newsobserver.com projects - Paul Luebke - Comments

Re: End times?

robdarich — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:11:20 -0400

and Jim Black sleeps well tonight because NC taxpayers can go eat "poop" and die. (think about that when the justifications start rolling in, I bet nobody mentions what taxpayers are being fed - only that we need to digest it without making much noise)

Re: End times?

bellasmama — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:53:00 -0400

Lace up your skates, hell's frozen over...

End Times.

PoliticalJunkie — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:41:53 -0400

They are indeed upon us.

Re: Senate pitch is 'third way'

PaulTerrell — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:26:45 -0400

ONE THING IS THEY ARE TAX AND SPEND DEMOCRATS!

Re: Senate pitch is 'third way'

captainjack — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:34:16 -0400

How about the "fourth" way. Cutting spending?

Surcharge???

PoliticalJunkie — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:37:44 -0400

Why do you adopt their terminology?

Call it what it is. A 2 percentage point increase on people making $100,000 - making their income tax rate 9.75%.

Re: Taxes and title

PaulTerrell — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:29:12 -0400

The Democrats are simply playing political games with the future of all of us here in North carolina and our futures. Shame on you Rep. Luebke.

Re: Taxes and title

cdtew — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:35:47 -0400

Aw, shucks, it probably took the Democrats' law clerks a few days poring over statute books and Roberts' Rules of Order to figure this strategy out. Give them credit - when a North Carolina Democrat inevitably fails to win on policy or persuasion grounds, they can certainly find a technical rule to win on!

I bet all of Paul Luebke's childhood friends hated playing board games with him for the same reasons.

Re: Study: More unions mean more money

Modeen_Gunch — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:47:07 -0400

I'm sorry, but I must be living in the Twilight Zone and Brother Lubke and Brother Harrell must be from another planet. I thought I read that there was a budget shortfall of astronomical proportions in North Carolina or was that an alien giving the SOS speach last evening. State employees will NOT receive a salary increase this year and will probably be rewarded with furloughs as noted by the Speaker and the Minority Leader along with bearing the burden of a Health Care Plan that is bust through no fault of their own.
A number of elected members of the General Assembly now owe the unions for their favorable campaign contributions and will repay them with their vote for "Card Check". State Employees are nothing but pawns in the game of allowing Unions to move into North Carolina. All of you are correct when you say that the only winner in this game is the Union and they want a return on the millions of dollars they have spent on their personal legislators.
The sad irony of this article is that people will believe this garbage and then buy their next lottery ticket!

Re: Study: More unions mean more money

tangoz — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:53:55 -0400

A economist testified before Congress that the gains unions would make through the anti-secret ballot initiative would result in a overall increase in national unemployment by 1 to 1.5%.

Re: Study: More unions mean more money

nc4me — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:20:47 -0400

lgrafstein - we're obviously coming from two different world views. But I'll give it a shot.

I don't think CEO pay should be regulated either. I believe market forces should determine everyone's pay. Government interference in markets rarely produces the desired outcome - and if does the consequences are much greater.

No doubt there are a few bad apple's in the "CEO basket". But the current situation, I would argue, has as much to do with Fannie and Freddie as anything. In that case, government interference in upset the market forces. People were being approved for loans they couldn't afford. We could spend a few days discussing this I'm sure.

The reality (IMHO) is there is a cost or trade off for everything. If you mandate "middle class" pay increases - that money has to come from somewhere. You would probably argue take it from the CEO? What's fair about that? Take away the CEO's incentive and you take away his skills from the market. Who then will rely on to create jobs in this country. Not everyone has the skill set to be an executive.

That's about all the time I have for a response right now. I understand your perspective - I hope I've made mine more clear.

Re: Study: More unions mean more money

MissV — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:06:09 -0400

This argument makes about as much sense as Ty Harrell and me buying a tanning bed.

venitapeyton.com

Re: Study: More unions mean more money

lgrafstein — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:19:04 -0400

Let's make some substitutions to the arguments made below:

"Higher CEO salaries mean higher cost to produce goods." Are you suggesting a cap, nc4me? Workers should make less for the greater good? Higher wages are a boon to the economy -- for everyone -- because those wages get spent back into the economy.

"Look at what bad decisions by CEOs have done to the automobile manufacturing industry." Let's add in banking -- not an industry with significant unions, but with exponentially more dramatic problems.

Our middle class has shrunk as labor rights have been weakened over the past few decades. Unions help provide more bargaining power for people who lack that power individually.

Re: Study: More unions mean more money

cthayes75 — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:16:12 -0400

"Coming into the state's economy" is basically false and misleading.

The money wouldn't be coming from anywhere except from businesses, who then wouldn't have it to expand, hire more workers, or upgrade facilities.

The money doesn't come out of thin air. It's a transfer of wealth. That money is already "in the economy." It's just not being spent the way the labor unions want it to be.

And how much of that $483 million would then be transferred to the labor unions in the form of dues? How many millions would be "coming into the labor union's economy"?

Re: Study: More unions mean more money

willncsu — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:03:04 -0400

Only a complete moron would believe unions are good for the economy. This is ridiculous. Every state the unions have gotten ahold of are now in terrible shape. The States who resisted are doing much better.