navyvet98======Obama would love to force you into a union. The surprising thing about Obama and the is that unions only make up about 11% of the workforce. That would put the other 89% opposing his re-election efforts? I would think that the president sould be looking for votes in the larger work group.

The unions are very good at spending their members dues money on politics. That being said the union members are pushed to the side and retirement funds usually going broke. That's what happened at GM and the United States Postal Service.

That's what Hitler wanted as well.....And Hitler wanted Government controlled Unions. SOUND FAMILIAR?

Road Warrior-252445===This president doesn't want to bring us together he wants to separate us even more. This is his revenge on America for being America.

Gas prices have fallen for the last two weeks ion an average. Overall the average gas price per gallon never hit the level it did in 2008 when Bush was in office of $4.08 cents a gallon.

Either one had little control. As two more refineries closed due to inefficient operations, where was all the construction of new ones over the past ten years or more.

.....and Andy, here are some NEGATIVE effects the unions have caused........

1) Unions are severely damaging whole industries: How is it that GM and Chrysler got into such lousy shape that they had to be bailed out? There's a simple answer: The unions. The massive pensions the car companies paid out raised their costs so much that they were limited to building more expensive cars to try to get their money back. They couldn't even do a great job of building those cars because utterly ridiculous union rules prevented them from using their labor efficiently. America created the automobile industry, but American unions are strangling it to death. Unions also wrecked the steel and textile industries and have helped drive manufacturing jobs overseas. They're crippling the airline industry and, of course, we can't forget that…

2) Unions are ruining public education: Every few years, it's the same old story. The teachers' unions claim that public education in this country is dramatically underfunded and if they just had more money, they could turn it around. Taxpayer money then pours into our schools like a waterfall and….there's no improvement. A few years later, when people have forgotten the last spending spree on education, the process is repeated.

However, the real problem with our education system in this country is the teachers' unions. They do everything possible to prevent schools not only from firing lousy teachers, but also from rewarding talented teachers. Merit pay? The unions hate it. Private schools? Even though everyone knows they deliver a better education than our public schools, unions fight to keep as many kids as possible locked in failing public schools. In Wisconsin, we've had whole schools shutting down so that lazy teachers can waste their time protesting on the taxpayers' dime. Want to improve education in this country? Then you've got to take on the teachers' unions.

3) Unions are costing you billions of tax dollars: Let's put it plain and simple: Government workers shouldn't be allowed to unionize. Period.

Why?

Because you elect representatives to look out for your interests.

It's obviously in your interest to pay as little as possible to government workers, to keep their benefits as low as possible, and to hire as few of them as possible to do the job. However, because the Democratic Party and the unions are in bed with each other, this entire process has been turned on its ear. Instead of looking out for your interests, Democrats try to hire as many government workers as possible, pay them as much as possible, and give them benefits that are as generous as possible, all so that union workers will do more to get them re-elected.

In other words, the Democratic Party and the unions are engaged in an open conspiracy to defraud the American taxpayer. There's no way that the American people should allow that to continue.

4) Unions are fundamentally anti-democratic : How in the world did we get to the point where people can be forced to join a union just to get a job at certain places? Then, after they're dragooned into the union, they have no choice other than to pay dues that are used for political activities which the unwilling dues-paying member may oppose.

Add to that the fact that the Democrats and the government unions collaborate to subvert democracy at the expense of the taxpayer and it's not a pretty picture. Worse yet, unions have gotten so voracious that they even want to do away with the secret ballot, via card check, so they can openly bully people into joining unions. The way unions behave in this country is undemocratic, un-American, and it should trouble anyone who cares about freedom and individual rights.

5) Government unions are bankrupting cities and states: Government unions have bled billions from taxpayers nationally, but the damage they're doing on the local level is even worse. We have cities and states all across the country that are so behind on their bills that there have been genuine discussions about bankruptcy. There are a lot of irresponsible financial policies that have helped contribute to that sorry state-of-affairs, but unquestionably, the biggest backbreakers can be directly traced back to the unions.

What a silly comment. Keynesian economics helped pull us out of the Great Depression...an accepted economic fact...until Milton Friedman offered greedy people "intellectual justification" for their greed.

You totally ignore the historic changes in the global economy since WW II. The recovery of former advanced industrial economies; the impact of technology, the end of communism, and the rapid expansion of a global labor force.

Capitalism depends upon growth. The "giant sucking sound" Ross Perot warned us about isn't just coming from the South, but today from the East and its emerging economies, accompanied by billions of potential new consumers, who not only work for lower wages, but save as well.

Nice job.

Smokie I didn't say anything about Obama.Personally I think he's the worst president we've had in modern times.I don't see any of the choices we're being given for the presidency as being any good for America.

Julie,

You have to remember. All that is Bush's fault.

Simply listen to the Bush speech...he says knowing where Bin Laden is, is not important to him and he doesn't lose sleep over it.

Now, that tells me either that killing or capturing Bin Laden was NOT important to Bush...OR that he lied to us for an ulterior motive, such as fostering carelessness among the Al Qaeda leadership.

The choice is yours...either he didn't care...or he lied.

Because they understand that "solidarity" is the only way to ensure their rights and provide for their collective bargaining rights, which - in turn - are associated with the sanctity of contract. Think of it this way: Without the Bill of Rights, what would the U.S. Constitution mean to your rights?

And, a "closed shop," is the exception, not the rule, today. While unions, philosophically, are in factor of 100% union membership, in many cases - where there is a choice between being a union member or not - they represent non-union employees, in "bargaining unit positions," as well as their own dues paying members.

So I guess it is okay to trample on the rights of some workers, just as long as they aren't union workers. What a messed up philosophy!

Do as I say, not do as I do. I guess the unions are the only organizations on earth that can protect workers legal rights--just completely forget the laws on the books concerning wages and working conditions. They don't REALLY matter--Big Brother Union is here for you!

And why should there be ANY closed shop states? They still afraid they won't be able to convince ordinary workers of the value of being in a union? Too afraid their membership rolls will diminish even further if people actually have a choice?

Doubt it. Turn your questions around. Why would anyone pay you a wage above what they have to, in order to hire you? You are right, in that the "union philosophy" assumes they won't and faced with the threat of being unable to secure labor at an "negotiated wage," they'll pay more and hold profits down.

No rational union wants to destroy the industry it represents; the argument is over what constitutes "fair wages and benefits" as opposed to what constitutes a "fair profit" and return on investment.

The mere existence of unions and labor laws supporting collective bargaining creates a disincentive toward the exploitation of labor. You should read some history of the American Labor Movement. True, it occasionally "oversteps" its reason for existence, but labor law generally came as a result of organized labor pressures and not vice versa.

Take them entirely away andy you will complete the destruction of the middle class, save the small shop keepers or self-employed, most of whom exist at the sufferance of the wealthy and/or large corporations, and that includes public sector unions.

He's provided direction for a "new economy," based on a stronger educational system, improvement in health care coverage, in terms of access and cost, and in a shift from an over-reliance on financial services, back toward innovative products and trade surpluses, with a more competitive position in the global economy.

But, a President can only do so much without the support of Congress...doesn't matter who it is. Bush couldn't get a partial privatization of social security passed, even though he claimed to have the "political capital." Obama had the votes in Congress for one year, in 2009. Thereafter, it has required a 60 vote super majority in the Senate to pass v ritually anything.

Romney, on the outside chance he gets elected, will have the same problem, with the result being a continuation of a deadlocked Congress.

Simply proposing plans which put more money into the hands of those who are already wealthy won't really change anything. The most important issue of the 2012 election is how to restore a prosperous American middle class.

Doogie J,

Please look up the definition of the word "satirical".

Bush wasn't responsible for ALL of it...just most of it, through incredibly dumb decision-making.

I don't hold Bush responsible for 9/11. Had Clinton's foreign policy/national security team been more astute, Bin Laden would have been "history" before Bush was elected.

And, Bush (who never claimed to be the brightest star in the sky), pretty much simply followed the Reaganomics he and most of the White House economic advisors believed in at the time (Romney now has some of those same advisors), within a political context.

No sane policy sticks with large tax cuts it has implemented, in the face of going to war. Far more nations/empires in human history have gone bankrupt by borrowing to fund wars they could not afford, than over "social spending."

Three factors led to sticking with the tax cut after 9/11, in face of economic logic: 1) we were in a dot.com recession, caused largely by the previous Administration's laissez-faire economic policies; 2) the "wars" were thought to be short and inexpensive and, hence, "affordable," even with the tax cuts; 3) and politically, when Bush's father raised taxes to pay for Gulf War I, his Party largely deserted him, costing him a second term.

I'll leave it to psychologists to figure out the rest...the admiration of Reagan and the belief that his father should have "gone on to Baghdad," as the neo-cons wanted.

It's not always just the Generals, who fight the last war.

Hmmm? Doubt it. People covered by Medicare Advantage now simply fall back under regular Medicare. The program was evaluated as being too costly and too advantageous to the insurance companies who participated. Scrapping the program doesn't mean your parents aren't eligible for Medicare.

[P.S. You don't seriously think anyone would actually believe your post, do you?]

read for yourself

That's what I thought

You missed including a link. Simple question. Are you stating that people formerly under Medicare Advantage are no longer eligible for Medicare?

Your reply is not coming through...just answer the question...yes or no?

can not speak for everyone on the plan, just my folks. New York Post article from three days ago sums it up.

I'll research it. So, you ARE stating that your parents are no longer eligible for Medicare because Medicare Advantage has been discontinued, right?

The Post article, I think you are referencing, is entitled "An $8 Billion Trick?," published April 23rd. It refers to the questionable use of $8 billion in funding for "special projects," the HHS is using to delay scrapping the Medicare Advantage Program, until after the election. My understanding is that the Medicare Advantage Program offers more benefits to participating insurance companies, than to participating seniors...but whether it does or does not is not the point.

The point, in reference to your post, is that your parents will not be denied Medicare after the program expires, as you claimed, but will be forced back to regular Medicare.