Capitalism and the Right to Rise

[WillowTree]

It's safe to say that taxpayers will pay for it whether it's through the cost of taxes, plane tickets or electric bills.

The only difference is that they have more say when it's through taxes.

taxpayers don't need to finance unions. let the unions finance themselves they have plenty of money.

The taxpayers DON'T finance unions. The employees do with money they've already earned.

sure they dew.

 

[Truthmatters]

and how will the republican candidate fund an election?

 

[DaGoose]

taxpayers don't need to finance unions. let the unions finance themselves they have plenty of money.

The taxpayers DON'T finance unions. The employees do with money they've already earned.

sure they dew.

Once a person earns his or her money he or she can do whatever they want with that money (including pay union dues) and it is no longer any concern of yours.

 

[Clementine]

And what of the rights of those who choose to rise through Collective Bargaining?

They seek to rise on the backs of others. It's one thing to be a wealth creator, quite another to simply confiscate wealth. The biggest problem with collective bargaining is that some will rise when they don't deserve it. Even the laziest of the bunch will benefit through the labors of others.

 

[Clementine]

from a wealthy man who inherited tons of money

Careful, your class envy is showing. This is a divisive statement, typical of the left.

If I earn a lot of money, my children and their children might benefit. And so on.

Got a problem with that? I get the feeling you do. And so does Obama apparently since he recently commented that our free market capitalist system does not work and never has. What an idiot! I recall being accused of racism for believing that Obama wanted to tear down capitalism. Now he admits it.

 

[WillowTree]

The taxpayers DON'T finance unions. The employees do with money they've already earned.

sure they dew.

Once a person earns his or her money he or she can do whatever they want with that money (including pay union dues) and it is no longer any concern of yours.

Then we don't need the taxpayers to fund the teachers anymore dew we? Every state should be a right to work state and they can choose which teachers to hire and for how much.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And what of the rights of those who choose to rise through Collective Bargaining?

Not sure that we can protect a right to do something that's realistically impossible. Might as well ask us to protect your right to flap your arms and fly.

 

[Jackson]

Did anyone really listen to this as they read it?

Think about it. We talk about the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to assembly. The right to rise doesn't seem like something we should have to protect.

But we do. We have to make it easier for people to do the things that allow them to rise. We have to let them compete. We need to let people fight for business. We need to let people take risks. We need to let people fail. We need to let people suffer the consequences of bad decisions. And we need to let people enjoy the fruits of good decisions, even good luck.

That is what economic freedom looks like. Freedom to succeed as well as to fail, freedom to do something or nothing. People understand this. Freedom of speech, for example, means that we put up with a lot of verbal and visual garbage in order to make sure that individuals have the right to say what needs to be said, even when it is inconvenient or unpopular. We forgive the sacrifices of free speech because we value its blessings.

"The right to rise doesn't seem like something we should have to protect. "

In other countries that aren’t free, there is no right to rise, but “equal” the base without merit of work or value on anyone’s part. Share the wealth.

People are free to rise and fall with entrepreneurship and the God given talents to better the world with innovation and make their life better from the fruits of their labor. Even with failure, they can try again and again if necessary.

We also have the freedom to be stagnate and nothing of value to come our way. We have the freedom to diss our country and neighbors for what they have. We have the right to be jealous of others. We have the right to demand that we get something for nothing, but it doesn’t mean we get it. That, my friends is socialism

 

[Clementine]

The taxpayers DON'T finance unions. The employees do with money they've already earned.

sure they dew.

Once a person earns his or her money he or she can do whatever they want with that money (including pay union dues) and it is no longer any concern of yours.

But first they must take it from the tax payers whether they earned it or not. Collective bargaining allows the worst of the bunch to profit.

Show me where any schools have improved because of the unions. Seems the more unions take over, the less quality we get. Wisconsin's schools have improved since doing away with collective bargaining and more teachers were hired. They have more money to spend for the children.

 

[Cecilie1200]

who is it that is buying our reps?

Its not poor people

Why do you blame people for using the system the way it is, rather than blaming the system for being usable in that way? In other words, why don't you blame the politicians for being buyable?

 

[Clementine]

sure they dew.

Once a person earns his or her money he or she can do whatever they want with that money (including pay union dues) and it is no longer any concern of yours.

Then we don't need the taxpayers to fund the teachers anymore dew we? Every state should be a right to work state and they can choose which teachers to hire and for how much.

I think that's what we should do. We'd wind up with quality teachers because they'd have to compete and be on top of their game. Now they can just phone it in and rely on unions to guarantee their pay and benefits.

All we ever hear is that schools are in trouble and need everything from building repairs to books. Then we see teachers unions fighting for pay and benefits that surpass what the people paying their salaries get. And they claim they are there for the children.

 

[Jackson]

Once a person earns his or her money he or she can do whatever they want with that money (including pay union dues) and it is no longer any concern of yours.

Then we don't need the taxpayers to fund the teachers anymore dew we? Every state should be a right to work state and they can choose which teachers to hire and for how much.

I think that's what we should do. We'd wind up with quality teachers because they'd have to compete and be on top of their game. Now they can just phone it in and rely on unions to guarantee their pay and benefits.

All we ever hear is that schools are in trouble and need everything from building repairs to books. Then we see teachers unions fighting for pay and benefits that surpass what the people paying their salaries get. And they claim they are there for the children.

Some teachers are worth large salaries and some are not. Pay them what they are worth. They are working with our futures. Get the unions out. Get the worthless administrators out of the schools as well. Get standards back in schools.

 

[Clementine]

Then we don't need the taxpayers to fund the teachers anymore dew we? Every state should be a right to work state and they can choose which teachers to hire and for how much.

I think that's what we should do. We'd wind up with quality teachers because they'd have to compete and be on top of their game. Now they can just phone it in and rely on unions to guarantee their pay and benefits.

All we ever hear is that schools are in trouble and need everything from building repairs to books. Then we see teachers unions fighting for pay and benefits that surpass what the people paying their salaries get. And they claim they are there for the children.

Some teachers are worth large salaries and some are not. Pay them what they are worth. They are working with our futures. Get the unions out. Get the worthless administrators out of the schools as well. Get standards back in schools.

Jackson, you make too much sense, so don't expect liberals to take your solution seriously. They will do as they always do and come up with more money wasting, useless government programs, which is why we are in this mess. They want happy teachers who get good pay and bennies and don't have to work too hard and, in exchange, the liberal politicians will get big donations to stay in power.

Then they claim it's all about the children and call you names if you point out that it's obviously not about quality education.

 

[Truthmatters]

who desides who get paid more?

 

[Clementine]

who desides who get paid more?

Many companies rate their employees and pay according to their job performance. Of course, they try to hire the best ones to begin with, though the government interferring with affirmative action has ensured that they can't always do that anymore. People should raise the bar and prepare themselves to compete rather than do a minimum and rely on government to elevate them.

 

[Jackson]

who desides who get paid more?

Use standardized test scores to show progress gained in students mastery of foundations. Also Praxis evaluators who come into classrooms and monitor teachers every two years on acceptable and enhanced performance behaviors.

 

[Truthmatters]

who desides who get paid more?

Many companies rate their employees and pay according to their job performance. Of course, they try to hire the best ones to begin with, though the government interferring with affirmative action has ensured that they can't always do that anymore. People should raise the bar and prepare themselves to compete rather than do a minimum and rely on government to elevate them.

You will end up with teachers who teach to the test to make more money

 

[WillowTree]

who desides who get paid more?

who ever writes the evaluation.. ever hear of that? merit based pay?

 

[Truthmatters]

Children are NOT a product

 

[Truthmatters]

Education is not making widgets.