Who is watching Wisconsin?

[Anonymous]

PP well said.

Jeff, was "there more to it?" You are defering into airline discussions. What I wrote is what happened. If you cannot admit that some unions are a crime and these members appear to literally be up on criminal charges, then there is no point in trying to have a discussion. PLEASE MAN UP!

What if it was your mother?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff PLEASE!

You are attempting to do some fancy dancing and failing!

What if it was your mother?

Is it a failure of the citizenry because the union was not stronger and had no right to strike? blah, blah, blah

What was the bet for??????????????????????????

The issue is whether unions play a positive or negative role. In the case of the Hudson River rescue, I documented how unions contributed to the successful rescue.

You pointed out that members of a dysfunctional fire department failed to perform their duty. You did not document how their union membership contributed to that failure. The obvious point that you might make is that the union allowed them to get away with being lazy. But, that suggestion is not supported given the weakness of the union. It is not clear that that particular union could do more than hold social events. Go look at the local's website and you will see what I mean. A much more likely scenario is that poor management allowed the firefighters to get away with poor performance. That suggestion is supported by the forced-resignation of the Fire Chief.

Did they check union cards beofre letting them help with the rescue?

[Anonymous]

I have no idea what these various anecdotes about nice and nasty things various union members have done are meant to prove either way.

Surely the question is whether unions have played a positive or a negative role in the economy and society.

I would argue that much of the advances of the 20th century in terms of work place safety, wages, and benefits were driven by unions, which strengthened the workers against the owners of capital, and thereby ensured that workers got a fairer slice of the pie and generated a broad consumer-driven society.

Now of course, this can go too far and you have only to look at the police unions in DC and elsewhere to see what can go wrong - you can end up with bloated rent-seeking institutions that throw sand in the wheels of economic efficiency.

But what we have seen in the last 20-30 years, but especially in the last 10, is what happens when unions are too weak: you end up with the returns to wages falling, benefits being cut, and a higher and higher share of national income going to holders of capital rather than labor. The result is increasing inequality, and, due to the money politics, the seizing of the levers of power by the wealthiest, who can use the state power to further their own interests at the expense of the country's interests.

[Anonymous]

Isn't Obama overdue for another vacation or some golf or some basketball or Hollywood visits the White House............?

He has nailed that "UNION WORK ETHIC!!!"

How late was he with his thoughtless and leaderless budget?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:PP well said.

Jeff, was "there more to it?" You are defering into airline discussions. What I wrote is what happened. If you cannot admit that some unions are a crime and these members appear to literally be up on criminal charges, then there is no point in trying to have a discussion. PLEASE MAN UP!

What if it was your mother?

Yes, what the firefighters did was criminal. Why are you asking about my mother? I care about needless deaths whether I am related to the individual or not. Don't you? But, what did the union have to do with it? If you can show that the union enabled a dysfunctional fire department, I'll engage in the misogynistic act that you suggest. But, as far as I can tell, that union local was nothing but a social club. It had no means to affect anything at the fire department. The dysfunction was caused by a lack of management and, as a result, the fire chief had to resign.

Contrast that to the role of unions in the Hudson River incident. Airline Unions have pushed for higher safety standards. They have pushed for the type of training that paid off that day. The union PACs lobby in support of safety issues. All of that is documented. If you go to any of websites of the unions whose members played a role in NYC, you will see the host of safety issues that are important to them. But, go to the website of the Dekalb County Firefighters Union and you will see that it has not been updated since 2008 and its home page is devoted to a social event being postponed due to weather.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you knew about the mortgage industry, you would know that the bulk of subprime mortgages, ALT A mortgages, and exotic mortgages that started the housing crisis were not insured by the government. They were part of the private non-GSA mortgage market that had little govt regulation. The GSAs surely did lower their standards and underwriting, but that doesnt explain how the "VERY" stringent Countrywide went down since most of the crap they underwrote was not GSA insured.

Thank you for this - the notion that, if left unchecked, private industry would act in the best interests of the consumer is quaint, and appealing to those who have drunk the Ayn Rand Kool-Aid, but is belied by the actions of Countrywide and numerous other mortgage companies. The Big Short, by Michael Lewis, provides an excellent description of the mortgage crisis, although all but the most ardent free-marketers will finish it believing that most of the participants deserve long stints as guests of the state. Or to just be shot at dawn (for a few of them.)

Investors in ALL mortgage backed securities expect the U.S. to either implicitly or explicitly insure against default. This is why motgage rates are so low and nobdoy cares about underwriting except the government. The Feds forced BOA to buy countrywides debt and then bailed out BOA. See how the Gov't is all over the mortgage market. This is why it blew up.

Well, given that I am a money manager and invest and own MBS within the bond market, you are dead wrong that "Investors in ALL mortgage backed securities expect the US to either implicitly or explicitly ensure against default." No investors don't expect that, and during the height of the mortgage bubble their were all types of mortgages that investors knew were not insured by the Govt. There still are loans non insured by the gov. But Before I try to give you a little tutorial on the entire US mortgage market, I think you should tell us where you are receiving your information from--do tell. "The Fox News Mortgage Market Handbook?"

[Anonymous]

On the union issue, let's be honest and admit that both competent and incompetent people exist in and out of unions. If that batch of incompetents were an argument against unions, then what does that say about the US, since they were all Americans? Answer: Absolutely nothing, just like it says about unions.

As to Jeff's point about Sully and his crew, it was evidence that being in a union did not make them incompetent, not that it made them competent. Those are two different things.

Clearly some of you dislike unions, and use anything that happens as an argument against unions, just like today's news is proof that Obama is terrible, no matter what the headline says.

And please don't interpret that as an argument that Obama is great; I did not say that. Life is more complex than 0 vs 100%.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP well said.

Jeff, was "there more to it?" You are defering into airline discussions. What I wrote is what happened. If you cannot admit that some unions are a crime and these members appear to literally be up on criminal charges, then there is no point in trying to have a discussion. PLEASE MAN UP!

What if it was your mother?

Yes, what the firefighters did was criminal. Why are you asking about my mother? I care about needless deaths whether I am related to the individual or not. Don't you? But, what did the union have to do with it? If you can show that the union enabled a dysfunctional fire department, I'll engage in the misogynistic act that you suggest. But, as far as I can tell, that union local was nothing but a social club. It had no means to affect anything at the fire department. The dysfunction was caused by a lack of management and, as a result, the fire chief had to resign.

Contrast that to the role of unions in the Hudson River incident. Airline Unions have pushed for higher safety standards. They have pushed for the type of training that paid off that day. The union PACs lobby in support of safety issues. All of that is documented. If you go to any of websites of the unions whose members played a role in NYC, you will see the host of safety issues that are important to them. But, go to the website of the Dekalb County Firefighters Union and you will see that it has not been updated since 2008 and its home page is devoted to a social event being postponed due to weather.

I made no mention of the HUDSON RIVER INCIDENT that you like to chat about then digress.

Did I win or lose the bet you proposed?

Is this just one unique and isolated incident of a union being arrogantly without merit????

[Anonymous]

I'm curious if the liberals here think that running away from the election is a valid form of political discourse. yes or no?

I just don't see how that furthers the democratic process. elections have consequences. use every parliamentary trick up your sleeve, but if you don't have the votes then so be it. live and fight another day.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Did I win or lose the bet you proposed?

Is this just one unique and isolated incident of a union being arrogantly without merit????

You have yet to illustrate that the union had anything to do with this at all. Maybe it was because they were men? Or because they were from Georgia? Or because they were Republicans?

[Anonymous]

PP great question.

The libs feel they can do as they like, no rules, morally bankrupt when they can not get their way.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious if the liberals here think that running away from the election is a valid form of political discourse. yes or no?

I just don't see how that furthers the democratic process. elections have consequences. use every parliamentary trick up your sleeve, but if you don't have the votes then so be it. live and fight another day.

What is happening in Wisconsin is not an election. It is a vote in the State Senate.

If this vote were taking place in the US Senate, it would simply be filibustered. But, the Wisconsin State Senate does not have the filibuster. Depriving a majority of a quorum is a parliamentary trick. Hence, it is a valid tactic. Call it a Cheesy Filibuster if you wish.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Did I win or lose the bet you proposed?

Is this just one unique and isolated incident of a union being arrogantly without merit????

You have yet to illustrate that the union had anything to do with this at all. Maybe it was because they were men? Or because they were from Georgia? Or because they were Republicans?

You challenged the alleged facts of the matter as I reported them and wrote there had to be more. The facts were accurately given.

There was no more. Sure you decided to blur the matter by raisinig Sully, Hudson River, yadda yadda.

No one ever wins with you it is clear.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious if the liberals here think that running away from the election is a valid form of political discourse. yes or no?

I just don't see how that furthers the democratic process. elections have consequences. use every parliamentary trick up your sleeve, but if you don't have the votes then so be it. live and fight another day.

What is happening in Wisconsin is not an election. It is a vote in the State Senate.

If this vote were taking place in the US Senate, it would simply be filibustered. But, the Wisconsin State Senate does not have the filibuster. Depriving a majority of a quorum is a parliamentary trick. Hence, it is a valid tactic. Call it a Cheesy Filibuster if you wish.

I meant the election of the governor and the election(s) giving the republican a majority of the state senate. those elections had consequences, as we are now seeing.

I'll consider the filibuster analogy - but if a filibuster is not available per Wisconsin parliamentary rules, I'll likely reject it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
You challenged the alleged facts of the matter as I reported them and wrote there had to be more. The facts were accurately given.

There was no more. Sure you decided to blur the matter by raisinig Sully, Hudson River, yadda yadda.

No one ever wins with you it is clear.

I brought up Sully before you mentioned the firemen. While I don't think the firemen's union membership has any relevance, I'll concede that you were correct about the facts of the event. Congratulations. Your prize is an electronic version of The Communist Manifesto which you can retrieve here:

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/61