I can't believe he opened his mouth that wide, for both feet to fit.
shows what he's really like. actually considered adding "trouble makers"
into the protesters, but then says if it went badly he might have to settle
under public pressure.
Considering the average politician in DC is of the older sort (fifty to sixty years of age), I'm not entirely surprised. I have to help my family members of that age bracket out with technological things all the time...
The entire government is corrupt, we must purge them with the american inquisition!. We should wear blue robes though, not red, blue. With some white edges. Maybe some red under the robe. With cowboy hats. Someone needs to carry rope.
He didn't really say anything particularly damning. Looks like the worst part of the story is "Walker gets prank phone call". Hard to see how this hurts him, except with people who already oppose him.
In the whole Wisconsin issue, I do find it particularly hilarious that the absent congressmen claim they're running away to preserve democracy. Elections matter.
biccat wrote:He didn't really say anything particularly damning. Looks like the worst part of the story is "Walker gets prank phone call". Hard to see how this hurts him, except with people who already oppose him.
Well, he is doing his level best to conceal the fact that he wants to do away with collective bargaining in the WI public sector. In that sense its one of those moments where the "private" conversations don't match the public rhetoric/silence, which could have certain consequences given that he didn't frame the issue as "We're trying to bust unions."
Additionally, some are claiming that Walker's conversation with the impersonator represents a violation of Wisconsin state law regarding the conduct of public officials; though its clearly very thin as far as evidence goes.
biccat wrote:
In the whole Wisconsin issue, I do find it particularly hilarious that the absent congressmen claim they're running away to preserve democracy. Elections matter.
So do congressional procedures. You know, those institutional rules that serve to insure that no public official can do whatever it is that they wish.
dogma wrote:Well, he is doing his level best to conceal the fact that he wants to do away with collective bargaining in the WI public sector.
Er, what? The governor supports the bill, and I haven't heard anything about him distancing himself from this issue. There may be some debate as to whether this is actually saving money, but he certainly has taken a side.
dogma wrote:So do congressional procedures. You know, those institutional rules that serve to insure that no public official can do whatever it is that they wish.
Yes, also there's the rule that says you can be arrested and hauled back in session if you don't attend. It's called a motion to compel attendance and doesn't need quorum.
Also, I thought this bill was before the legislature? What public official is trying to do 'whatever they wish'?
The Dem congresscritters are on the lam. If they set foot in Wisconsin, they will be arrested. This is not a minor issue.
So the only "gotcha" moment has slim evidence? Got it.
biccat wrote:
Er, what? The governor supports the bill, and I haven't heard anything about him distancing himself from this issue. There may be some debate as to whether this is actually saving money, but he certainly has taken a side.
Did I say that he was distancing himself from the issue?
Nope, doesn't look like it.
I said that the Governor has been presenting the matter as one of budgetary concern, not one of busting unions. There is a massive difference between the two, and this particular conversation indicates the latter rather than the former. Walker has consistently avoided discussing the collective bargaining issue in favor of referring to generalities regarding the budget, primarily because that would mean admitting that the unions have already agreed to the actual financial elements of the bill; rendering this nothing more than a power grab.
biccat wrote:
Yes, also there's the rule that says you can be arrested and hauled back in session if you don't attend. It's called a motion to compel attendance and doesn't need quorum.
Interestingly, Wisconsin can't compel Illinois authorities to arrest anyone, and taking this up as a federal offense will take a great deal of time.
biccat wrote:
Also, I thought this bill was before the legislature? What public official is trying to do 'whatever they wish'?
I never said that they were. The point is that institutional rules define those options that are open to members of the institution, and so are at least as relevant to the matter as whether or not something is "democratic". In fact, institutional rules are the only things that even allow something to be considered as "democratic". This was something I decided to say because it seemed as though you thought simply because something was to be voted on by a legislature it should be considered democratic. which is plainly false (nearly every nation in the world has a legislature), and that the mere fact that something is democratic makes it good, which is also plainly false (Jim Crow laws).
biccat wrote:
So the only "gotcha" moment has slim evidence? Got it.
Who ever said this was about a gotcha moment? And why are you adding a disdainful "got it" at the end? Its almost like you think I'm taking a side. I'm not. It just appeared to me that you didn't put very much thought into your post.
Having direct links between your politicies and the Koch brothers should be utterly damning. I mean, there's been this massive effort to produce more and more evidence linking the Koch brothers to the Tea Party movement, and all these people have jumped with glee everytime they've outed some other connection.
What they're missing is that people don't seem to care that very rich people are funding political movements geared entirely to ensure greater wealth and more power for the very rich. Which is an easy thing to miss, it's taken me a long time to realise how committed people are to half baked ideology over their own direct interests.
sebster wrote:Having direct links between your politicies and the Koch brothers should be utterly damning.
Only in the wingnut side of the political spectrum. AS this drags on the unions are losing massive support. People want their kids taught properly and this is shifting to an issue towards that.
Frankly he needs to declare martial law, send bounty hunters out after the errant democrats and while he's oat it people on a short list I have, and start referring to himself as Governor Walker...Texas Ranger.
Frazzled wrote:AS this drags on the unions are losing massive support. People want their kids taught properly and this is shifting to an issue towards that.
Where have you read this? Everything I've heard from my friends in WI, and a good chunk of the news media, says the exact opposite; which really tells me that its closer to a 50% split than both sides realize, or are willing to admit.
I'm also not sure why the ability to bargain with an employer affects the quality of service that employer receives. One can play tougher with unions during negotiations without completely depriving them of the ability to negotiate.
Frazzled wrote:AS this drags on the unions are losing massive support. People want their kids taught properly and this is shifting to an issue towards that.
Where have you read this? Everything I've heard from my friends in WI, and a good chunk of the news media, says the exact opposite; which really tells me that its closer to a 50% split than both sides realize, or are willing to admit.
I'm also not sure why the ability to bargain with an employer affects the quality of service that employer receives. One can play tougher with unions during negotiations without completely depriving them of the ability to negotiate.
What planet have you been on? government unions destroy the ability to hire, fire, and promote on merit.
Frazzled wrote:AS this drags on the unions are losing massive support. People want their kids taught properly and this is shifting to an issue towards that.
Where have you read this? Everything I've heard from my friends in WI, and a good chunk of the news media, says the exact opposite; which really tells me that its closer to a 50% split than both sides realize, or are willing to admit.
I'm also not sure why the ability to bargain with an employer affects the quality of service that employer receives. One can play tougher with unions during negotiations without completely depriving them of the ability to negotiate.
What planet have you been on? government unions destroy the ability to hire, fire, and promote on merit.
Earth. What exactly is a govt. union?
unions protect the ability of a worker to make better wage. look at the middle income families in last 10 years. thanks to the former regime giving breaks everyone but
the middle class. Exxon makes record profit, millionaires that all ready loaded yet they need taxes breaks. really?
sebster wrote:Which is an easy thing to miss, it's taken me a long time to realise how committed people are to half baked ideology over their own direct interests.
I thought that's been the basis of the entire Republican party for a while now.
Frazzled wrote:AS this drags on the unions are losing massive support. People want their kids taught properly and this is shifting to an issue towards that.
Where have you read this? Everything I've heard from my friends in WI, and a good chunk of the news media, says the exact opposite; which really tells me that its closer to a 50% split than both sides realize, or are willing to admit.
I'm also not sure why the ability to bargain with an employer affects the quality of service that employer receives. One can play tougher with unions during negotiations without completely depriving them of the ability to negotiate.
What planet have you been on? government unions destroy the ability to hire, fire, and promote on merit.
Earth. What exactly is a govt. union?
unions protect the ability of a worker to make better wage. look at the middle income families in last 10 years. thanks to the former regime giving breaks everyone but
the middle class. Exxon makes record profit, millionaires that all ready loaded yet they need taxes breaks. really?
Besides being a stinking pile of gak, its wrong. The middle class are the ones being sucked dry to pay for all the government union employees. We can't afford it any more.
The Revolution has finally come, the Tsunami is here. The first wave hit in 2010 baby. Viva Reagan Viva Me Viva for everyone!
Frazzled wrote:
What planet have you been on? government unions destroy the ability to hire, fire, and promote on merit.
There's a difference between denying collective bargaining rights, and actually negotiating with unions in a meaningful fashion. Government unions didn't destroy the ability of the state to play hard ball, the state simply refused to do so because such measures were always unpopular.
dogma wrote:Did I say that he was distancing himself from the issue?
Nope, doesn't look like it.
No, you're right, and I apologize if I put words in your mouth.
dogma wrote:I said that the Governor has been presenting the matter as one of budgetary concern, not one of busting unions.
Actually, you didn't say this either. What you said was "he is doing his level best to conceal the fact that he wants to do away with collective bargaining..."
This is NOT union busting, it is an attempt to reduce excessive spending, something Walker has not been shy about. As I said, it may be debated as to whether eliminating collective bargaining is deficit-positive, but to suggest that his motivation is not based on spending is incorrect.
Here's a hint: Republicans think that public unions increase the cost of doing business. Eliminating them would therefore reduce spending.
dogma wrote:The point is that institutional rules define those options that are open to members of the institution, and so are at least as relevant to the matter as whether or not something is "democratic". In fact, institutional rules are the only things that even allow something to be considered as "democratic". This was something I decided to say because it seemed as though you thought simply because something was to be voted on by a legislature it should be considered democratic. which is plainly false (nearly every nation in the world has a legislature), and that the mere fact that something is democratic makes it good, which is also plainly false (Jim Crow laws).
I don't see how violating the law and running away from your job has ever been considered part of the "institutional rules." Quorum rules are in place to prevent secret meetings and allow all sides of a debate a chance to be heard. The motion to compel was instituted to prevent a minority faction from obstructing government action by fleeing the session to prevent quorum. The fact that the Sergeant at Arms has a limited jurisdiction and can't pursue across state borders is not an "institutional rule," it's a limitation of borders. In short, breaking the law/rules to achieve a result may be MORAL in some cases, but it shouldn't be confused with acting appropriately.
I'm confused as to how something voted on by the Legislature is anything BUT democratic (Republican if you want to split hairs). The legislators were elected in a free and fair election, and should therefore be construed to reflect the will of the people. Those who didn't win a majority in the election should have no authority to restrict (outside of legal application of the institutional rules) the ability of the democratically elected majority.
Finally, I never said democratic=good. If so, then there's no rational basis to oppose any congressional action. Instead, I was responding to your suggestion that someone in this case was doing "whatever it is that they wish." No one person is acting with such authority, it is the combined will of the Governor and a majority of the Legislature that is acting on behalf of the people.
dogma wrote:Who ever said this was about a gotcha moment?
I would advise you to read the OP and thread title and then reconsider this question. If you still haven't found the answer, I will be happy to explain it to you.
dogma wrote:And why are you adding a disdainful "got it" at the end?
Well, you responded to my statement that he didn't say anything damning with only one substantive point. I assumed you were trying to suggest that this was what Walker did wrong. If that is the extent of his "misconduct", then I think this is a non-issue, wingnuts aside.
"All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public-personnel management."
Tl;dr: "it is impossible to bargain collectively with the government."
Frazzled wrote:The middle class are the ones being sucked dry to pay for all the government union employees.
Wait, so the middle class is being sucked dry to pay for the salaries of other middle class employees who provide services to the middle class?
Either way, no, they aren't being sucked dry. Proportional tax rates are lower than they've been for the majority of US history, especially as regards state taxation; in Wisconsin a member of the upper middle class would incur a tax rate of around 38% of income accounting for both state and federal taxes.
Frazzled wrote:
We can't afford it any more.
I doubt very much that you're middle class by any reasonable definition given that you've talked about owning multiple homes, and bankrolling corporate jets.
I know that the general trend in America is to refer to oneself as middle class regardless of the reality of the matter, but its really very tired.
My wife is a chemistry teacher here in WI, and I can tell you she puts in 10+ hour days and spends several hours each weekend correcting papers. Those awesome three months off she has? Spent researching new course curriculum and designing labs to help students understand very complex concepts.
She has had students go on to Yale and Stanford.
She has also broken down once or twice since this has started and apologized to me for choosing this career and putting us in a position where we are going to have to drastically cut our spending, or risk loosing our house.
My friends, this broke my heart... My wife was the first in her class in High School and spent her summers off working in a factory to pay for college. She could have gone into any science related field, but was so inspired by her teachers that she wanted to follow in their footsteps.
I still don't quite have words for the rage that I felt for Walker while holding my sobbing wife.
Frazzled wrote:
What planet have you been on? government unions destroy the ability to hire, fire, and promote on merit.
There's a difference between denying collective bargaining rights, and actually negotiating with unions in a meaningful fashion. Government unions didn't destroy the ability of the state to play hard ball, the state simply refused to do so because such measures were always unpopular.
bs. Its a self feeding loop no different than the military industrial complex. The unions give money to get the opoliticians elected. the politicians then "bargain" more gimmees for the unions slackers and make sure the mouthbreathing contingent of the unions stay sucking on the government tit instead of being rightfully fired. At least with the military industrial complex we get lots of cool toys. We don't even get that with government unions. We just get the Hell of DMV.
Free the Oppressed! Strike them down from their High Places! Unleash the Broadside of Liberty, the Great Belch of Freedom! Brrrrpp! Breath deep boys. Its the sweet smell of freedom!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Corey85 wrote:Government union employees are the middle class...
No they are leaches on society. All Good God fearing Americans know that the Middle Class was here long before government unions, which were only enacted in the last 50 years.
Ah, the lower house just passed the bill. Excellent. Soon there will be no dawn for unions suing for Viagra.
in the words of the immortal bard:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Corey85 wrote:My wife is a chemistry teacher here in WI, and I can tell you she puts in 10+ hour days and spends several hours each weekend correcting papers. Those awesome three months off she has? Spent researching new course curriculum and designing labs to help students understand very complex concepts.
She has had students go on to Yale and Stanford.
She has also broken down once or twice since this has started and apologized to me for choosing this career and putting us in a position where we are going to have to drastically cut our spending, or risk loosing our house.
My friends, this broke my heart... My wife was the first in her class in High School and spent her summers off working in a factory to pay for college. She could have gone into any science related field, but was so inspired by her teachers that she wanted to follow in their footsteps.
I still don't quite have words for the rage that I felt for Walker while holding my sobbing wife.
1. And she gets paid the same as the mouth breather teachers who absolutely suck the souls from students. How's that working out.
2. Seriously, she's losing it because you might have to pay for beenfits at only half the rate of the private sector. Cry me a river.
Corey85 wrote:I still don't quite have words for the rage that I felt for Walker while holding my sobbing wife.
I remember the rage I felt towards my boss when he decided that everyone would have to take a 10% pay cut. Then the rage when I got laid off (along with 30% of the staff) because the company couldn't afford to have so many people. And my friend who still works there has gone from 10 hours 6 days a week to 12 and 6, just to make up for the loss of extra help.
But when your employer isn't making as much money, they can't afford to have high salaries for all of their employees. And the State of Wisconsin, like most states, has less tax revinue.
Although, I admit that it woulf have been nice if I could have voted for my own boss who would promise to increase my pay by taking on more debt for the company. Too bad it wasn't an option.
biccat wrote:
Actually, you didn't say this either. What you said was "he is doing his level best to conceal the fact that he wants to do away with collective bargaining..."
This is NOT union busting, it is an attempt to reduce excessive spending, something Walker has not been shy about. As I said, it may be debated as to whether eliminating collective bargaining is deficit-positive, but to suggest that his motivation is not based on spending is incorrect.
Here's a hint: Republicans think that public unions increase the cost of doing business. Eliminating them would therefore reduce spending.
Of course its union busting, you said as much in that last sentence. The fact that the GOP believes that union busting necessarily reduces costs does not change the fact that it is union busting.
As I said earlier, the issue is that the state doesn't need to do away with collective bargaining rights in order to limit union authority, or reduce costs; especially when the union in question is receptive to actual cost cutting measures.
biccat wrote:
I don't see how violating the law and running away from your job has ever been considered part of the "institutional rules." Quorum rules are in place to prevent secret meetings and allow all sides of a debate a chance to be heard. The motion to compel was instituted to prevent a minority faction from obstructing government action by fleeing the session to prevent quorum. The fact that the Sergeant at Arms has a limited jurisdiction and can't pursue across state borders is not an "institutional rule," it's a limitation of borders.
Nor did I say that it was. The point is that institutional rules can, and will (perhaps even should) be manipulated by representatives given the set of circumstances in which they are present; particularly if an issue that is close to the core of their constituency is threatened. We cannot pretend that any given institution exists in a vacuum.
biccat wrote:
In short, breaking the law/rules to achieve a result may be MORAL in some cases, but it shouldn't be confused with acting appropriately.
Clearly not, but that distinction still doesn't get us anywhere as appropriateness is always going to be determined by the viewer in question. If someone believes that a moral imperative is being violated by this bill, then they're probably going to state that its appropriate for the legislators in question to do everything in their power to prevent its passage.
biccat wrote:
I'm confused as to how something voted on by the Legislature is anything BUT democratic (Republican if you want to split hairs). The legislators were elected in a free and fair election, and should therefore be construed to reflect the will of the people. Those who didn't win a majority in the election should have no authority to restrict (outside of legal application of the institutional rules) the ability of the democratically elected majority.
My precise point, though, is that any given legislature is classified as democratic by the institutional rules that define it. For example, no one is going to claim that the Chinese legislature is a democratic institution despite being largely decided electorally. That is an obtuse example, but democracy is a deeply abstract concept that has no easy definition, and so allows for no easy counter example. Perhaps a better point might be that you will find many people that claim a legislature with the ability to move for cloture is not democratic.
biccat wrote:
Finally, I never said democratic=good. If so, then there's no rational basis to oppose any congressional action. Instead, I was responding to your suggestion that someone in this case was doing "whatever it is that they wish." No one person is acting with such authority, it is the combined will of the Governor and a majority of the Legislature that is acting on behalf of the people.
As I said, I was drawing an inference, which doesn't imply that's what you actually intended. I often find it easier to openly infer things during conversations on the internet, as it makes it clear how both parties are reading the presented text.
biccat wrote:
I would advise you to read the OP and thread title and then reconsider this question. If you still haven't found the answer, I will be happy to explain it to you.
Why is the OP relevant to what I said in my previous post, especially given that I alluded to the fact that the "gotcha" moment wasn't really important?
biccat wrote:
Well, you responded to my statement that he didn't say anything damning with only one substantive point. I assumed you were trying to suggest that this was what Walker did wrong. If that is the extent of his "misconduct", then I think this is a non-issue, wingnuts aside.
I was agreeing with you indirectly.
biccat wrote:
"All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public-personnel management."
Tl;dr: "it is impossible to bargain collectively with the government."
I don't think the issue the GOP has is that its impossible, if that were the case democracy itself would be farce, rather I imagine they simply think that its too effective.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
bs. Its a self feeding loop no different than the military industrial complex. The unions give money to get the opoliticians elected. the politicians then "bargain" more gimmees for the unions slackers and make sure the mouthbreathing contingent of the unions stay sucking on the government tit instead of being rightfully fired. At least with the military industrial complex we get lots of cool toys. We don't even get that with government unions. We just get the Hell of DMV.
Where in that self-feeding loop was the agency of elected officials taken away?
Seriously Frazzled, if the government is incapable of bargaining with anyone that invests in elected officials on a financial level, then democracy is literally impossible. The behavior you're talking about wouldn't be limited to public sector unions and the military-industrial complex, it would extend to all groups capable of leveraging significant capital in the course of effecting political change. Everything from the Christian Church to Walmart effectively becomes a detriment to democratic practice given what you've just argued; implying that no good can come of anything unless its a matter of direct reward to a constituency that you happen to be a part of.
Frazzled wrote:
Free the Oppressed! Strike them down from their High Places! Unleash the Broadside of Liberty, the Great Belch of Freedom! Brrrrpp! Breath deep boys. Its the sweet smell of freedom!
You have absolutely no concept of what oppression really is if you believe that anyone in the United States that pays taxes is oppressed.
Frazzled wrote:
1. And she gets paid the same as the mouth breather teachers who absolutely suck the souls from students. How's that working out.
2. Seriously, she's losing it because you might have to pay for beenfits at only half the rate of the private sector. Cry me a river.
..well.....
... My --admitedly scant -- understanding is that (only) five states have no collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows - South Carolina - 50th / North Carolina - 49th / Georgia - 48th / Texas - 47th ....../ Virginia - 44th
Wisconsin - with its collective bargaining for teachers -... is ranked SECOND in the country.
So, it appears that collective bargaining is GOOD for quality of education and absence of collective bargaining is BAD for quality of education.
I assume it is more expensive of course, but Arkansas, Alabama, North Dakota and Wyoming all allow it... and don't appear to be running defecits ?
Given evidence that collective bargaining does not necessarily cause deficits and appears to be GOOD for quality of education, one could well assume that Wisconsin's Governor Walker has got some other motives.
Still, I'm sure the media coverage will be fine...
reds8n wrote:
Given evidence that collective bargaining does not necessarily cause deficits and appears to be GOOD for quality of education, one could well assume that Wisconsin's Governor Walker has got some other motives.
Yes they have a massive budget deficit. They are going to start layoffs next week.
Viagra or layoffs, its a dichotomy I guess.
Corey85 wrote:My wife is a chemistry teacher here in WI, and I can tell you she puts in 10+ hour days and spends several hours each weekend correcting papers. Those awesome three months off she has? Spent researching new course curriculum and designing labs to help students understand very complex concepts.
She has had students go on to Yale and Stanford.
No one is denying that some teachers are not great people, who honestly are doing what they love, and want to teach. No one is saying that all teachers are just leeches, but some are. It's wonderful that she's succesfull enough to send students to top rated universities, and she is undoubtedly one of those good teachers in the system.
I am all in favor of getting rid of teacher's unions (though I do think Wisconsin's governor is going a bit too far with his zeal to fight the unions). While there are some good teachers, a system based on seniority as opposed to merit is just a failure. Teachers like your wife who work hard, and try to do their jobs should be rewarded with higher pay, more prestigous positions, more control over their course etc. while those who are just lazing around at the top, happy with their tenure should be kicked off to make room for decent teachers.
Making the educational system competive again, and rewarding continued success with students (not just time spent in office), is the way to improving the educational system.
Note: I am Californian in spite of the Union Jack by my username....I should really get that changed....
She has also broken down once or twice since this has started and apologized to me for choosing this career and putting us in a position where we are going to have to drastically cut our spending, or risk loosing our house.
My friends, this broke my heart... My wife was the first in her class in High School and spent her summers off working in a factory to pay for college. She could have gone into any science related field, but was so inspired by her teachers that she wanted to follow in their footsteps.
I still don't quite have words for the rage that I felt for Walker while holding my sobbing wife.
Appeal to emotion. While touching, this isn't really a valid argument. It may be why you personally dislike the governor, but it isn't a reason why everyon else should.
The problem with government unions is that the power dynamics are imbalanced. In a standard business, the capitalists want to pay as little as possible to protect their wealth while the workers want to make as much money as possible for their labor. If they are unable to agree, unions supposedly provide an avenue to tip the scales on behalf of the laborer, such as threatening to shut down the business if the capitalist doesn't agree. The capitalist then decides if it is worth losing his business over. Sometimes it is.
In a government, the workers aren't going against a capitalist, but against an agency that receives their money by forcefully taking it from the populace. There is no relationship between services rendered and wealth generated by those services. Therefore, when the union demands more benefits/wages, the government can merely raise 'prices' without fear of being driven out of the market by the non-unionized state next door (unlike capitalist businesses).
So the union strikes, the state caves, union gets more money, the politician gets more votes, and everyone is happy. The only people who get screwed are the taxpayers, and what are they going to do, move?
It works until the taxpayers get fed up and vote for someone who will take a principled stand on their behalf. Hopefully this happens before the union gets too strong and can force the government's hand.
reds8n wrote:Don't people in unions vote and/or pay taxes then ?
I seem to have ignored a mod somehow. Soeey. Not sure how to fix this, will address once I get off nmy blackberry.
But yes, union members get to vote. Consider this: would you wupport a 200 dollar (pound) tax increase if you would get a 300 dollar (pound) raise? That is what the union does. So long as there are non-[i]unionized taxpayers, any tax that pays for an increase in union salary is supportable.
biccat wrote:Consider this: would you wupport a 200 dollar (pound) tax increase if you would get a 300 dollar (pound) raise?
It would depend entirely upon else was going along with this policy. If, for example, it meant there would be no schools or hospitals or whatever then no, I don't think I would.
I'm suggesting more that it's a little more complicated than just "unions bad !" and artificially separating them from the rest of the society or culture they are in, isn't really a realistic or sensible way to debate or think about things.
I'm sure that you, indeed most of the fine folks that make up the hardy Dakkanaut denizens of this fine forum, know this really, I just think it's a point worth remembering.
Ultimately it's about people and society, not rhetoric and numbers.
reds8n wrote:It would depend entirely upon else was going along with this policy. If, for example, it meant there would be no schools or hospitals or whatever then no, I don't think I would.
Nope, nothing else. It's a tax that everyone has to pay, but only people in your sector gets the benefits. Everyone pays 200, you get 300. Nothing else is affected.
So would you not vote for this? Because that is (essentially) what unions ask for.
I am also not simply saying "unions are bad." but the counter to my argument why they're bad politically and fiscally seems to be "unions are good.". If unions are objectively good, then I'd love to hear why.
But, briefly : unionised workers ( generally) earn more than non unionised workers, this of course gives them purchasing power which is after all what drives the economy.
They're also largely responsible for the attainment of such things as paid healthcare and pensions.
Then there's also such things as legal representation and similar...
.. you don't really need me to list the good things that Unions can/have/will/are responsible for do you ?* I assume that you have studied or covered some social history right ?
I apologise if you haven't, I'm assuming you're above/past ..err.... "college"/uni equivalent age from tone and so on.
Nope, nothing else. It's a tax that everyone has to pay, but only people in your sector gets the benefits. Everyone pays 200, you get 300. Nothing else is affected.
So, I pay 200, my working spouse pays 200 and I can get back 300 ? No, again if it was exactly that simple then I wouldn't vote for it.
But of course as part if the union I would actualy push for the really rich, under taxed bastards to get charged more, whilst everyone else got more ,money.
Go figure !
* and, no doubt, lots of crappy things too. It is people after all.
Melissia wrote:I really don't think I would unless I was already very underpaid to begin with.
It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
So are you voting against your own interest, or are you acknowledging that the right to vote entails a responsibility not to use it for personal gain?
Or you could value your vote as worth more than $100, but I am assuming you are more principled than that.
If it's the former, than I find it hard to reconcile with your post on page 1 re: direct interests and half-baked ideology.
If it's the latter, then I hope you understand where people are coming from when they vote "against their interests."
reds8n wrote:..you don't think workers rights are important ?
I think everyone should have equal rights. I do not think that equal rights are compatible with unions, especially in the public sector.
Anything you cite of the benefits of unions can exist in a free labor force. I am not unionized, yet I get healthcare benefits (paying for them myself), I don't get a pension, but I have a transferrable retirement account (that I pay for), my comppany will provide me legal representation (if related to my job) or I can purchase it myself if I need it.
By not having to bear these costs (including administrative/union overhead), my company can pay me morer so that I can get them myself. Further, the company doesn't have to pay for nonproductive workers or deal with union bureaucracy, and saves money on that end too. As such, they can offer a better product (firing ineffective workers) at a lower price (lower administrative overhead) and pay their workers more.
Sounds like a good thing. And I don't have to worry about the next generation having to pay for my pension benefits, since I am the one responsible for it.
I'd be lying if I said I knew for sure what all was being discussed here. I can give my experience and hope it means something. I've worked nothing but crap jobs. I have some college down and have been in that constant loop of "once things get financially stable I'll go back to school." Guess what hasn't happened yet? Clearly if that's going to happen I need to be doing something differently, but that's a side point. Every job I've worked at I do my best, am generally on time, have NEVER broken a dress code (private schooling did teach me a few things, apparently ), have always had good rapport with customers, been more knowledgeable on product that MOST of my supervisors, always maintained a professional attitude (I hate work drama), etc. I've been in instances where I work harder than other people yet they get better raises or promotions, and I've been in cases where I felt like someone else deserved it more than me. Basically, whoever said the American dream works is a raging donkey-cave. It doesn't. I'm in my first union job, earning 10 cents above minimum wage and have hoops to jump through to get full time, though I'm doing my damnedest to be a model employee so I can earn that even though I know I'll likely get screwed out of it near the end anyway because some middle manager decides so. The union benefits I have basically guarantee that I get scheduled for at least 4 hours at a time, I can not be scheduled less than 15 hours a week, I have to be written up for the same thing 4 times before I can be fired over it, along with some basic healthcare and stuff I can opt in to. This job has treated me better than any I've had so far and the employees there have been there much longer than any previous and consequently know what they're doing. My wage may be practically nothing, but at this job I actually feel like a person and I feel like if I choose to stay with the company I can instead of them pulling some "let's fire everyone and get a new wave" bullcrap.
I think it's fair for workers to have protection in their jobs as long as the government is going to tax said people for breathing air (which they do, which is slowed and another point entirely). The employers then get screwed because of people trying to abuse the system, so the employers who previously screwed try to counter screw and it all just turns to crap. I'm not sure what the answer is, though lazy people deserve not to be paid as much and harder working people deserve more and that's not what this system gives. Unions at least pretend to equalize things.
reds8n wrote:..you don't think workers rights are important ?
But, briefly : unionised workers ( generally) earn more than non unionised workers, this of course gives them purchasing power which is after all what drives the economy.
They're also largely responsible for the attainment of such things as paid healthcare and pensions.
Then there's also such things as legal representation and similar...
.. you don't really need me to list the good things that Unions can/have/will/are responsible for do you ?* I assume that you have studied or covered some social history right ?
I apologise if you haven't, I'm assuming you're above/past ..err.... "college"/uni equivalent age from tone and so on.
Nope, nothing else. It's a tax that everyone has to pay, but only people in your sector gets the benefits. Everyone pays 200, you get 300. Nothing else is affected.
So, I pay 200, my working spouse pays 200 and I can get back 300 ? No, again if it was exactly that simple then I wouldn't vote for it.
But of course as part if the union I would actualy push for the really rich, under taxed bastards to get charged more, whilst everyone else got more ,money.
Go figure !
* and, no doubt, lots of crappy things too. It is people after all.
Much of that would be correct for private workers. These are government workers. their higher than market (for worse service) salaries and massive benefits/pensions are major drivers for state deficit spending. They make nothing. They improve the economy in no manner whatsoever.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Yea, it really is.
You simply saying taht without qualification doesn't make it true.
Taxes aren't simple (in the US anyway), why should a tax increase or decrease be?
Its not. But your initial statement was simple as well. Just a reply in kind.
So you're really paying people should pay more in taxes so that lazy unionized government workers can make salaries and ancillary benefits significantly better than those paying the taxes? Why should I have to pay for the government elite? them.
ChrisWWII wrote:
Appeal to emotion. While touching, this isn't really a valid argument. It may be why you personally dislike the governor, but it isn't a reason why everyon else should.
Neither is the presence of an undefined number of poor teachers indicative of an inherent problem with the presence of teacher's unions.
Frazzled wrote:
They make nothing They improve the economy in no manner whatsoever.
That's false. Even public sector employees are wage earners, and therefore consumers of goods. They provide various services in exchange for those wages, and those services contribute to the economy in a similar, albeit not identical way, to those provided by private sector workers. The only people that do nothing to improve the economy are the unemployed.
The idea that state employees do nothing to improve economic performance is utter nonsense.
ChrisWWII wrote:
Appeal to emotion. While touching, this isn't really a valid argument. It may be why you personally dislike the governor, but it isn't a reason why everyon else should.
Neither is the presence of an undefined number of poor teachers indicative of an inherent problem with the presence of teacher's unions.
Frazzled wrote:
They make nothing They improve the economy in no manner whatsoever.
That's false. Even public sector employees are wage earners, and therefore consumers of goods. They provide various services in exchange for those wages, and those services contribute to the economy in a similar, albeit not identical way, to private sector those provided by private sector workers. The only people that do nothing to improve the economy are the unemployed.
The idea that state employees do nothing to improve economic performance is utter nonsense.
They provide nothing. At the state level budgets must be balanced there, every dollar they get is a dollar stolen from someone else, who on average makes less and receives worse benefits. Most government entities literally produce nothing but paper work and red tape. they don't make one shoe. They don't heal one sick person.
Now I'll grant you teachers educate, firemen stop fires. The good ones should be paid for their good work, and the poor ones fired. That doesn't happen. further, their beneifits are severaly out of whack with the rest of the workforce. Why do I have to subsidize mouth breathers working in local version of the DMV?
biccat wrote:I think everyone should have equal rights. I do not think that equal rights are compatible with unions, especially in the public sector.
.... err... so presumably then, if non Govt. workers have the right to form unions ( which I'm assuming you're alright about) then govt. workers should too then ?
Anything you cite of the benefits of unions can exist in a free labor force. I am not unionized, yet I get healthcare benefits (paying for them myself), I don't get a pension, but I have a transferrable retirement account (that I pay for), my comppany will provide me legal representation (if related to my job) or I can purchase it myself if I need it.
Good for you.
Others can't, oft through no fault of their own either.
I will also point out that the presence of unionised labour forces directly influences non unionised ( sp ?) companies and situations as well, as it "forces" -- so to speak -- them to offer improved or comparable terms so the unionised ones don't snap up all of the bestest people.
... wow... it's like market forces or something eh ?
The worse service thing.. well.. yes and no. I'm sure we all have horror stories about public sector workers and so forth, but in all honesty in my experience I genuinely have found next to no difference atwixt levels of competency of the twain.
This might be a cultural thing/similar however -- no that I'm holding up us or "dissing" you here I hasten -- it was on an episode of "The Apprentice USA" not long back that I first heard the phrase "Good enough for Govt. work " which, I am told, is a common sentiment your side of the pond.
*shrugs*
They improve the economy in no manner whatsoever.
Well, again, yes and no. Aside from mortgages, utility bills, food etc etc, i think it's wrong to say that, for example, teachers don't contribute to the economy. Sure they might not .. I dunno... panel beat or flip burgers, but a modern and viable economy requires a certain minimum level of educational attaintment and learnin and ... stuff... , so I'd argue the toss here.
But I take the general point and (broadly) agree, and let's not get bogged down in an exact analysis of who/what where. let's just say that there contribuition is indeed often harder to quantify.
Frazzled wrote:
Most government entities literally produce nothing but paper work and red tape. they don't make one shoe. They don't heal one sick person.
Those things are necessary, to some degree, in any given society. You can't run an administrative unit without a bureaucracy, not one that's even remotely close to democratic anyway; rendering what they do a form of service.
Frazzled wrote:
Now I'll grant you teachers educate, firemen stop fires. The good ones should be paid for their good work, and the poor ones fired. That doesn't happen. further, their beneifits are severaly out of whack with the rest of the workforce. Why do I have to subsidize mouth breathers working in local version of the DMV?
That's a perfectly legitimate position to take, and I don't even really disagree with it. All I'm saying is that collective bargaining isn't the root cause of the problem here. The issue is that politicians have been unwilling, or unable, to negotiate aggressively with unions due to the absence of political support for such actions.
Ayah I sound way harsher than I really am, but just pushing a point, and of course eating barbeque!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:That's a perfectly legitimate position to take, and I don't even really disagree with it. All I'm saying is that collective bargaining isn't the root cause of the problem here. The issue is that politicians have been unwilling, or unable, to negotiate aggressively with unions due to the absence of political support for such actions.
and the incredibly massive amounts of campaign contributions they get from government unions. Don't forget that part.
Well I do teach a special education class. I work mostly with students who have an Autism diagnosis. It is tough and I can cite so many times where I put forth more effort than the teacher across the hall. I feel like I should be paid more than her. I deal with problems that she will not even look at if they happen in the hallway outside of her class. Merit has always been an important aspect of being a person to me, yet the collective bargaining rights in my school system and state refuse to acknowledge anything of the sort.
I admit, there are plenty of baby sitters out there, people who are leeching off of the system. Something needs to be done, but I have no idea what the solution could possibly be. Unions have done a great thing for us in the past. If it wasn't for them, we would be greatly underpaid, no benefits, long work days, etc. However those days are over. They have did their part and now they leech the system themselves.
I will say this, I do not get a 3 month vacation during the summer. I am unemployed during the summer, so make sure you take that into consideration. A lot of the teachers I work with think they should get paid more. Personally I think we should, but we should work more like everyone else. We usually put in a 180 school days, not counting our Instructional Support Days. My friend who works at Wal-Mart puts a lot more time into work than I. Unions are always asking for more money, but no one is willing to work more to make the money. That doesn't make much sense to me.
Ok, rambling is off. Back to looking at the painting & modeling forum.
biccat wrote:
In a government, the workers aren't going against a capitalist, but against an agency that receives their money by forcefully taking it from the populace. There is no relationship between services rendered and wealth generated by those services. Therefore, when the union demands more benefits/wages, the government can merely raise 'prices' without fear of being driven out of the market by the non-unionized state next door (unlike capitalist businesses).
So the union strikes, the state caves, union gets more money, the politician gets more votes, and everyone is happy. The only people who get screwed are the taxpayers, and what are they going to do, move?
How does the removal of collective bargaining rights change this dynamic, though?
So public sector employees can't unionize in the traditional sense, that doesn't stop them from forming a particular sort of PAC designed to vote against any particular official that refuses to alter the standardized pay scale or increase non-fiscal benefits. Sure, they can't strike, but they can still significantly manipulate the electoral outcomes in the constituency in question; perhaps to a greater degree than an official union would be able to.
The larger point being that, from the perspective of any given politician, the motivation to agree to the demands of public sector workers is unchanged; the group represents an readily served body of eligible voters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
and the incredibly massive amounts of campaign contributions they get from government unions. Don't forget that part.
Well, there is that. Fortunately its ultimately about votes, not money, and if there's enough public antipathy towards union workers (or government spending) then all the money in the world won't make support for unions worthwhile; at least insofar as the pols are able to finance themselves in a novel fashion.
dogma wrote:The issue is that politicians have been unwilling, or unable, to negotiate aggressively with unions due to the absence of political support for such actions.
That's because there's no incentive for politicians to negotiate strongly with unions. Taxpayers until recently didn't care about spending or deficits, and as we are seeing now, unions can raise massive opposition to spending reforms. Plus, a substantial portion of the electorate has no problem taxing those Richers to get theirs. And the Richers don't get a say, since they're greedy and all.
reds8n wrote:the presence of unionized labour forces directly influences non unionised ( sp ?) companies...
Well, in part it does influence non-unionized shops because then those shops can offer better terms to good workers by not having to pay bad workers. Of course, then the union shop goes out of business (having lower quality and being unable to compete) and some people lose their jobs, but that isn't the union's fault, it's the fault of the greedy execs.
The equal protection issue arises because public unions give disproportionate weight to union votes. They can elect themselves a governor who will take from non-union taxpayers and give the money to the union.
This is, in fact, the story of why unions took over the Democrat party in the States.
Frazzled wrote:So you're really paying people should pay more in taxes so that lazy unionized government workers can make salaries and ancillary benefits significantly better than those paying the taxes? Why should I have to pay for the government elite? them.
If you were paying attention, Frazzled, you'd have seen that all I said is "it's not that simple" and "I don't think I would do so".
I made no such claim, and it is disingenuous to imply that I did.
Whether or not someone needs or deserves a raise is, to me, something which has to be determined on a case to case basis, not simply a blanket statement. Certainly I think that about my bio professor, who does so many things for the school-- at the request of her dean-- that it actually gets in the way of her teaching because she rarely gets any sleep deserves one. But I'm not so sure about some of the adjuncts here who have one class and then go back to their day jobs, so to speak.
ChrisWWII wrote:
Appeal to emotion. While touching, this isn't really a valid argument. It may be why you personally dislike the governor, but it isn't a reason why everyon else should.
Neither is the presence of an undefined number of poor teachers indicative of an inherent problem with the presence of teacher's unions.
True, of course. I don't have any statistics in front of me to quantify my positon, however I do firmly believe that unions installing tenure, and basing pay off of how long one has been in the job is a problem that needs to be fixed. Maybe the problem isn't the unions themselves, however I view the teachers unions and the problesm with education as heavily tied together.
Frazzled wrote:So you're really paying people should pay more in taxes so that lazy unionized government workers can make salaries and ancillary benefits significantly better than those paying the taxes? Why should I have to pay for the government elite? them.
If you were paying attention, Frazzled, you'd have seen that all I said is "it's not that simple" and "I don't think I would do so".
I made no such claim, and it is disingenuous to imply that I did.
Whether or not someone needs or deserves a raise is, to me, something which has to be determined on a case to case basis, not simply a blanket statement. Certainly I think that about my bio professor, who does so many things for the school-- at the request of her dean-- that it actually gets in the way of her teaching because she rarely gets any sleep deserves one. But I'm not so sure about some of the adjuncts here who have one class and then go back to their day jobs, so to speak.
Damn government workers wanting to be paid money and have reasonable health benefits, because everyone knows that teachers are some of the highest earners in the country and represent the rich and wealthy.
(of course the whole point of this is to remove the union so that the state can lower pay to the teachers that haven't already lost their jobs, just healthy far right politics to lower spending no matter how vital it is even if it does mean a lower education standard)
Melissia wrote:Yes one can, if the government union is formed in such a way.
Unions don't need to be abolished so much as they need to be reformed.
They have no interest in doing so, thats why there are baszzilions on union people bussed in and protesting there now.
Don't mend it, end it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gibbsey wrote:Damn government workers wanting to be paid money and have health benefits better than anyone else with their experience and education, because everyone knows that teachers are some of the highest earners in the country and represent the rich and wealthy.
Well, as soon as they fire all the teachers and cut all of their salaries to nothing, we will barely have any teachers left and we will take another important step towards idiocracy. Art/music/theatre classes are all already pretty much cut, but who needs that crap?
Who needs teachers, everything you need to learn is in the bible, right? :sarcasm:
daedalus-templarius wrote:Well, as soon as they fire all the teachers and cut all of their salaries to nothing, we will barely have any teachers left and we will take another important step towards idiocracy. Art/music/theatre classes are all already pretty much cut, but who needs that crap?
Who needs teachers, everything you need to learn is in the bible, right? :sarcasm:
Actually they are only looking at layoffs if the change isn't meant, hence the is the viagra more important than jobs issue. So if teachers get fired, blame your local union.
Actually they are only looking at layoffs if the change isn't meant, hence the is the viagra more important than jobs issue. So if teachers get fired, blame your local union.
Not necessarily just talking about WI. Teachers are getting laid off everywhere to make up for budget shortfalls. And, like I said, Art/Music/Theatre are already cut in several school districts because of budgetary concerns.
Chicago is closing schools and consolidating students, classes are approaching 50+ students. Hell, why don't we just toss them into an auditorium like in college, they will be sure to give a crap about their education then.
What happens after the teacher bashing has gotten so bad we have no more teachers? Its astonishing to me they put up with it now, I've seen teachers buy all of their supplies for their own students with no help from their school. How long will they be able to do that?
Also, I seem to remember the whole thrust/spin on putting republicans back into power in governors seats and the house was "bring back the jobs/save jobs". That doesn't really seem to be the case if they fire a whole mess of teachers... but maybe that's just me. (not just WI)
Frazzled, in your own state, the legislature is planning to cut $4.8 billion state school aid to close its budget. Estimated 100,000 school employee layoffs inc in TX. You'd think with all the businesses supposedly flocking to Texas, he could close a few business tax loopholes which I'm sure are being exploited... or maybe hit some of those oil subsidies. But no, education is going to get slashed, because who needs education?
Actually they are only looking at layoffs if the change isn't meant, hence the is the viagra more important than jobs issue. So if teachers get fired, blame your local union.
Not necessarily just talking about WI. Teachers are getting laid off everywhere to make up for budget shortfalls. And, like I said, Art/Music/Theatre are already cut in several school districts because of budgetary concerns.
Chicago is closing schools and consolidating students, classes are approaching 50+ students. Hell, why don't we just toss them into an auditorium like in college, they will be sure to give a crap about their education then.
What happens after the teacher bashing has gotten so bad we have no more teachers? Its astonishing to me they put up with it now, I've seen teachers buy all of their supplies for their own students with no help from their school. How long will they be able to do that?
Also, I seem to remember the whole thrust/spin on putting republicans back into power in governors seats and the house was "bring back the jobs/save jobs". That doesn't really seem to be the case if they fire a whole mess of teachers... but maybe that's just me. (not just WI)
Frazzled, in your own state, the legislature is planning to cut $4.8 billion state school aid to close its budget. Estimated 100,000 school employee layoffs inc in TX. You'd think with all the businesses supposedly flocking to Texas, he could close a few business tax loopholes which I'm sure are being exploited... or maybe hit some of those oil subsidies. But no, education is going to get slashed, because who needs education?
Life sucks. budgets are destoryed. Time to cut back just like everyone else. Govenrment employees welcome to reality. Oops there goes gravity.
Actually they are only looking at layoffs if the change isn't meant, hence the is the viagra more important than jobs issue. So if teachers get fired, blame your local union.
Not necessarily just talking about WI. Teachers are getting laid off everywhere to make up for budget shortfalls. And, like I said, Art/Music/Theatre are already cut in several school districts because of budgetary concerns.
Chicago is closing schools and consolidating students, classes are approaching 50+ students. Hell, why don't we just toss them into an auditorium like in college, they will be sure to give a crap about their education then.
What happens after the teacher bashing has gotten so bad we have no more teachers? Its astonishing to me they put up with it now, I've seen teachers buy all of their supplies for their own students with no help from their school. How long will they be able to do that?
Also, I seem to remember the whole thrust/spin on putting republicans back into power in governors seats and the house was "bring back the jobs/save jobs". That doesn't really seem to be the case if they fire a whole mess of teachers... but maybe that's just me. (not just WI)
Frazzled, in your own state, the legislature is planning to cut $4.8 billion state school aid to close its budget. Estimated 100,000 school employee layoffs inc in TX. You'd think with all the businesses supposedly flocking to Texas, he could close a few business tax loopholes which I'm sure are being exploited... or maybe hit some of those oil subsidies. But no, education is going to get slashed, because who needs education?
Life sucks. budgets are destoryed. Time to cut back just like everyone else. Govenrment employees welcome to reality. Oops there goes gravity.
This is what happens when the kids listen to the rap musics....
Life sucks. budgets are destoryed. Time to cut back just like everyone else. Govenrment employees welcome to reality. Oops there goes gravity.
Hmmm. I hope you aren't my neighbor when I move to Austin.
Kind of a sad response really, have to admit.
Its a great response. I live in the real world, not the protected sanctum of government largesse.
You'd love me as a neighbor. Watching the ocean of weiner dogs traveling along the street on their evening walk is epic. Don't pick up the lead dog though, he'll bite you in the face!
Yes by laying off teachers, and firing police and fire fighters. You create more jobs. If unemployment and food stamps are jobs. As soon as they are fired everybody who lost jobs will have them back, including the teachers and fire fighters. Also the "jobs-killing health care bill" is eating all the jobs, even if it's not in effect. So if you stop that, the jobs won't be afraid of being killed and come out of hiding.
Frazzled wrote:
Its a great response. I live in the real world, not the protected sanctum of government largesse.
Well, hopefully they won't cut the police/fire dept in your area, so when your house is burning/broken into(by all of those people on the streets without educations so they can't get a job of any sort because they never went to school), and they can't spare the manpower to put the fire out/stop the looters taking all your gak, you can still retain the same attitude.
Frazzled wrote:
Its a great response. I live in the real world, not the protected sanctum of government largesse.
Well, hopefully they won't cut the police/fire dept in your area, so when your house is burning/broken into(by all of those people on the streets without educations so they can't get a job of any sort because they never went to school), and they can't spare the manpower to put the fire out/stop the looters taking all your gak, you can still retain the same attitude.
So we never had government employees before unions? You might, er check into that a little bit...
You don't by chance work for the DMV do you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:On a completely serious note, what problems doesn't universal genocide solve?
Frazzled wrote:
So we never had government employees before unions? You might, er check into that a little bit...
You don't by chance work for the DMV do you?
Sigh, I wasn't really talking just about unions. More about your seeming stance on public employees in general and the current climate of layoffs due to budgetary concerns for what I assumed were essential services like firemen and police. Just look at NY.
Frazzled wrote:
So we never had government employees before unions? You might, er check into that a little bit...
You don't by chance work for the DMV do you?
Sigh, I wasn't really talking just about unions. More about your seeming stance on public employees in general and the current climate of layoffs due to budgetary concerns for what I assumed were essential services like firemen and police. Just look at NY.
And no, I don't.
Firemen good
Cops good.
Good teachers good.
All other considerations restricted.
Well unfortunately, the cuts to teachers don't care if they are good or not, or if they are in a union or not, in the majority of cases.
And as it stands, cops and firemen are also being laid off, and probably targeted for more layoffs as budgeting continues. Public service seems to be far more targeted by the people in power than any sort of business loopholes and subsidies, which is very sad, because we are supposed to be bringing back jobs, not destroying more.
Anecdotal story: in Missouri they closed several schools to consolidate due to budgetary concerns. This was slightly mitigated by the fact that the schools that were going to stay open were going to get an influx of resources (computers, etc) from the schools that were closing to help with the glut of new students.
After a few months, the schools that stayed open still hadn't received the resources from the schools that had closed. Because the old schools were not properly secured/it took them forever to get the stuff out, they were stripped bare by looters. Wiring, computers, copper, all gone. Now, the old schools are a disaster, not even usable anymore, because of the ineptitude of the local school board.
So they closed a bunch of schools that are now stripped bare, fired a bunch of teachers, moved a bunch of students, and all they have to show for it is a bunch of laid off teachers.
Well all that story was good for was showing the idiocy of local government in several areas, didn't really prove anything other than give me a big downer.
Your irrational hatred of government employees aside, Frazzled, government employees perform necessary jobs without which our country would pretty much cease to work as a coherent country.
Melissia wrote:Your irrational hatred of government employees aside, Frazzled, government employees perform necessary jobs without which our country would pretty much cease to work as a coherent country.
I am sure there are a few. Lets have a test. Fire 2/3 of the back office people in every department (admin for you guys focused on teacher unions). Tell them if performance falls off they'll be replaced by new employees. Lets see what happens.
biccat wrote:
That's because there's no incentive for politicians to negotiate strongly with unions. Taxpayers until recently didn't care about spending or deficits, and as we are seeing now, unions can raise massive opposition to spending reforms.
That's what I meant when I said "...due to the absence of political support for such actions."
Anyway, if there is no incentive for politicians to negotiate with unions, then why is there apparently a significant incentive for them to attempt to do away with them?
One would think that if there is sufficient support for the elimination of public sector organization that there would be significant incentive to aggressively negotiate with those organizations.
biccat wrote:
Plus, a substantial portion of the electorate has no problem taxing those Richers to get theirs. And the Richers don't get a say, since they're greedy and all.
Of course they get a say, they can vote, and contribute to campaigns; the latter being a much stronger "voice" than the former.
The issue isn't nominally about greed, so much as the popular theory behind progressive taxation and ability to pay.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Life sucks. budgets are destoryed. Time to cut back just like everyone else. Govenrment employees welcome to reality. Oops there goes gravity.
Or raise taxes. Many states and municipalities have gotten away with artificially low tax rates for decades now.
biccat wrote:
Plus, a substantial portion of the electorate has no problem taxing those Richers to get theirs. And the Richers don't get a say, since they're greedy and all.
Of course they get a say, they can vote, and contribute to campaigns; the latter being a much stronger "voice" than the former.
The issue isn't nominally about greed, so much as the popular theory behind progressive taxation and ability to pay.
The idea that the masses will simply tax the crud out of the easily-exploited Rich seems in stark contrast to the reality of taxation for the last 30+ years.
America was best off decades ago- in the late 40s, the 50s and 60s we were growing, the middle class was expanding, people were getting educations and houses and jobs with living wages at rates unprededented. We also had much higher percentages of Union membership than we do nowadays, and a MASSIVELY higher tax rate for the richest people than we do now. These fact are not contradictory.
For the past 30+ years the richest people have consistently had their tax rates slashed, in the theory (which George Bush Sr. memorably called "Voodoo economics" when he was running against Reagan, then lied and claimed never to have said when he was working for Reagan) that they would invest their money in ways which would create jobs and greater tax revenue. It's proven false. It's a period which has seen greater and greater outsourcing to other countries, the income disparity between the poor and middle class shrink, and the income disparity between both of those and the richest vastly inflate.
It's bad policy for the country. It's wrecked us economically. It's given the money away for empty promises and false theories. And while the Unions certainly are flawed too, they're not the real problem. They're a scapegoat and an obstacle for the richest to continue writing public policy to best advantage themselves and continue increasing their own wealth at the expense of everyone else. And the expense of the health and prosperity of our nation.
dogma wrote:The idea that state employees do nothing to improve economic performance is utter nonsense.
They provide nothing. At the state level budgets must be balanced there, every dollar they get is a dollar stolen from someone else, who on average makes less and receives worse benefits. Most government entities literally produce nothing but paper work and red tape. they don't make one shoe. They don't heal one sick person.
What do you manufacture at your job? What material thing do you contribute to the benefit of society?
Taxation isn't stealing. It makes you look dumb when you say things like that, which makes me wonder why you do, since you're not dumb.
Yes, the average worker makes less and gets less benefits than Union workers do. That's because Union workers have collective bargaining. We also have weekends because of collective bargaining. We have the ideas of an 8 hour workday and Overtime because of collective bargaining. Most of the things that allow us to work while still being able to enjoy our lives and spend time with our families are PRODUCTS of the labor movement. And as the Unions have been dying and their powers being curtailed over the past few decades, we have fewer protections, the average worker makes less money, and the average CEO makes more and more. Why did GM close plants and slash jobs while making record profits in the 80s? Because they could get away with it. The government supported it, at the expense of the Unions and of the workers.
Frazzled wrote:Now I'll grant you teachers educate, firemen stop fires. The good ones should be paid for their good work, and the poor ones fired. That doesn't happen. further, their beneifits are severaly out of whack with the rest of the workforce. Why do I have to subsidize mouth breathers working in local version of the DMV?
Most of the jobs in government are providing necessary services, as you well know. Firemen and teachers. Workers to service those roads and highways you use to get to work at your private company. DMV people to make sure drivers are licensed and registered (which is about public safety as well as revenue). Health department workers to make sure restaurants aren't poisoning people, and to track down and reduce the rate of diseases spreading. Some people to shuffling paper is a necessary consequence of any "real" work. More of your job, i expect, involves paper than it does manufacturing material goods, no? Or maybe you're a doctor and you heal the sick, like Waaagh Gonads?
Unions protecting incompetent workers and paying people purely based on seniority is BS. Sure. Agreed. But those are things that can be fixed. I am also well aware that they often get better and cheaper healthcare than private sector employees, and lack the perspective to realize how good they have it in that department. That's yet another argument for comprehensive overhaul of our healthcare system.
And as Cannerus' immediate example demonstrates, a lot of the protections and policies they're responsible for create better jobs and better workers too.
Frazzled wrote:
They provide nothing. At the state level budgets must be balanced there, every dollar they get is a dollar stolen from someone else, who on average makes less and receives worse benefits. Most government entities literally produce nothing but paper work and red tape. they don't make one shoe. They don't heal one sick person.
The idea of a lawyer accusing other people of being parasites is too amusing not to comment on.
biccat wrote:
Plus, a substantial portion of the electorate has no problem taxing those Richers to get theirs. And the Richers don't get a say, since they're greedy and all.
Of course they get a say, they can vote, and contribute to campaigns; the latter being a much stronger "voice" than the former.
The issue isn't nominally about greed, so much as the popular theory behind progressive taxation and ability to pay.
The idea that the masses will simply tax the crud out of the easily-exploited Rich seems in stark contrast to the reality of taxation for the last 30+ years.
America was best off decades ago- in the late 40s, the 50s and 60s we were growing, the middle class was expanding, people were getting educations and houses and jobs with living wages at rates unprededented. We also had much higher percentages of Union membership than we do nowadays, and a MASSIVELY higher tax rate for the richest people than we do now. These fact are not contradictory.
For the past 30+ years the richest people have consistently had their tax rates slashed, in the theory (which George Bush Sr. memorably called "Voodoo economics" when he was running against Reagan, then lied and claimed never to have said when he was working for Reagan) that they would invest their money in ways which would create jobs and greater tax revenue. It's proven false. It's a period which has seen greater and greater outsourcing to other countries, the income disparity between the poor and middle class shrink, and the income disparity between both of those and the richest vastly inflate.
It's bad policy for the country. It's wrecked us economically. It's given the money away for empty promises and false theories. And while the Unions certainly are flawed too, they're not the real problem. They're a scapegoat and an obstacle for the richest to continue writing public policy to best advantage themselves and continue increasing their own wealth at the expense of everyone else. And the expense of the health and prosperity of our nation.
Mannahnin wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:The idea that state employees do nothing to improve economic performance is utter nonsense.
They provide nothing. At the state level budgets must be balanced there, every dollar they get is a dollar stolen from someone else, who on average makes less and receives worse benefits. Most government entities literally produce nothing but paper work and red tape. they don't make one shoe. They don't heal one sick person.
What do you manufacture at your job? What material thing do you contribute to the benefit of society?
Taxation isn't stealing. It makes you look dumb when you say things like that, which makes me wonder why you do, since you're not dumb.
Yes, the average worker makes less and gets less benefits than Union workers do. That's because Union workers have collective bargaining. We also have weekends because of collective bargaining. We have the ideas of an 8 hour workday and Overtime because of collective bargaining. Most of the things that allow us to work while still being able to enjoy our lives and spend time with our families are PRODUCTS of the labor movement. And as the Unions have been dying and their powers being curtailed over the past few decades, we have fewer protections, the average worker makes less money, and the average CEO makes more and more. Why did GM close plants and slash jobs while making record profits in the 80s? Because they could get away with it. The government supported it, at the expense of the Unions and of the workers.
Frazzled wrote:Now I'll grant you teachers educate, firemen stop fires. The good ones should be paid for their good work, and the poor ones fired. That doesn't happen. further, their beneifits are severaly out of whack with the rest of the workforce. Why do I have to subsidize mouth breathers working in local version of the DMV?
Most of the jobs in government are providing necessary services, as you well know. Firemen and teachers. Workers to service those roads and highways you use to get to work at your private company. DMV people to make sure drivers are licensed and registered (which is about public safety as well as revenue). Health department workers to make sure restaurants aren't poisoning people, and to track down and reduce the rate of diseases spreading. Some people to shuffling paper is a necessary consequence of any "real" work. More of your job, i expect, involves paper than it does manufacturing material goods, no? Or maybe you're a doctor and you heal the sick, like Waaagh Gonads?
Unions protecting incompetent workers and paying people purely based on seniority is BS. Sure. Agreed. But those are things that can be fixed. I am also well aware that they often get better and cheaper healthcare than private sector employees, and lack the perspective to realize how good they have it in that department. That's yet another argument for comprehensive overhaul of our healthcare system.
And as Cannerus' immediate example demonstrates, a lot of the protections and policies they're responsible for create better jobs and better workers too.
I know you can't see me Mannahnin (i think! ), but i'm giving you a standing O my friend! very well said, everything you said!
And Frazzled, are you the voice of El Rushbo on Dakka? i feel you and he would get along smashingly!
I do think Fraz gets a lot of media and familiar or friend-based political unput from people who listen to Rush and similar donkey-caves too much. I am dead sure that Fraz gets emails forwarded from jokers like that.
I am morally certain that Fraz is actually a good person, and now that I am enjoying a scrumptious plate of my homemade super Italian meat sauce over penne, with a decent glass of red wine, I rather wish we were sitting at the same table and could share a drink and come to some agreement.
I thought this was about how Gov. Walker admitted that "we thought about that" when asked about planting troublemakers in the demonstrators in order to get them arrested or discredited.
Admittedly, it was a prank phone call, but last I checked, his spokesman has confirmed the authenticity of the call, and says that “The phone call shows that the Governor says the same thing in private as he does in public and the lengths that others will go to disrupt the civil debate Wisconsin is having.” His spokesman doesn't deny that the governor says that he and others thought about planting troublemakers. This would seem to indicate that the "others" who would disrupt the debate would include the governor himself.
Of course, I work at a bookstore. I think about punching idiots in the face. I think about stomping on kids laying spread out on the floor. I think about smacking smelly, dirty, freeloaders with a large book. I think about a lot of stuff I would never do.
On the other hand, if I was taped saying any of those things, I would also explain how I think about things that I would never do, not allow my spokesperson to that I say the same thing in private as I do in public. Which, in this case would indicate that the governor evidently talks, in public, about planting troublemakers in demonstrations, or that his own spokesman is lying about the governor.
So, is the governor's spokesman spreading lies about the governor (namely, a lie that he talks, in public, about planting troublemakers in demonstrations), or does the governor, in fact, speak in public about planting troublemakers in demonstrations?
Or, is he like every other **** politician and simply doesn't assign ANY truth value to the words spewing out of his face?
Or, is his spokesperson an incompetent dimwit (and if so, is HE protected from firing due to being a member of a government union)?
I'm not really gonna get into all of this, but I live in California and we are pretty much sucked dry. Many reasons obviously, Unions are only a slice of the pie.
I will say that most of these failed states, CA included, should be consulting states like Texas, that you know... actually have a surplus! Half the people in CA don't even know what a surplus is.
Back on topic though, about the prank call. Frankly, who cares. Joe Biden pranks himself all the time.
sebster wrote:Having direct links between your politicies and the Koch brothers should be utterly damning.
Only in the wingnut side of the political spectrum. AS this drags on the unions are losing massive support. People want their kids taught properly and this is shifting to an issue towards that.
The Koch's are from the wingnut side of the political spectrum. Having money doesn't mean your political views aren't crazy and dangerous.
But this can be explained again and again, and the links between politicians and guys like the Koch brothers can be pointed out over and over again, and folk like you will ignore and sound off about unions instead.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
sebster wrote:Which is an easy thing to miss, it's taken me a long time to realise how committed people are to half baked ideology over their own direct interests.
I thought that's been the basis of the entire Republican party for a while now.
Sure has. Thing is, people thought showing the moneyed interests bankrolling all these policies would lead to people realise they were getting screwed by the Republicans. But it hasn't, they just ignore that very rich people are controlling policies to make sure they get even richer, and that their wealth grants them even greater freedoms at the expense of the rest of us.
Because, like, freedom or something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisWWII wrote:I am all in favor of getting rid of teacher's unions (though I do think Wisconsin's governor is going a bit too far with his zeal to fight the unions). While there are some good teachers, a system based on seniority as opposed to merit is just a failure. Teachers like your wife who work hard, and try to do their jobs should be rewarded with higher pay, more prestigous positions, more control over their course etc. while those who are just lazing around at the top, happy with their tenure should be kicked off to make room for decent teachers.
You can reform unions without destroying them. Hell, you can give them the choice 'reform towards merit based promotion or we'll destroy you' and you'd have the moral high ground, and never need to deny someone the right to collective bargaining.
Making the educational system competive again, and rewarding continued success with students (not just time spent in office), is the way to improving the educational system.
Empowering teachers to make the choices for students under their tutelage is the absolute best way to improve scores. Everything else is just adding more tests, and encouraging teachers to teach to the test, instead of developing the ability of children to learn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:The problem with government unions is that the power dynamics are imbalanced. In a standard business, the capitalists want to pay as little as possible to protect their wealth while the workers want to make as much money as possible for their labor. If they are unable to agree, unions supposedly provide an avenue to tip the scales on behalf of the laborer, such as threatening to shut down the business if the capitalist doesn't agree. The capitalist then decides if it is worth losing his business over. Sometimes it is.
In a government, the workers aren't going against a capitalist, but against an agency that receives their money by forcefully taking it from the populace. There is no relationship between services rendered and wealth generated by those services. Therefore, when the union demands more benefits/wages, the government can merely raise 'prices' without fear of being driven out of the market by the non-unionized state next door (unlike capitalist businesses).
So the union strikes, the state caves, union gets more money, the politician gets more votes, and everyone is happy. The only people who get screwed are the taxpayers, and what are they going to do, move?
So the governor's desire to keep education costs withing check, and the threat of being voted out of office he can't do that, or is forced to raise taxes doesn't exist. The problem with your analogy is that it assumes the governor's job is more secure than the CEO of McDonald's.
The problem here is that you're taking very basic economics, the talk from some pundits, then making things up. This is not a good way to form an opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Life sucks. budgets are destoryed. Time to cut back just like everyone else. Govenrment employees welcome to reality. Oops there goes gravity.
People talk about the need to maintain education standards for kids, but Fraz revels in the idea of teachers being brought back to reality by getting fired.
This is the politics of spite. It's a destructive and pointless, but it dominates much Republican ideology, and in turn, much of their policy.
Hence instead of moves to reform education and union in Wisconsin, we have the move to ban unions. There's no possiblity of improving how things are done to save money and improve education, no... instead the only option to improve the lot of taxpayers is to take from someone else.
It's the politics of spite.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:I am sure there are a few. Lets have a test. Fire 2/3 of the back office people in every department (admin for you guys focused on teacher unions). Tell them if performance falls off they'll be replaced by new employees. Lets see what happens.
Please state the studies you've read that government productivity is lower than private sector productivity, or has greater admin. Otherwise it just sounds like you're making things up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lt. Coldfire wrote:I'm not really gonna get into all of this, but I live in California and we are pretty much sucked dry. Many reasons obviously, Unions are only a slice of the pie.
I will say that most of these failed states, CA included, should be consulting states like Texas, that you know... actually have a surplus! Half the people in CA don't even know what a surplus is.
Umm, Texas has a budget shortfall of $27 billion. And California's primary problem is the utterly stupid voter initiatives, which can cap spending and mandate spending on certain items.
dogma wrote:The idea that state employees do nothing to improve economic performance is utter nonsense.
They provide nothing. At the state level budgets must be balanced there, every dollar they get is a dollar stolen from someone else, who on average makes less and receives worse benefits. Most government entities literally produce nothing but paper work and red tape. they don't make one shoe. They don't heal one sick person.
What do you manufacture at your job? What material thing do you contribute to the benefit of society?
Taxation isn't stealing. It makes you look dumb when you say things like that, which makes me wonder why you do, since you're not dumb.
Yes, the average worker makes less and gets less benefits than Union workers do. That's because Union workers have collective bargaining. We also have weekends because of collective bargaining. We have the ideas of an 8 hour workday and Overtime because of collective bargaining. Most of the things that allow us to work while still being able to enjoy our lives and spend time with our families are PRODUCTS of the labor movement. And as the Unions have been dying and their powers being curtailed over the past few decades, we have fewer protections, the average worker makes less money, and the average CEO makes more and more. Why did GM close plants and slash jobs while making record profits in the 80s? Because they could get away with it. The government supported it, at the expense of the Unions and of the workers.
Frazzled wrote:Now I'll grant you teachers educate, firemen stop fires. The good ones should be paid for their good work, and the poor ones fired. That doesn't happen. further, their beneifits are severaly out of whack with the rest of the workforce. Why do I have to subsidize mouth breathers working in local version of the DMV?
Most of the jobs in government are providing necessary services, as you well know. Firemen and teachers. Workers to service those roads and highways you use to get to work at your private company. DMV people to make sure drivers are licensed and registered (which is about public safety as well as revenue). Health department workers to make sure restaurants aren't poisoning people, and to track down and reduce the rate of diseases spreading. Some people to shuffling paper is a necessary consequence of any "real" work. More of your job, i expect, involves paper than it does manufacturing material goods, no? Or maybe you're a doctor and you heal the sick, like Waaagh Gonads?
Unions protecting incompetent workers and paying people purely based on seniority is BS. Sure. Agreed. But those are things that can be fixed. I am also well aware that they often get better and cheaper healthcare than private sector employees, and lack the perspective to realize how good they have it in that department. That's yet another argument for comprehensive overhaul of our healthcare system.
And as Cannerus' immediate example demonstrates, a lot of the protections and policies they're responsible for create better jobs and better workers too.
Yea its theft. The concept of increasing taxes so that the middle class can pay for people who are overpaid to begin with is frankly insulting to all those who are robbed to support the government workers.
Show me a government office and I'll show you one where half can be fired today with no loss in productivity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:I don't think Fraz is crazy or stupid like Rush.
I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. I work for a living.
I do think Fraz gets a lot of media and familiar or friend-based political unput from people who listen to Rush and similar donkey-caves too much. I am dead sure that Fraz gets emails forwarded from jokers like that.
You mean like the BBC? I'm listening to NPR right now. In a minute I'll be reading the Wall Street Journal.
No one forwards me emails of a political nature. I barely read my mail why on earth would I get ranting from other losers.
On the positive I have been called a communist Obama sympathizer on other boards.
I am morally certain that Fraz is actually a good person
Now I am sad. How can Frazzled be Weiner Dog Command and still be a good person? Cry Havoc! and let slip the weinies of war! (note: When banished upstairs during girl scouts yesterday, we confirmed TBone was not impressed with Predator 2, much preferring some ball throwing, a quick attack on the Shanker, and some serious sun time.)
, and now that I am enjoying a scrumptious plate of my homemade super Italian meat sauce over penne, with a decent glass of red wine, I rather wish we were sitting at the same table and could share a drink and come to some agreement.
Frazzled wrote:
Yea its theft. The concept of increasing taxes so that the middle class can pay for people who are overpaid to begin with is frankly insulting to all those who are robbed to support the government workers.
No, its not theft. Theft involves taking something and providing nothing in return. Even if you believe that the majority of government workers are unnecessary they still provide services in return for the money taken through taxation to pay them. You're equivocating.
Frazzled wrote:
I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. I work for a living.
Those aren't mutually exclusive ideas. Lots of people listen to political commentators while working, just as many people listen to music while working. I mean, its not like Rush's political views are so subtle and nuanced as to require one's total attention.
Frazzled wrote:
On the positive I have been called a communist Obama sympathizer on other boards.
And I've been called a jack-booted, right wing thug on this one.
biccat wrote:
Plus, a substantial portion of the electorate has no problem taxing those Richers to get theirs. And the Richers don't get a say, since they're greedy and all.
Of course they get a say, they can vote, and contribute to campaigns; the latter being a much stronger "voice" than the former.
The issue isn't nominally about greed, so much as the popular theory behind progressive taxation and ability to pay.
The idea that the masses will simply tax the crud out of the easily-exploited Rich seems in stark contrast to the reality of taxation for the last 30+ years.
The percentage of people who don't pay taxes has increased substantially. Additionally, taxes (as a percent of GDP) has remained relatively stable.
So a simple question: if tax income has remained steady, and a higher percentage of people are no longer paying taxes, where is the income coming from?
Mannahnin wrote:America was best off decades ago- in the late 40s, the 50s and 60s we were growing, the middle class was expanding, people were getting educations and houses and jobs with living wages at rates unprededented. We also had much higher percentages of Union membership than we do nowadays, and a MASSIVELY higher tax rate for the richest people than we do now. These fact are not contradictory.
I disagree. Higher education rates are much higher now than they were in the 40's-60's. Wages in the 50's were approximately $4,000/year, with the average home price at $14,000/year (1:3.5). Today, the average home price is about $160,000 with the average wage around $50,000 (3.2:1). Necessities are less expensive, cars are less expensive, and most luxuries are less expensive.
Not only that, but in the 60's, the total tax burden was different, with more people contributing to the federal coffers. As the tax rates on the wealthy have decreased, their share of contributions to the federal government have increased.
The 40's-60's were a period of the middle class expanding to what it is today. This means that the middle class during that period was LOWER than it was today.
Lower wealth is not a good thing.
Mannahnin wrote:For the past 30+ years the richest people have consistently had their tax rates slashed, in the theory (which George Bush Sr. memorably called "Voodoo economics" when he was running against Reagan, then lied and claimed never to have said when he was working for Reagan) that they would invest their money in ways which would create jobs and greater tax revenue. It's proven false. It's a period which has seen greater and greater outsourcing to other countries, the income disparity between the poor and middle class shrink, and the income disparity between both of those and the richest vastly inflate.
You're totally right, except for the fact that you're wrong. The 80's were actually a period of economic boom. There was a tremendous period of growth, which affected everyone, including those at the top.
Yes, the gap between the poor and middle class has shrunk, but not because the middle class is getting poorer. And the disparity between the upper class and middle class has grown, but I don't see how that's necessarily a bad thing, as long as the middle class is better off as well (and they are).
Mannahnin wrote:It's bad policy for the country. It's wrecked us economically. It's given the money away for empty promises and false theories. And while the Unions certainly are flawed too, they're not the real problem. They're a scapegoat and an obstacle for the richest to continue writing public policy to best advantage themselves and continue increasing their own wealth at the expense of everyone else. And the expense of the health and prosperity of our nation.
No, it hasn't wrecked us economically. The total wealth of the United States is much higher than it was in the 40's-60's, and the GDP is higher as well. US manufacturing productivity is MUCH higher now than it was then. China, our second closest competitor, accounts for approximately 20% of US manufacturing output. The US GDP is three times higher than that of China (despite them having three times the population of the US).
If you lived your life like people did in the 40's-60's, even if you are in the poorest 10% today, you would have a pretty comfortable lifestyle.
The percentage of people who don't pay taxes has increased substantially. Additionally, taxes (as a percent of GDP) has remained relatively stable.
So a simple question: if tax income has remained steady, and a higher percentage of people are no longer paying taxes, where is the income coming from?
See, you're falling into the same trap that everyone else does. Simply because roughly half the population does not pay taxes does not indicate that the ~50% that does pay taxes is composed of the "wealthy".
biccat wrote:
I disagree. Higher education rates are much higher now than they were in the 40's-60's. Wages in the 50's were approximately $4,000/year, with the average home price at $14,000/year (1:3.5). Today, the average home price is about $160,000 with the average wage around $50,000 (3.2:1). Necessities are less expensive, cars are less expensive, and most luxuries are less expensive.
Uh, average home price hasn't been 160,000 USD in 15 years. In 2010 alone, with home prices very near their natural bottom, the average home price never fell below 200,000 USD and was consistently much higher (collective average of 272,000 USD). If we go back a few years to 2006, the mean climbs to 305,000 USD with no appreciable difference in income.
Moreover, the possession of higher education is not indicative of a higher quality of life, or access to better employment; in fact many argue that there is too much higher education in the US.
biccat wrote:
Not only that, but in the 60's, the total tax burden was different, with more people contributing to the federal coffers. As the tax rates on the wealthy have decreased, their share of contributions to the federal government have increased.
You're going to need to define "wealthy" before you carry this argument.
biccat wrote:
You're totally right, except for the fact that you're wrong.
Such wit!
biccat wrote:
And the disparity between the upper class and middle class has grown, but I don't see how that's necessarily a bad thing, as long as the middle class is better off as well (and they are).
When you're arguing over what will entail a set of optimum outcomes, its a bad thing; unless your set of optimum outcomes has no concern with mass, private wealth.
No one cares about arguments from "morality" or "preference" when all that is "morally superior" or "preferred" is a particular arrangement of economic actors.
biccat wrote:
China, our second closest competitor, accounts for approximately 20% of US manufacturing output.
Uh, no? In 2008, in billions of 2008 USD the US manufactured 1,831 in hard goods. China manufactured 1,399 in hard goods. That's nowhere near 20% of the US total.
dogma wrote:See, you're falling into the same trap that everyone else does. Simply because roughly half the population does not pay taxes does not indicate that the ~50% that does pay taxes is composed of the "wealthy".
No, the bottom 47% of income earners do not pay taxes. If you want to argue that poverty figures are inflated due to non-income earning citizens who live on capital investments, then I would agree with you.
dogma wrote:Uh, average home price hasn't been 160,000 USD in 15 years. In 2010 alone, with home prices very near their natural bottom, the average home price never fell below 200,000 USD and was consistently much higher (collective average of 272,000 USD). If we go back a few years to 2006, the mean climbs to 305,000 USD with no appreciable difference in income.
The average home price, even in the super-expensive Northeast, barely climbed above $260,000 in 2010. Not sure how you're getting a 'collective average of 272,000'.
In '60, the median new home price was $18,000 (with a wage of $5,600, or 31% of the value) ( http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-037.pdf ). Today it is $222,000 (with a wage of $49,700, or 22% of the value).
But given the recent housing bubble, this isn't really surprising.
dogma wrote:Moreover, the possession of higher education is not indicative of a higher quality of life, or access to better employment; in fact many argue that there is too much higher education in the US.
You're probably right. But Mannahnin made the point about education, not me. If education is the metric, then we're better today than before.
dogma wrote:You're going to need to define "wealthy" before you carry this argument.
Top 50% of income earners pay >95% of the taxes (a percentage that actually went DOWN with the current 'progressive' President).
dogma wrote:When you're arguing over what will entail a set of optimum outcomes, its a bad thing; unless your set of optimum outcomes has no concern with mass, private wealth.
You'll have to define what an 'optimum outcome' is. If you think wealth equality is an optimum outcome, then there's probably no reason to further discuss this.
I fully support wealth inequality.
dogma wrote:No one cares about arguments from "morality" or "preference" when all that is "morally superior" or "preferred" is a particular arrangement of economic actors.
Um, what? This doesn't make any sense. Morality is not dependent on the 'particular arrangement of economic actors.' It's pretty clear. For example, stealing is morally inferior to fair trade of labor for goods. Ergo, socialism is morally inferior to capitalism.
dogma wrote:Uh, no? In 2008, in billions of 2008 USD the US manufactured 1,831 in hard goods. China manufactured 1,399 in hard goods. That's nowhere near 20% of the US total.
You're right, it's not 20%. I had my figures screwed up. The US has 40% more manufacturing than China. Still significant.
But here's a question: do you think that unions have had anything to do with a decrease in US manufacturing, or a preference for China as a manufacturing center?
The average home price, even in the super-expensive Northeast, barely climbed above $260,000 in 2010. Not sure how you're getting a 'collective average of 272,000'.
No, that's median, not mean.
biccat wrote:
But you're right, my numbers were slightly off:
That link link quotes the average home price as 272,000 USD in 2010.
biccat wrote:
In '60, the median new home price was $18,000 (with a wage of $5,600, or 31% of the value) ( http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-037.pdf ). Today it is $222,000 (with a wage of $49,700, or 22% of the value).
But given the recent housing bubble, this isn't really surprising.
Today the median home price is 246,000 USD; where "today" is 2008.
Either way, those numbers indicate a superior position in ~1960.
biccat wrote:
Top 50% of income earners pay >95% of the taxes (a percentage that actually went DOWN with the current 'progressive' President).
That doesn't define "wealthy".
biccat wrote:
You'll have to define what an 'optimum outcome' is. If you think wealth equality is an optimum outcome, then there's probably no reason to further discuss this.
I fully support wealth inequality.
I don't believe in optimum outcomes, I was merely speaking to what others often discuss.
Well, perhaps I should rephrase, I don't believe in equality of any sort, and consider the pursuit of it to be a waste of time.
biccat wrote:
Um, what? This doesn't make any sense. Morality is not dependent on the 'particular arrangement of economic actors.' It's pretty clear. For example, stealing is morally inferior to fair trade of labor for goods. Ergo, socialism is morally inferior to capitalism.
That's nonsense and you know it. Taxation is not theft, and pretending otherwise makes you seem foolish.
biccat wrote:
But here's a question: do you think that unions have had anything to do with a decrease in US manufacturing, or a preference for China as a manufacturing center?
Of course they do, but I'm not the sort of person that cares only for productivity. Or, rather, I don't think fully moral people can care only for productivity, because if that were the case slavery would be fully acceptable.
But here's a question: do you think that unions have had anything to do with a decrease in US manufacturing, or a preference for China as a manufacturing center?
I'd Blame giving people safe working conditions and proper health considerations. If only we could push our workers so they breathe in toxic chemicals, or use our Drug factories to make toys kids could put in their mouths (wasn't that a few years ago they were making toys covered in ruffees by accident?)
Yup damn caring for the quality of the product, saftey of the consumer, and those lazy unions for forcing us to do those two things.
But here's a question: do you think that unions have had anything to do with a decrease in US manufacturing, or a preference for China as a manufacturing center?
I'd Blame giving people safe working conditions and proper health considerations. If only we could push our workers so they breathe in toxic chemicals, or use our Drug factories to make toys kids could put in their mouths (wasn't that a few years ago they were making toys covered in ruffees by accident?)
So why do you hate the Chinese people? This is an incredibly racist position you have. It seems that you value Chinese laborers (who use less automation due to the increased cost over manual labor) as significantly less than American labor.
dogma wrote:That's nonsense and you know it. Taxation is not theft, and pretending otherwise makes you seem foolish.
Theft is the taking of the property of another by force or threat of force (well, actually that's robbery, a theft crime) with the intent to permenantly deprive that person of that property.
If I don't pay taxes, what will happen to me? If the answer involves force or threat of force, then it's theft/robbery. There is nothing voluntary (despite Sen. Reid's insistence) about taxation. To argue otherwise is the height of absurdity. There is no rationale where taxation (especially coupled with redistribution based policies) is NOT theft.
Also, if you're suggesting that the 40's-60's was better, why do you insist on using the basis of that betterment as top marginal income tax rate? Couldn't it just have easily been the high percentage of whites? Jim Crow laws? Low government spending? Lack of medicaid, medicare, and social security? Do you consider these social goods that didn't negatively affect our standard of living? Why or why not?
Finally (and I do mean finally because this thread is a particularly silly left-wing echo chamber), it's becoming quite clear that the intent of "progressive taxation" is not to force the wealthy to pay their fair share. The wealthy pay their fair share and more, in increasing amounts since the inception of the progressive tax. Despite this evidence, those on the left continue to clamor for higher taxes on the wealthy.
Therefore, the purpose of "progressive taxation" is obviously not "fairness," but rather punitive punishment for those who dare to excel and become wealthy. This is abhorrant to every concept of freedom and equality under the law. Where one group is singled out and punished by the demands of a majority of the population, it is the purpose of the government to stop such an abuse.
But when Democrat politicians actively court and encourage majoritarian rule over unpopular groups, it's embarassing.
As a final thought, it appears that the Wisconsin Senate is continuing to operate without the tyrannical majority party, yet hasn't sunk to silly tricks to pass the important anti-collective bargaining rule with them absent.
Integrity is a rare thing in politicians these days, and kudos to the Wisconsin Republicans for having it.
But here's a question: do you think that unions have had anything to do with a decrease in US manufacturing, or a preference for China as a manufacturing center?
I'd Blame giving people safe working conditions and proper health considerations. If only we could push our workers so they breathe in toxic chemicals, or use our Drug factories to make toys kids could put in their mouths (wasn't that a few years ago they were making toys covered in ruffees by accident?)
So why do you hate the Chinese people? This is an incredibly racist position you have. It seems that you value Chinese laborers (who use less automation due to the increased cost over manual labor) as significantly less than American labor.
Again, why do you hate the Chinese?
LOL Way to change what I said. You only quoted part of it. What are you fox news?
Anyway. I pointed out you saying china does it cheaper. I pointed out (albeit in a sarcastic way, hence the /sarcasm thing), they do it cheaper because they don't care for their workers.
Think about what your saying here with the increased cost to use machines... Machines make things cheaper here in the US. The people in china are being paid LESS then the cost of electricity for one of these machines (about $50 a day US). Now in the US, these machines do the work of 10-15 people... that means they are spending less than $50 paying 10-15 of their workers each day... Now I ask you this. Why do YOU hate the chinese so much you'd force them to work in this environment, AND why do YOU hate us citizens so much you think we should work under the same conditions.
Sigh, this thread has been reported. Everyone quit the name calling and personal attacks/innuendoes about other posters. Thank you for your cooperation.
biccat wrote:
Actually, I said "average." Please keep up.
Most people don't references average in anything other than terms relating to arithmetic mean. Not even statisticians.
biccat wrote:
Theft is the taking of the property of another by force or threat of force (well, actually that's robbery, a theft crime) with the intent to permenantly deprive that person of that property.
That's an awful definition. It literally entails a situation in which theft can only occur if there is threat of force, which means that theft by deceit is not theft at all.
biccat wrote:
There is no rationale where taxation (especially coupled with redistribution based policies) is NOT theft.
I've already explained one in this thread, and there are several others. There might not be a rationale that you will accept but that doesn't mean that one does no exist.
biccat wrote:
Also, if you're suggesting that the 40's-60's was better, why do you insist on using the basis of that betterment as top marginal income tax rate? Couldn't it just have easily been the high percentage of whites? Jim Crow laws? Low government spending? Lack of medicaid, medicare, and social security? Do you consider these social goods that didn't negatively affect our standard of living? Why or why not?
I didn't say they were better generally.
biccat wrote:
Finally (and I do mean finally because this thread is a particularly silly left-wing echo chamber), it's becoming quite clear that the intent of "progressive taxation" is not to force the wealthy to pay their fair share. The wealthy pay their fair share and more, in increasing amounts since the inception of the progressive tax. Despite this evidence, those on the left continue to clamor for higher taxes on the wealthy.
Some of them do, some of them don't. Let's not wallow in generalities; even if I suspect you are incapable of anything else.
Also, "fair" is an indefinite term.
biccat wrote:
Therefore, the purpose of "progressive taxation" is obviously not "fairness," but rather punitive punishment for those who dare to excel and become wealthy.
No, that's not obvious. You've eliminated one possibility, sort of, but you haven't eliminated all alternatives such that you can draw an "obvious" conclusion.
You are awful at logic.
biccat wrote:
This is abhorrant to every concept of freedom and equality under the law.
No, its abhorrent to your understanding of those terms. Do not confuse what you believe with what other people believe
biccat wrote:
Actually, I said "average." Please keep up.
Most people don't references average in anything other than terms relating to arithmetic mean. Not even statisticians.
If you have a problem with the definition of a term, I fail to see how that's my problem. Median is more appropriate because it eliminates outliers, like $50 million mansions.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
Theft is the taking of the property of another by force or threat of force (well, actually that's robbery, a theft crime) with the intent to permenantly deprive that person of that property.
That's an awful definition. It literally entails a situation in which theft can only occur if there is threat of force, which means that theft by deceit is not theft at all.
Um, I said it was robbery, which is a type of theft. Embezzlement, False Pretenses, and Larceny by Trick are all theft crimes that include deceit as an element of the crime.
Allow me to explain:
Taxation is Robbery. Robbery is Theft. Therefore, Robbery is Theft. This isn't "failing at logic," this is actually what most people would call "reasoning."
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
There is no rationale where taxation (especially coupled with redistribution based policies) is NOT theft.
I've already explained one in this thread, and there are several others. There might not be a rationale that you will accept but that doesn't mean that one does no exist.
You haven't explained this. When you take money from one person and give it to another by threat of force, it is theft (robbery). The only rationale where this is not "theft" is where it is explicitly sanctioned by the government.
There is another thread here in OT where some squatters have taken up residence in a man's home. Their action is allowed by law (that is, he has no legal right to force them out, he must appeal to the courts). Is this theft?
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
Also, if you're suggesting that the 40's-60's was better, why do you insist on using the basis of that betterment as top marginal income tax rate? Couldn't it just have easily been the high percentage of whites? Jim Crow laws? Low government spending? Lack of medicaid, medicare, and social security? Do you consider these social goods that didn't negatively affect our standard of living? Why or why not?
I didn't say they were better generally.
No, it was Mannahnin who said so explicitly. You seemed to agree with him that they were better.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
Finally (and I do mean finally because this thread is a particularly silly left-wing echo chamber), it's becoming quite clear that the intent of "progressive taxation" is not to force the wealthy to pay their fair share. The wealthy pay their fair share and more, in increasing amounts since the inception of the progressive tax. Despite this evidence, those on the left continue to clamor for higher taxes on the wealthy.
Some of them do, some of them don't. Let's not wallow in generalities; even if I suspect you are incapable of anything else.
Also, "fair" is an indefinite term.
I'll refrain from commenting on personal attacks. But the deflection is appreciated.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
Therefore, the purpose of "progressive taxation" is obviously not "fairness," but rather punitive punishment for those who dare to excel and become wealthy.
No, that's not obvious. You've eliminated one possibility, sort of, but you haven't eliminated all alternatives such that you can draw an "obvious" conclusion.
You are awful at logic.
Yes, it's obvious. If you say "the purpose of X is Y," and I can prove that the result of "X is not Y," then there must be an alternative explanation.
Taxation has only two purposes: to raise money for the government and to encourage or dissuade certain behaviors. Low taxes/tax credits encourage behaviors (it's the law of Economics that making something cheaper makes it more likely to happen), while high taxes/fees discourage behaviors.
If raising taxes an activity doesn't raise more money for the government, then the purpose of the tax must be to encourage/discourage the behavior taxed. In this case, earning money is the behavior deemed undesirable.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
This is abhorrant to every concept of freedom and equality under the law.
No, its abhorrent to your understanding of those terms. Do not confuse what you believe with what other people believe
biccat wrote:
If you have a problem with the definition of a term, I fail to see how that's my problem. Median is more appropriate because it eliminates outliers, like $50 million mansions.
Bro, I'm the last person that you want to argue over definitions with.
Either way, if you feel like this is a sort of yes/no question, then I understand your position.
biccat wrote:
Um, I said it was robbery, which is a type of theft. Embezzlement, False Pretenses, and Larceny by Trick are all theft crimes that include deceit as an element of the crime.
No you didn't. You said that heft was the deprivation of object by force, or threat of force. You made no mention of deceit.
biccat wrote:
Allow me to explain:
Taxation is Robbery. Robbery is Theft. Therefore, Robbery is Theft. This isn't "failing at logic," this is actually what most people would call "reasoning."
When you equate logic and reason, I know that you don't understand either.
Anyway, your model is terrible. You've equated theft with robbery, and robbery with theft; which is something a freshman might do. Tautologies make you look foolish.
That said, you still have not illustrated how taxation is theft.
biccat wrote:
You haven't explained this. When you take money from one person and give it to another by threat of force, it is theft (robbery).
Sure, but that isn't what happens.
Do you really believe that you do not benefit from roads, from the military?
biccat wrote:
The only rationale where this is not "theft" is where it is explicitly sanctioned by the government.
No, it is any system where services are returned for money rendered.
biccat wrote:
I'll refrain from commenting on personal attacks. But the deflection is appreciated.
No you won't, you already failed that test.
biccat wrote:
Yes, it's obvious. If you say "the purpose of X is Y," and I can prove that the result of "X is not Y," then there must be an alternative explanation.
Taxation has only two purposes: to raise money for the government and to encourage or dissuade certain behaviors.
That's 3 purposes, just from what you've written; more if you pay any attention.
Regardless, if the state taxes the wealthy it does not discourage earning unless earning makes the individual worse off than not earning; which isn't what happens.
That wasn't a personal attack, it was a statement regarding what you felt was a generality, but was really nothing more than a statement of your belief; quoting mass approval has no bearing on either of those things, unless you're going to survey the masses.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Dogma, you're not going to have a positive debate putting something like this out just because someone disagrees with you:
"pretending otherwise makes you seem foolish"
"Let's not wallow in generalities; even if I suspect you are incapable of anything else."
"You are awful at logic."
I'lll grant you the first two, and apologize, but the last one follows from his poor application of the science.
I've spent many, many hours in the library learning how logic works and I will not brook others that pretend at its application.
dogma wrote:Bro, I'm the last person that you want to argue over definitions with.
I am beginning to understand that. But not for the reasons you suggest.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
Um, I said it was robbery, which is a type of theft. Embezzlement, False Pretenses, and Larceny by Trick are all theft crimes that include deceit as an element of the crime.
No you didn't. You said that heft was the deprivation of object by force, or threat of force. You made no mention of deceit.
LETS GO TO THE TAPE!
biccat wrote:
Theft is the taking of the property of another by force or threat of force (well, actually that's robbery, a theft crime) with the intent to permenantly deprive that person of that property.
So, lets me be clear:
Theft: general class of crimes against property. This is a general class of crime.
Larceny: Taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permenantly deprive.
Robbery: Larceny by force or threat of force
Embezzlement: Conversion of lawfully acquired property for unlawful purposes.
Larceny by Trick: Lawful acquisition of property by fraud or deceit.
False Pretenses: Lawful acquisition of title to property by fraud or deceit.
Note that ALL of these fall under the general class of theft crimes.
In order to commit a crime, you must satisfy all of the elements of that crime. Since larceny is a lesser included offense of robbery, we can start there:
taking : No question that government takes your property.
carrying away : A minor element, but by transferring or transporting the property, it is carried away.
personal property : Money is personal property. So is a check. While there's a grey area of whether electronic transfers constitutes 'personal property,' the definition of larceny has thankfully been expanded to include this.
of another : Money is a personal good, not commonly held by the government. However, taxation is not based on currency, but on income. If I am paid in gold coins, I have to pay the government a portion of my gold coins.
with the intent to permenantly deprive : No question that the government has a specific intent that they're not going to give it back to you.
Robbery includes the additional element of "force or threat of force." If I do not pay the governmenet my taxes, they will take it from my bank account. If I don't have a bank account, they will try to get my wages. If I don't have wages, they will put me in jail. This is a threat of force.
But since you're the grand poobah of logic, please, feel free to point out where I am wrong, and where several centuries of legal doctrine is wrong.
I feel like I'm teaching a first year law student.
Your defense that the government provides services in exchange for my taxes is irrelevant. If a man holds me up on the street at gunpoint, takes $40 from my pocket, and hands me a baseball card, he has still committed a theft crime. The fact that the value of the baseball card is equal to or greater than the amount taken does not absolve him of his crime (although it might mitigate the punishment).
But the government does not provide services to me equal to what I pay, that's the entire point of a progressive taxation scheme, or any scheme where the tax burden is unequal in monetary terms. Yes, I receive a benefit from the roads and military, but I certainly don't use the Israeli's air force. I don't get a benefit from anti-HIV advertisements in Africa. I don't get the benefits of Air Force 1.
These are all overhead that we are all forced to pay for, and which generally provide less value than the price we pay for them. Because if they provided me with the value that I pay for them, I would pay for them freely without having to be compelled to pay for them.
dogma wrote:Anyway, your model is terrible. You've equated theft with robbery, and robbery with theft; which is something a freshman might do. Tautologies make you look foolish.
Again, I said that robbery is a theft crime. Any robbery is theft, much as the same way any Great Dane is a dog. You're the one who is intentionally misrepresenting my comments, and you're making yourself look petty and absurd.
Theft, Robbery, Larceny, these are all "terms of art." They have specific meanings in the language. I understand that for you "logic" and "reason" may be terms of art as well. But if you're going to use them in a manner that is inconsistent with their ordinary usage by those who don't understand their specific definitions, please take the time to either define them, or stop demonstrating an arroganat attitude about your own knowledge.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
Yes, it's obvious. If you say "the purpose of X is Y," and I can prove that the result of "X is not Y," then there must be an alternative explanation.
Taxation has only two purposes: to raise money for the government and to encourage or dissuade certain behaviors.
That's 3 purposes, just from what you've written; more if you pay any attention.
Again, you make a bald-faced assertion without any support. Your position thus far is completely unsupported by any reasoned arguments.
Taxation is: 1) raise funds; 2) control activity.
That's 2. The fact that #2 has two parts (positive or negative) is irrelevant. #1 also has two parts (raise funds or deplete funds) doesn't make it a separate category.
dogma wrote:Regardless, if the state taxes the wealthy it does not discourage earning unless earning makes the individual worse off than not earning; which isn't what happens.
The top marginal tax rate has decreased. Top marginal incomes have risen. This suggests that a high top marginal tax rate discourages higher earning.
Since it appears to be your argument that top marginal tax rates don't discourage higher incomes, please submit some sort of evidence or argument to that effect. I think that I have at least met the burden of production in this one.
dogma wrote:I've spent many, many hours in the library learning how logic works and I will not brook others that pretend at its application.
I feel the same way about the Dewey Decimal System.
dogma wrote:
I've spent many, many hours in the library learning how logic works and I will not brook others that pretend at its application.
I feel the same way about the Dewey Decimal System.
I spent two hours yesterday watching Predator 2 with a young dachshund sleeping on my chest while an old dachshund forced me to throw a small rubber ball (but not too far, if he's not looking right at you he won't see the motion and will lose the ball even if it is two feet from him).
dogma wrote:
I've spent many, many hours in the library learning how logic works and I will not brook others that pretend at its application.
I feel the same way about the Dewey Decimal System.
I spent two hours yesterday watching Predator 2 with a young dachshund sleeping on my chest while an old dachshund forced me to throw a small rubber ball (but not too far, if he's not looking right at you he won't see the motion and will lose the ball even if it is two feet from him).
Well, as a former elected official who's job was to bust government employees for their financial irregularities, I can say that if Walker was serious about cutting deficits, I'd have some pointers for him. However, what he's really after is a way to set a legal precedent to bust other unions.
Umm, the Tax Foundation is owned by Koch Brothers. You know the guys who are organising this whole attack on the unions.
Which is why the Tax Foundation article is so very terrible, and the NPR article was genuninely informative.
Seriously, please pick your sources. Otherwise you will hold more and more stupid opinions, from people who are manipulating you by lying.
So a simple question: if tax income has remained steady, and a higher percentage of people are no longer paying taxes, where is the income coming from?
Bracket creep on the middle classes.
Here's a graph that actually shows what has happened;
I disagree. Higher education rates are much higher now than they were in the 40's-60's. Wages in the 50's were approximately $4,000/year, with the average home price at $14,000/year (1:3.5). Today, the average home price is about $160,000 with the average wage around $50,000 (3.2:1). Necessities are less expensive, cars are less expensive, and most luxuries are less expensive.
You can't substitute actual studies into historic household earning and prices with numbers you've made up.
Here's a chart of median household income from 1975 until today,
It's grown, price adjusted to 2009 dollars, from $42,936 to $49,777, an increase of 16% over 25 years or 0.6% per year. And this is household income, so once you consider the massive increase in the number of two income households, you're looking at an overall decrease in personal household income.
And when you consider that in that time the overall US economy has grown from about $6.4 trillion to $14.9 trillion in 2009 dollars, it's pretty clear that all that wealth simply isn't moving to the middle class.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Yea its theft. The concept of increasing taxes so that the middle class can pay for people who are overpaid to begin with is frankly insulting to all those who are robbed to support the government workers.
Show me a government office and I'll show you one where half can be fired today with no loss in productivity.
I'll repeat myself; "Please state the studies you've read that government productivity is lower than private sector productivity, or has greater admin. Otherwise it just sounds like you're making things up."
This 'government is wasteful' myth is powerful one. People will build entire worldviews around it. They won't even question it when governors are doing the bidding of very rich men in attacking unions. And throughout it all it'll never occur to them that they might need some evidence that government actually is wasteful.
Theft: general class of crimes against property. This is a general class of crime.
Larceny: Taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permenantly deprive.
Robbery: Larceny by force or threat of force
Embezzlement: Conversion of lawfully acquired property for unlawful purposes.
Larceny by Trick: Lawful acquisition of property by fraud or deceit.
False Pretenses: Lawful acquisition of title to property by fraud or deceit.
Even taking what you've said as fact, and that is debatable (in particular you are applying a criminal code that is only relevant because of the so-called theft of currency by the state), you do not have the ability to vote a thief out of his position. You do have the option to do so with respect to any state official of significance with respect to taxation; meaning that taxation is not theft as it does not follow from the reality of individual deprivation without consent.
biccat wrote:
In order to commit a crime, you must satisfy all of the elements of that crime. Since larceny is a lesser included offense of robbery, we can start there:
taking : No question that government takes your property.
carrying away : A minor element, but by transferring or transporting the property, it is carried away.
personal property : Money is personal property. So is a check. While there's a grey area of whether electronic transfers constitutes 'personal property,' the definition of larceny has thankfully been expanded to include this.
of another : Money is a personal good, not commonly held by the government. However, taxation is not based on currency, but on income. If I am paid in gold coins, I have to pay the government a portion of my gold coins.
with the intent to permenantly deprive : No question that the government has a specific intent that they're not going to give it back to you.
No, there is a question. The state does return that which is taken via tax in at least being the state, and therefore governing the body politic in question. Thieves return nothing, the state returns, if nothing else, governance.
biccat wrote:
But since you're the grand poobah of logic, please, feel free to point out where I am wrong, and where several centuries of legal doctrine is wrong.
The legal doctrine in question is quite sound (though not necessarily relevant), but your application of it is awful.
biccat wrote:
Your defense that the government provides services in exchange for my taxes is irrelevant. If a man holds me up on the street at gunpoint, takes $40 from my pocket, and hands me a baseball card, he has still committed a theft crime. The fact that the value of the baseball card is equal to or greater than the amount taken does not absolve him of his crime (although it might mitigate the punishment).
Again, consent by the governed is something that you cannot ignore.
Per any sort of liberal democracy you, as a voter, grant consent to the state to behave as it does; even if you do not specifically agree with its behavior. That's elementary social contract theory.
biccat wrote:
But the government does not provide services to me equal to what I pay, that's the entire point of a progressive taxation scheme, or any scheme where the tax burden is unequal in monetary terms. Yes, I receive a benefit from the roads and military, but I certainly don't use the Israeli's air force. I don't get a benefit from anti-HIV advertisements in Africa. I don't get the benefits of Air Force 1.
So what? The world is unequal by necessity, that's what happens in a society that must contend with scarcity. Get over it.
biccat wrote:
Again, you make a bald-faced assertion without any support. Your position thus far is completely unsupported by any reasoned arguments.
Taxation is: 1) raise funds; 2) control activity.
That's 2. The fact that #2 has two parts (positive or negative) is irrelevant. #1 also has two parts (raise funds or deplete funds) doesn't make it a separate category.
No, number 1 has only 1 part. Taxation does not deplete funds, it literally cannot do so as it only entails acquiring funds, not expending them.
Number 2 must be subdivided because discouraging activity can be accomplished by simply applying a tax, but encouraging activity can only be accomplished by applying taxes to all possible alternatives, or reducing the tax rate for one alternative relative to all others; they are very different things.
biccat wrote:If I don't pay taxes, what will happen to me? If the answer involves force or threat of force, then it's theft/robbery. There is nothing voluntary (despite Sen. Reid's insistence) about taxation. To argue otherwise is the height of absurdity. There is no rationale where taxation (especially coupled with redistribution based policies) is NOT theft.
If I don't respect property laws, and I simply take what I want what will happen to me? The answer also involves force or the threat of force? So are property laws theft?
What about contract law? Company law? Are these also theft?
No, of course they aren't, because they were written by government, as part of the overall economic structure of the country. Picking out a single component of all those laws because it's the bit you don't like and declaring that part and that part alone as theft is utterly stupid.
Finally (and I do mean finally because this thread is a particularly silly left-wing echo chamber)
It really isn't. The basic dynamic of dakka, like many places on the internet, is for members to dogpile on people making easily disprovable claims. When communists have wandered along we've dogpiled them as well.
The problem, basically, is that you keep claiming ridiculous things.
it's becoming quite clear that the intent of "progressive taxation" is not to force the wealthy to pay their fair share. The wealthy pay their fair share and more
A claim that can only possibly be made if one had some kind of objective standard for 'fair'. Given that no such thing exists, your claim is quickly identified as silly.
Therefore, the purpose of "progressive taxation" is obviously not "fairness," but rather punitive punishment for those who dare to excel and become wealthy.
This is a farcical claim, informed by nothing more than ideology and wild speculation. The basic and obvious reality is that progressive taxation is informed by two things, basic pragmatism and equality.
It's pragmatism because a flat tax can't generate sufficient revenue to fund the government of a modern economy and leave enough money in the hands of the poor for them to afford food and shelter. It's been tried in a number of countries, and in almost all cases it's either been abandoned quickly or led to economic disaster. Because you can't charge the working poor 10% of their income, and if you set the rate any lower than that you can't pay for basic services.
It's equality because outside of the economic fringe there is no delusion that people objectively earn what they're paid. A guy attends uni and does geology, his mate does accounting. They're both three year degrees (four with honours). They both get about the same grades. The geologist finishes his degree in the middle of a mining boom, and he's able to walk into a $160k job, relative to the $80k the accountant gets. Is the talent and hard work of the geologist worth twice what the accountant is?
What if he finished his degree in the middle of a mining slump, and was unable to get work as a geologist. Now waiting tables, is his $40k salary are fair indication of his talent and hard work? How did market conditions change what he deserves?
The simple and obvious answer to everyone who hasn't swallowed the koolaid of fringe right wing economics is that market based salaries are an efficient and effective way of attracting labour into the fields that are in relative demand, but it has feth all to do with fairness. So we modify the extremes of that system with a progressive tax regime.
Finally (and I do mean finally because this thread is a particularly silly left-wing echo chamber)
It really isn't. The basic dynamic of dakka, like many places on the internet, is for members to dogpile on people making easily disprovable claims. When communists have wandered along we've dogpiled them as well.
The problem, basically, is that you keep claiming ridiculous things.
I find it funny that the only time you ever really hear people call something an 'echo chamber' is after they've had whatever stance they're endorsing repeatedly and thoroughly demolished, but lack the intellectual honesty to reconcile the fact that they've been heartily shoveling one great big pile of gak and so damn it all if they're not going to keep shoveling that gak no matter what.
Or, to paraphrase Principal Skinner:
"Could I really be so out of touch?
Bookwrack wrote:I find it funny that the only time you ever really hear people call something an 'echo chamber' is after they've had whatever stance they're endorsing repeatedly and thoroughly demolished, but lack the intellectual honesty to reconcile the fact that they've been heartily shoveling one great big pile of gak and so damn it all if they're not going to keep shoveling that gak no matter what.
Or, to paraphrase Principal Skinner:
"Could I really be so out of touch?
dogma wrote:
I've spent many, many hours in the library learning how logic works and I will not brook others that pretend at its application.
I feel the same way about the Dewey Decimal System.
I spent two hours yesterday watching Predator 2 with a young dachshund sleeping on my chest while an old dachshund forced me to throw a small rubber ball (but not too far, if he's not looking right at you he won't see the motion and will lose the ball even if it is two feet from him).
That has to count for something.
Do you really have two wieners?
Yes
Anyways, how did this scumbag of a governor get elected?
Anyways, how did this scumbag of a governor get elected?
The usual dynamic. The people were frustrated and there was no viable third option to vote for. He talked a lot on balancing the budget, but never actually got into details. Seems some of the details were 'And while I'm at it I'll crush the unions and invoke the right of prima nocta on state employees while I take in millions in 'campaign contributions' from lobbyists.'
Karon wrote:Anyways, how did this scumbag of a governor get elected?
Democrat enthusiasm was down, and that meant lots of Repbublicans got in across the US. Meanwhile the Republicans were drunk on Tea Party fever, which meant that many of their new candidates were completely insane.
Have you noticed all the new bits of abortion legislation, like the Ohio committee that's scheduled an unborn baby as a witness (seriously). Or that state senator in Tennessee who wants to make following any part of sharia law punishable by up to 15 years in prison (given that rape is illegal in sharia law, that would mean not raping someone is punishable by up to 15 years in prison...). Again, totally serious.
Karon wrote:Anyways, how did this scumbag of a governor get elected?
Democrat enthusiasm was down, and that meant lots of Repbublicans got in across the US. Meanwhile the Republicans were drunk on Tea Party fever, which meant that many of their new candidates were completely insane.
Have you noticed all the new bits of abortion legislation, like the Ohio committee that's scheduled an unborn baby as a witness (seriously). Or that state senator in Tennessee who wants to make following any part of sharia law punishable by up to 15 years in prison (given that rape is illegal in sharia law, that would mean not raping someone is punishable by up to 15 years in prison...). Again, totally serious.
As a U.S. citizen I would like to apologize for the (thankfully) few citizens who don't seem to understand the tenants of this great nation.
Karon wrote:Anyways, how did this scumbag of a governor get elected?
Democrat enthusiasm was down, and that meant lots of Repbublicans got in across the US. Meanwhile the Republicans were drunk on Tea Party fever, which meant that many of their new candidates were completely insane.
Have you noticed all the new bits of abortion legislation, like the Ohio committee that's scheduled an unborn baby as a witness (seriously). Or that state senator in Tennessee who wants to make following any part of sharia law punishable by up to 15 years in prison (given that rape is illegal in sharia law, that would mean not raping someone is punishable by up to 15 years in prison...). Again, totally serious.
As a U.S. citizen I would like to apologize for the (thankfully) few citizens who don't seem to understand the tenants of this great nation.
Karon wrote:Anyways, how did this scumbag of a governor get elected?
Democrat enthusiasm was down, and that meant lots of Repbublicans got in across the US. Meanwhile the Republicans were drunk on Tea Party fever, which meant that many of their new candidates were completely insane.
Have you noticed all the new bits of abortion legislation, like the Ohio committee that's scheduled an unborn baby as a witness (seriously). Or that state senator in Tennessee who wants to make following any part of sharia law punishable by up to 15 years in prison (given that rape is illegal in sharia law, that would mean not raping someone is punishable by up to 15 years in prison...). Again, totally serious.
As a U.S. citizen I would like to apologize for the (thankfully) few citizens who don't seem to understand the tenants of this great nation.
The only thing more frustrating than low voter turnout if people who are actively apathetic about doing it. It would be nice if there was a feasible way to make compulsory voting workable in the states.
Bookwrack wrote:
The only thing more frustrating than low voter turnout if people who are actively apathetic about doing it. It would be nice if there was a feasible way to make compulsory voting workable in the states.
It's actually kind of sad. People seem to think their votes don't count. I once made it into office by a margin of five people.
BaronIveagh wrote:It's actually kind of sad. People seem to think their votes don't count. I once made it into office by a margin of five people.
Even in that instance, individual votes don't count. The decision of an individual to vote or not would have meant you won by 4 votes, or by 6, and not actually changed the result. The only time the individual voter counted is when the result was a tie, or a win by one vote.
It's actually a conundrum economists debate, because there really isn't a personal incentive to vote. Everyone should vote, but the argument for it can be made from duty or something similar, direct personal benefit is an almost impossible argument to make for any election with more than a handful of voters.
I would just like to point out that the Tea Party movement is based around the idea that the state should have a lessenned involvement with our daily lives, and that the US Tax code should be simpler to understand, as a kind of extension of 'No taxation withour representation.' In all honesty, the Tea Party is not a bad movement, and I'm all for a more transparent tax system, and a smaller government. The problem comes with the type of people and candidat the Tea Party attracts....unfortunately, it tends to attract far right conservatives in both the social and financial sense, when the idea of the tea party is only right wing in the fiscal sense.
ChrisWWII wrote:...when the idea of the tea party is only right wing in the fiscal sense.
I think its more about generic populism, and hatred of the state, than explicit fiscal conservatism. That's certainly a big part of movement, but I don't think its the heart of it.
You have a point, and there is a lot of anti-state attirude within the Tea Party movement, but we at least agree that fiscal conservatism is a big part of Tea Party policy. I personally think that the Tea Party stands for strong fiscal conservatism, and this stance attracts alot of populists and anti-state activists, but I can't prove it.
I thought it was just "god hates those goddamned liberals and that antichrist Obama whose to blame for everything wrong, he took my wife, my car, my house, and my job, and I sure as hell ain't gonna let him take my dog" myself, but what do I know from listening to local nutjobs. I mean tea party members. Same thing in the end around here.
Eh, I'd call that a fair approximation of your slightly crazier than baseline Tea Partier, but it's not fair for the Tea Party. Like most political movements, it's got an extremely vocal minority who are the insane 'God hates that commie Muslim, Obama' type nutjobs, and then they get put on the headlines and frontlines, cause hey controversey = $$$/Attention. As I understand it, you can support the Tea Party's ideals without being a nutjob.
Course I'm from California, so our 'crazy far right' people may be what you Texans call 'moderately right'.
That assumes that the tea party actually collectively has any ideals to support, as it's a national grassroots movement (not a true organization) which widely varies from state to state. Or in Texas, from regions within the state to different regions.
"Cut back the government, unless it would personally effect me." is probably more accurate.
Well yes, they are a grass roots movement with no central authority, but the idea that brought the movement together in the first place was resisting higher taxes, and a desire for smaller government, which I must say is an admirable goal. However, as they grew, they ended up attracting the nutjobs, who made the public think that they were all crazed far right religious nutjobs.
I personally view their policies as taking stricter interpretations of the Constitution, more so than 'cut back the government unless it hurts me'.
ChrisWWII wrote:I personally view their policies as taking stricter interpretations of the Constitution
Ahahah, no, most assuredly not. The "right", including the tea party crapola, doesn't care any more about the constitution than the "left" unless it benefits their political stance, and are quick to ignore the constitution and attempt to work around it when it doesn't. See: defense of marriage act, a bilateral effort to violate the constitution at the expense of homosexual couples across the nation. If they wanted a stricter interpretation of the constitution the DoMA would be one of the first to go, as it blatantly defies the constitution.
Maybe it's just me then...I count myself as more a libertarian than anything else. But the first thing on the Tea Party's 'Contract from America' is that every new law must have a statement where it points to where in the Constituion it's justified.
I agree, the religous right doesn't give a damn about the Constitution. They want to use it as a shield so they can acheive their own agenda. However, I draw a line betweent he religious right, and the Tea Party, even though a lot of Tea Party members are also members of the religious right, which is quite unfortunate to be honest. The Tea Party had good ideas, and good ideals...but those ideals got tarnished by the people they attracted.
ChrisWWII wrote:However, I draw a line betweent he religious right, and the Tea Party
Considering the tea party's average member locally, I can't do that.
I also can't draw the line between "tea party" and "republican", because pretty much everyone that says they're tea party now used to be a republican. It's just a new buzz word, and rather worthless in actual debate.
The heart of political conservatism is essentially a world view dominated by an inability to accept or express love at its' most important point...forgiveness.
But the first thing on the Tea Party's 'Contract from America' is that every new law must have a statement where it points to where in the Constituion it's justified. Why? The founders wouldn't know anything about half the laws we need. Plus things get amended. The issue with the Tea party and Conservatives is that they can't accept when they are wrong, (broadly speaking). The governer is too afraid to back off of his stance, They try to justify the Iraq war as a war for freedom while turning away Libya. They try to be pro life while rattling on about nuking places and sterilizing the poor. They claim to be against illegal workers while fighting any law that punishes the companies that hire them. They claim to love the constitution when they can't deal with freedom of religion. I could go on but I feel an Anti Obama rant coming on..
They claim that their stance is all about job job job jobs, and then start eliminating as many of them as they can at the first oppurtunity.
Anyway, Walker's not afraid, he's just a XXXX. Look at his budget plan. He's saying that by busting public employee unions, he's giving local government the flexibility to deal with the upcoming budget cuts - except that at the same time he's thoroughly hogtieing local government's ability to do anything except fire people. Then there are his plans for the University of Wisconsin, Madison. A very successful public university with renowned mechanical engineering and bio programs? feth no! Can't let that sillinees go on!
It's bizarre, but the only consistent narrative he's been holding this whole time is the desire to feth over every regular citizen of Wisconsin as hard as he possibly can.
I think the Tea Party is built very loosely around the idea that something has gone with America, and that it needs to go back to being how it used to be. Exactly what has gone wrong varies from person to person, it could be deficit, it could be immigration, it could be traditional morals.
It's basically an angrier version of typical conservatism. Which makes sense, given the movement was manufactured by FreedomWorks to offset the poisonous Republican brand that existed in the wake of the 2008 elections.
Personally the whole "taxation without representation" is kind of a joke to me. I mean im a permanent resident and i pay my taxes but im not a citizen so i cant vote, i have no choice of representative however small it may be.
Gibbsey wrote:Personally the whole "taxation without representation" is kind of a joke to me. I mean im a permanent resident and i pay my taxes but im not a citizen so i cant vote, i have no choice of representative however small it may be.
If you are a permanent resident the option for citizenship is there. Or you can just do what my mother inlaw does and brow beat someone into voting the way you want
Living in WI has been interesting over the last few weeks to say the least. Never seen so many people at each others throats or willing to jump on someone verbally because they might not agree with them or voted another way. I've lost count of how many people I've gotten in arguments or seen acting like juveniles yelling names and disrespect. As an independent both sides seem to think I'm fair game for either harassment or conversion. As an open carry, CCW, advocate some seem to think that automatically makes me a Tea Party member. All I can say is read both sides and decide for yourself because they're both putting some serious spin on the issues at hand. To base ones view completely off of one political party's rhetoric is simply simple.
sebster wrote:Which makes sense, given the movement was manufactured by FreedomWorks to offset the poisonous Republican brand that existed in the wake of the 2008 elections.
I think that its a bit unfair to say that it was "manufactured" as you can't make people believe something in any nominal sense (eg. without aggressive conditioning); "organized" or "funded" seem like better descriptions.
Gibbsey wrote:Personally the whole "taxation without representation" is kind of a joke to me. I mean im a permanent resident and i pay my taxes but im not a citizen so i cant vote, i have no choice of representative however small it may be.
If you are a permanent resident the option for citizenship is there. Or you can just do what my mother inlaw does and brow beat someone into voting the way you want
Living in WI has been interesting over the last few weeks to say the least. Never seen so many people at each others throats or willing to jump on someone verbally because they might not agree with them or voted another way. I've lost count of how many people I've gotten in arguments or seen acting like juveniles yelling names and disrespect. As an independent both sides seem to think I'm fair game for either harassment or conversion. As an open carry, CCW, advocate some seem to think that automatically makes me a Tea Party member. All I can say is read both sides and decide for yourself because they're both putting some serious spin on the issues at hand. To base ones view completely off of one political party's rhetoric is simply simple.
Unless you live in washington DC... then you can understand their license plates, "taxation without representation"
frgsinwntr wrote:
Unless you live in washington DC... then you can understand their license plates, "taxation without representation"
That's really not a new issue though it's been like that since the district was created. Bills in 2007 and 2009 that would have granted some voting rights to the district failed to get enough support because of the district's laws making it illegal for residents to possess guns in their homes, on their property, or at their places of business, requiring gun registration, ban on semiautomatic weapons, and criminal penalties for possession of an unregistered handgun.
Obama said he would sign a bill that granted voting rights to DC and the supreme court struck down a majority of the anti gun laws that held up the last two bills, so there's hope yet! Obama co sponsored one of the previous bills.
frgsinwntr wrote:
Unless you live in washington DC... then you can understand their license plates, "taxation without representation"
That's really not a new issue though it's been like that since the district was created. Bills in 2007 and 2009 that would have granted some voting rights to the district failed to get enough support because of the district's laws making it illegal for residents to possess guns in their homes, on their property, or at their places of business, requiring gun registration, ban on semiautomatic weapons, and criminal penalties for possession of an unregistered handgun.
Obama said he would sign a bill that granted voting rights to DC and the supreme court struck down a majority of the anti gun laws that held up the last two bills, so there's hope yet! Obama co sponsored one of the previous bills.
There's also the fact that the Constitution prevents those who live in DC from getting votes in Federal Elections.
Seems to me that would be the biggest hurdle to DC voting.
frgsinwntr wrote:
Unless you live in washington DC... then you can understand their license plates, "taxation without representation"
That's really not a new issue though it's been like that since the district was created. Bills in 2007 and 2009 that would have granted some voting rights to the district failed to get enough support because of the district's laws making it illegal for residents to possess guns in their homes, on their property, or at their places of business, requiring gun registration, ban on semiautomatic weapons, and criminal penalties for possession of an unregistered handgun.
Obama said he would sign a bill that granted voting rights to DC and the supreme court struck down a majority of the anti gun laws that held up the last two bills, so there's hope yet! Obama co sponsored one of the previous bills.
There's also the fact that the Constitution prevents those who live in DC from getting votes in Federal Elections.
Seems to me that would be the biggest hurdle to DC voting.
Other than the amendment granting DC 3 electoral votes?
frgsinwntr wrote:
Unless you live in washington DC... then you can understand their license plates, "taxation without representation"
That's really not a new issue though it's been like that since the district was created. Bills in 2007 and 2009 that would have granted some voting rights to the district failed to get enough support because of the district's laws making it illegal for residents to possess guns in their homes, on their property, or at their places of business, requiring gun registration, ban on semiautomatic weapons, and criminal penalties for possession of an unregistered handgun.
Obama said he would sign a bill that granted voting rights to DC and the supreme court struck down a majority of the anti gun laws that held up the last two bills, so there's hope yet! Obama co sponsored one of the previous bills.
There's also the fact that the Constitution prevents those who live in DC from getting votes in Federal Elections.
Seems to me that would be the biggest hurdle to DC voting.
Other than the amendment granting DC 3 electoral votes?
Yes, I know they can vote in Presidential Elections, but the push has been for representation in the House and Senate.
Senators and Representatives convey electoral votes, electoral votes do not convey Senators and Representatives.
frgsinwntr wrote:
Unless you live in washington DC... then you can understand their license plates, "taxation without representation"
That's really not a new issue though it's been like that since the district was created. Bills in 2007 and 2009 that would have granted some voting rights to the district failed to get enough support because of the district's laws making it illegal for residents to possess guns in their homes, on their property, or at their places of business, requiring gun registration, ban on semiautomatic weapons, and criminal penalties for possession of an unregistered handgun.
Obama said he would sign a bill that granted voting rights to DC and the supreme court struck down a majority of the anti gun laws that held up the last two bills, so there's hope yet! Obama co sponsored one of the previous bills.
There's also the fact that the Constitution prevents those who live in DC from getting votes in Federal Elections.
Seems to me that would be the biggest hurdle to DC voting.
Other than the amendment granting DC 3 electoral votes?
Yes, I know they can vote in Presidential Elections, but the push has been for representation in the House and Senate.
Senators and Representatives convey electoral votes, electoral votes do not convey Senators and Representatives.
Right, both the 2007 and 2009 district of Columbia voting rights act permanently added 2 seats to the house but were not tied to district population in anyway.
We could always return the district to the state of Maryland!
Vandil wrote:Right, both the 2007 and 2009 district of Columbia voting rights act permanently added 2 seats to the house but were not tied to district population in anyway.
We could always return the district to the state of Maryland!
The problem is Congress doesn't have the authority to add 2 seats to the House from D.C. They can add seats and apportion them among the states, but they can't actually add any from D.C. without adding it as a State (which raises some new issues).
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State
Although, there's an argument that no individual would have standing to challenge the law, which might pose a problem.
Vandil wrote:
We could always return the district to the state of Maryland!
That's not a bad idea, considering that main reason to maintain DC as an independent municipality, unfair representation within the federal legislature, is no longer problematic due to the fact that no legislators actually live there.
), have always had good rapport with customers, been more knowledgeable on product that MOST of my supervisors, always maintained a professional attitude (I hate work drama), etc. I've been in instances where I work harder than other people yet they get better raises or promotions, and I've been in cases where I felt like someone else deserved it more than me. Basically, whoever said the American dream works is a raging donkey-cave. It doesn't. I'm in my first union job, earning 10 cents above minimum wage and have hoops to jump through to get full time, though I'm doing my damnedest to be a model employee so I can earn that even though I know I'll likely get screwed out of it near the end anyway because some middle manager decides so. The union benefits I have basically guarantee that I get scheduled for at least 4 hours at a time, I can not be scheduled less than 15 hours a week, I have to be written up for the same thing 4 times before I can be fired over it, along with some basic healthcare and stuff I can opt in to. This job has treated me better than any I've had so far and the employees there have been there much longer than any previous and consequently know what they're doing. My wage may be practically nothing, but at this job I actually feel like a person and I feel like if I choose to stay with the company I can instead of them pulling some "let's fire everyone and get a new wave" bullcrap.
them.
, so I'd argue the toss here.
), but i'm giving you a standing O my friend! very well said, everything you said!
