Romney's wife

[Alan]

The real question is, do you really want to accept lower standards for workers than what we kind of enjoy and accept today? Why would you advocate for lower standards? What kind of country do you envision? Do you really think we should model our work standards on China?

Is someone advocating lower standards?

It really puzzles me how people can just spout off the mantra of how our country is the best and the envy of the world, blah blah blah, without really understanding WHY it is the best and the envy of the world.

I think it's because we have historically allowed people to live their own lives without undue governmental influence. Why do you think it is the best and the envy of the world?

[bae]

except that, practically speaking, a union can make it very difficult for a person to work without joining the union (or such is the case with many trades), and therefore also impacting people's freedom (even if they don't have any sanctioned ability).

Typically because the union too has arranged to have the government use force on its behalf. If the union functioned entirely as a voluntary group of freely associating individuals morally acting for their mutual interests, instead of as an organized gang of looters, the problems you are concerned with wouldn't arise...

[Tradd]

I didn't hear the original comment in context, so I don't know what to think, and I don't know anything about Ann Romney. But I agree that anyone who thinks any of these candidates "is just like me" is in for a very big shock. It wasn't that long ago that we had a candidate (or recently elected official) who had no idea of grocery prices and was shocked to find them so high. We had a candidate with a child with a complicated medical condition, but he can afford to pay for her care, and he doesn't really think about those in a similar situation who can't afford to pay for care. Most of the candidates, of either party, live in a truly rarified atmosphere, where these considerations of finances just are totally foreign to them. They have plenty of help in rearing their children, keeping their mansions clean, and most other aspects of daily life that I really can't imagine what that life must be like. And I'm sure they can't imagine what my life must be like, either.

Frankly, I don't really like ANY of the choices, Dem OR GOP, this year. However, Obama at least seems to have a slightly better idea of what the average person goes through. I remember hearing during the '08 election that he and his wife had just finished paying off student loans (don't remember if they were his or hers) not that far in the past.

[Gregg]

Health care (apparently not) or any of the other things that make up this whole package called workers rights, whether written or unwritten, that make working life in the United States of America what it is.

I'm all for a discussion of worker's rights (new thread?), but find this particular statement quite curious. My guess would have been that making healthcare/insurance job attached would have been about the last thing you would stump for, peggy. Sorry about that.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I'm happy to know that only unions historically have used any force on their behalf and never management. Hmpf, historically unions have been met with far more than "force", more like violence. But force ... isn't outlawing sympathy strikes already using force? I don't know that they would do any good, but why would anyone in their right mind (um er make that their left mind!) limit any of the possible tools that labor has on it's side?

[Gregg]

Frankly, I don't really like ANY of the choices, Dem OR GOP, this year. However, Obama at least seems to have a slightly better idea of what the average person goes through. I remember hearing during the '08 election that he and his wife had just finished paying off student loans (don't remember if they were his or hers) not that far in the past.

It makes financial sense to pay off the highest interest debt first. Along the same lines there is no hurry to pay off lower interest debt (like many student loans) if your money is returning a higher rate from your investments. Mr. and Mrs. Obama's multi-million dollar income over many years should have allowed them to pay off their student debt at any time they wished, but if the debt is at 6% and the return on that money invested elsewhere is 15% there is no incentive to apply anything beyond the minimum payment to the debt. (Strictly hypothetical numbers.)

That is why many wealthy folks take out student loans in the first place. It's not that they can't afford school any other way. Its a way to essentially get paid to borrow money. By the same token its reason that many who could easily afford to pay off a house don't. Mortgage money is available for under 4%. Year over year the stock market has returned 10%. Then there is the mortgage interest deduction on top of that. It's not hard to see the logic. Nothing shady about it, just common sense, but it does not mean the Obamas were a typical young family struggling to make ends meet while staying current on their student loans.

[peggy]

I'm all for a discussion of worker's rights (new thread?), but find this particular statement quite curious. My guess would have been that making healthcare/insurance job attached would have been about the last thing you would stump for, peggy. Sorry about that.

It is the last thing I want, but it's the system we have, isn't it. So, not only do republicans want to destroy any attempt to fix it by President Obama, they also want to limit it within the broken system we have. i.e. allowing employers choose which coverage their women workers will get according to their 'conscience', which apparently doesn't think a wit about women.

[peggy]

Is someone advocating lower standards?

I think it's because we have historically allowed people to live their own lives without undue governmental influence. Why do you think it is the best and the envy of the world?

Gee, if it's because the government doesn't 'interfere' with their people, it's a wonder everyone isn't flocking to Columbia, or some other third world nation which 'historically' let's it's people flounder along, 'free' from government interference, or protection, which I gather is interference.



But, let's just pretend it's maybe because the people here, all people, even the poor, huddled masses, have the protections and weight of their government behind them. Perhaps it's because the government doesn't allow the strong to overpower the weak in the name of 'letting them live free from government influence'. Perhaps it's because we (the government) value our elderly to the point we provide them enough to live out their old age with some dignity, and help them with health care. Or maybe it's because we have protections and traditions and expectations for our workers, even those who flip your burgers, with the weight of the government backing those rights.

Oh I'm sure the wealthy corporatist would just LOVE it if the government turned it's back, closed it's eyes and hummed la la la in the name of 'letting everyone live free without government interference, cause, the interference is usually on behalf of the little guy.

[Lainey]

Typically because the union too has arranged to have the government use force on its behalf. If the union functioned entirely as a voluntary group of freely associating individuals morally acting for their mutual interests, instead of as an organized gang of looters, the problems you are concerned with wouldn't arise...

and of course by "union" you include Wall Street bankers, pharma corporations, insurance companies, the nuclear power consortiums, etc.

[bae]

and of course by "union" you include Wall Street bankers, pharma corporations, insurance companies, the nuclear power consortiums, etc.

Feel free to argue the case that other groups also seem to be lining up to get the government to use force to provide them special favors - I certainly agree. But I was not "of course" including all these other immoral actors in the definition of the term "union".