Originally posted by EddieZilker
You're not even arguing to my point but a point rendered moot by a concession made in good faith by the Teachers who are protesting over this:
quote:
The governor’s budget repair bill, which includes a plan to gut collective bargaining protections for state employees, does not seek to get the state’s fiscal house in order.
Rather, it is seeks a political goal: destroying public employee unions, which demand fair treatment of workers and hold governors of both parties to account when they seek to undermine public services and public education [...]
As state Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, notes, “Wisconsin is hardly ‘open for business’ if businesses can’t attract employees because of a bad employee climate in our state. The government banning employees from negotiating through unions is a radical and dangerous notion that Wisconsin simply shouldn’t embrace. If high-tech and emerging industries can’t attract employees because of our bad employee atmosphere in our state, they certainly won’t locate here.”
Pocan’s not the only one who is suggesting that the plan is “radical.” Responsible Republicans, such as state Sen. Luther Olsen, R-Ripon, are concerned. “The concept is pretty radical,” Olsen says of the Walker proposal. “It affects a lot of good working people.”
Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, says Republican legislators have a “lot of good questions” for Walker’s team.
I had to pull out the Wisconsin thing because one of the main reasons you stated for supporting Democrats is based on a false premise that unions are being unnecessarily "attacked" and are the victims, or whatever. You're going to use commentary from FireDogLake to make your point? The above quote you references is an out and out lie on several accounts.
First of all, the governor's bill will in fact help get the state's fiscal house in order; asking them to pay 5.8% towards their pensions and 12.6% towards their own healthcare will shave $30 million from the budget deficit.
Secondly, the notion that it seeks to "destroy" unions is rediculous; unions will still have every right to operate. What the bill seeks to do (aside from asking for modest contributions to ones' own pension/healthcare) is stop collective bargaining over pensions, while still allowing it for salary and raises. Nobody's taking away any "fundamental rights". The bill would also end forced union dues- members contributions would be voluntary (rather than being automatically jacked from their paychecks). And it would allow an annual vote by members on whether or not they want to keep the union in existence. Is that not reasonable?? I would love it of someone told me, "You gotta pay about 6% of your pension, and the rest of the taxpayers will band together and contribute 94% to it for the rest of your life."
Finally, that Democrat representative Marc Pocan is full of . He's not up in arms over protecting "the workers"... he's feigning outrage so he can protect his campaign contributions. After all, 98% of union campaign contributions go to Democrats, and are their largest overall donors. What kind of an says workers who make 3 times the city's median income level being asked to contribute still less than what private sector employees do creates a bad employee atmosphere!?
Here's the real point that's being lost: public unions are completely unnecessary today. The very nature of public unions- policing the streets, putting out fires, dominating the school workforce- gives them a monopoly. Going on strike can therefore hold the public hostage over basic services until their demands are met... meanwhile, private unions existence is based on the actual marketplace and must be reasonable in what they ask for. This says it all right here:
quote:
Public sector unions are a toxin in our society of recent vintage. Many who argue today that public sector workers have a fundamental right to organize into unions are either deeply ignorant of history or lying through their teeth. While all people in this country have a right to free association and to petition the government, none have a right to force others to join their association and then demand payments from our nations tax payers. Whether public sector workers have the right to organize in America is anything but a "fundamental right" that is sacrosanct and beyond the reach of voters to change. Indeed, as a NYC Judge wrote in 1943:
To tolerate or recognize any combination of civil service employees of the government as a labor organization or union is not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy, but inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded. Nothing is more dangerous to public welfare than to admit that hired servants of the State can dictate to the government the hours, the wages and conditions under which they will carry on essential services vital to the welfare, safety, and security of the citizen. To admit as true that government employees have power to halt or check the functions of government unless their demands are satisfied, is to transfer to them all legislative, executive and judicial power. Nothing would be more ridiculous.
Originally posted by Meat187
Then, however, some genius had the idea to sell those tanks to England. They tried with the bridge, too, but Churchill wasn't interested.
Haha!
quote:
Originally posted by Meat187
I could quote a number of publications underlining how the war was exactly what brought the USA out of the depression and made them the leading economic power, as well some other which critisize debt-financed stimuli on much better examples than a wide-reaching reform like the New Deal. The real estate market or Germany's "Abwrackprämie" (money for buying new cars, which failed to do anything posiive at all). But, as you clearly state
And, do those publications account for the rapid improvement in US GDP well prior to re-armament? I have already stated that WW2 was certainly a contributor to getting out of the depression, through the very same means the ND was also helping. You still haven’t answered my questions. I have never disputed WW2 was the biggest contributor to the US becoming a world power- its kinda hard to come second when the entirety of the developed world was bombed back to the stone age ;)
quote:
Originally posted by Meat187
that you'll simply disregard any contrary opinion, be it from another poster or an economic expert who's probaly more qualified than anyone on TA, there is really no point in any further discussion.
If you paste it here I will read it.
quote:
Originally posted by Meat187
I'll stick to discussing these things with people that regard economics as science, rather than a set of dogmatic beliefs that carry an entire world-view and are not allowed to be challanged by any different thinking.
Economics isn’t science. If it was, we’d already have the exact answers to our discussion. So again, I’m waiting for your response regarding what brought the GDP improvements before WW2 if not, in part, the spending increases for the new deal. You also haven’t addressed the amazing coincidental correlation between leaving a gold standard and economic recovery. But I suspect you had no prior understanding of gold’s role which is why you haven’t covered it yet. Tick tock mofo.
I had to pull out the Wisconsin thing because one of the main reasons you stated for supporting Democrats is based on a false premise that unions are being unnecessarily "attacked" and are the victims, or whatever. You're going to use commentary from FireDogLake to make your point? The above quote you references is an out and out lie on several accounts.
First of all, the governor's bill will in fact help get the state's fiscal house in order; asking them to pay 5.8% towards their pensions and 12.6% towards their own healthcare will shave $30 million from the budget deficit.
Secondly, the notion that it seeks to "destroy" unions is rediculous; unions will still have every right to operate. What the bill seeks to do (aside from asking for modest contributions to ones' own pension/healthcare) is stop collective bargaining over pensions, while still allowing it for salary and raises. Nobody's taking away any "fundamental rights". The bill would also end forced union dues- members contributions would be voluntary (rather than being automatically jacked from their paychecks). And it would allow an annual vote by members on whether or not they want to keep the union in existence. Is that not reasonable?? I would love it of someone told me, "You gotta pay about 6% of your pension, and the rest of the taxpayers will band together and contribute 94% to it for the rest of your life."
Finally, that Democrat representative Marc Pocan is full of . He's not up in arms over protecting "the workers"... he's feigning outrage so he can protect his campaign contributions. After all, 98% of union campaign contributions go to Democrats, and are their largest overall donors. What kind of an says workers who make 3 times the city's median income level being asked to contribute still less than what private sector employees do creates a bad employee atmosphere!?
Here's the real point that's being lost: public unions are completely unnecessary today. The very nature of public unions- policing the streets, putting out fires, dominating the school workforce- gives them a monopoly. Going on strike can therefore hold the public hostage over basic services until their demands are met... meanwhile, private unions existence is based on the actual marketplace and must be reasonable in what they ask for. This says it all right here:
(3) The payment of a contribution by a public employer to the public employees retirement system, the Ohio police and fire pension fund, the state teachers retirement system, or the school employees retirement system on behalf of an employee, contributor, or teacher, as applicable, that the employee, contributor, or teacher otherwise is required to pay.
That text is actually from the bill and it's the only part of it which speaks, specifically, to your portrayal of it. It never does away with collective bargaining, entirely, but it certainly erodes a lot of its standing in the law while also completely disbanding an office of collective bargaining within the state government and allowing for emergency measures to be taken which would supersede any collective bargaining rights and/or agreements. It also impinges, somewhat significantly, on state-worker health plans. That's not exactly just (to paraphrase) 'reducing the capacity of collective bargaining over pensions.'
As to the last quote about collective bargaining no longer being necessary - if that were true, corporate lobbyists ought not to be necessary, either. The claim that public unions maintain monopolies, while not entirely unfounded, as evidenced by California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) lobbying activity, seems surreptitiously oblivious to corporate monopolies allowed for through deregulation.
Zharen
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
they need to lower their standards here get a job.
Great advice there pal. Except that I've already tried applying to retail and restaurant jobs in my town. Problem is, I'm competing with 100 other people even for such a low level job that pays minimum wage that it's pretty much pointless. But hey, you must know more about my own region's unemployment area better than I do, regardless of the fact that I've lived here for 17 years. :rolleyes:
quote:
How does this even show that stimulus money would not have eased teh situation. It doesn't. Imgagine if all teh big banks failed, GM failed. Tons of jobs would be lost and the senario of teh great depression would be a repeat. Its an opportunity cost. You need to borrow money to invest to make more money. Think of it as leverage. How a underprivaldged student gets government loans to become a doctor and in the end pays the government and then some from the taxes he/she pays on his huge revenue. everybody benefits in teh end.
Except for the fact that tuition and supply costs have done nothing but gone up, forcing students to have to cut back on even basic needs such as food just to afford to go to school. And exactly what kind of incentive is there for a student to finish his or her schooling, when they're slapped with a 10-20k bill that they'll have to pay off for the rest of their life after graduating? Not everyone's lucky to qualify for government loans, and they still don't cover the costs of textbooks and parking.
quote:
These people who have "given up" on looking for jobs don't even fit into the equation. They aren't paying taxes they arent looking for jobs they are just sitting on their fat asses doing nothing. So how does this relate to how the economy is doing when you arent even contributing to it or "trying to?"
LOL, here we go again, some pompous blaming the lower class on the current financial mess. Let's see, I didn't work for the banks, nor did I ever hold a job with AIG, I don't work for Wall St and I never sold a subprime mortgage. But regardless of that, it must still be my fault somehow that the banks failed, the mortgage industry went belly up and unemployment skyrocketed. It's great to know that I have such destructive powers. And so now I'm being accused of not contributing anything to the government anymore or trying to help them out of this mess, when in all actuality, they were the ones who brought all of this on in the first place. You're really taking the piss out of me dude. I guess for the 8 other years that I worked and paid my taxes on time like a responsible American means nothing to your kind. And I wouldn't use the stock market as a good indicator of things slowly improving, because they're not. All it shows is that the rich is getting richer, and the poor is getting poorer. But I guess that's what we get because we started THE GREAT RECESSION. :haha:
quote:
its the middle class and especially the upper class who are holding the fort down, bringing down the deficit with the progressive tax rates. These are the people who will open the doors to new jobs for people willing to work.
Umm duh? Wasn't that the whole point of passing tax cuts to the rich? Because that wealth was supposed to trickle down to the rest of us? Except that it's not happening. Nor did it happen when Reagan did the same thing in the 80's.
Here's a good article that's better in showing what's going on in the US right now.
Incomes for 90% of Americans have been stuck in neutral, and it's not just because of the Great Recession. Middle-class incomes have been stagnant for at least a generation, while the wealthiest tier has surged ahead at lighting speed.
In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008, according to IRS data.
Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans -- those making $380,000 or more -- have seen their incomes grow 33% over the last 20 years, leaving average Americans in the dust.
Experts point to some of the usual suspects -- like technology and globalization -- to explain the widening gap between the haves and have-nots.
One major pull on the working man was the decline of unions and other labor protections, said Bill Rodgers, a former chief economist for the Labor Department, now a professor at Rutgers University.
Because of deals struck through collective bargaining, union workers have traditionally earned 15% to 20% more than their non-union counterparts, Rodgers said.
But union membership has declined rapidly over the past 30 years. In 1983, union workers made up about 20% of the workforce. In 2010, they represented less than 12%.
"The erosion of collective bargaining is a key factor to explain why low-wage workers and middle income workers have seen their wages not stay up with inflation," Rodgers said.
Without collective bargaining pushing up wages, especially for blue-collar work -- average incomes have stagnated.
International competition is another factor. While globalization has lifted millions out of poverty in developing nations, it hasn't exactly been a win for middle class workers in the U.S.
Factory workers have seen many of their jobs shipped to other countries where labor is cheaper, putting more downward pressure on American wages.
"As we became more connected to China, that poses the question of whether our wages are being set in Beijing," Rodgers said.
Finding it harder to compete with cheaper manufacturing costs abroad, the U.S. has emerged as primarily a services-producing economy. That trend has created a cultural shift in the job skills American employers are looking for.
Whereas 50 years earlier, there were plenty of blue collar opportunities for workers who had only high school diploma, now employers seek "soft skills" that are typically honed in college, Rodgers said.
A boon for the rich
While average folks were losing ground in the economy, the wealthiest were capitalizing on some of those same factors, and driving an even bigger wedge between themselves and the rest of America.
For example, though globalization has been a drag on labor, it's been a major win for corporations who've used new global channels to reduce costs and boost profits. In addition, new markets around the world have created even greater demand for their products.
"With a global economy, people who have extraordinary skills... whether they be in financial services, technology, entertainment or media, have a bigger place to play and be rewarded from," said Alan Johnson, a Wall Street compensation consultant.
As a result, the disparity between the wages for college educated workers versus high school grads has widened significantly since the 1980s.
In 1980, workers with a high school diploma earned about 71% of what college-educated workers made. In 2010, that number fell to 55%.
Another driver of the rich: The stock market.
The S&P 500 has gained more than 1,300% since 1970. While that's helped the American economy grow, the benefits have been disproportionately reaped by the wealthy.
And public policy of the past few decades has only encouraged the trend.
Nrg2Nfinit
quote:
Originally posted by Zharen
Great advice there pal. Except that I've already tried applying to retail and restaurant jobs in my town. Problem is, I'm competing with 100 other people even for such a low level job that pays minimum wage that it's pretty much pointless. But hey, you must know more about my own region's unemployment area better than I do, regardless of the fact that I've lived here for 17 years. :rolleyes:
keep trying what the hell do you want? If your strategy isn't working try a new one. Clearly you have enough money to sit there and ramble on the internet, why don't you use your time and finances to perhaps start a small business? take a loan against your remaing funds to get some sort of higher acreditation? Do something instead of sit here and complain!
Would you really like to know what would have happend if you didnt get this big stimulous pacakge? Seriously, go look at some reel footage of the great depression and that will stop your complaining quick.
quote:
Except for the fact that tuition and supply costs have done nothing but gone up, forcing students to have to cut back on even basic needs such as food just to afford to go to school. And exactly what kind of incentive is there for a student to finish his or her schooling, when they're slapped with a 10-20k bill that they'll have to pay off for the rest of their life after graduating? Not everyone's lucky to qualify for government loans, and they still don't cover the costs of textbooks and parking.
It's called an opportunity cost? And can't you write off any student loan interest expense from your income tax (assuming you eventually get a job?)
quote:
LOL, here we go again, some pompous blaming the lower class on the current financial mess. Let's see, I didn't work for the banks, nor did I ever hold a job with AIG, I don't work for Wall St and I never sold a subprime mortgage. But regardless of that, it must still be my fault somehow that the banks failed, the mortgage industry went belly up and unemployment skyrocketed. It's great to know that I have such destructive powers. And so now I'm being accused of not contributing anything to the government anymore or trying to help them out of this mess, when in all actuality, they were the ones who brought all of this on in the first place. You're really taking the piss out of me dude. I guess for the 8 other years that I worked and paid my taxes on time like a responsible American means nothing to your kind. And I wouldn't use the stock market as a good indicator of things slowly improving, because they're not. All it shows is that the rich is getting richer, and the poor is getting poorer. But I guess that's what we get because we started THE GREAT RECESSION. :haha:
what the hell more do you want? the tax rates are progrssive meaning that the rich who are getting richer have to fork over a larger percentage of their wealth compared to those who are poorer. That is already a somewhat dissapointing incentive to prosper in a country, but you don't see them complaining as to why they have to discard close to 50% of their income when they fall into a higher tax bracket.
And that is fine, i think its the right thing to do but it's ridiculous to try to put the pressure on these guys even more. you want to tax them 99%?? really:? what would be the incentive then to prosper??
The stock market is a good indicator as it shows what consumers are doing to contribute to teh revenues of companies. You do realize that when you work you are providing a service of some sort which someone will consume correct? what better way to guage that by a list of publicly traded companies who disclose full financials? There are tons of other statistical indicators such as labor force unemployment which i showed is on the decline for those still looking for jobs. Look at other countries who have employed the same tactic of using stimulous money to create jobs. CAnada (where i live) for instance is sitting at employment levels as well as several other indicators indicators which show improvement over pre recession levels.
What more do you want? Perhaps you don't like the system? So if you want more free diapers i suggest you move to a communist country of some sort where the bread maker makes as much as the cheif financial officer of a company, everyone is fine and dandy and there is no incentive to improve, compete and innovate. So enough with the joking aroudn here i just hope one day you realize you are actually living in a capitalist country.
quote:
Umm duh? Wasn't that the whole point of passing tax cuts to the rich? Because that wealth was supposed to trickle down to the rest of us? Except that it's not happening. Nor did it happen when Reagan did the same thing in the 80's.
of course its happening! how do you think all the public companies are racking in higher and higher revenues?? There are obviously consumers out there LOCAL consumers who are spending which in turn, one would hope, are making money and not just living beyond their means. The market just doesnt go up for no reason you know. It goes up because the value of the companies increase due to how they preform. My suggestion for you, since you clearly aren't living on the streets and have a shirt on your back, is to quit waiting for handouts, reform your strategy and get out tehre and get a job. It's competitive out there but it doesnt mean that it isn't fair, or you deserve more. Clearly you do deserve more but you have to work for it and get your foot in the door, just like everyone else.
EddieZilker
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
That's a pretty convoluted mythology, you got there. You've got the how things should work down pat, but have left out how they actually work, altogether.
That text is actually from the bill and it's the only part of it which speaks, specifically, to your portrayal of it.
I thought we were talking about Wisconsin? You posted text about Ohio?
Anyway, the c0r version is this: public sector unions need to be scaled back, as their pay and benefit packages are absolutely unsustainable and unrealistic. Public sector unions have become a burden on our entire country's economy, are totally unnecessary, and while everyone is sacrificing they refuse to. Their contracts get negotiated by politicians who they pay massive sums of money to, and are long gone from office by the time the bill comes due. Absent from those negotiations are the taxpayer. What it boils down to is this: who owns our government? Is it the voters in their exercise of democracy, or is it the unions as part of a permanent Democrat entitlement? Do the voters excise control of the economic future of their locales and states? Or is their vote trumped by the public sector unions and their Democrat Party constituency. That said, for the professional Left, questions of democracy are shown to be irrelevant here, as their Senators have fled the state to avoid the actual democratic process of voting. For the Democrat Party, this is all about preserving their single most important cash cow.
I salute the governor for respecting the desires of the voters to elected him, and being one of the first people to face up to the tough choices we have to make to get our fiscal house in order. We can't kick the can down the road any longer.
ps- do you speak in real life with the same style that you write? lol... neither do I. ;)
Nrg2Nfinit
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
That's a pretty convoluted mythology, you got there. You've got the how things should work down pat, but have left out how they actually work, altogether.
no system is perfect, the thesis here for my points are that stimulus money did infact help and the US would be better with it than without it.
EddieZilker
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
I thought we were talking about Wisconsin? You posted text about Ohio?
Anyway, the c0r version is this: public sector unions need to be scaled back, as their pay and benefit packages are absolutely unsustainable and unrealistic. Public sector unions have become a burden on our entire country's economy, are totally unnecessary, and while everyone is sacrificing they refuse to. Their contracts get negotiated by politicians who they pay massive sums of money to, and are long gone from office by the time the bill comes due. Absent from those negotiations are the taxpayer. What it boils down to is this: who owns our government? Is it the voters in their exercise of democracy, or is it the unions as part of a permanent Democrat entitlement? Do the voters excise control of the economic future of their locales and states? Or is their vote trumped by the public sector unions and their Democrat Party constituency. That said, for the professional Left, questions of democracy are shown to be irrelevant here, as their Senators have fled the state to avoid the actual democratic process of voting. For the Democrat Party, this is all about preserving their single most important cash cow.
I salute the governor for respecting the desires of the voters to elected him, and being one of the first people to face up to the tough choices we have to make to get our fiscal house in order. We can't kick the can down the road any longer.
ps- do you speak in real life with the same style that you write? lol... neither do I. ;)
!! I binged and googled it and was working on something else, at the time. I can't find the comprehensive text of the Wisconsin Bill and am devoting most of my attention to Libya. I've even turned off my DAW so I can listen to Al Jazeera. When I can review that bill, I'll get back to this. I'm pissed that I missed that crucial piece of info because the (yeah - I know it's my fault) who blogged about Ohio's poorly written pile of legal poop made sure he had the word, Wisconsin, at the top of his text.
And yes, I do (sometimes) speak like I write. Only, I tend to keep it shorter. The thing is that I tend to write like I think so it just kind of comes, naturally, that way.
Enjoy your schadenfreude while I have a helping of humble pie. I have been served.:whip:
EddieZilker
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
no system is perfect, the thesis here for my points are that stimulus money did infact help and the US would be better with it than without it.
I agree that the stimulus did work at preventing a financial calamity. The text I was referring to looked more like an ironic tough love lecture.
I suppose you want something in your win column, tonight, as well? :mad:
;)
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
Enjoy your schadenfreude while I have a helping of humble pie. I have been served.:whip:
haha... nah man, you're one of the good guys around here. it was an honest mistake. I make plenty of 'em! :toocool:
Quazar
I got some money back, and am taxed a little less.
Also, I'll leave this here. The first 30 minutes or so is the important part, it explains how money in the US works. After that it begins to move into a lot of rhetoric. Still good, though.
