials support it?

They obviously feel that it is going to cost the state revenues.


Okay let me answer it. YOU CAN'T GET ANY MORE REPUBLICAN THAN TENNESSEE. They are totally controlled by Republicans and we all know how republicans feel about unions. God forbid they even whisper union support then they would be considered Rino's. Check out this chart it is quite an eye opener. Like I said you can't get any redder than Tennessee.

Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states


I don't care if they are Republican. You need to answer the questions instead of the usual "Fox News", "Right Wing Conspiracy", etc. If they believed that unionization would mean the loss of no jobs directly or indirectly and that tax revenues would increase, they would gladly endorse it. Obviously they don't believe unionization is going to help their economy.


No they would not.
Nope, I am not wrong just because you were late to the gold rush and couldn't cash in on it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So for someone or some company owning property in the 70s their overall state tax burden is lower than the rest of the U.S. I am also not too so sure that California is the bad business environment you claim it to be because most the high tech sector resides there. So it may be a bad business environment for companies that want to pay the lowest wages possible, but for companies looking for highly skilled employees it is a very good business environment.

Fiat had to agree to the Italian government when it bought Chrysler to not export high paying manufacturing jobs in Italy to low wage factories in the U.S. in order to get the consent of the Italian government for the deal to go forward.

Again you seem to be perfectly agreeable that government knows best when it comes running automotive companies.
Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
Nope, I am not wrong just because you were late to the gold rush and couldn't cash in on it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So for someone or some company owning property in the 70s their overall state tax burden is lower than the rest of the U.S. I am also not too so sure that California is the bad business environment you claim it to be because most the high tech sector resides there. So it may be a bad business environment for companies that want to pay the lowest wages possible, but for companies looking for highly skilled employees it is a very good business environment.

Fiat had to agree to the Italian government when it bought Chrysler to not export high paying manufacturing jobs in Italy to low wage factories in the U.S. in order to get the consent of the Italian government for the deal to go forward.

Again you seem to be perfectly agreeable that government knows best when it comes running automotive companies.


It's too bad that you dislike senior citizens so much. During the 70's many senior citizens were on fixed incomes. California wanted to raise the property taxes to 5% and reappraise homes each year in a very high appreciating economy. People got fed up because they were literally being taxed out of their homes. Why in the world would you support displacing these people?

California has been ranked 50th for states to do business in.

We have a whore of a governor who is getting paid off by union people on this high speed rail debacle, while he has done NOTHING in regards to building water storage and other infrastructure.

9.3% was the highest bracket in California for many years until a recent tax hike. You only have to make a little over $40,000 to reach that 9.3% rate. The sales taxes are some of the highest in the nation. The gasoline taxes (of which the liberals take away from highway rebuilding programs) are the highest in the nation. Unions are slowly bankrupting this state.

Should I go on. Liberal policies have been a total failure in this state.

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now