It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Schooled in Wisconsin! – Public vs. Private Unions

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Stefan Molyneux explains the drastic differences between public and private unions.




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Everyone should watch this before forming opinions on the Wisconsin Governor's actions.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


no comments yet? The video is highly informative and unbiased.

I figured there would be a lot of people commenting in here on this.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Most often, wages and benefits are negotiated, agreed to, set (choose your own word) by bureaucrats, not the politicians. Bureaucrats have vested interest in keeping a downward pressure on wages because they work within a budget, and live or die by how well they manage, or in most cases mismanage, it.

Politicians Do 'own' and 'have personal interest in' budget deficits and revenue. Usually this is addressed at election time, although some states and municipalities have a method of early recall. A politician is judged by the electorate based on pre-election positions and promises, and how unforeseen emergencies are handled. A politician's funders judge him or her on how well their desires and wishes are filled. They will then increase or decrease the amount of funding they provide for re-election.

Etc, Etc, Etc

I'm not so sure of your "unbiased" claim. I think there is a definite agenda being championed by the gentleman.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Montana
Most often, wages and benefits are negotiated, agreed to, set (choose your own word) by bureaucrats, not the politicians. Bureaucrats have vested interest in keeping a downward pressure on wages because they work within a budget, and live or die by how well they manage, or in most cases mismanage, it.

Politicians Do 'own' and 'have personal interest in' budget deficits and revenue. Usually this is addressed at election time, although some states and municipalities have a method of early recall. A politician is judged by the electorate based on pre-election positions and promises, and how unforeseen emergencies are handled. A politician's funders judge him or her on how well their desires and wishes are filled. They will then increase or decrease the amount of funding they provide for re-election.

Etc, Etc, Etc

I'm not so sure of your "unbiased" claim. I think there is a definite agenda being championed by the gentleman.


Bureaucrats also have a vested interest in making sure the politicians don't cut their budgets, as do the unions.

We can see this clearly in the unfolding events taking place.

We need to clarify that politicians do not actually have any money to give - they only have YOUR money to give.

Before a politician can establish a budget for a government agency, he must first set about taking the money he needs by violently looting unwilling citizens at gun point.

Molyneux has no political agenda because he is an anarchist, not a democrat or republican.



edit on 24-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I work in the private sector and I hate it that my taxes go to people that make more than me and better insurance who work for the govt.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Montana
 


I'd add that we'd go bankrupt if we continue to give in to what the unions wnat.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by recondoman
I work in the private sector and I hate it that my taxes go to people that make more than me and better insurance who work for the govt.


You should hate the fact that your money is taken from you at gun point.

Who cares where it goes after it is taken.

It certainly will not go anywhere you wanted it to go or else you would have spent/donated it there yourself.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1


Molyneux has no political agenda because he is an anarchist, not a democrat or republican.



edit on 24-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


Why would this mean he has no agenda? It's obvious he does, otherwise he would not make a video.

Anyway, believe what you will.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by recondoman
I work in the private sector and I hate it that my taxes go to people that make more than me and better insurance who work for the govt.


No one is allowed to make more than you, or have insurance? Dang! I hope you makes lots of money, or YOU can explain it to my wife and kids!



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
All government employees and spending is done so by gunpoint by the fleecing of the citizens through taxation. Public unions like fire/police/ambulance that folks say we can't do without are monopolies with no competition. If a private company had this they would be broken up by the same governments who advocate unions in these places. It's all insane.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Montana
Most often, wages and benefits are negotiated, agreed to, set (choose your own word) by bureaucrats, not the politicians. Bureaucrats have vested interest in keeping a downward pressure on wages because they work within a budget, and live or die by how well they manage, or in most cases mismanage, it.


The bolded section is complete bs.

They always try to maximize or slightly exceed their budget. It is how budget management works and why the cost of government continually rises (this applies to any budgetary run operation).

The reasons are as follows:

If you do not use your complete budget, your budget will be cut. There is many different operations, all on budgets, all wanting a larger budget. If you run yours low, you will lose it to someone else.

This leads to reason 2. If you are continually over budget, that is sending a loud and clear message that your operation is under funded...and that you need more money not less.

This is the problem with public unions. They operate on a budgetary basis, where as most private unions do not.

If you took the word (and practice) of budgetary financing out of government, most experts agree, that you could cut the cust of government by 30%, with ZERO loss of service...go figure.
edit on 24-2-2011 by peck420 because: Spelling and grammar



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The fact that you answered:


I'm not so sure of your "unbiased" claim. I think there is a definite agenda being championed by the gentleman.


With:


Molyneux has no political agenda because he is an anarchist, not a democrat or republican


Is the best thing I've ever heard.

Are you suggesting anarchists are simply incapable of bias AND that they cannot 'champion an agenda'?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say that bureaucrats kept with in the budgets, I said they managed and mismanaged budgets. Of course that usually means exceeding them, they are humans and that's what we do.

Oh, and notice how I didn't call what you said BS? Courtesy doesn't hurt anyone, and it's free!



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whyhi

Are you suggesting anarchists are simply incapable of bias AND that they cannot 'champion an agenda'?


Mnemeth1 says what he means and doesn't mean what he doesn't say.


'are you suggesting'



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Montana
 


I apologize for the BS part, this topic (government and budgets) gets me very heated.

I do a lot of work with the government in Canada, Federal, Provincial, and Civic. I also do work with some northern state goverments. All of them call close to the end of their fiscal years, all with the entent of maximizing their budget and exceeding by approx 5%. They are very candid with the reasons behind it.

It get's me heated, because they will announce a tax increase to cover all the extra 'expenses', then they call me to spend money that they have not used yet...it disgusts me quite frankly.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


part 2



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join