As if exempting Nebraska wasn't insulting enough to "equal protection"...

[Magyar]

The unions built the middle class in this country. The imvestor class is gobbling it up.

The unions gave up something to get that health care, there is no reason to take more from them than they already gave, especially in an age where the investor class can so easily steal the pensions that the union workers were supposed to receive just by using bankruptcy.

And the investors still get their tax breaks when the companies become solvent again.

Why do you hate working people so much?

lefty,

while I generally agree with you on the scam class - I don't think it's fair that you call them investors because REAL investors were just as much a part of building this country as the working class - but that is NOT what the people in wall street do any more

The unions are just as much at fault. Long story short - I lost contract with a customer I had for nearly 8 years because a GC who was union literally threatened the life of my customer. Yes he did it in front of witnesses and yes we called the police and he was charged, but his replacement informed the customer that if he didn't hire the people of HIS choice to do the work then "people would be getting the flew and simply couldn't get the work done on time" Now before you get all they are protecting all of us from low wages crap - the prevailing wage - that's what yo have to pay for govt jobs in my state for my trade is $46 an hour. The last time I charged that rate to a customer Reagan was president. After the work was done and the client moved in I had to go back in and fix about 60% of the connections because the quality of the work was so poor that it was unusable.

You constantly scream about the investors who steal work and wealth for their own purposes, but the above story is not an isolated incident. It's one that happens ALL the time to me as well as others I talked to in my industry.

Why do you think that this is ANY different from what people on wall st, do?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why do you think that this is ANY different from what people on wall st, do?

Because unions are leftists. I don't think you really understand leftysergeant yet.

 

[KingMerv00]

Oh good, another thread about the Constitution that doesn't cite case law in the OP.

 

[leftysergeant]

Because unions are leftists. I don't think you really understand leftysergeant yet.

It has nothing to do with left or right. It has to do with simple equity. The unions made an agreement that they found mutually beneficial, but gave up something else to get it.

If something needs to be taxed, it should not be done in such a way that it punishes people for acting rationally.

Sunsetting the Shrub's idiot cap-gains tax cuts would take the money from where it should never have gone in the first place.

Taxing the benefits packages of executives of corporations that do not give equally good coverage to production workers would be equitable.

Taxing bonuses paid to executives of bankrupt companies that default on pension or other benefits to production workers at 100% would also be equitable. (We have to pick up part of the tab for those defaulted pensions, so screw the fools who defaulted on them.)

 

[Ziggurat]

It has nothing to do with left or right. It has to do with simple equity. The unions made an agreement that they found mutually beneficial, but gave up something else to get it.

What, and non-union workers can't have done the exact same thing?

You are incoherent.

 

[Lurker]

It has nothing to do with left or right. It has to do with simple equity. The unions made an agreement that they found mutually beneficial, but gave up something else to get it.

And no other group or individual made deals like this in their life?

No, I see absolutely no reason union members should be trated differently in this reagrd. And I say this as a fairly strong supporter of unions.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's not Lieberman's problem at all. He is only up for election in 2012 and has lost the Democratic base anyway. For House members however, no health care bill would be a disaster in an already difficult political environment.

That being said, everyone from the House's leadership to the White House have given up on the public option. And I haven't read anything about rank and file House members threatening to vote against the bill. They're well aware that it only takes one Lieberman to torpedo something.

Can you post some links, please?

As I said, you're probably right on the demise of the public option. However, from a legal point of view, I'm pointing out that it's wrong to say that the bill has passed into law already (because it hasn't) and therefore that negotiations have finished. (And if this thread isn't about making some legal case against the process, why is "equal protection" invoked?)

My comment (see earlier in the thread) is simply that if industry reps and Catholic bishops are and have been part of these negotiations, I have no problem with union reps being part of the negotiations.


At any rate, the most important point is this one:

Oh good, another thread about the Constitution that doesn't cite case law in the OP.

I predict it will continue to be ignored.

 

[leftysergeant]

What, and non-union workers can't have done the exact same thing?

You are incoherent.

Actually, all non-union workers get is what the boss decides to give them. (Squat, for the most part, unless they are in managerial positions, like the bean counters who sit around trying to figure out ways to screw the peons for fun and profit.)

 

[FlamingMoe]

Oh good, another thread about the Constitution that doesn't cite case law in the OP.

Don't like it? Don't read it. I am perfectly free to express my belief that giving special perks to union members in the tax code violates equal protection whether or not there's case law to back it up.

You seem unable to distinguish between a legal opinion and a philosophical one. Until you can do this, please just get out.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Don't like it? Don't read it. I am perfectly free to express my belief that giving special perks to union members in the tax code violates equal protection whether or not there's case law to back it up.

Indeed you are, and we're free to scoff at it as a baseless assertion.

You seem unable to distinguish between a legal opinion and a philosophical one.

I know enough about law and philosophy to recognize "equal protection" as a legal phrase and not a philosophical one.

Until you can do this, please just get out.

By what authority do you banish KingMerv? Maybe you should take it up with the moderators if you think you're allowed to do that.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually, all non-union workers get is what the boss decides to give them. (Squat, for the most part

Strange, then, that most workers in this country don't belong to unions and earn more than minimum wage.

You still haven't got past incoherent, lefty.

 

[KingMerv00]

Don't like it? Don't read it. I am perfectly free to express my belief that giving special perks to union members in the tax code violates equal protection whether or not there's case law to back it up.

You seem unable to distinguish between a legal opinion and a philosophical one. Until you can do this, please just get out.

Invoking legal concepts like equal protection without a legal foundation is a meaningless exercise.

If you had said, "The acts of Congress are unfair/immoral." then I wouldn't have said anything.

 

[Lurker]

Actually, all non-union workers get is what the boss decides to give them. (Squat, for the most part, unless they are in managerial positions, like the bean counters who sit around trying to figure out ways to screw the peons for fun and profit.)

Non-union people take jobs depending on a variety of factors. Some will take higher paying jobs with little to no benefits. Some will take a job at lower pay that has more job security or better benefits. I know people that accepted lesser pay in order to get better benefits and they were not union members.

It is not only union people that make those decisions in life. That is what we are attempting to show you.

Given that this is the case (I hope you agree), why should only union members be exempt from Obama's health care initiatives?

 

[FlamingMoe]

Indeed you are, and we're free to scoff at it as a baseless assertion.

You're right, there's nothing stopping you from being completely wrong.

I know enough about law and philosophy to recognize "equal protection" as a legal phrase and not a philosophical one.
Really? There's no philosophical foundation to the principle of equality under the law? The legal system has completely co-opted the phrase and made it impossible for it to be used in a more general sense?

Please.

By what authority do you banish KingMerv? Maybe you should take it up with the moderators if you think you're allowed to do that.

"Banish"?? I don't think it's at all out of line to ASK someone to not participate in a thread they obviously are not comprehending. However, I've reported the post and we'll see whether or not I am "allowed" to make that SUGGESTION.

 

[leftysergeant]

Given that this is the case (I hope you agree), why should only union members be exempt from Obama's health care initiatives?

I am not sure that this is even the case. I keep hearing the word "Cadillac coverage" bandied about. It may simply be that the unions want there to be no mistake that there are reasons that are for the good of the country that they have the coverage they have. It is unlikely that even most other working-class people's insurance will get taxed.

For certain, executive-level benfits that include coverage for Rogaine and lipo should be considered fair game if the working schlub employed by the same company can't get chemo.

 

[FlamingMoe]

Invoking legal concepts like equal protection without a legal foundation is a meaningless exercise.

Like I just said, there are philosophical underpinnings to many legal concepts. And yes, I do believe it also violates the legal concept of equal protection, but that's my own opinion, based on the fact that I can read the fourteenth amendment. Case law may or may not exist and if it does it may or may not support my opinion. Regardless, it's what I believe, and if precedent disagrees with me, then I think the precedent is wrong. I'm perfectly free to disagree with judges, just like you are.

And if you want to get going on "meaningless exercises" then you should probably direct your tirades toward the existence of most of this forum, since yapping away about Sea Shepherd, Martha Coakley, birthers, truthers, and Israel isn't likely to have any effect on anything. Anywhere. Ever.

 

[leftysergeant]

"Banish"?? I don't think it's at all out of line to ASK someone to not participate in a thread they obviously are not comprehending. However, I've reported the post and we'll see whether or not I am "allowed" to make that SUGGESTION.

By that standard, I should see no more of you.

 

[leftysergeant]

Strange, then, that most workers in this country don't belong to unions and earn more than minimum wage.

You still haven't got past incoherent, lefty.

The unionns had to fight to get minimum wage laws passed. If the unions went away, employers would eventually see no need to pay a rational wage to compete for workers.

Learn some history.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Like I just said, there are philosophical underpinnings to many legal concepts.

No. What you just did was to deny that you are making any legal claim at all, even though you're using legal terminology.

And yes, I do believe it also violates the legal concept of equal protection, but that's my own opinion, based on the fact that I can read the fourteenth amendment. Case law may or may not exist and if it does it may or may not support my opinion. Regardless, it's what I believe, and if precedent disagrees with me, then I think the precedent is wrong. I'm perfectly free to disagree with judges, just like you are.

But it's one thing to disagree with a court ruling but making an argument for why and quite another just to make a baseless assertion, which is admittedly all you're doing here (as you have done on other threads regarding the constitutionality of the healthcare bill).

 

[FlamingMoe]

I am not sure that this is even the case.

Read the link in the OP. If you're ignorant as to the facts of the situation, it's only by your choice.

It may simply be that the unions want there to be no mistake that there are reasons that are for the good of the country that they have the coverage they have.

Emphasis added, melodrama in original.