Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Wisconsin state politics LOL!

Wisconsin state politics LOL! (Page 5)
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2011, 12:37 PM
 
Wow! A link from corporate America's rag, the Wall Street Journal! What it didn't say is that, while public unions grew in the 1960s and 1970s, union membership today is at it's lowest point in many decades (which would necessarily mean that even public unions have less membership than ever, and less sway). A convenient point to overlook, I think, as the gullible still won't see that the proposals in WI (and other states) are nothing less than an attack on the middle class. It appears that some people will cut off their nose, to spite their face.
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2011, 01:30 PM
 
Union workers are no better than non-union workers. The "Attack on the Middle Class" is BS right out of the White House. If the unions don't pay their fair share like the Dems are telling everyone else, perhaps Unions need to go away. Collective bargaining is BS anyway. When a union strikes it not only hurts the employer, but all the local businesses that need the rest of the economic activity so they can stay in business. Unions do more harm than good. Why shouldn't each employee go through a review and have the opportunity to get fired for being a slack? Unions protect slacks and also have the additional costs associated with paying for the thugs and union bosses who don't contribute to the employers. Laws are on the books to protect all workers now, so they don't have another argument to use.
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2011, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Union workers are no better than non-union workers. The "Attack on the Middle Class" is BS right out of the White House. If the unions don't pay their fair share like the Dems are telling everyone else, perhaps Unions need to go away. Collective bargaining is BS anyway. When a union strikes it not only hurts the employer, but all the local businesses that need the rest of the economic activity so they can stay in business. Unions do more harm than good. Why shouldn't each employee go through a review and have the opportunity to get fired for being a slack? Unions protect slacks and also have the additional costs associated with paying for the thugs and union bosses who don't contribute to the employers. Laws are on the books to protect all workers now, so they don't have another argument to use.
Why do you always look at others as stereotypes? Do you live in a soap opera?
Gee, who's quote is that?
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2011, 01:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Sure, I don't even watch TV, but if you say so

-t
Gotta love people that claim that.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2011, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Perhaps the solution would be for the US government to introduce regulations that say that if a company wants to do business in the US then X% of its workforce must be in the US. We have to keep in mind that corporations ... especially multi-nationals ... aren't in the business of pursuing what's in the best interest of the people of the United States. They are in the business of pursuing what's in the immediate financial interests of its shareholders. It's the job of the US government to look out for the US. I hardly see how allowing companies that do business in the US to ship out more and more jobs overseas is in the best interest of the US. And giving companies tax breaks to do it is beyond retarded.
We're in almost complete agreement. The thing I'd ask is, how do you think it plays out to couple what you say above, with the constant call to saddle all US businesses with the blame for debt created by out of control government spending, and the constant mantra of "TAX THEM!" "TAX THEM!"

On the one hand, you want to regulate that if you do business in the US, you must use a certain percentage of US workers.

But then on the next, it's "Now that we've got or kept you here, BAM!!! We get to blame you for everything, twist the screws, tax you up the wazoo, and keep on spending and spending so we can keep blaming you and coming after you for the debt!"

I don't understand how its possible to square those two things. We've either got to recognize that businesses that can pick up and leave need INCENTIVES to stay, as well as regulations that dictate what they must do if they do stay, or we're going to lose more and more jobs overseas as the incentives are pushed in that direction. You can't have it both ways.

In my industry, all the tax money that was once collected in the US from the positions that now only exist outside the country are GONE. That was money that stayed in the US, and benefited the US middle class. Those middle class wages and tax dollars paid on those wages and property are GONE forever. Even the union dues paid on those wages are gone forever. It would have been in EVERYONE's best interests- workers, government, unions- to have given the businesses incentives to stick around, not to push them to outsource.

One thing about outsourcing that many don't realize- it's not the instant profit gain that many think. In my industry, it took many years to become profitable. Most of the studios died off. When we were kids, there were companies making cartoons like Rankin Bass, Ruby Spears, Filmation, Hanna Barbara (any of these ringing any bells, if you watched sat morning and after school cartoons in the 70's or 80's?) and a few dozen others. They ALL made their products right here in the good ol' USA, using 100% US talent, and today, they're gone, all killed off after the switch to outsourcing.

My industry wasn't chomping at the bit to outsource pre '83 strike- it's incredibly costly. It actually added an enormous overhead in dealing with the distances involved between pre and post production, overcoming the cultural differences, etc. (People think it's frustrating and challenging to do customer service over the phone with people that barely speak your language or understand your culture, try doing major business that way!)

The fact is, in the case of my industry, the unions were the deciding factor that made the shift possible, and the results speak for themselves- most of the players didn't make out like bandits- they WENT OUT OF BUSINESS and the entire US market for animation as it previously existed died.

And for those who think the industry decline was due to a decline in demand, the demand actually increased two fold with the rise of cable TV and entire networks devoted to animation content. Hell, before Cartoon Net, Nick, Boomerang, etc. just producing programming for one morning a week was basically fueling the jobs of tens of thousands of people. Today, if not for the unions pushing things overseas, the number of US citizens doing jobs producing all the increased network content could be massive. Instead, only people overseas are benefiting from it all. Thanks again, Unions!

And as for the tax code being set up to FAVOR companies outsourcing, why on earth do you imagine it would be written that way, unless the government is somehow in bed with the companies it's pushing to outsource?

It's easy to see where the profit motive for the company is, but where is it for the government? If you're outsourcing jobs, you're also outsourcing state and federal TAX DOLLARS- by the boatload- that those jobs would have been paying in the US. If you're taxing corporate profits, then you're also losing money there, because part of the point of outsourcing is paying a much reduced rate since you're also likely exploiting offshore tax havens and loopholes.

So basically, the government is pushing to slit its own throat, as well as that of the US worker? I mean, I don't put it past them, but really, where exactly is the incentive, unless it has to do with individual members of government being the beneficiaries by sharing directly in the ill-gained corporate profits?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2011, 06:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
"...The union chief for teachers, transit workers or firemen knows that the city is not going to close the schools, buses or firehouses."
Except when the city closes schools, buses, and firehouses like they're doing right now.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2011, 07:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Except when the city closes schools, buses, and firehouses like they're doing right now.
Stop bringing your pesky facts to this discussion.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2011, 11:22 PM
 
Some highlights from Gov. Walker's budget ....

- Cut nearly 900 million from public education, while simultaneously prohibiting local districts from raising taxes ... even with voter consent ... to restore funding.

- Massively expand the Milwaukee school voucher program while eliminating the income caps for participation.

Budget cuts $834 million from schools - JSOnline

This man is looking to decimate public education in Wisconsin and at the same time use taxpayers money to subsidize the wealthy sending their kids to private schools. Wow. Just wow!

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 12:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
This man is looking to decimate public education in Wisconsin and at the same time use taxpayers money to subsidize the wealthy sending their kids to private schools. Wow. Just wow!

OAW
Not really surprising. The new Republicans don't really want equal education for all.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 12:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
- Massively expand the Milwaukee school voucher program while eliminating the income caps for participation.

Budget cuts $834 million from schools - JSOnline

This man is looking to decimate public education in Wisconsin and at the same time use taxpayers money to subsidize the wealthy sending their kids to private schools. Wow. Just wow!
You're so full of crap. Since when are school vouchers for rich kids ?

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 12:11 AM
 
What I don't understand is how the arguments went from looking at alleged high salaries in Wisconsin, and how this came the notion that teachers salaries are high and money is wasted on teachers nationally because of the unions, and therefore the only solution is to destroy the unions. If this isn't the arguments and unions are working in other states, why do they have to be destroyed in Wisconsin to make Wisconsin work?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 12:30 AM
 
Because Governor Walker just made one of the first prominent moves toward destroying unions. It's going to happen in many other states that have Republican governors as well. This is all about union busting, plain and simple. Walker, and his Republican cronies think they're entitled to all the money they can get their hands on. They decry entitlements, yet they want theirs at the same time. This is about a war against the middle class.
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 04:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
This is about a war against the middle class.
Always has been, and the dumb f%$ks voted them in.
Only in America eh?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 07:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Not really surprising. The new Republicans don't really want equal education for all.
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
You're so full of crap. Since when are school vouchers for rich kids ?

-t
In 2009, the Democrats ended a very successful voucher program in the DC area.
'Potential' Disruption? - washingtonpost.com

Last week, the Democrat-controlled House passed a spending bill that spells the end, after the 2009-10 school year, of the federally funded program that enables poor students to attend private schools with scholarships of up to $7,500. A statement signed by Mr. Obey as Appropriations Committee chairman that accompanied the $410 billion spending package directs D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee to "promptly take steps to minimize potential disruption and ensure smooth transition" for students forced back into the public schools.
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 07:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What I don't understand is how the arguments went from looking at alleged high salaries in Wisconsin, and how this came the notion that teachers salaries are high and money is wasted on teachers nationally because of the unions, and therefore the only solution is to destroy the unions. If this isn't the arguments and unions are working in other states, why do they have to be destroyed in Wisconsin to make Wisconsin work?
We've not encountered this much FUD and dishonesty around a topic since Arizona's SB-1050.
They're decimating the unions!
They're decimating the school system!
We're going to have stupid kids!
This is all for rich people!
This is a war against the Middle Class!
This is a war against teachers!

There are at least 5 states in which collective bargaining is not provided and this has not "decimated" public unions, or the middle class, or teachers, or the school system, and their children aren't any less productive in class than in other states.

In the meantime you've got union thugs cornering lawmakers at the door of the State House with some yelling PEACEFUL! to try to calm the slobbering mobs. These angry, vitriolic people with their mean-spirited signage and shouting matches make the "angry" Tea Partiers look like a bunch of stuffed animals. Where are all the calls of batsh!t crazy? Where are all the calls of racism? Where are all the folks decrying the environment of shouting matches at townhall meetings and anger?
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 09:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
There are at least 5 states in which collective bargaining is not provided and this has not "decimated" public unions, or the middle class, or teachers, or the school system, and their children aren't any less productive in class than in other states.
Do you have any rights you'd like to give up? Didn't think so.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 09:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Do you have any rights you'd like to give up? Didn't think so.
*sigh*

And I'd like a pink pony.

-t
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 10:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Not really surprising. The new Republicans don't really want equal education for all.
WRONG! It has to do with the amount spent on education as the UNION TEACHERS want it, while the results are inversely proportional to that amount spent. Obviously, the teachers unions are at fault. Repubs have wanted accountability from the unions but you still can't fire crappy teachers or reward good teachers because of the unions. They cost too much for what they are currently delivering. Teachers will actually try or be fired if they can get rid of collective bargaining agreements. Its about time teachers have to sell themselves individually instead of being just union thugs.
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 10:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
Always has been, and the dumb f%$ks voted them in.
Only in America eh?
Again with the stereotypes?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 11:41 AM
 
With all the focus on Wisconsin, Ohio's bill is headed to the house.
Union bill whizzing through Ohio Legislature - Yahoo! News
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 11:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Except when the city closes schools, buses, and firehouses like they're doing right now.
Yes, at a tremendous cost to everyone. But I'm sure that these services won't be able to stay closed long - even if they have to reopen with non-union workers (gasp).
He can be fixed -- you can't.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 01:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
You're so full of crap. Since when are school vouchers for rich kids ?

-t
Full of crap? Spoken like someone who didn't bother to read the linked article. Generally speaking you are right. School vouchers are usually targeted to poor families to presumably enable them to send their kids to a private school if the district they are in is failing. But per the article here ... and as I said earlier ... Gov. Walker is looking to remove the income cap that determines eligibility to participate in the school voucher program.

The governor's 2011-'13 budget proposal would phase out the income requirements of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, eliminate the enrollment cap on student participation, and allow Milwaukee families to use their publicly funded voucher to attend any private school in Milwaukee County that wished to participate in the program.
Budget cuts $834 million from schools - JSOnline

So what is the practical impact of such a move? Let's assume a family wants to send their child to a really good private school where the tuition is about 15K. And while this is not an average tuition it's certainly not unrealistic because I'm a product of a private school and my alma mater is in this range these days. Now suppose the state then says that any family ... regardless of income ... can get an 8K voucher to send their child to any private school. A wealthy family that would have had to pay 15K per year now only has to pay 7K per year. So how is that not public tax money subsidizing a wealthy kid's private school education?

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 01:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
With all the focus on Wisconsin, Ohio's bill is headed to the house.
Union bill whizzing through Ohio Legislature - Yahoo! News
Indeed. Dare we say this was "rammed" through despite the objections of GOP state senators in Ohio who felt that this was overreach?

It took the removal of two -- count 'em -- union-sympathetic Republicans from Ohio state Senate committees, but supporters of Gov. John Kasich's (R) plan to limit collective bargaining rights for state workers were able to move their plan one step closer to Kasich's desk today.

By a vote of 7-5, a State Senate Committee charged with reviewing the collective bargaining proposal -- known as Senate Bill 5 -- moved the bill toward a floor reading and its expected passage. Shortly after that, a similarly close vote moved the bill out of the Senate Rules Committee.

The bill is now on the Senate floor and passage is expected imminently. But opponents of the law say the pathway to today's vote shows how hard a sell Kasich's plan is to the broad swath of voters in the Buckeye state.

Indeed, the narrow committee victories for supporters of the plan came with some awfully bad optics. In order to ensure a vote that would go Kasich's way, the leader of the GOP-controlled state Senate removed Sen. Bill Seitz (R) from the Insurance and Labor Committee and Sen. Scott Oelslager (R) from the Rules Committee. Both Republicans are opposed to Kasich's collective bargaining plan, and their votes against it would have deadlocked their respective committees, thus keeping the bill from moving ahead.
Ohio GOP Advances Anti-Union Bill After Last Minute Committee Shuffle | TPMDC

In order to get this vote to the floor the bill had to pass two committee votes. So the GOP leadership actually resorted to removing two of their own from theses committees for no other reason than because they opposed this bill. Wow. Just wow!

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 01:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Full of crap? Spoken like someone who didn't bother to read the linked article. Generally speaking you are right. School vouchers are usually targeted to poor families to presumably enable them to send their kids to a private school if the district they are in is failing. But per the article here ... and as I said earlier ... Gov. Walker is looking to remove the income cap that determines eligibility to participate in the school voucher program.
Yes, you ARE full of crap.

Removing the income cap does NOT favor the rich (if you understand the word "favor").
It just gives equal access to vouchers for everybody, just like public schools are for everybody, rich and poor.

You saying that Walker would "use taxpayers money to subsidize the wealthy sending their kids to private schools" is disingenuous at best.

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Now suppose the state then says that any family ... regardless of income ... can get an 8K voucher to send their child to any private school. A wealthy family that would have had to pay 15K per year now only has to pay 7K per year. So how is that not public tax money subsidizing a wealthy kid's private school education?
You fail to look at the total picture: a kid (rich or poor) using the voucher will NOT pose a burden on the public school system. It's either / or. All you give is choice.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 01:55 PM
 
Oh, and just that you know I'm right (and you are wrong), here the avg. cost per student (Total Current Educational Cost (TCEC) in WI:

2007/08: $11,894
2008/09: $12,346

Comparative Cost Per Member
Look at Summary Computation (2007-08 to 2008-09)

Handing out vouchers saves WI on avg. $ 4,000 per student !!!

-t
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 02:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Oh, and just that you know I'm right (and you are wrong), here the avg. cost per student (Total Current Educational Cost (TCEC) in WI:

2007/08: $11,894
2008/09: $12,346

Comparative Cost Per Member
Look at Summary Computation (2007-08 to 2008-09)

Handing out vouchers saves WI on avg. $ 4,000 per student !!!

-t
You and your silly facts.

http://maciverinstitute.com/wp-conte...Fast_Facts.pdf

cause we're not quite "the fuzz"
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
We've not encountered this much FUD and dishonesty around a topic since Arizona's SB-1050.
They're decimating the unions!
They're decimating the school system!
We're going to have stupid kids!
This is all for rich people!
This is a war against the Middle Class!
This is a war against teachers!

There are at least 5 states in which collective bargaining is not provided and this has not "decimated" public unions, or the middle class, or teachers, or the school system, and their children aren't any less productive in class than in other states.

In the meantime you've got union thugs cornering lawmakers at the door of the State House with some yelling PEACEFUL! to try to calm the slobbering mobs. These angry, vitriolic people with their mean-spirited signage and shouting matches make the "angry" Tea Partiers look like a bunch of stuffed animals. Where are all the calls of batsh!t crazy? Where are all the calls of racism? Where are all the folks decrying the environment of shouting matches at townhall meetings and anger?

To be honest, I don't really care about any mobs, just their leadership.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 02:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
To be honest, I don't really care about any mobs, just their leadership.





cause we're not quite "the fuzz"
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 02:25 PM
 
Which states do not have collective bargaining in them, ebuddy?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Lint Police View Post






What has their behavior been like?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 02:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
We're in almost complete agreement. The thing I'd ask is, how do you think it plays out to couple what you say above, with the constant call to saddle all US businesses with the blame for debt created by out of control government spending, and the constant mantra of "TAX THEM!" "TAX THEM!"

On the one hand, you want to regulate that if you do business in the US, you must use a certain percentage of US workers.

But then on the next, it's "Now that we've got or kept you here, BAM!!! We get to blame you for everything, twist the screws, tax you up the wazoo, and keep on spending and spending so we can keep blaming you and coming after you for the debt!"

I don't understand how its possible to square those two things. We've either got to recognize that businesses that can pick up and leave need INCENTIVES to stay, as well as regulations that dictate what they must do if they do stay, or we're going to lose more and more jobs overseas as the incentives are pushed in that direction. You can't have it both ways.
I square these two by trying to focus on the bigger picture. As I indicated in my other thread:

Originally Posted by OAW
Reforming the tax code and implementing a more efficient taxation system that broadens the tax base has to be on the table as well. When nearly half of Americans pay no federal income tax (not to be confused with payroll taxes) and corporations like GE and ExxonMobil that make tens of billions in profit (not revenue) pay no federal income tax I think it's pretty fair to say that the US government has a revenue problem that is just as large, if not larger, than its spending problem.
Without question spending is an issue. But the revenue side of the equation is an issue as well. I truly believe that the US can increase its revenue (along with reducing spending) and address the deficit issue all while lowering the corporate and individual tax rates. We just have to resist the urge to get overly caught up in ideology and throw out the baby with the bath water. IMO ... it makes more sense to collect less taxes from more sources to increase the overall revenue side of the equation.


Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
One thing about outsourcing that many don't realize- it's not the instant profit gain that many think. In my industry, it took many years to become profitable. Most of the studios died off. When we were kids, there were companies making cartoons like Rankin Bass, Ruby Spears, Filmation, Hanna Barbara (any of these ringing any bells, if you watched sat morning and after school cartoons in the 70's or 80's?) and a few dozen others. They ALL made their products right here in the good ol' USA, using 100% US talent, and today, they're gone, all killed off after the switch to outsourcing.
Saturday morning cartoons? Oh yeah I know all about that!

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
And as for the tax code being set up to FAVOR companies outsourcing, why on earth do you imagine it would be written that way, unless the government is somehow in bed with the companies it's pushing to outsource?

It's easy to see where the profit motive for the company is, but where is it for the government? If you're outsourcing jobs, you're also outsourcing state and federal TAX DOLLARS- by the boatload- that those jobs would have been paying in the US. If you're taxing corporate profits, then you're also losing money there, because part of the point of outsourcing is paying a much reduced rate since you're also likely exploiting offshore tax havens and loopholes.

So basically, the government is pushing to slit its own throat, as well as that of the US worker? I mean, I don't put it past them, but really, where exactly is the incentive, unless it has to do with individual members of government being the beneficiaries by sharing directly in the ill-gained corporate profits?
Well you've answered your own question there Crash. It's not the "government" per se ... it's the "politicians". We have representatives and senators in Congress that are supposed to be looking out for the best interests of their constituencies ... but all too often they are looking out for the short-term interests of their political careers at the expense of the long-term interests of their constituencies. I've said it before and I'll say it again ...

A politician's loyalty lies from whence his financing comes.

So when an industry lobby that has contributed heavily to a politician's campaign requests that some legislation include a tax break for their industry outsourcing US jobs ... or when oil companies that are the most profitable corporations in history request that legislation include subsidies for them to operate ... or when industry lobbyists actually author legislation themselves and request their politicians to vote for it ... well who is the pimp and who is the ho?

This is why the US population (including our good friends on the right) will rue the day that the Supreme Court issued its Citizens vs. United ruling. All they did was open the floodgates for virtually unlimited corporate influence over politicians who are supposed to represent all of the people of the United States ... and not just the investor class. It is no accident that we are now witnessing this brazen attack against public unions in Wisconsin and other states. Let's face it ... the Chamber of Commerce for example donates 90% to the GOP ... and public unions do pretty much the same to the Dems. You disenfranchise the unions and the #1 source of political contributions to the Democratic party is gone. Even if you disagree with some things that unions have done over the years ... IMO there is still value in having some sort of checks and balances in the political system. If it were up to me the people would call the shots because they would be the only ones able to contribute to political campaigns or finance political advertising ... and everybody would be subject to a reasonable maximum contribution (e.g. $2500) that wouldn't give the wealthy few undue influence. Corporations, unions, and other organizations would be prohibited from such activities. They could petition the government on behalf of their memberships ... but their influence as "special interests" would be curtailed because they aren't in a position to bankroll a politician's career. Whatever your ideology or political persuasion ... that would be FAIR. An even playing field so that the winners and losers are determined by the battle of ideas as opposed to whoever has the deeper pockets. Unfortunately, that's not the way it is so the best thing to do instead is to maintain some sort of checks and balances among the big dogs in the game. Because if you don't, I truly fear that you GOP supporters that are working a 9-to-5 for a living (even a well paying one) will one day find out that you really aren't in the club when it comes to those that the GOP truly serves.

OAW
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 02:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What has their behavior been like?
You seriously do not know the history of these three and the people that surround them?

cause we're not quite "the fuzz"
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 02:37 PM
 
oh my goodness. more facts "Uncovered"

Scores of Union Leaders Earn Six-Figure Salaries - The Center for Public Integrity

Union treasuries—filled by dues paid by union members—not only fund programs benefiting union members and their families. The money also pays six-figure salaries and benefits for labor leaders and their top staffs, and provides tens of millions of dollars for Democratic causes and candidates.
FOX6 Investigators: Government e-mails reveal plot to stall budget repair bill - WITI

E-mails obtained by the FOX6 Investigators show that the mayor enlisted the help of State Senator Mark Miller. They both tried to convince the Secretary of State to hold up the bill by taking the maximum 10 days allowed by law before publishing the bill.

They were trying to buy some time so they could ratify new contracts to protect workers from benefit cuts. Citizens for Responsible Government Rep. Chris Kliesmet says, "This suggests, and this is a harsh word, collusion. There is collusion between some politicians and public sector employee unions. Period."

cause we're not quite "the fuzz"
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 02:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Yes, you ARE full of crap.

Removing the income cap does NOT favor the rich (if you understand the word "favor").
It just gives equal access to vouchers for everybody, just like public schools are for everybody, rich and poor.
I'm "full of crap" ... when I never said anything about "favoring" the rich? When did I use the word "favor"? Please. Show me. Better yet let me ask you this. Why when I specifically said that Gov. Walker's proposal would ... "use taxpayers money to subsidize the wealthy sending their kids to private schools"... did you feel the need to put words in my mouth and change what I said so that you could argue against it?

Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
You fail to look at the total picture: a kid (rich or poor) using the voucher will NOT pose a burden on the public school system. It's either / or. All you give is choice.
Well that's debatable. Most public school districts state funding is tied to attendance. A child is not in school .... that's a loss of funds for the district. I imagine OldManMac can speak to the particulars of that. So when you have districts where teachers are commonly buying classroom supplies out of their own pockets because of funding shortages .... tax money that goes to send a kid to a private school does have an impact. As for "school choice" itself ... I'm pretty ambivalent about that though I lean against it. One the one hand, there's a part of me that feels that the tax money is there for the benefit of the child and not the benefit of the district. But on the other hand, I recognize that the playing field is not level between public and private schools. A public school has to take everybody. A private school can pick and choose who it wants to admit. Furthermore, what's to stop a private school from pricing its tuition out of reach for a poor family even with a voucher? Absolutely nothing. And let's keep it real. The raison d'etre for many private schools is their uhhh ... "exclusivity". Trust me ... I know. That example I gave earlier would still require a family to fork over 7K in tuition per year. Something that is still out of reach for most lower income families but is a nice little subsidy for a wealthy family that otherwise would have had to pay 15K per year. This is why I tend to be more supportive of charter schools than private school vouchers.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 03:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Which states do not have collective bargaining in them, ebuddy?
For teachers, it's at least TX, VA, SC, GA and NC. Don't know about others.
He can be fixed -- you can't.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 03:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Furthermore, what's to stop a private school from pricing its tuition out of reach for a poor family even with a voucher? Absolutely nothing.
Strawman. Why does it matter ? Walker is not abolishing public schools.

-t
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 03:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Lint Police View Post
You seriously do not know the history of these three and the people that surround them?
Come on, even besson must recognize these folks. Someone is playing coy.

Soros is just fine with capitalism and the American way of life as long as he's in control. His unique gift: he knows how to bring down currency regimes and undermine governments. ADDED: Soros basically figured out how to apply Cloward & Piven to monetary systems, and he's used it well over the years.

Francis Fox Piven is a Lefty academic type who first said it (but I'm sure not the first to THINK it): if you want to bring about radical social change, you have to bankrupt the system by taking it to the extent of its coverage. For example, make sure that everyone who qualifies for food stamps applies for food stamps, and the system will bankrupt itself. Then we can move on to something more progressive, like a national living wage from the government. National Review, 1966, with Cloward. These days she's doing all she can to deny that she's advocated violence and "revolutionary measures" all these years.

And last but not least: Van Jones, ex-Green Jobs Czar. This guy is a piece of work. Denies being a communist unless he's with his communist brethren. Has worked very hard to make sure that unions and communists work together to achieve a better, progressive future.


For what it's worth, Cloward & Piven is a brilliant piece - if you want to destroy a system, take it to its logical conclusions or extensions. THAT was originally espoused by others, of course, including Saul Alinsky. But they do a good job with it. Worth a read. Reading it might help make some of the current WH and adminstration policies snap into focus. Almost genius.

Is there a conspiracy afoot? No more so than when the anti-abortion folks end up being (many of them) Christian. It just so happens that these three people, and their minions and collaborators, are all convinced that America doesn't work, for mostly different reasons. It may LOOK like they're working in concert even if they aren't. They stand for almost the same things, and most of what they stand for goes against capitalism and personal freedom, and toward big government, and government run by their buddies.

The ends justify the means, at least with 1 and 3, they've shown it over and over.

#2 ends up here because she just won't stop trying to deny her past.
( Last edited by finboy; Mar 3, 2011 at 10:09 PM. Reason: thought about it some more)
He can be fixed -- you can't.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 05:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Strawman. Why does it matter ? Walker is not abolishing public schools.

-t
Strawman? This coming from the guy who claimed I said Gov. Walker was "favoring" the wealthy when I said nothing of the sort? And then ducked when I challenged him on it? Oh ... the irony!

OAW
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 05:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
Come on, even besson must recognize these folks. Someone is playing coy.
I had no idea who those folks were and I'm sure I'll forget in a few days. Only hard core political folk would know.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 05:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Strawman? This coming from the guy who claimed I said Gov. Walker was "favoring" the wealthy when I said nothing of the sort? And then ducked when I challenged him on it? Oh ... the irony!
You're such a troll. All you have is stupid leftist ideas, a bleeding heart, but no brains and facts.

I'm done with you.

-t
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 06:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777
Why does it matter ? Walker is not abolishing public schools.
It matters because if this happens then the entire raison d'etre for the school voucher program has been rendered moot. It completely defeats the purpose. The entire justification around these programs is to give kids in failing school districts the option to get a better education. If private schools then increase their tuitions out of range of lower income families even with a voucher .... then the net effect is to subsidize a private school education for those who could already afford it, while the kids from lower income families that the "School Choice" program is presumably designed to assist are still stuck in failing public schools. A "choice" that a family is not in a position to take advantage of is no choice at all.

Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
You're such a troll. All you have is stupid leftist ideas, a bleeding heart, but no brains and facts.

I'm done with you.

-t
Hey ... call me whatever you want but two things are undeniable in this discussion:

A. Unlike you , I know the difference between the words "favor" and "subsidize".

B. Eliminating income caps on school vouchers does, in fact, use taxpayer money to subsidize private school education for wealthy kids.*

Without question you have utterly failed to refute the point that I made. The fact that you are now resorting to personal attacks speaks volumes in and of itself.

OAW

* - And for the record, subsidizing private school for the wealthy does not mean that it's not subsidized for others as well.
( Last edited by OAW; Mar 3, 2011 at 06:37 PM. )
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 08:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Do you have any rights you'd like to give up? Didn't think so.
Collective bargaining to the government, Federal or otherwise, is no more a right than avoiding belligerent imbeciles wrought with Napoleon complex.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 08:55 PM
 
A dozen cookies are put down in front of a CEO, a Tea Partier, and a union member. The CEO grabs 11 then says to the Tea Partier, “That union guy wants your cookie”.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 08:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
To be honest, I don't really care about any mobs, just their leadership.
You authored no posts deriding Tea Party antics then? I'm skeptical. It seems you at least care about some mobs.

Collective bargaining is permissible, but not mandatory in 11 States.
AZ, UT, WY, CO, MO, AR, LA, MS, AL, KY, and WV.

Collective bargaining is illegal in 5 States.
TX, GA, SC, NC, and VA

Federal employees have no collective bargaining.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 09:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
A dozen cookies are put down in front of a CEO, a Tea Partier, and a union member.
The union member looks down at the cookies and says; "so we each get 8 cookies then right?"
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 09:33 PM
 
A CEO, a union steward, and a worker are at a meeting, when a dozen cookies are brought in. The CEO quickly snatches 11 of them, and then turns to the worker and says, "The union is taking your cookies."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 10:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I had no idea who those folks were and I'm sure I'll forget in a few days. Only hard core political folk would know.
Yeah, that's probably true. Except for Soros. I thought everybody knew who he was. After all, he's the one setting the value of your dollar.

Here's a bit from Cloward and Piven that should sound familiar:

"It should also be noted that welfare costs are generally shared by local, state and federal governments, so that the crisis in the cities would intensify the struggle over revenues that is chronic in relations between cities and states. If the past is any predictor of the future, cities will fail to procure relief from this crisis by persuading states to increase their proportionate share of urban welfare costs, for state legislatures have been notoriously unsympathetic to the revenue needs of the city (especially where public welfare and minority groups are concerned)."
( Last edited by finboy; Mar 3, 2011 at 10:11 PM. )
He can be fixed -- you can't.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2011, 12:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
Yeah, that's probably true. Except for Soros. I thought everybody knew who he was. After all, he's the one setting the value of your dollar.

..and possibly raising your fuel bills.
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2011, 12:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Collective bargaining to the government, Federal or otherwise, is no more a right than avoiding belligerent imbeciles wrought with Napoleon complex.
If the government agreed to it, gave you the right and then decides to take it away, that's okay?
In the I'm alright screw you world, I guess it would be.

That last bit you posted just shows again that the deep end has embraced you.
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2011, 12:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Originally Posted by turtle777
You're such a troll. All you have is stupid leftist ideas, a bleeding heart, but no brains and facts.

I'm done with you.

-t
Without question you have utterly failed to refute the point that I made. The fact that you are now resorting to personal attacks speaks volumes in and of itself.

OAW
After that childish outburst, are you going to give him another chance before he ignores you?
Tone it down a bit because he can't handle anything that disrupts his train of, what would you call it, thought? Nah.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:26 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2