• 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.
I could be, but I reread it again and get the same results:

'1 ActBlue
2 AT&T Inc
3 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees
4 National Assn of Realtors
5 Goldman Sachs
6 American Assn for Justice
7 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
8 National Education Assn
9 Laborers Union
10 Teamsters Union'

Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2010 | OpenSecrets

According to your site, of top ten donors, only 1 corporate donor gave more to Democrats than Republicans during the last 20 years.

Are you trying to test my patience? REREAD AGAIN, and this time (forgive me), wear your glasses and view the ENTIRE chart. You see that little legend at the top? There's a symbol that represents a "on the fence" which means the company contributes about evenly to both parties (though to be fair, AT&T does contribute about 55% to Reps and 45% to Dems and Nat. Assn of Realtors contributes about 51% to Reps and 49% to Dems). There's a symbol of a donkey that represents the democrat party, and finally there's a symbol of an elephant that represents republicans. NOW, take an even closer look. Look at the column that is labeled "tilt." Do you see all the donkeys? Do you see even a single elephant in that column for the top ten? In fact, you don't see your first elephant until you get down to #18. So, the top 17 groups, with the exception of four who are considered "on the fence", have consistently spend more (WAY MORE) in favor of the democrat party as opposed to the republican party.

FAILURE.
 
Last edited:
Tax cuts to the wealthy means the individual keeps MORE OF WHAT THEY EARNED!

Yeah, I more interested in the middle class keeping more of what they've earned. More and more of us are going under the poverty line. i don't see that happening with the wealthy. They are still getting more wealthy at our expense. Apparently you don't see a problem with that. We will see in 2012 whether the voters have a problem with that.

You seem to think you are an expert on what to pay someone else that isn't employed by you. What the teachers are paid is subject to what the Board of Education in their district decides and what the taxpayer is willing to fund.

I'm no expert and neither are you, but I damn sure know that claiming that our college educated middle class should be paid less than $75,000 a year (which includes their benefits) is a load of crap.

Is your proposal that our middle class should be paid third world wages? What do you think a college educated middle class should make?
 
So they don't have to pay teachers the those fantastic salaries of $51,000 a year so they can lord their 93 Chevy over us! Let's give more tax cuts to the wealthy instead!

Great campaign platform you have there! :sun

Teachers are paid handsomely. The best way to determine whether or not the salary of the position offered is adequate enough (and instead of salary, we should say salary and benefits),take a look at the supply and demand. It all goes back to simple economics. Everyone wants to be a teacher. For every single open teaching position in this country, a school will determine the eligibility of roughly 30 candidates or more. If the benefits and salary did not outweigh the costs, there would be a shortage of teachers because there would be a shortage of applicants.
 
Are you trying to test my patience? REREAD AGAIN, and this time (forgive me), wear your glasses and view the ENTIRE chart. .

Back to your strawman again. I made no claims about any other than the top ten funders. My point was about what changed in the 2010 election that now has all of the top ten big money donors on the side of the GOP. Corporate America has found that is no longer business as usual in their dealings with this administration.
 
Teachers are paid handsomely. The best way to determine whether or not the salary of the position offered is adequate enough (and instead of salary, we should say salary and benefits),take a look at the supply and demand. It all goes back to simple economics. Everyone wants to be a teacher. For every single open teaching position in this country, a school will determine the eligibility of roughly 30 candidates or more. If the benefits and salary did not outweigh the costs, there would be a shortage of teachers because there would be a shortage of applicants.

Thanks for your opinion.

"According to a new study from the National Education Association, a teachers union, half of new U.S. teachers are likely to quit within the first five years because of poor working conditions and low salaries."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/08/AR2006050801344.html
 
the difference between fascism and freedom---great campaign slogan you have, there

for people's park

LOL!
 
Catawba;1059321491]Yeah, I more interested in the middle class keeping more of what they've earned. More and more of us are going under the poverty line. i don't see that happening with the wealthy. They are still getting more wealthy at our expense. Apparently you don't see a problem with that. We will see in 2012 whether the voters have a problem with that.

Maybe if you spent more time reading what is posted in response to you and less time just posting you wouldn't look so foolish. Define Middle Class?

The top 1% of wage earners make 20% of all income and pay 38% of all taxes.
The top 5% of wage earners make 34.7% of all income and pay 58.7% of all taxes.
The top 10% of wage earners make 45.8% of all income and pay 69.9% of all taxes.

The bottom 50% make 12.8% of all income and pay 2.7% of all taxes.

Currently approximately 47% of all Americans pay nothing and actually get money back making their tax rate negative.


I'm no expert and neither are you, but I damn sure know that claiming that our college educated middle class should be paid less than $75,000 a year (which includes their benefits) is a load of crap.

Is your proposal that our middle class should be paid third world wages? What do you think a college educated middle class should make?


I don't set wages, the market does. What makes you an expert on what is appropriate for anyone? You really use emotional rhetoric but not much thought in your posts. You think our middle class makes third world wages? I swear you are doing this for attention because our middle class would be rich in third world countries. This really has to be a joke.
 
Back to your strawman again. I made no claims about any other than the top ten funders. My point was about what changed in the 2010 election that now has all of the top ten big money donors on the side of the GOP. Corporate America has found that is no longer business as usual in their dealings with this administration.

Stop claiming straw man when there isn't any. You specifically made the claim, after failing to read the source carefully, that the top ten donors according to my stat were spending more in favor of the republicans. I have demonstrated otherwise, and then you simply revert back to your single year claim.

Tell me why all the big drug companies were on board with Obama's health care bill. Tell me why Walmart is on board with Mrs. Obama's "Let's Move" campaign? Tell me why GE heavily supports Obama's energy plan. Tell me why AT&T heavily support the administration's plan to ensure "net neutrality." It's business as usual. A regulatory technocrat, regardless of party affiliation, will likely offer any corporate body the strings to the purse. Subsidies? Tariffs? Tax treatment? Mandates? They all benefit the massive corporation at the expense of the taxpayer and the smaller business. Who do you think is rewarded with all those subsidies to produce alternative fuels? OIL COMPANIES (and of course GE)!!! Your political savior is no different than the last one. Business as usual will aways be business as usual until we break down the relationship between government and business. And the only way to truly do that is to stop government interventionism.

See regulatory capture:

Regulatory capture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Thanks for your opinion.

"According to a new study from the National Education Association, a teachers union, half of new U.S. teachers are likely to quit within the first five years because of poor working conditions and low salaries."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/08/AR2006050801344.html

I don't doubt the poor working conditions. I also don't doubt that they wish to be paid more. But for what they currently do (offer a below par education), their salaries are high enough. Teachers in private schools are generally paid far less than those in public schools, and they manage to produce greater results each and every time. The first five years of an occupation is quite a long window. And if you really want to look at an occupation that is underpaid, just refer to trucking. I've read of a massive truckers shortage that will force employers to raise wages and benefits.

There's still a serious supply of applicants for every single open teaching job. Everyone always wishes to paid more for what they do, even those greedy CEOs! The yearning for a higher pay has no real bearing on the adequacy of real wages. Again, it all goes back to simple economics.
 
I'm no expert

that's why you should LINK, silly

For the first time since Democratic lawmakers walked out of the House and drove to Illinois, their leader on Tuesday began to give some indication there might be -- maybe, possibly -- some progress toward ending the now 10-day Statehouse stalemate.

"I think maybe time has healed some things," said Minority Leader B. Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, in a conference call with reporters Tuesday afternoon.

Bauer was especially complimentary of an amendment offered by Republicans to the bill that would provide parents with tuition help to allow their children to attend private schools.

Indiana Democrats hint at progress in deadlock | The Indianapolis Star | indystar.com

how do you spell c-a-v-e?
 
I don't doubt the poor working conditions. I also don't doubt that they wish to be paid more. But for what they currently do (offer a below par education), their salaries are high enough. Teachers in private schools are generally paid far less than those in public schools, and they manage to produce greater results each and every time. The first five years of an occupation is quite a long window. And if you really want to look at an occupation that is underpaid, just refer to trucking. I've read of a massive truckers shortage that will force employers to raise wages and benefits.

There's still a serious supply of applicants for every single open teaching job. Everyone always wishes to paid more for what they do, even those greedy CEOs! The yearning for a higher pay has no real bearing on the adequacy of real wages. Again, it all goes back to simple economics.

You seem to be confusing the socio-economic obstacles to learning with teacher's abilities. The only reason private schools have higher test scores is because they have a select student population and small student to teacher ratio. You put every student in a charter schools and add in corporate profit, your test scores would be the same or lower because you are going to attract less qualified teachers, and the cost would still be higher.

While trucking is an honorable profession but it does not require a college education. What do you think would be a fair compensation package for someone with 4 to 8 years of college?
 
Then obviously your employer isn't that smart if he/she believes your posts are coherent and full of facts. You don't seem to even know what the dispute is all about in Wisconsin. Hint: wages aren't an issue

whatever..... do you need to see Kevin Meaney again?
 
a fair compensation package?

LOL!

for 8 years of poetry and ethnic studies?

there are no guarantees in life, lenin

get out and make something of yourself

grow up
 
And it ratchets up yet again...

Breaking: Wisconsin Dems throw their weight behind drive to recall GOP Senators
By Greg Sargent

The Wisconsin Democratic Party has decided to throw its weight behind a nascent grassroots drive to recall a number of GOP state senators, a move that will considerably increase the pressure on them to break with Governor Scott Walker, the Dem party chair confirms to me. "The proposals and the policies that Republicans are pushing right now are not what they campaigned on, and they're extreme," the party chair, Mike Tate, said in an interview. "Something needs to be done about it now. We're happy to stand with citizens who are filling papers to recall these senators."

Previously, Wisconsin Dems had not publicly supported talk about recalling GOP Senators, in hopes of privately reaching a negotiated solution to the crisis. The Wisconsin Democratic Party's decision to support the recall drives represents a significant ratcheting up of hostilities and in essence signals that all bets are off.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/03/breaking_wisconsin_dems_throw.html

Wow.
 
I'm sure we'll see the same outcry for civility that we did during the town halls last year, right ???

No question about it, I am sure that the party of civility will react swiftly and quickly to the video.
 
You seem to be confusing the socio-economic obstacles to learning with teacher's abilities.

That can be an issue. However, there are statistical methods that can be employed to better measure student learning e.g., standardizing overall changes in learning while controlling for socioeconomic variables.

While trucking is an honorable profession but it does not require a college education. What do you think would be a fair compensation package for someone with 4 to 8 years of college?

I don't believe one can pin down a "fair" level of compensation, because the marketplace is not static and it does not place equal weight on all skills. In general, both wages and job security (as measured by unemployment rates and volatility in those rates e.g., in January 2011 those with only a high school diploma had an unemployment rate of 9.4%, while those with a Bachelor's degree or higher had an unemployment rate of 4.2%) are better for college-educated workers. However, the exact wages depend on the value the market places on given backgrounds/degrees, and that value can fluctuate and shift over time. High demand (relative to supply) skills i.e., engineering or accounting command higher wages than lower-demand skills e.g., humanities in which one has more limited opportunities. Of course, that picture can change if, let's say higher wages attract a much larger number of students to major in a given field and, over time, that development leads to a much higher supply of workers relative to demand in that profession. The global dimension e.g., from outsourcing labor tasks, is another issue that needs to be considered.
 
And it ratchets up yet again...

This development is not surprising. For all intents and purposes, the two sides are engaged in a scorched earth/take-no-prisoners battle. Rather than working to find mutually agreeable approaches to substantively address fiscal issues, each is trying to exert increasing leverage to break the other. The battle could intensify further before elements from each party, perhaps out of exhaustion aided growing recognition that a long-running political stalemate is not beneficial to Wisconsin's residents, begin to work toward a compromise that ends the impasse and allows for a resumption of governance.
 
Ed Schultz was live at the protests one day, but the others largely ignore the dangerous precedent set by this "debate". These same networks played the phony tea party all day, but are real protests too "scary" for big business media conglomerates?

CNN, FoxNews & MSNBC Ignore 100,000 Protesters

"All three cable networks share something else in common besides their decision to ignore today’s rallies. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News along with most other forms of media have decided that liberalprotests aren’t newsworthy. They believe that the ratings and the money are in the right, not the left. The three cable networks are corporate owned and only for the purpose of profit. They don’t care about journalism or their obligation to inform the public.

"This is all about dollars, and the outdated notion that the most profitable way to run a cable news outlet is to be like Fox News, which is why CNN keeps hiring more and more right wingers and has hopped into bed with the Tea Party Express."

Conspiracy Planet - Media Liars - CNN, FoxNews & MSNBC Ignore 100,000 Protesters
 
Last edited:
And Ed Schultz did a great job the week he was there. Kudo's to him. He had the real inside story that has not been told on most networks or cable outlets.
 
That can be an issue. However, there are statistical methods that can be employed to better measure student learning e.g., standardizing overall changes in learning while controlling for socioeconomic variables.

OK.

I don't believe one can pin down a "fair" level of compensation, because the marketplace is not static and it does not place equal weight on all skills. In general, both wages and job security (as measured by unemployment rates and volatility in those rates e.g., in January 2011 those with only a high school diploma had an unemployment rate of 9.4%, while those with a Bachelor's degree or higher had an unemployment rate of 4.2%) are better for college-educated workers. However, the exact wages depend on the value the market places on given backgrounds/degrees, and that value can fluctuate and shift over time. High demand (relative to supply) skills i.e., engineering or accounting command higher wages than lower-demand skills e.g., humanities in which one has more limited opportunities. Of course, that picture can change if, let's say higher wages attract a much larger number of students to major in a given field and, over time, that development leads to a much higher supply of workers relative to demand in that profession. The global dimension e.g., from outsourcing labor tasks, is another issue that needs to be considered
.

Not sure I understand your point here. Private sector pay with equivalent education is already at or above that of teachers. How low do you think it is possible to drive teachers compensation for their services and still attract quality people into the profession?
 
i'm a california public school teacher

i work 181 days a year, 6 hour days, tenured, no commute...

i make about 75K, never an hour of overtime from me (anymore, tho i made tens of K's there over the course of my career)

my strs is promised at something on the order of between 4 and 4.5 per month, i expect about half that (i have been preparing for 20 years for my plump pension to go pop)

i recommend teaching public school to anyone who will listen to me, if i could do it again i'd do pe---what a life, my opinion

i can't tell you how many of my friends are very, very well set, even after what CA is gonna go thru

of course, i could also testify to quite a few young teachers who are, for example, in extremely upside-down mortgages

and with all the cuts we see coming...

maybe math WAS a smarter career choice for me, after all

anyway, make of all that what you will

stay up
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom