Considering it was largely House Republicans that made sure the appointments had to be made in recess, this starts to smack of collusion to literally prevent the governance of the United States of America.
“Preventing the governance of the United States” is exactly what the repubs have been working toward for 30 years. They want to turn it over to the corporations. That is what “drown it in a bath tub” is all about. But most americans think it is just political rhetoric. IT IS NOT. And it fthey cannot accomplish that they at least want this president to go down in history as a FAILURE. Because they failed to make him a “one term president” they now will settle for smearing his reputation. The American voyters are scheduled to be “collateral damage”.
Hey, I have a question–were any of these jokers appointed in recess?
Given the Senate “filibuster” notation on the records, and the House ‘in session’ charade, the pattern of obstruction of all governing grows plain; it follows nicely on Reagan-Bush’s dismantling of government regulation of speculative investing and other forms of playing games with peoples’ money, jobs, and health care for the sake of the 1% …
They were just biding their time until the House or Senate was
controlled by their party and then all hell broke loose!
New slogan–“By the republicans-for the republicans!”
New Slogan — “By the RepubliCLOWNS – for the 1% and the corporations.”
There, corrected that for ye…
Newsflash for all of you morons that think Obozo is the one to declare when the Senate is or is not in session….. Obozo does not have the Constitutional authority to declare another branch of government NOT in session. Only that chamber of that branch can make that determination. And the Senate WAS in session. The judges had no choice but to uphold the law. By the way, you leftist morons, the DemonRATS used the same tactics on Bush for years. So STFU!!!!
And now…. the REAL Cartoon of the Day!
[click image to enlarge]
Have a nice day!
“Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods.” – H.L. Mencken
Go on with your bad self!! 😉
You infantile racist pig.
Get the f*$k off this website before I put a contract out on you.
Is that a real threat, Brian?
OMG, do you ever get the feeling you are in the minority? Don’t get your knickers in a knot about this. You can be pretty sure it will end up in the Supreme Court. Then when the Supremes rule against the appointments, the NLRB will once again be unable to rule on cases. Then the Republicans hope to stall long enough to get more “friendly” members on the NLRB which will give the leverage they need to finally do away with organized labor. Then we will all see the wisdom of our Republican/Corporate leaders as we all live in bliss and harmony on our sub-standard wages. You are young enough to still be around to have your salary frozen or even reduced. Unless, of course, you believe that you would be untouchable. There are so many out there that feel that the end of organized labor will free them from the oppression of paying union dues. Lest you be of the mind that you are not labor — unless you own the business, you are labor, no matter what high-sounding title they might give you. The real battle is not between management and labor, it is between capital and labor. Management is just a protective layer between labor and capital. If you’re not sure whether you’re labor or capital, just don’t go to work for 6 months. If the paychecks keep coming, you’re capital. If they stop coming and you get fired, you’re labor. I would like to suggest you check out The Fiscal Times site. They agree with you more often. Not always, but more often. And the posters are more rightward-leaning than those on National Memo. But, don’t leave us. You’re always welcome to post here. What would it be without your commentary? Boring.
Have a great day!
“The average flea can be trained to do anything a congressman can.” – Mark Twain
Hey Metro! I hope all is well with you and my hero, Mrs. Metro! She’s put up with you all these years now! Please send her my regards.
As to unions, I don’t think you have to worry about Republicans or anyone else putting them out of business. They have done a fine job of that themselves over the years driving companies overseas. So in that regard, Metro, they have not lived up to their hype of keeping wages high, now have they?
Also, don’t misunderstand me, metro. I don’t have anything against private sector unions. You and I have discussed this in the past. I do however have everything against public unions. This may be one of the few things that FDR and I actually agree on. Public unions are racketeering organizations for laundering taxpayer money and they should be ablolished entirely.
While I understand your “capital vs. labor” concept quite well, the one aspect of this theory where you are wrong is that you forget that capital ALWAYS flows to that place where it thinks the best returns can be had. And in so doing, it MUST attract the best possible employees in a competitive marketplace. And the more competition for employees, the higher wages go. Yes it’s true. The more capital is attracted to somewhere, the more businesses, the more competition for employees. And the best businesses pay the most for the best employees. The converse of this is true as well. The less competition for employees and the higher the cost of business because of unions, the lower returns available on capital. And the lower the returns, you know what happens next…. capital flees. And the unions correspondingly shrink. And the cycle continues.
I do go to some other sites that are conservative, but I’d much rather be right here in the battle with you, Metro. It’s no fun being around people you agree with all the time. Besides, I like you, Metro.
Have a great evening, my friend. Send my regards to Mrs. Metro!
“The great danger to the consumer is the monopoly — whether private or governmental. His most effective protection is free competition at home and free trade throughout the world. The consumer is protected from being exploited by one seller by the existence of another seller from whom he can buy and who is eager to sell to him. Alternative sources of supply protect the consumer far more effectively than all the Ralph Naders of the world.” – Milton Friedman
True.The Repunblican creed believes in the free market. They STRONGLY believe every American has the right to sleepunder bridges and beg for food.
You are absolutely right, my friend. Capital always flows to the place where it thins the best return can be had. And that’s OK. They want the best employees? Well, that’s not so clear. Let’s go back to the part about the best ROI. We all know what happened in the auto industry back in the 70s and 80s. To increase their return on their investment they solve the problem by building crappy autos. Then when the public complained about the crappy autos, they tried to lay the blame on “lazy, or incompetent and lackadaisical workers” They were aided and abetted by financial “gurus” who wrote articles saying things like “Don’t buy a car made on Monday or Friday because the workers come in hung over and don’t want to work on Fridays.” Geniuses who wouldn’t know a shift stick from a dipstick. And it worked. How many times have I heard that line repeated? I lost count in 1980. It never occurs to people that the workers built the cars they were told to build. They didn’t design them. They weren’t allowed to make design changes on the fly on the production line. There was nothing wrong with the American workers. Everything came down to money. And it wasn’t that they couldn’t afford to pay the workers. They chose to inflate their executive salaries way beyond what they were worth. Ralph Nader had a legitimate case against GM over the Corvair. The vehicle was a death trap. They marketed it as a sports car and people drove it like one. The rear axle design was such that it worked like a jack in a corner. It would keep jacking the outside of the car up until it overturned. Usually at high speed. The part to correct it would have cost $15 per car. The only thing that led to the correction: One of the GM executive’s sons was killed in just such an accident. By 1965 they had corrected the problem (I know because I had a 1965 convertible) but the damage had been done. Nader’s book was published and people found out what happened and GM suffered a major loss of trust that has taken them decades to overcome. And the punishment for the CEO who oversaw the fiasco? An honorable retirement and a huge pension. And they quit making the Corvair. I really liked that car. A nice little red one with a white top and black leather upholstery. I drove it until it died then sold it to a guy who restored it for his son. I had the 110-horse pancake six with dual carbs. The dual carbs could be a bit of a pain in the ass, trying to keep them in sync. Other than that it was a good vehicle. Public Unions? I see public employees as people who work for us. As supporters of private unions, would it be fair to ask that public employees be paid less than we are for the same job? The argument that they are paid more is not accurate. That’s because the comparison is made in a general context instead of comparing public jobs to like jobs in the private sector. When it is done that way, their is not much difference. In many cases the private sector employee makes more. There is absolutely nothing wrong with American workers (well, maybe some aren’t as good as they could be). It is simply not a fact that foreign workers are better or more productive. But they do work for less. It’s not the money paid for a good job that is the problem. It is the mad dash to make as much profit as possible any way possible. If we ship our jobs that pay enough to support a family here to foreign soil, we idle millions of workers here. These idled workers then can’t buy as many goods. So what is the response? Raise the prices due to lowered demand, thus taking their product out of the reach of working people. Where does it stop? When only the top 5% of the population can still afford to put food on the table? No, OMG, the working stiffs are the one’s getting shafted here. They are watching their wages stagnate for the last 30 years. Isn’t it interesting that wages are stagnant or falling right along with the decline of union representation? You are right about the upsurge of morons. How many people here cheer the decline of unionism because they felt they couldn’t advance fast enough in a union shop or that they object to paying dues. I’m here to tell you, OMG, that they weren’t stifled in their advancement by the union. I never had any problem advancing. And I sometimes grumbled about my dues, but I always paid them. I also reaped the benefits. Now we have people who want all the benefits without paying the dues. Well, I can afford to sit back now and say, “Let’s see what will happen when the unions are weakened or killed off entirely.
Have a good evening, OMG. Good to hear from you.
I’m pretty sure Mrs. Metro would agree with you about putting up with me for over 20 years. I think she was hinting at that very same thing yesterday when she said, “I don’t know how I’ve put up with you for over 20 years.”
“I don’t know how I’ve put up with you for over 20 years!” — Mrs. Metro
Hey Metro. Nice! A quote from Mrs. Metro. This could get interesting.
Re: unions and capital… once you accept the fact that there is NOTHING that can be done to stop the flow of capital to those places likely to produce the best returns, the rest is academic. You realize that false attempts to manipulate labor and production for the emotional need to “increase wages” are nothing but motivators for capital to go elsewhere. And before you get wrapped up in my comment about “emotional need”, I’ll explain. One man’s “good wages” is another man’s riches is another man’s poverty. In other words, it’s subjective and is therefore an emotional discussion without a real answer. The fact of the matter is that all we can do is try to create an environment that is most friendly to capital, and by extension, most friendly to employees. Employees are paidd according to what the market will bear for their skill set and contributions. The only true way to increase REAL wages is to increase productivity and employer competition for workers. It’s that simple.
You’ve got the laws of supply and demand backwards my friend. When demand drops, prices do not go up, they go down. Increased demand creates upward pressure on prices. It works this way universally just like the laws of gravity. You may not like gravity, but you cannot change it.
One other point. While I understand your career has been in the union mostly, I do think that you over romanticize unions from days gone by. The old days of sweatshops and child labor are long gone. Yes, unions had a hand in ending those days, but there’s NO chance of those days coming back. The most effective means of raising working standards is to have employers competing for labor. Why would you go work for a company that treats you poorly when you can work for the company on the other side of town that treats you better? How long do you think a company that underpays and overworks its employees will last in the market anyway? Not long. I can assure you. And since I am in the consulting for the hiring business, I know exactly what I speak of. Companies put a tremendous amount of resources and time into attracting and keeping the best employees they can. Salaries go up and down relative to the competition for attracting those employees. This is the way it works, Metro. It’s counter to the tradition view of the left because you place a lot of emphasis on your propensity to allow jealousy of what the other guy gets to control your thoughts. This is why you frequently refer to “greedy CEOs” in your comparisons. That’s an emotional argument that doesn’t really reflect how the world works. While there certainly may be some “greedy CEO’s” the fact of the matter is that an individual’s greed or charity is of no consequence. All that is of consequence in the issue of labor is the competitive marketplace for that labor. The rest is a distraction.
I always find this kind of discussion interesting because it brings up the inevitable core argument between those on the left and those on the right. Those on the left tend to view the economic pie as being fixed. That for one person to have a gain, someone else must have a loss. This is a zero-sum mentality. And it is false. There could not possibly be such a thing as economic growth in such a fixed-pie world. Obozo thinks like this. It’s why he complained about the negative effect of ATM’s on banking teller jobs. He doesn’t comprehend that the ATM has created tens of thousands of new jobs beyond what any number of tellers have lost theirs. And most of those jobs pay a hell of a lot more than a teller would earn. Those of us on the right know this well and we understand that the best way known to mankind to increase the standard of living for the most people is through freedom, private property, and the profit motive. Look around you. Look what capitalism has brought us in our 240 year history. We have real world examples to look at when evaluating command and control economies compared to free market economies. North Korea compared to South Korea. East Germany (when it was there) compared to West Germany. There is no question what the best system is. This is not to say that we don’t need some regulatory oversigth, but we need a hell of a lot less than we have now. We are driving capital away from America. This is what we all sense, but few recognize the real issues behind the trend. Most have misguided and emotional attachments to unrealistic beliefs behind the way they wish the world worked, not how it really is.
Great discussion with you, as always, Metro.
Have a wonderful day!
“Why can’t you put the damned dishes in the diswasher instead of leaving them in the sink?” – Mrs. ObozoMustGo to me
To illustrate what a good employee I am: Mrs. Metro has me well-trained to put my dirty dishes in the dishwasher and put them away when finished. And get her a cup of coffee “as long as I am in the kitchen.” I made the mistake of getting rebellious once. She said to me, “I want to go someplace I’ve never been before.” To which I replied with an old comedian’s line, “How about the kitchen.” Bad idea. Just try spending the night on a patio lounge chair — coyotes howling, crickets chirping, no air-conditioning . . . it’s no fun.
As to our discussion, I take the blue-collar view, to be sure. That’s where I spent the majority of my working days. Never rose above the mid-level manager stage. My experience with unions was such that I never gave any slack to those who complained that the unions did nothing for them, because they usually had a misplaced view of what unions were supposed to do for them. My view was the union, as the name implies, meant uniting to bargain for better working conditions, better pay and benefits. What one did on the job was still an individual choice. Just do the minimum required . . . then just be happy with the standard wage and advancement opportunities. Do more than one was required to do, improve your skills, show up for work every day instead of taking every sick day or personal day stipulated in the contract . . . then you can expect to advance more quickly and make higher wages. There was always that little area not covered in a union contract. If you were a screw-off or incompetent, no union was going to help you. I can’t definitely say that unions have changed that much in the 8 years I have been retired. I don’t think so. I was a member of three unions during my working life, International Typographical Union, Teamsters (only a year), and the Amalgamated Transit Union. As a union foreman, I expected the same from my crew as I did as a manager at a non-union company where I was the only union member. I’m also well aware that unions had nothing to do with the demise of the typesetter’s trade and other trades that have or will fade out. That was technology. Once companies like Microsoft, et al., were able to put software on table top computers it was a foregone conclusion that the trade would decline as the software became better. It was not that typographers couldn’t handle computers. Typesetting had been computerized since the early 60s, but the software was highly proprietary and not user friendly to those not trained in the trade. When the software migrated to the desktop and became easier to use, ad agencies put in desktop computers and sat their art directors at them. They didn’t work for less, but with the advent of WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) terminals where they could see their type as it would be reproduced (instead of looking at a bunch of characters interspersed with command codes) and they could scan in their artwork and compose their ads at their desks complete with artwork and look at the finished product it became a matter of convenience. Not cheap labor. Do you know what an art director earns? We could and did do the same thing, but their was the inconvenience of sending rough copy and artwork to the type shop and waiting for the return, then making their alterations and sending it back for more work. Now they can do it all without leaving the office. Now the only people doing this work outside of agencies are the few freelancers who take in overflow work and operate out of their homes. Many of the people I worked with in Minneapolis are now into computer design work, a few are freelancers. I didn’t go that route because I am not a designer. I knew type, but I was not a designer. And I wound up as a better than average bus driver. I suppose I should just sit back and enjoy retirement, but I keep feeling like I have to jump in and support my fellow workers. I guess it’s because of our discussions that I keep coming back to this site.
And don’t be like me. Before you throw off a smart-ass remark to Mrs. OMG, think of what might happen afterward. Unless you want to sleep on a lounge chair.
Metro, you’re old school. You took pride in your job. I think it’s as much mid-western , strong work ethic culture that has driven you in your work. One reason you’re great guy.
Not sure if you’ve ever been familiar with the unions in the North Eastern cities. These guys make work rules into an impossible sisyphean task for employers and non-union guys to follow. Electrical guys won’t work if they would have to remove ceiling tiles because that’s the tile guy’s job. And they are brutal and destructive with vandalizing of work and property of non-union workers or property owners. For example, I used to sell phone systems in the 90’s in the Philadelphia market before I moved away from there. If our installers had to correct a cabling mistake, the IBEW guys that rule the city would come in at night and go cut ALL the cabling that was there. This would force the customer to purchase all new cabling ONLY from the union shops and pay nearly double the going market rate from qualified non-union electricians. This was not a single event to just me. It happened constantly to all phone system vendors. The construction unions are even worse. This does not even include the cadre of 6’6″ paid thugs that go and picket and threaten other businesses and unrelated union issues at unrelated places. And they get away with it because the political machine in the city is fully entrenched with the union. And the cops are union. So there are many blind eyes that are turned from criminal activities constantly. So long as the political donations keep coming and the Democrat grass roots organizing keeps rolling, the politicians keep expanding the laws to expand the union footprint and power even further. And the cycle keeps repeating itself. The net result of course is a shrinking business community in the city. This is the view of unions in much of America, Metro. Especially the big cities. Your experience is considered an anomaly to most of us in sane world. But good for you. Our world needs more guys like you working today.
I think, all told, you and I don’t really disagree that much, Metro. We have differing perspectives in general, but I think on the whole we are in alignment. We’re just in different lanes of the same road going in the same direction. Many on here are in the opposite lanes going in the opposite direction. Those are the ones I derisively call “leftist freaks”. You certainly are NOT in that category, my friend. BTW… our discussions are the main reason I come on here, as well. Thank you.
Have a great day, Metro!
“When the United States was formed in 1776, it took 19 people on the farm to produce enough food for 20 people. So most of the people had to spend their time and efforts on growing food. Today, it’s down to 1% or 2% to produce that food. Now just consider the vast amount of supposed unemployment that was produced by that. But there wasn’t really any unemployment produced. What happened was that people who had formerly been tied up working in agriculture were freed by technological developments and improvements to do something else. That enabled us to have a better standard of living and a more extensive range of products.” – Milton Friedman
You two need to stop stroking each other!!
If you have to use so many words to make a point, you really don’t have a leg to stand on do you?
And there are those who wouldn’t get the point no matter the word count, Doc. Is that short enough for you?
If you have trouble reading, Doc, just read the short posts. My conversation wasn’t with you anyway.
Any any historian knows how sane H.L.encken was.
The judges would not have rendered a decision if the Senate and House were not in session. So making a claim that the Senate was in session makes the judges appear to have called theirselves into action so they could come to this decision BEFORE both branches called a recess. The law doesn’t work that way. The act must happen before a judge will be called into court to issue a opinion.
Well if they were in session, all of those who were home between December 1 and January 5, or any of those days, and did not appear at their desks, should IMMEDIATELY repay the taxpayer for work not perform during that period! This ia like the famous “lipstick on a pig”. Saying don’t make it so. Even in the computer age you CANNOT be in session when you are spread across the country.
This is a Federal Appeals Court, is it not? This court is just one step below the Supreme Court. Are the Supremes going to follow suit and, as the cartoon indicates, negate 200 years of precedent and laws, and attempt to further decrease the power of the presidency to operate without the consent of Congress? For as long as I can remember, every president, from Harry Truman on, exercised 1)recess appointments, 2)presidential signings, 3)executive orders. We have to assume, based upon the wise decision of this distinguished group of jurists, that all of that has been illegal, and that anything done over the past 200 years through the use of any of those presidential privileges must be vacated and reversed. Looks like the presidency of George W Bush is pretty much toast.
Robbie…. don’t be a moron. I know, I know… you can’t help it, can you? Just to inform you, as I have done already elsewhere in this comment section, the President DOES NOT determine when the Senate is or is not in session. The Senate alone determines that. When Obozo made the appointments, the Senate was in session. It was a minor work session, but it was in session. The Constitution REQUIRES that Presidential appointments follow the Advise and Consent clause. With the Senate in session while the appointments were made, the appointments were unconstitutional and the judges had no choice but to follow the law. The SCOTUS will do the same. And Obozo will have to put up people that are not whacko radical leftist freaks like the ones he illegally jammed through last year.
Ssshhhhhh Robbie! Quiet…
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt.” – Mark Twain