A Union For The Unemployed

There is a new "union" out there.  It comes out of the bowels of the International Association of Machinists or IAM which should give anyone except a strident wobbly pause to consider joining.  (Full disclosure, I'm a former member of the IAM.)  In any case, the the IAM decided that the best way to help the unemployed is to form a union for them. After all, it's worked out so well for them here in the Puget Sound with A Certain Aerospace Company opening a second line in non-union South Carolina. They say there are over 31 million unemployed, but the US Government latest stats say 14.8 Million.  I doubt anyone knows for sure but 31 million seems a bit much.

The call it "UR Union of the Unemployed" or "U Cubed".  The idea according to the left wing extremists at Alternet is:

"...that if millions of jobless join together and act as an organization, they are more likely to get Congress and the White House to provide the jobs that are urgently needed. They can also apply pressure for health insurance coverage, unemployment insurance and COBRA benefits and food stamps. An unemployed worker is virtually helpless if he or she has to act alone."

My first question is how in hell is the Congress and the White House supposed provide jobs?  How does government create 31(14.8) million jobs?  And what are they going to do if the eagle doesn't miraculously crap them a job?  Go on strike?  Refuse to take their unemployment check?  Get a job?

Forgive me if I find humor in this.  I know what it's like to be looking for work.  It's not fun.  It's depressing and stressful.  If this was about networking and honing interview skills, I'd have nothing to say.  It's nothing more than the IAM trying to make political points.  The IAM knows damned well the government can't squirt out jobs or wave some magic wand and make private sector jobs.

The government can't make jobs.  They can't (yet) force anyone to hire people. I hope most of those people are smart enough to realize that.

VW

Comments

[John Hampton]

I don't feel too bad now. For awhile now I thought maybe I was the only one out here with the puzzled look on my face, scratching myself, and wondering just how the government would create all those jobs. I was starting to think that maybe it was true, that I'm just a stupid, knuckledragging, racist redneck who can't keep up with these liberal progressive intellectual dynamos with all their divine powers of creation.

[Rusty]

So, it's essentially a tea party for the unemployed. I'm guessing there will be a lot of overlap in the membership.

[Violence Worker]

John, I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent. May not have a sheepskin, but I'm probably smarter than most that have one. I don't know how it will either. Rusty obviously doesn't have a clue either judging by his babble.

VW

[Rusty]

The tea party platform calls for specific government reform (lowering personal and business taxes, for example) in order to create more jobs. The tea party thinks the government can act and create jobs. Do you think they're crazy? If it's ok for them to think that gov't action can create jobs, why can't this group call for the same thing.

And why is it that you can never refute what I say, you can only call me names.

[John Hampton]

I didn't think VW was attempting to refute you, Rusty. He was just making an observation, and without calling you any names.

[Rusty]

Saying I don't have a clue and that I babble isn't exactly what I call a constructive observation. It might pass for intellectual discourse on the right side of the aisle, but not in these here parts.

[John Hampton]

Well, Rusty, perhaps he was merely trying to help you see things a bit more clearly and help you understand that the government would not be "creating" jobs by responding favorably to pressure from grass roots movements to reduce and/or eliminate certain taxes. It would just be a less adverse obstruction to allowing free market forces to create jobs.

I think you and others like you are just obsessed with resorting to linguistic chicanery in an effort to semantically or contextually manipulate the truth in order to ensure that Obama receives noteworthy credit for something that might help embattled Democrats in the upcoming elections and subsequently something that they can hail as justification for giving him his coveted second term. If we don't allow it to happen that way, then they are quite willing and content to perpetuate the detrimental conditions until we do go along with their deceit.

[Glenn Mark Cassel AMH1(AW) USN Ret.]

Used to be in the IAM myself. In Kansas, I quit half way through the six years I was there. Corrupt and self serving. Period

[Bloodytommorgan]

No one can refute what you say Rusty because you aren't really saying anything. Most of your comments on the Violence Worker are just snide sarcastic remarks that don't contain substance.

You were more than happy to outline how the Tea Party thinks jobs should be created but neglected to tell how the government is supposed to create jobs otherwise and thus said nothing worth responding too.

I went and looked at the websites mentioned in VW's post (alternet contains a link to the unemployed union's website) and finally found a pre-written letter you can sign and send off to a representative calling for yet another stimulus package. That is the proposed solution for the government to create more jobs "NOW".

VW never said it wasn't fine for other people asking the government to create jobs now, he was just wondering what their plan was, and what the union intended to do about it should the government fail in providing millions of jobs immediately. VW was asking for substance and your typical comment ensued of 'I don't know but conservatives do it too'

So the plan is yet another stimulus package, what is your stance on that Rusty? Is another near trillion stimulus package needed? Will it create millions of jobs now just like the last one? How will we pay for it? What should the union unemployed do if it doesn't work? If a new stimulus is needed so soon how come the last one wasn't big enough?

[John Hampton]

There is certainly something irrational about the number of Democrats in Congress who appear be willing to fall on their swords in order to further Obama's agenda, but irrationality and obsessiveness often do go hand in hand.

Many of them who follow through with this recklessness are seriously jeopardizing their seats. As VW pointed out, those like Pelosi probably will not lose their seats. But those Congressmen in the marginal and predominantly conservative districts will go down. In the face of this impending upset in November, Pelosi is insisting they sacrifice themselves anyway.

Why would Obama and the Democratic core leadership acknowledge that those seats would likely be sacrificed if the voters in those districts will probably throw them out in November for continuing to vote for legislation so obviously unpopular? Why do they insist on pushing an ideologically far-left agenda with such a huge monetary price tag while they seem oblivious to the facts that it is hugely unpopular, it's damaging the country, and it's damaging their party?

The answer to all of those questions increasingly seem to point to an unwavering insistence on continuing enthusiastic support for Obama's mandate for "hope and change" socialism and that by doing so it might all somehow come out in the wash and possibly give Democrats something to bray and crow about in their bid to re-elect Obama.

Much of the rhetoric already being thrown about reflects an attitude that it should be a given that Obama will serve two consecutive terms. Don't think for a minute that we won't be depicted as unsophistcated and intellectually hampered racist rednecks if we don't go along with the thinking that an Obama second term should be taken for granted. After all, he needs time to single-handedly fix everything that's wrong with America which, by the way, was single-handedly caused by George W. Bush.

[John Hampton]

...and now I sit here holding my breath and waiting see the anointed one, the Obama, to appear in less than an hour on national television to perform a miracle and turn 3000 vessels of barackish water into wine enough for the entire multitude of 300 million to become drunk with jubilation and awe. Then we will know that he is the one! Holy Shit! Salvation draws near! He's going to resurrect the dead! And the blind will see and the lame will walk...after the 2012 election, of course.

[John Hampton]

Well, it's over now. He has spoken. Guess we'll have to wait and see if the magical spell kicks in a little later. I don't think it will. He forgot to hand out the loaves of bread and fish. What an amateur.

[Rusty]

John, Bloody, and the rest, my efforts in commenting on this blog is primarily to push the level of intellectual honesty in the discussion. I do that primarily by point out where the facts don't support the arguments being made (see the health care summit post) or point out where I think VW or others are being hypocritical, as in this case. VW seemed to "find it humorous" that a group of frustrated Americans would band together to try and pressure the gov't to take action to create jobs. I was pointing out that they're mission was not all that dissimilar that that of the tea party who VW seems to whole-heartily support. Obviously there are differences such as the tea party's broader agenda (and sporadic racial outbursts), but the group VW described in his post is essentially a one-issue focused version of the tea party. Which means he shouldn't find what they're doing so ridiculous. And it seems a bit unfair to expect a group that doesn't even exist yet to have a plan for how to create jobs.

Is another stimulus needed? I don't know. I know we're now losing about 1/10th the number of jobs we were 14 months ago. Still losing jobs, sure, but at a lot better than we were. And if simply cutting taxes was the answer to job creation, which seems to be the solution of the tea party and the republicans than wouldn't have entered this administration hemorrhaging 700,000 jobs/mo.

[Violence Worker]

Rusty, That's it. You are the dishonest one. It isn't a group of frustrated Americans banding together, it's a union organizing people for the sole benefit of said union. A union, that I might add, that is corrupt and anti-democratic.

People who come here and call me dishonest (in any form) don't last. You are done. I pay for this blog. I don't mind opposing views, but you are the dishonest one. Take it elsewhere.

VW

[Violence Worker]

One other thing Rusty, you dumbass. I wasn't making fun of the people out of work, I was spoofing the concept. STFU and go somewhere else

VW

[Violence Worker]

For the record Rusty, you can change your IP addy, but I can still delete. Just so you know, you are the hypocrite. Accusing me of being dishonest is what got you banned. Nothing more, nothing less. Now go away.

VW