Battle of Wisconsin - Page 2

Armistead · 03-10-11, 09:07 AM

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 · 03-10-11, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

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 · 03-10-11, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armistead

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 · 03-10-11, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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!

, 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 · 03-10-11, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

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!

, 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 · 03-10-11, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.

03-10-11, 11:35 AM

Quote:

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 · 03-10-11, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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

Ducimus · 03-10-11, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yubba

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 · 03-10-11, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yubba

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 · 03-10-11, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yubba

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 · 03-10-11, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

"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 · 03-10-11, 12:36 PM

That is one of the disadvantages of a Representative Government.

Platapus · 03-10-11, 05:20 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/...get/index.html

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/10...pt=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.

Quote:

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 · 03-10-11, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

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.

03-10-11, 12:36 PM	#28
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,412 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	That is one of the disadvantages of a Representative Government. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

03-10-11, 09:07 AM	#16
Armistead Rear Admiral Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: on the Dan Posts: 10,880 Downloads: 364 Uploads: 0	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?