Battle of Wisconsin

[August]

This is why Public Sector unions are a bad thing:

http://www.journaltimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_4163c08e-4607-11e0-8d0c-001cc4c03286.html

Timing, it is said, is everything. That includes bad timing.
Local 67 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, may well have garnered the prize in that department when they filed a grievance against the City of Racine for hiring outside contractors to help dig out from the Feb. 1-2 blizzard that overwhelmed southeast Wisconsin.
The union filed the grievance on Feb. 18. The headlines in the newspaper that day were "Senate Dems flee Capitol" -- headlines that marked the escalation of the fight over Gov. Scott Walker's budget repair bill that would strip many public sector unions of most of their collective bargaining rights.
If he hasn't said it already, we wouldn't be surprised to see Gov. Walker point to the AFSCME grievance and say: "That's what I'm talking about."
It is a good example -- or actually a bad example -- of the difficulties municipalities have had in dealing with unions over work rules and contracts.

[nikimcbee]

but..but..but...workers rights...peace..land...bread...


We need a list of the states that are unionized vs not unionized.

I'm curious how those states budgets are doing.

[mookiemookie]

You remember when the Dem's passed the health care bill? It completely fired up the right. They were very motivated, very energized and organized, and handed the Democrats a sound beating at the polls.

The shoe is on the other foot in Wisconsin. There's been this very very public national debate on this issue. The Repub's cram this through in a very controversial way, against the wishes of some 60-odd% of voters (according to polls). This issue has fired up an already organized segment of the Democrat base...I would expect a lot of these Republicans in Wisconsin to lose their seats in a recall election.

[August]

I would expect a lot of these Republicans in Wisconsin to lose their seats in a recall election.

There are recall efforts against a bunch of the state Democrats too.

Nationally I don't know if the Dems really have a strong platform. If it were private sector unions it'd be different but I don't think public sector unions have the same degree of public support.

[nikimcbee]

I was watching msnbc:dead:, and you'd never guess this was about public sector unions. Oh well, fox is currently fixated on charlie.:shifty:

[Torvald Von Mansee]

It's over:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/09/wisconsin.budget/index.html?hpt=T1

I hope Scott Walker and the Koch brothers enjoy their eternal stay here:

http://mohebban.burjalsaheb.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/hell.gif

[Bubblehead1980]

You remember when the Dem's passed the health care bill? It completely fired up the right. They were very motivated, very energized and organized, and handed the Democrats a sound beating at the polls.

The shoe is on the other foot in Wisconsin. There's been this very very public national debate on this issue. The Repub's cram this through in a very controversial way, against the wishes of some 60-odd% of voters (according to polls). This issue has fired up an already organized segment of the Democrat base...I would expect a lot of these Republicans in Wisconsin to lose their seats in a recall election.


Senators who fled the state like spineless cowards are the ones who need to be recalled.Governor Walker said it best when he said they had three weeks to vote, instead they ran.The majority of the country is not for public sector unions.This is not the rallying cry.Big difference between passing an unconstitutional healthcare law that affects everyone in the nation and budget bill to cut the fat in Wisconsin.Governor Walker is a patriot doing what he was elected to do.

[Bubblehead1980]

It's over:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/09/wisconsin.budget/index.html?hpt=T1

I hope Scott Walker and the Koch brothers enjoy their eternal stay here:

http://mohebban.burjalsaheb.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/hell.gif


Yea, the Koch brothers, those mean old rich white men who control the universe.Garrrrr. LOL

Walker is trying to curb the main weight on the state's neck and get the budget under control.Union thugs lost, nice to see:arrgh!:

[gimpy117]

Just wait when all those former union jobs are privatized and the companies start ripping off the taxpayers.

[nikimcbee]

Well everycheezhead has his day. Congrats Aramike:salute:
http://reflectionsgallerytn.com/images/troiani/iron_brigade_lg.jpg

Here Mike, do a Lambeau leap for me!
http://www.greenbaypackernation.com/images/stories/Articles/packer-fan.jpeg

[Freiwillige]

I am glad they passed the bill. Unions love to misrepresent their struggle as a middle class struggle. Most middle class don't get padded benefits, retirement plans etc. The middle class actually pays for the a fore mentioned benefits.

They are not with us, they are with themselves at taxpayers expense.
No thanks and buh bye.

[Tribesman]

Unions love to misrepresent their struggle as a middle class struggle. Most middle class don't get padded benefits, retirement plans etc. The middle class actually pays for the a fore mentioned benefits.


Isn't it funny you should post that when the middle class is in serious decline.
It is even funnier when many of those people who have paid for their afore mentioned benefits now find them to be practicly worthless and they have no one to deal collectively on thier behalf.

Though another truth of it is that a major proportion of those "middle class" people were never middle class anyway, just working class with a big line of unaffordable credit and a dream that was getting further beyond their reach on a daily basis.

[Takeda Shingen]

I'm just glad that I got out of K-12 education before the return of the $20k-a-year salary.

[August]

Just wait when all those former union jobs are privatized and the companies start ripping off the taxpayers.

The nice thing about a private company is if that happens the company gets fired and perhaps prosecuted as well. When the union does it they get a slap on the wrist if anything.

Meanwhile I see you have nothing to add about the snow plowing grievance. It must be nice to ignore the truth about the situation and concentrate on swallowing your sides propaganda.

[yubba]

Thank you Wis. a victory for the taxpayer.

[Armistead]

We bail out corporations, basically same thing as funding unions, have we asked all the corporate employees to take cuts in salary and benefits. Have the CEO's dropped bonuses? Have the banks paid us back yet?

[mookiemookie]

The nice thing about a private company is if that happens the company gets fired and perhaps prosecuted as well. When the union does it they get a slap on the wrist if anything.

Meanwhile I see you have nothing to add about the snow plowing grievance. It must be nice to ignore the truth about the situation and concentrate on swallowing your sides propaganda.

Oh come now, August. You know this isn't about the budget. This is about one side weakening a political ally of the other side. They've admitted as much. Let's be honest with ourselves here.

[Platapus]

Have the banks paid us back yet?

Goldman Sachs, Morgan, Wells Fargo, BONY, and the other big banks have paid back their loans. Citibank has paid back about half.

Smaller banks are taking longer to pay back, but that is understandable as they are small banks.

[August]

Oh come now, August. You know this isn't about the budget. This is about one side weakening a political ally of the other side. They've admitted as much. Let's be honest with ourselves here.

Did you read the OP article?

The union, supposedly filled with caring civic minded people (if you can believe the propaganda) is willing to sue a cash strapped town because they used, omg! :o, private contractors to pick up the slack during an emergency. If they win the town has to pay twice. Lovely.

I think it's a pretty clear indication that the unions are only in it for themselves and will merrily screw the taxpayer if they can get away with it. I don't care if it's a private company we're talking about but when it comes to the public sector we need to understand just who these people are organizing against.

[mookiemookie]

Did you read the OP article?

The union, supposedly filled with caring civic minded people (if you can believe the propaganda) is willing to sue a cash strapped town because they used, omg! :o, private contractors to pick up the slack during an emergency. If they win the town has to pay twice. Lovely.

I think it's a pretty clear indication that the unions are only in it for themselves and will merrily screw the taxpayer if they can get away with it. I don't care if it's a private company we're talking about but when it comes to the public sector we need to understand just who these people are organizing against.

I did read it, and yes, that's a crappy thing to do. But is the solution to remove all collective bargaining rights from state employees, or maybe is it to renegotiate the contract?

[Sea Demon]

But is the solution to remove all collective bargaining rights from state employees,

Yes. It is the solution. These union thugs have taken advantage of taxpayers too long. And the budget suffers every time. The people who pay the bills are sick of these jerks.

[Tribesman]

The people who pay the bills are sick of these jerks.
Is that why a clear majority in Wisconsin say that Scott is the one being the jerk?

[yubba]

We bail out corporations, basically same thing as funding unions, have we asked all the corporate employees to take cuts in salary and benefits. Have the CEO's dropped bonuses? Have the banks paid us back yet?
We the taxpayer didn't ask the government to bail them out, the government went and did it on their own.

[Ducimus]

We the taxpayer didn't ask the government to bail them out, the government went and did it on their own.

That's because "we" don't really own this country, and neither does the government. Follow the money, and you'll see where the real power and ownership lays.

[Platapus]

We the taxpayer didn't ask the government to bail them out, the government went and did it on their own.

Which is exactly what a representative government is supposed to do. Through our elections we empower our representatives to make decisions on our behalf, but not necessarily in agreement with one of our opinions.

"A Representative owes his people not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices either to their opinion" - Sir Edmund Burke

[August]

We the taxpayer didn't ask the government to bail them out, the government went and did it on their own.

And they did it because the last time we got into this deep a financial mess the government did nothing at all. Inaction that has been blamed for making the Great Depression far worse than it had to be.

I dunno if I buy the theory that throwing money at the problem will fix the problem but I could easily see a lot of blame being cast if they had done nothing.

[August]

"A Representative owes his people not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices either to their opinion" - Sir Edmund Burke

That's been the justification for all kinds of abuses of power.

Burke should have added a corollary that going against the peoples opinion had darn well better yield good results or the Representative was wrong for doing it.

[Platapus]

That is one of the disadvantages of a Representative Government. :yep:

[Platapus]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/09/wisconsin.budget/index.html

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/10/wisconsin-assembly-poised-to-pass-controversial-labor-bill/?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Evidently they were able to get a vote despite the dishonourable behaviour of the Democratic representatives. I understand why the Democrats did what they did, and I recognize that what they did was legal. However they should not have done it. Fleeing the state is not how a democratic government should work. :nope:

Raises would be capped to the rate of inflation, unless state voters approve. The legislation also would require unions to hold a new certification vote every year, and unions would no longer be allowed to collect dues from workers' paychecks.

These sound like reasonable decisions to me.

I applaud the Governor for trying to solve the problem. This must have been a tough decision and will be an unpopular one with many people. It will probably cost him re-election if he is eligible. But being the governor means sometimes making the tough decisions.

I hope this works out.

[August]

These sound like reasonable decisions to me.

That's a key point I think. It is reasonable. As we move into the post event phase of endless critique and examination that fact is going to undercut the unions argument at every turn.

[TorpX]

Oh come now, August. You know this isn't about the budget. This is about one side weakening a political ally of the other side. They've admitted as much. Let's be honest with ourselves here.
Here's honesty.

Public sector unions are nothing more than political patronage militias. They get high salaries and lavish fringe benefits from Democrats, and in return the Dems get campaign donations. The costs of the benefits are frequently hidden and are only dealt with years later. This is a corrupt, incestuous relationship. It does not benefit the public, only the unions and Democrats.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://www.wisdems.org/news/press/view/2011-03--breaking-scott-walker-hollywood-sean-duffy-to-toast

And if you didn't know..

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/between-wisconsin-senate-and-assembly-vote-

Why do the "little people" support this, again?

EDIT: I know some of you will attack the messenger, but if Wisconsin's public utilities are sold for a fraction of their worth to the Koch brothers, what will you say than?

It just seems stunning that the entire party apparatus of the GOP except for one or two guys mobilized to:

A) make TWO already fabulously wealthy men even richer at the expense of

B) THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of others who

C) VOTED CONSERVATIVE IN THE FIRST PLACE

Bill Maher mentioned that since 1980, 85% of all new wealth in the United States went to the top 1% But if we try even spread a LITTLE bit of it around, it's "OH NOES, SOCIALISM!!!"

sigh

[Blood_splat]

Well now Scott Walker will be able to give the rich/big business their tax cuts. Those silly teachers with their fancy health and dental plans who do they think they are?

[August]

Here's honesty.

Public sector unions are nothing more than political patronage militias. They get high salaries and lavish fringe benefits from Democrats, and in return the Dems get campaign donations. The costs of the benefits are frequently hidden and are only dealt with years later. This is a corrupt, incestuous relationship. It does not benefit the public, only the unions and Democrats.


This ^

It's an incestuous relationship the American taxpayer can no longer afford to fund.

Unions belong in the private sector only.

[gimpy117]

Here's honesty.

Public sector unions are nothing more than political patronage militias. They get high salaries and lavish fringe benefits from Democrats, and in return the Dems get campaign donations. The costs of the benefits are frequently hidden and are only dealt with years later. This is a corrupt, incestuous relationship. It does not benefit the public, only the unions and Democrats.


you're kidding? The same can be said of corporations who pay off politicians for favorable laws, or pet projects that always seem to go over budget, and never really deliver.

its funny how the world goes both ways

[August]

you're kidding? The same can be said of corporations who pay off politicians for favorable laws.

The corporate donor is not an employee. A public sector union has access and interaction with their politician employers that even corporate donors do not enjoy.

or pet projects that always seem to go over budget, and never really deliver

You sure you want to go there? "Union" and "Over Budget" are about as synonymous as it gets.

Unions do not belong in the public sector. End of story.

[gimpy117]

The corporate donor is not an employee. A public sector union has access and interaction with their politician employers that even corporate donors do not enjoy.

so you feel bad about unions having more access? A union is an interest group, like AARP or NRA, it serves to better its members. A company is out for its own interest, out to make money. Unions Should have more access than than a company for just this reason, they are an association of citizens, not a business.

also, I can even turn that around...because a corporate donor is the same thing as an employee when the government is paying their contract. why do you think companies give money to senators in the first place? so the government trows them nice juicy contracts probably when they shouldn't.


You sure you want to go there? "Union" and "Over Budget" are about as synonymous as it gets.

Unions do not belong in the public sector. End of story.

maybe in your mind. I bet you ignored all the cost plus contracts in Iraq, and all the buildings we built...but didn't actually build, or the Commanchie, the JSF, etc etc...

this is just one of those reactionary things whenever republicans get into office...they spin some yard that unions are ruining this country and go on a crusade to get rid of them. Why are they doing this? well duh, their buddies in the private sector want a piece of the Pie. But luckily for them politicians love to overpay private sector than they do public.

[August]

also, I can even turn that around...because a corporate donor is the same thing as an employee when the government is paying their contract. why do you think companies give money to senators in the first place? so the government trows them nice juicy contracts probably when they shouldn't.

Thank you for proving my point Gimpy. A government official that gets caught unethically pandering to a company looses his seat and the company looses it's contract. Where are the ethics violations when it comes to pandering to public sector unions?

Also a private company that is hired by the government has competition to get and keep that contract. Public sector unions with mandatory membership have eliminated their competition and are scared to death they might not bet to keep their monopoly. That's why they oppose annual re-certification and voluntary union dues.

Bottom line is the unions are going to loose this battle. Fiscal realities cannot be ignored or shouted down, and the longer the Democrats continue to ignore it the worse it's going to hurt them next year.

I predict the Dems will abandon unions much the same way the GoP abandoned the religious right.

[gimpy117]

Thank you for proving my point Gimpy. A government official that gets caught unethically pandering to a company looses his seat and the company looses it's contract. Where are the ethics violations when it comes to pandering to public sector unions?

Also a private company that is hired by the government has competition to get and keep that contract. Public sector unions with mandatory membership have eliminated their competition and are scared to death they might not bet to keep their monopoly. That's why they oppose annual re-certification and voluntary union dues.

what about paying off the government don't you get? Look at the TARP bill for instance. Those companies didn't deserve a bailout for their crooked business...but they got it. Why? because congress was in their pocket. Again look at iraq. we were "unethically pandering" the whole time there did anyone lose their seat? no. even after countless millions were wasted.

[August]

what about paying off the government don't you get? Look at the TARP bill for instance. Those companies didn't deserve a bailout for their crooked business...but they got it. Why? because congress was in their pocket. Again look at iraq. we were "unethically pandering" the whole time there did anyone lose their seat? no. even after countless millions were wasted.

Nice try but Iraq has nothing to do with public sector unions, TARP, or the price of tea in China. You are just casting randomly about hoping to muddy up the waters sufficiently that attention will be directed away from the excesses of public sector unions, but it just ain't gonna work.

What do you have against keeping public sector worker wage increases limited to cost of living unless approved by the voters?

What do you have against letting public sector workers decide whether they want a union to represent them?

Why do you support punishing a cash strapped town for using private plow trucks to take up the slack for the unions inability to get the job done in an emergency?

[gimpy117]

Nice try but Iraq has nothing to do with public sector unions, TARP, or the price of tea in China. You are just casting randomly about hoping to muddy up the waters sufficiently that attention will be directed away from the excesses of public sector unions, but it just ain't gonna work.

What do you have against keeping public sector worker wage increases limited to cost of living unless approved by the voters?

What do you have against letting public sector workers decide whether they want a union to represent them?

Why do you support punishing a cash strapped town for using private plow trucks to take up the slack for the unions inability to get the job done in an emergency?

Because it proves that private companies can rip of the public just as much as "unions can" as long as they have elected officials in their pocket enough.

Look at my hometown for example. they built a new parking garage with no bidding for contracts. why? because the guy in charge was an old business buddy of the contractor in charge for the parking garage...and undoubtedly that cost the city of Traverse City a lot of money.

I'm not against saving money..but i am against the GOP busting unions for their own gain or because they want to help their buddies.

[TorpX]

you're kidding? The same can be said of corporations who pay off politicians for favorable laws, or pet projects that always seem to go over budget, and never really deliver.

its funny how the world goes both ways
I agree that corporate welfare and political corruption are problems that need to be dealt with. The problem of the Federal and State governments inability to reduce spending is paramount. When a corrupt mayor or congressman pushes through a bad deal it is bad, but when a state school system can and public sector can extort billions from taxpayers by holding school children hostage, it is much worse.

If a company or private union are foolish or corrupt, I can refuse to deal with them and buy from the competition. Since they know this they have a strong incentive to behave themselves. With the public sector there are no restraints. The taxpayers must pay and pay. The public schools can not be allowed to go out of business and it is always easier for politicians to raise taxes than to cut spending.

I have followed the events in Wisconsin with keen interest, since I live next door in Illinois. My state is in just as bad condition as Wis. (maybe worse), but so far nothing has been done to remedy the situation. Our governor use to talk about spending restaint, but now behaves like a liberal trained seal. He has signed tax increases and has made only token spending cuts. This may "solve" the problem in the short term, but can only accelerate Illinois decline long term. The Democrats have solid control of the state and there is not likely to be any serious attempt to deal with the problem any time soon. However, the situation cannot continue for very long, because economic realities simply will not permit it. Ordinary people will not be able to afford taxes and prices going up and up, with no end in sight. Few politicians seem to be willing to face this fact.

[Tribesman]

Unions do not belong in the public sector. End of story.
If the public sector has employees those employees should have the same rights available as any other employee, those right includes union membership and collective bargaining.
If however there is a political theory which believes that public sector employees are not employees like other employees and that they must not be treated like other employees and afforded the same rights then there should be no public sector employees at all or no rights for any workers in any sector.

[August]

Because it proves that private companies can rip of the public just as much as "unions can" as long as they have elected officials in their pocket enough.

Look at my hometown for example. they built a new parking garage with no bidding for contracts. why? because the guy in charge was an old business buddy of the contractor in charge for the parking garage...and undoubtedly that cost the city of Traverse City a lot of money.

I'm not against saving money..but i am against the GOP busting unions for their own gain or because they want to help their buddies.

Yeah you are. You think it's perfectly ok for unions to rob the taxpayer because others are doing it too! That hypocrisy is why the Democrats did so badly last election and I don't see it changing for the next one.

Bottom line either the Democrats abandon the public sector unions or they will continue to loose power in the next election.

[August]

If a company or private union are foolish or corrupt, I can refuse to deal with them and buy from the competition. Since they know this they have a strong incentive to behave themselves. With the public sector there are no restraints. The taxpayers must pay and pay. The public schools can not be allowed to go out of business and it is always easier for politicians to raise taxes than to cut spending.

This, this, this ^

[gimpy117]

Yeah you are. You think it's perfectly ok for unions to rob the taxpayer because others are doing it too! That hypocrisy is why the Democrats did so badly last election and I don't see it changing for the next one.

Bottom line either the Democrats abandon the public sector unions or they will continue to loose power in the next election.

I wasn't really saying two wrongs make a right...I was more pointing out how black and white your thinking is. You've boiled down shades of grey to:

Unions bad. Private sector good.

and somehow you've convinced yourself that only unions are the ones ripping off taxpayers while the truth lays somewhere in between. If the republicans really wanted to eliminate waste and balance the budget they would also look at waste in private contracts too. But they wont..why? because all this is all just union busting.

[Tribesman]

Forget it Gimpy, leave them with their illusions about restraints and competition.

For all of augusts "This, this, this ^" TorpX ignores well established patterns that are as old as the hills.

[August]

...you've convinced yourself that only unions are the ones ripping off taxpayers...

Stop putting words in my mouth. Not once have I ever said or implied that. This discussion is about the problems with public sector unions. If you want to talk about corporate influence then start your own thread for it.

Then I can tell you that by your reasoning we should do nothing about corporate abuse because the unions are ripping off the taxpayers as well.

[Platapus]

Hey, I got a wacky idea.

Why don't we debate the issue and not have ad hom. attacks? I highly doubt that anyone here in the GT is personally responsible for anything with this Wisconsin issue. So there is no need for anything to get personal here, right?

I know it is a wacky "out of the GT box" idea, but think about it. It just might work. :yep:

[gimpy117]

Stop putting words in my mouth. Not once have I ever said or implied that. This discussion is about the problems with public sector unions. If you want to talk about corporate influence then start your own thread for it.

Then I can tell you that by your reasoning we should do nothing about corporate abuse because the unions are ripping off the taxpayers as well.

well you haven't really acknowledged that you also think corporate waste needs to be checked too...if that even is your belief. Id be more more willing to cut unions if first I did not believe this is all being done for corporate interests, and secondly If there was fair emphasis at resolving other wastes in the budget (especially wasteful pet projects given to favorite companies). Its all very one sided, everywhere from on the boards to at the top. it doesn't feel like just an attempt to balance the budget...it feels more like an attack on unions.

[nikimcbee]

This whole argument pertains to public sector unions (excluding fire/po-lice). What's the purpose for them to organize? None. They are just paracites feeding off the taxpayers.

[gimpy117]

This whole argument pertains to public sector unions (excluding fire/po-lice). What's the purpose for them to organize? None. They are just paracites feeding off the taxpayers.

They want to organize to make sure their interests are protected and their jobs aren't cut.

to me it's ironic that they are being painted as villains even though they just want the best living they can have, or just to keep their job.

Especially when our legislature is the second highest paid in the nation, behind California. (base salary starting at $79,650 plus 1,000 a month for office expenses).

[August]

...to me it's ironic that they are being painted as villains even though they just want the best living they can have, or just to keep their job.


But that doesn't stop you from vilifying corporations who after all are just doing the exact same thing the public sector union is doing, getting the best deal they can for their members.

But again, if a corporation charges too much they soon loose the contract to their competitor, political patronage or not.

Where is the unions competition?

[Growler]

Where is the unions competition?

Or, put another way: What is a union's motivation to maintain high levels of ethics and efficiency, when a member is going to pay dues no matter what, or be ostracized and outcast both from the union and from the workplace?

When I worked for a large, brown shipping company in the early 90's, I was not offered a choice to participate in the union - it was practically stated that union membership was mandatory as a condition of employment; yet I, to this day, do not know who the union rep was in the shop.

[Tribesman]

But again, if a corporation charges too much they soon loose the contract to their competitor, political patronage or not.
Once again a point that doesn't reflect reality.

[gimpy117]

But that doesn't stop you from vilifying corporations who after all are just doing the exact same thing the public sector union is doing, getting the best deal they can for their members.

also doesn't really reflect reality.

Corporations rarely share profits as freely as that statement suggests. unless you are talking about stocks..and thats only because they have to. People working for them get squat

Also, Corporations are not people. A union is an association of workers a company is not. The old "corporations are people too" just doesn't cut it.

[Sea Demon]

also doesn't really reflect reality.

Corporations rarely share profits as freely as that statement suggests. unless you are talking about stocks..and thats only because they have to. People working for them get squat

Also, Corporations are not people. A union is an association of workers a company is not. The old "corporations are people too" just doesn't cut it.

Which corporations? How many have you worked for? The ones I've worked for don't reflect anything like you have posted in this statement.

And just for clarity's sake, corporations are a grouping of people, and unions are a grouping of people. There is no difference to that effect. It's merely the goals of each that differ.

[August]

also doesn't really reflect reality.

I would disagree but it's irrelevant. This isn't about corporations. It's about the organized blackmail and thuggery that you call unions and no amount of obfuscation on your part is going to change that.

To recap:
Unions oppose voluntary participation.
Unions oppose periodic votes of confidence
Unions oppose competition.
Unions oppose allowing the voter to decide if they deserve a pay raise beyond the cost of living.
Unions are over paid and over compensated.

[nikimcbee]

I wonder what Aramike is up to? I haven't heard from him since this concluded.:06:

[nikimcbee]

I would disagree but it's irrelevant. This isn't about corporations. It's about the organized blackmail and thuggery that you call unions and no amount of obfuscation on your part is going to change that.

To recap:
Unions oppose voluntary participation.
Unions oppose periodic votes of confidence
Unions oppose competition.
Unions oppose allowing the voter to decide if they deserve a pay raise beyond the cost of living.
Unions are over paid and over compensated.

Clarify please: You are still talking about the public unions or unions in general?

Another key, afaik, this whole fuss was regarding benefits, not pay. You should have heard the unions squeal here when they wanted to increase their health contribution by......$5:har:. There was no way they were going to pay that.:dead: Ofcoarse, the gov buckled, as he was a union sock puppet.:haha:

[August]

Clarify please: You are still talking about the public unions or unions in general?

The discussion is about public unions but it would also certainly apply to private unions too.

What I've been trying to make Gimpy understand is that private unions, for all their flaws, are not the problem. As has been mentioned, if a private union demands too much the company folds. It's a built in and vital safety valve that does not exist in the public sector.

Another key, afaik, this whole fuss was regarding benefits, not pay. You should have heard the unions squeal here when they wanted to increase their health contribution by......$5:har:. There was no way they were going to pay that.:dead: Ofcoarse, the gov buckled, as he was a union sock puppet.:haha:

They can squeal all they want. The taxpayer is the one who has to pay for it all and that well is getting pretty dry. The states who follow Wisconsin's lead will fare better than the ones who can't or won't.

[gimpy117]

What I've been trying to make Gimpy understand is that private unions, for all their flaws, are not the problem. As has been mentioned, if a private union demands too much the company folds. It's a built in and vital safety valve that does not exist in the public sector.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but haven't public unions already made concessions? I don't see thats how thats a problem when they are willing to deal. the real issue is is that republicans don't even wanna do that..they just want to get rind of the unions altogether.

again as i said, If these bills seemed like anything more than just union busting id be more receptive. Instead however, governors are giving large handouts to corporations while asking the common man to foot the bill for economic recovery. They want to take away public union bargaining rights but think its great to give huge tax breaks to corporations. even though its pretty wishy washy wither the whole trickle down idea works.

[Aramike]

I wonder what Aramike is up to? I haven't heard from him since this concluded.:06:This very issue has had me extremely tied up. I do consulting from a fiscally conservative perspective as part of my work, and lately I've had to hammer out about a paper each day, versus my average of once a week. Seems as though you guys have the basis covered pretty well, but I'd like to add a few things:

First, let's start with a "Word-of-the-Day", shall we?

col·lu·sion (khttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-lhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/oomacr.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifzhhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifn)
n. A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.

Emphasis on the last two works mine.

If ANY private organization and union were to engage in the same types of negotiations routinely seen in the public sector, people would go to jail. As far as the principle of the issue is concerned, public unions should not exist, as has been effectively communicated here. If for no other reason, they ultimately impose a non-accountable indirect tax to the taxpayer. In other words, for every public employee the taxpayers require, that employee must be hired into a system that diverts money from wages into the union's and therefore the Democratic Party's coffers. There is no ethical justification for this. Prior to Governor Walker's changes, public employees WERE allowed to opt out of the unions - however, "fair pay" clauses required them to pay nonetheless.

Ergo, everytime a municipality needs to hire a teacher, that teacher's compensation package includes a direct contribution to the union which directly contributes to a single political party.

The compulsion of public union participation is ultimately an unfair, unaccoutable Democratic Party tax leveraged on the people of Wisconsin.

Now, enough with broad principle, I feel I should share the facts of what has happened here with clarity as most of the national media are confused in their reporting, likely due to their own confusion. I'm going to use some CAPS here to stress important points, and I'll try not to editorialize too much.

The bill that caused the initial outcry from the unions is Governor Walker's Budget Repair bill. The direct purpose of this bill is to address the shortfall in the CURRENT budget. Wisconsin budgets are biennial. For those of you new to this, that means we budget for two years at a time.

Our current biennial budget expires in June. In that budget, we face a significant shortfall of approximately $137 million. The budget repair bill addressed that part directly by attempting to enact employee pension and healthcare contribution increases while REFINANCING the current debt. That former piece was only modestly controversial, and was quickly conceeded to by the unions as soon as this next part was understood.

That part is that which addresses collective bargaining priviledges for public employees. Governor Walker included the so-called "anti-union" provisions in the Budget Repair bill in order to address what is known as a STRUCTURAL DEFICIT. What that means to one who may not be familiar with fiscal terminology is essentially that the system in and of itself is set up to run into deficit spending.

Meanwhile, as this is a fiscal bill, it was believed that a "superquorum" of 3/5 of the senate be present to vote on it. That would equal 20 senators. The Republicans had 19; the democrats 14.

Now, there were ultimately four provisions in this part of the bill that caused so much controversy.

Limiting collective bargaining for public sector unions to wages and limiting THAT to the rate of inflation.
Ending mandatory financial participation in the public union.
Requiring union members to vote annually for recertification, and for THAT vote to require a 51% majority of ALL MEMBERS.
Ending automatic withholding of union dues.
I'm going to editorialize here. Most people who are only loosely paying any attention to this story have only heard of that first provision. However, I believe that was the one of LEAST concern to the union and political leadership. The latter three stand to be far more damaging to the unions financially.

In fact, when Walker gave ground in negotiations on the first provision I layed out, Democrat State Senator Mark Miller, who was still on hiatus from Wisconsin and his duties, told the Wall Street Journal that they intended to return the following day. Furthmore, Walker staffers had indicated that an agreement was struck. Yet, Miller pulled an about-face the following day, remaining in Illinois and accusing the Walker administration of not negotiating in a letter. Walker then released emails to the public proving otherwise.

My conclusion is simple, and one would have to be naive to not follow - Miller though he had won a victory with concessions from Walker and told the media the 14 Democrats would be returning home. The union and political leadership reviewed the agreement and overruled that decision. This is the only logical explanation for the events that occurred. And, as such, it helps the illustrate the point that this is ultimately about money.

More to come...

[Aramike]

Continuing on...

Eventually the Republicans decided to use the so-called "nuclear option", which was stripping all spending measures from the bill and passing it without a single Democrat present. This was a key miscalculation on the Democrats' part - they believed that the components regarding the pension and healthcare contributions would preserve the need for the supermajority under the fiscal bill clause in the state constitution. Unfortunately for them, said clause only requires the supermajority for appropriations (spending). Ergo, the vast majority of the bill remained intact, and the refinancing portion would be passed now that the Democrats had no further reason to continue their absense.

Furthermore, in a brutal miscalculation Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Governor Walker's opponent in the 2010 election, publically stated during a policy forum that he believed the bill should be broken up into separate parts. He believed that doing so would result in a vote against the union-related portions. I believe the Republicans were galvanized by this.

Okay, Moving On...

While Governor Walker's Budget Repair bill has stolen the headlines, most people are unaware of the true scope of why Walker deemed the steps taken within are necessary. Guaranteed to be FAR more controversial is Walker's 2011/2012 biennial budget proposal.

To lay down some background, I'm going to borderline editorialize again here, but if you don't agree with this concept, your math needs some work.

Wisconsin is facing a $3.3 BILLION shortfall in the next biennium. I'm going to lay some serious blame here. First, Governor Scott McCallum (R) (who entered office as a result of Gov. Tommy Thompson leaving to join President Bush's cabinet as Secretary of Health and Human Services) raiding the state's ongoing tobacco settlement fund to help balance the budget. Following that, however, Governor Jim Doyle (D) managed to balloon a $600 million deficit into a $6.6 BILLION deficit between 2002 and 2009 (bear in mind the fact that Wisconsin became the 4th highest taxed state in the process).

Doyle's mismanagement is well-documented. He routinely raided the Registration Fee trust (transportation fund) to the tune of millions. He cut sweetheart deals with heavy contributors (the Potowatami's, whom I believe run the state's largest casino, pay next to nothing to the state). There's more, but the details get boring.

However, in his most egregious act of fiscal irresponsibility, he diverted over $2 BILLION in one-time stimulus funds to the state's '09/10 biennium. Here's where we run into an old word-friend yet again: that is PURE structural deficit.

When you face a structural deficit, it's not as simple as cutting funding. Such deficits occur when you use money to create, grow, or even sustain ongoing programs. Government programs, by and large, are long term. That means these programs will maintain a cost beyond the structure of the current budget.

The problem doesn't arise until you pay for such costs without using renewable revenues. In other words, Doyle paid for $2.3 billion in spending using ONE TIME money. In the next biennium, that spending will still be there. The money, on the other hand, will not. That's the structural deficit.

Had Gov. Doyle made the cuts necessary to not require the stimulus influx, Gov. Walker would only be facing perhaps a hair over a $1B deficit, rather than three times that amount.

When such a large portion of state resources goes to NEGOTIATED contracts that have been paid for THROUGH structural deficit spending, that ultimately means that the structure requiring such spending needs to be changed. Hence the repair bill.

The trick here is simple: Municipalities are going to lose more than $1.5B in the upcoming biennial budget. That money needs to be made up. Either there can be mass layoffs (unacceptable in this employment climate), taxes could be raised (more unacceptable in the 4th highest taxed state as it is), or liabilities need to be reduced.

And that is the subject of my next post on the matter.

[Aramike]

This part will mostly be opinion, but I assure you it will be well-reasoned.

I left off discussing the reduction of liabilities that need to be funded. This is precisely where Gov. Scott Walker was making his point about collective bargaining.

Let's look at two of the most illustrative and egregious examples of misuse of contracts bargained collectively.

One:

2/3 of Wisconsin school districts buy their INCREDIBLY generous health insurance from a company called the WEA Trust. This is a health insurance company RAN BY THE TEACHER'S UNION. This company routinely charges roughly 25% more than the cost for the same insurance through other carriers. One small school district in the state (Brown Deer) recently reported $170K in annual savings. In doing so, they've drawn the official protest of the teacher union which filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission.

In a fiscal analysis concerning the next biennium, my company believes that removing language requiring or implying requirement (compelled requirement) from Collective Bargaining agreements NAMING WEA Trust could save roughly $80-$100M.

Two:

Tenure recently resulted in Milwaukee's Teacher of the Year losing her job a mere few months after receiving the distinction due to a labor reduction. I believe that tenure costs the state jobs as much as dollars. For every ineffective 20+ year tenured teacher we could hire nearly 2 effective, highly motivated replacements. However, due to union contracts we are required to use tenure as the sole determining factor when it comes to reductions in force.

That translates into larger classrooms, higher costs, and higher pension liabilities as the pension takes into account your THREE highest earning years. There is no fiscal motivation for a tenured teacher to excel. Likewise, there is no benefit for a new teacher entering the system to compete. This is anathema to a strong system of education AND fiscal responsibility.

I literally could write hundreds of pages of examples regarding the disadvantages unchecked collective bargaining entails (heck, I have), but ultimately the principle is clear. What we are faced with is a system where those negotiating on behalf of the taxpayers are approaching said discussions with a bias towards the unions. This is collusion in the private sector. Giving a labor organization the financial ability to fund the appointment of whom they negotiate with is disasterous and has PROVEN to be such. Even now, some municipalities are attempting to rush through union contracts before the budget repair bill is published. Why would ANYONE enter into negotiations PRIOR to receiving tools to give them a further advantage in said talks, unless they weren't completely advocating those people who they are ostensibly representing? In these actions they are merely proving Walker's point, unwittingly.

In any case, short of not allowing private unions to donate money to political causes, I believe curtailing their abilities to require dues and membership along with restricting that which they can bargain on is the only possible solution to assuring representation of the taxpayer.

[Aramike]

Correct me if I'm wrong...but haven't public unions already made concessions? I don't see thats how thats a problem when they are willing to deal. Wrong. They weren't willing to deal until they realized the issue was going to be forced and they had to.

Even then, they were not actually conceding. PRIOR to Wisconsin's budget repair bill passing they were rushing contracts to avoid the concessions.the real issue is is that republicans don't even wanna do that..they just want to get rind of the unions altogether.Of course they do. Even union stalwart and noted liberal Franklin D. Roosevelt knew that public unions were a horrible idea.again as i said, If these bills seemed like anything more than just union busting id be more receptive.They are, you just aren't completely understanding the issue. Unfortunately, runaway union bargaining has created structural deficits that need to be addressed. If the unions had used their power wisely, this would never have been an issue. Rather, they've created a seperate, minority middle class with protections and compensations far beyond the majority.

Furthermore, while they DO pay taxes, they do NOT contribute to government funding. This is a point missed by practically everyone. Here's the easiest way to describe it: take away a private sector employee's tax contribution. Government gets zero. Take away a private sector employee's job. Government gets zero.

Now, take away a public sector employee's tax contribution. Government LOSES that percentage of salary. However, take away a public sector employee's job? Government RETAINS the ENTIRE PORTION of that salary.

Government employees are a net loss to funding, and by extension, the taxpayer. That's not to say they are not necessary. However, that DOES stress FDR's point regarding the dangers of public unionization, specifically how they could hold those who actually provide for the government hostage.Instead however, governors are giving large handouts to corporations while asking the common man to foot the bill for economic recovery. On the one hand, I actually agree with you. Hand outs (read: bailouts) are anathema to private growth. I will disclose however that I was in favor of the concept of bailouts due to one important thing: economies with high production CAPACITY combined with high consumption and access to natural resources are really only heavily vulnerable to fast collapses. In other words, once we hit rock bottom we have the capacity to dig out, but I believe it's better to skip some of that misery.

However, that's a federal issue. Where exactly are governors giving handouts to corporations? Secondly, what makes you think that corporations pay anything in taxes to begin with? Third, if those tax reductions are targetted at corporations currently not doing business in a state, and upon moving to said state they would be given temporary tax BREAKS (Gov. Walker's plan), how does that cost ANYTHING? Rather, that would create (taxpaying) jobs and state revenue. Whereas, should the corporation NOT move here, there's no additional revenue from jobs OR the corporation to begin with. Ergo, net gain for state. And, no loss.They want to take away public union bargaining rights but think its great to give huge tax breaks to corporations. Please cite which law/policy you're referring to, because frankly this sounds like a baseless talking point that has been proven false repeatedly.even though its pretty wishy washy wither the whole trickle down idea works.As far as I can tell, none of these policies are about trickle-down economics. Rather, they are about creating growth. To tell a business that they can open up shop here and not pay taxes for 3 years should they hire X number of people is NOT a tax cut. If they do not do business here, we have nothing to begin with, ergo no cut. However, it is a net GAIN if they do because they are creating taxable income and growth.

[nikimcbee]

okay, so I'f I understand the Illiad:D, you had a big butterfly net and you were out looking for Dems to bring back to Madison.:hmmm:

You should've called Boba Fett.:haha:

[Aramike]

okay, so I'f I understand the Illiad:D, you had a big butterfly net and you were out looking for Dems to bring back to Madison.:hmmm:

You should've called Boba Fett.:haha::haha:

I would have towed Senator Chris "StickyFingers" Larson back myself, but alas...

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/102442204.html

[nikimcbee]

I wish we could get your revolution out here, but sadly, the red-guard controls this state:dead:. I believe 1 in 6 in ore-gone work for the state(?) or are drawing from a state pension. The last dope in chief, was a union guy, and gave the public union whatever they wanted. Fortunetly(sp), he was term limited out:yeah:. The last month of his term, he delcared that they were over budget and couldn't afford the PERs increases.



Only, at the last moment, did he decide they couldn't afford it.:har::har::har::har::har:

If it wasn't for the tech industry, this state would be an economic black hole. The greenies have wiped out all of the other industries here. There is one state, who has a higher unemployment than here, and guess who that is?:06::hmmm::haha:

On a side note, they just released the salaries for the city of portland employees. Guess what, 1 in 5 people earn >$150k:o

So I say we should redistribute the wealth from the greedy, rich city bosses, back to the poor tax-payers.

Oh, wait, they are all progressives, so they deserve it.

[August]

Don't worry Nik, it's gonna happen eventually. It has to. Economic realities cannot be ignored for very long.

[nikimcbee]

Don't worry Nik, it's gonna happen eventually. It has to. Economic realities cannot be ignored for very long.

The economy ain't bad enough yet for that to happen here. When the (public) unions get threatened, they will kill kittens until they get their way. Guess what, voters cave (almost) every time:shifty:.

With 1 in 6 working for the state... guess who wins.

The problem with the "tax the rich" strategy, is that they will pick up and move somewhere else.:up:

(see businesses leaving portland)
( see radio ads for businesses to relocate to Vancouver, WA because business taxes are lower:hmmm:)

...and the best part of all this, since businesses won't relocate here (OR) the state has to "put the porkchop on the kid so the dog will play with him"
(see solar industry)

but that's okay, they are green jobs:yeah::har:.

[August]

The economy ain't bad enough yet for that to happen here. When the (public) unions get threatened, they will kill kittens until they get their way. Guess what, voters cave (almost) every time:shifty:.

With 1 in 6 working for the state... guess who wins.

The problem with the "tax the rich" strategy, is that they will pick up and move somewhere else.:up:

(see businesses leaving portland)
( see radio ads for businesses to relocate to Vancouver, WA because business taxes are lower:hmmm:)

...and the best part of all this, since businesses won't relocate here (OR) the state has to "put the porkchop on the kid so the dog will play with him"
(see solar industry)

but that's okay, they are green jobs:yeah::har:.

That's what I mean. 5 private sector workers supporting one state worker only works if the 5 private sector workers have jobs that pay well enough to afford him. As businesses leave the state that's going to become more and more difficult to maintain so I don't predict a good future for Oregon kittens! :o

[Aramike]

Heh, as bad as WI is when anti-union proposals are fielded, I shudder to think how OR would react. :doh:

There WILL come a day of reckoning, however. States are simply running out of money, and tax increases will ultimately have a depressing effect. States need to address the structural issues, like Gov. Walker is - and unlike the Feds, they can't just print money.

I fear that at some point relatively soon, far-left states are going to hit a wall and require bailout. Unfortunately, there's no real way for the federal government to say no.

[gimpy117]

yes, states are running out of money, but for the wrong reasons. Average taxpayers are losing shares of the wealth and income, and taxes for the wealthy haven't kept up to reflect their increase of the share of income. where there used to be more taxes to be had because more people spread out had more money, now the tax base has dried up. There will be some tough choices, do we load the rich and corporations (because thats where more of the money is now) or do we take away programs and increase it for the middle class? (also is a middle road where we tax everybody). Unfortunately, I feel as if most of the burden of these recovery bills are being shifted upon the middle class . Why? because money wins again.

Personally, If i had my way we would first go where the money is and work the way down. If you need more taxes it makes sense to go where the majority of the cash is loaded. Call it unfair or whatever, But if you need water from a sponge, it makes sense to get some out of the saturated one before you go try to wring the last few little drops out of the one thats only damp at best.

Pic related:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/davidhorsey/files/2011/03/Family-3-9-11-color-640x481.jpg

[August]

Heh, as bad as WI is when anti-union proposals are fielded, I shudder to think how OR would react. :doh:

Or here in Mass for that matter. We already have Democrat politicians telling the unions that they need to "get out on the streets and get a little bloody".

It ain't going to be pretty around here when we hit that wall.

[Aramike]

yes, states are running out of money, but for the wrong reasons. Taxpayers are losing shares of the wealth and income. where there used to be more taxes to be had because more people spread out had more money, now the tax base has dried up. Gimpy, I'm sorry to have to say it like this, but that's simply absurd - because it makes no sense.

The reason states are running out of money is simple: spending is outpacing growth. It has nothing to do with the distribution of weath. IN FACT, concentrating wealth into a higher tax bracket would have the opposite effect of what you're stating. A billion dollars of income spread out over 25,000 middle class taxpayers would actually yield LESS revenue than it being concentrated into the upper tax brackets. Why? Because that same sum is being taxed at a much higher rate.

One COULD argue that more income spread out over the middle class would yield higher sales tax revenues, yet states aren't going broke because of sales taxes, as most states derive revenue from INCOME, while municipalities derive receive the benefits of sales taxes.

In other words, that's an old liberal argument that most liberals are content to repeat but never analyze. You can argue about the merits of a greater separation between the rich and the poor, but when it comes to state revenues, it's not related.Unfortunately, I feel as if its being shifted upon the middle class most of the burden of these recovery bills. Why? because money wins again.Which recovery bill is that? Because most recovery bills actually remove some of the burden FROM the middle class by requiring the SMALL percentage of middle class to actually contribute at a more mainstream rate (which is STILL better than what most of the middle class has to deal with).

Or are "ultra-liberal-union middle-class" more "middle class" than the rest of that classification, who are in the VAST majority?Call t unfair or whatever, But if you need water from a sponge, it makes sense to get some out of the saturated one before you go try to wring the last few little drops out of the one thats only damp at best. Interesting analogy.

In any case, the saturated sponge here are public employees, whereas the damp one is the rest of us.

You do know that you cannot tax money that has ALREADY been taxed as income, right? That's confiscation. And what happens when you raise taxes on high end incomes and they simply leave the state? So you went from 30% to 45% in income tax revenue. Now that person/business leaves to a more friendly tax environment. Now you just went from 45% to 0% revenue.

Good work. Now the middle class has to pay even more.

PS: Nice pic, gimpy. Now please explain to me why the far left can't use logic and numbers to illustrate their points but ONLY use bumpersticker slogans and 3 line sarcasm?

[August]

Now please explain to me why the far left can't use logic and numbers to illustrate their points but ONLY use bumpersticker slogans and 3 line sarcasm?

Good luck with that. He still hasn't addressed the greedy union snow plow drivers of Racine story that this thread was all about.

[Aramike]

Here's a great article mathematically breaking down the misguided notion that taxing corporations is the answer: http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/feed-your-family-on-10-billion-a-day.html

An excerpt:So let's all sit down together as an American family with a calendar and make a yearly budget. First, let's lock in the $3.7 trillion of critical family spending priorities; now let's get to work on collecting the pay-as-we-go $10 billion daily cash flow we need.

12:01 AM, January 1
Let's start the year out right by going after some evil corporations and their obscene profits. And who is more evil than those twin spawns of Lucifer himself, Exxon Mobil and Walmart? Together these two largest American industrial behemoths raked in, between them, $34 billion in 2010 global profits. Let's teach 'em both a lesson and confiscate it for the public good. This will get us through...

9:52 AM January 4
Okay, maybe I underestimated our take. But we shouldn't let Exxon and Walmart distract us from all those other corporate profiteers out there worth shaking down. In fact, why don't we grab every cent of 2010 profit made by the other 498 members of the Fortune 500? That will net us another, let's see, $357 billion! Enough to get us to...

2:00 AM February 9
So we're running out of corporate cash, but look - it's Super Bowl time! As we all know, the game has become a crass disgusting festival of commercialism. So let's take all the TV ad money spent on stupid Super Bowl ads, and apply that to government needs. That would be $250 million, enough to fund us for, let's see... 36 minutes. The half time show, at least. But why stop there? Let's take every cent of ad money spent on all 45 Super Bowls, a cool $5 billion, which would cover us until...

[gimpy117]

-See I don't think you are completely correct when you say spending has outpaced growth. There has been downturn in the economy and more people are losing their jobs. at least here in MI. No jobs means no taxes.

-Also, How are we not losing a share in the economy? Have you sen the growth in the top percents of income? that money has to come from somewhere.

-tax some of the middle class more? Ok fine...but where are the taxes for the upper class? or the corporations. they're giving them huge concessions under the guise of "stimulating business" that works marginally well at best...but its a nice republican fantasy.

-greedy snowplow drivers? Ha ha. They often get paid so much because they get a lot of overtime. if the unions are the saturated sponge what do you call corporate interests? a super tanker? a flood. But it figures that you republicans keep pointing the finger to the public sector. I think this problem is bigger than just unions but that was never the point. It was always about union busting, the GOP has be waiting for this moment to use panic to push their ideas, they did it after 911 and they're using this as their own economic 911.

[Aramike]

-See I don't think you are completely correct when you say spending has outpaced growth. There has been downturn in the economy and more people are losing their jobs. at least here in MI. No jobs means no taxes. Huh? This isn't about what you think - this is about facts.

Again, there are actual numbers involved here - not just what you "think" is happening.

Over the last two years the average economic growth rate (GDP) was a shade under 3%. However, government spending has increased either 18% or 22% (depending on whether or not you count debt service reduction).

So really?

Indeed, lower employ does lower the tax base - but that wouldn't matter if spending and growth were even. Because even though there are more people without jobs, the pace of spending would coincide with the growth.

We are in an era where there is economic growth but it's only a shade over inflation (although I would suggest that inflation is higher than one would be led to think due to energy and food being not included in the numbers). -Also, How are we not losing a share in the economy? Have you sen the growth in the top percents of income? that money has to come from somewhere.Actually, judging by your complete lack of numbers, I suspect that YOU haven't seen what you're referring to.

[nikimcbee]

34 billion for 2 companies? Mine made 40 billion for 2010 (record) [winning] woot! woot!

Nevermind the cheezewhiz, we're having caviar tonight! Old Milwaukee is on the house.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTTmxRRkdjiDK8ayj8teutJv6w7QOHDh cBwwSNzGRlC_l9m10uCig&t=1

Regarding inflation, milk prices just went up 10 more cents.

[nikimcbee]

Mike, What ever happened to Gov. Thompson? Is he still in state (Wi) politics?

[August]

-greedy snowplow drivers? Ha ha. They often get paid so much because they get a lot of overtime.

That is got to be one of the more comical displays of ignorance I've seen on this forum in awhile. Maybe you should go back and read the op before you embarrass yourself even more.

[Aramike]

Mike, What ever happened to Gov. Thompson? Is he still in state (Wi) politics?Ha! Good 'Ol Tommy's still around. For every major policital seat in Wisconsin that opens up, his name is tossed around (a perception he feeds) until he ultimately bows out. :O:

But he's still a well-regarded Republican, although he really doesn't have much in the way of any official capacity.

[Aramike]

34 billion for 2 companies? Mine made 40 billion for 2010 (record) [winning] woot! woot!

Nevermind the cheezewhiz, we're having caviar tonight! Old Milwaukee is on the house.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTTmxRRkdjiDK8ayj8teutJv6w7QOHDh cBwwSNzGRlC_l9m10uCig&t=1

Regarding inflation, milk prices just went up 10 more cents.No Milwaukee's Be(a)st? :|\\

[Growler]

No Milwaukee's Be(a)st? :|\\

*sigh*

And this conversation had been going so well...

[Aramike]

*sigh*

And this conversation had been going so well...Heh, I'm a Stella guy myself. Miller Lite for the easy nights. :cool:

[Growler]

Heh, I'm a Stella guy myself. Miller Lite for the easy nights. :cool:

Well, one outa two ain't bad - Stella's my girl; I'll save that blue-collar union swill (Miller Lite) for you. :D

[gimpy117]

That is got to be one of the more comical displays of ignorance I've seen on this forum in awhile. Maybe you should go back and read the op before you embarrass yourself even more.

so I'm wrong about that. They wanted to make sure their jobs weren't edged. The point still stands though. People complain how much money bus drivers make and say its union pork. Its just because plow drivers and school bus drivers get a lot of overtime. I read some article about about the issue. Thought thats what you were referring to anyways.

I don't think it's Greedy at all to make sure you aren't having your work taken away. Obviously there was some reason for the grievance.

[August]

Obviously there was some reason for the grievance.

Well yeah gimpy, union greed. If there is another explanation i'd be interested in hearing it.

[gimpy117]

Well yeah gimpy, union greed. If there is another explanation i'd be interested in hearing it.

Is it greedy to make sure your job is protected?

[August]

Is it greedy to make sure your job is protected?

They aren't protecting their jobs, they are trying to maximize their profits at the expense of public safety. Just like you accuse those evil corporations of doing.

[gimpy117]

They aren't protecting their jobs, they are trying to maximize their profits at the expense of public safety. Just like you accuse those evil corporations of doing.

ehhh...not so sure. It's a slippery slope. They start not watching out for their jobs and every time theres anything over a few inches of snow they'll get pushed out for private businesses. Just look at the union busting attempts now. Maybe theres a reason they feel under siege.

[August]

ehhh...not so sure. It's a slippery slope. They start not watching out for their jobs and every time theres anything over a few inches of snow they'll get pushed out for private businesses. Just look at the union busting attempts now. Maybe theres a reason they feel under siege.

Actually they filed that grievance the same day the state senate dems fled the state. That means they intended to do this before the brouhaha ever got started. There was no reason for them to feel under siege so we're back to basic greed as a motive.

[Aramike]

ehhh...not so sure. It's a slippery slope. They start not watching out for their jobs and every time theres anything over a few inches of snow they'll get pushed out for private businesses. Just look at the union busting attempts now. Maybe theres a reason they feel under siege.Here's a question - if private businesses can do the job better and cheaper, why not?

[Sailor Steve]

ehhh...not so sure. It's a slippery slope. They start not watching out for their jobs and every time theres anything over a few inches of snow they'll get pushed out for private businesses. Just look at the union busting attempts now. Maybe theres a reason they feel under siege.
Not so much a slippery slope as a viscious circle. Employers don't care about employees, and working conditions are atrocious - "I owe my soul to the company store". Government won't do anything about it. Workers organize, create unions. Bloody wars are fought. Government steps in. Workers have rights too. Employers (some of them) become more sympathetic. Unions gain power. Sometimes union activities are legitimate, but some unions begin to like their power. Employers don't want some other organization telling them what to do. Unions make their workers go on strike in sympathy with some other workers they really don't know or care about. Employers retaliate by trying to force unions out. Many employees like the companies they work for and actually don't want unions. Both empoyers and unions try to use government to attain their goals, and the workers no longer have a say in it.

Today there are good companies and bad companies, and there are good unions and bad unions. The average worker is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, and is used by both sides, and is worse off than ever (where actual power is at stake) and better off than ever (having things that his older counterparts couldn't dare even dream about).

If you say the companies are bad, you're a bleeding-heart liberal leftist. If you say the unions are bad, you're a knee-jerk neocon righty. Problem is, both of you are right, and both of you are wrong, and your one-sided politicking is the biggest part of the problem, and rather than work on an actual solution you spend all your time blaming each other and proving that you're right and the other guy is an idiot.

Congratulations. You've wasted everybody's time, resolved nothing, accomplished nothing (unless patting yourself on the back is an accomplishment) beyond taking up space.

Now that I've wasted everybody's time, resolved nothing and accomplished less, I'm going back to taking up my own space. At least I know I'm wrong.

[Aramike]

Steve, and excellent post on the macro-scale of union versus employer scale!

However, your last line IS wrong, in the sense that there are underlying principles surrounding this particular debate.

At the end of the day, labor unions existed to create fair compensation for skilled workers. On the other hand, public unions (to the detriment of FDR's advice) have advocated COMPENSATED workers over genralized labor, despute the fact that the former is more costly.

In other words, unions are bargaining for more than they are worth.

If you think that government exists to provide jobs, you're hopeless.

[Sailor Steve]

Well, I'm hopeless no matter what, but I do recognize the great truth that government has nothing worth selling, so generates no revenues, and all government employees are payed by the taxes of people who do produce something.

I also realize that a certain amount of government is actually necessary. The argument comes from the question "how much?"

[Growler]

I also realize that a certain amount of government is actually necessary. The argument comes from the question "how much?"

The amount of government necessary is that which is required to ensure the "unalienable" rights of the governed; no more than that is required.

Unfortunately, over the years, we have been content to let our elected politicians decide what that means, rather than doing so ourselves; now, they tell us what rights we can have, rather than us telling them how we want our rights preserved. It's flipped; the lobbyists tell the politician what and how to vote, the politician does so, and we live with the consequences.

Until we vote all the bums out and take a stand against unions and every other special interest lobby controlling our communities, nothing's going to change significantly; one side will vote in a measure that will hold until the other side's in power to overturn it. Never in history has a government expended so many resources and so much time and effort to stand still.

[Aramike]

Well, I'm hopeless no matter what, but I do recognize the great truth that government has nothing worth selling, so generates no revenues, and all government employees are payed by the taxes of people who do produce something.

I also realize that a certain amount of government is actually necessary. The argument comes from the question "how much?"To add to Growler's point, over the last couple of weeks I've been working on a position piece detailing local government spending reduction concepts. In doing so, I've concluded that a roughly 20-30% reduction in the overall government workforce could occur with no loss of service availability.

There are far too many redundancies. What often happens is that there is an immediate need for some type of service that would fall under the purview of one agency but said agency is, at the time, unable to attend to said need. As such, a new department is created, and it manages to exist well beyond its necessity. Ultimately, these leads to taxpayer funded unneeded redundancy.

A great example of this is the 1.2 billion commissions out there studying the Great Lakes invasive species problem. You have groups (yes, not just a group, but GROUPS) from Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and the Federal Government all studying the same thing, but doing so essentially isolated from one another. This could easily be consolidated, but it won't because, even easier than such a consolidation is the unabated spending necessary to keep the studies underway as is.

The key problem with government is that nothing that it creates that costs money is EVER removed from the bankroll, and there is NEVER any evaluation is to what is needed and what is not.

[Sailor Steve]

The key problem with government is that nothing that it creates that costs money is EVER removed from the bankroll, and there is NEVER any evaluation is to what is needed and what is not.
Good point. One of the complaints against private corporations is that they let employees go when it will help with the company's profits. That is a fair complaint, but the company is concerned with getting the most benefit with the least loss. The government, on the other hand, never seems to fire anyone, no matter how useless or redundant, and is mostly concerned with maximizing self-propagation, no matter how much it costs. And the problem there is that the government doesn't actually pay for anything, since, as I said, the government has no way to actually make money for itself. It can only take.

[Aramike]

Update: Despite Judge Sumi's ruling, the Budget Repair law has been published. Apparently the good judge doesn't understand what the State Constitution requires of the Legislative Reference Bureau and her Temporary Restraining Order doesn't cover the fact that said agency MUST publish a law 10 working days after it's signed - Constitutionally speaking.

Now onto the legal challenges to the law itself, which oughta be fun. I've already heard some rumblings of the contents of said challenges, but I won't argue against them until they are actually presented to the courts.

Bottom line, however - if what I've heard is true, the union-left has stooped to new levels of absurdity.

[August]

Good point. One of the complaints against private corporations is that they let employees go when it will help with the company's profits. That is a fair complaint, but the company is concerned with getting the most benefit with the least loss. The government, on the other hand, never seems to fire anyone, no matter how useless or redundant, and is mostly concerned with maximizing self-propagation, no matter how much it costs. And the problem there is that the government doesn't actually pay for anything, since, as I said, the government has no way to actually make money for itself. It can only take.

So how do we curb it? Government workers, union and non, have the inside track and they have shown no hesitation in using it to perpetuate their tenure regardless of the harm it does to the economy that supports them.

[Platapus]

I also realize that a certain amount of government is actually necessary. The argument comes from the question "how much?"


With a population of 300,000,000 I think you will get about 300,000,000 answers for that. :)

[Platapus]

The key problem with government is that nothing that it creates that costs money is EVER removed from the bankroll, and there is NEVER any evaluation is to what is needed and what is not.

I would like to see a citation for this. "ever" and "never" are pretty extreme terms. How about something a little more realistic like "seldom"?

[Aramike]

I would like to see a citation for this. "ever" and "never" are pretty extreme terms. How about something a little more realistic like "seldom"?How do you propose I cite something that doesn't happen?

Can you list any major government programs that have ever been removed?

[mookiemookie]

How do you propose I cite something that doesn't happen?

Can you list any major government programs that have ever been removed?

U.S. Railroad Administration, Public Works Administration, OFHEO, Bureau of Mines

[Aramike]

U.S. Railroad Administration, Public Works Administration, OFHEO, Bureau of MinesGood points. So why does public spending outpace inflation dramatically?

Oh yeah, those programs become something else.

But let's examine:

US Railroad Administration: Created for a war emergency, and had a clear expiration date. Clearly out of the context as I CLEARLY meant regarding examination and repealing of programs.

Public Works Administration: A good example, but yet again, why when I'm clearly referring to modern government spending, must you go back to pre WWII in order to try to make a point (which is contextually irrelevant to begin with)?

OFHEO: Combined with another program - ergo, not repealed.

Mines: Actually your best example here. Yet, it is miniscule in relation to government programs.

Okay, fine - perhaps "seldom" is a more accurate term - in the same way that .000000000001 of a dollar is actually NOT zero dollars. But, in the process of making that point, you made another - only a liberal could miss or distort a concept so much as to make it unrecognizable despite its validity.

"Never" vs. "Almost Never". Glad to see our country's problems reduced to such a semantic triviality.

[mookiemookie]

Okay, fine - perhaps "seldom" is a more accurate term - in the same way that .000000000001 of a dollar is actually NOT zero dollars. But, in the process of making that point, you made another - only a liberal could miss or distort a concept so much as to make it unrecognizable despite its validity.

"Never" vs. "Almost Never". Glad to see our country's problems reduced to such a semantic triviality.

You said "Can you list any major government programs that have ever been removed". I gave you some. Now you want to add qualifiers and reasons why the ones I listed aren't good enough examples. That's called "moving the goalposts" and it's an intellectually dishonest way of having a debate. It's childish. If you're not going to even consider the possibility that your premise could be wrong, then just don't even debate at all. It wastes everyone's time.

But thanks for the petty "hurr hurr libruls always do that" attack anyways. Typical closed minded conservative crap. See, I can do it too!

[August]

You said "Can you list any major government programs that have ever been removed". I gave you some. Now you want to add qualifiers and reasons why the ones I listed aren't good enough examples. That's called "moving the goalposts" and it's an intellectually dishonest way of having a debate. It's childish. If you're not going to even consider the possibility that your premise could be wrong, then just don't even debate at all. It wastes everyone's time.

But thanks for the petty "hurr hurr libruls always do that" attack anyways. Typical closed minded conservative crap. See, I can do it too!

You have to admit that list is not only very short the items on it are all very old Mookie.

If one had to sum it up it looks like the Feds once dabbled with closing programs but decided it was a bad habit to get into and stopped doing it some time ago.

[mookiemookie]

You have to admit that list is not only very short the items on it are all very old Mookie. A quick Googling. I wasn't going to write a research paper or come up with an exhaustive list. His statement was that they NEVER expire. Thus even one example would prove his assertion false. If he wanted recent programs, or programs of a certain size, he could have qualified his statement in the beginning. There's more examples, and more recent ones as well.

If one had to sum it up it looks like the Feds once dabbled with closing programs but decided it was a bad habit to get into and stopped doing it some time ago.

Probably true enough. But that's not what Aramike said.

[Aramike]

You said "Can you list any major government programs that have ever been removed". I gave you some. Now you want to add qualifiers and reasons why the ones I listed aren't good enough examples. That's called "moving the goalposts" and it's an intellectually dishonest way of having a debate. It's childish. If you're not going to even consider the possibility that your premise could be wrong, then just don't even debate at all. It wastes everyone's time.

But thanks for the petty "hurr hurr libruls always do that" attack anyways. Typical closed minded conservative crap. See, I can do it too!Childish is avoiding the obvious point of the debate in favor of "gotcha" rebuttals that don't actually serve to counter the actual point being made. Even moreso considering that my entire point was about modern government in the first place, as evidenced by the PRIOR PARAGRAPH which cited the Great Lakes commissions.

To wit, however:

"Oh NO, he said NEVER!"

"Wait - he's wrong because it's really rare!"

"We got him now!"

Mookie - that's childish.

[mookiemookie]

Childish is avoiding the obvious point of the debate in favor of "gotcha" rebuttals that don't actually serve to counter the actual point being made.

"Oh NO, he said NEVER!"

"Wait - he's wrong because it's really rare!"

"We got him now!"

Mookie - that's childish.

No it's not. If your argument is based around that premise and that premise is proved false, so goes your argument. But if you're itching to get into a "nu-uh you are!" kind of thing, I'd recommend the local playground.

[Aramike]

No it's not. If your argument is based around that premise and that premise is proved false, so goes your argument. But if you're itching to get into a "nu-uh you are!" kind of thing, I'd recommend the local playground.Ironic, but alas -

My argument wasn't BASED upon that premise. It was based upon the premise that such a statement would IMPLY. Now, technically speaking, even if there are a miniscule amount of programs cut (which would make that statement wrong), how does that invalidate the premise that the government needs to examine and cut redundant programs?

Oh wait - that's right: you're more interested in that playground crap you're ironically railing about than the actual discussion at hand. Gotcha.

Word of the Day for Mookie:

hy·per·bo·le
–noun Rhetoric . 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.

2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

[mookiemookie]

Ironic, but alas -

My argument wasn't BASED upon that premise. It was based upon the premise that such a statement would IMPLY. Now, technically speaking, even if there are a miniscule amount of programs cut (which would make that statement wrong), how does that invalidate the premise that the government needs to examine and cut redundant programs?

Adding dubious inferences weakens an argument. Strive for accuracy and you'll make a stronger point.

[Aramike]

Adding dubious inferences weakens an argument. Strive for accuracy and you'll make a stronger point.Actually I think my hyperbole helped, as you made my point even stronger via having to dig into the annals of pre-WWII history in odd attempt to avoid the point itself but rather to address the innaccuracy of a SLIGHT exaggeration.

[mookiemookie]

Actually I think my hyperbole helped, as you made my point even stronger via having to dig into the annals of pre-WWII history in odd attempt to avoid the point itself but rather to address the innaccuracy of a SLIGHT exaggeration.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Aramike]

Whatever helps you sleep at night.Oh, so now my insomnia (or lack thereof) is in question? (Sarcasm - I feel as though I must point that out or else risk two paragraphs of backlash.)

Mookie, why are you even in this discussion? You are not debating the Wisconsin budget issue. You are not even debating the point regarding government spending. Rather, you are intent upon picking apart a tiny bit of hyperbole in support of points regarding the above issues.

So far, you have attempted to label such points as "childish" and "school yard". Yet, it is YOU (yes YOU) who has not ONE SINGLE TIME attempted to address the actual topic in hand. Instead, you have tried to discredit the obvious points being made via innane attempts at obfuscation.

MAy I suggest your future attempts at debate involve more focused arguments on the subject matter than whether or not someone made a hyperbolic statement? Otherwise it seems as though you're more interested in attacking the character of who is making the argument rather than the argument itself. And while that may work for those who are by default on your side, in the end to the rest of us it makes you look at best ill-equipped to make your case; at worst, unable.

[Tribesman]

So its a case of someone making a statement, sticking up for that staement when challenged, claiming that as its true it can't be shown otherwise.....ooops I didn't really mean it, that doesn't count as its about what I wrote not what I wrote, absolutes are not really definate, just because it isn't true it doesn't mean it isn't true.......stick to the topic not the topic, what I wrote in the topic isn't part of the topic when it goes wrong, you are too thick to join in the topic so don't respond to what I wrote.

I suppose it could be a prime example of CAPS LOCK strikes again, not that such a thing would EVER happen and if it did it was NEVER really written.

As for the topic in so far as what was written in the topic, I did hear a rumour of a government agency which was set up to modernise the system of measurements in the US, apparently after it worked for a while and spent some money before it was evaluated and abolished, which is quite different from those which are merged or replaced after evaluation which of coures never ever happens as they don't ever evaluate programs let alone change them.

[mookiemookie]

So its a case of someone making a statement, sticking up for that staement when challenged, claiming that as its true it can't be shown otherwise.....ooops I didn't really mean it, that doesn't count as its about what I wrote not what I wrote, absolutes are not really definate, just because it isn't true it doesn't mean it isn't true.......stick to the topic not the topic, what I wrote in the topic isn't part of the topic when it goes wrong, you are too thick to join in the topic so don't respond to what I wrote.

Nailed it. It's a public message board. Your statements will be challenged by any and all comers. If you don't like it or don't want to defend it, don't post it.

[August]

Nailed it. It's a public message board. Your statements will be challenged by any and all comers. If you don't like it or don't want to defend it, don't post it.

Well that may be but your response to his challenge basically proves Aramikes point. Government programs once begun do not go away.

[mookiemookie]

Well that may be but your response to his challenge basically proves Aramikes point. Government programs once begun do not go away.

TALF (more of a Fed program, but still government related). The SBA's increased guarantee percentage on SBA 7(a) loans (went from 75% to 90% and now back to 75%). The Build America Bonds program. All of these are programs that have recently expired.

[Tribesman]

Government programs once begun do not go away.
terms and conditions may apply, programs may go away or be abolished, be merged, shrunk reformed or expanded, your arguement may be at risk if you don't maintain a factual basis to your claims.

[August]

TALF (more of a Fed program, but still government related). The SBA's increased guarantee percentage on SBA 7(a) loans (went from 75% to 90% and now back to 75%). The Build America Bonds program. All of these are programs that have recently expired.

TALF: Still in operation although new loans have been currently suspended. They could restart issuing these loans at any time without Congressional approval.

SBA loans: Adjusting guarantee percentages on loans isn't ending a program.

Build America Bonds program. Bonds are still being issued under other government programs.

Again if that's the best you have to point at it still proves Aramikes point.

[mookiemookie]

SBA loans: Adjusting guarantee percentages on loans isn't ending a program.

Build America Bonds program. Bonds are still being issued under other government programs.

TALF is not accepting any new loans. Once the current crop is done, it's done. The program has been wound down. The chances of it restarting are nil.

If the point is spending on government programs never goes down, then the SBA guarantee percentage indeed counts.

BABs issuance is done - I have no idea what you're talking about. BABs are not being issued under any government program. You're absolutely wrong. Our municipal bond desk is about 50 feet away from me... I can go ask them if you like? http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/22/news/economy/build_america_bonds/

[Tribesman]

Currently suspended.
Under adjustment
Different program now

So each of them is covered under ongoing evaluation of what is needed and what is not....which of course NEVER happens.:yeah:

So.....it still proves Aramikes point.
Indeed, it again proves Aramikes point wrong.

[August]

If the point is spending on government programs never goes down, then the SBA guarantee percentage indeed counts.

But spending has NOT gone down. The administration wants to increase the debt limit to previously unheard of levels. If the point is that government spending indeed does goes down then how can this be?

[Aramike]

Nailed it. It's a public message board. Your statements will be challenged by any and all comers. If you don't like it or don't want to defend it, don't post it.That's fine - but I am also at liberty to point out how trite your challenge is.

[Aramike]

But spending has NOT gone down. The administration wants to increase the debt limit to previously unheard of levels. If the point is that government spending indeed does goes down then how can this be?:ping:

Well put.

[Tribesman]

If the point is that government spending indeed does goes down then how can this be?
"If" being the important bit relating to that particular tangent
Well put.
Is it? that depends on the point, it isn't well put if the "if" is wrong.


The key problem with government is that nothing that it creates that costs money is EVER removed from the bankroll, and there is NEVER any evaluation is to what is needed and what is not.
So no it isn't to the point which means it isn't well put:up:

[Aramike]

So no it isn't to the point which means it isn't well put:up: So you need a Word of the Day too?

Hyperbole. :har::har::har::har::har:

[Tribesman]

No Aramike, you lost that avenue after your passing of this point.
I would like to see a citation for this. "ever" and "never" are pretty extreme terms. How about something a little more realistic like "seldom"?
You stitched yourself up:har::har::har::har::har:
Would you like that put in errrr......whats that word you can't understand.......context:rotfl2:

[Aramike]

No Aramike, you lost that avenue after your passing of this point.

You stitched yourself up:har::har::har::har::har:
Would you like that put in errrr......whats that word you can't understand.......context:rotfl2:Wait ... hyperbole can only be used one time per thread? Sounds kind of like your understanding of the term "context".

:har::har::har::har::har:

[August]

Wait ... hyperbole can only be used one time per thread? Sounds kind of like your understanding of the term "context".

:har::har::har::har::har:

Waste of time feeding the troll Mike.

At least don't quote him. The rest of us that have him on ignore would appreciate not having to see his trolling.

[Aramike]

Waste of time feeding the troll Mike.

At least don't quote him. The rest of us that have him on ignore would appreciate not having to see his trolling.Good point, my bad. Actually I think I'll go ahead and put him back on my list as well. This time permanantly.

[Tribesman]

This time permanantly.
I wish you would stick to it.:rotfl2:
You keep on throwing a hissy fit when things don't go your way, but unfortunately you keep coming back.


Wait ... hyperbole can only be used one time per thread?
Is that what was written?

Sounds kind of like your understanding of the term "context".

What a perfect demonstration , poor old Aramike had his words put in relation to his own statements and the responses and didn't like the result as they brought the context to the fore.:up:
Couldn't have worked out better.
The later claim of "hyperbole" cannot work as when challenged Aramike had claimed the words were accurate, he only said he was just exagerating for effect once his claims were well and truly fallen apart.



The rest of us that have him on ignore would appreciate not having to see his trolling.
Is that the same august who was trolling me a little while back? I wonder how did the infraction work out for him?