Battle of Wisconsin

[TorpX]

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.

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/vi...duffy-to-toast

And if you didn't know..

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/bet...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]

Originally Posted by TorpX

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]

Originally Posted by TorpX

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]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

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]

Originally Posted by August

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.

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

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.

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]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

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]

Originally Posted by TorpX

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 ^