• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Walker takes broad swipe at public employee unions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Donc answered the question, you aren't mature enough to admit you are wrong. Teachers are funded by the school board who gets their revenue from taxes collected from the people in their district thus teachers are funded by the taxpayers as are ALL public employees.
hmmm...mature enough to admit when wrong...wasnt it you in another thread, when shown repeatedly you were wrong, by, who was it...redress?....that wouldnt admit to be wrong? wasnt it you that had your own job data used against you?...you were wrong, when are you going to be 'mature ' enough to admit it?
 
So let me see if I have this right, school teachers had no idea what they were getting into when they went into the field? Have you ever created a job in your life? How do you decide what to pay someone for their service? Where does personal responsibility like in your world?

WTF are you talking about? Your post makes no sense. Are you hitting the sauce?
 
It's simply more efficient to run a hierarchical business. If you want inefficient, your business will lose. It's that simple (in general)

$1M can motivate a single, ambitious and capable individual to create real business growth and sustainability.
Paying that money out to 1000 employees as a $1K bonus each would not create significant growth of that business or contribute anywhere near the stability of a good CEO at the helm.
The business won't exist without the capable leader, but it will exist if they don't get the $1K bonus that year.

Now, take it one step further, and you are actually in competition. If you were such a fool as to divvy the $1M up and not get a good CEO, guess what? The competitor down the road did get the good CEO. They now are putting you out of business. $1K isn't enough to lure away all his employees fast enough to help either. All those $1K bonuses will make a good start on the severance packages you now have to pay to all the employees at the firm you just sunk. Failure.

That's why we don't need politicians and public employees trying to tell the business community how to run a business.
 
Thank you, finally an honest answer, and the answer to yours most of it comes from private sector employees that constitute most of the work force who get their money as pay for selling products or services to other members of the public. Maybe you ought to take a finance and economic course.

Then using your logic, the private sector is indirectly filtering the money thru the taxing entities to the unions then?AND, if someone that happens to work for a….well, any of these.. buys a bag of pot then its indirectly being paid for by whom?:roll:


It helps when I put my winger ten-foil hat on occasionally.:lamo
 
private unions are bargaining against companies whose goal is to maximize profits. The public and the government really don't have a proper interest in that dispute.

however public employee unions are not bargaining against such entities but rather the taxpayers and the public interest. The argument for abolishing public sector unions is in the interest of the country
 
It is--as a result of those subsidies, other people's (or your kids') taxes will be increased to cover it.

Sorry, my kids and yours if you have any will be paying for the excessive spending not the tax cuts to businesses that employ people who pay taxes.
 
So you think someone with a bachelors degree in the public sector should get paid the same as someone with just a high school diploma in the private sector?

That sounds like socialist thinking. Ptif219 a socialist :shock:
 
If I feel I am ripped off by a company I don't buy from them thus don't create any revenue that is used to pay CEO's. No such luck paying the Federal or State governments

That is only because you will not exercise your rights to deny the government your money or even any authority over you ..... and you most certainly can do that ..... if you really care to beyond just bluffing.
 
hmmm...mature enough to admit when wrong...wasnt it you in another thread, when shown repeatedly you were wrong, by, who was it...redress?....that wouldnt admit to be wrong? wasnt it you that had your own job data used against you?...you were wrong, when are you going to be 'mature ' enough to admit it?

Keep diverting, I wasn't wrong but when I am I admit it. Suggest you read the entire thread as I backed up my statements with data. You have yet to explain where union employees get their money.
 
private unions are bargaining against companies whose goal is to maximize profits. The public and the government really don't have a proper interest in that dispute.

however public employee unions are not bargaining against such entities but rather the taxpayers and the public interest. The argument for abolishing public sector unions is in the interest of the country

And the opinion stated in the last sentence is the crux of the dilemma in Wi. What is the wrong with bargain for working conditions for firefighters or police when you have a no strike clause in place?
 
That seems reasonable. I am not sure it is fair to say that teachers work 40 hours a week since most work 8am-3pm and have plenty of work to do out of class (but I am sure that over 40 hours a week is true for most jobs).

The other question though is what is wrong with teachers earning a bit more than the average of degrees? Consider that most common degree Bachelors in Arts (for Business). Business degrees are a dime a dozen and are relatively easy to attain. Why shouldn't teachers be paid more than those people?

I don't have a problem with teachers making good money..........but

I don't believe teachers should be forced to join a union if they don't want to

I don't believe the state should be forced to collect union dues from paychecks. If the teachers had to write a check to the union, they would have to actually think about that $1,000 a year.

I don't believe teachers should get a pension, but get a 401K like the rest of us that they contribute to with a small matching sum by the state.

I believe teachers should have to pay the average amount for their insurance as paid by employees in private business.

Pay raises should be tied to the CPI, years of service, and their student's progression.
 
Keep diverting, I wasn't wrong but when I am I admit it. Suggest you read the entire thread as I backed up my statements with data. You have yet to explain where union employees get their money.
you were wrong, and your own charts proved you wrong...NEXT!!
 
Then using your logic, the private sector is indirectly filtering the money thru the taxing entities to the unions then?AND, if someone that happens to work for a….well, any of these.. buys a bag of pot then its indirectly being paid for by whom?:roll:


It helps when I put my winger ten-foil hat on occasionally.:lamo

Thus the reason that public unions should never be able to collective bargain with taxpayers. FDR got it right.
 
Its no longer amusing, as it once was, to see the feigned ignorance of some on this issue pretending with a straight face that public employees are neither taxpayers or citizens and are somehow The Other as if they just landed from another planet.
 
you were wrong, and your own charts proved you wrong...NEXT!!

No, you don't know how to read a chart just like you don't know where the money comes from to pay public employees but as you stated, you really don't care. That says it all.
 
The argument for abolishing public sector unions is in the interest of the country

No, thats just nationalist rhetoric meant to hide the fact that if there were no public sector unions, it would just create a new market for people to exploit.
 
Its no longer amusing, as it once was, to see the feigned ignorance of some on this issue pretending with a straight face that public employees are neither taxpayers or citizens and are somehow The Other as if they just landed from another planet.

Who said public employees aren't taxpayers? Wonder what their tax rates would be if they didn't have to help fund their own union?
 
Its no longer amusing, as it once was, to see the feigned ignorance of some on this issue pretending with a straight face that public employees are neither taxpayers or citizens and are somehow The Other as if they just landed from another planet.
Amen brother
 
Thus the reason that public unions should never be able to collective bargain with taxpayers. FDR got it right.

Do you know how long it has been since FDR was President? That America no longer exists. Get over it. MNy calendar reads 2011. How about yours? Besides, you attempting to hijack FDR for your own extremist right wing position is laughable to anyone who has read your true feelings about him and the many programs he created for America and its people.
 
Who said public employees aren't taxpayers? Wonder what their tax rates would be if they didn't have to help fund their own union?

It has been part and parcel of this discussion in this an the 386 other threads on Wisconsin for the last two weeks.
 
Do you know how long it has been since FDR was President? That America no longer exists. Get over it. MNy calendar reads 2011. How about yours? Besides, you attempting to hijack FDR for your own extremist right wing position is laughable to anyone who has read your true feelings about him and the many programs he created for America and its people.

Do YOU know how long its been since 14 year olds were forced to work and workers were forced to buy everything from the "company store"??? THAT was the time when unions had a use, and it was a long time ago.
 
Thus the reason that public unions should never be able to collective bargain with taxpayers. FDR got it right.


Your overdue for your afternoon nap ole man, I posted a letter explaining how FDR felt about public sector unions. Evidently you forgot.
 
Last edited:
And the opinion stated in the last sentence is the crux of the dilemma in Wi. What is the wrong with bargain for working conditions for firefighters or police when you have a no strike clause in place?

because unlike real unions that not only bargain on behalf of their employees against (when it comes to individual workers) a much stronger entity, but also train and guarantee the work of their members, everything a public sector union does is contrary to the good of the country

I deal with Pub Sector unions constantly. One of the reasons why the US Postal Service leaked a billion or two dollars last year was the unions. From the inability to fire not just incompetent -but often criminally dangerous employees-to the bloated overtime and benefits, all the Unions do is drive up costs and limit efficiency
 
MaggieD said:
Correction: It's a Ginned-Up "Crisis," but Scott Walker Isn't Entirely to Blame for Wisconsin's Budget Gap

It's been widely reported that Scott Walker inherited a $120 million budget surplus, and then promptly created a budget deficit in order to break the backs of Wisconsin's public employees' unions. On Friday, I quoted Ezra Klein of the Washington Post explaining that Walker had " 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 turned a surplus into a deficit."

Politifact did an analysis of this issue which shows that Walker in fact inherited a manageable, long-term budget gap and then spun it as an imminent crisis that must be addressed this year.

The reports stem from a a Jan. 31, 2011 memo prepared by Robert Lang, the director of the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, that was picked up by the Associated Press and a number of other outlets. It does state that Wisconsin was on course for a surplus this year, which the media reported that in good faith. The issue is what Politifact refers to as the memo's "fine print."

[It] outlines $258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal.

The result, by our math and Lang’s, is the $137 million shortfall.

I don't think that this really answers the point. The alternet journalist was making a correction to his facts for completeness, but these considerations don't change the fact that governor Walker offered significant tax cuts to corporations that really didn't need them, creating a much larger and more immediate problem. He is using the result of that action to argue his case now.

I'm not a partisan. Dems do the same sort of thing. This is politics in America, and I don't mind saying that it sucks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom