[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.