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.

 

Wis. GOP bypasses Dems, cuts collective bargaining

page: 14
27
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


The mods would explain to you that the topic is "Wis. GOP bypasses Dems, cuts collective bargaining "

You are trolling. If you wish to do a thread on comparative wages amongst ATS'ers have at it!...

You do what all union "educators" do. Blame the parents for their personal failures as an educator. Unions don't belong in public service jobs. These positions should be considered as professional and as in a corporate setting each professional should be rewarded by merit.




posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 





the government just got done with giving the wealthy a 40 billion dollar a year tax break during the worst recession of modern times


And which govt just did that? The one that just nationalized both the hc industry and the auto industry? We are well on our way to communism when govt owns and controls the means of production.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


It's corporate healthcare. Big Pharma and the health insurance companies lobbied for the bill. THEY WANTED THE MANDATES.

People wanted a public option...instead they got Romney care.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by romanmel
 





You do what all union "educators" do. Blame the parents for their personal failures as an educator. Unions don't belong in public service jobs. These positions should be considered as professional and as in a corporate setting each professional should be rewarded by merit.


Did you not read any of that post?

If you feel it's ok to discuss what teachers make...and you are so justified in what their worth is...then there should be no problem in you discussing yours.

If you fail to see that Wisconsin is ranked SECOND in national SAT scores than go ahead and ignore that too. If ou can't give a decent response then don't bother.

"you do what all union educators do? blame the parents?"

That's it? That's all you got.

Next trash the unionized firefighters. Let them know how you feel they are overpaid. Do law enforcement next.

Come on keep it coming!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


It's corporate healthcare. Big Pharma and the health insurance companies lobbied for the bill. THEY WANTED THE MANDATES.

People wanted a public option...instead they got Romney care.


We already had corporate heath care then. Now its nationalized. Which people wanted a public option? I do not care for Romney Care either. A public option just makes it Socialized. I'm not for Big Pharma either by the way, but if Big Pharma lobbied for the bill, then does that make the hc bill good? What kind of nutty logic is that? The healthcare bill will not lower costs. It will just pass off the costs to whoever can pay the biggest taxes.
edit on 10-3-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I never said the bill was good....i'm just stating what happened. Deals were made long before the bill went into law. Yes, there were some changes...but by and large it stayed the same.

Polls supporting the public option was actually in the majority. That's gone with the wind now though. Republicans will never repeal the current law...at least not enough to change corporations sucking off the teat of the middle class.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I agree the Fed creating more money is not a good thing, but why was that done in the first place? Because the PRIVATE banks and Wall Street had FEWER government regulations and they knew they could bankrupt the country and it's citizens and they would be bailed out. They were too big to fail. That's what happens when corporations get too big. They monopolize, destroy the small business and become too big to fail.

As far as wealth distribution, yes I think there should more sharing of the wealth. Whether that's from corporate taxes, taxes on the wealthy or both. It's really a moral thing. There is a lot of wealth in the world and there is not much distribution of that wealth. There has to be a point where enough is enough and I think we are WAY past that point. I'm not advocating for communism here. I just want the playing field leveled. Even if the rich gave up half, they would still be rich beyond belief and the rest of the country would be transformed. But no. That would mean they would have to GIVE! Oh no, not giving!! This is why there are vastly more volunteers from the middle and lower classes. The rich don't like to give. It's a fact. It's why they tend to be poor tippers.

The higher up the pyramid you get, the more people seem to think they are their because of their own supreme nature. Well not to discredit hard work, but the majority of us are where we are because we were BORN into it, not born WITH it. Big difference. One has to do with genetics and the other has to do with environment. It's a fact that there is very little social mobility in the U.S. So if you were born poor, you are likely to remain poor, if your are middle class you will stay in the middle and if you inherited 1 billion dollars, you are more than likely to remain a billionaire. This is classism my friend. Or do you think it's genetics?

Personally I think you can take any baby. If you place that baby in a Muslim extremist culture where they taught to hate, you will create a hateful Muslim extremist adult. If that baby grows up in a supportive, loving environment, you will create a supportive, loving adult. So in other words, it has way more to do with environment than it does genetics. It's not 50/50 nature-nurture like everyone wants to think.

It's classism. It's just a more sophisticated form of tyranny.

I



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


Agreed.
I don't understand why some people are going 'yay' for this. Once the unions are utterly broke, it's not just union workers who will suffer but non-union aswell. But maybe if they like that, maybe they'll love the worse to come.
I think people need to read their history and understand why there are unions in the first place, they might change their tune.
I've heard that this move is really a trap to get the dems. back for whatever their further evil plans are. It's full assault now, stand strong folks, if we let this prevail, we'll be sorry.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Reflection
 


The Federal Reserve IS private banks. There is nothing federal about it. It had nothing to do with banks being too big to fail. are you aware how far back the creation of the Fed goes? Incidentally there were Republicans involved in case anyone thinks Im too partisan. There is a board of governors but thats like the fox guarding the henhouse
What should really frighten us is that the Rothschilds control the Fed through their stock. I found this site just now.. www.save-a-patriot.org...

For all the haters of corporations, I find very few are willing to pop that Fed Reserve balloon. Why? Because people think the Fed is really part of the Federal Govt? Ironically, the Fed Govt does have the IRS to police for the Federal Reserve. Tell me that ins't the most incestuous relationship between govt and private firms?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Reflection
 





I'm not advocating for communism here


You are advocating Marxism. And q'uelle difference? Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto. Here is what Marx said about income redistribution, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

It's very simple. You can moralize all you want, but there is nothing moral or just about seizing income that someone labored very hard to get and giving it to someone who did not work. There is no moral justification for it whatsoever. And there is zero justification for creating govt jobs out of thin air and forcing working people to pay, especially when the collapse of the economy is expressly for the purpose of creating a nanny state with everyone dependent on the State. But that trend was started with FDR. What we see with public unions is an extension of that concept. We justify that its all for the common good, but when it is treated as an entitlement then the common good is lost. As we see, when you cannot lose your job even if you are the worst teacher on the planet, you are not taking care of the common good of the students and parents. See?
edit on 10-3-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Reflection
 





There has to be a point where enough is enough and I think we are WAY past that point


Something an avid Marxist said as well. That is nothing but class warfare, which is a Marxist concept. When is enough enough? See that is just a relative statement. And relativity is Humanism which is remarkably similar to Marxism.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Reflection
 





I just want the playing field leveled. Even if the rich gave up half, they would still be rich beyond belief and the rest of the country would be transformed. But no. That would mean they would have to GIVE!


But the wealthy do give, oh do they give. Take Bill and Melinda Gates. As much as I don't like their approach to vaccination as a form of depopulation, they are involved in Charitable activities. Check out their website for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation... www.gatesfoundation.org...

It's just that they didn't give it to you!



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


It's corporate healthcare. Big Pharma and the health insurance companies lobbied for the bill. THEY WANTED THE MANDATES.

People wanted a public option...instead they got Romney care.

Even though Mitt Romney came up with the mandate in Massachusetts (my home state), the overwhelming majority who voted on it were all Democrat. Once the mandate made its way up to the federal level, the Democrats again voted to keep it within the Obamacare framework. What bothers me the most is that the mandate was a Republican idea, which the Democrats didn't flinch to vote it out of the bill. Technically, both parties are guilty.

You bring up another good point. In order for Obamacare to make it into law, some type of backroom negotiations had to have taken place (with the healthcare industry). Technically, we are unconstitutionally forced to pay healthcare lobbyists and corporations as an act of law.

As for the 'government union' issue our country is facing, I personally do not see an easy solution for our overall problems. While the 'government unions' were protesting in Wisconsin, there was an interesting report being released about our educational system. 82% of our entire educational system is failing. If the events in Wisconsin do not take place across our nation, 'the people' who have children in school will lose their voice. Parents, local governments, and state governments will not be able to fix our educational system. Parents will be powerless. 'We' will be powerless.

What I want to know... How can 'government unions' defend their jobs if they are responsible for the 82% failure rate of our educational system?

Associated Press: 82 percent of US schools may be labeled 'failing'

The number of schools labeled as "failing" under the nation's No Child Left Behind Act could skyrocket dramatically this year, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said Wednesday.

The Department of Education estimates the percentage of schools not meeting yearly targets for their students' proficiency in in math and reading could jump from 37 to 82 percent as states raise standards in attempts to satisfy the law's mandates.

The 2002 law requires states to set targets aimed at having all students proficient in math and reading by 2014, a standard now viewed as wildly unrealistic.

How can these 'government unions' defend their jobs when they are part responsible? As they push money into elections, the system they swore to protect is failing from under them. Why the hell should I care about 'government unions' when they prevent us from fixing the system?

edit on 10-3-2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


You keep staring at my Koch and talking on and on and on about my Koch a lot for some reason, Why dont you just admit your Soros about your obsession with my Koch or other peoples Koch?? Or is it you really want to have the biggest Koch in the room?
Tell me what exactly is so illegal about having a Koch? Is it you dont have a Koch of your own? Or maybe your Koch doesnt work and you wish your Koch did? No need to hate those with a functioning Koch, I mean, some have a Koch they can rely on, and some dont, dont beat yourself up, just admit your Soros and awll will be better, and who knows you may have a Koch one day of your very own.
To be honest I really think my Koch or anyones Koch is none of your business, and suspect if it was YOUR own Koch, we'd have trouble keeping it out of OUR faces. In other words Leave our Koch alone, or you'll Buffett it so bady you'll be more Soreos than you want to admit

edit on 10-3-2011 by FriedrichNeecher because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-3-2011 by FriedrichNeecher because: because my Koch works well for me and those I love

edit on 10-3-2011 by FriedrichNeecher because: have a koch and a smile!

edit on 10-3-2011 by FriedrichNeecher because: going Koch-coo for Kochopuffs!

edit on 10-3-2011 by FriedrichNeecher because: I have a lovely bunch of Koch-o-nuts!

edit on 10-3-2011 by FriedrichNeecher because: Koch tell it on the mountiain



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmericanaOverdrive
You can declare yourself a non-union member, therefore not having to pay Union dues, but you do have to pay the administrative costs of the people who bargain your wages for you (not sure of the exact numbers, but I've gotten estimates of around 60% of Teachers' normal Union dues.)


So you are forced to pay for something, instead of being able to represent yourself with you talent, experience and hard work. So unions basically demand protection money.


Originally posted by myselftokeep
Now the choice we are left with - send our kids to public with resentful, underpaid teachers and crowded classrooms or go private and leave our children open to the teachings of anything they deem necessary. I can't wait until dinner conversations revolove around God and Intelligent Design.


I don't think you need to worry. They care about the kids. They wouldn't take out their anger on the kids. That would be selfish, petty and uncaring, like abandoning school and not even teaching to go protest for days on end.

So the only private schools are religious? And you say now people will be fleeing these disgruntled schools that had 2/3 of its 8th grades unable to read proficiently? Sounds like a business opportunity. *

I know it might be hard for people to have to discuss ideas with their kids. I think most liberals will have an easy time with this, as they claim to have all the answers anyway.


Originally posted by apacheman
From where I sit, Republicans are guilty of treason: their agendas over the past few decades have worked to strengthen America's enemies and competitors to the detriment of the citizenry and nation.

Their arrogant contempt for everyone besides themselves is obvious and repugnant.

You call yourself a Republican?

I call you traitor.
edit on 10-3-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)


Wow, deja vu. I remember saying and seeing people say this EXACT same thing a year ago about the Democrats. Could they be just another side of the same coin? Hmm.


Originally posted by David9176
You should see what the governor gets. Better yet, you should see what banking CEO's get...or better yet...you should see the benefits CEO's of any major company get.


So a governor who runs an entire state, economically, defensively, etc. and CEO's whom are hired by boards for their expertise and experience, responsible for billions of dollars, should not be making more money than a Kindergarten teacher? I value teachers, and think they are worth more than what many receive, but I also am aware of the fact that the experience needed and responsibility of some jobs demand more pay.

I don't like to see lawmakers raising their own pay or benefits, so people should vote such characters out. Send in people who want to set limits on them. Similarly for CEO's, if I don't want to see a CEO get a fat pay check, I don't do business with a company they run, but I am not gong to force others not too.


Originally posted by Erno86
If it wasn't for the union's, everbody in the United States, would be forced to work 10 to 12 hours a day, seven days a week; except for the rich elitists.

Union's, have keep company boss's, from telling you, to take a hike down the road when you ask for a pay raise.


If all the Unions disappeared today, we wouldn't have child labor, 80 hr work weeks and hazardous conditions tomorrow. The early unions did get a lot of good accomplished, and OSHA, ADA and EEO are some things set in place because of them. I have also never seen a person fired for asking for more pay, and more often than not, have seen deserving people asking receive an increase in pay.

I honestly want someone to explain what will absolutely happen without public union collective bargaining; something more than just union bullet point hyperbole.
edit on 10-3-2011 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-3-2011 by Wolf321 because: edit where starred



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Reflection
 





I'm not advocating for communism here


You are advocating Marxism. And q'uelle difference? Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto. Here is what Marx said about income redistribution, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

It's very simple. You can moralize all you want, but there is nothing moral or just about seizing income that someone labored very hard to get and giving it to someone who did not work. There is no moral justification for it whatsoever. And there is zero justification for creating govt jobs out of thin air and forcing working people to pay, especially when the collapse of the economy is expressly for the purpose of creating a nanny state with everyone dependent on the State. But that trend was started with FDR. What we see with public unions is an extension of that concept. We justify that its all for the common good, but when it is treated as an entitlement then the common good is lost. As we see, when you cannot lose your job even if you are the worst teacher on the planet, you are not taking care of the common good of the students and parents. See?
edit on 10-3-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


No I don't see.

I don't think our plutocracy is for the common good!

Again, I think someones socio-economic status has more to do with the environment one is BORN into and less to do with hard work. And I believe the numbers on social mobility back me up on that. I know a lot of people that work very hard and still struggle to make ends meet. And I also know a lot of wealthier people that are rich because of their family, not because of their hard work or ingenuity.

Do you really believe these corporations are for the common good? Really?

Besides, isn't "common good" kind of a Marxist idea?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by EssenceOfSilence
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Yes, some socialism is useful especially for the elderly, orphans, and other less fortunate folks.


oooh ok, so like the other fella, you don't actually oppose socialism, you just oppose certain forms of socialism, but socialism is bad none the less. Ok


As I said before socialism as your primary form of government is a losing effort. It breeds laziness and leads to a failed government. Socialist programs should be temporary programs as I also said.

To get back on topic, if you don't like the bill that was passed that kills the public worker's unions collective bargaining powers you should follow the process outlined in the constitution and have it repealed.

Maybe when/if they are reinstated they will be written in a manner that it does not lead to corruption. I have outlined ways in my other post that will fix the issue and allow the bargaining to be reinstated.

The bottom line is the union bosses cannot be allowed to extort the tax payer.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
They weren't waiting for the Democrats to come home, they were waiting for the protestors to go away. We all know what happens if you openly defy a hyped up group of people in mob mentality mode. They probably would have went ape $h@t and attacked the republican law makers or their family members.

If the Governor was a dictator, I think there would already be some people who might resort to violence, but the whole facade of democracy and the legislavtive and legal processes makes people think that it's not the end. However, in three years, will these people even remember? I doubt it.


edit on 10-3-2011 by MaryStillToe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by Fitch303
reply to post by MindSpin
 


*snip*

ATTENTION PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, you have your jobs because the tax payers have the ability to employ and pay you. Now that the tax payers are tightening their belts it's your turn to do the same.


You ever really look into why he lost the huge surplus he had when he took office? The workers are just a scape-goat for this financially inept Walker.


Perhaps you haven't been keeing up but this popular "surplus "story has been proven blatantly untrue and should fade awaybut it keeps being spouted as if true..
ENOUGH: *




Newsbusters: Rachel Maddow Exposed for Lying About Wisconsin Having Budget Surplus
Posted on February 20th, 2011 in News



MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow began her show Thursday claiming, “Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year.”

On Friday, the website Politifact exposed Maddow’s assertion as 100 percent false (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):
RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: I’m here to report that there is nothing wrong in the state of Wisconsin. Wisconsin is fine. Wisconsin is great, actually. Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year.

I am not kidding. I’m quoting their own version of the Congressional Budget Office, the state’s own nonpartisan “assess the state’s finances” agency. That agency said the month that the new Republican governor of Wisconsin was sworn in, last month, that the state was on track to have a $120 million budget surplus this year.

So, then why exactly does Wisconsin look like this right now?

(VIDEO CLIP PLAYS)

MADDOW: Why is there a revolt in the American Midwest tonight? Why are we in day three of massive, massive protests — real upheaval in Wisconsin’s capital city of Madison? Why are we seeing what was described today by my friend John Nichols, a seventh-generation Wisconsinite, as perhaps the biggest protests that have been seen in that state since Vietnam? Why is this — look at this — why is this happening?

As the state’s own finances show, it is not happening because people who work for the state are the cause of some horrible budget crisis. It’s not because teachers are lazy and rich. It’s not because greedy snowplow drivers have bankrupted the state somehow.

The state is not bankrupt. Even though the state had started the year on track to have a budget surplus — now, there is, in fact, a $137 million budget shortfall. Republican Governor Scott Walker, coincidentally, has given away $140 million worth of business tax breaks since he came into office.

Hey, wait. That’s about exactly the size of the shortfall.

What is happening in Wisconsin right now has absolutely nothing to do with public workers. The headline here, the way this keeps getting shorthanded, is workers angry after state is forced by budget crisis to crack down.

That’s not what’s going on. The state is not being forced to crack down. A lot of states do have budget crises right now, but heading into this year, Wisconsin was not one of them.


Oh really, Rach?

Well, that’s not what Politifact found:
Our conclusion: Maddow and the others are wrong.

There is, indeed, a projected deficit that required attention, and Walker and GOP lawmakers did not create it. [...]


The confusion, it appears, stems from a section in [Director of the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau Robert] Lang’s memo that — read on its own — does project a $121 million surplus in the state’s general fund as of June 30, 2011.

But the remainder of the routine memo — consider it the fine print — outlines $258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal.

The result, by our math and Lang’s, is the $137 million shortfall.

It would be closer to the $340 million figure if the figure included the $200 million owed to the state’s patient compensation fund, a debt courts have declared resulted from an illegal raid on the fund under former Gov. Jim Doyle.

A court ruling is pending in that matter, so the money might not have to be transferred until next budget year.


So, contrary to what Maddow and many in the media including on MSNBC have bee

AND MORE AT THE LINK
This obfuscation ends If you don't live here and don't know what you are passng on please cease....


katypundit.com...
edit on 11-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 

To imply that if one wishes to elevate the teachers, firefighters and LEOs to a professional status is somehow :"trashing" them is incredulous. Why is it that pro-union types are unable to understand that an honorable professional may want to represent hisself rather than have some gangster corrupted union lakey talking in his place?

As a productive professional I would rather let my worth be recognized by my personal accomplishments. The only one who comes out ahead in a closed shop union are the slackers and unproductive. They hold back those who excel and create frustration in those who do a good job but are lumped in with the failures and slothful of the profession. In the end union collectivism causes the exceptional professional dedicated to their career to become discouraged and many give up hope. Point of fact is the cream always rises to the top without the help of corrupt unions.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join