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: 15
27
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by The Sword
 


It is not a companies obligation to create jobs. It is a companies job to deliver share holder value. Ideally they have enough confidence in the future prospects of the economy to hire people as they pursue a growth strategy, but they are not obligated to do so.

Let me get a chalk board and draw it out for you. Revenue/profits does not equal jobs. It may, but it may not. A clear economic policy and some competence in the governance of international affairs creates economic stability which encourages firms to embark on growth strategies. We have an absence of both at the moment. In light of that the right corporate strategy is to hunker down and ride out the uncertainty. If a company has x people and is generating a healthy profit and sees organic growth which they deem sufficient, should they hire? Of course not.

Profits are up because inventories are low and firms have cut waste and streamlined operations to maintain profit margins (the same thing government should be doing).



And being that your opportunity to make this money, to start this huge successful corporation was because of America. Because it was America who raised you, created the culture you thrived in and the ability to create your own empire you shouldn't feel you have any dues? It was the people around you, that made you. It was the teachers that when you were young inspired you, your hospitals and fire departments that responded when YOU needed help or your life saved, just so you could go on tomorrow and create a big business.

It's great that people have the intelligence, skill, and aptitude to be CEO of a huge corporation and reap massive benefits. All the power to you, but do you not feel any need to give return to or just live amongst your countrymen and peers? I personally imagine, knowing that eventually it will come to reinforce me in the end (through business model) that sacrificing 5% of my profits to make their lives better is similar to our government giving the rich a tax break, so they aren't concerned as much about how much they spend.

Apple creates a product that Americans enjoy, they outsource to China for cheap parts and sell it back to Americans. That's great and all for the corporation, but couldn't that CEO feel a little responsibility and warmth to his country to give the opportunity to create jobs for his own people who made him what he is today?

I don't see any problem with big corporations sacrificing some to give back to those who made them what they are. And certainly don't take away from those who are continuing to provide a quality of life you expect and do receive. Why would you want to take anything away from our teachers that educate your young? The brave, daring firemen who rescue your family and belongings when YOU or someone else mess up.

The situations with unions may not be perfect, but by no means should we take ANYTHING away from our infrastructure and our citizens. It's immoral. Why not be civil and democratic about the situation and DISCUSS the collective bargaining to where it makes sense for both the government AND, God forbid, the people. You know, the people actually have a say in what's fair for their tax money to be spent on?

No, go ahead and continue these illegal actions because the CEOs and huge corps had just as much opportunity as the teacher who passionately educations and furiously fights for fair rights, and resources. Let's keep piling on the demands for our public workers. Let's kick 'em to the curb, and not listen to them or give them a chance. Let's just listen to the big corporations who fill our pockets, not to the people. They aren't struggling with over burdened class sizes, hectically long work weeks, improving their plans and quality of teachings, lack of resources or anything like that. They could give up their job and go be an analyst with their education and make mega bucks, unfortunately a lot of them feel passion and just want to be able to live comfortably doing what they love and what people NEED in society.

This is about fairness, democracy, and being enough of an adult and American to discuss with the people what is right to do. By hastily sneaking bills under the people's noses... treating them like dirt... what are you accomplishing at all?

We'll just let the corporations suck us dry then they can pick up everything, move over to India and continue on selling services back to the US when we get back on our feet and start expanding again. What then will you say, that's their total right. They shouldn't feel any obligation to be an American company, and serve the American people? Everyone can do a lot more to help our their fellow man. You can redistribute your wealth, just as someone else may redistribute their time priorities to donate time to volunteering, helping the needy. Nope, make them worker harder for less and give back less.

We are accomplishing corporate level perfectly. What does a country mean, when you can be competitive and just wait for Google to be the next country, maybe Yahoo will follow and then Wal-Mart can get a chance. Vicious, glorious cycle of money and opportunity to make yourself more and others less!

I don't see why we can't break it down to a fundamental level and see that this isn't working for everybody. We need to handle this more humanely, take time and patience and do things RIGHT long term than what will get us through until the next party can take over in 2012 blah blah blah... # it. We're all people... Living in a great country with great opportunity and people, let's reinforce that by structuring our teachers and making sure our kids are taken care of first... that will never happen if we continue fighting over who is making TOO MUCH money, than what is right for everybody and their respective responsibility, working conditions, and benefits.




posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
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.


There is class warfare and the ruling class have all the weapons and now the workers have even less. The unions are a defense against exploitation of working people. Now thats gone, the working class have no defense or no weapons in this war, so will continue to be kicked around by the ruling class.
Even Capitalists like Warren Buffet think there is a class war, just they are happy to be on the winning side.

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

www.nytimes.com...
edit on 11-3-2011 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 




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

Come on keep it coming!!!!!!


You can be accused of the same logic as those who conclude that all muslims are terrorists.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by shagula
 


Ditch the emotion and try thinking logically.

It would do you a world of good.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I've watched this thread, and while I don't agree with the Wall Street types I must say, unions are getting just as bad as the corporations. They ARE a corporation nowadays.

I live in Northern Michigan. My uncle lives in Livonia. We have had some heated discussions about this fact. He thinks he was entitled to sit in a job bank program and collect full benefits because he pays union dues.

I told him the government should have let GM fail. That didn't go over well with him.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by shagula
 


Ditch the emotion and try thinking logically.

It would do you a world of good.


How about this?

There is a large corporation that owns a very large manufacturing complex near my home.
After $190 Mil in tax subsidies, they let go of over 14,000 employees.
We share roads. Do you suppose my car presents the same wear and tear on the roads as their fleets of trucks?
We share natural resources. Do you suppose my home pollutes on the same level as this company?
I should inform you that an entire street of homes, behind the main complex, had to be demolished because the company could barely keep up with the lawsuit dismissals over the insane number of babies born with tumors to expectant mothers living in those homes.
Do you suppose that my home takes up as much time and attention for the police and fire as this entire business complex does?
How about just the employees. I never present a reason for thousands of people from other areas to drive down my roads, pollute my air, present potential accident/crimes/fire hazzards. This company does have thousands of employees that invade my neighborhood on a daily basis.
Now I have to pay more in taxes to support all the extra effort and equipment needed to maintain all these services because there is a far greater strain on them. Why should the company that is profiting quite well from the opportunities these services provide not pay their fair share?



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia


How about this?

There is a large corporation that owns a very large manufacturing complex near my home.
After $190 Mil in tax subsidies, they let go of over 14,000 employees.
We share roads. Do you suppose my car presents the same wear and tear on the roads as their fleets of trucks?
We share natural resources. Do you suppose my home pollutes on the same level as this company?
I should inform you that an entire street of homes, behind the main complex, had to be demolished because the company could barely keep up with the lawsuit dismissals over the insane number of babies born with tumors to expectant mothers living in those homes.
Do you suppose that my home takes up as much time and attention for the police and fire as this entire business complex does?
How about just the employees. I never present a reason for thousands of people from other areas to drive down my roads, pollute my air, present potential accident/crimes/fire hazzards. This company does have thousands of employees that invade my neighborhood on a daily basis.
Now I have to pay more in taxes to support all the extra effort and equipment needed to maintain all these services because there is a far greater strain on them. Why should the company that is profiting quite well from the opportunities these services provide not pay their fair share?



How about this: Do you pay the same amount of taxes on gasoline and vehicle registration that the company trucks do? Of course you dont. Given that they pay more in taxes for using it more, perhaps YOU are driving on THEIR road, and not the other way around.

Do you pay the same amount the company does for use of the natural resources? No, you dont.

Are there routine crimes and fires happening at that business? If not, the cops and fire arent spending extra time there.

Are there stores, gas stations, coffee shops around the business? If so, its common sense to believe the employees of that company are spending money there and contributing to your towns sales tax revenue.

Specifically, how much more are you paying in taxes due to this company? Please provide substantiating evidence.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Do you have a point other than that the public are lazy fools and the govt is always corrupt when they have a financial interest? What did unions do to help other than funnel money to the gubmint and displace all liability to the public?
What did YOU do? WHO are you expecting to fix it?
Unless officials fear dangling on a string for their misdeeds, they will continue and those next in line on the gravy train will cover for them in exchange for their turn at the trough.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
How about this: Do you pay the same amount of taxes on gasoline and vehicle registration that the company trucks do? Of course you dont. Given that they pay more in taxes for using it more, perhaps YOU are driving on THEIR road, and not the other way around.


You mean with my $190,000,000 subsidies that I get? How about you tell me exacty what fuel tax it is you believe they are paying on their subsidized transportation.


Do you pay the same amount the company does for use of the natural resources? No, you dont.


No, I actually have to pay my taxes.


Are there routine crimes and fires happening at that business? If not, the cops and fire arent spending extra time there.


Actually, yes. That is kind of why I brought it up. We did not need to build more facilities and hire more people just because they had more nothing to do. It is in one of the highest crime areas and you would be amazed at how much more often fires break out at 60 year old chemical storage facilities compared to my townhouse.


Are there stores, gas stations, coffee shops around the business? If so, its common sense to believe the employees of that company are spending money there and contributing to your towns sales tax revenue.


You mean the cup of coffee someone might wait until they get almost all the way to work to buy? Perhaps you think they run out and spend crazy cash at our stores and restaraunts each lunch break? Then after work, instead of doing their shopping at a store close to home, you think they are flooding my stores? All that adds up to how much in salestax for the town?
yeah, crazy money rolling in from imaginary purchases you think people are making. So much its impossible to count.

[quoteSpecifically, how much more are you paying in taxes due to this company? Please provide substantiating evidence.



I pay 100% of my tax every year. They have gone years paying between 0% and negative numbers - those pesky subsidies I mentioned.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia


You mean with my $190,000,000 subsidies that I get? How about you tell me exacty what fuel tax it is you believe they are paying on their subsidized transportation.


Uh, you do know there are taxes on each gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel purchased dont you? If you see their trucks driving, they are using some sort of fuel, and thus paying taxes on said fuel.


No, I actually have to pay my taxes.


Do you? You stated this factory is in a high crime area, and also stated it is very close to your home. If you live in a high crime area, its also very likely a low income area. Lliving in a low income area, its highly unlikely you actually pay anything in the form of an income tax. The only tax you will surely pay will be sales and thats it.





You mean the cup of coffee someone might wait until they get almost all the way to work to buy? Perhaps you think they run out and spend crazy cash at our stores and restaraunts each lunch break? Then after work, instead of doing their shopping at a store close to home, you think they are flooding my stores? All that adds up to how much in salestax for the town?
yeah, crazy money rolling in from imaginary purchases you think people are making. So much its impossible to count.


Blah blah blah you have really no idea how much their employees spend in your area. You cant count because you simply dont know.



I pay 100% of my tax every year. They have gone years paying between 0% and negative numbers - those pesky subsidies I mentioned.


Again its highly unlikely you pay any actual form of income tax. Sure you may have it withheld, but when that same amount, and if not more, is refunded back to you, that doesnt mean you have paid a tax.

The company contributes more financial resources to your community than you do. If you dont like it, perhaps you should move.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Well...it's about time. Maybe if the Democrats hadn't ran away at their union masters bidding, perhaps they would have been in their seats doing their jobs as they were elected to do.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by shagula
 


The CEO did pay for the teachers and the roads and the rest of it. So did the corporations, especially since the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

Take the CEO - he's paying 40% of his income to the government through his normal income tax. He's also paying alternative minimum tax, so when you factor in state and local taxes, he's paying well over 50% of his income in taxes. I don't know about you, but I believe that any system that takes 1/2 of a person's labor is confiscatory and immoral and I don't care what he makes.

You're right - the CEO was benefited by the hard labor of teachers. Today, with 82% of the public schools failing, the successful person is successful despite his teachers. You can not look at the public school statistics and come up with any other conclusion.

As far as the griping by union people about the greedy corporation, off-shoring of jobs, etc. It is the same union person who demands high returns on his pension account. Who is running those pensions? Wall Street. Public employee pension accounts are huge - in the multiple $billions of dollars and are among the most highly sought after institutional accounts in the investment business. What are these Wall Street gents doing with that money? They are buying up shops like Walmart, Apple, etc - the same firms the union gent, who is pounding the table screaming about the evil corporations. He is greedy as well. OK - the union can easily request screens on their investments. No investments in firms that off-shore. No investments in firms that are non-union, etc. They don't. Why not? They don't because the non-union firms that off-shore are the most profitable.

How about the unions actually practice what they preach. Only invest in firms that are massivly pro-union. Oh, wait a minute - that would generate a 3-4% lift on his pension account when other institutional investors are getting 7-8% which over a 30 year career can mean hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mr. "rights of the working man" won't tolerate that return. He wants maximum returns and he should. What he should not do is be disengenuous in his hammering on the very corporations who's performance is going to deliver him a nice retirement nut.

He should also get off the blasting of Wall Street who is running that portfolio for him. Running the portfiolo and getting large fees for doing so. If the union gent thinks Wall Street is greedy, they should not hire Wall Street to run their pension accounts. They should use union folks to run their pensions. I doubt they would be happy with the results - but then again that would be Wall Street's fault.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join