• 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 governor gives Democrats ultimatum

Other approaches could be used e.g., emergency spending recissions (targeted or across-the-board, the latter being the easiest to achieve as the sacrifice is spread widely). Refinancing savings are not the only way deficits can be closed.

Of course it isn't. However, it was the one way both parties agreed to pursue and is the method to cause the least pain. I guess instead of refinancing, they can reduce medicare or layoff additional public sector employees. I think we're probably looking at option number two at this point.
 
The government has opened a sleeping giant.....the ramifications of Walker's refusal to negotiate and to dictatorally push this corporatist agenda is going to be widespread.

The sleeping giant that's been awakened goes by another name: the taxpayer.

monopoly status?...that's a good one. What you are really saying is that government should have complete control and the workers should have no representation.
So much for that small government you guys love to claim you love.

Public sector unions should not have the right to collectively bargain their wages and benefits. Federal employees do not have this right. Neither should state workers.

People are not going to sit back and allow government to have complete control without the workers having representation. It completely goes against the fundamentals of this country.

These "people" you refer to make up 11.9% of the workers in the United States....with public-sector employees making up over 50% of that total. The may have big mouths, but they most positively are soundly in the minority.
 
The sleeping giant that's been awakened goes by another name: the taxpayer.



Public sector unions should not have the right to collectively bargain their wages and benefits. Federal employees do not have this right. Neither should state workers.



These "people" you refer to make up 11.9% of the workers in the United States....with public-sector employees making up over 50% of that total. The may have big mouths, but they most positively are soundly in the minority.

Yeah but a lot of americans dont like having laws stating what they can and cant do. IE preventing collective bargining in this case

Instead of being a coward he should stand up and negotiate a very hard contract or fire the lot
 
Yeah but a lot of americans dont like having laws stating what they can and cant do. IE preventing collective bargining in this case

Instead of being a coward he should stand up and negotiate a very hard contract or fire the lot

I always like, "Yeah, but" responses. :rofl
 
Yeah but a lot of americans dont like having laws stating what they can and cant do. IE preventing collective bargining in this case


the Americans you are speaking of are now looking at what these contracts are, and don't like the fact that these people with similar jobs, and education levels are making on average 20% more than they are, and have golden pensions, and health care.

I don't think you're correct in this at all.


j-mac
 
the Americans you are speaking of are now looking at what these contracts are, and don't like the fact that these people with similar jobs, and education levels are making on average 20% more than they are, and have golden pensions, and health care.

I don't think you're correct in this at all.


j-mac

Which is why a tougher new contract should be signed or fire the bunch. Making a law that prevents people from collectively bargining is limiting peoples freedoms. It is also the cowards way
 
Which is why a tougher new contract should be signed or fire the bunch. Making a law that prevents people from collectively bargining is limiting peoples freedoms. It is also the cowards way


Nah, I don't think you need a union to be free....Do you?


j-mac
 
Which is why a tougher new contract should be signed or fire the bunch. Making a law that prevents people from collectively bargining is limiting peoples freedoms. It is also the cowards way

Walker isn't talking about away collecctive bargaining from privaye sector unions, just PEU's.

If he lays them off--he won't be able to fire them--he'll have to pay them unemployment, so that's not a better alternative.
 
Firemen take that oath? I never knew that.

That oath is taken by every military officer and most political figures.

Are you saying that the troops that defend this country with their life is any better than a firemen that puts his life on the line???
 
The sleeping giant that's been awakened goes by another name: the taxpayer.



Public sector unions should not have the right to collectively bargain their wages and benefits. Federal employees do not have this right. Neither should state workers.



These "people" you refer to make up 11.9% of the workers in the United States....with public-sector employees making up over 50% of that total. The may have big mouths, but they most positively are soundly in the minority.

Well let's see the taxpayer kinda let all that bailout money go to corporations and banks after they were told they would help the American economy.
How have they helped ?
This is about American workers who if they keep their jobs will be spending money and paying state tax in Wisconsin.
Not about where taxes go.
Taxpayers were not so quick to ask in 2003, till 2008 especialy not many Republicans:cool:
 
Last edited:
The sleeping giant that's been awakened goes by another name: the taxpayer.



Public sector unions should not have the right to collectively bargain their wages and benefits. Federal employees do not have this right. Neither should state workers.



These "people" you refer to make up 11.9% of the workers in the United States....with public-sector employees making up over 50% of that total. The may have big mouths, but they most positively are soundly in the minority.

You are spouting off right-wing talking points without knowing the facts. Most federal employees actually do have collect bargaining rights. Reagan exempted some of them by signing their rights away, but most federal workers retain their bargaining rights.

And why should public employees not have the right to bargain in the same way private employees do. Why should the government have complete power without giving the people the right to a voice?
 
DisneyDude you originally said this -
No...what you are really saying is that you want government to have complete control....and that they workers should have no voice. Very anti-american values.

Then I said this - So you agree that privatization is the answer? It allows unions to exist with collective bargaining power, and it ends the corrupt circle of politician pandering to the union, the union giving them money, and the politician giving the wages and benefits once elected? You agree that this is corrupt, correct?

To which you replied -
You have very little understanding of our political process if you think what you wrote has any basis in reality. Especially in light of the activist decision in "Citizen's United" that essentially allows corporations to have unlimited ability to contribute to political candidates.
How does "privatization" "End the corrupt cycle of political pandering"? If anything, it increases it.
I would much rather individual workers have a voice in political pandering than corporations.....

Sooo.. Limiting the corporate voice is NOT Anti-American, but limiting the workers voice is?

Besides the obvious contradiction here, let's look at it another way. In the Public Sector Union scam, the "boss's" speak for their organization by way of union dues. union dues that have no bearing on the actual political aspirations of the union member paying them. Corporations speak with their money much the same way, but the employee is not in ANY WAY beholden to the corporations' particular political aspirations. The employee does not pay into some corporate political action committee, and if they feel as though their employer is barking up the wrong political tree they can leave and work for a competitor. Now, last time I checked, teachers, and public service employee's can't leave their jobs and work for a competitor, because there IS NO competitor. If they make a stand, they leave their career altogether.

And you tell me I have no understanding of the political process??

Are you intentionally this naive? Aren't you a lawyer? What kind of argument is this you spout off? Are you suggesting for a second that public sector unions are NOT corrupt.

cor•rupt[ kə rúpt ]ADJECTIVE
1. immoral or dishonest: immoral or dishonest, especially as shown by the exploitation of a position of power or trust for personal gain

The entire system is corrupt, and ONLY a self serving professional liberal wouldn't see it this way.

Tim-
 
Last edited:
Sooo.. Limiting the corporate voice is NOT Anti-American, but limiting the workers voice is?

Absolutely...ding ding ding ding.

People have rights under our Constitution. Unfortunately right-wing judicial activism has now twisted the Constitution to find that corporations are "persons" under our constitution, even though they cannot be held accountable in the same manner than real people can.
 
Absolutely...ding ding ding ding.

People have rights under our Constitution. Unfortunately right-wing judicial activism has now twisted the Constitution to find that corporations are "persons" under our constitution, even though they cannot be held accountable in the same manner than real people can.


Ok, then you should be able to pull up the section of the Constitution that has the words "collective barganing" in it, or the Bill of Rights for that matter.

But let me ask you disneydude, would you say that you are an average worker, or an above average worker?


j-mac
 
You are spouting off right-wing talking points without knowing the facts. Most federal employees actually do have collect bargaining rights. Reagan exempted some of them by signing their rights away, but most federal workers retain their bargaining rights.

Disney, you are wrong. Federal employees, none of them, can collectively bargain their salaries or their benefits. All you have to do is Google instead of wasting people's time here educating you.

And why should public employees not have the right to bargain in the same way private employees do. Why should the government have complete power without giving the people the right to a voice?

I have no problem with public-sector unions as long as they cannot bargain their salary or benefits. Union contributions elect the very poliicians who are sitting across the negotiating table with them. Wrong-wrong-wrong. These negotiators give away the store at taxpayers' expense in order to keep themselves in office. It's incestuous.

PS: I don't spout talking points. I'm as well-versed on this subject as any DP'r on these boards. You are not.
 
Last edited:
He can be recalled after one year. I'd be surprized if he sticks around that long. I look for him to take the Sara Palin way out.

Keep hoping for that and the winning lottery ticket. You've got about the same odds...
 
Disney, you are wrong. Federal employees, none of them, can collectively bargain their salaries or their benefits. All you have to do is Google instead of wasting people's time here educating you.
didn't notice disney insisting that federal employees should be entitled to negotiate their compensation. i did see you insist that all public sector employees should not
members on both sides of the aisle seem not to be aware of that difference
nor do many realize that that defined benefit retirement packages are a thing of the past in the federal sector (except for those grandfathered in)
I have no problem with public-sector unions as long as they cannot bargain their salary or benefits. Union contributions elect the very poliicians who are sitting across the negotiating table with them. Wrong-wrong-wrong. These negotiators give away the store at taxpayers' expense in order to keep themselves in office. It's incestuous.
i can assure you that if the public sector employees held such influence, the shrub would not have been elected - twice
you are imagining things if you believe the unions get to choose who sits across from them at the bargaining table
PS: I don't spout talking points. I'm as well-versed on this subject as any DP'r on these boards. You are not.
i strongly disagree
 
didn't notice disney insisting that federal employees should be entitled to negotiate their compensation. i did see you insist that all public sector employees should not. Members on both sides of the aisle seem not to be aware of that difference, nor do many realize that that defined benefit retirement packages are a thing of the past in the federal sector (except for those grandfathered in)

What difference? (bolded sentence) Public-sector defined benefit packages are definitely not a thing of the past. Don't know about Federal...I'm not interested.

I strongly disagree

I don't care.
 
you are imagining things if you believe the unions get to choose who sits across from them at the bargaining table...


They may not directly choose whom it is in any particular negotiation, but you can not deny that the relationship between Unions like the SEIU and democrat election campaigns is not right, and if the repubs had say one of their special intrests groups liberals would be the first to bludgen us over the head about that. Now all the sudden we should turn our heads to this kind of relationship? I don't think so.

FDR didn't like collective barganing for government employees, and I don't either.


j-mac
 
"The real struggle is about power." Yes, it probably is. And what is wrong with that? If I have to choose who gets the power, well, I'm sure you've heard this before, Power To The People!

To postulate that negotiations went forward with teachers on the basis of "accept less in compensation in return for better pensions and healthcare benefits" is dishonest on its face. Negotiations went forward on the basis of "We'll scratch your back, if you scratch ours." And everybody scratched -- with taxpayer funds.

Both sides are getting tax payer funds... why isn't the Governor's benefits on the chopping block too?
 
The whole world is watching.

Walker is offering the Dems a deal they can't refuse. And, in other news, Sarah Palin just flew in and offered them a deal she couldn't understand. :mrgreen:
 
I think there's a win win here... Walker lays off 1,000 workers - they become the Fed's problem on unemployment... the State cuts their budget and the Unions get to cry victim.

If they are all fired, who is going to replace all of them? I have a feeling some of them are going to be rehired again... maybe not doing the same exact job they did before, but they'll end up on the same payroll again unless the Gov has another trick up his sleeve and blacklists them..
 
Both sides are getting tax payer funds... why isn't the Governor's benefits on the chopping block too?

What makes you think they're not? Frankly, what a great statement that'd be.
 
Back
Top Bottom