Govenor Scott Walker (R) WI

[kaylasdad99]

He was Ronnie Reagan. Fuck him.

[Robot_Arm]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

there is plenty of money in America, and in Wisconsin. It is at the top. The disparity in financial assets is un-American – the top one percent has more financial assets than the bottom 95 percent. Middle class wages have been flat for 30 years, while the wealth has floated to the top.

So… tell me again why we’re picking on teachers?

Because it’s been working so well. We’ve been cutting taxes on the rich for decades now and look how prosperous the country is.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

Obviously I’m still a page or two back. I’d like to point out that the only person I accused of being a liar is Scott Walker. And I stand by that. Period. Amen.

As Try2BComprehensive, I hereby command all 'dopers to grasp the meaning of lying by omission:

One lies by omission when omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. An example is when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service. Propaganda is an example of lying by omission.

From the same cite, I’d like to point out this distinction:

A liar is a person who is lying, who has previously lied, or who tends by nature to lie repeatedly - even when not necessary.

It is not clear that Walker lies when not necessary, which could reduce the charge by one degree. It appears that his lies are rather necessary- in terms of holding up his end of the bargain in exchange for the money to elect him Governor.

[elucidator]

By golly, he’s a man what keeps his word!

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Shodan

I am just dying to hear the convoluted logic that explains how union dues are straight from the taxpayer.

-It’s relatively easy to explain, but doing so would do no good - the nitwits will simply ignore or misrepresent the explanation. This makes them idiots.

But I think we already knew that.

Regards,
Shodan

Really? Can you explain this?

[elucidator]

1. The taxpayer pays the state
2. Hi, Opal!
3. Profit!
4. Derp, derp, derp
5. Liberal hypocrisy

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Zeriel

I’m going to guess that it’s because public unions are somehow unfairly mandatory for all public workers. Now, granted, there’s the kernel of an argument there if and only if union dues are A) non-nominal and B) mandatory for all workers.

This is why I think it should be just as simple to also disallow anyone whose income derives in any part from government contracts from making political contributions. I’m sure that won’t endanger anyone in the Fortune 500.

Well the federal government is not a union shop. Noone in the federal government is compelled to join a union and even if they did, none of their dues goes towards campaign contribution (federal unions form separate PACs, collect what money they can). Federal employees cannot go on strike and they cannot negotiate their pay.

[AlienVessels]

@superslug

Why would you buy products from organizations that support agendas that you don’t support?

Because those private organizations get to keep their agenda private in many cases.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@zamboniracer

If the dues aren’t mandatory, then how does the union address the free rider problem?

Not everyone is acts that selfishly, despite what game theory tells you.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@superslug

The first thing that needs to be done is to remove public employee’s ability to bribe politicians with money taken directly from the taxpayers.

It goes against the public interest.

Are you sure that repeating this like its an axiom is going to work unless you explain why this is true?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Sam_Stone

Look, this is an issue of public choice economics. The underlying issue is that the people who are supposed to contain the costs of government on behalf of the taxpayer are in a situation where they derive a good chunk of their financing from the people they are supposed to be managing.

I just wanted to point out that vitrually nothing you said applies to federal unions.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Sam_Stone

Politifact.

Or put another way - what that $137 million budget ‘deficit’ is is just the deficit between now and June 30 of this year when the current fiscal year ends.

ignorance fought.

Does Maddow know this?

The projected two-year deficit for Wisconsin is still 3.6 billion dollars ( a number mentioned at the bottom of Try2B Comprehensive’s own cite). That’s the gap that has to be closed, because the states can’t print money like the federal government can. Using that $137 million number as the problem to be solved is highly disingenuous.

And considering that the public employees union has made every financial concession the bill asks for, why do they even need a bill now? Are they going to be able to balance those budget with cuts to teacher’s salaries

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Sam_Stone

But corporations don’t have a similar ability to force their employees to give political donations on behalf of the company’s interests. That seems rather one-sided.

Say shareholders then.

Try reading for comprehension instead of phrases you can pull out and attack. My whole point was that states don’t face the same competitive pressures as business because they have the ability to continually go to the well for more taxpayer money.

And in the same breath you say that states have to be careful because people can take their money and leave the state.

The state’s ability to raise taxes is not much greater than a company’s ability to raise its prices.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Shodan

You don’t?

The statement was
[ul][li]Public employees pay union dues out of their salaries.[/li][li]Their salaries are paid out of taxes.[/li][li]Taxpayers pay taxes. [/li][li]Ergo, public union dues come from the taxpayer.[/ul]So, maybe not “straight” from the taxpayer, but ultimately. [/li]
It will now be necessary for the Usual Suspects to insist that I was talking about something else, which is why they are the Usual Suspects and are better mocked than debated, especially in the Pit.

Regards,
Shodan

Is the money that that a casino gets when a public employee plays black jack also “taxpayer money”? I mean, can’t I replace union dues with gambling debts and end up with some taxpayer money being spent on gambling?

Doesn’t the money cease to be taxpayer money at some point?

[Miss_Purl_McKnittington]

Well, gosh, Damuri Ajashi, how are you going to balance the budget without a budget bill that says insurance companies don’t have to cover birth control anymore?

Oh, that’s right. Insurance companies and birth control have nothing to do with the state budget. Why is it in a budget bill, then? Fuck if I know.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

But I mean that as a doctor, not a provocateur.

Now that we’re quoting ourselves, let me clear something up. I am not literally a doctor. I am a self appointed Doctor of Policy. At your service! bows
*
Ze furst think ve should do, is haff a look as zis cheese und your head. Ah, sorree, you are goink to feel a little prick. Und moment pleass…
Ok. Now zat superslug hass been removed from ze examination room, let’s haff a look at zis cheese und your head, hmmm?*

[Sleeps_With_Butterflies]

@Damuri_Ajashi

ignorance fought.

Does Maddow know this?

She discussed it on a recent show and took them to task for it. She made a fuss about how just because they have “fact” in their name it doesn’t mean they don’t make mistakes. She laid out how they were wrong but damned if I remember how. I was a little high that night.

[gonzomax]

Follow the money. That will not take you to unions and public workers. The money and corruption are at the top. Real theft and real distortion is in the millionaires and billionaires.
How are people so easily distracted? The papers and TV tell you the unions are the problem and you believe it. Meanwhile the people on top are looting you big time. When a corporation and a rich man avoid taxes, you have to pay for them.
We have an enormously complicated tax system full of complicated loopholes. I suppose you used your political power to get your congressman to insert those loopholes in a bill. I don’t have that kind of power or access to my politicians. Somebody gets that done. I wonder who could do that?
Wait, I have it, It’s the rich and powerful. The businesses with lobbyists paid to stalk the halls of the house and senate, pressuring the pols to do things in their interests. Look at the complicated tax system and visualize a book of corruption assisting the poor downtrodden rich people to get away with more. That is how it got so big and complicated. Most people can do their taxes on a postcard.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Sam_Stone

Yes you can, and that’s a major flaw with government and one of the reasons why government costs everywhere tend to be inflated. It’s also why lobbyists exist in the first place. If government was operating on thin margins in a competitive regime, there’d be nothing to skim.

You realize that most lobbying is either defense spending or regulations/tax breaks. I don’t care what system you work under, you aren’t going to get rid of regulatory lobbying, you aren’t going to get rid of companies trying to convince government that they are a special snowflake that deserves a special tax regime.

Nonetheless, there are some unique aspects to public unions. For one, as they get bigger they have increasing political clout just because of the votes they can raise, which puts them in a position of voting for their own bread and circuses.

Welcome to democracy. If a people cannot resist the urge to vote themselves goodies without paying for it then they get what they deserve, its not taxing and spending that kills democracy, its the NOT taxing and spending that kills it. If the mob had to pay for all that bread and circus they might decide they need less circus and more bread but when Republicans have convinced the mob that they can keep their bread and circus and pay a lower admission fee because supply side economics says so… well, say hello to the end.

For another, they are allowed to withhold campaign contributions from members and kick it back to the Democrats.

And how is that different than companies making campaign contributions instead of paying dividends?

And yes, this is just like a company getting a big government contract, then using some of the money from that contract to contribute to the campaigns of politicians who promise to get them more contracts. Do you approve of that kind of behavior?

And yet the sacrifice is being extracted entirely from government workers and nothing from the corporations. Gee.

My solution to that is to stop giving handouts to businesses entirely so they have no incentive to corrupt the political process in the first place.

So do we make our own tanks and aircraft carriers?

Likewise, the answer to the union problem is to shrink the size of the public sector and privatize as much of it as possible to eliminate the conflicts of interest.

By privatize do you mean privatize the schools and leave them entirely to the free market without any money from government because if all you are talking about is interposing a corporation between the current public school teacher and the privatized private sector school teacher, then what the fuck is the difference? If you do mean to leave the education of America to the free market then i think we have an entierly different debate brewing.

As long as you have big government, you will have this kind of corruption. So let’s not have big government.

That’s not true. How much of the federal budget do you think goes to non-military payroll?

How much goes to contractors?

In which category do you think you see more gouging?

People who devote their lives to public service are not the same as people who line up to sell something to the government.

One of the most annoying things about the tactics the left use on this board is to assume that every cite from someone on the right is a lie unless proven otherwise, and that every cite that someone from the left posts automatically trumps the cites from the right, and therefore the person on the right is ‘shown’ the truth and is a liar.

They’re playing the percentages.

Here’s a conflicting viewpoint if you’d like to read both sides: Public Sector Workers - Yes, they ARE overpaid.

There are a bunch of things they correct for that skews things towards your conclusion. For example, there are a lot of female and minority federal employees because there is less discrimination in the federal workforce. In the private sector, these people get paid less, in the federal workforce they do not.

I don’t think there is enough proof on either side but I will say that in my field the pay cut for taking a government job is somewhere between 50% for first year associates and over 90% for partners.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Shodan

Nope, never said anything of the sort.

The taxpayer is the customer, and has much less choice to take his “business” elsewhere than with private industry. I can decide whether to buy Ford or GM. I have no choice but to pay my taxes. Therefore, I am entitled to a certain amount of say on how my tax money gets spent - not what you do after you get paid, how much and what form your pay (or your wife’s) takes. Because if a private business tries to take advantage of me, or slack off, or charge too much, I can walk away from it and take my business elsewhere. I can’t do that with the DMV.

With teachers, it is much the same. I want to support education. However, if the teachers unions are charging too much, or wasting my money, or otherwise short-changing me, I still have to pay my taxes. And therefore I have the right to put other kinds of pressure on the teachers unions, because I am forced to subsidize them.

And no, I do not have to sit still and take it. Sure, the teacher’s unions are going to hate it when I limit their raises, or otherwise pull their noses out of the trough before they have had their fill. Tough toenails.

Regards,
Shodan

Yeah but how does that make union dues paid by teachers = taxpayer money?

I think you may have overstated your case in your rage at freeloading government workers.