Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers
A big week for the unions, with racketeering charges coming for the SEIU.
We heard from Illinois Roy, who I think is really just Transport Secretary Ray Lahood in disguise.
Plus what week wouldn't be complete without someone comparing Republicans to Hitler?
Bob A. wrote: Just like America's Republican and Conservative leaders are working on, Hitler banned Unions and either jailed their leaders or executed them. That's why the Anti-American Corporate Masters and Owners of Republicans and Conservatives in the name of greed are moving millions of American jobs off shore to 3rd world countries where they can pay slave wages with no benefits and pollute to their hearts content.- in response to my column Obama Kills Another 500,000 Non-Union Jobs
I guessed I missed the part where Republicans banned unions and had people jailed or executed. But if they did that, then why would they need to move millions of jobs offshore for the Anti-American Corporate Masters?
What GOP governors did do was curtail the bargaining right for public employees, who have only relatively recently got the right to begin with. Imagine: FDRs New Deal didn’t include the right for public employees to publicly bargain. I thought he was a hero to liberals. I wonder why he didn’t include that in one of his reforms?
The GOP governors enacted refrom in part to stop abuses like the ones going on in Wisconsin where the union often is the only insurance provider for teachers for example. Some school districts were literally faced with paying the union higher healthcare premiums or laying-off teachers.
And we’re anti-teacher?
No, jobs are moving off-shore because the U.S. has a non-competitive corporate tax, the Obama administration has enacted more regulatory red tape than any previous administration even if you don’t include Dodd-Frank and Obamacare. So expect more jobs to move offshore.
John in OK wrote: An interesting little tidbit just came to my attention: Illegals are going back to Mexico because the economy is doing BETTER there! Mexico has a 4.9% unemployment rate (compared to Obama's 9.2%) and their economy is growing at 4 to 5% (compared to .4% for The One.)- in response to my column Obama Kills Another 500,000 Non-Union Jobs
Yes. Mexico’s economy is doing better than the USA’s. The truth is that advanced economies are doing better, mostly because they did not share the same exposure in the housing market that the U.S. has.
The reason? Because they didn’t have laws that force lenders to loan money to people who can’t afford to buy houses. That’s why the financial crisis has been so toxic. It’s affected the market for the single biggest asset that people can own typically.
And far from fixing that problem, Obama’s doubled down on it. As our contributor Bob Beauprez reports today:
Through the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, Attorney General Eric Holder is forcing banks to "relax their mortgage underwriting standards and approve loans for minorities with poor credit as part of a new crackdown on alleged discrimination," according to a published report by Investor's Business Daily after reviewing court documents.
Jim Wrote: Everything that should have happened following the 2008 mortgage crisis (brought on by the S&P and Moody AAA rating of Mortgage Backed Securities from junk home sales) will end up happening anyway, as it should have! Examples; insurance and investment banks will fail (bail out money recall), the 60 percent stock ownership of GM by the government will have to be sold and (GM will eventually go bankrupt), Obamacare or government forced healthcare will be trashed.- in response to my column Bernanke to Bail Out Obama Debt?
For socialism to work politically, it needs massive systemic failure. I think where Obama has been wrong has been in underestimating how robust an economy like the United States is. He things he owns us, but even after all that’s been done in the name of Obama, we have relatively free markets and free elections.
That’s why this next election is so important. We took the right step forward with the last election. But God help us if we don’t elect someone besides Obama in 2012
Mac wrote: Phony bologna writer John Ransom with no patriotism, no respect for country or our people...and surely not part of any healing, uniting efforts...shame on you.- in response to my column Racketeering Charges against SEIU; What Does Obama Know?
You want healing? Then get rid of Obamacare.
You want patriotism? Then enforce our laws and defend the border.
You want respect for our country and people? Then teach kids the real history of our country, instead of some union endorsed alternate history where white men are the villains and everyone else is a hero.
Alice wrote: I am REQUIRED to be a member of SEIU....I hate it.....what can I do?.... Nothing.....Ohio is not a right to work state. Some would say quit my job. That would not be a good thing in this economy. I am my only support.- in response to my column Racketeering Charges against SEIU; What Does Obama Know?
No you can’t quit your job, but you can send me an email at email@example.com. I’m interested in hearing from you about your experiences with the SEIU.
Steve wrote: I like your articles, Mr. Ransom, but I don't understand how this is awkward phrasing. One drives around IN a car, one flies around IN a jet. If I'm missing something, I'd be glad of an explanation.- in response to my column The SEIU Pigs Fly
One flies on a plane not in one, unless one is a pilot.
It sounded silly to me in the commercial when I watched it. When you spend money on a big ad buy, you should have writers that can do better than make you look silly.
Illinois Roy wrote: There you go again. Unions are not anti-job at their core or anywhere else. What’s the three things unions have to do in order to be successful? Well I'll tell ya. Organize, organize, and organize. How are you going to recruit someone who doesn't have a job?.- in response to my column The SEIU Pigs Fly
Sure they are.
You’re talking about unions organizing for existing jobs. I’m talking about job creation, which unions, by definition, can not encourage unless they decide not to fulfill their obligation to the workers they represent.
The unions’ job is to get the biggest slice of the pie for their existing workers, not for workers that don’t even have jobs yet. And if they were to concede that a bigger workforce is better, then they’d just be representing the interests of the union not the dues-paying union worker who pays dues to get a bigger slice of the pie.
Unions are inherently anti-job. Period.
That's all for this week.
See you guys Monday,
To read another article by John Ransom, click here.