• 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!

Probe surrounding Wis. governor apparently growing

Objective Voice said:
I'm gonna have to challenge you here, Conservative.

I proudly served my country on active-duty in the Navy for nearly 16-years. When I left the Navy, I did so under Honorable conditions and had no blimishes on my service record. I came home, found a job in state-government and have proudly performed with high annual performance evaluations well within the "Exceed Standards" category. Now, here's where I should be upset...

For over 5-years, state employees like myself in my department have continued to serve and uphold the public trust - same as our duly elected public officials are suppose to do - WITHOUT receiving a pay raise. FIVE YEARS!!!

And until recently, I refused to join a union because I really didn't see the need. I use to think as you do that as long as I came to work on time, did my job and performed well I would be rewarded.

FIVE YEARS, Conservative WITHOUT a pay raise and what thanks do we honorable public servants have to show for it? Being attacked by Republican officials who claim that we've unjustly receive higher pay, favorable health benefits packages and expensive retirement packages. Folks like you actually believe that people like me are undeserving of the pay and benefits we've EARNED!

I do my job and I perform well. But until Republicans like Gov. Walker begin to lead this charge against public employee collective bargaining rights and forcing us out the door, I never felt the need to become part of any organized labor movement. So, before you start down that trail of "union employees need someone else to protect them as they are incapable of doing it themselves," you had better first try to understand what employers and state officials of some of these corporations and/or state governments are trying to do to union/public employees.

It's unfair that I should have to fight to retain my job let alone my pay and benefits that were stated that I would recieve upon agreeing to being employed here only to have those benefits stiffled and my pay frozen while the economy is in shamebles all because of the wreckless spending/budgetary practises of those politicians who were here before me. You chant the better virtues of Conservatism and personal responsibility. Well, what about professional responsibility? Where's the fault with CEOs and politicians who have acted so irresponsibilty to cause this country such short-term irreperable harm? Why shouldn't union members be outraged because of their greed and purposeful excessiveness and the wealth such people have accumulated on the backs of our honorable performance yet the only thing we have to show for our participation in that "wealth accumulation" in the end turns out to be either the prospect a pink slip that comes out of nowhere or our cost-of-living being held in abeyance indefinitely? Mind you, when our supervisors are also feeling the economic pinch who else are we to turn to for help especially when the decisions that are being made are coming at the highest levels of government? It's not our department heads who are calling the shots; it's the so-called Conservative politicians!!!

So, you tell me who exactly am I to complain to if not to my union rep? Because clearly where state-government is concerned you can't just go to your immediate supervisor or program Director about such matters seeking restitution when they themselves are also in the exact same fight.

Think before you speak.
Click to expand...

First of all, thank you for your service and if you recall you were fighting for the right of equal opportunity not equal outcome. If you went to work in the public sector it was your choice and no one held a gun to your head to do that. Public workers work at the pleasure of the public and get raises and benefits on the backs of the people that pay their salary. There is a reason FDR was against public unions and there is a reason states are almost bankrupt now, they are basically one in the same, reasons against public unions. I am sure the 16 years in the military and years as a public employee made you marketable so rather than complain about what you are being paid find another job more in line with your belief as to your value.

I don't have a lot of use for unions as you can tell. I believe in personal responsibility. I was looking for a job when I found my first one and felt like I was on a day to day contract. If I didn't perform then I would lose my job thus I learned as much as possible and made myself quite valuable. The company owed me nothing other than the opportunity I got, the rest was my responsibility and I took advantage of it. I lasted in that job for 35 years, imagine that?

By the way, my Dad served in the Navy and was at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and I served in the Army. Got a good education from my dad and the military which made me marketable.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
I continue to point to the hypocrisy of liberals who have already convicted Walker while ignoring charges made against Obama. These are charges that have not been substantiated but that doesn't mean that Walker hasn't been convicted in the minds of liberals. We have issues like Solyndra and othere "Green" companies receiving taxpayer money that have declared bankruptcy and charges made that loans were fast tracked without good DD and in the case of Solyndra recommended that the loan not happen. So why is it charges against a Republican are valid before proven and those made against the Obama Administration not valid when already proven?
Click to expand...

Who in this thread has said Walker is guilty of anything?
 
Conservative said:
Anytime I can get people to post union crap I am happy. Makes me proud of the fact that I never belonged to any union and there is now doubt that I am financially better off today as a result. Unions have basically nothing invested in the company other than time and in fact have run businesses out of business by making them less profitable. Public unions are bankrupting the country and creating a dependent class. No question in my mind that is Obama's goal, create so much dependency that re-election is secure. Not a lot of difference between people dependent on the govt. than people dependent on the unions. Destroying incentive and keeping power is what both are about.
Click to expand...

Unions only seek what is fair and honorable. For example, how many CEOs and/or politicians at state and federal levels have claimed that their respective treasuries are broke and yet they still either gave themselves hefty bonuses or voted themselves pay raises within the last two years? While you ponder that, how many of those same high ranking officials have laid off their employees using the excuse that they had to do some cost-cutting?

Granted, there certainly were some unions in the past who sought big salaries and hefty benefits packages for their union membership, but the days of big national labor unions are long gone. That's why conservatism's latest targets have been the EPA, DoEd, public employee unions and collective bargaining rights of public employees. Ironically, these are the some of the same fights from days of old going back as far as the 50's, 60's and 70's. You've just migrated from the private sector to the public sector in order to exact your greed.

Conservatism says private companies should have the right to establish unions within their own doors. Corporate ownership says if a worker performs well even if part of a corporate union he/she will be paid well. From what I can tell, those of us who have followed that creed and did our jobs can't meet today's cost-of-living standards. The federal minimum wages just doesn't cut it in today's economy. But the irony here is if you listen to business owners you won't hear them complain that it's employee salaries and benefits that's the problem. It's high corporate taxes!!! So, which is it, man?

Again, I remind you I didn't become a union member until recently. Nearly 10 years of faithful employment with high performance standards. FIVE YEARS without a pay raise. Yet, I know what many state governments have done over the years...relied heavily on municipal bond markets to carry their cashflow, but the bond markets began to tank. Who were the easiest targets to scapegoat? PUBLIC EMPLOYEES! Same hold true in the private sector - lay people off and blame unions instead of getting your corporate finances in order. Of course, some CEO's would see laying off employees as a true measure towards "cleaning up their books"...same as state governments. And yet they will also make the bold claim that "people are our best asset". Oh, really?
 
Conservative said:
do you think that aides to anyone else would be a thread topic?
Click to expand...

Yes, as has been pointed out already by NextEra, investigations into alleged political corruption are always big news items.
 
randel said:
answer the question
Click to expand...

At the very least the op greatly implied that Walker was guilty.

danarhea said:
Ahh, yes, Walker was going to bring honesty back to Wisconsin politics. You know, I knew something like this might happen. Why? Because Walker is just another politician, and Republican or Democrat, they are ALL scum bags.
Click to expand...

This is a non sensical statement unless you truly believe Walker is guilty.
 
Conservative said:
First of all, thank you for your service and if you recall you were fighting for the right of equal opportunity not equal outcome. If you went to work in the public sector it was your choice and no one held a gun to your head to do that. Public workers work at the pleasure of the public and get raises and benefits on the backs of the people that pay their salary. There is a reason FDR was against public unions and there is a reason states are almost bankrupt now, they are basically one in the same, reasons against public unions. I am sure the 16 years in the military and years as a public employee made you marketable so rather than complain about what you are being paid find another job more in line with your belief as to your value.
Click to expand...

Again, I have to stop you especially for being so condesending at the end there.

It took me 6 months to find sturdy employment. I went on dozens of job interviews and went from temp-job to temp-job, and at one point took a low-paying job in the retail industry just to supplement my severage pay received from Uncle Sam when I left the service. The only reason I took this job in state government was because it was the only job offer I got that paid well enough meet cost-of-living expenses for my family's needs.

I get so tired of the partisan, theoretical "equal opportunity, equal outcome" argument. We're people, not some god damned lab experiment gone horrorbly wrong. I really wish people like you would stop referring to folks that way. Makes you look heartless and extremely foolish. Hence, the condesending part. I use to think somewhat as you do until I begin to see firsthand how Corporate America sometimes destroy people without a care in the world. Because the only thing they truly care about is their bottom line.

I don't have a lot of use for unions as you can tell. I believe in personal responsibility. I was looking for a job when I found my first one and felt like I was on a day to day contract. If I didn't perform then I would lose my job thus I learned as much as possible and made myself quite valuable. The company owed me nothing other than the opportunity I got, the rest was my responsibility and I took advantage of it. I lasted in that job for 35 years, imagine that?
Click to expand...

Congratulations to you. But don't you see that folks like me are only trying to do the exact same thing? If you could speak to my co-workers they'd tell you I'm a very worthwhile employee. I'm a very modest person. So, when they tell me how much they appreciate my services for even the little things I do, I often tell them I'm undeserving of such praise. I take their gratitude in stride, but they know the type of employee that have in me which would explain why they all paniced when I informed them via my immediate supervisor that I was going on a job interview recently in the private sector. Turned out, it wasn't a position worth my while, but it was worth a shot.

By the way, my Dad served in the Navy and was at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and I served in the Army. Got a good education from my dad and the military which made me marketable.
Click to expand...

My worthwhile appreciations to your dad and again to myself. Seems we both can make the same claim concerning our fathers. It just strikes me odd how one father can teach his son to be God fearing and exhibit the compassionate spirit of our Lord and Savior towards our fellow man while another who very well may have been raised to exhibit these same values can instead turn out to be so cold and heartless.
 
Objective Voice;1059801241]Unions only seek what is fair and honorable. For example, how many CEOs and/or politicians at state and federal levels have claimed that their respective treasuries are broke and yet they still either gave themselves hefty bonuses or voted themselves pay raises within the last two years? While you ponder that, how many of those same high ranking officials have laid off their employees using the excuse that they had to do some cost-cutting?
Click to expand...

Fair and honorable to whom? I don't really have a problem with private unions as such because private sector management has to deal with the shareholders and Board when they make a bad decision. That bad decision doesn't impact the taxpayer but public unions are another issue. I will never support public union employees for the same reason FDR didn't and I was not a FDR fan.

Granted, there certainly were some unions in the past who sought big salaries and hefty benefits packages for their union membership, but the days of big national labor unions are long gone. That's why conservatism's latest targets have been the EPA, DoEd, public employee unions and collective bargaining rights of public employees. Ironically, these are the some of the same fights from days of old going back as far as the 50's, 60's and 70's. You've just migrated from the private sector to the public sector in order to exact your greed.
Click to expand...

Who pays public sector union employees and who represents the will of the employer? Public unions negotiate with a politician who will be out of office sometime in the future but the taxpayers are obligated for the deals made. It is always easier negotiating with someone else's money

Conservatism says private companies should have the right to establish unions within their own doors. Corporate ownership says if a worker performs well even if part of a corporate union he/she will be paid well. From what I can tell, those of us who have followed that creed and did our jobs can't meet today's cost-of-living standards. The federal minimum wages just doesn't cut it in today's economy. But the irony here is if you listen to business owners you won't hear them complain that it's employee salaries and benefits that's the problem. It's high corporate taxes!!! So, which is it, man?
Click to expand...

If the employees of a private sector business wants to unionize then it is up to the company to decide whether they will accept that or move out of state or out of the country. Name for me any union that pays minimum wage and then do the same thing for large corporations that aren't unionized. Minimum wage goes to mostly people between the ages of 16-24 not Fortune 500 companies. Tell me what any union has invested in either the private or public sector. Private sector companies cannot print money like the Federal govt. can so when they cannot meet their expenses they shut down. The public sector just raises taxes or the Federal Govt. prints or borrows more money. What many don't seem to understand is that businesses today pay Federal, State, and in some cases local taxes so when you raise the Federal Taxes you impact state revenue as well. Most companies will move out of high tax states to lower tax states when federal taxes go up. TX has no problem taking on new businesses and new taxpayers.

Again, I remind you I didn't become a union member until recently. Nearly 10 years of faithful employment with high performance standards. FIVE YEARS without a pay raise. Yet, I know what many state governments have done over the years...relied heavily on municipal bond markets to carry their cashflow, but the bond markets began to tank. Who were the easiest targets to scapegoat? PUBLIC EMPLOYEES! Same hold true in the private sector - lay people off and blame unions instead of getting your corporate finances in order. Of course, some CEO's would see laying off employees as a true measure towards "cleaning up their books"...same as state governments. And yet they will also make the bold claim that "people are our best asset". Oh, really?
Click to expand...

No question about it some corporations are irresponsible but so are some public sector employers and employees. Irresponsibility is rewarded by companies going out of business in the private sector but in the public sector it is rewarded by higher taxes on the people that pay the bills. Sound reasonable to you?
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Not sure I see that. Is just reporting it an implication?
Click to expand...

No, just reporting it - not an implication at all. However, he did more than that. He indicated he knew this would happen because Walker is just as big a scum bag as the rest of the politicians. Do you truly believe that statement makes any sense what so ever if you don't think Walker is guilty?

If I posted this article and said "I knew this would happen because the unions are just filled with thugs that will do anything to get their way", how would you take that? Of course you would take it that I am blaming unions for this investigation just to take down Walker - a politican who got in the way of the money.
 
buck said:
No, just reporting it - not an implication at all. However, he did more than that. He indicated he knew this would happen because Walker is just as big a scum bag as the rest of the politicians. Do you truly believe that statement makes any sense what so ever if you don't think Walker is guilty?

If I posted this article and said "I knew this would happen because the unions are just filled with thugs that will do anything to get their way", how would you take that? Of course you would take it that I am blaming unions for this investigation just to take down Walker - a politican who got in the way of the money.
Click to expand...

OK, you mean the person who posted it. As you separated your response, I thought you were refering to the article, which is different.
 
haymarket said:
a statement from J-mac




my response and question to him



his response to my question



Now either your answer makes no sense in any way, shape or form, or you seem to hve forgotten the very words you typed in your first statement with the contradictory accusation that people did these terrible things and were convicted and the charges dropped. Holder did not make this claim - YOU did.

I ask you again, how can one be convicted of something if the charges have been dropped? Those are two opposite actions.

Can you explain this for us please?
Click to expand...

Either you are being blatantly disingenuous, or you have been in a cave since your hero Obama was elected....Here, read up...

On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.

ADAMS: Inside the Black Panther case - Washington Times
Click to expand...

Default means they were all but sentenced. Now maybe you'd like to explain why Holder would drop the charges? Nah, forget it, I don't have time to read your BS.

j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
OK, you mean the person who posted it. As you separated your response, I thought you were refering to the article, which is different.
Click to expand...

Yes, Danarhea's commentary greatly implied (probably more then just implication, but whatever) Walker's guilt.

I thought OP was "original post" - meaning Dan's original post, no?
 
haymarket said:
a statement from J-mac




my response and question to him



his response to my question



Now either your answer makes no sense in any way, shape or form, or you seem to hve forgotten the very words you typed in your first statement with the contradictory accusation that people did these terrible things and were convicted and the charges dropped. Holder did not make this claim - YOU did.

I ask you again, how can one be convicted of something if the charges have been dropped? Those are two opposite actions.

Can you explain this for us please?
Click to expand...

It's obvious that he can't just as he can't explain why the presumption of innocence applies to Walker (a repub) but not Obama (a dem)

randel said:
yep, con, we are all just thugs:roll: obviously we are un-American for belonging to a union:roll: for daring to want a better life , for wanting to live the American dream, for having the belief that our labor is valuable:roll: never mind the fact that we have families, much like you, i'm sure, never mind that we pay taxes, much like you i'm sure, that we give to charity, again, as you have stated several times, much like you...how much easier life would be in this country if the labor force just all bent over and took it...:roll: just want you to know, i do find your uneducated, anti-union rants amusing. :) UAW AND PROUD OF IT.
Click to expand...

And to think just a short while ago Conservative was whining about how Walker has been "convicted by liberals". Meanwhile, he's "convicted" every union member. The hypocrisy and dishonesty of the rightwingers knows no bounds
 
haymarket said:
Q: If the facts are so obvious and clear, why do the people pushing right to work continue to push it?
The answer from Dr. Lafer was in two parts
1) they simply hate unions as part of their ideology and political bent
2) we live in a time when facts and statistics mean precious little compared to beliefs
Click to expand...

Both describe the rightwingers to a tee....hatred and ignorance go hand in hand
 
Conservative said:
Guess that is why 88% of the work force doesn't belong to unions since they love them so much. Keep promoting that anti personal responsibility attitude which has helped put 25 million plus unemployed and under employed Americans on the street looking for full time jobs. Don't worry though, there will always be a govt. job waiting for you as long as politicians have someone else to fund them.
Click to expand...

88% of the workforce aren't teabaggers, either.
 
sangha said:
It's obvious that he can't just as he can't explain why the presumption of innocence applies to Walker (a repub) but not Obama (a dem)
Click to expand...

Oh puhleeze! Talk about dishonesty in posting.....Please show me where I said Obama was guilty of anything. Please show me where I called Obama a criminal? You can't so sit down and STFU.

j-mac
 
sangha said:
88% of the workforce aren't teabaggers, either.
Click to expand...

I am a tea party member, and if your pejorative for me is a 'teabagger' you childish puke, then I guess I am teabagging you.

j-mac

PS. this is BS and pathetic, I am outta here.
 
j-mac said:
I am a tea party member, and if your pejorative for me is a 'teabagger' you childish puke, then I guess I am teabagging you.

j-mac

PS. this is BS and pathetic, I am outta here.
Click to expand...

Most of Sagha's posts are. I don't even bother responding to him because he is mostly ridiculous.
 
j-mac said:
Oh puhleeze! Talk about dishonesty in posting.....Please show me where I said Obama was guilty of anything. Please show me where I called Obama a criminal? You can't so sit down and STFU.

j-mac
Click to expand...

1) You've accused Obama of prosecuting Gibson because Gibson didn't contribute to Obamas' campaign. Then you backed off your inane accusation and called it "speculation" proving that even you know how dishonest your accusation was

2) You have accused the entire Obama admin of corruption in this thread. I already quoted the post. Herer it is again.

j-mac said:
This whole administration stinks of corruption.

j-mac
Click to expand...

The only thing to do now is wait for you to falsely claim you were speculating :lol:
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Fair and honorable to whom? I don't really have a problem with private unions as such because private sector management has to deal with the shareholders and Board when they make a bad decision. That bad decision doesn't impact the taxpayer but public unions are another issue. I will never support public union employees for the same reason FDR didn't and I was not a FDR fan.
Click to expand...

Actually, they do only in a non-direct way. When employees are fired they impact the greater society because they, too, have to file for unemployment benefits. By default, unless the state has the tax dollars to pay for those benefits the States get the money from the Fed. Now, some might argue that that's the way the laws are written, but how do you think the States get these unemployment dollars? Answer: VIA TAXES paid by consumers and corporate income taxes. Now, consider what you just said concerning lowering corporate tax rates and companies that pay too much state taxes leaving for another state? Ever think that's what happened to Detroit when auto makers started leaving? How about those states that don't collect income taxes from out-of-state companies as an incentive to get them to start businesses within their state?

You see, folks who just rely on one side of the equation rarely take the time to see the other side. I pride myself on trying to remain "objective". So, I take the time to study both sides of the equation. There's right and wrong on both sides but as things apply today, I'd say public unions are right and state governments are wrong.

Who pays public sector union employees and who represents the will of the employer? Public unions negotiate with a politician who will be out of office sometime in the future but the taxpayers are obligated for the deals made. It is always easier negotiating with someone else's money.


If the employees of a private sector business wants to unionize then it is up to the company to decide whether they will accept that or move out of state or out of the country. Name for me any union that pays minimum wage and then do the same thing for large corporations that aren't unionized. Minimum wage goes to mostly people between the ages of 16-24 not Fortune 500 companies. Tell me what any union has invested in either the private or public sector. Private sector companies cannot print money like the Federal govt. can so when they cannot meet their expenses they shut down. The public sector just raises taxes or the Federal Govt. prints or borrows more money. What many don't seem to understand is that businesses today pay Federal, State, and in some cases local taxes so when you raise the Federal Taxes you impact state revenue as well. Most companies will move out of high tax states to lower tax states when federal taxes go up. TX has no problem taking on new businesses and new taxpayers.
Click to expand...

Using the deeds of past politicians as an excuse for the inaction of present-day politicians who ignored the warning signs of their state's crumbling economy is their fault, not the fault of the dutiful state employees who did nothing to deserve what some states are doing to them. The warning signs were there. The States simply failed to act in a timely and decisive manner. Some would say they did (as in the case of my state) by freezing raises on public employees, but that same freeze should have been applied to the politicians who we elect to responsibly manage those tax dollars you so earnestly conveat. I appreciate those tax dollars as well because contrary to popular belief I PAY LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL TAXES, TOO! My salary is NOT a free-ride.

No question about it some corporations are irresponsible but so are some public sector employers and employees. Irresponsibility is rewarded by companies going out of business in the private sector but in the public sector it is rewarded by higher taxes on the people that pay the bills. Sound reasonable to you?
Click to expand...

I'd buy that argument except there's just one thing you failed to consider...

States, because they are soverign, cannot declare bankruptcy. So, your argument here is moot.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom