Documented, Wisconsin's Debt. Result Of Corporate Tax Breaks, Not Unions!

Regardless of which side of this issue we find ourselves defending, the current revelation regarding governor Walker's telephone conversation with the Buffalo Beast reporter who he thought was David Koch, the truth has now been drug into the light of day.

At this point, I'm confident that anyone who continues to support governor Walker and/or his tactics will find themselves on the wrong side of history in the long run. It is now clearly evident that the man doesn't have an honest bone in his body and it appears like he will soon be facing very serious ethics charges within his own state. On top of that, after hearing him "out" some of his republican gubernatorial supporters from other states, I wouldn't be surprised if he were not the only governor facing ethics charges in the near future.

This hugely corrupt scheme, to eliminate labor unions and deny the american worker the right to organize and be represented, orchestrated by the republican party and their corporate donors, is in the beginning stages of blowing up in their faces.

It is now clearly evident that the republican party backed by their corporate donors and their unlimited donations, (thanks to the Citizens United supreme court decision) are actively attempting to completely and permanently eliminate unions within the american workforce. It is now perfectly clear that they have every intention of restructuring the american working environment into one where the employer enjoys a dictatorial authority over his employees. It's like they are trying to create the same social environment here in America that led to the egyptian uprising in Africa, go figure.

For those of you that still choose to defend governor Walker, "Good Luck With That."

reply to post by Flatfish

At this point, I'm confident that anyone who continues to support governor Walker and/or his tactics will find themselves on the wrong side of history in the long run.

*yawn* Your confidence doesn't go very far.

This hugely corrupt scheme, to eliminate labor unions and deny the american worker the right to organize and be represented, orchestrated by the republican party and their corporate donors, is in the beginning stages of blowing up in their faces.

Not the sharpest lightbulb in the cookie jar, now are we?

This is a labor union representing public sector employees, not corporations. That is - these are government employees.

What does the legislation do? Only allow the labor unions to negotiate wages. That means no negotiations on retirement pensions, work conditions, and benefits.

The key difference between the government and corporations is that a corporation can fail (well, governments can, too - but not usually without considerable social collapse). As a member of the Navy (Reserves) my pay check will be coming from them - whether they decide to print money that doesn't exist or tax the population into oblivion. This is the same with almost every other government employee. States are a little different, as they don't have the power to print legal tender - but that hasn't stopped them from spending into a deficit - a substantial part of that being into the retirement plan of government employees.

And I am one, along with a private sector employee. Retiring active duty (still possible for me - NPSB program) would allow me to draw pension following retirement at the age of 38. I am just about at my five year mark (from when I enlisted and was enrolled in DEP) and have something like ten years to make one more rank to E-6 to be eligible for retiring at my 20-year mark. It'd be unusual for that to not happen, in people of my performance.

A little math:

My base-pay as an E-1 was about $1,200 per month. I was only an E-2 for a few weeks and advanced to E-3 when I completed my avionics training - which was around $1,400/month. I was an E-3 for about a year and a half before I made E-4 and my pay was something like $1,700/month. I started getting paid for E-5 in January - over $2,000/month. Pay for E-6 is in the range of $2,500 or more - depending upon time in service.

That will change - as it does every year, with adjustments to the pay rates - usually there's a 1-2% raise almost guaranteed.

I've gone about five years with sub- $2K monthly pay from the military (were I active duty - reserves get substantially less). That's a quarter of the retirement service length. I enlisted at 18, and will - theoretically - be eligible for retirement at 38 and able to draw pension immediately while still being able to capitalize on benefits that come with retirement (health plans - not just for me but also for my family, commissary/exchange privileges, etc). The average life-expectancy for someone such as myself is about 80 years - give or take.

That leaves about 40 years of retirement pay - which is 1/2 of the average of my 36 highest months of pay while in service. That will, in all likelihood, be E-6 base-pay. Presently, that's going to be $3,483 for those with 16+ years (there's another category for 18+ - but it only gets higher - it'll never go below an average of $3,483). If I can stay in service longer (past 20 years) - I can earn 2.2% additional retirement pay for each additional year to a maximum of 75% - IE - retiring at 30 years, instead of 20, would net me 75% of my highest-paying 36 months averaged together, instead of 50% (for retiring at 20). We'll presume I retire at my 20, though.

50% of 3,500 (I'm rounding down the average to an easier-to-handle number - the average of someone retiring as an E-6 with twenty years of service would be a fair amount higher) is $1,750. That's more than I was getting paid my first three years of service.

Now - I'm just rounding the bend at 40 years - looking at another 40 years receiving pension. The Navy would be paying me more, total, in retirement than they paid me during my tour. That doesn't even begin to touch the 40 years of benefits (and I'll be more likely to use the medical benefits as I age rather than now, while I'm a young whipper-snapper).

It'll probably no be as ideal - as I will probably have to put in a few extra years of service because of my time in the Reserves - but for someone in a similar position as I am on the active duty side - the U.S. tax payer is going to be looking at paying far more on a service member's retirement than they pay the service member to work.

While some would say: "For our boys who go to war, that's just fine" - I have to say I agree (and not just because I'm in the military). However, does a state-employed librarian need to be looking at similar retirement benefits? The janitor for the state-maintained highway rest-stops? Highway patrolmen and conservationists?

Where do you draw the line? How can you draw a line if they can all say: "Fine, we won't go to work unless you give us higher-paying retirement plans?" ... How can the government authority be at all established if a union can simply come along and overturn legislation passed by our system of government?

By proxy, a public-sector union essentially forces tax increases for their own gain without due process of law.

It is now clearly evident that the republican party backed by their corporate donors and their unlimited donations, (thanks to the Citizens United supreme court decision) are actively attempting to completely and permanently eliminate unions within the american workforce.

Not sure how you draw that conclusion from the legislation. Well... actually - reading your post, I'm sure how why you arrived at that conclusion (you're a few votes short of a law) - but I'm not seeing how it's supported by non-crazy logic.

It is now perfectly clear that they have every intention of restructuring the american working environment into one where the employer enjoys a dictatorial authority over his employees.

That's what an employer has. A union has no real power or authority over an employer. An employer can fire all striking union members and be training new people up the next day, and the union can't do squat about it. It's just such a big pain in the ass that employers are often willing to negotiate with a union when such conflicts arise.

The problem most Americans seem to be facing today is a problem of self-harming stupidity.

The per-capita personal debt in America is $57,000 - the average annual wage is something like $32,000. That's the problem with American personal financial practices. You're living in debt up to your eyeballs. By time you take out costs of living, you're looking at several years' worth of debt for the average citizen to pay off if they were to do nothing but cover their basic costs of living.

You're a slave to credit and the need-it-now mentality.

I have enough money in the bank to cover all of my living expenses for some time - even enough to pay off the one loan I do have (and still have enough for a year or more of living expenses). I intend to keep it that way. Why? Because I can walk away from a job if I need to. I'm 'free' in that respect. I can quit my job without having to worry about getting nastygrams from bill collectors, where my rent/food is going to come from, etc.

The average person isn't free. They have voluntarily become a slave to their job by taking out lines of credit that require payments up to and exceeding what they can pay out of their paycheck.

That's why you can even draw the connection between "dictator" and "employer." In every sense of the concept - an employer dictates your job and responsibilities to you. However, that employer has no authority over your life, or over you. The only reason you'd feel that way is if you feared being unemployed more than you feared being unfairly worked.

I have no need for a union. The union I have is my bank account. I am working now to build a career and -not- drain that bank account more than necessary. If things get that bad, I have no problem flipping the bird and walking out the door to find a job where the employers treat people like humans.

Credit/loans are services and tools to be used with careful consideration or in emergencies. The problem is that people confuse "I want it now" with "I need it now."

Originally posted by HoldTheBeans
reply to post by Flatfish

 

"By the way, why the hell is Obama holding back on this issue? I think he could be making the biggest mistake of his political career. He should be standing up for the truth."

Why is Obama silent? Because he knows the majority of Americans do not agree with these union thuggery tactics. Most Americans wonder why these folks are marching to the state house because they have to pay a small pittance for their benefits compared to what we all pay. He doesn't want to anger any more voters is what's going on. He'll take the piles of campaign money from the unions but doesn't give a rats butt about the workers.

He's also letting the Unions do his dirty work for him. They do all the heavy pushing for democratic socialism and he doesn't get one pinky dirty.

reply to post by Aim64C


Why are you in the military?

Doesn't sound like patriotism to me...if you were truly patriotic you wouldn't expect or want a pension for serving, after all you're well-paid, fed, full free medical care, free education, subsidized shopping. You chose to serve, so why do you expect a retirement system built on the backs of taxpayers? You "work" a mere 20 years and then want a free ride for life? Why?

Sounds more like you found a way to be a lazy bum in the military because you weren't smart or capable enough to compete in the private sector. I know you are in the private sector, too: great for double-dipping: get two pensions for the effort of one.

I hope you see how easily things can be twisted to make anything look bad.

When I was in the military, I thought I was protecting freedom and my fellow citizens. After seven years and many friends lost I came to the realization that I was in fact defending corporate profits and spreading tyranny, not democracy, and so I left.

If you are in the military to protect freedom and your fellow citizens, how does supporting depriving them of their rights and forcing them to labor harder for less accomplishing that? Why aren't you demanding instead that US corporations build plants in America and hire American workers with the taxpayer money they recieved to incentivize them to do so rather than taking that money and sending jobs overseas and paying themeslves record bonusses with it?

Sadly, you seem to be committed to protecting the likes of the Koch brothers who have utter contempt for you, and will next llok to reducing your benefits to balance the budget rather than invest in America and share with the workers what they have produced..

reply to post by apacheman

I hope you see how easily things can be twisted to make anything look bad.

I expected someone could/would take that route. If they want to endeavor so hard as to miss the point of what I was trying to say, then they deserve whatever calamity befalls them for not heeding my advice.

When I was in the military, I thought I was protecting freedom and my fellow citizens. After seven years and many friends lost I came to the realization that I was in fact defending corporate profits and spreading tyranny, not democracy, and so I left.

You were never defending a democracy. You were defending and advancing the interests of a republic (chosen through democratic means).

Now, if you'd like to make the argument that places like Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea, the Philippines, and Japan have somehow been 'enslaved' by our 'defending corporate profits' ... then all I have to say is that it's an ideological perspective we'll never agree upon. Yours is wrong, but you'll never accept it.

If you are in the military to protect freedom and your fellow citizens, how does supporting depriving them of their rights and forcing them to labor harder for less accomplishing that?

No corporation can force you to do anything. As I've already said - the reason people in the U.S. feel enslaved to their employers is because they are in debt up to their eyeballs and have signed papers that give institutions the ability to seize their property should they default on payment.

Your employer didn't make you sign your mortgage agreement, force you to take out a second one, or finance your car. You can't take those decisions that you have made and turn around to accuse your employer of treating you like a slave by paying you too little.

Why aren't you demanding instead that US corporations build plants in America and hire American workers with the taxpayer money they recieved to incentivize them to do so rather than taking that money and sending jobs overseas and paying themeslves record bonusses with it?

That's like blaming me for looking at retiring out of the reserves, a government job, and a private sector job (later) and saying I'm abusing the system. I'm merely doing what it allows me to do and is in my own best interest.

Fix the source of the problem. Close the loop-holes that allow companies to collect tax breaks but not fulfill the spirit of the tax break. Maybe you see my triple-retirement plan as a problem, maybe you don't - but a company able to take a tax break and not do as was intended (even if they can do it without breaching the contract) is wrong. Tell your legislators to fix the problem or to find themselves another job.

As for demanding corporations build here in America? Why? We tax corporations here. Anything made here, whether sold here or in China, is going to carry the costs of that tax. We also enforce minimum wages here (even though living on minimum wage is not really that much different than slave labor, to be honest - barely covers most living expenses), that also must be carried by the products sold. That places industry here at a disadvantage. Same products as made in some other country, even the same or similar quality.... completely different prices with ours being far higher.

The simple fact of the matter is that the system we have here in the U.S. is self-destructive. We have encouraged stagnating manufacturing and industry with little innovation. We've criminalized and demonized business and corporations. The environment towards business in the U.S. has grown increasingly hostile and unfavorable.

Sure - I want to see more businesses in the U.S. I am not going to act like a mentally crippled degenerate and try to mob-rule businesses back into the U.S. when it is obviously not a good business move to be here.

Sadly, you seem to be committed to protecting the likes of the Koch brothers who have utter contempt for you, and will next llok to reducing your benefits to balance the budget rather than invest in America and share with the workers what they have produced..

Quite frankly - I'm only committed to protecting my family, friends, and people I consider to be my responsibility.

I claim jurisdiction over my person and my family, and denounce all other authorities -spare the almighty- under threat of force. I care little for the acts of a society rife with incompetence and childish fear of nothing. I only care when those acts and initiatives conflict with my own plans, goals, and livelihood. I'm not so arrogant as to believe myself invulnerable to the mob of retards with torches and pitchforks by decree alone. I insist our government operate in a certain general manner - and if the mob insists otherwise, I have no problem eliminating as many as necessary to solidify my position as being independent.

I've no delusions about how it works. When one mob insists it has authority over another mob that asserts independence - war is the outcome, and death is a byproduct of war. Which is, generally, why I hope to have a firm hold on practical space travel within the industry I want to found. At the rate your society is going - you'll never be able to force your insanity upon me or mine in the vastness of space. Then you all can do whatever you want - I don't care, as I won't be impacted by your delusions of a global hippie commune.

The same argument can be used for Federal Government too. That if it wasn't for tax breaks for corporations and the richest Americans the deficit would actually be in pretty good shape.

Big Business and Banks to US Gov circa 2008.:

We got a little carried away the last couple of years during our gambling spree and we lost a boat load of money.

US Gov: Okay...uh..well what do you want us to do about it. Can't you just make more money?

Big Bus: No, people stopped giving us money when it became known how much of thier money we already lost. Besides that we pretty much milked them dry, otherwise we wouldn't be calling you.

US Gov: Maybe you guys could sell a few of your homes and cars or take a pay cut?.....(Everybody laughs)

US Gov: OK..OK, what do you have in mind?

Big Bus: Just take the money from them and give it to us. Don't give them a choice in the matter...thats our problem right now, they stopped giving us money willingly.

US Gov: Well it will be tough, but OK.

Fast forward 2 years...

US Gov. to Big Bus:

Hey, uhh...our state govs are in a financial crisis and we don't have any money to give since we gave it all...to uh...well you. Do you think we could recind some of those tax breaks we have been giving you the past two years?

Big Bus: WHAT!!? No. Just take it out of the middle class again. Those guys are suckers and the economy recovered a little, you should be able to shake them down for enough to get by for a year or two...

If we lose our tax breaks I might have to sell my 5th house in Bolivia and my Bolivian girlfriend will be pissed at me.

Tell the middle class it is about "shared sacrifice"...everybody laughs. Start with the Unions...they still have some money left...those effen unions don't gamble with funds...teach them a lesson.

US Gov:
Doesn't it seem a little unfair to keep shaking down the middle class for a crisis you created? especially since we already made them pay you countless billions they didn't have in the first place? And followed it up with more tax breaks than have been seen in a century?.....I mean "shared sacrafice"...??

uncontrolled laughter ensues.

Average Teacher pay: 42K...Masters Degree Required for most jobs.

Average CEO pay: 9.2 Million and that was in 2009 while they were taking bailout money.

I am ok with letting teachers keep the healthcare and a pension money they have contributed, knowing that money is safe is the only perk they have.