Union Worker Protests In Wi

[colonel Feathers 5]

They weren't exactly in control last time Dems had control of congress.

How can they not be? They elect most members. But keeping an open mind says I, please give an example of dems doing something that pissed off the unions.

[custom36 4]

How can they not be? They elect most members. But keeping an open mind says I, please give an example of dems doing something that pissed off the unions.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/46322732.htmlDemocratic governor Jim Doyle froze salaries of public employees, including teachers, in 2009 until 2011. Not sure who controlled the congress, as google's being difficult. But I'm assuming democrats, given the state's history.

[hblask 1]

muahhahaha.if you can explain to me why making money from stock is somehow better than any other kind of income, then I might agree that the capital gains tax being so low is ok.

Because by the time a dollar gets to be a dividend on a stock, it has created thousands of dollars worth of wealth for other people.

[hblask 1]

Also, the constitution is not meant to be an exhaustive inventory of all the things the government is supposed to do.

Actually, it is:

Section 1 All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's about as unambiguous as you can get.

[hblask 1]

Yeah, it pisses me off a guy making 5 billion gets a lower tax rate than I do to buy or that that money could be put to good use instead of going after programs that help that needy.

You know what else would be cool? If all the people who claim to support federal programs for the needy gave the same percentage of their income to charity as those who are opposed. Then we wouldn't need the federal programs.

[hblask 1]

Kinda blows a hole in Hblask's theory that countries with significantly less income inequality are "hellholes".

I believe I said "enforced equality". (I'm too lazy to look back, if that's not what I said, it's what I meant).The truth is, nobody knows the correct distribution, and if someone tells you otherwise, hide your wallet.

[ol'number7 0]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/46322732.htmlDemocratic governor Jim Doyle froze salaries of public employees, including teachers, in 2009 until 2011. Not sure who controlled the congress, as google's being difficult. But I'm assuming democrats, given the state's history.

Honest to God, that's your fastball? To answer what dems did to piss off unions is to "freeze wages" for 2 years? Wow, private sector vs public union worker just got explained to me in that statement considering the economy lately

[custom36 4]

Honest to God, that's your fastball? To answer what dems did to piss off unions is to "freeze wages" for 2 years? Wow, private sector vs public union worker just got explained to me in that statement considering the economy lately

What? No. That wasn't my fastball. That was the first thing that came to mind.Edit - But that begs the question: What exactly are you looking for? When have Dems acted like Republicans? When have have Dems tried to bust unions? Dems believe in negotiating with unions and collective bargaining rights...supporting them doesn't mean that unions have all the power. And, to a similar point, when have Republicans pissed off big business?

[CaneBrain 95]

And, to a similar point, when have Republicans pissed off big business?

They won't find anything even approaching your "fastball" above in the last 30 years.

[brvheart 1,752]

What? No. That wasn't my fastball. That was the first thing that came to mind.Edit - But that begs the question: What exactly are you looking for? When have Dems acted like Republicans? When have have Dems tried to bust unions? Dems believe in negotiating with unions and collective bargaining rights...supporting them doesn't mean that unions have all the power. And, to a similar point, when have Republicans pissed off big business?

Define "big" business. I can't figure it out over all these dem talking points.

[custom36 4]

Define "big" business. I can't figure it out over all these dem talking points.

I'm sure if you rabble those 2 marbles around, you can figure it out

[ShakeZuma 585]

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_inc_...y-un-gini-indexLook at the countries that have the highest levels of income inequality and those that have the lowest and I think it's pretty obvious which ones are better places to live.

man all those ethiopians and rwandans really have it made huh!you know what pisses me off about this whole argument? is how many people are basing their "how much should we tax rich people" argument off of how much money they think someone deserves to have. that's just idiotic. the tax rate, at all levels, should be what provides for the greatest economic benefit for the country as a whole. if every dollar a hedge fund manager uses to invest creates $1,000 of wealth for the general economy through investment, and every dollar you tax him takes $10 of wealth from the economy while only providing $9 of benefit, then it's a net loss, plain and simple. it means absolutely fuck all if he makes five billion dollars while sitting in a penthouse apartment reading charlie sheen's twitter. saying somebody doesn't "deserve" how much money they make and therefore should be taxed on it is based solely in bitterness and jealousy and is in no way based in what provides the greatest good for all people (which is what the ultimate goal of the government should be).

[85suited 0]

Largest unions pay leaders well, give extensively to Democratshttp://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/117290533.html

On the surface, the fight between the governor of Wisconsin and organized labor is about balancing state budgets and collective-bargaining rights. Behind the scenes, hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation to top labor leaders as well as campaign contributions to Democrats could be in jeopardy.Union treasuries - filled by dues paid by union members - not only fund programs benefiting union members and their families. The money they collect also pays six-figure compensation packages for labor leaders and provides millions of dollars for Democratic causes and candidates.The Center for Public Integrity found compensation for leaders of the 10 largest unions ranged from $173,000 at the United Auto Workers to $618,000 at the Laborers' International Union of North America, and almost $480,000 for the president of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees. The latter is the target of GOP governors in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee and Kansas.The union reports, filed with the Department of Labor, list compensation for all union employees and officers. Salaries make up the biggest portion, but other benefits can include tens of thousands of dollars for meal allowances, mileage allowances and entertainment. Health care and pension contributions are not specifically addressed.The reports show that assets of the various labor unions run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, and payrolls rival midsize companies. Among the Top 10 unions, dozens of top officials have salary-and-benefit packages that rank them among the top percentage of income-earners in the country."What's very clear to union leaders is the huge threat this poses for the organizations they have built," said John C. McAdams, political science professor at Marquette University in Wisconsin.The standoff began when Gov. Scott Walker proposed deep cuts in state workers' benefits to help close a projected $3.5 billion deficit in the state budget. Although unions have said they would agree to cuts in health insurance and retirement plans, Walker is pushing to curtail bargaining rights and make it harder to organize workers and collect dues.Gerald McEntee, president of the AFSCME, said Walker is retaliating for organized labor's support of Democrats, in particular for the money given to his opponent in the 2010 election.In the 2010 elections in Wisconsin, AFSCME gave almost $83,888 to Democratic candidates. Half that amount went to the campaign of Tom Barrett, whose top 10 donors were unions. Barrett lost to Walker, who promised during the campaign to take on organized labor if elected."This is political payback, which does nothing to promote job growth or help the middle class," McEntee said on The Huffington Post. "This is nothing less than union busting at its most transparent, designed to deny workers a voice in the workplace."The membership of AFSCME, which evolved from a state employees union organized in Wisconsin in 1932, has grown by 25% over the last decade. McEntee, who has been president since 1981, says more than 145,000 government employees have joined AFSCME since 2006.McEntee's pay and benefits have grown along with his membership stats. Reports by the union indicate that his salary has increased by about 4% a year, even as many workers have faced pay freezes and unpaid furloughs. In 2009, his compensation totaled almost $480,000.ARTICLE CONTINUED AT LINK ABOVE.

[custom36 4]

Largest unions pay leaders well, give extensively to Democrats

....ok? What's your point? Would you like to compare them with CEO salaries who give extensively to Republicans? I mean...I don't see your point.

[Roll the Bones 74]

man all those ethiopians and rwandans really have it made huh!you know what pisses me off about this whole argument? is how many people are basing their "how much should we tax rich people" argument off of how much money they think someone deserves to have. that's just idiotic. the tax rate, at all levels, should be what provides for the greatest economic benefit for the country as a whole. if every dollar a hedge fund manager uses to invest creates $1,000 of wealth for the general economy through investment, and every dollar you tax him takes $10 of wealth from the economy while only providing $9 of benefit, then it's a net loss, plain and simple. it means absolutely fuck all if he makes five billion dollars while sitting in a penthouse apartment reading charlie sheen's twitter. saying somebody doesn't "deserve" how much money they make and therefore should be taxed on it is based solely in bitterness and jealousy and is in no way based in what provides the greatest good for all people (which is what the ultimate goal of the government should be).

But this is exactly what we are talking about. The rich getting richer while the middle class shrinks doesn't do anyone any good. Nobody is begrudging anyone making a buck, we are saying that the system is messed up and not good for the country or the economy in the long run, unless you want the future to go back to what it was 100 years ago and have your kids end up working in sweatshops or having kings and peasants. People complain about people like teachers making decent wages or factory workers hourly pay, in comparison to the Chinese. Well **** that. Our parents and grandparents worked hard to get us to a higher standard of living. Our government should be concerned with keeping us there or improving it.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

But this is exactly what we are talking about. The rich getting richer while the middle class shrinks doesn't do anyone any good.

So going back to that earlier example I was using with the theoretically perfectly fair system that results in a wide disparity of wealth among the rich and not-rich. Your position would be that if there was a theoretically guaranteed mechanism to shrink that gap that was inherently unfair to the rich, that mechanism should be used.Is that a fair assessment?

[akoff 0]

Our parents and grandparents worked hard to get us to a higher standard of living. Our government should be concerned with keeping us there or improving it.

why should the government be concerned with keeping it or improving it? the government had nothing to do with creating it, they have nothing to do with paying for it...the role of government doesn't have a damn thing to do with anyones standard of living or keeping it.get a job, start a business, create something and you will have a fine standard of living. jeez.

[vbnautilus 48]

The rich getting richer while the middle class shrinks doesn't do anyone any good.

well, the rich though.

[Roll the Bones 74]

So going back to that earlier example I was using with the theoretically perfectly fair system that results in a wide disparity of wealth among the rich and not-rich. Your position would be that if there was a theoretically guaranteed mechanism to shrink that gap that was inherently unfair to the rich, that mechanism should be used.Is that a fair assessment?

well, the rich though.

No it doesn't do the rich good in the long run! The middle class is their market. Without us doing well they ultimately will do worse in the long run. Sure the guy making the huge bonus and retiring don't give a rats ass but I am talking long term. So, my theoretical position is that it wouldn't be unfair to the rich, the mechanism in the long run would do everyone good. Look at a normal Joe like a dentist where most people don't have dental insurance and it's costly to go. If the middle class is doing well he's busy and making more money. If the middle class aren't he does poorly. Mulitply this effect throughout all industries and we have a shrinking economy with high unemployment that continues to decline.

[nutzbuster 7]

Ohio to sprint to the finish first?http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110303/ap_on_...hio_union_fight

[Roll the Bones 74]

Ohio to sprint to the finish first?http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110303/ap_on_...hio_union_fight

yep, buckeyes are screwed.

[custom36 4]

State Senator Glenn Grothman on MSNBC Tuesday night called the protesters "slobs". To be honest, there are some slobby hippies there and I was prepared to let it go, kind of expecting a half-hearted apology that not everyone there is a slob. Instead, he returned to MSNBC the next night to do a segment with 4 non-slob protesters. He then proceeded to call them slobs to their faces and said they were "likable and lovable" but still slobs. It's actually a rather disgusting 17 minutes that shows his incredible ineptness as a politician.

I imagine this will add more fuel to his recall campaign.

[brvheart 1,752]

No it doesn't do the rich good in the long run! The middle class is their market. Without us doing well they ultimately will do worse in the long run. Sure the guy making the huge bonus and retiring don't give a rats ass but I am talking long term. So, my theoretical position is that it wouldn't be unfair to the rich, the mechanism in the long run would do everyone good. Look at a normal Joe like a dentist where most people don't have dental insurance and it's costly to go. If the middle class is doing well he's busy and making more money. If the middle class aren't he does poorly. Mulitply this effect throughout all industries and we have a shrinking economy with high unemployment that continues to decline.

So tax him more and then things will get better for everyone?

[Oggmonster 0]

State Senator Glenn Grothman on MSNBC Tuesday night called the protesters "slobs". To be honest, there are some slobby hippies there and I was prepared to let it go, kind of expecting a half-hearted apology that not everyone there is a slob. Instead, he returned to MSNBC the next night to do a segment with 4 non-slob protesters. He then proceeded to call them slobs to their faces and said they were "likable and lovable" but still slobs. It's actually a rather disgusting 17 minutes that shows his incredible ineptness as a politician.

I imagine this will add more fuel to his recall campaign.

I happened to hear him on NPR yesterday morning. He was saying that the protesters who stayed overnight at the capitol building were slobs. I thought it was sort of funny and harmless, if only to hear a politician speak honestly about a large group of people who will be voting in the next election. I didn't watch your 17 minute you tube clip.

[custom36 4]

I happened to hear him on NPR yesterday morning. He was saying that the protesters who stayed overnight at the capitol building were slobs. I thought it was sort of funny and harmless, if only to hear a politician speak honestly about a large group of people who will be voting in the next election. I didn't watch your 17 minute you tube clip.

I was thinking along the same lines as you. Until I watched the 17 minute you tube clip.