• 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.
Poor guy. I am away from home 3 weeks at a time and home one week. Feel sorry for me yet?
MG_119.gif

Why uis it that you need to put up a little smilie hoping to convicne people that your 'remark' is somehow funny?

Why would I feel sorry for you? I have no idea what you do or it it serves any actual good purpose.
 
Why uis it that you need to put up a little smilie hoping to convicne people that your 'remark' is somehow funny?

Why would I feel sorry for you? I have no idea what you do or it it serves any actual good purpose.

Then you don't pay attention I have not hidden the fact I am a truckdriver. The fact you bring up 12 hour days is laughable to a truck driver. We often run our log books out of hours at 14 hours. I seldom make it home for holidays. I am not complaining but I am looking to get a local job and get off the road. At my age I would like to spend more time with my wife
 
discuss the facts

Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows:

"Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html
 
Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows:

"Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

See post #464

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...public-employee-unions-12.html#post1059304078
 
If we listed ALL the changes since FDR, you would need a library.... and then some. Your link is hardly relevant to the topic.

Hardly relevant to the topic?

You feel that Unions didn't play a part in Detroit's downfall?
 
Why do you want to rape your dog? ---- You see how stupid that sounds? That's how your statement above sounds, and since you cannot dispute the facts you have to resort to hyperbole and appeals to emotion to push your point of view. Look, the facts are the facts - I know you don't like them but that's the reality.

Speaking of hyperbole,(plus a bit of mind readon) from your post …
You're one of 3 people in this country reading Dean Baker. :lamo
 
Last edited:
:eek:
Nice spin but we all know that unions are part of the democrat party Obama has proven that over the last 2 years

Well, look here our faux AFL/CIO shop steward has entered the thread again....and the threads average IQ did what?:eek:
 
Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows:l
Why do you imply this is a problem, and not a positive?

How did they get this money? Largely through being free to be an entrepreneur and investor.<-good
How did communist styled wealthy get their money? Through coercively taking it (like public/unions) .<- bad

Having a lot of money in itself is irrelevant. How you get it is what matters. If someone robbed you and was wealthier than you afterwards, that's a bad thing, but not because they are wealthier, because they STOLE the money. Likewise, if someone busts ass, employees half a town, and earns millions in the process, what the hell is that if not commendable, or at the very least, simply neutral?

There are a lot of places to invest in right now...China being front and center. How many middle class care about investing in China? How many saved enough to invest? They instead bought houses they couldn't afford, and they are in debt. That's not the fault of the wealthy, sorry. So the people that saved and care about investing in China, are going to accelerate their earnings. It's rocket science I know. China is never in the news as the new emerging economy. It's a big ****ing conspiracy isn't it.

And every single time you attempt to insulate the masses from the reality of their own bad choices, you damn them to make MORE bad choices. Do the right thing, tell it like it is. Teach them about fishing and all that crap.
 
Last edited:



Yea, I can see how this compares to a Union Boss taking up residence in the WH for the last to years.:roll:

A confidential list prepared by the Bush administration shows that Cheney and his aides had already held at least 40 meetings with interest groups, most of them from energy-producing industries. By the time of the meeting with environmental groups, according to a former White House official who provided the list to The Washington Post, the initial draft of the task force was substantially complete and President Bush had been briefed on its progress.
Papers Detail Industry's Role in Cheney's Energy Report - washingtonpost.com
 
Why do you imply this is a problem, and not a positive?

Because I happen to think a strong middle class is necessary for a healthy economy, and I don't much care for a corporate run society.
 
Speaking of hyperbole,(plus a bit of mind readon) from your post …

I'm okay amending it to 4 if you say you've read him.
 
Hardly relevant to the topic?

You feel that Unions didn't play a part in Detroit's downfall?

Just the opposite is true.

Detroit's downfall was due to white flight takingthe cities population and cutting it in half and taking far mor than half the tax base with it.
 
Walker's got a fight ahead of him, that's for sure.

Here's Obama talking to the SEIU before he won the election. They invested 60 million dollars in him.
In the video he says "I know how much more we could accomplish as partners in an Obama administration"
 
Because I happen to think a strong middle class is necessary for a healthy economy, and I don't much care for a corporate run society.
#1. The strength of the middle class is not directly linked to wealth inequality. Please show direct correlation else concede that it's not relevant.
#2. And what fostered the creation of the middle class as we know it today? Capitalism (freedom in the marketplace). How do you reconcile your beliefs with this reality?
#3. Corporate run society is nonsensical rhetoric. You want to get into a propoganda back and forth or try and reason this out?

What happens when labor-focused formerly communist nations add some capitalism to the mix?
February 2009, The Economist announced that over half the world's population now belongs to the middle class, as a result of rapid growth in emerging countries
Ouch right? But look at the opposite as well to seal the deal. What happens when labor-focused communist nations don't accept free markets? North Korea? How is their middle class doing.

If public unions increase the cost of labor for government, who pays for this? Taxpayers. According to many liberals, the wealthy business owners will make their employees bear the burden of higher costs. So when a union forces taxpayers to pay them more for their services, by this logic, it's primarily the middle class and working class that pays for their sweetheart deals. If you are for a strong middle class, you should oppose not only excess government, but public unions (unions in general).

Sitting in the same job for 30 years that someone with just 1-2 years of experience can do just as well or better, is tragic for everyone involved. It's protectionism for workers.
 
Last edited:
#1. The strength of the middle class is not directly linked to wealth inequality. Please show direct correlation else concede that it's not relevant.
#2. And what fostered the creation of the middle class as we know it today? Capitalism (freedom in the marketplace). How do you reconcile your beliefs with this reality?
#3. Corporate run society is nonsensical rhetoric. You want to get into a propoganda back and forth or try and reason this out?

What happens when labor-focused formerly communist nations add some capitalism to the mix?

Ouch right? But look at the opposite as well to seal the deal. What happens when labor-focused communist nations don't accept free markets? North Korea? How is their middle class doing.

If public unions increase the cost of labor for government, who pays for this? Taxpayers. According to many liberals, the wealthy business owners will make their employees bear the burden of higher costs. So when a union forces taxpayers to pay them more for their services, by this logic, it's primarily the middle class and working class that pays for their sweetheart deals. If you are for a strong middle class, you should oppose not only excess government, but public unions (unions in general).

Sitting in the same job for 30 years that someone with just 1-2 years of experience can do just as well or better, is tragic for everyone involved. It's protectionism for workers.

How is having a small percentage of rich people controlling most of the wealth while most are poor and uneducated good for society? Wealth breeds more wealth, some sort of market barrier is put into place, these people will only continue to get richer.

What is positive about that?
 
How is having a small percentage of rich people controlling most of the wealth while most are poor and uneducated good for society? Wealth breeds more wealth, some sort of market barrier is put into place, these people will only continue to get richer.

What is positive about that?

What is positive is that this isn't a zero sum game and the pie keeps getting bigger. There is plenty of room for more rich people withouth hurting anyone else. Why aren't you one of those rich people that you seem to hate?

When I read posts like your I get very concerned about the education system in this country. People who legally become rich have done nothing wrong and should be commended instead of being demonized. We have the greatest economy on the face of the earth in spite of people like you.
 
Census: Income gap between rich and poor got wider in 2009

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The income gap between the richest and poorest Americans grew last year to its widest amount on record as young adults and children in particular struggled to stay afloat in the recession.

The top-earning 20% of Americans — those making more than $100,000 each year — received 49.4% of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4% earned by those below the poverty line, according to newly released Census figures. That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968.


Census: Income gap between rich and poor got wider in 2009 - USATODAY.com
 
What is positive is that this isn't a zero sum game and the pie keeps getting bigger. There is plenty of room for more rich people withouth hurting anyone else. Why aren't you one of those rich people that you seem to hate?

When I read posts like your I get very concerned about the education system in this country. People who legally become rich have done nothing wrong and should be commended instead of being demonized. We have the greatest economy on the face of the earth in spite of people like you.

How do you figure? It's a rigged game just like at the casino. At some point, as the squeeze gets tighter and tighter, just like at every other point in history, something has to give and this is usually when revolutions begin. Our system is set up so that money trickles uphill, so what else would you expect to happen?

There is room for some to join, but for ordinary people, as more people hit it big and then keep the money for family legacies, the less money there is to go around in the real world. If everyone was like Bill Gates and planned to donate most of the money back to charity when they died... yes, the system would work much better.
 
while most are poor and uneducated good for society?
What nation has mostly poor and uneducated that you're referring to? It's not the U.S., so who are you debating with exactly?

And what does that have to do with wealth inequality? You could have 1% ultra-rich, and 99% upper-middle class. That's wealth inequality, how is it intrinsically bad? It's not. You guys have no actual basis for your beliefs.

Understand that wealth and power are what people seek. Nations are destroyed, people enslaved, wars fought, throughout history. We broke this up. Weatlh is free for anyone to obtain in a relatively free market system, government/security power is broken up in a representative democracy. You keep wanting to merge the two, it's tragic. Government MUST be independant, and MUST preserve our right to freely compete in the market place (including regulations and other government functions). If not, you're right back to tyranny.

Wealth breeds more wealth, some sort of market barrier is put into place, these people will only continue to get richer.
So? Why is someone getting rich, bad?

If wealth is good, and everyone is free to get it, and wealth breeds wealth, why is a system that allows you to pursue it anything but ****ing awesome?
 
What nation has mostly poor and uneducated that you're referring to? It's not the U.S., so who are you debating with exactly?

And what does that have to do with wealth inequality? You could have 1% ultra-rich, and 99% upper-middle class. That's wealth inequality, how is it intrinsically bad? It's not. You guys have no actual basis for your beliefs.

Understand that wealth and power are what people seek. Nations are destroyed, people enslaved, wars fought, throughout history. We broke this up. Weatlh is free for anyone to obtain in a relatively free market system, government/security power is broken up in a representative democracy. You keep wanting to merge the two, it's tragic. Government MUST be independant, and MUST preserve our right to freely compete in the market place (including regulations and other government functions). If not, you're right back to tyranny.


So? Why is someone getting rich, bad?

If wealth is good, and everyone is free to get it, and wealth breeds wealth, why is a system that allows you to pursue it anything but ****ing awesome?

Why do people always put words into my mouth? I never hated on anyone being rich. All I am doing is pointing out the obvious: there is a reason for the term "old money". And when you take "old money" + "new money" = less money for everyone else.

It's pretty rare that this equation happens "old money" - "spends money" = "new poor".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom