To quote Matt Forbeck, "Nothing like passing bills within minutes, without any discussion, as a surprise, in the dark of night, to legitimize your politics."
The best part of this is how much of the budget 'crisis' being used to justify this moronic gak is outright lies. Like the budget shortfall, which only reaches the size Walker's been bleating about by including every future spending initiative being passed. Or how all the benefits which Walker has been saying are being burdened onto the taxpayers are actually mostly paid for directly by the people using them.
RustyKnight wrote:The Democrats were hiding out of state to avoid voting on the bill? That doesn't sound very "by the books" either.
Staying away to avoid a quorum is an age old strategy going way back, especially when one side is being railroaded. Hell, this happened when the Constitution was being ratified. It is also happening in Indiana as well apparently.
It was actually passed legally you know, they took out certain elements of the bill to change the kind of bill it was. This change meant that they needed less senators to vote for it.
The people affected by the bill are teachers working for public schools.
Personally, I'm kind of glad that the bill got through. I really don't like unions because they allow some pretty bad employees to stay employed and prevent capitalistic competition from happening. We may even see an improvement in education as teachers compete with others to keep their jobs.
Of course we could also see teachers becoming a rare commodity as some may quit their jobs in protest. Or we could see teachers protesting which would harm the children the teachers are supposed to teach. I have fond memories of when a 5th grade teacher at my school offered extra credit to any kid who would make a picket sign and protest limiting the teacher's union, the same teacher also passed kids who were failing the class too so I can kind of see why.
We'll have to see what happens and hope for a positive outcome.
Nothing like treating teachers like crap to encourage the very best and brightest to become teachers...oh wait.
I just love that everyone complains about how bad teachers are but when they want to take money and benefits from them it's ok. You know our society is so messed up when we have to pay the banking CEO's their money because it was promised to them or it was in their contract but we can just screw teachers over regardless of previous agreements.
Not all teachers are bad of course, but there are some bad eggs just like anywhere else.
I complain about how bad teachers are and taking benefits them is okay. If I did that then its kind of logical you know? You know what, I do think we should take benefits from bad teachers.
As far as banking CEO's go we don't really have control over that, its the PRiVATE industry. Now I disagreed with bailing out the banks to begin with, but like I said they're not under government control in terms of pay.
Schools=public, CEO's=private so you can't really compare the two.
I'll make my point clear though, the bail out was bad so don't think I support CEO's being paid when they suck. I think that there could be some positives from this but we'll have to see who's going to do what in response.
halonachos wrote:It was actually passed legally you know, they took out certain elements of the bill to change the kind of bill it was. This change meant that they needed less senators to vote for it.
No, the illegality was that the general meeting on the bill wasn't given the 24 hours period of notice.
Personally, I'm kind of glad that the bill got through. I really don't like unions because they allow some pretty bad employees to stay employed and prevent capitalistic competition from happening. We may even see an improvement in education as teachers compete with others to keep their jobs.
Except that doesn't hold up with state by state comparisons of student performance. The states with restrictions on collective bargaining are all among the worst performing states in the union.
Now, I agree that sub-par teachers should be removed from the system. The practical way to resolve this is to negotiate with the unions, not ban collective bargaining.
Hah hah hathis is what happens when you abandon your posts Democrats.
In the words of the immortal bard: "HAH HAH!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:To quote Matt Forbeck, "Nothing like passing bills within minutes, without any discussion, as a surprise, in the dark of night, to legitimize your politics."
Thats what happens when you abandon your constituents and run across state lines.
Frazzled wrote:Hah hah hathis is what happens when you abandon your posts Democrats.
In the words of the immortal bard: "HAH HAH!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:To quote Matt Forbeck, "Nothing like passing bills within minutes, without any discussion, as a surprise, in the dark of night, to legitimize your politics."
Thats what happens when you abandon your constituents and run across state lines.
I agree! And if they stayed they would have been railroaded into the same result. The bill would have been passed anyways. Isn't politics fun?
As for the unions, well I can say from observations in my school district, that they do keep horrible teachers employed. I would rather the job be about merit, but as it stands there is nothing I can do about it. Heck they have a school in New York that they put all the teachers in that they are trying to get rid of. The union is so strong there, that it can take a few years to actually fire the bad teachers. So in the mean time they go to work at a school with no students. They stay in their rooms and wait for judgement.
I really hate the whole situation. I would like to believe that I am a good teacher. I work with a special needs population that every other teacher is too afraid of to look at. I have been doing it for almost 10 years. Yet because of a bunch of bad apples I am looked at as if I was a glorified babysitter.
RustyKnight wrote:The Democrats were hiding out of state to avoid voting on the bill? That doesn't sound very "by the books" either.
Staying away to avoid a quorum is an age old strategy going way back, especially when one side is being railroaded. Hell, this happened when the Constitution was being ratified. It is also happening in Indiana as well apparently.
Railroading the opposite when you've got a majority is also an old strategy going way back, especially when one side isn't willing to seriously negotiate.
Melissia wrote:Because Wisconsin (and the country at large) needs fewer, more poorly paid teachers.
Yep. My sons school just took a $400,000 cut in its funds, which I found odd, because about 2 months ago I read in the newspaper that our city had its budgets balanced and actually made money instead of loosing it. Its such a big cut for them, that they are now deciding on pay cuts and laying off teachers. I was a bit pissed off about it.
This thing in Wisconsin, I hope stays there. Im not a fan of unions as a whole, but doing what they did there, was a total FU to the people in that state
Melissia wrote:Because Wisconsin (and the country at large) needs fewer, more poorly paid teachers.
Yep. My sons school just took a $400,000 cut in its funds, which I found odd, because about 2 months ago I read in the newspaper that our city had its budgets balanced and actually made money instead of loosing it. Its such a big cut for them, that they are now deciding on pay cuts and laying off teachers. I was a bit pissed off about it.
This thing in Wisconsin, I hope stays there. Im not a fan of unions as a whole, but doing what they did there, was a total FU to the people in that state
The thing is, teachers are getting such a bad rap, that when it comes back around to election day, the majority will probably vote for those representatives again.
Melissia wrote:Because Wisconsin (and the country at large) needs fewer, more poorly paid teachers.
Yep. My sons school just took a $400,000 cut in its funds, which I found odd, because about 2 months ago I read in the newspaper that our city had its budgets balanced and actually made money instead of loosing it. Its such a big cut for them, that they are now deciding on pay cuts and laying off teachers. I was a bit pissed off about it.
This thing in Wisconsin, I hope stays there. Im not a fan of unions as a whole, but doing what they did there, was a total FU to the people in that state
The thing is, teachers are getting such a bad rap, that when it comes back around to election day, the majority will probably vote for those representatives again.
Those that don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.....
Hurray for voting trends! Id love to live in a time where people voted for reps that ACTUALLY will do things for them. Other then, I dont like Republicans so Im voting for that person. Regardless of who they are, and what they stand for, its that blue person, or that red fella.
KingCracker wrote:Hurray for voting trends! Id love to live in a time where people voted for reps that ACTUALLY will do things for them. Other then, I dont like Republicans so Im voting for that person. Regardless of who they are, and what they stand for, its that blue person, or that red fella.
Kind of makes the whole thing pointless doesn't it? We are sort of outnumbered by those kind of people.
Pointless maybe, but its still not a reason to stop voting. Its our right to, so you should just do it. Just dont ever be like the Libertarians. They tend to have more views I agree with, but my biggest problem with their party is thus
To them its not, wow, we only got 100k votes this last election? But the other guys had millions. Its HEY! Look we have 100K votes! YES! Thats awesome for us people, great job. This trend keeps up, we will have one of our own in the WhiteHouse in the year 5017! YEA!!!!!!
KingCracker wrote:Pointless maybe, but its still not a reason to stop voting. Its our right to, so you should just do it. Just dont ever be like the Libertarians. They tend to have more views I agree with, but my biggest problem with their party is thus
To them its not, wow, we only got 100k votes this last election? But the other guys had millions. Its HEY! Look we have 100K votes! YES! Thats awesome for us people, great job. This trend keeps up, we will have one of our own in the WhiteHouse in the year 5017! YEA!!!!!!
If everyone thought like that, it would be closer to 2014. You are encouraging in your own little way, honestly.
That is me, the King of all Crackers my man. I like to encourage through jerky sarcasm. It works
But its true though. For me to think of the Libertarians as a potential player, they need to lay the pot pipes down, at least for a few minutes a day, and actually TRY to push their party. During the last election I watced on CNN hwo their party actually voted for their presidential hopeful. I was in awe at how they did it. There wasnt any insulting on other members, no dick swinging or anything. Infact they were all just sitting there, basically chatting and answering the questions given to them. And the weirdest part was, I saw many times one would say something like "Well see if you wanted this Id say go for my man so and so, and everyone would agree yea hes the perfect man in that regard.
Tell me if youve EVER seen that in a Republican/Democrat forum. gak its like a knife fight in the prison yard for those parties.
RustyKnight wrote:The Democrats were hiding out of state to avoid voting on the bill? That doesn't sound very "by the books" either.
Staying away to avoid a quorum is an age old strategy going way back, especially when one side is being railroaded. Hell, this happened when the Constitution was being ratified. It is also happening in Indiana as well apparently.
I can't remember, was it Lincoln that jumped out of a second story window at 3 in the morning to avoid a quorum?
As for the unions, well I can say from observations in my school district, that they do keep horrible teachers employed. I would rather the job be about merit, but as it stands there is nothing I can do about it. Heck they have a school in New York that they put all the teachers in that they are trying to get rid of. The union is so strong there, that it can take a few years to actually fire the bad teachers. So in the mean time they go to work at a school with no students. They stay in their rooms and wait for judgement.
I really hate the whole situation. I would like to believe that I am a good teacher. I work with a special needs population that every other teacher is too afraid of to look at. I have been doing it for almost 10 years. Yet because of a bunch of bad apples I am looked at as if I was a glorified babysitter.
Be careful about your terminology..."merit" is union code for "seniority." (The only reason I know this is because I have to deal with public service union reps on a daily basis.) Rather, use ability, drive, aptitude, etc.
With that said, what WI's governor has done is a load of bollocks. They stripped all public sector unions, which are typically Democrats, from being able to collectively bargain. However, they excluded firemen and police officers, who are typically Republicans, from having this right to collectively bargain stripped from them as well. This is more than just teachers, it is all public sector employees (except of course firemen and policemen). This could effect medical professionals in state run hospitals, state-run disability offices, etc.
And this was after the unions agreed to all of the financial concessions; the only thing they did not agree to was the stripping away of their right to collectively bargain.
Whether you agree with the decision and the ultimate outcome of it, it still stinks of raw partisan politics designed solely to hamstring the other parties base, while exempting specific groups that would have otherwise also been affected.
KingCracker wrote:Its HEY! Look we have 100K votes! YES! Thats awesome for us people, great job. This trend keeps up, we will have one of our own in the WhiteHouse in the year 5017! YEA!!!!!!
That's because the goal of libertarians currently is to work with the R-D monopolized system that prevents third parties from getting on the ballots, for fear that some people might vote for them. The goal is to get ~10% of voters to turn libertarian so that libertarian issues make it to the mainstream, causing the major parties to adopt those issues.
In my former state there was a libertarian running for governor. His political platform was: "We need 2%". Because that's what they needed to get 'major party status' and start serious campaigning on libertarian issues, rather than using their rather limited budget on gathering signatures so they can get on the ballot.
He only got 1.2% of the vote. Which was fortunately better than the anti-capitalist Socialist Worker party that campaigned on continuing the recession so the capitalist system could be brought down.
I get the idea they are going for, I really do. But you try this little experiment. Go and just ASK random people what/who the Libertarians are. You might be surprised if you get 5 out of 100 that know who they are, and Id bet 2 out of that 5 only heard of them. I still say, they need to push their party harder. Do what they are doing sure, but they still need to show some initiative and make their presence known to the American public. If more people knew about them, then they would realize, hey I dont have to choose between this jerk off and that jerk off, there is this OTHER option, and oddly enough, he makes sense to me.
Bakerofish wrote:and in a few years youll end up importing teachers
We already do. I've seen more than a few immigrants from African nations take up teaching positions in local public colleges.
Meh. At this point, along with all of the idiots I have to deal with on a day to day basis IRL, I'm rather convinced that republicans and tea party gits are fething donkey-caves who don't give a gak about the future of our country.
I find it odd that when asked about bonuses in government bailed out companies were on the table, "It isn't fair to cut their benefits, they may go elsewhere, we need these sweeteners exc....". I also find it odd how billions to trillions can be wasted on continued tax cuts for the wealthy, while hard working police, firemen, and teachers are laid off. They say "We all have to pitch in" but only the poor who are set up to lose things like heating help in wintertime, the elderly who may have their SS taxed, and teachers who have to deal with American teenagers. Looks like everybody is pitching in except for the greedy banks that started this mess, and the very well to do who say "it's not fair to reset my taxes".
Is it fair to fire people in the name of creating jobs? It's madness. Won't they just get on unemployment, and go into foreclosure? It's easy to hate on teachers because nobody likes them, I'd love to see people try to teach their own emo, hood rat, gothy, drug addled kids for a year.
Eldanar wrote:
Be careful about your terminaology..."merit" is union code for "seniority." (The only reason I know this is because I have to deal with public service union reps on a daily basis.) Rather, use ability, drive, aptitude, etc.
Wow, I didn't know that. I don't usually deal with union reps. In special education you are pretty much on your own. So they are totally misusing the word merit? Wow, just wow.
sexiest_hero wrote:Looks like everybody is pitching in except for the greedy banks that started this mess, and the very well to do who say "it's not fair to reset my taxes".
Except for the fact that many of those "well to do" have suffered significant losses of capital due to the stock market drop. Those who have high incomes have seen them drop significantly, and banks are losing billions (maybe trillions?) from foreclosures and loss of value in houses. When home prices drop, wealth isn't being transferred, it's actually destroyed. The banks essentially paid for those houses (loans to homeowners) at inflated rates and now have an asset that is worth less.
Of course, you don't see it, because you're never going to see multi-millionaires lining up at soup kitchens or complaining about their losses. Economic recessions hurt the poor the worst, the middle class only slightly (have to drive a 5-year old car instead of a new one) and the upper class hardly at all.
Frazzled wrote:Hah hah hathis is what happens when you abandon your posts Democrats.
In the words of the immortal bard: "HAH HAH!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:To quote Matt Forbeck, "Nothing like passing bills within minutes, without any discussion, as a surprise, in the dark of night, to legitimize your politics."
Thats what happens when you abandon your constituents and run across state lines.
So Frazz, you trolling, or are you just being dumb? The democrats left because that prevented the shitpile of a bill from being passed as a budget item legally, so the republicans finally stripped it as a budget item and passed it separately so it didn't need the quorum, which they still managed to feth up and do so illegally, by rushing the vote instead of allowing the mandatory waiting period.
Frazzled wrote:Thats what happens when you abandon your constituents and run across state lines.
Which was also poor form, and a very bad way to legitimise opposition to the bill. But they're the minority, it's not their job to ensure the political process produces legitimate results.
Just like it wasn't the job of the congressional Republicans to ensure the process during the previous congress, and why they abused procedural laws to deny a vote on an issue that had majority support in both houses.
Oh, except you were okay with that. Which is odd, because it almost looks like your opinion switches based on whether Democrats or Republicans are responsible. That couldn't be true, no, that'd just make you a footsoldier blindly following an elephant instead of a donkey...
The point being, Banks caused this mess, hence the bail out, so while they may have suffered, they had government backing and STILL paid out big unfair bonuses. Putting money in the stock market is a gamble, if they lost everything by gambling it's their fault. if only there was some place to keep your money that was insured against lost by the government...
"Economic recessions hurt the poor the worst, the middle class only slightly (have to drive a 5-year old car instead of a new one) and the upper class hardly at all."
So maybe Our policies shouldn't target the poor and middle class.
Keep in mind that while union definitions of merit can often (but not always) be reduced to "seniority," elected official's definitionss of ability can often (but not always) be reduced to "nepotism."
Here in Ohio they're privatizing government functions, cutting staff, announcing furloughs, and increasing the number and pay of political appointments.
It is, as has been pointed out, simply power politics.
you know... i wounder how different this whole deal would have turned out if it were the demorcrats wanting to ramrod something that the people dident want, and it was the republicans that ran away...
think the media coverage would have been in the slightest bit positive?
Envy89 wrote:you know... i wounder how different this whole deal would have turned out if it were the demorcrats wanting to ramrod something that the people dident want, and it was the republicans that ran away...
think the media coverage would have been in the slightest bit positive?
It's one thing to ramrod something. It's they way the system works. It's another to target the destruction of a group of people. The health care law wasn't started to destroy any republican stronghold. This law does just that. And if you think the media didn't jump on the This bill kills grand ma bandwagon, i guess you don't think Fox or Rush count as media.
sexiest_hero wrote:Looks like everybody is pitching in except for the greedy banks that started this mess, and the very well to do who say "it's not fair to reset my taxes".
Except for the fact that many of those "well to do" have suffered significant losses of capital due to the stock market drop. Those who have high incomes have seen them drop significantly, and banks are losing billions (maybe trillions?) from foreclosures and loss of value in houses. When home prices drop, wealth isn't being transferred, it's actually destroyed. The banks essentially paid for those houses (loans to homeowners) at inflated rates and now have an asset that is worth less.
Of course, you don't see it, because you're never going to see multi-millionaires lining up at soup kitchens or complaining about their losses. Economic recessions hurt the poor the worst, the middle class only slightly (have to drive a 5-year old car instead of a new one) and the upper class hardly at all.
A weep tears for them....not.
This will rock your world but I'm ok with a 40% tax on those making US$250,000 or more. I'm ok with a 50% tax rate on income over US$500,000 (or income from dividends or other cash flows). Further I'm on side with cutting all deductions except charitable decustions. Even further I'm all for elimination of personal corps. Wealthy individuals run their personal expenses through the corp structure and then pay deminimus taxes.
Envy89 wrote:you know... i wounder how different this whole deal would have turned out if it were the demorcrats wanting to ramrod something that the people dident want, and it was the republicans that ran away...
think the media coverage would have been in the slightest bit positive?
Frazzled wrote:Hah hah hathis is what happens when you abandon your posts Democrats.
In the words of the immortal bard: "HAH HAH!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:To quote Matt Forbeck, "Nothing like passing bills within minutes, without any discussion, as a surprise, in the dark of night, to legitimize your politics."
Thats what happens when you abandon your constituents and run across state lines.
So Frazz, you trolling, or are you just being dumb? The democrats left because that prevented the shitpile of a bill from being passed as a budget item legally, so the republicans finally stripped it as a budget item and passed it separately so it didn't need the quorum, which they still managed to feth up and do so illegally, by rushing the vote instead of allowing the mandatory waiting period.
No its called the democratic process. Evidently you're not familiar with it. When you're a legislator, you've been elected to, you know, vote on things...
Frazzled wrote:No its called the democratic process. Evidently you're not familiar with it. When you're a legislator, you've been elected to, you know, vote on things...
You are aware that if they'd stayed to vote that they would have been outvoted and it would have gone through anyway.
Envy89 wrote:you know... i wounder how different this whole deal would have turned out if it were the demorcrats wanting to ramrod something that the people dident want, and it was the republicans that ran away...
think the media coverage would have been in the slightest bit positive?
More than likely.
ah thanks.
i needed a good laugh.
I did too. As I typed those three words, I was chuckling the whole time. Thanks for asking!
Frazzled wrote:Thats what happens when you abandon your constituents and run across state lines.
Which was also poor form, and a very bad way to legitimise opposition to the bill. But they're the minority, it's not their job to ensure the political process produces legitimate results.
Yes, it is. They are legislators and represent all the people of their district. They have a duty to insure the representatively democratic system remains in place (and thats all sides of the aisle). What you're describing is Balkanism and in no way the concept of "the loyal opposition."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Frazzled wrote:No its called the democratic process. Evidently you're not familiar with it. When you're a legislator, you've been elected to, you know, vote on things...
You are aware that if they'd stayed to vote that they would have been outvoted and it would have gone through anyway.
Wow, like yea, thats how that election/democratic process thing works. Were you asleep in class or something?
sexiest_hero wrote:Looks like everybody is pitching in except for the greedy banks that started this mess, and the very well to do who say "it's not fair to reset my taxes".
Bank is an incredibly broad term covering many institutions that had nothing to do with the fiscal meltdown. Nor does it cover the mortgage broker business at all or irresponsible parties Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.
The committee can be called in as little as 2hrs if there is cause. Teachers are the largest portion of WI public unions but it also covers other state union employees like say the nurses and doctors at the state mental health facilities.
Frazzled wrote:Yes, it is. They are legislators and represent all the people of their district. They have a duty to insure the representatively democratic system remains in place (and thats all sides of the aisle). What you're describing is Balkanism and in no way the concept of "the loyal opposition."
Oh, so dueing that whole HCR debacle you were opposed to the congressional Republicans abusing procedural rules to deny a vote. You probably should have mentioned it at the time, it would help us take you a little more seriously now.
This reminds me of Texas legislature, which does its best to make sure that Democrats don't take any more seats by drawing ridiculous lines on maps so that "democratic" areas are bundled into fewer representative zones and maximizing the amount of zones that repugs get.
You know, politics as usual, IE republicans not giving a gak about democracy or the future of their nation and state, they don't care about their people, just about staying in power.
Frazzled wrote:No its called the democratic process. Evidently you're not familiar with it. When you're a legislator, you've been elected to, you know, vote on things...
You are aware that if they'd stayed to vote that they would have been outvoted and it would have gone through anyway.
Wow, like yea, thats how that election/democratic process thing works. Were you asleep in class or something?
So what's the point of staying to vote? In doing so they feth the unions, whereas by not doing so they can get this result.
Which is still the unions being fethed, but now they can capitalise on it more effectively come the next elections.
sexiest_hero wrote:The point being, Banks caused this mess, hence the bail out, so while they may have suffered, they had government backing and STILL paid out big unfair bonuses.
Unfair? Unfair is taking my hard earned money and giving it to people who have done nothing to earn it but exist.
And yes, I agree that the bailout was wrong. But the recession wasn't caused solely by banks, it was caused by a combination of banks and politicians trying to dictate economic decisions. Banks merely took advantage of the government meddling in the system and created a system that artificially inflated home values. It's not the bank's fault for taking advantage of the system, it's the government's fault for creating a system that was so easily taken advantage of.
sexiest_hero wrote:Putting money in the stock market is a gamble, if they lost everything by gambling it's their fault. if only there was some place to keep your money that was insured against lost by the government...
There is, and the wealthy don't just put money in the stock market. They also buy gold, oil futures, municipal bonds, and the really ballsy ones invest in foreign currencies, set them up for a crash, and then bail out and short-sell their currency to make billions.
I assume you feel the same way about the middle class and retirement pensions losing a lot of their money in the stock market.
sexiest_hero wrote:"Economic recessions hurt the poor the worst, the middle class only slightly (have to drive a 5-year old car instead of a new one) and the upper class hardly at all."
So maybe Our policies shouldn't target the poor and middle class.
I agree. Although probably not in the same way you're thinking.
Frazzled wrote:A weep tears for them....not.
This will rock your world but I'm ok with a 40% tax on those making US$250,000 or more. I'm ok with a 50% tax rate on income over US$500,000 (or income from dividends or other cash flows). Further I'm on side with cutting all deductions except charitable decustions. Even further I'm all for elimination of personal corps. Wealthy individuals run their personal expenses through the corp structure and then pay deminimus taxes.
I was merely pointing out that the wealthy did "suffer." Just not as much as some would want them to, because they're uh...successful and run businesses that employ lots of people.
I would support some tax measures against the 'wealthy' - like raising the social security deduction limit and means testing for welfare Social Security and Medicare (I think that's the retirement health plan, always get confused with Medicaid). But I don't think progressive taxation is the best way to go about it. Such a tax structure only encourages tax dodging. And the more intricate you make the tax code to avoid tax dodging, the more intricate schemes are going to be set up to dodge taxes.
Frazzled wrote:Yes, it is. They are legislators and represent all the people of their district. They have a duty to insure the representatively democratic system remains in place (and thats all sides of the aisle). What you're describing is Balkanism and in no way the concept of "the loyal opposition."
Oh, so dueing that whole HCR debacle you were opposed to the congressional Republicans abusing procedural rules to deny a vote. You probably should have mentioned it at the time, it would help us take you a little more seriously now.
I have no problem with playing procedure games. Leaving the state is not a procedural rule. I'm surprised you don't get that incredibly basic difference.
biccat wrote:But the recession wasn't caused solely by banks, it was caused by a combination of banks and politicians trying to dictate economic decisions.
Stop trying to paint it as if regulation was at fault, when it was lack of it that caused this...
"I assume you feel the same way about the middle class and retirement pensions losing a lot of their money in the stock market."
Yes.
I use banks in the broad sense of the term. I also blame people who "Flipped" houses to make a profit. My mom and sister did it for years.
0It's not the bank's fault for taking advantage of the system, it's the government's fault for creating a system that was so easily taken advantage of."
It is their fault. If only there was a way to REGULATE the system... oh well we'll just have to hope they do the right thing and not spend billions looking for loop holes.
Frazzled wrote:No its called the democratic process. Evidently you're not familiar with it. When you're a legislator, you've been elected to, you know, vote on things...
You are aware that if they'd stayed to vote that they would have been outvoted and it would have gone through anyway.
Wow, like yea, thats how that election/democratic process thing works. Were you asleep in class or something?
So what's the point of staying to vote? In doing so they feth the unions, whereas by not doing so they can get this result.
Which is still the unions being fethed, but now they can capitalise on it more effectively come the next elections.
DEM-O-CRACY
If you don't want to do your job you should quit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Can we argue about the causes of the Great Recession in another thread? Seriously.
I am torn over this. I know the Dems heart was in the right place, but you know if they had campaigned worth a damn and got Obama (insert spineless quip here) to actually campaign Bush style for them, they wouldn't be in this mess. They fault lays on the heads of the Wisconsin Voters, whom gave union support to the republicans. Same here in Ohio.
So when a ton of teachers quit out of protest, I can already hear the "news" spinning it as the teachers walking out on all those poor, innocent children who had nothing to do with this debacle.
Clearly, teachers of Wisconsin need to stay and be gakked all over by their local government, and demonized by its members (and some citizens).
The idiocracy will start in Wisconsin, apparently.
Heh, why would anyone even WANT to be a teacher in this country anymore, I don't even get it.
biccat wrote:But the recession wasn't caused solely by banks, it was caused by a combination of banks and politicians trying to dictate economic decisions.
Stop trying to paint it as if regulation was at fault, when it was lack of it that caused this...
When the government secures a mortgage, it is increasing the value of that mortgage.
Normally, a $100,000 mortgage might have a market value of $120,000. (for example, amount someone is willing to pay TODAY for a 6% return on $100,000 over 30 years)
When the government backs that mortgage, it increases the market value. Banks are willing to pay more because they know the value is guaranteed. So now the value is $150,000 (again, by example). Someone might default in the future, cutting off interest payments, but the principal of the loan is guaranteed.
The effect of government regulation has caused the price of the mortgage to increase, merely by backing the loan.
The government also required banks to make home loans more available to low-income and poor credit families (so-called "subprime" borrowers). The government also guaranteed these loans. So now you have mortgages in the secondary market that have a high risk of default but are Federally Guaranteed, inflating their value.
The problem wasn't regulation or a lack thereof, the problem was the meddling of the government in the market that artificially inflated home values beyond what the market would normally bear.
When home prices started to drop, subprime borrowers stopped paying (people who don't care about their credit). When people stopped paying, banks went to the government for their guarantee and reduced sales. Reducing sales drove up variable rate mortgage interest payments, made refinancing difficult, and it all steamrolled into a foreclosure mess.
Could the government have regulated the industry even more? Sure. But it wouldn't have dealt with the underlying issue of economic meddling that caused the problem in the first place.
sexiest_hero wrote:They fault lays on the heads of the Wisconsin Voters, whom gave union support to the republicans. Same here in Ohio.
I don't blame the 49.7% of people that did vote. I blame the 50.3% that were to lazy to even cast a vote. There was a very active voting group between 35-70 when you compare the voters <35yrs old they put up less than half the % of active voters <25%.
Frazzled wrote:Can we argue about the causes of the Great Recession in another thread? Seriously.
I think this is good advice. Although less seriously.
daedalus-templarius wrote:So when a ton of teachers quit out of protest, I can already hear the "news" spinning it as the teachers walking out on all those poor, innocent children who had nothing to do with this debacle.
I doubt it. I have a feeling that the "news" will spin this as Republicans driving teachers out of Wisconsin and the poor, innocent children are the ones being punished for Republican action.
daedalus-templarius wrote:Heh, why would anyone even WANT to be a teacher in this country anymore, I don't even get it.
Do you really think people became teachers in Wisconsin due to collective bargaining rights? I'll bet that before this issue, most teachers didn't even know what collective bargaining rights were. Most still probably couldn't tell you what benefits they get from collective bargaining that Federal workers don't get.
I doubt it. I have a feeling that the "news" will spin this as Republicans driving teachers out of Wisconsin and the poor, innocent children are the ones being punished for Republican action.
Do you really think people became teachers in Wisconsin due to collective bargaining rights? I'll bet that before this issue, most teachers didn't even know what collective bargaining rights were. Most still probably couldn't tell you what benefits they get from collective bargaining that Federal workers don't get.
I'm sure the different networks will have completely different spins on the effects on teachers by the bill.
That statement wasn't aimed at simply collective bargaining, more how teachers are being vilified by politicians and network news, to a point where now citizens will vilify them as well. Teachers are pretty important in my opinion, and they should probably be paid better, they are educating the future of this country/future of the world. Vilifying them and paying them gak isn't going to make more talented people want to become teachers.
The vilification and condemnation of public employees is ridiculous, sure some of them could probably be paid less, and it would be better if some of them didn't abuse the system, but that happens everywhere. One bad apple can ruin a bunch, unfortunately.
So you would prefer that the Wisconsin Senators resigned in protest, and so forced special elections that would have made it even harder to build a quorum?
As many have observed in the past, democracy is as much about what legislators can get away with as what they are explicitly permitted to do. Simply saying that X isn't democracy is basically meaningless, especially when votes were tallied, and representatives were elected.
daedalus-templarius wrote:So when a ton of teachers quit out of protest, I can already hear the "news" spinning it as the teachers walking out on all those poor, innocent children who had nothing to do with this debacle.
Clearly, teachers of Wisconsin need to stay and be gakked all over by their local government, and demonized by its members (and some citizens).
The idiocracy will start in Wisconsin, apparently.
Heh, why would anyone even WANT to be a teacher in this country anymore, I don't even get it.
If a bunch of teachers leave, then the government will have to pay more/provide better conditions to acquire new teachers. Thats supply/demand, so it all works out in the end.*
* Actually it never works out in the end, but it helps the little children sleep at night.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
DEM-O-CRACY
If you don't want to do your job you should quit.
So you would prefer that the Wisconsin Senators resigned in protest, and so forced special elections that would have made it even harder to build a quorum?
As many have observed in the past, democracy is as much about what legislators can get away with as what they are explicitly permitted to do. Simply saying that X isn't democracy is basically meaningless, especially when votes were tallied, and representatives were elected.
bs.
If they resigned fine. Then others can be hired. Everything else is not democracy. By following the same line of thinking, if you're not going to win a vote, your side can do anything up to and including bllowing the other legislators up with dynamite.
Your job as an elected representative is to represent the interests of the people who elected you. If you can do that more effectively by not showing up to a vote, then that is, clearly, not against the RAW or RAI of the job description.
Your job as an elected representative is to represent the interests of the people who elected you. If you can do that more effectively by not showing up to a vote, then that is, clearly, not against the RAW or RAI of the job description.
The fact that the other side can approve a motion to compel and have the Sergeant at Arms drag your back to the floor of the legislative body is also playing RAW.
Jurisdictional tomfoolery is what made this possible, the Democrats ran beyond the range of Wisconsin authority. Seems like dereliction of duty to me.
The critique of public employees is often misguided, and factually incorrect. One of the dumbest things I have seen argued is that public employees are better paid, without qualifying who they are being compared against. And it is really an apples to oranges comparison.
Most public sector jobs are skilled work, and they require some form of higher degree. When you start making direct skilled level comparisons, studies have proven that public sector employees make about 10% less than private sector. The trade off is job security, benefits, and life-work balance.
I am a public service employee, and I make approximately 10% less than what the average is for people with my education level, age, years worked, etc., have reported as making in my state. Anecdotally, I make about 10-15% less than my last private sector job. However, my benefits are better, I'm not working 60 hour weeks, I have a generous leave schedule, I can work from home, etc. To me, that overode the little bit of extra money I could make.
On the flip side, anecdotally, I have a sister-in-law who is a teacher in a private church based school. She makes less than what she would make in a public school, and has minimal benefits. But she left the public sector because she did not want to have to deal with the extra-large class sizes, unruly students, and extra out-of-pocket expenses required of public school teachers.
All that you get when you start to cut and cut and cut on the backs of people who provide basic services to society, is a crappier society. Ultimately, you either ignore the problems created by the cuts, and things in turn get worse; or you address the problem with outsourcing, or new hiring (which in turn means more training for new employees, plus less experienced and skilled staff), which actually leads to higher costs.
Your job as an elected representative is to represent the interests of the people who elected you. If you can do that more effectively by not showing up to a vote, then that is, clearly, not against the RAW or RAI of the job description.
Frazz has pretty well demonstrated he was asleep for that part of the lesson. He was awake for, 'If Democrats do it - BAD! But It's Okay If You Are A Republican.'
Here we go capital police just unloaded a truck of riot gear at the S service entrance. Starting to get reports of people being removed from the assembly chamber areas.
Eldanar wrote:Most public sector jobs are skilled work, and they require some form of higher degree. When you start making direct skilled level comparisons, studies have proven that public sector employees make about 10% less than private sector. The trade off is job security, benefits, and life-work balance.
Shouldn't those benefits, including health insurance, pension, and working hourse, factor in to deciding who is paid better?
If I make $60,000 per year working 60 hours a week and you make $40,000 per year working 40 hours a week, isn't that the same pay? Or would you say that the second person is taking a pay cut of $20,000 per year?
I also found this interesting. It shows that only 30% of education spending goes towards teacher expenditures. Maybe instead of cutting teacher salaries we could find some middle ground and cut some administrator salaries and other expenses.
I also found this interesting. It shows that only 30% of education spending goes towards teacher expenditures. Maybe instead of cutting teacher salaries we could find some middle ground and cut some administrator salaries and other expenses.
See, this would require reasonable people to get together and agree on some moderate fixes and solutions.
biccat wrote:I also found this interesting. It shows that only 30% of education spending goes towards teacher expenditures. Maybe instead of cutting teacher salaries we could find some middle ground and cut some administrator salaries and other expenses.
I would imagine because teachers are unionize, and cutting their salary cuts union dues, and support democrats.
Administrators are appointed directly by Boards of Education (political appointees) and so get to negotiate their own salaries. They also tend tend to work to further the elected officials interests.
Gov. worker salaries (and associated overhead) is a relatively small part of any government. It's just the part that hurts the big actors the least to cut.
Your job as an elected representative is to represent the interests of the people who elected you. If you can do that more effectively by not showing up to a vote, then that is, clearly, not against the RAW or RAI of the job description.
Frazz has pretty well demonstrated he was asleep for that part of the lesson. He was awake for, 'If Democrats do it - BAD! But It's Okay If You Are A Republican.'
I am not the one advocating crossing state lines and doing anything you want to do because you get your panties in a wad. They were hired to represent all the people, and they can only do that by doing their job. What you advocate eventually has its ultimate expression in Somalia (anarchy) or Libya (dictatorship). Would you prefer we settle issues with guns and bombs like much of the world?
To the personal attack, I can respond in but one way:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus-templarius wrote:
biccat wrote:
I also found this interesting. It shows that only 30% of education spending goes towards teacher expenditures. Maybe instead of cutting teacher salaries we could find some middle ground and cut some administrator salaries and other expenses.
See, this would require reasonable people to get together and agree on some moderate fixes and solutions.
Totally the opposite of politics in this country.
Agreed. I've always been an advocate of wacking at least half of the adminstrators in, well anything.
Your job as an elected representative is to represent the interests of the people who elected you. If you can do that more effectively by not showing up to a vote, then that is, clearly, not against the RAW or RAI of the job description.
Frazz has pretty well demonstrated he was asleep for that part of the lesson. He was awake for, 'If Democrats do it - BAD! But It's Okay If You Are A Republican.'
I am not the one advocating crossing state lines and doing anything you want to do because you get your panties in a wad. They were hired to represent all the people, and they can only do that by doing their job. What you advocate eventually has its ultimate expression in Somalia (anarchy) or Libya (dictatorship). Would you prefer we settle issues with guns and bombs like much of the world?
It really, really doesn't. This makes about as much sense as arguing against the legalising of gay marriage because if we do that then people will marry their dogs.
Your job as an elected representative is to represent the interests of the people who elected you. If you can do that more effectively by not showing up to a vote, then that is, clearly, not against the RAW or RAI of the job description.
Frazz has pretty well demonstrated he was asleep for that part of the lesson. He was awake for, 'If Democrats do it - BAD! But It's Okay If You Are A Republican.'
I am not the one advocating crossing state lines and doing anything you want to do because you get your panties in a wad. They were hired to represent all the people, and they can only do that by doing their job. What you advocate eventually has its ultimate expression in Somalia (anarchy) or Libya (dictatorship). Would you prefer we settle issues with guns and bombs like much of the world?
It really, really doesn't. This makes about as much sense as arguing against the legalising of gay marriage because if we do that then people will marry their dogs.
You propose using extralegal means to stop the democratic process. Whats the ing difference between you and Chavez or Franco? Its just a matter of degree.
I should ask, you do like living in a democracy right?
Frazzled wrote:
If they resigned fine. Then others can be hired.
Not hired, elected. Elections take time, and can often be carried out strategically to extend the process. Then recounts can be demanded, even by the victor, in order to ensure "fair representation" of the district. And, of course, the people that are eventually elected can themselves resign in order to start the process all over again.
Hell, the person that resigned could even run again.
Frazzled wrote:
Everything else is not democracy. By following the same line of thinking, if you're not going to win a vote, your side can do anything up to and including bllowing the other legislators up with dynamite.
Sure, presuming that they can get away with it, and the legislators in question continue to permit free and fair elections. Democracy isn't about fair behavior in the legislature, its about fair elections.
You could have a legislature were bills were settled by ritual combat, and insofar as the potential combatants were elected by the populace it would still be a democracy.
Frazzled wrote:You propose using extralegal means to stop the democratic process. Whats the ing difference between you and Chavez or Franco? Its just a matter of degree.
I should ask, you do like living in a democracy right?
Are you honestly suggesting that it's not a legitimate role of government to make the trains run on time? We're not living in some sort of anarchy here, the trains are a government resource and they are essential to a civil society. If the trains don't run on time, then people won't be able to move about the country reliably and won't be contributing members of society.
There's nothing wrong with keeping an accurate rail schedule.
Frazzled wrote:
They were hired to represent all the people, and they can only do that by doing their job.
No, their job is to represent their district, which basically means to represent the dominant opinion of the people in their district. If the dominant opinion of the people (well, politically active) in the district in question is that the Senator should walk out, then that's what he should so, per your own reasoning.
If you really feel that means some group of people in the district are unrepresented, then any possible action taken by a legislator will necessarily fail to represent at least some part of that legislators district.
Sure, presuming that they can get away with it, and the legislators in question continue to permit free and fair elections. Democracy isn't about fair behavior in the legislature, its about fair elections.
No. Its not. Its the entire process.
You could have a legislature were bills were settled by ritual combat, and insofar as the potential combatants were elected by the populace it would still be a democracy.
No. Its not. Now you're just bordering on ranting.
Keeping a voting body from reaching a quorum is an old political maneuver. Hmm, what were these people again? Oh yeah, professional politicians. Politicians doing political things, what a a crazy world.
If a bunch Republicans had done this to black a lefty platform vote than Fox would be calling them shrewd for cutting the tyrannical Democrats legs out from under them. Politics isn't just introducing bad legislation after all.
Frazzled wrote:You propose using extralegal means to stop the democratic process. Whats the ing difference between you and Chavez or Franco? Its just a matter of degree.
I should ask, you do like living in a democracy right?
Are you honestly suggesting that it's not a legitimate role of government to make the trains run on time? We're not living in some sort of anarchy here, the trains are a government resource and they are essential to a civil society. If the trains don't run on time, then people won't be able to move about the country reliably and won't be contributing members of society.
There's nothing wrong with keeping an accurate rail schedule.
Yes, snopes.
What, are you replying to me?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:Keeping a voting body from reaching a quorum is an old political maneuver. Hmm, what were these people again? Oh yeah, professional politicians. Politicians doing political things, what a a crazy world.
If a bunch Republicans had done this to black a lefty platform vote than Fox would be calling them shrewd for cutting the tyrannical Democrats legs out from under them. Politics isn't just introducing bad legislation after all.
Fox. They would also have been doing the same thing, running away from their duties.
Frazzled wrote:You propose using extralegal means to stop the democratic process. Whats the ing difference between you and Chavez or Franco? Its just a matter of degree.
I should ask, you do like living in a democracy right?
You might as well say that hugging your mother is incest. After all, you're touching her: after that it's just a matter of degree.
Frazzled wrote:
You propose using extralegal means to stop the democratic process. Whats the ing difference between you and Chavez or Franco? Its just a matter of degree.
Extralegal? I was unaware that parliamentary procedure was now considered a matter of law.
biccat wrote:Do you really think people became teachers in Wisconsin due to collective bargaining rights? I'll bet that before this issue, most teachers didn't even know what collective bargaining rights were. Most still probably couldn't tell you what benefits they get from collective bargaining that Federal workers don't get.
As the husband of a teacher let me assume you that all (that I have met here in Maryland at least) teachers are very very familiar with collective bargaining rights and what their Union does and doesn't do for them. Most teachers generally are not huge fans of their Unions because usually they basically just take Union fees for nothing but it's times like these when many teachers actually appreciate their Union.
If society actually appreciated what teachers do and the valuable service they provided society they wouldn't need the Unions. The good teachers would stay and they could fire the bad ones because the teachers wouldn't have to worry about having their pay cut, potentially being fired for failing some child that didn't earn a passing grade, potentially being fired for trying to block a student from spitting on them and accidentally hitting the student, having to deal with a student that literally punched them in the head because the student wasn't expelled for doing so, I could go on and on and on. And those are just events that happened here in Maryland in one of the most affluent counties in the country. (Howard County, 3rd wealthiest in the nation according to Forbes) Imagine what it is like is less affluent places.
Teachers have a very raw deal and sure there are some really bad ones that I would honestly like to fire and then load into a rocket that we fire at the sun but until society gives a damn about the people educating the next generation, actually values education over becoming a star, and truly cares about the future of our country the Unions are an exceedingly necessary evil. Because the sad, sad fact is that those three things are not going to happen any time soon.
Frazzled wrote:
No. Its not. Now you're just bordering on ranting.
You know, its funny, every time you've ever tried to insult my behavior its later become the obvious that you were confusing my demeanor with your own. I don't no about you, but spamming posts in which you swear at others, and chant "no" is something that I would consider to be ranting. But hey, I guess that's what happens when you're determined to hang on to some deeply held belief.
Anyway, representative democracy generally requires only that authority be delegated to representatives, and that the rule of law holds, it does not require that the representatives themselves legislate according to any particular process. In the United States we have institutionalized a process of procedural voting, in other places the voting is significantly less procedural, and often nonpartisan because parties simply don't exist; but hypothetically ritual combat by elected representative is still an example of democratic process where by representative cast their votes by picking sides.
Well, now embodied with the Dogma/Warboss Tzoo standard of democracy, I look forward to the mass culling of opposition members. I for one welcome our new "democratic" overlords, and am sure that once the correct purges have been carried out, all will be right in the world. Hail Our New Enlightened Leaders!
Frazzled wrote:Jeez no wonder democracies don't survive.
Well, now embodied with the Dogma/Warboss Tzoo standard of democracy, I look forward to the mass culling of opposition members. I for one welcome our new "democratic" overlords, and am sure that once the correct purges have been carried out, all will be right in the world. Hail Our New Enlightened Leaders!
I'd ask if you're aware that the actual definition of democracy describes the formation of governments and not how they function, but you've clearly demonstrated that this isn't true already, so it'd be, much like a broken pencil, pointless.
Moving on, have you ever hugged your mother/daughter? Why, you filthy pervert!
You've got a backassward definition of 'abandoning their duties' if you're going to apply it to thwarting a bill that feths over a massive number of people, as well as the state itself.
Bookwrack wrote: You've got a backassward definition of 'abandoning their duties' if you're going to apply it to thwarting a bill that feths over a massive number of people, as well as the state itself.
Exactly. If they stayed they would have been abandoning their duties. They were fighting it the bets way they could. If they stayed, how could they have possibly kept this thing from passing anyways?
Frazzled wrote:So if abandoning your duties is ok Tzoo, why are you griping about the Republicans?
I don't think abandoning your duties is okay, but unlike you, I don't see staying out of state with the intent of making the republicans be unable to pass a bill that feths the unions as abandoning your duties.
Bookwrack wrote: You've got a backassward definition of 'abandoning their duties' if you're going to apply it to thwarting a bill that feths over a massive number of people, as well as the state itself.
Actually, by not doing the bill it feths over a massive number of people, all the citizens who have to pay for these budgets.
So again, its all depending on what YOU interpret as the true and just cause. Man I can hear the marching anthems getting louder.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Scythican wrote:
Bookwrack wrote: You've got a backassward definition of 'abandoning their duties' if you're going to apply it to thwarting a bill that feths over a massive number of people, as well as the state itself.
Exactly. If they stayed they would have been abandoning their duties. They were fighting it the bets way they could. If they stayed, how could they have possibly kept this thing from passing anyways?
I see now. My cause is just therefore the ends justify the means. Now I understand who I am talking to.
So...any chance of agreeing to disagree and giving a crap about the teachers rather than how we would like to define how democracy works and/or doesn't? Either the law was broken or it wasn't, wishing or thinking how the law is...well doesn't matter right now. If a state doesn't want their legislators running off perhaps they should, I dunno pass some law about it? Ah the wonders of Democracy.
Sometimes this board amuses me with how well it really parallels society so well. People would rather rant back and forth at each other pointlessly than have a discussion and I'm sorry this left being a discussion once the Nazi's joined the party. That's pretty much the nuclear bomb equivalent on the Internet.
I know society goes in trends but I am really hoping the trend of having a discussion to actually resolve some problems comes back before its to late to do something about all the really serious issues facing this country.
Bookwrack wrote: You've got a backassward definition of 'abandoning their duties' if you're going to apply it to thwarting a bill that feths over a massive number of people, as well as the state itself.
Actually, by not doing the bill it feths over a massive number of people, all the citizens who have to pay for these budgets.
So again, its all depending on what YOU interpret as the true and just cause. Man I can hear the marching anthems getting louder.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Scythican wrote:
Bookwrack wrote: You've got a backassward definition of 'abandoning their duties' if you're going to apply it to thwarting a bill that feths over a massive number of people, as well as the state itself.
Exactly. If they stayed they would have been abandoning their duties. They were fighting it the bets way they could. If they stayed, how could they have possibly kept this thing from passing anyways?
I see now. My cause is just therefore the ends justify the means. Now I understand who I am talking to.
Honestly if I knew of a better alternative than running to another state, I would fully approve of it. I really honestly do not know what could have been done to prevent this from passing like it did.
Melissia wrote:This reminds me of Texas legislature, which does its best to make sure that Democrats don't take any more seats by drawing ridiculous lines on maps so that "democratic" areas are bundled into fewer representative zones and maximizing the amount of zones that repugs get.
You know, politics as usual, IE republicans not giving a gak about democracy or the future of their nation and state, they don't care about their people, just about staying in power.
vonjankmon wrote:So...any chance of agreeing to disagree and giving a crap about the teachers rather than how we would like to define how democracy works and/or doesn't? Either the law was broken or it wasn't, wishing or thinking how the law is...well doesn't matter right now. If a state doesn't want their legislators running off perhaps they should, I dunno pass some law about it? Ah the wonders of Democracy.
The reason they haven't been brought back is because 1) they're outside the jurisdiction of Wisconsin troops and 2) they've been hiding.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Scythican wrote:Honestly if I knew of a better alternative than running to another state, I would fully approve of it. I really honestly do not know what could have been done to prevent this from passing like it did.
Are the Republicans, who won a majority in the Wisconsin House and Senate and the Governorship, entitled to legislative victories that Democrats oppose?
Bookwrack wrote: You've got a backassward definition of 'abandoning their duties' if you're going to apply it to thwarting a bill that feths over a massive number of people, as well as the state itself.
Actually, by not doing the bill it feths over a massive number of people, all the citizens who have to pay for these budgets.
So again, its all depending on what YOU interpret as the true and just cause. Man I can hear the marching anthems getting louder.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Scythican wrote:
Bookwrack wrote: You've got a backassward definition of 'abandoning their duties' if you're going to apply it to thwarting a bill that feths over a massive number of people, as well as the state itself.
Exactly. If they stayed they would have been abandoning their duties. They were fighting it the bets way they could. If they stayed, how could they have possibly kept this thing from passing anyways?
I see now. My cause is just therefore the ends justify the means. Now I understand who I am talking to.
Honestly if I knew of a better alternative than running to another state, I would fully approve of it. I really honestly do not know what could have been done to prevent this from passing like it did.
You can't think of a better alternatvie? How about vote for more elected officials who think the way you do?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:
Melissia wrote:This reminds me of Texas legislature, which does its best to make sure that Democrats don't take any more seats by drawing ridiculous lines on maps so that "democratic" areas are bundled into fewer representative zones and maximizing the amount of zones that repugs get.
You know, politics as usual, IE republicans not giving a gak about democracy or the future of their nation and state, they don't care about their people, just about staying in power.
Frazzled wrote:
You can't think of a better alternatvie? How about vote for more elected officials who think the way you do?
You mean I can leave my state and vote for different officials in another state?
EDIT: Sorry about that Frazzled. You didn't deserve a smartass comment. I took out half of it, but it still stands. My vote can't affect another states representative outcome and it would not change what is going on in WI right now. People like me have been trying for years to change politics, but the majority is still in the red shirt or blue shirt mentality.
Bookwrack wrote: You've got a backassward definition of 'abandoning their duties' if you're going to apply it to thwarting a bill that feths over a massive number of people, as well as the state itself.
Actually, by not doing the bill it feths over a massive number of people, all the citizens who have to pay for these budgets.
So again, its all depending on what YOU interpret as the true and just cause. Man I can hear the marching anthems getting louder.
The unions agreed to all of the financial aspects of the budget bill. The only thing that they were fighting was the elimination of collective bargaining. This was never about the budget, Frazzled, and it's beneath you to act like it was.
I ask, who is at the bargaining table when these government union's CBA's expire? Union reps, governmental represenatives and no citizens. So the people that pay the lion's share of the benefits costs get absolutely zero say in how much benefits these unions get. That sounds fair.
Melissia wrote:Democracy without compromise is nothing more than tyranny of the majority.
Without compromise, democracy simply cannot work.
Too much politics, not enough governance.
At least it seems that way to me, currently. Everyone is too busy trying to score points rather than come up with the complex solutions required for our society's ails.
Stormrider wrote:I ask, who is at the bargaining table when these government union's CBA's expire? Union reps, governmental represenatives and no citizens. So the people that pay the lion's share of the benefits costs get absolutely zero say in how much benefits these unions get. That sounds fair.
The citizens are represented by the government, who in turn are represented by their representatives, much like how the union members are represented by their reps. It's all good.
Democracy has nothing to do with compromise, it has to do with how the people interact with the government. If compromise was the goal than setting up a system that pits people against each other would have been a better idea but as it is the system isn't built on trust. If it was we wouldn't have a separation of powers.
Bookwrack wrote: You've got a backassward definition of 'abandoning their duties' if you're going to apply it to thwarting a bill that feths over a massive number of people, as well as the state itself.
Actually, by not doing the bill it feths over a massive number of people, all the citizens who have to pay for these budgets.
No it doesn't, and the fact you're claiming it does shows you're either trolling, or completely ignorant of the actual topic. Talk about sleeping through class... The fact you keep hearing marching anthems just shows how deep under you've gone. The dreaded 'growing budget shortfall' is mostly fabricated, inflated by things like assuming that EVERY spending initiative that goes before the house gets passed.
Second is that every item EXCEPT losing collective bargaining was agreed to, but Walker was completely unwilling to compromise. The whole point was to cram through the (unneeded) budget cuts, and since raising taxes has been forbidden, the only way localities have to deal with the budget shortfall is to fire people - and with collective bargaining right stripped away, the workers who are being put under the gun have no way to respond to it. I know a financial officer for a Wisconsin community college who just got to see their budget numbers for next year - they're going to have fire 1/3 of their teachers, and all non-teachers are going to have to take a 20% pay cut.
So yes, passing the bills hurts a HUGE number of people. Not passing it would have had no where near the consequences, because most of the consequences have been made up! Wake up Frazz. Stop sleeping and pay attention. This is not an issue where people enacting the bill are bad people because they disagree with me, it's because they're doing gak that is going to hurt a lot of people and mess up an entire state, and the consequences of NOT doing that gak are nothing at all!
Unfortunately, as the whole situation in Wisconsin demonstrates, the Republican side doesn't give a feth about moderates, it's their way or nothing. The democrat counter bill was to agree to everything in the republican one, save for the loss of collective bargaining, but nope that was too extreme for them, I guess. Gotta guarantee that when you start firing teachers and comptrollers they don't have anyway resisting.
This has not been said, or implied. However, I will say that the tea-party membership/leadership seem quite entrenched in their views and appear not to budge on many things. Although, I would not say that this has never happened before with dems either. I'd rather not say "this side is worse than the other", I'd much rather say people tend to be far too partisan in politics these days instead.
People can be too extreme on both sides, especially with hyperbole. Kinda like posting a nazi video on a forum.
Edit: and for real? most of these signs are just silly, I wouldn't call any of these RADICAL by any stretch of the imagination. Some of them may be in bad taste, but radical? ffs
Bookwrack wrote:Unfortunately, as the whole situation in Wisconsin demonstrates, the Republican side doesn't give a feth about moderates, it's their way or nothing. The democrat counter bill was to agree to everything in the republican one, save for the loss of collective bargaining, but nope that was too extreme for them, I guess.
Can you post a link?
The only note I've heard on negotiations between the sides was this.
This suggests that the unions outmaneuvered Walker right from the start by conceding on all the economic issues but drawing a line in the sand over collective bargaining rights. By focusing only on the issue where the union was strongest, they put the governor in the weakest possible position.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And also the last one for tonight, because it's 4 in the morning and I need to be awake in 5 hours.
I think it's pretty damn indicative of something that it took until now, after spending weeks actively pissing off tens of thousands of people that the loonies have started popping out, although I bet there's at least a 75% chance those e-mails didn't come from anyone in Wisconsin, 30% they were written by a hard core republicans (who was it who said ,'something something, plant troublemakers amongst the protesters?' ), and a good, round, 23% chance they were all written by Walker himself.
Anyway, here are the brass tacks on the issue, and where the Republicans have failed in every way, shape and form, they have presented NO evidence that collective bargaining rights, in this context, are more financially detrimental than not cutting corporate taxes and by permitting local municipalities to determine their own property tax rates.
Bookwrack wrote:I'll dig up links later when I have the chance.
I think it's pretty damn indicative of something that it took until now, after spending weeks actively pissing off tens of thousands of people that the loonies have started popping out, although I bet there's at least a 75% chance those e-mails didn't come from anyone in Wisconsin, 30% they were written by a hard core republicans (who was it who said ,'something something, plant troublemakers amongst the protesters?' ), and a good, round, 23% chance they were all written by Walker himself.
You must have gone to a unionized public school.
Bookwrack wrote:Anyway, here are the brass tacks on the issue, and where the Republicans have failed in every way, shape and form, they have presented NO evidence that collective bargaining rights, in this context, are more financially detrimental than not cutting corporate taxes and by permitting local municipalities to determine their own property tax rates.
They also haven't proven that collective bargaining rights are any better than collecting magical unicorn turds and reselling them to fairyland.
Unless these proposals were proposed as options to walker's bill, they're irrelevant.
Eldanar wrote:Most public sector jobs are skilled work, and they require some form of higher degree. When you start making direct skilled level comparisons, studies have proven that public sector employees make about 10% less than private sector. The trade off is job security, benefits, and life-work balance.
Shouldn't those benefits, including health insurance, pension, and working hourse, factor in to deciding who is paid better?
If I make $60,000 per year working 60 hours a week and you make $40,000 per year working 40 hours a week, isn't that the same pay? Or would you say that the second person is taking a pay cut of $20,000 per year?
I also found this interesting. It shows that only 30% of education spending goes towards teacher expenditures. Maybe instead of cutting teacher salaries we could find some middle ground and cut some administrator salaries and other expenses.
No, that simply means that we are paid at the same hourly rate (foregoing any overtime, etc.). In your example, you would still be making $60,000 and I would still be making $40,000.
I used my own situation as an example earlier. I worked as an attorney in a small firm and made approximately $10,000-15,000 more in income, had my health insurance paid for 100% by the firm, and had an unlimited leave policy. However, I had to hit a target number of billable hours per month; which meant I had to work copious amounts of unpaid overtime, I could not afford to take any leave, and I couldn't be sick.
I much prefer my current working situation with the government, where I make a little less and pay for half of my health insurance, but can actually take vacations and stay home when I am sick. Obviously, I place a value on all of those things, above and beyond the loss in income. I ran the numbers when I first changed jobs, and again assigning a dollar value to evertything, I am actually being paid at the same hourly rate I was at the private firm, when you factor in the unpaid OT. I also am a lot happier, and I feel, much more productive (except of course when I take a break and pop in here... ).
Neither am I trying to defend teachers, per se. This has nothing to do with salaries though. Teachers in WI make (or made) a nice salary plus benefits. But as I pointed out earlier, they had already agreed to all of the salary and benefit reductions that the governor wanted. They simply opposed losing the right to collectively bargain on future contracts. This is further compounded by the fact that select groups of public employees, firemen and police, who are generally viewed as Republican-leaning, were excluded from this draconian demand.
Whether or not public employees can collectively bargain on future contracts has no bearing whatsoever on current budgetery concerns. The budget shortfall was presumably the driving force behind this, but collective bargaining has nothing at all to do with austerity measures. This is purely a means to strike at unions.
Yeah, because everyone knows how overpaid teachers and social workers are... oh wait...
Whatever, if people are really upset, the Republicans and Walker will get nailed on the next pass.
As someone who's pretty middle of the road: what the heck Republicans? I was hoping for fiscal responsibility not "screw the Democrats and everyone who votes for them".
I get the distinct impression that elected officials are more and more concerned with campaigning 24-7 and less concerned with actually governing.
McNs wrote:
I get the distinct impression that elected officials are more and more concerned with campaigning 24-7 and less concerned with actually governing.
Melissia wrote:You mean that way when they try to claim moral superiority they can't?
No.
Either it's right or it's wrong. Doesn't matter who does it.
People who defend the Democrats on this are saying that it's part of the democratic process. If so, then don't when the Republicans do it. Don't say "ZOMG MORAL SUPERIORITY MY ARSE". No. Say it's part of the democratic process and support their actions, after all, they're only representing the electorate.
Since I think it's wrong now, I will not defend such an action if (hah!)/when the Republicans do the same. Any representative that leaves the state to subvert the process won't be getting my vote, Republican or Democrat. Similarly, I think the Republicans are wrong to fillibuster judges. It was worng when the Democrats did it, it's wrong now.
I will never see in my lifetime the repugs walk out of my state legislature, because they control it so fiercely and so immorally, bending every tiny bit of law, regulation, zoning, and districting to their wills to ensure they keep it no matter WHAT the people of Texas think.
Melissia wrote:You're acting like I give a gak who does it.
Which is totally inconsistent with this:
Melissia wrote:I will never see in my lifetime the repugs walk out of my state legislature, because they control it so fiercely and so immorally, bending every tiny bit of law, regulation, zoning, and districting to their wills to ensure they keep it no matter WHAT the people of Texas think.
Republicans aren't evil mindless zombies. Neither are voters. As long as the people of Texas keep voting Republicans into office, you're going to have Republicans in control of the state. If the people of Texas didn't like it, they'd vote the Republicans out of office.
I assume there are Democrats in Texas, although I'm not sure if it's illegal to shoot them on sight.
biccat wrote:Republicans aren't evil mindless zombies. Neither are voters. As long as the people of Texas keep voting Republicans into office, you're going to have Republicans in control of the state. If the people of Texas didn't like it, they'd vote the Republicans out of office.
You don't understand the districting issue then.
The party in control of the state legislature determines whose vote counts for what district. So you see districts like a fething maze as the repugs redistrict every chance they can to minimize the control democrats have and maximize the control they have.
Even if there were more democratic votes than republican votes in Texas, because of the redistricting issue, republicans would STILL control the state legislature and have the majority of representatives in congress.
biccat wrote:Republicans aren't evil mindless zombies. Neither are voters. As long as the people of Texas keep voting Republicans into office, you're going to have Republicans in control of the state. If the people of Texas didn't like it, they'd vote the Republicans out of office.
You don't understand the districting issue then.
The party in control of the state legislature determines whose vote counts for what district. So you see districts like a fething maze as the repugs redistrict every chance they can to minimize the control democrats have and maximize the control they have.
Even if there were more democratic votes than republican votes in Texas, because of the redistricting issue, republicans would STILL control the state legislature and have the majority of representatives in congress.
Yes, but that's not a problem that's exclusive to Texas. And looking at Texas' redistricting, it's nowhere near as bad as Florida, California, or New York. Here's some of the worst offenders. Besides, the governor has to approve any redistricting plan, and that's a statewide race.
But considering how handily Republicans win state-wide races (governor and senators), it's likely that Texas really is mostly Republican.
Frazzled wrote:Jeez no wonder democracies don't survive.
Well, now embodied with the Dogma/Warboss Tzoo standard of democracy, I look forward to the mass culling of opposition members. I for one welcome our new "democratic" overlords, and am sure that once the correct purges have been carried out, all will be right in the world. Hail Our New Enlightened Leaders!
Note how I said "so long as the rule of law applies"?
Yeah, its against the law to commit murder in the United States, and so works against the will and interest of the state. However, this does not have to be the case, murder could be legal, or killing in the course of conflict over legislation could be considered just amongst representatives. Neither change I've just mentioned would prevent a state from being democratic.
Keep in mind I'm not saying that either change would be likely to be conducive to sustained democracy, but simply because they were legalized would not necessarily prevent a state from being a democracy. As is often the case, you're burdening democracy with a number of attributes that have absolutely nothing to do with the core concept.
Bookwrack wrote:I'll dig up links later when I have the chance.
I think it's pretty damn indicative of something that it took until now, after spending weeks actively pissing off tens of thousands of people that the loonies have started popping out, although I bet there's at least a 75% chance those e-mails didn't come from anyone in Wisconsin, 30% they were written by a hard core republicans (who was it who said ,'something something, plant troublemakers amongst the protesters?' ), and a good, round, 23% chance they were all written by Walker himself.
You must have gone to a unionized public school.
Elmbrook, actually, and proud of it. If you'd bothered to pay attention before succumbing to the rush to snark, you would've noticed that those weren't exclusionary.
Bookwrack wrote:Anyway, here are the brass tacks on the issue, and where the Republicans have failed in every way, shape and form, they have presented NO evidence that collective bargaining rights, in this context, are more financially detrimental than not cutting corporate taxes and by permitting local municipalities to determine their own property tax rates.
They also haven't proven that collective bargaining rights are any better than collecting magical unicorn turds and reselling them to fairyland.
Did you just have a stroke, or are you having that much trouble maintaining a train of thought? The bill is supposed to be about 'The Budget.' Collective bargaining rights have nothing directly to do with 'The Budget.' Walker says that being able to collectively bargain is actively detrimental to 'The Budget.' Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but he has provided none.
Say it's part of the democratic process and support their actions, after all, they're only representing the electorate.
This pretty much reeks of false equivalency bs. If they do it in response to a terrible bill, like the one in Wisconsin, then I will applaud them, because they are thwarting malicious and bad legislation and giving time for people to demonstrate their feelings about what's going on, and hopefully shift opinions( It's telling that Walker and Co have completely ignored what many of their constituents are now saying, determined to stay the course no matter what. It's very telling that the recall procedures for the eight eligible republicans are proceeding at a good clip, while the recall launched against the democrats seems to have stalled. ). If it follows the current republican behavior patterns of being used simply for the sake of pettiness and obstructionism, then I'll excoriate them for it, and won't suffer the least pang of hypocrisy.
The vote was completely legal. The presence of the Democratic senators was only required to pass bills that involve spending, so once the Republicans removed everything from the bill exception and made it a 100% pure union busting bill that says nothing about spending it can pass legally without the Democratic Senators. You can make a good case that what they did was a gakky thing to do, but the bill is legal and it will stand up in court.
For the most part most school teachers unions do not work in the best interests of the taxpayers, students, or even the teachers they are supposed to protect. Who protects the teachers from the teachers union? Every time the California state workers union doesn't get their way the new teachers who are the most enthusiastic, least burnt out, and least paid get pink slipped off in droves. The union is only interested in collecting dues and protecting highest payed senior members often at the expense of new hires. In LAUSD the end result of the union's policies has been huge job instability for any new teachers, massive increases in class size, experienced teachers burning out in droves, and a drop out rate that is about 50%
All of that being said the Wisconsin teachers union was one of the most reasonable unions in around, and one of the least deserving of getting busted. When they were asked to actually pay for 6% of their retirement instead of 0.2% they said yes, which is something you would never see them do in California where they would instead opt to fire a bunch of new hires and increase class size instead. Collective bargaining is not killing Wisconsin in the same way that it is driving California into bankruptcy. As someone with generally anti union views I'm actually sad to see Wisconsin's teachers union get busted because they were one of the least deserving unions of a busting, and there are so many other unions are far more deserving of getting busted.
schadenfreude wrote:The vote was completely legal. The presence of the Democratic senators was only required to pass bills that involve spending, so once the Republicans removed everything from the bill exception and made it a 100% pure union busting bill that says nothing about spending it can pass legally without the Democratic Senators. You can make a good case that what they did was a gakky thing to do, but the bill is legal and it will stand up in court.
My understanding was that it was passed illegally because of insufficient debate/whatever time, not because there wasn't a quorum.
Frazzled wrote:I have no problem with playing procedure games. Leaving the state is not a procedural rule. I'm surprised you don't get that incredibly basic difference.
It's exactly the same thing, a procedural game played to avoid a quorum. The only difference is that one involves turning up to delay the democratic process, the other doesn't turn up to delay the democratic process. Presence in or out of the state is an irrelevant side point, what matters is playing silly games to prevent legislation being passed.
You know this. But you pretend that the type of game played really does matter, because the alternative is having to be honest enough to admit that that you didn't mind it when the congressional Republicans played games to avoid passing a bill you didn't like, but you do mind it when state Democrats play games to avoid passage of a bill you like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:When the government secures a mortgage, it is increasing the value of that mortgage.
Normally, a $100,000 mortgage might have a market value of $120,000. (for example, amount someone is willing to pay TODAY for a 6% return on $100,000 over 30 years)
When the government backs that mortgage, it increases the market value. Banks are willing to pay more because they know the value is guaranteed. So now the value is $150,000 (again, by example). Someone might default in the future, cutting off interest payments, but the principal of the loan is guaranteed.
Please tell me you've never, ever taken a finance class.
The problem wasn't regulation or a lack thereof, the problem was the meddling of the government in the market that artificially inflated home values beyond what the market would normally bear.
That is an incredibly ridiculous claim. Just stop. Give up on politics and go away. You don't have the interest in forming sensible opinions on politics, you just look to invent fantasies that line up with your own ideology. It produces absolute nonsense like the above. So please, just stop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:So you would prefer that the Wisconsin Senators resigned in protest, and so forced special elections that would have made it even harder to build a quorum?
As many have observed in the past, democracy is as much about what legislators can get away with as what they are explicitly permitted to do. Simply saying that X isn't democracy is basically meaningless, especially when votes were tallied, and representatives were elected.
The problem comes when you look at the procedural rules, and how they were written with the assumption of a notion of fair play by members. When that fairplay fails to exist you get, as you say, democracy built on what legislators can get away with as much as what they're explicitly permitted to do.
I think it is fair to call members to act according to fair play, put democracy and the quality of the debate ahead of representing their members. Or not, and accept that a member should do whatever he can for the people who elected him. Both are valid, it's just you have to pick one, and not chop and change based on whether it's a donkey or an elephant screwing around.
The problem with Fraz's argument is that he's one eyed, condemning one side and not the other, for the pretend reason that one game involved turning up and stopping democracy, the other involved not turning up to stop democracy. Either both are fine, or neither is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldanar wrote:The critique of public employees is often misguided, and factually incorrect. One of the dumbest things I have seen argued is that public employees are better paid, without qualifying who they are being compared against. And it is really an apples to oranges comparison.
Most public sector jobs are skilled work, and they require some form of higher degree. When you start making direct skilled level comparisons, studies have proven that public sector employees make about 10% less than private sector. The trade off is job security, benefits, and life-work balance.
I am a public service employee, and I make approximately 10% less than what the average is for people with my education level, age, years worked, etc., have reported as making in my state. Anecdotally, I make about 10-15% less than my last private sector job. However, my benefits are better, I'm not working 60 hour weeks, I have a generous leave schedule, I can work from home, etc. To me, that overode the little bit of extra money I could make.
On the flip side, anecdotally, I have a sister-in-law who is a teacher in a private church based school. She makes less than what she would make in a public school, and has minimal benefits. But she left the public sector because she did not want to have to deal with the extra-large class sizes, unruly students, and extra out-of-pocket expenses required of public school teachers.
All that you get when you start to cut and cut and cut on the backs of people who provide basic services to society, is a crappier society. Ultimately, you either ignore the problems created by the cuts, and things in turn get worse; or you address the problem with outsourcing, or new hiring (which in turn means more training for new employees, plus less experienced and skilled staff), which actually leads to higher costs.
biccat wrote:If I make $60,000 per year working 60 hours a week and you make $40,000 per year working 40 hours a week, isn't that the same pay? Or would you say that the second person is taking a pay cut of $20,000 per year?
For equivalent skill levels public sector employees are paid less per hour. Countless studies back this up.
You're such a fan of the free market it should be obvious to you. The public sector offers job stability, as such it needs to offer less pay to be as attractive to employees.
I also found this interesting. It shows that only 30% of education spending goes towards teacher expenditures. Maybe instead of cutting teacher salaries we could find some middle ground and cut some administrator salaries and other expenses.
That would require a greater understanding of where the extra money goes. You assume it's on admin but it's very unlikely. How much is spent on building maintenance? How much is spent on utilities, on support services like school buses and the like?
We need more than a pie chart with two components.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:No. Its not. Its the entire process.
Then you must also think that congressional Republicans should not have abused procedural rules to deny a vote on HCR. Except you don't, because...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:If a bunch Republicans had done this to black a lefty platform vote than Fox would be calling them shrewd for cutting the tyrannical Democrats legs out from under them. Politics isn't just introducing bad legislation after all.
There's no if about it. The GOP were abusing congressional procedural rules less than a year ago to avoid a vote on HCR. FOX and Fraz were both fine with that.
Thing is, I think democracy means accepting that sometimes you'll be on the losing side. Suck it up and try and win the next election. Playing stupid games is bad for the country.
Mind you, being so hopelessly blinkered that you'll criticise one party for playing games but never the other is worse, so....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Well, now embodied with the Dogma/Warboss Tzoo standard of democracy
Now? For feth's sake Lincoln pulled the same trick. It's hardly new, and while it isn't good form it isn't the death knell for democracy.
biccat wrote:Republicans aren't evil mindless zombies. Neither are voters. As long as the people of Texas keep voting Republicans into office, you're going to have Republicans in control of the state. If the people of Texas didn't like it, they'd vote the Republicans out of office.
You don't understand the districting issue then.
The party in control of the state legislature determines whose vote counts for what district. So you see districts like a fething maze as the repugs redistrict every chance they can to minimize the control democrats have and maximize the control they have.
Even if there were more democratic votes than republican votes in Texas, because of the redistricting issue, republicans would STILL control the state legislature and have the majority of representatives in congress.
Gerrymandering is not a new phenomena, nor is it exclusive to one party or the other. If you don't like it, move to another state.
To quote Nancy Pelosi: "Elections have consequences"
The governor stated in his taped phone conversation that calls to negotiate with the Democrats were just a trick to lure them back into the state. Pretending the Republicans were trying to negotiate in good faith is fantasy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:I ask, who is at the bargaining table when these government union's CBA's expire? Union reps, governmental represenatives and no citizens. So the people that pay the lion's share of the benefits costs get absolutely zero say in how much benefits these unions get. That sounds fair.
The government reps are there on behalf of the citizens. That's the whole point of democracy. Stop being silly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:You must have gone to a unionized public school.
Which would be a clever little bon mot on your behalf, if only the categories were mutually exclusive. But the statistics of inclusive categories must be something that only gets taught in unionised government schools, with all the extra stuff they teach kids from being quantitively superior to non-unionised public schools.
When comparing public sector employees to private sector employees there is a huge difference between who makes more money and who costs their employer more money.
In Wisconsin they are averaging 38k/year in benefits.
A 50k a year private sector job with 38k in benefits costs 88k/year costs the employer which is more than a 60k/year public sector job with 18k in benefits adding up to 78k/year
Low pay and high benefits is a terrible way to handle school teachers, especially when it comes to the pensions. I don't object to paying 88k/year for a good teacher, what I object to is 38k of that money primarily going towards a pension. Underfunded pensions create pension bombs that are about to explode like Calpers, but more importantly it's a bad idea to trap burn outs in a job they don't like but can't quite because they are too close to collecting their pension. It's also very difficult to lay off or fire employees that have put 10 years in and are counting on a pension because doing do would destroy morale. I'm not sure how much of that 38k is in Wisconsin goes towards to pension, but if it's 25k/year the state would have been better off giving teachers 25k/year in an unmatched 401k contribution than throwing it in a pension. When people burn out they need to be able to leave their job and find a new one, and with a 401k they are able to do so. With a pension far to many people will feel trapped in their job after 10 years, burn out, and then others will need to pick up their slack before they themselves burn out. It creates a toxic work for many school districts.
Frazzled wrote:I have no problem with playing procedure games. Leaving the state is not a procedural rule. I'm surprised you don't get that incredibly basic difference.
It's exactly the same thing, a procedural game played to avoid a quorum. The only difference is that one involves turning up to delay the democratic process, the other doesn't turn up to delay the democratic process. Presence in or out of the state is an irrelevant side point, what matters is playing silly games to prevent legislation being passed.
Except you're wrong. It's not procedural, and in/out of the state does matter.
sebster wrote:Please tell me you've never, ever taken a finance class.
Are you really so deep in the DNC horsehooey that you don't believe that government backing actually changes the value of something?
I offer you a piece of paper that says "$10" in crayon. How much will you give me for it?
Now I offer you a $10 bill of legal currency. How much will you give me for it?
If you won't give me $10 for my 'fake' bill, then you've demonstrated the point.
sebster wrote:That is an incredibly ridiculous claim. Just stop. Give up on politics and go away. You don't have the interest in forming sensible opinions on politics, you just look to invent fantasies that line up with your own ideology. It produces absolute nonsense like the above. So please, just stop.
You're kidding, right? We're seeing the exact same thing happening with the current student loan bubble. The only difference is student loans aren't dischargable, and so the bubble isn't going to burst in the same way the mortgage bubble burst.
Easy access to student loans are inflating tuition prices. It's not ideology, it's economics. When there's a high demand for a product and a limited supply, price goes up.
You can bury your head in the sand all you want and try to pretend that economics doesn't matter, but if you do, please don't vote. Those of us who actually have to pay for this are getting tired of the unintended consequences.
sebster wrote:
biccat wrote:If I make $60,000 per year working 60 hours a week and you make $40,000 per year working 40 hours a week, isn't that the same pay? Or would you say that the second person is taking a pay cut of $20,000 per year?
For equivalent skill levels public sector employees are paid less per hour. Countless studies back this up.
You're such a fan of the free market it should be obvious to you. The public sector offers job stability, as such it needs to offer less pay to be as attractive to employees.
Which would be true, except the public sector isn't subject to the free market. There are plenty of studies that show government workers make more than private sector employees, once you factor in benefits.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:The governor stated in his taped phone conversation that calls to negotiate with the Democrats were just a trick to lure them back into the state. Pretending the Republicans were trying to negotiate in good faith is fantasy.
If the answer is "no, I don't have any facts to support the absurd statement that was made," then just say that. Stop deflecting.
I haven't been to the US in like 15 years. Every time I read a news story from the mainland U S and A it just seems to me that the whole place is turning into one giant gas station men's room.
Khornholio wrote:I haven't been to the US in like 15 years. Every time I read a news story from the mainland U S and A it just seems to me that the whole place is turning into one giant gas station men's room.
What the hell happened?!
I think the only appropriate reply to that is this.
Khornholio wrote:I haven't been to the US in like 15 years. Every time I read a news story from the mainland U S and A it just seems to me that the whole place is turning into one giant gas station men's room.
What the hell happened?!
I think the only appropriate reply to that is this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:I ask, who is at the bargaining table when these government union's CBA's expire? Union reps, governmental represenatives and no citizens. So the people that pay the lion's share of the benefits costs get absolutely zero say in how much benefits these unions get. That sounds fair.
The government reps are there on behalf of the citizens. That's the whole point of democracy. Stop being silly.
Ah, but when a Private Union negotiates, shareholders in the companies they work for get a direct say in what the pay and benefits will be. With government unions, the share holders (tax paying citizens) get vicarious representation instead of voting on it. Sounds like: "Here's the proposal, now take it since you have no choice" And the best part is, we get to pay for most of it! I'm sorry if you think I'm being silly, maybe I saw through the bs long ago and decided that people working in goverment should make more sacrifices, not less. (I'm alluding to bureaucrats and politicians themselves) If a state wants to pay through the nose for teachers fine, but why the hell do they need a union? Would it be that they don't neccessarily attract the best candidates most of the time?
This whole problem can be solved if the country get's off of it's addiction known as government. We're practically insolvent thanks to massive entitlement programs and wasteful spending. But breaking up a public sector union in Wisconsin is somehow evil. Our problems are structural at this point, we could slash the DOD's budget to $0 and we would still have a deficit of $3.1 Trillion.
The only sector in the US that has shown any kind of real growth since 2007 is the government bureaucracy, with massive pay, a powerful union and insane beneifts.
Pardon my skepticism and cynicism on the topic, I've grown rather disenfranchised with government.
Stormrider wrote:
Ah, but when a Private Union negotiates, shareholders in the companies they work for get a direct say in what the pay and benefits will be.
No they don't. Shareholders don't have all that much to do with the operation of any given corporation. No organized body of significant size, public or private, could ever function reliably if everyone with a stake were given a direct say in all matters.
Stormrider wrote:
I'm sorry if you think I'm being silly, maybe I saw through the bs long ago and decided that people working in goverment should make more sacrifices, not less.
More relative to whom? Private sector workers? Why not simply have them make the same sacrifices as private sector workers?
Stormrider wrote:This whole problem can be solved if the country get's off of it's addiction known as government. We're practically insolvent thanks to massive entitlement programs and wasteful spending.
The USA was running a surplus at the end of the Clinton administration. Entitlement programs aren't the problem.
Stormrider wrote:This whole problem can be solved if the country get's off of it's addiction known as government. We're practically insolvent thanks to massive entitlement programs and wasteful spending.
The USA was running a surplus at the end of the Clinton administration. Entitlement programs aren't the problem.
Leaving aside the debate about whetehr this was a real 'surplus' or not, more entitlement programs were added since then.
And as the baby boomer generation ages, entitlement programs are going to take up more and more of the budget.
See the bubble? It's starting to move into retirement age, when it will start drawing serious amounts from Social Security and Medicare.
Stormrider wrote:This whole problem can be solved if the country get's off of it's addiction known as government. We're practically insolvent thanks to massive entitlement programs and wasteful spending.
The USA was running a surplus at the end of the Clinton administration. Entitlement programs aren't the problem.
Leaving aside the debate about whetehr this was a real 'surplus' or not, more entitlement programs were added since then.
There were also a couple of other things added. Call them pre-emptive defensive strikes, call them invasions, but they're what's primarily at fault.
biccat wrote:And as the baby boomer generation ages, entitlement programs are going to take up more and more of the budget.
See the bubble? It's starting to move into retirement age, when it will start drawing serious amounts from Social Security and Medicare.
True. But while that needs to be dealt with, and soon, it's not the cause of the current problem.
I dont think program cuts of any type will make much of a dent, be it military (which does have an insane budget) or welfare programs. I mean these are small potatos the the amount spend on so called quantitative easing and corporate bailouts
Conspiracy theories aside, the Fed charges the government interest to print money that the government can print on its own. That money is then used to subsidize the too big to fail banks which encourages recklessness in the markets (I consider the analogy of giving a kid a credit card, and regardless of how much they spend, paying it off for them month over month...they are not going to learn responsibility that way). Furthermore, when the Fed takes losses in the markets, they no longer call them losses but in a new bold accounting practice they employ what they call negative liabilities (look it up if you are not familiar with it) where they simply do not show losses and send the bill to the treasury and our defficit grows while our dollar weakens. The whole Keynesian economic philosophy which continues to give more power to the central bank is just not sound money.
Stormrider wrote: I'm sorry if you think I'm being silly, maybe I saw through the bs long ago and decided that people working in goverment should make more sacrifices, not less.
Kind of like the wealthy ponying up a little more money in income tax, after feeding at the trough for the last 10 years? Or possibly like CEO's who received taxpayer funds to fix the mess they created, in turn receiving record bonuses (yet again):
thedude wrote:I dont think program cuts of any type will make much of a dent, be it military (which does have an insane budget) or welfare programs. I mean these are small potatos the the amount spend on so called quantitative easing and corporate bailouts
So you're trying to make a 1:1 comparison between one time expenditures, and institutionalized programs requiring sustained funding?
Ok...
thedude wrote:
Conspiracy theories aside, the Fed charges the government interest to print money that the government can print on its own.
The Federal Reserve isn't independent of the government.
biccat wrote:
Leaving aside the debate about whetehr this was a real 'surplus' or not, more entitlement programs were added since then.
And as the baby boomer generation ages, entitlement programs are going to take up more and more of the budget.
See the bubble? It's starting to move into retirement age, when it will start drawing serious amounts from Social Security and Medicare.
Social Security is solvent and will be solvent through 2037. In addition there are enough founds there to meet the large majority of its obligations through 2041. Any solvency issues at that time can easily be addressed by a small percentage raise in the payroll cap. Anybody that says Social Security:
1.) Is an Entitlement Program
2.) Is insolvent
3.) Is contributing to our current fiscal *crisis*
Is either ignorant of how it works or deliberately misleading you.
Yad wrote:1.) Is an Entitlement Program
2.) Is insolvent
3.) Is contributing to our current fiscal *crisis*
1) You're completetly wrong on this one. There's no question that Social Security is an Entitlement program. It's a right to future payouts based on a law.
2) It's not insolvent, in that it can still currenly pay out.
3) It's not *currently* contributing to the fiscal issue.
But Social Security is a long-term problem.
For years, social security has taken in more than it has paid out. This isn't a problem. The money was used to 'purchase' US bonds. (Conservatives tend to have a problem with this, because it's the government borrowing money from itself with a promise to pay it back, but set that aside for now.)
As the population has gotten older, the difference between taxes and spending has shrunk. Which means fewer bonds have been bought.
In 2011, it's expected that outflows will exceed tax receipts. This may go black/red for a few years. But eventually we're going to have to start cashing in those government bonds.
The problem here is twofold. First, the government will no longer be able to get cash from selling bonds to the Social Security office. Second, it will have to repay those bonds. Which means more debt has to be sold elsewhere or income taxes have to go up (or we seriously deal with the spending issue).
This could be put off for a while by increasing the cap on SS withholding, but eventually the US government is going to have to pay back the $2.5 trillion debt that the SSA is holding onto, or acknowledge that the SS withholding has nothing to do with SS benefits.
And as an aside, I have no problem privitizing part of SS, raising the eligibility age, imposing some eligibility means-testing, or raising the tax cap (as long as it isn't progressive). But we can't keep pretending it's not an issue.
Thats a misconception. There is no solvency or insolvency. Social security is not a separate lockbox account with funds inflow and outflow. There is not lockbox. SS funds go into the general federal budget and out of the general federal budget.
modify the mimumum retirment age to 70; and get rid of early SS draws (aka only retirement). I personally know of freeloaders on SS benefits claiming disability when they can go skiing, and touring the country.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But its not a governmental entity.
Stormrider wrote: I'm sorry if you think I'm being silly, maybe I saw through the bs long ago and decided that people working in goverment should make more sacrifices, not less.
Kind of like the wealthy ponying up a little more money in income tax, after feeding at the trough for the last 10 years? Or possibly like CEO's who received taxpayer funds to fix the mess they created, in turn receiving record bonuses (yet again):
biccat wrote:Except you're wrong. It's not procedural, and in/out of the state does matter.
Playing a political game to avoid a bill with majority support being voted on is bad. It's bad whether you do it by turning up, or you do it by not turning up.
This stupid thing you and Fraz are attempting, where you claim that stopping a bill being voted on is very bad is absurd. You know it is absurd. So just be honest, and say that the real reason you didn't like the Democrat ploy, but were fine the Republican ploy is because you liked the Wisconsin bill, but didn't like healthcare reform.
You'll find once you start letting little bits of honesty like that into your politics your ability for rational thought will increase tremendously.
Are you really so deep in the DNC horsehooey that you don't believe that government backing actually changes the value of something?
Ah, no, it's that I have professional financial training and know that the reality of the situation has nothing to do with the 'boo governments' piffle you're trying to contort it into. It's cute that you think I've got anything in common with the ideology of the Democrats, though it does betray your upbringing in the 'boo democrats/boo republicans' shambles that is US political dialogue... and not in any kind of actual economics or finance training.
Anyhow, ignoring the poor terminology (a mortgage is actually the commitment to pay and has negative value, you meant the future value of mortgage payments)... your little narrative about a government guarantees growing the value of a mortgage was meaningless piffle. No notion of government guarantee drove the asset bubble, indeed there was no goverment guarantee... that's why we've got foreclosures.
Instead, the bubble was caused by banks lending to people on the assumption that rising house prices would allow them to refinance and stay solvent, despite the fact that they couldn't meet the basic repayments on the house. This is what a bubble is, when the primary drive for demand of an asset is it's growing value.
Government was involved, as the Fed's policy of keeping interest rates incredibly low continued to put too much capital into the market, and when investment in productive assets became saturated it moved into non-productive investments, like houses. On this level you might, and likely will, try to blame the bubble on government, except that the folk driving this investment were all hardcore free marketeers, their rational was that the economy was best served by getting capital out there into investment, where the market would know what best to do with it.
Except it didn't. The champion of all those free-marketeers was Alan Greenspan, and in the wake of the GFC he admitted "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."
You're kidding, right? We're seeing the exact same thing happening with the current student loan bubble. The only difference is student loans aren't dischargable, and so the bubble isn't going to burst in the same way the mortgage bubble burst.
Easy access to student loans are inflating tuition prices. It's not ideology, it's economics. When there's a high demand for a product and a limited supply, price goes up.
Obviously, but you effort to try and characterise the ideas as coming from government and not from people with complete faith in the market to resolve the issue is where your politics leave for the land of fantasy.
The drive across the world over the twenty years has been towards deregulation, in the mistaken belief that free markets will operate with more stability and more efficiency. This is not a matter for debate, it's very fething obvious. The effort to pretend that this never happened, and to try and contort the deregulation movement into government interference has been attempted, but the arguments have been obviously weak.
In fact, I'd say it's been such obvious bs that you really should be very embarrassed for ever having believed it.
Which would be true, except the public sector isn't subject to the free market. There are plenty of studies that show government workers make more than private sector employees, once you factor in benefits.
Which would be true, if having the word 'government' applied to an organisation somehow caused it to be capable of all job interactions when dealing with markets. Left would be right, and dogs would be marrying cats.
It isn't true, though, and government is engaging in the same labour market that the private sector is. At which point you have to realise that employment is subject to the same basic market conditions, and that includes the idea that employees will demand higher salary for unpleasant conditions (such as low job security) and accept lower salary for better conditions (such as high job security).
At which point you have to look at those studies, and wonder if their conclusions are sensible. If government typically employs people with higher levels of education or skill levels than is the average in the private sector, you're obviously comparing apples and oranges and need to look at better studies.
If the answer is "no, I don't have any facts to support the absurd statement that was made," then just say that. Stop deflecting.
That's pathetic. I gave you a very clear example of the governor of Wisconsin stating that he is not negotiating in good faith, and you just make up some drivel that pretends I didn't. Try harder.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:Ah, but when a Private Union negotiates, shareholders in the companies they work for get a direct say in what the pay and benefits will be.
No, they don't. I've never had a direct say in the pay and conditions of any company I own shares in. Instead, I elect the board, who appoints a CEO and management team, who negotiate on behalf of me and the shareholders.
This is exactly the same as government.
With government unions, the share holders (tax paying citizens) get vicarious representation instead of voting on it. Sounds like: "Here's the proposal, now take it since you have no choice"
I'm guessing you've never worked in government, let alone worked there during negotiations, let alone actually been been present at any such negotiations. Because I have, and it works nothing like what you claim. Instead, the process is very similar to the private sector, with government reps trying to keep pay and benefits down, and the union trying to get as much for it's members as possible, typically ending up in a compromise that leaves no-one happy.
The head of a government department has exactly the same personal incentive to keep salary costs down that a private sector CEO has - if there's a cost blow out he gets fired.
I'm sorry if you think I'm being silly, maybe I saw through the bs long ago and decided that people working in goverment should make more sacrifices, not less.
The problem is that you've got some idea in your head that the word government somehow means that somehow direct negotiations magically change into something else. They don't.
If a state wants to pay through the nose for teachers fine, but why the hell do they need a union? Would it be that they don't neccessarily attract the best candidates most of the time?
It would probably have a lot to do with management being removed from the interests of the employees, and the employees feeling that to get safe working conditions and the best pay and conditions possible they should collectively negotiate. Same as the justification for unions everywhere.
This whole problem can be solved if the country get's off of it's addiction known as government. We're practically insolvent thanks to massive entitlement programs and wasteful spending.
That argument relies on seeing government as some kind of parasitic thing, when it's an essential part of a functioning society. The capitalist system that people assume just exists naturally is the product of government laws on contracts and property, and the investment that drives growth comes from the stability and security offered by government.
Instead, you have to look at government and realise the issue is figuring out how to make what's needed financially sustainable. This means higher taxes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Leaving aside the debate about whetehr this was a real 'surplus' or not, more entitlement programs were added since then.
But, as anyone should really be well and truly aware by now, there was also a tax cut. A big one. A very highly publicised one.
Those tax cuts removed about a hundred billion a year out of federal revenue. This, along with the two wars and rising healthcare costs, accounts for the entirety of the difference between the operating budget in 2000 and the operating budget now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thedude wrote:I dont think program cuts of any type will make much of a dent, be it military (which does have an insane budget) or welfare programs. I mean these are small potatos the the amount spend on so called quantitative easing and corporate bailouts
Conspiracy theories aside, the Fed charges the government interest to print money that the government can print on its own. That money is then used to subsidize the too big to fail banks which encourages recklessness in the markets (I consider the analogy of giving a kid a credit card, and regardless of how much they spend, paying it off for them month over month...they are not going to learn responsibility that way). Furthermore, when the Fed takes losses in the markets, they no longer call them losses but in a new bold accounting practice they employ what they call negative liabilities (look it up if you are not familiar with it) where they simply do not show losses and send the bill to the treasury and our defficit grows while our dollar weakens. The whole Keynesian economic philosophy which continues to give more power to the central bank is just not sound money.
Your whole post is incoherent nonsense, indicating an almost complete failure to understand economics.
First up, as dogma pointed out quantitative easing and the corporate bailouts are once off programs, and so not really comparable to on-going programs. Nor can the amount spent of corporate bailouts be simply stated as a once-off figure, you have to allow for the plain reality that most of the funds have been repaid.
Then you fail to understand that the Fed is not independant of government.
The recklessness exhibited by the banks is not a product of organisational backing from government. The banks would have had no idea government would have acted to secure them. Instead you have to look at individuals operating within the banks, acting for their own profit motives to reach their bonus targets, while the bank's internal governance policies failed to secure itself against risk (generally because the financial instruments were too complex for the risk to be fully gauged).
A negative liability is an asset, if you were to attend first year accounting classes. If you continued studying, you'd learn 'negative liability' is a term sometimes used to describe journal entries recognising the reduction in a liability occurring through a windfall gain. I don't know where you've heard the term, but it's come from people who don't understand accounting.
Finally, you're completely mistaken in assuming that any of the above in any way accurately reflects Keynesian economics.
back to the floor of the legislative body is also playing 
).
