Zombie THE 2012 BIDEN/RYAN DEBATE - THE BATTLE OF CHAPLIN HILLS II

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
MickZagger said:
Of course you want to make your spelling error about me. If you read back in this thread I already gave my opinion of what I thought of the debate.
Click to expand...

Your analysis consists of calling Paul Ryan "Eddie Munster". And you thought it was because you're in a union that people questioned your intelligence?
 
SAME NOSE, SAME NECKLINE, SAME WRINKLES. FUCK THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE. I'M SO FUCKING AWESOME!
 
Biden was fact-checking Ryan on the spot was what lead to his series of smiles that the righties have made the debate about.

Biden was laughing at him as he looked like a dog eating peanut butter.
 
blazerboy30 said:
Your analysis consists of calling Paul Ryan "Eddie Munster". And you thought it was because you're in a union that people questioned your intelligence?
Click to expand...

Get my Union nuts out of your mouth for a second and look up some of my past political posts. A lot more substance than you dropping in with your snarky, angry one-liners.
 
MickZagger said:
Get my Union nuts out of your mouth for a second and look up some of my past political posts. A lot more substance than you dropping in with your snarky, angry one-liners.
Click to expand...

I've read them. They are completely ignorant.
 
MickZagger said:
LOL, about as ignorant as your disdain towards the backbone of the middle class: Unions
Click to expand...

fortunate few rather than the "back bone"


Economic News Release FONT SIZE: PRINT: CPS Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population SurveyCPS HomepageCPS OverviewCPS FAQContact CPS
SHARE ON: Union Members Summary
For release 10:00 a.m. (EST) Friday, January 27, 2012 USDL-12-0094

Technical information: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cps
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov


UNION MEMBERS -- 2011


In 2011, the union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who
were members of a union--was 11.8 percent, essentially unchanged from 11.9
percent in 2010, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number
of wage and salary workers belonging to unions, at 14.8 million, also showed
little movement over the year. In 1983, the first year for which comparable union
data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent and there were
17.7 million union workers.

The data on union membership were collected as part of the Current Population
Survey (CPS), a monthly sample survey of about 60,000 households that obtains
information on employment and unemployment among the nation's civilian
noninstitutional population age 16 and over. For more information, see the
Technical Note.

Highlights from the 2011 data:

--Public-sector workers had a union membership rate (37.0 percent) more
than five times higher than that of private-sector workers (6.9
percent). (See table 3.)

--Workers in education, training, and library occupations had the
highest unionization rate, at 36.8 percent, while the lowest rate
occurred in sales and related occupations (3.0 percent). (See
table 3.)

--Black workers were more likely to be union members than were white,
Asian, or Hispanic workers. (See table 1.)

--Among states, New York continued to have the highest union membership
rate (24.1 percent) and North Carolina again had the lowest rate
(2.9 percent). (See table 5.)

Industry and Occupation of Union Members

In 2011, 7.6 million employees in the public sector belonged to a
union, compared with 7.2 million union workers in the private sector.
The union membership rate for public-sector workers (37.0 percent) was
substantially higher than the rate for private-sector workers (6.9
percent). Within the public sector, local government workers had the
highest union membership rate, 43.2 percent. This group includes
workers in heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers, police
officers, and firefighters. Private-sector industries with high
unionization rates included transportation and utilities (21.1
percent) and construction (14.0 percent), while low unionization rates
occurred in agriculture and related industries (1.4 percent) and in
financial activities (1.6 percent). (See table 3.)

Among occupational groups, education, training, and library
occupations (36.8 percent) and protective service occupations (34.5
percent) had the highest unionization rates in 2011. Sales and related
occupations (3.0 percent) and farming, fishing, and forestry
occupations (3.4 percent) had the lowest unionization rates. (See
table 3.)

Selected Characteristics of Union Members

The union membership rate was higher for men (12.4 percent) than for
women (11.2 percent) in 2011. (See table 1.) The gap between their
rates has narrowed considerably since 1983, when the rate for men was
about 10 percentage points higher than the rate for women. Between
1983 and 2011, the union membership rate for men declined by almost
half (12.3 percentage points), while the rate for women declined by
3.4 percentage points.

In 2011, among major race and ethnicity groups, black workers were
more likely to be union members (13.5 percent) than workers who were
white (11.6 percent), Asian (10.1 percent), or Hispanic (9.7 percent).
Black men had the highest union membership rate (14.6 percent), while
Asian men had the lowest rate (9.1 percent).

By age, the union membership rate was highest among workers 55 to 64
years old (15.7 percent). The lowest union membership rate occurred
among those ages 16 to 24 (4.4 percent).

Full-time workers were about twice as likely as part-time workers to
be union members, 13.1 percent compared with 6.4 percent.

Union Representation

In 2011, 16.3 million wage and salary workers were represented by a
union. This group includes both union members (14.8 million) and
workers who report no union affiliation but whose jobs are covered by
a union contract (1.5 million). (See table 1.) Government employees
comprised about half of the 1.5 million workers who were covered by a
union contract but were not members of a union. (See table 3.)

Earnings

In 2011, among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had
median usual weekly earnings of $938, while those who were not union
members had median weekly earnings of $729. In addition to coverage by
a collective bargaining agreement, earnings differences reflect a
variety of influences, including variations in the distributions of
union members and nonunion employees by occupation, industry, firm
size, or geographic region. (See table 2.)

Union Membership by State

In 2011, 29 states and the District of Columbia had union membership
rates below that of the U.S. average, 11.8 percent, while 21 states
had higher rates. All states in the Middle Atlantic and Pacific
divisions reported union membership rates above the national average,
while all states in the East South Central and West South Central
divisions had rates below it. Union membership rates declined over the
year in 29 states and the District of Columbia, rose in 19 states, and
were unchanged in 2 states. (See table 5.)

Seven states had union membership rates below 5.0 percent in 2011,
with North Carolina having the lowest rate (2.9 percent). The next
lowest rates were recorded in South Carolina (3.4 percent), Georgia
(3.9 percent), Arkansas (4.2 percent), Louisiana (4.5 percent), and
Tennessee and Virginia (4.6 percent each). Three states had union
membership rates over 20.0 percent in 2011: New York (24.1 percent),
Alaska (22.1 percent), and Hawaii (21.5 percent).

State union membership levels depend on both the overall employment
levels and union membership rates. The largest numbers of union
members lived in California (2.4 million) and New York (1.9 million).
Over half of the 14.8 million union members in the U.S. lived in just
seven states (California, 2.4 million; New York, 1.9 million; Illinois,
0.9 million; Pennsylvania, 0.8 million; Michigan 0.7 million; and New
Jersey and Ohio, 0.6 million each), though these states accounted for
only about one-third of wage and salary employment nationally.

Texas had about one-fourth as many union members as New York, despite
having 2.3 million more wage and salary employees. North Carolina and
Hawaii had comparable numbers of union members (105,000 and 113,000,
respectively), though North Carolina's wage and salary employment
level (3.6 million) was nearly seven times that of Hawaii (525,000).
 
So if someone makes $50K pre-tax, and pays $7500 in taxes after mortgage interest deduction, what difference does it make to him if he makes $50K and pays $7500 in taxes without any mortgage interest deduction?

In the former case, the tax bracket is higher on his AGI to achieve the $7500 in taxes. In the latter case, the tax bracket is lowered to exactly his 15% effective rate.

In the former case, he might have a $12,500 mortgage deduction, which would put him in the 20% tax bracket. If the guy hustles and gets a 2nd job, even working that job for minimum wage, he'll be paying 20% income tax on those wages. In the latter case, the guy would be paying 15% income tax on those wages.

In either case, before the guy gets that second job, the govt. is making its $7500, so it is tax revenue neutral.

This raises two questions:
1) Why doesn't Romney/Ryan just say it - the trade off for the lower rate is no more mortgage deduction, but you won't be paying any more tax without it. In fact, you'll pay less from now on for every dollar above and beyond what you make today.
2) Why are democrats opposed to this guy or anyone else getting that 2nd job and paying less?

(the uber-rich effectively get 2nd jobs by investing, working harder/longer, etc.)
 
blazerboy30 said:
Why do you keep saying that unions are the backbone of the middle class?
Click to expand...

Common knowledge.

Firefighters, teachers, electricians, truck drivers, railroaders....This is who makes up our middle class. The middle class is what makes the economy thrive.
 
Denny Crane said:
So if someone makes $50K pre-tax, and pays $7500 in taxes after mortgage interest deduction, what difference does it make to him if he makes $50K and pays $7500 in taxes without any mortgage interest deduction?

In the former case, the tax bracket is higher on his AGI to achieve the $7500 in taxes. In the latter case, the tax bracket is lowered to exactly his 15% effective rate.

In the former case, he might have a $12,500 mortgage deduction, which would put him in the 20% tax bracket. If the guy hustles and gets a 2nd job, even working that job for minimum wage, he'll be paying 20% income tax on those wages. In the latter case, the guy would be paying 15% income tax on those wages.

In either case, before the guy gets that second job, the govt. is making its $7500, so it is tax revenue neutral.

This raises two questions:
1) Why doesn't Romney/Ryan just say it - the trade off for the lower rate is no more mortgage deduction, but you won't be paying any more tax without it. In fact, you'll pay less from now on for every dollar above and beyond what you make today.
2) Why are democrats opposed to this guy or anyone else getting that 2nd job and paying less?

(the uber-rich effectively get 2nd jobs by investing, working harder/longer, etc.)
Click to expand...

.....and Gary Johnson's plan is...?
 
MickZagger said:
Common knowledge.

Firefighters, teachers, electricians, truck drivers, railroaders....This is who makes up our middle class. The middle class is what makes the economy thrive.
Click to expand...

The woman who runs the taco shop up the street, the laundromat, the print shop, the coffee shop, etc. None of those union shops, and all of them the backbone of the middle class. In fact, their enterprises will provide jobs for their entire families.
 
MickZagger said:
Common knowledge.

Firefighters, teachers, electricians, truck drivers, railroaders....This is who makes up our middle class. The middle class is what makes the economy thrive.
Click to expand...

Damn dude. Union workers make up 11% of the workforce, and only 7% of the non-public workforce. That's who makes up the middle class?

Amazing intellect you have there. Please teach us some more.
 
Denny Crane said:
The woman who runs the taco shop up the street, the laundromat, the print shop, the coffee shop, etc. None of those union shops, and all of them the backbone of the middle class. In fact, their enterprises will provide jobs for their entire families.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the employees at the laundromat and taco shop aren't middle class. They're in poverty.
 
blazerboy30 said:
Damn dude. Union workers make up 11% of the workforce, and only 7% of the non-public workforce. That's who makes up the middle class?

Amazing intellect you have there. Please teach us some more.
Click to expand...

Uh, were talking about the middle class, now your going into the entire workforce? Swaying away from the topic at hand? I said the backbone of the MIDDLE CLASS.

Dund.

Der.

Head.
 
blazerboy30 said:
Damn dude. Union workers make up 11% of the workforce, and only 7% of the non-public workforce. That's who makes up the middle class?

Amazing intellect you have there. Please teach us some more.
Click to expand...


man, you are not going to reach Mick, he is the guy who will rep the occupy movement while being part of the fortunate few. It iis easy for him to ride barrycare program because it will not effect him. very typical of the left
 
MickZagger said:
Uh, were talking about the middle class, now your going into the entire workforce? Swaying away from the topic at hand? I said the backbone of the MIDDLE CLASS.

Dund.

Der.

Head.
Click to expand...

Do some simple math. You can handle it. There should be a calculator function on your computer.
 
DaLincolnJones said:
man, you are not going to reach Mick, he is the guy who will rep the occupy movement while being part of the fortunate few. It iis easy for him to ride barrycare program because it will not effect him. very typical of the left
Click to expand...

I hated the Occupy Movement and I said so from the onset. I hate organized marches in general. Thanks for playing, though.
 
MickZagger said:
A good read for the out of touch righties who loathe the backbone:

http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-unions-beneficial-to-the-economy

The logic behind paying a non-union worker $10/hr to work for a company like Caterpillar and a union worker $26/hr and how that benefits the economy is hard to understand? Instead of lining the pockets of the 1% CEO's it strengthens the middle class.
Click to expand...

Why not pay the union worker $75/hour? All it will do is strengthen the economy, right?
 
blazerboy30 said:
Do some simple math. You can handle it. There should be a calculator function on your computer.
Click to expand...

Give me some stats Stanford guy. I want to see % of middle class workforce that is union. Not the entire workforce, the middle class. You can do it!
 
Its not very Stanford-like of someone to not be able to distinguish between the middle class and the overall workforce.
 
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/01/20/173738/report-incomes/

unionincome.jpg


Continue the parade against organized labor!!! Its a noble cause.
 
I've worked in my share of union shops and, quite frankly, have seen a microcosm of socialism. Meaning, the diligent and hard working "class" end up covering for the dead wood....yet, they're all incentivized equally. In these types of situations, I've also seen plenty of resentment and contempt from the "good guys". Kinda sad, really. In most every case, I had been in a management position, so I had to engage in more than my share of "righting" the situations. Many, many pep talks, disciplinary action, and the like to the bottom-dwellers.

I get it that we don't want greedy CEO's and such lining their respective pockets. We've had this conversation before, but I'd love for more companies to co-op themselves...and provide incentive structures that breed hard work, team players, and/or innovation.
 
MickZagger said:
Give me some stats Stanford guy. I want to see % of middle class workforce that is union. Not the entire workforce, the middle class. You can do it!
Click to expand...

You made the claim, back it up. Hell, use an estimate for the percentage of the workforce that is "middle class" and back it out from there. Can you handle that much math?

This is too easy. It's like watching a cat chase a laser pointer while running into furniture. I almost feel bad about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top