Bu, wait a second, how will this affect their crucial role as job-creators?
I’m right there with yah, but I’ve got a question: are wage freezes in an inflationary period considered de-facto “cuts”? I know that a lot of folks would probably say “no”, but that feels to me like a good way to get a 3% across-the-board cut without really angering anyone.
You mean that crucial role they’ve been fulfilling so well the last three years?
Your sarcasm is unjust. They asked for more tax cuts, we refused to give it to them. So, really, its our fault they haven’t enough money to perform this crucial role.
You know, the public employees already did concede all the compensation issues. The sticking point is the collective bargaining. And Walker already gave the rich tax cuts when he got into office.
IMO, this idea that the liberals need to “start” compromising when the conservatives have already asserted that there can be no compromise is grossly disingenuous. You’re suggesting the compromises have to begin when the liberals have already moved to the middle ground and the conservatives are responding by moving more to the right (i.e. threats of layoffs if the libs don’t give in).
“Compromise. Now compromise again because the other side isn’t going to budge.”
20 lies (and counting) told by Gov. Walker (with cites from conservative sources!)
Some highlights:
1.) The bill is to address a budget crisis.
2.) Walker campaigned on the issue of collective bargaining.
6.) States without collective bargaining have better survived the recession.
7.) Public employees are overcompensated.
10.) The alternative to Walker’s solution is layoffs and dropping children from Medicaid.
13.) State employee pensions are funded almost entirely by the state and not the employees themselves.
17.) Schools and local governments have been asking for these changes, for decades.
19.) Walker has respect for public employees.
20.) Protestors did $7.5 million in damage to the capitol building.
An interesting interview on obstructionism in American politics and the history of “fillibuster by flight”: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/economy/video-greg-wawro-on-filibuster-by-flight-in-wisconsin-and-indiana/7809/ (FYI, I couldn’t get the video to load properly in Chrome, but it did in Firefox)
Walker wants to not only slash taxes for the rich, but he wants to effectively raise taxes on the working poor: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/117501518.html
Hey, you’re the one who said, “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.” The only way for the government to stop giving contracts to private-sector businesses is if the government owns all the businesses.
Yes, it’s a stupid idea–but that’s what *you’re *suggesting.
Companies and unions aren’t people.
I’ve already explained and cited that this is a lie. The $3+ billion gap isn’t based on any actual budget–it’s based on the money that was requested. To repeat myself again, the gap in the previous budget between what was requested and what was actually given was *also *$3+ billion. Again, to repeat myself, it’s like saying that your household budget has a $1.7 million deficit because your teenager asked for a Bugatti Veyron for Christmas.
More repitition: Are you dishonest or stupid?
Uh, no, it’s not acceptable to widen the discussion to irrelevant things. This is about the Wisconsin budget and Wisconsin public employees. When the Wisconsin facts directly contradict whatever broad-brush lies you’re spewing, to continue spewing them after it’s been patiently explained to you that your right-wing propaganda is demonstraby false in this instance means that you are (a) lying and hoping that no one will notice or (b) a fucking retard.
Yes, you did. Don’t blame me because following your ludicrous statements to their logical ends reveals how completely retarded they are.
Yes, that’s absolutely true. What is not true is that it remains taxpayer money after that point. Public employees are paid with taxpayer money; union dues are not.
Yes, that’s because you’re retarded, and so are your arguments.
You posited that a union should be required to poll its members and distribute its political funds in that exact proportion. I asked if you then believed the same thing about corporations. A union’s political funds come from its members; a corporation’s political funds come from its employees (i.e., the profits are a direct result of the work the employees do).
How about an actual example from a real Wisconsin teacher:
$38,000 / 2,720 hours = $13.97 an hour
(Note that 40 hours a week over 52 weeks would be 2,080 hours per year, or about 24% less than the teacher who wrote this letter projects to work this year.)
Not in this thread, I don’t think. But yeah, it’s a fucking nightmare.
So, how sick *is *he of having to constantly vote for Democratic candidates?
Oh, wait, you mean the high-speed rail that Walker killed the second he got into office? Turning away $810 million in federal funding and thousands of potential jobs? And causing other employers to start looking at moving existing jobs out of the state? *That *high-speed rail?
Shot from Guns just won the thread.
I second that opinion. Well played, SFG.
This is only coherent if “handouts to businesses” is interchangeable on a one-to-one basis with “contracts to private-sector businesses.” If you can get Sam Stone to agree that the terms are interchangeable, then you are free to nail him with the conclusion that flows from that. Otherwise, you’re straw-manning him unfairly.
Look, you’re already objectively right on all of the policy disagreements between the two of you, and he’s already objectively wrong. Twist the knife all you want when you catch him in a legitimately egregious position that compounds his wrongness with additional stupidity and/or callousness. But you must be sure you’re on solid ground. If you give him an opening to successfully dispute a single idiocy that you’ve laid at his doorstep, he will exploit that opening vociferously, and possibly succeed in transferring the focus from the big picture of his overall policy wrongness to the tiny detail of your overstatement/distortion of his position.
Just some food for strategic thought.
I have a pretty visible dog in this fight, being an unabashed liberal, however Sam makes a perfectly reasonable statement in that both sides will need to share in the sacrifice. Wisconsin unions, for example, are willing to concede the cuts in Walker’s budget. This will need to be done on a national scale. In return, the wealthy will need to contribute their share to strengthening America again through a reduction of the extensive Bush tax cuts. It’s the only real way this will work if one implements political realism, as much as I would be a sucker for a wonderful Democratic union-loving green socialist utopia.
This is only coherent if “handouts to businesses” is interchangeable on a one-to-one basis with “contracts to private-sector businesses.” If you can get Sam Stone to agree that the terms are interchangeable, then you are free to nail him with the conclusion that flows from that. Otherwise, you’re straw-manning him unfairly.
Look, you’re already objectively right on all of the policy disagreements between the two of you, and he’s already objectively wrong. Twist the knife all you want when you catch him in a legitimately egregious position that compounds his wrongness with additional stupidity and/or callousness. But you must be sure you’re on solid ground. If you give him an opening to successfully dispute a single idiocy that you’ve laid at his doorstep, he will exploit that opening vociferously, and possibly succeed in transferring the focus from the big picture of his overall policy wrongness to the tiny detail of your overstatement/distortion of his position.
Just some food for strategic thought.
It’s not clear to me that anyone is seriously suggesting that “both sides” DON’T need to share in the sacrifice. Apparently, the raison d’etre for this Pitting of Gov. Walker is that he appears content to place ALL of the burden on the less affluent.
Think that means **Sam Stone **will finally shut his lying and/or retarded mouth?
He’s saying that the “handouts” are the only reason that corporations have to corrupt the political process. I quote again: “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.” He must, therefore, be considering *all *government contracts to be “handouts,” because a contract for something the government actually needs would certainly *still *be a reason to elect politicians who will be likely to act in your interest. Ergo, to eliminate government contracts, you would have to make all companies that currently have government contracts the property of the government.
Uh, what?
**There is no budget crisis. The budget crisis is a lie. **The “sacrifice” is an 8% compensation cut to people who are *already *underpaid compared to their private-sector counterparts (with no cut to Governor Walker’s salary or benefits, I note) so that Walker can continue benefitting large companies and the rich at the expense of everyone else.
Whether government contracts are handouts or not, they are certainly not the only reason companies have for corrupting the political process. Distortion of (or differential relief from) regulations of all kinds remain as an important incentive for businesses to spend money to buy influence. It seems that the only prevention would be prohibiting companies from participating in the electoral process entirely.
Har! When pigs fly.
Indeed. But **Sam Stone **is trying to contort himself into all sorts of weird positions so that if he sqints hard enough it’s not completely contradictory to block unions but not corporations from making political contributions. I’m just giving him the poke that knocks him back onto his ass.
Agreed. You’ve done so quite capably.
I was merely making a different but related point. Please continue your refutation of **Sam’s **foolishness.
I like this part of the teachers’ letter about hours worked.
“If you remove my commute, of course, I still average 68 hours per week, thus far. That means I have put in 1,632 hours of work time this year, which works out to over 80% of what your average full time worker does in a calendar year. If you include my commute, I’m over 90%. If ikeep going at my current pace, I will work 2,720 hours this school year (or 3,120 hours if you include my commute). That means I work 136% to 156% as much as your average hourly worker.”
Yes, we all count our commute time as time worked.
Could someone explain to me the way to not give tax breaks to the extortionist companies that demand them? “just don’t” means they close shop and leave the state.