• 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!

Unions threaten Business

What does any of that have to do with Republicans passing the new Emergency Manager law taking away the rights of local people to elect and have their own local government?

Attacking me personally does not change what the Republicans in Michigan have done.

I looked that up. Wow. I wish Illinois had something like that. I don't see it as taking away the rights of local people to elect and have their own local government. I look at it as the state being able to step in and fix things that have been broken. Interesting. One thing that bothers me that I read was that it gives the state the right to break contracts. I don't agree with that. I'm betting that won't stand up to the challenge that's sure to come. It's sure got the unions steppin' to, though. Emergency Manager law quickly impacting unions in Michigan | The Washington Independent

I find it interesting that Republican governors are really taking flack while trying to stop the tax/spend cycle -- while, at the Federal level, nothing of any consequence is really happening. Frankly, though? We should be more concerned with what's going on at the state level -- since, for most people, that's probably where more of their tax dollars go.
 
Did you not read the article on the new law just passed by Republicans in both houses of the Michigan legislature and signed by the Republican Governor without one single Democratic vote of support?

No, nor do I care as it is a state and local issue not a federal issue and has zero affect on me in the state of TX. I do recall that Republicans just took over the state govt. in January 2011 after years of Democrat rule and decades of rule in cities like Detroit. Looks like the people of Michigan voted for a different direction and the question is what took them so long? Apparently you have a problem with the legislation in the state that didn't get any Democrat support but no problem at the Federal level with Obama legislation that got almost zero Republican support, stimulus and healthcare? Looks to me like states are doing what they are supposed to do but legislation at the Federal level should represent all Americans.
 
You are the one whining about the republicans...so lets stick with the issues. What is the state of your state? What did the republican governor inherit? How are your cities doing? How is your unemployment?

Boy are you trying really hard to confuse the issue here. You seem to be the type of rabid partisan who will not criticize the politicians who worship at the same altar as you do. And because you want to attack Dems and unions, the side you picked in this fight were Michigan republicans. Where are the principled conservatives of the day of William F. Buckley? Alas, they are all dead and gone and in their place are screaming pretenders without principle.

What happened to Lincoln's "government of the people, by the people and for the people"?
What happened to Reagan scaring the nation with the feared phrases "I'm from the government and I'm here to help"?

The Republicans in Michigan have just passed new legislation which allows the State to take over local government even if they have the belief that a financial deficit may occur. It gives them the power to take over city assets, sell them, and destroy contracts in direct violation of the US Constitution Article I, Section 10, paragraph 1.

It destroys democratic representation and imposes dictatorships in communities. And because it was passed by Republicans, partisans here defend it !??!?!?!?!?
 
No, nor do I care as it is a state and local issue not a federal issue and has zero affect on me in the state of TX. I do recall that Republicans just took over the state govt. in January 2011 after years of Democrat rule and decades of rule in cities like Detroit. Looks like the people of Michigan voted for a different direction and the question is what took them so long? Apparently you have a problem with the legislation in the state that didn't get any Democrat support but no problem at the Federal level with Obama legislation that got almost zero Republican support, stimulus and healthcare? Looks to me like states are doing what they are supposed to do but legislation at the Federal level should represent all Americans.

I have a serious problem with a law that violates the US Constitution - Article I, Section 10, paragraph 1.

The real question here is why don't you?
 
I think patience and memory are the keys that will close the door on the republicans in 2012

How about actually worrying about dealing with unemployment and the budget deficit. If neither party can work on those issues they should both be thrown out. Its time to stop whining about party and start looking at the ****hole that has been created BY both parties.
 
I looked that up. Wow. I wish Illinois had something like that. I don't see it as taking away the rights of local people to elect and have their own local government. I look at it as the state being able to step in and fix things that have been broken. Interesting. One thing that bothers me that I read was that it gives the state the right to break contracts. I don't agree with that. I'm betting that won't stand up to the challenge that's sure to come. It's sure got the unions steppin' to, though. Emergency Manager law quickly impacting unions in Michigan | The Washington Independent

I find it interesting that Republican governors are really taking flack while trying to stop the tax/spend cycle -- while, at the Federal level, nothing of any consequence is really happening. Frankly, though? We should be more concerned with what's going on at the state level -- since, for most people, that's probably where more of their tax dollars go.

Maggie - you are a smart cookie. Now think this through. If the people cannot vote for their local government and it can be destroyed with one dictate of the State - how does that not concern you? I would think that the right of people to have their own government of the people, by the people and for the people would be a major issue for you.
 
Last edited:
Boy are you trying really hard to confuse the issue here. You seem to be the type of rabid partisan who will not criticize the politicians who worship at the same altar as you do. And because you want to attack Dems and unions, the side you picked in this fight were Michigan republicans. Where are the principled conservatives of the day of William F. Buckley? Alas, they are all dead and gone and in their place are screaming pretenders without principle.

What happened to Lincoln's "government of the people, by the people and for the people"?
What happened to Reagan scaring the nation with the feared phrases "I'm from the government and I'm here to help"?

The Republicans in Michigan have just passed new legislation which allows the State to take over local government even if they have the belief that a financial deficit may occur. It gives them the power to take over city assets, sell them, and destroy contracts in direct violation of the US Constitution Article I, Section 10, paragraph 1.

It destroys democratic representation and imposes dictatorships in communities. And because it was passed by Republicans, partisans here defend it !??!?!?!?!?

I'll ask again...KNOWING you never answer questions...especially ones that destroy your arguments...

What is the state of Michigans economy? What did the governor inherit? What is the tax obligation on Michigan citizens that cities are running up due to their fiscal irresponsible nature? What is Detroits current unemployment? How many schools have they had to shut down because they cant manage their budget? What is their current debt? And how are those schools doing education wise?
 
How about actually worrying about dealing with unemployment and the budget deficit. If neither party can work on those issues they should both be thrown out. Its time to stop whining about party and start looking at the ****hole that has been created BY both parties.

They're too busy playing politics.

It's truly sad.

Your credit rating is going to suffer because idiot republocrats aren't actually addressing anything. The Republican spending cuts and the democrat spending "cuts" if you could even call them that, are nothing short of pathetic and short sited

Social Security. Medicaid, medicare and defence are the areas of spending that need to be addressed, everything else is chump change.

But no one is willing to touch it.

And unemployment.

Well that's another beast all together. I don't really know what congress can do about it.
 
I'll ask again...KNOWING you never answer questions...especially ones that destroy your arguments...

What is the state of Michigans economy? What did the governor inherit? What is the tax obligation on Michigan citizens that cities are running up due to their fiscal irresponsible nature? What is Detroits current unemployment? How many schools have they had to shut down because they cant manage their budget? What is their current debt? And how are those schools doing education wise?

ANSWER: None of your questions have anything to do with the right of the people to elect and have their own government. That is a basic American principle that trumps any of your questions. The solution crafted violates the US Constitution. It violates the Michigan Constitution.

None of your questions and no answers to your questions change that. So please take your strawmen back into the barn and deal with the situation as it is.
 
I have a serious problem with a law that violates the US Constitution - Article I, Section 10, paragraph 1.

The real question here is why don't you?

Sounds like you have a problem in Michigan now but didn't have a problem when Demcrats were bankrupting the states. you claim it is a violation of the Constitution? If so challenge it in court and stop you whining about the vote of the people of Michigan to put Republicans in charge.
 
I looked that up. Wow. I wish Illinois had something like that. I don't see it as taking away the rights of local people to elect and have their own local government. I look at it as the state being able to step in and fix things that have been broken. Interesting. One thing that bothers me that I read was that it gives the state the right to break contracts. I don't agree with that. I'm betting that won't stand up to the challenge that's sure to come. It's sure got the unions steppin' to, though. Emergency Manager law quickly impacting unions in Michigan | The Washington Independent


I find it interesting that Republican governors are really taking flack while trying to stop the tax/spend cycle -- while, at the Federal level, nothing of any consequence is really happening. Frankly, though? We should be more concerned with what's going on at the state level -- since, for most people, that's probably where more of their tax dollars go.

We have a gaping hole in our economy that can only be filled by jobs, cutting jobs and pay will put a band aid on the wound but the virus that caused the wound will continue to spread. The rich will eventually fall to the virus unless the virus is recognized and treated.

The teachers offered to take a reduction of pay to help but Gov. Walker was not satisfied and won't be until he can restrict their collective bargaining rights. Gov Walker and the rest of the republican Governors will see the impact of their actions in the 2012 elections
 
Maggie - you are a smart cookie. Now think this through. If the people cannot vote for their local government and it can be destroyed with one dictate of the State - how does that not concern you? I would think that the right of people to have their own government of the people, by the people and for the people would be a major issue for you.

Setting the record straight: The Emergency Manager legislation is a proactive approach to preventing a local unit of government from experiencing a financial emergency. An Emergency Manager would be appointed only in the event of a municipal financial emergency....Appointing an emergency manager would minimize the likelihood that a local unit of government would be unable to provide basic services to its citizens.

State intervention on local unit financial emergencies is not new, nor is only supported by Republicans: Michigan has had an emergency financial manager law on the books since 1988. The original law was signed by Democrat governor James Blanchard.

An emergency financial manager has only been put in place a total of 10 times in more than 20 years. Emergency financial managers have been utilized by both Republican and Democrat governors. State Treasurer Andy Dillon, who previously served as the Democrat Speaker of the House, is leading the administration’s effort to ensure emergency managers that may be necessary in the future are properly trained.

Despite the misinformation being spread by the media and on the Internet, the legislation does not give the governor the ability to remove elected officials at will. Claims that it does are simply not true. The legislation includes a series of triggers, one of which must occur before a review of a local unit’s finances is even conducted, such as failure by the local unit of government to pay creditors or make timely pension contributions.Even if an emergency manager is put in place, local elected officials can only be removed from office if they refuse to provide information or assistance.

The governor already has – and has had – the ability to put an emergency financial manager in place since 1988.
The governor already has – and has had – the ability to remove elected officials for failing to do their duty or for corruption. This power was established in Michigan’s 1963 constitution. Former Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm used this power to conduct removal hearings for Kwame Kilpatrick, the former Detroit mayor who stepped down from office and was then later convicted of corruption.

An Emergency Manager can only be put in place if local elected officials fail to take the steps necessary to prevent a financial emergency. Emergency managers are accountable to both the governor and the Legislature, which in turn are both accountable to voters.

The goal is to give emergency managers the tools they need to protect residents and address local government financial emergencies. Labor contracts make up the bulk of local government expenses. Because emergency financial managers do not currently have power to adequately address these issues, long-term financial problems are not solved.

This legislation does not eliminate collective bargaining: Although an emergency manager may void contracts to prevent the local unit of government from going into bankruptcy, new agreements still could come through the collective bargaining process. If the municipality was to enter bankruptcy, a judge would have sweeping powers to undo contracts. Bankruptcy is a much bigger threat to collective bargaining.

The governor has repeatedly said he will work within the collective bargaining system.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/snyder/EMF_Fact_Sheet2_347889_7.pdf

Now I understand it. (I think.) This power has been around for years and years in Michigan. This new legislation simply extends authority to have a judge negate union contracts. Again, it's all about the unions. Unions are a big part of local governments' problems. Had they shown they gave a damn, this legislation wouldn't have been necessary.
 
Sounds like you have a problem in Michigan now but didn't have a problem when Demcrats were bankrupting the states. you claim it is a violation of the Constitution? If so challenge it in court and stop you whining about the vote of the people of Michigan to put Republicans in charge.

It sounds like you have a problem with the 1st Amendment
 
The teachers offered to take a reduction of pay to help but Gov. Walker was not satisfied and won't be until he can restrict their collective bargaining rights. Gov Walker and the rest of the republican Governors will see the impact of their actions in the 2012 elections

#1 -- Unions did not agree to cuts. They gave lip service to cuts.
#2 -- Contracts entered into while the Dems hid out in Illinois did not have any cuts in them.
#3 -- Without restricting their collective bargaining powers, they'd just bargain any cuts they did agree to right back the next time.
 
Sounds like you have a problem in Michigan now but didn't have a problem when Demcrats were bankrupting the states. you claim it is a violation of the Constitution? If so challenge it in court and stop you whining about the vote of the people of Michigan to put Republicans in charge.

It is being challenged. You are again... for how many times is it now????? You are again confusing apples and cinder blocks. Yes, Michigan has a financial problem that needs to be addressed within the limits of the law, and both the State and National Constitution. And what they have done not only violates all those things but also violates basic American principles and basic Republican Party principles of both Lincoln and Reagan. The fact that these bills were passed without one supporting Democratic vote makes them the property of the Michigan Republican party. That is undeniable.

I did not realize that complaining about violations about Constitutional rights and American principles was looked upon by your ilk as "whining". But you learn something new each day.
 
It sounds like you have a problem with the 1st Amendment

Since I don't live in Michigan what happens there doesn't affect the rest of the country. I am certain if a law that violated the U.S. Constitution or the state Constitution were passed in TX it would be challenged in court. Where is that challenge in Michigan?
 
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/snyder/EMF_Fact_Sheet2_347889_7.pdf

Now I understand it. (I think.) This power has been around for years and years in Michigan. This new legislation simply extends authority to have a judge negate union contracts. Again, it's all about the unions. Unions are a big part of local governments' problems. Had they shown they gave a damn, this legislation wouldn't have been necessary.

No Maggie. This new law does the opposite of what the old law prohibited. Its not about the unions. Its about the Constitution.
 
It is being challenged. You are again... for how many times is it now????? You are again confusing apples and cinder blocks. Yes, Michigan has a financial problem that needs to be addressed within the limits of the law, and both the State and National Constitution. And what they have done not only violates all those things but also violates basic American principles and basic Republican Party principles of both Lincoln and Reagan. The fact that these bills were passed without one supporting Democratic vote makes them the property of the Michigan Republican party. That is undeniable.

I did not realize that complaining about violations about Constitutional rights and American principles was looked upon by your ilk as "whining". But you learn something new each day.

Good luck in the challenge in the courts to what you claim is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Hope you feel the same way about mandated healthcare coverage from Obamacare?
 
Since I don't live in Michigan what happens there doesn't affect the rest of the country. I am certain if a law that violated the U.S. Constitution or the state Constitution were passed in TX it would be challenged in court. Where is that challenge in Michigan?

In other words, if its not your tail in the wringer you really don't give two farts about it since if you did it would cause you to have to criticize your own sainted political party. Some principles you got there pal.
 
ANSWER: None of your questions have anything to do with the right of the people to elect and have their own government. That is a basic American principle that trumps any of your questions. The solution crafted violates the US Constitution. It violates the Michigan Constitution.

None of your questions and no answers to your questions change that. So please take your strawmen back into the barn and deal with the situation as it is.

If it violates Michigan law than Im sure the Michigan state supreme court will resolve that matter, now wont they. In the meantime...WHY did the republican governor get elected? What is Michigans economic status? How are Michigans cities contributing to the destruction of Michigans economy. What have the democrats done to so completely hose the state? How are your cities school systems working out? How many have they had to close because individual cities continue to mismanage their budgets? Why did the Michigan governor need to step in and promote said 'emergency' legislation? You DID read your own article, right?
 
In other words, if its not your tail in the wringer you really don't give two farts about it since if you did it would cause you to have to criticize your own sainted political party. Some principles you got there pal.

LOL, your claim that it is a violation of the Constitution doesn't seem to jive with the people that passed the legislation. Looks like that is for the courts to decide. You willing to abide by the court decision? Doesn't seem that Obama is willing to abide by that decision on healthcare. My tail is in TX not Michigan and can assure you that if our legislature passed a bill that violated the state and Federal Constitution it would be challenged in court. What you are saying is that the Republicans in Michigan willingly and knowingly violated the Federal Constitution and you have yet to prove that. That is for the courts to decide.
 
In other words, if its not your tail in the wringer you really don't give two farts about it since if you did it would cause you to have to criticize your own sainted political party. Some principles you got there pal.

In other words...Michigan is in a financial crisis that is continuing to grow and unless someone ACTS responsibly the entire economuc will collapse even FURTHER. But since it involves your precious unions (because that is ALL you are about) tail in the wringer, you stand against it...to hell with what is happening to your cities and states economy and budget. Some principles you got there pal.
 
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/snyder/EMF_Fact_Sheet2_347889_7.pdf

Now I understand it. (I think.) This power has been around for years and years in Michigan. This new legislation simply extends authority to have a judge negate union contracts. Again, it's all about the unions. Unions are a big part of local governments' problems. Had they shown they gave a damn, this legislation wouldn't have been necessary.

If Haymarlet is promoting it...you can rest assured...it is about preserving Unions...at the expense of the citizens of the state, budgets, and all else.
 
#1 -- Unions did not agree to cuts. They gave lip service to cuts.
#2 -- Contracts entered into while the Dems hid out in Illinois did not have any cuts in them.
#3 -- Without restricting their collective bargaining powers, they'd just bargain any cuts they did agree to right back the next time.

Wisconsin teacher unions offer concessions (Wizbang)

Top leaders of two of Wisconsin's largest public employee unions announced they are willing to accept the financial concessions called for in [Governor] Walker's plan, but will not accept the loss of collective bargaining rights.


Walker did not want to negotiate he only wants to enforce his will, being in a union does not eliminate future contract negotiations,Walker was more interested in trying to drive out the unions then he was in reducing the deficit through honest negotiations
 
Wisconsin teacher unions offer concessions (Wizbang)

Top leaders of two of Wisconsin's largest public employee unions announced they are willing to accept the financial concessions called for in [Governor] Walker's plan, but will not accept the loss of collective bargaining rights.


Walker did not want to negotiate he only wants to enforce his will, being in a union does not eliminate future contract negotiations,Walker was more interested in trying to drive out the unions then he was in reducing the deficit through honest negotiations

Do you live in Wisconsin? You seem to be spouting the liberal talking points without really knowing what was in the legislation. I suggest you read it and then you will realize what is in the bill and not rely on partisan spin. All collective bargaining rights aren't being removed, only the benefits and mandatory union membership. You have a problem with people writing a check to the unions instead of a payroll deduction? That is why the unions are fighting so hard and it has nothing to do with concessions.
 
Back
Top Bottom