Arnold is for Jobs
Arnold is a Champion. When he is fighting for what is right, he will always have people who disagree. That is because often people are blinded by rhetoric. We need to look deeper into what is best for our freedom first.
In order to be free, we must be able to function in a free market.
Many bills will either be pro business or anti business.
How does the government obtain money to function?
It comes both directly and indirectly from business. If California makes it hard for businesses to function in this state, they will move to one that is not so hostile.
Businesses employ people. People get paid. Taxes are withheld from their paychecks. Businesses pay taxes. Tax money starts and ends with business. The only way government gets taxes is because businesses employ people.
Arnold understands this and wants to keep businesses in California. If you want to call that special interest, then so be it. I call it our interest.
I like jobs.
Dems and Libs in general hate employers, and supposedly love employees. That is an oxymoron. You can't kill the golden goose and expect to still have the gold.
If the private sector of jobs go away, all of the public jobs will no longer be funded because public jobs require private taxes to exist, yet the Dems take the side of the public unions and say that the members are being hurt by Arnold.
How is that possible when he is trying to remove the strangle hold that the public unions have on the union members and the taxpayers? Arnold is not attacking the public employees, but the public union bosses. Those big Labor bosses; you know those Jimmy Hoffa types.
But those anti-Arnold ads will show you union employees attacking Arnold and making it seem he is against the members....what lies! Unions destroy business and intimidate members. See this article for a good view from an ex-union member as to how union bosses will always abuse their power for the worse. Arnold doesn't like Union Dues being used to run business out of state.
Or maybe some people think what Hoffa did wasn't so bad? Or being against business isn't harmful?
If you want more insight into why Arnold feels the way he does about freedom and economic freedom, read one of his favorite books, "Free to Choose", by Noble Prize winner in Economics, Milton Friedman, and you will see the folly of the anti-business attitude by the left.
posted by Free Agency Rules @ 7:31 AM
15 comments
15 Comments:
Arnold, the flip-flopping hypocrite, was (and maybe still is) a union member who reaped many union-sponsored benefits during his time with SAG. Was he anti-union while he was using SAG to his benefit? He was a union member when it benefited him and now he's anti-union because it benefits him. Can we say FLIP-FLOP!!!
Arnold is for jobs so long as he's not in the job market. When he is, then he is pro-union. That's principled.
Sometimes we change because we learn things. Agreed?
I am not the same naive Democrat that I was when I thought the Dems were for the little guy. Once I learned that the Dems were for the people who were anti-business and for feather-bedding and slow motion I changed towards being a Republican, maybe a FAR right guy even.
Back in the 1970's my wife worked for a Union. It was a fish cannery. She was paid by the hour, but got incentive pay for extra production.
She would always exceed her "required" amount by a large amount. One day several of the Union Bosses took her aside and threatened her to "slow down" because she was making the others look bad. She replyed that she was only producing so much because the others were more interested in just talking than producing.
She was not "in" with her fellow workers becasue she worked at a "normal" pace and not at a "Sunday Picnic" pace. They would stop every 10 minutes or so to tell stories and told my wife when she told them how it was to their benefit to help the company succeed..."We don't work for this company, we work for the Union."
Pretty Sad.
Unions had their place once upon a time, but now they have their own agenda and it is to remove competition in the work place and insure that Union Bosses get fat checks.
FAR.
I agree that people change their minds. If it's okay to change your mind though, why all the baloney from the conservatives about Kerry's so-called flip-flopping? Doesn't Bush beam with sinful pride when he says that he sticks to his beliefs and the conservatives parrot that line?
Also, I am curious when Ahnold saw the light about SAG, if he ever did. He's probably receiving union-enforced royalties to this day. No making excuses for him when he hasn't made excuses for himself. He's a hypocrite - plain and simple.
It's one thing to change your mind and it is quite another to change the rules half way into the game.
And I can't stand unions. I defended a company in a lawsuit over a serious accident caused by one of its employees and what made me so mad throughout is that the company could not fire her because of the union's regulations. She was a f'ing buffoon who almost killed a fellow employee and the worst thing that could happen to her was to be "disciplined."
Arnold benefitted from that.
ii - I agree with your thoughts on unions. However, no actor can work without SAG membership (at least not make a living). There are some other industries where unions have the monopoly. So I don't think Arnold is a hypocrite.
Years ago when I was a college student I landed a great job with the federal courts. However, union rules prevailed and I too got in trouble regularly for working too efficiently and making the others (the lifers) look bad.
After two years of torture, I couldn't wait to get another job.
It's a quandry because most people just want to work and want a decent job. They are unconcerned with the union aspect.
I certainly do't have an answer except that I would never again work for any company with union affiliation. But I have a choice.
Arnold had a choice. He could have chosen a different job. It is unfortunate that SAG has a monopoly on the entertainment industry, but a principled stance would have been to give them the finger, instead of taking their benefits.
Maybe, just maybe, he would have some credibility on the issue and seem like less of a hypocrite if he was fighting SAG head on now that he is in office, but I have yet to hear about that. Perhaps because many of his close friends are SAG members.
ii,
"why all the baloney from the conservatives about Kerry's so-called flip-flopping?"
If you speak out of both sides of your mouth like Kerry did, then that is Flip-flopping. He would sometimes say opposite things on the same day.
I also like Jen have been "forced" to join a union because I could not work there without joining. Maybe Arnold had no choice either.
FAR.
You all had a choice. You could have found different jobs. I trust that FAR and Jen (and maybe Arnold) are smart enough to land jobs in various industries. Why choose the one that causes you to compromise your valued principles?
You're making a lot of excuses for the guy. Can I venture to say that if a "leftist" union member all of a sudden claimed to be representing businesses and fighting unions, we would be hearing the flip-flop refrain?
Here's the link to an article about Mr. Principles giving into a SAG demand that all commercials he appears in have union workers. The story is from June 2005.
http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=upsell_article&articleID=VR1117924848&categoryID=18&cs=1#loop
My dad was a steel worker back in Bethlem Pa. And the union priced steel so far out of the market that manufacturers started buying steel from out side the U.S.
Hence the closing of Bethlehem Steel and a whole lot of jobs. Just like whats happening with the Auto industry
Similar to Bethlehem, some television production has moved to other states because of union tyranny here in LA. It's unfortunate that Arnold is supporting and enabling the unions in doing such harm to California's most famous industry.
ii,
It sounds to me like Arnold reluctently gave in to the SAG.
Yes, I can chaage jobs and still get decent pay, but I don't think Arnold could change careers and still get similar pay.
I dislike many things about Unions also, but I am not sure that I "hate" them and wouldn't try to change them from within if they took over the job that I thought was the "dream" job of all time.
Very few people get to do the job of their dreams. If I got to do mine, i.e., be a General Manager of a Pro Football Team, I would put up with things that I didn't like about the job, because there is no job that doesn't have things we don't like.
I think Arnold is in the same boat. He could not do much to change the SAG, but he can help the rest of us that have some problems with some Union policies.
I don't think Arnold ever said "I will never work for a Union becasue I hate them."
I am not even sure he has said he "hates all unions." He is fighting some union policies of some unions.
Now if he said he would never work for a union, or that he hates all unions, then that would be hypocritical, and he would be wrong. But he didn't.
Fair enough?
FAR.
It's not fair enough. Doesn't your post say that unions are anti-business? To quote you, "Unions destroy business and intimidate members." That is an unequivocal statement. Why are you equivocating for Arnold?
If Arnold supports SAG -- a union -- how can he simultaneously be pro-business? He can't. No more excuses for Arnold.
Make no mistake about it - unions are chasing entertainment work out of L.A. So, how does Arnold's pandering to SAG, reluctant or not, evidence his caring for jobs? He is the governor. He doesn't have to relent to anyone.
Like I said earlier, he would have credibility as a defender of jobs if he used his office to take on unions, but instead he is cementing their power by acceding to SAG's demands. That makes him anti-business.
ii,
It is my nature to give people the benefit of the doubt. To not be so cynical as perhaps many who look at politics are.
I love people in general. I try to let them save face and not "pin" them or put them in a box.
But that is just my nature. I love dogs too. :)
I have never met anyone that I hated. I have been around some people who get my dander up, but it is only temporary and I still see them as a Child of God. If Jesus can say and mean..."Forgive them Father for they know not what they do."...then I can at least overlook some of the things people say.
I think Michael Moore and others are over the top with what they say, but I don't personally know them so who am I to judge their person.
On the other hand I can easily speak against what they say as being wrong without being jugemental of them personally.
"Hate the sin, love the sinner."
I am not always perfect with my philosophy, but I try my best.
FAR.
FAR -
I have read your comments on other posts on other blogs and I don't get the sense that you give liberals the benefit of the doubt on their misguided ways. Am I wrong?
If you don't know Michael Moore and, thus you cannot judge his person, then the same logic applies to the favorable judgment you reserve for Republicans. You don't know Arnold, but you judge him (positively) by giving him the benefit of the doubt. How is he deserving of that when you don't know him as a person?
I agree with your sentiments 100%, but if you lived by that philosophy, there is no way you could align yourself with any political party. I am convinced that if Jesus was alive today, he would not be a member of any political party and most certainly wouldn't be a Republican.
I give all the benefit of the doubt, meaning I believe most people are sinsere in their postions. Some positions may be wrong, but I will engage to try to explain another point of view.
I engage with those who oppose my philosophy. I am on one blog site that is a liberal blog site and I am very respectful of their views just as I am of yours.
Having said that you asked a very, very important question...
"but if you lived by that philosophy, there is no way you could align yourself with any political party."
I grew up a Methodist and a Democrat. My life was a continual contradiction. I was confused because I had conflicting positions.
So I hit the books. I read and read and read. Politics, Economics, Religion, etc.
I was searching for the answer to the age-old question..."Are there absolute truths to the three major area’s in life. That is..."Is there one true religion?" "Is there one true Economic truth?", and is there an absolute Political Truth?
I eventually found what I believe to be the absolute truth in all three areas.
I have found that all of the inconsistencies that I found in the Bible have logical understandable answers.
"God is not the author of confusion." 1 Cor 14:33
And I have found that the absolutes in these three areas go hand in hand with one another.
I will not say the religion because I don't wish to get into public debate of who's religion is correct other than to say it is a Christian religion.
Free Market Economics is what I believe to be Absolute Economic truth and the maximum freedom possible, see the book "The Law" for my "born again" political views.
Armed with this "world view" I now am at perfect peace in my life because I am in concert with all of my beliefs and they are easily explained.
Evolution, why we are here, where we are going, etc. all have wonderful answers.
But now to answer your question, I side with the R's because they are the closest to my political views. Are there many views that I have problems with? Yes, but I feel it is better to work to change from within than to leave and join a useless third party that will go nowhere because there is too much apathy.
"It takes a major crisis to effect major change." - unknown.
With that in mind I will side with the group that has a chance to effect change until we all wake up to the real solution of bringing back true freedom as it existed at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
FAR.
Post a Comment
<< Home