• 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.
Galt

could you quote the part where I said that I read or did not read your bible? The portion of my post that you reproduced indicated nothing of the kind either way. How do you get off making judgments about what I have done or not done?

I intentionally used the title because it points to the path we are on. And funny that it is getting there in a directly opposite way that the original author thought we would be . In fct - he was dead wrong and his prediction never came to pass.
 
really-remind me what happened with Reagan vs. Carter. and what was the income tax structure as this Nation became the most prosperous in the world-before all of our competition was bombed flat.

us_debt_history.gif

   U.S. Fourteen Trillion plus debt — Currency, US dollar devaluation, inevitable    Fifteen Trillion soon US owes     The WE Archives  


the-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties.jpg

Strategy, Marketing, Orthogonal thinking, Newton's law | Just another WordPress.com weblog
 
I don't think that's true. Representaitves, governors, and all don't just get their money from union memebers. They get money from business and rich folk as well. On the presentation side, those with more, business and wealthy, have far more representation than working folks do, even with unions.


Jon Stewart explains how the middle class has become the scapegoat for the budget crisis.

Video - Jon Stewart explains how the middle class has become the scapegoat for the budget crisis. - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com

I saw that, its the best explanation I have heard yet!!!! :sun
 
That is why Reagan is so highly thought of today, by the majority in this country. If you were there you were just as blinded by an ideology then as you are now.

Yeah we think of Ray-gun every time we the feel the pain from the National debt and the results of peak oil with no alternatives!
 
Last edited:
pardon?



oh, no, of course not




instead invest your credibility in david vines, jon stewart and the drug tested founder of JOURNOLIST

LOL!

Give us your explanation of why the middle class is fast becoming as extent as the dodo bird (Raphus cucullatus) prof.
 
Galt

could you quote the part where I said that I read or did not read your bible? The portion of my post that you reproduced indicated nothing of the kind either way. How do you get off making judgments about what I have done or not done?

I intentionally used the title because it points to the path we are on. And funny that it is getting there in a directly opposite way that the original author thought we would be . In fct - he was dead wrong and his prediction never came to pass.

It is not my bible and comments like that are a great way to end the debate. You haven't read the book. You've already proven that by demonstrating your lack of knowledge about said book. I'm guessing you're trying to back-track now. I'll ask you flat out, have you read it?
 
2010 is included within the data, and at least ONE of us has cited a source. I don't see you coming up with any hard data. And even if you could prove that 2010 was radically different, what difference would that make? My source still proves that for the last 20+ years, democrats have taken the majority of the corporate AND union cake.

I linked to the info previously. At any rate, here it is again and this time from the same site you linked to before regarding your strawman argument:

2010 Outside Spending, by Groups | OpenSecrets

My claim is backed up here that 7 out of 10 of the big money donors were conservative.
 
It is not my bible and comments like that are a great way to end the debate. You haven't read the book. You've already proven that by demonstrating your lack of knowledge about said book. I'm guessing you're trying to back-track now. I'll ask you flat out, have you read it?

I have read about the book. I have read a summary of the book. I have read criticism of the book. i did once pick it up in a bookstore, sat down with it for a bit and thumbed through it reading a bit here and there to get the flavor of it.

I do nto need to ingest the entire buffet table to get an idea of the quality of the food.

I am far more familiar with it and its premise and claims that just someone who has not read the book. So please put that to rest.
 
The tide is turning against Walker

Public Policy Polling: Wisconsin closely divided, but against Walker

Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Wisconsin closely divided, but against Walker
There are two conclusions we can make from our poll on the Wisconsin conflict: the state is very closely divided, but it leans slightly to the union side of things rather than Scott Walker's on pretty much every question we asked.

On the biggest picture question: do you side with Governor Walker or do you side with the public employee unions 51% of voters in the state go with the unions to 47% who stand with the Governor. On another broad question: do you side more with Governor Walker or with the Democrats in the state Senate, 52% of voters go with the Senate Democrats to 47% who go for Walker. And perhaps the clearest indication that Walker has lost a majority of the voters in the state in this conflict, if only a narrow majority, is that 52% of voters now disapprove of him to only 46% who like the job he's doing. Those numbers are basically the inverse of last fall's election results.

When it comes to broader questions about rights for public employees in Wisconsin the margins are less narrow. 57% of voters think that workers should have the right to collectively bargain for wages, benefits, and working environment rules compared to only 37% who think they shouldn't have those rights. And 55% of voters think that public employees should have at least the same rights they have now, if not more, compared to only 41% who believe they should have fewer rights.

Key on both of those questions about rights for public employees is that a majority of both union and non-union households stand with the workers on those issues. Union households support collective bargaining by a 70/26 margin, but non-union households do as well by a narrower 51/42 margin. Union households think public employees should have as many or more rights than they do now by a 66/32 spread, but so do non-union households by a 51/45 one.

Ultimately one of the biggest questions moving forward is whether a recall of Scott Walker would be a viable avenue for pro-union supporters. Right now it looks like it would be a 50/50 proposition. 48% of voters say they would support a recall, while 48% are opposed. That issue's about as polarized on party lines as it could possibly be- 87% of Democrats support a recall, 90% of Republicans are opposed, and independents split narrowly in favor of it by a 48/46 spread. With such a closely divided state Walker's fate would very much be determined by who could better turn their troops out- last year Democrats were asleep at the wheel and let Walker get elected but it might be a whole different story if voters in the state got a chance to do it again.
 
I have read about the book. I have read a summary of the book. I have read criticism of the book. i did once pick it up in a bookstore, sat down with it for a bit and thumbed through it reading a bit here and there to get the flavor of it.

I do nto need to ingest the entire buffet table to get an idea of the quality of the food.

I am far more familiar with it and its premise and claims that just someone who has not read the book. So please put that to rest.

You didn't even know the name of the book I was referencing! You thought I told someone to go down the road to serfdom! LOL.

If you haven't read the book, then your credibility is a flop. I've read the General Theory by Keynes. I've read the Communist Manifesto. I have the necessary credentials to debate such topics. You don't. You're simply spouting your empty opinions and your posts are not worth a response.
 
I linked to the info previously. At any rate, here it is again and this time from the same site you linked to before regarding your strawman argument:

2010 Outside Spending, by Groups | OpenSecrets

My claim is backed up here that 7 out of 10 of the big money donors were conservative.

So, you have one year where conservatives are out-spending liberals. But what do you have to say for the past 20 years?
 
You didn't even know the name of the book I was referencing! You thought I told someone to go down the road to serfdom! LOL.

If you haven't read the book, then your credibility is a flop. I've read the General Theory by Keynes. I've read the Communist Manifesto. I have the necessary credentials to debate such topics. You don't. You're simply spouting your empty opinions and your posts are not worth a response.

What in the world are you babbling on about? Quit acting like a fifth grade kid on the playground. We both know the discussion is about the book THE ROAD TO SERFDOM by Hayek.

As I told you - I have read about it. I have read good summaries of it. I have read academic criticisms of it which summarized all the main points. I have picked it up and looked it over and read passages in it.

I know the damn book kid.

I do not need to swim all the way from NYCity to Liverpoos to know that the water is wet and salty.

You remind me of the gun nuts who try to prove their superior technical knowledge of weapons as a way of silencing their critics.

But so far, all you have done is play games and have said nothing about the actual isse.

But do keep it up.
 
Last edited:
So, you have one year where conservatives are out-spending liberals. But what do you have to say for the past 20 years?

That for the first time in 20 years we have a government that is standing up to corporations. I see this as a good thing. However, if the unions can be busted, that leaves only the corporations as the big money campaign donors. I have see what happens under one party rule and it is not pretty.

Shepard Smith on union busting:

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
 
The American people in solid opposition to what Walker is trying to do in Wisconsin

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/us/01poll.html?_r=1

As labor battles erupt in state capitals around the nation, a majority of Americans say they oppose efforts to weaken the collective bargaining rights of public employee unions and are also against cutting the pay or benefits of public workers to reduce state budget deficits, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Labor unions are not exactly popular, though: A third of those surveyed viewed them favorably, a quarter viewed them unfavorably, and the rest said they were either undecided or had not heard enough about them. But the nationwide poll found that embattled public employee unions have the support of most Americans — and most independents — as they fight the efforts of newly elected Republican governors in Wisconsin and Ohio to weaken their bargaining powers, and the attempts of governors from both parties to cut their pay or benefits. Americans oppose weakening the bargaining rights of public employee unions by a margin of nearly two to one: 60 percent to 33 percent. While a slim majority of Republicans favored taking away some bargaining rights, they were outnumbered by large majorities of Democrats and independents who said they opposed weakening them.

Those surveyed said they opposed, 56 percent to 37 percent, cutting the pay or benefits of public employees to reduce deficits, breaking down along similar party lines. A majority of respondents who have no union members living in their households opposed both cuts in pay or benefits and taking away the collective bargaining rights of public employees.

Governors in both parties have been making the case that public workers are either overpaid or have overly generous health and pension benefits. But 61 percent of those polled — including just over half of Republicans — said they thought the salaries and benefits of most public employees were either “about right” or “too low” for the work they do.

When it came to one of the most debated, and expensive, benefits that many government workers enjoy but private sector workers do not — the ability to retire early, and begin collecting pension checks — Americans were closely divided. Forty-nine percent said police officers and firefighters should be able to retire and begin receiving pension checks even if they are in their 40s or 50s; 44 percent said they should have to be older. There was a similar divide on whether teachers should be able to retire and draw pensions before they are 65.

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Feb. 24-27 with 984 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all adults. Of those surveyed, 20 percent said there was a union member in their household, and 25 percent said there was a public employee in their household.

Tax increases were not as unpopular among those surveyed as they are among many governors, who have vowed to avoid them. Asked how they would choose to reduce their state’s deficits, those polled preferred tax increases over benefit cuts for state workers by nearly two to one. Given a list of options to reduce the deficit, 40 percent said they would increase taxes, 22 percent chose decreasing the benefits of public employees, 20 percent said they would cut financing for roads and 3 percent said they would cut financing for education.

The most contentious issue to emerge in the recent labor battles has been the question of collective bargaining rights. A proposal by Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin to weaken them sent Democratic state lawmakers out of state to prevent a vote, flooded the Capitol in Madison with thousands of protesters and sparked a national discussion about unions.

The poll found that an overwhelming 71 percent of Democrats opposed weakening collective bargaining rights. But there was also strong opposition from independents: 62 percent of them said they opposed taking bargaining rights away from public employee unions.
 
That for the first time in 20 years we have a government that is standing up to corporations. I see this as a good thing. However, if the unions can be busted, that leaves only the corporations as the big money campaign donors. I have see what happens under one party rule and it is not pretty.

Shepard Smith on union busting:

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

For God sake's man! Both of our sources prove that both parties are receiving MASSIVE amounts of corporate and union money. There is no "standing up" to corporations. We live in a corporatist society, and the democrat party is not the savior that will restore an unbias government. Both parties cater to unions and corporations. If you want a party that refuses to cater to both, you'd have to vote libertarian.
 
For God sake's man! Both of our sources prove that both parties are receiving MASSIVE amounts of corporate and union money. There is no "standing up" to corporations. We live in a corporatist society, and the democrat party is not the savior that will restore an unbias government. Both parties cater to unions and corporations. If you want a party that refuses to cater to both, you'd have to vote libertarian.

And if enough people flock to the party of your urging, then they could swell the 2012 Presidential Libertarian numbers to one-half of one percent of the popular vote.
 
from Elijah Galt



Being on the Road to Serfdom would do me good!!!!!!!! That is one of the most amazing things i have ever read here.

No thank you. I will attempt to stay off that road as best I can.

Here it is again, for your convenience. You really had no idea.
 
And if enough people flock to the party of your urging, then they could swell the 2012 Presidential Libertarian numbers to one-half of one percent of the popular vote.

Say what you will. Libertarian and libertarian-like politicians are the only ones not shaping government to the point where its purpose is to serve special interest groups.
 
For God sake's man! Both of our sources prove that both parties are receiving MASSIVE amounts of corporate and union money. There is no "standing up" to corporations. We live in a corporatist society, and the democrat party is not the savior that will restore an unbias government. Both parties cater to unions and corporations. If you want a party that refuses to cater to both, you'd have to vote libertarian.

You miss the point that it is the GOP that the largest money donors are supporting today since this administration is stepping on corporate toes. Libertarian positions are two extreme to be a viable party in the forseeable future. Since I do not want a one party system, I am pro union (not only because I support adequate wages for our public servants) but also because the only thing worse than a two party system would be a one party system.

Libertarian positions are still too extreme to garner anything but a fractional portion of the votes.
 
Last edited:
You miss the point that it is the GOP that the largest money donors are supporting today since this administration is stepping on corporate toes. Libertarian positions are two extreme to be a viable party in the forseeable future. Since I do not want a one party system, I am pro union (not only because I support adequate wages for our public servants) but also because the only thing worse than a two party system would be a one party system.

Libertarian positions are still too extreme to garner anything but a fractional portion of the votes.

Does a 20-year track record mean anything to you? The difference in numbers is quite marginal. So what if Chevron is shelling out 40 million for the GOP and only 32 million for the democrats? Both parties are still tied to a corporatist structure. And you can support unions all you want. The bottom line is that they do not set the standard for a decent job. They artifically raise the wages of workers by limiting the supply of workers. So, you have unemployed individuals thanks to overpaid union workers.
 
Does a 20-year track record mean anything to you? The difference in numbers is quite marginal. So what if Chevron is shelling out 40 million for the GOP and only 32 million for the democrats? Both parties are still tied to a corporatist structure. And you can support unions all you want. The bottom line is that they do not set the standard for a decent job. They artifically raise the wages of workers by limiting the supply of workers. So, you have unemployed individuals thanks to overpaid union workers.

Not since we have a government that is no longer giving in completely to corporate control. You may call 7 out 10 marginal, I see it as an overwhelming majority, and if the GOP is successful in busting unions that leaves all of the big money donors for the GOP. As I said I am not as fond of a one party system as others think they would be.

No one has shown to me that teachers, firefighters and policeman are overpaid. Unlike others I do not expect our public servants to work for third world wages. You can't balance 3 decades of bad fiscal policies on the backs of our public servants.
 
Yeah we think of Ray-gun every time we the feel the pain from the National debt and the results of peak oil with no alternatives!

Reagan and Congress added 1.7 trillion to the debt in 8 years, Obama and Congress almost added that much in one year and has almost exceeded Bush's debt in two years.Diversion back to Reagan and Bush is what liberals do when their empty suit is generating the results he has generated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom