Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

MoSurveyor said:

You very often use the term "parasite" to mean much more than you're espousing here. Don't be shy, 'fess up!

You have asserted that everyone making under (I believe you latest figure was) $117k is not paying their "fair share". In effect, they are taking money from the government.

You believe everyone getting any government money at all is a parasite (and various other derogatory terms) and it doesn't matter what their beliefs may be - unless they agree with you 100%.

Click to expand...

Mo...libertarians, conservatives can want whatever it is they want...Theyve had a perfect storm that was perfect for them....They had the conservative supreme court give the rich the right to spend billions to buy elections. They had Nancy Pelosi categorically have 90% of america hating her in the first 6 months she was Speaker and they have the economy that is being continued by the rich and corps purposely not hiring to continue the misery to make Obama lose the election. Even with all that in their favor..Ron Paul still got his 9% and the conservatives wont get another tax cut. Then pendalum in my lifetime has swung back and forth so many times I couldnt name them...but it will swing back again.
The conservatives can whine, scream and spin on their heads but here is a simple truth and none of them can every provide an answer for it...they avoid it....What do you do with all the people that have no healthcare...what do you do with all the illegal immigrants that are here and are going to come...after all Reagan gave over a million amnesty for cheap labor. What do you do with all the people that cant work. What do you do with all the old people that cant help themselves and never made enough money to save.
They want to tell us that labor is overpaid..and Walmart is the biggest employer in the USA...A full time walmart dept head does not make enough to pay for health insurance and save for their pension and pay for living expenses and thats a supervisor, all their whining is about...is them trying to get whatever they can. They know social security is not going anywhere nor medicare.
They do want public unions GONE that is the only thing left that they cannot control...and theyve won a few skirmishs that havent gone all the way through the courts yet..
There are too many people in this country that never made enough to do what the conservatives want and theres too many people today that cant pay for lifes necessities....what the conservatives want is a pipe dream....they will get a little but nothing near what they want...
Let me remind them...if obama wins...all bets are off there will be no veto proof majority

Fletch said:

Nobody, and I am sure TD would agree with me here, is condemning anyone who takes it upon themselves to help the poor and less fortunate. The issue is how you go about helping them. If it is with your own time and your own resources, it is an act of virtue. If you steal from others to give alms to the poor you are engaged in vice. The ends do not justify the means.

Click to expand...

It's too bad Thomas Jefferson did not seem to agree with you.

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

Click to expand...

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to_James_Madison_-_October_28,_1785

TurtleDude said:

Are you channeling Lieyawatha Aka Spouting Bull aka Fauxchahontas aks Dizzy Lizzie Warren?

Click to expand...

No, I'm not - at least, not the way you mean it.

teamosil said:

The first district I checked was Astoria CUSD 1. The first seven teachers in the list alphabetically are:

Arnett, Melissa $15,423
Bair, Lindy $27,943
Banwart, Douglas $32,256
Bastien, Garry $29,530
Boggs, Bobette $39,977
Bollinger, Sharenda $26,783
Cheatum, Kathy $30,807

So, out of those, only Bobette Boggs makes more than $37k. Boggs is working full time and has 14 years of experience teaching.

Click to expand...

Nice pull. Astoria has a population of 1,200 people. I'm surprised they have a school district. Those salaries do not represent anything even close to average. I can't pull the entire data base into DP -- suffice to say your "average" is incorrect. If it isn't? How about a link from a credible source?

haymarket said:

You badly need a new updated copy.

Click to expand...

Nope. No where in the Constitution does it explicitly state a "right to vote."

"I want you to pledge to yourselves in this convention to stand as one solid army against the foes of human labor. Think of the thousands who are killed every year and there is no redress for it. We will fight until the mines are made secure and human life valued more than props. Look things in the face. Don't' fear a governor; don't fear anybody. You pay the governor; he has the right to protect you. You are the biggest part of the population in the state. You create its wealth, so I say, "let the fight go on; if nobody else will keep on, I will."
-- Mother Jones, 1913

Henrin said:

The Indians?

I was talking about original ownership so the Indians claims or lack of claims to some of the property has nothing to do with my point.

Click to expand...

"Original ownership"? Exactly how far back in time are we to go to find this "original owner"?

At some point in time all land was unowned because humans had no concept of real (as in real estate) property beyond the tribe level. At that time society "owned" the land in as much as they defended it from use by others. Individuals had no property rights.

Later, the King owned the land and for essentially the same reason the tribe in an earlier time had owned the land.

Later still the King gave land titles to "special people" for their loyalty, cooperation, or maybe just their pedigree - as in being a close relative of the King.


So, at what point in time would you like to start with this "original ownership" and what makes that point in time particularly special?

haymarket said:

Could you elaborate on that because I have no idea what you are saying and what it actually has to do with the US Constitution?

Click to expand...

Which part? If it is second it says "who are eighteen years of age or older" which is separating an age group that is acceptable to practice the right. I realize you don't know how these things work but by doing what they just did they are not treating it like a right.

MoSurveyor said:

"Original ownership"? Exactly how far back in time are we to go to find this "original owner"?

At some point in time all land was unowned because humans had no concept of real (as in real estate) property beyond the tribe level. At that time society "owned" the land in as much as they defended it from use by others. Individuals had no property rights. Later, the King owned the land and for essentially the same reason the tribe in an earlier time had owned the land. Later still the King gave land titles to "special people" for their loyalty, cooperation, or maybe just their pedigree - as in close relatives of the King.

So, at what point in time would you like to start with this "original ownership" and what makes that point in time particularly special?

Click to expand...

Any point in time will do fine as it doesn't much matter since the vast majority of land in the US was never claimed or was currently claimed at the time we took it over.

MoSurveyor said:

It's too bad Thomas Jefferson did not seem to agree with you. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to_James_Madison_-_October_28,_1785

Click to expand...

Its too bad Thomas Jefferson went out of his way to tell everyone to NOT use him as a source.

Maybe you can listen to him?

Henrin said:

Its too bad Thomas Jefferson went out of his way to tell everyone to NOT use him as a source.

Maybe you can listen to him?

Click to expand...

The real shame is all these libertarians that think they are constitutional scholars

lpast said:

The real shame is all these libertarians that think they are constitutional scholars

Click to expand...

I really can't help that Thomas Jefferson said to not use him on such matters. Reminding people of facts is not acting out of line either.

TurtleDude said:

so what you are saying is you believe in "fettering" the rights of others to accumulate property?

Click to expand...

I didn't say that and what I believe is irrelevant.

He played the coin, all I did was flip it over to expose it's other side.

MaggieD said:

Reliable link for that? And, please, not to one that answers the question: "How much do teachers earn?" Here's a link to the actual Illinois database. Scan it. Find me anyone making $37,000 a year. It's listed by name, by the way. And school district. $55K at CPS 4 years ago with a Master's. Now making $64,000. That, of course, is without her summer part-time job with the district. Family Taxpayers Foundation

Click to expand...

It's your link:

Family Taxpayers Foundation



Arnett, Melissa

$15,423



Bair, Lindy

$27,943



Banwart, Douglas

$32,256


Do you know another district?

Henrin said:

Its too bad Thomas Jefferson went out of his way to tell everyone to NOT use him as a source.

Click to expand...

Do you believe Jefferson's words are somehow less important to history than anyone else's???


I'd also like a source for that assertion.

Henrin said:

I really can't help that Thomas Jefferson said to not use him on such matters. Reminding people of facts is not acting out of line either.

Click to expand...

And why did he do that? Was he ill and delusional or something?

Proof???

Thrilla said:

not one person is fooled by your games Haymarket.

Click to expand...

Then why is it so impossible for to simply provide the quote which says what you tell people it says?

Why are you impotent to do just that?

MoSurveyor said:

Property rights and the unfettered accumulation of wealth are what give the rich power over others.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "power over others", but I am unaware of any rich person who has any power over me (other than those in the government, of course.)

zgoldsmith23 said:

Nope. No where in the Constitution does it explicitly state a "right to vote."

Click to expand...

It very specifically mentions the RIGHT TO VOTE or a slight variation on that wording - usually THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO VOTE five different places.

That would be Amendment 14, 15, 19, 24 and 26.

It does not merely talk about voting. It specfically talks about the RIGHT TO VOTE. It clearly states that voting is a RIGHT.
It does not merely talk about procedures for elections. It specifically talks about the RIGHT TO VOTE. It clearly states that voting is a RIGHT.

It does not do this just one time.
It does not do this just twice.
It does not do this three times.
It does not do this four times.
The United States Constitution discusses the RIGHT TO VOTE five times in five different places in five different Amendments passed at five different times.

The US Constitution does not talk about the PROCESS of voting. The Constitution talks the RIGHT TO VOTE.
The US Constitution does not talk about the MECHANICS of voting. The Constitution talks about the RIGHT TO VOTE.
The US Constitution does not talk about the PRIVILEGE of voting. The Constitution talks about the RIGHT TO VOTE.
The US Constitution does not talk about the OPPORTUNITY of voting. The Constitution talks about the RIGHT TO VOTE.

It seems that one of two things is happening here:
1- your copy of the US Constitution is well over 150 years old and you need to get it to a professional because it could be quite valuable, or
2- the actual term RIGHT TO VOTE or RIGHT OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES TO VOTE is lost upon you.

But lets be frank and open here. This is not my first rodeo and I have seen this sad and pathetic tactic employed by those on the far right before. So I know well what is going on in you employing this ridiculous argument that is openly contradicted by the US Constitution five different times.

Each time I encounter it, I sit back in amazement that anyone pretending to put on the mask of someone concerned with rights and liberties would go through such labored mental and semantic gymnastics to deny rights and liberties.


But then I remember that this tactic is used almost exclusively by libertarians of the far right. These are people who know they cannot ever win in a democratic vote so they have contempt and scorn for it and are more than willing to deny it. They know there is precious little support for them and their ersatz ideology so they are more than willing to attempt to deny any right to vote. This is merely one rather obvious and disgusting manifestation of expressing that contempt.

MoSurveyor said:

They will HUNT YOU DOWN!!! So violence IS alright ... but only under certain circumstances.

Click to expand...

Do you know what the word "initiate" means?

MoSurveyor said:

Then things must be much different in other parts of the world than they are here because no non-politician or any group of non-politicians can "take over" the government here.

Click to expand...

1. We are discussing de facto, not de jure.

2. In fact this is what occurs with regards to most major entrenched special interest groups. It just so happens that when "government" is the interest group, there is no balancing faction. Just as government unions face no profitability check on their rent-seeking (as their private counterparts do), they face no check on their control.

anywho, more news on this front, out of California of all places:

...Voters in San Diego and San Jose, the nation's eighth- and 10th-largest cities, overwhelmingly approved ballot measures last week to roll back municipal retirement benefits - and not just for future hires but for current employees.

From coast to coast, the pensions of current public employees have long been generally considered untouchable. But now, some politicians are saying those obligations are trumped by the need to provide for the public's health and safety...

Legal experts expect the cities to argue that their obligations to provide basic services such as police protection and garbage removal override promises made to employees.

In San Diego, the city's payments to its retirement fund soared from $43 million in 1999 to $231.2 million this year, equal to 20 percent of the operating budget. At the same time, the 1.3 million residents saw roads deteriorate and libraries cut hours. For a while, fire stations had to share engines and trucks. The city has cut its workforce 14 percent since 2005.

San Jose's pension payments jumped from $73 million in 2001 to $245 million this year, or 27 percent of its operating budget. Four libraries and a police station that were built over the past decade have never even opened because the city cannot afford to operate them. The city of 960,000 cut its workforce 27 percent over the past 10 years.

"It's a problem that threatens our ability to remain a city and provide services to our people," said Mayor Chuck Reed. "It's huge dollar amounts and has a huge impact on services"...

Click to expand...

and out of Democrat Mayors, at that. We'll see if the outrage over Democrats cutting into Public Unions is as ferocious.

cpwill said:

anywho, more news on this front, out of California of all places:



and out of Democrat Mayors, at that. We'll see if the outrage over Democrats cutting into Public Unions is as ferocious.

Click to expand...

Of course it is...theres been some turncoat scum because they are afraid they have to get re elected....how about this...two democrats both leadership...one in charge of the senate in jersey...hes an x Ironworker union Organizer and the other was the Electrical unions president or vice president. Both have taken huge amounts of union money for years...both voted for christies bone the public workers bills...without them he could not have passed it....after they voted for it and passed it...they were quite dismayed that unions told them the gravy train has ended...they said dont judge us on that one vote...judge us on all our votes...yeah sure LOL...

Heres one of them not the Iron worker Organizer

He changed his site some...it used to PROUDLY dispaly Ironworker union organizer...now hes downplayed it...and it says



General Organizer, International Association of Ironworkers....heres a kicker for ya...he collects a pension with cost of living increases and full medical benefits from the ironworkers...the same things he tried to strip of state workers....now he will collect a state pension...with cost of living and full medical...see christie and the legislature didnt TOUCH their pensions or benefits...
Christie has totally overwhelmed this dumbo...christie has categorically beaten him in every single foray since day one.


Stephen M. Sweeney (D)

I'm pro-union in recognizing that we would have child labor and sweat shops without them. Yet I'm no fan of public sector unions. These are political jobs usually and paybacks of favors even at the lowest levels. Corporations and Unions have both been guilty of egregious behavior. Unions have driven some industries out of business by high wage, retirement, and healthcare demands. Yet, without the Unions, Corporations have always been evil and self serving. The Corporate charters are about making money, not the public good. The beancounters dream is ten cents an hour labor, no retirement and no healthcare because that is the most profitable scenario and that is what a Corporation is designed to do. That, and provide nice stock dividends to the wealthy with no work required. Like inherited wealth and entitlements and Divine Providence is why they are blessed with the wealth.

cpwill said:

anywho, more news on this front, out of California of all places:



and out of Democrat Mayors, at that. We'll see if the outrage over Democrats cutting into Public Unions is as ferocious.

Click to expand...

This nonsense has to be stopped, and demorats, if they want the support of the voters, rather than just the gov't employee unions, must join in the effort to restore sanity to the pay and benefits offered to gov't employees. A private business would be forced to close its doors under the same conditions (like the auto and arilines have done) so too must the gov't (eventually). It boils down to simple math; defined benefit retirement plans must be ended and replaced with defined contribution plans with sensible employer/employee fund matching ratios and limits. Note that private 401K plans may not be used (without penalty) until at least age 59 1/2.

Few seem to question the VERY early retirement ages "offered" to gov't employees, many have an "80" based system, rather than a minimum retirement age like SS/Medicare do. That system uses the gov't employee's age added to their number of years of their gov't service (sometimes even counting ANY gov't service) to determine retirement benefit eligability. Say John Q. Government started their city or state gov't employment "carreer" at age 20, when they reach the ripe old age of 50 (15 years, or more, before reaching SS/Medicare eligability age) they may get "full" gov't retirement benefits (30 years of service + 50 years of age = 80) and may often then get the option of staying on longer for still MORE gov't retirement benefits, or simply "retire" at 1/2 their full working salary and then work a "private" job for 15 years and get FULL SS/Medicare too!

You can easily see the problem that this "80" system causes for the taxpayer, as they may end up paying for not only the full salary/benefits of the current gov't employee but 1.5x or 2x that amount to cover the retirement costs for the past one or two people that held that gov't position before them.