Wisconsin

[caveBEAR]

Seems like not a lot of people here really have a great grasp on the Wisconsin situation, so let's get a discussion going, preferably with some sources so everyone can educate themselves a bit. (I'm at work or I'd set up a few starter sources myself...sorry guys)

This is a big issue, and this thread should never once end up below the 'Should We Buy Mexico' thread for more than 30 minutes.

[GuitarR0cker1]

For all of the myriad reasons why unions are fighting so hard in Wisconsin this is one of them:
The reason state workers are so outraged by Walker's actions, Kind said, is because they spent all last year negotiating and making $100 million in concessions with then-Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle only to have Republicans state legislators kill that bill then have a new governor come in and deny their negotiating rights.
"[Walker] didn't even come back and sit down with them," Kind told TPM. "Public employees are willing to contribute their pound of flesh. He wasn't even willing to talk to the teacher unions despite 17 separate requests from them for meetings with him."
Baldwin, who said she had been talking to Democratic state legislators throughout the last week, would not say exactly where all the lawmakers are holing up, or how long they plan to be there.
"They are committed to staying as long as they have to and doing what they have to do to slow this process down and protect the rights of state workers," she said.

[saysmydoctor]

Tennessee Republicans are introducing similar legislation.

Nothing like creating jobs by attacking the rights of the worker. Unions do the work no one appreciates and they get scapegoated when things go south. This whole scenario is completely disgusting, the Republicans who back this measure should be ashamed of themselves.

[David87]

Unions are not completely innocent....but what the Wisconsin government is trying to do is disgusting.

[JuneJuly]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thewheelerrepo rt.com%2Freleases%2FFebruary11%2F02 11%2F0211budgetdeficitbill.pdf&rct=j&q=the%20wheeler%20report%20deficit% 20bill&ei=D_heTarDFMP58Abz66CKDA&usg=AFQjCNGsSuTmzBKzrc6SpwDVfb5hF9N kaw&cad=rja

^^ Those were being handed out at the protests yesterday.

[caveBEAR]

I think it's badass the Democrats are hiding out to stop the legislation. Didn't think most Democrats even had enough spine to hide.

[Love As Arson]

http://wsws.org/articles/2011/feb2011/pers-f18.shtml

[crackedthesky]

Governor Walker says the protestors had a chance to have their say last December, and chose not to.

Silly protestors, you should've negotiated with the Governor before he was the Governor. Duh.

[thepianominstre]

I will never forgive the grocer's union for stealing my wages when I worked at Schnucks two days a week during college and stripping my net income to a below-minimum wage of less than $5 an hour (cuz I SO wouldn't have been making that much without them). I will also never forgive the unions for demanding (and receiving!) special exemptions on health care reform once they realized that the progressive taxes would include their expensive health care plans. However I will applaud unions for creating a paid vacation, 40-hour work environment because those things never would have happened without them... seriously, maybe they wouldn't have.

But anyway.

It sounds like the governor is being pretty douche-y but the Democrats running away only makes them look like heroes to their choir. Remember Obama and "I won" and how none of the Republicans in Congress ran away to avoid voting against something that was going to pass? Didn't the Wisconsin people vote this proportion of legislature in? My Republican friends think it's ironic that the threat of federal government shutting down due to frustrated Republicans is considered a bad thing, but Wisconsin government shutting down due to frustrated Democrats is considered an awesome thing.

Now reality is complicated enough and I'm enough aware of my own biases that I'm perfectly willing to let in some facts that put all the blame back in the Republican camp.... if you've got 'em. But it kinda sounds like both sides are just bickering all over the place... and that maybe those Democrats are being at least as bad of sore losers as some Republicans have been for the last two years..

[crackedthesky]

I will never forgive the grocer's union for stealing my wages when I worked at Schnucks two days a week during college and stripping my net income to a below-minimum wage of less than $5 an hour (cuz I SO wouldn't have been making that much without them). I will also never forgive the unions for demanding (and receiving!) special exemptions on health care reform once they realized that the progressive taxes would include their expensive health care plans. However I will applaud unions for creating a paid vacation, 40-hour work environment because those things never would have happened without them... seriously, maybe they wouldn't have.

But anyway.

It sounds like the governor is being pretty douche-y but the Democrats running away only makes them look like heroes to their choir. Remember Obama and "I won" and how none of the Republicans in Congress ran away to avoid voting against something that was going to pass? Didn't the Wisconsin people vote this proportion of legislature in? My Republican friends think it's ironic that the threat of federal government shutting down due to frustrated Republicans is considered a bad thing, but Wisconsin government shutting down due to frustrated Democrats is considered an awesome thing.

Now reality is complicated enough and I'm enough aware of my own biases that I'm perfectly willing to let in some facts that put all the blame back in the Republican camp.... if you've got 'em. But it kinda sounds like both sides are just bickering all over the place... and that maybe those Democrats are being at least as bad of sore losers as some Republicans have been for the last two years..

You had me until "Wisconsin government shutting down." What happens in Wisconsin is that one bill won't get a vote. If the US government shuts down, A LOT more than that is going to happen.

[wroteurname]

I mean, you can pay more for insurance or you could get laid off.

[apoemtothedead]

I will never forgive the grocer's union for stealing my wages when I worked at Schnucks two days a week during college and stripping my net income to a below-minimum wage of less than $5 an hour (cuz I SO wouldn't have been making that much without them). I will also never forgive the unions for demanding (and receiving!) special exemptions on health care reform once they realized that the progressive taxes would include their expensive health care plans. However I will applaud unions for creating a paid vacation, 40-hour work environment because those things never would have happened without them... seriously, maybe they wouldn't have.

But anyway.

It sounds like the governor is being pretty douche-y but the Democrats running away only makes them look like heroes to their choir. Remember Obama and "I won" and how none of the Republicans in Congress ran away to avoid voting against something that was going to pass? Didn't the Wisconsin people vote this proportion of legislature in? My Republican friends think it's ironic that the threat of federal government shutting down due to frustrated Republicans is considered a bad thing, but Wisconsin government shutting down due to frustrated Democrats is considered an awesome thing.

Now reality is complicated enough and I'm enough aware of my own biases that I'm perfectly willing to let in some facts that put all the blame back in the Republican camp.... if you've got 'em. But it kinda sounds like both sides are just bickering all over the place... and that maybe those Democrats are being at least as bad of sore losers as some Republicans have been for the last two years..
Republicans in Congress ran away from almost every vote with use of the Filibuster.

[JuneJuly]

Someone on my Facebook posted that it's expected that there going be 60,000 protesters protesting the protesters in Madison tomorrow. He didn't have any information to back up his post and I find that number a little fishy. I know that Scott Walker has come out and said that's how many people he wants to come out but I seriously doubt they can mobilize that fast. Or that they could have that large of a turnout, period.

Anyone have any links or info on this?

[J.C.]

It's amusing to see this passed off as an honest attempt to balance the budget and not Republicans seizing an opportunity to crack down on union power.

[Machu505]

It's incredible that the Democrats fled the state to stop this bill, and it's damn good they did. Ridiculous measures like this one shouldn't be considered.

[JuneJuly]

I just found out that Bob Jauch of the 25th district, my district at home, was one of the Democrats that left the state. Awesome.

[JuneJuly]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Rep. Jennifer Shilling
February 18, 2011 (608) 266-5780


REP. SHILLING STATEMENT ON REPUBLICAN
FLOOR ACTION

MADISON – This evening, Assembly Republicans disregarded decades if not centuries of
legislative precedent and held an illegal vote on the Assembly floor in an effort to repeal
collective bargaining rights. After telling Democrats that session would resume at 5:00pm, the
Assembly Republicans took the floor at 4:55 and tried to pass SS AB 11 without taking up any
Democratic amendments.

“In all the years I’ve been in the legislature, there has never been a time when the majority party
has shown such reckless disregard for the laws of our state,” said Rep. Jennifer Shilling (D-La
Crosse). “Republicans might have the majority, but they are not above the law. They need to
follow the rules just like everyone else.”

“It is despicable that anyone would try to deny minority members their right to represent their
districts. The actions by the Assembly Republicans represent the most un-American actions I
have ever seen in our state capitol. There aren’t words for how offensive, arrogant, and indecent
their actions are. I am simply appalled.”


-The Wheeler Report

[crackedthesky]

That's fucked up. What happens now? Does it start the process of getting the the state supreme court?

[loveisdead]

More than half of the lower estimate ($117.2 million) is due to the impact of Special Session Senate Bill 2 (health savings accounts), Assembly Bill 3 (tax deductions/credits for relocated businesses), and Assembly Bill 7 (tax exclusion for new employees).
In English: The governor called a special session of the legislature and signed two business tax breaks and a conservative health-care policy experiment that lowers overall tax revenues (among other things). The new legislation was not offset, and it helped turn a surplus into a deficit [see update at end of post]. As Brian Beutler writes, "public workers are being asked to pick up the tab for this agenda."
Don't blame the unions. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/unions_arent_to_blame_for_wisc.html #more)

[Nuns On A Bus]

The Republicans agreed to rescind the vote from earlier and allow Democrats to make amendments, with the next vote set for Tuesday at the earliest.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/116505743.html

[sdbrown]

Don't blame the unions. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/unions_arent_to_blame_for_wisc.html #more)
The real question is whether the tax breaks are going to help some businesses rehire people that would otherwise be out of work. That's the goal. Tax breaks are treated as some evil republican agenda thing but freeing up that money can lead to jobs. And I wonder if their calculation incudes the taxes they'd get from these newly employed people and the money the gov't would save from not having to pay some of them unemployment. Hopefully the bill has some sort of restriction that the businesses only get it if they have a certain # or % of new/re-hires, since it doesn't do much good if the businesses use the tax break $$ to give the CEO a big bonus.

From what I've read elsewhere, the collective bargaining isn't being completely taken off the table, it's being restricted so that unions cannot bargain for more than a std wage (that is probably calculated using figures from similar jobs across the country) for that position. And of course the healthcare thing, but really, paying 12.6% of their healthcare is WAY less than other jobs in the private sector pay. Would they really chose to have some people lose their jobs? And I also wonder if the 12.6% they'd pay would be equal to the amount of pay they stand to lose from having to take Furlough days.

This isn't an ideal situation but it seems a bit overblown. People were promised benefits the state can no longer afford. Someone's going to lose. A lot of people could lose a little or some people could lose a lot. If they can't compromise the state is going to end up like Illinois (bankrupt) and they are probably going to lose part of their pensions anyway.

[saysmydoctor]

I read somewhere that in Wisconsin, public employees make less than their private sector union counterparts.

Actually, I think that was a Lawrence O'Donnell factoid. Or it may have been uttered during the group therapy hour that is the Ed Show.

[bandnamexmyname]

Yeah, this has confused me. Someone care to clarify what's going on?

[loveisdead]

Yeah, this has confused me. Someone care to clarify what's going on?

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/whats-happening-wisconsin-explained

Pretty good breakdown.

[crackedthesky]

The real question is whether the tax breaks are going to help some businesses rehire people that would otherwise be out of work.

We've been giving massive tax breaks to corporations since the 1980s, and our unemployment rate has skyrocketed, hasn't it? So the answer to this question is very obviously 'no'.

[caveBEAR]

We've been giving massive tax breaks to corporations since the 1980s, and our unemployment rate has skyrocketed, hasn't it? So the answer to this question is very obviously 'no'.

:appl: x1,000

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

At least here's a facebook friend's status update that makes sense:

So when public employees that want to keep their benefits chant "Kill the Bill" in Wisconsin it is a "potentially violent & dangerous" protest, but when Glenn Beck & Sarah Palin lead the very same chant over health care it is "restoring America." Hmm, ok Fox News - Fair and Balanced my ass.

[loveisdead]

The real question is whether the tax breaks are going to help some businesses rehire people that would otherwise be out of work. That's the goal. Tax breaks are treated as some evil republican agenda thing but freeing up that money can lead to jobs. And I wonder if their calculation incudes the taxes they'd get from these newly employed people and the money the gov't would save from not having to pay some of them unemployment. Hopefully the bill has some sort of restriction that the businesses only get it if they have a certain # or % of new/re-hires, since it doesn't do much good if the businesses use the tax break $$ to give the CEO a big bonus.

From what I've read elsewhere, the collective bargaining isn't being completely taken off the table, it's being restricted so that unions cannot bargain for more than a std wage (that is probably calculated using figures from similar jobs across the country) for that position. And of course the healthcare thing, but really, paying 12.6% of their healthcare is WAY less than other jobs in the private sector pay. Would they really chose to have some people lose their jobs? And I also wonder if the 12.6% they'd pay would be equal to the amount of pay they stand to lose from having to take Furlough days.

This isn't an ideal situation but it seems a bit overblown. People were promised benefits the state can no longer afford. Someone's going to lose. A lot of people could lose a little or some people could lose a lot. If they can't compromise the state is going to end up like Illinois (bankrupt) and they are probably going to lose part of their pensions anyway.

No. That isn't "the real question" here. If that's the first thing that comes to your mind about what's going on in Wisconsin we've got some problems.

[JuneJuly]

Scott Walker's side spent 3.4 million in attack ads against Tom Barrett. :thumbdwn:

[loveisdead]

Scott Walker's side spent 3.4 million in attack ads against Tom Barrett. :thumbdwn:
And Scott Walker was also heavily funded by Koch.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

And Scott Walker was also heavily funded by Koch.

The Kochs really need to keep it in the pants.

[loveisdead]

The Kochs really need to keep it in the pants.

They are extremely anti-union and gave this dude a huge am

[loveisdead]

The Kochs really need to keep it in the pants.

They are extremely anti-union and gave this dude a huge amount of money to Walker's campaign.

[apoemtothedead]

We've been giving massive tax breaks to corporations since the 1980s, and our unemployment rate has skyrocketed, hasn't it? So the answer to this question is very obviously 'no'.
We've also had massive improvements in technology since the 1980s rendering tons of jobs unnecessary.

[crackedthesky]

We've also had massive improvements in technology since the 1980s rendering tons of jobs unnecessary.

And somehow, magically, none of those people getting millions in tax breaks don't have to worry about that, do they?

They still aren't hiring, even though they're getting bigger tax breaks. They've had bigger tax breaks since 2001, and our unemployment rate has still gone up. That's ten years; technology hasn't increased so much that it accounts for all of or even a majority of those lost jobs. Hell, corporations got tax breaks from last month to this month, but the unemployment rate didn't drop, did it? Even in the short term, tax breaks have never been shown to increase the rate in corporations hiring.

In fact, the unemployment rate saw a steady decline during the Clinton administration, and he raised taxes. He was also in power during the surge of internet availability, arguably the biggest technological development of all time, but that didn't make people lose jobs, did it?

In any case, the things happening in Wisconsin have nothing to do with taxes for corporations. The governor spent money on that long before these protests began. This isn't an either-or situation. He didn't trade one for the other; he simply wants to give money to his rich friends and get rid of the unions that are likely to oppose him in the future.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

They are extremely anti-union and gave this dude a huge amount of money to Walker's campaign.

So basically the Kochs gave the Walker campaign a metaphorical boner?

[loveisdead]

So basically the Kochs gave the Walker campaign a metaphorical boner?

I...uh...I don't think that's how I'd describe it.

[Love As Arson]

The best way to gauge whether or not the tax breaks were effective is to examine the quality of life and employment in the country. And we've seen a steady decline since the 1970's and the emergence of neoliberalism; wages have pretty much stagnated and the jobs which are created do not provide a living wage. More recently, we've seen tax breaks implemented and money given to banks presumably to ease the communities mind about taking risks and they've not stimulated job growth or credit lending, and this has generally been trend; tax breaks are given, or some variant which is supposed to help businesses in general, and the money is essentially sat on. Furthermore, in regards to the comments about technology, one can acknowledge that modernization made some jobs obsolete and also notice that the context in which it was employed, namely the capitalist framework, made it a tool against the working class as opposed to, say, reducing the amount of time people had to work so they could engage in creative endeavors, without fear of being thrown into poverty.

[sdbrown]

No. That isn't "the real question" here. If that's the first thing that comes to your mind about what's going on in Wisconsin we've got some problems.
Fine. It wasa question arising from the article I quoted that you posted.
More than half of the lower estimate ($117.2 million) is due to the impact of Special Session Senate Bill 2 (health savings accounts), Assembly Bill 3 (tax deductions/credits for relocated businesses), and Assembly Bill 7 (tax exclusion for new employees).

In English: The governor called a special session of the legislature (http://www.paxamerica.org/2011/01/19/special-session-of-wisconsin-legislature-promises-important-gains/) and signed two business tax breaks and a conservative health-care policy experiment that lowers overall tax revenues (among other things). The new legislation was not offset, and it helped turn a surplus into a deficit [see update at end of post]. As Brian Beutler writes (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/wisconsin-gov-walker-ginned-up-budget-shortfall-to-undercut-worker-rights.php), "public workers are being asked to pick up the tab for this agenda."

Article seems to be saying that the reason for the new bill is that the governor ran a deficit by signing legislation re: tax breaks for corporations. So I was questioning whether it's correct to take a stance, as I find this article is, that the union workers are being forced to pay to make up for the potential tax revenue lost by the governor giving corps tax breaks, when those tax breaks could actually help a lot of people who are COMPLETELY out of work. Whether or not the tax breaks will be used for this purpose, I tried to argue, is not known, but I hoped that the bill passed (assembly bill 3, per the article) has stipulations that the tax breaks ARE USED to create jobs.

[loveisdead]

Good post, Dom.

[Love As Arson]

That is a false dichotomy. It isn't the case that there isn't work out there for people to do, it is the case that they're not being employed to do it. At the very least, one complimentary thing I could say about FDR was that his public works projects helped people to provide for themselves and their families. If a program like this were implemented these days, then we wouldn't have to pit workers against each other.

[loveisdead]

That is a false dichotomy. It isn't the case that there isn't work out there for people to do, it is the case that they're not being employed to do it. At the very least, one complimentary thing I could say about FDR was that his public works projects helped people to provide for themselves and their families. If a program like this were implemented these days, then we wouldn't have to pit workers against each other.

I make this argument all the time. All the money spent on tax breaks can be spent on the government directly hiring people similar to what went on in the new deal.

[JuneJuly]

So basically the Kochs gave the Walker campaign a metaphorical boner?

Imagine Walker needed two Viagra's to get going. Well they gave him one, and then gave the second one to some other people, who gave it to Walker on behalf of them.

[crackedthesky]

Fine. It wasa question arising from the article I quoted that you posted.

Article seems to be saying that the reason for the new bill is that the governor ran a deficit by signing legislation re: tax breaks for corporations. So I was questioning whether it's correct to take a stance, as I find this article is, that the union workers are being forced to pay to make up for the potential tax revenue lost by the governor giving corps tax breaks, when those tax breaks could actually help a lot of people who are COMPLETELY out of work. Whether or not the tax breaks will be used for this purpose, I tried to argue, is not known, but I hoped that the bill passed (assembly bill 3, per the article) has stipulations that the tax breaks ARE USED to create jobs.

Essentially, the bill is "let's take jobs from several thousand in order to give money to corporations who might create several hundred, even though thirty years of testing has shown that they won't." And you're asking whether or not this is a good tradeoff.

[apoemtothedead]

And somehow, magically, none of those people getting millions in tax breaks don't have to worry about that, do they?
Of course not. Robots and computers don't run businesses and make decisions, they simply replace low-skilled workers or computation-heavy parts of a company.

They still aren't hiring, even though they're getting bigger tax breaks. Why should they? If the company has no need for the position, why should they hire somebody to fill it?

That's ten years; technology hasn't increased so much that it accounts for all of or even a majority of those lost jobs. I'd hypothesize that technological improvements coupled with outsourcing, both forms of job obsolescence, have been the reasoning for a majority of the jobs lost in the past decade. Admittedly, I have no stats to back that up, but that's my guess.

Hell, corporations got tax breaks from last month to this month, but the unemployment rate didn't drop, did it? Regardless of whether or not there is a correlation between tax breaks and employment numbers, if you believe that something that happened last month would immediately show up in a company's business strategy, you have a lot to learn about business.

In fact, the unemployment rate saw a steady decline during the Clinton administration, and he raised taxes. He was also in power during the surge of internet availability, arguably the biggest technological development of all time, but that didn't make people lose jobs, did it? The internet can be a perfect example of the cause of people losing jobs. Look at Blockbuster. Why have 1000s of stores open nationwide when you can simply ship movies, ordered online, from centralized locations? An example of low-skilled jobs being lost.

In any case, the things happening in Wisconsin have nothing to do with taxes for corporations. I have no comment on the Wisconsin situation. I was merely responding because I thought your statement about the rising levels of unemployment was misguided.

[sdbrown]

Essentially, the bill is "let's take jobs from several thousand in order to give money to corporations who might create several hundred, even though thirty years of testing has shown that they won't." And you're asking whether or not this is a good tradeoff.
That wasn't really what I was asking but I'm already tired of this so I'll see my way out.

[JuneJuly]

Someone on my Facebook just said this bill is necessary to avoid 6,000 state employee layoffs and the removal of 200,000 children from the Medicaid system.

[loveisdead]

Someone on my Facebook just said this bill is necessary to avoid 6,000 state employee layoffs and the removal of 200,000 children from the Medicaid system.

Oh. Must be true.

[JuneJuly]

Oh. Must be true.

Of course! This is the same guy that's given no reason for voting Walker besides "I am entitled to my own opinion." Which he is, of course, but he's never given me a reason why he actually supports him.

[J.C.]

I don't know what it has to do with Wisconsin, but it's nice to see people discussing the incongruence of capitalism and job growth.

[JuneJuly]

I thought I saw some Wisconsin budget information in this thread, but I can't seem to find it anymore.

[Colinmac36]

no matter what we must cut spending everywhere so our country can start making money not continuing to lose it. end of story.

[apoemtothedead]

no matter what we must cut spending everywhere so our country can start making money not continuing to lose it. end of story.
Shit. I didn't realize it was that simple. Thanks!

[Colinmac36]

Shit. I didn't realize it was that simple. Thanks!
well it is the simplest way to put it, but obviously there is so much more when looked into. I think first the government needs to reduce before it can ask its state workers, public education, police departments, exc. to reduce in number of people, size, and salary. honestly, do we really need a mayor in every town? maybe in every county that would reduce some cost just right there. and do we really need 150 cops in a single town? obviously since i live in new jersey there is a lot more people here and the spending is way more overboard than other parts of the country, like the south, and a prime example i know of bus drivers who make 20 to 30 dollars an hour is that really necessary? we need to reduce unnecessary spending, and unnecessary people who work for state and federal government.

[Simulcast]

This may be the only appropriate place to put this in all of ap.net.

fBSnjtkSXBs


:headbang:

[crackedthesky]

Of course not. Robots and computers don't run businesses and make decisions, they simply replace low-skilled workers or computation-heavy parts of a company.

Why should they? If the company has no need for the position, why should they hire somebody to fill it?

I'd hypothesize that technological improvements coupled with outsourcing, both forms of job obsolescence, have been the reasoning for a majority of the jobs lost in the past decade. Admittedly, I have no stats to back that up, but that's my guess.

Regardless of whether or not there is a correlation between tax breaks and employment numbers, if you believe that something that happened last month would immediately show up in a company's business strategy, you have a lot to learn about business.

The internet can be a perfect example of the cause of people losing jobs. Look at Blockbuster. Why have 1000s of stores open nationwide when you can simply ship movies, ordered online, from centralized locations? An example of low-skilled jobs being lost.

I have no comment on the Wisconsin situation. I was merely responding because I thought your statement about the rising levels of unemployment was misguided.

Well, while your "guess" really has me clamoring to discuss this further, your choice to ignore what I actually said and argue the same point I and several others just disproved has just about rendered this discussion pointless. Your point was that technology is to blame, it clearly isn't. Technology rose more in the 90s than ever before, AND taxes went up, yet the unemployment rate steadily declined. It should be fairly obvious that neither technology nor taxes has to do with unemployment on mass scales.

[crackedthesky]

That wasn't really what I was asking but I'm already tired of this so I'll see my way out.

I don't know what else you might have meant by "can this be a good thing?" :shrug:

[crackedthesky]

well it is the simplest way to put it, but obviously there is so much more when looked into. I think first the government needs to reduce before it can ask its state workers, public education, police departments, exc. to reduce in number of people, size, and salary. honestly, do we really need a mayor in every town? maybe in every county that would reduce some cost just right there. and do we really need 150 cops in a single town? obviously since i live in new jersey there is a lot more people here and the spending is way more overboard than other parts of the country, like the south, and a prime example i know of bus drivers who make 20 to 30 dollars an hour is that really necessary? we need to reduce unnecessary spending, and unnecessary people who work for state and federal government.

The only thing that's "obvious" about what you said is that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Scrandon]

We've been giving massive tax breaks to corporations since the 1980s, and our unemployment rate has skyrocketed, hasn't it? So the answer to this question is very obviously 'no'.
Did you even look at the numbers before you posted this? Seriously. The 70's were a time of high inflation and high unemployment. The late 80's, 90's, and early 2000's were characterized by extremely low rates of unemployment. In fact, analysts today are beginning to think that we may not return to those levels anytime soon; and when they say anytime soon, they don't mean like 2014, they mean decades.

Now, I, unlike you, am not going to jump on people and say these patterns are a direct result of the tax structure. There are hundreds of factors involved in the state of an economy and therefore the unemployment rate. I am going to note that the late sixties and seventies saw a troubled economy, and that the typical Keynesian responses were not working well.

[kyle is hk]

well it is the simplest way to put it, but obviously there is so much more when looked into. I think first the government needs to reduce before it can ask its state workers, public education, police departments, exc. to reduce in number of people, size, and salary. honestly, do we really need a mayor in every town? maybe in every county that would reduce some cost just right there. and do we really need 150 cops in a single town? obviously since i live in new jersey there is a lot more people here and the spending is way more overboard than other parts of the country, like the south, and a prime example i know of bus drivers who make 20 to 30 dollars an hour is that really necessary? we need to reduce unnecessary spending, and unnecessary people who work for state and federal government.

Hoe. Lee. Shit.

[Scrandon]

I make this argument all the time. All the money spent on tax breaks can be spent on the government directly hiring people similar to what went on in the new deal.
You're right, too much focus has been put on the health of the business and now that they have essentially fully recovered, we're not seeing that translate to the rest of the economy.

My hunch is that had the government created public jobs, it would have created the demand and businesses would have had to hire workers to get back to the point where they are now. I, for one, would be completely happy with the promise of work programs even if part of the bill requires tax rates to increase in the future to pay for it, and I'm pretty sure most people would be.

It's hard to tell though, when we get watered down mixes of Keynesian and Neo-Liberal policies, which policy is working the best.

[apoemtothedead]

Well, while your "guess" really has me cosmogony to discuss this further, your choice to ignore what I actually said and argue the same point I and several others just disproved has just about rendered this discussion pointless. Your point was that technology is to blame, it clearly isn't. Technology rose more in the 90s than ever before, AND taxes went up, yet the unemployment rate steadily declined. It should be fairly obvious that neither technology nor taxes has to do with unemployment on mass scales.
If you don't understand how increased technology leads to fewer jobs then there's really nothing else to say here.

[Scrandon]

As for Wisconsin, all I see is a bunch of big government Republicans trying to limit the free market associations of workers. Go figure.

[crackedthesky]

If you don't understand how increased technology leads to fewer jobs then there's really nothing else to say here.

It doesn't. As you said yourself, you're just guessing. Not sure why you can't seem to understand this. Your guess trumps my historical facts, but all that means is that I don't understand? Okay, champ.

[Scrandon]

It doesn't. As you said yourself, you're just guessing. Not sure why you can't seem to understand this. Your guess trumps my historical facts, but all that means is that I don't understand? Okay, champ.
You said taxes don't effect unemployment. You don't understand.

[crackedthesky]

Did you even look at the numbers before you posted this? Seriously. The 70's were a time of high inflation and high unemployment. The late 80's, 90's, and early 2000's were characterized by extremely low rates of unemployment. In fact, analysts today are beginning to think that we may not return to those levels anytime soon; and when they say anytime soon, they don't mean like 2014, they mean decades.

Now, I, unlike you, am not going to jump on people and say these patterns are a direct result of the tax structure. There are hundreds of factors involved in the state of an economy and therefore the unemployment rate. I am going to note that the late sixties and seventies saw a troubled economy, and that the typical Keynesian responses were not working well.

Did you even read my post? I've said several times that taxes and unemployment rate are completely unrelated. I wasn't trying to say that high tax rate = low unemployment, but that low tax rate would NOT equal low unemployment. The example I gave wasn't to prove a link between them, but that the link someone else suggested was there was not in fact there.

Also, according to my source, unemployment was higher in the 80s than it is right now. Granted, it didn't say what year, so it might've justeamt the early 80s (thus a rolloff of the 70s rate you mentioned) but my point was not what you're making it put to be.

[crackedthesky]

You said taxes don't effect unemployment. You don't understand.

No, I said they aren't directly linked. And I only mentioned taxes on corporations, not all taxes ever.

Someone else claimed that lower taxes on corporations will equal lower unemployment. I said the two don't share a direct enough correlation to support that claim, that's all. I didn't say taxes have no effect whatsoever on any taxes whatsoever.

[Scrandon]

No, I said they aren't directly linked. And I only mentioned taxes on corporations, not all taxes ever.

Someone else claimed that lower taxes on corporations will equal lower unemployment. I said the two don't share a direct enough correlation to support that claim, that's all. I didn't say taxes have no effect whatsoever on any taxes whatsoever.
Well I can tell you that in theory, the unemployment rate is determined by a function of GDP. Lowering taxes raises GDP by definition. Therefore, lowering taxes directly lowers unemployment. Granted, that is just theory and it might be a weaker link in the real world, but I would assume that there is a possibility of other factors overriding the relationship, making the numbers appear misleading.

[*crying stars*]

I feel like one of the only people at my school who even knows something's going on in Wisconsin right now.

I think first the government needs to reduce before it can ask its state workers, public education, police departments, exc. to reduce in number of people, size, and salary.

What? There are plenty of things wrong with this, but first and foremost: you want to cut even more down on public education?


Seriously?

[crackedthesky]

Well I can tell you that in theory, the unemployment rate is determined by a function of GDP. Lowering taxes raises GDP by definition. Therefore, lowering taxes directly lowers unemployment. Granted, that is just theory and it might be a weaker link in the real world, but I would assume that there is a possibility of other factors overriding the relationship, making the numbers appear misleading.

Well, that's all probably true, but like I mentioned earlier, even if it's the case, it doesn't apply that way to Wisconsin because it isn't really an either-or situation. They don't have to choose between unions and corporate taxes, but some are arguing that they do. I'm just thinking that even if this was the case, lowering taxes on the corporations of Wisconsin isn't a guaranteed means of creating jobs, whereas crippling unions is a very likely way of having an adverse effect on the economy. I don't think trading a definite negative for a possible positive is a good trade, especially when the entire issue is a false dilemma to begin with.
And anyway, Walker isn't doing it to create jobs. His focus is supposedly on their defecit, so it makes the false dilemma a few offered that much more irrelevant.

Anyway, it's probably best that I stop talking economics, now. It's clearly not my area of expertise, haha.

[apoemtothedead]

It doesn't. As you said yourself, you're just guessing. Not sure why you can't seem to understand this. Your guess trumps my historical facts, but all that means is that I don't understand? Okay, champ.
This isn't that hard to understand.

Higher levels of technology lead to higher productivity levels. Higher productivity levels lead to less time needed to accomplish the same output. Output levels can't increase because demand doesn't increase. Therefore total necessary work hours decrease, therefore people are fired. Other work is hard to find as most companies are using the same tactics.

Your 1990s example is misleading. It depicts the height of the Silicon Valley boom (created by technological companies, not technology in the workplace. Big difference) and not the bursting.

[apoemtothedead]

Anyway, it's probably best that I stop talking economics, now. It's clearly not my area of expertise, haha.
Clearly.

[crackedthesky]

This isn't that hard to understand.

Higher levels of technology lead to higher productivity levels. Higher productivity levels lead to less time needed to accomplish the same output. Output levels can't increase because demand doesn't increase. Therefore total necessary work hours decrease, therefore people are fired. Other work is hard to find as most companies are using the same tactics.

Your 1990s example is misleading. It depicts the height of the Silicon Valley boom (created by technological companies, not technology in the workplace. Big difference) and not the bursting.

Okay, so if the 90s don't count because technology in the workplace wasn't affected until later, how do you explain the 70s and 80s? Unemployment went up, then. It went down in the 90s. Did technology just stop working in the 90s?
Unless your answer is "yes," technology is not the lone driving force behind the unemployment rate.

[crackedthesky]

Clearly.

Says the guy who is "guessing" with "no stats to back that up."

[apoemtothedead]

Okay, so if the 90s don't count because technology in the workplace wasn't affected until later, how do you explain the 70s and 80s? Unemployment went up, then. It went down in the 90s. Did technology just stop working in the 90s?
Unless your answer is "yes," technology is not the lone driving force behind the unemployment rate.
Lone driving force? lol. Nothing is ever the lone driving force in anything.

[apoemtothedead]

Says the guy who is "guessing" with "no stats to back that up."
Also says the guy with a degree in economics.

[crackedthesky]

Lone driving force? lol. Nothing is ever the lone driving force in anything.

Well then I don't know why you're arguing against me, considering that was my point from the start...

[thepianominstre]

You had me until "Wisconsin government shutting down." What happens in Wisconsin is that one bill won't get a vote. If the US government shuts down, A LOT more than that is going to happen.

Valid point. (That's why it's more of a Republican talking point than an actual comparison... But still, once they come back, the legislature is still going to try to pass this bill and they won't be passing anything if they never come back.) And I still think it feels like the same thing as far as the people voting in a certain proportion of representatives and then the minority getting upset (including lots of protestors) when the new majority tries to ram something through...

[thepianominstre]

This isn't that hard to understand.

Higher levels of technology lead to higher productivity levels. Higher productivity levels lead to less time needed to accomplish the same output. Output levels can't increase because demand doesn't increase. Therefore total necessary work hours decrease, therefore people are fired. Other work is hard to find as most companies are using the same tactics.

Your 1990s example is misleading. It depicts the height of the Silicon Valley boom (created by technological companies, not technology in the workplace. Big difference) and not the bursting.

You're forgetting that when technology replaces labor, it frees up that labor to be used for other things. For instance, the vast majority of Americans don't have to spend hours of their day producing food any more (assuming that you still call our processed factory output "food", but even regular farmers can produce way more food per person these days than a century ago), but that doesn't mean everyone went unemployed because there's not a need for as many "farm jobs." No, it means there's extra labor to create other cool things like websites so we can argue about this kind of stuff. Don't forget that the unemployment rate was in the 4%'s as late as 2006.... a statistic I like to use to disprove that millions of outsourced jobs since, say, the 90's, contributed to unemployment, but it also works for technology improvements. Now despite the best intentions of market theories, I have no idea if all labor replaced by technology can work itself out in new supplies and demands (sounds pretty idealistic), but let's not pretend that none of it does, or maybe even that most of it doesn't. Unless you want to claim that technology workplace has significantly changed in the last 5 years that have tangibly eliminated jobs.

[thepianominstre]

Showdown in Wisconsin (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/02/showdown-in-wisconsin/71450/)

[deFobbed14yrs]

Everyone seems to be missing the point of one of the articles posted

Is this like Egypt?

No.

See so everyone chill, it'll all work out.

I like how our country seems to be going backwards with legislation. It's getting all 1890 up in here with the return of no worker rights.

[loveisdead]

Everyone seems to be missing the point of one of the articles posted



See so everyone chill, it'll all work out.

I like how our country seems to be going backwards with legislation. It's getting all 1890 up in here with the return of no worker rights.
For anyone wondering, that's from the mother jones article I posted. Great read to get caught up on things.

[deFobbed14yrs]

For anyone wondering, that's from the mother jones article I posted. Great read to get caught up on things.

I def. appreciate that article. IT has the basic facts of what's going on. Thanks for posting it!

[captivewear]

No, I said they aren't directly linked. And I only mentioned taxes on corporations, not all taxes ever.

Someone else claimed that lower taxes on corporations will equal lower unemployment. I said the two don't share a direct enough correlation to support that claim, that's all. I didn't say taxes have no effect whatsoever on any taxes whatsoever.
So when taxes are raised and unemployment goes down and when taxes are lowered and unemployment goes up that has nothing in common?
Would you like proof that you are factually incorrect?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8UVGnCIfOVk/TI1b0J4EALI/AAAAAAAAAYI/3bRe6GcNXY4/s1600/corporatetax1.bmp

[SoCoSquid4]

didn't read most of the posts on it this. but, i live in wisconsin. i have numerous friends and family that are state employees. being young, most of my teacher friends are young. starting teachers in wisconsin don't make very much. if the bill passes, they are set to lose quite a bit. for example, a very close friend of mine is a single father with joint custody of his child, he works at a job center for the state, he is set to lose $300/month. when he's already in an entry level job, that wil literally change his means of living.

i understand gov. walker wants to fix the budget. his campaign ads were mainly focused on CREATING jobs for wisconsin. creating jobs is one thing, but when you will be DRIVING people out of their jobs because they can't afford to live, thats another thing...

[kidinthebushes]

I think it's badass the Democrats are hiding out to stop the legislation. Didn't think most Democrats even had enough spine to hide.

Doesn't take much of a spine to hide.

[apoemtothedead]

You're forgetting that when technology replaces labor, it frees up that labor to be used for other things. For instance, the vast majority of Americans don't have to spend hours of their day producing food any more (assuming that you still call our processed factory output "food", but even regular farmers can produce way more food per person these days than a century ago), but that doesn't mean everyone went unemployed because there's not a need for as many "farm jobs." No, it means there's extra labor to create other cool things like websites so we can argue about this kind of stuff. Don't forget that the unemployment rate was in the 4%'s as late as 2006.... a statistic I like to use to disprove that millions of outsourced jobs since, say, the 90's, contributed to unemployment, but it also works for technology improvements. Now despite the best intentions of market theories, I have no idea if all labor replaced by technology can work itself out in new supplies and demands (sounds pretty idealistic), but let's not pretend that none of it does, or maybe even that most of it doesn't. Unless you want to claim that technology workplace has significantly changed in the last 5 years that have tangibly eliminated jobs.
A few things:

1) You would be correct if there was unlimited demand in the marketplace, however there isn't. The limited resources that prevent this are time and money.
2) A lot of the jobs lost are very low-skilled jobs. Farm workers or auto manufacturers are not geniuses. There was a reason they were doing these jobs in the first place. While there is the minority exception, a vast majority of low-skilled employees could not successfully run a business or sustainably create new jobs for themselves. Again, I'd agree with you if the majority of people losing their jobs had advanced degrees, but this is not the case.
3) Like the other guy, you are showing the peak of employment numbers. I am not trying to say that unemployment numbers will never be that low again. What I believe is that the average unemployment figure in the future will be much higher than the average unemployment figure in the past.

[kidinthebushes]

This is the same state where students are allowed to protest with the teachers. Goes to show you why they don't deserve pensions at all.

[kidinthebushes]

I mean, you can pay more for insurance or you could get laid off.

But unions are greedy and shortsighted. So there's only just the second option.

I work for a company that uses a carpentry union and one of the guys told me, "I don't care what I do as long as I get paid". Pretty much sums up the mentality of unions.

[crackedthesky]

So when taxes are raised and unemployment goes down and when taxes are lowered and unemployment goes up that has nothing in common?
Would you like proof that you are factually incorrect?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8UVGnCIfOVk/TI1b0J4EALI/AAAAAAAAAYI/3bRe6GcNXY4/s1600/corporatetax1.bmp

That's not what I said. I said that isn't the only factor. And anyway, I'd like to know where you got that chart. The source I was using was the US Treasury, and it showed the opposite of that.

And besides that, your own chart doesn't prove anything. The rates swap places twice in it, with unemployment rate ending higher than ever an corporate tax rate very low, so how is that proof that I'm incorrect? Even if I was saying what you claim I am (which I'm not and if you would read you'd see I've now explained that to three different people) that chart doesn't prove the opposite.

But yeah, if you really think there is one determining factor alone when it comes to unemployment... Well, you're wrong. As pretty much everyone so far has said, but apparently you're less interested in discussing and more interested in shooting down your own straw man arguments.

[kidinthebushes]

Don't blame the unions. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/unions_arent_to_blame_for_wisc.html #more)


Tax breaks to businesses. Yes. It isn't much good to have unions without companies to employ them.

[crackedthesky]

But unions are greedy and shortsighted. So there's only just the second option.

I work for a company that uses a carpentry union and one of the guys told me, "I don't care what I do as long as I get paid". Pretty much sums up the mentality of unions.

Companies are greedy and shortsighted. Did I just prove you wrong? No? Then maybe there's more to what's going on than your own opinion. This was the second-dumbest post I've seen in this thread so far. Seriously, your reasoning is a blanket insult?

[crackedthesky]

Tax breaks to businesses. Yes. It isn't much good to have unions without companies to employ them.

Is it better to have companies with no one to work for them?

Everything you've said so far can easily be turned around.

[crackedthesky]

As much as I feel like what Walker is doing is a total douche move, I have to wonder where these people were in November. Why weren't they out voting, and stopping this from starting in the first place?

[kidinthebushes]

Companies are greedy and shortsighted. Did I just prove you wrong? No? Then maybe there's more to what's going on than your own opinion. This was the second-dumbest post I've seen in this thread so far. Seriously, your reasoning is a blanket insult?

You're an idiot. Companies try staying IN business. Business 101. Companies try A) turning a profit. B. staying in business to keep turning a profit.

If they were all about the cash grab at the end of the race they wouldn't last very long.

[kidinthebushes]

Is it better to have companies with no one to work for them?

Everything you've said so far can easily be turned around.

Huh? And it wouldn't make any sense. Unions are pretty useless if their members aren't working and paying their union dues.

[crackedthesky]

You're an idiot. Companies try staying IN business. Business 101. Companies try A) turning a profit. B. staying in business to keep turning a profit.

If they were all about the cash grab at the end of the race they wouldn't last very long.

Aw, here I was thinking we could have a civil conversation.
Anyway, besides you being wildly incorrect, these businesses don't require a tax break to stay afloat. They existed last year, didn't they? So they aren't going to go under if they keep paying the same tax rate as last year, are they? But meanwhile, their tax breaks are costing everyone else in the state and adding to the deficit Walker can't stop crying about.

[kidinthebushes]

Aw, here I was thinking we could have a civil conversation.
Anyway, besides you being wildly incorrect, these businesses don't require a tax break to stay afloat. They existed last year, didn't they? So they aren't going to go under if they keep paying the same tax rate as last year, are they? But meanwhile, their tax breaks are costing everyone else in the state and adding to the deficit Walker can't stop crying about.

Let me guess. You want to tax them...more and more....and more. And then they move out of the state and take their 20-30 job openings with them.

[crackedthesky]

Huh? And it wouldn't make any sense. Unions are pretty useless if their members aren't working and paying their union dues.

Not thatvhard to grasp. You said people can't work if there are no companies to work for, which isn't the case so I dont know why you said it. But anyway, the opposite is also true. Companies can't run if nobody works for them. So your reasoning (which had nothing to do with anything) can easily be countered by other reasoning (which also has nothing to do with anything.)

[crackedthesky]

Let me guess. You want to tax them...more and more....and more. And then they move out of the state and take their 20-30 job openings with them.

Did I say I wanted to tax them more?
I said they wont collapse if they pay THE SAME taxes, didn't I? Can you read at all?

And anyway, I didnt say I was for taxing them. I said doing it won't make those companies disappear, which is what you're arguing and what Walker apparently thinks will happen if he doesn't attack unions.

Oh, and by the way, when someone refuses to play by the rules, the appropriate response is not "get rid of the rules."

[kidinthebushes]

Not thatvhard to grasp. You said people can't work if there are no companies to work for, which isn't the case so I dont know why you said it. But anyway, the opposite is also true. Companies can't run if nobody works for them. So your reasoning (which had nothing to do with anything) can easily be countered by other reasoning (which also has nothing to do with anything.)

Do you really think NO ONE not a single person wouldn't work for a company, especially in this economy?

Granted, Obama's unemployment benefits give people more incentive to stay at home and collect money from the government, than to go out and actually get a job. But that's another issue.

[kidinthebushes]

Did I say I wanted to tax them more?
I said they wont collapse if they pay THE SAME taxes, didn't I? Can you read at all?

And anyway, I didnt say I was for taxing them. I said doing it won't make those companies disappear, which is what you're arguing and what Walker apparently thinks will happen if he doesn't attack unions.

Oh, and by the way, when someone refuses to play by the rules, the appropriate response is not "get rid of the rules."

I didn't know laws were these "rules" that were written in stone and that could never be adapted or changed.

[crackedthesky]

Do you really think NO ONE not a single person wouldn't work for a company, especially in this economy?

Granted, Obama's unemployment benefits give people more incentive to stay at home and collect money from the government, than to go out and actually get a job. But that's another issue.

Wow.
No, I don't think that. I just said, neither argument is valid. But IF YOUR WAS, the one I gave just as easily would counter it.

Fucking seriously. Read before you reply.

[crackedthesky]

I didn't know laws were these "rules" that were written in stone and that could never be adapted or changed.

You didn't know laws were rules? Are you fucking serious?

[kidinthebushes]

You didn't know laws were rules? Are you fucking serious?

Lets just socialize everything and make everything fair for everyone. End of story.

[loveisdead]

You should probably go back to the bushes you came from, kid.

[crackedthesky]

Lets just socialize everything and make everything fair for everyone. End of story.

Wow. Now the false dilemma. You're an idiot, you know that?

Here's an idea:

If a corporation has enough money to pay their executives in the BILLIONS and still return a record profit, they have more than enough fucking money to pay the rest of their workers without making the average American pay for their several million dollar tax break. I don't get paid millions of dollars just for getting paid billions of dollars, so why should corporations who are refusing to hire anyway?

[Flags of Dawn]

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/181906_10150146224449414_712154413_ 8058069_108038_n.jpg

[Flags of Dawn]

There are rumors flying that Sarah Palin and/or Bill Clinton will be here today, and Tom Morello is on his way.

Today is the first day of that the protests have been going on during the weekend, so there are record crowds expected (estimation of 100k), and most of them have been overwhelmingly liberal thus far. Hopefully things can remain peaceful.

[kidinthebushes]

Wow. Now the false dilemma. You're an idiot, you know that?

Here's an idea:

If a corporation has enough money to pay their executives in the BILLIONS and still return a record profit, they have more than enough fucking money to pay the rest of their workers without making the average American pay for their several million dollar tax break. I don't get paid millions of dollars just for getting paid billions of dollars, so why should corporations who are refusing to hire anyway?

The decisions of these executives/CEOs keep thousands of people employed and create new jobs. Don't forget that.

This idea that government tax breaks artificially keeps corporations afloat who have no employees....not sure where you got that. People will work for these companies because making $10 an hour in a warehouse somewhere is better than the alternative. Voluntary employment my friend.

Just like Chris Christie said to a teacher complaining about losing part of her pension, "If you don't like my education budget, find a new job".


If these union workers can't handle paying into their own health insurance, then get a new job. Bottom line.

The union employees where I work make $45 an hour before taxes. That's $90K a year. I think they're more than capable of putting a few thousand aside for health insurance....as long as they value their own health.

[crackedthesky]

Wow.
Again, I have a question nagging at me:

Where were they in November?

Can anyone help me, here? I don't know how to feel. I think Walker is a total douchebag and I think this bill is atrocious, but at the same time, it's part of the democratic process. It sucks, yeah, but that's what the people voted for, isn't it?

I mean, I can see protesting since they wouldn't even let debate or discussion happen, but they've since changed that and plan to allow it starting next Tuesday. However, from what I understand the Democrats are a minority and the final bill will probably look a lot like this one did.

[*crying stars*]

Do you really think NO ONE not a single person wouldn't work for a company, especially in this economy?

Granted, Obama's unemployment benefits give people more incentive to stay at home and collect money from the government, than to go out and actually get a job. But that's another issue.

Congratulations, you know nothing.

[apoemtothedead]

Wow.
Again, I have a question nagging at me:

Where were they in November?

Can anyone help me, here? I don't know how to feel. I think Walker is a total douchebag and I think this bill is atrocious, but at the same time, it's part of the democratic process. It sucks, yeah, but that's what the people voted for, isn't it?

I mean, I can see protesting since they wouldn't even let debate or discussion happen, but they've since changed that and plan to allow it starting next Tuesday. However, from what I understand the Democrats are a minority and the final bill will probably look a lot like this one did.
Wisconsin isn't as liberal as everyone thinks. It's not that big of a surprise what happened in a republican year.

[kidinthebushes]

Wow. Now the false dilemma. You're an idiot, you know that?

Here's an idea:

If a corporation has enough money to pay their executives in the BILLIONS and still return a record profit, they have more than enough fucking money to pay the rest of their workers without making the average American pay for their several million dollar tax break. I don't get paid millions of dollars just for getting paid billions of dollars, so why should corporations who are refusing to hire anyway?


http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1004/gallery.top_ceo_pay/

Just to clear things up $84.5 million isn't nearly $1 billion.

[crackedthesky]

The decisions of these executives/CEOs keep thousands of people employed and create new jobs. Don't forget that.

Then why don't they deside to divert some of their billions of dollars to actually hiring people?


This idea that government tax breaks artificially keeps corporations afloat who have no employees....not sure where you got that.


OH. MY. FUCKING. GOD. Can you fucking read? I said they DON'T do that, you imbecile. They don't need government tax breaks tos tay afloat or hire people, so why do they need the tax breaks?


People will work for these companies because making $10 an hour in a warehouse somewhere is better than the alternative. Voluntary employment my friend.

And these companies will keep shipping jobs to India because hiring for $2 a day is better than hiring for $10 an hour. All the tax breaks in the world won't change that. You could exempt all corporations from taxes, and they'd still outsource because their focus is on turning a profit.


Just like Chris Christie said to a teacher complaining about losing part of her pension, "If you don't like my education budget, find a new job".


OH MY FUCKING GOD! IT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE NOW! Jobs crisis solved everybody, go home and bang your girlfiend, this kid here is a fucking genius!

Since you're a big fan of retarded arguments that can easily be turned around, how about this, instead: If you don't like my tax rates, find a new country.


If these union workers can't handle paying into their own health insurance, then get a new job. Bottom line.


Nobody will fucking hire. What part of that don't you understand?


The union employees where I work make $45 an hour before taxes. That's $90K a year. I think they're more than capable of putting a few thousand aside for health insurance....as long as they value their own health.

This is probably the first thing you've said making even a lick of sense. And again, I'm not arguing for or against this. However, your scope is very narrow. The average teacher in Wisconsin makes 45k per year. You can't apply one rate you know of to all people everywhere. It doesn't work that way.

And also, I can easily turn this around: Those corporations are making MILLIONS per hour. Aren't they capable of putting money aside for hiring more employees? Why do they require lower taxes in order to hire people?

[crackedthesky]

Wisconsin isn't as liberal as everyone thinks. It's not that big of a surprise what happened in a republican year.

I know. It doesn't come as a surprise to me. I'm just wondering why these people didn't go out and vote. If you can go out and protest, why can't you go out and vote?

I saw on Bill Maher last night, someone was asking "why doesn't Obama come out in support of the protestors?" I thought the question was stupid. He doesn't come out in support of the protestors because we live in a democracy, and this is what the people voted for. His job isn't to micromanage red states for being red.

[crackedthesky]

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1004/gallery.top_ceo_pay/

Just to clear things up $84.5 million isn't nearly $1 billion.

I said corporation, not CEO.

Please, please, PLEASE learn to fucking read.

[Flags of Dawn]

Wisconsin isn't as liberal as everyone thinks. It's not that big of a surprise what happened in a republican year.
This. Milwaukee and Madison are probably the most liberal (even Madison isn't as liberal as it thinks it is), but drive 20 minutes outside of either in in an election year and good luck finding any signs for democratic candidates.

[crackedthesky]

This. Milwaukee and Madison are probably the most liberal (even Madison isn't as liberal as it thinks it is), but drive 20 minutes outside of either in in an election year and good luck finding any signs for democratic candidates.

Yeah, but that's how most states are. The democratic population is in the cities, and the conservative populations tends to reside in the suburbs and in the rural areas. What matter sis the population density; basically, if there are more people in those two cities than in the rest of the areas combined, that would make it a blue state.

But if none of them go out and vote in elections, that doesn't really help their cause.

Not trying to be specific, haha. I don't know Wisconsin's population when it comes to cities vs. non-cities area. Is an actual majority of the state conservative, or just a voting majority? Because if it's just the voting majority, then doesn't the blame for this rest on the voters for not going out and changing it?

[kidinthebushes]

Then why don't they deside to divert some of their billions of dollars to actually hiring people?



OH. MY. FUCKING. GOD. Can you fucking read? I said they DON'T do that, you imbecile. They don't need government tax breaks tos tay afloat or hire people, so why do they need the tax breaks?



And these companies will keep shipping jobs to India because hiring for $2 a day is better than hiring for $10 an hour. All the tax breaks in the world won't change that. You could exempt all corporations from tax breaks, and they'd still outsource because their focus is on turning a profit.



OH MY FUCKING GOD! IT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE NOW! Jobs crisis solved everybody, go home and bang your girlfiend, this kid here is a fucking genius!

Since you're a big fan of retarded arguments that can easily be turned around, how about this, instead: If you don't like my tax rates, find a new country.



Nobody will fucking hire. What part of that don't you understand?



This is probably the first thing you've said making even a lick of sense. And again, I'm not arguing for or against this. However, your scope is very narrow. The average teacher in Wisconsin makes 45k per year. You can't apply one rate you know of to all people everywhere. It doesn't work that way.

And also, I can easily turn this around: Those corporations are making MILLIONS per hour. Aren't they capable of putting money aside for hiring more employees? Why do they require lower taxes in order to hire people?

I'm going on a limb here and assuming you either A) don't have a job and/or B) you haven't finished college and have been thrown into the real world and now want everything handed to you.

You can sit around and wait for Obama to create jobs, all while business men/women of America go out and start up new companies both big and small with the help of government tax breaks. OH THE HORROR!!!

[*crying stars*]

I'm going on a limb here and assuming you either A) don't have a job and/or B) you haven't finished college and have been thrown into the real world and now want everything handed to you.

You can sit around and wait for Obama to create jobs, all while business men/women of America go out and start up new companies both big and small with the help of government tax breaks. OH THE HORROR!!!

Congratulations, your "knowledge" of the economy is so flawed that you might actually know less than nothing.

[crackedthesky]

I'm going on a limb here and assuming you either A) don't have a job and/or B) you haven't finished college and have been thrown into the real world and now want everything handed to you.

You can sit around and wait for Obama to create jobs, all while business men/women of America go out and start up new companies both big and small with the help of government tax breaks. OH THE HORROR!!!

Yeah, we get it, everyone who disagrees with you is automatically a socialist freeloader, blah blah blah. Shut the fuck up about my personal life, asshole.

[Scrandon]

But unions are greedy and shortsighted. So there's only just the second option.
I'm assuming you don't have a problem with the greed and myopia of Wall Street that crippled the global economy? Doublethink 101 right here guys.
I work for a company that uses a carpentry union and one of the guys told me, "I don't care what I do as long as I get paid". Pretty much sums up the mentality of unions.
You don't think that's the exact same mindset of investors on Wall Street? Traders have created computer programs to analyze stock prices in order to take advantage of arbitrage opportunities within fractions of a second, creating huge profits for themselves while adding zero value to society. That sounds like it's all about getting paid.

As for the rest of your posts in the thread which were incredibly difficult to read, they are a testament to this country's need for investment in education. I can't believe someone like you can claim a college degree. You're literally spewing the propaganda that the rich want useful idiots like yourself to believe.

[crackedthesky]

I'm assuming you don't have a problem with the greed and myopia of Wall Street that crippled the global economy? Doublethink 101 right here guys.

You don't think that's the exact same mindset of investors on Wall Street? Traders have created computer programs to analyze stock prices in order to take advantage of arbitrage opportunities within fractions of a second, creating huge profits for themselves while adding zero value to society. That sounds like it's all about getting paid.

As for the rest of your posts in the thread which were incredibly difficult to read, they are a testament to this country's need for investment in education. I can't believe someone like you can claim a college degree. You're literally spewing the propaganda that the rich want useful idiots like yourself to believe.

Already tried that on him, dude. He literally believes what he said.

[Scrandon]

Already tried that on him, dude. He literally believes what he said.
Ridiculous.

[crackedthesky]

Ridiculous.

Yup. He even went on a rant about my own personal life in high detail, because apparently 100% of people who disagree with him are socialist hippie freeloaders who hate America :shrug:

Those poor old businesses are just trying to help, it's not their fault they won't hire Americans, they have no choice. If you disagree, just get a job, simple as that, apparently.

[SecretsFromYou]

It's good to see that this has even attracted attention on ap net. Scott Walker is a fucking douche bag.

[saturday_snow_squall]

winsconsin is so borinngg

[saturday_snow_squall]

It's good to see that this has even attracted attention on ap net. Scott Walker is a fucking douche bag.

z1xedaZRoh8

[kidinthebushes]

Ridiculous.

Awww how cute. There's more than 1 of you bashing me now. Just like unions, you guys are ineffective in small numbers.

[Scrandon]

Awww how cute. There's more than 1 of you bashing me now. Just like unions, you guys are ineffective in small numbers.Love those union jokes, keep em coming.

[caveBEAR]

What's the difference between a union & a Tibetan monk?

[Simulcast]

Go on.

[Flags of Dawn]

So this just happened:

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/185750_573626702448_211701244_33394 119_5560757_n.jpg

[caveBEAR]

Go on.

I've got nothin'.
;-)

[caveBEAR]

Doesn't take much of a spine to hide.

You do understand the circumstances under which they are hiding out, correct?

[kidinthebushes]

You do understand the circumstances under which they are hiding out, correct?

Yeah. So they don't have to vote on the union bill.

[Simulcast]

I've got nothin'.
;-)

Haha.

[caveBEAR]

Yeah. So they don't have to vote on the union bill.

Because so long as they are out of state, a vote can't be taken. The Republican's are abusing their power against the minority party, and the minority party is responding the only way they can to keep the Republican's from pushing the bill through.

They aren't hiding out so they 'don't have to vote', like they're being lazy or pussies or something.

[kidinthebushes]

Because so long as they are out of state, a vote can't be taken. The Republican's are abusing their power against the minority party, and the minority party is responding the only way they can to keep the Republican's from pushing the bill through.

They aren't hiding out so they 'don't have to vote', like they're being lazy or pussies or something.

Gotcha. I disagree 100% with you.

If the Republicans did this, I'm sure you'd have a different explanation though.

[caveBEAR]

Gotcha. I disagree 100% with you.

If the Republicans did this, I'm sure you'd have a different explanation though.

What's your take on the situation, then?

Oh, and an abuse of power is an abuse of power. I'd be just as pissed with Democrats doing this as Republicans, and would want Republicans to flee. If this passes, it sets a precedent that is fucking appalling.

There's more to politics than party lines, you twat.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

kidinthebushes sounds like he's a student of The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies

[kidinthebushes]

What's your take on the situation, then?

Oh, and an abuse of power is an abuse of power. I'd be just as pissed with Democrats doing this as Republicans, and would want Republicans to flee. If this passes, it sets a precedent that is fucking appalling.

There's more to politics than party lines, you twat.

A twat, huh? Mature.

The majority party pushes their policies on the other party. When the Republicans impose their ideologies on the Democrats, you liberals call it abusing power. But when Obama pushes an unpopular health care bill down people's throats its called.....rebuilding America?

You guys can continue to bounce your liberal ideas off each other in these forums.

I will leave you all with one last joke. "It was so cold out last week I saw a Democrat with his hands in his own pocket".

[kidinthebushes]

kidinthebushes sounds like he's a student of The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies

If that's your shot at me, I'm not offended. I'm extremely conservative and damn proud of it.

[caveBEAR]

A twat, huh? Mature.

The majority party pushes their policies on the other party. When the Republicans impose their ideologies on the Democrats, you liberals call it abusing power. But when Obama pushes an unpopular health care bill down people's throats its called.....rebuilding America?

You guys can continue to bounce your liberal ideas off each other in these forums.

I will leave you all with one last joke. "It was so cold out last week I saw a Democrat with his hands in his own pocket".

I'm torn between :yawn: & :crackup:

[caveBEAR]

If that's your shot at me, I'm not offended. I'm extremely conservative and damn proud of it.

Oh, nevermind, it's :crackup:

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

If that's your shot at me, I'm not offended. I'm extremely conservative and damn proud of it.

Not so much a shot, but the way you spoke about unions and business was in the same tone and rhetoric as Rush Limbaugh

[crackedthesky]

A twat, huh? Mature.

The majority party pushes their policies on the other party. When the Republicans impose their ideologies on the Democrats, you liberals call it abusing power. But when Obama pushes an unpopular health care bill down people's throats its called.....rebuilding America?

You guys can continue to bounce your liberal ideas off each other in these forums.

I will leave you all with one last joke. "It was so cold out last week I saw a Democrat with his hands in his own pocket".

Well, ignoring the fact that you're lying about the popularity of the health care bill, there's a big difference between a supermajority passing a bill, and not letting the other party debate on the floor or offer amendments, which is what the Republicans in Wisconsin did.

Oh, and toodles. So sad to see you go. Not sure where I'll get my lols, now.

[caveBEAR]

Well, ignoring the fact that you're lying about the popularity of the health care bill, there's a big difference between a supermajority passing a bill, and not letting the other party debate on the floor or offer amendments, which is what the Republicans in Wisconsin did.

Oh, and toodles. So sad to see you go. Not sure where I'll get my lols, now.

I like how he said I'd make excuses for the Democrats in this position, and when I tell him that's absolutely not true, he ignores it and continues his 'you guys just have your liberal circle jerk' bullshit.

You know, posters like him make it really hard for me to believe they can read.

[crackedthesky]

I like how he said I'd make excuses for the Democrats in this position, and when I tell him that's absolutely not true, he ignores it and continues his 'you guys just have your liberal circle jerk' bullshit.

You know, posters like him make it really hard for me to believe they can read.

You should see the exchange I had with him. I would say something wasn't true, and he would say "How can this be true, commie?" It was pretty retarded.

[PTVsnewO]

LIIbswah7Ko

feelin the love in this thread.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

pattonoswalt (http://twitter.com/#%21/pattonoswalt) Man, I hope the Tea Partiers that the billionaire Koch Bros. are busing to WI put these fat-cat public schoolteachers in their place!

[loveisdead]

In the posting addressed to "union brothers and sisters," Palin says Wisconsin taxpayers shouldn't be asked to pay for benefits "that are not sustainable." She says "real solidarity means everyone being willing to sacrifice."
:wallbash:

[deadkidsean]

http://i.imgur.com/P5wr9.jpg

[caveBEAR]

:wallbash:

I agree. Palin should have to sacrifice all her earnings beyond that of a public school teacher's for the solidarity of her American brothers and sisters.

What a fucking twat.

[caveBEAR]

http://i.imgur.com/P5wr9.jpg

That's very cool.

[MrAndyRoo]

I'm originally from Wisconsin, and my dad works for the state in the prison system. He's getting the shaft. My family could lose $300 a month because of this.

Also, I just saw this (http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=191286850891716) on Facebook. This is going to be huge.

[loveisdead]

I'm originally from Wisconsin, and my dad works for the state in the prison system. He's getting the shaft. My family could lose $300 a month because of this.

Also, I just saw this (http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=191286850891716) on Facebook. This is going to be huge.
And your dad, the prison worker, is definitely the one who should be sacrificing to help balance the budget. Not the people who have prospered as much as ever due to taxpayer funded bailouts and who have received every tax break under the sun. This is such horseshit.

[JuneJuly]

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/02/19/viral-video-the-view-from-the-front-lines-of-the-wisconsin-protests/?iid=nfmostpopular

Awesome.

[loveisdead]

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/02/19/viral-video-the-view-from-the-front-lines-of-the-wisconsin-protests/?iid=nfmostpopular

Awesome.
Yeah, pretty cool stuff.

[J.C.]

Just like Chris Christie said to a teacher complaining about losing part of her pension, "If you don't like my education budget, find a new job".

Classy stuff.

[Love As Arson]

Sacrifice for the same people that you bailed out with your tax dollars.

[saysmydoctor]

#sharedsacrifice #winthefuture

[Flags of Dawn]

This is probably one of the better videos I've seen throughout this whole situation. Representative Gordon Hintz goes off about Governor Walker trying to force this bill through as quickly as possible with the hopes that no one would notice. Gave me goosebumps.

lZsOKNfNkfQ&feature=player_embedded

[mattgoods]

The people of Wisconsin elected Walker to do just this. Elections have consequences and big unions have been running that state and many other states into the ground for far too long. You can't ask private sector citizens who are having a hell of a time just staying afloat to pay outrageous public sector salaries. The scales have been tipped too far.

[JuneJuly]

This is probably one of the better videos I've seen throughout this whole situation. Representative Gordon Hintz goes off about Governor Walker trying to force this bill through as quickly as possible with the hopes that no one would notice. Gave me goosebumps.

lZsOKNfNkfQ&feature=player_embedded

That's a really awesome video, thanks!

[mattgoods]

Republicans in Congress ran away from almost every vote with use of the Filibuster.

Filibuster? There weren't enough repub congress members to filibuster anything.

[Scrandon]

Filibuster? There weren't enough repub congress members to filibuster anything.
You don't remember any of the last two years?

[mattgoods]

You don't remember any of the last two years?

I remember budgets and bills being passed with no regard to the minority party.

[JuneJuly]

I don't know if this has been posted yet:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/cops_now_pursuing_missing_wisc.html

State Senator Chris Larson, one of the Democrats who is remaining in Illinois to stall the vote on Governor Scott Walker's measure, tells me that another Dem Senator -- who he declined to name -- returned home late yesterday to try to get some sleep. That Senator's staff reported to Larson that police visited his home, but that the Senator had managed to slip away before cops could apprehend him.
Holy freaking lol.

[David87]

The people of Wisconsin elected Walker to do just this. Elections have consequences and big unions have been running that state and many other states into the ground for far too long. You can't ask private sector citizens who are having a hell of a time just staying afloat to pay outrageous public sector salaries. The scales have been tipped too far.

http://www.journal-news.com/opinion/columnists/robert-reich-gops-attack-on-public-employees-is-shameless-1053602.html


The great lie that public sector pensions are bankrupting the states really needs to stop getting repeated.

[Scrandon]

I remember budgets and bills being passed with no regard to the minority party.
Going back just two months, the minority party refused a vote on multiple issues such as DADT, the DREAM Act, etc. until they could renew their precious tax cuts. That was two months ago. The minority dictating the process. I could find dozens more examples if I felt the need to dig into the previous two years, but I'll leave that to you.

[LostAllways]

http://i.imgur.com/P5wr9.jpg

Love this photo.

[caveBEAR]

Going back just two months, the minority party refused a vote on multiple issues such as DADT, the DREAM Act, etc. until they could renew their precious tax cuts. That was two months ago. The minority dictating the process. I could find dozens more examples if I felt the need to dig into the previous two years, but I'll leave that to you.

Right? It was quite recently that all of us were :wallbash:'ing over the hold-ups the Republican's were pulling.

[Flags of Dawn]

The budget crisis is non existent. We were in line for a budget surplus this year, and as soon as Walker got into office he gave $140 million in kickbacks to businesses that supported him. The firefighters, state troopers and police are the only public worker unions not affected by the bill, Coincidentally, they're also the only ones that supported Walker's campaign. Bargaining rights have no fiscal impact on this bill, and despite the union's offers to take pay cuts and contribute more to their benefits while leaving collective bargaining intact, Walker refuses to consider them. This is clearly a union-busting attempt and more so an attempt to eliminate the democratic party. And if that wasn't enough, this comes direct from the bill:

Except with respect to sexual orientation, the contractor further agrees to take affirmative action to ensure equal employment opportunities.

What a douche.

[always10ftJay]

Just nullify the government start over we have that power

[Junction183]

end of story...our country is in debt. our states are in debt. what is being asked of the unions in Wisconsin is pretty modest. Massive outrage over this is laughable. There are no proposed pay cuts or job cuts for Wisconsin unions. They are being asked to give up their collective bargaining agreements and pay a portion of their healthcare. If you allow non-union companies to bid on jobs it creates a more level playing field. You liberals have got to cool down on this whole class warfare rhetoric because it's your entitlement programs that have got us in this debt crisis in the first place.

[GeeBee]

end of story...our country is in debt. our states are in debt. what is being asked of the unions in Wisconsin is pretty modest. Massive outrage over this is laughable. There are no proposed pay cuts or job cuts for Wisconsin unions. They are being asked to give up their collective bargaining agreements and pay a portion of their healthcare. If you allow non-union companies to bid on jobs it creates a more level playing field. You liberals have got to cool down on this whole class warfare rhetoric because it's your entitlement programs that have got us in this debt crisis in the first place.
Fuck you.
2/3 of the corporations in Wisconsin pay no tax...and you're telling firefighters and teachers to pull their fair share? Give me a break. Your "class-warfare" bullshit is a tired canard. It's just as easy for me to claim Reaganomics drove us into this crisis as it is for you to whine about entitlement programs (which I'm sure you'll be ready to refuse when the time comes, right?).

[Junction183]

Fuck you.
2/3 of the corporations in Wisconsin pay no tax...and you're telling firefighters and teachers to pull their fair share? Give me a break. Your "class-warfare" bullshit is a tired canard. It's just as easy for me to claim Reaganomics drove us into this crisis as it is for you to whine about entitlement programs (which I'm sure you'll be ready to refuse when the time comes, right?).
absolutely not, I'll defend Reganomics til the day I die.

[GeeBee]

absolutely not, I'll defend Reganomics til the day I die.
Then you're as stupid as you seem. If Alan Greenspan has the balls to admit Reaganomics was a failure, take the hint.

[caveBEAR]

absolutely not, I'll defend Reganomics til the day I die.

I like Geebee's point. I assume you'd turn down any entitlements you'd be welcome to as a U.S. citizen should you find yourself down on your luck, correct?

[GeeBee]

I like Geebee's point. I assume you'd turn down any entitlements you'd be welcome to as a U.S. citizen should you find yourself down on your luck, correct?
Entitlements always seem to be everyone else's fault until it's you who's retiring or can't afford your medical bills. Funny how that works.

[caveBEAR]

Entitlements always seem to be everyone else's fault until it's you who's retiring or can't afford your medical bills. Funny how that works.

Well, it's simple! Junction183 just plans on never falling into poverty or having a medical emergency.

Problem. Solved.

[InExile]

Public workers, on average, make more money and have better benefits than private sector workers.

[Scrandon]

Public workers, on average, make more money and have better benefits than private sector workers.
Not you. Seriously. Not you. No.
The Republican trick is to compare apples to oranges -- the average wage of public employees with the average wage of private-sector employees. But only 23 percent of private-sector employees have college degrees; 48 percent of government workers do. Teachers, social workers, public lawyers who bring companies to justice, government accountants who try to make sure money is spent as it should be -- all need at least four years of college.

Compare apples to apples and you'd see that over the last 15 years the pay of public-sector workers has dropped relative to private-sector employees with the same level of education. Public-sector workers now earn 11 percent less than comparable workers in the private sector, and local workers 12 percent less. (Even if you include health and retirement benefits, government employees still earn less than their private-sector counterparts with similar educations.)

[caveBEAR]

Public workers, on average, make more money and have better benefits than private sector workers.

So? My dick is 4 inches. My brother's dick is 3 inches. My dick may be bigger, but we both still have little dicks.

[InExile]

Lets not forget the time when these government workers were held at gunpoint to take these jobs.

[GeeBee]

Public workers, on average, make more money and have better benefits than private sector workers.
I for one appreciate a highly-educated public workforce. I imagine they appreciate being compensated at a level befitting their education. Wouldn't you?

[Junction183]

I like Geebee's point. I assume you'd turn down any entitlements you'd be welcome to as a U.S. citizen should you find yourself down on your luck, correct?
please, I pay a fair enough into the system. I would not turn it down, no...but to use that argument to deflect attention away from the growing problem of entitlement growth in our country is ignorant. Every year entitlements grow in our economies GDP, which mean that there aren't enough jobs or opportunities to create wealth in our country, it just means we redistribute what ever wealth that has already been created. That's the problem with socialism, sooner or later you run out of someone else's money.

[GeeBee]

Lets not forget the time when these government workers were held at gunpoint to take these jobs.
Let's not forget you were just proven wrong by Scrandon and that all the hyperbole in the world won't change that...

[GeeBee]

please, I pay a fair enough into the system. I would not turn it down, no...but to use that argument to deflect attention away from the growing problem of entitlement growth in our country is ignorant. Every year entitlements grow in our economies GDP, which mean that there aren't enough jobs or opportunities to create wealth in our country, it just means we redistribute what ever wealth that has already been created. That's the problem with socialism, sooner or later you run out of someone else's money.
Jesus, you're inane. If all you can do is parrot Fox News talking points, get the fuck out of here.

[InExile]

I for one appreciate a highly-educated public workforce. I imagine they appreciate being compensated at a level befitting their education. Wouldn't you?

Sure, just dont want people thinking these people are living in boxes in the school yard or anything.

[InExile]

Let's not forget you were just proven wrong by Scrandon and that all the hyperbole in the world won't change that...

So public workers dont get paid more and have better benefits? That was my statement. You can come up with reasons of WHY that is, but that statement is not wrong.

[GeeBee]

Sure, just dont want people thinking these people are living in boxes in the school yard or anything.
Just like they don't want people thinking they're living in mansions...you know...like the one the Governor of Wisconsin lives in.

[GeeBee]

So public workers dont get paid more and have better benefits? That was my statement. You can come up with reasons of WHY that is, but that statement is not wrong.
Yes, yes it is. See the research Scrandon just posted for you.

[*crying stars*]

:popcorn:

[caveBEAR]

please, I pay a fair enough into the system. I would not turn it down, no...but to use that argument to deflect attention away from the growing problem of entitlement growth in our country is ignorant. Every year entitlements grow in our economies GDP, which mean that there aren't enough jobs or opportunities to create wealth in our country, it just means we redistribute what ever wealth that has already been created. That's the problem with socialism, sooner or later you run out of someone else's money.

Post some numbers and facts on 'entitlement growth', particularly ones that highlight a danger related to entitlements and a need to curb them. Spouting will get you nowhere.

[loveisdead]

Not you. Seriously. Not you. No.

What is that from?

[GeeBee]

Post some numbers and facts on 'entitlement growth', particularly ones that highlight a danger related to entitlements and a need to curb them. Spouting will get you nowhere.
While he's at it, perhaps he can grab some numbers on how the rich have gotten richer, while everyone else either declined or stagnated. That's where the "income redistribution" comes in.

[Scrandon]

What is that from?
This article, it's pretty good.
http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=85453842#post85453 842

[InExile]

Yes, yes it is. See the research Scrandon just posted for you.

Nope.

According to the Labor Dept. (also in this weekends Wall Street Journal)

Private Workers: Hourly Wage $19.68, Retirement Benefits 74% of workers

Gov. Workers: Hourly Wage $26.25, Retirement Benefits 99% of workers

The chart also shows government workers get better medical benefits, pay lower premiums, get more sick leave, and get 3 more days of paid holidays.

[loveisdead]

Nope.

According to the Labor Dept. (also in this weekends Wall Street Journal)

Private Workers: Hourly Wage $19.68, Retirement Benefits 74% of workers

Gov. Workers: Hourly Wage $26.25, Retirement Benefits 99% of workers

The chart also shows government workers get better medical benefits, pay lower premiums, get more sick leave, and get 3 more days of paid holidays.

You didn't read what Scrandon posted.

[InExile]

But i'll go ahead and leave and let yall continue the debate. I know most of this site is filled with socialist or communist, so I try and just throw my view out there to keep things in balance a little bit :-)

[InExile]

You didn't read what Scrandon posted.

I think I glanced over it. I'm just pointing out that my statement was correct, you can explain it however you want, but it is correct.

[InExile]

Alright guys, have a nice day!

[Scrandon]

Sure, just dont want people thinking these people are living in boxes in the school yard or anything.
Oh really? Ok well I think we're good on that. My turn: I don't want people thinking that public workers are randomly paid higher than their private sector counterpart.
Nope.

According to the Labor Dept. (also in this weekends Wall Street Journal)

Private Workers: Hourly Wage $19.68, Retirement Benefits 74% of workers

Gov. Workers: Hourly Wage $26.25, Retirement Benefits 99% of workers

The chart also shows government workers get better medical benefits, pay lower premiums, get more sick leave, and get 3 more days of paid holidays.You didn't control for education, which was mentioned in the TWO PARAGRAPH original response. That is the most blatant willful ignorance I have ever seen.

[caveBEAR]

Nope.

According to the Labor Dept. (also in this weekends Wall Street Journal)

Private Workers: Hourly Wage $19.68, Retirement Benefits 74% of workers

Gov. Workers: Hourly Wage $26.25, Retirement Benefits 99% of workers

The chart also shows government workers get better medical benefits, pay lower premiums, get more sick leave, and get 3 more days of paid holidays.

I think the smart money's on you making $19.68 based on those fine reading comprehension skills...

[caveBEAR]

Oh really? Ok well I think we're good on that. My turn: I don't want people thinking that public workers are randomly paid higher than their private sector counterpart.
You didn't control for education, which was mentioned in the TWO PARAGRAPH original response. That is the most blatant willful ignorance I have ever seen.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait! The universe isn't a vacuum in which figures and numbers have no bearing on their enviornment and circumstances!?
:explode:

[Scrandon]

I think I glanced over it. I'm just pointing out that my statement was correct, you can explain it however you want, but it is correct.
Correct in the same sense that if I were to imply the movement of the sun to be a result of the will of Big Foot, I would still be right about the movement of the sun. The explanation kind of matters.

[Scrandon]

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait! The universe isn't a vacuum in which figures and numbers have no bearing on their enviornment and circumstances!?
:explode:
Thread has seriously brought out the nutjobs man.

[caveBEAR]

Correct in the same sense that if I were to imply the movement of the sun to be a result of the will of Big Foot, I would still be right about the movement of the sun. The explanation kind of matters.

Hahahaha, I like that. May steal it.

[*crying stars*]

But i'll go ahead and leave and let yall continue the debate. I know most of this site is filled with socialists or communists, so I try and just throw my view out there to keep things in balance a little bit :-)

If you're going to generalize a group of people and try to "insult" them, at least pretend you have a working knowledge of grammar.

[mattgoods]

http://www.journal-news.com/opinion/columnists/robert-reich-gops-attack-on-public-employees-is-shameless-1053602.html


The great lie that public sector pensions are bankrupting the states really needs to stop getting repeated.
This article is incoherent at best...a few things...Reich admits that unfunded pension liabilities are a concern for the future. He says that taxpayers don't pay for public employee pensions...???? Where does he think the money comes from?? Also, since comparing apples to oranges seems to be a major point of this article-- my father: public school teacher made WAY more (and pension, tenure, great benefits) than my mother, private school teacher (less pay, no tenure, no pension). Again, no one is knocking the contribution that many public employees make, it's just time for their unrealistic expectations to be brought back to reality...especially in a time when so many private citizens are losing their homes and scrapping for everything they have.

[crackedthesky]

If you're going to generalize a group of people and try to "insult" them, at least pretend you have a working knowledge of grammar.

Came in to say exactly this.

[Love As Arson]

please, I pay a fair enough into the system. I would not turn it down, no...but to use that argument to deflect attention away from the growing problem of entitlement growth in our country is ignorant. Every year entitlements grow in our economies GDP, which mean that there aren't enough jobs or opportunities to create wealth in our country, it just means we redistribute what ever wealth that has already been created. That's the problem with socialism, sooner or later you run out of someone else's money.

You do realize that Reganomics was essentially an entitlement program for the wealthy, correct? And I think one's ideology is laid bare once they look to average workers as a source of economic instability, as opposed to those who have their hands on the political/economic levers of power. As for your comment regarding socialism, we don't require their money as such, just the means of production; wealth redistribution is a reform, a reform that is worth undertaking, but one which goes along with the process of divesting economic control from the elites. In fact, if socialism were implemented, I'd support giving the former ruling class all of their money back in the form of dollar bills. It'd signify nothing and that is what its worth would be equal to, but at least they'd be able to look at it with a certain sense of nostalgia.

[J.C.]

Again, no one is knocking the contribution that many public employees make, it's just time for their unrealistic expectations to be brought back to reality...

Yeah, it's about time we knocked the teaching profession down from its lucrative perch. I'm sure the quality of teachers we have will go up as their compensation goes down.

especially in a time when so many private citizens are losing their homes and scrapping for everything they have.

Oh look, a lesson in sympathy from the same side that wants to slash worker's benefits, but doesn't want to raise the marginal tax rate on the richest 2%.

[IAmNietzche]

The Champs enter the fray.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/wi_house_dems_warn_gov_walker_not_t o_cross_packers.php?ref=fpblg

[J.C.]

Pretty much all scrubs, unfortunately.

[IAmNietzche]

3UiqSebBQFc&feature=player_embedded

Is this the best argument they can muster?

[David87]

This article is incoherent at best...a few things...Reich admits that unfunded pension liabilities are a concern for the future. He says that taxpayers don't pay for public employee pensions...???? Where does he think the money comes from?? Also, since comparing apples to oranges seems to be a major point of this article-- my father: public school teacher made WAY more (and pension, tenure, great benefits) than my mother, private school teacher (less pay, no tenure, no pension). Again, no one is knocking the contribution that many public employees make, it's just time for their unrealistic expectations to be brought back to reality...especially in a time when so many private citizens are losing their homes and scrapping for everything they have.


In most cases, they don't....teachers generally contribute a portion of their funds to their pension...and in fact, the Wisconsin teachers have already agreed to contribute more to their pension.


And yes, public school teachers make more than private school teachers (over the years...starting out the pay is about the same). But if you ask any teacher or aspiring teacher (like me) where an easier job to teach would be.....we'd say private school every time. Hell yes i'd take less money if it meant working in a safer environment with kids from good socio-economic backgrounds and parents that obviously care enough about their child's education to pay for it. Shit...that'd be heaven compared to teaching in an inner city public school.

[maxvsmaradona]

I wanna go and march just so I can watch Tom Morello perform. And maybe rabble rabble rabble for a bit

[mattgoods]

Yeah, it's about time we knocked the teaching profession down from its lucrative perch. I'm sure the quality of teachers we have will go up as their compensation goes down.



Oh look, a lesson in sympathy from the same side that wants to slash worker's benefits, but doesn't want to raise the marginal tax rate on the richest 2%.
Have you seen "waiting for superman" or "the lottery"? These films address the "quality" of the education system you speak of. In fact, most charter school teachers get paid less than their public school counterparts, yet vastly outperform them academically. And yes, I am sympathetic to private sector business owners and workers who bear the burden of high taxes. I know we won't agree on this, but I feel everyone, yes even the (gasp!) wealthy, are already paying more than their fair share of taxes.

[J.C.]

Have you seen "waiting for superman" or "the lottery"? These films address the "quality" of the education system you speak of. In fact, most charter school teachers get paid less than their public school counterparts, yet vastly outperform them academically.

I wasn't making an argument about the system, I was making a blanket statement about incentivization that would apply to any field.

And yes, I am sympathetic to private sector business owners and workers who bear the burden of high taxes. I know we won't agree on this, but I feel everyone, yes even the (gasp!) wealthy, are already paying more than their fair share of taxes.

You asked for shared sacrifice. Extending the same set of tax cuts they've had for the last decade is not shared sacrifice, it's a maintaining of the status quo.

[Love As Arson]

Have you seen "waiting for superman" or "the lottery"? These films address the "quality" of the education system you speak of. In fact, most charter school teachers get paid less than their public school counterparts, yet vastly outperform them academically. And yes, I am sympathetic to private sector business owners and workers who bear the burden of high taxes. I know we won't agree on this, but I feel everyone, yes even the (gasp!) wealthy, are already paying more than their fair share of taxes.
Actually, studies have shown that charter schools do as well or worse than their public school counterparts. Schools that have the authority to select their students skew any sort of analysis, because public schools must accept everyone. The charter school movement is based on the fallacy that public schools just do not work and pays no attention to the ways in which public schools have been undermined; for example, the allocation of money is based on property taxes, which ensures inequality and segregation. The implementation of No Child Left Behind crystallized those characteristics and went on to punish schools who never had the resources to begin with.

[mattgoods]

I wasn't making an argument about the system, I was making a blanket statement about incentivization that would apply to any field.



You asked for shared sacrifice. Extending the same set of tax cuts they've had for the last decade is not shared sacrifice, it's a maintaining of the status quo.
Well, we're not going to agree, and I really should get back to work, but it's been fun debating with everyone...I will say that I used to be as liberal as the day was long, but slowly started to see contradictions within liberal ideology...keep thinking about things, stay informed. Have a great day.

[crackedthesky]

Because there's nothing contradictory about wanting a for-profit company to get money from taxpayers, but wanting public schools who have no other means of funding to be not allowed to have it.

[JuneJuly]

Wisconsin's union employees are upset about a loss of collective bargaining and a mandated increase in benefit payments, including for health insurance. But at least these employees would still have health insurance. What has been widely ignored about Walker's bill (in part because of the speed with which he's fisting it down Wisconsin's gullet) is a sneaky provision that paves the way for him to cut, or eliminate, Medicaid and BadgerCare healthcare benefits for low-income people.

-theawl.com

Didn't see this wonderful part of the bill. As someone who used to be on BadgerCare, this provision hits particularly close to home.

[caveBEAR]

Well, we're not going to agree, and I really should get back to work, but it's been fun debating with everyone...I will say that I used to be as liberal as the day was long, but slowly started to see contradictions within liberal ideology...keep thinking about things, stay informed. Have a great day.

:rolleyes:

[JuneJuly]

Pretty much all scrubs, unfortunately.

I've read that Woodson is in on it now as well, and the NFLPA has already released a statement in support as well.

[Flags of Dawn]

Well, we're not going to agree, and I really should get back to work, but it's been fun debating with everyone...I will say that I used to be as liberal as the day was long, but slowly started to see contradictions within liberal ideology...keep thinking about things, stay informed. Have a great day.

Yes, the liberals are the only ones with contradictory ideology. Come on.

[GeeBee]

Well, we're not going to agree, and I really should get back to work, but it's been fun debating with everyone...I will say that I used to be as liberal as the day was long, but slowly started to see contradictions within liberal ideology...keep thinking about things, stay informed. Have a great day.
Wow. Your wisdom and experience shine through. :rolleyes:

[J.C.]

Well, we're not going to agree, and I really should get back to work, but it's been fun debating with everyone...I will say that I used to be as liberal as the day was long, but slowly started to see contradictions within liberal ideology...keep thinking about things, stay informed. Have a great day.

I'll make sure to keep the rich in my prayers.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/chart_rise_of_super_rich.top.gif

[GeeBee]

Yes, the liberals are the only ones with contradictory ideology. Come on.
Conservativism -- "keep the government out of everyone's lives...as long as they're male, Christian, rich, and white". Yeah, no contradictions there...

[JuneJuly]

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/249592/WISCONSIN-WORKERS.jpg

[caveBEAR]

Wow. Your wisdom and experience shine through. :rolleyes:

That sarcasm would melt away if you were informed!

[JuneJuly]

I know that some of the Packer players have come out in support of the protesters but how awesome would it be if they actually came out and protested. Haha

oh yeah and:

On a Tuesday afternoon in September 2003, during Scott Walker's first term as Milwaukee County executive, scores of union workers gathered at the local courthouse to protest layoffs he had ordered as part of an aggressive effort to balance the budget and avoid what he said would otherwise be necessary tax increases. They shouted anti-Walker chants, and union officials and Democratic officeholders took turns denouncing his slash-and-burn approach.
The layoffs Walker had announced that summer decimated the county's public parks staff and also reduced the number of county social workers, corrections officers and janitors. As a result, park bathrooms were shuttered and pools were closed. Trash was piled up so high in the Milwaukee County Courthouse that visitors had to sidestep apple cores and coffee cups, and some judges resorted to cleaning toilets, a local newspaper reported.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/19/AR2011021904205.html

[crackedthesky]

About half as awesome as it would be if their starting lineup sacked the 19 Republicans voting for the bill

[GeeBee]

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/249592/WISCONSIN-WORKERS.jpg
Source please?
That sarcasm would melt away if you were informed!
I'm trying. I just bookmarked Andrew Breitbart and switched over to Fox News.

[JuneJuly]

Source please?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/are_wisconsins_state_and_local.html

[caveBEAR]

I'm trying. I just bookmarked Andrew Breitbart and switched over to Fox News.

We'll cleanse you of this 'liberal' yet, boy.

[GeeBee]

We'll cleanse you of this 'liberal' yet, boy.
I'll bet I start loving America (for realsies) by night's end.

[JuneJuly]

Walker thinks that the Dem Senators will return early this week because they "need to do their job."

It does bring up a good point though, about how long they can hold out.

[Flags of Dawn]

I know that some of the Packer players have come out in support of the protesters but how awesome would it be if they actually came out and protested. Haha

oh yeah and:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/19/AR2011021904205.html
It's so obvious and transparent that he's out to kill unions and the democratic party and masking I with a "budget crisis" (that HE created), and if it happens here it will start happening everywhere. Not sure why this isn't being brought up more.

[Flags of Dawn]

Walker thinks that the Dem Senators will return early this week because they "need to do their job."

It does bring up a good point though, about how long they can hold out.
Desperate times, they're prepared to be gone for weeks.

[Scrandon]

Actually, studies have shown that charter schools do as well or worse than their public school counterparts. Schools that have the authority to select their students skew any sort of analysis, because public schools must accept everyone. The charter school movement is based on the fallacy that public schools just do not work and pays no attention to the ways in which public schools have been undermined; for example, the allocation of money is based on property taxes, which ensures inequality and segregation. The implementation of No Child Left Behind crystallized those characteristics and went on to punish schools who never had the resources to begin with.
THIS.

[kemichels]

Pretty proud to be from Madison, right now, to say the least.

[tonighttonight0]

Walker thinks that the Dem Senators will return early this week because they "need to do their job."

It does bring up a good point though, about how long they can hold out.

I think Walker may be talking out his ass on that. I'm willing to bet the majority of them stay out of state for another week or two.

[Flags of Dawn]

I think Walker may be talking out his ass on that. I'm willing to bet the majority of them stay out of state for another week or two.
Nooooooooo. :-)

[tonighttonight0]

Nooooooooo. :-)

Shocker right?

[GuitarR0cker1]

lol @ the argument from Republicans that Walker has a big mandate to make these "reforms". a) Barrett got 47% of the vote in a wave election with an unpopular Democratic Governor being in office, Walker has no real mandate. b) the swing voters didn't vote for Walker because of his record in busting unions and being a douchebag they voted for him because of his buzzwords and general angst with the Democrats.