Republican bill stops funding to states issuing DL's to illegals

[beagle9]

So you are checking their papers? Or is this more confirmation bias.

What does checking their papers have to do with it? When I'm in line at the shipping window, and some foreign truck driver is in front of me and can't understand the instructions from the shipper, you know he can't read English if he doesn't know how to speak it.

Then you don't have a problem when we form unions and vote in a Worker's government that changes the nature of that contract, then?

Vote them in all you want. But don't be upset when you're out of a job in a year or two because the employer lost his customers to a non-union business.

I have no problem with workers uniting to gain better wages and benefits if done honestly and fair for all parties involved, and this being based upon a formula that is worked out in agreement between ownership/management and the workers along with their worker representation.

The reason that the unions formed way back in the day, was because greed was leaving the working class (who contribute to the country and government just like any other class of citizen's do), high and dry so to speak, and to a large degree right ??? I mean unions didn't form for no reason right ?? There were severe problems in various time periods when it came to the treatment of labor etc, so unions were formed.

Many of the problems were solved over time, but then we have the illegal invasion that has since upset the apple cart again.

I would never say that unions were always a bad thing. My father built our house and raised his family with a union job. But like ditch diggers, phone operators, ice men to put ice in your refrigerator, and the milk man, it's just a part of history. At the time, they served their purpose, but became harmful to the working society.

When politics got involved with unions, that's when they jumped the shark. Union leaders had this ultimate power. They began sabotaging companies. They insisted that they make vital company decisions like who got promoted, who got hired, who got fired. Companies lost production because union strength dictated that the only requirement of a union worker was to be breathing.

Now that we are an economy that outsources, uses automation, companies leaving the US to export goods back to the US, a union movement would be a jobs killing movement. Yes, we could have union workers again, and those workers wouldn't even be buying their own products that they made. Eventually they would lose their jobs because of global competition.

Like the horse shoe smith, there are some things that you can't bring back because they don't fit in our modern society.

Well hello "Corona Virus" to the U.S. Hope you enjoy your globalist economy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't follow VA stories since it doesn't affect me, but immigration is something I have always followed closely. As much as you hate it, this is Trump's policy; a policy that's never been instituted before. How do I know, because it's been going on for way too long. I understand the danger that's involved as these babies go home and get radicalized by their government or religion, and have a free pass to come here with our blessing and bring us harm anytime after the age of 18.

Democrats love immigration, legal or not. That's why they shot down Kate's law, because they don't care if alien criminals return after deportation. Any way to get them here, the better. It's why they have sanctuary cities and states. It's why they fight the border wall and closed down the government to stop it. And getting back to the OP, it's why they are issuing them drivers licenses once they are here illegally. So don't tell me DumBama, who was elected over ten years ago, did anything to deter immigration. Why would he want to stop something the rest of the party is for?

You made a claim that you (so far) have failed to prove. Maybe they might not issue green cards to women that look like they're going to give birth any day soon, but they never went as far as to stop all pregnant women who come here. Only President Donald Trump is attacking the issue. Sorry for your disappointment.

I don't have a thing to prove. It's already been documented that Women wanting to come to the US that are already pregnant need some other reason to enter the US other than to have their baby in the US has been in force for at least 2 decades. And Rump's EO does nothing to change that. It does absolutely nothing except keep you riled up and fired up. As it stands, even with it in full force, if a woman shows she has a reason other than pregnancy that can be accepted by Immigrations, she will be allowed to enter. She can do it with legal papers or faked papers. Nothing changes. All she has to do is just overstay her Visa, give birth and it's a done deal. Since you want to peruse this further, what prevents it from happening?

Yes, when you make a false claim and called out for it, you do have something to prove.

This order by our President is not for applicants to provide alternative reasons for green card acceptance besides being pregnant, it's for anybody that is pregnant getting a green card for any reason. And again, you have no ability to prove Trump is only carrying out standard policy because it's never been standard policy before. This new policy TRUMP CREATED is that no foreigner that is pregnant be accepted for a green card of Visa applications.

I didn't make a false claim. I called you on your false claim. Now you are going to have to back your claim up. Get to it.

Now, chippy, suppose that woman is 5 months or 6 months pregnant. Is one of the questions, "Are you Pregnant?"? and "If so, how far along are you?"? It's hard to tell a 5 month pregnant woman from a fat woman. Are you going to have her to through a physical to find out if she is pregnant if she answers "No"? How about a 7 month term? Many women just look fat at 6 or 7 months. As it stands now, if a woman is pregnant and can't give a decent reason for entering the US other than to have her child, her visa or green card is denied. And that is without your Rump Ruling. So, She just lies and answers she isn't pregnant because she isn't 8 or 9 months term and comes up with another valid reason even if it's a lie. Before, being Pregnant wasn't a reason enough to deny entry. But the only change is the woman will just lie and say she isn't pregnant, she's just fat. Care to see the court rulings when Rump tries to force all the fatties to take a Physical to enter? hasn't he pissed off the courts enough?

Rump only created a bigger mess than is already there as he usually does. He doesn't think things through. He's too busy trying to figure out ways to keep your hate wound tight. IF Rump were to really want to stop the
Anchor Babies he would do something about the overstaying of the Visas and Green Cards where the real anchor babies are made. But don't let a little thing called reason get in the way of a good hate.

No Daryl, that's not how it works in blogs. I make a claim and provide evidence. If you challenge my claim, you bring your evidence. You're not going to challenge my claim and tell me to find your evidence (which doesn't exist) for you. It's like the George Carlin joke. If you are in an elevator with another person, and one of you farts, you both know who did it. You and I both know you are FOS.

How do you think women find out if they're pregnant before they even see a doctor? You can buy those home pregnancy test kits at any drug store. Or are you going to tell me they did that before Trump too?

It will work just like taking a drug test. They put you in a bathroom with the water shut off and chemical in the toilet. After you piss in the cup, you bring it to the nurse, and she verifies the temperature. The temperature is important because in the past, some people have tried to bring in another persons urine, but it's impossible to keep at body temperature by putting it under your arms or in your ass. The temperature has to be exact.

They may put you in a medical gown, or where we used to go for our tests, the nurse pats you down very carefully. It's foolproof. It's likely government will use a medical gown.

Wow, you really want a whole bunch of successful lawsuits on your hands, don't you. Just not going to happen. Are the men also going to have to take pregnancy tests as well? Are you going to mask them as Drug Tests? You are just digging yourself deeper trying to justify your Orange Deity trying to take credit for something already being done. He CAN'T force pregnancy tests. What's next, lie detector tests? How about waterboarding to squeeze the truth out of them? Afterall, according to you and Rump, they are sub human anyway.

If you want a Visa or green card, you need to comply with the qualifications. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. If you don't want to take any tests, fine, then you don't get what you came for. Nobody has to come here you know. They can stay home and have all the babies they desire. The only people that have a RIGHT to be here are Americans.

If the government can require me to take random drug tests in order to be in my line of work, they can require that women don't come here pregnant to enter the country.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you are checking their papers? Or is this more confirmation bias.

What does checking their papers have to do with it? When I'm in line at the shipping window, and some foreign truck driver is in front of me and can't understand the instructions from the shipper, you know he can't read English if he doesn't know how to speak it.

Then you don't have a problem when we form unions and vote in a Worker's government that changes the nature of that contract, then?

Vote them in all you want. But don't be upset when you're out of a job in a year or two because the employer lost his customers to a non-union business.

I have no problem with workers uniting to gain better wages and benefits if done honestly and fair for all parties involved, and this being based upon a formula that is worked out in agreement between ownership/management and the workers along with their worker representation.

The reason that the unions formed way back in the day, was because greed was leaving the working class (who contribute to the country and government just like any other class of citizen's do), high and dry so to speak, and to a large degree right ??? I mean unions didn't form for no reason right ?? There were severe problems in various time periods when it came to the treatment of labor etc, so unions were formed.

Many of the problems were solved over time, but then we have the illegal invasion that has since upset the apple cart again.

I would never say that unions were always a bad thing. My father built our house and raised his family with a union job. But like ditch diggers, phone operators, ice men to put ice in your refrigerator, and the milk man, it's just a part of history. At the time, they served their purpose, but became harmful to the working society.

When politics got involved with unions, that's when they jumped the shark. Union leaders had this ultimate power. They began sabotaging companies. They insisted that they make vital company decisions like who got promoted, who got hired, who got fired. Companies lost production because union strength dictated that the only requirement of a union worker was to be breathing.

Now that we are an economy that outsources, uses automation, companies leaving the US to export goods back to the US, a union movement would be a jobs killing movement. Yes, we could have union workers again, and those workers wouldn't even be buying their own products that they made. Eventually they would lose their jobs because of global competition.

Like the horse shoe smith, there are some things that you can't bring back because they don't fit in our modern society.

Well hello "Corona Virus" to the U.S. Hope you enjoy your globalist economy.

It has nothing to do with what I enjoy or don't enjoy. This is what our economy has evolved to.

 

[bill718]

Republicans in the House and the Senate are introducing legislation that would block federal funds from states that allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses -- the latest move in an escalating fight over “sanctuary” laws.

The Stop Greenlighting Driver Licenses for Illegal Immigrants Act would block funds to sanctuary states -- which limit local cooperation with federal immigration authorities -- and those that give licenses to illegal immigrants. Specifically, it would halt Justice Department (DOJ) grants, in particular those awarded under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, which is a top source of federal criminal justice funding for states.

The bicameral legislation comes amid a growing fight over sanctuary legislation. The Trump administration has been attempting to highlight attention to the dangers of the policy and has been shining light on cases whereby illegal immigrants have killed Americans.

“The United States of America should be a sanctuary for law-abiding Americans, not criminal aliens,” Trump said at his State of the Union address last week. Read more:

Republicans introduce bill to pull funds from states that give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants

Of course this is common sense legislation, but as we all know, Democrats lack that gift. They would rather see American business people locked up behind bars because their claim is those employers attract illegals to our country, but making them comfortable by issuing drivers licenses so they can get drunk and kill Americans is not luring them in.

With the Democrat House, it stands no chance of passing. But if there is a turnover in leadership after next election, I do hope Republicans don't let this bill remain defeated as they did with Kate's Law never to bring it up again. We'll see.

Thoughts from an Independent

I don't always agree with President Trump, but he's right on this one. This whole concept of sanctuary cities is a bunch of nonsense. If people are in this country illegally, they shouldn't expect the same rights and benefits as our legal citizens. Let them come to America legally, with proper documentation, then they can have a driver's license.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Republicans in the House and the Senate are introducing legislation that would block federal funds from states that allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses -- the latest move in an escalating fight over “sanctuary” laws.

The Stop Greenlighting Driver Licenses for Illegal Immigrants Act would block funds to sanctuary states -- which limit local cooperation with federal immigration authorities -- and those that give licenses to illegal immigrants. Specifically, it would halt Justice Department (DOJ) grants, in particular those awarded under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, which is a top source of federal criminal justice funding for states.

The bicameral legislation comes amid a growing fight over sanctuary legislation. The Trump administration has been attempting to highlight attention to the dangers of the policy and has been shining light on cases whereby illegal immigrants have killed Americans.

“The United States of America should be a sanctuary for law-abiding Americans, not criminal aliens,” Trump said at his State of the Union address last week. Read more:

Republicans introduce bill to pull funds from states that give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants

Of course this is common sense legislation, but as we all know, Democrats lack that gift. They would rather see American business people locked up behind bars because their claim is those employers attract illegals to our country, but making them comfortable by issuing drivers licenses so they can get drunk and kill Americans is not luring them in.

With the Democrat House, it stands no chance of passing. But if there is a turnover in leadership after next election, I do hope Republicans don't let this bill remain defeated as they did with Kate's Law never to bring it up again. We'll see.

Thoughts from an Independent

I don't always agree with President Trump, but he's right on this one. This whole concept of sanctuary cities is a bunch of nonsense. If people are in this country illegally, they shouldn't expect the same rights and benefits as our legal citizens. Let them come to America legally, with proper documentation, then they can have a driver's license.

I hope that thought echoes across the Independent base. Why should we make people who are not supposed to be here more comfortable? I mean, when you leave your house for a long period of time, you don't make a fresh pot of coffee incase a burglar breaks into your house.

 

[JoeB131]

Reagan went after workers in one union. It had nothing to do with it. The left keep wanting to use the Reagan situation as a scapegoat for what really happened. The same thing would have happened if Reagan or Carter were President. You do know Reagan took over in 1980, don't you?

Yes, I do. He made things worse. He sent out a clear signal to the ONe Percent- "You don't have to pay your fair share and if you go after unions, we won't have their back."

My mistake. I meant immigrants and typed in illegals by accident.

Freudian Slip?

So who is going to mandate unions in a free country? Even if it could be done, everybody would quit buying American made products.

Why would they do that? Pretty easy to mandate unions, just like we mandate, "you can't dump toxins into the water supply", or "you can't make your secretary give you a blow job!"

 

[JoeB131]

If you want a Visa or green card, you need to comply with the qualifications. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. If you don't want to take any tests, fine, then you don't get what you came for. Nobody has to come here you know. They can stay home and have all the babies they desire. The only people that have a RIGHT to be here are Americans.

If the government can require me to take random drug tests in order to be in my line of work, they can require that women don't come here pregnant to enter the country.

Well, no they really can't. We've already established women have a right to reproductive autonomy in this country. Roe v. Wade, Griswald v. Connecticut.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you want a Visa or green card, you need to comply with the qualifications. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. If you don't want to take any tests, fine, then you don't get what you came for. Nobody has to come here you know. They can stay home and have all the babies they desire. The only people that have a RIGHT to be here are Americans.

If the government can require me to take random drug tests in order to be in my line of work, they can require that women don't come here pregnant to enter the country.

Well, no they really can't. We've already established women have a right to reproductive autonomy in this country. Roe v. Wade, Griswald v. Connecticut.

American women do, yes. But not foreigners who are not on our land yet.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, I do. He made things worse. He sent out a clear signal to the ONe Percent- "You don't have to pay your fair share and if you go after unions, we won't have their back."

He sent out nothing. They weren't allowed to strike in the first place. They got fired for violating their contract. Look at your chart again. Income was going down long before Reagan, so he had nothing to do with it. Businesses started to leave the country, and we were not buying our own products.

Why would they do that? Pretty easy to mandate unions, just like we mandate, "you can't dump toxins into the water supply", or "you can't make your secretary give you a blow job!"

Why would they do that? Foreign made products are almost half the price of ours. How do you think Walmart became number one, by selling high priced American made goods?

Force industry to have unions, industry closes down or moves out of the country. What would you have accomplished by doing that? It's as ridiculous as mandating that phone companies must have phone operators again, or companies must hire ditch diggers.

 

[JoeB131]

Income was going down long before Reagan,

Income was going down in the 1970's because of double digit inflation and unemployment. It kept going down under Reagan because he gutted the union movement.

Why would they do that? Foreign made products are almost half the price of ours. How do you think Walmart became number one, by selling high priced American made goods?

No, they became number one by going into an area, undercutting the local businesses until they all went belly up, and then pulled out and made people drive miles to the next WalMart.

 

[JoeB131]

Force industry to have unions, industry closes down or moves out of the country.

Good luck getting your products back in after you do. One more time, we can make the lives of one percenters absolutely miserable if they don't play ball.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Force industry to have unions, industry closes down or moves out of the country.

Good luck getting your products back in after you do. One more time, we can make the lives of one percenters absolutely miserable if they don't play ball.

Then my suggestion to you is open up a company, and have a mandatory union participation. See how long you last with non-union companies or overseas companies. If you want to force companies to have unions, and force Americans to buy union made products, I'm fine with that again. But your iPhone won't cost $1,000, it will cost $3,000. Your big screen won't cost $800.00, it will cost $2,400.

 

[beagle9]

So you are checking their papers? Or is this more confirmation bias.

What does checking their papers have to do with it? When I'm in line at the shipping window, and some foreign truck driver is in front of me and can't understand the instructions from the shipper, you know he can't read English if he doesn't know how to speak it.

Then you don't have a problem when we form unions and vote in a Worker's government that changes the nature of that contract, then?

Vote them in all you want. But don't be upset when you're out of a job in a year or two because the employer lost his customers to a non-union business.

I have no problem with workers uniting to gain better wages and benefits if done honestly and fair for all parties involved, and this being based upon a formula that is worked out in agreement between ownership/management and the workers along with their worker representation.

The reason that the unions formed way back in the day, was because greed was leaving the working class (who contribute to the country and government just like any other class of citizen's do), high and dry so to speak, and to a large degree right ??? I mean unions didn't form for no reason right ?? There were severe problems in various time periods when it came to the treatment of labor etc, so unions were formed.

Many of the problems were solved over time, but then we have the illegal invasion that has since upset the apple cart again.

I would never say that unions were always a bad thing. My father built our house and raised his family with a union job. But like ditch diggers, phone operators, ice men to put ice in your refrigerator, and the milk man, it's just a part of history. At the time, they served their purpose, but became harmful to the working society.

When politics got involved with unions, that's when they jumped the shark. Union leaders had this ultimate power. They began sabotaging companies. They insisted that they make vital company decisions like who got promoted, who got hired, who got fired. Companies lost production because union strength dictated that the only requirement of a union worker was to be breathing.

Now that we are an economy that outsources, uses automation, companies leaving the US to export goods back to the US, a union movement would be a jobs killing movement. Yes, we could have union workers again, and those workers wouldn't even be buying their own products that they made. Eventually they would lose their jobs because of global competition.

Like the horse shoe smith, there are some things that you can't bring back because they don't fit in our modern society.

Well hello "Corona Virus" to the U.S. Hope you enjoy your globalist economy.

It has nothing to do with what I enjoy or don't enjoy. This is what our economy has evolved to.

Doesn't make it right though, so I just hope that you won't have to wallow in it while hoping to survive it all.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What does checking their papers have to do with it? When I'm in line at the shipping window, and some foreign truck driver is in front of me and can't understand the instructions from the shipper, you know he can't read English if he doesn't know how to speak it.

Vote them in all you want. But don't be upset when you're out of a job in a year or two because the employer lost his customers to a non-union business.

I have no problem with workers uniting to gain better wages and benefits if done honestly and fair for all parties involved, and this being based upon a formula that is worked out in agreement between ownership/management and the workers along with their worker representation.

The reason that the unions formed way back in the day, was because greed was leaving the working class (who contribute to the country and government just like any other class of citizen's do), high and dry so to speak, and to a large degree right ??? I mean unions didn't form for no reason right ?? There were severe problems in various time periods when it came to the treatment of labor etc, so unions were formed.

Many of the problems were solved over time, but then we have the illegal invasion that has since upset the apple cart again.

I would never say that unions were always a bad thing. My father built our house and raised his family with a union job. But like ditch diggers, phone operators, ice men to put ice in your refrigerator, and the milk man, it's just a part of history. At the time, they served their purpose, but became harmful to the working society.

When politics got involved with unions, that's when they jumped the shark. Union leaders had this ultimate power. They began sabotaging companies. They insisted that they make vital company decisions like who got promoted, who got hired, who got fired. Companies lost production because union strength dictated that the only requirement of a union worker was to be breathing.

Now that we are an economy that outsources, uses automation, companies leaving the US to export goods back to the US, a union movement would be a jobs killing movement. Yes, we could have union workers again, and those workers wouldn't even be buying their own products that they made. Eventually they would lose their jobs because of global competition.

Like the horse shoe smith, there are some things that you can't bring back because they don't fit in our modern society.

Well hello "Corona Virus" to the U.S. Hope you enjoy your globalist economy.

It has nothing to do with what I enjoy or don't enjoy. This is what our economy has evolved to.

Doesn't make it right though, so I just hope that you won't have to wallow in it while hoping to survive it all.

Right or wrong is not decided by me or you individually, right or wrong is decided on by the average American consumer. If Americans would be willing to buy higher priced items to support good wages and unions, our problem would be solved. However collectively, they decided not to. We really can't change that.

 

[JoeB131]

Then my suggestion to you is open up a company, and have a mandatory union participation. See how long you last with non-union companies or overseas companies. If you want to force companies to have unions, and force Americans to buy union made products, I'm fine with that again. But your iPhone won't cost $1,000, it will cost $3,000. Your big screen won't cost $800.00, it will cost $2,400.

Here's the problem with that argument. The cost of labor today on ANY product is minimal. MOST of the cost is distribution and profit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then my suggestion to you is open up a company, and have a mandatory union participation. See how long you last with non-union companies or overseas companies. If you want to force companies to have unions, and force Americans to buy union made products, I'm fine with that again. But your iPhone won't cost $1,000, it will cost $3,000. Your big screen won't cost $800.00, it will cost $2,400.

Here's the problem with that argument. The cost of labor today on ANY product is minimal. MOST of the cost is distribution and profit.

Distribution and profit takes place whether your stuff is made here or in Taiwan somewhere. That's not where the cost is at. The cost is in labor. Companies have moved out because of taxes, costly regulations, and labor. Studies have been done on this before.

How Much Would a 'Made in America' iPhone Cost? Too Much. | Mark J. Perry

 

[beagle9]

I have no problem with workers uniting to gain better wages and benefits if done honestly and fair for all parties involved, and this being based upon a formula that is worked out in agreement between ownership/management and the workers along with their worker representation.

The reason that the unions formed way back in the day, was because greed was leaving the working class (who contribute to the country and government just like any other class of citizen's do), high and dry so to speak, and to a large degree right ??? I mean unions didn't form for no reason right ?? There were severe problems in various time periods when it came to the treatment of labor etc, so unions were formed.

Many of the problems were solved over time, but then we have the illegal invasion that has since upset the apple cart again.

I would never say that unions were always a bad thing. My father built our house and raised his family with a union job. But like ditch diggers, phone operators, ice men to put ice in your refrigerator, and the milk man, it's just a part of history. At the time, they served their purpose, but became harmful to the working society.

When politics got involved with unions, that's when they jumped the shark. Union leaders had this ultimate power. They began sabotaging companies. They insisted that they make vital company decisions like who got promoted, who got hired, who got fired. Companies lost production because union strength dictated that the only requirement of a union worker was to be breathing.

Now that we are an economy that outsources, uses automation, companies leaving the US to export goods back to the US, a union movement would be a jobs killing movement. Yes, we could have union workers again, and those workers wouldn't even be buying their own products that they made. Eventually they would lose their jobs because of global competition.

Like the horse shoe smith, there are some things that you can't bring back because they don't fit in our modern society.

Well hello "Corona Virus" to the U.S. Hope you enjoy your globalist economy.

It has nothing to do with what I enjoy or don't enjoy. This is what our economy has evolved to.

Doesn't make it right though, so I just hope that you won't have to wallow in it while hoping to survive it all.

Right or wrong is not decided by me or you individually, right or wrong is decided on by the average American consumer. If Americans would be willing to buy higher priced items to support good wages and unions, our problem would be solved. However collectively, they decided not to. We really can't change that.

Ray, do you really think that the consumer was behind it all ?? I got some ocean front property, well you know the rest.

The problem with American's, is that we became easily led, and easily led by bad elements in whom we have surrendered to over time. Wake up Ray, because you ain't utilizing the full picture. Yes, we are here or we have arrived, and where we are at, ain't anywhere that we are supposed to be, but here we sit wringing our hands Ray.

 

[beagle9]

Then my suggestion to you is open up a company, and have a mandatory union participation. See how long you last with non-union companies or overseas companies. If you want to force companies to have unions, and force Americans to buy union made products, I'm fine with that again. But your iPhone won't cost $1,000, it will cost $3,000. Your big screen won't cost $800.00, it will cost $2,400.

Here's the problem with that argument. The cost of labor today on ANY product is minimal. MOST of the cost is distribution and profit.

Especially when you got communist slaves building the products.

 

[beagle9]

Then my suggestion to you is open up a company, and have a mandatory union participation. See how long you last with non-union companies or overseas companies. If you want to force companies to have unions, and force Americans to buy union made products, I'm fine with that again. But your iPhone won't cost $1,000, it will cost $3,000. Your big screen won't cost $800.00, it will cost $2,400.

Here's the problem with that argument. The cost of labor today on ANY product is minimal. MOST of the cost is distribution and profit.

Distribution and profit takes place whether your stuff is made here or in Taiwan somewhere. That's not where the cost is at. The cost is in labor. Companies have moved out because of taxes, costly regulations, and labor. Studies have been done on this before.

How Much Would a 'Made in America' iPhone Cost? Too Much. | Mark J. Perry

Yeah instead of fixing things in America, the politicians and their good-buddies couldn't let a long created on purpose crisis go to waste. Rom Emanuals greatest philosophy wasn't it ?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would never say that unions were always a bad thing. My father built our house and raised his family with a union job. But like ditch diggers, phone operators, ice men to put ice in your refrigerator, and the milk man, it's just a part of history. At the time, they served their purpose, but became harmful to the working society.

When politics got involved with unions, that's when they jumped the shark. Union leaders had this ultimate power. They began sabotaging companies. They insisted that they make vital company decisions like who got promoted, who got hired, who got fired. Companies lost production because union strength dictated that the only requirement of a union worker was to be breathing.

Now that we are an economy that outsources, uses automation, companies leaving the US to export goods back to the US, a union movement would be a jobs killing movement. Yes, we could have union workers again, and those workers wouldn't even be buying their own products that they made. Eventually they would lose their jobs because of global competition.

Like the horse shoe smith, there are some things that you can't bring back because they don't fit in our modern society.

Well hello "Corona Virus" to the U.S. Hope you enjoy your globalist economy.

It has nothing to do with what I enjoy or don't enjoy. This is what our economy has evolved to.

Doesn't make it right though, so I just hope that you won't have to wallow in it while hoping to survive it all.

Right or wrong is not decided by me or you individually, right or wrong is decided on by the average American consumer. If Americans would be willing to buy higher priced items to support good wages and unions, our problem would be solved. However collectively, they decided not to. We really can't change that.

Ray, do you really think that the consumer was behind it all ?? I got some ocean front property, well you know the rest.

The problem with American's, is that we became easily led, and easily led by bad elements in whom we have surrendered to over time. Wake up Ray, because you ain't utilizing the full picture. Yes, we are here or we have arrived, and where we are at, ain't anywhere that we are supposed to be, but here we sit wringing our hands Ray.

Of course it's all consumer driven. I seen the change over during the early 80's when the recession was gearing up. Consumers became frugal, and it continued in that direction ever since. After all, the retailers and manufacturers only provide what the consumer wants. That's how you stay in business and stay on top like Walmart.

Towards the end of the 80's, more products became available to consumers as well. This was especially true in the technology area. Then Americans realized to have these wonderful products, you need to stretch your dollar further. I remember when the first cordless phones came out. They were like $120.00, which is comparable to $300.00 today.

My father laughs because he said he's paying more for his cell phone plan than he did the mortgage on the house we grew up in. He's not alone. A lot of older people have. My 88 year old father is fascinated by the internet. He's on that iPhone constantly.