• 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!

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker survives recall effort, NBC News projects

Swing ... and a miss !!

Private sector unions must still compete in the marketplace. If they are too onerous, too much a parasite, they kill the host. And they perish with it. See Eastern Airlines for just one example.

Public sector unions have no such self-correcting mechanism. They can suck the host forever.

They are all volunteers too. If they don't like it, they can get another job. Taxpayers, on the other hand, are not volunteers.

Do you want your police competing in the market place? Because they serve the public welfare, they are less deserving of a voice? And voters have no ability to correct or vote for people who would be wiser in negotiations? I don;t buy that.
 
Do you want your police competing in the market place? Because they serve the public welfare, they are less deserving of a voice? And voters have no ability to correct or vote for people who would be wiser in negotiations? I don;t buy that.

Strike two.

Read again. I pointed out the difference between public and private sector. I did not make an argument for privatized competing police companies.

Try a little reading comprehension this time.
 
Strike two.

Read again. I pointed out the difference between public and private sector. I did not make an argument for privatized competing police companies.

Try a little reading comprehension this time.

NO, you pointed out the difference and suggested this difference made them OK, but that public servants have no right to such benefits or to negotiate as a group. You clearly are promoting denying them a collective voice, making them in effect second class citizens.
 
So can everyone else. They can vote for who negotiates. There is simply not the advantage some think there is, and too many are focusing on the unions and not those who represent the other side.

A CEO can send whoever they want to the negotiating table. The private unions cannot tell the CEO who to send...by vote or not. Also public sector unions can "buy" the person they attempt to put into office via contributions. Which makes for more manageable negotiations.
 
A CEO can send whoever they want to the negotiating table. The private unions cannot tell the CEO who to send...by vote or not. Also public sector unions can "buy" the person they attempt to put into office via contributions. Which makes for more manageable negotiations.

Actually, the governor can send others as well. And the people, like the stockholders choose the CEO, can pick the governor. And business can buy politicians. And CEOs can be bought as well. In fact, CEOs have made poor decisions, bought policiticans, got bailouts, and received huge bonuses. And still, their workers have a voice. I see no logical reason to make those who do so much for us, some risking their lives, to be neutered and denied baisc negotiation rights because a few state governors negotiated poorly.
 
Do you want your police competing in the market place? Because they serve the public welfare, they are less deserving of a voice? And voters have no ability to correct or vote for people who would be wiser in negotiations? I don;t buy that.

I think you missed his point. His point being that because public unions are tied to the government and the tax payer there is no checks against them. They cannot fall due to demanding too much. Private sector unions can. Because of this there must be another way to keep them in check.
 
I think you missed his point. His point being that because public unions are tied to the government and the tax payer there is no checks against them. They cannot fall due to demanding too much. Private sector unions can. Because of this there must be another way to keep them in check.

I didn't miss that. I didn't buy it. Of course there are checks against them. Govenors are elected and removed and replaced through the vote. No one has a gun to their head to agree to anything. And when budgets fail, these employees lose jobs and have other contratints applied. There are checks.
 
Actually, the governor can send others as well. And the people, like the stockholders choose the CEO, can pick the governor. And business can buy politicians. And CEOs can be bought as well. In fact, CEOs have made poor decisions, bought policiticans, got bailouts, and received huge bonuses. And still, their workers have a voice. I see no logical reason to make those who do so much for us, some risking their lives, to be neutered and denied baisc negotiation rights because a few state governors negotiated poorly.

The keyword there is "can". Doesn't mean that he has to. And even if the governor does there is nothing to stop that governor from telling the person he sends to negotiate a certain way.

How many stockholders do you know that would want their CEO to negotiate their buisness into the ground? Yes CEO's make bad decisions in which could make the company fall. Yes they got bailouts. I was against them then and I'm against the bailouts now. But two wrongs do not make a right.
 
what you call sweetheart retirement plans is something the PRIVATE sector pigs at the trough should be giving to their workers...instead they POCKET it all...thats why theyve gotten fabulously richer when the workers have lost lots of ground...

It's not economically viable. Sadly pensions cost far more than it costs to incentive a handful of business leaders to drive a business forward. Same reasons why pensions largely went away in the private industry, it was just too costly.
 
The keyword there is "can". Doesn't mean that he has to. And even if the governor does there is nothing to stop that governor from telling the person he sends to negotiate a certain way.

How many stockholders do you know that would want their CEO to negotiate their buisness into the ground? Yes CEO's make bad decisions in which could make the company fall. Yes they got bailouts. I was against them then and I'm against the bailouts now. But two wrongs do not make a right.

It is the same with the CEO and the market palce. It is can and not has to. And look at the bailouts. Stockholders have done just that. Both require more form the stakeholders and both get crap when the stackeholders don;t do their job. There is functionally no difference.

As for two wrongs, it was me who made a distinction between the two. It is me who suggests they are essentially and functionally the same. What both need are better negotiators and not to be made illegal.
 
NO, you pointed out the difference and suggested this difference made them OK, but that public servants have no right to such benefits or to negotiate as a group. You clearly are promoting denying them a collective voice, making them in effect second class citizens.

Do you just make this **** up ?

They can have all the collective voice they want. They can get together after work and yell as loud as they want. What they have no right to is a Union that they are forced to join. The Union has no right to take their money. It is up to the State to decide.

Where do you get this "second class citizen" bull**** ? Are only that part of the workforce that are in Unions "first-class" ?

The argument you have made is just plain stooooopid.
 
I didn't miss that. I didn't buy it. Of course there are checks against them. Govenors are elected and removed and replaced through the vote. No one has a gun to their head to agree to anything. And when budgets fail, these employees lose jobs and have other contratints applied. There are checks.

Bold: Which is what happened with Walker. I understand that. But what happened when Walker attempted to place real restrictions on public unions? More tax payer money was wasted because of public unions to deal with a recall election.

Underlined: This never happens until after the government budget fails. When a government budget fails it affects EVERYONE. Both public and private citizens. Why should the actions of a public union be able to affect private citizens? And then what happens when the government gets its budget back above the line? Those people that lost their jobs have a chance at getting the same jobs back. Which will just ultimately bring the governments budget back down again.

And what other constraints are there against public unions? Those negotiated in a contract? Yeah...we see how well those constraints worked when all those teachers in Wisconsin went on strike despite their negoiated contract stating that they were not allowed to.
 
Bold: Which is what happened with Walker. I understand that. But what happened when Walker attempted to place real restrictions on public unions? More tax payer money was wasted because of public unions to deal with a recall election.

Underlined: This never happens until after the government budget fails. When a government budget fails it affects EVERYONE. Both public and private citizens. Why should the actions of a public union be able to affect private citizens? And then what happens when the government gets its budget back above the line? Those people that lost their jobs have a chance at getting the same jobs back. Which will just ultimately bring the governments budget back down again.

And what other constraints are there against public unions? Those negotiated in a contract? Yeah...we see how well those constraints worked when all those teachers in Wisconsin went on strike despite their negoiated contract stating that they were not allowed to.

Yes, challenges are costly in both the private and public sector. And no, public employees do lose jobs before they fail as well. Having been through it, I know first hand that it happens. You do realize there are more states who are not having the problems often mentioned here than are?
 
That is your excuse, you could not win on the merits, so you pick an excuse. Liberals are good at finding excesses for failure. Obama can out raise Romney all he wants but that will not change the fact our economy and the unemployment numbers suck. People are not stupid.

ehx5ig.jpg


Also im not a liberal so stop with your partisan bull****.
 
It's time to go after ALL unions, public or private.

The sooner we bust the unions, the better this country will be.

Yea **** organized labor! What the hell do they do? What have they ever done for workers!? Lets become China and get rid of all labors and see how quick those labor laws go away! LONG LIVE PRIVATE ENTERPRISE INTENDED ONLY TO MAKE MONEY FOR THE FEW!!! DOWN WITH ORGANIZED LABOR!!!
 
Yea **** organized labor! What the hell do they do? What have they ever done for workers!? Lets become China and get rid of all labors and see how quick those labor laws go away! LONG LIVE PRIVATE ENTERPRISE INTENDED ONLY TO MAKE MONEY FOR THE FEW!!! DOWN WITH ORGANIZED LABOR!!!

Labor Unions are huge multibillion dollar businesses run by thugs and supported through intimidation..

At one time they may have served a purpose but those days are long past.
 
Yea **** organized labor! What the hell do they do? What have they ever done for workers!? Lets become China and get rid of all labors and see how quick those labor laws go away! LONG LIVE PRIVATE ENTERPRISE INTENDED ONLY TO MAKE MONEY FOR THE FEW!!! DOWN WITH ORGANIZED LABOR!!!

Well one thing orgnaized labor did was get their a** handed to them by the voters of Wisconcin.

Finally the voters figured out the state workers, are making more money than they do, and sent them a message - "I'm footing the bill for your nice bennies" and it's gonna stop now.
 
More tax payer money was wasted because of public unions to deal with a recall election.

This is probably the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Recalls are part of the democratic process; when enough citizens want a recall, then one is performed. IIRC like a million people signed the recall, which is a massive number and therefore - legally and rationally - satisfies the need for one.

If you want to whine about the cost of a recall then you should be whining about the cost of all elections and argue against democracy as it is too expensive.

Well one thing orgnaized labor did was get their a** handed to them by the voters of Wisconcin.

Organized labor are voters. False dichotomy in a dishonest attempt to separate organized laborers from voters/taxpayers.

BTW, collective bargaining is good for the state because it makes negotiations easier for both sides. I don't think most people posting in this thread against collective bargaining understand what it was like without it.
 
Well one thing orgnaized labor did was get their a** handed to them by the voters of Wisconcin.

Finally the voters figured out the state workers, are making more money than they do, and sent them a message - "I'm footing the bill for your nice bennies" and it's gonna stop now.

Ohhhh so its the politics of "envy"...? :lamo
 
Labor Unions are huge multibillion dollar businesses run by thugs and supported through intimidation..

At one time they may have served a purpose but those days are long past.

Yea all those teachers, firefighters, policemen, are all thugs... :doh These labor unions dont do **** for them!
 
Its a sad day when democracy is when whoever has the most money wins. A sad day. So this is what US democracy and politics has become (for both sides Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of this BS). Ohhh the glory. Reminds me of a ol Abraham Lincoln quote: "..corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed."

Guess it isn't a sad day when Obama outspent McCain 3-1 and won? You think the people are so stupid that their votes can be bought?
 
Yea all those teachers, firefighters, policemen, are all thugs... :doh These labor unions dont do **** for them!

Disgustin', ain't it? Drop in on Firehouse Seven and you'll see the boys lapping up beluga off gold chafing dishes ... swilling Cristal while the chamber orchestra plays on....
 
So he felt the need to raise an 8 to 1 margin over his opponent because money doesn't have anything to do with elections??? Don't you think his campaign finance committee would have told him to stop wasting time raising money if they thought he didn't need to have a healthy lead in cash?

I'll give you this... In a place like Wisconsin, most peoples minds were already made up. There were very few independents who hadn't already figured it out. However, on a national stage, advertisements are not there to persuade democrats or republicans... they are there to persuade the undecided independent voters. So yes, money and advertisements are everything when it comes to national stage elections.

Right, and we certainly don't want to count the 16 months of liberal spending to get the recall? That doesn't matter, does it?
 
Guess it isn't a sad day when Obama outspent McCain 3-1 and won? You think the people are so stupid that their votes can be bought?

The vast majority of Obama's fundraising comes from small donors. The vast majority of Romney's money comes from millionaires and billionaires.
 
Back
Top Bottom